Carbon and the Land         (Part b)

Report of the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee
The Heat Is On: Australia's Greenhouse Future
Table of Contents

Chapter 7

Carbon and the Land         (Part b)

(Chapter 7 - Part a)

The Role of Native Forests and Plantations

7.78 An issue that was frequently raised in submissions and presentations to the inquiry was the question of whether Australia was doing enough to protect and enhance existing carbon sinks. The Wilderness Society submission states:

7.79 The Wilderness Society further explained that:

7.80 In exploring this issue further, the Committee has sought to clarify the role of native forests and plantations in meeting Australia's Kyoto target and the contribution of native forests and plantations to the national Inventory. Key areas of focus were:

Native forests

7.81 Approximately 156 million hectares of Australia is native forest [3], of which approximately 116 million hectares is woodland and mallee. [4] The native forest estate includes nature conservation reserves (national parks, nature reserves), state forests or multiple use forests, vacant crown land, private land and private leasehold land. Natural, undisturbed forests (such as those contained in conservation reserves) are considered to exist in balance and are therefore considered to be neither a source nor a sink. These forests are excluded from Inventory calculations. However, a considerable proportion of Australia's native forests do not fall into this category and are subject to anthropogenic change (human-induced) through activities such as commercial timber production, grazing, and clearing for agriculture, which alters the natural CO2 flux. [5]

7.82 These forests include a broad variety of forest types and can be mature, old growth [6] or regrowth forest. When calculating the emissions or removal of carbon by these forests the calculations are made on the basis of:

7.83 The reason for this is that density of a forest, whether it is closed forest, open forest, or woodland, and the growth rate, has a greater bearing on the level of associated biomass than the age of that particular forest. The AGO has advised that `the amount of carbon stored in old growth forests is highly variable, being closely related to forest type. Current estimates are in the range of 39-490t of biomass per hectare'. [7]

7.84 However, it is generally acknowledged that mature and old growth closed or dense forest contain more stored carbon than forest undergoing a cycle of harvest and replant. Drawing on research undertaken by the Resource Assessment Council in 1992 the AGO's Greenhouse Sinks and the Kyoto Protocol: An Issues Paper notes that:

7.85 The Wilderness Society and the Native Forest Network Southern Hemisphere submissions to the inquiry argue for the cessation of old growth logging and for the protection and restoration of native forest as part of the strategy to achieve stabilisation of the global carbon cycle. This view was supported by the World Wildlife Fund in the presentation of their evidence before the Committee:

7.86 This view in part is supported in the AGO Issues paper which notes that `the main benefit of increasing conservation reserves from a greenhouse perspective is the decrease in emissions associated with timber harvesting'. Preliminary analysis by the AGO of the recent transfer of production forests to conservation reserves under the Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) process, indicates that `the potential rate of carbon sequestration in above ground biomass in these areas is 4.5 million tonnes of CO2 per year'. However, the Paper also notes that `ceasing harvesting may decrease growth in the long term harvested wood product pool' and that `increasing forest conservation areas provides no guarantees that harvesting regimes in other areas will not be intensified, effectively cancelling out any gains'. [10]

7.87 It has also been argued that the incentives (particularly the allocation of tradeable carbon credits) for sink establishment through plantations could lead to native forest being cleared for the purpose of establishing plantations. This was a particular concern of the WWF, Wilderness Society, and Native Forests Network Southern Hemisphere. The Committee shares this concern but notes that, theoretically, this should not occur under the Kyoto Protocol as such an activity would count as deforestation under Article 3.3 and a debit, rather than a credit would be accrued. The AGO has advised that under the National Forest Policy Statement of 1992, all states except Tasmania agreed that no further native forest would be cleared for plantation establishment. In Tasmania, clearing of native vegetation is subject to commitments under the RFA.

7.88 There is also considerable concern about the sourcing of forestry waste as biomass fuel. This issue in part relates to ecologically sustainable forest management. Under the RFAs between the Commonwealth and some state governments, agreement has been reached on ecologically sustainable forest management principles. As a result, the Commonwealth and some states have endorsed the use of biomass fuel sourced from native forests as a renewable fuel source that can be counted under the 2 per cent renewables legislation. Many groups are opposed to this use of native forests:

7.89 The WWF has noted that:

7.90 In its inquiry into the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Bill 2000, the Committee rejected the RFA list as a valid criterion for judging whether biodiversity values would be infringed by the use of native forest biomass for renewable electricity. The Committee recommended that non-plantation native forest wood products and wood wastes be specifically excluded from the list of eligible renewable energy sources. [13]

7.91 There are also concerns that the provisions for additional sink activities in Article 3.4 activities, such as `intensification of native forest management practices including fertilisation and intensive silviculture, will have significant deleterious consequences for biodiversity and for other environmental values and must not be countenanced'. [14]

7.92 The Committee is concerned about the additional pressure that may be placed on native forests as a result of the above and is supportive of the view that greater efforts be taken to protect existing sinks such as undisturbed mature and old growth native forest. It is the Committee's view that no carbon sinks should be established and exchanged for credits at the expense of existing native forest and vegetation.

Recommendation 68

The Committee recommends that steps be taken to ensure that no native forest/vegetation is cleared for the purpose of establishing carbon sinks, that no tradeable carbon credits be allocated under a domestic emissions trading scheme where this has occurred, and that an emissions debit be recorded.


7.93 Approximately 0.7 per cent of Australia's forest estate is plantation [15] forest, predominantly softwood. The primary purpose of existing plantation is to supply timber for domestic needs - plantations currently meet about 40 per cent of domestic requirements. [16] The advent of the Kyoto Protocol has brought with it a renewed focus and interest in plantation establishment and development as a means of effectively offsetting greenhouse gas emissions from other sources; and a source of carbon credits that can be traded in an international emissions trading scheme and potentially a domestic emissions trading scheme.

7.94 The AGO has advised the Committee that a typical estimate for the level of biomass contained in plantations is 244 tonnes per hectare. [17] The AGO also noted that `in many instances a plantation forest because of improved site condition due to soil aeration and fertiliser application will be more productive (carrying more biomass at maturity) than a native forest in mature condition'. [18]

7.95 Module 6 of the NGS sets out a number of measures by which governments intend to enhance greenhouse sinks through plantations. Much of the nationally focused effort to date has been through expanding existing programs such as the Farm Forestry Program; and Plantations for Australia: The 2020 Vision. The Farm Forestry Program aims to foster the development of farm forestry [19] and complementary environmental outcomes through incorporating commercial tree growing and management into farming systems for the purpose of wood and non-wood production, increasing agricultural productivity and sustainable natural resource management. The 2020 Vision seeks to treble the plantation estate by 2020, building an internationally competitive, market focused, and sustainable plantation growing and processing industry with significant private sector investment. [20] The AGO submission to the inquiry notes that `a significant increase in the area of plantations being established has already been achieved, with current establishment rates of approximately 65,000 hectares per year'. [21]

7.96 A number of state governments have been actively pursuing plantation establishment as a greenhouse response measure. In presenting evidence to the inquiry, Mr Nigel Routh of State Forests NSW, stated:

7.97 Mr Routh also told the Committee that a contract had recently been signed with the Tokyo Electric Power Company. Under the contract, Tokyo Electric Power will offset a portion of their greenhouse emissions by establishing from 10,000 to 40,000 hectares of plantation in New South Wales:

7.98 Mr Routh advised that State Forests NSW was also talking with other companies interested in taking a hedging approach towards potential future emissions liabilities. Mr Routh asserted that plantations held great potential and represented a significant opportunity for the forestry industry and greenhouse:

7.99 Similarly, the Western Australian Government has been pursuing investment in plantations as a means of addressing salinity and greenhouse and advised the Committee that:

7.100 The Tasmanian Government submission notes that:

7.101 The range of economic benefits that may accrue to the investor are the greatest incentives for establishing plantations as carbon sinks. Investment in plantations as a carbon sink is seen to be largely a `no regrets' low cost action - as demonstrated by the Western Australian Government. A company looking to minimise its emissions may choose to invest in a plantation as an offset to those emissions rather than take a potentially more expensive path of reducing emissions at source. In return for the investment in establishing the plantation, the company would own the rights to the carbon sequestered, which could potentially be traded at a later date under an emissions trading scheme, as well as the profits arising from the sale of the timber at harvest.

7.102 A key issue raised in hearings and submissions was the question of suitable land for the establishment of plantations. There was some concern that the rapid growth and encouragement of plantation establishment would compete with valuable agricultural land. [27] As noted earlier in this chapter, this is particularly the case in some developing countries where the prime sites for plantation establishment may also be those used to source food and fuel.

7.103 A recent ABARE study which examined the potential to expand plantations identified a number of regions in Western Australia, Tasmania and the Green Triangle region of South Australia and Victoria, as economically suitable for plantation development and the development of further wood processing capacity. [28] Whilst the study was primarily looking at plantations for wood production potential, the study also took into account an assumed price of $20 a tonne for carbon sequestered in plantations. The report notes that:

7.104 The issue of the primary purpose of plantations for commercial wood production does raise the question of the level of carbon sequestered as a result. The carbon is not sequestered in perpetuity but would be released at the point of harvest. It was unclear to the Committee whether investment in plantations is occurring solely for the purpose of carbon sequestration, or whether the prospect of carbon credits for carbon sequestered will make otherwise uneconomic plantations commercially viable. The examples cited by the NSW and Western Australian Governments suggest it is the latter.

7.105 However, the submission to the inquiry from Southern Pacific Petroleum and Central Pacific Minerals (SPP/CPM) notes that they are looking to carbon offsets as a key component of their climate change action plan and are currently investing approximately $3.5 million in intensive long term research and development studies in Queensland, into native species reforestation with the primary purpose of carbon sequestration. The aims of the studies are to:

7.106 The approach SPP/CPM is taking to reforestation is welcome; however the principal activity it seeks to offset with sequestration is shale oil mining which is itself an energy-intensive activity. The Committee notes that the sequestration activity will not offset all the greenhouse emissions of the project. As discussed in chapter 5, the Committee supports the evaluation of greenhouse gas impacts as part of an environmental impact assessment process.

7.107 The Native Forest Network Southern Hemisphere (NFNSH) submission to the inquiry presented a disturbing picture of the impact that plantation establishment is having on rural communities in Tasmania, noting that:

7.108 The NFNSH also provided the following anecdotal evidence, alleging that:

  1. corporations are targeting prime agricultural land for establishment, not degraded farmland;
  2. property prices in rural areas are falling due to the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses;
  3. other industries are being negatively impacted by this proliferation of chemical tree farms, e.g. Tasmania's burgeoning organic sector;
  4. some landowners are being intimidated by forestry employees and politicians into selling their land at reduced rates;
  5. some rural townships are simply closing down as residents leave, thus exacerbating the existing crisis facing rural Australia;
  6. plantation prospectuses are grossly exaggerating the benefits of carbon sequestration as an additional economic benefit to pulp production whilst completely ignoring the fact that the principle of carbon sequestration is not even currently recognised by international scientists and policymakers. The Federal Government is complicit in this cover up, and is currently seeking to preempt international processes by playing a numbers game with countries supportive to its position; and
  7. due to the Federal Government's new capital gains tax provisions companies can write off 150 per cent of the costs associated with the destruction of agricultural infrastructure on the farms they have purchased (i.e. dairies are being bulldozed, farmhouses buried in huge pits, dams being filled). This is depreciating rural Australia's agricultural assets. [32]

7.109 The Committee has not been able to establish the veracity of the above claims. The Tasmanian Government declined to appear before the Committee and was not previously asked to provide a response. The Committee has since made a written request to the Tasmanian Government to do so. These allegations that prospectuses are exaggerating the potential economic value of carbon sequestered, and that regional Tasmanian communities are suffering significant impacts as a result of plantation development, are of serious concern to the Committee. The Committee has referred the allegations of misleading prospectuses to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission for their investigation.

Recommendation 69

The Committee recommends that the Tasmanian Government, in cooperation with local councils, farmers organisations and the forestry industry investigate the concerns about plantation developments raised by the Native Forest Network Southern Hemisphere.

7.110 As noted earlier, the IPCC Special Report on Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry has explored the potential socioeconomic impact of plantation projects internationally, particularly in developing countries. The IPCC Special Report states that:

7.111 The Committee has sought to establish what is happening or may happen in the Australian context. For example, the Western Australian evidence put to the Committee identifies over 1 million hectares of cleared agricultural land with plantation potential, land which may be currently used for wheat or pastoral purposes, therefore the investment in plantations would mean displacing existing crops entirely or shifting them to new locations - potentially more marginal agricultural land. In response, Dr Wally Cox noted that:

7.112 The CRC for Greenhouse Accounting provided a similar response:

7.113 The submission to the inquiry from the National Farmers Federation (NFF) notes that:

7.114 However, overall the NFF supports promoting the uptake of commercial farm forestry due to the multiple benefits offered and takes the view that carbon sink enhancement `may help to increase the returns from farm forestry, making it a more attractive investment option in regions where previously the economic returns did not offset the initial costs of investment'. [37]

7.115 The Committee is concerned that too little focus has been given to the socioeconomic impact of encouraging substantial uptake of plantations as a greenhouse abatement measure. It is the Committee's view that the potential longer term cost of displacing productive, as opposed to degraded, or marginal agricultural land, and the impact of that on rural communities needs to be treated with equal weight as the economic benefit to be derived from plantations.

7.116 The management of plantations also raises a number of issues of concern. Plantations are not subject to the same codes of practice as native forests. Plantations are usually monocultures - single native or in some instances introduced species - and depending on the species may be subject to a more intensive management cycle, and fertilisation to encourage rapid growth. For plantations to be both commercially viable and sequester carbon they need to established with sequestration in mind - that is, in order to maintain a constant pool of carbon, planting and harvesting would need to be rotated. This would require plantations with mixed age trees, potentially over a more extensive area, to provide for a commercially viable crop and carbon sequestration. How this would operate in practice was demonstrated by Mr Nigel Routh, as follows:

7.117 The Australia Institute notes that in practical terms this may mean that `only large, professionally managed plantations are likely to qualify and be commercially worthwhile'. [39]

7.118 It has also been suggested that the establishment of plantations in themselves can cause significant emissions associated with some of the techniques used in planting. CANA cites new research by Turner and Lambert examining changes in organic carbon in forest plantation soils in eastern Australia, that suggest significant loss of soil carbon as a result of the technique of deep ripping of the soil. The associated carbon loss is estimated to take 10 to 20 years to reach a balance. [40]

7.119 Recent data collected by State Forests NSW suggests that the soil carbon loss may not be as extreme as portrayed by Turner and Lambert :

7.120 A five year delay does, however, impact on the timing of establishment of plantations, if credits for carbon sequestered are to be allocated during the first commitment period. The known Kyoto rules are that the plantation must be established after 1990 and the only carbon sequestration that will be eligible (at present) is that achieved during the first commitment period of 2008 to 2012. For new plantations investment and establishment would need to occur in the next few years to make the most of that period.

7.121 It is the Committee's view that a balanced approach needs to be to be taken on the question of the contribution of plantations as potential carbon sinks. The Committee agrees that plantations can bring needed regional development opportunities, improvements to agricultural production, and a reduction in the reliance on native forests for timber products. However, the Committee is also concerned about the longevity of plantations as a carbon store and the potential negative impacts on rural communities of large scale monoculture plantation establishment. The Committee cautions against hurried investment in plantations until such time as the rules and costs of accounting for the carbon, and property rights over the carbon sequestered have been clearly established.

Recommendation 70

The Committee recommends that the Government, in consultation with all stakeholders and the forestry industry, undertake a public inquiry into the potential for plantations as a carbon store, including an assessment of the broader regional environmental, social and economic implications.

Environmental plantings and revegetation activities

7.122 An alternative to the establishment of plantations as carbon sinks is to focus on environmental plantings and revegetation [42] activities with the aim of creating a sink in perpetuity. While these are subject to the same risks of fire, pests and disease as native forests and plantations, there are also clear benefits to be gained in terms of reducing salinity, restoring biodiversity and erosion control, and thereby increasing the productivity of agricultural land. The AGO Program Bush for Greenhouse aims to channel investment in carbon offsets through revegetation projects for environmental purposes. The resulting offsets would be recognised under the Greenhouse Challenge Program and potentially eligible for carbon credits under future emissions trading schemes. `Revegetation is expected to be maintained over the long term, cover a wide geographic diversity and use locally native mixed species'. [43]

7.123 Dryland salinity has emerged as a significant environmental issue in the last decade. The South Australian submission to the inquiry states that the cost to the South Australian economy of dryland salinity is approximately $50 million annually in lost agricultural production. [44] In Western Australia 1.8 million hectares in the south-west agricultural region are affected by salinity. [45] The incentive of the possibility of carbon credits for revegetation provides a new opportunity to assist in addressing dryland salinity.

7.124 A recent CSIRO research report into emerging land use systems for managing dryland salinity calls for `a revolution in land use' to address the issue and identifies the planting of low rainfall native trees that can be used as a food source, pharmaceutical source, and a source of industrial products such as bio-fuels as one option for changing land use.

7.125 The report notes that:

7.126 The provision of carbon credits for carbon sequestration as a result would make such an option more commercially viable.

7.127 Others such as Mr Robert Vincin of Emission Traders International are advocating the planting of native saltbush (Atriplex) as a response to greenhouse and salinity with the added benefit of providing reliable fodder for sheep and cattle. Mr Vincin informed the Committee of his work in this regard, noting that:

7.128 The Western Australian Government, as part of its action to combat salinity, is also encouraging investment in revegetation activities with economic benefits through the production of oil mallees as a source for biofuel. Dr Cox informed the Committee:

7.129 The Western Australian Greenhouse Council report by the Sustainable Land Management Technical Panel, notes that:

7.130 Accounting for the carbon contained in revegetation projects suffers from the same degrees of uncertainty as other aspects of the land use change and forestry sector. A secondary objective of the Bush for Greenhouse Program is to put in place carbon measuring and accounting systems suitable to Australian revegetation projects. Under the Program, a carbon accounting tool will be developed and applied to Bush for Greenhouse revegetation projects to work out the potential carbon sequestration. The Program will also support the development and refinement of best practice tools and methods for measuring carbon sequestration in vegetation systems. [49]

What Should the Legitimate Role of Sinks Be?

7.131 In taking evidence on the role of sinks in greenhouse policy, the Committee was presented with a diverse range of views. These focused largely on the issues of permanence and security of the carbon store; marketing carbon stores as a tradeable commodity via carbon credits; the ancillary benefits that can be achieved through investment in sinks; and the broader impact that sinks as a greenhouse response measure may have on emissions reduction in other sectors. For example, the CANA submission states that:

7.132 The above statement appears somewhat inconsistent with other environment group views that maintenance of and increase in, the mature forest estate is an effective and significant form of carbon sequestration (see the discussion earlier in this chapter). An opposing view to that of CANA has been put by the CRC for Greenhouse Accounting which argues:

7.133 As noted earlier, scientists and community groups have called into question the permanence or security of the establishment of greenhouse sinks, through plantation or revegetation activity, as a greenhouse response measure. The IPCC Special Report has provided a greater degree of certainty in this regard with the IPCC Chair, Robert Watson, stating in his presentation of the IPCC Special Report:

7.134 The IPCC Special Report notes that `newly planted or regenerating forests, in the absence of major disturbances, will continue to uptake carbon for 20 to 50 years or more after establishment, depending on species and site conditions, though quantitative projections beyond a few decades are uncertain'. [53]

7.135 Overall the views that have been forthcoming in submissions regarding the role of sinks as a greenhouse response measure can be summarised in the following manner. The positive benefits of carbon sequestration through forestry and revegetation activities include:

7.136 However, there are also potential negative outcomes, including:

7.137 It is the Committee's view that overall, sinks do a have a legitimate role to play in Australia's greenhouse response, as many of the negatives can be managed, avoided or addressed through the development of appropriate policies and measures. However, the extent to which sinks play a role, the scope of sink activities, recognition of those activities and the overarching policy framework is not so straightforward.

Trading in Carbon Credits

7.138 A number of submissions and evidence put to the inquiry suggests that investment in sinks will only occur if there are provisions in place for the allocation of tradeable carbon credits for the carbon sequestered and a clear national policy framework recognising the role of sinks.

7.139 The issue of sequestered carbon as a tradeable commodity arises from the potential inclusion of carbon credits in an international emissions trading scheme and/or domestic emissions trading. This issue is canvassed in the AGO's third emissions trading discussion paper, Crediting the Carbon. The paper discusses the design of a national emissions trading system that allows for carbon credits, including carbon sinks. Arguments put forward in favour of the inclusion of forest related sinks in such a system are that their incorporation would:

7.140 The system would work by issuing a `carbon credit' for each tonne of CO2-e sequestered in a Kyoto sink. There would be no regulatory limit to the number of credits issued provided the sink is eligible under the Kyoto Protocol. Emissions permits and carbon credits would be interchangeable as both would have the same unit of measurement. Accounting for the sequestered carbon would need to occur at site level using accepted measurement standards, rules and guidelines at reasonable cost. The cost and ease of monitoring and reporting would be a key factor in decisions to invest, however, ultimately it will be the price of carbon established in an emissions trading system that will determine whether carbon credits are a viable option.

7.141 To ensure the transparency and credibility of the system, and enable the carbon sequestered to be counted towards Australia's target, independent verification may be required. A consistent legal framework would also need to be put in place across the states for the registration of ownership of carbon rights.

7.142 Governments and industry have expressed general support for the incorporation of Kyoto sinks in a domestic emissions trading scheme, noting however, that there are a number of design, legislative and methodological issues that would need to be resolved in the first instance. A number of states have already taken steps to stimulate a market. Dr Bryan Jenkins of the Western Australia Environment Protection Agency informed the Committee that:

7.143 The NSW Government has also taken steps in this direction with the establishment of a number of contracts with private entities and the establishment of the Carbon Rights Amendment Act which separately identifies carbon as a tradeable commodity. The Sydney Futures Exchange also signalled an intent to develop the world's first exchange-traded market for carbon sequestration credits consistent with Article 3.3 of the Kyoto Protocol. [56] Trading was due to commence in the middle of 2000, however, the Committee understands that this has been put on hold until further interest develops in the market and uncertainties relating the Protocol are clarified.

7.144 The Executive Director of the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, Mr Barry Jones, has cautioned against moving ahead too quickly with the incorporation of carbon credits in the design of an emissions trading system:

7.145 CANA discussed this issue in an additional submission to the inquiry on the role of sinks in a national emissions trading system. While not ruling out the incorporation of carbon sinks, they note that the same uncertainties apparent at the international level are inherent in a domestic system, and caution against assigning carbon credits beyond activities outlined in Article 3.3 of the Kyoto Protocol. CANA has proposed that the following rules be included the framework for a domestic emissions trading:

7.146 The Committee is broadly supportive of the incorporation of sinks into a domestic emissions trading system, and agrees that the design of the sink components of the system must reflect the final decisions on sinks taken internationally, and not go beyond the scope of activities accepted under the Kyoto Protocol. The Committee is of the view that caution be exercised in the allocation of carbon credits due to the uncertainties surrounding the international debate on carbon sinks. The Committee is supportive of the CANA suggestion of a built-in permanence requirement and is of the opinion that investors in carbon sinks should be prepared to bear fully the risk of making good any emitted carbon.

Recommendation 71

The Committee recommends that any approach taken to credit carbon sinks should take into account uncertainties surrounding the international debate and should be consistent with any international framework.

Recommendation 72

The Committee recommends that the incorporation of carbon credits in a domestic emissions trading system be limited to Kyoto eligible sinks and:

Australian Democrats Recommendation 8

The Australian Democrats recommend that a cap be set on the number of sinks credits that any one company or country can use to offset emissions.

Australian Democrats Recommendation 9

The Australian Democrats recommend that credits are issued based on a `tonne year accounting approach' after third party assessment of the sequestration and under clear monitoring provisions.

Recommendation 73

The Committee recommends that sink rules comply with the Convention on Biological Diversity and that activity in native forests, woodlands and rangelands that threatens biodiversity protection, be explicitly excluded from eligibility for carbon credits under a domestic emissions trading system.

Australian Democrats Recommendation 10

The Australian Democrats recommend that reforestation and afforestation credits are only made available for plantings that enhance local biodiversity and are not detrimental to water sources.

(Chapter 7 - Part c)



[1] The Wilderness Society, Submission 178, pp 1844-45.

[2] The Wilderness Society, Submission 178, pp 1844-45.

[3] Native Forest - Any local indigenous community the dominant species of which are trees, and containing throughout its growth the complement of native species and habitats normally associated with that forest type or having the potential to develop those characteristics. It includes forests with these characteristics that have been regenerated with human assistance following disturbance. It excludes plantations of native species and previously logged native forest that has been regenerated with non-endemic native species (Commonwealth of Australia, National Forest Policy Statement, 1992, p 48).

[4] Department of Primary Industries and Energy and Environment Australia, Australia's Forests - The path to Sustainability, 1998.

[5] Land Use Change and Forestry, Workbook for Carbon Dioxide from the Biosphere, National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Committee, Workbook 4.2 with supplements, NGGI, 1998, p 32.

[6] Old Growth Forest - Forest that is ecologically mature and has been subject to negligible unnatural disturbance such as logging, roading and clearing (Commonwealth of Australia, National Forest Policy Statement, 1992, p 49).

[7] Australian Greenhouse Office, response to questions on notice from the Committee hearing of 22 June 2000.

[8] Australian Greenhouse Office, Greenhouse Sinks and the Kyoto Protocol: An Issues Paper, 2000, p 61.

[9] Mr Michael Rae, Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 23 March 2000, p 442.

[10] Australian Greenhouse Office, Greenhouse Sinks and the Kyoto Protocol: An Issues Paper, 2000, pp 63-65.

[11] Mr Noel Ryan, Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 10 March 2000, p 82

[12] World Wildlife Fund, Submission 156, p 1585.

[13] Renewable Energy (Electricity) Bill 2000, Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Bill 2000: Report of the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee, August 2000, p 15.

[14] Mr Noel Ryan, Official Committee Hansard, Canberra, 10 March 2000, p 82.

[15] Plantations - Intensively managed stands of trees of either native or exotic species, created by the regular placement of seedlings or seed. Generally a long rotation agricultural crop that can be managed to produce large volumes of wood per unit area. (Commonwealth of Australia, National Forest Policy Statement, 1992 pp 49 and Department of Primary Industries and Energy and Environment Australia, Australia's Forests - The path to Sustainability, 1998.)

[16] Department of Primary Industries and Energy and Environment Australia, Australia's Forests - The Path to Sustainability, 1998, Canberra..

[17] Australian Greenhouse Office, response to questions on notice from Committee hearing, Canberra, 22 June 2000.

[18] Australian Greenhouse Office, response to questions on notice from Committee hearing, 9 March 2000.

[19] Farm Forestry (Agroforestry) - The incorporation of commercial tree growing into farming systems. Can take many forms including timber belts, alleys, and wide spread tree plantings (Department of Primary Industries and Energy and Environment Australia, Australia's Forests - The path to Sustainability, 1998).

[20] Australian Greenhouse Office, The National Greenhouse Strategy: Strategic Framework for Advancing Australia's Greenhouse Response, 1998, p 72.

[21] Australian Greenhouse Office, Submission 169, p 1698.

[22] Mr Nigel Routh, Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 22 March 2000, p 9.

[23] Official Committee Hansard, Sydney 22 March 2000, pp 14-15.

[24] Official Committee Hansard, Sydney 22 March 2000, pp 14-15.

[25] Dr Wally Cox, Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 17 April 2000, p 457.

[26] Tasmanian Government, Submission 185, p 1986..

[27] National Farmers Federation, Submission 145; and Native Forest Network Southern Hemisphere, Submission 18a.

[28] Burns K, Walker D and Hansard A 1999, Forest plantations on cleared agricultural land in Australia : A regional economic analysis, ABARE Research Report 99.11, p 8..

[29] Burns K, Walker D and Hansard A 1999, Forest plantations on cleared agricultural land in Australia : A regional economic analysis, ABARE Research Report 99.11, p 8..

[30] Southern Pacific Petroleum and Central Pacific Minerals, Submission 172, p 1745.

[31] Native Forests Network Southern Hemisphere, Submission 18a, pp 2268-70.

[32] Native Forests Network Southern Hemisphere, Submission 18a, pp 2268-70.

[33] Watson et al, Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry: A Special Report of the IPCC, Cambridge University Press, 2000, p 328.

[34] Proof Committee Hansard, Perth Monday 17 April 2000, p 467.

[35] Prof Graham Farquhar, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 6 September 2000, p 924.

[36] National Farmers Federation, Submission 145, p 1506.

[37] National Farmers Federation, Submission 145, p 1508.

[38] Mr Nigel Routh, Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 22 March 2000, pp 14-15.

[39] The Australia Institute, Submission 79a, p 9.

[40] Climate Action Network Australia, Additional Submission, August 2000, p 3.

[41] State Forests NSW, Additional Submission, September 2000, p 3.

[42] Revegetation - An activity undertaken to restore and rehabilitate degraded and/or cleared land to improve its environmental values and/or productivity. Revegetation projects range from encouraging natural regeneration of remnant vegetation to establishing grasses, shrubs and trees on previously cleared areas. In general such projects are not of commercial forestry nature but may have other commercial non-timber value such as oil production or food products. Projects also focus primarily on the use of locally sourced native species.


[44] South Australian Government, Submission 199.

[45] Western Australia Ministry of Premier and Cabinet, response to questions on notice, 23 May 2000.

[46] Official Committee Hansard, Sydney, 22 March 2000, p 6.

[47] Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 17 April 2000, p 457.

[48] Western Australian Greenhouse Council, 1999, Report to Council Sustainable Land Management Technical Panel, p 34.

[49] Australian Greenhouse Office, Greenhouse Notes, Bush for Greenhouse – linking industry and landholders, April 2000.

[50] Climate Action Network Australia, Submission 193, p 2038.

[51] Professor Graham Farquhar, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra, 6 September 2000, pp 924-25.

[52] Robert T. Watson, Chair of the IPCC, A Report on the Key Findings from the IPCC Special Report on Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry, 12th session of SBSTA, Bonn, Germany, 13 June 2000, p 1.

[53] Summary for policymakers: Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry: A Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Canada, IPCC, 2000, p 4.

[54] Australian Greenhouse Office, National Emissions Trading: Crediting the carbon, Discussion paper No. 3, 1999, p 4.

[55] Proof Committee Hansard, Perth, 17 April 2000, p 461.

[56] Sydney Futures Exchange, Submission 161, p 1620.

[57] Mr Barry Jones, Proof Committee Hansard, Canberra 23 June 2000, p 805.

[58] Climate Action Network Australia, Submission 193a, p 2.