A majority of Australian Senators have supported calls for greater transparency regarding the Improved Native Forest Management (INFM) method amid widespread integrity concerns from both industry and the scientific community about the controversial ACCU scheme, which is being used to cease harvesting in native forests.
It comes after the Coalition and the Greens crossed the aisle to force the Australian National University to hand over documents underpining the method.
The motion put by NSW Nationals Senator Ross Cadell, a long-time supporter of Australia’s $23 billion forest-based industries, orders the ANU to produce substantive written communications between its staff and the federal environment department DCCEEW; consultancy and research services agreements connected to the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee; and gift deeds or gift forms tied to work undertaken by Professor Andrew Macintosh.
One of the key drivers of this Order of Production of Documents (OPD) was that the Emissions Reduction Assurance Commission is currently considering whether to recommend that the Minister approve this method despite the ANU not making the primary documentation available to the public during the consultation process, thereby denying Australia’s forest scientists the ability to test the proposed method’s calculations
“Australia’s forestry sector is already battling amidst changes to legislation brought on by a green tinged Labor Government that has put the long-term sustainability of the sector at risk. Until now, the Labour Government and ANU have been hiding in the shadows, forcing industry to read with its eyes closed. Tuesday’s vote sends a clear message to the Labor Government. We will not let the forestry sector be desecrated by ideology and a lack of transparency.”
NSW Nationals Senator Ross Cadell spoke exclusively to Wood Central after his motion was supported by 38 senators in the upper house on Tuesday night (including Sarah Hanson Young and David Pocock)
Wood Central understands that the decision by the Greens and key crossbench Senators to back the motion is of key consequence. “These strange bedfellows are far from natural allies,” according to Stuart Coppock, a lawyer with legal standing on the model. “And their calculation is simple — they want to know who has been funding the Macintosh model and why…including a focus on the gift deeds.”
It comes after ERAC Chair Professor Karen Hussey last year confirmed to a Senate committee that the New South Wales Great Great Koala National Park, which will take out 40% of the state’s hardwood supply, cannot be established without its approval.
The ACCUs generated under the scheme are the funding mechanism.
If the documents that come back show that external interests have impacted the science underpinning the method, it calls into question the integrity of a method put forward by the New South Wales Department of Environment and Heritage.
Wood Central understands there have been sustained concerns across the sector for some time, centred on two specific failures. “It suffers from key integrity failures, particularly additionality and leakage, and does not meet the evidence-based standard required by the Australian Government’s Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee,” Coppock said. And on leakage, the argument is blunt.
“Stopping harvesting in Grafton, for example, does not stop the timber order — it redirects it to PNG, South America or the United States, suppliers with no obligation to meet Australian environmental standards. That is not abatement. That is displacement.”
Stuart Coppock who spoke to Wood Cental about the flaws of the model, especially around additionality and leakage.
Underpinning concerns are a genuine scientific dispute over carbon storage. “Does halting harvesting in Australian native forests produce the long-term sequestration that the Macintosh model claims? The majority of independent peer reviewers say no,” another source said. “So do scientists work inside the NSW Government. So does ABARES — the research arm of the Commonwealth’s own Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. The method does not meet the evidence-based standard that the ERAC is legally required to apply.”
When the documents are produced, the Senate will see whether the model was built to find an answer or to deliver one.
The ANU will have to answer either way.
