Preparations are mounting across the globe for the start of the United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021–2030). The United Nations Environment Programme team is working with multiple partner non‐profit organisations across Australia and New Zealand to promote the main messages of the Decade ‐ which are to ‘massively scale up the restoration of degraded and destroyed ecosystems as a proven measure to fight climate change, and enhance food security, water supply and biodiversity’ (https://www.iucn.org/theme/nature-based-solutions/decade-ecosystem-restoration).

United Nations (UN) dedications present us with important opportunities to gain leverage for public communication and have previously made valuable contributions to public policy and on‐ground actions. This time four decades ago, for example, Frank Scarf of the United Nations Association of Australia (UNAA) and Valerie Swain of the Nursery Industry Association of Australia (NIAA) combined their substantial talents to initiate the International Year of the Tree, which was held in 1982. Their main legacy was to form the non‐profit organisation, Greening Australia, to help protect, restore and conserve Australia's native vegetation. On the UN’s World Environment Day of that year, then Prime Minister of Australia, Malcolm Fraser, announced the establishment of the National Tree Programme, which aimed to reverse tree decline throughout Australia, with Greening Australia providing the non‐government arm of the Programme. Soon after, the first Landcare groups started forming in Victoria, with Rick Farley (National Farmer’s Federation) and Barbara Hardy and Phillip Toyne (Australian Conservation Foundation) successfully lobbying the Hawke Government to announce the 1990s as the Decade of Landcare in Australia, committing $320 million to fund Australia’s National Landcare Programme.

As in Australia, community initiatives in New Zealand have been similarly supported by government, and governments have responded – not least due to pressure from the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) that requires all signatory nations to have a national biodiversity strategy and action plan, guiding national implementation of the CBD’s Strategic Plan and its Aichi Targets. Despite a promising start and some significant improvements over the last two decades, the strategies of neither country have delivered its stated aim of reversing biodiversity decline.

In New Zealand, several objectives were achieved despite government agency priority shifts – and iwi (Māori tribes) and community‐led conservation and restoration initiatives continued to grow. Recent policy and funding developments, however, signal the scale shift needed for effective restoration of ecosystems and threatened species populations. The Predator Free 2050 programme (PF2050) the government approved in 2015 aims to eradicate Stoat, Ship rat, Norway rat and Possum, the most detrimental of invasive small mammals, from the whole of New Zealand. The movement spans many agencies and communities. In addition, the One Billion Trees programme (1BT) was initiated in 2017 with funding of $238 M released in 2018 for planting exotic and native trees across mixed land‐use types. The multiple goals include climate change mitigation and environmental protection. The proportion of native trees that will eventuate is unclear.

To reflect the increased scale of work needed, a revised Aotearoa New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy (Te Mana o te Taiao), led by the New Zealand Department of Conservation, has just been ratified and launched. The new strategy has sought to address the systemic structural and funding issues that constrained the previous strategy and has ambitious goals, including restoration from the mountains to the sea, within a bicultural (Treaty of Waitangi) framework. In contrast, Australia’s ‘reformed’ biodiversity strategy – now called ‘Australia’s Strategy for Nature’ – takes a more broad brush approach and expresses its goals in ‘feel good’ terms (‘improve’, ‘enrich’, ‘enhance’ and ‘share’) without rigorous targets. This may be due to the fact that the environment is a State rather than Federal responsibility, but little leadership is provided in the national Strategy to prompt States to adopt the ambitious, clear and measurable targets needed to make a difference.

While both Australia and New Zealand have clocked up two more decades of bipartisan support for publicly funded environmental recovery programmes, it could also be said that these decades, at least in Australia, have simultaneously been decades of continued degradation. While there is a public perception of improving environmental responsibility, legally enabled environmental destruction continues under pressure from expanding development in many states of Australia and in many countries of the world. Furthermore, a rolling back of environmental protections is occurring under the cover of the need for rapid economic recovery after the COVID‐19 pandemic, a matter of great concern all over the world.

Despite the aspiration of so many to environmental protection and recovery, our global economic systems remain philosophically bound up with untrammelled growth of a kind that can only destroy natural ecosystems. Unfortunately, such growth is too frequently disguised as ‘sustainable development’ when it is nothing of the kind. Greenwashing is very easy due to a watering down of ecologically meaningful commitment to the principle of conservation of biological diversity and is likely to be rampant in scenarios where there is less‐than‐thorough commitment to international agreements (particularly those relating to emissions reduction) and international ‘years’ or 'Decades'. The Decade on Ecosystem Restoration is based on a broad concept of ‘ecosystems’ – correctly recognising that the ways we manage our urban and rural landscapes matters to the health and integrity of all ecosystems. But that health and integrity must be sufficiently predicated on native biodiversity – i.e., a genuinely ‘restorative’ approach as outlined in the international SER Restoration Standards – if such policies are not to facilitate environmental destruction. We hope that the Decade on Environmental Restoration will not be used by governments to claim green credentials on one hand while destroying nature on the other.

Let’s start the Decade with economic initiatives that have real potential to provide enduring benefits for freshwater ecosystems and water quality, biodiversity and climate change mitigation. There is potential for such action, supported by governments and community. In New Zealand, for example, the all of government response to COVID‐19 impacts tasks DOC with working closely other government agencies to deliver a $1.3 B Jobs for Nature Programme which will provide 11,000 people temporary job opportunities over the next four years. Advocacy for a similar stimulus package has recently been led by Pew Charitable Trusts in Australia, supported by scores of non‐government conservation, restoration and farming organisations with shovel‐ready projects. Pew estimates Federal and State governments could roll out 24,000 jobs at a cost of $2.4 billion in the first year, with funds and employment reducing over the following 3 years for a total potential budget of $4 billion. Although it is still unclear the degree to which the governments of Australia will respond, $130M has already been committed by the States to increase environmental jobs with a similar investment in environmental infrastructure planned.

One attraction of such stimulus packages is that they can build on core environmental programmes of both countries, programmes that can be readily expanded. Their economic and social benefits are obvious, but their economic benefit is not confined to increasing consumer confidence and keeping money circulating. Indeed, such programmes can build demand to drive a potentially lucrative environmental management industry contributed to by the private sector. In this way, post‐COVID‐19 economic stimulus programmes and postbushfire investment – supported by philanthropic investments such as those coming from Restore Australia and other overseas donors – can allow the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration to really count in our region.

为联合国生态系统恢复十年（2021年至2030年）的开始，全球正在做准备。联合国环境规划署团队正在与澳大利亚和新西兰的多个合作伙伴非营利组织合作，以宣传十年的主要信息，即“大规模扩大退化和被破坏的生态系统的恢复，作为抗击气候变化的行之有效的措施”改变并增强粮食安全，水供应和生物多样性”（https://www.iucn.org/theme/nature-based-solutions/decade-ecosystem-restoration）。

联合国的奉献精神为我们提供了重要的机会，可以利用其进行公共传播的手段，并且以前为公共政策和实地行动做出了宝贵的贡献。例如，四十年前的这个时候，澳大利亚联合国协会（UNAA）的弗兰克·围巾（Frank Scarf）和澳大利亚苗圃行业协会（NIAA）的瓦莱丽·斯温（Valerie Swain）结合了自己的才能，共同发起了国际树年，该协会于1982年举行。其主要遗产是成立非营利组织Greening Australia，以帮助保护，恢复和保护澳大利亚的原生植被。在当年的联合国世界环境日，当时的澳大利亚总理马尔科姆·弗雷泽（Malcolm Fraser）宣布建立国家树木计划，该计划旨在扭转整个澳大利亚的树木砍伐状况，澳大利亚绿化部则是该计划的非政府机构。不久之后，第一个土地保护组织开始在维多利亚州成立，与国家农民联合会的Rick Farley以及Barbara Hardy和Phillip Toyne（澳大利亚保护基金会）成功游说了霍克政府宣布1990年代为土地保护十年 在澳大利亚，承诺投入3.2亿澳元来资助澳大利亚的国家土地保护计划。

与澳大利亚一样，新西兰的社区倡议也得到了政府的类似支持，各国政府也做出了回应-尤其是由于《联合国生物多样性公约》（CBD）的压力，要求所有签署国制定国家生物多样性战略和行动规划，指导国家执行《生物多样性公约》的战略计划及其爱知指标。尽管在过去的二十年中有一个令人鼓舞的开端和一些显着的进步，但两个国家的战略都没有实现其既定目标，即扭转生物多样性的下降。

在新西兰，尽管政府机构的工作重点发生了转移，但仍实现了一些目标–依维（毛利部落）和社区主导的保护与恢复倡议继续增长。但是，最近的政策和资金发展预示着有效恢复生态系统和受威胁物种种群所需的规模转移。政府于2015年批准的“免费捕食者2050”计划（PF2050）旨在根除整个新西兰最有害的小哺乳动物入侵物种Stoat，Ship rat，Norway rat和Possum。该运动横跨许多机构和社区。此外，``十亿棵树''计划（1BT）于2017年启动，2018年发放了2.38亿美元的资金，用于在混合土地利用类型中种植外来树种和本土树种。多重目标包括缓解气候变化和环境保护。目前尚不清楚的原生树比例。

为了反映需要增加的工作规模，刚刚批准并启动了由新西兰保护局牵头的经修订的《奥特罗阿新西兰生物多样性战略》（Te Mana o te Taiao）。新战略力图解决在先前的战略中受到局限的系统性结构和资金问题，并制定了雄心勃勃的目标，包括在双文化（怀唐伊条约）框架内从山脉恢复到海洋。相比之下，澳大利亚的“改革”生物多样性战略（现称为“澳大利亚自然战略”）采取了更为广泛的方法，并以“感觉良好”（“改善”，“丰富”，“增强”和“分享”）表达了其目标。 '）没有严格的目标。这可能是由于环境是国家而不是联邦的责任，

尽管澳大利亚和新西兰都已经为公共资助的环境恢复计划提供了两党两党的支持，但也可以说，至少在澳大利亚，这几十年是持续恶化的几十年。尽管公众对改善环境责任感有所认识，但在澳大利亚许多州和世界许多国家，由于合法的环境破坏仍在不断扩大的发展压力之下。此外，在COVID-19大流行后需要快速经济复苏的掩盖下，环境保护正在逐步减少，这是全世界都高度关注的问题。

尽管有许多人渴望环境保护和恢复，但我们的全球经济体系在哲学上仍然与那种只能破坏自然生态系统的不受限制的增长联系在一起。不幸的是，这种增长常常被形容为“可持续发展”，而并非一成不变。由于对生态意义上对生物多样性保护原则的有意义承诺的淡化，绿色清洗非常容易，并且在对国际协定的承诺（尤其是与减排量有关的协定）承诺不足的情况下很可能会泛滥成灾。国际“年”或“十年”。生态系统恢复十年以“生态系统”的广泛概念为基础-正确认识到我们管理城市和乡村景观的方式与所有生态系统的健康和完整性息息相关。但是，如果此类政策不能促进环境破坏，则必须充分依据本地生物多样性（即国际SER恢复标准中概述的一种真正的“恢复性”方法）来确保健康和完整性。我们希望，政府不会将环境恢复十年一方面用于索取绿色证书，而另一方面却破坏自然。如果此类政策不是为了促进环境破坏，则是国际SER恢复标准中概述的一种真正的“恢复性”方法。我们希望，政府不会将环境恢复十年一方面用于索取绿色证书，而另一方面却破坏自然。如果此类政策不是为了促进环境破坏，则是国际SER恢复标准中概述的一种真正的“恢复性”方法。我们希望，政府不会将环境恢复十年一方面用于索取绿色证书，而另一方面则破坏自然。

让我们以有潜力为淡水生态系统和水质，生物多样性和减缓气候变化带来持久利益的经济举措开始十年。在政府和社区的支持下，有可能采取这种行动。例如，在新西兰，政府对COVID-19的全部响应都会影响DOC与其他政府机构的紧密合作，以执行一项$ 1.3 B的“自然就业计划”，该计划将在未来四年中为11,000人提供临时就业机会。最近，澳大利亚皮尤慈善信托基金会（Pew Charitable Trusts）倡导了类似的刺激方案，并得到了数十个具有铲土准备项目的非政府保护，修复和农业组织的支持。皮尤（Pew）估计，联邦政府和州政府可能会以2美元的成本推出24,000个工作岗位。第一年投入40亿美元，其后三年的资金和就业机会减少，潜在总预算为40亿美元。尽管仍不清楚澳大利亚政府将采取何种应对措施，但各州已承诺投入1.3亿澳元，以计划中的类似环境基础设施投资来增加环保工作。

这种刺激方案的吸引力之一是它们可以建立在两国的核心环境计划的基础上，而这些计划很容易扩展。它们的经济和社会效益是显而易见的，但是它们的经济效益并不仅限于增强消费者的信心和保持货币流通。确实，此类计划可以建立需求，以推动由私营部门推动的潜在有利可图的环境管理行业。这样，在COVID-19以后的经济刺激计划和篝火后的投资（由来自澳大利亚恢复基金会和其他海外捐助者的慈善投资支持）可以使联合国生态系统恢复十年真正在我们地区发挥作用。