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:

The most effective form of carbon storage is, without doubt, to leave fossil fuel deposits in the ground. However, a significant form of carbon sequestration is the maintenance of, and increase in, the mature forest estate, that is, to:

1. preserve existing carbon stores (undisturbed, mature and old growth forests); and
2. foster an increase in biomass, and hence carbon storage, in previously disturbed native forests. That is, to cease logging, firewood collection or other forms of forest degradation, and allow the forest to naturally increase in age and continue to sequester carbon to biomass and soil stores in perpetuity. [1]

7.79 The Wilderness Society further explained that:

The Land Use Change and Forestry sector in Australia is a net source of carbon emissions. Unlike other Annex B countries, much benefit can be gained by protecting Australia's existing stores of biospheric carbon. It is widely acknowledged that protecting carbon in already existing stores such as old growth forest is more secure than creating potential carbon sinks such as plantation forests. Ending both deforestation and the conversion of old growth forests to regrowth forests also have many other environmental benefits which do not accrue to many sink activities such as establishing industrial wood plantations. Any discussion of terrestrial carbon emission trading should highlight this distinction. [2]

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:

• the extent of existing native forest and associated carbon sink and potential threats to this sink;
• the extent and type of plantations and associated carbon sink;
• the potential for new carbon sinks, including environmental plantings and revegetation activities, and potential impact of the establishment of such sinks;
• sustainable forest management and carbon sequestration (public and private land); and
• the sourcing of forestry waste as biomass fuel.

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:

• forest type eg rainforests, tall dense eucalypt, medium dense eucalypt, and medium sparse eucalypt etc; and
• the annual growth rate of that forest type rather than the age class (mature, old growth, and regrowth).

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:

The amount of carbon stored in regrowth forests combined with that stored in forest products has the capacity to exceed storage in mature forest. However, it takes 500 years before this effect is fully offset by stored products and there is a period of several decades immediately post harvest during which carbon storage is less than that in a mature forest. Increased storage will not occur where there are long periods between harvest of regrowth forests; where a large proportion of harvested material is used as pulp; or where sawn timber products are not kept for a long time. [8]

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:

I think one of the more compelling arguments in terms of the study of land use change in forestry is to look at what is the ballooning, if you like, of carbon that will come as a result of the initial cuts of old-growth. These issues are not looked at all that closely in my view for looking at the totality of the carbon budget. I think if you are looking for a clear incentive for the protection of old-growth forest, it would clearly be to avoid that balloon of greenhouse gases that results from the initial cutting of those areas. [9]

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:

Biomass burning for energy is an unacceptable use of native forests and their products. No credence should be given to such project proposals as being renewable, or carbon neutral energy sources. Biomass from a special purpose plantation that was planted for the biomass is carbon neutral but when it comes from native forests it is not carbon neutral. It is certainly not renewable. [11]

7.89 The WWF has noted that:

The use of biomass energy with biofuels sourced from native forest should not be eligible for inclusion in the 2 per cent renewables target. There is a loophole resulting from the interaction of the IPCC Inventory guidelines and the Kyoto Protocol's Article 3.3. Under the IPCC guidelines emissions from biomass burning are not included as energy emissions but changes in forest biomass are accounted for. However, the Protocol excludes biomass changes in most forests. Thus it is possible for biomass energy to reduce standing biomass but for this not to be counted as an emission under the Protocol. In addition it would be impossible to show that using `forest residue' for biomass energy does not result in increased forestry activity and therefore a lower forest biomass as well as adversely affecting other values such as biodiversity. [12]

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.

Plantations

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:

State forests, about two years ago, at the time of the imminent signing of the Kyoto Protocol, saw this as a positive opportunity for the plantation sector in particular; we see that plantations now, and increasingly in the future, will be valued for components above and beyond their timber facets. For instance, in this case they have a very significant role to play in carbon sequestration, and there are also synergies in terms of things like the role that can be played vis-à-vis dryland salinity, land repair - for instance, on mine sites - and in terms of having planted forest for biomass energy plants. So it is a significant shift, I think, for an industry that is now faced with what we see very much as an opportunity to contribute towards the solution in addressing greenhouse emissions. [22]

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:

The arrangement with the Tokyo Electric Power Company is that the expectation is that it will be a long-term sawlog rotation of the order of 30 years. But the contract is flexible in the sense that we are the service providers and it is principally going to be established on private land with annuity arrangements or lease or rent arrangements with private landowners. But the Tokyo Electric Power Company will have the discretion really as the carbon market develops to decide when thinnings occur, when the final harvest occurs and I guess hypothetically depending on a carbon value of the future even if a timber harvest occurs. [23]

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:

In New South Wales we may be looking at one million hectares of current essentially cleared land on which you could establish plantations. You are probably familiar with the 2020 vision and the goals in that. There are opportunities which will, as I mentioned earlier, lead to those multifaceted benefits. Certainly the estate in New South Wales at the moment is, especially on the hardwood side, relatively small but it has virtually doubled in the last five years and there is major opportunity for the future. [24]

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:

… large areas of our agricultural land are affected by salinity. The areas that are likely to be affected are increasing quite rapidly. What I propose to do today is to outline to you a partial solution to two problems: a solution to the salinity problem and a partial solution to greenhouse gas abatement. The issue is very much one of using trees or vegetation to revegetate areas that have previously been cleared. So we are not now talking about our native forests; this is about clearing land that has previously been cleared and using it for revegetation purposes.

…

We have some 90,000 hectares of blue gums, which have been planted since 1988. We indicate that the potential there is some 250,000 hectares. That would in fact lead to a carbon accretion of 2.3 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent. The cost of producing that, as opposed to the cost of other abatement measures or trading, is between zero and $20 per tonne. The ranger is dictated entirely by the commerciality of the timber of the blue gums. In other words, if you have a commercially viable blue gum plantation the carbon credits are a strict bonus - that is, there is a zero cost associated with accumulating that carbon. On the other hand, if one goes to a submarginal blue gum plantation on the fringes of the wetter areas there is actually a cost associated with accumulating that carbon, and that is estimated at about $20 per tonne CO2 equivalent.

Blue gums are confined to the high rainfall areas. The one we are currently promoting is on the drier margins of the wheat belt, at the transition between the wheat belt and the higher rainfall areas, and is maritime pine, also known as Pinus pinasta. We have an initial aim to plant 150,000 hectares of those pine trees. The potential area is in the order of 0.6 million hectares, which would give us about 7.5 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent, locked up at a cost of between $2 and $6 per tonne. [25]

7.100 The Tasmanian Government submission notes that:

In many regions of Australia, including Tasmania, there are extensive areas of cleared land that are not used by owners because of low productivity. Land owners are likely to be happy to lease this land for low rates (eg $50 per hectare per annum) to enable the establishment of plantations. Although such low productivity land is not commercial for tree farms due to the low returns from the timber grown on it, the trees will sequester carbon while they growing and return a yield to an investor from the sale of the timber. Further research into the possibility of joint-venture agreements, allowing the land owner to attract external investor funding to establish plantations on cleared land, should be encouraged. [26]

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:

… the additional returns available from the sale of carbon credits enabled plantation investments to become more competitive against existing land uses. However, in most cases these returns from carbon credits only supplemented the returns from the sale of harvested timber. In the carbon scenarios, the assumed maximum processing capacity remained a significant constraint to plantation establishment. [29]

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:

• investigate the sustainability (economic, environmental and social) of carbon intensive native species plantations for carbon sequestration;
• develop an understanding of the carbon dynamics to support the establishment of carbon accounting procedures and predictive models for above ground and below ground biomass (roots and soil carbon) for the above scenarios;
• develop new silvicultural and reforestation practices for carbon sequestration (that are not applicable in purely commercial forestry) which enhance the competitiveness of land restoration and plantations versus conventional commercial forestry;
• investigate a range of approaches to natural revegetation along with its carbon storage and other environmental benefits; and
• determine the best means to integrate widespread reforestation with the current dominant industry of grazing. [30]

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:

Opposition to plantations has moved beyond the environmental sector and now includes a significant range of the rural community, particularly dairy farmers and local councils. Meander Valley Council has successfully challenged the development of private Timber Reserves twice, forcing the Government to change the legislation for the establishment of PTRs. Burnie City Council is having to deal with the loss of the rate payer base. North Ltd for example owns 40 per cent of Burnie Municipality and pays approx. $150,000 vs the other ratepayers (about $12 million). A recent news story on `Stateline'… details the opposition of dairy farmers to plantations because of the devaluation of properties adjoining tree farms and the social isolation caused by wall to wall plantations located in the middle of once-thriving rural communities.

A group `Communities Over Plantations' has now been formed in the north of the State, and does not constitute an environmental pressure group, rather a traditional rural community group. [31]

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:

Agroforestry activities can sequester carbon and produce a range of environmental and socioeconomic benefits. For example, trees in agroforestry farms improve soil fertility through control of soil erosion, maintenance of soil organic matter and physical properties, increased nutrient inputs through nitrogen fixation and uptake from deep soil horizons, and promotion of more closed nutrient cycling (Young, 1997). Thus, agroforestry systems that incorporate trees on farms can improve and conserve soil properties (Nair, 1989; MacDicken and Vergara, 1990), as is the case in the AES Thames Guatemala project (Dixon et al., 1993). Agroforestry projects also may provide local economic benefits, with farmers gaining higher income from timber, fruits, medicinals, and extractives than they would from alternative agricultural practices (Cooper et al., 1996).

Poorly planned and implemented agroforestry projects, however can fail to benefit or have negative impacts on local farmers. For example, the introduction of labor-intensive agroforestry technologies can lead to labor competition between agroforestry practices and traditional farming (Laquihon, 1989; Repollo and Castillo, 1989). Poorly planned projects can also lead to excessive light and water competition between crops and trees, as well as reducing the area available for food crops. [33]

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:

People are making judgements about what they invest in. If you plant a tree, then the current utilisation of that land would be foregone. In most cases, though, the current utilisation is pasture for the production of sheep and wool. Given the current price of wool, you can see why people are switching over to other options. [34]

7.112 The CRC for Greenhouse Accounting provided a similar response:

… if the price of carbon were high, could it mean that poor land-holders were forced to do things which were not sensible from other perspectives? Within Australia, I am sure it is something that all land-holders will take into account, but I would have to say that projected value of carbon is much less than the projected value of food… . What I am saying is that food is much more valuable in that context, and I cannot see that a farmer would stop producing food if he or she had an economically viable outfit. I cannot see that they would stop producing food - certainly crops, that is - and grow trees. I do take your point though, in terms of marginal agricultural. It is the case that there are a lot of areas of Australia that are marginal in terms of agriculture, and land users are going to have to make sensible decisions about these things. If carbon is traded, they are going to have to make projections about the cost of carbon and weigh that out against other activities on the land. [35]

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

Australia's commitment to meet greenhouse abatement targets is expected to enhance investment in forestry and farm forestry activities in rural Australia. Further, some producers of agricultural commodities which have suffered on-going poor returns may be looking to diversify their options through investment in forestry activities.

NFF believes there are pros and cons for rural communities in extensive investment in forestry and revegetation. The shift from agricultural production to forestry could make a significant impact on the social structure of many rural communities. [36]

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:

… what happens if there is a harvest? If there is a harvest that is 100 per cent emission of the amount of trees harvested at that time. The way we approach it is that, particularly because of the scale of what they are proposing, we would establish a carbon pool so that you build gradually to that 10,000 or 40,000 hectare level by establishing in the initial year 1,000 hectares, building, we hope, to a steady state of 5,000 hectares per annum planting in the fifth year and that will be maintained through the duration of the contract so that you have a mixture of ages in your plantation pool. Therefore, when you do come to harvest, if that is the outcome, depending on the future markets, you are not incurring 100 per cent emission of that entire pool because the ages are such that you take out, for instance, 1,000 hectares in year 30 and 1,000 hectares in year 31. So, with the incremental growth in the remaining majority of the plantation, you are actually keeping pretty much a steady state in your carbon pool. [38]

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 :

It is likely that soil carbon declines initially after plantation establishment, due to mineralisation of soil organic matter and a decrease in litter addition to the soil. However, the substantial losses reported by Turner and Lambert do not correspond with the data collected by State Forests. Our data suggest a decline only in the zone of soil disturbance, amounting to 12 per cent of initial soil carbon on average across the site.

As the plantation grows, soil carbon is replenished from litter fall and root matter. Due to the proliferation of fine root growth within the mounded soil, soil carbon accumulates particularly in the mound. State Forests' evidence from the NSW North Coast suggests that within five years the addition to soil organic matter from the plantation will balance, or even exceed, the soil carbon losses that occur in early establishment. Therefore, the net effect of soil carbon decline and recovery, and accumulation of tree biomass, will produce a net positive carbon balance within five years in this environment.

The decline in soil carbon will be greatest in high fertility agricultural soils in warm, wet environments, and least on low fertility, sandy soils, and in dry environments such as the low rainfall areas of the Murray Darling Basin. As tree growth rates are slower in dry areas, the replenishment of lost soil carbon may take a similar time period to that estimated for more productive environments. [41]

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:

While this is potentially the most effective land use option for managing salinity by reducing leakage, it is not commercially viable due to a lack of markets to drive reforestation and/or revegetation at the necessary scale.

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:

What is missing in the entire equation of tree plantations is the function of fauna - animals. By grazing the sheep, cattle, goats or camels in other countries, their droppings create carbon. Each time you graze the Atriplex back, it creates a complete new root system underneath, like roses, so what was there before is stored carbon. Seventy per cent of carbon is in the soils and subsoils. Only 30 cent is in the trees above; the rest is in the soils and subsoils. We graze it twice a year through an electric fencing process and we rotate them through. Year 3 it is cash positive; year 8 it is fully paid for. In our contracts with these major corporations - whom I will not name - they invest in the Atriplex plantation. They can either buy the property or contract lease it. We then sell the meat, wool or leather, and improve the land. We buy the land at $40 and improve it to $200, because we have new organic matter in the soil again. We can stop erosion. We lift the salt out of the ground into the biomass and that is taken in through the animals and regenerated back out into the topsoil. [46]

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:

Finally, a really innovative approach is to re-establish native vegetation in the drier margins of the wheat belt. It is something that is being pursued by some 800 farmers at present with the production of oil mallees, a naturally occurring species in that part of the landscape. Again, the estimate is that some half million hectares of that would also accumulate significant amounts of carbon, at a cost of about $12 per tonne. As you can see from the totals at the bottom, some 1.35 million hectares of revegetation - and I emphasise that: it is revegetation; it is land that has been cleared historically and is currently farming land - would accumulate some 10.9 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent, which is almost half of that figure of 24 that we talked about previously, and the cost ranges between zero and $20 per tonne. [47]

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

Mallee coppices prolifically and can be harvested on a two year rotation from age four onwards, when it yields an average harvest of three tonnes of above ground carbon per year (i.e. six tonnes/harvest) and a harvested stand maintains an average above ground carbon sink of three tonnes/ha. After oil extraction the biomass residue can be used as fuel, thereby avoiding emissions from fossil fuels. Root carbon increases at a steady one tonne/year for many decades as the plant builds up its root stock from which the coppicing stems rise. [48]

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:

Australia is currently channelling an excessive amount of financial and policy resources into establishing sink schemes as a mechanism to meet the Kyoto Protocol. While carbon sequestration by trees has been classified as a valid mechanism to meet Kyoto targets, sequestration science is still uncertain.

Planting trees has undeniable environmental benefits, but trees only lock carbon away in temporary storage. They will never be a substitute to leaving fossilised carbon in geological deposits locked away for thousands of years. For this reason tree planting schemes are no solution to the main cause of global warming – burning fossil fuels. Yet Australia is giving money to farmers to plant trees through landcare and agro forestry – and calling it climate change. The longer this continues, without genuine emission reduction at source, the further Australia will sink into a quagmire of inaction. [50]

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:

If they [sinks] are well managed… there are potentials for improving biodiversity, improving water quality and river flows, increasing quality and quantity of forests, soils and grazing lands and fisheries, increasing sustainable access to fibre, fuel and shelter, and improving health and social equity and reducing poverty. The main message I would like to leave you with is as follows: as far as the atmosphere is concerned, reduction in the level of greenhouse gases by enhancing sinks or reducing emissions from the land sector has equal validity with reduction of fossil fuel emissions. We have the opportunity for better management of Australia's land surface, in partnership with land users, to reduce greenhouse gases and reverse land degradation. Future decisions made by policy makers and land managers must be informed by the best science. [51]

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:

A basic conclusion of the report is that LULUCF [Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry] activities provide an opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere by avoiding deforestation, and to increase the uptake of carbon from the atmosphere into the terrestrial biosphere through afforestation, reforestation and improved forest, cropland and range-land management activities. [52]

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:

• providing the opportunity to meet a number of environmental objectives including:
  • a reduction in and reparation of dryland salinity;
  • increasing biodiversity through native vegetation initiatives; and
  • a sustainable source of biofuels;
• facilitating an increase in forested areas and providing for a reinvigorated forestry industry with a focus on plantations rather than harvesting of native forests, and creating a new market value for plantation forests; and
• buys time to identify more cost-effective, longer term solutions for reducing emissions at source.

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

• loss of biodiversity if the focus is solely on investing in those species which sequester the most carbon without taking into account broader environment considerations;
• the risk of loss as a result of fire, pests or disease resulting in removal of the offset and therefore further greenhouse emissions;
• the administrative costs of monitoring, auditing and accounting for the carbon stored and ensuring a credible and verifiable accounting takes place;
• undermining the transition to more sustainable forms of energy use, if no limit is placed on the extent to which sinks can be used as an offset to emissions; and
• the long term reductions in atmospheric CO2 levels as a result are still uncertain.

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:

• provide additional stimulus to the creation of forest (and other) sinks allowable under the Kyoto Protocol;
• give financial benefits to the forestry and rural sectors by revitalising the forestry industry, and have wider community and environmental benefits; and
• provide a low cost option to offset greenhouse gas emissions. [54]

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:

Some contracts have already been written between government and particular industries on setting up afforestation projects, with one of the major components being carbon sequestration measurement. We are looking at trying to broaden that. As Dr Cox mentioned, there is an interest in establishing carbon rights, and a lot of work has also been undertaken in developing the methodologies for carbon sequestration and its measurement. But clearly, there you need not only the baseline measurement of the amount of carbon that is in a particular forest but also predictive models. Quite a bit of work has been done in relation to Western Australian species by the CALM specialist in forecasting what the future amount of carbon sequestration would be and also in developing assurance regimes so that when it comes to a commitment period and you need to count, the trees are still there and have not been harvested.

We are looking at whether we can actually establish carbon rights through Western Australian legislation but, as you will be will aware, at the end of the day the only value they will have is through a Commonwealth regime as part of a Kyoto or an international protocol. At the end of the day, we can establish all the carbon rights mechanisms and the estimations of carbon that has been sequestered, but until it actually becomes an international and a Commonwealth policy - because you can only have trading between countries under the Kyoto Protocol, not between states or between companies - they will not have any recognised value. But we are certainly moving down that path with particular emphasis in relation to forestry. [55]

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:

I do not see how you can design an emissions trading system if the concept of carbon credits is going to largely rest on forestry of various kinds, you do not know the rules for sinks and sinks enhancements, you do not have property rights in that area and you do not have legislative arrangements which separate the carbon from the trees from the land ownership. There is a whole suite of uncertainties there that make it very difficult to make definitive policy statements that might run for the 12-year time frame that we are now looking at. [57]

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:

• a permanence requirement. Every carbon credit obtained and used in the national emissions trading system has a permanence requirement that if, for any reason, the sequestered carbon is released to the atmosphere, the holder of this unit has to make good the emitted carbon;
• allowed credits be restricted only to Article 3.3 activities and are valid if and only if the carbon stock of the land on which the credit is generated equals or exceeds the carbon stock of that land in 1990;
• credits generated are only issued ex poste, based on third party assessment and only issued to the extent of the mean estimate of the stock change less 2 standard deviations of the estimate (this gives actors an incentive to reduce the uncertainty through better measurement or to choose other mitigation options eg at source);
• a fixed and small cap is established for the total amount of credits that can be issued as a proportion of the total assigned amount for the first commitment period and further, in relation to actors having emissions quotas, there be strict cap on the proportion of sinks-related carbon credits that permit holders can claim for the purpose of achieving their emissions quotas;
• the explicit identification of forestry, land use change and other sinks-related activities that are not eligible for receiving carbon credits, including `managed' native forests, woodlands and rangelands and any activities that are inconsistent with state, national and international commitments on biodiversity protection; and
• a strong monitoring and third party verification framework for carbon crediting. [58]

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:

• subject to monitoring and reporting requirements consistent with the Kyoto Protocol;
• subject to an independent verification process to ensure transparency and credibility of reports;
• subject to permanence and biodiversity requirements; and
• complemented by activity aimed at reduction of emissions at source.

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)

 

Footnotes

[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.

[43] http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/pubs/factsheets/fs_bush.html.

[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.