Published name
1. Are there any specific approaches applied in the method that you agree with?
1.a Why or why not?
Yes. The use of the BAM as part of the assessment method instead of a different assessment method. It’s tried and tested and prevents practitioners having to change methods.
2. Are there any specific approaches applied in the method that you do not agree with?
2.a Why or why not?
Yes.
The method mentions a site assessment for threatened species, but it doesn't say who this is conducted by or what a suitably qualified person is in this instance. This means species habitat may go undetected for a project.
- Activity area target levels. For instance, 10 to 25% of the reference canopy and understorey.
- minimum community diversity requirements of the planted community need to be clearly stated so that
the same dominant euc species and same dominant ground species of a reference community are not used constantly to meet requirements.
2.b What do you think would be a better approach in the areas that you do not agree with?
-a database of threatened species specialists/flora or fauna specialists, their relevant experience and expertise. As a way to find the right assessor for the project.
-A better approach to diversity in meeting target levels for the activity area is that the species have to be varied once an area or stems number per area is reached. This would prevent a monoculture and would encourage the sourcing of more diverse species.
3.a Cleared Land (section 5.3)
The cleared land section is difficult to understand and the definition of comprehensively cleared is cumbersome. This section could be simplified.
This definition does not take into account where drought has taken place and killed every tree in an area and has not regrown for many years. It also doesn't account for fire. It concentrates on chemical and mechanical. What if there's an interplay of these factors leading to cleared land?
The definition of cleared land could take into account human induced impacts, like fire and grazing, identifying these as contributing factors and lands under these pressures being made eligible for projects.
3. c Monitoring (section 13)
4. This method has been designed so it can be ‘stacked’ with the Australian Carbon Credit Unit (ACCU) scheme’s Reforestation by Environmental or Mallee Plantings FullCAM method.
The Committee would be interested in feedback on how well the method would facilitate stacking.
It would facilitate stacking if it could reliably show additionality on existing ACCU projects and accurately predict that additionality.
5. Is the proposed method consistent with the biodiversity assessment instrument?
Yes
6. Do you have any other feedback on the method?
no
