4.6 Article

Article Savanna fire management can generate enough carbon revenue to help restore Africa's rangelands and fill protected area funding gaps

Journal

ONE EARTH
Volume 4, Issue 12, Pages 1776-1791

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.oneear.2021.11.013

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The text discusses the escalating risk of extinction for savanna-dependent species in Africa, and the substantial funding required for effective management of protected areas where these species reside. It explores the potential of carbon financing programs based on fire management to bridge the funding gap and benefit degraded savanna ecosystems. The introduction of early dry season fire management programs could potentially generate significant carbon revenues, aiding in the restoration of African savannas and conservation of imperiled keystone species.
Many savanna-dependent species in Africa including large herbivores and apex predators are at increasing risk of extinction. Achieving effective management of protected areas (PAs) in Africa where lions live will cost an estimated US$ >1-2 billion/year in new funding. We explore the potential for fire-management-based carbon financing programs to fill this funding gap and benefit degrading savanna ecosystems. We demonstrate how introducing early dry season fire management programs could produce potential carbon revenues (PCRs) from either a single carbon financing method (avoided emissions) or from multiple sequestration methods ranging from US$ 59.6-655.9 million/year (at US$ 5/ton) or US$ 155.0 million/year to US$ 1.7 billion/year (at US$ 13/ton). We highlight variable but significant PCRs for savanna PAs from US$ 1.5-44.4 million/year per PA. We suggest investing in fire management programs to jump-start the United Nations Decade of Ecological Restoration to help restore degraded African savannas and conserve imperiled keystone herbivores and apex predators.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available