A new method for calculating carbon, pushed by the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service and now supported by the NSW government, employs a “flawed methodology” that does not align with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s definition of “Climate Smart Forestry.” That is according to the peak body for NSW’s $2.9 billion hardwood supply chain, which wrote to the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment, and Water in response to the Improved Native Forest Management in Multiple-use Public Native Forests being proposed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service.
Today, Wood Central spoke with Maree McCaskill, CEO of Timber NSW which represents members that utilise more than two-thirds of all hardwood and cypress timber sourced from state forests and private property: “Timber NSW believes that the model, which emerged through the process of assessment of the Great Koala National Park, was then demonstrated as a flawed methodology. That model then became the NSW government model for submission to the Energy Reduction Assurance Committee (ERAC). The model, still flawed, was selected for further development,” McCaskill said.
We consider this model to be flawed both in its scientific basis and its methodology, and (it would therefore) not withstand Australian or international scrutiny,
Maree McCaskill, CEO of Timber NSW
Removing products coming from native forests won’t reduce demand for products.
Industry concerns come after Tim Woods of IndustryEdge published a report on behalf of Forest Wood Products Australia, assessing the emissions leakage risks associated with the Improved Native Forest Management in Multiple-use Public Native Forests Method. “The principal conclusion of this review is that the proposed method entails a significant risk of emissions leakage, largely due to expectations of product substitution,” the report said. “Removing a source of supply of wood products does not reduce demand for those products, or for other products that can meet the same end-use application.”
According to the report, ending native harvesting does not reduce demand; it simply shifts supply to other sources or higher-emission substitute materials. Substitution occurs in two primary forms: to other wood sources, potentially leading to equivalent or even higher emissions (including imports), and also to higher carbon materials, such as steel, concrete, or aluminium, as acknowledged by the method’s proponents.
- For more information, click here to download the 31-page Leakage Modelling Review of the Proposed ‘Multiple-use Public Native Forests’ Method report.
