Australia’s nature repair market fails threatened species: experts

The Albanese government, which swept to power in 2022 vowing to end a decade of environmental neglect, is failing to deliver on that promise, the federal budget and newly passed environmental law reforms show.

This failure is more than political; it is existential for Australia’s unique and increasingly imperiled wildlife and ecosystems, according to Euan Ritchie, a professor in wildlife ecology at Deakin University, and Dr. Yung En Chee, an applied ecologist at the University of Melbourne.

Environmental funding for on-ground nature programs is set to fall from an already paltry 0.06% of the federal budget to less than 0.04% in 2028-29, the authors write.

Even as it retunes policy to favor business imperatives, the government is seeking to absolve itself of legal and moral responsibilities by doubling down on a contentious and unproven nature repair market, they argue.

This flies in the face of polling showing 96% of Australians surveyed want more action for nature, and 76% believe at least 1% of the annual federal budget should be dedicated to protecting and recovering nature.

“One must ask why the federal government is so comfortable continuing to ignore the wishes of most Australians, and continuing to condemn our life-sustaining environment and wildlife to profound decline and destruction?” Ritchie and Chee write.

National environmental standards were the centerpiece of the Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act reforms in response to the Samuel review, intended to improve protections and guide decision-making with clear outcomes, according to the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water’s website from January 2023 to April 2025.

Despite a deal with the Greens to pass the EPBC reform bill in December 2025, only two national environmental standards have been released for consultation and none finalized, the authors note.

The department has dropped language about “setting clear demonstrable outcomes for regulated activities” and instead inserted phrases emphasizing business demands, such as “give business clear rules” and “help decision-makers be fair and consistent.”

Experts in biodiversity and environmental law have found major flaws in the draft standard for matters of national environmental significance, concluding it will do little to protect nature, according to the article.

Slow progress on standards that remain far from fit for purpose significantly handicaps the National Environmental Protection Agency in assessing proposals, setting conditions, and enforcing compliance, Ritchie and Chee write.

This is unlikely to restore public trust among the more than three in four Australians who lack strong trust in any political party or candidate to protect the environment, they add.

Nature markets have been touted as a solution but there is precious little evidence they are effective at halting and reversing environmental degradation and biodiversity loss, the authors assert.

“Threatened species and nationally and internationally significant places we love exist in specific locations and have specific requirements,” they write, noting that market-driven projects will not address habitat deficits.

After tens of millions spent on policy development, the biodiversity market register shows one listed project with no certificates issued; a “green Wall Street” is failing to launch, and the budget allocates another $36.9 million for the nature repair market and offsets.

“Enthusiastic optimism about such markets, including from Ken Henry, the Australian Climate and Biodiversity Foundation and others, is premature given that they are prone to poor governance and outcomes and risk giving governments an excuse sidestepping their obligations to conserve nature and delaying urgent action,” the authors conclude, calling for increased direct investment today.