Published name
Confirm that you have read and understand this declaration.
What sector best describes you or your organisation?
Australian ecology
Should existing projects be eligible to participate in the Nature Repair Market?
Please provide reasons for your answer.
Yes, with conditions: We support the inclusion of existing projects that update land management practices to enhance multiple services such as biodiversity alongside carbon. Early voluntary adopters of biodiversity projects, such as those with conservation covenants, should not be penalised or excluded from participation, as many could benefit from additional financing for restoration or biodiversity actions beyond what is required under existing agreements. However, stacking in biodiversity credit markets presents significant challenges, including unclear definitions, inconsistent terminology across regions, and the risk of double-counting or "double-dipping" (McCarthy & Sarsfield 2023). Ecosystems are complex, making the separation of ecosystem services difficult and potentially harmful, while a lack of transparency in credit accounting further complicates matters. Ongoing research and safeguards are needed to evaluate stacking's effectiveness and ensure it delivers additional biodiversity benefits. We recommend that:
● There are clear, consistent, and transparent guidelines for the ‘unbundling’ or separation of ecosystem services that are based on the best available ecological science.
● There are clear, consistent, and transparent guidelines for additionality tests that are based on the best available ecological science, with mechanisms in place to evaluate and update such tests in the future.
● There are clear, consistent, and transparent processes for long-term measurement of services involved in the ‘stacking’ of projects.
● A review of projects involved in ‘stacking’ be conducted to assess effectiveness.
● Clear reporting per project of assessment criteria forming the basis of project inclusion in
the Market, including explicit identification of projects that involve ‘stacking’. We support the option for methods to set further eligibility requirements for registration.
Do you agree that each registered project must include activities beyond those required under a Commonwealth, State or Territory law?
Please provide reasons for your answer.
Yes: Requiring activities beyond legal obligations ensures that the Nature Repair Market drives additional biodiversity gains, rather than merely funding compliance with existing laws. This aligns with the principle of additionality, preventing the market from subsidising baseline activities that do not enhance biodiversity. We support a broad interpretation of ‘activities beyond those required under existing laws’ to include projects that enhance existing obligations, such as those under a conservation covenant that may only require pest plant and animal control. This approach would encourage landowners with existing projects to enhance biodiversity outcomes beyond what is currently mandated.
Do you agree that the specified information should be mandatory at the application stage?
Please provide reasons for your answer.
Yes, we agree that the specified information should be mandatory at the application stage. Comprehensive details on project location, biodiversity outcomes, monitoring, and consent from relevant stakeholders are essential for assessing a project's suitability and ensuring it meets the biodiversity integrity standards. Requiring this information upfront ensures that projects are well- planned and aligned with the market’s objectives. Plus, Indigenous engagement must be a priority, with the market considering Indigenous people as rights holders in these projects. Alongside the proposed rules we emphasise that:
● Specific information on the intended biodiversity outcome must include explicit details proving expected biodiversity additionality, referencing project involvement in other markets if relevant.
● A clear long-term plan outlining actions to address risks to achievement of proposed biodiversity outcomes must be provided at registration and updated.
In what ways could the project plan facilitate the registration and implementation of a biodiversity project?
A well-structured project plan facilitates registration and implementation by:
● Clarifying objectives: It clearly defines biodiversity outcomes, helping regulators assess alignment with market standards.
● Providing a roadmap: It outlines activities, timelines, and milestones, ensuring the project stays on track.
● Managing risks: The plan identifies risks and mitigation strategies, ensuring project resilience.
● Engaging stakeholders: It includes key stakeholder consultation, streamlining consent and collaboration.
● Allowing adaptive management: It offers flexibility to adjust the project in response to changing conditions.
Should the listed project types be excluded from the Nature Repair Market?
Please provide reasons for your answer.
Yes: Excluding projects that involve planting known weed species or on illegally cleared land is essential to prevent perverse outcomes. We support the weed species being identified from the Weeds of National Significance list and those declared under State and Territory legislation, while new and emerging weed species lists should also be closely monitored in each state (see NSW list, by example) as well as those listed within a listed Key Threatening Process. Projects involving the introduction of native species outside their original range should also be carefully assessed before inclusion in the market.
Should registered projects be required to transition to new or varied methods?
What exceptions, if any, should be allowed?
Yes, with exceptions: Projects should generally be required to transition to updated methods to maintain alignment with evolving best practices. However, exemptions should be considered when transitioning poses a risk to biodiversity outcomes, such as when a project is too advanced or when the costs of transitioning outweigh the benefits.
Do you agree with the proposed content of the biodiversity certificate?
Please provide reasons for your answer.
Yes: The proposed content, including project attributes and the permanence period, provides essential information to assess the biodiversity outcome of a project. However, certificates should also include clear indicators of additionality to ensure that biodiversity credits represent genuine improvements.
What specific project attributes should be included on a Biodiversity Certificate?
The following attributes should be included on a Biodiversity Certificate to ensure transparency and clarity:
● Ecosystem type: Define whether the project is terrestrial, aquatic, or marine, along with the specific ecosystem and bioregion.
● Biodiversity outcomes: Clearly outline the expected changes in biodiversity, including species or habitat protection and restoration targets.
● Project size and location: Include the area in hectares and specific location details (State, Local Government Area).
● Permanence period: State the project's duration, such as the 25 or 100-year commitment.
● Threat reduction: Specify how the project will address key threats to biodiversity, such as
invasive species or habitat degradation.
● Monitoring and assessment: Indicate how biodiversity outcomes will be tracked and
assessed over time.
● Indigenous perspectives: Local indigenous engagement should be integrated into the
project assessment to ensure it respects cultural and ecological connections to Country, preventing projects from being linked to areas of biodiversity loss on different Country or bioregions.
Do you agree with the proposed certificate information to be included on the Register?
Please provide reasons for your answer.
Yes: The proposed project information for the Register is appropriate and supports transparency, accountability, and public confidence in the Nature Repair Market. Key elements like project name, location, biodiversity attributes, and compliance history are essential for tracking and verifying project outcomes. However, additional details such as baseline biodiversity conditions and monitoring results should be regularly updated to ensure that stakeholders can assess the real-time progress and effectiveness of biodiversity improvements.
Do you agree with the proposed content for Category A biodiversity project reports?
Please provide reasons for your answer.
Yes: The proposed content for Category A biodiversity project reports is comprehensive and crucial
for ensuring accountability. Including information such as the biodiversity outcome, activities undertaken, monitoring results, and changes in biodiversity conditions ensures that the project's progress can be tracked against its original goals. Plus, the requirement to explain deviations from the project plan and outline adaptive management actions is essential for maintaining transparency and adjusting to unforeseen challenges.
Should a Category B biodiversity project report be required every 5 years?
Please provide reasons for your answer.
Yes: Regular reporting is crucial for maintaining transparency and tracking progress towards
biodiversity outcomes. A 5-year reporting cycle strikes a balance between allowing enough time for meaningful biodiversity changes and ensuring ongoing accountability, recognising that these projects have not achieved the certification standards of Category A projects. Increased monitoring and reporting frequency are vital to confirm that Category B projects are on track and to quickly identify any potential challenges, enabling timely interventions.
Do you agree with the proposed requirements and contents of an audit report at the time of certificate issuance?
Please provide reasons for your answer.
Yes: The proposed requirements and contents for audit reports at the time of certificate issuance are essential for ensuring that projects meet biodiversity outcomes and comply with the Nature Repair Market’s integrity standards. Audits must confirm that activities align with the approved project plan, that biodiversity outcomes are achieved, and that legal obligations are met. We are concerned about the requirement for auditors to be registered under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007, as their focus may not suit biodiversity market needs; auditors with expertise in biodiversity conservation/restoration should be prioritised. ESA is also concerned about allowing exemptions from audit requirements and emphasises the need for a thorough assessment of the conditions under which such exemptions are granted. They should only be approved when it is evident that they will not compromise the quality and rigor of the audit process.
What factors should determine the number and timing of audits for Category A or B biodiversity project reports?
Risk-based approach: Audits should be scheduled based on project size, complexity, and risk of non-compliance. Higher-risk projects, such as those involving sensitive ecosystems or large-scale interventions, should be subject to more frequent audits. A minimum audit frequency should also be established to ensure consistent oversight.
Should the CER have authority to set additional audits requirements, or should these be limited to proponent consent?
CER authority with checks: The CER should have the authority to impose additional audit requirements when justified by risk assessments or evidence of non-compliance. However, this authority should be exercised transparently and in consultation with project proponents to maintain trust in the regulatory process.
Under what circumstances should the CER require an audit with the next biodiversity project report?
Triggered by significant deviations or risks: The CER should require an audit if there are significant deviations from the project plan, non-compliance with biodiversity integrity standards, or when natural disturbances (e.g., fires, floods) have likely impacted the project area. This ensures that potential setbacks or failures in achieving biodiversity outcomes are promptly addressed.
Do you agree with the proposed definitions of significant and not significant reversals of biodiversity outcomes for notification?
Please provide reasons for your answer.
Yes, the proposed definitions of significant and not significant reversals are appropriate. Defining a significant reversal as one that affects at least 10% of the project area or has a notable impact on biodiversity outcomes ensures that substantial declines in biodiversity are promptly addressed. This threshold strikes a balance between ensuring minor disturbances are not over-reported while still capturing meaningful setbacks. For non-significant reversals, the 5% threshold and the criteria for minor, self-resolving impacts are reasonable. These distinctions allow the focus to remain on serious biodiversity risks, avoiding unnecessary administrative burdens for minor issues.
Would you like to upload a document?
Upload a submission
Name of submitter: Ecological Society of Australia
The Ecological Society of Australia Ltd (ESA, www.ecolsoc.org.au) is the peak group of
ecologists in Australia, with over 1200 members from all states and territories. Our
members work in universities and other research institutions, government departments,
NGOs, private industry, Indigenous organisations, and consultancies. We are a non-
partisan not-for-profit organisation formed in 1959.
Submission to:
Consultation: Nature Repair Market Rules
September 2024
Summary
The Ecological Society of Australia (ESA) welcomes the opportunity to provide the Department of Climate
Change, Energy, the Environment and Water with this submission to the consultation on the rules of the
Nature Repair Market. As the peak body representing over 1,200 ecologists across Australia, the ESA is committed to ensuring that decisions regarding biodiversity and ecological restoration are informed by rigorous scientific evidence.
The Nature Repair Market represents an important mechanism for enhancing and protecting biodiversity through private sector investment. However, to be effective, the market must be underpinned by clear governance, robust scientific integrity, and strong regulatory oversight to ensure that biodiversity outcomes are genuine, measurable, and long-lasting. ESA remains concerned that the Clean Energy
Regulator is still proposed to administer the market, given integrity issues raised regarding their role in carbon trading. We recommend that the Nature Repair Committee be provided clearer guidelines within the Nature Repair Market Rules to support the Clean Energy Regulator and ensure market integrity through the Committee’s legislated expertise.
In this submission, we provide recommendations in response to the consultation questions, emphasising the need for additionality, transparency, and evidence-based approaches in all aspects of the market’s design and operation.
Based on the Discussion Paper, we offer the following recommendations, addressing the proposed questions.
1.1 Project Registration
1. Should existing projects be eligible to participate in the Nature Repair Market?
Yes, with conditions: We support the inclusion of existing projects that update land management
practices to enhance multiple services such as biodiversity alongside carbon. Early voluntary
adopters of biodiversity projects, such as those with conservation covenants, should not be
penalised or excluded from participation, as many could benefit from additional financing for
restoration or biodiversity actions beyond what is required under existing agreements. However,
stacking in biodiversity credit markets presents significant challenges, including unclear definitions,
inconsistent terminology across regions, and the risk of double-counting or "double-dipping"
(McCarthy & Sarsfield 2023). Ecosystems are complex, making the separation of ecosystem services
difficult and potentially harmful, while a lack of transparency in credit accounting further
complicates matters. Ongoing research and safeguards are needed to evaluate stacking's
effectiveness and ensure it delivers additional biodiversity benefits. We recommend that:
1
● There are clear, consistent, and transparent guidelines for the ‘unbundling’ or separation of
ecosystem services that are based on the best available ecological science.
● There are clear, consistent, and transparent guidelines for additionality tests that are based
on the best available ecological science, with mechanisms in place to evaluate and update
such tests in the future.
● There are clear, consistent, and transparent processes for long-term measurement of
services involved in the ‘stacking’ of projects.
● A review of projects involved in ‘stacking’ be conducted to assess effectiveness.
● Clear reporting per project of assessment criteria forming the basis of project inclusion in
the Market, including explicit identification of projects that involve ‘stacking’.
We support the option for methods to set further eligibility requirements for registration.
2. Should each registered project include activities beyond those required under Commonwealth,
State, or Territory law?
Yes: Requiring activities beyond legal obligations ensures that the Nature Repair Market drives
additional biodiversity gains, rather than merely funding compliance with existing laws. This aligns
with the principle of additionality, preventing the market from subsidising baseline activities that
do not enhance biodiversity. We support a broad interpretation of ‘activities beyond those
required under existing laws’ to include projects that enhance existing obligations, such as those
under a conservation covenant that may only require pest plant and animal control. This approach
would encourage landowners with existing projects to enhance biodiversity outcomes beyond what
is currently mandated.
3. Do you agree that the specified information should be mandatory at the application stage?
Yes, we agree that the specified information should be mandatory at the application stage.
Comprehensive details on project location, biodiversity outcomes, monitoring, and consent from
relevant stakeholders are essential for assessing a project's suitability and ensuring it meets the
biodiversity integrity standards. Requiring this information upfront ensures that projects are well-
planned and aligned with the market’s objectives. Plus, Indigenous engagement must be a priority,
with the market considering Indigenous people as rights holders in these projects. Alongside the
proposed rules we emphasise that:
● Specific information on the intended biodiversity outcome must include explicit details
proving expected biodiversity additionality, referencing project involvement in other
markets if relevant.
● A clear long-term plan outlining actions to address risks to achievement of proposed
biodiversity outcomes must be provided at registration and updated.
4. In what ways could the project plan facilitate the registration and implementation of a biodiversity
project?
A well-structured project plan facilitates registration and implementation by:
● Clarifying objectives: It clearly defines biodiversity outcomes, helping regulators assess
alignment with market standards.
● Providing a roadmap: It outlines activities, timelines, and milestones, ensuring the project
stays on track.
● Managing risks: The plan identifies risks and mitigation strategies, ensuring project
resilience.
2
● Engaging stakeholders: It includes key stakeholder consultation, streamlining consent and
collaboration.
● Allowing adaptive management: It offers flexibility to adjust the project in response to
changing conditions.
1.2 Types of projects unable to participate in the scheme
5. Should the listed project types (e.g., weed species projects, projects on illegally cleared land) be
excluded from the Nature Repair Market?
Yes: Excluding projects that involve planting known weed species or on illegally cleared land is
essential to prevent perverse outcomes. We support the weed species being identified from the
Weeds of National Significance list and those declared under State and Territory legislation, while
new and emerging weed species lists should also be closely monitored in each state (see NSW list,
by example) as well as those listed within a listed Key Threatening Process. Projects involving the
introduction of native species outside their original range should also be carefully assessed before
inclusion in the market.
1.3 Transitioning for varied or ceased methods
6. Should registered projects be required to transition to new or varied methods?
Yes, with exceptions: Projects should generally be required to transition to updated methods to
maintain alignment with evolving best practices. However, exemptions should be considered when
transitioning poses a risk to biodiversity outcomes, such as when a project is too advanced or when
the costs of transitioning outweigh the benefits.
2.1 Content of a Biodiversity Certificate
7. Do you agree with the proposed content of the biodiversity certificate?
Yes: The proposed content, including project attributes and the permanence period, provides
essential information to assess the biodiversity outcome of a project. However, certificates should
also include clear indicators of additionality to ensure that biodiversity credits represent genuine
improvements.
8. What specific project attributes should be included on a Biodiversity Certificate?
The following attributes should be included on a Biodiversity Certificate to ensure transparency and
clarity:
● Ecosystem type: Define whether the project is terrestrial, aquatic, or marine, along with
the specific ecosystem and bioregion.
● Biodiversity outcomes: Clearly outline the expected changes in biodiversity, including
species or habitat protection and restoration targets.
● Project size and location: Include the area in hectares and specific location details (State,
Local Government Area).
● Permanence period: State the project's duration, such as the 25 or 100-year commitment.
● Threat reduction: Specify how the project will address key threats to biodiversity, such as
invasive species or habitat degradation.
● Monitoring and assessment: Indicate how biodiversity outcomes will be tracked and
assessed over time.
● Indigenous perspectives: Local indigenous engagement should be integrated into the
project assessment to ensure it respects cultural and ecological connections to Country,
3
preventing projects from being linked to areas of biodiversity loss on different Country or
bioregions.
3.1 Project information on the Register - same question as Q8 asked here.
3.2 Certificate information on the Register
9. Do you agree with the proposed certificate information to be included on the Register?
Yes: The proposed project information for the Register is appropriate and supports transparency,
accountability, and public confidence in the Nature Repair Market. Key elements like project name,
location, biodiversity attributes, and compliance history are essential for tracking and verifying
project outcomes. However, additional details such as baseline biodiversity conditions and
monitoring results should be regularly updated to ensure that stakeholders can assess the real-time
progress and effectiveness of biodiversity improvements.
4.1 Biodiversity project reports
10. Do you agree with the proposed content for Category A biodiversity project reports?
Yes: The proposed content for Category A biodiversity project reports is comprehensive and crucial
for ensuring accountability. Including information such as the biodiversity outcome, activities
undertaken, monitoring results, and changes in biodiversity conditions ensures that the project's
progress can be tracked against its original goals. Plus, the requirement to explain deviations from
the project plan and outline adaptive management actions is essential for maintaining transparency
and adjusting to unforeseen challenges.
11. Should a Category B biodiversity project report be required every 5 years?
Yes: Regular reporting is crucial for maintaining transparency and tracking progress towards
biodiversity outcomes. A 5-year reporting cycle strikes a balance between allowing enough time for
meaningful biodiversity changes and ensuring ongoing accountability, recognising that these
projects have not achieved the certification standards of Category A projects. Increased monitoring
and reporting frequency are vital to confirm that Category B projects are on track and to quickly
identify any potential challenges, enabling timely interventions.
4.2 Audits
12. Do you agree with the proposed requirements and contents of an audit report at the time of
certificate issuance?
Yes: The proposed requirements and contents for audit reports at the time of certificate issuance
are essential for ensuring that projects meet biodiversity outcomes and comply with the Nature
Repair Market’s integrity standards. Audits must confirm that activities align with the approved
project plan, that biodiversity outcomes are achieved, and that legal obligations are met. We are
concerned about the requirement for auditors to be registered under the National Greenhouse and
Energy Reporting Act 2007, as their focus may not suit biodiversity market needs; auditors with
expertise in biodiversity conservation/restoration should be prioritised. ESA is also concerned
about allowing exemptions from audit requirements and emphasises the need for a thorough
assessment of the conditions under which such exemptions are granted. They should only be
approved when it is evident that they will not compromise the quality and rigor of the audit
process.
4
13. What factors should determine the number and timing of audits for Category A or B biodiversity
project reports?
Risk-based approach: Audits should be scheduled based on project size, complexity, and risk of
non-compliance. Higher-risk projects, such as those involving sensitive ecosystems or large-scale
interventions, should be subject to more frequent audits. A minimum audit frequency should also
be established to ensure consistent oversight.
14. Should the CER have authority to set additional audit requirements, or should these be limited to
proponent consent?
CER authority with checks: The CER should have the authority to impose additional audit
requirements when justified by risk assessments or evidence of non-compliance. However, this
authority should be exercised transparently and in consultation with project proponents to
maintain trust in the regulatory process.
15. Under what circumstances should the CER require an audit with the next biodiversity project
report?
Triggered by significant deviations or risks: The CER should require an audit if there are significant
deviations from the project plan, non-compliance with biodiversity integrity standards, or when
natural disturbances (e.g., fires, floods) have likely impacted the project area. This ensures that
potential setbacks or failures in achieving biodiversity outcomes are promptly addressed.
4.3 Notification – significant reversal
16. Do you agree with the proposed definitions of significant and not significant reversals of biodiversity
outcomes for notification?
Yes, the proposed definitions of significant and not significant reversals are appropriate. Defining a
significant reversal as one that affects at least 10% of the project area or has a notable impact on
biodiversity outcomes ensures that substantial declines in biodiversity are promptly addressed. This
threshold strikes a balance between ensuring minor disturbances are not over-reported while still
capturing meaningful setbacks. For non-significant reversals, the 5% threshold and the criteria for
minor, self-resolving impacts are reasonable. These distinctions allow the focus to remain on
serious biodiversity risks, avoiding unnecessary administrative burdens for minor issues.
Note:
The ESA would like to make an additional note to the consultation about the need for additional methods to be developed for the Nature Repair Market. The current suite of methods being trialled is highly biased towards locations where either (a) there exists remnant vegetation (e.g. “Enhancing Remnant Vegetation”,
“Permanent Protection”, “Native Forest” and “Rangelands” Methods); or (b) there are opportunities for tree-based restoration (“Native Forest” and “Carbon + Biodiversity” Methods)
(https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/environmental-markets/nature-repair-market/methods-for- the-nature-repair-market). These methods, by their design, exclude a large proportion of potential stakeholders from entering the market, in particular production landscapes focused on cropping and horticulture where few trees remain or where tree planting is not feasible as it would conflict with production goals. We would like to see increased attention on alternative nature repair mechanisms that increase biodiversity in agricultural production landscapes where cropping and horticulture are the primary land uses, but do not necessarily require the planting of native trees, or the “complete” restoration of an entire tree-dominated ecosystem (i.e. forests or woodlands). Types of mechanisms that might be of value here include:
5
● Native shrub-based hedgerow and shelterbelt plantings that enhance habitat for native birds,
plants and invertebrates, and increase landscape connectivity in cleared production landscapes
with high agricultural value.
● Native shrub-, forb- and grass-based plantings that enhance habitat (shelter or food) for native
pollinators and pest enemies, and have the dual benefit of reducing use of pesticides in agricultural
production landscapes.
The ESA is willing to offer our expertise in these and other matters related to the Nature Repair Market during future consultation.
For further information
The ESA welcomes the opportunity to provide further information to this consultation or to discuss our submission in more detail. We may be contacted using the details below:
Email: executiveofficer@ecolsoc.org.au
Phone: (07) 3076 4064
Submission prepared on behalf of the ESA by its Policy Working Group and approved by the President, 30
September 2024.
References
McCarthy, J., & Sarsfield, R. (2023, April 4). Beetles in a Pay Stack: Stacking and Bundling in Biodiversity
Credit Markets. Environmental Policy Innovation Center. https://www.policyinnovation.org/blog/beetles- in-a-pay-stack
6
