The forest carbon maths do not add up [AU]Friday 7 Aug 2026
Analysis by Forestry Australia’s forest carbon experts indicates the INFM Method could potentially over-credit projects by 40 to 100 per cent, even before the full effects of leakage and carbon stored in harvested wood products are taken into account. Forestry Australia President Dr Michelle Freeman said the findings raise serious concerns about whether credits issued under the INFM Method would represent genuine climate benefit “There are fundamental problems with this Method. Its prescribed accounting and modelling framework is structurally biased towards issuing more carbon credits than the genuine climate benefit achieved,” Dr Freeman said. “Forestry Australia supports credible investment in forest carbon and does not dispute that avoiding native forest harvesting can generate genuine abatement in some circumstances. But every ACCU issued must represent a real, additional and accurately measured tonne of emissions reduction.” “That is why the maths must add up.” Dr Freeman said. Forestry Australia’s assessment identifies three central problems: 1) The 15-year accounting period is too short: This is significantly shorter than the periods commonly used in forest carbon accounting; for example, the Plantation Forestry Method uses a 100-year accounting period. While harvesting causes an initial loss of forest carbon, regrowth captures carbon over many decades. Ending the accounting after 15 years excludes much of this regrowth, making the baseline appear to store less carbon and inflating the estimated carbon benefit of the Method. 2) The accounting structure over-credits projects upfront and relies on future deductions: The INFM Method over-credits projects up front. Later reporting periods then deduct some of the earlier credits as regrowth occurs to claw back some of what was over-credited. The appearance of continuing carbon benefit therefore depends on repeatedly adding new areas; if that flow slows or stops, the underlying shortfall becomes visible. 3) FullCAM is applied incorrectly: The Method prescribes clearfall harvesting assumptions to be implemented in FullCAM, Australian Government’s tool for estimating greenhouse gas emissions and carbon stored in forests and land. Given the vast majority of native forest harvesting in Australia is implemented as selective or partial harvest, the INFM Method adopts an approach that does not reflect on-ground outcomes and is inconsistent with the settings used in Australia’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory. This misapplication of the model in FullCAM exaggerates the difference between the project and baseline forests and inflates the estimated carbon benefit. Forestry Australia’s testing indicates that correcting the short accounting-window issue alone could reduce estimated abatement by more than 40 per cent. Correcting the FullCAM modelling could reduce estimated abatement by more than 50 per cent. “These are not marginal differences arising from professional judgement. They are material and cumulative problems embedded in the Method’s prescribed calculations,” Dr Freeman said. Millions of ACCUs could be issued without a genuine carbon benefit. The consequences could be significant because ACCUs generated under the Method may be used to offset real greenhouse gas emissions elsewhere in the economy. More >> Source: Forestry Australia  | ||
Copyright 2004-2026 © Innovatek Ltd. All rights reserved. |
