Australia may need to fundamentally redraw its rural landscape — retiring farms, restoring vast tracts of vegetation and reshaping regional economies — if it is to avoid accelerating species loss and meet global biodiversity targets.
That’s the stark conclusion from a recent Adelaide University graduate examining how South Australia could meet an internationally agreed goal to return 30% of land to nature – a benchmark that scientists say is critical to prevent ecosystems from tipping into irreversible decline.
The warning comes amid growing global concerns that the planet is already deep into a human-driven mass extinction event.
According to the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, species are disappearing at 10 to 1000 times faster than the natural rate of extinction, with at least 1.2 million plant and animal species under threat of extinction.
Against that backdrop, Environmental Science Masters graduate Peter Martin argues that restoring at least 30% of landscapes to functioning natural systems is the bare minimum needed to stabilise biodiversity.
The target was endorsed globally in Montreal in 2022, including by Australia, but translating it into reality — particularly in heavily cleared agricultural regions – could prove difficult, Martin says.
His project, completed in 2025, examined four South Australian local government areas – the Coorong, Yorke Peninsula, Grant and the Copper Coast – all of which fall well short of the 30% benchmark.
In some areas, native vegetation has been reduced to just a fraction of its original extent. The Copper Coast, for example, retains only 3.6%.
To reach the target, large areas would need to be restored – not just marginal land, but in some cases even productive farmland. In the long term, some properties would need to be taken out of agriculture and returned to native ecosystems.
“This is not tinkering at the edges,” Martin said. “It implies major land use change at a district scale.”
The long-term vision is a new farming landscape with a mosaic of restored ecosystems that are highly valued by local communities.
“Instead of communities seeing their district as a ‘wheat-sheep zone’, they’d see and value it as a ‘wheat-sheep-mallee ecosystem’ zone, suggests Martin.
“The region might generate slightly less agricultural produce, but social and health science suggests that a more natural and diverse landscape can significantly improve human health and mental wellbeing.”
Using historical vegetation maps prepared by the SA Herbarium, the project outlined what a 30% restored landscape could look like. In the Copper Coast, for example, a future scenario shows native mallee, woodland and shrubland returned to 30% of the region.
The approach avoided complex modelling, instead relying on well-established knowledge of where different vegetation types once thrived. The presence of roads, towns and other key infrastructure was considered, alongside the need to minimise fire risk.
The biggest barrier is not technical feasibility, but ‘social licence,’ according to Martin.
“Community acceptance of sweeping, long-term change is slow and difficult. Farming regions built over generations of clearing and production are unlikely to embrace rapid and large-scale ecosystem restoration, particularly if it threatens livelihoods.
‘Transition guided by such a blueprint would need to unfold over decades, possibly even a century. It is possible but would need to be backed by sustained government and community support.
“Climate change adds further urgency and complexity. As temperatures rise and rainfall patterns shift, areas currently suitable for cropping may become marginal or unviable. In South Australia’s Mid North, for example, the historic boundary for reliable agriculture known as Goyder’s Line is already moving south.
“By the end of the century, climate projections suggest that Kadina, a major grain-producing centre, could resemble the far drier conditions of Hawker in the Flinders Ranges today.
Martin says that shift could render some current farming areas unsustainable, strengthening the case for alternative land uses, including the use of new crop varieties better suited to the new climate, or new land uses altogether, such as ecotourism in areas where ecosystems had been restored.
His study delivers a blunt assessment: Australia is still managing its landscapes largely according to a 19th-century model, despite decades of scientific evidence showing it is ecologically unsustainable.
“We continue to maintain an 1840s approach to landscape management long after science has made it clear it is driving species to extinction’, says Martin.
“There is a lot of lip service on conservation from political parties and on government web sites. However, the big question is whether we have the wisdom and courage to make the major land use changes that science tells us is urgently needed.”
