Crediting risks under the Australian Carbon Credit Unit (ACCU) Scheme are managed by scientifically robust methods, conservative measurement and modelling approaches, and comprehensive administrative controls. This ensures projects are only issued credits for genuine and additional abatement. 

Method-specific papers on risk management

We're developing a series of papers on managing project risk in various methods. The papers are part of a larger narrative on risks and compliance in ACCU projects and should be considered alongside previous independent reviews.
 
Like any business activity, implementing emission avoidance and carbon sequestration projects will have risks. If proponents understand these risks and how to manage them, they can make informed decisions about scheme participation and maximise project outcomes.

The first paper in the series is on the human-induced regeneration (HIR) method. The second paper of this series will address the management of risks under the soil carbon method and is expected to be published later in the year.

Human-induced regeneration method paper

The Human-induced regeneration method – managing project risk to deliver carbon abatement for Australia paper describes how projects registered under the HIR method earn carbon credits based on the carbon sequestration in native vegetation. 

The paper provides an overview of the robust framework for large-scale sequestration throughout Australia. It also highlights the uncertainty and risks associated with running a HIR project and outlines the key compliance and crediting controls in place to mitigate these risks.

Read the paper

Independent Reviews of the ACCU Scheme

Gateway check reviews

Associate Professor (Honorary) Cris Brack from the Australian National University conducts independent reviews of human-induced regeneration (HIR) gateway checks every 6 months.

These reviews provide additional assurance on the integrity and performance of HIR regeneration projects. The outcomes also inform our compliance responses for specific projects and help us improve scheme administration processes.

These reviews consider:

  • information and evidence provided in the projects’ offsets reports
  • geospatial data
  • our assessment of gateway checks
  • reasonable assurance audit reports provided by independent auditors.
Read the latest report

Previous review reports

Other independent reviews