Sustainability has not delivered what was needed to date while none can deny aspects of the concept and practices have worked, the current state of the planet demonstrates its limitations.

It needs rethinking. Fortunately, a new mindset and action plan is formulating.

‘Sustainability’ as a concept, developed from the thought that we could balance the competing needs of humans and society with economic development and nature. The concept was first floated globally at the Rio ‘Earth Summit’ in 1992. The Rio ‘Earth Summit’ set out to produce a broad agenda and a new blueprint for international action on environmental and development issues to help guide international cooperation and development policy in the twenty-first century.

The Summit concluded that “the concept of sustainable development was an attainable goal for all the people of the world, regardless of whether they were at the local, national, regional or international level”, and proposed that “integrating and balancing economic, social and environmental concerns in meeting our needs is vital for sustaining human life on the planet and that such an integrated approach is possible”.

What the past 32 years since have shown is that when we consider the indicators that focus on the current health of natural systems, almost without exception, the health and biodiversity of natural systems are worse off by far.

Yes, global society has brought improved economic conditions to millions if not billions of people worldwide. But this development is not universal. Billions of people still exist in dire poverty, often with rapidly decreasing food and physical security, due to droughts, floods, fire and resultant famines. Development of the global and some countries’ economies have happened surely, with many economies larger and sections of those countries more affluent than in 1992.

The ‘Billionaire’ class has boomed, Stock Exchange values continue to reach record highs with some companies like Woolworths gaining over 700% in value since 1999. But for many average people wages stalled, and costs, rent, mortgages and debt ballooned. Large sections of the once large middle class in many developed countries are now working poor. Student loans, and skyrocketing rental, real estate, construction, food and other basic living costs with deteriorating environmental conditions means that the outlook for ‘post Boomer’ generations is far less certain and a lot more difficult than before.

Environmentally, the conditions don’t seem even to have any bright spots to show for the efforts exerted in the name of ‘Sustainable Development’. As a ‘green Building’ architect and ‘Environmentally Sustainable Development’ (ESD) consultant whose ESD career was launched working on more than half of the Sydney 2000 ‘Green Olympics’ venues and spent over 45 years working for climate change mitigation and later in the ‘green building and products’ sectors, the massive gains made in those projects and all of the impressive gains of the green building movement since, have demonstrably still not been enough to deliver any semblance of ‘sustainability’.

The combined efforts and ongoing attempts of our Australian, and indeed global society to reduce energy, waste, emissions, resource demands and ecological impacts have, in the broader contexts of ongoing growth in population and consumption been overwhelmed by the sheer volume of goods consumed and need for more food and resources to fuel these various ‘growths’.

In saying ‘Sustainability’ as a concept has essentially failed, I am not belittling or criticising the incredible efforts of the industry, colleagues or partner associations saying this, (we would be in a far worse condition now if many lifetimes of work had not been expended in the name of sustainability). What has happened, is that economic and political influences aided by the fossil fuel industry, have overwhelmed all our efforts and we need to refocus our attention and redouble those efforts The concepts behind the thinking that we would be able to balance these conflicting issues has shown us that sustainability is simply not enough.

Whether it is due to the ‘growth model’ itself or just growth in demand for whatever reason, or whether it is that progress has been undermined by fossil fuel and corporate interests determined to maintain their elite corporate millionaire and billionaire farms at any cost, the end result is the same. Nature and the natural ecosystems on which human, and indeed all life depends, is failing, as we take more than nature can sustainably give. The Exchange is unequal and inequitable. It is especially unfair to future generations.

Without restating the almost daily evidence of this gleaned from global scientific measurements, observations, modelling and now even the main stream media, the climate and web-of-life-sustaining natural systems are faltering, and we are on the tipping point of multiple natural systems failures, many of which, are already in potentially fatal decline or irreversible change. The sheer combined momentum of unconstrained economic and population growth, consumption and fossil fuel interests stoked political resistance and resultant inertia have so far won. No longer is the concept of sustainability alone tenable. We need a different, nature proactive course, where we focus on nature repair as an essential outcome of every economic and human activity.

This has been becoming self-evident for some time and global and Australian action is developing. From the global Kunming-Montreal Biodiversity Protocol where in late 2022 more than 90 nations including Australia signed up to ‘Restore 30% of Biodiversity by 2030’ (30×30) to Australia’s 2023 ‘Nature Positive’ policy and ‘Nature Repair Market’ legislation to hosting the UN Global Nature Positive Summit in Sydney this October 2024, Australia is starting to change course. The ‘Nature Repair Market’ legislation seeks to find ways to help non-government entities fund nature repair. Proactive restoration costs significantly less than reactive repair and the cost of inaction or inadequate speed of action gets higher every day we wait. We need more directed action, by more actors and organisations at every level.

That is also not to say that there are not already key participants in this needed change of direction. These include the Green Building Council of Australia with its recent ‘Design with Nature 2.0’ and its Green Star® rating tools requiring 6-star buildings to move to ‘Net Zero Carbon’ by minimising operational and upfront carbon emissions and then offsetting residual unavoidable emissions using ‘Nature Based Solutions’ (NBS)or nature repair-based carbon offsets in taking the World Green Building Council’s carbon offsetting strategy to the next level in mandating NBS for certification. The infrastructure sector has seemingly not made this connection to date.

Strategies to engage the whole economy in turning just ‘green’ initiatives into ‘nature positive’ outcomes are needed. The Australian Government’s ‘Biodiversity Certificates’ and launching of the nature repair market is underway and planned to open in 2025. The Office of the Clean Energy Regulator has been tasked with establishing systems, processes and rules (methods) necessary for the effective operation of the market. That said, there is no observable action to integrate these actions into the development or any other sectors.

Other countries like the United Kingdom have taken much stronger action. In 2024 it became mandatory for all new construction projects to be ‘Biodiversity Net Gain’ (BNG) using either onsite or offsite nature repair outcomes with precise, measured biodiversity outcomes as the metrics of success. The Australian construction industry is notoriously conservative and cost sensitive, but as mentioned before, the costs of inaction get higher faster than the costs of action now. The cost of engaging NBS at all parts of the value chain get smaller and result in larger gains when all parts of the supply chain get involved and the heavy lifting is not left to just Governments or indeed projects.

As the country with the highest per capita global footprint when the emissions of the fossil fuels we sell around the world are accounted for, we have a disproportionate responsibility to do more. At the very least we need to stop approving new fossil fuel leases and mines, but we need to take a much more proactive nature repair and nature positive stance and embed Nature Positive as a requirement in our Codes.

We need this new nationwide and global Nature Positive movement to explode into action, with the whole industry swapping our mindsets from ‘carbon’ only to “biodiversity and carbon’ simultaneously.

The Global GreenTag Team, has over the past few years developed and launched a product NaturePositive+ Assessment and Certification Standard that helps manufacturers quantify product impacts on, and benefits to, nature and circular resource flows, as well as restoring, preserving and expanding forests and rainforests on degraded non-productive farmlands or repurchasing lots destined for development.

The process uses groups like the local Gondwana Rainforest Trust (gondwanarainforesttrust.org), and Greenfleet (greenfleet.com.au) and the more globally focussed Rainforest Trust (rainforesttrust.org), corporately and personally, to create nature positive outcomes from our everyday activities.

We and others have started, will you join us?