In October, Australia hosted the Global Nature Positive Summit, signaling its commitment to a “nature positive” future where ecosystems and biodiversity grow more abundantly as we progress. Amid the global discussion concerning the environment, nature positive has emerged as a rallying call not just to put a stop to biodiversity loss but to reverse it altogether. The concept is straightforward, secure more nature in the future than we have now. Nonetheless, the approach perhaps is not as straightforward and consists more complexities with its implementation, particularly for countries like Australia where ecosystems and biodiversity face severe threats.
Nature is vital for all life, including human well-being. From pollinating insects and flood-mitigating trees to soil-enriching organisms, the benefits are endless. Yet, Australia’s approach to nature positive policies reveals critical gaps. As it stands, current efforts risk falling short of genuine nature-positive outcomes due to political and economic resistance and limitations in policy structure. In a recent Science article, experts propose four key strategies to ensure that nature-positive policies genuinely benefit biodiversity and support ecological recovery.
1. Absolute Net Gain for Biodiversity
A significant issue in Australia’s approach to nature-positive policies is the focus on relative rather than absolute net gains for biodiversity. Most conservation laws allow for a relative net gain, meaning developers can offset environmental impacts by merely slowing biodiversity loss rather than achieving an actual increase. This approach does not restore biodiversity levels but rather manages a slower decline.
For instance, in scenarios where habitat loss is inevitable, absolute net gain would mandate that the overall population of a species, let’s say, endangered koalas in a mining area, increases post-development. If a mining project impacts an area with 100 koalas across multiple sites, an absolute net gain requirement would ensure this population grows beyond 100 after the project, even with habitat loss. By contrast, a relative net gain approach allows developers to justify a decrease in the koala population, provided it falls less than expected.
England’s recent requirement for developers to ensure a 10% net gain in biodiversity offers a model Australia could emulate. Additionally, closing loopholes where developments affecting threatened species habitats evade offset requirements is essential. If the goal is to stop biodiversity decline, an absolute net gain approach would demand all development be counterbalanced with concrete ecological gains.
2. Cautious Use of Conservation Payments
The government plans to introduce conservation payments, allowing developers to pay into a fund rather than provide direct offsets for environmental impacts. This model lets companies compensate for habitat destruction indirectly, but it comes with risks. Conservation payments are often insufficient for offsetting the unique and irreplaceable habitats of critically endangered species, like the Leadbeater’s possum, which are already in limited supply.
This method introduces further challenges. Finding suitable habitats for critically endangered species is either nearly impossible or exorbitantly costly, meaning funds may be poorly allocated. Furthermore, time lags associated with offset purchases and restorations only widen the gap between the initial damage and any eventual benefit, creating critical setbacks for species survival.
In Queensland, developers tend to favor payment funds over creating their offset sites, yet these funds often remain unutilized. Meanwhile, New South Wales’ biodiversity offset payment scheme has faced criticism for underfunding and delays, leading to recommendations for its phase-out. The takeaway is that conservation payments should be reserved for cases where direct offsets are not feasible, as over-reliance on them may worsen habitat loss.
3. Beyond Compensation: Restoration and Recovery
While compensating for environmental damage is necessary, Australia’s past ecological losses show that compensation alone is not enough. Over the last century, industrial activities have decimated natural ecosystems, such as the nearly extinct oyster reefs in southern Australian seas. To truly achieve a nature-positive future, Australia must go beyond compensation to actively restore lost habitats and tackle threats such as invasive species and diseases.
Nature-positive policies should mandate proactive restoration efforts that yield absolute biodiversity gains beyond mere compensation. This step requires substantial funding increases. Australia currently allocates only AUD 122 million annually to conservation, a fraction of what is needed to restore ecosystems and protect species. In comparison, Australia’s annual human healthcare spending exceeds AUD 100 billion. A 20-fold increase in funding is critical for Australia to address endangered species recovery, ecosystem restoration, and habitat management effectively.
To address this gap, the government's nature-positive reform introduced a nature repair market to draw in private investment for ecological restoration. However, since this market depends on voluntary contributions from businesses, there are worries about its reliability and effectiveness in focusing on species recovery. For it to succeed, the market needs to ensure enough funding for urgent restoration efforts, especially for endangered habitats and species.
4. Implementing Nature-Positive Laws with Accountability
Passing laws to protect biodiversity is one thing; enforcing them effectively is another. Transparent and independent monitoring and enforcement are fundamental for success. Australia has proposed an independent national environment protection authority to oversee and enforce new nature-positive laws. This body could play a critical role in assessing compliance and safeguarding biodiversity if it remains genuinely independent and well-resourced.
However, proposed “call-in” powers for the environment minister threaten this independence, allowing political interference in what should be objective environmental decisions. For real change, enforcement must be shielded from political influence, with sufficient autonomy to impose sanctions on non-compliance. Additionally, without accurate data on species populations, the impact of these policies cannot be adequately assessed. Improved biodiversity monitoring would provide a clear picture of which species benefit from reforms and which continue to decline.
Achieving a Nature-Positive Future
Australia’s journey towards a nature-positive future is underway, yet current policies alone may not be enough to stop, let alone reverse, biodiversity loss. With decisive action, however, Australia could emerge as a global leader, demonstrating how committed policy reform can restore ecological balance. Achieving a nature-positive future requires ambitious policy adjustments:
Implementing absolute net gain requirements to ensure biodiversity levels increase post-development.
Limiting reliance on conservation payments and prioritizing direct offsets to mitigate the risks to critically endangered habitats.
Funding restoration efforts to recover lost ecosystems and ensure long-term biodiversity gains.
Establishing a robust enforcement system that holds developers accountable and monitors species impact.
As the climate crises heightens its intensity, each and every decision counts in preserving the natural world for the future generations. The implementation of nature concerning steps and strategies by Australia can significantly inspire nations worldwide to adopt bold, nature-positive policies, setting a global standard for environmental reform. The choice is clear: proactive, meaningful reform or a continued decline in the biodiversity that sustains us all. Now is the time for transformative action.
