What are the main integrity problems with human-induced regeneration (HIR) projects?

HIR projects are supposed to involve human-induced regeneration of even-aged native forests in areas where forest cover was previously lost through clearing or other activities and regeneration has been prevented by ongoing clearing, grazing or weeds.

The main integrity issues with HIR projects stem from the fact that proponents have been allowed to establish projects in areas that have not previously been cleared or otherwise lost forest cover. These sites are likely to be at or near their maximum carrying capacity. That is, the trees and shrubs that were there when the projects started are likely to be about all the sites can naturally support.

It is the equivalent of having a scheme that provides valuable tokens to people for filling buckets with water but then allowing them to use buckets that are already full. Just as it is not possible to add more water to a full bucket, it is not possible to regenerate and sustain additional trees and shrubs in an area that is already at its maximum carrying capacity.

Allowing projects to be located in these areas has created three integrity problems.

  1. The credited areas are unlikely to support significant additional trees and shrubs (i.e. any regeneration is likely to be limited and short-lived).
  2. To the extent there is any regeneration, there is a risk it will be attributable to fluctuations in rainfall rather than the project activities. Tree cover in the uncleared dry rangeland areas, where most projects are located, fluctuates over time due to variability in rainfall and associated plant water availability. Due to this, in areas that have never been cleared, there is a significant risk that any observed increases in tree cover could simply be a product of a wet period that triggers tree and shrub growth. Over time, when drier conditions return, this additional sequestration is likely to be lost. In the interim period, projects could be credited for growth that would have happened anyway, without the project.
  3. Projects are likely to be over-credited because sequestration in HIR projects is not directly measured, it is modelled, and the model that is used assumes that the credited sites are largely devoid of mature trees and shrubs when the projects start. If the sites are already near their maximum carrying capacity when the projects start, the existing mature trees and shrubs will compete for site resources (e.g. water and     nutrients) with any additional regeneration achieved by the project. The     competition from these pre-existing trees and shrubs will limit the amount of regeneration that can be achieved and slow the rate at which any regeneration grows and sequesters carbon. This is likely to lead to over-crediting, where the number of credits issued to projects exceeds the  amount of sequestration in regeneration that is attributable to the project activities.

‍

‍

Back to FAQs
Explore human-induced regeneration projects
Use our interactive explorer to find and extract the information you need to learn about the integrity of human-induced regeneration projects
EXPLORE NOW
Disclaimer
Carbon Integrity Explorer

The Carbon Integrity Explorer provides information about carbon offsets projects registered under the Australian Government’s carbon offset scheme. 

Registered projects can generate Australian carbon credit units (ACCUs). Each ACCU is supposed to represent 1 tonne of real and additional abatement of greenhouse gas emissions. 

The Carbon Integrity Explorer uses government datasets to provide indicative information on whether projects are likely to be generating real and additional abatement.   

The information contained in the Explorer is indicative only and should not be relied upon as a definitive measure of the extent to which projects have, or are likely to, generate real and additional abatement. The Explorer does not:·  

  • assess, or purport to provide information on, whether projects are complying with the legal requirements of the offset scheme;  
  • assess, or purport to provide information on, whether the ACCUs that have been, or are likely to be, issued to projects are valid or invalid; or
  • assess, or purport to provide information on, the actual or expected market value of any ACCUs.

The Carbon Integrity Explorer should not be relied on for the above purposes. 

The Centre for Environment and Integrity Pty Ltd does not suggest or imply that any proponent of any project has done anything unlawful or unethical or that ACCUs issued to any project are not legitimate or valid. The indicative risk rating is an indicative measure of the abatement risk associated with relevant projects and nothing else. 

The Centre for Environment and Integrity Pty Ltd does not have an Australian financial services licence and, in operating the Explorer, is not providing financial advice about ACCUs or any other financial product.

By proceeding, you agree that you have read and understood this disclaimer.
Accept