Nature Repair Committee consultation: Biodiversity Assessment Instrument

Anthesis Australia have provided a detailed written response: NRM BAI Consultation _Anthesis Response vA.0.pdf. We have provided a table that compares BAI-identified characteristics, Measures to be identified and our comments on this.

Below is summary of where the requirements of the Nature Repair Act 2023 section 57 Biodiversity integrity standards are met by the Biodiversity Assessment Instrument (Part 2):
(1)(a) relates to Sections 2.5.1, 2.5.3, 2.5.4, 2.5.5, 2.7 of Biodiversity Assessment Instrument (Part 2)
(1)(b) relates to Section 2.5.5.5 of Biodiversity Assessment Instrument (Part 2)
(1)(c) relates to Section 2.5.2 of Biodiversity Assessment Instrument (Part 2)
(1)(d) relates to Sections 2.5 and 2.6 of Biodiversity Assessment Instrument (Part 2)
(1)(e) relates to Section 2.2, Section 2.4, Section 2.8 of Biodiversity Assessment Instrument (Part 2)
(1)(f) relates to Sections 2.5 and 2.6 of Biodiversity Assessment Instrument (Part 2)
(1)(g) N/A (but mentioned in Section 3.4) of Biodiversity Assessment Instrument (Part 2)
(1)(h) The Biodiversity Assessment Instrument (Part 2) identifies many areas where information can be included in registration, certificates, etc. of
(1)(i) is not adequately addressed in the Biodiversity Assessment Instrument (Part 2)
(1)(j) The BAI has not made reference to any standards which may be prescribed by the rules of Biodiversity Assessment Instrument (Part 2).
In summary, there is good degree of consideration of the Biodiversity integrity standards within the current documentation of the Biodiversity Assessment Instrument.

Based on the DCCEEW website statement, we assumed there would be multiple instruments depending on the method applications:
“As required under the Act, we’re developing biodiversity assessment instruments to support consistency in how projects describe biodiversity improvements.
Biodiversity assessment instruments will set requirements for how information should be collected and used to describe improvements in nature for each type of biodiversity project.
To inform the development of biodiversity assessment instruments we have established a Biodiversity Assessment Expert Reference Group.”
As the Detailed Outline BAI document is currently written, it seems as though the instrument will apply to all methods which may have varying applications. We recommend that the Nature Repair Committee confirm the intention of the instrument and relationship with methods.

Section 2.2 (read in conjunction with section 3.2) outlines great ways for methods to incorporate First Nations people and knowledge. However, we note that these mechanisms for inclusion is written as an option and not a requirement.
From a review of the Initial Method that has been drafted, the Native Forest and Woodland Ecosystems Method, if the Methods don’t have explicit and upfront requirements, guidance and/or consideration of First Nations outcomes, it is unlikely that Biodiversity Assessment Instrument will hold much weight in ensuring biocultural outcomes actually get prioritised. Therefore, we highly recommend inclusion of these requirements, where appropriate and applicable, in the scoping section of all the Methods to ensure biocultural outcomes can be identified and included.

Establishing how to measure change in project biodiversity
The BAI describes biodiversity project characteristics as “either fixed (will not change due to the project) or variable (will change due to the project, where applicable) “. Removal of threats is noted as variable but then describes: “Where the proposed method activities would not lead to a measurable and genuine change in the impacts of threats in the project area, the biodiversity assessment instrument would require methods to set provisions for projects to report and publish a ‘not applicable’ assessment.” This is directly inconsistent. Anthesis Australia believes that threats can be identified and monitored. Further, project design and management can be set up to reduce threats, and the impact of these activities should be monitored for success or improvement. Not monitoring the removal of threats can have adverse impacts on biodiversity outcomes.
We note that the treatment of threats has impacted the clarity and effectiveness of the Replanting Native Forest and Woodland Ecosystems method. The method requires proponents to identify threats but not monitor their removal. If threats aren’t to be monitored or assessed for removal, what is the point of including them at all? Further, how will this impact the success of biodiversity outcomes and thus what are the commercial and regulatory risks?
Monitoring, measuring and assessing biodiversity outcomes at the project area
Section 2.6.2 of the BAI states that methods must set provisions that specify the time over which the biodiversity outcomes would be delivered. The timeframe in which projects would achieve their targets and thresholds would be highly variable. Anthesis suggest a review of this BAI requirement, or for the Nature Repair Committee to provide more guidance around how time may be applied to biodiversity outcomes.
Assessing and describing broader biodiversity benefits
Using the Replanting Native Forest and Woodland Ecosystems method as an example, there are instances which address ‘surrounding landscapes’ with no parameters in which constitutes ‘surrounding’. Suggest providing a requirement to include a buffer or distance for inclusion and appropriate measures of ‘benefit’. In addition, methods would need to stipulate the requirements for claims regarding these benefits, particularly where some are quantifiable and others are not. For example, one project may not be able to claim an increase in landscape connectivity but rather an increase in function of landscape connectivity.

Defining key terms and concepts
Based on the definition of ecosystem condition, it can be assumed that this instrument would apply to methods for native vegetation only (i.e., structure, function and composition indicators). If this is inaccurate, and other biodiversity outcomes are to be included, such as fauna, then the instrument may need to be less prescriptive in its definition. Further, the instrument should require methods to define the meaning of each of those indicators. For example, the Replanting Native Forest and Woodland Ecosystems method does not provide a definition of function.
The instrument should require methods to define the meaning of biodiversity, or the scope of biodiversity considered in the method. For instance, the Replanting Native Forest and Woodland Ecosystems method only measures native vegetation and not fauna.
Considering climate change
Understanding section 3.3 requires the detail provided in section 3.3. The instrument should include all necessary detail required for interpretation.
Certainty and confidence
Understanding section 2.4 requires the detail provided in section 3.4. The instrument should include all necessary detail required for interpretation.
Further, the BAI makes it sound like a single Method will require a single confidence level. We request the Nature Repair Committee to consider defining a quantitative uncertainty metric to be reported alongside the project to enable proponents to ramp up monitoring efforts to reduce uncertainty, or do less with higher uncertainty, and find buyers to match according to preference. This may enable projects to improve accuracy/certainty over time. An example of this is Accounting for Nature’s confidence level badges of 80%, 90% and 95%.
Data suitability and sharing requirements
This section could be improved by the following:
• Allow for flexibility in data collection as new techniques and technologies become available (e.g., not all data must be from on-site measurement).
• Provide opportunity to tie in certainty and confidence requirements here for different datasets or saturation.

Areas of inconsistency that we have identified between the BAI and the Native Forest and Woodland Ecosystems method (the Method) are summarised below:
• First Nations knowledge, value and data
o The BAI stipulates that methods must not contain conditions or requirements that would prevent project proponents from engaging with First Nations people or using Indigenous knowledge and practices, as appropriate, in relation to the design of their project. As mentioned, we note that the Method has very prescriptive and generic restrictions on fire management burning and recommend extensively engagement with First Nations people on fire management and other restoration priorities.
o The inclusion of culturally significant entities is first mentioned in section 6.14. This could be mentioned earlier in the design requirements of the project.
• The Method has not set provisions that projects may use an alternative monitoring protocol (per section 2.6.2 of the BAI).
• The Method has not identified the monitoring standard with which it is aligned (per section 2.8 of the BAI).
• The Method does not satisfy the certainty/confidence requirements. For example, there is no mention of what level of confidence or certainty the monitoring protocol, data collection type and number of monitoring points bring.
• The BAI indicates that there should be a rating scale for the measurement of the commitment to protection of biodiversity. No rating system is provided in the Method.
• The BAI requires methods to set provisions for projects to assess the project status and change to threatened species and ecological communities using a rating system. No rating system is provided in the Method.
• Table 10 of the Method does not comply with section 2.6.2 of the BAI which states that methods must set provisions to specify the time over which the biodiversity outcomes would be delivered. The timeframe in which projects would achieve their targets and thresholds would be highly variable. We suggest a review of the BAI requirement or more guidance around how time may be applied to biodiversity outcomes.
• The item 4 and item 5 requirements (in s6.3.1 of the Method) for the assignment of reference ecosystems to each defined land area uses the phrase ‘is likely to be’. We believe more guidance on what is meant by ‘likely’ would be beneficial and would ensure compliance with the Biodiversity Assessment Instrument (s2.6.1).

No other comments.