Long-time conservationist Lyn Orrego describes her favourite patch of the Nambucca State Forest as her “natural cathedral”.
“There’s a patch of mixed eucalypt and rainforest old growth that took my breath away when I found it one night,” Orrego told the Mid North Coaster.
“Towering trees dwarfed us, stands of mature palms wowed us … this is what our forests look and feel like when we just leave them alone.”
What happened: The protection of Mid North Coast forests - such as Lyn’s “cathedral” - now hangs in the balance, ahead of a vote over whether to trade them for carbon credits.
That vote, set for September 15, may decide the future of the Great Koala National Park (GKNP).
The background: NSW Labor pledged to create the GKNP in 2015, and again during the 2023 election - which it won.
In September 2025, the proposed boundary of the park was announced. Around 176,000 hectares of state forest would be added to the existing national park estate to create a 476,000 hectare reserve spanning from Kempsey to Woolgoolga.
Logging of native forests would be banned within it.
Carbon scheme introduced: At this point - despite not having been mentioned before - it was announced that the GKNP’s creation was dependent on it being part of a carbon trading scheme.
That scheme would utilise the Improved Native Forest Management (INFM) method, which allows states to earn carbon credits by reducing or ceasing logging in public native forests.
Companies would be able to offset their emissions by purchasing carbon credits from the park.
Rare chance: Orrego said carbon credit schemes are not without flaws, but that the INFM offered a “once-in-a-generation pathway to protecting NSW’s public native forests”.
Conservation biologist Professor David Lindenmayer said the method aims to reduce the amount of native forest logging, while providing an income stream with which to manage forests.
“The method is designed to store a lot more carbon in our forests and provide a financial incentive to do that,” he told the Mid North Coaster.
A way forward: While the method itself does not ban native forestry, Lindenmayer believes it offers a long-term path towards shutting down the industry, while providing the funds to transition workers to other careers.
Criticism of the method: The INFM has proved divisive in the conservation movement.
Ashley Love, who is credited with conceiving the idea for a GKNP, is staunchly opposed.
“Up until September 2025, there was no mention of the support for the [GKNP] proposal being dependent on carbon credits,” he said in a statement.
He believes attaching a carbon credit scheme to the GKNP means “effectively helping corporations to continue polluting the atmosphere and further damaging the forests”.
Pushing back: Forestry Australia claims the method will not deliver “genuine carbon outcomes” because it will overstate the amount of carbon being removed from the atmosphere.
Organisations such as the Australia Institute (AI), the Bob Brown Foundation and the Wilderness Society also want the method dropped.
Specific issues: The AI claims the concept has two major flaws.
First, protection of the GKNP was already planned, meaning any carbon abatement would have occurred whether or not carbon credits were tied to it.
Second, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can last for thousands of years - much longer than a tree.
Time to get it done: Lindemayer understands distrust around carbon schemes, but says pragmatism is required to get the GKNP over the line.
“In an ideal world, we would have properly protected forests, and we wouldn't have to do this. But it's not an ideal world, so we have to use all the different levers that we've got to get a better outcome.”
He describes the INFM as a “high integrity” method compared to carbon schemes of the past, noting a NSW government commitment not to sell carbon credits from the GKNP to coal and gas projects.
What’s at stake: Environment minister Penny Sharpe has repeatedly described the park as the government’s “most significant environmental commitment”.
If it isn’t gazetted, Lindenmayer said “really significant areas of very high conservation value won't be properly protected, and that's an enormous loss that might be irreversible”.
The vote: The federal Senate will vote next week on whether to allow the method to proceed.
The National Party and One Nation are set to vote against it, while the Greens remain undecided. They want to see the GKNP created, but don’t believe its existence should be dependent on carbon trading.
Backing the method: On Tuesday, NSW Greens senator Sue Higginson urged her federal counterparts to support the method and get the GKNP across the line.
On Monday, an open letter signed by more than 100 supporters of the method was delivered to Canberra senators.
Greenpeace, the WWF, the Nature Conservation Council of NSW and the Australian Climate and Biodiversity Foundation have also voiced support.