After the embargo period via non-commercial hosting platforms such as their institutional repository  via commercial sites with which Elsevier has an agreement In all cases accepted manuscripts should: link to the formal publication via its DOI  bear a CC-BY-NC-ND licensethis is easy to do  if aggregated with other manuscripts, for example in a repository or other site, be shared in

No abstract

1. Evaluation of conservation incentive programme outcomes is needed to direct future investment, however, monitoring of large-scale programmes is relatively rare. Research in this area has frequently relied on space-for-time substitution or similar designs, rarely controlling for counterfactual trends or potential learning or leakage effects using repeated measures taken before and after intervention at impact and independent control sites.2. Using a Before-After-Control-Impact (BACI) monitoring design, we investigate the ecological impact of a conservation stewardship programme, where landholders set their own contract price through a reverse auction. In order to maintain or increase species and structural diversity of remnant native vegetation, contracted landholders agreed to manage grazing pressure (from stock and feral animals), control weeds and retain fallen logs. We test whether impact sites (private land under contract) changed over a 9-10 year period relative to control sites (independently managed, non-contracted private land) and reference sites (public conservation areas).3. Modest improvements were detected in native plant species richness, log abundance and grazing pressure at impact sites compared with background changes observed at control sites. While log abundance and grazing pressure were directly managed at impact sites, the improvement in native plant species richness was assumed to be influenced by reduction in multiple pressures such as grazing pressure and weed abundance. 4. No significant intervention effects were detected in other variables including regeneration, plant litter cover, weed cover and canopy dieback. However, these variables did show changes over time which were likely due to weather, particularly an extended period of drought followed by unusually high rainfall.5. Policy implications. This study shows that revealed-price incentive contracts can produce biodiversity improvement compared with the business-as-usual scenario of native vegetation management on private land. The use of a Before-After-Control-Impact monitoring design enabled the separation of treatment effects from background changes such as those linked to climate and weather, demonstrating the importance of this approach for programme evaluation. We recommend the allocation of appropriate resources for monitoring and also highlight the S U PP O RTI N G I N FO R M ATI O N Additional supporting information may be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of the article.

Past and continuing fragmentation and modification of ecosystems, as well as other threatening processes, cause ongoing biodiversity losses and species extinctions in Australia. At the same time as biodiversity declines, government funding for conservation and restoration is diminishing, leading to reduced action and greater reliance on private investment and community groups. In order to maintain and restore biodiverse ecosystems and the essential services they provide, both conservation of existing vegetation and habitat reconstruction are required. In this paper, we summarise the available data on planting area and cost from the Australian Government's 20 Million Trees programme (2014-2020), the largest recent national-scale revegetation incentives programme in Australia. We find that the current spatial scale of effort and investment in habitat reconstruction is insufficient to match the scale required to meet national conservation objectives. Furthermore, the funding rate ($/ha) and contracting arrangements are inadequate for the establishment of highquality self-sustaining vegetation needed for the recovery of Australia's threatened species and ecological communities. We estimate that the minimum amount of funding required for habitat reconstruction is at least five times higher than is provided for current national flagship programmes such as 20 Million Trees. We provide recommendations, designed to assist future habitat reconstruction programmes achieve their long-term biodiversity objectives.