Carbon credit integrity: INFM method and net abatement concerns

A letter to the editor from a forest solutions consultant argues that carbon credits must represent genuine net abatement, not just political comfort. It questions whether the Improved Native Forest Management (INFM) method truly delivers additionality, especially when forest protection like the Great Koala National Park was already government policy. The letter cites Forestry Australia estimates of 40-100% over-crediting and research showing 81% of native timber reductions were displaced to imports, yet the method caps leakage deduction at 40%. The letter also highlights accounting mismatches: a 100-year permanence period versus a 15-year crediting period, and a potential loophole where private proponents may not face the same post-crediting ACCU cancellation obligations as the State. The core message is that these technical questions about additionality, leakage, and permanence must be resolved before credits are trusted, regardless of how the Senate votes.