“This NEFA et al inputted method is surprisingly good given the realities on the ground.
“The Australian National University were contracted to draft it, …
“… locally they invited NEFA et al to submit input …
“… Dailan Pugh et al specifically raised the issue of permanence [*Note: other cc nf methods are for only 21 years then the forest goes back into the harvesting pool to be re-contracted, or not.]
“Dailan et al also included that cutting the surrounding forest region be reduced 20% below baseline.
“The ANU included both as draft.
“And the thing that is surprising about it is that the government said “Yes.”
“And we are about to lose this because of an already lost either way principled Greens Policy of native forests not being in the carbon credits scheme.
“But that principled policy is lost whichever way the Greens vote. Whichever method is adopted, and one will be, the native forests for cc’s are included as a fact.
And the next model will not be at all as favourable because OM/N/Ls will be voting for it on behalf of the logging indusrty.
“So we don’t want to lose this NEFA inputted method.
“We may however lose this method, because we have an attachment to a lost-either-way, no-longer-available, principled policy position of Greens HQ.
“Literally. That is actually the reason.
“So voting yes or no doesn’t make any difference to the native forests being in the cc scheme.
“It makes a big difference to the native forest logging schedule.
“Please Greens HQ: Don’t f this up!”
Helpfull?
.
