Feed aggregator

Forest & Wood Communities Australia Chair Steve Dobbyns says it is deeply ironic that Professor Andrew Macintosh continues to publicly criticise the integrity of other Australian Carbon Credit Unit (ACCU) schemes while the proposed Improved Native Forest Management (INFM) methodology linked to the Great Koala National Park is itself facing serious questions over additionality and carbon leakage. Source: Timberbiz Mr Dobbyns said recent scrutiny surrounding the INFM proposal highlighted growing concern that the methodology may fail some of the most fundamental integrity tests required under Australia’s carbon framework. “It is extraordinary to see ongoing criticism of other ACCU methodologies from Professor Macintosh when the INFM proposal associated with the Great Koala National Park appears to suffer from the very integrity problems he has accused others of creating,” Mr Dobbyns said. “The two biggest concerns are additionality and leakage and both go to the core credibility of the scheme.” Recent reporting by Wood Central highlighted concerns raised within industry, the Senate and the broader scientific community regarding the INFM methodology and its role in underpinning the proposed Great Koala National Park. Mr Dobbyns said the additionality problem was particularly acute because the NSW Government has already made a political decision to establish the Great Koala National Park. “The whole premise of additionality is that carbon credits should only be issued for activities that would not otherwise occur,” he said. “But if the Government has already committed to locking up these forests for political or conservation reasons, then the question becomes obvious — what exactly is the ACCU scheme paying for? “If the outcome was going to happen anyway, then issuing carbon credits risks rewarding a pre-existing policy decision rather than generating genuine additional abatement.” Mr Dobbyns said even the Chair of the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee, Professor Karen Hussey, had acknowledged during Senate Estimates that additionality and leakage were key integrity risks requiring careful scrutiny. “The leakage problem is even more glaring,” he said. “Stopping native forestry in NSW does not stop Australians needing timber. “We will still need hardwood for construction, pallets, flooring, poles, fencing and packaging. That demand does not magically disappear because a forest changes tenure.” Mr Dobbyns said the likely consequence was that timber production would simply shift elsewhere: onto neighbouring private forests, into other Australian states, or increasingly into imported timber from countries with lower environmental standards.   “That is the definition of carbon leakage,” he said. “If harvesting is displaced rather than avoided, then emissions and environmental impacts are displaced as well. “The atmosphere does not care whether emissions occur in NSW, Queensland, Papua New Guinea, South America or Southeast Asia. “A carbon project that exports timber production and associated emissions elsewhere is not delivering genuine global abatement.” Mr Dobbyns said the irony was impossible to ignore. “For years Professor Macintosh has been one of the loudest critics of ACCU integrity, arguing other schemes lacked environmental credibility,” he said. “Yet the INFM proposal now appears vulnerable to exactly the same criticisms — questionable additionality, highly uncertain leakage assumptions and disputed claims about net carbon outcomes.” Mr Dobbyns said the Government’s own science also undermined claims the Great Koala National Park was necessary to save koalas. “Research undertaken by NSW DPI Forest Science, reviewed through the NSW Natural Resources Commission, found no statisticallya significant decline in koala density following regulated selective harvesting in north-east NSW state forests,” he said. “The NSW Baseline Koala Survey further confirmed koalas remain widespread throughout production forests on the Mid North Coast. “The evidence shows koalas and sustainable forestry are already coexisting.” Mr Dobbyns also noted that more than half of the 176,000 hectares of state forest proposed for inclusion in the Great Koala National Park is already managed primarily for conservation through existing reserve systems and environmental protections. “This proposal is increasingly looking less like evidence-based conservation and more like a publicly funded carbon-credit land transfer,” he said. “And regional communities are being asked to sacrifice jobs, timber supply and manufacturing capacity for carbon claims that may not stand up to scrutiny.” Mr Dobbyns said any ACCU methodology must meet the highest integrity standards regardless of who developed it. “The same level of scrutiny Professor Macintosh has demanded of other ACCU projects should now be applied to the INFM proposal,” he said. “If integrity matters, then it must apply consistently — including to schemes designed to shut down native forestry.”

The post Koala Park methodology may fail fundamental integrity tests appeared first on Timberbiz.

Victoria has just experienced another challenging bushfire season. Communities across the state have felt the impact from the Upper Murray to the Otways, with lives disrupted, businesses affected, and landscapes scarred. The recent Parliamentary Inquiry into the 2025–26 summer fires has again reinforced a central truth: while we cannot prevent every fire, we can do far more to detect and respond to them earlier. That is where technology must play a bigger role. The Victorian Forest Products Association is calling on all sides of politics to support a practical, proven solution — investment in an expanded network of AI-enabled bushfire detection cameras across the state. This is not a theoretical concept. It is already working. Industry has funded and deployed a pilot network of cameras powered by PANO AI in the Green Triangle – the western part of Victoria which is home to vast amounts of plantations used for housing, which has demonstrated real, measurable results. These cameras act like “smoke detectors for the bush”, scanning 24/7 across a radius of more than 20 kilometres and providing real-time intelligence to fire agencies and land managers. Over the past three fire seasons, the system has detected dozens of unplanned fires, in many cases identifying ignition points minutes before other detection sources. Those minutes matter. They are often the difference between a small, contained incident and a major fire event. Examples from recent seasons show exactly what is at stake. At Hotspur in western Victoria, early detection enabled a rapid response that protected hundreds of hectares of plantation — a critical future supply of timber for housing. At Lake Mundi, camera detection triggered an immediate aerial response, containing the fire before it could spread into surrounding assets and farmland. These are not isolated examples. They are proof that early detection works. Importantly, the benefits extend well beyond the timber industry. Up to 85% of the proposed camera coverage is on non-plantation land protecting communities, farms, public assets and the broader environment. This is shared infrastructure for regional Victoria. Yet despite this, Victoria still has significant gaps in coverage including in areas that have recently experienced major bushfires. That is why we are proposing a simple, cost-effective next step: a 50:50 co-investment between the plantation industry and government to expand the network to 18 camera sites across the entire state over three years. The total cost is $3.78 million — with $1.89 million sought from government. In the context of bushfire response and recovery spending, which runs into the hundreds of millions, this is a modest investment with a high return. But it is important to be clear: fire cameras are not a silver bullet. They must sit alongside — not replace — the fundamentals of good land and fire management. Planned burning, well-maintained firebreaks and well-resourced fire fighters remain essential to reducing fire intensity and protecting communities. The recent inquiry has reinforced the need to strengthen these prevention measures, not step away from them. What cameras do is complement these efforts providing earlier detection, better situational awareness, and faster response when fires inevitably start. Put simply, it is far cheaper and far safer to stop a fire early than to fight it once it has taken hold. For the wood fibre industry, the stakes are particularly high. Plantations are long-term assets, taking 25 to 30 years to mature. Once lost to fire, they cannot simply be replaced overnight. Protecting what is already in the ground is essential not just for our industry, but for housing supply, regional jobs, and sovereign manufacturing capability. But this is not about asking government to carry the load alone. Industry is already investing through funding the bushfire camera pilot program, supporting Forest Industry Brigades, and contributing significant resources to fire response on the ground. What we are seeking now is a genuine partnership. Other states have already recognised the value of this technology. South Australia, New South Wales and Tasmania have all committed funding to expand their own fire camera networks, through their governments or government agencies. Victoria should not fall behind. This is a practical, bipartisan opportunity. It supports community safety. It strengthens emergency response. It protects regional economies. And it helps safeguard the timber supply needed to build the homes Victoria will require in the decades ahead. In a policy environment often defined by complex debates and competing priorities, this is a straightforward decision. The technology exists. The evidence is clear. The co-investment model is ready. Now is the time for all sides of politics to back it. Andrew White is the CEO, Victorian Forest Products Association.

The post Opinion: Andrew White – Fire cameras a practical investment for Victoria appeared first on Timberbiz.