Australia claims it is ‘on track’ to save nature. We disagree

roxylaz/iNaturalist, Tim Bawden/iNaturalist, Wikimedia, The Conversation, CC BY Without fanfare, the Australian government has published the latest snapshot on its progress toward halting and reversing the loss of Australia’s biodiversity – our unique wildlife, plants and nature – by 2030. This report on Australia’s progress under the Global Biodiversity Framework is a self-assessment, and the Australian government has given itself a glowing report card. We examined the claims in this report, called the Seventh Report to the UN’s Convention on Biological Diversity. And we found the government has been unjustifiably optimistic, rewarding itself for “intentions” and promises so it can claim we are on track. This is wrong. Ecosystems are being left to degrade, rare and precious species are sliding toward extinction, and billions of dollars are being used to quietly fund subsidies, including for fossil fuels, which contribute to the very destruction the government claims to be fixing. Our last national report into Australia’s State of the Environment found the condition of the environment was poor and deteriorating. It is more pressing than ever the government drops the spin and gets on with the hard work of addressing the existential threat of biodiversity loss. Here are four key targets in the report that expose the real story:

1. Restoration: not enough done, and the report knows it Target 2 of the Global Biodiversity Framework, which calls for the restoration of degraded ecosystems, is one of only two targets the report rates below “on track”. The target requires at least 30% of degraded ecosystems to be under effective restoration by 2030. The report does not even quantify how much Australia is falling behind this target. This is a significant omission: data and modelling tools exist to estimate the extent of degraded ecosystems across Australia, and independent research has done exactly that. The government also says it is spending hundreds of millions on restoration. But independent research puts the annual cost of restoring Australia’s terrestrial, freshwater and coastal ecosystems in the billions.

   There are many different ecosystems in Australia, including these mountains In Tasmania. Matt Palmer/Unsplash, CC BY

2. Protected areas: national figures mask failures The report claims Australia is “on track” to meet Target 3, or the 30 by 30 target, which aims to protect 30% of Australia’s land by the end of the decade. It states 25% of land and 52% of ocean are under some form of protection. But these figures are seriously misleading. The framework does not just require 30% protection measured nationally. The protected area system is also supposed to be ecologically representative and “well-connected”, not simply a national land area target. Australia’s marine protected areas illustrate this issue perfectly. While 52% of Australia’s ocean is formally protected, only 24% is zoned for high protection. Many marine ecosystems remain inadequately represented, for example temperate rocky reefs and kelp forests along the Great Southern Reef. In 2018, the Commonwealth systematically downgraded marine park protections, reducing the extent of highly protected “no-take” fishing zones and reopening areas to commercial fishing. The more recent shift to a 30% highly protected marine target is welcome, but it reframes the goal without ensuring a variety of marine environments are included.

3. Threatened species: declining, not recovering Australia is on track to prevent new extinctions under Target 4, the report claims. This is largely anchored in the fact no species are known to have become extinct since the 2022 “no new extinctions” commitment. This is a weak basis for the rating. Australia already holds the world’s worst record for modern mammal extinctions – 38 species lost since colonisation, more than any other country. Against that grim inheritance, having no further extinctions (that we know about) is a remarkably low bar.

4. Harmful fossil fuel subsidies hidden, conservation spending inflated Target 18 requires nations to identify subsidies harmful to biodiversity by 2025. The Australian government’s response? It explicitly excludes fossil fuel subsidies from its assessment, and identifies roughly $1.1 billion across agricultural and fisheries categories. For the first time, research published this year, identified 36 federal subsidies worth $26.3 billion annually that are potentially harmful to biodiversity. Fossil fuel subsidies alone account for $14.1 billion. It is extraordinary the Australian Government believes it can exclude fossil fuel subsidies on the basis of a technicality. Meanwhile, independent estimates place federal biodiversity conservation spending at below $1 billion annually. The arithmetic is stark: the government spent more than $26 billion a year on harming nature, less than $1 billion conserving it. No government serious about halting biodiversity loss would preside over such an imbalance and say they were “on track”. Australians deserve an honest account Serious weaknesses have previously been identified in Australia’s 2022 Strategy for Nature. It is full of vague intentions without clearly defined targets, accountability, timelines and measures of progress. A promised implementation plan is also still missing, more than three years later. This new report confirms those weaknesses extend to Australia’s self-assessment, which lacks the rigour and ambition the nature crisis demands. The reforms of Australia’s nature laws, passed in late 2025, are the most significant in a generation, and we welcome them. But legislation without implementation, adequate funding or a delivery plan is not enough. This important report – with its hidden subsidies, inflated spending figures, missing implementation plan, and a definition of “on track” that mistakes promises for progress – is not worthy of a nation with both the means and the obligation to lead.

Paul Elton receives funding from the Australian Government Research Training Program. He is affiliated with the Australian National University's Fenner School of Environment and Society and has provided advisory support to the Australian Biodiversity Council. Hugh Possingham has received funding from The Australian Research Council and The Federal Environment Department. He is lead councillor at the Biodiversity Council, affiliated with The University of Queensland, Accounting for Nature and BirdLife Australia and he serves on committees for, or advises, about 25 other not-for-profit organisations.