Saving the forest carbon method didn't fix the maths [AU]Friday 2 Oct 2026
The decision does not settle the question of the Method’s integrity, nor does it verify that the maths adds up. For more than a year, Forestry Australia has raised detailed technical concerns through multiple channels about how the INFM Method calculates carbon abatement. We have the analysis that supports those concerns and have offered to work constructively with government and stakeholders to resolve the problems. Our members include some of Australia’s foremost forest carbon experts. Their independent analysis identified material accounting concerns. None were addressed in the Senate debate, and none have yet been fixed. The maths and integrity of the INFM Method should have formed the basis of the decision, but the long-standing and highly emotive debate about native forest harvesting ultimately prevailed. The problem is that a politically convenient outcome, such as ending native forest timber harvesting, does not automatically create a genuine carbon credit. Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs) are the currency of climate policy. Businesses buy them to meet obligations or offset emissions. Governments rely on them to help meet Australia’s emissions targets. Landholders and investors make long-term decisions based on their value. If an ACCU says one tonne of carbon abatement has occurred, the system must be able to demonstrate that one tonne really has occurred. The Greens announced their support for INFM under the headline “Real pollution cuts, not accounting tricks,” while simultaneously announcing opposition to a Bill intended to strengthen the governance, transparency and integrity of the ACCU scheme and announcing an intention to disallow a private land method that has been transparently developed through many years of co-design involving scientists, agricultural organisations, carbon practitioners, conservation organisations, governments and land managers. At the same time, they have supported an INFM Method that has lacked transparent process, was not developed with forestry experts and has material technical issues that remain unanswered. The irony is difficult to miss. Poor-quality credits have consequences. More >> Source: Dr Michelle Freeman, President, Forestry Australia --(2022)2.jpg) | ||
Copyright 2004-2026 © Innovatek Ltd. All rights reserved. |
