Critics pan 'flawed' carbon credits review

A major review into the $5.4 billion national scheme that lets participants profit from lowering their carbon emissions has failed to quash suspicions of widespread fraud.

There has been a mixed response to a review of Australia's controversial carbon credit unit scheme, with claims it fails to address integrity issues.

But industry insiders hope it will restore confidence in the market.

The Albanese government has accepted 16 recommendations from an independent panel to improve the scheme.

The system pays participants to undertake methods to decrease greenhouse gases by giving them carbon credits which can then be sold to companies wanting to reduce their emissions.

Methods include tree planting, turning gases from landfill into electricity, and protecting vegetation from being cleared.

The review found the Australian Carbon Credit Unit system needed substantial change.

A panel led by former chief scientist Ian Chubb disputed claims the level of abatement from the scheme was overstated, but opponents have challenged the findings.

Glenn Walker from Greenpeace said the review failed to consider scientific evidence around the human-induced regeneration method which showed it didn't deliver carbon abatement.

"The Chubb review into carbon offsetting has failed to address the scam of a key ACCU method. Until this sham is removed from the system or fundamentally overhauled, emissions won't actually be going down," Mr Walker said.

The Australia Institute's Richard Denniss also raised concerns.

"Professor Chubb's review is silent about the most important issues ... namely how many dodgy carbon credits are still circulating in the Australian economy," Dr Denniss said.

But Professor Chubb said the bulk of carbon credit projects were operating as intended to offset greenhouse gas emissions.

"It's a high proportion that are actually delivering or are on track to deliver the intended outcomes," he said.

"We cannot throw out the good because it's not perfect."

The government has implemented one of the panel's recommendations that no new credits be issued under the avoided deforestation method, which incentivises landholders not to clear their land, because of the time elapsed since land clearing permits were issued.

It also recommended a new internal body to improve integrity in the system and suggested some responsibilities be moved away from the regulator as well as data to be more publicly available.

The Carbon Market Institute is upbeat about the review.

"It's important that we get on with the job of investing in these emission reduction activities," chief executive John Connor told AAP.

Professor Chubb described the recommended changes to the carbon credit scheme as significant.

"The recommendations make it more open, more transparent, and will give people the opportunity to look in and see the maximum amount of data possible rather than the smallest amount of data possible," he said.

But one of the key architects of the scheme, Andrew Macintosh, whose criticism triggered the review, said the integrity of the credits remained flawed.