Webinar: Nature Positive Summit - key takeaways and next steps

Thank you to the 440 people who attended the webinar and all who registered. The Biodiversity Council was fortunate to have a number of people attend the Nature Positive Summit, which we appreciate is a unique position as many other environment groups, science groups, community groups and others weren’t able to attend.

In this webinar, you will hear what three Biodiversity Council members took away from the summit and their thoughts on what should happen next.

• Barry J Hunter, North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance (NAILSA) CEO.

• Professor Sarah Bekessy, ICON Science research group lead at RMIT University.

• Dr. Rachel Morgain, Deputy Director of the Melbourne Biodiversity Institute.

Q&A

During the webinar, the audience submitted 40+ questions. We’ve answered the most popular questions below and linked to additional resources.

Q. How can the biodiversity sector be more culturally sensitive and culturally aware?

Three points were addressed by Barry Hunter in answer to this question:

• There’s a cultural paradigm around biodiversity and biodiversity values.

“Country and the terminology that I use as an Indigenous person…that's the way I see Country and it's through the eyes of that cultural lens. I think that it's accepting that, first and foremost, it's a different way of looking at Country. And it's that lens and those cultural indicators and cultural values; they speak to what I find important about Country, and others as well.”

• Integration of knowledge systems is key.

“I use the term deliberately around Traditional Knowledge, not traditional ecological knowledge, because traditionally it speaks to kinship systems as well. You know, those things are entwined and family related. So, acceptance and knowing and understanding and integrating those within the rigor that you get within Western science and being able to infuse those two is the key to it.”

• Directly invest and work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rangers, Land and Sea Managers, and communities.

“You just need to be wary of how you work and approach. Because for me, it should be about direct investment and directly working with those groups on the ground. So, being able to put the empowerment into those groups on the ground and the work that they're doing and go in and support them, rather than going in and trying to do for, you know, do with.”

Barry also pointed to an additional resource for more information: the Indigenous Country Biodiversity Alliance, which “aims to ground biodiversity management in Indigenous practices and Culture to ensure the best outcomes for Country, our people and the world.”

Q. Was there a consistent definition of nature positive referred to at the Summit? Did people leave with a clear sense of what it meant in terms of actions and next steps?

Prof Sarah Bekessy said, “Nature Positive was interpreted slightly differently in sessions I attended, which is obviously problematic if the concept is to be more than just greenwash.

“The idea that ‘Step 1’ of nature positive needs to be ‘do no harm’ came across clearly in a bunch of presentations and is possibly an easier step to measure (although how offsetting is included (or not) certainly muddies the water!).

“Positive actions to help nature recover and regenerate are possibly more difficult to measure. Certainly we need good definitions and clear ideas around measurement going forward.”

A key action for the government to ‘do no harm’ is to reform biodiversity harmful subsidies so that they become Nature Positive or eliminate them entirely and use the savings to fund biodiversity conservation.

Our recent harmful subsidies report found that the Australian Government spends around 4% of the federal budget subsidising activities that are likely to harm the environment - a total of $26.3 billion per year, which is 50x more than the budget allocated to address biodiversity matters. Assigning just 1% of the federal budget to nature would make a huge difference.

Q. How can we stop land clearing for low-density, sprawling suburbs and shift to higher density suburbs with active transport?

Three points were raised in answer to this question:

• The easiest fix to reduce land clearing is to look at regulation and for governments to stop zoning threatened species habitat for development. In the absence of changes to regulation, Prof Sarah Bekessy has created a Nature Pledge for Developers to create a framework for developers / investors / certifiers to act in a biodiversity-sensitive way. And this isn’t just limited to developments outside of cities - existing urban areas can support nature recovery and enhance biodiversity.

• There is an economic incentive for governments to focus on urban consolidation rather than sprawl. A report from Infrastructure Victoria estimated that the Victorian government would save $43 billion by 2056 with more compact cities. This would free up 30,000 hectares for wildlife habitat or agriculture, the equivalent of 12,000 MCGs.

• Current high density highrise developments provide a poor model for urban consolidation - the type of high rises with tiny apartments, poor noise control and a lack of natural light. “I think we have underutilized models like sustainable mid-rise…they have bicycle sheds and cinemas and spaces for people to go and have gin and tonics and the like and they can be really kind of wonderful places for people to live, while creating high density housing that saves growing our cities further into the fringes,” said Sarah Bekessy.

Q. How about a Nature Pledge for Schools?

A nature pledge would be great because, although schools don’t typically need to comply with native vegetation clearing regulations (at least in Victoria), many are becoming increasingly interested in working with their students on biodiversity matters.

Check out this project that Prof Sarah Bekessy and her team at RMIT University undertook at a primary school in Melbourne.

Q. Can we get to a point where all governments unanimously act for nature and it stops becoming a polarised issue?

Dr Rachel Morgain said that having a diversity of sectors engaged with nature-related issues and having one shared voice and approach is crucial for the government to take action.

Nature loss is a concern for farmers, for tourism businesses and even for urban developers, investors, insurers and other businesses that are exposed to the risks.

“We really need to embed that understanding across sectors and have that voice speak across different sectors and different parts of the community so that no government feels like they should or can treat this as a marginal issue or a political football.”

Barry Hunter sees parallels with the climate space where action is more advanced.

“I just want to draw on the experience that we see politically with the carbon industry now…there's still questions around methods…But there's a general acceptance now that we need to reduce our carbon output.

“So how do we get that same sort of value and understanding in terms of nature? You know, like we don't want to see commoditisation. That's the ultimate sort of corruption of it. But being able to see there’s value there.

“For [the industries and sectors] to see that and recognise and realise that value, I think that's where they’re stepping up. And then politically, that's what follows… the politics will follow once industry and community sectors step up.”

Q. Would it be effective for governments to enforce more stringent regulations or penalties on companies harming the environment?

This is absolutely needed, but for it to happen we need the political will to enforce regulations, which is clearly lacking in many instances.

Q. In the absence of regulation, what will drive businesses to invest in nature?

There were three major areas of conversation around this question:

• On the need for regulation,

Prof Sarah Bekessy said, “Obviously the best and cheapest approach is to have regulation…I think that's sort of such a critical part of nature positive that we need to get right. I think there are reasons to think that we can have action and activity in this space without regulation, but, you know, it's less efficient and less certain.”

Dr Rachel Morgain said, “There's multiple forms of regulation, like requiring large enterprises to report on their nature impacts and dependencies…And if we see those things come online, they will start to drive more change.”

Barry Hunter said, “I think initially, certainly what we’ll need is government initiation around this. But I do use that very cautiously because I remember the horrible days of the Emissions Reduction Fund, and how that was the low cost abatement scenario. There is a need for it and the sooner the government can step out and let the marketplace do what it needs to do, the better.”

• There was also confidence that market pressure would drive businesses to act in a nature positive way without regulation.

Prof Bekessy shared a story of a developer project that had biodiversity issues front-of-mind and involved Wurundjeri people in the design. However, a driving factor behind the project was reputational damage caused by a prior development that harmed nature.

“It's greenwashing to some extent, but it's going to deliver some really good things to this site that otherwise wouldn't have eventuated. And none of it's driven by regulation. It's all because of market forces at play at the moment,” she said.

The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) which aims to guide and enable businesses to disclose their impacts and nature, released a report that highlights the costs to businesses of mismanaging nature risk. The report provides ten case studies, similar to the anecdote above, where businesses have lost billions of dollars or incurred reputational damage by negatively impacting nature.

Dr Morgain pointed out that some businesses, particularly long-term investment firms, are recognising that they will do better in the future by investing positively in nature and embedding sustainability in business-as-usual. There’s a general sense that, while investment firms may be looking to become nature-positive in how they invest, they can’t divest entirely away from sector or enterprises that damage nature until there are bigger transformations. This may mean they compensate in the interim by investing positively in the market.

• Changes in business culture are needed (in boards and in senior leadership) and more conversations need to happen between businesses, particularly in sharing stories about the implications of ignoring the problem (see the TNFD report above) and also success stories of how to do it well.

Q. What advice can be given to businesses who want to invest in nature but aren’t sure how?

The action that is delivered by investment has to be the right kind of action. Most landscapes have Healthy Country Plans and regional NRM plans available, so work with Traditional Owner groups and natural resource managers who have links to farmers and others in the community, to understand the priorities for investment and so they can help deliver on-the-ground action.

Storytelling sells. Share on-the-ground stories around restoration or nature protection and it will mean more people will want to engage and get involved. There is a risk that, with all the reporting and disclosures in the near future, technical terms and data will put a lot of people off. But if we keep it real and think about the plants, animals, ecosystems, culture and people, then you’ll be able to sell your story a lot better.

Q. What does Nature Positive mean for business and governments?

Our helpful guide for businesses and government sets out the key points you need to know to drive Nature Positive changes for a more sustainable future.

Q. How can businesses start to measure their impacts on nature?

This article by Biodiversity Council members Professors Brendan Wintle and Sarah Bekessy maps out the key steps businesses should take to gauge their impact on the environment.

Q. What are the costs to businesses of mismanaging nature risk?

This report from the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) provides 10 case studies where businesses have lost billions of dollars or incurred reputational damage by negatively impacting nature.