The post Nature-based carbon accounting: How “integrity” has evolved, and what still matters appeared first on GreenCollar.

The 40 hectare project is significant, not only for being the first of its kind to be implemented under Queensland’s Reef Credits Scheme, but because of an innovative agreement with Far North Queensland ports operator, Ports North. Ports North has committed to purchasing Reef Credits generated by the project over time to mitigate the impact of sediment making its way to the reef.

The Reef Credits Scheme incentivises the implementation of land management projects on privately held properties in the Reef’s catchment areas to prevent pollutants entering its waters. The scheme was designed by natural resources bodies, Terrain Wet Tropics and NQ Dry Tropics, environmental markets developer GreenCollar and the Queensland Government, with support and input from the environment sector and local communities.

A Reef Credit, which represents measured amounts of pollutants prevented from reaching the reef, can be sold to investors who wish to make a tangible, reportable contribution to helping the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem. The scheme directly remunerates landholders for doing this work and encourages them and others to do more, promoting environmental stewardship.

“The advantage of these projects, which prevent environmental pollutants, such as fine sediment and dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN), from running into the waters of The Great Barrier Reef, is that the results are measured and independently verified,” said GreenCollar’s Head of Portfolio – Queensland East, Bart Dryden. “This means investors, such as Ports North, can report tangible impacts from their investments in enhancing water quality on the Great Barrier Reef with the confidence that they are traceable and transparent.”

“The Bowen River gully rehabilitation project, which is the first gully rehabilitation project conducted under the scheme, prevents fine sediment run-off by employing scientifically-proven erosion control techniques, which include landforming, soil amelioration, installation of engineered controls to halt and slow sediment mobilisation and the stabilisation of soil with native revegetation,” Mr Dryden said. “It is estimated the project will prevent just under 18 thousand tonnes of fine sediment from entering the Reef’s waters.”

Repairing gullies is a costly but important exercise. Sediment runoff reduces water quality, smothers riverine and reef habitats, and impairs the resilience of aquatic ecosystems in the face of climate change and other stressors. Across catchments in the region, substantial land degradation caused by gully erosion has driven sediment-laden runoff into the Reef’s catchment area, threatening agricultural productivity and native biodiversity in the process. 

“The Bowen River gully rehabilitation project is also notable because it represents a significant next step for investment in this market because organisations seeking to make nature-based financial disclosures and report on real, quantifiable actions they have taken for the environment now have a clear pathway to meet these needs, as well as to contribute to the Queensland Government’s water quality targets,” Mr Dryden said, ”The added benefit is that increasing levels of this type of investment, particularly from the private sector, will help expand the Reef Credit Scheme and allow these quantifiable solutions to develop to the scale required to deliver even greater impact for this massive and iconic ecosystem.”

Ports North CEO, Richard Stevenson, said, “Our purchase of Reef Credits over the coming three years satisfies a critical aspect of our approval under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act for the Cairns Shipping Development Project. After completing works to deepen and widen the shipping channel network, we were able to direct funding to support a local farmer in gully restoration, which will contribute to a measured reduction in fine sediment run-off into the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage catchment. 

“It is satisfying to see our investment going directly to reducing the amount of sedimentation reaching our waterways. Ports North is proud to be playing an important role in helping to build market confidence in the Reef Credits Scheme, which we see as a fundamental tool in improving the health and resilience of the Great Barrier Reef.”

The Bowen River gully rehabilitation project represents a major milestone. It is the first fine sediment reduction project to be formally registered with independent environmental markets administrator, Eco Markets Australia, and will be the first gully rehabilitation project of its kind globally using a market-based approach to catchment restoration.

Before gully rehabilitation.

After. (Photography by Through the Looking Glass Studio)

The post ‘World leading’ land-based project to improve water quality on the Great Barrier Reef over 25 years will help drive action at scale appeared first on GreenCollar.

Research by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation has found that deforestation – the complete removal of trees for the conversion of forest to another land use such as agriculture, mining, or towns and cities – has resulted in the loss of one third of our planet’s forests since the last ice age, which was 10,000 years ago. This is approximately two billion hectares of forest, an area twice the size of the United States. Yet, the critically important point is that half of this was lost over the last one hundred years. After a peak loss of primary forests in the 1980s, we lost over 300 million hectares, which is almost the size of India, during the 1990s and 2000s, and about 110 million hectares, an area twice the size of Spain, during the 2010s. 

Recognising the critical importance of healthy ecosystems

The environmental impacts of this activity are significant. Firstly, the agriculture, forestry and land-use sectors are responsible for between 13 and 21 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and the associated deforestation is responsible for about half of this.

Secondly, we know that most of the land-based species that have been documented are found in forests. When these species lose their forest, they are often unable to survive in the fragments of forested land left behind. Over the fifty years between 1970 and 2020, WWF found that there was a catastrophic 73 percent decrease in the planet’s monitored wildlife populations, which is a stark indicator of extinction risk. Though not a direct causal link, it is hard not to recognise a correlation.

To keep global warming below 1.5°C, a key goal of the Paris Agreement, the world needs to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 22 gigatonnes annually by 2030. Under the Global Biodiversity Framework, countries have also agreed to restore 30% of all degraded ecosystems and conserve 30% of land, waters and seas.

Current assessments have us behind on all these targets. Yet, research by the UN Environment Program found that protecting and restoring forests through nature-based solutions can deliver emission reductions and removals of at least 5 gigatons per year by 2030, and at least 10 gigatons by 2050. And forests, which are home to 80% of the world’s terrestrial biodiversity, are one of the best examples of nature-based solutions.

Taking action through nature-based solutions

Distinct from conservation, which is essentially the protection and preservation of biological diversity through setting aside reserves and passing laws, nature-based solutions harness the power of nature to restore and maintain ecosystems in ways that increase their resilience. The underlying idea is that when ecosystems are healthy and well-managed, they provide essential benefits and services to the planet and its inhabitants, including us. Nature-based solutions aim to result in sustainable conservation and climate change mitigation.

All people and organisations are stakeholders in an exchange relationship with nature. We all rely on nature to deliver the services we need to survive and run our businesses and governments. Healthy ecosystems provide us with clean air, water, food, fibre and raw materials for manufacturing and construction, as well as services such as recreation and waste management. Nature-based solutions help provide a mechanism by which we can reimburse nature for these services, rather than simply taking, regardless of the consequences.

GreenCollar began developing, refining and delivering nature-based land management projects, in partnership with landholders in Australia, in 2011. The company’s aim has always been to deliver solutions that can be expanded to scale by attracting private investment so that sustainable conservation is taking place on the vast expanses of privately held land, as well as in reserves. 

Focusing on innovation and best practice, GreenCollar’s scientists and technical team have developed government-approved standards that prescribe the way in which these projects are managed.  Avoided clearing projects prevent carbon stored in standing forests from being released if a landholder were to otherwise act on their permit to clear their land, while human-induced regeneration projects work to create carbon sequestration by regenerating forest landscapes that have been degraded and suppressed by agricultural activity. Both also act to preserve and rehabilitate habitat. NaturePlus® projects manage land to produce measurable improvements in environmental condition, including increases in species. Reef Credits projects change land management activities in reef catchment areas to prevent fine sediment and nitrogen, from intensive fertiliser use, from entering the waters of these fragile ecosystems.  

Investing in measured and verified outcomes

The mechanism by which these projects expand to large scale solutions is through the establishment of environmental markets. GreenCollar’s team is dedicated to innovation and scientific research that drives measurement and verification of the environmental outcomes these projects achieve – there is, after all, no point to this work unless it is delivering real gains to the environment. To this end, the standards require that independent third party experts must verify these measurements before they can be used to generate credits. For example, one tonne of carbon sequestered generates one carbon credit. One kilogram of dissolved inorganic nitrogen prevented from entering a reef generates one Reef Credit.

When organisations purchase these credits for regulatory, nature-related reporting or corporate sustainability purposes, the income to the landholder allows them to assess the viability of running these sorts of projects against conventional agricultural activities. Whereas, under a regulatory approach to conservation, landholders may simply have been required to cease agricultural activity on the land with no reparation. These nature-based projects therefore generate an incentive. Similarly, in countries such as Malawi, income from GreenCollar’s carbon projects not only result in the sequestration of carbon, but educate and incentivise behaviour change among villagers to, for example, cease harvesting native trees for firewood, in favour of having the income to pursue more sustainable practice. An increase in native trees both increases carbon sequestration and increases stocks of these rapidly dwindling species.

The power to drive desperately needed change

Changing the way we use our land is not only the responsibility of those charged with its direct management. Organisational stakeholders that rely on the services our environment provides throughout their supply chains have the power to significantly influence its restoration and sustainable conservation through considered investments in high quality projects dedicated to valuing and repairing vital ecosystems. In this manner, these stakeholders are encouraging concrete steps to reverse the extinction crisis and avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

The bottom line is that world economies need to place value on the environment.

This article was published on the AP News website on 25 September 2025.

The post Helping to mitigate climate change and avert the extinction crisis: Investment in nature-based land management projects holds the key appeared first on GreenCollar.

Key points – GreenCollar:

• exists to achieve measurable and independently verifiable conservation outcomes at scale;
• wholeheartedly supports government reforms that encourage voluntary climate mitigation, emissions reduction and conservation action;
• is responding directly to the misguided notion that carbon credits are, as offsets, propping up the fossil fuel industry;
• is continuing our own voluntary initiatives to measure and offset our own organisational emissions
• has decided not to pursue Climate Active certification for our own emissions under the current form of the program while continuing to support our clients who choose to utilise its certification.

GreenCollar is dedicated to achieving conservation outcomes at scale

GreenCollar was established in 2011 with the aim of establishing land sector solutions to conservation that could be replicated and expanded at scale. Our objective was to work in partnership with landholders to establish land management projects on the vast expanses of privately held land outside national parks and world heritage areas that would result in preservation and regeneration of native vegetation. Such an outcome would deliver preserved and restored habitats, ecosystems and species populations.

The mechanism whereby investment could be attracted to these projects was through the quantification of scientifically measured and independently verified outcomes so they could generate a credit that could be traded to investors (predominantly private) on environmental markets.  

The policy and political infrastructure that was implemented by the Australian Government at the time supported carbon projects and credits. So the first environmental market to be established was a carbon market. 

Carbon projects employ methodologies that abate and sequester carbon, producing an ACCU. However, the  benefits of these projects go beyond simply climate – the regeneration and preservation of native vegetation is regenerating and preserving habitat, ecosystems and species – the objective GreenCollar set out to achieve.

Under this regulatory regime, carbon credits could be utilised by heavy polluters, including fossil fuel companies, to offset the emissions they could not avoid by working to decarbonise their own operations and supply chains.

The critical distinction here is that GreenCollar was and is in the business of partnering with landholders to generate environmental credits as a conservation investment mechanism. Under the Australian Government’s regulatory framework, one of the ways carbon credits can be used is as an offset for emissions by large industrial facilities, including fossil fuel companies. They can also be used for voluntary purposes, such as in an organisation’s ESG frameworks.

Offsets are only one use for a carbon credit. 

The reality is that it would be impossible to produce enough carbon credits for these large emitters, including fossil fuel companies, to avoid decarbonising and continue their operations at present or historical levels.

GreenCollar fully supports the phase out of fossil fuels.

Attacks on the use of carbon credits as offsets = a green sector ‘own goal’

There are a small group of well funded critics that do not support the use of offsets for this purpose. 

They have campaigned heavily and consistently on this subject.

In the process they have sought to demonise carbon credits and ACCUs in general.

This is despite their intended purpose – the extremely valuable roles they play, and can play as they scale, in harnessing the power of the land sector to reduce emissions and assist in the regeneration and protection of habitat, ecosystems and species across the country.

It is also despite a wealth of scientific evidence and independent reviews that continue to demonstrate that the ACCU system works and is robust in nature.

GreenCollar’s view is that this is an ‘own goal’ for the green sector in our country because it is damaging the reputation of this mechanism and thus, its ability to grow and have the opportunity to deliver the critical conservation outcomes for which it was designed.

It is also damaging the reputations of landholders that have made sincere investments and undertaken substantial risk to mount these long term projects, the companies that work with them to develop these projects and the methodologies under which they are conducted, organisations that voluntarily use credits for ESG purposes,  the scientific community that conducts the research that underpins this work and works to maintain its integrity, and the policy sector that also researches, interrogates and helps shape these approaches.

But most of all, it has grave potential to damage our environment in the long run – because there are precious few other options that can deliver. Though an absolutely critical tool in our conservation arsenal, simple lone reliance on passing legislation to protect the environment, ecosystems and individual species has proven time and time again to be insufficient.

Collateral damage – Climate Active

In GreenCollar’s view, such campaigning has substantially negatively impacted the ability of the Australian Government’s Climate Active initiative to effectively deliver on its objectives and therefore to effectively function in its current form. 

As carbon offsets are a key feature of the Climate Active program, it has been significantly negatively impacted and tarnished, by the activities of these campaigns, as an exercise in greenwashing.

That said, GreenCollar  sees strong value in a government-sanctioned certification program of this nature to continue in the Australian market and strongly supports moves to reform and update Climate Active. 

However, given the level of criticism described above GreenCollar has made the corporate decision to cease pursuing certification under the program. GreenCollar will nevertheless continue to undertake all the activities required under the program for our own internal purposes, such as calculating our carbon footprint and retiring credits accordingly. We encourage other organisations to understand their own carbon footprints, minimise them and use carbon offsets for their residual emissions. If they choose to purchase GreenCollar credits and use the ClimateActive program to certify these activities, we will continue to support them to do so.

END

The post Explanatory statement in response to the story in The Australian on Monday 19 May 2025 appeared first on GreenCollar.

The NaturePlus^® scheme consists of management projects dedicated to improving the environmental condition of ecosystems, habitat and threatened species. The NaturePlus^® Standard provides the rules for the operation of projects and how conservation outcomes can be generated, measured and independently assured. GreenCollar designed the NaturePlus^® scheme to help drive private investment into meaningful biodiversity improvement and positive, measurable, verifiable outcomes for nature.  

“If we are to truly achieve lasting landscape scale gains for nature, we must measure and confirm the outcomes of projects that say they are benefitting nature, and have them rigorously and independently verified,” said CEO of GreenCollar, James Schultz. “This move is a major step for attracting investment and building rigour, legitimacy and trust into markets mechanisms aimed at repairing nature through environmental projects.”

GreenCollar spent the last five years investing in design and piloting of the NaturePlus^® Standard. Piloting commenced in 2022, with Accounting for Nature^® supporting a two-year pilot of NaturePlus^®.  As part of the initial development of the NaturePlus^® Standard, GreenCollar also developed claims guidance, with the support of Gilbert & Tobin, and commissioned a comprehensive benchmarking review by Pollination.

Pollination found that the majority of reviewed schemes are administered by the entity that designed them, while also acting as project proponent. The review observed that moving schemes to independent administration is needed to satisfy integrity considerations as markets mature. 

“Since the start, we knew that independent administration was critical and, as far as we know, NaturePlus^® is the first scheme to achieve this,” James Schultz said. “We’re really proud of that.”

NaturePlus^® has been designed to incentivise restoration of degraded landscapes, as well as to reward ongoing stewardship of intact ecosystems. It was explicitly designed to apply to any ecosystem, including marine areas, and allows for continuous crediting to support long term impact.

“This addition marks a significant milestone for Accounting for Nature^® as we continue to lead the way in measuring and valuing the state of nature,” said Chief Executive Officer at Accounting for Nature^®, Dr Adrian Ward. “The NaturePlus^® standard complements our existing framework and enhances our ability to certify robust, verifiable environmental accounts. We are excited to build on GreenCollar’s work and further develop the standard to meet the evolving needs of landholders, investors, and environmental markets.The NaturePlus^® Standard will be offered by Accounting for Nature^® as an off-the-shelf solution for its customers to issue NaturePlus^® units”

“In handing the standard over to Accounting for Nature^®, we are placing it in the hands of an independent and scientifically credible organisation that has, over the last 20 years, earned the trust of landholders, governments, corporates, investors and environmental stakeholders.” James Schultz said.  “We are confident that this move will not only ensure the continued advancement of the scheme, but also reinforce its role in the global effort to protect and restore our natural environments while supporting the growth of biodiversity markets and private investment in nature.”

The post A major leap in the evolution of biodiversity markets as Accounting for Nature^® takes over NaturePlus^® Standard appeared first on GreenCollar.

Keynote speech by CEO, James Schultz at the 2024 ALCA Private Land Conservation Conference, Darling Harbour, Sydney

“Fake solution to a fake problem”

This is the view being advanced by 270 NGOs and civil society organisations going into COP16 in Bolivia.

But what are they referring to? – They are talking about using environmental markets – payments for ecosystem services – to advance nature repair.

“Fake solution to a fake problem.” This is the narrative that is increasingly taking hold in the public consciousness

So as we sit here and discuss all the amazing innovative ideas for financing nature repair and building a nature-positive economy, outside this room, the support we need to bring these ideas to fruition is in real danger of unravelling.

There are several reasons for this:

The first – many markets have fallen well short of expectations and have delivered perverse outcomes.

Second – there have been genuine failures and bad actors.

And the third – We are facing an existential climate crisis: we have bound our markets to repair and restore nature to the very forces that are eroding them, thus creating an unending legitimacy challenge.

This does not provide a strong basis to build public support.

But I think there is a deeper issue we face – while we have all been busy working on projects and designing policy, we have left behind the task of explaining WHY we need to do this in the first place.

Perhaps we assumed we had already made the case. Perhaps we assumed it was obvious. Whatever the reason, I am increasingly convinced that most people have little understanding of the reason we have arrived at this point of trying to utilise markets to value nature.

We have not explained the concept of the contract we are in with the environment, which has been supplying its ecosystem services at ever increasing rates to us since time immemorial. We have not explained the concept of finding a way to make payment for these ecosystem services, so that the environment can repair and recover and flourish despite our use of it. We have not spelled out the many decades of failures of trying to solve this problem with legislation and public finance.

We have not made crystal clear the enormous funding gap we face to finance the task of nature repair – that is, the public funds we can supply and the enormous cost to achieve this outcome effectively.

If you’ll stick with me for a couple of minutes, I want to refresh all of our memories on some of the numbers.

Let’s look at ourselves first – Australia – as an example, we have taken our place among both the very highest levels of land clearing in the world and the highest extinction rates in the world. Australia has lost 50 per cent of its forests since European colonization. It is the only developed nation to sit among WWF’s 24 identified global deforestation hotspots, and on a number of assessments we have the highest mammal extinction rate in the world. Internationally, WWF’s 2022 Living Planet Index – which tracks populations of mammals, birds, fish, reptiles and amphibians – reveals an average 69% decrease in monitored wildlife populations since 1970.

This is the extent to which we have exploited our country’s ecosystem services. And the concurrent point is that, demonstrably, our traditional approaches to conserving nature have not worked.

Let’s start by establishing the economic cost of failing to conserve nature.

In 2022, a report by the Australian Conservation Foundation found that 49% of Australia’s GDP, or $896 billion, has a moderate to very high direct dependence on nature. It found Western Australia is the state at greatest risk from nature destruction, with 67% of its gross economic value having a moderate to very high direct dependence on nature, followed by the Northern Territory and Queensland.

A 2020 report by WWF found that Australia is number five on a list of the countries whose economies would be worst affected by the loss of nature over the next 30 years – after the US, Japan, the UK and India – and we would have $US20 billion wiped off our economy every year by 2050 if the world carries on with “business as usual”.

Australia is projected to lose at more than twice the global average. And it’s the loss of coastal protection provided by nature which accounts for 98% ($US19.5 billion) of the projected decline in Australia’s GDP.

Zooming out to the global picture, in 2020, according to the World Economic Forum’s 2020 New Nature Economy Report, more than half the world’s GDP – that is, $US44 trillion – was dependent on nature and the services it provides. A 2023 report by PWC – just three years later – found this figure had increased to 55% – equivalent to an estimated $US58 trillion – moderately or highly dependent on nature.

The PWC report found that the health of natural ecosystems and biodiversity have far reaching implications, with more than half (50.6%) of the market value of listed companies on 19 major stock exchanges exposed to material nature risk.

Without a change in action, the World Bank estimated that by 2030, losing wild pollinators, marine fisheries, and timber from tropical forests – only a fraction of ecosystem services – could cost 2.3% of global GDP – or $US2.7 trillion – annually.

The 2021 Final Report of the Independent Review on the Economics of Biodiversity led by Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta, commissioned by the UK Government, found that our demands on nature now exceed nature’s capacity to supply them, putting biodiversity under huge pressure, and future generations at “extreme risk”.

It’s hard not to see the take-away point here – the cost of failing to protect nature is astronomical and will only increase.

So let’s look at the funding that would be required if we are to be in a position where we can fund the restoration of nature – of our environment.

Research published in Nature Sustainability journal in 2023 found that, over three plausible terrestrial area-based conservation scenarios, the gross costs of conservation basic income (CBI) required to achieve internationally agreed targets to halt biodiversity loss, restore degraded land and mitigate climate change, vary from $US351 billion to $US6.73 trillion annually. CBI is a poverty alleviation through cash transfer concept of providing alternative financial opportunities for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) in order to reduce dependence on – for example – extractive economies such as cash-crop production, illegal logging, poaching and waged labour in extractive industries.

More directly, in 2023, a report by a coalition of 19 environmental organisations found that restoring biodiversity-rich land across 10% of Europe’s territory could cost more than $167 billion.

In 2022, the EU Commission estimated the cost of restoring a broad range of EU peatlands, marshlands, forests, heathland and scrub, grasslands, rivers, lakes, alluvial habitats and coastal wetlands to be 154 billion EUR.

In 2021, researchers from the University of Queensland described and costed a pathway to achieve 30% native vegetation coverage of almost all (99.8%) Australia’s degraded terrestrial ecosystems on marginal farming land. They estimated that this restoration would cost approximately AU$2 billion annually (0.1% of GDP) for 30 years, or a net present value of $41 billion for the life of the project.

In 2019, The Paulson Institute, Nature Conservancy and Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability estimated financial flows into global biodiversity conservation in 2019 as between $US124 and $US143 billion. This represented a near-tripling in funding since 2012. But, in context, spending on agricultural, forestry, and fisheries subsidies that degrade nature was at least two to four times greater. And that did not include subsidies for fossil fuels. At the same time, it found we needed to be spending an additional $598-824 billion annually to reverse the biodiversity crisis by 2030.

The point here is that all these approaches arrive at a figure that is BIG – the message being that reversing biodiversity loss is an extremely expensive exercise.

To further make the point, we can drill down into more specific costs to save particular species or ecosystems.

In 2019, research published by a number of esteemed scientist in Conservation Letters estimated the cost of effectively recovering Australia’s listed threatened species to be close to AU$1.69b/year. By comparison, at that time in Australia: Australians spent more than double this amount on pet cat care in 2019, and the government forewent AU$980m in tax revenue through fuel tax credits to coal mining companies in 2018.

A 2016 report by the Water Science Taskforce, appointed by the Queensland Government, projected it would cost $8.2 billion to save The Great Barrier Reef.

Saving the world around us – the world we rely on for life and business – is not a low budget enterprise. But how well do we recognise this? And if we do, how close are we coming to putting our money where our mouth is – to taking it seriously and spending the money that is really required?

Let’s look at where our governments spend their money.

For the 2022-23 financial year, Australia’s federal budget allocated around  – wait for it – $100 million for protecting Australia’s biodiversity – remember this had been costed at AU$1.69 billion per year in 2019! That same year, the federal government provided $155 million for sport.

A barrage of numbers can be mind numbing. So let’s not lose sight of the fact that one billion is one thousand million.

In stark contrast, the agriculture sector in Australia contributes approximately $155 billion annually to our economy – 12% of GDP. The comparative spend is frighteningly low, my point being that if we are trying to make an impact, this can only ever do the smallest amount of tinkering at the edges.

In 2023-24, this became an allocation to the Nature Positive Plan of $214.1 million over 4 years – or $53.5 million per annum. In 2024-25, it added $35.6 million over two years from 2024-25 to continue developing the processes and systems needed to administer the Nature Repair Market scheme – that’s under $18 million a year. There was also $307 million for improvements in our laws and institutions, almost 45% of which is to “to strengthen and streamline environmental approval decisions on priority projects, including renewables and critical minerals projects”.

Let’s look pre-covid. In the 2019-20 federal budget, the Australian Conservation Foundation’s analysis found that it represented a 39.7% per cent cut to the environment budget since 2013. It included $100 million over forward estimates for an environmental restoration fund to provide grants for on-ground restoration and protection projects, and $28.3 million for community-led environment projects.

If I sound frustrated or incredulous, let me compare this to what the government is and has been spending its money on in that same budget.

In 2019-20, the government allocated $32.2 billion to defence, $36.4 billion to education, $81.8 billion to health and $180.1 billion to social security, with broadly $128 million allocated to environmental restoration. The budget for agriculture, forestry and fishing was over $2.58 billion and for mining, manufacturing and construction, over $2.8 billion.

In the 2024-25 budget, government investment in the mining sector was $7 billion, plus a further $1.7 billion for ‘green’ metals and fuels.

Indeed, a report released by 30 By 30 in May found that:
– Australian federal government biodiversity annual expenditure has averaged A$475m over the last decade, with a recent increase in 2023/4
– Federal government spending over the last decade is only about 30% of OECD levels, less than 8% of the estimated annual need, and less than 3% of the risks posed to the economy
– The federal government is spending 16 times more on subsidies for oil and gas companies than it is on protecting biodiversity
– And it found that, while information on state and territory spending on biodiversity is outdated, available data shows it is still far less than required benchmarks

You might also be thinking that Philanthropy might be helping the environment to a significant degree. There is some good and some bad news here.

Firstly, research released by Philanthropy Australia in March this year showed that Australian donations and bequests to charities working on climate and environment grew from $148 million in 2018 to $270 million in 2021 – an increase of 82%. So that is extremely heartening and encouraging.

But the second point is that philanthropy in Australia is nothing like the size of industry it is in the United States, so the amount we are talking about is still falling far far short of what is required – particularly if you were to remove the amount apportioned solely to climate change matters.

So, what is all this financial and budgetary information telling us?

It is very clearly illustrating that there is a very very significant funding gap when it comes to what is needed and what is available to secure the future of our environment and its plants and animals.

This is important because government spending also influences public perception about the gravity of certain issues.

This is not just a one way street like the messages coming from the community about the cost of living. It’s low budgetary spend can mask the seriousness of the problem. In a manner, it is like the perspective presented on matters of equality – “you can’t be what you can’t see”.

If government is making environmental repair and the extinction crisis low priority in their budgets, it is conveying that low level of urgency to the general public – keeping it as a fringe of left issue. Except that it is not. It is an issue that affects absolutely everybody.

In fact, a global report on Government environmental protection expenditure and national ESG performance, published in Science Direct in June, essentially bore this out. It found that optimising government environmental protection spending has a significant and positive effect on national ESG performance, and that the allocation of funds towards environmental protection not only bolsters the ecological and societal performance of a nation, but also elevates its governance standards.

And as I’ve said, Australia is not alone in this glaring discrepancy – this is a similar picture around the world. For example in 2024 the European Commission reported that expenditure on ‘environmental protection’ ranged between 0.2 % of GDP and 1.4 % of GDP in 2022. In 2022, the Netherlands devoted the highest ratio of GDP to ‘environmental protection’ (1.4 % of GDP), followed by Belgium (1.2 % of GDP), France and Malta (1.1 % of GDP each).

So the picture is clear that the funding gap between what is needed to secure our biodiversity and what governments and philanthropy can provide, is very significant indeed.

But I acknowledge that to make my point, I have pitted the spend on environmental protection against that on other sectors, such as Agriculture.

The terms of trade for agricultural enterprises continue to decline year after year. Money back through the farm gate has gone down. We can see this if we look at specific agricultural sectors – dairy, cane, wool, livestock, grain, cotton. An ABARES report this year on Australia’s farm productivity slowdown stated that Australian broadacre farm productivity has slowed to an average annual growth rate of 0.72% from 2000 to 2023, compared to a much higher rate of 2.18% throughout the 1980s and 1990s.

Producers are finding it harder and harder to produce, and there is immense pressure to reduce costs – just look at the current supermarkets inquiry.

But at the same time, agricultural land managers are expected to make a contribution to conservation on their land, which makes up 60 per cent of the land outside legally protected areas (23 per cent) such as national parks and world heritage areas – and is where most of our wild species, and therefore vulnerable and endangered species, live.

Yet, there is no incentive for them to make their own investment to protect these environmental assets. We have to remember, it costs these people to make conservation investments on their land. We’ve seen the evidence that times are hard and getting harder. People working the land have to weigh conservation investments up against investing in clearing land for wood, pasture and cropping. And it’s not difficult to understand where the decision most often falls.

But what would it look like if the markets we are talking about really delivered?

In 2022, the World Economic Forum found that, if we internationally stall nature loss and make investments with nature positive outcomes, it could create new business opportunities to the scale of $10 trillion annually and create 395 million new jobs by 2030.

And in 2019, the OECD estimated that achieving the Bonn Challenge target of restoring 46% of the world’s degraded forests could generate $US7-30 (EUR 6-25) for every euro spent.

More directly, in 2023, a report by a coalition of 19 environmental organisations found that the $167 billion to restore 10% of Europe’s territory, I mentioned earlier, would generate benefits valued at around $2 trillion, resulting in a cost-benefit ratio of 1:12.

The 154 billion EUR to EU Commission cited to restore grassland and wetlands etc would deliver monetary benefits of 1,860 billion EUR.

And that brings me to a set of questions.

If we stick with the status quo – of relying on government funding and legislating protected areas – of how it has always been – where will it get us? Where did this get us? Then what do we think will happen from here on in?

Whatever way we come at it – whatever data source you choose, the conclusion must be the same – we must engage markets to solve these problems.

So what are we going to do about it?

If we continue on the same track, we are in real danger of building more “amazing tools” that continue to fail to scale and continue to solve little.

Why?

Because the public mandate to do so will not be there.

Because we need to advocate for the tools we need much more widely than we have.

Because we need to show – we need to spell out – why this is important: explain why we are proposing these tools – spell out exactly why the alternatives haven’t worked.

And we need to keep doing this – and keep doing this – and be prepared to fight for the space we need.

We need also to be much more transparent in the way we communicate – we need to acknowledge we don’t have all the answers, that there will be uncertainty in the outcomes, that we understand this and take steps to mitigate for it

The bottom line here – in more ways than one – is that there simply is no other choice. Because no other solution – save those we have been using up until now – has presented itself.

In conclusion, what I’m saying is that all you of you here today – and your colleagues – have to go out and tell the world why we are doing this and why it matters.

The post Harnessing markets for conservation impact appeared first on GreenCollar.

The GLM method quantifies and values the reduction in sediment losses resulting from improved grazing land
practices that are above the regulated minimums, aiming to incentivise graziers to achieve a high level of ground
cover before high intensity rainfall periods, to reduce sediment run-off onto the Reef.

Verterra Ecological Engineering, AgriProve and GreenCollar partnered to deliver this method to enable
generation of revenue for graziers that make changes to land management which result in reduced flow of fine
sediment to the Great Barrier Reef, protecting one of the natural wonders of the world.

“By working together to create the GLM method, we hope to deliver future opportunities for more land managers
to undertake projects and generate revenue from Reef Credits.” GreenCollar CEO, James Schultz said. “GLM is
another outcome-based method that will enable pollutant reductions to be achieved at scale and will complement
the other Reef Credit methodologies to create a market-based solution to help address water quality in Reef
catchment areas.”

“Importantly, the GLM method has been designed to complement and work alongside soil carbon projects. We
hope to see application of the method result in maximised soil health benefits, boosting grazing productivity and
sequestering carbon through whole-of-property management planning.” AgriProve, Founder and Managing
Director Matthew Warnken said.

“Eco-Markets Australia’s independent administration of the Reef Credit Scheme ensures that every methodology,
including the GLM method, experiences a thorough evaluation before being approved to generate Reef Credits,”
says Eco-Markets Australia CEO Maree Adshead. “Our comprehensive evaluative process ensures that Reef
Credits reflect measurable, verifiable reductions in fine sediment or dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) entering
the Great Barrier Reef. This approach reinforces our commitment to ensuring transparency and trust in the
market.”

Verterra Ecological Engineering has pioneered the method’s quantification approach and incorporated it within
DROVER, an integrated property management and reporting toolkit. “DROVER provides project proponents and
owners with key insights into property condition by quantifying the difference between historic and present-day
sediment losses to the Reef through regular monitoring of ground cover change via remote sensing technology,”
said Andrew Yates of Verterra Ecological Engineering. “DROVER aims to act as a decision support tool to
enhance the grazing land management practices of landholders.”

Projects on any grazing land within the Great Barrier Reef catchments may be eligible to benefit. Further
information about eligibility under the GLM Method for Reef Credits is available here.

The post Ground-breaking Reef Credit method for grazing land management approved and released by Eco-Markets Australia appeared first on GreenCollar.

Media Release: GreenCollar is pleased to announce that existing Board Director, Brendan Foran, has been appointed Chair of the Board as of 9 May.

Brendan, who has been a Director on the GreenCollar Board since December 2023, brings to the position enormous executive and leadership experience, as well as expertise in and life-long commitment to natural resource and environmental issues. 

Brendan was the CEO of Greening Australia for 11 years where he led an organisation-wide governance and strategy reform program that enabled greater levels of impact, efficiency and resilience. He was also the inaugural Chair of the Australian Land Conservation Alliance (ALCA), the peak national body representing organisations that work to conserve, manage and restore nature on privately managed land. 

“I have worked closely with GreenCollar for many years and greatly respect this company’s pioneering high integrity work in establishing and developing environmental markets, in partnership with private landholders, both as scalable solutions to nature repair and the mitigation of climate change and as a mechanism for attracting private investment to these critical endeavours,” Mr Foran said. “It is now my pleasure to be working with my esteemed fellow Board members, the company and its expert staff to build on this excellent work and make the most significant and effective contributions we can to alter the trajectory of the environmental and climate threats that we are now living with.”

Brendan’s other executive and director roles include Corporate Affairs Manager – Eastern States for Alcoa of Australia, Founding Chair of SeedX and Canopy – Nature Based Solutions, Founding Director of NatureCo, and Non-executive Director of North-East Water and the Gordon Institute of TAFE. 

Brendan currently sits on the Boards of AustraHort, a major Australian seed supplier where he also serves as Chair, the North East Catchment Management Authority, Landcare Australia and The Talia Foundation. He also provides strategic advice and coaching to Boards and Executives working in and across the environment sector. 

Brendan holds an MBA, an Advanced Diploma in Business Management, is a Graduate of the Australian Institute of Company Directors , was a 2011 Rotary Foundation Group Study Exchange participant in Iceland and a 2016 Harvard Club of Australia non-profit fellow. 

Brendan assumes the role of Chair following the departure at the end of last year of previous Chair, Grant King, who brought his immense skills and talent to the Board as it navigated a rapid successful expansion in its portfolio, as well as scientific, policy and advocacy efforts over more than three years.

“Brendan brings with him a wealth of valuable experience and knowledge, including his history of operating at the forefront of nature-based solution development and environmental thinking,” Mr Schultz said. “We are delighted that he has been able to join the Board and take up the position of Chair.”

Fellow GreenCollar Board Directors are Mara Bun, Cathy Harris, Michael Hudgin, Christopher Metrakos and James Schultz. 

The post GreenCollar Board announces new Chair appeared first on GreenCollar.

The post How Reef Credits deliver real, measurable, verifiable outcomes to the Great Barrier Reef appeared first on GreenCollar.

“GreenCollar and EnergyLink Services have been working together closely for a long time now. It made perfect sense to streamline our operations so clients can come to one organisation to develop comprehensive on-farm decarbonisation strategies that maximise value while improving biodiversity, carbon stock and maintaining or increasing productivity,” said GreenCollar Chief Strategy Officer, Pierre Josset.

“For example, our new partnership will be able to cover everything from emissions baselining to assessment for reduction in energy and carbon footprints, carbon revenue potential, project development, decarbonisation strategy and implementation plans, action plans for opportunities and monitoring and verification of energy savings.”

In combination with the environmental services provided by GreenCollar’s nature-based land management projects, EnergyLink Services brings its significant expertise in establishing energy and carbon inventories, recommending energy efficiency improvements, designing fuel switching and electrification options and establishing contracts to procure renewable energy for small and medium-sized enterprises and large corporates across a diversity of sectors.

“This convergence of our organisations means we can build on our values-driven approach to prepare businesses for the low carbon and nature-led transition by maximising EnergyLink’s engineering and GreenCollar’s environmental market and finance expertise,” said EnergyLink Services CEO, Philip Link.

“This partnership means we can better assist sectors including heavy industry, food and beverage and manufacturing, by providing end-to-end services leveraging an array of environmental services, markets and products.”

Mr Link pointed out that farmers are increasingly wanting to understand how to identify and calculate the Scope 1, 2 and 3 greenhouse emissions associated with their operations. This demand for knowledge and advice is being driven by the buyers of their products, including Coles and Woolworths, industry groups such as Meat and Livestock Australia, investors and end users.

“Many farmers are understandably worried about what this means for their business, but are also having the benefits of ‘carbon market’ participation promoted to them,” he said. “Both GreenCollar and EnergyLink Services have deep experience and expertise in the agriculture sector which, when combined, means we can supply a one stop set of services that address the overall objective of decarbonisation and carbon market participation.”

Mr Josset said that the new partnership provides significant advantages for both organisations: “Both our organisations will be able to expand our market reach and increase our level of service delivery, plus we will be able to invest in and design technology solutions to support decarbonisation plans.”

He said EnergyLink Services would provide support to maintain GreenCollar’s accreditations in state-based energy efficiency schemes while being able to leverage its knowledge, processes and capabilities to uplift and improve their internal business infrastructure.

The post GreenCollar makes strategic investment in EnergyLink Services appeared first on GreenCollar.