Why dropping ‘nature positive’ risks undermining Australia’s environmental reform goals
Moving forward on contentious national environmental law reforms has emerged as one of the early priorities of the second-term Albanese government. Yet Australia’s new Minister for the Environment and Water, Murray Watt, has suggested dropping the “nature positive” framing for this reform agenda, in order to broaden public and political support.
Of course, the substance of these reforms is more important than their title. Nonetheless, the minister’s proposal risks undermining the much-needed emphasis of these reforms on achieving measurable nature gains and restoring degraded environments. It also weakens their alignment with international biodiversity objectives and initiatives.
What are the ‘nature positive’ reforms?
A 2020 independent review of Australia’s federal environmental law – the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (“EPBC Act”) – found this law is failing to protect Australia’s environment, which is in decline and under increasing threat. In response, the government released the 2022 Nature Positive Plan: better for the environment, better for business, outlining reforms in three tranches.
ICYMI: Nature positive plan: better for the environment, better for business ➡️https://t.co/Mp9M3JkIjC
— Analysis & Policy Observatory (APO) (@APOorgau) April 16, 2024
In this 2022 plan, the Government committed to establishing an Environment Protection Agency @DCCEEW pic.twitter.com/urMmPnb2WJ
Tranche one introduced a voluntary biodiversity market, but the other tranches remain unimplemented, risking further environmental degradation. For example, tranche three included the introduction of legally enforceable national environmental standards to constrain project assessment and approval decision-making, and the use of biodiversity offsets under the EPBC Act.
Without these standards in place, approval of projects leading to biodiversity loss, with heavy reliance on compromised offsets, is expected to continue.
Minister Watt’s comments are of particular relevance to tranche two of the reform agenda, which introduced the Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024 in the previous term of parliament to establish a national environmental regulator and accompanying environmental data agency. This bill proposed a statutory definition of “nature positive”:
“... an improvement in the diversity, abundance, resilience and integrity of ecosystems from a baseline.”
It also outlined the functions of a new national environmental data agency, including setting a baseline for the measurement of “nature positive” outcomes, and developing and implementing a monitoring, evaluation and reporting framework for assessing and publicly reporting on whether, and to what extent, “nature positive” is being achieved in Australia.
Yet the bill failed to pass. Now, Minister Watt is considering pursuing these reforms without the “nature positive” framing.
What is the ‘nature positive’ goal?
The “nature positive” goal aims for measurable improvements in the state of nature against a defined baseline, to safeguard the wide range of ecosystem services provided by nature that underpin human wellbeing. It was developed by international multi-stakeholder initiatives in the leadup to the 2022 United Nations Biodiversity Conference to galvanise action on biodiversity loss and to address a particular gap in the global biodiversity regime – the absence of a science-based goal with the normative strength of the climate regime’s net zero target.
The goal was adopted by parties to the international Convention on Biological Diversity through the 2022 Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF).
Montreal, 3:34 am, governments choose the right side of history and adopt the Global Biodiversity Framework including a new global goal for #nature, the equivalent to 1.5C!!
— Marco Lambertini (@ConvenerNatureP) December 19, 2022
“Halt and reverse nature loss by 2030”
For a #NaturePositive world pic.twitter.com/gBXO3DkpA0
Although the term ‘nature positive’ is not used explicitly, the goal is clearly reflected in the GBF targets which seek to ‘halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030 and achieve full recovery by 2050.’
These include targets to ensure that, by 2030, at least 30% of areas of degraded ecosystems are under effective restoration, and at least 30% of terrestrial and inland water areas, and of marine and coastal areas, are effectively conserved and managed for conservation.
What are the implications of discarding the ‘nature positive’ framing?
Australia is party to the UN Biodiversity Convention and has signed up to the GBF. In response, the Australian government updated the national Strategy for Nature 2024-2030 to reflect the new global goals and targets. However, the strategy lacks detail on how these commitments will be implemented.
New Environment Minister @MurrayWatt has acknowledged that our current national environmental laws aren't working for the environment or business, and need reform.
— Biodiversity Council (@Biodivcouncil) May 20, 2025
Here is a good place to start: the 10 key reforms that our experts say are important to fixing our national… pic.twitter.com/cjoCiW9CZD
Delivering the strategy in line with Australia’s global commitments requires a substantial increase in federal leadership and ambition. Comprehensive, coordinated reform of the EPBC Act is essential.
As Minister Watt advances this reform, we argue it would be counter-productive to abandon the ‘nature positive’ goal and framing - particularly if Australia is serious about achieving the goals and targets of the GBF and reducing the very significant risks to our social and economic systems of inadequate action to address nature loss.
If the global ‘nature positive’ goal is to be achieved, it must be translated into actionable targets at the national, subnational, and corporate levels.
Setting out a clear definition of ‘nature positive’ in law and an evidence-based process to measure net gains in nature against a baseline was an important first step to aligning Australian legal frameworks with the global goal.
Indeed, similar legal approaches have been taken to transpose global net-zero goals set out in the international climate change regime to the national scale in Australia.
Australia’s Climate Change Act 2022 (Cth) establishes a process for updating Australia’s climate targets in line with global goals. Independent expertise is central to this process, with the Climate Change Authority advising the Climate Change Minister on greenhouse emissions targets and policy measures to achieve these.
Enshrining the ‘nature positive’ goal in law, together with a process for measuring and reporting on progress towards this goal, could also help to improve transparency and accountability.
Australian governments already produce regular ‘State of the Environment’ Reports that assess the changing condition of our natural environment, discuss drivers of environmental decline and the effectiveness of policy, legislation and action.
But these broadly framed reports are not embedded in governance frameworks which track progress towards clear goals and targets, and which help to hold governments accountable for achieving targets.
Despite Australia’s environment being in a worse state than ever, the biodiversity crisis has stayed off the election agenda.
— Biodiversity Council (@Biodivcouncil) May 1, 2025
Biodiversity Council Director @james_trezise spoke with ABC Radio PM’s Nadine Haynes about the frustrating lack of action for nature.
“The Federal… pic.twitter.com/uDGQClNmfV
The proposal to empower a new federal environmental data agency to implement a reporting framework that tracks progress towards the ‘nature positive’ goal had considerable potential to tighten these arrangements and should be revisited.
Further, in a federal system like Australia, national and subnational governments have joint powers to address nature decline.
To address ongoing biodiversity loss, several state governments are already pursuing ambitious reforms that reference global biodiversity goals. New South Wales, for example, is advancing ‘nature positive’ reforms to key elements of its new nature and biodiversity framework following an independent review in 2023.
In the private-sector, corporates and investors are also engaging with the global ‘nature positive’ goal as they develop understanding of nature-related financial risks and best practice approaches to risk management.
Setting a clear national ‘nature positive’ goal would help to align and support these subnational and private-sector efforts, fostering a more cohesive national response.
The ‘nature positive’ framing is more than just a name. It connects to a global movement to restore nature and can play a vital role in sharpening Australia’s efforts to protect our world-renowned environment and to safeguard the critical ecosystem services provided by nature upon which we all depend. It would be a mistake to carelessly discard ‘nature positive.’
