For the MD4SG Conversations with Practitioners working group, Lorenn Ruster interviews Kristina Koenig on her role managing carbon abatement programs working with Indigenous people in the Kimberley Region of Western Australia.
Fighting fire with fire
Wildfires cause enormous carbon emissions, but these emissions can be reduced by using controlled burning to clear dry undergrowth and create fire breaks. In Western Australia, Indigenous people have used controlled burning for centuries, but their traditional fire practices were mostly halted when they were removed from their lands during colonisation. Kristina explained that:
“[Indigenous Savanna Fire Carbon projects] are trying to move back to a more traditional fire regime, the way that Indigenous people used to have on Country, which results in a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from wildfire and also sequesters carbon in vegetation.”
A rising carbon price causes benefits and pressures for Indigenous groups and their carbon abatement activities
Carbon offsets in Australia are traded as Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs) where each ACCU represents 1 tonne of carbon dioxide. In mid-2021, the price of one ACCU was around $16; by the start of 2022, it ballooned to around $50. More recently, government intervention has decreased the price to around $30. (See here for current prices.) The price of carbon reflects an increased appetite for carbon abatement, emanating both from voluntary net-zero commitments and more stringent regulation. In short, there is a lot of demand.
Kristina is involved in carbon abatement projects which range in size from 5,000–100,000 ACCUs earned per year. Previously, carbon abatement projects would just break even as the operating costs of doing the work are quite high. The carbon price increase means that there can now be a significant upside to these projects with the ability to re-invest revenue into fire operations, cultural outcomes, and community development.
While the price increase has a lot of benefits, it also encourages the involvement of players in the market who are primarily economically motivated and there is a lot of pressure on Indigenous people to accept projects being registered on their lands.
This is where the work of Kristina and others becomes so important: a part of her activities is giving communities relevant information to assist in their decisions when faced with developers wanting to put carbon projects on their land. This includes making it clear that, unlike when it comes to mining interests on their lands, they have a right to “say no”. She also assists communities in understanding what alternatives may exist for carbon abatement projects.
Carbon is the enabler of much wider benefits than money for remote Indigenous communities
All of the projects that Kristina is a part of are 100% Indigenous-owned. While the monetary benefit of carbon abatement is important so that these activities can be sustainable, it is not the primary motivator for most Indigenous communities; the ‘co-benefits’ of carbon abatement programs are often more important.
Kristina explained that carbon is simply an enabler, not the sole or primary motivator for doing the work. Firstly, a carbon abatement program enables Indigenous community members to care for their land in ways that carry on traditional knowledge of fire practices. Secondly, carbon abatement programs give Indigenous groups opportunities to visit cultural sites on their vast lands, which they may not have been able to access very often, but this is now possible as helicopters are in use to carry out fire management. Finally, Indigenous groups can do these activities in ways that are self-sustaining and, in more recent times, starting to be profitable, enabling further investment in the community infrastructure.
“Carbon is not the key motivation. It’s…other things… like getting people out on Country… achieving outcomes, looking after Country in line with traditional cultural obligations. Carbon is the enabler that makes it all happen.”
Quantifying the reduction in carbon emissions
At its simplest, a comparison is made between carbon emissions and sequestration levels over two time periods. The ‘baseline’ is measured over a 10–15-year period “pre-project” when fire management activities were not carried out. In this period, large wildfires burnt much of the landscape, including trees, and caused significant impacts on the ecosystem and wildlife. Each project year is then compared to the baseline to determine the greenhouse gas abatement achieved through the project.
The nature of Indigenous fire practices involves burning in the cool season, burning the undergrowth, but not impacting the larger trees. This enables the creation of ‘fire scars’ which remove the fuel for large wildfires, protect trees (which sequester carbon), and create unburnt patches (which shelter native wildlife). Lightning-strike fires in the “build-up” season are less likely to erupt into a wildfire, resulting in smaller emissions and more carbon left stored in trees.
There are several ‘methodology determinations’ that sit under the Australian Federal Government’s Carbon Farming Initiative Act. The fire management and savanna burning methodologies are based on two decades of research regarding the carbon emissions and sequestration associated with various vegetation types. In practice, remote sensing using satellite imagery, along with helicopter transects, is used to understand the type of vegetation present in a particular area and its carbon profile. Vegetation type and vegetation age are then overlaid with satellite maps of fire scars to calculate emissions. The maps of fire scars also show the timing and resulting patchiness of any fires in the early vs late dry season.
Computation is used for carbon accounting, but is not appropriate for planning processes
Kristina shared how a bespoke system, involving a computation model, is used to do a lot of the carbon accounting part of the process — satellite maps (through North Australia & Rangelands Fire Information (NAFI)) are fed into the system and combined with ground truth reports from people on the ground; these are the data that enable a carbon credit estimate.
“At the moment there’s a bespoke system for [calculating emissions and sequestration]… a lot of it is based on remote sensing… comprising the maps from NAFI and it runs the calculations…that will spit out reports that detail the kind of vegetation you have, how much of it is what age, the fire scar areas and the patchiness of those scars, the implied greenhouse emissions… all of that for each year in the baseline and then compared to the total [in a project year].”
Computation is not sufficient, however, in the planning and capacity-building part of the process. Where and when the burning will take place is a human process, done in collaboration with Indigenous communities, taking into account much more than a carbon abatement objective. Some groups have support in facilitating these planning processes; however, the aim is that over time, capacity is built locally and groups can do the entire process themselves.
“[When you ask about how to automate these processes, a] lot of the planning and doing on the ground is people, and that’s actually really important because what we’re trying to do is not make it as cheap and efficient as possible but we’re trying to get people back on country, look after their traditional lands and cultural obligations…”
For practitioners on the ground, ‘perfect’ is not the goal
When asked what she thinks are the main differences between academic and practitioner perspectives, Kristina reflected that the pursuit of ‘perfect’ is not the main goal on the ground, whereas these elements may be of utmost importance in academia.
She shared how often things don’t go to plan and what matters most is that relationships are built, people understand what’s happening, and a positive environmental outcome is achieved. Her highest priority is relationships and making sure that the work doesn’t become a black box that people can’t relate to. To achieve this, systems may need to sacrifice some accuracy to explain things in a more straightforward way.
“On the ground everything is imperfect, everything is uncertain, nothing ever adds up or goes to plan. It doesn’t actually matter whether the fourth decimal is right or not [in the final calculation], what matters is that the relativities are right, it matters that people can relate to what’s in the methods….What we’re trying to work through at the moment is how we make sure that [the system] doesn’t become a black box that people can’t relate to… we want to keep that very direct relationship to the data and to what science says, and at the same time sometimes that means simpler and more straightforward is better.”
Thank you Kristina for sharing your insights with us! For readers who are interested in finding out more about Kristina or carbon abatement programs in Australia, we have included further details below.
Kristina Koenig
Kristina Koenig is a strategic advisor and program manager, working across carbon abatement, conservation management, and Indigenous affairs. Based in Broome, Western Australia, and working with remote Indigenous communities, Kristina has previously managed the operational delivery of the Working on Country / Indigenous Ranger and Indigenous Protected Area (IPA) programs across the Desert and Central Kimberley, and for the past three years has worked with North Kimberley Native Title holders to set up and operate savanna burning carbon projects. In her role, she collaborates with Indigenous Traditional Owners, environmental NGOs, federal and state governments, corporations, and Registered Native Title Bodies Corporate.
Carbon Abatement in Australia
In Australia, the Federal Government’s Carbon Farming Initiative Act has enabled organisations to sell carbon credits in two markets: the primary market, which sells credits back to the federal government through the Emissions Reduction Fund, and a secondary market which comprises ‘compliance buyers’ who must buy credits to offset emissions and interested organisations or even individuals who are committed to reducing their carbon footprint.
Projects can be registered under the Australian Government’s Emissions Reduction Fund and are thereby eligible to receive carbon credits. One tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions or increase in carbon sequestered is called a carbon credit.
Many of these carbon abatement projects are operating on Indigenous lands, specifically in Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) which is where Kristina’s work is focused. IPAs can be thought of as voluntary Indigenous National Parks, managed by Indigenous groups as protected areas for biodiversity conservation. Today there are 74 IPAs in Australia covering over 74 million hectares of land.
