Governments should not fund the protection and restoration of nature only when that process can be monetised. Yet that precedent is now being set by the NSW and Federal governments' decision to tie the protection of forests to the sale of carbon.

A new Australian Carbon Credit Unit method called Improved Native Forest Management (INFM ACCU) was proposed by the NSW government two years ago. It has now been accepted by the Federal Government as a national scheme. It can still be stopped by the Federal Parliament. But if the scheme is not disallowed by the Senate in coming weeks, it will be eligable for use by any State which still has a logging industry on public land - NSW, Queensland and Tasmania.

The first cab off the rank will be the proposal by the NSW government to obtain ACCUs from the creation of the proposed Great Koala National Park. This decision would turn what should be a generational biodiversity outcome into a dirty deal with some of Australia’s biggest climate polluters.

Creating a 176,000 hectare park to protect koalas has been Labor policy since 2015. It’s creation is backed by robust science and community sentiment. It is a promise that long predates the inception of carbon credits being used for forest protection. Yet now the NSW government is making the park dependent on the ACCU scheme. Last week the Sydney Morning Herald reported: "NSW Environment Minister Penny Sharpe confirmed the state would proceed to register a carbon project for the Great Koala National Park, and the creation of the reserve was conditional upon the successful registration of the project."

This creates an obvious issue of integrity. The Federal Act that governs the scheme was not intended to help governments fund political promises, and it’s passage into law would further deepen concerns about Australia’s offsets framework. As The Australia Institute points out "A government that was already going to stop logging can manufacture eligibility for carbon credits by framing its existing decision as a temporary interim measure and conditioning final park creation on credit registration. There is no independent mechanism to assess whether the forest would have been protected anyway."

It is the wrong model for countering both biodiversity loss and climate change. The one should not be traded against the other. We need to tackle both issues without trading one off against the other, if we are to have a chance at preventing catastrophic climate change and an unfolding extinction crisis. Our forests and woodlands are the best and perhaps only means we have available that is capable of significantly contributing to both outcomes. Protecting biodiversity will now allow some of Australia’s biggest polluters to delay desperately needed emissions reductions

Our governments have the capacity and responsibility to protect our forests and their biodiversity, and to tackle climate change, in the right way. The INFM model is the wrong way.

Wilderness Australia welcomes the media statements from the Bob Brown Foundation, The Wilderness Society and The Australia Institute calling out the perverse outcomes for climate and nature from using our forests to offset fossil fuel emissions.  A more in-depth analysis is also provided by The Australia Institute.