Thread by @megcevans

The Australian Government @DCCEEW last week quietly released draft National Environmental Standards (NES) for Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) as part of its #EPBCAct reform.
*2 weeks consultation*, due 22 May 2023
A🧵on key issues👇
consult.dcceew.gov.au/draft-nes-for-…

Note the overarching MNES standard is the first to be released, there are others in development that will be released (hopefully) soon, including for:
- Environmental Offsets
- Regional Planning
- First Nations Engagement and Participation
- Community Engagement
2/

First, what's the overall goal? #NaturePositive! (it's mentioned 19 times in the document)

What does this mean? Apparently - a "collective outcome" where the environment is "repaired, regenerated and protected", requiring action everyone, not just government.

Some issues:
3/

.@tanya_plibersek 's version of #NaturePositive lacks the specificity of the original definition, which is to "halt and reverse nature loss measured from a baseline of 2020...so that by 2030 nature is visibly and measurably on the path of recovery"
nature.com/articles/s4155…
4/

That's the main problem with the draft MNES standard - there's no measurable outcome defined.

This flies in the face of what Graeme Samuel recommended in his final report. epbcactreview.environment.gov.au/resources/fina…

So this draft Standard just replicates existing #EPBCAct issues. Again.
5/

The fed govt is also offloading part of the "nature positive" "outcome" - despite this term dominating its overall reforms (see pic) - to "business, NGOs & the broader community" (see 2/)
How much of #naturepositive is govt responsible for? Unclear.
dcceew.gov.au/environment/ep…
6/

On the next page, we find that to deliver #NaturePositive, #EPBCAct decisions must deliver “net positive outcomes” for impacted MNES.
What? How do #NaturePositive and #NetPositive differ? Do they differ?
Answer: It depends 🙃
7/

In short, nature positive SHOULD mean we have more nature in 2030 compared to a historical baseline, fixed at 2020, as per naturepositive.org
Net positive COULD mean the same, but could ALSO mean - slightly better than business as usual.
8/

It depends on what reference scenario, or baseline, "net" is measured against. nespthreatenedspecies.edu.au/media/jqbhn3ri…
If net positive is measured against a scenario that assumes business-as-usual, the net outcome could simply just be a slightly less negative trend of nature loss: net gain.
9/

In fact, under CURRENT #EPBCAct policy (2012), offsets must "improve or maintain" outcomes for MNES, against a counterfactual of business as usual. Net positive is *already built into existing policy*. dcceew.gov.au/environment/ep…
10/

So the draft Standard for MNES, by promising #netpositive, is no better than existing #EPBCAct.
BUT - I think it could actually make things worse.
First, by never actually stating baseline against which #netpostive is measured. Second, via the "conservation payment" option.
11/

Here, it says the #MitigationHierarchy should be followed, so that with offsets, #NetGain is achieved…
**AND/OR** make a conservation payment.

(shouldn't that be an AND, with no OR, otherwise net gain could be skipped for an MNES??)

So what's a conservation payment?
12/

A conservation payment! Still to be defined in Standard 🤡 But the #NaturePositivePlan makes it clear...if a proponent can't find a "like for like" offset, the development can still proceed if they pay into a fund.
This backtrack from "like for like" WILL enable #extinction.
13/

If a proponent can’t find an offset – likely because a species is so threatened, the scope to restore or protect habitat to compensate for the development impacts is so limited - then this is a clear sign further losses should be avoided to prevent species #Extinction
14/

Instead, @tanya_plibersek @DCCEEW
plan to allow development to proceed via conservation payments, for a "better overall" outcome. Better for what part of the environment? Who decides, & how? Likely - parts that are less threatened, decided by public servants, with no method.
15/

Scientists have spent decades coming up with methods to prioritise investment between different species, e.g conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.111…
We have had HUGE debates about “conservation triage”.
Yet what’s happening here is triage for #extinction, with no method or accountability.
16/

It's no exaggeration to say that @tanya_plibersek 's commitment to #ZeroNewExtinctions AND the "better overall" approach that backtracks from like-for-like offsets are totally incompatible.
Some MNES will win, others will lose, and the Australian public will have no input.
18/

The draft Standard also doesn’t address the administrative practice of “backloading”, where offset decisions are delayed until biodiversity losses are approved.
With the extra conservation payment option, I think backloading is likely worsen.
19/
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/14…

And yes, there is a requirement that approved actions do not have “unacceptable or unsustainable” impacts to MNES, but I don’t see this having a practical effect until a species is one last cut from being doomed. Useless. consult.dcceew.gov.au/draft-nes-for-…
20/

Should also be noted that @tanya_plibersek is setting up the #NatureRepairMarket to funnel through these conservation payments from #EPBCAct as inadequate offsets/ "better overall" outcomes. Highly unlikely to achieve *actual* #NaturePositive outcome.
21/

@tanya_plibersek