**Published name**
1. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 being ‘strongly agree’, how strongly do you believe that the draft National Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures Framework will contribute to high quality Conserved Area additions to the Conserved Area Network?
1.1 Can you please expand on your response to the previous question. For example, please identify elements of the framework that could be addressed.
why is it capped for a 25 years?
2. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being ‘unclear’ and 5 being ‘clear’, how clear is the draft National Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures Framework, including figures and diagrams?
2.1. Can you please expand on your response to the previous question. For example, please identify elements of the framework, including figures and diagrams, that could be addressed.
The intent is clear, the fact that it only considers a limited timeframe goes against the underlying foundation of protecting diversity, which should be a far longer view
3. Are there any gaps in the draft National Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures Framework?
3.1 Can you please expand on your response to the previous question.
Refer to previous responses
4. Are there any gaps in the proposed implementation arrangements?
Once again, timeframes make of this duration make no logical sense
5. Is the proposed site assessment tool for Conserved Areas recognition fit for purpose to identify sites eligible for Conserved Area recognition?
5.1 Can you please expand on your response to the previous question.
I am not positioned to answer this question
6. If you have tested the proposed site assessment tool on a specific site, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 being ‘strongly agree’, how strongly do you think it was easy to use?
6.1 On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 being ‘strongly agree’, how strongly do you think the proposed site assessment tool is fit for purpose?
6.2 Can you expand on your responses to Q6 and Q6.1.
What aspects of the tool were good, and what improvements could be made?
No opinion on this
