Biodiversity isn’t a nice-to-have metric. In mining, infrastructure and land-intensive government programs, it can become a delivery risk if its not integrated early.
Nature and biodiversity are moving into the mainstream of sustainability reporting and stakeholder expectations. That shift matters because nature-related issues don’t stay in reports. They show up in approvals, design changes, stakeholder conflict, rehabilitation obligations and long-term liability.
Im Monique Chelin, sustainability consultant and Board Director with over 20 years of experience across mining, infrastructure and government projects in Australia and internationally. In this article Ill explain why nature is rising now, where it hits projects, and how to make nature considerations practical and decision-useful.
Why nature and biodiversity are rising now
Climate reporting has dominated the last few years. Now organisations are being asked to broaden the lens.
Drivers include:
- Increasing investor focus on nature-related dependencies and impacts
- Stakeholder expectations around land use, water, habitat and cultural values
- Emerging frameworks that help structure nature-related disclosure
For capital projects, the key point is this: nature risk is often a schedule risk.
Where nature becomes a project risk (not just a reporting topic)
Nature and biodiversity issues typically become material through four pathways.
1. Approvals and conditions
Nature impacts can trigger additional studies, offsets, monitoring requirements, or changed conditions. If the project team discovers these late, the schedule impact can be significant.
2. Stakeholder trust and social licence
Community and Traditional Owner concerns about land and biodiversity can escalate quickly when they feel engagement is late or superficial.
3. Redesign and rework
Late-stage discovery of sensitive habitat, threatened species, or cumulative impacts can force design changes. Redesign is expensive. It also creates knock-on procurement and construction impacts.
4. Long-term liability and rehabilitation
Nature commitments dont end at commissioning. They can create long-term monitoring, rehabilitation and reporting obligations that must be designed into the project from day one.
The pattern I see when projects get derailed
A common pattern looks like this:
- Nature considerations are treated as a compliance workstream
- Baseline studies are delayed or scoped too narrowly
- Stakeholder engagement starts after key design decisions are locked
- A new constraint emerges (habitat, water, offsets, cumulative impacts)
- The project is forced into redesign, renegotiation, or re-approval
The lesson is not do more reporting. The lesson is integrate nature earlier so it changes decisions.
Three questions project directors should ask at concept stage
If you want nature to be manageable (and reportable), ask these questions early.
1. What nature-related issues could change our design or approvals pathway?
Identify likely constraints and decision points:
- threatened species and habitat
- water dependencies and catchment impacts
- cumulative impacts in a region
- rehabilitation expectations and closure planning
2. Who are the stakeholders for nature risk?
Map stakeholders beyond the usual list:
- Traditional Owners and cultural heritage stakeholders
- local communities and landholders
- regulators and assessment bodies
- NGOs and community groups
- investors and lenders
3. What will we measure, and how will we prove it?
If a commitment is material, it needs a measurement approach:
- baseline data and monitoring plan
- clear boundaries and methodologies
- ownership for data and reporting
- evidence trail for assurance
Making nature decision-useful (a simple governance approach)
To keep nature practical, treat it like a governance and delivery discipline.
- Define the nature risks that are material to the project
- Link each risk to a decision point (design, procurement, schedule, approvals)
- Assign an accountable owner
- Define controls (what you will do)
- Define metrics (how you will know it worked)
This approach improves both delivery outcomes and reporting credibility.
The question to ask
If nature-related commitments were challenged tomorrow, could you show:
- what decisions they influenced
- who owns them
- how they are measured
- what evidence supports them
If not, the gap is integration, not intent.
Question: Where do you see nature risks showing up most in your projects: approvals, design changes, or stakeholder trust?
References and further reading
About Monique Chelin
Monique Chelin is a sustainability consultant and Board Director with over 20 years of management experience across mining, infrastructure and government projects. She specialises in sustainability reporting, ESG risk management, project governance and stakeholder alignment for major capital projects.
Let’s Connect
Whether you’re facing a derailed capital project, need expert ESG risk assessment, or want to build sustainability leadership capability in your organization, I deliver practical, results-driven solutions.
I’m based in Brisbane, Australia, and work with clients across Australia and internationally.
📧 Contact me via mjcsustainability.com
🌐 Learn more at mjcsustainability.com
💼 Connect with me here on LinkedIn
Monique Chelin helps organizations turn sustainability from compliance burden into competitive advantage through integrated ESG risk management, project governance, and capability building.
Founder, MJC Sustainability | Certified PRiSM™ Trainer | Infrastructure Sustainability Council Assessor | 20+ Years International Experience
