A recent study by The Australian National University (ANU), in collaboration with Haizea Analytics, the University of New South Wales (UNSW), and the University of Queensland, has raised significant concerns about the effectiveness of forest regeneration projects in Australia’s carbon offset scheme.
These projects, which have received millions of carbon credits, appear to have had a minimal impact on increasing woody vegetation cover and carbon sequestration.
The research focused on 182 human-induced regeneration (HIR) projects, a major category in the global carbon offset market, especially for nature-based solutions excluding projects that prevent emissions.
These projects, located in the arid regions of Queensland, New South Wales, and Western Australia, aim to regenerate native forests without the need for planting trees.
Instead, they claim to promote forest growth from existing soil seed stocks and suppressed seedlings by reducing the numbers of livestock and feral animals.
However, the study’s findings challenge the efficacy of these projects, suggesting that the impact of livestock and feral animals on woody vegetation has been overstated.
The researchers compared the change in woody vegetation within the projects’ credited areas to adjacent areas and found negligible differences, indicating that other factors, likely rainfall, were responsible for any observed changes.
According to Professor Andrew Macintosh from ANU, the study reveals that the projects have been “substantially over-credited” and are largely failing to deliver their promised environmental benefits.
Despite being credited with over 27 million carbon credits, the increase in forest cover has been minimal, with almost 80% of the projects showing negative or negligible changes in tree cover.
The analysis pointed out that the modest gains in woody cover within the project areas did not significantly differ from changes in the surrounding areas.
This suggests that the activities of the HIR projects are not the primary drivers of vegetation cover changes.
One of the critical issues highlighted by the research is the reliance on modeling for carbon sequestration estimates, rather than direct measurements. This approach assumes uniform forest regeneration across the entire project area, an assumption that the study finds unrealistic.
Dr. Megan Evans from UNSW Canberra emphasized the implications of issuing carbon credits to projects that underperform in carbon sequestration.
Such practices not only fail to contribute to climate change mitigation but may also worsen the situation by allowing for increased emissions without adequate offsets.
The findings underscore the challenges and limitations of relying on offset schemes for climate action.
They call into question the integrity and permanence of carbon abatement claimed by such projects, underscoring the need for more rigorous evaluation and verification processes to ensure that carbon offset projects deliver tangible environmental benefits.
The research findings can be found in Communications Earth & Environment.
Copyright © 2024 Knowridge Science Report. All rights reserved.
