Managing south-east Asia’s savannas: challenges and holistic approaches through community-based fire management
Marina Tornorsam
A * , Thi Thuy Nguyen A , Ate Poortinga B C , Vanessa Machuca B , Enikoe Bihari B , Karis Tenneson B , Hanh Quyen Nguyen C D , Thomas Buchholz B , David Saah B , Peter Cutter A and David Ganz A
A
B
C
D
Abstract
Savannas, characterised by a continuous grass layer and discontinuous tree layer, are widespread globally and highly flammable during dry seasons, contributing to 90% of annual global burned areas and significant emissions. Asian savannas, often mismanaged owing to structural variability and misclassification as ‘poor forests’, face excessive or insufficient fire regimes. Addressing trans-boundary haze and climate mitigation requires improved understanding and sustainable management. This paper addresses savanna management challenges, particularly misclassified dry dipterocarp forests in the Lower Mekong, by synthesising knowledge on their distribution and the role of fire use by local communities, and recommends holistic, community-based fire management, integrated planning and incentives.
Keywords: Cambodia, carbon abatement, community-based fire management, dry dipterocarp forest, fire regime, integrated fire management, Lao PDR, Lower Mekong Region, south-east Asia, Thailand, tropical savanna, Viet Nam.
Introduction
Savanna is defined as a biome with a continuous C4 grass layer and a discontinuous tree layer (Scholes and Archer 1997; Ratnam et al. 2016; Archibald et al. 2019). Savanna constitutes a major biome, covering over one-sixth to one-fifth of the global land surface (Russell-Smith et al. 2013a; Pennington et al. 2018; Ratnam et al. 2019) and spanning all continents except Antarctica (Scogings and Sankaran 2020). Savanna commonly occurs in the tropics but there are significant areas of savannas in temperate regions, e.g. 50 Mha in North America (Scholes and Archer 1997; Scogings and Sankaran 2020). In the tropics, savannas cover over half of the land surface and are essentially the most extensive biome in Africa and Australia (Scholes and Archer 1997). These are also the continents where savannas are well known and extensively studied, as opposed to the two sister savanna systems in South America and Asia. In south-east Asia, savannas are known only to a small number of academics, while policymakers, managers, the public and even researchers are generally unaware of their existence. Several studies have examined the global distribution of savannas (Hirota et al. 2011; Murphy and Bowman 2012; Aleman and Staver 2018); yet, so far there is very limited understanding about the distribution of savanna in Asia, particularly in south-east Asia, which can be considered a major savanna zone.
Savannas in south-east Asia are often misunderstood as forests, and degraded and poor forests in comparison with true and rich forests, which are often characterised by large trees, multiple canopy layers and high tree biodiversity (Ratnam et al. 2011). In fact, the dry dipterocarp forest (DDF) in south-east Asia, which is structurally and functionally similar to savanna (Stott 1984, 1990; Bunyavejchewin et al. 2011; Nguyen and Baker 2016), has often been regarded as poor forest in terms of timber and tree diversity (Tran et al. 2022). This misunderstanding has exposed savannas of this region to the critical threat of being converted to other land use purposes, particularly in Viet Nam (Chi Sy et al. 2020). Additionally, savannas in this region have faced huge threats from improper fire management. Particularly, the suppression of fire has resulted in woody encroachment in Thailand (Chankhao et al. 2022) whereas research in DDF in Viet Nam has shown that fires that are too frequent can limit tree recruitment (Nguyen et al. 2019). Without a deeper understanding of the distribution of savannas in south-east Asia, it is impossible to effectively manage the remaining savannas of the region, especially in the context of the increasing frequency of extreme El Niño events due to climate change that heighten global fire risks (Timmermann et al. 1999; Goldammer and Wanthongchai 2008; Cai et al. 2014; Wang et al. 2017) and the need to manage savannas to maximise carbon emission reductions, biodiversity conservation and local livelihoods.
In recent decades, savannas in Asia have received growing attention, yet in-depth analysis and practical implications remain slow and are yet to emerge, particularly for south-east Asian savannas. Owing to a lack of studies, large gaps remain in understanding about this biome in the region. To manage it properly, it is crucial to rely on science-based evidence and learning from best practices. Ratnam et al. (2016) suggested that there are three groups of savannas in Asia, namely broadleaf savannas, deciduous fine-leafed and spiny savannas, and evergreen pine savannas. The most widespread savanna in south-east Asia is perhaps the misclassified DDF (Fig. 1) that occurs from north-eastern India and Myanmar through Thailand to the Mekong River region of Lao People’s Democratic Republic (PDR), Cambodia and Viet Nam (Rundel and Boonpragob 2010). Pine savannas can occur separately or co-occur with DDF in the same landscape, as described in Thailand (Rundel and Boonpragob 2010; Bunyavejchewin et al. 2011) and they have been observed in Viet Nam (T. Nguyen, pers. obs.).
The DDF, a misclassified savanna, in Viet Nam (top left), and Cambodia (top right) in the wet season; a distinct boundary between the DDF and evergreen forest in Viet Nam (middle left), and Cambodia (middle right); early-dry season fire with safer fire behaviour (bottom left) and close to mid-dry season fire in a tall fuel load layer with more fierce fire behaviour in Viet Nam (bottom right). Figure credit: Thuy Nguyen – photos in Viet Nam were taken in Yok Don National Park; and Peter Cutter – photos in Cambodia were taken in Lomphat Wildlife Sanctuary in the eastern plains landscape.
In this paper, we review decade-long challenges and recommend solutions to manage this unique biome in the context of a changing world. Given the scarcity of literature on pine savanna in the region, our paper focuses mostly on the DDF, which is better investigated. We assess the challenges and potential opportunities in managing savannas in the Lower Mekong region: Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand and Viet Nam. As savannas in this region play central roles in the social, economic and cultural values of local communities, solutions to manage this unique biome must balance the socioeconomic needs of local communities with the biophysical conditions required to manage the savannas. Therefore, we discuss and underline the roles and importance of traditional fire knowledge in these savanna systems.
Challenges in managing savannas
Lack of understanding of savanna distribution across south-east Asia
Unlike typical forests, the distribution of savannas, such as the misclassified DDF, is often climate-restricted and is concentrated in the Lower Mekong countries (Table 1). Within the distribution regions of DDF, there are usually other forest ecosystems, such as evergreen, bamboo, pine and other dry forests. The areas of DDF reported in the countries has significantly varied (e.g. approximately six times in Thailand) and declined over time (by ~50% in Viet Nam over the period 2006–2022) (Table 1). Despite previous studies offering insights into areas of DDF (Table 1), the data remain outdated and inconsistent. Wohlfart et al. (2014) estimated DDF coverage at 23,000 km2 in Cambodia, 37,000 km2 in Thailand and 79,000 km2 in Myanmar, with significantly smaller areas in Lao PDR and Viet Nam. According to these numbers, Myanmar appears to have retained the largest DDF area, but these estimates diverge from others in Table 1, highlighting substantial gaps in current understanding.
| Country | DDF area | Distribution of DDF | Well-known locations for DDF | Land use classification issue | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thailand | 16,713 km2 (Rakyutidharm 2001) (Thai Royal Forest Department 2001); 71,400 km2 (Eiadthong 2008) | Mainly found in the northern and eastern regions | Thung Salaeng Luang National Park (NP): 10 km2 of grassy plain surrounded by DDF (Suksawang and Mcneely 2016) | Forest types are classified into wide range of categories, yet savanna and DDF are considered two different categories (Royal Forest Department 2019) | |
| Sakaerat Biosphere Reserve: 420 km2 of DDF in Korat Plateau | |||||
| Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary: World Heritage Site (Wanthongchai et al. 2011; Sukmasuang et al. 2022); | |||||
| Emerald Triangle Forests Complex (ETFC) (Trisurat 2012; Trisurat and Bhumpakphan 2018; Sukmasuang et al. 2022) | |||||
| Chom Thom district, Obluang NP, Omkoi Wildlife Sanctuary in Chiang Mai, Tham Pha Thai NP, Chae Son NP of Lampang (Dontree 2015; Thanadolmethaphorn 2016) | |||||
| Cambodia | 60,000 km2 or 34% of Cambodia (Jones 1998); 38% deciduous forests of forested areas (Ito et al. 2022) | East of the Mekong River in the Eastern Plains Landscape | Provinces such as Rattanakiri, Mondulkiri, Steung Treng, parts of Kratie; specific sites include Mondulkiri Forest Protected Forest, Phnom Prich Wildlife Sanctuary and the Cardamom mountains | Remote sensing data availability is limited, with land cover roughly categorised into built land, agricultural land, forest land, industrial land, cultural land, transportation land, wetland and mining land (GIZ Lao PDR 2023). | |
| The northern and eastern slopes of the Cardamom and Elephant Mountains (USAID Cambodia 2011; Pin et al. 2013; WWF-Cambodia 2021) | |||||
| North of Tonle Sap in the Phreah Vihear landscape (adjacent to the ETFC) | |||||
| Lao PDR | Not available | Predominantly in central and southern regions | Dong Khanthung Protected Forest, Phou Xiangthong National Biodiversity Conservation Area 20% DDF (Bhumpakphan 2015); | ||
| Salavanh and Champasak provinces (bordering Thailand) (Timmins and Vongkhamheng 1996) | |||||
| Eld’s Deer Sanctuary in Savannakhet Provinces (Khotpathoom and Vu 2021; Sukmasuang et al. 2022; Khammanivong et al. 2023) | |||||
| Viet Nam | In 2006, 6785.13 km2 in the Central Highlands and South-Central Coast (Environment magazine 2016); 3056.52 km2 DDF in the central highlands (Tran et al. 2022). | Central Highlands and the South-Central Coast | Yok Don NP and one small part of Nui Chua NP in Ninh Thuan province, scattered areas in some Central Highland and South-Central Coast provinces. | Savannas are not recognised as a category in forest classification of Viet Nam. Instead, based on timber volume, DDF is often classified as poor or medium forest. Based on deciduousness, DDF is known as a deciduous forest type (in contrast with evergreen forest) |
The DDF in south-east Asia is dominated by several dry dipterocarp species, e.g. Dipterocarpus tuberculatus, D. obtusifolius, Shorea obtusa, S. siamensis, and sometimes also D. intricatus (Stott 1984; Dinh 1993; Bunyavejchewin et al. 2011; Nguyen and Baker 2016). Despite being structurally and functionally similar to savannas in other continents, the DDF in south-east Asia has been widely regarded as ‘forest’ across the region. Within Asia, there exist some inconsistent classifications of the DDF. For example, the same forest type may be called ‘DDF’ when in good condition, but if degraded by frequent burning, it is termed ‘savanna forest’ (Khemnark 1978). Hua Zhu (2019) referred to the DDF as a monsoon forest, while the ‘poor’ formation of this type is called dry thorny thicket, woodland or savanna. In Thailand, DDF is known as ป่ำเต็งรัง or ‘pha thaeng rung’ and savannas are called ป่ำทุ่ง or ‘pha thung’ (Royal Forest Department 2019). The DDF is also widely known in English as either deciduous dipterocarp or DDF (Bunyavejchewin et al. 2011) or savanna (Stott 1984). In Myanmar, it is named Indaing forest or tropical dry deciduous forest or Claire á Dipterocarpacées forêt in Lao PDR (Khemnark 1978; Sahunalu 2017). The inconsistent names complicate common understanding of the DDF across south-east Asia.
Spatial imagery is crucial for mapping regional savannas, but structural classification poses challenges. Savannas typically feature a scattered tree layer, open canopy and a continuous grass layer with the physiognomy ranging from pure grasslands with few trees to closed forests, with grass layers varying in height and lifespan (Riginos and Grace 2008; Ratnam et al. 2019). Ratnam et al. (2011) proposed structural, compositional and functional criteria to differentiate savannas from forests. These criteria, however, offer limited utility for remote sensing, which relies on quantitative measures.
Scientists have widely used quantitative parameters such as rainfall, seasonality, tree cover, fire frequency and dry season soil saturation to predict the occurrence of savannas (Hirota et al. 2011; Murphy and Bowman 2012; Abdi et al. 2022; Pletcher et al. 2022). However, using each of these parameters alone is insufficient to map savanna distribution. For example, savannas are observed in areas with a wide range of rainfall, from as low as 300 mm in Africa up to 3500 mm in Central America (Archibald et al. 2019) and the dry season where savannas occur varies from 2 months in South America to 9 months in Africa (Sankaran and Ratnam 2013; Stevens et al. 2017; Schmidt et al. 2018). Similarly, tree cover, in open canopy savannas, can range from 0 to 80% (Pennington et al. 2018), whereas in south-east Asia, DDF, misclassified as savannas, can reach 40 to 90% tree cover during the wet season (Nguyen, unpubl. data). This variability makes it challenging to set a definitive tree cover threshold to distinguish savannas from forests. Different studies have used varying thresholds: the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) defines grasslands as having <10% tree cover (2023), Packman (2011) used <15% to classify open savanna/grasslands, Staver et al. (2009) set a 50% limit and Hirota et al. (2011) used 65% as the upper threshold for savannas. Recently, Pletcher et al. (2022) used a 65% cut-off to map south-east Asian savannas. Inconsistent use of tree cover thresholds can cause misinterpretation of savanna distribution (Abdi et al. 2022). Although scientists do not rely solely on tree cover, separating grass from tree layers using remote sensing remains challenging (Abdi et al. 2022).
In Thailand, first efforts in forest mapping were started in 1953 by the Royal Thai government with ground surveys, and later with aerial photography in 1966 (Royal Forest Department 2019). In the northernmost area of Thailand, field surveys were first conducted with lower reliability compared with the aerial imagery. This work resulted in a map of vegetation in Thailand (Fig. 2, left); yet the parameters of what classified the savanna apart from other land cover types like DDFs in the map were not well distinguished in the literature review. According to this map, although DDF was widespread across northern and northeast Thailand (Fig. 2, left), savannas were scattered in small patches in the northwest (Fig. 2, right).
Vegetation map of Thailand compiled by the Royal Thai Survey Department in 1967 documented savanna (yellow, third block from the bottom in the legend) and DDF (light pink, last block in the legend) separately (left) and the digitalised map (right) of savanna-only polygons with the Google map as background to facilitate understanding of savanna distribution in Thailand in 1967. This original map on the left was compiled for the Environmental Sciences Division, Royal Thai Military Research and Development Centre.
To date, despite multiple efforts to map the distribution of Asian savannas, challenges remain in understanding the distribution of this biome, especially in the context of rapid land use changes, the impacts of climate change and mismanagement of this system across the region.
South-east Asian savanna loss and continued degradation
Over the past four to five decades, south-east Asian countries have faced significant pressure from rapid economic growth, which, coupled with sharp population increases and the expansion of agriculture, has led to severe forest cover loss. For instance, in Thailand, forest cover declined from 53% in 1961 to just 29% by 1985, with the northeast losing 66% of its forest cover, largely owing to logging operations and population pressures leading to agricultural land expansion and land clearing (Rundel and Boonpragob 2010). Thailand’s eastern region, within the Emerald Triangle Forest Complex (ETFC), saw a 30% reduction in DDF between 2003 and 2013, underscoring the vulnerability of these forests (Trisurat and Bhumpakphan 2018; Sukmasuang et al. 2022). Similarly, the DDF in the Central Highlands of Viet Nam has seen a loss of ~50% over the period 2006–2022 (Environment magazine 2016). Agricultural expansion and infrastructure development were responsible for major loss of DDF in the region, while illegal poaching, hunting and collecting non-timber forest products (NTFP) (Table 2) have caused overall degradation and the decrease of biodiversity. In addition, improper practices (i.e. too frequent or infrequent burning), coupled with impacts of climate change have perturbed the conservation of DDF across the region.
| Activity | Threat | Driver | Specific cases | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Land conversion, fragmentation and deforestation | Agricultural expansion | Rapid economic growth has fuelled the conversion of DDFs into agricultural land, including rice paddy fields, rubber and coffee plantations, and other industrial crops, leading to significant forest cover loss | Thailand, Lao PDR (McShea et al. 2005; Trisurat and Bhumpakphan 2018) | |
| Viet Nam (VACNE 2013; Bao 2014; Cao and Phung 2018; Tran et al. 2022) | ||||
| Illegal logging and poaching | Hunting and poaching for both local use and trade, along with illegal logging of high-value timber | Cambodia (WWF-Cambodia 2021) | ||
| Infrastructure development | Road construction, mining for gold and bauxite, and hydropower projects | Cambodia (WWF-Cambodia 2021) | ||
| Road, mining and hydro dam construction | Lao PDR (Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment and IUCN 2016) | |||
| Unsustainable land management practices | Fire mismanagement | Poorly managed and frequent fires hinder tree regeneration and cause soil impoverishment | Regional (FAO 2006) | |
| Viet Nam (Nguyen et al. 2019) | ||||
| Thailand (Chankhao et al. 2022) | ||||
| (Wanthongchai 2008) | ||||
| Prevalence towards suppression-focused fire management; for example, in Thailand, the No-burn policy limits agricultural burning during specific time frames | Thailand (Wanthongchai et al. 2011) | |||
| Increase in invasive and/or exotic species | Invasive plant species compete for ecosystem resources and increase susceptibility to fire | Lao PDR (Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment and IUCN 2016) | ||
| Cambodia (WWF-Cambodia 2021) | ||||
| Land use and landscape management | Choices in land use, especially relating to types of crops for plantation (e.g. Eucalyptus and Acacia) or perennial crops often do not consider long-term susceptibility to fire | Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand | ||
| Viet Nam (Bond et al. 2019) | ||||
| Overexploitation | Resin tapping; hunting and harvesting for commercial trade | Cambodia (WWF-Cambodia 2021) | ||
| Lao PDR (Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment and IUCN 2016) | ||||
| Climate change | Lack of climate action and resiliency building | Changing climate patterns. For example, large rainfall events (e.g. greater than 100 mm/day) will occur more frequently, and daily maximum temperatures will rise by ~2–3°C in Lao PDR | Regional and Thailand (Trisurat and Bhumpakphan 2018) | |
| Lao PDR (Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment and IUCN 2016) | ||||
| Cambodia (Forestry Administration 2021) |
Lack of evidenced-based and integrated fire management
As nearly all fires in south-east Asia are human-caused, addressing them requires a landscape-level approach (Wanthongchai et al. 2021) that integrates an in-depth understanding of socioeconomic, governance, gender and cultural dimensions, alongside scientific factors such as ecology, vegetation, fuel types and fire behaviour. Integrated Fire Management (IFM) combines interdisciplinary and multi-sectoral components to address fire complexities, offering a socio-ecological systematic framework for fire management (FAO 2011; Pasiecznik and Goldammer 2022). In this section, we highlight the existing gaps in fire management of savannas in south-east Asia.
Human activities are the primary cause of most fires in the region (Stott 1990; Maxwell 2004; Wanthongchai et al. 2013; Russell-Smith et al. 2013b) through intentional land management that maintains vegetation structures, agriculture and subsistence, and other cultural practices (Wanthongchai et al. 2011). In south-east Asia, traditionally, fire has been used to promote NTFPs, such as encouraging new grass growth for livestock, stimulating growth of shoots, leaves and mushrooms for food, clearing land for planting, controlling pests and creating pathways (Stott 1990; Rundel 1999; Walston et al. 2001; Putnam and Ferchland 2009; van Lierop 2015; Moura et al. 2019). Additionally, oleoresin is collected from dipterocarp trees by chopping holes at their base and lighting fires inside to trigger resin flow, a practice that poses a high fire risk and damages the trees (Sarma et al. 2018). This method is widespread in DDF regions across southeast Asia. Unintentional fires, often caused by careless fire use from smoking cigarettes, cooking, hunting and vegetation management (Maxwell 2004) are common across the region.
Local and indigenous communities have developed traditional fire knowledge, encompassing ecological insights, beliefs and practices for resource and landscape management (Huffman 2013). However, this knowledge and these best practices are often poorly documented across spatial and seasonal patterns (Huffman 2013; Mistry et al. 2019), making it challenging to pass to future generations or even to appropriately include them in IFM efforts. Additionally, economic development over the decades, which has introduced more diverse job opportunities, and the rise of commercial farming, which offers greater convenience and benefits, have displaced many traditional and cultural practices. The degradation of NTFP resources in savannas and DDFs, along with bans on harvesting and limits on traditional fire practices have contributed to the loss of indigenous knowledge and skills. This has resulted in the loss of community responsibility for fire management, shifting that responsibility to governments (Pearmsak et al. 2002; FAO 2011). Therefore, incorporating community voices and cultural knowledge in fire management is essential. This integrated approach acknowledges the historical influence of colonial land management practices that suppressed traditional fire use and shaped current fire regimes and land cover (Rakyutidharm 2001; Goldammer and Wanthongchai 2008). Although there is growing global attention on traditional fire practices (Russell-Smith et al. 2013a; Bilbao et al. 2019; Nikolakis et al. 2020), the lack of detailed accounts from Asia highlights the need to explore social-ecological fire systems and management (Huffman 2013).
Every year, 95% of the 14,585 km2 annual burned area in Asia is in savannas (Ratnam et al. 2019). Spatial analytical research found that 30% of south and south-east Asia had recurrent fires every year, with the most in Lao PDR, Cambodia, Thailand and Myanmar (Vadrevu et al. 2019). The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) Rapid Response Assessment report on fires found that the annual average fire density in the Lower Mekong region ranged from 2000 to 10,000 fires km–2 across the 2000–2020 period (United Nations Environment Programme 2022). The Global Wildfire Information System (GWIS) also found that Cambodia, Myanmar, Lao PDR, Thailand and Viet Nam recorded the highest density of burned area and number of fires or detected hot spots (Table 3) per region within Asia (Giglio et al. 2018). GWIS’s dashboard showed that the high density of fires in the Lower Mekong region paralleled and surpassed parts of sub-Saharan Africa, South America and Australia. In addition to burned area and ecosystem degradation, fires have significant impact on transboundary smoke and haze. Air pollution from open-burn fires in south-east Asia has worsened, causing an estimated 50,000 annual deaths and potentially reducing Thailand’s gross domestic product by 14% (Mueller et al. 2021). Landscape fire significantly impact air quality, exposing up to 11% of the population to harmful fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone surface levels during El Niño years (Marlier et al. 2013).
| Country | Average burned area (ha)/region area (km2) | Average no. of fires/region area (km2) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cambodia | 14.896 | 0.071 | |
| Myanmar | 4.947 | 0.023 | |
| Lao PDR | 3.420 | 0.038 | |
| Thailand | 2.697 | 0.023 | |
| Viet Nam | 2.720 | 0.017 |
Most of the DDF experiences frequent fires, sometimes annually as reported in Cambodia, Thailand and Viet Nam (Goldammer and Wanthongchai 2008; Nguyen et al. 2019; Ito et al. 2022). Although fire management practices are beneficial for avoiding large fires in savannas, excessively frequent fires cause carbon emissions (Chaiyo and Garivait 2014), soil impoverishment (Wanthongchai et al. 2011) and nitrogen loss (Toda et al. 2008), and impede tree recruitment and growth through top kill of seedlings and saplings (Nguyen et al. 2019). Wanthongchai et al. (2013) suggested that annual controlled burning is unnecessary and a fire-free interval, for example of 2–3 years, (Wanthongchai et al. 2013) is crucial to promote tree recruitment (Goldammer and Wanthongchai 2008; Nguyen et al. 2019; Ito et al. 2022) and natural regeneration (Sukanya 1989). Although it is widely accepted that longer fire intervals are necessary, what remains unconfirmed is the optimal interval duration to maximise the ecological, environmental and livelihood benefits.
Fire suppression of savannas for too long that is not based on scientific evidence can harm the ecosystem. In Thailand, for nearly three decades, the Royal Forest Department implemented a forest fire suppression policy with the aim to address the threats of wildfires and avoid environmental impacts (Stott et al. 1990; Goldammer and Wanthongchai 2008; Wanthongchai et al. 2011). Therefore, shifts in ecosystem structure and composition in Sakaerat with increased encroachment of dry evergreen tree species were observed (Stott 1988; Trisurat and Duengkae 2011). Additionally, complete fire exclusion can cause fuel load accumulation, especially in the first 7 years (Wanthongchai et al. 2011) and this eventually leads to larger fires (Rundel and Boonpragob 2010; Webb et al. 2013; Chankhao et al. 2022). Woody encroachment due to mismanagement of fire coupled with other factors has been reported in savannas across continents (Stevens et al. 2017; Kumar et al. 2020; Wieczorkowski and Lehmann 2022).
Value of savannas is not adequately understood and acknowledged
The ecological and economic value of south-east Asia’s savannas, particularly DDF, is often underestimated owing to misclassification and a lack of understanding of their biodiversity and ecosystem services. Despite their perceived low biodiversity, these ecosystems support a wide range of species and provide crucial resources for local communities, making them vital both environmentally and socio-economically.
The physiognomy of wet savannas often makes them appear forest-like, leading to frequent misclassification as true forests. The DDF is often considered to have low biodiversity and timber volume, particularly in the tree layer (VACNE 2013). However, this overlooks the diversity in both the tree and herbaceous layers, as well as the overall biodiversity they support. In the tree layer, DDFs host many high-value timber species such as Dalbergia bariaensis, Pterocarpus macrocarpus, Xylia xylocarpa, Shorea siamensis, Sindora siamensis and Melanorrhoea laccifera (Bao 2014). Additionally, studies have shown that savannas can host high biodiversity in the understorey. For instance, Sankaran (2009) documented 278 herb and grass species in southern India’s savanna grassland communities, many of which are used in traditional medicine. Similarly, the Lower Mekong Dry Forest Ecoregion supports diverse habitats for critical wildlife, including megafauna and birds (Pin et al. 2013). In Eld’s Deer Sanctuary, the largest remaining area of DDF in Lao PDR at an estimated 93,000 ha (Khotpathoom and Vu 2021), Phiapalathetal (2018) reported a total of 1233 species: 408 of fauna and 825 of flora. In the DDF of Mondulkiri, Cambodia, Gray et al. (2014) identified 374 bird species, including five critically endangered ones. Viet Nam’s DDF hosts 566 plant species across 108 families, with several species listed in the Viet Nam Red Book, a classification system that assesses species' risk levels similar to the IUCN Red List (Tran et al. 2022). In Yok Don National Park, up to 23 vascular plant species can be found within a single square metre of the DDF (T. Nguyen, pers. obs.). Notably, the DDF in Yok Don once boasted significant orchid diversity. Despite this herbaceous diversity, knowledge about its distribution and influencing factors is limited, raising key questions about which DDF habitats support high biodiversity, and how biotic and abiotic factors, such as fire frequency, herbivores and tree cover, impact herbaceous diversity.
The significance of savannas for global biodiversity conservation cannot be overstated. For instance, the Cerrado, South America’s largest savanna, ranks among the world’s 25 most important terrestrial biodiversity hotspots (Cardoso da Silva and Bates 2002). Similarly, DDF (Ratnam et al. 2011; Pennington et al. 2018; Nguyen et al. 2019) was once considered the region’s most extensive vegetation type (Rundel 1999; Rundel and Boonpragob 2010). It forms part of the ‘Indochina Dry Forest’ ecoregion (Fig. 3), one of the Global 200 priority ecoregions for conservation (Olson and Dinerstein 2002).
Some key areas of remaining savannas in Thailand (1–8), Lao PDR (9–11), Cambodia (12–15), Viet Nam (16–17): (1) Tham Pha Thai National Park, (2) Chase Son National Park, (3) Ob Luang National Park, (4) Omkoi Wildlife Sanctuary, (5) Thung Salaeng Luang National Park, (6) Huai Kha Kaeng Wildlife Sanctuary, (7) Sakaerat Biosphere Reserve, (8) Pha Team National Park, (9) National Eld’s Deer Sanctuary, (10) Phou Xieng Thong National Reserve, (11) Dong Khanthong Protected Forest, (12) Preah Vihear landscape, (13) Cardamom and Elephant Mountains, (14) Phnom Prich Wildlife Sanctuary, (15) Mondulkiri Protected Forest, (16) Yok Don National Park, and (17) Nui Chua National Park. Many of the remaining savannas in the region lie in the Indochina Dry Forest, which is one of the Global 200 Ecoregions (World Wildlife Fund - US 2004).
Savanna and DDF landscapes provide critical wildlife habitats and opportunities for ecotourism, highlighting the important ecosystem services they offer (Goldammer and Wanthongchai 2008; Thuon et al. 2009; Packman 2011; Chassagne et al. 2016; Twine 2019). Some of the ecosystem services of DDF include carbon sequestration, watershed protection due to regulating water flow, soil erosion prevention through stabilisation of the soil and minimisation of run-off, pollination for forests, fields and crops, and aesthetic value for tourism (Chou 2017). Although frequent fires in savannas release captured carbon, they remain important carbon sinks (Murphy and Bowman 2012; Russell-Smith et al. 2013b). The net rate of carbon fixation of savannas ranges from 1 to 12 ton total carbon (C) ha−1 year−1, primarily stored below ground as soil organic content (Chen et al. 2003; Grace et al. 2006). In Viet Nam, DDF stores 27–90 ton C ha−1 in the tree layer (Vo and Dang 2015).
Worldwide, over 10% of the world’s human population (Russell-Smith et al. 2013a) relies on savannas for livelihoods, resources and grazing land. Savannas in south-east Asia are crucial for the livelihoods of millions of people, providing food, timber, medicine, oil and seeds, firewood, construction materials, craft and dyeing materials, resin, leather, charcoal and cosmetics (Stott 1984; VACNE 2013; Chassagne et al. 2016). NTFPs from the DDF play critical roles in livelihoods of local communities living in and around the ecosystem (Chou 2017). Melientha suavis leaf, Oecophylla smaragdinga, edible mushrooms, oleoresin, bamboo shoot and orchid flowers are commonly harvested by local people in Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand (Chou 2017; Phiapalath et al. 2018; Wimolsakcharoen et al. 2020) and Viet Nam (T. Nguyen, pers. obs.). In Viet Nam, Nguyen T. also observed that local communities used many other parts of plants, e.g. young leaves (e.g. Kaempferia galanga), flowers (e.g. some species of Zingiberaceae family) and fruits (of Morinda tomentosa) for food. In Eld’s Deer Sanctuary in Lao PDR, NTFPs can provide values as high as USD688 ha−1 year−1 (Phiapalath et al. 2018). Aside from NTFPs, timber trees in DDF have been traditionally used for various purposes. Larpkern et al. (2017) reported that communities and tribes in Mae Chaem district, Chiang Mai province (Thailand) use 24 timber tree species for purposes including fencing, firewood, food, dyeing, poles and timber, medicine, oil, leech and tick repellent, detergent, traditional musical instruments, resin, leather tanning, furniture, cosmetics, soil improvement and charcoal.
Lack of supporting policies, framework and enabling mechanisms for inclusive and transboundary fire management
Policies and legal frameworks supporting land management, including fire management, are limited and often not specific to land cover types across the Lower Mekong region. Fire management policies are typically integrated into existing land management structures, lacking inter-agency coordination when rural fire incidents occur across different land governances and land use types.
In Cambodia, several institutions are involved in fire management, with overlapping governance responsibilities divided between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Environment. The Ministry of Agriculture’s departments, including forestry and fisheries, support community fishery and forestry management plans, which may include provisions for fire management but these are not mandatory. The Ministry of Environment manages biosphere reserves and community protected areas, involving village chiefs and community leaders in forest fire-related work. In Lao PDR, proactive measures in line with the Forestry Strategy Plan until 2035 have been implemented to manage forest fires. The 2023 plan focuses on raising awareness and enforcing the Forestry Law during the high-risk season from February to April. The Lao Forestry Law (2019, Article 52) and the Environmental Law (Article 20) provide a comprehensive framework for forest fire prevention and control.
Although attitudes and perspectives of forest fires in Thailand have had a strong emphasis against any fire activity since the 1970s (Kanjanavanit 1992), the No-burn policy enacted in 2020 by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment further restricted any agricultural fire use with the aim to reduce PM2.5 haze severity in the north. This policy targets agricultural residue burning during the fire season by setting a fixed timeframe for the burning prohibition. Despite the establishment of the Forest Fire Control Section in 1976 and subsequent fire prevention and suppression campaigns, including use of hot spot data, (Wanthongchai et al. 2011), people in remote areas have continued to use fire illegally for vegetation and agricultural purposes (Wanthongchai et al. 2011, 2021).
In Viet Nam, recognising the importance of managing forest fires, the Government of Viet Nam has developed policies, e.g. Circular No. 25/2019/TT-BNNPTNT and Document No. 14/VBHN-BNNPTNT dated 25 January 2024 by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. These documents regulate solutions and resource mobilisation for forest fire prevention and fighting. However, specific guidelines for managing fires in flammable ecosystems like the DDF, pine forests and peatlands are lacking, particularly regarding when, where and how to light controlled fires.
In each of the countries, large areas of DDF are now managed as protected areas, despite local indigenous people historically using these forests. In protected areas, fires are managed by professional forest rangers, but local people still light fires intentionally and unintentionally, causing uncontrolled burns. This underscores the importance of involving local communities in fire management, which must be supported by policies and laws. Additionally, regulations in protected areas usually prevent local communities from utilising resources, leading to illegal logging, harvesting, hunting and NTFP collection. This often results in conflicts, such as those threatening forest rangers in Yok Don National Park (Hữu Long 2020). Without active community involvement in landscape-level fire management, effective fire control remains a significant challenge.
Transboundary smoke and haze have been a priority issue for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Member States for at least the past 25 years, with hundreds of billions of dollars of economic damage from social and environmental impacts (World Bank2020). This transboundary issue demands regional collaboration and holistic fire management strategies. In response, ASEAN Member States have introduced a series of policies and mechanisms, such as the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution, the ASEAN Peatland Management Strategy (2023–2030) and the 2023–2030 ASEAN Haze-Free Roadmap (Tanpipat et al. 2023). Towards these efforts, in Thailand, there is movement for a Clean Air Act but competing priorities across stakeholders have prolonged this process (Wanthongchai et al. 2021; Tanpipat et al. 2023). Despite these efforts, air pollution from fires remains a persistent issue that has yet to be effectively addressed by people-centred solutions through improved fire management policy and practices. In many ASEAN countries, fire management responsibilities have shifted from national to subnational authorities, while transnational corporations and international environmental organisations have taken on larger roles in land stewardship and policy development. However, translating regional cooperation into effective action remains challenging, particularly when local stakeholders lack adequate empowerment. Stronger collaboration and support for local communities are essential to address the root causes of fires and reduce their impacts on air quality across the region.
Strategies and opportunities for effective savanna management
Although savannas in south-east Asia represent a small fraction of global savannas, they are a unique and ancient ecosystem (Stott et al. 1990) that is widespread (Rundel 1999; Rundel and Boonpragob 2010) and holds significant value in the region. Proper management of this ecosystem is critical in the context of a changing climate to balance priorities in conserving true savannas for their biodiversity, ecosystem services and public health benefits. The challenges discussed reveal the complexity of managing savannas, driven by multiple intricate factors. Here, we discuss solutions to address these challenges, emphasising the importance of community-based fire management as a critical approach to achieving the fundamental roles of savannas: climate change mitigation, biodiversity conservation and livelihood improvement (Goldammer and Wanthongchai 2008).
Improved mapping
Many challenges in managing savannas arise from a lack of understanding about their distribution in the region. This can be addressed through improved classification of savannas using remote sensing to support mapping their regional distribution. Scientists suggest using key characteristics such as rainfall, seasonality and fire occurrence (Hirota et al. 2011; Murphy and Bowman 2012), and distinguishing between tree and grass layers as a baseline for mapping (Abdi et al. 2022). Combining these factors with geospatial datasets will enhance land cover classification workflows (Abdi et al. 2022). Additionally, applying advanced technologies such as nanosatellites, machine learning and big data analytics, supported by data from long-term monitoring plots, will further improve mapping accuracy (Abdi et al. 2022).
Long-term landscape management
Misunderstanding the value of savannas has led to their massive conversion in south-east Asia and reforestation projects in Africa. Overexploitation and biodiversity degradation have worsened in recent decades. Long-term, inclusive studies are essential to track trends of loss and provide a baseline for management and conservation. These studies should cover wildfire parameters (e.g. seasonality, frequency, fire types, fire regimes, intensity, severity, fire behaviours) and their ecological, social and economic impacts (Ganz 2002; Russell-Smith et al. 2013a; van Lierop 2015; see also Wanthongchai et al. 2011, 2013). Additionally, current understanding of ecological, biological, economic and social values of savannas and DDF is far from sufficient to manage the system well. Regulatory agencies and governments need to update vegetation classification systems and develop integrated policies to protect and conserve south-east Asia’s remaining savannas.
Fire management policies and regulations have long-term impacts on DDF in south-east Asia. Both fire exclusion from policies such as zero burning and overly frequent fires may harm the ecosystem in the long run, indicating the need for policy revisions (Wanthongchai 2008; Goldammer and Wanthongchai 2008). Specifically, incorporating fire-free intervals allows for tree recruitment (Goldammer and Wanthongchai 2008; Nguyen et al. 2019). An appropriate fire regime can control the grassy fuel load, reduce carbon emissions, promote tree recruitment, increase landscape complexity (Goldammer and Wanthongchai 2008) and conserve biodiversity for certain species (Andersen et al. 2012). The challenge lies in identifying suitable time intervals and ignition times for each early burn (Stott 1990; Kanjanavanit 1992). Early- and late-season burning are encouraged to prevent the severe impacts of mid-season fires (Stott 1990).
Capacity building and awareness raising
As savannas in south-east Asia are studied only by a small group of scientists, raising awareness among managers, policymakers, academia and the public is crucial. This can be achieved through policy briefs, commentary reports, dissemination of results, and public outreach programs and campaigns. Building the capacity of savanna management systems, including training forest rangers in protected areas and promoting knowledge exchange between formal management systems and local communities, is essential for achieving mutual understanding and consensus in resource management.
Conducting a baseline analysis and mapping for the audience, practitioners and stakeholders in fire management allows a more tailored approach in capacity building and awareness raising. The Regional Community Forest Training Centre (RECOFTC), based in Bangkok, Thailand, has played a significant role in evaluating gaps in fire management at community and provincial levels to promote capacity building in community-based fire management (RECOFTC 2024a). RECOFTC’s practice of conducting a situational analysis and capacity development needs assessment (CDNA) identifies existing and expected competencies and capacities that will enable and bolster the specific scope. This process has produced a capacity development plan that includes a broad range of interventions like customised training and education programs based on co-identified gaps and weaknesses (RECOFTC 2024b). Capacity development focused on accessible technologies and tools that may be needed to enable effective and efficient fire management planning across diverse stakeholders including under-represented groups. Considering the challenges outlined for savanna management earlier, effective management will need to incorporate technologies such as GIS (geographic information system), early warning systems, aerial surveillance, data analytics, community alerts, communication platforms, remote sensing, real-time monitoring, mobile applications, simulation and training, and mechanical tools. These tools enhance fire prediction, detection, communication and response, ensuring comprehensive fire management. The CDNA identifies entry points and specific needs for building capacity in these areas.
Holistic savanna management through community-based fire management and IFM
Sustainably managing savannas requires understanding their controlling factors, such as bottom–up (resources) and top–down (fire, herbivores) influences (Riginos and Grace 2008; Murphy and Bowman 2012). Among these, fire is a key factor in south-east Asia, driven primarily by human-caused ignitions and with significant impacts on carbon sequestration via tree recruitment, carbon emissions, air pollution, nearby human settlements and biodiversity. Existing fire policies often take a top–down approach, with some countries prioritising suppression over coordination in preparedness and risk reduction (Karki 2002; Myers 2006; FAO 2006; Huffman 2013). Given the close link between fire causes and land users, a people-centred approach is advocated for co-benefits and holistic fire management across disciplines and sectors (Ganz et al. 2003; Huffman 2013; Stoof and Kettridge 2022).
Effective management should incorporate traditional fire knowledge. Incorporating local communities into fire management brings numerous benefits due to their diverse knowledge, spanning fire season understanding, fuel load management, ignition timing, weather elements, fire control techniques and risk assessment (Huffman 2013). The concept of community integration in fire management emerged in the early 1990s, alongside IFM (Ganz et al. 2003; Goldammer 2022; FAO 2024), leading to the development of community-based fire management (CBFiM). CBFiM encourages residents to actively participate in decisions about fire prevention, control, or use (Ganz et al. 2003). This approach fosters ownership and adaptability, with stakeholders and community representatives collaborating for sustainable and effective outcomes (Karki 2002; FAO2006). Since their introduction to the fire management community 20 years ago, traditional fire knowledge, cultural uses, and/or indigenous fire use have often accompanied the principles of CBFiM.
Within CBFiM, community voices and cultural fire knowledge are valued, prioritising local participation without solely controlling decision-making (Ganz et al. 2003). As scientists express concern that traditional fire management knowledge within local communities is fading owing to various pressures (Karki 2002; Huffman 2013), implementing CBFiM is crucial to preserve and promote this knowledge. Facilitating knowledge transfer to younger generations empowers continuity of traditions. Additionally, enhancing community capacity and awareness allows the integration of traditional knowledge with modern insights for informed fire management decisions. In this way, CBFiM offers a flexible, community-driven solution to address conflicts over savanna resource use in south-east Asia (Goldammer and Wanthongchai 2008), yet certain conditions are essential for success (Table 4). A participatory approach, involving women, youth and disadvantaged groups in all stages – from planning to reporting – is crucial. Employing the IFM 5R framework (i.e. review, risk reduction, readiness, response and recovery) alongside diverse tools such as stakeholder consultations, desk reviews, focus group discussions and key informant interviews are key to implementing a CBFiM approach (FAO 2024). Dialogue helps integrate traditional knowledge and experiences into fire management practices, while also informing policy improvements. This process also gathers feedback, providing a foundation for refining existing policies and developing more realistic, effective new regulations. Building the capacity of community members, especially women and other under-represented groups, to take proactive leadership roles is key. This approach is being applied across Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand and Viet Nam to enhance fire management in the region (RECOFTC 2024b). Parallel to the work of CBFiM in Asia, experiences with indigenous peoples in British Columbia, Canada, identified goals for fire management programs that prioritised holistic perspectives (Nikolakis et al. 2020). Case studies of community-focused and indigenous programs in Australia and South America highlight the use of intentional fire and emphasise that the motivation for fire management lies in strengthening cultural wellbeing, restoring the land and building the role of stewardship (Moura et al. 2019; Nikolakis et al. 2020; Tanpipat et al. 2022).
| Key success factor | Description | Reference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Valued local participation | Local people should contribute significantly to all initiatives, stages and activities in local fire management, rather than being paid or volunteer workers for fire control | Ganz et al. (2003) | |
| 2. Mutual understanding | Long-term goals in fire management must be understood across communities and government structures | Roos et al. (2016), Mistry et al. (2019) | |
| 3. Integration in landscape planning | Fire management initiatives should be integrated into overall landscape planning and natural resource management | Ganz et al. (2003), AGIF (2023) | |
| 4. Understanding local context | Interventions should be based on a thorough understanding of the causes and roles of fires in local communities | Ganz et al. (2003) | |
| 5. Respect for traditional knowledge | Traditional knowledge in fire management and rules on fire usage must be respected | Karki (2002) | |
| 6. Incentive mechanisms | Incentive mechanisms for community activities and involvement should be based on their needs and ensure recognition of free, prior and informed consent | Karki (2002), FAO (2014) | |
| 7. Supportive policies and regulations | Policies and regulations should support community involvement in fire management | Karki (2002), Myers (2006) | |
| 8. Long-term investment | Long-term investment in multiple series of trainings and workshops involving all levels of stakeholders is essential | van Lierop (2015), Russell-Smith et al. (2017), Bilbao et al. (2019) |
As the paradigm shifts from fire suppression to using fire as a management tool, the focus of CBFiM increasingly centres on prevention and awareness, with a strong emphasis on respecting and integrating the cultural aspects of fire management across different contexts of continents and communities. In this paradigm shift for fire management, there must be innovative and accessible solutions for financing and incentivisation and establishment of enabling policy and legal frameworks, which are known challenges for CBFiM (van Lierop 2015). Implementing CBFiM requires long-term investment with multiple training sessions and workshops involving all levels of stakeholders (van Lierop 2015; Russell-Smith et al. 2017; Bilbao et al. 2019).
As these movements towards increased community and indigenous participation increase in fire management governance, there is a slow shift in policy from heavy suppression tactics, and early-dry season burning is increasingly accepted across continents. Research and practitioners have reported the progress towards a paradigm shift in accepting ‘intercultural governance’ that values the multiple perspectives needed to effectively implement sustainable fire management (Bilbao et al. 2019; Mistry et al. 2019). Although accepting traditional and natural fires within the landscape is a crucial step in sustainable fire management, there is also a growing push to explore alternatives to fire use. In south-east Asia, where agricultural residue burning and burned land grabbing are common drivers of fires, alternative livelihood opportunities are integral to long-term solutions (Jones 2006; Vongruang and Pimonsree 2020).
In these cases, holistic savanna management should also account for smoke exposure and public health impacts when planning land management activities, taking lessons from the 2015 Indonesian fires that exposed over 69 million people to unhealthy air (Crippa et al. 2016). Savanna management should integrate air quality and pollution, while balancing community needs, ecological health and biodiversity. By institutionalising the importance of CBFiM and bottom–up approaches, governments can integrate new ideas and concepts in fire management, for example, by supporting fire-free activities as an option, but not mandating them, when designing plans that involve the use of beneficial fire. Although institutionalising fire management programs may have its drawbacks, there must be a focused and mutual understanding of long-term goals in fire management within respective regions across the communities and vertical government structures (Roos et al. 2016; Mistry et al. 2019).
Unlocking carbon emission abatement potential
High-severity wildfires are a major challenge globally. Risk reduction interventions such as fuel treatments through fuel removal can lower wildfire severity but can be costly. As wildfires contribute significantly to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, a change in wildfire behaviour can lower GHG emissions, which in turn could allow tapping into the carbon market to co-fund fuel treatments globally. Identifying financing mechanisms through carbon markets and avoided emissions offers a promising avenue to offset the high costs of these interventions. Integrating CBFiM into these strategies not only makes interventions more sustainable and cost-effective by utilising local knowledge, but also ensures that fuel reduction efforts are more responsive to both ecological and community needs. da Veiga and Nikolakis (2022) highlighted that proactive fire management programs, especially when coupled with carbon market mechanisms, can sequester carbon and reduce emissions while generating social and ecological co-benefits. This combination can enhance wildfire mitigation while addressing climate, health and economic concerns more holistically.
Over the past two decades, Spatial Informatics Group LLC (SIG) has developed a carbon accounting framework (Buchholz et al. 2022) recognising avoided wildfire emissions through fuel treatments in forests, aiming to co-finance treatments via the carbon market. Climate Forward, a sub-platform of Climate Action Reserve, approved the Reduced Emissions from Megafires (REM) methodology in 2023 for parts of the western United States, introducing Forecast Mitigation Units (FMUs) for GHG emissions avoided through wildfire risk mitigation (Ebert et al. 2023). This methodology introduces an innovative approach to funding vital FMUs for GHG emissions avoided by mitigating the risk of catastrophic wildfires. The REM protocol forecasts emissions for project areas with and without treatment, allowing comparison to estimate GHG reduction and convert it into FMUs. Effective implementation requires localised data tailored to factors like forest growth and wildfire behaviour. Though untested in savannas, REM offers potential to link frequent fire management in south-east Asian savannas with community involvement.
Tropical savannas comprise nearly 90% of global burned area (Giglio et al. 2018) and contribute to 62% of global fire carbon emissions (Van Der Werf et al. 2017). This underscores the high potential for effectively managed savanna burning to significantly contribute to GHG emissions reduction schemes (Giglio et al. 2013; Lipsett-Moore et al. 2018; Russell-Smith et al. 2021). Indeed, Lipsett-Moore et al. (2018) demonstrated in a continental-scale study that appropriate early-dry season burning can result in significant carbon emission reduction, ranging from 6.9 Mt year−1 in Australia and Papua New Guinea to 69.1 Mt year−1 in 29 countries in Africa. Initiatives to incentivise local community participation in savanna fire management, linked with carbon adaptation mechanisms and national emission trading schemes (Russell-Smith et al. 2013b, 2015, 2017) have been piloted in Australia, showing potential for wider application. In another example, the West Arnhem Land Fire Abatement project in Australia successfully integrated Indigenous knowledge to reduce GHG emissions, achieving substantial carbon abatement through early dry season burns while creating social benefits for local communities (Russell-Smith et al. 2024). These initiatives have proved that the co-benefits of incentivising carbon adaptation mechanisms alongside increasing awareness and building local capacity for CBFiM plans can generate additional income for communities while mitigating climate change.
However, scaling up these initiatives to other continents requires substantial work, including improved fire seasonal data, vegetation and fuel type assessments, calibrated emissions factor estimates and enhanced remote sensing capacities (Russell-Smith et al. 2017; Lipsett-Moore et al. 2018). Moreover, institutionalised fire management programs with carbon abatement schemes risk turning communities into mere beneficiaries rather than co-managers and stewards of the land (Mistry et al. 2019). In a systematic review of fire management and carbon programs, the majority of Western literature on this topic represented Australia (41%), Brazil (18%), southern Africa (12%) and the western USA (10%), emphasising the significant gap in the literature for the region and greater Asia (da Veiga and Nikolakis 2022). To ensure the effectiveness of alternative income opportunities, communities must be involved from the outset, supported by enabling government policies. Envisioning improved and increased volume of CBFiM approaches in south-east Asian landscapes requires empowering community members and active leadership to produce visible benefits in the landscape.
Conclusion
Savannas in south-east Asia are unique ecosystems, playing critical roles in mitigating climate change, conserving biodiversity and providing livelihoods for millions of people. Although the extent of this biome is poorly understood and challenges to map its distribution remain, effective management is crucial to achieving climate, biodiversity and economic goals. Notably, the ambiguous physiognomy of savannas highlights the insufficiency of structural definitions alone for remote sensing mapping. This review reveals the absence of comprehensive regional datasets on south-east Asian savannas, underscoring the need for continued efforts to refine mapping methodologies by integrating and prioritising diverse criteria, including geospatial, satellite-derived data layers and ground validation, to better define these ecosystems.
Informed and evidence-based fire management is critical to achieve these goals and maximise the potential of this biome to address the dual crises of climate change and biodiversity loss. Managing where and when to use intentional fires is key not only to biodiversity, but also the long-term trend of wildfires and consequently, the distribution of savanna. Using controlled fire and traditional fire practices effectively can affect stem density and stand basal area, and facilitate the recruitment of overstorey trees for the biome’s perpetuation. Long-term management strategies and a commitment to restoration-based interventions like these are necessary to preserve and maintain healthy savanna ecosystems. Although capacity building for IFM has begun to grow globally, expanding these practices across savanna landscapes requires better access to financing mechanisms to ensure scalability and sustainability. CBFiM faces challenges, particularly in developing fair incentives. Innovations such as carbon abatement from avoided emissions represent a promising opportunity, and trials within national institutions and diverse cultural contexts could pave the way for wider adoption and success. Moreover, recognising the co-benefits of carbon sequestration and abatement schemes alongside fire reduction, biodiversity conservation and improved air quality highlights the importance of an integrated approach that considers not only the ecological and economic aspects but also the public health impacts of air pollution from wildfires.
Data availability
Data sharing is not applicable as no new data were generated or analysed during this study.
Declaration of funding
This publication was produced through the CBFiM in Asia project, made possible through a 5-year cooperative agreement between the USDA Forest Service International Programs and RECOFTC. It receives financial support from the United States Indo-Pacific Command (USINDOPACOM) of the Department of Defence, along with funding from the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the USDA Forest Service International Programs.
Acknowledgements
We thank the USDA Forest Service – International Programs for making this work possible. We thank the team from RECOFTC’s CBFiM in Asia Project who conducted the CDNA workshops and subsequent activities in the capacity development plan: Tran Van Chau, Chay Senkhammoungkhoun, Noukoune Duangoudom, Tep Thavrin, Kirivuth Chhneang, Ratkawee Boonmake, Rawee Thaworn, Niramon Passananont and the many others who contributed to activities, data collection, community engagement, communications and administration. We also thank RECOFTC’s Training and Learning team for their support and guidance in the development of the CDNA framework, questionnaire, workshop and report: Rejani Kunjappan and Petwadee Eiamchaloay. In addition, we greatly appreciate the collaboration from SERVIR – South-East Asia and Spatial Informatics Group LLC for their contributions on the analysis of remote sensing land cover data.
References
Abdi AM, Brandt M, Abel C, Fensholt R (2022) Satellite remote sensing of savannas: current status and emerging opportunities. Journal of Remote Sensing 2022, 1-20.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
AGIF - Agência para a Gestão Integrada de Fogos Rurais et al. (2023) Landscape Fire Governance Framework 2023. In ‘Proceedings to International Wildland Fire Conference’. Porto, Portugal. https://www.wildfire2023.pt/conference/framework
Aleman JC, Staver AC (2018) Spatial patterns in the global distributions of savanna and forest. Global Ecology and Biogeography 27, 792-803.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Andersen AN, Woinarski JCZ, Parr CL (2012) Savanna burning for biodiversity: fire management for faunal conservation in Australian tropical savannas. Austral Ecology 37, 658-667.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Bilbao B, Mistry J, Millán A, Berardi A (2019) Sharing multiple perspectives on burning: towards a participatory and intercultural fire management policy in Venezuela, Brazil, and Guyana. Fire 2, 1-33.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Bond WJ, Stevens N, Midgley GF, Lehmann CER (2019) The trouble with trees: afforestation plans for Africa. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 34, 963-965.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Buchholz T, Gunn J, Springsteen B, Marland G, Moritz M, Saah D (2022) Probability-based accounting for carbon in forests to consider wildfire and other stochastic events: synchronizing science, policy, and carbon offsets. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 27, 4.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Bunyavejchewin S, Baker PJ, Davies SJ (2011) Seasonally dry tropical forests in continental southeast Asia: structure, composition, and dynamics. In ‘The Ecology and Conservation of Seasonally Dry Forests in Asia’. 1st edn. (Eds WJ McShea, SJ Davies, N Bhumpakphan) pp. 9–35. (Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press)
Cai W, Borlace S, Lengaigne M, Van Rensch P, Collins M, Vecchi G, Timmermann A, Santoso A, Mcphaden MJ, Wu L, England MH, Wang G, Guilyardi E, Jin FF (2014) Increasing frequency of extreme El Niño events due to greenhouse warming. Nature Climate Change 4, 111-116.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Cao TL, Phung CS (2018) An assessment of the conversion of the deciduous dipterocarp forest to rubber planting. Journal of Science and Technology 2, 1-9.
| Google Scholar |
Cardoso da Silva J, Bates J (2002) Biogeographic patterns and conservation in the South American Cerrado: a tropical savanna hotspot. BioScience 52, 225-233.
| Google Scholar |
Chaiyo U, Garivait S, Pizzo Y (2014) Estimation of carbon released from dry dipterocarp forest fires in Thailand. International Journal of Environmental Science 7(9), 2013. https://waset.org/publications/16690/
Chankhao A, Kraichak E, Phumsathan S, Pongpattananurak N (2022) Dynamics of forage and management implications for large herbivore habitat in seasonally dry forest of Southeast Asia. Forests 13, 1463.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Chassagne F, Hul S, Deharo E, Bourdy G (2016) Natural remedies used by Bunong people in Mondulkiri province (Northeast Cambodia) with special reference to the treatment of 11 most common ailments. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 191, 41-70.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Chen X, Hutley L, Eamus D (2003) Carbon balance of a tropical savanna of northern Australia. Oecologia 137, 405-416.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Chi Sy P, Thanh Nam V, Phuong Anh P, Cong Chinh P, Huu Dung H (2020) Integrated assessment of the economic, social and environmental impact of some projects of converting dipterocarp forest to rubber plantation in territory of Dak Lak Province, Viet Nam. Palarch’s Journal Of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology 17, 454-469.
| Google Scholar |
Chou P (2017) The importance of non-timber forest products in rural livelihoods and ecosystem services at Phnom Prich Wildlife Sanctuary, Cambodia. IJERD-International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development 8, 7-13.
| Google Scholar |
Crippa P, Castruccio S, Archer-Nicholls S, Lebron GB, Kuwata M, Thota A, Sumin S, Butt E, Wiedinmyer C, Spracklen D V (2016) Population exposure to hazardous air quality due to the 2015 fires in equatorial Asia. Scientific Reports 6, 37074.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
da Veiga RM, Nikolakis W (2022) Fire management and carbon programs: a systematic literature review and case study analysis. Society and Natural Resources 35, 896-913.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Dontree S (2015) Forest fire and haze management: lessons learned from the multi-stakeholder collaborative management in Chiang Mai Province. Journal of Social Sciences 27, 121-155.
| Google Scholar |
Ebert C, Gorguinpour K, Mao J, Remucal J, Spence M, Baruch S, Llc C, Buchholz T, Nickerson J, Forestry DS, Ravage J, Schmidt D, Green A, Dunn A, Stevens J, Battles J, John B, Renew C, Finney WM, Saksa P, Forest B, Eubanks S, Tss TM, Moody T (2023) Reduced emissions from megafires forecast methodology version 1.0. Climate Action Reserve. https://climateforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Reduced-Emissions-from-Megafires-Forecast-Methodology-v1.0.pdf
Environment magazine (2016) Environmental assessment of the conversion of the deciduous dipterocarp forest to planting rubber trees in Dak Lak province. Available at https://tapchimoitruong.vn/dien-dan--trao-doi-21/Ðánh-giá-tác-động-của-việc-chuyển-đổi-rừng-khộp-sang-trồng-cao-su-tại-Ðắc-Lắc-15100
FAO (2006) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005 - Report on fires in the South East Asian (ASEAN) region. Fire Management Working Paper FFM/10. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available at https://www.fao.org/4/J7566E/J7566E00.pdf
FAO (2011) Community-based fire management – a review. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Available at https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/593da11f-2a79-41de-b8bd-5347aa1a6443/content
FAO (2014) Respecting free, prior and informed consent. Governance of Tenure. Technical Guide 3. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Available at https://www.fao.org/4/i3496e/i3496e.pdf
FAO (2023) Dataset information: land cover. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Available at https://files-faostat.fao.org/production/LC/LC_e.pdf
FAO (2024) Integrated fire management voluntary guidelines – principles and strategic actions. FAO. 10.4060/cd1090en
Forestry Administration (2021) Systematic survey report of Dalbergia cochinchinensis and Dalbergia oliveri for piloting assessment on sustainable genetic conservation in Choam Ksant district, Preah Vihear Province, Cambodia. Available at https://cites-tsp.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/CITES_KH_Systema_Inventory_D_Cochichinensis_D_Oliveri_Report_20210712.pdf
Ganz D, Fisher RJ, Moore PF (2003) Further Defining Community-Based Fire Management: Critical Elements and Rapid Appraisal Tools. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Further-Defining-Community-Based-Fire-Management%3A-Ganz-Fisher/d01a195524bcca05dbe9d2370039b89153dd4c1a
Giglio L, Boschetti L, Roy DP, Humber ML, Justice CO (2018) The Collection 6 MODIS burned area mapping algorithm and product. Remote Sensing of Environment 217, 72-85.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Giglio L, Randerson JT, Van Der Werf GR (2013) Analysis of daily, monthly, and annual burned area using the fourth-generation global fire emissions database (GFED4). Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences 118, 317-328.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
GIZ Lao PDR (2023) PLUP 2.0: Participatory Land Use Planning 2.0. Developed through the Climate Protection through Avoided Deforestation and Implementation of the Governance, Forest Landscapes and Livelihoods Project (CliPAD/I-GFLL). Published by Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH.
Goldammer J, Wanthongchai K (2008) Fire Management in South and Southeast Asia’s Dry Forests: Colonial Approachers, Current Problems and Perspectives. In ‘Proceedings of the FORTROP II: Tropical forestry change in a changing world’. 17-20 November 2008. Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand. https://kukr.lib.ku.ac.th/kukr_es/kukr/search_detail/result/352223
Goldammer JG (2022) The role and history of fire in tropical landscapes. Tropical Forest Issues 61, 3-12.
| Google Scholar |
Grace J, José JS, Meir P, Miranda HS, Montes RA (2006) Productivity and carbon fluxes of tropical savannas. Journal of Biogeography 33, 387-400.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Gray T, Pollard E, Evans T, Goes F, Grindley M, Omaliss K, Nielsen P, Sambovannak O, Channa P, Sophoan S (2014) Birds of Mondulkiri, Cambodia: distribution, status and conservation. Forktail 30, 66-78 Available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279046119.
| Google Scholar |
Hirota M, Holmgren M, Van Nes EH, Scheffer M (2011) The global extent and determinants of savanna and forest as alternative biome states. Science 334, 232-235.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Hua Zhu (2019) An introduction to the main forest vegetation types of mainland SE Asia (Indochina Peninsula). Guihaia 39, 62-70.
| Google Scholar |
Huffman MR (2013) The many elements of traditional fire knowledge: synthesis, classification, and aids to cross-cultural problem solving in firedependent systems around the world. Ecology and Society 18, 3.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Hữu Long (2020) Poachers attack forest rangers: strictly handle poachers’ leaders. Lao Dong Newspaper. Issued 24 February 2020. Available at https://laodong.vn/moi-truong/lam-tac-lien-tuc-tan-cong-kiem-lam-xu-ly-nghiem-cac-doi-tuong-cam-dau-786293.ldo
Ito E, Furuya N, Ohnuki Y, Miyamoto K, Araki M, Tamai K, Shimizu T, Iida S, Kanzaki M, Monda Y, Kabeya N, Yagi T, Shimizu A, Toriyama J, Tith B, Keth S, Ly C, Op P, Chann S, Kiyono Y (2022) Topographical patterns of species composition in a deciduous dipterocarp forest in Kratie Province, Cambodia. Cambodian Journal of Natural History 2022, 18-37.
| Google Scholar |
Jones DS (2006) ASEAN and transboundary haze pollution in southeast Asia. Asia Europe Journal 4, 431-446.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Jones SH (1998) Vegetation fire and land use in southeast asia: the interpretation of remotely sensed data for Cambodia. Geocarto International 13, 63-73.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Kanjanavanit S (1992) Aspects of the temporal pattern of dry season fires in the dry dipterocarp forests of Thailand. PhD Thesis, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, UK. https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/29497/1/10731653.pdfdoi:10.1093/iclqaj/41.1.137
Khammanivong K, Thammavong V, Khotpathoom T, Wanneng P (2023) Review of tree species in dry dipterocarp forest, Savannakhet Province, Lao PDR. Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development 9, 204-212.
| Google Scholar |
Khemnark C (1978) Natural regeneration of the deciduous forests in Thailand. In ‘Tropical agriculture research series: proceedings of a symposium on tropical agriculture researches’. Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences. pp. 31–43. https://www.jircas.go.jp/sites/default/files/publication/tars/tars12-_31-43.pdf
Khotpathoom T, Vu TT (2021) An estimation of density and population size for Eld’s deer in the Xonnabouly Eld’s deer sanctuary, Lao PDR. Mammalia 85, 109-114.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Kumar D, Pfeiffer M, Gaillard C, Langan L, Martens C, Scheiter S (2020) Misinterpretation of Asian savannas as degraded forest can mislead management and conservation policy under climate change. Biological Conservation 241, 108293.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Larpkern P, Eriksen M, Waiboonya P (2017) Diversity and uses of tree species in the deciduous Dipterocarp Forest, Mae Chaem district, Chiang Mai province, Northern Thailand. Naresuan University Journal: Science and Technology 25, 43-55.
| Google Scholar |
Lipsett-Moore GJ, Wolff NH, Game ET (2018) Emissions mitigation opportunities for savanna countries from early dry season fire management. Nature Communications 9, 2247.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Marlier ME, Defries RS, Voulgarakis A, Kinney PL, Randerson JT, Shindell DT, Chen Y, Faluvegi G (2013) El Niño and health risks from landscape fire emissions in southeast Asia. Nature Climate Change 3, 131-136.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Maxwell AL (2004) Fire regimes in north-eastern Cambodian monsoonal forests, with a 9300-year sediment charcoal record. Available at www.blackwellpublishing.com/jbi
McShea WJ, Koy K, Clements T, Johnson A, Vongkhamheng C, Aung M (2005) Finding a needle in the haystack: regional analysis of suitable Eld’s deer (Cervus eldi) forest in southeast Asia. Biological Conservation 125, 101-111.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, IUCN (2016) Fifth national report to the United Nations convention on biological diversity – DFRM-MoNRE and Technical support: IUCN - Vientiane, Lao PDR. Available at https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/la/la-nr-05-en.pdf
Mistry J, Schmidt IB, Eloy L, Bilbao B (2019) New perspectives in fire management in South American savannas: the importance of intercultural governance. Ambio 48, 172-179.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Moura LC, Scariot AO, Schmidt IB, Beatty R, Russell-Smith J (2019) The legacy of colonial fire management policies on traditional livelihoods and ecological sustainability in savannas: impacts, consequences, new directions. Journal of Environmental Management 232, 600-606.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Mueller W, Vardoulakis S, Steinle S, Loh M, Johnston HJ, Precha N, Kliengchuay W, Sahanavin N, Nakhapakorn K, Sillaparassamee R, Tantrakarnapa K, Cherrie JW (2021) A health impact assessment of long-term exposure to particulate air pollution in Thailand. Environmental Research Letters 16, 055018.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Murphy BP, Bowman DMJS (2012) What controls the distribution of tropical forest and savanna? Ecology Letters 15, 748-758.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Myers RL (2006) Living with fire – sustaining ecosystems and livelihoods through integrated fire management global fire initiative. The Nature Conservancy. Available at https://www.conservationgateway.org/Documents/Integrated_Fire_Management_Myers_2006.pdf
Nguyen TT, Baker PJ (2016) Structure and composition of deciduous dipterocarp forest in central Viet Nam: patterns of species dominance and regeneration failure. Plant Ecology and Diversity 9, 589-601.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Nguyen TT, Murphy BP, Baker PJ (2019) The existence of a fire-mediated tree-recruitment bottleneck in an Asian savanna. Journal of Biogeography 46, 745-756.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Nikolakis W, Roberts E, Hotte N, Ross RM (2020) Goal setting and Indigenous fire management: a holistic perspective. International Journal of Wildland Fire 29, 974-982.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Olson DM, Dinerstein E (2002) The Global 200: priority ecoregions for global conservation. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 89, 199-224.
| Google Scholar |
Pasiecznik N, Goldammer JG (2022) Towards fire-smart landscapes. Tropical Forest Issues 61, 191.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Pearmsak M, Ganz D, Onprom S (2002) Community involvement in fire management: cases and recommendations for community-based fire management in Thailand. In ‘Proceedings of the international conference. Communities in Flames’. Bangkok, Thailand. pp. 10–15. (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) https://www.fao.org/4/ac798e/ac798e00.htm
Pennington RT, Lehmann CER, Rowland LM (2018) Tropical savannas and dry forests. Current Biology 28, R541-R545.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Phiapalath P, Khotpathoom T, Inkhavilay K, Lamxay V, Xayyasith S, Thammavong V, Khiewvongphachan X (2018)Biodiversity Assessment of Dry Dipterocarp Forest in the Eld’s Deer Sanctuary, Savannakhet Province. Department of Forestry, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry/UNDP-Sustainable Forest and Land Management in the DDF Ecosystems of Southern Lao PDR, Vientiane, Lao PDR.
Pin C, Phan C, Prum S, Gray TNE (2013) Structure and composition of deciduous dipterocarp forest in the Eastern Plains Landscape, Cambodia. Cambodian Journal of Natural History 1, 27-34.
| Google Scholar |
Pletcher E, Staver C, Schwartz NB (2022) The environmental drivers of tree cover and forest–savanna mosaics in southeast Asia. Ecography 2022, e06280.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Putnam A, Ferchland B (2009) Burning as usual: the causes and effects of deliberate fire burning – a case study within the province of Chiang Mai, northern Thailand. Available at https://gfmc.online/wp-content/uploads/Thailand-Burning-as-Usual-Putnam-Ferchland-2009.pdf
Ratnam J, Bond WJ, Fensham RJ, Hoffmann WA, Archibald S, Lehmann CER, Anderson MT, Higgins SI, Sankaran M (2011) When is a ‘forest’ a savanna, and why does it matter? Global Ecology and Biogeography 20, 653-660.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Ratnam J, Tomlinson KW, Rasquinha DN, Sankaran M (2016) Savannahs of Asia: antiquity, biogeography, and an uncertain future. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 371, 20150305.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
RECOFTC (2024a) CBFiM Project in Asia. Available at https://www.recoftc.org/publications/0000462
RECOFTC (2024b) CBFiM Trends, needs and next steps for capacities, technologies, gender equality and social inclusion. RECOFTC. https://www.recoftc.org/sites/default/files/publications/resources/recoftc-0000473-0001-en.pdf
Riginos C, Grace J (2008) Savanna tree density, herbivores, and the herbaceous community: bottom–up vs top–down effects. Ecology 89, 2228-2238.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Roos CI, Scott AC, Belcher CM, Chaloner WG, Aylen J, Bird RB, Coughlan MR, Johnson BR, Johnston FH, McMorrow J, Steelman T, Archibald S, Balch J, Beerling D, Bond W, Bowman D, Carroll M, Doerr S, Gazzard R, Hadden R, Hudspith V, Kettridge N, Millington J, Page S, Power M, Pyne S, Restuccia F, Santín C, Swetnam T, Walding N, Wooster M (2016) Living on a flammable planet: interdisciplinary, cross-scalar and varied cultural lessons, prospects and challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 371, 20150469.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Royal Forest Department (2019) Forest Area Survey and Land Management Project [In Thai โครงการสำรวจพื้นที่ป่าไม้ จัดที่ดิน]. Royal Forestry Department. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. https://www.forest.go.th/fl_mgt
Rundel P (1999) Forest habitats and flora in Lao PDR, Cambodia and Viet Nam. Prepared for World Wide Fund for Nature, Indochina Program Office, Ha Noi. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California Los Angeles, California, USA. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259623025
Rundel PW, Boonpragob K (2010) Dry forest ecosystems of Thailand. In ‘Seasonally Dry Tropical Forests’ pp. 93–123. (Cambridge University Press) 10.1017/cbo9780511753398.005
Russell-Smith J, Cook GD, Cooke PM, Edwards AC, Lendrum M, Meyer CP, Whitehead PJ (2013a) Managing fire regimes in north Australian savannas: applying Aboriginal approaches to contemporary global problems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11, e55-e63.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Russell-Smith J, Monagle C, Jacobsohn M, Beatty RL, Bilbao B, Millán A, Vessuri H, Sánchez-Rose I (2013b) Can savanna burning projects deliver measurable greenhouse emissions reductions and sustainable livelihood opportunities in fire-prone settings? Climatic Change 140, 47-61.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Russell-Smith J, Yates CP, Edwards AC, Whitehead PJ, Murphy BP, Lawes MJ (2015) Deriving multiple benefits from carbon market-based savanna fire management: an Australian example. PLoS oNE 10, e0143426.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Russell-Smith J, Monagle C, Jacobsohn M, Beatty RL, Bilbao B, Millán A, Vessuri H, Sánchez-Rose I (2017) Can savanna burning projects deliver measurable greenhouse emissions reductions and sustainable livelihood opportunities in fire-prone settings. Climatic Change 140, 47-61.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Russell-Smith J, Yates C, Vernooij R, Eames T, van der Werf G, Ribeiro N, Edwards A, Beatty R, Lekoko O, Mafoko J, Monagle C, Johnston S (2021) Opportunities and challenges for savanna burning emissions abatement in southern Africa. Journal of Environmental Management 288, 112414.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Russell-Smith J, Yates C, Vernooij R, Eames T, Lucas D, Mbindo K, Banda S, Mukoma K, Kaluka A, Liseli A, Mafoko J, Lekoko O, Beatty R, Kaestli M, van der Werf G, Ribeiro N (2024) Framework for a savanna burning emissions abatement methodology applicable to fire-prone miombo woodlands in southern Africa. International Journal of Wildland Fire 33, 1-25.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Sahunalu P (2017) Ecological studies of tropical seasonally dry forest in continental southeast Asia: a review using Thailand as a case study. Journal of Tropical Forest Research 1, 58–78. https://kukr.lib.ku.ac.th/kukr_es/index.php?/BKN_FOR/search_detail/result/381323
Sankaran M (2009) Diversity patterns in savanna grassland communities: implications for conservation strategies in a biodiversity hotspot. Biodiversity and Conservation 18, 1099-1115.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Sankaran M, Ratnam J (2013) African and Asian savannas. In ‘Encyclopedia of Biodiversity’, 2nd edn. pp. 58–74. (Elsevier Inc.) 10.1016/B978-0-12-384719-5.00355-5.
Sarma S, Prasad N, Pandey SK, Giri SG (2018) Status of resin tapping and scope of improvement: a review. Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa, and Latin America 49, 16-26 Available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329527662.
| Google Scholar |
Schmidt IB, Moura LC, Ferreira MC, Eloy L, Sampaio AB, Dias PA, Berlinck CN (2018) Fire management in the Brazilian savanna: first steps and the way forward. Journal of Applied Ecology 55, 2094-2101.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Scholes RJ, Archer SR (1997) Tree–grass interactions in savannas. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 28, 517-544.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Staver AC, Bond WJ, Stock WD, Van Rensburg SJ, Waldram MS (2009) Browsing and fire interact to suppress tree density in an African savanna. Ecological Applications 19(7), 1909–1919. 10.1890/08-1907.1
Stevens N, Lehmann CER, Murphy BP, Durigan G (2017) Savanna woody encroachment is widespread across three continents. Global Change Biology 23, 235-244.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Stoof CR, Kettridge N (2022) Living with fire and the need for diversity. Earth’s Future 10, e2021EF002528.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Stott P (1984) The savanna forests of mainland southeast Asia: an ecological survey. Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment 8, 355.
| Google Scholar |
Stott P (1988) The forest as phoenix: towards a biogeography of fire in mainland south east Asia. The Geographical Journal 154, 337.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Stott P (1990) Stability and stress in the savanna forests of mainland South-East Asia. Journal of Biogeography 17, 373-383.
| Google Scholar |
Stott P, Goldammer J, Werner W (1990) The Role of fire in the tropical lowland deciduous forests of Asia. In ‘Fire in the tropical biota ecosystem: processes and global challenges, Vol 84’. (Ed. J Goldammer) pp. 32–44. (Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg) 10.1007/978-3-642-75395-4_3
Sukmasuang R, Bhumpakphan N, McShea WJ, Wajjwalku W, Siriaroonrat B, Kamolnoranart S, Yindee M, Nipanan T, Maleehuan B, Khanthathongsakuldee K, Pongcharoen C, Sutummawong N, Thomas W (2022) The status of the endangered Eld’s deer (Rucervus eldii) and conservation actions in Thailand. Biodiversitas 23, 5020-5034.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Suksawang B, McNeely J (2015) Parks for life: Why we love Thailand’s National Parks. Department of National Parks, Wildlife, and Plant Conservation, and the United Nations Development Programme, Bangkok, Thailand. https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/migration/th/UNDP_TH_Parks_for_Life.pdf
Tanpipat V, Rassameethes R, Wanthongchai K, Nhuchaiya P, Yodcum J (2022) Combining community management of fire and water in Thailand. Tropical Forest Issues [61] 123-130.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Tanpipat V, McCarty JL, Davies D, Schroeder W, Elvidge C (2023) Active fire monitoring of Thailand and upper ASEAN by Earth Observation Data: benefits, lessons learned, and what still needs to be known. In ‘Vegetation fires and pollution in Asia’. (Eds KP Vadrevu et al.) pp. 139–153. (Springer International Publishing) 10.1007/978-3-031-29916-2_9
Thuon T, Kissy K, Sumaylo H (2009) Mapping vulnerability to natural hazards in Mondulkiri. IOM Phnom Penh Report. International Organization for Migration. https://www.iom.int/sites/g/files/tmzbdl486/files/jahia/webdav/shared/shared/mainsite/activities/countries/docs/Final-Report-Mapping-Vulnerability-Natural-Hazards-Mondulkiri.pdf
Timmermann A, Oberhuber J, Bacher A, Esch M, Latif M, Roeckner E (1999) Increased El Niño frequency in a climate model forced by future greenhouse warming. Nature 398, 694-697.
| Google Scholar |
Toda T, Takeda H, Tokuchi N, Ohta S, Wacharinrat C, Kaitpraneet S (2008) Comparison of nitrogen content in tree litterfall in three dry dipterocarp forests under different fire regime in northeast Thailand. Tropics 17, 199-208.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Tran B, La K, Le D, Nguyen T, Pham D, Nguyen D, Bui N, Nguyen C (2022) Existing status and causes of the deciduous dipterocarp forest loss in the Central Highlands. Journal of Forest Science and Technology 65-77.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Trisurat Y (2012) Long-term monitoring and prediction of ecosystem using remote sensing and the CLUE-S Model: Sakaerat Environmental Research Station. In ‘The Biodiversity Observation Network in the Asia–Pacific Region’. (Eds S Nakano, T Yahara, T Nakashizuka) pp. 309–319. (Ecological Research Monographs: Springer, Tokyo) 10.1007/978-4-431-54032-8_22.
Trisurat Y, Bhumpakphan N (2018) Effects of land use and climate change on Siamese Eld’s deer (Rucervus eldii siamensis) distribution in the transboundary conservation area in Thailand, Cambodia, and Lao PDR. Frontiers in Environmental Science 6, 1-15.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Trisurat Y, Duengkae P (2011) Consequences of land use change on bird distribution at Sakaerat environmental research station. Journal of Ecology and Field Biology 34, 203-214.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Twine W (2019) Socioeconomic value of savannas. In ‘Savanna Woody Plants and Large Herbivores’. Ch 6. (Eds PF Scogings, M Sankaran) pp. 151–179. (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd) 10.1002/9781119081111.ch6
United Nations Environment Programme (2022) Spreading like wildfire – the rising threat of extraordinary landscape fires. A UNEP Rapid Response Assessment. (Nairobi, Kenya) Available at http://www.un.org/Depts/
USAID Cambodia (2011) Cambodia tropical forestry and biodiversity (118/119) assessment. Available at https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pnaea955.pdf
VACNE (2013) Livelihoods in the deciduous dipterocarp forest in Viet Nam. Online article released on 2 September 2013 by Thứ Hai. Vietnam Association for Conservation of Nature and Environment. Available at https://vacne.org.vn/sinh-ke-rung-khop-o-viet-nam/211173.html
Vadrevu KP, Lasko K, Giglio L, Schroeder W, Biswas S, Justice C (2019) Trends in vegetation fires in south and southeast Asian countries. Scientific Reports 9, 7422.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Van Der Werf GR, Randerson JT, Giglio L, Van Leeuwen TT, Chen Y, Rogers BM, Mu M, Van Marle MJE, Morton DC, Collatz GJ, Yokelson RJ, Kasibhatla PS (2017) Global fire emissions estimates during 1997-2016. Earth System Science Data 9, 697-720.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
van Lierop P (2015) Challenges for community-based fire management. In ‘Keynote address at the Sixth International Wildfire Conference’. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) pp. 1–11. Available at https://i.unu.edu/media/tfm.unu.edu/news/2130/Challenges-for-CBFiM.docx
Vo DH, Dang TT (2015) Carbon sequestration of the natural broadleaved forest and the deciduous dipterocarp forest in the Central Highlands. Summary report from Viet Nam Forestry Science Institute. Vietnamese Academy of Forest Science. Available at https://vafs.gov.vn/vn/bao-cao-tom-tat-ket-qua-de-tai-nghien-cuu-kha-nang-hap-thu-cac-bon-cua-rung-tu-nhien-la-rong-thuong-xanh-ban-thuong-xanh-va-rung-la-o-tay-nguyen/
Vongruang P, Pimonsree S (2020) Biomass burning sources and their contributions to PM10 concentrations over countries in mainland Southeast Asia during a smog episode. Atmospheric Environment 228, 117414.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Walston J, Davidson P, Soriyun M (2001) A wildlife survey of Southern Mondulkiri province. Cambodia Program. Wildlife Conservation Society. https://library.khmerstudies.org/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=5331&shelfbrowse_itemnumber=2547
Wang G, Cai W, Gan B, Wu L, Santoso A, Lin X, Chen Z, McPhaden MJ (2017) Continued increase of extreme El Ninõ frequency long after 1.5°C warming stabilization. Nature Climate Change 7, 568-572.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Wanthongchai K, Goldammer JG, Bauhus J (2011) Effects of fire frequency on prescribed fire behaviour and soil temperatures in dry dipterocarp forests. International Journal of Wildland Fire 20, 35-45.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Wanthongchai K, Tarusadamrongdet V, Chinnawong K, Sooksawat K (2013) Fuel properties and fire behaviour characteristics of prescribed fire in pine-dominated forests at Nam Nao National Park, Thailand. International Journal of Wildland Fire 22, 615-624.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Wanthongchai K, Tanpipat V, Noochaiya P, Sirimongkonlertkun N, Macatangay R, Thammavongsa L, Oo TN, Bran SH, Solanki R (2021) Integrated highland wildfire, smoke, and haze management in the Upper Indochina region. APN Science Bulletin 11, 133-143.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Webb E, Steinmetz R, Van De Bult M, Chutipong W, Seuaturian N (2013) Composition, structure and spatial patterns of the tree community in a fire-influenced, deciduous dipterocarp-oak forest, western Thailand. Natural History Bulletin of the Siam Society 59, 15-37.
| Google Scholar |
Wieczorkowski JD, Lehmann CER (2022) Encroachment diminishes herbaceous plant diversity in grassy ecosystems worldwide. Global Change Biology 28, 5532-5546.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Wimolsakcharoen W, Dumrongrojwatthana P, Trébuil G (2020) Production of non-timber forest products (NTFPS) and diversity of harvesters’ practices and decision-making processes in northern Thailand community forests. Bois et Forets Des Tropiques 343, 39-52.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Wohlfart C, Wegmann M, Leimgruber P (2014) Mapping threatened dry deciduous dipterocarp forest in south-east Asia for conservation management. Tropical Conservation Science 7, 597-613.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
World Bank Group (2020) World Bank Policy Note: Managing wildfires in a changing climate. Developed by PROFOR to follow up to Global Expert Workshop on Fire and Climate Change on July 18. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank. Available at https://www.profor.info/sites/default/files/PROFOR_ManagingWildfires_2020_final.pdf
World Wildlife Fund – US (2004) World Wildlife Fund (WWF) – Global 200 (terrestrial) Ecoregions. Available at https://databasin.org/datasets/a5b34649cc69417ba52ac8e2dce34c3b/
WWF – Cambodia (2021) Eastern plains landscape. Available at https://www.wwf.org.kh/where_we_work_cambodia/eastern_plains_landscape/
