System to protect Australia’s threatened species from development ‘more or less worthless’, study finds

Environment ministers' decisions spanning 15 years made no difference to amount of habitat destroyed, researchers say

• Follow our Australia news live blog for the latest updates
• Get our morning and afternoon news emails, free app or daily news podcast

Decisions by environment ministers spanning 15 years to either wave through projects or impose stricter conditions to protect threatened species made no actual difference to the amount of habitat destroyed, according to a new study.

More than half of habitat cleared to build infrastructure, mines, urban developments and for agriculture came after a minister had decided projects would have a non-significant" impact on species and habitat, the study says.

Sign up for Guardian Australia's free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup

The term significant impact" was too vague and the criteria around it was ambiguous, leading to subjective decisions.

Developers intentionally minimise the potential impacts of a project and governments relied too much on reports from consultants paid by proponents.

Social and economic factors were too often placed above environmental risks when decisions are made.