In an interview on the ABC earlier this week, Minister Cassy O’Connor claimed that Tasmania would be the beneficiary of untold riches, billions of dollars, from carbon credits from reserved forests if the Tasmanian Forests Agreement legislation is passed.
Ms O’Connor said the Australian Government had confirmed that this would be so, giving the impression that she had had some recent correspondence to this effect.
The last time we heard such claims was back in January in government evidence to the Legislative Council select committee looking at the legislation. It turned out to be a very wishy-washy commitment at that time, with Attorney General, Mark Dreyfus, admitting that the methodology for establishing the validity of the claims was yet to be determined.
What new evidence did Ms O’Connor have? None. What proof did she have that these forests would generate any funds at all? None. And, if they did, what evidence did she have to categorically state that the money would come to Tasmania and not to the nation as a whole? None.
She cited the same Dreyfus letter dated December 20 that was tabled when the legislation was being prepared for stampeding through the House of Assembly.
The ABC also interviewed Connorville owner Roderic O’Connor (no relation) to get his views. He told them how well carbon credits were working for his property. The interview left you with the impression that Mr O’Connor was backing Ms O’Connor.
However, the coverage left out some important distinctions, outlined in the comprehensive evidence that Roderic O’Connor gave to the Legislative Council. His agreement brings with it a guaranteed income stream and he has not signed over his forests in perpetuity. Should he choose to do so, he can resume timber production in his forests in 25, 50 or 100 years time.
By contrast, the Tasmanian government and the forest agreement signatories are seeking to lock up 500,000 ha for ever.
The so-far undiscovered methodology to be used in assessing the carbon credits is one issue.
There is also that of “additionality”. That is the term used to define the extra step that a forest owner has to take in order to qualify for carbon credits. If the forests were never going to be logged or can’t be logged, they don’t qualify for credits. You have to take the extra step of contracting not to log forests that were destined to be harvested, as in the Connorville example.
Minister Dreyfus, now the federal Attorney-General, said in December that the Australian Government would exempt the 500,000 ha from the additionality rule.
However, the carbon credits trading regime is global, not domestic, and subject to international law. On that basis, it is difficult to see how the Australian government can exempt Tasmania from rules over which they have no jurisdiction. Why should there be one set of rules for Tasmania’s public forests and another for everybody else in the world?
What of private foresters who have to prove additionality in order to sell carbon credits in the same market?
This is not a level playing field.
What Roderic O’Connor told the Legislative Council select committee last month is even more appropriate today. The two governments have put the cart before the horse. There are so many uncertainties about the proposition they are being asked to vote on that passing the draft legislation as it stands would be tantamount to signing a blank cheque.
This is the real problem with the purported carbon credits deal for Tasmania’s public forests. There’s no middle ground – and there’s no coming back.
