Labor’s stance on the environment has often been framed as ‘nature positive,’ but the depth of this commitment remains a point of contention. Is it a substantive strategy or merely a catchy catchphrase? Let’s delve into the heart of this debate to uncover the truth behind Labor’s environmental agenda.
Examining the Concept of ‘Nature Positive’
The term ‘nature positive’ has been prominently adopted by the Australian Labor government, aimed at addressing the nation’s environmental health and failing national environment laws. This initiative, characterized as a slogan for environmental reforms, prompts questions about its authenticity and effectiveness.
A Global and National Perspective on ‘Nature Positive’
Globally, ‘nature positive’ gained traction in 2019 when environmentalists searched for a term equivalent to ‘net zero’ but for biodiversity. The goal was to set a measurable standard to halt and reverse nature loss by 2030 and achieve full recovery by 2050, using a 2020 baseline. The Australian government has proposed a definition within new legislation, aiming to improve the diversity, abundance, resilience, and integrity of ecosystems.
Labor’s Legislative Actions and Initiatives
The Albanese government introduced legislation to establish two agencies: Environment Protection Australia (EPA) and Environment Information Australia (EIA), alongside defining ‘nature positive’. Additionally, there are plans to host a global nature positive summit in Sydney, though details remain sparse.
Reactions from Environmentalists and Experts
Reactions to Labor’s approach have been mixed. Many environmentalists welcomed the creation of EPA and EIA but criticized the absence of a clear baseline or timeframe. Scientists highlighted the omission of a 2020 baseline used internationally, questioning why the government has not adopted this year for measuring progress.
The director of the Biodiversity Council, James Trezise, emphasized the need for closer alignment with international definitions to ensure the approach’s effectiveness. Megan Evans, senior lecturer in environmental policy, contended the current definition lacks clarity and accountability, condemning it as an instance of greenwashing.
Expert Recommendations for a Genuine ‘Nature Positive’ Strategy
Experts argue for a more rigorous definition of ‘nature positive’ that aligns with international standards and includes a specified baseline year. Prof Martine Maron and other scientists advocate for a mitigation hierarchy to avoid biodiversity loss and necessitate ecological restoration efforts beyond mere compensation for environmental damage.
Scientists also emphasize the importance of addressing primary threats to Australian biodiversity, such as habitat destruction and invasive species, while also tackling climate impacts like bushfires.
What’s Next?
The proposed legislation is set for debate in the House of Representatives, with amendments anticipated from various crossbenchers. Independent MP Zoe Daniel and the Greens have pushed for a definition setting 2021 as the baseline year, aiming for recovery by 2050.
The ultimate test, as noted by Greens’ environment spokesperson Sarah Hanson-Young, will be whether the laws truly protect nature from destruction and back up the ‘nature positive’ label with substantial actions rather than rhetoric.