Carbon revenues and the use of fire in African landscapes

Veld-burning - setting fire to dead plant material to manage vegetation - while it can help manage certain landscapes and contribute to carbon credit programs, can have varying effects depending on the region and ecosystem.

Dr Nicola Stevens, Senior Researcher at the ECI, has co-authored the paper: Viability and desirability of financing conservation in Africa through fire management which has been published in Nature. 

The paper underscores the need for a science-based approach to climate change adaptation, particularly in Africa, where carbon offset projects are gaining popularity with promoting early dry season fires (EDS) to generate carbon revenues for conservation.

While the idea of using fire to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and finance conservation efforts sounds promising in theory, the researchers argue that it may not work as universally as proponents claim. The paper highlights several key concerns, such as:

1. Local Context Matters: The use of fire management strategies needs to consider local ecological, climatic, and economic conditions. What works in one region may not be suitable for another due to differences in ecosystems and community needs.
2. Biodiversity and Livelihoods at Risk: Shifting fire regimes for carbon revenue purposes should not come at the expense of biodiversity or local livelihoods. The researchers caution against the idea of using carbon revenues as the primary driver of fire management decisions, as it may not always align with broader conservation or social goals.
3. One-Size-Fits-All Approach: The push for a single approach to fire management—such as EDS burning—does not take into account the complexities of Africa's diverse landscapes. The paper stresses the importance of using more nuanced and context-specific strategies, such as considering factors like fuel load, vegetation composition, and local weather conditions, rather than relying on blanket guidelines.
4. The Role of Local Data: Global models and external assessments are useful but should not override local data that may offer more accurate insights into how fire management could play out in specific areas. The research advocates for integrating local knowledge and evidence into conservation and climate change mitigation efforts.

Lead author Tony Knowles is from Cirrus, an advisory group that works with landowners across Africa on carbon revenue opportunities. He stresses:

There are some fantastic climate change mitigation projects, based on really good science, that are funding African conservation areas and programmes in surrounding communities, but we need to be careful about recommending actions when the science is not clear. 

 

Half of the GHG emissions from Africa are generated through land use, deforestation, and land degradation,” says Knowles. “As highlighted in recent IPCC reports, one of the principal mitigation opportunities is halting deforestation and the restoration of our landscapes. This also provides a good opportunity to generate carbon revenues for conservation agencies, farmers, and landowners.”

While there is a desperate need for funds to manage these landscapes and the restoration of indigenous grasslands and indigenous forests are strong legitimate carbon offset opportunities, there are a few emerging ideas that are contentious, says Knowles. One example is planting trees in indigenous grasslands. Another is the implementation of fire abatement in open, savanna or African rangeland systems.

The paper critically examines whether shifting fire regimes to the early dry season will achieve the dual goals of reducing emissions and financing conservation. The 31 researchers, largely from institutions and organisations in Africa, have reviewed the idea and found that it doesn't work in an African context.

Read the paper in Nature in full: Viability and desirability of financing conservation in Africa through fire management