Achieving ‘nature positive’ requires net gain legislation

The findings, published in Science and co-led by QUT, the University of Queensland and Griffith University, highlight critical shortcomings in the proposed Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act reforms.

Nature-positive has been internationally defined as a measurable increase in the health, abundance, and resilience of ecosystems from a 2020 baseline; an ambitious yet crucial goal for biodiversity recovery.

“The idea of ‘nature positive’ has the potential to revolutionise outcomes for biodiversity, but we have to get effective legislation in place right from the start to make it a reality,” said Professor Jonathan Rhodes, a co-author from the QUT School of Biology and Environmental Science.

The Australian government's law reforms are titled the "Nature Positive Plan,” and were announced by Federal Minister for Environment and Water Tanya Plibersek in 2022.

However, according to Dr Michelle Ward from Griffith University’s School of Environment and Science, Australia’s current proposals fell short of ensuring a truly nature-positive future.

“Australia has the opportunity to lead the world in aligning conservation laws with its nature-positive ambitions,” Dr Ward said.

“But the proposed reforms need significant improvements to deliver on this promise.”

QUT senior author Dr Brooke Williams, also from the QUT School of Biology and Environmental Science, said they also risk further depletion of Australia’s unique species and ecosystems.

“To lead globally, we must ensure that biodiversity gains are measurable, enforceable, and aligned with the 2030 mission of the Global Biodiversity Framework,” she said.

The researchers propose four key steps:

• Legislate for ‘absolute net gain’: Australian law must ensure that any biodiversity loss from development is fully compensated and that conservation efforts result in an absolute net gain in biodiversity, not just improvements relative to ‘business as usual’. Currently, the Australian definition of nature positive deviates from the internationally accepted definition, which would allow biodiversity to continue to decline.
• Limit and compensate for biodiversity loss: The study warned against allowing developers to compensate for environmental damage through payments that may not directly benefit the impacted ecosystems, which risks replacing more threatened and harder to replace habitats with ecosystems that are less threatened and/or easier to replace. Further, some biodiversity is irreplaceable, and so it is important to limit, and if possible, avoid negative impacts to irreplaceable biodiversity in the first place.
• Secure net gains beyond development impacts: Australian law must address and reverse biodiversity decline beyond simply compensating for the loss of nature from development impacts. This will require a significant boost to conservation funding and resourcing. 
• Enforce transparent monitoring: Effective and transparent implementation of biodiversity policies is crucial. Dr Ward highlighted that many threatened species in Australia lacked proper monitoring, making enforcement of biodiversity protection laws difficult.

While Australia was one of the first nations to commit to nature-positive law reforms, the team cautions that the current proposals fell short of international best practices.

“To achieve its nature-positive goals and meet the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework 2030 targets, Australia must legislate absolute net gain of biodiversity, adequate funding for recovery efforts and monitoring of these efforts, and enforce strict ecological compensation policies,” said Hannah Thomas, joint lead author from UQ School of the Environment.

The paper, Achieving “nature positive” requires net gain legislation, has been published in Science.

Main image (left to right): Professor Jonathan Rhodes and Dr Brooke Williams

Media contact:

Lauren Baxter

QUT Media

media@qut.edu.au

07 3138 2361 / 0407 585 901 (After Hours)