Integrity remains one of the most important considerations in Australia’s carbon market and nature-based solutions have been under the microscope in recent years with some confusion around the differences in methodologies and what that means for overall project integrity. Projects that restore native forests on land that has been comprehensively cleared are Native Forest from Managed Regrowth (NFMR) and Environmental Planting (EP) projects. While these methodologies use different restoration pathways, both can deliver high-integrity carbon outcomes and meaningful environmental benefits – as an expert in native forest regeneration, our Chief Environmental Scientist, Dr Martin Wood, breaks this down to help you make a more informed decision.
If you want to learn more about the history of native forest regeneration in Australia, check out Martin’s earlier article: The evolution and path forward for Australian native forest regeneration carbon projects.
Understanding the differences between NFMR and EP
The primary difference between NFMR and EP is that one involves allowing native forest to regenerate naturally on cleared land and the other involves physically planting new trees on cleared land.
NFMR projects are suited to cleared land where native seed banks, lignotubers or rootstock remain intact. These projects enable native forests to regenerate over time following a land management change that must include the cessation of mechanical clearing.
On the other hand, EP projects are designed for areas where historical land use, such as intensive cropping or repeated clearing (often including blade ploughing), has removed the natural regenerative capacity of the land to the point where very limited seed banks or rootstock is present. In these cases, active revegetation through planting is required to re-establish a native forest.
Integrity is defined by the outcome
At times, public discourse on carbon markets can create the perception that planting trees is inherently more credible than enabling forests to regenerate naturally. However, from an ecological and carbon accounting perspective, both methodologies are designed to achieve the same objective; the re-establishment of long-term native forests on cleared lands that sequesters carbon and thus improves environmental outcomes.
Importantly, both NFMR and EP projects can demonstrate strong additionality. This means the carbon sequestration achieved by the project would not have occurred without the intervention or management actions undertaken by the landholder. Additionality is a core principle of carbon market integrity and underpins the credibility of Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs).
The choice between NFMR and EP is driven by landscape characteristics rather than assumptions about which methodology is superior. Where healthy seed banks and rootstock remain, natural regeneration can often provide the most efficient pathway to forest recovery. In heavily modified areas of land with limited regenerative capacity, EP may be necessary to re-establish native vegetation.
Australia’s reforestation challenge cannot be solved through a single methodology. Achieving meaningful outcomes requires a range of robust approaches that are suited to different landscapes. Whether native forest recovery occurs through regeneration or active planting, the result is the same; the establishment of native forest that can be seen, measured and independently verified.
Want to learn more?
Download Dr Martin Wood’s infographic, Australian Carbon Projects on Cleared Land, to secure a snapshot of the key differences and similarities between NFMR and EP projects and understand how both methodologies contribute to high-integrity carbon outcomes. For landholders, investors and organisations seeking to better understand nature-based carbon projects, the infographic provides a simple visual guide to the science behind native forest regeneration on cleared land.
Download it today by completing the below form.
