Researchers are raising concerns over a recent proposal by Australia’s forestry industry to remove trees from native forests, potentially including national parks, in order to claim carbon credits.
Forestry Australia, the organization advocating for the proposal, claims it would enhance ecosystem resilience and help combat climate change.
However, extensive scientific research indicates that this proposal could yield detrimental effects, as highlighted by Prof. David Lindenmayer from the Australian National University, along with Prof. Brendan Mackey and Dr. Heather Keith from Griffith University, in an article published in The Conversation.
Also read: Australian Securities and Investments Commission Reports Progress in Combatting Greenwashing
Research indicates that practices such as “adaptive harvesting” and “forest thinning” can increase fire risk, harm forest health, and release carbon during tree removal, ultimately negating any potential climate benefits.
Additionally, further harvesting of native forests jeopardizes Australia’s already declining biodiversity and its emissions reduction targets.
Consequently, the article’s authors contend that Forestry Australia’s proposal lacks both economic and climate justification and should be dismissed.
Australia’s carbon credit program enables businesses and landowners to earn financial incentives by implementing projects that either reduce emissions or enhance carbon storage.
Also read: Carbon removal must quadruple to hit climate targets, researchers warn
Forestry Australia’s proposal involves practices like adaptive harvesting and forest thinning in national parks, state forests, and private lands, allowing land managers to receive carbon credits as compensation.
The organization argues that this strategy would lower carbon emissions and increase carbon storage while still allowing for the production of wood products.
However, adaptive harvesting—which entails selectively logging older trees and minimizing road clearing—is associated with detrimental environmental consequences.
Similarly, thinning, which aims to remove trees to foster the growth of healthier specimens, raises concerns due to its potential to increase wildfire susceptibility and disrupt habitats for endangered species.
Forestry Australia’s approach also includes extracting higher-grade timber for durable products such as roof trusses. Yet, it remains unclear if the demand for timber from native forests is sufficient, considering that plantation forests already supply 90% of Australia’s logs.
As Australia aims for a 43% reduction in emissions by 2030, the article’s co-authors warn that this proposal could hinder progress, as logging activities would release stored carbon and jeopardize native forest ecosystems.
Another concern is that carbon credits might be granted for activities and emissions reductions that would have occurred independently of this initiative.
