Australia’s native forest regeneration methods were among the earliest ways landholders could participate in carbon markets through the Australian Carbon Credit Unit (ACCU) Scheme. Their premise was simple – a genuine change in land management could allow native trees to regenerate and sequester carbon. Over the years, the ACCU scheme and methods have evolved, but where did it all begin, how did it progress and where are we heading? Below our Chief Environmental Scientist, Dr Martin Wood breaks this down.
The first generation
The Carbon Farming Initiative created a national framework for carbon projects in 2011, which later evolved into the Australian Carbon Credit Unit (ACCU) Scheme we know today. In 2013, two methods became central to native forest regeneration: Human-Induced Regeneration (HIR) and Native Forest from Managed Regrowth (NFMR).
HIR was designed for land where native forest had been suppressed for at least a decade through grazing pressure, pest animals, invasive plants, or mechanical and chemical suppression.
NFMR was similar with one major difference – the native forest must have been comprehensively cleared for pastoral use. Following the initial comprehensive clearing event, a range of suppressors may then have occurred to prevent the regeneration of the native forest including periodic mechanical clearing, livestock grazing and/or other suppressors.
Both HIR and NFMR methods rely on natural sources of native forest regeneration such as seed banks, lignotubers and rootstock, rather than planting trees.
These methods recognise that carbon farming is not only about planting trees. In the right setting, it can be about removing the pressures that prevent native systems from recovering naturally. Over time, the rules have become more specific and stringent to continually improve integrity. Baseline vegetation, land-use history, forest potential and the way diverse landscapes are stratified all required greater transparency. At Pastoral Partners Australia, we welcome this evolution and acknowledge the ongoing need for progress across the Australian carbon industry.
Both of these methods are now closed to new project registration, known in the industry as ‘sunsetting’. The HIR method closed in September 2023 and NFMR in March 2024, however, projects registered under either method prior to its closure can continue to receive credits over their 25-year crediting periods. ‘Sunsetting’ after 10 years is a mandatory legislative instrument imposed on ACCU scheme carbon project methodologies to force the evolution of ACCU methods, and it does not discredit the legitimacy of the environmental outcomes produced. This continual progression provides us with an opportunity to apply the lessons of the first generation of carbon methodologies to create more robust methods for the future of native forest regeneration.
Australian carbon market reforms
Over the years, the Australian carbon market has continually evolved in both the methodologies and the governance of the ACCU Scheme.
In 2022, there was an independent review (Chubb Review) of the ACCU scheme and the methodologies within it. This assessment found the ACCU Scheme overall to be fundamentally sound, including a majority of the methodologies within it, while also recommending a number of reforms for improvement, many of which the industry agreed with to ensure continuous improvement and increase integrity.
Following the Chubb Review, a number of reports and associated media coverage raised questions about the integrity of certain projects. This broader scrutiny has reshaped some buyer behaviour, with these purchasers now undertaking more rigorous project-level due diligence and placing greater emphasis on credit integrity through transparency of information and clear additionality.
Since 2022, the broader goal has been to increase transparency and grow confidence in ACCUs. While there has been some progress within the governance structure of the Scheme and auditing processes, development of the next generation of native forest regeneration vegetation methodologies has been slow however we are now starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel.
While methodology delays can be frustrating, the alternative – rushing a method into market before baselines, additionality, measurement approaches and permanence have been properly tested – would be far more damaging. High-integrity carbon markets are built on robust science. Their value depends on the confidence that each carbon credit represents genuine additional abatement and leads to durable climate outcomes.
How to recognise high integrity
So, what do high integrity nature-based carbon projects actually look like? High-integrity projects show a clear before-and-after management case, with evidence of the historical land suppression or clearing and the intervention that removed or managed it. They map carbon estimation areas to reflect variation in vegetation condition and species composition. They have a consistent plan for the cessation of clearing, grazing management, reducing fire risk, management of weeds and pest animals, and any other risks that may affect delivery. This provides the evidence of clear additionality. High-integrity projects provide long-term carbon permanence, with commitments of up to 100 years, ensuring lasting environmental outcomes.
They also deliver important co-benefits beyond carbon, including support for regional communities through employment and investment opportunities, and enhanced biodiversity through the restoration of native vegetation and habitat.
Transparency is key. The Clean Energy Regulator’s project register now provides more information on project activities, CEA mapping, FullCAM modelling dates (where FullCAM is used), crediting and permanence periods, providing buyers with the information to help them make an informed decision.
At Pastoral Partners Australia, our approach centres on demonstrating this integrity upfront. All our projects are conducted on pastoral land that has been comprehensively cleared in the past and governed under a 100 year permanence period. Additionality is undisputed and there is a clear link between management actions and carbon outcomes, building more resilient landscapes for years to come.
Where we are heading
The next chapter is already taking shape with 2026 proving to be a year of acceleration.
The proposed Integrated Farm and Land Management, or IFLM, method is intended to bring regeneration on cleared land, regeneration on suppressed land and environmental or mallee plantings into a modular framework that can support multiple activities on the one property and evolve as science, technology and measurement approaches improve. The draft method underwent public consultation earlier this year and remains under development with an anticipated update on delivery to be announced by the end of 2026.
The proposed Avoided Re-clearing and Native Reforestation, or ARNR, method is also progressing. Its draft design combines protection of regenerated forest at genuine risk of re-clearing with native reforestation activities on cleared land and new tree plantings. By combining avoided re-clearing activities with native reforestation and plantings under a single framework, the new methodology also seeks to support multiple activities commonly undertaken on a property under the one project. The ARNR method is due for completion by the end of 2026.
When the science, land management and the evidence align, regeneration projects can do more than sequester carbon. They can help create more resilient landscapes, restore biodiversity and support communities across rural Australia.
If you’d like to discuss anything in this article, contact one of our carbon experts today.
Sign up to our newsletter for more news
Learn more about high quality Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs), the latest Pastoral Partners Australia news, and more. Complete the form below to sign up to our newsletter.
