Greenfleet's forests

Take a look for yourself

Featured Supporter

Autopia Management

20 April 2011

Greenfleet addresses Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee

Greenfleet was one of just two forest sink providers (along with CO₂ Australia) invited to address the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee hearing for the proposed Carbon Farming Initiative legislation.

This afternoon Greenfleet's Chairman, Ian Porter, and Senior Forester, Tim Powe, answered questions about the feasibility of the proposed legislation and addressed concerns regarding:

• the CFI leading to an excess of carbon credits in the market
• the potential for carbon sinks to displace agricultural productivity
• regulatory arrangements for approval of projects, and
• more.

Greenfleet's position on these issues is elaborated in our submission, Greenfleet submission CFI House of Reps Inquiry (274KB), and our feedback can be summarised as follows:

1. Australia needs a credible mechanism for recognising forest sink abatement to stimulate investment in our landscape and to overcome the 'carbon trading deficit' currently imposed under the rules.
   
2. Dismantling previous schemes such as Greenhouse Friendly™ and the failure of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme have created significant market uncertainty and has stymied investment in Australian abatement.
   
3. Projects and methodologies approved under previous schemes should be accepted and transitioned into the CFI.
   
4. Abatement from all projects should only be counted once.
   
5. Eligible projects' abatement is recognised from the commencement of the Kyoto period (2008) to prevent double counting by the Australian Government.
   
6. The proposed sections to impose automatic cancellation on voluntary abatement are unworkable.
   
7. Amend Part 2, Division 3, Section 19(2)(c) and Section 27 (3)(e) to allow voluntary retirement of carbon credits from eligible projects.
   
8. Let the ACCC fulfil its duties to ensure that offset agencies neither double-count abatement nor make false claims regarding their projects.
   
9. Approval of forestry projects, particularly those under 50 hectares should not require additional levels of Government approval, as the administrative delays will act as a significant barrier to participation in the CFI. Existing approval regimes should remain.
   
10. Natural resource agencies should not have the power to veto projects where they have a direct or perceived conflict of interest in the project's approval.
    
11. There is unlikely to be a huge flood of CFI credits into the market in the short to medium term.
    
12. Forests are unlikely to displace food production on productive agricultural land.
    
13. If there were a flood of credits onto the market, emission reduction targets can be adjusted accordingly.
    
14. Use existing international biodiversity standards to support claims regarding biodiversity.