A group of researchers from 26 universities and institutes working in Africa have warned conservationists, farmers and landowners to be cautious of 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’, they challenge the feasibility of implementing early dry season (EDS) fires as a one-size-fits-all fire management strategy for African conservation areas. While proponents claim that this approach could reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, restore ecosystems, and generate significant carbon revenues to fund conservation, the paper argues that the ecological, climatic, and economic outcomes of such a strategy may not align with expectations, and more nuanced approaches are necessary.
Lead author Tony Knowles, from Cirrus, stresses that “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.
“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.
Explains fellow author Sally Archibald: “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 says 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.”
Archibald, a Professor at Wits University’s School of Animal, Plant and Environmental studies and who leads the Future Ecosystems for Africa program, explains:
“It’s about keeping autonomy with managers as fire is one of the few tools that are available in places with few resources: it is effective and inexpensive. We worry that there’s going to be pressure to prioritise early burning above other management needs because it provides revenue”
“If there was overwhelming evidence that you could store significant carbon by burning early, then, yes, let’s balance those things. But recognise that there are a lot of good reasons to burn hot fires late in the season if you have a tick problem or you are trying to control your trees,” says Archibald.
“The appropriate burning regime and reasons vary from one country to another in Africa, also depending on sites in a given country,” agrees Brigitte N’Dri, fellow author and researcher at Nangui Abrogoua University (Côte d’Ivoire).
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 vs 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 these local data contradict the findings of the global models.
The paper argues that the tools and understanding are available to use fire to achieve a range of conservation and landscape management objectives, and it would be a mistake to reproduce the errors of the past by adopting a single approach to fire management across Africa’s diverse landscapes:
For this reason, urges Archibald, researchers and practitioners need to listen to local knowledge. “A number of researchers and communities across Africa know a lot about our ecosystems and have been using fire for many decades. If you keep them out of the loop, you’re going to make wrong decisions,” she says.
Fact sheet about Early Dry Season (EDS) burning
Uncertain Climate Mitigation Outcomes
The ecological processes underlying GHG emissions from fires are more complex than previously acknowledged. EDS fires in African savannas typically involve smouldering combustion of green vegetation, which releases higher proportions of methane (CH₄) and nitrous oxide (N₂O)—gases with significantly greater global warming potential than carbon dioxide (CO₂).
While EDS fires may burn smaller areas with less fuel, their higher emission factors for CH₄ and N₂O raise questions about whether they would result in net reductions in GHG emissions. Furthermore, the paper highlights that fire-derived emissions are highly context-dependent, influenced by fuel type, moisture content, and landscape heterogeneity.
Ecological trade-offs
A shift to EDS fires could increase woody biomass, which might store more above-ground carbon in some regions. However, this can come at the expense of biodiversity and ecosystem functionality. For instance, increased woody cover reduces grassland availability, impacting herbivores and the broader ecological balance. Dense woody encroachment is also associated with land degradation and reduced ecosystem services for local communities.
African savannas are globally renowned for their biodiversity, supported by diverse fire regimes that create a variety of habitats. Rigidly adopting EDS fires risks undermining this mosaic, diminishing biodiversity, and affecting livelihoods tied to tourism and agriculture.
Limitations of a uniform approach
The authors strongly argue against imposing a single fire regime across Africa’s highly variable savannas. Different regions require tailored approaches to meet specific ecological and socio-economic goals. A diverse fire management strategy—incorporating fires of varying intensity, size, and timing—has been shown to support biodiversity and ecosystem resilience more effectively than uniform fire policies.
“The appropriate burning regime and reasons vary from one country to another in Africa, also depending on sites in a given country,” says Brigitte N’Dri, fellow author and researcher at Nangui Abrogoua University (Côte d’Ivoire).
The role of carbon revenues in conservation financing
With funding shortages posing significant barriers to conservation in Africa, the promise of carbon revenues from fire-abatement projects is appealing. Proponents suggest that implementing EDS fires could generate sufficient revenue to cover the operational costs of conservation areas.
However, the paper raises several challenges in addition to the concept being scientifically questionable in African rangeland:
- Practicality: Implementing widespread EDS fires requires significant resources, including trained personnel and equipment. These fires are patchier and less intense, making them logistically demanding to execute, especially in large protected areas.
- Perverse incentives: Linking conservation funding to EDS fires risks creating a scenario where fire management is driven by revenue generation rather than ecological priorities.
- Uncertain financial viability: The carbon credit revenue from EDS fires depends on their proven ability to reduce emissions—a claim the paper questions. Without clear evidence of climate mitigation benefits, such projects may struggle to attract reliable funding.
The need for a flexible approach
Decades of research on fire dynamics in African ecosystems underscores the importance of adaptable, site-specific fire management strategies. Historical examples, such as the evolving fire management policies in South Africa’s Kruger National Park demonstrate that flexibility is key to achieving diverse conservation objectives.
The current study highlights the value of existing local practices, such as the adaptive use of early fires by communities in West Africa. These practices, often rooted in indigenous knowledge, balance ecological and socio-economic needs, creating fragmented landscapes that prevent uncontrolled fires later in the season.
It has taken many decades of learning from indigenous people, and research in different African ecosystems, to develop a coherent understanding of the ecology of fire. The tools and understanding are now available to use fire to achieve a range of conservation and landscape management objectives. It would be a tragic mistake, argues the paper, to reproduce the errors of the past, by again adopting a single approach to fire management across Africa’s diverse landscapes,
“The appropriate burning regime and reasons vary from one country to another in Africa, also depending on sites in a given country,” says N’Dri.
The paper ”Viability, impact, and desirability of financing conservation in Africa through fire-abatement” is the result of a coordinated research effort to present an African perspective. It was led by Future Ecosystems for Africa (FEFA), a flagship programme funded by Oppenheimer Generations Research and Conservation (OGRC).
Authors:
Tony Knowles, Nicola Stevens, Esther Ekua Amoako, Mohammed Armani, Chipilica Barbosa, Colin Beale, William Bond, Emmanuel Chidumayo, Colin Courtney-Mustaphi, Kebonye Dintwe, Andy Dobson, Jason Donaldson, Luthando Dziba, Navashni Govender, Gareth Hempson, Glynis Joy Humphrey, Duncan Kimuyu, Paul Laris, Aya Brigitte N’Dri, Catherine L. Parr, James Probert, Gernot Ruecker, Izak Smit, Tercia Strydom, Stephen Syampungani, Sally Archibald.
- Carbon revenues fuel misguided policies in African conservation - February 13, 2025