Letter: Australia's native forest carbon credits must prove genuine net abatement

An open letter published in Port Macquarie News challenges whether carbon credits generated under Australia's Improved Native Forest Management (INFM) method truly represent net emissions reductions. The author, Steve Dobbyns, argues that the method's additionality test is undermined by prior government commitments to protect forests, and that leakage from displaced timber production could be far higher than the 40% cap used in the methodology. The letter also points to a mismatch between the 100-year permanence requirement and the 15-year crediting period, raising questions about long-term accountability. Forestry Australia estimates over-crediting could range from 40% to 100% before considering leakage, while research suggests over 80% of reduced native forest timber production has been displaced to imports. The letter stresses that restricting buyers of credits does not fix the underlying accounting problems. It calls for evidence that harvesting would have occurred without carbon revenue, and for scrutiny of post-crediting obligations. These are technical questions about market integrity, not just political debates over national parks.