Australia needs higher standards for protecting nature

To write a good submissions you should:

• Introduce yourself - who are you or what’s the group you represent?
• Highlight your own perspectives - why are you writing a submission? Why are you you passionate about this issue?
• Be concise – generally, write no more than four to five pages – but as an individual, even half a page of writing is a significant contribution!
• Use emphasis - make clear or even bold your key points.
• Keep it relevant - if you include other documents, make sure they relate directly to your key points.
• Be safe - only include information you’d be happy to see published on the internet.
• Speak the government’s language - outline what you want high Standards to protect, not just what they’ll stop. 

The National Environmental Standard the government is currently seeking feedback on relates to Matters of National Environmental Significance (these are things protected under the national nature law like threatened plants, animals, ecosystems and the Great Barrier Reef).

This is the first of five Standards the government will seek feedback on.  

These standards will guide decisions about projects and should safeguard Australia’s threatened wildlife and ecosystems from damaging activities.  

The Standards are, in practice, the backbone of the recently reformed national nature protection law (the EPBC Act) and will determine its ability to better protect Australia’s forests, rivers, reefs and grasslands or lock in their ongoing decline.

We’ve seen the first proposed Standard, and it’s fair to say it and does not deliver for nature.

But, we have an opportunity to lift this Standard and turn it into one that defends nature from projects and activities that cause irreversible harm.

We've included some key points that we'd recommend including in your submission. To make them even more powerful, you can rewrite them in your own words and/or add your personal experience / flavour to them. 

Here are some points of feedback about the proposed Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) standard that we'd recommend raising in your submission 

The Standard must lift the bar for nature protection and halt nature’s decline - The draft Standard does not deliver for nature. This needs to be fixed. Australia’s national nature law has failed to protect and restore nature. Standards under the reformed Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act need to fix this. 

Standards must be clear, enforceable, and focused on better results for nature - not just processes - As it’s currently proposed, the legal test for consistency with the MNES Standard will be met if a developer merely confirms they have complied with some principles and followed certain processes.  There’s no requirement that these processes deliver on what the Standard should set out to achieve – better results for nature. The objectives for Matters of National Environmental Significance won’t amount to much if there’s no requirement for decisions to be aligned with them.

Strengthen protections for threatened species - Threatened species need habitat. ACF analysis shows tens of thousands of hectares of threatened species habitat are approved for destruction under Australia’s national nature law every single year. Even more is allowed to proceed without any assessment of its impact. Habitat destruction for threatened species and the bulldozing of ecological communities will continue unless the Standard includes clear, strong protections for threatened species and their habitat.
 

The Standard must require decisions to account for cumulative impacts - Cumulative impacts (AKA ‘death by a thousand cuts’) drive threatened species closer to extinction and undermine protection for World Heritage sites like the Great Barrier Reef and internationally recognised wetlands. The Standard must explicitly require decisions about proposed projects and activities to account for these cumulative impacts on nature.

Require decisions to consider climate change impacts - Climate change threatens the wildlife and places protected under Australia’s national nature law, but shockingly it’s not mentioned once in the Standard. It should be considered when assessing proposed developments, and decisions should be required to promote and enhance the resilience of protected wildlife and places in the face of climate change impacts.