Published name
1. Is the biodiversity assessment instrument an appropriate means of achieving consistency in how methods describe biodiversity ?
No, primarily because it fails to encourage/require proponents to follow a standard conservation theory approach.
BAI treats consistency as desirable, when it should be more desirable to support projects which genuinely avoid destruction of good quality ecosystems, particularly endangered or threatened ecosystems. Next in the hierarchy would be projects which support natural regeneration of ecosystems which are below 30% and are adjacent to existing good patches of protected ecosystems.
To genuinely compare Nature repair methodologies you would encourage investment in protecting the best first, and most damaged areas last, i.e. incentivize (weight) and develop methodologies to support the best outcomes first. Presumably the Commonwealth, and investors share a goal of funding methods which are most effective in delivering a measurable conservation benefit, not merely measure actions or activities without any clear proof it is both additional to what is required at law, and actually delivers a better conservation outcome. As a number of Auditor General reviews of major Commonwealth funding for conservation over the past two decades have shown, this is notoriously difficult to prove.
The last priority would be replanting of cleared ecosystems. Instead that is the first methodology being accredited. It risks perverting outcomes and seriously undermines the credibility of the Nature Repair Act 2023 (Cth).
2. Does the biodiversity assessment instrument assist in ensuring that methods comply with the biodiversity integrity standards?
No. The most glaring omissions are the failure to require not only evidence that it has been designed to achieve enhancement or protection of biodiversity in native species, but that it is the most effective way to deliver the 'nature repair' or conservation benefit 57(1)(a), (d). This risk perverting investment to cheapest methods, not necessarily the most effective and leaving ecosystems on expensive real estate in the too hard basket, ie Cumberland Plain Woodland, Eastern Suburb Banksia Scrub.
Furthermore, the BAI is weak on the requirement for adaptive management in the methodology. This is linked to the above points. Innovation is one thing, but proven best practice methods are another. The BAI is silent on what happens when projects with low confidence based on innovative methodologies fail - apart from the 'learning aspect'.
Again Australia's ecosystems are not in such great shape that large scale innovative experiments that may provide marginal biodiversity benefits should be treated as comparable to those which are proven to work, enhance connectivity, and protect the bets areas first. Standard Biocultural and conservation theory and best practice approaches should be weighted in the BAI, and should be the first methodologies released.
4. Do you have any feedback on the First Nations knowledge, values and data section of the biodiversity assessment instrument?
Yes. The experience in mining, and renewable energy show that expecting proponents of projects to voluntarily share, when not required to will not work to deliver equitable benefit sharing with First Nations people. Consistent with the comments regarding standard conservation theory above, past commercial practices in Australia show that if the Australian Government seriously wishes to ensure or encourage First Nations outcomes, it needs to mandate them.
Jon Altman, Janet Hunt and multiple other academics have shown that First Nations led conservation delivers better biodiversity outcome, as well as the social and economic outcomes.
Further, if a Nature Repair project is conducted on Native Title Land, it may require native title consent, and should go through the future act provisions of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The BAI needs to be much clearer in its advice.
Accordingly, the BAI should require proponents to obtain native title consent where required. Furthermore on all land, not only native title, BAI should be very clear that all natural ecosystems are cultural landscapes, and as such there is a cultural heritage intersection (which applies to freehold land), and that the Dhawura Ngilan Guidelines should be mandated.
Projects which are Aboriginal owned should be given a clear weighting in the BAI, followed by those which share equity with Aboriginal people whose country it is in recognition of past injustices.
5. Do you have any feedback on the measuring and assessing change in biodiversity aspects of the biodiversity assessment instrument, including:
Without groundtruthing projects at regular intervals the risk is that projected biodiversity benefits are illusory, and projects do not provide the 'learnings' required to reduce teh risk of failure, or perverse outcomes.
6. Do you have any feedback on the consistency and transparency aspects of the biodiversity assessment instrument, including:
I found the BAI to be very vague and non specific, pointing to further process which would result in the outcomes.
7. Is the proposed Replanting Native Forest and Woodland Ecosystems method consistent with the biodiversity assessment instrument?
No. It is the last methodology that should be developed.
8. Do you have any other comments on the biodiversity assessment instrument?
Yes, it needs a lot more specificity to be a genuine attempt at public consultation.
