The Australian Government is consulting on a dangerous proposal to turn our native forests across Australia into carbon credit banks which guarantee our precious public native forests will continue to be open for logging! 

The proposal is called the Improved Native Forest Management (INFM) method. If approved, it will allow climate polluters to continue polluting and lock in native forest logging under the false label of climate action through carbon offsetting.

We need real climate action and genuine forest protection, not this greenwashing. We have to stop it!

We have a chance, right now, to tell the Government to reject this plan - we only have until Friday 30 January to make submissions!

Here is a submission guide to help you, use these answers when filling out the consultation form:

Do you think the proposed INFM method should be made?

• No
  • Native forests already offer significant public value. Using existing and regenerated carbon stores to generate credits undermines meaningful climate action and allows polluters to avoid reducing emissions. Trading forest carbon that already exists or is created through regeneration will result in a net increase in true emissions.
    
    
  • Making the proposed INFM and applying it to public native forests will undermine the much needed end of native forest logging across our public native forest estate. 

Should a moratorium on timber harvesting be considered a change in the baseline scenario?

• Maybe 
  • Placing a moratorium on native forest logging to assess it for a carbon project and then ignoring it for the purpose of counting carbon is a perverse accounting falsehood. 

• • Some forests, for example those within the footprint of the Great Koala National Park in NSW are under a logging moratorium right now. This is as a result of a policy to create a National Park. Under no circumstances could or should that moratorium be ignored in any carbon baseline counting, because it is a completely different management regime. 

• • Where a moratorium is genuinely declared for the purposes of assessment for the INFM method then it is arguable that it is necessary to engage the moratorium accounting falsehood.
    
    
  • Recent changes to the Australian environmental laws provide added biodiversity protections. Including these forests in the baseline inflates carbon credit calculations and weakens the credibility of the scheme.

Do you think these assumptions about leakage are reasonable?

• No
  • Leakage accounting under this method is not reliable. NSW’s Private Native Forest (PNF) logging is poorly regulated and any increase in logging to compensate for reduced harvesting elsewhere is unlikely to be accurately tracked or prevented.
    
    
  • There is no effective and accurate way to measure and account for leakage under this proposal.
    
    
  • Leakage must be calculated using actual carbon flows rather than assumptions and a whole of government regulatory program must be engaged to prevent leakage.

While you’re here! 

The Australian Government is also seeking submissions on two draft National Environment Standards. These standards will underpin Australia’s new environmental laws, they must be strong and enforceable. The legal experts at the Environmental Defenders Office have drafted a submission guide. Please click through and add your voice now.