NSW's KOALA BASELINE SURVEY IS WRONG

NORTH EAST FOREST ALLIANCE 

MEDIA RELEASE 

6 February 2026 

A review of the NSW Government’s Koala baseline assessments for the North East Forest Alliance has found the Government’s models of Koala densities broad and inaccurate, with cleared paddocks near Kyogle claimed to have higher densities of Koalas than the Great Koala National Park, resulting in greatly inflated population estimates for NSW.

The NSW Government recently released the outcomes of their Koala baseline assessments, intended to identify koalas’ distribution and abundance across NSW, and to provide a baseline against which future population changes can be correlated. The outcome included models of Koalas’ distribution and densities, and a total NSW koala population estimate of around 274,000, which is over 10 times higher than most other estimates.

The review’s author, Dailan Pugh OAM, described the aims of the baseline survey to obtain accurate maps of Koala habitat and populations across NSW as important and worthy.

“Unfortunately the outputs of the $20 million project are too inaccurate to achieve its aims or  provide a baseline to measure future population changes against.

“The modelled koala densities have not adequately accounted for cleared land, identifying very high Koala numbers in farmers paddocks, resulting in misleading mapping and grossly inflated population estimates.

“The assessment utilised drone surveys to identify actual Koala densities at 384 sites across the whole of NSW, which is a very small sample.

“They primarily relied on recordings of male koalas calling at least once in the breeding season, over two weeks at 1,179 sites, to model Koala distributions and densities.

“This appears to have falsely inflated densities because it does not account for the fact that some males may be transients dispersing through poor quality or unsuitable habitat, therefore calls are not necessarily representative of good habitat or resident populations.

“They extrapolated their survey results across NSW using coarse mapping of aridity, distance to rivers, canopy height, Koala feed tree density and soil nitrogen, without  accounting for numerous other habitat attributes known to affect Koala densities.

“At the very least they should have excluded cleared paddocks from their model.

“Based on the model, the largest area of the highest density Koala habitat in NSW is to the north-east of Kyogle, with cleared paddocks shown to have higher densities of Koalas than found in the best habitat in the Great Koala National Park” Mr. Pugh said.

 

 

 

FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL REFORMS AND NATURE POSITIVE

Just before Christmas, federal politicians quietly signed off on the biggest shake‑up of Australia’s national environment law in 25 years. They passed a package of reforms to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act in late November 2025.  One of the headline ideas is that new development should not just do “less harm”, but actually leave the environment in better shape overall – a goal now widely called “nature positive”.

In July last year, former Treasury Secretary Ken Henry told the National Press Club forcefully that Australia’s national environment laws were “broken”. He described our environmental decline as nothing short of “a wilful act of intergenerational bastardry”. This deterioration is made worse, Ken Henry explained, because it quietly accumulates as individual approvals are each assessed and passed “one project at a time”. This term of Parliament, he said, was our “last, best chance” to do something.  

The reform package answers that call by allowing new “National Environmental Standards” and agencies to steer decisions toward restoring nature.  In practice, this means approvals will increasingly have to show how damage is avoided, minimised, or offset in ways that genuinely improve habitats at a landscape scale.

What does “nature positive’’ mean? 

“Nature positive” is a simple phrase for a demanding idea: after a development, there should be more healthy habitat and more secure species than before.  This shifts the question from “how much can we afford to lose?” to “how do we start to repair what has already been lost?”.

Rather than looking at each project in isolation, the new approach aims to consider whole landscapes – the mix of farms, suburbs, bushlands, waterways, and coastlines that we actually live and work in.  These regional, or landscape plans will spell out clearly one of three options: no‑go areas, acceptable impacts, or areas where restoration must occur.

What does all this mean for state governments? 

The main reform Acts have passed, but many changes will roll out over the next 1–2 years as bilateral agreements with the states are put in place.  During this time, there will be further consultation on the draft National Environmental Standards. 

For state governments, the message is: lift your game or lose the pen.  If states want to keep doing most day‑to‑day assessments, their systems will need to match the new federal standards aimed at delivering nature‑positive outcomes.  Over time, this is likely to reshape planning rules about land clearing, offsets, and where new housing and infrastructure can go.

What will it mean for local governments?

Local councils will feel the change through updated state and regional plans, new mapping of high‑value habitat, and tougher expectations around urban tree coverage, wetlands, floodplains, and other aspects in coastal areas.  Developers may find some sites effectively off‑limits, while other areas will attract support for restoration, green corridors, or for nature‑friendly design of housing. 

As this simply stated but demanding concept is discussed, the academics are suggesting we need to say plainly what our assumptions are: how are we balancing biodiversity issues against social and intergenerational fairness, and against economic development? In other words, whose backyard birds, fishing spots, or cultural sites count most when the trade‑offs are made? Trade-offs will be inevitable. Is compensation needed? 

And as the new “nature positive” rules are worked out, the community’s task is not just to argue for or against particular projects but to help decide what kind of whole landscapes we want to leave to our grandchildren. 

    - Judith McNeill 

IN DENIAL OF THE FACTS

In November I attended Clarence Valley Council’s meeting when the majority of councillors voted to support a motion to ask other affected councils to join in lobbying the State Government to abandon the planned Great Koala National Park (GKNP). 

Whether those councillors really believed the government would yield to their demand after more than two years of intensive planning and consultation, I don’t know, but the nonsense spoken supporting the motion was unbelievable, especially the assertions that current native forest logging is sustainable.

The low point was when one councillor blithely claimed to disagree with the findings of research undertaken by Professor David Lindemayer and his team from the Australian National University.

 

Lindenmayer is a world-leading expert on forest ecology and resource management. He has published 49 books, some 1440 scientific works, including 943 peer-reviewed papers in international journals. He was elected a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science in 2008 and appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia in 2024. He’s been awarded the Eureka Science Prize three times, the Whitley Award on 10 occasions, the Serventy Medal for Ornithology, the Australian Natural History Medallion, and was awarded the prestigious Whittaker Medal from the Ecological Society of America in 2018.

 

With councillors refusing to believe the experts, what chance do we have of them making sensible considered decisions?

 

As for the sustainability of the native forest timber industry, Forestry Corporation’s 2024-25 Annual Report, tells the real story. Another $32 million loss from its hardwood operations last year, bringing the total loss over the past four years to $85 million; not to mention the tens of millions paid to sawmillers for transport subsidies and mill upgrades over that period.

 

These losses, along with their ongoing failure to honour Wood Supply Agreements, shows that Forestry Corporation’s native forest logging is an economic disaster.

 

On a positive note, the week after our council's meeting, Coffs Harbour City Council unanimously and enthusiastically embraced the Great Koala Park initiative and all the benefits the entire community will enjoy as a result of its creation.

 

-        John Edwards

 

 Published in the Voices for the Earth column in The Clarence Valley Independent , 10 December,  2025.

 

 

NOTE:  At Clarence Valley Council's December meeting, it was noted that Council had written to the other local councils (Coffs Harbour, Bellingen, Nambucca, Kempsey and Port Macquarie) urging them to join Clarence Council in opposing the creation of  the GKNP.  These councils had all responded to the CVC letter. While some indicated that they did not have a formal position on the creation of the GKNP, none of them indicated that they would join Clarence Council in formally opposing its creation.