Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697636597559.pdf (Australia)
NATURE LEGISLATION SUBMISSION June 2023 Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 and Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 [Provisions] https://www.et.org.au/ Committee Secretary Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications PO Box 6100 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 To Committee Secretary, Submission in regard to the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 — Committee Inquiry ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Background: This submission sets out the view of Environment Tasmania (E.T.
), a non-government 1. organisation which acts as a Conservation Council in Tasmania.

E.T.

has also conducted a number of environmental campaigns.

We have been involved in significant public processes, such as the later aborted Forest Peace Deal negotiations, as well as making submissions to various levels of government.

With this background we feel that we have a good knowledge and understanding of the environmental challenges facing us, not only in Tasmania, but also more broadly in Australia.
This naturally informs our approach to the proposed legislation.

The Proposed Legislation: Having examined the legislation it is clear that this proposed Bill is deeply flawed and 2. should be permanently withdrawn.

Apart from the very many matters of detail, the underlying premise — that a market 3. mechanism can help ensure good bio-diversity outcomes — is false.
For instance, in a paper to The Green Institute the internationally recognized Melbourne University ecologist, Dr. Yung En Chee, has pointed out that "We have had more than 20 years of global experience with regulatory biodiversity offset markets and still lack credible evidence of demonstrated effectiveness.” 4.

There is nothing in this Bill which gives us any reason to suddenly think that this proposed voluntary Nature Repair Market would work any better.
In fact, Australian experience is in accord with Dr. Yung En Chee’s global assessment.

In N.S.W.

the Audit Office found that the N.S.W.

scheme of this nature had numerous serious shortcomings.

A link to the review is Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 and Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 [Provisions]Submission 93 here.
Because this is such a basic issue it cannot be readily dealt with by any reasonable series 5. of amendments, and hence we recommend that the Bill be permanently withdrawn.

A proper re-think is required to take into account the issues we have identified in this submission, amongst others.

What is needed is direct government intervention to address the existential crisis we are 6. facing — climate change, species extinction, habitat destruction, loss of bio-diversity, …..

Contents of Bill: 7.


The Bill’s contents are largely to do with setting up a regulatory framework, the appointment of appropriate officers, consequential amendments to other legislation, and such like mechanical provisions.

What the Bill does NOT contain is any statement on desired environmental priorities 8. and outcomes.

What Nature Repair?

On what basis?

The genesis of this Bill goes back to the previous government, having been proposed by 9. the Nationals at that time.
It seems quite bizarre that the current government should re-badge such an inadequate response when it has otherwise made positive policy statements in support of stronger action on a range of environmental issues, particularly species extinction.

10.
10.

The perception of other (un-related) organizations that this market mechanism is actually about financial considerations, as opposed to genuine environmental concerns, is well demonstrated by the example of the submission made to this inquiry by the Australian Financial Markets Association (A.F.M.A.).
Its three key points are: “• The Bill should clarify what certificates can be used for • Certificates should be issued in smaller marketable parcels • The Bill should provide greater clarity about how investors can earn a return” (emphasis added).

There is a real concern that market mechanisms such as “marketable certificates” would 11. be easy to rort and could in fact lead to worse environmental outcomes when not attached to genuine projects.
Such rorts could easily occur if property owners and developers trash some part of the environment on the basis that they can offset that damage with some form of market sleight of hand or trumped-up projects.

Genuine Bio-diversity Please: Putting financial considerations aside, the greater problem is that there is no holistic 12. framework for assessing projects under the proposed Bill.
A holistic approach to bio-diversity is needed as, for example, different ecosystems are not interchangeable or “equivalent”.

A Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 and Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 [Provisions]Submission 93 farmer planting a few trees in another location in no way compensates for the loss of a tract of native forest, for example.

The extinction of a species of bird or animal cannot be compensated for by a “marketable certificate”.
The loss of habitat and green corridors can have seriously detrimental and unforeseen environmental consequences.

No market mechanism could possibly factor in such a range of issues.

13.

What is needed is a planned and strategic approach to environmental challenges which incorporates appropriate mechanisms for good administration, such as: ❖ Accountability mechanisms, ❖ Clear policy priorities.

❖ Transparency, ❖ Benchmarks, ❖ Baseline data, and ❖ Monitoring.

14.
14.

In terms of process, and factoring in the above considerations, the first step should be the review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

There is an urgent need to set standards first and deal with the EPBC Legislation in that context.

This would be in keeping with the United Nations statement on Bio-Diversity which sets out the need for goals and targets to be set first.

What Market?
What Market?

The proposal for a market mechanism is NOT evidence-based, but reflects a mis-placed 15. ideological emphasis and reliance on “the market”.

There is NO example anywhere which shows “the market” working in the way this legislation appears to presume.

In fact, our political history is full of examples of the failure of “the market” - e.g.

aged care services.

16.


Businesses don't need a “market” to protect the environment, but they do need to make a conscious policy decision in the context of their industry, and the known environmental impacts of their business/industry.

In this day and age there is market kudos to be gained from being able to demonstrate responsible and sustainable behaviour, as is evident, for example, in the advertising of the cosmetics industry.
Many businesses are already ahead in this respect, and although some elements of “green-washing” are often to be seen, there are clear signals to the marketplace of them paying attention to the environmental impacts of their business practices.

They do not need to “invest in nature”.

They can stop directly and indirectly causing and enabling environmental and biodiversity harm by redesigning their production, operations and business activities.
They can model best practices and advocate for legislation, regulation and social changes to reduce business-related biodiversity harm.

They can support and bolster existing initiatives that work well.

There are many examples of such actions on a global scale — it just takes the will to pay attention to the environment.
Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 and Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 [Provisions]Submission 93 If one accepted the premise that the government does not have the resources to pay for 17. necessary environmental work, and therefore the private sector needs to be encouraged to undertake that work, there would be other more effective mechanisms for this to be facilitated — e.g.
through stricter regulation and tighter taxation of extractive industry, other targeted taxation measures, joint funding, regulation.

However, we reject the proposition that the government is not able to fund such functions.

It is rather a matter of political priorities — e.g.

the agreed tax cuts by contrast are a potential source of additional funding.

Lack of detail in the Bill, makes it impossible to realistically assess potential outcomes — 18. or even desired outcomes.
No explicit environmental targets and goals as priorities are identified in the Bill — it appears to be virtually directionless in this respect.

“Certificates” issued under such a loose and aimless scheme run the risk of detracting from the real work which needs to be done.

This lack of intellectual rigor has resulted in sloppy legislation which does not identify 19. goals, targets, real mechanisms, accountability standards, etc., as mentioned above.
Whilst the Bill is full of detail on the mechanics of how the Clean Energy Regulator (why there and not a more purpose-oriented and appropriate body?)

would establish the administrative framework for implementation of the Bill, it is virtually silent on actual purpose.
The complex structural arrangements proposed — to consult, establish, regulate, 20. measure, certify, contract, trade, report, monitor, account, audit, enforce and administer the Nature Repair Market — would be expensive, opaque and open to flawed decision-making which is likely to result in rorts and corruption.

Prevent, not Repair!

21.

What is needed to protect the environment in the first instance is the prevention of damage rather than adopting a “repair” perspective.
Unfortunately, a prevailing extractive “resource” mindset is one of the current problems creating environmental damage; we need to limit damage in the first instance.
The proposed Bill would effectively legitimize a “business as usual” approach despite the 22. otherwise well-recognized nature of the environmental challenges we are facing: including climate change with its increasingly unpredictable severe weather events, land degradation, polluted waterways, species extinction, loss of wild-life habitat, etc.. 23.

However, the Nature Repair Market effectively compartmentalises “nature” to mean strictly only trees and creatures and reserves.
The deliberate limiting of “nature” in this way would lead to a very partial approach to environmental issues, which are usually connected and interlinked.. How can such a regime address, for example, the prospect of the extinction of a particular species?

Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 and Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 [Provisions]Submission 93 A market-based approach would also undermine existing large-scale volunteer efforts 24.
(including national groups such as LandCare) and would have uneven outcomes, as acknowledged even by the Minister.

(Because of the lack of priority setting and the patchy coverage of the private sector).

25.

We need direct government intervention, not a spurious and vague “market” to protect nature.
The history of environmental damage and lack of rehabilitation efforts to date clearly demonstrate why this is the case, and why offsets as proposed by a “certificate” scheme are wholly inadequate to deal with the real issues.

These urgently need prioritised funding of specific projects for the protection and restoration of ALL ecosystems, not just possible pet projects of “industry” and the private sector.

Summary: 26.
Summary: 26.

Environmental issues are complex, often many-layered, and therefore need to be considered in terms of factors such as inter-connections and unintended consequences.

Even if one theoretically adopted a market perspective, it is immediately evident that no market could operate in a manner which dealt with these factors in a nuanced or effective way.
This failure is highlighted by the lack of commitment to biodiversity protection and 27. improvement through explicit environmental goals, priorities and targets.

All that the Bill commits to is the intent to “make it easier for businesses, organisations, governments and individuals to invest in projects to protect, manage and restore nature”.

The lack of environmental and biodiversity objectives and goals means that there is no mechanism for genuine accountability either.
There is real urgency in the need to take comprehensive action.

Rather than waste time, 28. energy and resources on legislation which is not fit for purpose, attention should be urgently given to the issues raised by this submission.

Ends.

Prepared by Austra Maddox on behalf of Environment Tasmania.

Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 and Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 [Provisions]Submission 93