Pastoral farming is the dominant land use in New Zealand today and is under considerable domestic social and political pressure to reduce its environmental footprint. In this article, we explore options to enhance native biodiversity conservation within New Zealand pastoral systems. We argue that there is strong synergistic interdependence between biodiversity conservation and pastoral farming and suggest that it is possible to have win-win outcomes for both. Landowners need to be incentivised and rewarded for good biodiversity management, rather than relying on a strict rules-based approach. To bring integrity and objective support to this incentive-based approach, farmers need to adopt environmental management planning that is supported by good biodiversity extension resources. Alongside this, a verification system is required that shows farmers are doing what they say they are doing and reflects agreed management targets for biodiversity. This approach requires trust and partnership among all players in agroecosystems-farmers, government, food and fibre processors, scientists, conservationists, NGOs, and the wider New Zealand population. We suggest that if we change the way we think about how farming and biodiversity interact, then we will achieve substantial biodiversity gains across the 50% of New Zealand under pastoral farming. This then brings integrity to the existing and expanding market story for pastoral farming and creates a stronger connection between all New Zealanders and the farming sector. Advancing our thinking in this way will enable New Zealand to maintain a premium for our farming products internationally while supporting conservation of our native biodiversity.

Planting trees is widely regarded as an important part of climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts. As a result, large-scale tree planting projects have been initiated around the world. However, a number of these initiatives have unintentionally opened up risks to native forests and biodiversity while increasing exotic tree cover. Using the Aotearoa New Zealand One Billion Trees programme as a case study we reflect on what trees are being incentivised by these projects and the downstream impacts of how these projects are realised. We suggest ten recommendations for how these initiatives could be adapted to avoid perverse outcomes for native species while jointly achieving our carbon and biodiversity goals: (1) Diversify strategies-protect first, restore second, plant third; (2) Consider net change in trees-do not just count trees planted; (3) Consider the co-benefits of carbon and biodiversity from the outset; (4) Consider the broader landscape; (5) Consider the carbon and biodiversity benefits of soil; (6) Consider the importance of existing carbon stocks; (7) Consider potential impacts to non-tree ecosystems; (8) Consider the longevity of the future forest; (9) Support landowners in planting and maintaining native trees; (10) Remember that climate goals cannot be achieved by planting trees alone. We believe these recommendations are critical for improving the outcomes of the One Billion Trees programme in Aotearoa New Zealand, while providing important insights relevant to other tree planting initiatives around the world. KeywordsTree-planting initiatives • One billion trees • Carbon sequestration • Biodiversity co-benefits • Climate change

1. An ever-expanding human population, climatic changes and the spread of intensive farming practices are putting increasing pressure on agroecosystems and their inherent biodiversity. Non-production vegetation elements, such as woody patches, riparian margins and restoration plantings, are vital for conserving agroecosystem biodiversity. Furthermore, such elements are key building blocks that are manipulated via land management, thereby influencing the biotic and abiotic processes that underpin functioning agroecosystems. 2. Despite this critical role, there has been a lack of synthesis on which types of vegetation elements drive and/or support ecological processes, and the mechanisms by which this occurs. Using a systematic, quantitative literature review of 342 articles, we asked the following questions: what are the effects of non-production vegetation on agroecosystem processes and how are these processes measured within global agroecosystems? 3. Woody patches, hedgerows and borders, riparian margins, and shelterbelts were the most studied types of non-production vegetation. The majority (61%) of studies showed positive effects of non-production vegetation on ecological processes, where the presence, level or rate of the studied process was increased or enhanced. 4. However, four key research gaps were revealed: (a) most studies (83%) used proxies for, instead of direct measurements of, ecosystem processes related to non-production vegetation; (b) study designs used to investigate non-production vegetation effects on ecosystem processes directly were largely limited to observational comparisons of non-production vegetation types, farm-scale vegetation configurations and different proximities to vegetation in terms of the effect on ecological processes; relatively few studies used manipulative experiments; (c) the relatively few studies directly measuring ecosystem processes were dominated | 293 People and Nature CASE Et Al.

1 2 configuration, and proximity to vegetation. Moreover, studies directly measuring ecosystem 3 5 processes were similarly limited, dominated by invertebrate biocontrol, predator and natural 3 6 enemy spillover, animal movement, and ecosystem cycling. We identify research gaps and 3 7 present a pathway for future research in understanding the ecosystem components and 3 8 processes that build resilient, sustainable agroecosystems. 3 9 4 0

No abstract