Australia is at a pivotal moment in its environmental policy, aiming to shift its focus from merely preventing further harm to actively restoring lost biodiversity. In 2022, nearly 200 nations committed to the global goal of “30 by 30,” which aims to restore 30% of terrestrial and marine areas by 2030. For Australia, this represents a significant challenge, as the nation has already lost a considerable amount of its biodiversity over the past two centuries.
The Australian government is aligning with the international objectives of the 30 by 30 initiative through its updated Strategy for Nature. This strategy emphasizes the need for robust legal frameworks to protect and restore critical ecosystems. Yet, the current national Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act has been deemed inadequate. The Samuel Review of 2020 concluded that existing laws do not effectively facilitate environmental maintenance or restoration.
In response to these findings, the government pledged in 2022 to reverse the decline of nature by introducing new, “nature positive” laws. These reforms aim to repair ecosystems and support species recovery. Following previous unsuccessful reform attempts, the federal government recently unveiled a comprehensive reform package, with Environment Minister Murray Watt asserting that the new legislation will provide “stronger environmental protection and restoration.”
Evaluating the Proposed Reforms
The proposed reforms, which span over 550 pages, introduce a new authority for the Environment Minister to establish National Environmental Standards. These standards are intended to ensure that environmental approvals align with national goals. However, the current framework allows the minister to choose whether to create such standards, raising concerns about the effectiveness of these measures. While the Samuel Review recommended binding standards to protect endangered species, the proposed reforms require only that approvals be “not inconsistent” with any existing standards.
The reforms also perpetuate the reliance on environmental offsets, which permit developers to mitigate habitat destruction in one area by compensating through restoration elsewhere. The draft legislation mandates developers to offset any significant long-term environmental impact, but questions remain regarding the feasibility and effectiveness of such offsets. Critics argue that these offsets often fail to prevent biodiversity loss, let alone foster a net gain for nature.
A more proactive approach would involve legally compelling developers to explore alternatives to environmental damage before resorting to offsets. While the minister has the discretion to consider this hierarchy of options, there is no obligation to apply it, which could undermine the restoration efforts.
Challenges and Opportunities Ahead
The introduction of a “restoration contributions” scheme, which allows developers to contribute to an offset fund instead of conducting restoration themselves, has stirred further controversy. This approach risks enabling developers to avoid direct responsibility for environmental damage. Effective offsetting should only occur when habitat can genuinely be replaced, and the current reforms do not adequately assess the viability of such offsets.
Moreover, the draft legislation allows biodiversity certificates under the Nature Repair Market to serve as offsets, despite previous government assurances against this practice. Linking the nature repair market to offsets could divert necessary funding from genuine restoration projects, ultimately diluting the intended benefits of voluntary restoration initiatives.
To foster effective ecological restoration, the Samuel Review recommended improved planning at both national and regional levels. Coordinated landscape-scale planning would enhance habitat connectivity and protect critical ecosystems. While the proposed reforms suggest a move towards this holistic approach, they still tie restoration efforts to land-degrading activities such as mining or land clearing, primarily addressing damage rather than preemptively protecting biodiverse landscapes.
What remains absent from the proposed reforms is a forward-looking agenda that actively seeks to address Australia’s historical losses in biodiversity. As the debate over the draft laws unfolds in parliament, the ideal outcome would focus on establishing clear, actionable measures for large-scale restoration efforts.
An instructive example for Australia is the European Union’s recent Nature Restoration Law, which sets ambitious targets for restoring degraded ecosystems—30% by 2030 and 90% by 2050. This legislation not only aims to restore biodiversity but also addresses climate change and enhances nature-based adaptation.
With a legacy of biodiversity loss, it is imperative that Australians benefit from environmental laws that genuinely prioritize the protection and restoration of their unique wildlife and ecosystems. While the proposed reforms show potential, they have yet to establish restoration as a national imperative.
