19/05/2026
Great Koala Park driven more by carbon credits than conservation
Forest & Wood Communities Australia Chair Steve Dobbyns says the NSW Government’s justification for the Great Koala National Park is increasingly contradicted by its own scientific evidence and appears to be driven more by carbon credit generation than koala conservation. Source: Timberbiz
“The NSW Government’s Environment Minister Penny Sharpe continues to promote the Great Koala National Park as essential for koala conservation, yet its own scientific evidence does not support the claim that regulated native forestry is causing widespread koala decline on the Mid North Coast,” Mr Dobbyns said.
“Instead, the proposal is increasingly being driven by the prospect of carbon credits under the proposed Improved Native Forest Management (INFM) methodology – a scheme that raises serious concerns about carbon leakage, displaced timber production and questionable net climate benefits.”
Mr Dobbyns said years of NSW Government-funded research failed to support the political claim that ending native forestry would “save koalas”.
“Research undertaken by NSW DPI Forest Science and reviewed through the NSW Natural Resources Commission found no statistically significant decline in koala density following selective timber harvesting in north-east NSW state forests,” he said.
“The NRC reported koala densities remained stable in harvested forests, koalas continued using harvested areas after operations, and any declines observed during the study period were more strongly associated with drought and climate stress, particularly across the National Park estate.
“Published peer-reviewed research reached the same conclusion – regulated native forestry operations in north-east NSW did not reduce koala density.”
Mr Dobbyns said the NSW Baseline Koala Survey further confirmed koalas remain widespread throughout production forests on the Mid North Coast with estimates of 274,000 koalas across the state (with a 95% confidence interval of 231,000–320,000).
“This is the critical point the Government keeps ignoring – its own science demonstrates koalas and regulated forestry are already coexisting across the landscape,” he said.
“The assertion that state forests must be converted into national parks to prevent koala extinction is simply not supported by the available evidence.”
Mr Dobbyns also noted that more than half of the 176,000 hectares of state forest earmarked for inclusion in the Great Koala National Park is already managed primarily for conservation through existing environmental exclusions, old-growth reserves, rainforest protections, stream buffers and conservation zoning and reserve systems.
“A large proportion of these forests were already effectively protected from harvesting activity,” he said.
“The public is being led to believe all of this forest is under intensive logging pressure, which is simply untrue.”
Mr Dobbyns said the Government had now explicitly linked the park’s creation to the proposed INFM carbon methodology, exposing what he described as the “fundamental flaw” in the proposal – carbon leakage.
“Stopping native forestry in NSW does not stop Australia needing timber,” he said.
“We will still need hardwood for construction, pallets, poles, flooring, fencing and packaging. Since harvesting has halted across these forests, that demand has simply shifts elsewhere.
“That ‘somewhere else’ includes increased logging on neighbouring private property, increased pressure on remaining state forests, interstate harvesting, greater reliance on imports from countries with weaker environmental standards and substantially higher transport emissions.
“In carbon accounting this is known as leakage – and it can completely undermine the claimed climate benefits of the project.”
Mr Dobbyns said the Government was effectively proposing to stop harvesting in NSW state forests, claim carbon credits for “avoided emissions”, while timber production and associated emissions simply move elsewhere to meet unchanged demand.
“If replacement timber comes from other native forests, imported hardwood products or more emissions-intensive materials like steel, concrete and plastics, then the claimed emissions reductions may be entirely negated,” he said.
“The atmosphere does not care whether emissions occur in NSW, Queensland, Victoria, Southeast Asia or South America.
“A carbon project that simply exports timber production and emissions elsewhere is not delivering genuine global abatement.”
Mr Dobbyns said the proposal also ignored the role of sustainably managed native forests and harvested wood products in long-term carbon storage.
“Under sustainable forestry systems, harvested forests regrow, more carbon is absorbed and timber products continue storing carbon for decades,” he said.
“Meanwhile, alternative materials such as steel, aluminium and concrete carry substantially higher embodied emissions.”
Mr Dobbyns warned the proposal risked destabilising regional economies across the Mid North Coast.
“The Great Koala National Park increasingly appears to be based on monetising public forests through carbon credits rather than evidence-based conservation,” he said.
“That risks undermining regional manufacturing jobs, destabilising timber supply, increasing reliance on imports and reducing Australia’s sovereign hardwood capability.”
“All while the Government’s own science shows koalas remain present in managed forests and that broader threats such as bushfire, drought, disease, dog attacks, cars and habitat fragmentation are more significant pressures.”
Mr Dobbyns said Forest & Wood Communities Australia supported genuine conservation measures based on evidence, not ideology.
“Protecting high-value habitat and improving koala outcomes are legitimate goals,” he said.
“But the current proposal increasingly relies on a simplistic political narrative — stop forestry, save koalas, generate carbon credits.
“The evidence does not support that framing.”
“A more credible approach would focus on targeted habitat protection, stronger fire management, plantation expansion, continued ecological monitoring and sustainable multiple-use forest management.
“Otherwise, the Great Koala National Park risks becoming less a conservation initiative and more a carbon-credit land-use transfer with uncertain climate benefits and significant regional economic consequences.”
Chris Minns Prue Car MP Paul Scully MP Daniel Mookhey MLC Yasmin Catley MP Kate Washington MP Courtney Houssos Sophie Cotsis Jihad Dib MP Michael Daley MP
