Feed aggregator

The full Senate Hansard from the 10 September debate on the Improved Native Forest Management carbon method has reinforced Forest & Wood Communities Australia’s concerns that political support for the scheme is being confused with evidence that its carbon accounting is sound. Source: Timberbiz Forest & Wood Communities Australia (FWCA) Chair Steve Dobbyns said the debate revealed several new issues warranting scrutiny as the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee considers FWCA’s request for a statutory review of the Method under section 255AA of the Carbon Credits Act. “The Senate has voted and the Method remains in force. We are not seeking to re-run that debate,” Mr Dobbyns said. “What the Hansard now allows us to examine is the reasoning senators were given for supporting the Method, and some of that reasoning raises more questions than it answers.” During the debate Senator David Pocock told the Senate that credits were only paid where logging “stops altogether”. Mr Dobbyns said that description was incomplete. “Logging must cease within a designated carbon protection area, but that does not mean harvesting necessarily ceases across the entire INFM project area,” he said. “The Method expressly contemplates carbon protection areas forming only part of the wider forestry project area. “That distinction matters because the Method’s baseline, harvesting assumptions, leakage calculations and ultimately the number of ACCUs generated are based on a much more complicated project architecture than the simple proposition presented in the Senate. “If parliamentarians are being asked to judge the integrity of a carbon method, they need to understand how the Method actually works.” If 30% strengthens integrity, why wait until 2030? The debate also confirmed that the Government has asked ERAC to consider increasing the minimum carbon protection area requirement from 20% to 30%. However, the proposed higher threshold would apply only to projects registered from 1 July 2030. “That creates a new and very obvious integrity question,” Mr Dobbyns said. “If 30% provides greater confidence in the integrity of these projects, why is 20% considered sufficient for projects registered between now and July 2030? “Carbon integrity should not depend on what date a project happens to be registered. “If a stronger safeguard is justified, the Government should explain why it should not apply before the first generation of projects is locked in.” Mr Dobbyns said much of the Senate debate relied on endorsements from environmental organisations and selected academics as evidence that the Method was sound. “That is not the same thing as demonstrating compliance with the statutory Offsets Integrity Standards,” he said. “An organisation can strongly support ending native forest harvesting and still not have tested whether the resulting carbon credits accurately represent additional, measurable and conservatively calculated abatement. “The questions FWCA has raised are about carbon accounting, not whether particular groups support or oppose native forestry.” FWCA said the Hansard contained no substantive answer to the key technical matters already placed before ERAC, including the Method’s 40% ceiling on indirect leakage, the treatment of a pre-existing government commitment such as the Great Koala National Park, and whether the modelling and counterfactual are sufficiently conservative to avoid over-crediting. “These issues were already set out in our statutory review request and do not need to be relitigated through press releases,” Mr Dobbyns said. “But what is significant is that, despite being central to the integrity of the credits, they were effectively unanswered during the Senate debate.” Additionality concerns cross the political divide Mr Dobbyns said it was also notable that concerns about additionality were not confined to forestry representatives or senators opposing the Method. Greens Senator Nick McKim questioned the broader logic of paying for forest protection that governments have historically been able to deliver through ordinary policy and reservation decisions. “That comes at the issue from a very different political perspective to FWCA, but it points to the same underlying carbon-accounting question,” Mr Dobbyns said. “Would the claimed abatement actually have occurred without the carbon project? “That is particularly important where a government publicly committed to establishing a reserve before the carbon methodology under which it proposes to claim credits even existed.” FWCA has already asked ERAC to review whether the INFM Method continues to satisfy the Offsets Integrity Standards and to consider interim measures while that review is undertaken. “The Senate vote should not be treated as a technical validation of the Method,” Mr Dobbyns said. “It was a political decision about whether to disallow a legislative instrument. “The appropriate next step is now much more straightforward: answer the technical questions. “What is the evidentiary basis for the 40% leakage ceiling? How has additionality been demonstrated? How conservative are the baseline and modelling assumptions? And why is an integrity safeguard considered necessary from 2030 but apparently unnecessary beforehand? “If the Method is robust, transparent examination of those questions should confirm it. “If it isn’t, the problems should be corrected before they become embedded in projects and millions of dollars’ worth of ACCUs.”

The post INFM problems should be corrected now before they cost millions appeared first on Timberbiz.

The Australian Government is investing $5 million from 2026–27 through the Forestry Growth Fund to support implementation of two illegal logging law reforms: the new notification requirement and the use of timber testing technologies to verify species and origin claims. Source: Timberbiz These reforms are provided for in the legislation but are not yet in effect. The funding will help the department establish a digital notification system for importers and processors to provide required due diligence information before importing regulated timber products or processing raw logs. Earlier access to this information will support more timely risk assessment and targeted compliance activities. The funding will also support the integration of timber testing technologies within the department’s compliance operations. These technologies will help the department to verify claims about the species and origin of regulated timber products where appropriate, supporting a consistent, evidence-based approach to implementing Australia’s illegal logging laws. This work will be delivered progressively over several years. The government will keep stakeholders informed as the digital system and timber testing capability are developed, including through future updates and consultation on implementation and transition arrangements.  

The post Australia to invest $5M in illegal logging reforms appeared first on Timberbiz.