Researchers from 26 universities and institutes working in Africa are warning conservationists, farmers and landowners against consultants and companies recommending a single veld-burning strategy to sequester carbon in order to capitalise on carbon credits.
In a paper published this month in Nature Sustainability, titled ‘Viability, impact, and desirability of financing conservation in Africa through fire-abatement’, the researchers challenge the feasibility of implementing early dry season (EDS) fires as a one-size-fits-all fire management strategy for African conservation areas.
The consultants claim a single veld burning approach could reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, restore ecosystems, and generate significant carbon revenues to fund conservation. But researchers disagree, arguing that the ecological, climatic, and economic outcomes of such a strategy, may not align with expectations.
Lead author of the research paper, Tony Knowles, from Cirrus, said “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. Cirrus is an advisory group that works with landowners across Africa on carbon revenue opportunities.”
Knowles also said half of the GHG emissions from Africa are generated through land use, deforestation, and land degradation.
“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.
“One example is planting trees in indigenous grasslands. Another is the implementation of fire abatement in open, savanna or African rangeland systems” said Knowles.
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.
Professor Sally Archibald, Professor at Wits University’s School of Animal, Plant and Environmental studies and who leads the Future Ecosystems for Africa program, said “early season burning is sometimes very appropriate, but it’s not accurate to say simply ‘if we do early season burning, we’re going to improve the ecosystem functioning and that’s going to store carbon which will make you money’.”
Archibald said there is insufficient evidence that early dry season fires do store carbon or reduce GHG emissions.
These fires might also not be desirable ecologically.
“Managers are using fire to achieve a lot of different objectives: they need to control ticks, manage poaching, and eradicate invasive plants, while at the same time thinking about forage for their herbivores. None of those things give them revenue, and they do it for ecological reasons.”
He also said the appropriate burning regime and reasons vary from one country to another in Africa, also depending on sites in a given country.
The researchers make a number of recommendations to moving forward in setting policies for early dry season burning as a conservation tool.
These include: Potential carbon revenues should not drive fire management decisions to the detriment of livelihoods, biodiversity and ecosystem service outcomes.
Carbon offset programmes in Africa should be assessed according to the African position statement, which prioritises climate change adaptation and biodiversity conservation. Climate change mitigation activities will be supported only when aligned with these other priorities.
Distinguishing early versus late dry season fires is insufficient for effective policy guidelines, and cannot be used to predict GHG emissions or carbon cycling.
Process-based models, that incorporate factors such as fuel load, structure, composition, greenness, and prevailing weather conditions are required to meet diverse management objectives.
Local data and evidence should not be ignored in regional assessments of climate change mitigation and restoration opportunities. This is especially important when local data contradicts findings of global models.
More information :
https://www.wits.ac.za/news/latest-news/research-news/2025/2025-01/carbon-revenues-fuel-misguided-policies-in-african-conservation.html
Picture: Wits