The Australian Government stands at a critical juncture, with biodiversity and carbon now firmly poised as key focal points in the climate change mitigation space and a looming election.  Have the shifting sands of policy created opportunity or more confusion? The agriculture sector has long understood its capacity to drive the achievement of greenhouse gas abatement targets set by government but have they missed the intricate connections between diverse ecosystems and the future of farming.

With the recent release of Reforestation by Environmental or Mallee Planting Method and the first Nature Repair Method along with recent changes to the Audit Threshold Instrument under the Clean Energy Regulator (CER) it is clear that the Government and policy makers want better uptake of these projects. We examine the future of projects registering under these methods, comparing them with the Accounting for Nature Method to qualify for NaturePlus certification and how this could potentially create a higher-integrity, multi-benefit environmental product.

Benefits of Integration

1. Multiple Revenue Streams: By combining these methods, landowners could potentially generate income from carbon credits (ACCUs), biodiversity certificates, and NaturePlus credits, diversifying their revenue sources.
2. Comprehensive Environmental Outcomes: This approach would address carbon sequestration, biodiversity enhancement, and overall ecosystem health, providing a more holistic environmental benefit.
3. Enhanced Credibility: The use of multiple frameworks could increase the project’s credibility and appeal to investors seeking high-integrity environmental projects.

Potential Conflicts and Challenges

1. Methodological Alignment: Ensuring compliance with multiple frameworks may be complex, as each has its own specific requirements and metrics.
2. Reporting Burden: Project proponents would need to manage separate reporting and verification processes for each scheme, potentially increasing administrative costs.
3. Additionality Concerns: There may be questions about whether benefits claimed under one scheme are truly additional to those claimed under another.

Integrity Considerations

The integration of these methods could indeed create a higher-integrity product due to the additional rigor involved:

1. Comprehensive Verification: While the Environmental Plantings under REMP 2024 may allow for zero audits for projects under 200 hectares, combining it with the Nature Repair Method and Accounting for Nature Framework would introduce additional verification processes.
2. Multiple Assurance Mechanisms: The Accounting for Nature Framework requires independent auditing, which could compensate for the reduced audit requirements under REMP 2024 for smaller projects.
3. Diverse Metrics: The combination would assess projects across a broader range of environmental indicators, providing a more comprehensive view of the project’s impact.

Addressing the Audit Exemption Issue

The zero-audit provision for smaller REMP 2024 projects raises legitimate concerns about integrity. However, integrating additional frameworks could mitigate these concerns:

1. Complementary Auditing: The independent auditing required by Accounting for Nature could provide an additional layer of assurance for projects that might otherwise go unaudited under REMP 2024.
2. Enhanced Monitoring: The Nature Repair Method’s focus on biodiversity outcomes could introduce additional monitoring requirements, further strengthening the project’s overall integrity.
3. Market Differentiation: Projects that voluntarily adopt multiple frameworks, including those with more rigorous auditing requirements, could potentially command premium prices in environmental markets due to their enhanced credibility.

Conclusion

While combining an Environmental Planting Project with the Nature Repair Method and Accounting for Nature Framework to qualify for NaturePlus certification presents some challenges, it also offers the potential for creating a high-integrity, multi-benefit environmental product. This approach could address concerns about the reduced auditing requirements for smaller REMP 2024 projects by introducing additional layers of verification and monitoring.