Adam Morton: A group of conservationists and other interested bodies came up with the term nature positive about five years ago with definition that they hoped there would be a global goal to halt and reverse nature loss by 2030 compared to a 2020 baseline, and then achieve full nature recovery, whatever exactly that means, by 2050. The Labor government in Australia adopted the term but not the definition. They haven’t, they didn’t set a baseline on how we would measure the recovery, what year the recovery would be measured against. But Tanya Plibersek, the minister very early on went to the biodiversity cop and said, Australia will hold this nature positive summit. It’ll be the first of its kind. We’ll get people to come from all over the world. nature positive is the way forward. Look, I’ve got to be perfectly honest. While a lot of people with good intentions came and spoke at that summit in October, and you and I were both there. I don’t think anything concrete came from it. I don’t think there was any concrete agreement about the way forward. And I don’t know that there’s been any suggestion of where it goes from here in terms of another country hosting a summit on a similar line to push that agenda.

Mike DiGirolamo (narration): Welcome to the Mongabay newscast. I’m your cohost, Mike DiGirolamo. Bringing you weekly conversations with experts, authors, scientists, and activists working on the front lines of conservation, shining a light on some of the most pressing issues facing our planet and holding people in power to account. This podcast is edited on Gadigal land. Today on the Newscast, I speak with Adam Morton, the Environment Editor at The Guardian Australia. He joins me to talk about the state of environmental protection in the country. Australia has the highest mammalian extinction rate of any nation in the world and is often considered the only wealthy industrialized country that is also a global deforestation hotspot. Now, Australia’s current government campaigned on reforming the nation’s outdated environmental laws. But, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has all but scuttled these key reforms ahead of the next federal election, which will occur before May. Morton talks to me about these broken promises, and how they might influence nations abroad. Two factors in the equation include the concept of nature positive laws. It’s a confusing term, but one that looks to halt biodiversity loss against a baseline, and encourage other countries to follow suit. Australia was the first nation to host a nature positive summit last year, largely pitching itself as a leader In adopting this agenda. Its own tepid embrace of the concept makes subsequent gatherings in other countries look uncertain. Lastly, the nation’s iconic and globally beloved marsupial, the koala. is at the mercy of logging practices impacting land slated to be used for a Koala National Park. All of these developments, Adam says, are worrying for Australians and for those that look to the nation. However, a silver lining to the situation may be manifesting in the increasing popularity of independent and more environmentally conscious candidates that are outside of the government’s two major parties.

Mike: So Adam, thank you for joining us. Welcome to the Mongabay newscast. It’s a great to have you here.

Adam: Thanks. It’s good to be here.

Mike: First, before we get into it, could you give our listeners context of what’s happening in Australia at the moment in regards to nature protection legislation in this term of parliament? And why is it so remarkable?

Adam: That’s a big question. So this term of parliament has seen the return of a Labor government in Australia after nearly a decade in the wilderness. And I think we can’t talk about it without referencing that because the nearly 10 years under the Liberal National Conservative coalition. I think most independent observers would say led to a significant backward step in nature protection both in terms of funding, in terms of resources for environmental bureaucracy. There was a real red tape, green tape cutting program that removed a lot of expertise from government. In that process, and we had during that time a raft of evidence that the health of Australian nature was in significant decline. Labor came into power with a fairly minimal platform to address that. To be honest, they said they would introduce a national environment protection agency, which the country. currently doesn’t have. And there was a notional idea that they might look to address national environment laws, which have been, to be honest, broadly criticized by everybody involved, conservationists and industry as not up to the job of what they need. And, but then quickly after labor came into power, The new environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, who didn’t have a background in that portfolio before the party was elected to government, set out a fairly ambitious agenda to rewrite national laws, create an EPA, and use very strong language in a major speech early in the term that she was going to turn around 10 years of neglect under the previous government and that the environment was back on the priority list under the new government. So that’s the backdrop. And then since then it’s been a real battle both for the government and within the government about what it was going to do and where it would land. The short version is that they ultimately broke their commitments up into three stages to try to address the failures in nature protection and only delivered on stage one and stage one was a fairly minor change without the others. It was to introduce a framework for what they call nature positive laws that was really to encourage private investment in nature protection. That hasn’t led to a significant change at this point. And then there was a commitment to introduce laws to create an EPA and a second body, Environment Information Australia. We have very little information about environmental health across the country. Again, everybody agrees that needs to be addressed. So that was part of the second stage. That got very close to a deal in federal parliament that may have seen that passed. And then the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, under significant pressure from one of the state labor governments in Western Australia, where there’s a really strong resources and mining. sector put significant pressure on him to not do that and he intervened and scuppered that deal. And so that has been pushed off. And then the third stage, which is to rewrite the laws that everybody’s agree, agrees is failing has also been pushed off on the never, it notionally remains a labor commitment, but we’re going into an election shortly. And at this stage, exactly what sort of commitment labor will take to the election and what might happen beyond the next election is an open question.

Mike: So we’ve seen, the bulk of that promise, essentially indefinitely suspended. But the first part of it, the nature positive legislation was passed. I attended the Nature Positive Summit here in Sydney. Last October, and there was a lot of confusion around what the term nature positive even means. So to your understanding, Adam, what does nature positive mean and what exactly could other countries possibly emulate from it? Because as I understand it, the summit was intended to be the first. of a series of them in other countries as well.

Adam: Yeah, it’s a good question, and you’ll have to excuse my slight cynicism about how this term has been treated by governments. Look, it, comes from a good place, one of a better way to put it. A group of conservationists and other interested bodies came up with the term nature positive about five years ago with definition that they hoped there would be a global goal to halt and reverse nature loss by 2030 compared to a 2020 baseline, and then achieve full nature recovery, whatever exactly that means, by 2050. The Labor government in Australia adopted the term but not the definition. They haven’t, they didn’t set a baseline on how we would measure the recovery, what year the recovery would be measured against. But Tanya Plibersek, the minister very early on went to the biodiversity cop and said, Australia will hold this nature positive summit. It’ll be the first of its kind. We’ll get people to come from all over the world. nature positive is the way forward. Look, I’ve got to be perfectly honest. While a lot of people with good intentions came and spoke at that summit in October, and you and I were both there. I don’t think anything concrete came from it. I don’t think there was any concrete agreement about the way forward. And I don’t know that there’s been any suggestion of where it goes from here in terms of another country hosting a summit on a similar line to push that agenda. The cynical view within Australia is that this was a path on which the Australian government that wants to be seen as being a good advocate on the environment could take a step to try and get things moving where they were not prepared to commit significant funding. So the funding for a summit was not nothing, but it’s not the same as the sort of money that advocates and campaigners and scientists say is necessary to address the really significant environmental problems Australia is facing. So instead we’ll take a global leadership role and try and coalesce a movement around this idea of nature positive. I don’t know what you made of it. But my view was that there weren’t that many significant government figures from other countries who came to that summit. It was very close in time to the COP 16, the biodiversity COP in Columbia. And Very little has actually been said about it, certainly within Australia at a political level since October. It seems to have quickly vanished from memory. Now, we may see in the future that something that’s built on in the next term of parliament, but at the moment, I haven’t heard anything more from the Australian government on it, and I’m not aware of other countries picking it up. So I think that broad idea of nature positive potentially has legs, but I’m not sure that much came out of the summit that will advance that. What was your take on it?

Mike: I think what you said about there being an actual definition that the global community understands and the lack of Australia actually adopting it was the pinprick for me. But people I spoke with said that there’s been lots of talk, but now it’s time for action. And since that conference, I personally haven’t seen it. I have seen, if anything, a regression of any action taking place unfortunately.

Adam: I think that’s right. And in Australia, the main thing that’s happened at a political level since then has been the shelving of this commitment to create an EPA, which was a significant plank in the government’s promised nature positive agenda. Yeah, I think it’s hard to make a case that it’s led to significant change within Australia and there was not political buy in at the top level. The Prime Minister didn’t make an appearance. It wasn’t really discussed in Parliament. It had a fairly low profile, to be perfectly honest, at a broader political level within Australia.

Mike: I think there was like a general frustration from it, just the average person on the street that I speak to about the environment seems generally frustrated with the fact that, the labor government, which is typically seen as a bit more environmentally progressive than the coalition. At least that’s. That’s like on paper what the perception is touted to be. They seem a bit frustrated that labor is not actually taking those actions that they campaigned on.

Mike (narration): Hey there listeners. Thank you as always for tuning in and listening to the Mongabay newscast. If you’re joining us for the first time, welcome. And if you haven’t already, please subscribe to the show on the podcast platform of your choosing. That’s the best way for you to stay up to date on our latest episodes. We are a nonprofit newsroom, which means that we rely on the generosity of our readers and listeners to do this work. You can donate to us at manga bay. com and click the donate button in the upper right corner of the screen. But if you want to support the podcast another way, I always encourage leaving us a review on whichever platform you’re tuning in on, it really helps elevate the profile of our show. That’s all for now. And back to the conversation with Adam Morton.

Mike: But that being said, what do you think, given that essentially the prime minister has abandoned the key components of this nature positive legislation, what kind of message do you think this sends to the international community or the global community when they look at. Wealthy industrialized nation like Australia, abandoning protecting nature. What kind of message do you think that sentence?

Adam: Well not a good one, right? Australia’s not unique, but unusual in a way in that it’s a developed country. Wealthy country that is still considered a global hotspot for deforestation is still clearing land at a significant rate. There’s been a massive spike in recent years in the number of native species listed as threatened with extinction and Australia, has such extraordinary resources to exploit. And there’s this constant competition, still live competition between. running hard in an exploitation direction or recognizing that what is lost in that process is of significant value and won’t be able to be recovered if we don’t make significant decisions. The two main political parties within the country, the conservative coalition is very much resource extraction all the way. Labor likes to talk as though it can do both at once. We can protect the environment, but we, don’t want to really stand in the way of mass development and the national environment laws in Australia are really a they’re really development approval laws, right? They’re just very rarely is a development blocked. We put some conditions around it. It’s really what nods do we have to make to environment protection to get this development through? But in the process, the. Cumulative impact on the natural environment is really significant. I think that the message internationally from this term in parliament has been that the resources sector is winning. And environmental protection Now, that’s a very simple dichotomy and it doesn’t have to be one or the other, but on every front at the moment, that’s how it feels in Australia. That applies to fossil fuel extraction. It applies to native forestry. Logging, which still continues in significant amount. I think the main message internationally is the power of the Australian resources sector within the political community is overwhelming. And what does that look like going forward and can that be balanced and how does the Australian community feel about that? Is it something that is politically significant? But in terms of what other countries can take from it, I wouldn’t say it’s a great template to be perfectly honest at this stage.

Mike: No, I wouldn’t either. I, think that it’s definitely not a great example to follow in my personal opinion. mammalian extinction rate of any nation on the globe. I do believe and our environment minister. our current environment, Mr. Tanya Plibersek promised no new extinctions, which I think that’s an admirable, that’s an admirable goal. But do you feel we’re on track to achieve that?

Adam: Oh, no, very much in the opposite direction, right? Where we’ve seen in the last decade, obviously this stretches back before this government, but approaching 600 native species and ecosystems added to the threatened species list. That list is now north of 2, 200. A lot of that. There’s a lot of mammalian species on there. The idea that we are not racing towards a significant mass extinction over the next century, unless there is a significant action taken, a real change in the way we think about these issues. And to be frank, a lot of luck is very hard to avoid, I think it’s very hard not just to think that no new extinctions line was a convenient political line, but there’s been nothing to back it up.

Mike: Yeah. it’s a real hard-line stance to take. I thought, okay, it’s, brave, but it seems like the actions that have happened since then really call it into question. Not least of which would be. This prospect of a great Koala National Park, which the New South Wales Environment Minister Penny Sharp said is the biggest environmental commitment of this government. But we don’t have it actually, and experts that I’ve spoken with and ones that you at Guardian Australia have spoken with have said that logging is increasing in the proposed boundaries. It’s really quite a shocking situation. What are your thoughts on this?

Adam: Oh, it’s remarkable. And it’s indicative of how the country treats these issues at the moment. I think a party’s come to power with a commitment to make this change, create this great Koala National Park to protect an iconic species by any definition, that is in great threat and listed as threatened with extinction in in at least some Australian states. And then in the time it’s since they’ve come to power, there’s very credible evidence that logging the greatest threat to the species has accelerated in the areas that The state government might want to protect. And yet the decision about it is still on, an undefined timeline. And a lot of this is quite opaque, but it does seem like at least part of the holdup is trying to lock up a decision that would ensure the forests were economic for the state in another way through the creation of carbon credits by protecting forests that you can make a very strong case obviously that should be protected on purely nature terms. You’re not expanding the amount of forest estate that’s being protected, but there is a methodology being created at the moment that would allow carbon credits to be generated just for not cutting these forests down. That’s hugely contentious. But putting aside for a second, whether that’s a good or bad idea, the fact that a decision on whether the park can be created turns on that rather than just the nature values undermines the whole case the government has made about wanting to take significant action to protect this species, right? It’s, in the meantime, the logging just continues and we don’t have any evidence yet about when that will cease. It’s extraordinary.

Mike: it is extraordinary. The koala could almost be fairly described as one of the most recognizable mammals in the world. It is, an icon. It’s, beloved globally speaking there’s even there’s even a colloquial term like whereby heads of state visit the country and hold a koala and it fosters relationships. what kind of message do you think it sends to the rest of the world when the country of which koala is an endemic to is exploiting the land and pushing it further to the brink of extinction? What do you think that says to the rest of the world?

Adam: How can it say anything other than we don’t take our commitment to be nature positive, seriously. We don’t take our extraordinary, unique wildlife its survival seriously. And we don’t think the Australian public. For all the polling that suggests Australians care about the environment, we don’t think they take it seriously enough that it’s going to be politically determinative when they go to the polls for the election. So we don’t have to do anything about it. I don’t see how it could be interpreted. And I really think that any other framing of it is short term political soundbites over action, which is where we currently sit. It’s very hard to see how things change, right? I assume a Koala Park will be created. I think the impetus is there and I think that it will happen at some point, but will it happen on a scale? And a time frame that is really meaningful for the species. how could anybody have any faith in that?

Mike: What would it look like if actual true nature positive reforms were to happen here in Australia? Where would you start with that?

Adam: I think there is more than one way it could be done, but in the framework of what’s currently on the table and has been shelved and delayed politically, nationally, you would see a rewrite of 25 year old environment laws, that’s the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act that nobody thinks is working that, , is really a triage system for the environment is the way it’s sometimes described an overhaul of that, an introduction of national environmental standards against which. Any development proposals are measured. So this is the minimum standard that we must maintain. And a requirement by policy makers and legislators and ministers to say, no, you cannot go ahead with that development. In a significant number of cases. That rarely happens in Australia at the moment. It’s more here’s some conditions, but yes, go ahead. And the conditions always lead to more loss of environment rather than increased protection. So you do really need that change of thinking and minimum standards, fairly significant standards against which approval decisions are decided. And then you need significant investment. In restoring at least some of what has been lost. And that means look, the numbers vary a little bit, but look, scientists often talk about you need one to 2 billion Australian a year to start restoring landscapes to give threatened species a chance.

Mike (narration): Adam’s correct here, and that number definitely varies. The estimate he’s given truly is just giving the species a fighting chance. The Biodiversity Council advocates the same 2 billion figure. However, scientists at CSIRO say you would need 538 billion per year, for 30 years, to fully restore the nature that has been lost. And that’s 25 percent of the nation’s GDP. But given that half of the country’s GDP relies on the health of nature, it sounds like a much more reasonable deal.

Adam: Now, that money could come from public or private sources. Governments often say, we need private investors. We just haven’t seen yet. Any serious evidence to suggest what will encourage private investment, right? There’s a framework set up at the moment that is not yielding anything. So I suppose in blunt terms, what it requires is the political will to put money into protecting nature, which there has been increased money to be fair under labor than there was under the coalition, but it is nothing like on the scale that would be required. It’s not a huge amount in terms of GDP or the overall Australian government’s budget. We do not have a tradition of putting significant money into this and I, at this point hopefully that will change, but that’s what’s required. I think, does that answer the question?

Mike: Totally answers the question. I guess the big central question I have is that we give away so many of our resources in Australia without actually taxing very much of royalties on that. So for instance, oil and gas and mining, these companies extract large amounts of profits. And pay very little back into the Australian government. guess what I’m trying to get at is why is that not seen as a solution rather than let’s see if we can get some private investment from random corporations without any sort of coercion, without any sort of  legislation?

Adam: It’s certainly been proposed as a solution by a variety of groups and interests over the years. But the short answer is it is strongly resisted by, what is Broadly called the mining and resources sector, that sector is very politically powerful in Australia there was a major fight going on 15 years ago now when there were plans to significantly increase the tax that would be paid by the mining industry just really the royalties they pay, which in many cases reasonably insignificant. Again, in return for the access to the resources that they have. There was a powerful campaign, run against it, that was backed by coalition. And it’s generally seen that it wasn’t the only factor, but it was part of what led to the downfall of the then Labor Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. There’s, it’s a complicated question. He was rolled by his own party and there were personality issues within that, but it is become attached to that as saying, look how powerful this industry is that they helped bring down a prime minister. And so you have half of Australian politics, at least that is not inclined to increase what the royalties that mining resources has to pay it’s very much just, in lockstep with what the industry wants. The other half is internally divided upon it, but even those that would like to see greater action, there’s a lack of political will because of the fear of what the ramifications may be. And I do think that there is a view that the Australian public doesn’t get the argument that there is a good case for the resources sector to be greater contributors to the Australian budget, to pay more in taxes and royalty. So it just has not landed a way that is a politically potent message and the major parties just run a million miles from it. I think that’s the, answer really. I and obviously at a logical level, it makes great sense, right? I think that there would be a case for it, but it’s hard to see that changing in the medium term, I would think.

Mike: My last question for you, Adam, is if Australia were to reverse course and actually, do these things that you and I have just talked about and proposed do you think that they could be seen as a leader, perhaps, of, wealthy industrialized nations finally taking accountability for their destruction on the environment and showing that there is another way to subsist in this global economy?

Adam: It’s hard to be optimistic about that at the moment, but yes, , there are seeds there that could lead to that. And it is a possibility if we were to accept the rhetoric of the environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, in this term of parliament about what she wants to do. And therefore you would assume what the government wants to do. And they would have picked that up in another term. If they’re reelected, they’ll have to find another path through, but there is hope there. And there’s hope, in it’s very unclear how the election here will go. That has to be held by May, but the general expectation is that neither major party will have a majority of seats and therefore control of the lower house of parliament, which is pretty rare in Australia. We have a growing movement of cross benches, like a third way, if you like, which is a mixture of independents and greens. And depending on how that falls, they could have a significant say on what lies ahead. History tells us not to place too much store in that. But I do think that we now have about a third of Australians are voting for neither of the major political parties who are locked in the old ways to different degrees. And that’s changed in a generation. 25 years ago, it was about 90 percent that were supporting the major parties. So That’s where change could happen. And, there’s no shortage of blueprints that could lead to Australia picking up and running with this, from the government and from outside government. We just haven’t seen them acted on yet. So I guess everyone will be watching the election closely to see where that lands.

Mike: Adam Morton it’s been a pleasure speaking with you. Thank you for joining me today. And cheers.

Adam: Thanks, Mike. Been a pleasure.

Mike: If you want to check out Adam Morton’s work at the Guardian Australia, I’ve linked his work in the show notes. As always, if you’re enjoying the Mongabay newscast or any of our podcast content and you want to help us out, we encourage you to spread the word about the work that we’re doing by telling a friend and leaving a review. Word of mouth is the best way to help expand our reach. You can also support us by becoming a monthly sponsor via our Patreon page at patreon.com/Mongabay. Mongabay is a nonprofit news outlet. So even pledging a dollar per month makes a big difference and it helps us offset production costs. So if you’re a fan of our audio reports from nature’s frontline, go to patreon.com/Mongabay to learn more and support the Mongabay newscast. But you can also read our news and inspiration from nature’s frontline at Mongabay. com, or you can follow us on social media, find Mongabay on LinkedIn at Mongabay news and on Instagram, Threads, Bluesky, Mastodon, Facebook, and TikTok, where our handle is @Mongabay or on YouTube @Mongabay TV. Thank you as always for listening.