Published name
Upload a submission
Department of Industry, Sciences, Energy and Resources
Australian Government
ERFForests@industry.gov.au
31/01/2022
RE: Proposed Carbon Credit (Carbon Farming Initiative Act) Rule Changes
To the Department,
The Indigenous Carbon Industry Network (ICIN) is the peak industry body representing Indigenous-
owned and operated carbon projects across Australia. Its members include 35 Indigenous
organisations that either own or directly produce carbon credits through their land and sea
management activities. Its members are currently producing around 1 million carbon credits each
year and have established an industry employing hundreds of people predominantly in remote
Australia through 35 Indigenous-owned savanna carbon farming projects. The Indigenous carbon
industry is generating Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs) currently valued at around $59 million
a year through the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF), compliance and voluntary markets. These
projects also support outcomes that demonstrate co-benefits for biodiversity, maintenance of
cultural knowledge and community development.
ICIN receives funds through the Australian Government Department of Industry, Sciences, Energy
and Resources to support the dissemination of information about the carbon industry to Indigenous
organisations, particularly about carbon methods and carbon markets; and to map out opportunities
for Indigenous organisations in the carbon industry.
Its other funding partners include the Northern Territory Government, Queensland Government, the
Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation and The Nature Conservancy.
The ICIN is an Associate Member of the Carbon Market Institute. It wishes to endorse and support
the key points made in the CMI’s submission.
ICIN also endorse the submission by the Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation, a founding member
of ICIN, which highlights core values of the native vegetation project it co-owns and supports
together with Traditional Owner groups across Australia.
ICIN shares the substantial concerns articulated in the CMI’s submission regarding the proposed
changes to the Carbon Credit (CFI Act 2015) Rule that would effectively allow a veto right by the
Minister for Agriculture over a native vegetation carbon project, including:
• the lack of appropriate consultation
• the lack of evidence informing the proposed changes
• the additional administrative burden in an already heavily regulated industry, and
• stifling investor and project developer confidence in Australia’s climate policy.
We are also very concerned that the proposed changes send the unintended message that
‘agricultural’ land use is of higher importance than the maintenance of key functions of healthy
country – that we all need to survive – such as clean water, habitat, healthy soils and intact
coastlines that shelter us from rising sea levels. Restoration and maintenance of these core
1
ecosystem and cultural functions are at the very heart of Indigenous land and sea practices that are
now being enabled through these native vegetation carbon methods.
These core functions must, at the very least, be valued by government alongside, and not below any
perceived ‘agricultural’ value of the land.
For those of our members with vegetation projects (and in particular, there are several Indigenous-
owned Human-Induced Regeneration projects represented in our network), the primary objective of
the carbon project is generally to heal country from the negative impacts of poorly managed
agricultural developments, such as overgrazing, salinity, soil compaction, sedimentation of streams
and waterholes, weed infestations and the impact of feral animals. The method itself is complex, and
typically requires upfront investment in research, consultation with surrounding communities and
land users as well as local Traditional Owners, costly equipment to support fencing off country from
the impact of grazing animals, as well as other activities such as feral animal control, fire
management and other forms of land management to maximise benefits in terms of both carbon
and outcomes for healthy country.
It is somewhat counter-intuitive then, to imply, as the Minister for Agriculture does in his
announcements supporting the rationale for these Proposed Amendments, that carbon projects
stymy good land management practices by preventing agricultural activities.
Our member organisations assert through their Policy Position Paper that Traditional Owners have
the right to manage their lands for the benefit of future generations through carbon farming if this
fits with their obligations to care for their country and communities. Indigenous people have been
actively managing their land and seas across Australia for many thousands of years. We also wish to
remind government that Australia is signatory to the United Nations Declaration on the Right of
Indigenous Peoples, which includes an obligation to recognize and support Indigenous rights and
interests, including the right to self-determination.
ICIN supports the scrutiny of methods underpinning the Emissions Reduction Fund where this is
supported by scientific research and consultation with independent scientists, industry and
communities. Our members want to be assured that the carbon methods are held in highest regard
and are genuinely delivering abatement that is real and additional.
However, ICIN is not interested in supporting fast-tracked policy processes that merely seek to score
political points in the lead-up to a Federal election. The lack of consideration, investigation,
consultation and short notice given by the Minister for Agriculture of these Proposed Amendments
are not in line with proper policy engagement practice or the principles of Free, Prior and Informed
Consent. We would prefer to see these concerns directed to the carbon industry in a constructive,
rather than a destructive manner.
Indigenous-owned carbon projects clearly demonstrate not only that they are delivering good
sequestration through their project, but also deliver co-benefits through caring for country. It is vital
that government recognizes and supports this work and the significant benefits it generates.
2
ICIN strongly opposes the proposed amendments to the Carbon Credit Rule (CFI Act) because the
proposed legislative amendments:
1. Ignore Indigenous rights and interests in carbon.
2. Fail to acknowledge other relevant legislation regarding land and sea management.
3. Fail to recognize the economic, social and cultural values generated through native
vegetation projects.
4. Potentially stymy future opportunities for Indigenous-owned native vegetation projects on
Indigenous-held, Indigenous-managed lands or any lands.
5. Prevent future partnerships between non-Indigenous and Indigenous land managers
through the carbon industry.
ICIN strongly urges the Australian Government not to proceed with the Proposed Amendments,
for reasons neatly summarized by the CMI in its submission, as below.
1. The proposed rule changes will have significant impacts on new and existing carbon
farming projects across Australia. Such proposals should therefore be accompanied by a
more adequate consultation process that is sufficiently extensive and rigorous, and
engages a wide range of industry, regional and community stakeholders.
2. There is little firm evidence of the concerns being sufficient to justify the significant new
administrative burden and bureaucracy that is proposed. Past and current research should
be concluded and assessed before this significant change is enacted.
3. To avoid creating unnecessary administrative and compliance burdens for landholders,
project developers and scheme regulators, existing ERF safeguards should be relied upon
and reviewed, to manage potential ‘adverse effects’ noted in the Consultation Paper.
4. Amendments to carbon farming rules should seek to improve investment confidence in
the scheme, minimise market instability, create added value in the sector and promote on-
farm resilience.
ICIN endorse the recommendation by CMI, that if in the unfortunate event that the Proposed
Amendments are to proceed, that the following conditions are put in place at a minimum:
• Postponing potential implementation (including the retrospectivity element) until after the
• forthcoming ERF auction process and after an adequate consultation process
• Clear published guidelines and criteria for assessment by the Agriculture Department and
Minister
• Publication of adverse impact assessment reports as well as rights of appeal and review
• Earlier notification to the proponent that a project may proceed if it is found to have no
adverse impacts
• Projects in Indigenous Protected Areas and Indigenous-owned or managed land should be
excluded from the potential operation of the Ministerial veto
• 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 biodiversity, and
• Higher thresholds triggering notification.
3
We thank you for taking the time to consider our position. Should you have any further questions,
we would be happy to direct these to the relevant member organisations.
Kind regards,
Anna Boustead
Coordinator
Indigenous Carbon Industry Network
p. 0417 989 577
e. icin@warddeken.org.au
w. www.icin.org.au
4
