ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATION EQUITY PROCESS COSTS BENEFITS R. 6 Require prospective scheme Increases project registration Enhances scheme Could increase the likelihood Treats new entrants Minister make legislative participants to include a plan for and reporting costs for CER and understanding of that the sequestration is differently to incumbents. rule (currently under participants’ maintaining carbon stores when transaction costs for scheme risks and obligations maintained over time. consideration) registering sequestration projects. participants. associated with permanence. May reduce costs participant’s in future if management to maintain carbon is more cost effective than replacing lost carbon. Could lead to a net reduction in administrative costs for CER if it leads to less compliance action as result of reduced reversals. R. 7 Require fire management plans for Increases administrative costs Aims to improve scheme Could increase the likelihood Treats new entrants Change to legislative rule sequestration and savanna fire for CER and transaction costs approach to that the sequestration is differently to incumbents. participants’ projects. for scheme participants. managing risk from fire. May maintained over time. reduce costs in participant’s future if fire management is more cost effective than replacing lost carbon. Reduces risk for ERF and Government. R. 8 Review the definition of a Small administrative cost to Could be used to better More effective arrangements Treats new entrants Department significant reversal of sequestration CER. calibrate compliance for permanence could help differently to incumbents. to better calibrate the risk of carbon arrangements to risk of CER better manage risk of losses. reversal. reversal. R. 9 Remove the ability for a scheme May reduce participation to a Increases availability of Could reduce risk of reversal Improves information Change to CFI Act participant to request that the small degree due to information to future to some extent by increasing availability and project area be omitted from the confidentiality concerns. purchasers of land with a the transparency of obligations transparency for those project register. sequestration project and on the land. with interests in relevant increases confidence that land areas, removes eligible interest holders are ability to omit projects. aware of projects.
RECOMMENDATION ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY ENVIRONMENTAL EQUITY IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS COSTS BENEFITS R. 6 Require prospective scheme participants to include a plan for maintaining carbon stores when registering sequestration projects. Increases project registration and reporting costs for CER and transaction costs for scheme participants. Enhances scheme participants’ understanding of risks and obligations associated with permanence. May reduce participant’s costs in future if management to maintain carbon is more cost effective than replacing lost carbon. Could lead to a net reduction in administrative costs for CER if it leads to less compliance action as result of reduced reversals. Could increase the likelihood that the sequestration is maintained over time. Treats new entrants differently to incumbents. Minister make legislative rule (currently under consideration) R. 7 Require fire management plans for sequestration and savanna fire projects. Increases administrative costs for CER and transaction costs for scheme participants. Aims to improve scheme participants’ approach to managing risk from fire. May reduce participant’s costs in future if fire management is more cost effective than replacing lost carbon. Reduces risk for ERF and Government. Could increase the likelihood that the sequestration is maintained over time. Treats new entrants differently to incumbents. Change to legislative rule R. 8 Review the definition of a significant reversal of sequestration to better calibrate the risk of carbon losses. Small administrative cost to CER. Could be used to better calibrate compliance arrangements to risk of reversal. More effective arrangements for permanence could help CER better manage risk of reversal. Treats new entrants differently to incumbents. Department R. 9 Remove the ability for a scheme participant to request that the project area be omitted from the project register. May reduce participation to a small degree due to confidentiality concerns. Increases availability of information to future purchasers of land with a sequestration project and increases confidence that eligible interest holders are aware of projects. Could reduce risk of reversal to some extent by increasing the transparency of obligations on the land. Improves information availability and transparency for those with interests in relevant land areas, removes ability to omit projects. Change to CFI Act