Sydney, Australia – Following a lackluster debut at the inaugural Nature Positive Summit in Sydney, Australian researchers have highlighted significant shortcomings in existing conservation laws, which they argue are inadequate for the summit’s ambitious goals. Their recent analysis, published in the journal Science, calls for more stringent measures to ensure an “absolute net gain” in natural environments, a strategic pivot they claim is vital to counter ongoing environmental degradation.
Yi Fei Chung, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Queensland and co-author of the study, defines a “nature positive” approach as not merely halting but reversing the loss of nature by 2030 and achieving full recovery by 2050 based on the conditions of 2020. According to Dr. Michelle Ward, a lecturer at Griffith University and fellow co-author, this would necessitate legislative reforms that not just marginally improve the status quo but deliver a measurable enhancement of natural settings post-development.
The current proposals to revise the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, they argue, are too lenient. These revisions allow for a “relative net gain”—a notion that accepts slight improvements even if they do not fully offset environmental losses. Ward illustrates this point with an example involving quoll populations, demonstrating how relative net gain could still result in overall biodiversity losses under the guise of minor improvements.
The researchers propose a shift to an “absolute net gain” approach, where actions impacting nature must have a net positive effect—for instance, if a population of 200 quolls is affected by a project, there must be more than 200 quolls post-project. This concept has been partially adopted in some global jurisdictions such as the UK, which requires a 10% biodiversity increase in relevant development projects. However, initial reports indicate these measures are challenging to implement at the local government level.
Echoing these concerns, Chung emphasizes the necessity of adequate implementation and resources for these policies to be effective, suggesting that without enforcement, even well-designed policies falter.
Further highlighting the need for robust frameworks, Ward calls for legally binding national environmental standards and the establishment of a national Environment Protection Agency, commitments included in the federal government’s 2023-24 Budget. She stressed the importance of such an agency’s independence to ensure that it can rigorously enforce environmental laws and standards.
Moreover, Chung argues against allowing any development-related biodiversity losses that cannot be fully offset, such as those involving irreplaceable ecosystems like old-growth forests. These areas, essential for a range of unique habitats, are irreplaceable because their ecological functions cannot be quickly or easily replicated.
The inadequacy of current compensation mechanisms was another point of contention, with 90% of proponents in Queensland opting to pay into conservation funds rather than managing their biodiversity offsets directly. This, the researchers say, illustrates a critical weakness in existing policy frameworks.
As international focus turns to environmental issues with the 2024 United Nations Biodiversity Conference (COP16) underway in Colombia, the researchers believe Australia has the potential to lead by example in global environmental governance. Despite their present dissatisfaction with progress, they hold out hope for pioneering substantial environmental reforms.
In conclusion, while the push for transformative environmental legislation is gaining momentum, current measures, as pointed out by these researchers, fall significantly short of the comprehensive actions required to genuinely enhance the state of nature.
Disclaimer: This article was automatically generated by Open AI. The named individuals, facts, and events may not be accurately represented, and the content may contain inaccuracies. For corrections or to request content removal, please email contact@publiclawlibrary.org.