Connect with us

Published

on

Australia’s new environmental standards are supposed to protect wildlife. Right now, they don’t.

We have one of the worst mammal extinction rates in the world. We’ve already lost 39 species, including the Christmas Island Shrew and the desert rat-kangaroo, while iconic species like the Hairy-Nosed Wombat, Pygmy blue whale and Swift Parrot continue to slide towards extinction. Forests are still being bulldozed at an alarming rate. Rivers and reefs are under serious pressure.

Pygmy Blue Whales in Western Australia. © Tiffany Klein / Greenpeace
Pygmy Blue Whales continue to slide towards extinction © Tiffany Klein / Greenpeace

Fixing this sorry state of affairs was why the Federal Government promised to fix Australia’s broken national nature laws—a promise that culminated in the nature law reforms passed late last year.

A big part of these reforms is the creation of new “National Environmental Standards” — rules intended to guide decisions on projects that could damage nature.

But the Government’s latest draft standards—open for consultation until May 29th—fall dangerously short.



Lonely Koala on a Tree Stump Animation in Australia. Still from a stop-motion animation. © Greenpeace


Speak up for nature

It just takes a few minutes


Make a submission

Instead of setting clear environmental guardrails, the draft rules risk making it easier for damaging projects to get approved, while nature continues to decline. Legal experts are warning that unless the standards are changed, they could weaken protections rather than strengthen them.

So what are these standards, exactly?

The new standards are a centrepiece of major reforms to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act), which were passed late last year and are designed to fix a broken environmental regulatory system. They are meant to set clear rules for what environmental protection should actually look like.

In simple terms, they’re supposed to answer questions like:

  • What measures should developers be made to put in place to protect threatened species?
  • How do we ensure the most important habitats and natural places are not hacked away, “death-by-a-thousand-cuts”-style, from ongoing development proposals?
  • When should a project simply not go ahead?
  • What rules should states follow if they’re in charge of assessing development projects?
  • How do we make sure nature is actually improving, not just declining more slowly?

If designed and implemented properly, these standards could become the backbone of strong, effective reformed nature laws.

But right now, they leave huge loopholes open.

Spotted-tail Quolls are a threatened species severely impacted by deforestation. © Lachlan L. Hall / Greenpeace

The biggest problem: process over outcomes

The biggest problem with the draft standards is that they focus too heavily on whether companies follow a process—not whether nature is genuinely protected in the end. That might sound technical, but it has real-world consequences.

Imagine a company wants to clear critical habitat for a threatened species. Under a strong system, the key question should be: Will this project cause unacceptable or significant environmental harm?

But under the current draft standards, if the company follows the required steps and paperwork, the project could still be considered acceptable — even if the damage to nature is clear.

 This is deeply ineffective. Destruction that checks bureaucratic check-boxes is still destruction. The standards should enforce the protection of nature—not just the ticking of procedural boxes.

A smaller definition of habitat could leave wildlife exposed

Another alarming change in the draft standards is the narrowing of how “habitat” is defined, which could have serious consequences for wildlife protection.

Habitat is more than just the exact spot where an animal is seen sleeping, nesting or feeding today; we need to think more holistically about habitat as a connected network of ecosystems that species may rely on to survive, including breeding grounds, migration corridors, areas used during drought or fire, and places they may need to move to as the climate changes.

But the draft standards effectively shrink the areas considered important enough to protect by defining habitat as only very small areas that if destroyed would certainly send the species extinct, rather than habitat which maintains and restores healthy populations able to thrive well into the future.

For animals already under pressure from habitat destruction and climate change, protecting only the bare minimum is a dangerous approach. In practice, that could mean that places which are essential for threatened species to recover and survive long term are destroyed just because they are not classified under the standards as ‘habitat’—a lose-lose outcome for biodiversity and the Australian government’s nature protection goals.

The home of the near-threatened Red Goshawk has shrunk due to deforestation. © Lachlan L. Hall / Greenpeace

Offsets are still doing too much heavy lifting

Australians have heard the promise before: “Yes, this area will be damaged — but it’ll be offset somewhere else.” In practice, environmental offsets have severely failed to replace what was lost.

You can’t instantly recreate a centuries-old forest. You can’t quickly rebuild complex wildlife habitat. And some ecosystems simply cannot be replaced once destroyed. Yet the draft standards still rely heavily on offsets rather than prioritising avoiding harm in the first place.

The standards must reduce their reliance on offsets, and instead prioritise actual habitat protection. Because once extinction happens, there’s no offset for it.

Australia cannot afford another backwards step on nature

The Albanese Government came to office promising to end Australia’s extinction crisis and repair national nature laws. But this will be a broken promise if the huge loopholes in the National Environmental Standards aren’t addressed.

Right now, Australia is losing wildlife and ecosystems faster than they can recover. Scientists have warned for years that incremental change is no longer enough.

Strong standards could help turn things around by:

  • stopping destruction in critical habitat,
  • setting firm limits on environmental harm,
  • requiring genuine recovery for nature,
  • and making decision-makers accountable for real outcomes rather than process.

If the Government locks in rules that prioritise process over protection, Australia risks entrenching the very system that caused the crisis in the first place.




Speak up for nature

Have your say on nature laws


Make a submission

What needs to change?

The Government still has time to fix the draft standards before they are finalised over the next month.

Greenpeace Australia Pacific is calling on the government to:

  • ensure decisions are based on outcomes, not just process
  • ensure that all important habitat is protected, not just narrow areas
  • ensuring that death-by-a-thousand-cuts is avoided by considering the “cumulative impacts” of multiple projects in a region
  • ensuring offsets are only used as an absolute last resort

Australians were promised stronger nature laws—not more loopholes. Australia’s wildlife cannot afford another missed opportunity.You can help ensure the Federal Government’s final standards put to parliament are as strong as possible by putting in a quick submission here.

Australia’s nature is in trouble.

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Why an Activist From Texas Crossed the World to Confront Asia’s Biggest Petrochemical Company

Published

on

For the retired shrimper, the 8,000-mile trip to Formosa Plastics’ annual shareholder meeting in Taipei was part of a strategy of being relentless.

The Resistance, Part 2: Three Gulf Coast environmentalists confront Formosa Plastics Corp. at its shareholders meeting.

Why an Activist From Texas Crossed the World to Confront Asia’s Biggest Petrochemical Company

Continue Reading

Climate Change

America Is Policing Foreign Waters, but Gutting Domestic Protections

Published

on

The U.S. government’s recent deployment of visa restrictions for international illegal fishing exposes a dichotomy between how it wields power at home versus away.

While the Trump administration systematically unravels marine protections at home, it appears to be enforcing far higher conservation standards abroad.

America Is Policing Foreign Waters, but Gutting Domestic Protections

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Brazil jostles for rare earths share as US-China rivalry heats up

Published

on

Brazil is rushing to regulate its critical minerals industry and unlock its vast untapped reserves of rare earths, aiming to position itself as a strategic producer with Chinese and US companies competing for fresh supplies.

Despite opposition from some environmental and Indigenous rights groups, lawmakers in Brazil’s lower house of Congress passed the government’s critical minerals policy bill last month, and backers now hope to secure final Senate approval before October’s presidential election.

Already a major mining nation with large reserves of graphite and copper, Brazil has the world’s second-largest reserves of rare earth elements after China, with the difference that Brazilian reserves are largely untapped. This group of 17 minerals is used in permanent magnets for electric motors vital for clean technologies such as electric vehicles (EVs) and wind turbines.

As Chinese and US companies compete to secure supplies, Brazil hopes to serve them both.

“We don’t have any preferences. Whoever wishes to participate with us to help with the mining, processing, and production of the wealth that these rare earths can bring is welcome to invest in Brazil,” President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva told journalists after meeting President Donald Trump in Washington in May.

Value-added mining

The draft legislation, which is backed by industry groups, creates a $380-million Guarantee Fund for Mineral Activity meant to provide financial support for mining projects, grants priority status for permitting strategic mining projects, and requires companies to dedicate a share of their revenue for domestic research and development on mineral extraction and processing – part of the policy’s effort to maximise the benefits of mining.

To select strategic projects and support their environmental licensing, the bill envisions establishing a Committee for Strategic and Critical Minerals, which includes representatives from different government agencies, state and local governments, industry and civil society.

Mining Minister Alexandre Silveira said the government’s bill “aligns mineral exploration with national interests”, and he has pledged to work closely with the Senate to pass it in the coming months.

“Brazil … doesn’t intend to be a mere exporter of unprocessed raw materials, but to expand its industrial and technological capacity, too,” Silveira said last month.

The Brazilian government says the country presents an “unparalleled” opportunity for refining “green minerals”, given that around half of its electricity comes from hydropower.

At the other end of the supply chain, several Chinese companies have vast plans to assemble EVs in Brazil. EV manufacturing giant BYD opened a massive production facility in the state of Bahia last October – the company’s largest EV factory outside China. BYD’s top executive in Brazil told Reuters it is aiming to produce and source 50% of its vehicle components in the country by the end of the year. BYD’s subsidiaries in Brazil directly own mineral rights in the country’s “lithium valley”.

Brazil’s Congress defies Lula to push through “devastation bill” on COP30’s heels

Some pro-government lawmakers had proposed the creation of a state-owned agency that would hold a monopoly over mining projects, but that was eventually rejected after the federal government decided that no additional state intervention was needed in the sector.

Mônica Sodré, CEO of the Brazilian Center for International Relations (CEBRI), said the country’s mining rules were created when minerals were mainly seen as “commodities for export”. Today, they are “central to economic security, industrial policy and geopolitics,” she said.

The proposed legislation, she added, is “an important first step, not a final solution” to position the country as a major mineral producer, and developing projects will require continued efforts through the newly-created committee.

Soft on safeguards?

But despite the government’s pledges to develop a critical minerals sector that benefits the national interest, some environmental groups have opposed the critical minerals policy bill, saying it does not create enough safeguards for the protection of affected communities.

Adriana Pinheiro, public policy advisor with Observatório do Clima, a network representing 130 environmental nonprofits, told Climate Home News that the bill “lacks explicit provisions on free, prior and informed consultation”.

    The Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil (Apib) said in a note to Congress that the bill has the “potential to significantly impact indigenous territories without adequately incorporating mechanisms for protection and participation”.

    Sodré said the concerns are valid, but that the draft bill is not the place to address them. Instead, she said, indigenous rights and participation should be considered on a project-by-project basis and that safeguards exist under Brazil’s “extensive” environmental permitting legislation.

    “Precaution is essential in mining policy, but it should not lead to inaction. Blocking investments or delaying projects without clear evidence of unacceptable risks can result in significant social and economic costs,” she said.

    Pinheiro, of the Observatório do Clima, added that while the bill encourages domestic processing of critical minerals, it does not create mandatory quotas. Countries such as Indonesia and Zimbabwe have banned raw exports, forcing investors to set up processing plants in the country.

    “This regulation is only positive if it combines industrial strategy with strong safeguards,” Pinheiro said.

    Geological advantage

    China extracts about 70% of the world’s rare earths and controls around 90% of the processing – creating a potential chokepoint that has alarmed Western countries at a time of heightened geopolitical tension. The US and China have opted to stockpile key minerals in case trade restrictions are enacted against them.

    Brazil, which has strong trade and diplomatic ties with both Beijing and Washington, views the intensifying competition for rare earth supplies as an opportunity for it to develop a new mining sector. Brazil’s National Mining Agency has reported about 2,700 rare earths projects under consideration, according to local news outlet Folha de Sao Paulo.

    The country’s rare earths reserves also have a geological advantage, as they are predominantly contained in ionic clay rather than hard rock. These deposits contain sought-after “heavy rare earths” and require less processing to extract.

    Workers of Sigma Lithium Corp SGML.V are seen at the Grota do Cirilo mine in Itinga, in Minas Gerais state, Brazil April 18, 2023. REUTERS/Washington Alves

    Workers of Sigma Lithium Corp SGML.V are seen at the Grota do Cirilo mine in Itinga, in Minas Gerais state, Brazil April 18, 2023. REUTERS/Washington Alves

    Backed by $2.7 billion in financial support from US government agencies, American mining firm USA Rare Earths acquired Brazil’s Serra Verde group, which owns the high-grade Pela Ema mine. The ionic clay mine is the only one outside Asia capable of supplying all the four major rare earths at scale, according to the company’s CEO Barbara Humpton.

    Other major firms have followed, with Canada’s Aclara conducting studies in the $680-million Carina mine and Australian companies Meteoric and Viridis also seeking to develop ionic clay mines for European and American buyers.

    Despite growing Western investments, China remains Brazil’s largest trade partner and the country’s imports from Brazil have already tripled between 2024 and 2025, according to data by the Brazil-China Business Council.

    The draft bill does not guarantee that Brazil will be able to compete with Chinese rare earths on the international market, Sodré noted. A “more realistic benchmark” is how effectively the country can position itself as major supplier of critical minerals for the energy transition, she added.

    Pinheiro said clearer regulation may help shape investments into the country, but foreign companies will not necessarily wait for Brazil’s critical minerals policy.

    “The central question is whether Brazil will use this moment to build domestic value chains, ensure socio-environmental safeguards and protect affected communities,” she said.

    The post Brazil jostles for rare earths share as US-China rivalry heats up appeared first on Climate Home News.

    Brazil jostles for rare earths share as US-China rivalry heats up

    Continue Reading

    Trending

    Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com