Under a federal government scheme, people and businesses can undertake projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions or store carbon, in exchange for financial rewards known as carbon credits.
The government has invited proposals for new ways to generate carbon credits under the policy.
Forestry Australia’s proposal involves a number of activities conducted in national parks, state forests and on private land. In return for conducting these activities, land managers—such as government agencies and private landowners—would be granted carbon credits.
One part of the method involves “adaptive harvesting.” Forestry Australia says the approach would reduce carbon emissions and improve carbon storage in forests.
The proposal also involves “forest thinning,” or removing trees. In a statement to The Conversation, Forestry Australia’s acting president William Jackson said thinning involves “selectively reducing the number of trees to enable the healthy trees to grow.”
Announcing Forestry Australia’s proposal, its president Michelle Freeman said forests were “more resilient if they are actively managed.”
But several adaptive harvesting practices are scientifically shown to harm native forests.
Analyses following the 2009 wildfires and after the 2019–2020 wildfires show thinning generally makes forests more fire-prone. Foresters have themselves highlighted this problem. And the heavy equipment used to log forests disturbs and degrades soil and the understory.
What’s more, young trees—the usual targets of thinning—provide understory habitat for many species, including endangered mammals, such as Leadbeater’s Possum and many species of birds.
And thinning undermines a forest’s ability to withstand other threats, such as climate change.
Forestry Australia’s proposal is problematic if Australia hopes to achieve its emissions-reduction target of 43% by 2030, based on 2005 levels.
First, logging releases carbon stored in trees and soil. So, even if some carbon was stored under the plan—through activities such as regeneration—this would be undermined by carbon released when removing trees.
Second, there is a risk carbon credits may be granted for activities and emission reductions that would have happened anyway.
Take the proposal to provide carbon credits for adaptive harvesting. Most of these activities, such as forest regeneration, are already required by regulation and forestry codes of practice.
And in the case of the proposal to conduct regeneration activities after bushfires, forests will regenerate naturally if they are left alone.
Australia’s native forest logging industry has long been in decline and operates at a financial loss in most states.
Adding to the industry’s demise, Victoria and Western Australia have called an end to logging in public native forests and southeast Queensland is reportedly set to follow.
The flailing, damaging native forest logging industry is on the way out. Propping up the industry via a badly designed carbon credit method does not make economic or climate sense.