Planning for net zero requires planning for people

How can Australia strike a balance between environmental obligations and project delivery in the race to net zero?

In 2022, Australia joined 195 countries in adopting the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF),¹ a landmark global agreement committing signatories to:

• protect at least 30% of land and sea areas by 2030 (Targets 2 and 3)
• integrate biodiversity considerations into all planning and development decisions (Targets 14 and 15)
• respect the rights, values, and knowledge systems of Indigenous peoples and local communities (Target 22).

However, there remains a significant implementation gap domestically. Australia’s federal environmental law, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) has been repeatedly criticised for being outdated, opaque, and ineffective in preventing biodiversity decline.² The 2020 independent Samuel Review confirmed these criticisms, finding that the EPBC Act lacked integrity, enforceability, and transparency.³ In response, the federal government is progressing reforms under the “Nature Positive Plan,” focusing on stronger national standards, independent oversight, and modernised biodiversity assessment.⁴

These reforms set the context for a major new study released in 2025 titled ‘Negotiating risks to natural capital and stakeholder values in net-zero transitions’ (2025 study), which examines how Australia might meet its net-zero targets while honouring its environmental and cultural heritage obligations.⁵ This study extends the 2023 Net Zero Australia (NZAu) project by integrating stakeholder values, biodiversity data, and land tenure overlays into renewable energy planning.⁶

Framing the 2025 study

The 2023 NZAu study provided a technically and economically feasible roadmap for Australia to reach net zero by 2050 and become a clean energy exporter by 2060. It is projected that renewables would need to scale to 40 times the current National Electricity Market (NEM) capacity⁷, requiring up to 111,000 km² of land⁸ and between AUD$7-$9 trillion in investment.⁹

However, that study treated land as a spatial and technical constraint, categorising areas as either ‘available’ or ‘excluded’. In contrast, the 2025 study takes a land-centred view, treating land not just as space to be occupied but as a repository of ecological, cultural, and social values. The 2025 study adds critical layers of analysis, such as:

• Considering ecological overlays including Key Biodiversity Areas, wetlands, threatened species habitats, and intact bioregions.
• Land tenure by identifying candidate land across the Indigenous estate, recognising both legal title and the cultural, ecological and governance significance of Country.
• Stakeholder perspectives by integrating input from Traditional Owners, farmers, conservation groups, and regional planners.

The combined findings of the 2023 NZAu project and 2025 studies make clear that Australia’s renewable transition is land intensive. The 2025 study estimates that 111,000 km² will be required for solar, wind, and transmission infrastructure to meet net zero and export goals.¹⁰

However, much of the least-contested land is already in use or designated for projects. Following a forty-year modelling approach in the 2025 study, what is occupied by renewables in a core net-zero scenario is:

• 43% Indigenous estate (including freehold, leasehold, and co-managed lands)
• 17% rainfed agricultural land
• 1.5% in Key Biodiversity Areas.

When land availability does not equal project feasibility

The 2025 study demonstrates that land-use assumptions directly impact energy system outcomes. Under an “uncollaborative” planning scenario:

• Australia would fall 478GW short of its projected clean energy export capacity
• transmission costs would rise by up to 26%, as developers are forced into less optimal corridors
• biodiversity exclusions, not agricultural constraints, are the dominant limiters of viable project sites.

These findings corroborate the 2023 NZAu modelling, which flagged spatial competition as a growing bottleneck. The 2025 study sharpens this risk by showing how over 90% of land within two designated Renewable Energy Zones (REZs) already overlaps with high-biodiversity values, casting doubt on their long-term feasibility. This spatial constraint is compounded by escalating delivery costs.

AEMO’s Draft 2025 Electricity Network Options Report attributes a 25% to 55% increase in overhead transmission project costs to factors such as supply chain constraints, intensified competition for contractors, route changes to avoid sensitive land, rising biodiversity offset requirements, and the growing complexity of securing social licence.¹¹ Together, these pressures demonstrate how environmental and social considerations are now reshaping project economics and delivery timelines.¹²

Stakeholder engagement as a legal obligation

The study’s scenario modelling was built on engagement with groups such as the National Farmers Federation, National Native Title Council, and Australian Conservation Foundation. This input shaped a new “traffic light” classification system:

• Green = developable land.
• Orange = conditional approval based on consultation or offset.
• Red = areas of high ecological or cultural value to be avoided.

While imperfect, this framework reflects several elements of emerging best practice:

• Avoid-mitigate-offset principle: This hierarchy prioritises avoiding high-impact areas altogether, minimising disturbances where development occurs, and only relying on offsets as a last resort.¹³
• Incorporation of stakeholder values: By incorporating social, cultural and ecological overlays to inform land suitability, the system seeks to move beyond purely technical or economic assessments.¹⁴
• Transparency of trade-offs: The visual classification makes it easier for decision-makers and communities to understand the competing priorities and project implications of their land.¹⁵
• Currency with regulatory trends: Recent policy developments point to a shift towards earlier engagement, cumulative impact assessments and stronger Indigenous involvement in approvals.¹⁶

However, classifying much of the Indigenous estate as “red” (land to be avoided) risks sending the wrong signal. It may suggest that these areas are too complex or sensitive for any form of development, potentially discouraging proactive engagement with Traditional Owners. This could foreclose opportunities for co-designed projects, consent-based development, and benefit-sharing arrangements. A more culturally appropriate framing would be to treat these areas not as no-go zones, but as places where consent-based, co-designed development may proceed on terms determined by Traditional Owners.

This shift mirrors broader legal commentary and market evidence. Public opposition, regulatory disputes, and social licence failures are increasingly seen not as “soft” risks. They are drivers of legal cost and delay.¹⁷

Navigating the EPBC reform landscape

As discussed, the EPBC Act is increasingly out of step with the challenges posed by large-scale renewable energy development.¹⁸ A core criticism is that the EPBC Act is too focused on process rather than environmental outcomes, often requiring procedural compliance without ensuring that biodiversity is actually protected or enhanced. Its most critical shortcomings include:

• Lack of clearly defined and measurable environmental outcomes, which undermines strategic planning, weakens accountability, and makes it difficult to assess whether the Act is delivering on its objectives.
• Weak enforcement mechanisms, which reduce accountability for environmental outcomes.
• Fragmented and outdated biodiversity data, often skewed toward better-studied taxa like birds while overlooking less visible or less charismatic species and ecosystems.
• Inability to assess cumulative impact, meaning approvals are often granted in isolation without accounting for how multiple projects may degrade a landscape over time.

These deficiencies were laid bare in the 2020 Samuel Review, which called for urgent reform. In response, the federal government’s Nature Positive Plan proposed a significant overhaul of the system. Key changes include:

• The introduction of legally binding National Environmental Standards (NES) which would provide clear, measurable benchmarks for decisions affecting matters of national environmental significance, Indigenous engagement, restoration, and community consultation.¹⁹
• The creation of Environment Protection Australia, an independent federal regulator tasked with environmental assessments, compliance, and enforcement.²⁰
• The introduction of modern biodiversity datasets and mapping tools (Biodiversity Data Repository), allowing regulators and proponents to assess ecological value and sensitivity with greater accuracy.²¹
• Embedding natural capital and ecological integrity into early-stage planning, requiring developers to consider environmental value before acquisition or design.²²

Reframing risk and value in project planning

For legal advisers, this evolving framework creates both risk and opportunity. Projects that meet current legal requirements may still fall short of community expectations, and the higher thresholds anticipated under the proposed NES, if and when they become law.²³ Legal teams will need to potentially:

• guide clients through “traffic light” zoning systems that categorise land into green (low risk), amber (conditional), and red (high biodiversity or cultural value) development zones
• assist in the integration of Indigenous-led spatial knowledge, particularly where cultural heritage or traditional ecological knowledge has not previously been incorporated into development plans
• encourage early ecological feasibility assessments, enabling clients to de-risk projects by identifying red flags before investing heavily in land or approvals.

Ultimately, the potential reforms mark a shift in what constitutes a bankable project. Legal advisers who engage early with evolving environmental laws and planning obligations will be best positioned to help clients deliver infrastructure that is not only compliant, but also resilient and socially supported.

Rather than viewing sensitive land as off-limits, there is an opportunity to work alongside Traditional Owners, local communities, and ecologists to design projects that restore habitat, improve landscape function, and build social licence. Project viability will increasingly depend on how well ecological and cultural risks are addressed at the outset.

Net zero needs collaboration

The pressure to accelerate renewables is real, but underinvesting in planning, consultation, and biodiversity risks delays, stranded assets, and backlash. The 2025 and the NZAu (2023) studies show that land has value as a legal, ecological, and cultural asset beyond its economic factors. To achieve net zero without sacrificing biodiversity or social cohesion, energy developers must embrace integrated planning.

For lawyers, this means guiding clients through a shifting legal landscape, but one where promised reform remains stalled. While the Nature Positive agenda points to stronger obligations for consultation, offsets, and biodiversity protection, implementation has lagged, leaving project proponents to navigate a widening gap between community expectations and outdated regulatory settings. Achieving net zero demands more than infrastructure – it demands trust. Without investment in planning, community engagement and ecological integrity, projects risk delay, opposition and failure. Because planning for net zero means for people, nature and Country.

---

¹‘A New Global Biodiversity Framework: Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework’ Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (Web Page, February 2025) https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/biodiversity/international/un-convention-biological-diversity/global-biodiversity-framework.

²The Australian Environment Act: Report of the independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Final Report, October 2009).

³Independent Review of the EPBC Act (Interim Report, June 2020); Independent Review of the EPBC Act (Final Report, October 2020).

⁴Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, ‘Nature Positive Plan: better for the environment, better for business’ (Report, December 2022).

⁵Andrew Pascale et al., ‘Negotiating risks to natural capital and stakeholder values in net-zero transitions’ (Research Paper, University of Princeton and University of Queensland, May 2025).

⁶Net Zero Australia, ‘Net Zero Australia: Modelling Summary Report’ (Research Report, University of Princeton and University of Queensland, April 2023).

⁷Professor Robin Batterham, ‘Net Zero Australia: Final results summary’ (Speech, Net Zero Australia, 19 April 2023).

⁸Andrew Pascale et al., ‘Negotiating risks to natural capital and stakeholder values in net-zero transitions’ (Research Paper, University of Princeton and University of Queensland, May 2025).

⁹Professor Robin Batterham, ‘Net Zero Australia: Final results summary’ (Speech, Net Zero Australia, 19 April 2023).

¹⁰Andrew Pascale et al., ‘Negotiating risks to natural capital and stakeholder values in net-zero transitions’ (Research Paper, University of Princeton and University of Queensland, May 2025).

¹¹Australian Energy Market Operator, ‘Draft 2025 Electricity Network Options Report’ (Report, 22 May 2025).

¹²Ibid.

¹³Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, ‘Offsets mitigation hierarchy’ (Web Page, January 2023) https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/epbc/approvals/offsets/guidance/mitigation-hierarchy.

¹⁴Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, ‘Community engagement for renewable energy infrastructure’ (Web Page, July 2024) https://www.dcceew.gov.au/energy/renewable/community-engagement.

¹⁵Net Zero Australia, ‘Downscaling – Net-zero transitions, Australian communities, the land and sea’, (Research Report, April 2023).

¹⁶Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, ‘Nature Positive Plan: better for the environment, better for business’ (Report, December 2022).

¹⁷‘Phantom Dwellings in Australia: A Growing Barrier for Renewable Energy Projects’ Australian Energy Council (Web Page, October 2024) https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/phantom-dwellings-in-australia-a-growing-barrier-for-renewable-energy-projects/.

¹⁸Independent Review of the EPBC Act (Final Report, October 2020).

¹⁹Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, ‘Nature Positive Plan: better for the environment, better for business’ (Report, December 2022).

²⁰‘Environment Protection Australia’ Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (Web Page, March 2025) https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/epbc/epbc-act-reform/environment-protection-australia.

²¹‘Biodiversity Data Repository’ Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (Web Page, February 2025) https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/environment-information-australia/biodiversity-data-repository#:~:text=Purpose,of%20our%20Nature%20Positive%20agenda.

²²Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, ‘Nature Positive Plan: better for the environment, better for business’ (Report, December 2022).

²³Ibid.