Farmers demand more say in overhaul of Australia’s $5.6 billion carbon credit market after review into scheme

Farmers are demanding more say in an overhaul of the nation’s $5.6 billion carbon credit market with a new group set to implement changes critiqued for “lacking farm management experience”. The new Carbon Abatement Integrity Commission Committee was set up in the wake of an independent review into the nation’s Australian Carbon Credit Unit scheme arrangements with the group set to monitor the governance of ACCUs. The review report — released on Monday — defended the scheme while making sweeping recommendations to improve transparency and confidence in the market. A panel of four experts led by Ian Chubb found the ACCU scheme arrangements were essentially sound, but recommended a number of changes to “clarify governance, improve transparency ... and enhance confidence in the integrity and effectiveness of the scheme”. The six-month probe was carried out after the scheme’s integrity was called into question by a key architect of the framework, Andrew Macintosh, who labelled it a “fraud on the environment”. The report disputed the claims that the level of abatement had been overstated after Professor Macintosh’s research last year claimed up to 80 per cent of the units were not new or real cuts. He said major emission reduction methods were flawed in design or the way they were administered, with companies using the credits to offset greenhouse gas emissions. “The panel does not share this view,” the report said. There has been a mixed response to the report, with some claiming it has failed to quash suspicions of widespread fraud while industry insiders hoped it would restore confidence in the market. National Farmers Federation president Fiona Simson said farmers needed to be more involved with making suer there was a high level of confidence and integrity within the carbon credit system. “Overall, the NFF broadly supports regular reviews into the scheme, along with changes to clarify governance and improve transparency. However, some concerns remain,” she said. “We were clear that we need to establish a skills-based board to be involved in the governance of ACCUs. “While this is in in some ways supported by the new Carbon Abatement Integrity Committee, there is a lack of farm management experience.” The NFF recommended a farmer representative be present on the committee “to help farmers and landholders engage with the consultation process”. Nativ Carbon owner David Lullfitz, whose Bullsbrook-based business Plantrite offers native plants for large-scale revegetation projects, said the review gave his business confidence. Nativ Carbon installs biodiverse projects in order to generate ACCUs on behalf of industry — with the credits used to meet emissions targets. “We employ large numbers of regional and Aboriginal people and have expanded our facilities so we can install more large-scale projects for ACCUs — with high levels of biodiversity and integrity — in 2023 and 2024,” Mr Lullfitz said. “The findings of this review have given us greater confidence that this important work can continue to grow.” Mr Lullfitz welcomed one of the most notable recommendations that deemed no new land clearing permits be granted after April 2025. “For too long, too much land has been cleared without understanding the consequences to biodiversity and endangered species,” he said. The report found confidence in the ACCUs scheme had been undermined in part because of a lack of transparency around different stages of the scheme’s administration. It recommended greater transparency and separation around the roles of the regulator and how the scheme works. It found confidence in the scheme had been undermined in part because of a lack of transparency around different stages of the scheme’s administration. “The respective roles of scheme assurer, scheme regulator and related policy development should be clear, undertaken by visibly separate bodies,” the report said. The panel concluded the scheme was well designed when introduced, but could be improved after 11 years of operation. Prof Macintosh — whose criticism triggered the review — said he was disappointed by the findings and questioned how the panel reached their conclusions. He said the report was a contradiction because the review concluded the system was sound while making recommendations for its improvement. “I’m questioning the veracity of the findings and their analysis, and I’m really questioning the absence of any evidence,” he said. “Despite the fact they’ve said there’s no problems with the projects and credits, they’re recommending sweeping governance reforms.” Also among the recommendations was that a new body be set up so that integrity in the methodology was assured. The Albanese Government has accepted 16 of the review’s recommendations, including that no new credits be issued under the avoided deforestation method. The program had incentivised landholders not to clear their land, because of the time elapsed since land clearing permits were issued. I include the government helping to improve transparency and clearly identifying the roles around the scheme’s administration and integrity. Ms Simson said the agriculture industry was concerned the current method would conclude without the replacement being discussed or understood. “This recommendation fails the NFF’s test about the importance of the review being a technical, not philosophical, assessment,” she said. Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen said the recommendations would ensure the nation’s carbon credit scheme had the “highest integrity”. The report also recommended more support be given to regional communities and First Nations peoples to participate, and the removal of unnecessary restrictions on data sharing.