Deriving Multiple Benefits from Carbon Market-Based Savanna Fire Management: An Australian Example

Russell-Smith, J., et al., 2015. PLoS ONE

Original research (primary data)
View External Publication Link

Abstract

Carbon markets afford potentially useful opportunities for supporting socially and environmentally sustainable land management programs but, to date, have been little applied in globally significant fire-prone savanna settings. While fire is intrinsic to regulating the composition, structure and dynamics of savanna systems, in north Australian savannas frequent and extensive late dry season wildfires incur significant environmental, production and social impacts. Here we assess the potential of market-based savanna burning greenhouse gas emissions abatement and allied carbon biosequestration projects to deliver compatible environmental and broader socio-economic benefits in a highly biodiverse north Australian setting. Drawing on extensive regional ecological knowledge of fire regime effects on fire-vulnerable taxa and communities, we compare three fire regime metrics (seasonal fire frequency, proportion of long-unburnt vegetation, fire patch-size distribution) over a 15-year period for three national parks with an indigenously (Aboriginal) owned and managed market-based emissions abatement enterprise. Our assessment indicates improved fire management outcomes under the emissions abatement program, and mostly little change or declining outcomes on the parks. We attribute improved outcomes and putative biodiversity benefits under the abatement program to enhanced strategic management made possible by the market-based mitigation arrangement. For these same sites we estimate quanta of carbon credits that could be delivered under realistic enhanced fire management practice, using currently available and developing accredited Australian savanna burning accounting methods. We conclude that, in appropriate situations, market-based savanna burning activities can provide transformative climate change mitigation, ecosystem health, and community benefits in northern Australia, and, despite significant challenges, potentially in other fire-prone savanna settings.

Case studies

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-025-4
  • Intervention type: Management
  • Intervention description:

    prescribed fire management undertaken strategically under mild fire- weather conditions in the early to mid dry season (EDS; generally April-July), aims to reduce the impacts of extensive late dry season (LDS; August-November) wildfires on fire-vulnerable biodiversity

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Wildfire  Positive Fire frequency: mean frequency of EDS and LDS fires was calculated in three successive five-year periods  EDS (early to mid dry season) LDS (late dry season) Long-unburnt vegetation, expressed as the proportion of each study site remaining unburnt (for !3 and !5 years) at the end of respective five-year periods Average fire patch-sizes: The mean annual patch-sizes of contiguously burnt areas (CBAs) and counts of the number of CBAs + Fire patch-size distributions (The mean annual patch-size distributions of CBAs over successive five-year periods expressed as the proportion of respective study sites affected by fire)
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    West Arnhem Land Fire Abatement (WALFA) program, located in the fire-prone ‘Top End’ of the Northern Territory, Australia

  • Country: Australia
  • Habitat/Biome type: Tropical and subtropical grasslands |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: Our assessment indicates improved fire management outcomes under the emissions abatement program, and mostly little change or declining outcomes on the parks. We attribute improved outcomes and putative biodiversity benefits under the abatement program to enhanced strategic management made possible by the market-based mitigation arrangement. so across the 3 sites we coded as stemming from the parks (the comparators to the fire management scheme used in WALFA), the outcome is negative, whereas the outcome under the emissions abatement program (the intervention the authors are interested in analyzing for effectiveness) the outcomes are positive. The three parks were still coded as cases because they represent conservation interventions where fire management activities do take place. In relation to carbon sequestration potential the authors estimate using several methods potential carbon sequestration benefits (number of credits) and in all areas show high potential, although they do state that in the parks it would require more effective management. 'Given the relatively large proportions of especially lowland savannas burnt annually in the three national parks, we see no reason why equivalent emissions abatement and sequestration benefits cannot be achieved with more strategic management.'
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Not applicable
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: Yes
  • Impacts on GHG: Positive
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: Yes
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Positive
  • Ecosystem measures: The measures are the same as for the climate impact. But specifically, they are relevant for the ecosystem because they compare fire regime to thresholds for different taxonomic groups Fire frequency: mean frequency of EDS and LDS fires was calculated in three successive five-year periods  EDS (early to mid dry season) LDS (late dry season) Long-unburnt vegetation, expressed as the proportion of each study site remaining unburnt (for 3 and 5 years) at the end of respective five-year periods Average fire patch-sizes: The mean annual patch-sizes of contiguously burnt areas (CBAs) and counts of the number of CBAs + Fire patch-size distributions (The mean annual patch-size distributions of CBAs over successive five-year periods expressed as the proportion of respective study sites affected by fire)
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: Yes
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-025-3
  • Intervention type: Management
  • Intervention description:

    prescribed fire management undertaken strategically under mild fire- weather conditions in the early to mid dry season (EDS; generally April-July), aims to reduce the impacts of extensive late dry season (LDS; August-November) wildfires on fire-vulnerable biodiversity

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Wildfire  Negative Fire frequency: mean frequency of EDS and LDS fires was calculated in three successive five-year periods  EDS (early to mid dry season) LDS (late dry season) Long-unburnt vegetation, expressed as the proportion of each study site remaining unburnt (for !3 and !5 years) at the end of respective five-year periods Average fire patch-sizes: The mean annual patch-sizes of contiguously burnt areas (CBAs) and counts of the number of CBAs + Fire patch-size distributions (The mean annual patch-size distributions of CBAs over successive five-year periods expressed as the proportion of respective study sites affected by fire)
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Nitmiluk (2,920 km2) National Park located in the fire-prone ‘Top End’ of the Northern Territory, Australia

  • Country: Australia
  • Habitat/Biome type: Tropical and subtropical grasslands |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: "Our assessment indicates improved fire management outcomes under the emissions abatement program, and mostly little change or declining outcomes on the parks. We attribute improved outcomes and putative biodiversity benefits under the abatement program to enhanced strategic management made possible by the market-based mitigation arrangement. so across the 3 sites we coded as stemming from the parks (the comparators to the fire management scheme used in WALFA), the outcome is negative, whereas the outcome under the emissions abatement program (the intervention the authors are interested in analyzing for effectiveness) the outcomes are positive. The three parks were still coded as cases because they represent conservation interventions where fire management activities do take place. BT 20.04.2020 - how they aim to assess climate impact effectiveness is to monitor fire outcomes over time and find these outcomes to be declining under the influence of management, hence coded as negative. But note the quality is weak, they don't account for other factors such as changing in weather conditions that could have caused this decline as well or increasing human-induced fire activity. code unclear for ecosystem outcomes because in fact they are comparing to recommended thresholds needed to maintain regional fauna and flora. The three national parks mostly don't meet the threshold and we had agreed that in such cases, code 'unclear'.
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Not applicable
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: Yes
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Unclear
  • Ecosystem measures: The measures are the same as for the climate impact. But specifically, they are relevant for the ecosystem because they compare fire regime to thresholds for different taxonomic groups Fire frequency: mean frequency of EDS and LDS fires was calculated in three successive five-year periods  EDS (early to mid dry season) LDS (late dry season) Long-unburnt vegetation, expressed as the proportion of each study site remaining unburnt (for 3 and 5 years) at the end of respective five-year periods Average fire patch-sizes: The mean annual patch-sizes of contiguously burnt areas (CBAs) and counts of the number of CBAs + Fire patch-size distributions (The mean annual patch-size distributions of CBAs over successive five-year periods expressed as the proportion of respective study sites affected by fire)
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: Yes
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-025-1
  • Intervention type: Management
  • Intervention description:

    prescribed fire management undertaken strategically under mild fire- weather conditions in the early to mid dry season (EDS; generally April-July), aims to reduce the impacts of extensive late dry season (LDS; August-November) wildfires on fire-vulnerable biodiversity intervention is overall characterized as 'market-based savanna burning greenhouse gas emissions abatement and allied carbon biosequestration projects'

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Wildfire  Negative Fire frequency: mean frequency of EDS and LDS fires was calculated in three successive five-year periods  EDS (early to mid dry season) LDS (late dry season) Long-unburnt vegetation, expressed as the proportion of each study site remaining unburnt (for !3 and !5 years) at the end of respective five-year periods Average fire patch-sizes: The mean annual patch-sizes of contiguously burnt areas (CBAs) and counts of the number of CBAs + Fire patch-size distributions (The mean annual patch-size distributions of CBAs over successive five-year periods expressed as the proportion of respective study sites affected by fire)
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    World Heritage Kakadu National Park (19,090 km2) located in the fire-prone ‘Top End’ of the Northern Territory, Australia

  • Country: Australia
  • Habitat/Biome type: Tropical and subtropical grasslands |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: Our assessment indicates improved fire management outcomes under the emissions abatement program, and mostly little change or declining outcomes on the parks. We attribute improved outcomes and putative biodiversity benefits under the abatement program to enhanced strategic management made possible by the market-based mitigation arrangement. so across the 3 sites we coded as stemming from the parks (the comparators to the fire management scheme used in WALFA), the outcome is negative, whereas the outcome under the emissions abatement program (the intervention the authors are interested in analyzing for effectiveness) the outcomes are positive. The three parks were still coded as cases because they represent conservation interventions where fire management activities do take place. BT 20.04.2020 - how they aim to assess climate impact effectiveness is to monitor fire outcomes over time and find these outcomes to be declining under the influence of management, hence coded as negative. But note the quality is weak, they don't account for other factors such as changing in weather conditions that could have caused this decline as well or increasing human-induced fire activity. code unclear for ecosystem outcomes because in fact they are comparing to recommended thresholds needed to maintain regional fauna and flora. The three national parks mostly don't meet the threshold and we had agreed that in such cases, code 'unclear'.
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Not applicable
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: Yes
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Unclear
  • Ecosystem measures: The measures are the same as for the climate impact. But specifically, they are relevant for the ecosystem because they compare fire regime to thresholds for different taxonomic groups Fire frequency: mean frequency of EDS and LDS fires was calculated in three successive five-year periods  EDS (early to mid dry season) LDS (late dry season) Long-unburnt vegetation, expressed as the proportion of each study site remaining unburnt (for 3 and 5 years) at the end of respective five-year periods Average fire patch-sizes: The mean annual patch-sizes of contiguously burnt areas (CBAs) and counts of the number of CBAs + Fire patch-size distributions (The mean annual patch-size distributions of CBAs over successive five-year periods expressed as the proportion of respective study sites affected by fire)
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: Yes
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-025-2
  • Intervention type: Management
  • Intervention description:

    prescribed fire management undertaken strategically under mild fire- weather conditions in the early to mid dry season (EDS; generally April-July), aims to reduce the impacts of extensive late dry season (LDS; August-November) wildfires on fire-vulnerable biodiversity

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Wildfire  Negative Fire frequency: mean frequency of EDS and LDS fires was calculated in three successive five-year periods  EDS (early to mid dry season) LDS (late dry season) Long-unburnt vegetation, expressed as the proportion of each study site remaining unburnt (for !3 and !5 years) at the end of respective five-year periods Average fire patch-sizes: The mean annual patch-sizes of contiguously burnt areas (CBAs) and counts of the number of CBAs + Fire patch-size distributions (The mean annual patch-size distributions of CBAs over successive five-year periods expressed as the proportion of respective study sites affected by fire)
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Litchfield (1,460 km2) National Park located in the fire-prone ‘Top End’ of the Northern Territory, Australia

  • Country: Australia
  • Habitat/Biome type: Tropical and subtropical grasslands |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: "Our assessment indicates improved fire management outcomes under the emissions abatement program, and mostly little change or declining outcomes on the parks. We attribute improved outcomes and putative biodiversity benefits under the abatement program to enhanced strategic management made possible by the market-based mitigation arrangement. so across the 3 sites we coded as stemming from the parks (the comparators to the fire management scheme used in WALFA), the outcome is negative, whereas the outcome under the emissions abatement program (the intervention the authors are interested in analyzing for effectiveness) the outcomes are positive. The three parks were still coded as cases because they represent conservation interventions where fire management activities do take place. BT 20.04.2020 - how they aim to assess climate impact effectiveness is to monitor fire outcomes over time and find these outcomes to be declining under the influence of management, hence coded as negative. But note the quality is weak, they don't account for other factors such as changing in weather conditions that could have caused this decline as well or increasing human-induced fire activity. code unclear for ecosystem outcomes because in fact they are comparing to recommended thresholds needed to maintain regional fauna and flora. The three national parks mostly don't meet the threshold and we had agreed that in such cases, code 'unclear'.
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Not applicable
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: Yes
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Unclear
  • Ecosystem measures: The measures are the same as for the climate impact. But specifically, they are relevant for the ecosystem because they compare fire regime to thresholds for different taxonomic groups Fire frequency: mean frequency of EDS and LDS fires was calculated in three successive five-year periods  EDS (early to mid dry season) LDS (late dry season) Long-unburnt vegetation, expressed as the proportion of each study site remaining unburnt (for 3 and 5 years) at the end of respective five-year periods Average fire patch-sizes: The mean annual patch-sizes of contiguously burnt areas (CBAs) and counts of the number of CBAs + Fire patch-size distributions (The mean annual patch-size distributions of CBAs over successive five-year periods expressed as the proportion of respective study sites affected by fire)
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: Yes
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic: