Nature Repair Market Legislation

Section Comments

The City of Gold Coast is an environmentally proactive local government authority, with multiple programs
that deliver projects in line with nature repair market outcomes. We are looking forward to learning of the
final approved methodologies and create pilot projects to assess the viability of the market, and how we
General Statement
might best place ourselves for it's uptake.
Allowing local government to participate is welcomed. As a local government, we are often bound be
principles of responsible funding expenditure which results in well prioritised and justified programs, with
high quality on ground outcomes.

General project eligibility Some of the significant City projects that may be eligible for a biodiversity certificate have been part comment funded by State and Federal money. Who would be the 'owner' of the certificate in this scenario?

Further to Dan's comment: another relevant example is where the City funds ecological restoration on
General project eligibility
private property (e.g. through the Nature Conservation Assistance Program). Who would be the 'owner' of comment
the certificate in this scenario?

In Queensland, Local Governments have a legislative requirement to have a Biosecurity Plan. The City of
Gold Coast has a Biosecurity plan that has used the industry best practice approach to assign
management objectives to various invasive species listed in the Biosecurity Act 2014, either prevention,
Invasive species project
eradication, containment, or asset protection.
eligibility
Presumably, if the Council initiates a project that aims to do more than the assigned management
objective, that project could be eligible to register for a biodiversity certificate under the Nature Repair Act?

Positive biodiversity outcomes can be difficult to definitively attribute to invasive species management,
however significant and obvious it may be. Could invasive species management projects be simply
measured on invasive species % reduction. E.g. for feral deer:
2.1.1 Project attributes If eradication is the objective: minimum reduction of 70% per year in a defined area. (would need minimum
area and population requirements)
If containment is the objective: minimum reduction of 40% per year in a minimum defined area.
This can be monitored and measured with much higher confidence.

2.1 Content of a Biodiversity Would the market system provide for certificates of highly reputable project proponents to attract a higher
Certificate value? If so, should the project proponent be identified on the Biodiversity Certificate?

Could the Indigenous values requirement be strengthened? Perhaps all methods should include
1.1.2 Information to evaluation criteria to assess how well an application demonstrates it’s plans to take a partnership accompany an application approach with First Nations people? This might go further in protecting cultural values and meet the Act's
expectation.

It is noted that the Act does not prevent or limit biodiversity projects that may have access to alternative
1.1.1 Requirements for sourced of funding. Does this depend on the source of funding? For example, some projects are funded registration questions by government grants or philanthropic investment - being able to claim a biodiversity credit could be
considered 'double-dipping'.

General comment The Nature Repair Market has merit.

Broadly speaking, if the intention of the scheme is to create a market, the market itself needs to be flexible
enough to incentivise project proponents to use it - which would come down to how much
governance/administration is required on the proponent's part to obtain and trade a certificate and how
much this would impact the proponent's own use and decision making around their land and the project
General comment
(including development/disposing of the land and managing the project). The balance obviously being that
the scheme needs to be appropriately regulated which often entails more checks and balances (and admin
on the part of the proponent). Ultimately the cost and time involved in getting a certificate needs to be
appropriately outweighed by the value of the certificate.

1.1.1 Requirements for YES, ongoing restoration projects should be recognised as they will continue to enhance biodiversity, and registration these benefits could be reversed if the restoration, maintenance and protection does not continue.

1.1.2 Information to Yes Baseline BioCondition metrics should be mandatory, however these should be relatively simple and accompany an application based on geospatial and remote sensing metrics.

Provide online plan proforma including geospatial tools for mapping individual projects and or uploading
1.1.3 Project Plans
multiple polygons (GIS mapping sources) to identify the spatial extent of the project(s).

Restoration of areas with any non-native species should be excluded (not just Weeds of national
1.2 Types of projects unable to
Significance). i.e. only native vegetation projects should be supported as they will provide the optimal participate in the scheme
habitat and maximize benefits for biodiversity.

Section Page Discussion Paper Questions Comments

Including existing projects within the Nature Repair market is supported by City of Gold Coast for multiple reasons:
•Funding environmental programs within LGAs is limited, which often are in competition for infrastructure needs. Most environmental spending on restoration projects
are from proactive sources and proactive local goals which transcend legislative requirements. If a funding source is available from the Nature Repair Market ('the
market'), these proactive projects are likely to expand and are politically palatable as they would not be at the rate payers expense.
•From an LGA perspective, projects already started generally would go through a risk management procedure and have significant project planning already involved in
Should existing projects be eligible to participate in the Nature delivery therefore the quality and project planning of a project is likely to be more robust than the private landholder market.
Repair Market? •Allows the uptake of the market immediately with projects and certificates being registered upfront and ready to sell.
Please provide reasons for your answer. •Allows proponents to test the market with less risk associated with starting new projects.
1.1.1 Requirements for registration 4 Do you agree that each registered project must include activities Importantly, ongoing restoration projects should be recognised as they will continue to enhance biodiversity, and these benefits could be reversed if the restoration,
beyond those required under a Commonwealth, State or maintenance and protection does not continue.
Territory law?
Please provide reasons for your answer. We agree with the principle that registered projects must include activities beyond those that are legislatively required. The aims of Nature Positive and additionality
would be significantly limited/diluted if projects were allowed that were already being undertaken through existing State or Federal obligations.
A grey area here is invasive species management, where there are funding or resource limitations to achieving what the legislation requires. Allowing some types of
these projects may incentivise the market, particularly where a project could go above and beyond what the legislation requires. Even if legislatively required invasive
species management is excluded, where these projects achieve above and beyond the requirements, the additional portion should be allowed, as this meets the
additionality objective and offers incentive to deliver better outcomes for a proponent.

Yes. The more information that allows the regulator to make confident decisions about the viability of the project the better. We understand that this can be seen as a
significant cost to a project with more risk, however detailed information is key, allowing transparency for both purchaser and proponent.

Suggestion to add to the mandatory information: Could the Indigenous values requirement be strengthened? Perhaps all methods should include evaluation criteria to
assess how well an application demonstrates it’s plans to take a partnership approach with First Nations people? This might go further in protecting cultural values and
Do you agree that the specified information should be meet the Act's expectation.
1.1.2 Information to accompany an
8 mandatory at the application stage? Please provide reasons for application
your answer. Baseline BioCondition metrics should be mandatory, however these should be relatively simple and based on geospatial and remote sensing metrics.

Another suggestion to add to the mandatory information is to include an additional benefit section, which details how the project might enhance other environmental
features like connectivity or strategic location delivery (bioregional or local corridor for example).

Another option for the additional benefit section could include the listing of (non-assessable and complementary) socio-cultural benefits of the project.
In addition to those areas set out in the discussion paper, additional sections that are advised to include in risk assessment and mitigation. Risk assessments often draw
out management practises required on a site for successful implementation, adaptive management and long-term resilience. Having a section of the plan identify all
risks, and how each might be mitigated, will make for a more robust plan and more robust project.

There are also numerous other items that belong in a restoration project plan, however these might be methodology specific at this stage. In case they are not, we would
like to raise the following items for inclusion:
In what ways could the project plan facilitate the registration and
1.1.3 Project Plans 10 •Species appropriateness for planting, local provenance or adherence to preclear regional ecosystems or ground-truthed pre-clear ecosystems.
implementation of a biodiversity project?
•Realistic goals for biodiversity gains. Interesting data from the EPBC Audit of offset projects mentioned goals on biodiversity gains were sometimes overly ambitious and
unachievable.
•Realistic time frame goals

Provide online plan proforma including geospatial tools for mapping individual projects and or uploading multiple polygons (GIS mapping sources) to identify the spatial
extent of the project(s).
Yes, these exclusions seem reasonable and will prevent clearing to make way for a nature repair project.

1.2 Types of projects unable to Should the listed project types be excluded from the Nature Restoration of areas with ANY non-native species should be excluded (not just Weeds of National Significance). i.e. only native vegetation projects should be supported
11 participate in the scheme Repair Market? Please provide reasons for your answer. as they will provide the optimal habitat and maximize benefits for biodiversity. Recommend endemic species preferably be used as a standard, unless the nature of the
project precludes it.

Yes, there are circumstances where registered projects should transition to new or varied methods. For example there are several emerging technologies (eg drone)
that will allow for more efficient and/or accurate monitoring in the future. Where the change of the method and monitoring method is beneficial to the project, this should
be allowed.
Should registered projects be required to transition to new or An example of change in methodology that might be negative is where the monitoring methodology might result in an altered gain or reduction in biodiversity outcome.
1.3 Transitioning for varied or ceased varied methods?
12 methods What exceptions, if any, should be allowed? Please provide An allowable exception to the requirements for method transition could be for smaller scale proponents, such as private landholders, who do not have the resources to
reasons for your answer. transition to new methods. While improved methods are always desirable, to remain equitable for small scale proponents, it may be allowable to maintain the original
project methods.
Exceptions may also be valid for projects with a fixed budget or where the sourcing of funding is limited, if the cost to change methods and consequently reporting is
significantly higher, this may lead to a decrease in on-ground project spending causing decreased outcomes.

2.1 Content of a Biodiversity Do you agree with the proposed content of the biodiversity
15 Yes, with the ability to optionally add the name of the proponent, this would allow for highly reputable project proponents to be noted on the certificate.
Certificate certificate? Please provide reasons for your answer.
Enough detail to allow an understanding of the biodiversity value being achieved.
What specific project attributes should be included on a
2.1.1 Project attributes 16
Biodiversity Certificate? Quantitative attributes could include remote sensing metrics such as change in vegetation Biomass (as a surrogate for biodiversity); BioCondition metrics, invasive plant
removal etc.

For projects registered under the Permanent protection methodology (eg restoration of vegetation in protected areas) vs. the non-permanent methodologies(eg
restoration on non-protected area where there is a defined permanence period (e.g. 25 years), there should be a higher monetary value applied to permanently
3.1 Project information on the What specific project attributes should be included in the protected areas to reflect the long-term benefits, and to encourage uptake.
18
Register register? Please provide reasons for your answer.
Would the market system provide for certificates of highly reputable project proponents to attract a higher value? If so, should the option for a project proponent be
identified on the Biodiversity Certificate as well as the register?
Do you agree with the proposed certificate information to be
3.2 Certificate information on the Yes the details seem sufficient. As the market matures it may be beneficial to have a ratings system or listing of registered and completed projects meeting their
19 included on the Register? Please provide reasons for your
Register requirements. This will allow for proponents who are providing high quality outcomes to be readily identifiable for prospective purchasers.
answer.

Do you agree with the proposed content for Category A Yes. As a side note to the natural disturbance item: Where a natural disturbance has been severe, it would be useful for the market to have a defined process for
4.1.1 Category A biodiversity project
22 biodiversity project reports? Please provide reasons for your managing the reparation and the effect on the biodiversity certificate. With natural disasters increasing in occurrence and severity, it would be valuable to know that reports
answer. projects would not be overly penalised by disaster impacts where there is the opportunity to reinstate the project in a manageable fashion

Yes, even for projects requiring greater than 5 years to show results, a Category B report is warranted.
The Discussion Paper information on the proposed approach is relevant, and would help to manage "ghost projects" that are registered but not progressing. For a
registered project that has been abandoned in say Year 2, 5 years is a long time to wait to receive that update. However some projects may viably take 5 years to
produce viable outcomes.
4.1.2 Category B biodiversity project Should a Category B biodiversity project report be required A suggestion that could assist is for the regulator to send out an annual "opt-in" notification request to the proponent of a registered project. This could be an automated
23 reports every 5 years? Please provide reasons for your answer. request for a short YES/NO response, that is simply a confirmation that the project is progressing. This may be useful in ensuring up-to-date project stats without
requiring additional reporting that may be onerous and deter smaller scale proponents. Where the answer is no obviously the proponent would then have to de-register
the project.
City of Gold Coast envisages that many of the projects it would undertake to be achieving a biodiversity outcome within 2 years and would be willing to voluntarily submit
annual report on the projects where good progress could be shown.

Do you agree with the proposed requirements and contents of
4.2.1 Audits at the time of certificate
24 an audit report at the time of certificate issuance? Please Yes, the audit requirements are suitable to maintain integrity in the market.
issuance
provide reasons for your answer.

The length of time expected to achieve the biodiversity value, the ability to show visible results, as well as the access to and amount of resources a proponent has are
What factors should determine the number and timing of audits
reasonable factors for the timing of reports. Depending on the biodiversity value to be achieved, and a reasonable timeframe that the proponent expects to see a
for Category A or B biodiversity project reports?
significant result, the proponent may choose to suggest a timeline for the submission of their Category A and B reports.
4.2.2 Audits to accompany Should the CER have authority to set additional audits
25 Where reasonable concern over the integrity or validity of a particularly project can be shown, for example where a particular proponent has displayed a history of non- biodiversity project reports requirements, or should these be limited to proponent consent?
conformance with the market, the regulator should have the ability to set additional audit requirements to maintain market confidence in the scheme. An audit at
Under what circumstances should the CER require an audit with
application for a Certificate is logical, Note that the Board will need to develop a register of Nature Repair Market auditors in order to ensure experienced and capable
the next biodiversity project report?
auditors are conducting the audit.

Do you agree with the proposed definitions of significant and not Yes, the definitions of significant reversal are suitable to ensure that the projects are consistently achieving quality biodiversity outcomes. In the case of severe natural
4.3 Notification – significant reversal 26 significant reversals of biodiversity outcomes for notification? disturbance, there should be a suitable allowance for the proponent to rectify the reversal in a suitable time period, in order to maintain both their biodiversity certificate
Please provide reasons for your answer. and to achieve an ongoing net gain for biodiversity values.