Australia’s nature is in deep crisis. These three simple steps could give new environmental laws a boost

The Albanian government’s environmental reforms are likely to be high on the federal parliament’s agenda this week. A Senate inquiry into the long-awaited reforms is due to present its findings on Monday. Meanwhile, the coalition is reportedly preparing to oppose the changes, potentially forcing Labor into negotiations with the Greens.

The so-called “nature-positive” bills would establish two new agencies: Environment Protection Australia (EPA), an environmental regulatory and oversight body, and Environment Information Australia (EIA), an environmental statistics office.

The creation of new agencies would fulfil an election promise, but falls short of the comprehensive and urgently needed reform package outlined in the Albanian Government’s Positive Nature Conservation Plan, due to be launched in 2022.

While it may be too late for a full Nature Positive Plan this term, it is not too late to improve the current reform bills in Parliament and start to deliver real improvements for nature. We propose three key amendments that could achieve this.

Background: Biodiversity in Crisis

Australia’s environmental laws are in urgent need of review. The 2021 State of the Environment Report, like its predecessors, showed that our catchments, waterways and native species are in a serious and deteriorating state.

This matters to all of us, because we depend on healthy ecosystems for the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, and even our physical and mental health. About half of our economy, such as the multibillion-dollar agriculture and tourism sectors, depends on the health of our environment.

Australia’s main biodiversity legislation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC), has not had a major overhaul since it was introduced 25 years ago. In his 2020 review, Graeme Samuel found the laws to be ineffective, outdated and in need of major reform.

The government responded to the Samuel Review by publishing a Nature Positive Plan. At the time, Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek said: “The decline of native species, habitat loss and the destruction of cultural heritage are accelerating and reform is urgently needed.”

We couldn’t agree more. That’s why we’re proposing these three changes to ensure that the reforms actually start to benefit nature.

1: Empower new agencies

The new Environmental Protection Agency and Information Agency could make a real difference to nature if we run them well.

The government says the EPA should be the “tough cop on duty.” But its proposed governance structure is problematic.

The bills give all the agency’s power to one person, a director general appointed by the minister. This makes the director general vulnerable to pressure from all sides and to the perception of ministerial influence.

Independence promotes trust. That’s why we joined many others in arguing that the EPA should have an independent board. This would bring the federal EPA into line with its state and New Zealand counterparts.

Environment Information Australia should also have an independent board. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has one. This helps states trust the institute with their health data, creating a buffer from direct Commonwealth control.

2: Set national environmental standards

Establishing national environmental standards was central to both the Samuel Review and Labour’s Positive Plan for Nature Conservation.

These standards would set the bar for regulatory decisions, for example by preventing development in areas of the highest biodiversity value. They would also set goals and priorities for environmental plans and restoration programs.

In short, introducing standards could prevent decisions that worsen the environment, prioritise development in areas with lower environmental risks and focus restoration investments where they are most needed.

Unfortunately, the federal government has indefinitely postponed the introduction of the standards – like most other environmental reforms – following pressure from the Western Australian state Labor government and the mining and resources industry.

The bills should be amended to at least give the relevant minister the power to set environmental standards. This would allow the government to publish draft standards in the next few months – so that improvements for nature can start to be made.

3: Establish an appropriate baseline from which to measure progress

The reforms are centred around the concept of “positive nature”. The internationally agreed definition of this term is reversing the decline of species and ecosystems by 2030, measured against a 2020 baseline, and achieving recovery by 2050.

The accounts are vague, however, defining nature as an improvement over an unspecified “baseline” set by the news agency. This would allow for the selection of a “declining trajectory” as the baseline.

For example, imagine a region with a population of 500 bilbies that declines by 50 bilbies per year due to wild predators. If this trajectory of decline were taken as a baseline, slowing the decline of bilbies to 40 bilbies per year could be considered positive for nature, even if the region ultimately had no bilbies at all.

We are calling for a recent baseline – such as 2020, the international standard. That is the type of baseline set under Australia’s climate change laws, which aim to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions to 43% below 2005 levels by 2030.

This may sound like a technical detail, but it can be crucial. In the case of our bilbies example, this would mean that at a given time in the future, there should be at least 501 bilbies.

We also recommend that the base year be legally regulated and provide a permanent reference point for measuring environmental changes.

The way forward

With federal elections approaching, the Albanian government’s most important environmental reform is environmentally friendly laws.

Four years after Samuel called for urgent reform and two years after Plibersek promised it, laying the weak foundations for reform is not enough.

The changes we propose are important and feasible. The longer we wait, the harder it will be to achieve a “nature-positive” future.

This article is reprinted from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.