ChapterPDF Available

Payment for ecosystem services in practice – savanna burning and carbon abatement at Fish River, northern Australia

Authors:

Abstract

Tropical savannas occur in Africa, Australia, South America and southeast and southern Asia. These ecosystems support about 10% of the world’s population, occupy one-sixth of the land surface and contain the most fire prone vegetation on earth (Russell-Smith et al., 2013). In Australia, savannas occur in the wet-dry tropics and feature both trees, dominated by eucalypts, and herbaceous plants, principally grasses. A defining feature of savannas is the existence of a dry season lasting up to nine months of the year. Grasses in the savanna have short, intense growing periods during the wet season, then cure rapidly during the dry. Rainfall is seasonal, ranging from 300 to 2000 mm with high inter-annual variation. Here, we outline the Fish River Fire Project, the first early dry season savanna burning project to be declared under the Australian Government’s Carbon Farming Initiative and the first to have sold those credits, as a practical example of payment for ecosystem services.
78
Payment for ecosystem
services in practice –
savanna burning and carbon
abatement at Fish River,
northern Australia
Nerissa Walton and James Fitzsimons
Introduction
Tropical savannas occur in Africa, Australia, South America
and southeast and southern Asia. These ecosystems support
about 10% of the world’s population, occupy one-sixth of the
land surface and contain the most fire prone vegetation on
earth (Russell-Smith et al., 2013). In Australia, savannas occur
in the wet-dry tropics and feature both trees, dominated by
eucalypts, and herbaceous plants, principally grasses. A
defining feature of savannas is the existence of a dry season
lasting up to nine months of the year. Grasses in the savanna
have short, intense growing periods during the wet season,
then cure rapidly during the dry. Rainfall is seasonal, ranging
from 300 to 2000 mm with high inter-annual variation.
Indigenous people possess a long history of fire management
prior to European settlement, living on their lands and
maintaining skilled fire management over large parts of the
landscape (Russell-Smith et al., 2009). This regime was
disrupted with European arrival, which resulted in the
movement of many Indigenous people away from their lands
and the consequent breakdown of skilled fire management over
large areas. Currently, over 20% of Australia’s northern savanna
is owned or managed by Indigenous people and Indigenous
land interests span a much greater area, through joint
management arrangements and non-exclusive native title.
A feature of contemporary savanna fire regimes is the
predominance of fires occurring in the late dry season, typically
under severe fire weather conditions. Savanna wildfires can
occur at any time in the dry season (March to November),
however, 85% of fires occur in the late dry season, from August
to November (Garnaut, 2011). Late dry season fires are
characterised by low levels of patchiness, high intensity, high
total fuel consumption and propensity to spread.
Contemporary northern Australian fire regimes are having
significant impacts on regional biodiversity values (e.g.
Woinarski et al., 2011) and contribute to national greenhouse
gas emissions. Reinstating the traditional fire regimes for
biodiversity, cultural and carbon benefits is now a rapidly
increasing activity in northern Australia (e.g. Fitzsimons et al.,
2012). Management of this significant ecosystem process
presents great opportunity for ecosystem services. Here, we
outline the Fish River Fire Project, the first early dry season
savanna burning project to be declared under the Australian
Government’s Carbon Farming Initiative and the first to have
sold those credits, as a practical example of payment for
ecosystem services.
The Fish River protected area
Fish River is a spectacular property with high conservation and
cultural values in the Daly River region of the Northern Territory
in Australia. It covers 182,500 hectares and encompasses
sandstone ranges, large tracts of intact savanna, an extensive
mosaic of monsoon forest wetlands, as well as the pristine
waters of the Daly River and its tributaries. Fish River is home to
unique assemblages of terrestrial and aquatic species and is an
important refuge site for nationally-listed and Northern Territory-
listed threatened species. It was purchased in 2010 by the
Indigenous Land Corporation with support from the Australian
Government’s National Reserve System Program, The Nature
Conservancy, Pew Environment Group and Greening Australia
(for more information, see Fitzsimons and Looker, 2012). As
part of the National Reserve System it is managed primarily for
biodiversity conservation and cultural values with other
congruent objectives such as the management of visitor use,
the needs of Indigenous people and local communities
(including subsistence resource use) and to contribute to local
industries such as tourism and the emerging carbon market.
The tenure is a perpetual Crown lease for the purposes of
‘grazing and ancillary’ activities. The property is planned to be
divested to Traditional Owners, upon the Northern Land
Council’s resolution of the current native title claim.
Section 4. Case studies of protected areas and ecosystem services
Valuing Nature | Protected Areas and Ecosystem Services 79
Savanna burning on Fish River Station. Photo: © Ted Wood
80
The Carbon Farming Initiative
The Carbon Farming Initiative is a legislated offsets scheme of
the Australian Government that allows farmers and land
managers to earn carbon credits by storing carbon or reducing
greenhouse gas emissions on the land. These credits can then
be sold to people, business and government wishing to offset
their emissions. Carbon credits are a financial commodity
representing one tonne of CO2 or carbon dioxide-equivalent
(CO2-e) that is sequestered and stored, or prevented from being
released into the atmosphere, which can be sold as offsets. In
Australia, the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act
2011 (Cth) and Regulations are the regulatory instruments that
enable the production and trading of carbon credits and
establish a set of integrity principles for Carbon Farming
Initiative projects. These integrity principles require that
abatement must be measureable and verifiable, additional to
what would occur in the absence of a project, supported by
peer-reviewed science and consistent with Australia’s
international greenhouse gas accounts.
Within this framework, ‘methodology determinations’, the legal
instruments that set out the rules for undertaking activities and
measurement methods, are developed for each type of project
activity, including for early dry season savanna burning.
Application of the savanna burning Carbon
Farming Initiative methodology on Fish River
The Fish River Fire Project applies the Carbon Farming
(Reduction of GHG Emissions through Early Dry Season
Savanna Burning 1.1) Methodology Determination 2013. The
methodology is based on traditional Indigenous knowledge
coupled with western science which together demonstrate
that controlled mosaic burning in the early dry season reduces
fires in the late dry season and results in the avoidance of
emissions of nitrous oxide and methane, both powerful
greenhouse gases. Eligibility criteria for the methodology
require the project to be on land receiving above 1000 mm
average annual rainfall, containing the specified vegetation
types, in this case eucalypt woodland and sandstone
woodland, and having a history of regular late dry season fire.
Once eligibility is established, the legal right to carry out the
project needs to be established and feasibility of the project
assessed. The Northern Territory Government was approached
to provide confirmation that the operation of an early dry season
savanna burning project on the property was not inconsistent
with the purpose of the Fish River lease. The Indigenous Land
Corporation applied to the Clean Energy Regulator to become a
recognised offsets entity and have the project declared an eligible
offsets project. Once the project is approved, the activity, in this
case early dry season burning, is undertaken. In some situations
projects have been ‘backdated’ to include activity undertaken in
the past and in the case of the Fish River Fire Project, project
approval was backdated to 1 January 2011.
Under the savanna burning methodology, abatement is
determined by calculating the annual emissions in the reporting
period, and comparing this with the average annual emissions
during the baseline period, the ten years prior to the project
commencement. The abatement is the difference between the
baseline and total emissions in the project year. Various tools are
used to undertake the calculations, including a pre-validated
vegetation map, seasonal fire maps from the North Australian
Fire Information (NAFI) Service and the Savanna Burning
Abatement Tool (SavBAT). Applications for Australian Carbon
Credit Units are then submitted to the Clean Energy Regulator
with an independently audited project offset report.
Impact of early dry season burning on
greenhouse emissions
Prior to commencement of the project, 75% of Fish River
burnt every year. Since the introduction of planned early
dry season burning, the total area of the property burnt has
reduced to 40%. Importantly, the proportion of the property
burnt in the late dry season has reduced from 36% to 1%
(Figure 1). This has resulted in significant avoidance of
emissions of nitrous oxide and methane, which is converted
to a carbon dioxide equivalent for carbon credit calculation
purposes (Figure 2). A total of 49,041 credits have been
issued to date, an average of 12,260 credits annually.
Selling credits on the market and media interest
The ILC has been issued with three tranches of credits to
date, those for 2011 and 2012 combined and those for the
2013 and 2014 activity years. On each occasion, the ILC
undertook a well publicised expression of interest process
promoting the valuable cultural, social and biodiversity
co-benefits associated with the project. Successful bids were
identified based on three key criteria: the price; the
organisation’s compatibility with Indigenous values; and how
the company proposed to market the sale. Expressions of
interest were received from liable entities (those corporations
having an emissions liability under the Carbon Pricing
Mechanism), carbon brokers and banks. Prices were high,
recognising a genuine market value of the co-benefits
produced by the project. The first two tranches of credits were
sold to Caltex Australia for more than $22/t, a liable entity with
a corporate social responsibility focus on Indigenous people
and the environment. The media provided coverage to the
expression of interest process and the sale of the credits. In
particular, the ABC’s 7.30 NT program reported the first
Indigenous owned Carbon Farming Initiative project and the
first savanna burning project to sell credits on the market
(Middleton, 2013).
Valuing Nature | Protected Areas and Ecosystem Services 81
Figure 1. Impact of early dry season burning on seasonality and area burnt at Fish River.
Figure 2. Impact of early dry season burning on greenhouse gas emissions – the red dashed line represents the baseline
emissions for the 10 years prior to the purchase of Fish River and the green bars the emissions avoided from the baseline
HUK[OLYLMVYLJHYIVUJYLKP[ZWYVK\JLKHUKHIH[LTLU[ZOV^UPU[OPZÄN\YLPZJHSJ\SH[LK\ZPUN[OL*HYIVU
Farming (Reduction of GHG Emissions through Early Dry Season Savanna Burning 1.1) Methodology Determination 2013.
Actual abatement claimed for these years under v1.0 was slightly less, as the baseline is lower when calculated under the
ÄYZ[+L[LYTPUH[PVU[OL`LHY[OL03*JVTTLUJLKTHUHNLTLU[PZH[YHUZP[PVU`LHYPU[OLWYVQLJ[ULP[OLYWHY[VM[OL
baseline nor the project crediting period.
82
Land management costs
A deed with the Australian Government for Fish River requires
that the reserve is managed in accordance with IUCN
protected area category II (National Park). The types of costs
incurred in managing the property include labour,
infrastructure repairs and maintenance, weed management,
fire management, visitor management, feral animal
management, track maintenance and divestment
consultations. Annual income under the Carbon Pricing
Mechanism has represented approximately 1/3 of the annual
cost of managing the reserve. Other complementary sources
of income are the mustering of buffalo for pet meat, fire
management on a neighbouring property, the ILC’s Real Jobs
Program and contributions from The Nature Conservancy
towards fire management and feral animal management.
Co-benefits of the Fish River Fire Project
The Fish River Fire Project is delivering social, cultural,
biodiversity and economic benefits. All revenue from the sale
of credits is reinvested in managing the property and
supporting jobs and training for Traditional Owners. The
employment of local Indigenous people, most of whom have
familial connections to Fish River, is facilitating access for
Traditional Owners to the property, reconnection with cultural
values and protection of important cultural sites. The reduction
in late dry season wildfire helps protect significant fire sensitive
ecosystems and the many threatened species on the property,
such as the Northern Quoll, Gouldian Finch and northern
Masked Owl. The Fish River Fire Project is being used as a
demonstration project to assist the development of other
savanna burning projects by Indigenous groups in northern
Australia.
Challenges and opportunities
Fish River was the first project to be accredited for the
production of carbon credits from savanna burning and the
first to sell its credits under the Carbon Farming Initiative.
However, since registration of the Fish River Fire Project, a
further 33 projects covering 13 million hectares have been
approved by the Clean Energy Regulator and issued with over
one million carbon credits as at January 2015 (Figure 3). This
includes the registration of savanna burning programs that
have been operating for a number of years (for example,
EcoFire in the Kimberley, see Legge et al. 2011, and the West
Arnhem Land Fire Abatement project in the Northern Territory).
The planned burning is undertaken about a year before credits
are issued, so funds to undertake feasibility assessment,
project development and burning are required prior to any
income being received. This up-front cost could potentially
inhibit more groups from entering the market without
philanthropic or government support. Another challenge is
land tenure, particularly the level of government involvement
and consultation required to make land use decisions relating
to Indigenous held land tenures.
"
")
!
!
!
!
WA
NT
QLD
Greater
than
1000mm
rainfall
600-1000mm rainfall
600-1000mm rainfall
600-1000mm rainfall
Greater than
1000mm rainfall
Derby
Cooktown
Cairns
Katherine
DARWIN
DARWIN
145° E
145° E
140° E
140° E
135° E
135° E
130° E
130° E
125° E
125° E
-10° S
-10° S
-15° S
-15° S
-20° S
-20° S
ILC Map No. 2472
Savanna Burning Carbon Farming Initiative Projects
as of 29 January 2015
$
Enlargement
Savanna burning project areas and indicative average rainfall zones sourced from the Clean Energy Regulator and the Department of the Environment, respectively, January 2015.
Fish River
Fish River
Project
Project
Figure 3. Declared savanna burning projects under the Carbon Farming Initiative as of 29 January 2015. Colours represent
KPќLYLU[KLJSHYLKWYVQLJ[Z
Valuing Nature | Protected Areas and Ecosystem Services 83
The Clean Energy Act 2011 (Cth) was repealed in 17 July
2014 and the Carbon Farming Initiative Amendment Act 2014
(Cth), which gives legislative effect to the new Emissions
Reduction Fund (ERF), commenced in November 2014. The
Australian Government’s ERF will buy the lowest cost
emissions reductions offered through a reverse auction
process, where bidders will be required to submit bids that
offer up a specified quantity of emissions reductions from
identified projects at a specified price. Although savanna
burning is recognised under the ERF, a number of
uncertainties are presented under this new system for new
and current projects. Government auctions commence in April
this year and it is hoped that a process valuing the important
co-benefits achieved by these projects will be incorporated
into the ERF in the future.
Conclusion
We consider the following key steps would contribute to
furthering the policy direction for savanna burning in Australia:
Recognition of Indigenous land managers as key custodians
of land and providers of ecosystem services, including carbon
projects, and consider support for capacity building and
project startup on Indigenous-held land.
A stable domestic carbon policy and compliance market, and/
or a vibrant voluntary market to create demand.
Society (community, private and public sectors) valuing the
ecosystem services provided by nature. For example, valuing
externalities, recognising the costs of unsustainable systems
and product design in pricing. Appropriately valuing these
services can create viable, sustainable opportunities for
SHUKOVSKLYZ[VKP]LYZPM`[OLPYPUJVTLLUHISPUNΚWYV[LJ[PVU»HUK
ΚWYVK\J[PVU»[VJVL_PZ[
References
Fitzsimons, J. and Looker, M. (2012). Innovative approaches to land
acquisition and conservation management: the case of Fish River
Station, Northern Territory. In: Innovation for 21st Century
Conservation (Eds Figgis, P., Fitzsimons, J. and Irving, J.) pp.
78-85. Australian Committee for IUCN, Sydney.
Fitzsimons, J., Russell-Smith, J., James, G., Vigilante, T., Lipsett-
Moore, G., Morrison, J. and Looker, M. (2012). Insights into the
biodiversity and social benchmarking components of the Northern
Australian fire management and carbon abatement programmes.
Ecological Management and Restoration 13, 51-57.
Garnaut R. (2011). The Garnaut Review 2011: Australia in the Global
Response to Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Melbourne.
Legge, S., Murphy, S., Kingswood, R., Maher, B. and Swan, D.
(2011). EcoFire: restoring the biodiversity values of the Kimberley
region by managing fire. Ecological Management and Restoration
12, 84–92.
Middleton, A. (2013). The Indigenous fire project generating carbon
credits. ABC 7.30 NT. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-14/
the-indigenous-fire-project-generating-carbon/4756114
Russell-Smith, J., Whitehead, P. and Cooke, P. (eds) (2009). Culture,
Ecology and Economy of Fire Management in North Australian
Savannas: Rekindling the Wurrk Tradition. CSIRO Publishing,
Melbourne.
Russell-Smith, J., Monagle, C., Jacobsohn, M., Beatty, R.L.,
Bilbao, B., Millán, A., Vessuri, H., and Sánchez-Rose, I. (2013).
Can savanna burning projects deliver measurable greenhouse
emissions reductions and sustainable livelihood opportunities in
fire-prone settings? Climatic Change doi: 10.1007/s10584-013-
0910-5.
Woinarski, J.C.Z., Legge, S., Fitzsimons, J.A., Traill, B.J., Burbidge,
A.A., Fisher, A., Firth, R.S.C., Gordon, I.J., Griffiths, A.D., Johnson,
C.N., McKenzie, N.L., Palmer, C., Radford, I., Rankmore, B.,
Ritchie, E.G., Ward, S. and Ziembicki, M. (2011). The disappearing
mammal fauna of northern Australia: context, cause, and response.
Conservation Letters 4, 192–201.
Links
Fish River Carbon Credits - http://www.fishriver.com.au/
Nerissa Walton
Senior Policy and Environment Advisor
Indigenous Land Corporation
121 King William Street, Adelaide SA 5000, Australia
nerissa.walton@ilc.gov.au
Nerissa Walton leads the development of carbon
strategy and policy advice at the Indigenous Land
Corporation, as well as the design, implementation,
monitoring and communication of demonstration
projects on Indigenous-held land, including the Fish
River Fire Project.
James Fitzsimons
Director of Conservation (Australia Program)
The Nature Conservancy
Suite 2-01, 60 Leicester Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
jfitzsimons@tnc.org
Dr. James Fitzsimons is the Director of Conservation
for The Nature Conservancy’s Australia Program where
he oversees conservation science, planning and policy
across terrestrial, freshwater and marine projects.
He’s also an adjunct associate professor at Deakin
University where he researches protected area policy,
conservation planning and ecology.
... These programs vary in their scope and scale. The Australia program works to strengthen Indigenous people's desire to exercise their land and water management rights (Walton & Fitzsimons, 2015); in Latin America, we draw attention to efforts to conserve temperate and coastal forests in Chile (The Nature Conservancy, 2022a) and sustainably manage artisanal fisheries in Peru (Molina, 2017); in Kenya, the focus is on improving watershed management around Nairobi (Schmitz & Kihara, 2021) and in Solomons Islands on reducing social and environmental impacts of mining, given its potential to become a key driver of economic growth (The World Bank, 2017). ...
... In the case of Chile and Australia, carbon offsets financed community activities and investments in, amongst other things, water and sanitation infrastructure (Chile) and fire management (Australia). In Northern Australia's Fish River protected area, for instance, Indigenous fire management practices, financed through the Australian Government's Carbon Offsets program, contributed to methane and nitrous oxide emissions' reductions and to jobs (Walton & Fitzsimons, 2015). In Kenya and Chile, gender-based subsidies and grants were critical in helping women heads of households build water-management infrastructure and launch micro-ecotourism enterprises. ...
Article
Complex challenges posed by climate change, biodiversity loss, and global inequality may require intertwined solutions forged through the frame of “Nature and equity.” This timely frame responds to growing calls for conservation to deliver fair outcomes to people and offers strategic value for meeting environmental goals. To clarify how and why approaches that support nature and equity may emerge, this commentary draws on conservation efforts in five different social and political settings. Building on practitioner experiences in Australia, Chile, Kenya, Peru, and Solomon Islands, it identifies a set of equity instruments that recognize local environmental knowledge, rights, and practices, strengthen marginalized voices, and promote fair outcomes, and the enabling conditions that facilitate their use. The article concludes by discussing critical considerations for enhancing nature and equity.
... The Australian Government currently invests approximately US$60m per year in ILSM, which, coupled with substantial investment by Indigenous communities and organisations, State and Territory governments, industry and philanthropic and non-government organisations, is yielding environmental, biodiversity, economic, social and cultural benefits (Garnett et al. 2009b;Campbell et al. 2011;Ens 2012;Hill et al. 2013;Jupp et al. 2015;Moritz et al. 2015;Russell-Smith et al. 2015). This investment enables other benefits that are not easily measured; for example strengthening local identity, cultural wellbeing and local languages (Sithole et al. 2008;Witter & Satterfield 2014;Ens et al. 2016b), delivery of broader benefits such as contributing to climate change mitigation (Archer 2015; Walton and Fitzsimons 2015;Robinson et al. 2016aRobinson et al. , 2016b and the development of skills that can enable Indigenous autonomy, self-empowerment and self-determination (Barber and Jackson 2017). In addition, the growing capital investment in the Australian ILSM sector supports the development of other livelihood opportunities including controlled burning to generate carbon credits Russell-Smith et al. 2015;Walton and Fitzsimons 2015), commercial harvest of wildlife (Austin and Corey 2012; Zander et al. 2014), eco-and cultural tourism , collaborative research (Ens et al. 2012Walsh et al. 2013;Robinson et al. 2012), remote infrastructure management, government surveillance and compliance contracts, and other environmental management services (Gunn et al. 2010;Hill et al. 2013). ...
... This investment enables other benefits that are not easily measured; for example strengthening local identity, cultural wellbeing and local languages (Sithole et al. 2008;Witter & Satterfield 2014;Ens et al. 2016b), delivery of broader benefits such as contributing to climate change mitigation (Archer 2015; Walton and Fitzsimons 2015;Robinson et al. 2016aRobinson et al. , 2016b and the development of skills that can enable Indigenous autonomy, self-empowerment and self-determination (Barber and Jackson 2017). In addition, the growing capital investment in the Australian ILSM sector supports the development of other livelihood opportunities including controlled burning to generate carbon credits Russell-Smith et al. 2015;Walton and Fitzsimons 2015), commercial harvest of wildlife (Austin and Corey 2012; Zander et al. 2014), eco-and cultural tourism , collaborative research (Ens et al. 2012Walsh et al. 2013;Robinson et al. 2012), remote infrastructure management, government surveillance and compliance contracts, and other environmental management services (Gunn et al. 2010;Hill et al. 2013). ...
Article
Full-text available
As partnerships between Indigenous peoples and conservation practitioners mature, new methods are being sought to assess their effectiveness. The increasing diversity of income sources mobilised by Indigenous land and sea managers in Australia is intensifying the pressures on them to demonstrate their ‘effectiveness’ through a range of frameworks, tools and criteria. In this review, we use Indigenous land and sea management in Australia as a lens to explore the politics and practicalities of measuring the effectiveness of Indigenous conservation partnerships. We first outline current approaches to measuring effectiveness, followed by an explanation of some of the challenges. Available literature is then supplemented with the collective knowledge and experience of the authors to identify practical and achievable ways forward. We suggest four ways by which Indigenous groups and institutional investors can work together to establish meaningful criteria for ensuring effective conservation outcomes: i) develop new mutually-agreed definitions; ii) embrace the complexity of Indigenous-conservation alliances, iii) reflect regularly and collaboratively, and iv) negotiate which indicators of effectiveness can be aggregated across large scales. Well-executed evaluations of effectiveness can be powerful tools for enhancing conservation that conforms to local Indigenous values, facilitates adaptive management, and strengthens relationships between investors and Indigenous groups. By focusing on principles, process, flexibility and trust, generative ‘good faith’ approaches have the potential to support win-win outcomes for people and the environment and contribute significantly to global conservation and sustainability targets.
... Considering the cultural, biodiversity and development context of one jurisdiction -the Northern Territory -and focussing specifically on the impacts of development on biodiversity and biocultural values, we describe the potential limitations of project-level IA and compare these to strategic assessment/regional planning approaches. Noting that (1) Indigenous peoples' lands and waters cover much of the Earth, including many areas under imminent development pressure (Garnett et al. 2018;Fa et al. 2020);and (2) there is an increasing intersection between western and Indigenous biodiversity values in IA (e.g., through tools like biodiversity offsetting Griffiths et al. 2019;Jones et al. 2019;Griffiths et al. 2020); ecosystem service delivery (Walton and Fitzsimons 2015)), the questions we pose are both timely to address. Moreover, they are of relevance not just in the Northern Territory, but across northern Australia and indeed many parts of Earth. ...
Technical Report
Full-text available
Northern Australia is the focus of intense development and investment interest. At the Commonwealth level alone, promotion of the northern Australia development agenda is facilitated by a dedicated Ministerial portfolio and departmental office, a road map for investment opportunities and policy reform (‘White Paper on Developing Northern Australia’), a $5 billion development financier (Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility), and tens of millions of dollars in research and innovation expenditure. The ‘north’ is being touted as a key to Australia’s post-COVID economic recovery, particularly through the so-called ‘gas-led recovery’. Yet, such ambition to unlock the economic potential of the north is not new. For all manner of reasons, impediments to development have historically limited the broadscale transformation (e.g., industrialisation) of the region’s vast savannas, arid landscapes and extensive coastline. As the spotlight once again bears down on northern Australia, it is timely to pause and reflect on the status quo of developing this region, and the challenges that remain unresolved. Central to this is the question: can development (resources, commercial agriculture etc.) be balanced with the ecological and cultural values of the region, and the aspirations of all of those who live there, and if so, how? Extending on this, what type of development, and where, is appropriate? Much has been written already, and numerous actors are operating in and contributing to this space. Indeed, this very topic is a central theme of a dedicated annual conference which attracts hundreds of delegates (Developing Northern Australia Conference). Yet, a consolidated picture of applicable policy frameworks and major decision-making protocols that characterise the development ‘ecosystem’ of the north is lacking. Clarifying this picture matters because the north is different. It is a region of extremes and of contradictions – extraordinary ecological value that is superficially intact yet imperilled, a resplendent human history juxtaposed against conflicting development aspirations, and vast areas untouched by infrastructure but for which the fingerprints of humanity are everywhere. The way in which planning is done, decisions are made, and impacts are managed, must all be fit-for purpose for the unique circumstance of the north. This report aims to start ‘connecting the dots’. With a focus on the Northern Territory (although much will be applicable to northern Queensland and northern Western Australia), we describe and contextualise the decision-making environment around new development, especially as this relates to the management of ecological (and linked cultural) impacts. Our intention is that this piece of work will start to clarify some of the key challenges that potentially represent an impediment to sustainable development in the Northern Territory (and across northern Australia). These challenges include how to address the cumulative impacts of multiple development projects, how to assess and manage impacts at multiple spatial scales, and how/when Indigenous custodians can lead and guide decision-making, especially so as to provide opportunities for aspirations for development on Country to be realised. This exercise will not necessarily provide the answers; it will, however, outline a clearer picture of the development decision-making space, and illuminate the key questions that remain to be asked and addressed, before truly sustainable development of this region can proceed.
... The model was to place First Nations owners at the centre of planning, delivery and evaluation and a strong network of partners with diverse management expertise to underpin effective long-term management. Each partner brought different and complementary expertise: The Nature Conservancy with conservation planning, management and innovative financing, particularly in partnership with Indigenous communities (e.g., Carr et al., 2017;Heiner et al., 2019;Jupp et al., 2015;McLeod et al., 2018;Walton & Fitzsimons, 2015), the NNTC representing the Traditional Owners and with experience in managing large properties for cultural, biodiversity and sustainable production (NNTC, 2020), the MDWWG with experience in environmental watering (Carr et al., 2016;Nias et al., 2003;Wells, 2018), the UNSW with experience in floodplain ecology and monitoring, particularly in the Lowbidgee (Brandis et al., 2011;Kingsford, 2003;Kingsford et al., 2013;Kingsford & Thomas, 2004). In 2018, The Nature Conservancy-led consortium was judged the successful bidder and awarded a 15-year lease (with the option to extend by two further 15-year extensions, i.e., up to 45 years) with the option to 'call to purchase' the property outright after one year if certain conditions were met. ...
Article
Full-text available
In Australia’s Murray–Darling Basin, efforts to restore water justice for the environment have focused on environmental flows for natural values of wetlands and floodplains. But there has also been an emergence of collaborative partnerships between environmental water managers and First Nations community organizations to water ‘Country’. The A$180 million Gayini Nimmie-Caira water-saving project saw the New South Wales and Australian governments purchase 19 properties on the Lowbidgee Floodplain, together with associated water rights, with the aim of delivering environmental flows, protecting First Nations cultural heritage and ensuring long-term sustainable land management. A consortium of environmental non-governmental organizations, First Nations and scientific organizations successfully tendered for the long-term management of the 88,000 ha property, Gayini Nimmie-Caira. This case study is used here to discuss water (and land) justice from the perspective of the Nari Nari people, the Traditional Custodians of Gayini Nimmie-Caira and the applicability of this model to other regions.
... In an environmental management context, the instruments and logics of carbon are now being discussed, or are already operating to influence landscapes, environments and biodiversity and the way these are thought about and managed; savanna burning or carbon farming is a stand out example in the Australian context [44,45]. In these so-called 'new-carbon economies' [46], which have been described as an attempt to restructure how carbon is currently located in wider systems of value [47], carbon and its' credit may pay for conservation, control invasive species, provide alternative incomes or diversify land-use [48]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Darwin’s mangrove ecosystems, some of the most extensive and biodiverse in the world, are part of the urban fabric in the tropical north of Australia but they are also clearly at risk from the current scale and pace of development. Climate motivated market-based responses, the so-called ‘new-carbon economies’, are one prominent approach to thinking differently about the value of living infrastructure and how it might provide for and improve liveability. In the Australian context, there are recent efforts to promote mangrove ecosystems as blue infrastructure, specifically as blue carbon, but also little recognition or valuation of them as green or urban infrastructure. Drawing on observational and qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews, this study examines how key stakeholders in Darwin frame and understand mangroves in relation to the urban, and how they are anticipating and responding to governance efforts to frame mangroves and pay for their carbon sequestration and storage services as blue carbon. The push for large infrastructure development and an expanding urban footprint, present serious challenges for mangrove protection, and the study evidences both denial and complacency in this regard. However, although the concept of blue carbon is already taking effect in some circles, it was not viewed as straightforward or as appropriate by all study participants and may very well work in practice to exclude groups within the community. Both clear governance problems, as well as unrecognized and vernacular community connections to mangroves in Darwin, indicate that there are ongoing conceptual and empirical challenges to be considered in recognizing and valuing mangroves as part of urban life.
... Under the Victorian BushTender and Bushbroker programs, 35,200 hectares had been brought under conservation and management agreements by (Rolfe et al., 2017. Other examples include development of carbon markets such as protection of native vegetation and re-establishment of traditional savanna burning practices in the Carbon Farming Initiative and the Emissions Reduction Fund ( Walton and Fitzsimons, 2015;Robinson et al., 2016;Queensland Government, 2017). ...
Article
The concept of ecosystem services (ES) aims to quantify the contribution of ecosystems to human welfare. Past research has revealed a range of attitudes and levels of understanding among policy makers or practitioners to this concept. This study investigated the experience of environmental decision makers with the application of ES, using the state of Victoria, Australia as a case study. Analysis of data from 20 interview participants indicated that impediments to implementing ES included structural and governance deficiencies, lack of public and private leadership, complexity of language, and the lack of sustained, long-term investment. Proposed solutions include standardised measurement and reporting, improved communication tools, and potential commercial investment in ES through government regulated markets. The study revealed that ES concepts have arrived at a moment of change in Victoria. They can potentially provide a basis for better environmental management decisions, however, many respondents felt implementation has stalled. Implementing complex policy change requires sustained effort. Active political leadership, a supporting advocacy coalition, and explicit theory on mechanisms to implement ES are required if the concept is to be widely adopted by decision makers in public or private spheres.
... Today, major land uses include extensive pastoral activity, conservation management on Indigenous and public land (including traditional fire management) (e.g. Russell-Smith et al., 2009Walton and Fitzsimons, 2015), and smaller areas of mining and irrigated agriculture. ...
Article
There is increased awareness of the need to balance multiple societal values in land use and development planning. Best practice has promoted the use of landscape-level conservation planning and application of the ‘mitigation hierarchy’, which focuses on avoiding, minimizing or compensating for impacts of development projects. However, environmental impact assessments (EIA) typically focus in a reactive way on single project footprints with an emphasis on environmental values and specifically biodiversity. This separation may miss opportunities to jointly plan for and manage impacts to both environmental and social values. Integrated approaches may have particular benefit in northern Australia, where Indigenous people have native title to as much as 60% of the land area and cultural values are closely linked with natural values. Here, we present a novel framework for integrating biodiversity and cultural values to facilitate use in EIA processes, using the Nyikina Mangala Native Title Determination Area in the Kimberley, Western Australia, as a case study. We demonstrate 1) how social and cultural values can be organized and analyzed spatially to support mitigation planning, 2) how social, cultural, and biodiversity values may reinforce each other to deliver better conservation outcomes and minimize conflict, and 3) how this information, in the hands of Indigenous communities, provides capacity to proactively assess development proposals and negotiate mitigation measures to conserve social, cultural, and biodiversity values following the mitigation hierarchy. Based on values defined through a Healthy Country Planning process, we developed spatial datasets to represent cultural/heritage sites, freshwater features, common native animals and plants represented by biophysical habitat types, and legally-protected threatened and migratory species represented by potential habitat models. Both cultural/heritage sites and threatened species habitat show a strong thematic and spatial link with freshwater features, particularly the Fitzroy River wetlands. We outline some of the challenges and opportunities of this process and its implications for the Northern Australia development agenda.
... There have been successful practices of direct carbon farming in some parts of tropic savanna regions in the North. For example, Walton and Fitzsimons (2015) investigated the Fish River Protected Area in the NT and estimated that annual income under the Carbon Pricing Mechanism has represented~one-third of the annual cost of managing the reserve. The successful West Arnhem Land Fire Abatement model has resulted in significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions. ...
Article
The agriculture sector in northern Australia is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and climate variability. Climate change risks for future agricultural development include higher atmospheric temperature, increased rainfall variability and an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events such as floods, droughts, heatwaves and fires. An uncertain future climate can affect agricultural production, efficient resource use and sustainable livelihoods. A balance needs to be achieved between resource use and livelihood security for sustainable agricultural development amid stressors such as climate change. This paper examines sustainable agricultural development in northern Australia using the environmental livelihood framework, a new approach that explores the relationships between water, energy and food resources and the livelihoods they sustain. The study shows that developments in the renewable energy sector, water infrastructure sector and advances in research and development for climate resilient infrastructure and climate resilient species are likely to improve agricultural production in northern Australia. Measures to attract and retain agricultural workforce is also key to maintaining a sustainable agricultural workforce in northern Australia. Adequate monitoring and evaluation of agricultural investments is important as future climatic impacts remain uncertain.
... Reintroduction of traditional fire regimes in northern Australia seeks to reduce fires in rocky escarpment country , increasingly funded by trading the carbon abated and sequestered in this process ( Fitzsimons et al., 2012;Walton and Fitzsimons, 2015). ...
Article
Rocky outcrops are geological features that encompass a wide variety of physical environments, including escarp-ments, overhangs, cliffs, tors, boulder-heaps and insular domes (inselbergs). They support high levels of species diversity and endemism, and provide stable micro-climates for thousands of years. They provide critical breeding sites for many top order mammalian and avian predators; nesting sites for colonial species such as seabirds, bats and swifts and ecological refuges for ancient lineages. Rock overhangs and caves also provide important insights into our ecological past where they contain the remains of extinct species. Because rocky environments are generally less fertile, steep-sided and less accessible than the surrounding landscape, they are typically less prone to human disturbances. Nonetheless, many rocky outcrops, particularly in commodity production landscapes, face a variety of threats including soil compaction and erosion caused by livestock; nutrient enrichment and weed invasion ; introduced predators; and physical damage caused by recreational and quarrying activities. Even rocky outcrops in seemingly pristine environments may be affected by altered fire regimes, air pollution (including acid rain) and potentially climate change. In agricultural landscapes, various approaches have been taken to conserve rocky outcrops, including land acquisition for conservation, fencing from livestock and private land conservation agreements with landholders. In more intact landscapes, targeted actions to conserve rock-dwelling fauna include limiting human access to critical breeding sites, baiting to reduce pressure from introduced predators, restoring rock microhabitat and translocation of endangered species. Future management actions will need to involve better inventory of the biophysical attributes and fine-scale mapping to improve the awareness of these small natural features.
Article
Privately protected areas promote the conservation of biodiversity and have also been shown to conserve valuable ecosystem services. Legally binding instruments like conservation covenants are important mechanisms to protect the natural environment on private land. However, the extent to which conservation covenants either explicitly require or allow for the delivery of ecosystem services, and the specific ways through which they achieve this, are largely unexplored. We undertook a content analysis of clauses in individual covenant documents, overarching legislative, and policy frameworks to examine this issue. We use a qualitative coding framework to assess how clauses consider the supply and the flow of ecosystem services to covenantors and society. We found that the requirements of conservation covenants did not widely consider the management ecosystem services. When covenant clauses focused on ecosystem services, they primarily considered the flow of ecosystem services between areas of supply to areas of demand. Clauses primarily considered these ecosystem services flows to the covenantor, with only a small number of clauses explicitly considering to ecosystem services flows to society more broadly. Finally, we found that regulating services, like erosion prevention, were often positively associated with conservation covenants, whereas cultural and provisioning services, like nature-based recreation, were often negatively associated with conservation covenants. Understanding how conservation covenants consider the delivery of ecosystem services is important if privately protected areas are to both conserve biodiversity and promote ecosystem services co-benefits.
Article
Full-text available
Savannas constitute the most fire-prone vegetation type on earth and are a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions. Most savanna fires are lit by people for a variety of livelihood applications. ‘Savanna burning’ is an accountable activity under the Kyoto Protocol, but only Australia, as a developed economy, accounts for emissions from this source in its national accounts. Over the past decade considerable effort has been given to developing savanna burning projects in northern Australia, combining customary indigenous (Aboriginal) approaches to landscape-scale fire management with development of scientifically robust emissions accounting methodologies. Formal acceptance by the Australian Government of that methodology, and its inclusion in Australia’s developing emissions trading scheme, paves the way for Aboriginal people to commercially benefit from savanna burning projects. The paper first describes this Australian experience, and then explores options for implementing community-based savanna burning emissions reduction projects in other continental savanna settings, specifically in Namibia and Venezuela. These latter examples illustrate that savanna fire management approaches potentially have broader application for contributing to livelihood opportunities in other fire-prone savanna regions.
Chapter
Full-text available
There has been a dramatic increase in the area that is within the National Reserve System since 2000 – from around 60 million hectares to around 100 million in 2008. This dramatic increase can be attributed to Indigenous Protected Areas and the acquisition of private or leasehold land for either addition to the public protected area estate or management as private protected areas. This growth has also been strategic, increasingly the reservation status of the most underreserved bioregions. However, the reality is the land acquisition has slowed since the global financial crisis of the late 2000s and this has led to new models with different partners coming to the fore. This chapter highlights one of those new models – the acquisition of Fish River Station in the Northern Territory for conservation.
Article
Full-text available
Summary Much of northern Australia’s tropical savannas are subject to annual intense and extensive late dry season wildfires, much of this occurring on Aboriginal land. Based on the successful West Arnhem Land Fire Abatement (WALFA) model, which has resulted in significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions, fire abatement programmes are planned for other significant regions of northern Australia. This study offers an introduction to the ideas behind a proposed environmental and social benchmarking project that aims to evaluate the potential benefits of expanding the fire abatement program in northern Australia, under the leadership of NAILSMA and its partners. Gaining a better understanding of the biodiversity, social and cultural outcomes of these fire abatement activities is an important component of demonstrating multiple benefits of these programmes. We emphasize the role of both biodiversity and cultural mapping to establish benchmarks and baseline states, with the involvement of Indigenous communities being a key element to optimize social and biodiversity benefits. Consultation with Traditional Owners and ranger groups to establish an agreed set of targets, indicators and sampling protocols and methodologies are critical component of this process. Examples of preliminary work to date are provided.
Article
Full-text available
This article provides a context to, attempts an explanation for, and proposes a response to the recent demonstration of rapid and severe decline of the native mammal fauna of Kakadu National Park. This decline is consistent with, but might be more accentuated than, declines reported elsewhere in northern Australia; however, such a comparison is constrained by the sparse information base across this region. Disconcertingly, the decline has similarities with the earlier phase of mammal extinctions that occurred elsewhere in Australia. We considered four proximate factors (individually or interactively) that might be driving the observed decline: habitat change, predation (by feral cats), poisoning (by invading cane toads), and novel disease. No single factor readily explains the current decline. The current rapid decline of mammals in Kakadu National Park and northern Australia suggests that the fate of biodiversity globally might be even bleaker than evident in recent reviews, and that the establishment of conservation reserves alone is insufficient to maintain biodiversity. This latter conclusion is not new; but the results reported here further stress the need to manage reserves far more intensively, purposefully, and effectively, and to audit regularly their biodiversity conservation performance.
Article
In this update to the 2008 Garnaut Climate Change Review, Ross Garnaut re-examines the case for action in the aftermath of the global financial crisis and recent developments by major countries to reduce emissions and prepare for a low-carbon future. He guides the reader through the climate change debate, and explains why Australia's contribution is vital to the national interest and matters to the global effort. He outlines a set of policies through which Australia can contribute its fair share without damaging Australian prosperity. The Garnaut Review 2011: Australia in the Global Response to Climate Change extends the analysis to contemporary economic, political and environmental conditions in a way that is clear and easy to understand. It is an essential resource for all who care about the future of our economy and environment. © Commonwealth of Australia 2011 and Commonwealth of Australia 2011 and Commonwealth of Australia (Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) 2011.
Culture, Ecology and Economy of Fire Management in North Australian Savannas: Rekindling the Wurrk Tradition
  • J Russell-Smith
  • P Whitehead
  • P Cooke
Russell-Smith, J., Whitehead, P. and Cooke, P. (eds) (2009). Culture, Ecology and Economy of Fire Management in North Australian Savannas: Rekindling the Wurrk Tradition. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.
The Indigenous fire project generating carbon credits
  • A Middleton
Middleton, A. (2013). The Indigenous fire project generating carbon credits. ABC 7.30 NT. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-14/ the-indigenous-fire-project-generating-carbon/4756114