You can find the project’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS or EIA), including its biodiversity offset strategy (appendix 26), here: statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/coordinator-ge… As far as I know, this is all still current
On page 26, we find the proposed offset for @BimbleboxNR – the China First/Galilee Coal project will protect nearly 16,000 ha of vegetation to compensate for the loss of 8,000 ha. That sounds ok, right? 2 for 1? Unfortunately, it’s not that simple.
To work out what benefit an offset will provide, we also need to understand what would happen _in absence_ of the offset. That means, we need to know what would happen to the proposed offset site with 16,000 ha of native vegetation if_ it’s _not_ protected as part of an offset?
(Let's just ignore the fact that pg 39 describes a *nature refuge agreement* as one way that an offset could be legally secured to compensate for impacts on a *nature refuge*: another @ConversationEDU from me in 2011) theconversation.com/no-refuge-when…
Let’s assume that over the next 20 years (which is the timeline most offset policies in Australia consider), about 1% of that 16,000 ha proposed offset site is lost each year due to clearing (based on long term average clearing rates – source: megancevans.com/wp-content/upl…)
That means that over 20 years, we will lose 3,200 ha of this 16,000 ha site if_ it’s _not_ protected as part of an offset. Meaning the offset benefit is 3,200 ha. Which is a lot less than 8,000 ha.
But isn’t the clearing rate in Queensland is higher than 1% a year? Sure, recently it has (see by @BAlexSimmonssciencedirect.com/science/articl…) especially when you consider younger regrowth vegetation. Yet again with #offsets, it's not so simple.
@BAlexSimmons Much of the clearing that would occur on the 16,000 site (e.g high value regrowth & remnant) _would_require_an_offset_anyway, so we can’t factor that into our calculations. See Path A, from recent work led by @MaseykFnespthreatenedspecies.edu.au/publications-t…
@BAlexSimmons@MaseykF And also, if we rely on clearing elsewhere as a baseline to judge the benefit of protecting vegetation as an offset, this is a zero sum game – we are still have a total loss of biodiversity over time. 'No net loss' usually means we are at best *maintaining* biodiversity loss
@naturesustainab@martine_maron Lots of other complexities I could discuss, e.g influence of vege quality on calculations, and whether it's ok to clear a protected area, but that's all for now. /fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
👉The root cause of this scandal is the Clean Energy Regulator, which has allowed HIR projects to include uncleared lands when the projects started in their credited areas
📝 There are multiple lines of evidence that show the HIR method should only be applied in locations...
...that have been previously cleared.
One is the the Explanatory Statement to the method () which says: “The Determination applies to projects in which land has been cleared of native vegetation and where regrowth has been suppressed for at least 10 years.”legislation.gov.au/F2013L00162/as…
The ANU-UNSW research team has analysed the recently released CEA (carbon estimation area) for HIR #carbon projects. The results are unsurprisingly bad. 🧵Full papers and interactive data linked below: 1/
HIR (human-induced regen of permanent even-aged native forest) carbon projects have generated ~30% of ACCUs issued under the #EmissionsReductionFund; 37 million ACCUs. They cover more than 31 million ha, ~ the size of Japan. The world’s largest offset type by project area. 2/
Following the Chubb review & the #SafeguardMechanism deal, CEA (carbon estimation area) data has been made public:
Our team's analyses have repeatedly been criticized as incomplete without CEA data. Now we've analysed it, and the results are clear. 3/ https://t.co/wx5hWg1yMQcleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF/project-an…
The Australian Government @DCCEEW last week quietly released draft National Environmental Standards (NES) for Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) as part of its #EPBCAct reform.
*2 weeks consultation*, due 22 May 2023
A🧵on key issues👇 consult.dcceew.gov.au/draft-nes-for-…
Note the overarching MNES standard is the first to be released, there are others in development that will be released (hopefully) soon, including for:
- Environmental Offsets
- Regional Planning
- First Nations Engagement and Participation
- Community Engagement
2/
First, what's the overall goal? #NaturePositive! (it's mentioned 19 times in the document)
What does this mean? Apparently - a "collective outcome" where the environment is "repaired, regenerated and protected", requiring action everyone, not just government.
On Tues, @DCCEEW say Chubb made recommendations on how the HIR method should be interpreted *but* didn't say the method had been incorrectly interpreted to date.
@sarahinthesen8 "Why would you have to clarify interpretation if it [HIR] hadn't been misinterpreted?"
Oh cry me a river. How on earth could their projects be "undermined" by sharing data which could quickly an easily prove their integrity. #ACCU#climate#auspol
Also nice for GreenCollar to put this on "it's landholders" so if we call this out we're being mean to farmers, rather a multi-million dollar corporation.
The data carbon companies could freely release (the Regulator & all others are prohibited to release by law) are Carbon Estimation Areas (CEAs) - green shapes shown below
The project area shapefiles (around CEAs) are *already public* - downloadable here researchdata.edu.au/area-based-emi…