Boots On The Ground Make A $164M Footprint
Predator Free 2050 Limited (PF2050 Limited or the Company) is celebrating remarkable contributions by the collective of predator free landscape projects nationwide. A target of $164M of non-government contribution to work on urban and rural land has been more than met in what is proving to be an unprecedented community effort. "The belief and commitment from communities is truly inspiring," says PF2050 Limited Chair Denise Church. "Having so many people and organisations investing in the movement not only financially but also through in-kind support demonstrates the power of collective action toward achieving the Predator Free 2050 goal."
The goal of eradicating rats, mustelids, and possums across two-thirds of Aotearoa New Zealand, the urban and rural areas where people live, work, and play, has morphed from an ambitious "moonshot" into a feasible proposition. Beyond financial backing, volunteer efforts have become an invaluable asset, uniting a generation in a shared purpose and delivering what would normally come with substantial costs.
The tireless efforts of projects with boots on the ground, and supported by PF2050 Limited, have proved that predators can be eliminated in urban and rural areas. Thanks to those efforts, as of 31 March 2025, communities have already contributed more than $164M in non-government support for 18 major projects since their inception. This meets a key target for community contribution and is a testament to the unwavering dedication of hundreds of Kiwis working on urban and rural land to protect Aotearoa New Zealand's biodiversity before it's too late. Support has come in the forms of cash, in-kind donations, and the value of volunteer labour, and it more than matches the PF2050 Limited contribution of $92M to this work.
Year after year, Predator Free 2050 projects have proven that, with a combined collective effort from communities, philanthropists, councils, and volunteers, people are willing to put more on the line to bring nature back to our communities and the places we live, work and play. From visible nature gains to economic and public health gains and strengthened communities, the payback is significant.
It is a great achievement so far, but to reach the PF2050 goal, more is needed. While PF2050 Limited and the projects it supports remain committed to sustaining momentum, they face the end of funding from Jobs for Nature and the Provincial Growth Fund. The collective of predator free projects and PF2050 Limited will be working to raise new funds to advance this essential work in our cities, towns, farms and forests and to develop even more efficient and scalable predator free approaches. So much has been achieved by the community already that it is unthinkable to let the momentum falter.
PF2050 Limited, a Crown-owned charitable company established in 2016, plays a pivotal role in this transformative movement. The Company focuses on supporting large-scale predator elimination projects and breakthrough scientific innovations, supporting professionally delivered, community-led initiatives, in its mission to address a critical biodiversity crisis. The Predator Free 2050 goal, a bold national commitment to eradicate possums, rats, and mustelids by 2050, has achieved remarkable funding success.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
19 hours ago
- Scoop
Reviewing Our Strategy To Go Predator Free By 2050
Press Release – Science Media Centre Are New Zealand's upcoming predator free goals on the right track? Should we stick with the current target species list as is, or include other predators like feral cats? These are just some of the questions that the public is being invited to comment on as part of a strategy review of the Predator Free 2050 goal for the next five years. It's running in tandem with another public consultation on the next plan to implement New Zealand's biodiversity strategy for the next five years. Both plans are open for public submissions until 30 June. The SMC asked experts to comment. Professor James Russell, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Auckland, comments: 'The Predator Free 2050 strategy review signals that the New Zealand Government continues to take Predator Free New Zealand (PFNZ) seriously and is taking the opportunity to reflect on lessons from the first 10 years to fine tune the next five years. This coincides with a shift in the governance of PFNZ with the duties of the Government's original lead agency PF2050 Ltd now being transferred to the Department of Conservation (DOC). PF2050 Ltd made critical contributions to getting PFNZ underway by spearheading new projects on the ground that involved the community, enabling innovators to deliver new tools, and expanding the conservation frontier to rural and urban landscapes. 'There are some big questions the review is asking for feedback on, one of the biggest being whether the PFNZ programme should be strictly interpreted only as an eradication strategy for possums, rats and mustelids, or whether the PFNZ programme should be considered more literally as the management strategy for all non-native predators in New Zealand, and so expand its scope to include other species such as feral cats and mice (which are major predators of lizards). Importantly, whatever the outcome, introduced predators excluded from the scope of PFNZ would still be managed, and it is recognised that introduced predators are not the only threat to New Zealand's biodiversity. 'The strategy for the next five years also needs to get the balance of investment right among planning, innovating and doing. Complete eradication of every last individual is not something that can be rushed into, and we need to make sure the PFNZ programme is being implemented in such a way so as to maximise the probability of successful eradication while minimising the costs, all the while generating the best outcomes for biodiversity. To ensure accountability, a set of new 2030 goals are proposed against which progress can be assessed to ensure PFNZ is continuing to proceed in the right direction at the right speed. 'To some extent the feasibility of achieving a Predator Free New Zealand is not so much a question of technical nor social feasibility, but simply one of cost – using technical and social innovation can we reduce the currently high cost of eradicating the target predators to a lower price which is affordable and acceptable to the New Zealand public and government. Predator Free New Zealand was always going to be an inter-generational programme and it is only a quarter of the way through its life, but its achievements are clear already and so is the fact that New Zealanders from all walks of life support these achievements.' Conflict of interest statement: 'James has received funding from the Department of Conservation, PF2050 Ltd and Zero Invasive Predators. He is on the organising committee of the Island Invasives 2026 conference.' Dr Duane Peltzer, Principal Scientist, Ecosystem Ecology, Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research, comments: Note: Dr Peltzer is commenting on both the Biodiversity Strategy review and the Predator Free 2050 review. 'The fate of our indigenous species and ecosystems is strongly affected by chronic threats from biological invasions including weeds, pests and diseases, and exacerbated by climate change. What is clear from Te Mana o te Taiao (the NZ Biodiversity Strategy) and embedded initiatives like Predator Free 2050 is that current efforts and approaches require greater resourcing and sustained effort to address these intertwined crises. 'The pair of implementation discussion documents out for public comment highlight major themes and critical actions clearly, and emphasise that co-ordinated actions are required across central and regional government. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there's a stronger emphasis on economics, investment and resourcing of biodiversity and conservation management than has featured previously. 'The focus throughout these implementation plans is on government agency actions, and some consideration is given to supporting or resourcing communities, landowners and business (Action 6). However, there are many additional opportunities, and perhaps hope, for making new progress toward biodiversity goals like: Considering the potential role of international 'nature-based' investments for biodiversity gains; and, Building skills and capacity for innovation of our workforce could be supported through major science system reforms including the emerging 'public research organisations' (including my own organisation becoming a PRO for 'bioeconomy') and universities; Meaningful action to improve local and indigenous people's role in biodiversity management is seen as a priority internationally, and could build strongly on aspirations for land and economic welfare beyond 'increasing protection of biodiversity on private and Māori land'. 'Most themes and critical actions not only require co-ordination or innovation among government agencies as repeatedly recommended by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, but rely crucially on social acceptance and support. A tangible example of this is considering the inclusion of cats as part of predator free activities: technical progress on management will fail without better approaches to navigate the difficult social dimensions of feral cats as pets and predators. Similarly, other introduced species like deer and pines are loved or loathed depending on species, location and people's perceptions. This reflects our pluralism for biodiversity and biosecurity that is scarcely acknowledged in these plans, yet pervasive. Therein lies a grand unresolved challenge of 'implementation'; how do we best achieve aspirational goals across diverse communities and landscapes?' Conflict of interest statement: 'I'm a past member and co-leader of the 'Advancing our knowledge' Predator Free 2050 collaborative group, was engaged with development of te mana o te taiao as part of the New Zealand's Biological Science Heritage National Science Challenge, and am the incoming Portfolio Leader for the Managing Invasive Species Group within Manaaki Whenua which includes research on predator ecology and management.' Dr Courtney Addison, Senior Lecturer, School of Science in Society, Victoria University of Wellington, comments: Comment on inclusion of cats 'One of the key developments in the Predator Free Strategy Review is the question of whether the PF remit should expand to include cats, mice and hedgehogs. 'Until now Predator Free has, culturally speaking, focused on three relatively 'easy' targets: in Aotearoa, rats (excluding kiore) and possums have strong, undesirable cultural associations and are even reviled. This has made it relatively straightforward to propose killing those species, and indeed, the many active PF projects around the country reflect a widespread willingness to do so. 'Cats and to a lesser extent hedgehogs are a different proposition. Many New Zealanders own and care for cats, share their homes with them, and regard them as companions or even family members. They grieve cats when they die, and often go to great lengths to ensure their comfort and longevity. The Strategy document distinguishes between feral, stray, and domestic cats, but whether these distinctions are seen as meaningful by wider communities remains to be seen. 'PF2025 has anticipated these complexities, and the current consultation is a first step to solicit people's feelings about feral cat control. It's also a good opportunity to start a more expansive conversation about what kind of lives and relationships we want to have with other species, and how we might cultivate those. On a different note, it is surprising that the PF document makes no mention of animal welfare.' Comment on innovation 'Predator Free 2050 is such a tricky undertaking to write about. It represents a massive bet on the power of science and innovation at a time when those very things have been gutted by government. It's also a big swing for an aspirational environmental future—at a time when government has both withdrawn funding for conservation and made multiple policy decisions that directly jeopardise the environment. 'What to make of these seemingly incoherent moves? They reflect very transparently what innovation studies has documented in case after case—that bids for innovation, even if well intentioned and productive, are often used to justify the deferral of less flashy but important work in the near term. (It's worth noting that the 'linear model of innovation' that emerged in the mid-1900s was itself predicated on a link between basic and applied research. This model has been widely critiqued, but its imprint in the PF Strategy raises questions given the newly constrained funding environment for basic research.) 'Of course, that's not an argument against innovation or R&D, but we should think carefully about the dynamics that come with this path forward—especially given the aim to generate private and philanthropic funding. We have a recent cautionary tale in the government's stalled attempt to meet its greenhouse gas emissions reduction via privately operated carbon capture. Going all in on innovation for predator control while other aspects of the environment languish may be politically convenient, but irresponsible.' Conflict of interest statement: 'I currently hold a Marsden Fast Start to explore the social complexities of 1080 use in Aotearoa.' Dr Grant Norbury, Principal Researcher, Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research, comments: 'A review of the Predator Free programme is a very good idea. The four objectives proposed over the next five years are sound, but I worry that by 2050 we will still be struggling to develop the necessary tools and social licence to remove every individual target pest from the mainland. There is no doubt that better predator control methods and improved outcomes for some native fauna will be achieved, but there is a massive difference between developing better ways to reduce pest numbers versus removing every individual. And at what cost? What other conservation options could we spend the money on to achieve more reliable outcomes? Eradication of any pest requires a specific set of conditions that must be met, otherwise there is no point starting. We need the right technology to remove every individual (or very close to it) from every nook and cranny in New Zealand, whether it's a remote side valley in the backcountry of rugged Fiordland, or in a busy suburb in downtown Auckland occupied by thousands of people. Predators are like us – they have personalities, some are very shy and cautious of anything that looks different in their environment. If we cannot make every individual interact with whatever technology we devise to remove them, we're not going to win. Also, people will complicate matters. New Zealand is world-renowned for eradicating pests, but these successes have been almost entirely on uninhabited islands. On the mainland, we need to deal with the complexity of 5.2 million people going about their lives in towns, cities, farms, and industry. Pest eradication amongst millions of people will be a massive challenge.'
NZ Herald
20 hours ago
- NZ Herald
What Kiwis get wrong about wills, according to a family and divorce lawyer
For around half the population of New Zealand, writing a will isn't at the top of their to-do list. As many as 50-60% of Kiwis don't have a will, according to Auckland-based family and divorce lawyer Jeremy Sutton. It's something we procrastinate about doing for all kinds of reasons –
Scoop
20 hours ago
- Scoop
Reviewing Our Strategy To Go Predator Free By 2050
Press Release – Science Media Centre Pest eradication amongst 5.2 million people going about their lives in towns, cities, farms, and industry will be a massive challenge, says Dr Grant Norbury, Principal Researcher, Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research. Are New Zealand's upcoming predator free goals on the right track? Should we stick with the current target species list as is, or include other predators like feral cats? These are just some of the questions that the public is being invited to comment on as part of a strategy review of the Predator Free 2050 goal for the next five years. It's running in tandem with another public consultation on the next plan to implement New Zealand's biodiversity strategy for the next five years. Both plans are open for public submissions until 30 June. The SMC asked experts to comment. Professor James Russell, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Auckland, comments: 'The Predator Free 2050 strategy review signals that the New Zealand Government continues to take Predator Free New Zealand (PFNZ) seriously and is taking the opportunity to reflect on lessons from the first 10 years to fine tune the next five years. This coincides with a shift in the governance of PFNZ with the duties of the Government's original lead agency PF2050 Ltd now being transferred to the Department of Conservation (DOC). PF2050 Ltd made critical contributions to getting PFNZ underway by spearheading new projects on the ground that involved the community, enabling innovators to deliver new tools, and expanding the conservation frontier to rural and urban landscapes. 'There are some big questions the review is asking for feedback on, one of the biggest being whether the PFNZ programme should be strictly interpreted only as an eradication strategy for possums, rats and mustelids, or whether the PFNZ programme should be considered more literally as the management strategy for all non-native predators in New Zealand, and so expand its scope to include other species such as feral cats and mice (which are major predators of lizards). Importantly, whatever the outcome, introduced predators excluded from the scope of PFNZ would still be managed, and it is recognised that introduced predators are not the only threat to New Zealand's biodiversity. 'The strategy for the next five years also needs to get the balance of investment right among planning, innovating and doing. Complete eradication of every last individual is not something that can be rushed into, and we need to make sure the PFNZ programme is being implemented in such a way so as to maximise the probability of successful eradication while minimising the costs, all the while generating the best outcomes for biodiversity. To ensure accountability, a set of new 2030 goals are proposed against which progress can be assessed to ensure PFNZ is continuing to proceed in the right direction at the right speed. 'To some extent the feasibility of achieving a Predator Free New Zealand is not so much a question of technical nor social feasibility, but simply one of cost – using technical and social innovation can we reduce the currently high cost of eradicating the target predators to a lower price which is affordable and acceptable to the New Zealand public and government. Predator Free New Zealand was always going to be an inter-generational programme and it is only a quarter of the way through its life, but its achievements are clear already and so is the fact that New Zealanders from all walks of life support these achievements.' Conflict of interest statement: 'James has received funding from the Department of Conservation, PF2050 Ltd and Zero Invasive Predators. He is on the organising committee of the Island Invasives 2026 conference.' Dr Duane Peltzer, Principal Scientist, Ecosystem Ecology, Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research, comments: Note: Dr Peltzer is commenting on both the Biodiversity Strategy review and the Predator Free 2050 review. 'The fate of our indigenous species and ecosystems is strongly affected by chronic threats from biological invasions including weeds, pests and diseases, and exacerbated by climate change. What is clear from Te Mana o te Taiao (the NZ Biodiversity Strategy) and embedded initiatives like Predator Free 2050 is that current efforts and approaches require greater resourcing and sustained effort to address these intertwined crises. 'The pair of implementation discussion documents out for public comment highlight major themes and critical actions clearly, and emphasise that co-ordinated actions are required across central and regional government. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there's a stronger emphasis on economics, investment and resourcing of biodiversity and conservation management than has featured previously. 'The focus throughout these implementation plans is on government agency actions, and some consideration is given to supporting or resourcing communities, landowners and business (Action 6). However, there are many additional opportunities, and perhaps hope, for making new progress toward biodiversity goals like: Considering the potential role of international 'nature-based' investments for biodiversity gains; and, Building skills and capacity for innovation of our workforce could be supported through major science system reforms including the emerging 'public research organisations' (including my own organisation becoming a PRO for 'bioeconomy') and universities; Meaningful action to improve local and indigenous people's role in biodiversity management is seen as a priority internationally, and could build strongly on aspirations for land and economic welfare beyond 'increasing protection of biodiversity on private and Māori land'. 'Most themes and critical actions not only require co-ordination or innovation among government agencies as repeatedly recommended by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, but rely crucially on social acceptance and support. A tangible example of this is considering the inclusion of cats as part of predator free activities: technical progress on management will fail without better approaches to navigate the difficult social dimensions of feral cats as pets and predators. Similarly, other introduced species like deer and pines are loved or loathed depending on species, location and people's perceptions. This reflects our pluralism for biodiversity and biosecurity that is scarcely acknowledged in these plans, yet pervasive. Therein lies a grand unresolved challenge of 'implementation'; how do we best achieve aspirational goals across diverse communities and landscapes?' Conflict of interest statement: 'I'm a past member and co-leader of the 'Advancing our knowledge' Predator Free 2050 collaborative group, was engaged with development of te mana o te taiao as part of the New Zealand's Biological Science Heritage National Science Challenge, and am the incoming Portfolio Leader for the Managing Invasive Species Group within Manaaki Whenua which includes research on predator ecology and management.' Dr Courtney Addison, Senior Lecturer, School of Science in Society, Victoria University of Wellington, comments: Comment on inclusion of cats 'One of the key developments in the Predator Free Strategy Review is the question of whether the PF remit should expand to include cats, mice and hedgehogs. 'Until now Predator Free has, culturally speaking, focused on three relatively 'easy' targets: in Aotearoa, rats (excluding kiore) and possums have strong, undesirable cultural associations and are even reviled. This has made it relatively straightforward to propose killing those species, and indeed, the many active PF projects around the country reflect a widespread willingness to do so. 'Cats and to a lesser extent hedgehogs are a different proposition. Many New Zealanders own and care for cats, share their homes with them, and regard them as companions or even family members. They grieve cats when they die, and often go to great lengths to ensure their comfort and longevity. The Strategy document distinguishes between feral, stray, and domestic cats, but whether these distinctions are seen as meaningful by wider communities remains to be seen. 'PF2025 has anticipated these complexities, and the current consultation is a first step to solicit people's feelings about feral cat control. It's also a good opportunity to start a more expansive conversation about what kind of lives and relationships we want to have with other species, and how we might cultivate those. On a different note, it is surprising that the PF document makes no mention of animal welfare.' Comment on innovation 'Predator Free 2050 is such a tricky undertaking to write about. It represents a massive bet on the power of science and innovation at a time when those very things have been gutted by government. It's also a big swing for an aspirational environmental future—at a time when government has both withdrawn funding for conservation and made multiple policy decisions that directly jeopardise the environment. 'What to make of these seemingly incoherent moves? They reflect very transparently what innovation studies has documented in case after case—that bids for innovation, even if well intentioned and productive, are often used to justify the deferral of less flashy but important work in the near term. (It's worth noting that the 'linear model of innovation' that emerged in the mid-1900s was itself predicated on a link between basic and applied research. This model has been widely critiqued, but its imprint in the PF Strategy raises questions given the newly constrained funding environment for basic research.) 'Of course, that's not an argument against innovation or R&D, but we should think carefully about the dynamics that come with this path forward—especially given the aim to generate private and philanthropic funding. We have a recent cautionary tale in the government's stalled attempt to meet its greenhouse gas emissions reduction via privately operated carbon capture. Going all in on innovation for predator control while other aspects of the environment languish may be politically convenient, but irresponsible.' Conflict of interest statement: 'I currently hold a Marsden Fast Start to explore the social complexities of 1080 use in Aotearoa.' Dr Grant Norbury, Principal Researcher, Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research, comments: 'A review of the Predator Free programme is a very good idea. The four objectives proposed over the next five years are sound, but I worry that by 2050 we will still be struggling to develop the necessary tools and social licence to remove every individual target pest from the mainland. There is no doubt that better predator control methods and improved outcomes for some native fauna will be achieved, but there is a massive difference between developing better ways to reduce pest numbers versus removing every individual. And at what cost? What other conservation options could we spend the money on to achieve more reliable outcomes? Eradication of any pest requires a specific set of conditions that must be met, otherwise there is no point starting. We need the right technology to remove every individual (or very close to it) from every nook and cranny in New Zealand, whether it's a remote side valley in the backcountry of rugged Fiordland, or in a busy suburb in downtown Auckland occupied by thousands of people. Predators are like us – they have personalities, some are very shy and cautious of anything that looks different in their environment. If we cannot make every individual interact with whatever technology we devise to remove them, we're not going to win. Also, people will complicate matters. New Zealand is world-renowned for eradicating pests, but these successes have been almost entirely on uninhabited islands. On the mainland, we need to deal with the complexity of 5.2 million people going about their lives in towns, cities, farms, and industry. Pest eradication amongst millions of people will be a massive challenge.'
