Nature Repair Market: suggestions for avoiding unintended consequences
In September 2024 the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water opened a four week feedback period for farmers and others to give their views on the document “Operating the Nature Repair Market”. It asked participants to answer a list of questions in a have your say survey. What follows are my answers, Patrick Francis.
The intention of the Nature Repair Market to incentivise action by landholders to protect and enhance biodiversity by encouraging holistic land management is highly positive for the nation. But the legislation presents individual and corporate landholders with a financial tool that if used incorrectly will have unintended negative consequences for existing ecosystems services, for food production and for district social well-being. There are two significant omissions in the Nature Repair Act 2023 that need addressing:
* It fails to require balance is maintained across nature repair projects areas and existing agricultural zone land use on individual properties to prevent social, financial and food disruption and harm. The lack of balance will cause additional triple bottom line harm when nature repair market projects combine with carbon abatement market projects and sustainable aviation fuel projects providing greater financial incentives for “philanthropic and Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance (ESG) motivated investment” across productive, higher rainfall and climate resilient cropping and modified pasture grazing zone. There is potential for 20% or more of Australia’s 100 million hectare agricultural zone to be lost to food and fibre production leading up to achieving legislated net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 if restrictions are not placed on the percentage of property area that can become a nature repair market project, a carbon market project, and a sustainable aviation fuel project, or a combination of all three.
* It fails to embrace ancillary state and local government regulations and policies which ensure unintended consequences of nature repair projects are avoided. For instance nature repair projects must not only be audited for direct outcomes but audited to comply with feral animal and pest weed control regulations (biosecurity); with biodiversity protection and enhancement policies; wildlife welfare regulations; and with National and State Road Safety Strategies.
Figure: Nature repair on Moffitts Farm central Victoria combining wildlife return with carbon abatement on modified pastures looks to be a perfect combination for achieving national and state biodiversity and net zero emissions goals but there are numerous unintended consequences if projects are not undertaken with triple bottom line oversight for ecosystem services, best practice food and fibre production, and social well-being. Photo: Patrick Francis June 2024.
Should existing projects be eligible to participate in the Nature Repair Market?
Biodiversity projects start the progression of events that restores biodiversity but that progression never ends and should be constantly enhanced. For example we started planting trees and shrubs on long cleared pasture land in peri-urban Melbourne in 1986 gradually increasing the planting over 20 years to 23% of the farm area. Wildlife started to return once habitat began to meet their requirement – firstly eastern grey kangaroos in 2000, then echidnas, then sugar gliders, other possums, frogs, reptiles and constantly new bird species. But it wasn’t until 2022 that the first wombat returned, now they are common. But we need to keep planting with more species.
We should be able to participate in the Nature Repair Market (NRM) to continue to build on the nature repair already achieved. What’s more the ability of NRM administrators to account for real repair is obvious using satellite technology even without formal audits.
Figure: Nature Repair is slow but can be broadly assessed using satellite technology as shown on Moffitts Farm 1986 versus 2024.
Do you agree that each registered project must include activities beyond those required under a Commonwealth, State or Territory law?
NRM registered projects need to be supported by additional (or enforced existing) state and local government policies to avoid unintended consequences of biodiversity enhancement. In our 38 year lived experience in nature repair wildlife which have returned as a result of adding tree and shrub biodiversity to pasture land is now being killed on adjacent local government managed, low vehicle volume (100 vehicles per day) roads where the historic default speed limit before nature repair on both sides of the roads is 100km per hour. Even the locally extinct wombats which returned after a 70 years (that’s our lived experience) of extinction became victims as they set up their feeding zones and burrows in nature restored creek riparian zones on farm land on both sides of the road.
Figure: Nature repair outcomes can have the unintended consequence of increased road kills where local road laws are not adapted to take account of conservation practices on private land. In this lived experience wombats returned (after at least 70 years being extinct) to two properties undertaking nature repair divided by a council managed road with an historic 100km/h default speed limit. A perverse metric for nature repair market projects “success” in some areas where roads transect or surround projects will be the annual rate and species diversity of road kills. Photos: Patrick Francis Moffitts Farm Romsey.
Wildlife road kills and vehicle occupant fatalities and injuries will be an unintended consequence of NRM projects. Unless supporting state and local government level regulations become part of NRM legislation the National Road Safety Strategy 2021 – 2030 will be comprised.
Figure: Nature Repair Market projects have potential in both populated and remote districts to compromise the National Road Safety Strategy 2021 – 2030 as they will contribute to more vehicle occupant injuries and fatalities. State and local government bureaucrats do not want to acknowledge that wildlife are a major contributor to vehicle collisions irrespective of the road surface and default 100km/hr speed limits are no longer appropriate where the concentration of wildlife crossing roads is high as happens when nature repair projects are undertaken on adjacent farm land. Sources: Inset photos Patrick Francis; National Road Safety Strategy 2021 – 30.
The same unintended consequences for wildlife predation by feral animals entering NRM project areas will happen unless supporting legislation to control predators is enforced at local and state level. Native animals which have returned into our nature repair areas are constantly being predated on by foxes and feral cats entering the farm from large patches of weeds of national significance growing in neighbouring properties. We fear deer and pigs will also take hold in adjacent properties. Some local governments are not taking any action with landholders allowing weeds of national significance and feral animals to become prolific. NRM projects will be under threat from these animals and weeds. (For example visit case study Roaming pigs in Tasmania’s north-west causing destruction as council says it lacks powers to deal with problem – ABC News )
In September 2024 the Invasive Species Management Review released by the NSW Government found the cost of invasive species in NSW skyrocketed to $1.9 billion in the 2022-23 financial year. Nature Repair Market project managers need to be held responsible for their invasive species control.
NSW Farmers Conservation and Resource Management Committee Member Bronwyn Petrie states in Beef Central (12 September 2024) that “…as the state’s pests and weeds continued to explode, a coordinated and concerted effort to ramp up biosecurity had never been more critical. In the blink of an eye, we have gone from a multi-million-dollar dilemma to a multi-billion-dollar one, and farmers can only spend so much more of their own time and money trying to control these species before they can no longer front up to produce our food and fibre.”
“There’s no doubt we need a cross-tenure, cross-landscape approach to managing weeds and pests that’s more intensive and enforceable than anything we currently have in place. Pests and weeds are the problem of all land managers – not just farmers – and our plan to tackle them needs to recognise this shared responsibility, if we are to shift the dial. Real action, plans and progress on protecting our state from these threats needs to be put in place now, or else a few years down the track we could well lose this battle on biosecurity,” Petrie said.
Thirdly, Nature Repair Projects cannot be undertaken in isolation from the entire property landscape ecosystem services. There will be a temptation to undertake nature repair projects on less productive grazing and cropping land leaving the productive land vulnerable to degradation unless there arerequirements to ensure best practice environmentally appropriate management is enforced. There should be a minimum requirement to manage productive land on properties participating in NRM with a self -audited environment management system. Such systems were developed in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s for livestock and crop farming.
Figure: Nature Repair Projects require commitment to entire farm environmental best practice not just repair project areas such as conservation block and links. The unintended consequence of putting nature repair projects in silos is that surrounding land has the potential to become degraded and limit the amount of nature repair achievable. Photo: Patrick Francis.
Figure: Nature Repair Market projects should require farm land not covered by the project to be monitored via a recognised industry Environment Management System which is self-audited on an annual basis.
Figure: Nature Repair Market projects will require associated local and state government enforcement of feral animal control. Without it adjoining uninvolved land holders can become a source of wildlife predation, land degradation and weed proliferation for the project participants. Local government and state laws require landholders to control feral animals and weeds of national significance but few governments enforce them. Photos: Patrick Francis Moffitts Farm Romsey.
Figure: Lack of enforcement of weed and feral animal control on private land by local and state governments will have direct impacts on Nature Repair Market projects on adjacent properties. Photo shows uncontrolled gorse and blackberry providing habitat for feral animals and source of weed seed contamination on a property adjacent to a nature repair property. Photo: Patrick Francis.
Another unintended perverse metric for Nature Repair Market projects will be insurance company vehicle animal collision claims and vehicle occupant injuries and fatalities. Particularly in peri-urban districts and along major connecting roads and highways an increasing number of collisions are happening. The majority of claims are associated with kangaroos, wallabies and wombats. Nature Repair Market projects will appeal to landowners less interested in farming especially in peri-urban areas so local and state governments must be prepared to introduce speed limit controls in the vicinity of projects.
Figure: Nature Repair Market projects should be required to self-audit wildlife road kills in and around the project area on an annual basis. Project manager/owner must introduce practical strategies to reduce road kills when the issue is identified which will eventually happen as wildlife become more common in a Nature Repair project area associated with public roads.
Figure: Land use in peri-urban and regional population growth corridors is shifting away from productive agriculture towards lifestyle and environmental objectives making Nature Repair projects attractive for the owners objectives while contributing some income. The unintended consequences will be increased road kills, increased insurance claims and subsequent annual premiums, and increased vehicle occupant injuries and fatalities. Photo: Patrick Francis Moffitts Farm
Do you agree that the specified information should be mandatory at the application stage?
NO. There are too many details listed which are likely to cause bureaucratic blocks to even considering participating in a project. “Details of any natural resource management (NRM) plan(s) or Healthy Country Plan(s) that covers the project area and how the project has considered that plan(s).” is such an example. Having to consult with a host of organisations about a NRM initiative may make a project application too difficult or even scuttle the project completely.
Baseline assessment of a project area could be provided by the land owner with appropriate visual and recorded evidence including lived experience. A third party should be a last resort to do this assessment as project professionals are more likely to overstate repair outcomes bearing in mind the complex nature of biodiversity enhancement over time.
“Information on relevant Indigenous knowledge and values relating to biodiversity and cultural heritage that have been, or are intended to be, incorporated in the project, as appropriate.” This information should not be mandatory as for many farms relevant Indigenous knowledge and value may not be readily available or there is no local indigenous interest in having them included in a project.
Biodiversity is not regarded as positive by some landholders and agencies. For example neighbouring farmers may have crops which could become feed sources for wildlife. Local councils may see biodiversity projects as sources of fuel for bush fires particularly in peri-urban areas and close to towns. How will NRM projects navigate personal desire to encourage biodiversity on farm land with other individuals business management or governments considered responsibilities to other residents? residents?
In what ways could the project plan facilitate the registration and implementation of a biodiversity project?
This section should have steps associated with whole farm plans including an environment management system which supports the nature repair project. It should also outline threats to the project coming from adjacent landholders whose management may allow feral animals and weeds to contaminate the project.
Should the listed project types be excluded from the Nature Repair Market?
Reference is made above for project exclusion for material impact on land for agricultural production. This reference should be deleted and replaced with a guide to what percentage of a land title being used for agricultural production could participate in a project. It is now evident that in some higher population growth areas that land previously used for agricultural production is no longer being used for that purpose but for lifestyle and nature conservation purposes. Land owners cannot be forced to maintain agricultural production when they don’t have the required skill to do so, or when it is unprofitable to do so.
The Nature Repair Market offers land owners who no longer wish to pursue agricultural production with an a method of restoring landscape amenity, sequestering carbon in plants and soil, and improving biodiversity. If there is a reason for a shire or state government to put limits on the percentage of a title that can participate in a nature repair project, then a percentage allowed should be given to landholders in each shire.
This is an important condition for NRM projects as there is potential in some regions particularly where broad acre agriculture is no longer profitable, for entire titles becoming project areas which may have long-term unintended consequences. The blue gum managed investment schemes of the 1990’s and 2000’s which saw entire farm titles planted to trees is an example of how failure to include percentage limits can have unintended social and economic consequences for communities as well as ecosystem functions.
Nature Repair Market projects have potential to have similar unintended consequences unless percentage limit of area involved on each title is included. See current day example of unintended consequences of tree planting entire farms for wood chips and carbon sequestration method projects at Victorian dairy community warns national food security at risk from timber takeover – ABC News
Should registered projects be required to transition to new or varied methods?
NO. This reads as if biodiversity improvement can be switched on or off as in agricultural production methods or even reafforestation methods. Biodiversity enhancement is a long-term program with complex interactions with plants, animals, climate conditions and natural disasters. Transitioning to a different method of biodiversity enhancement seems like ‘gaming’ the system for financial advantage rather than allowing nature to take its course at its own pace. The danger with transitioning biodiversity enhancement is that the land owner becomes an observer rather than the instigator of nature repair which has targets set for outcomes which are not based on lived experience.
Do you agree with the proposed content of the biodiversity certificate?
It will be very dangerous to allow a biodiversity certificate “outcome may be defined in terms of a quantified biodiversity improvement” because biodiversity is never fixed in time. It is a complex natural system with components varying in quantity and viability over time. Biodiversity certificates should be based on land area involved and actions implemented on that land to facilitate repair to flora and fauna.
What specific project attributes should be included on a Biodiversity Certificate?
The most important NRM project threats are incursions by weeds of national significance and feral animals. So Biodiversity Certificates must include each projects local government and state governments landholder requirement to address these threats. Failure by neighbours to address feral threats around a NRM Project and or failure by the Project manager to address these feral threats will put the Project at risk of achieving significant repair. There are even circumstances where a NRM project could become a source of weed and feral animal contamination for adjacent properties.
Figure: Despite this grassland owners good intentions for nature repair by removing grazing livestock the native grasses are gradually being replaced by a monoculture of Chilean Needle Grass a weed of national significance. The Chilean Needle Grass has become a threat to neighbouring landholders pastures. In dry summers the high Chilean Needle grass herbage load may become a significant fire threat for neighbours. The situation is further complicated by the nature repair paddocks being rocky leaving the owners no practical method of fuel reduction apart from re-introducing livestock grazing. Photo: Patrick Francis.
Do you agree with the proposed content for Category A biodiversity project reports?
NO because biodiversity enhancement is being considered like a commodity which can be turned on and managed to produce outcomes. Emphasis should be on area set aside for projects, permanence and management to prevent feral animals and weed invasions. Outcomes will be highly variable in biodiversity enhancement over time and nearly impossible to predict given Australia’s variable rainfall and increasing pressure from climate change. The notion of “…get the project back on track” is fanciful for biodiversity once exclusion fencing has been undertaken and/or management to control pest plants and animals is in place. In time nature repair will happen on a progressive basis. Five years is too short a time to make any assessment of nature repair for a project, 10 years may start to give an idea of outcomes.
Do you agree with the proposed definitions of significant and not significant reversals of biodiversity outcomes for notification?
Another natural event that needs to be described is overpopulation of a species leading to ecosystem function damage. Typical examples are kangaroo population explosion in project where the kangaroo has no natural predator leading to grassland cover decline, species loss, soil and water erosion. Another example is koala population explosion causing death of eucalypts. Bush thickening is another example where the initial increase in plant population increases biodiversity but gradually lead to serious soil erosion as ground cover disappears due to competition from bush.
Figure: Bush thickening in a nature repair paddock leading to ground cover disappearing and soil erosion starting. Photo: Patrick Francis.
Figure: Permanence period for nature repair projects should be a minimum 50 years as both positive and negative impacts take years to reveal themselves. Audits for biodiversity repair should take place on a 10 year interval. These eucalypts planted in 1996 for nature repair in central Victoria began dying 16 years later. Note also the extensive blackberry invasion of the site significantly reducing nature repair. Photo: Patrick Francis.
Figure: This rare Manna gum (E.viminalis) woodland in the Cape Otway National Park, Victoria, has died due to what the managers state as complex causes including absence of fire, understory changes (possibly weeds) and over consumption of leaves by koalas. The latter resulted in welfare issues for koalas due to lack of food and many have been relocated. Another example of why the Nature Repair Market methodology needs to embrace 50 years plus projects. Photos: Patrick Francis
KEY QUESTION THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED:
What is the modelled uptake of Nature Repair Market project and the land area involved to 2050 and 2100 across Australia’s agricultural and pastoral zones?
The Climate Change Authority’s September 2024 Sector Pathways review models how net zero under two global warming scenarios will be achieved. Using CSIRO modelling the agricultural and land sector will be responsible for offsetting the 2050 emissions of the nation’s other five emitting sector, figure 1.
Figure: Land has been modelled by CSIRO to be the sector responsible for achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 with the major contributor being 5.9 million hectares for re-afforestation. Source: The Conversation Frank Jotzo 5 September 2022.
The Review states “The land sink is projected to increase significantly (become more negative) through to 2050 in the A40/G1.5 scenario, providing a carbon sink of approximately 185 Mt CO2-e. Under this scenario approximately 5.9 M ha of land is converted to forest to provide these project levels of sequestration.” (The ‘A40/G1.5’ scenario is consistent with in a world on a trajectory to limiting global warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot, in which Australia reaches net zero by 2040. Source Climate Change Authority Sector Pathway Review September 2024.)
The Pathways Review does not state where the land to be converted to forest is but it is already well known that reafforestation is only viable when it is undertaken on moderate to high rainfall pasture/cropping land.
Figure: Agricultural land for cropping, grazing modified pastures and horticulture covers approximately 100 million hectares across the medium to high rainfall zone. It is the zone where carbon market, nature repair market and sustainable aviation fuel projects are most likely to happen as it’s where land use has been changed most significantly. This zone is also responsible for the majority of the nation’s food production and agricultural income generation. There has been no modelling undertaken for how much agricultural land nature repair projects are likely to consume or their triple bottom line consequences for regions.
The Review omits to mention that forests reach a carbon neutral state depending on species and rainfall in a 20 – 40 year time span. After that to continue acting as a greenhouse gas emissions sink more forest must be planted on an annual basis. Alternatively the project forest can be harvested with some of its carbon retained in wood products such as for building and replanted.
Figure: Once the Clean Energy Regulator’s carbon market combines with the nature repair market the financial incentives for corporations needing offsets and consumer public appeal plus older farmers looking for retirement income will be immense and put local food production and social cohesion under threat unless project area percentage limits are established for each farm. Photo: Patrick Francis.
The federal government is already anticipating that carbon market projects will be undertaken in conjunction with nature repair market projects and when this happens the time span for effective nature repair outcomes will be longer than the time span of re-afforestation equilibrium.
Figure: Oil mallee projects for potential use in sustainable aviation fuel may combine with nature repair projects and carbon re-afforestation projects, need to be grown on productive cropping land at an enormous scale so cost effective machine harvesting and oil processing can be undertaken. Such combined projects will remove food producing land from the agricultural zone estate. Photo: WA Oil Mallee Company 2006.
Given Australia’s agricultural zone has the required rainfall to attract nature repair, carbon abatement and sustainable aviation fuel projects its 100 million hectares could be reduced by 20million or more hectares as the nation’s federal and state governments strive to achieve their net zero greenhouse gas emissions targets by 2050 or earlier. To prevent the project area engulfing more than 20 million hectares and to ensure triple bottom line outcomes are have potential to be maintained across the agricultural zone, combined projects should not exceed more than 50% of area of any modified pasture grazing/cropping property.
Figure: The Nature Repair Market needs modelling to estimate the impacts its adoption will have on conversion of moderate to high rainfall agricultural zone land into reafforestation and nature repair individually and in combination as “growing investment in nature” happens. Source: DCCEEW.
Finally, Nature Repair Market legislation need to include guidelines around how agricultural zone land remaining on project farms is managed to prevent entire farms becoming a bushfire threat to nearby communities. A 50% maximum area for single or combined projects on any farm leaves 50% available for continued cropping, livestock grazing, horticulture or no farming at all. The no farming scenario is most likely in regions with smaller property size and where owners are uninterested in farm business as it may be unprofitable.
The non-project farm land must continue to be managed to ensure it continues to support and enhance ecosystem functions without being a fire threat in dry years. Strategies such as mechanical pasture topping, or cool season burns, or strategic livestock grazing should be required to be put in place in conjunction with the farm’s Environment Best Management Practice program.
Figure: Management of land not part of nature repair and carbon market project areas on a farm needs strategies to minimise fire risk which could jeopardise the projects. Slashing, cool season burns, high stocking rate short duration grazing and planting summer active pasture species like chicory and perennial clovers which produce low bulk but support ecosystem functions are some examples of what landowners can implement. Photos: Patrick Francis.
Living Carbon provides opportunities but ignores unintended consequences
Figure: The NSW government’s Living Carbon Program provides an example of how the Nature Repair Market might operate. Source: NSW Climate and Energy Department
In September 2024 the New South Wales Climate and Energy Department (C & E) opened its Living Carbon Grant Program for applications from landowners in three regions across the state. The Living Carbon Program gives an insight into how Nature Repair Market might operate once launched in 2025.
The Living Carbon Program embraces carbon abatement in environmental planting with biodiversity enhancement as a co-benefit. On its web site C and E states: “This grant aims to demonstrate that carbon projects can deliver biodiversity co-benefits, which in turn can add value to the price of your carbon credits and/or marketing of your products.
“If you are a landholder in NSW, you may be eligible for a NSW Government grant to set up a carbon planting project. This could help you secure the health of your land, improve productivity, and unlock new income streams. Your land could be used to revegetate habitats for threatened or iconic species such as koalas. We are partnering with the NSW Koala Strategy and NSW Local Land Services to work with landholders who share our commitment to acting on climate change. We are investing $5 million in Living Carbon grants to assist eligible applicants in delivering carbon abatement through planting projects in 3 regions in NSW”.
Figure: An example of what a Living Carbon project might look like on a NSW farm. Source: NSW Climate and Energy Department.
C & E provide an example of a living carbon project on a farm and highlight that the tree planting must be a carbon project between 10 and 200 hectares registered with the Clean Energy Regulator (CER) under the Australian Carbon Credit Unit (ACCU) scheme’s Environmental Planting Pilot method and “deliver on and comply with all ACCU Scheme and Accounting for Nature (AfN) method requirements, beyond the lifetime of your grant.”
There is a cost issue associated with CER reafforestation projects involving small areas less than 200ha. The carbon brokers costs for setup and auditing, legal costs and the Clean Energy Regulator’s ACCU safety net may make such projects financially risky.
Adopting a registered and certified Environmental Account with Accounting for Nature puts an additional level of auditing and cost into the project which some landholders may find questionable given the complex issues underpinning nature repair and its unintended consequences over decades.
Accounting for Nature does not involve environmental assessment on the farm land outside project areas as shown above. Without a whole farm environment best management practice program in place and regularly audited, adjacent farm land may see its ecosystem functions decline. Even outside the farm on the which the Living Carbon projects is undertaken there seems to be no requirement for monitoring unintended consequences such as wildlife damage to neighbouring crops and pastures and implications for threatened wildlife on adjacent roads with vehicle collisions and vehicle occupant safety.
Once a Living Carbon project is entered into and conditions accepted for delivery of ACCUs and environmental credits then they become part of the land title which future generations and or owners have responsibility to uphold. The implications surrounding unintended consequences of such projects are not explained on the C & E web site but given a successful application could receive up to $200,000 of tax payer funding questions of accountability can be expected if stated improvement to ecosystem functions don’t materialise or if the project becomes a source of feral contamination for neighbours.
Additional hiccups
The only accepted CER method accepted by the Living Carbon Project, the Environmental Plantings method, is scheduled to end on 30 September 2024 and there is no equivalent method available.
An eligible NSW landholder is likely to require “ a Plantation Authorisation from the NSW Government under the NSW Plantations and Reafforestation Act 1999, even if you don’t intend to harvest the trees. Plantation forestry involves planting trees for commercial timber production or environmental purposes, including carbon projects. All new plantations, except for plantations of less than 30 hectares which do not require development approval, must be authorised before their establishment. You should also check with your local Council to confirm there are no local approvals needed”.
Figure: An example of how an appropriately designed and managed Living Carbon project has co-benefits around improving a farm’s habitat for iconic species, threatened species or a threatened ecological community. How co-benefits might create additional farm revenue from the ACCUs generated is not clear. Source: NSW Climate and Energy Department.
