Transparency and integrity in the Australian carbon market

We have been keenly awaiting the Chubb review of the Australian carbon market credits scheme, administered by the Emissions Reduction Fund, and finally, we have it. The review findings conclude that the scheme does not lack integrity whilst making recommendations to improve its integrity and transparency.

Pollution from smokestack impacting the Australian Carbon Market

Carbon Emissions Reduction

Where offsets are genuinely required, and we still believe there is a place for them, they need to create the most possible “good”. By that, we mean they should be sequestering carbon and have a range of co-benefits that increase their utility. Within the reforestation sector, in particular, carbon capture should benefit biodiversity outcomes, soil health, and water at a minimum. We will be advocating for Nature Positive planting schemes.

We know that carbon offsetting should be a tool that goes alongside reduction strategies and NOT be an alternative, and offsetting should be for unavoidable emissions. Good offset projects should always be additional, meaning they give more significant environmental benefits (and social benefits) and are more than just carbon reduction. Good carbon projects would not happen through the course of business as usual.  

Chubb has some recommendations for increasing transparency, particularly around the carbon estimation areas, and recommends that full details about a project and its expected outcomes be available on a national platform to share this information.

What 9 components does a great reforestation carbon project have?

Chubb Report Recommendations