Native vegetation regeneration projects under the Emissions Reduction Fund: proposed new requirements

Soils and Vegetation Team
Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources
CANBERRA, ACT 2601
By email: ERFForests@industry.gov.au

27 January 2022

Dear Soils and Vegetation Team,
RE: Submission on the Proposed new requirements for native vegetation regeneration projects
under the Emissions Reduction Fund
The Australian Land Conservation Alliance (ALCA) welcomes the opportunity to provide a submission
to the Federal Government’s consultation on the Proposed new requirements for native vegetation
regeneration projects under the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF).
The Government’s important work on human induced regeneration and native forest managed
regrowth ERF methods provides key opportunities to deliver significant biodiversity outcomes for
Australia, including mitigating the impacts of climate change and closing the gap to net zero emissions,
reducing extinction risks, and building Australia’s protected area system, all of which are in line with
Australia’s international commitments and the Australian public interest.
ALCA does not support the proposed amendments, as they pose a salient risk to improving
Australia’s biodiversity and carbon emission reduction outcomes. Further, the proposed
amendments significantly limit the income diversification options available to Australian farmers
seeking to build their resilience in a changing climate and during times of drought. Carbon markets
provide one of the few avenues to attract significant funding to protect Australia’s unique habitat
and species and native vegetation is an efficient and relative cheap means to store carbon. The
creation of a largely unfettered and retrospective Ministerial veto power inserts a substantial
sovereign risk into Australia’s carbon markets at a time when more confidence is being sought in
the future of these markets in Australia.
Please note that ALCA is happy for this submission to be published in full.

About the Australian Land Conservation Alliance
ALCA represents Australia’s leading land restoration and conservation organisations working with
landholders on privately owned and managed land across Australia. Together, ALCA’s members
represent a substantial and growing voice in Australia’s land management sector. Our eleven
members are:
• Australian Wildlife Conservancy • Queensland Trust for Nature
• Biodiversity Conservation Trust NSW • South Endeavour Trust
• Bush Heritage Australia • Tasmanian Land Conservancy
• Greening Australia • The Nature Conservancy Australia
• Landcare Australia • Trust for Nature (Victoria)
• Nature Foundation

1
ALCA land conservation efforts stretch across over 3 million square kilometres with more than 3,000
landholders. We have over 50,000 supporters and our combined annual turnover exceeds $200
million. Together we work to support some of the most pressing conservation issues across the
country – including tackling invasive species and managing national environmental biosecurity threats,
restoring endangered ecosystems, and building the protected area estate.
Through their active land management, ALCA member organisations are deeply embedded in regional
communities and economies, providing jobs, securing significant regional investment, and
safeguarding remaining native habitat for the local community with its many positive spillover effects
for agriculture.
ALCA member organisations recognise the importance of operating with a social licence, including the
local social licence. As not-for-profits, ALCA members seek to act in our community’s interest. ALCA is
not aware of any of carbon projects being operated by its members that have caused any widespread
local community concern.
A range of the conservation activities undertaken by ALCA members are financially underwritten by
continued access to well-regulated carbon markets. The proposed Rule amendments pose a genuine
strategic and financial risk for land conservation activities and private land conservation
organisations, noting again that ALCA members act in the public environmental interest and to the
overwhelming benefit of regional communities and Australia.
Some ALCA members are statutory entities; the views expressed in this submission do not represent
the views of the Government administering those statutory entities.

Recommendations
General
1. ALCA recommends that the current proposed amendments to the Carbon Credits (Carbon
Farming Initiative) Rule 2015 do not proceed, on the basis that they:
a. Insert financial uncertainty into Australian carbon markets, likely creating a chilling
effect on the development of carbon projects, including for potential projects using
methods as yet unaffected by the proposed rule change whose proponents may fear
similar future Government intervention into their project methods. The net effect is
likely to be the deterrence of millions of dollars of carbon project investment into
Australia;
b. Compromise Australia’s attempts and obligations to close the gap on net zero
emissions and improve its biodiversity outcomes;
c. Undermine Australia’s recent commitment to the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on
Forests and Land Use made at the COP-26 to reverse the net loss of forests by 20301,
and recent commitment to the Kunming Declaration at the Convention on Biological
Diversity, specifically, to protect 30 per cent of the world’s land and 30 per cent of the
world’s sea by 20302;
d. Provide the Government with wide powers to limit the choice of Australian
landholders to determine the best use for their land, and will likely preclude many
productive landholders from participating in the ERF and diversifying their revenue
streams, particularly those in regions with smaller farm sizes;

1
See: https://minister.awe.gov.au/duniam/media-releases/declaration-sustainable-way-forward
2
See: https://minister.awe.gov.au/ley/media-releases/australia-signs-international-biodiversity-declaration

2
e. Are neither an effective nor proportionate response in addressing the perceived
public policy concern (namely, purported adverse impacts to communities from
carbon projects);
f. There are existing mechanisms to address the perceived policy concern, namely:
i. Existing requirements for carbon projects to align with Natural Resource
Management (NRM) organisation plans, which could be strengthened to
incorporate an NRM’s assessment of the carbon project;
ii. State and Territory legislation, particularly regarding feral and pest
management on pastoral leases; and
iii. Existing carbon rules related to Land Management Plans that include
management of feral animals and weeds, which could be strengthened by
way of outcome vegetation condition assessments.
g. Create additional, unnecessary bureaucratic red-tape for farmers and future carbon
projects, at odds with Government commitments to improve the efficiency of carbon
markets3;
h. Create genuine strategic and financial risk for private land conservation organisations
acting in the public environmental interest, including several of ALCA member
organisations;
i. Undermine confidence in projects that deliver economies of scale, specifically
obstructing large scale collaborative environmental planning at landscape scale (i.e.
regional planning, a Commonwealth Government priority); and
j. Needlessly limit the ability for Government to achieve other national priorities such
as conservation of threatened species and ecological communities.
2. Alternative means for addressing the outlined policy concerns could include requiring
improved monitoring standards for carbon projects and ongoing project impact measurement
that addresses community concerns and is transparent to the market, with the market
(including the Government) then acting accordingly.
3. At minimum, amendments to the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Rule 2015 should
not operate retrospectively to their promulgation.
4. Provisions under the amended Rule should not come into operation until at least 1 July 2022
to allow the sector time to adjust; specifically (amended text in bold):
a. Section 122 (1) could instead read: “Section 20C only applies to applications
submitted under section 22 of the Act or subsection 23(3) after 1 July 2022.”

However, should amendments to the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Rule 2015 proceed,
ALCA recommends the following:
Exclusion of projects / Ministerial veto
5. Properties with in-perpetuity conservation covenants/agreements and/or State or Territory
stewardship support should also be excluded from the operation of the Ministerial veto.
6. In recognition of the unique cultural rights of Indigenous Australians, projects in Indigenous-
Protected Areas and Indigenous-owned or managed land, should be excluded from the
operation of the Ministerial veto.

3
See: The King Review; https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/government-response-to-the-
expert-panel-report-examining-additional-sources-of-low-cost-abatement.pdf

| Page 3
7. Where State and Territory Governments may seek to rely upon income flows from carbon
projects in funding purchases of land for National Parks, Conservation Parks/Areas, and
Nature Reserves (and similar). The introduction of the Ministerial veto could now put at risk
the viability of that investment; as such, all Government-owned land should also be excluded
from the operation of the Ministerial veto.
8. Further to Recommendation 7, private land purchases for conservation which received
financial support and co-investment from Commonwealth, State or Territory Government
funding – but one example being land purchased under the Commonwealth’s National
Reserve System program4 – should similarly be excluded from the operation of the Ministerial
veto.
9. Areas of high carbon and biodiversity conservation value should be excluded from the
operation of the Ministerial veto, specifically, areas that enhance ecosystem function for high
conservation value habitats, highly intact ecosystems and sites critical to persistence of
biodiversity, including, at minimum:
a. Ramsar wetlands5 or Directory of Important Wetlands6;
b. Key Biodiversity Areas7;
c. World Heritage List areas8;
d. Threatened ecological communities (whether under Commonwealth, State or
Territory listings);
e. Regional ecosystems that contribute to National Reserve System CAR targets9;
f. Critical or priority habitat for threatened species (in accordance with Commonwealth,
State or Territory strategies, recovery plans and programs);
g. Priority mapped biodiversity corridors (such as mapped areas in catchment plans, and
State, Territory or local government planning documents); and
h. Areas of outstanding biodiversity value, as identified under Commonwealth, State or
Territory legislation and delegated legislation (for example, the Biodiversity
Conservation Act 2016 (NSW)).
10. To minimise sovereign risk and financial uncertainty, the definition for “adverse impact
finding” requires additional clarity articulating the considerations that the Minister will take
into account; it should be based on relevant and substantiated facts. Specifically:
a. Section 20C, 2(b)(ii)(B) would be strengthened by the following proposed
amendments (amended text in bold):
“(B) within 45 days of sending the written statement referenced in subparagraph
(2)(b)(i) the Agriculture Minister sends another written statement to the project
proponent and Regulator making an adverse impact finding in relation to the
notification, including the impact assessment upon which the Minister has relied to
make that adverse impact finding;”

4
See: https://www.awe.gov.au/agriculture-land/land/nrs
5
See: https://www.awe.gov.au/water/wetlands/ramsar
6
See: https://www.awe.gov.au/water/wetlands/australian-wetlands-database/directory-important-wetlands
7
See: https://www.iucn.org/commissions/world-commission-protected-areas/our-work/biodiversity-and-
protected-areas/key-biodiversity-areas
8
See: https://www.awe.gov.au/parks-heritage/heritage/places/world-heritage-list
9
See: https://www.awe.gov.au/agriculture-land/land/nrs/publications/strategy-national-reserve-system

| Page 4
b. The definition for “adverse impact finding” within both (a) and (b) could be refined
from: “…in the opinion of the Minister,” to: “…according to the impact assessment
relied upon by the Minister”.
11. We recommend the development of relevant guidance materials that outline how material
adverse impacts – and their counterfactuals – are to be assessed as they relate to (separately):
a. agricultural production; and
b. communities.
12. Accountability and transparency would be strengthened with a public register of ‘adverse
impact findings’, which should include the facts upon which the Minister has relied to make
that adverse impact finding. This register would be made publicly available on the
Department’s website.
13. Part (c) of the definition for “farm” should be omitted; it is our view that requiring
agriculturally unproductive land to lay fallow for at least 10 years before it could be considered
for an alternative land use is unreasonably long and challenges the principle of inalienable
land rights in Australia. Within reasonable limits, farmers should be able to control their
property as they see fit, with 5 years being much closer to a reasonable limit.
14. We recommend that the area requirements under the definition for “notifiable regeneration
project”:
a. Be enlarged from “15 hectares” to at least “25 hectares”;
b. Be enlarged from “one third” to at least “one half” of a farm;
c. Exclude from its calculations all land that cannot – either legally or de facto – be used
for the purpose of commercial agricultural production, and consider also excluding
marginal land with poor productivity; and
d. Consistent with Recommendations 5 through 9 above, exclude properties with in-
perpetuity conservation agreements, State or Territory stewardship support,
Indigenous Protected Areas, Indigenous-owned land, Government-owned land, and,
at minimum, areas that enhance ecosystem function for high conservation value
habitats, highly intact ecosystems and sites critical to persistence of biodiversity.

Monitoring of pest and weed management
15. Although supportive of the intent of the proposed amendments to section 70, ALCA
recommends that the Government use pre-existing mechanisms to manage the outlined
concerns, such as requirements for projects to demonstrate consistency with local Natural
Resource Management plans, and to have received development approval (as per
Recommendation 1(f) above).

Strengthening accountability and transparency
16. Clarify the availability of the right of administrative review of a Ministerial finding that a
project would be a material adverse impact.
17. Include a transparent avenue to appeal the Minister’s decision.

| Page 5
18. Given the substantive proposed changes, the Rule should be subject to a review at 18 months
after promulgation, and then subject to 5-yearly reviews as recommended in the consultation
paper10.
19. In all reviews of the amended Rule, including the 18-month review proposed above,
consideration should be given to assessing:
a. The total carbon credits foregone from projects excluded by the Minister;
b. The total investment value of projects excluded by the Minister; and
c. The total estimated indirect economic benefit foregone from projects excluded by the
Minister.

Thank you again for the opportunity to contribute to the Federal Government’s consultation on the
Proposed new requirements for native vegetation regeneration projects under the ERF.
ALCA looks forward to an ongoing engagement with Government to help address and support
Australia’s response to the dual challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss in the context of
the private land sector.
If you have questions regarding the submission, please do not hesitate to contact ALCA via
michael@alca.org.au (Mr Michael Cornish).

Yours sincerely,

Dr Jody Gunn
Chief Executive Officer
Australian Land Conservation Alliance

10
See: p3, Consultation Paper; https://storage.googleapis.com/converlens-au-
industry/industry/p/prj1c095c1d0ac09fb0dedf5/public_assets/ERF-consultation-paper-vegetation-projects.pdf

| Page 6