Fire for the future: governance of market-based savanna fire management projects in Arnhem Land, northern Australia

“When we fly up, up in the air, when I see the land, it break my heart, you know. Even when I’m flying along the coast, make me feel really proud. Yeah. That’s what I love. I love everything in this job.” Clive Nunggulallu, ALFA Director and Ranger for Numburindi Rangers.

Rangers receive increased employment, training opportunities, and access to Country and Indigenous Ecological Knowledge transfer opportunities during project operations. With cultural, environmental, and economic outcomes, Landowners also receive positive outcomes from SFM Projects. Improved access to Country, improved productivity of the land, and improved spiritual health through knowing their land was cared for, were valued outcomes. Pre-season consultations to confirm permission for burning create casual employment opportunities for Landowners. Landowners are also encouraged to accompany Rangers as casual employees to undertake or oversee the burning on their estates.

Partnerships between IRGs, Landowners, and community members to conduct fire education about effects of late season fire, and culture camps (where intergenerational groups spend time together on Country to practice and transfer cultural knowledge, e.g. Palmer et al. 2006) are positive outcomes from the projects. These partnerships strengthen community governance more broadly through improved communications between organisations and groups within a traditional tenure area.

Partnerships with neighbouring IRGs are valued highly. Working together on late-season fire fronts, sharing the costs of helicopters to manage shared boundary areas, and working together to plan the fire season are all mentioned as positive contributions of partnerships. Interviewees referred to strong relationships and networks across Arnhem Land as a strength in undertaking projects. Relationships and intermarriages between people across language groups and different estates result in a network with strong shared norms within and between projects.

External partnerships with conservation estate neighbours, pastoralists, the regional fire management authority (Bushfires NT), and intermediary organisations providing support and extension services for SFM projects – including ALFA – were mentioned for their operational support and the experience and insight they contribute to fire management.

Distribution of benefits from ALFA from 2015 to 2024 has been in accordance with its status as a not-for-profit charity (Table 4). Funds remaining after operations and administration by ALFA are distributed via a grant system to each IRG. IRGs submit a grant proposal and budget aligning with ALFA’s corporate objectives for funding approval (Supplementary Material S2).

The corporate objectives create a clear scope for the ALFA Board and delivery of benefit distribution. Reinvestment into SFM Projects and strengthening IRGs has been a high priority for all partners to ensure sustainability of operations and the business. Rock art programs, women’s ranger programs, expanded IRG employment, community-led schools, outstations in previously inaccessible areas, culture camps to important sites, and improved land management training programs, have been wholly or partially supported through discretionary ALFA funding.

The emergence of the Indigenous land and sea management industry and subsequent development of savanna fire management projects for GHG mitigation were attributed to the leadership and vision of Arnhem Land Landowners. The support of Aboriginal leadership, past and present, in establishing these industries and the pride in the positive outcomes they had achieved for their people and Country, was expressed in more than half of the interviews (60%, n = 20). The ownership of knowledge production contributing to the SFM Method was attributed to long-standing Aboriginal ecological knowledge of fire. The sense of ownership regarding architecture of the carbon projects (45%, n = 24), and its alignment with the cultural priorities of Landowners, creates legitimacy for the projects enabling many positive project outcomes.

Principles for decision-making about SFM projects were discussed in most interviews (55%, n = 31). Landowners have final authority for decision-making, and disputes are avoided through delay of final decisions until there is an opportunity for more discussion. Senior Rangers play a critical role, acting as a knowledge link between Rangers and Landowners, coordinating the fire project’s cultural responsibilities, ensuring operational activities align with cultural practices, and supporting the next generation of land managers to learn their responsibilities. Although the value of partnerships is recognised, interview participants emphasised that place-based culturally informed decision-making strengthens projects.

In accordance with cultural protocols described by interviewees, permission from the relevant Landowner is required for anyone wanting to access or manage a particular area. Undertaking SFM projects in Arnhem Land relies on IRGs engaging appropriately with Landowners to receive and maintain operational approval. Often Rangers are themselves Landowners and, therefore, may be able to speak for some areas the IRG is responsible for managing. Other non-Landowner community members can also be Rangers. Where Landowners are not Rangers, consultation and instructions must occur before land management work is undertaken on their estates.

From interviews, the main drivers for Landowners agreeing to SFM projects were improved environmental health of their estates, increased bush foods availability under good fire management, and improved access to their estates through casual employment (Table 3). Rangers were accountable to Landowners for the health of Country after burning by arranging visits for Landowners to their Country/estates, improving the availability and delivery of bush foods to Landowners when Rangers were on their Country, and bringing back photos to demonstrate that burning had been conducted in a manner approved by the Landowner.

Funding through engagement with the carbon market has enabled the expansion and support of landscape fire management operations and strengthened the IRGs capacity through developing infrastructure, employment and training. During this research nine IRGs in the Arnhem Land area were engaged with SFM projects. Primarily funded through Federal Government grants, IRGs employ community members and ‘Ranger Coordinator’ supervisorial positions (Fig. 2). Ranger Coordinators are also responsible for engaging with external partnership organisations to align funding, permits and program delivery.

Fig. 2.

Conceptual illustration of IRG–Landowner boundary with Senior Ranger performing inward facing role and Ranger Coordinator liaising with actors external to the IRG, Landowner and community members. Rangers may be Landowners or community members. LO = Landowner; CM = Community Member; SR = Senior Ranger; RC = Ranger Coordinator.

The relationship between IRGs and Landowners was described as follows by Clarry Rogers, Senior Ranger with Yugul Mangi Rangers, and a Director on the ALFA Board:

“Communicating with T.O.s…they above us, we underneath them. And more communication, more agreements, the better…As the Rangers, we did control the fire…but the control of the plan was back to the T.O.s. They have the final say: we should go there or not…and communication before the (SFM) project was the T.O.s would say: ‘you can’t go there, it’s my land’. We just kept on talking, inviting them to come and talk…

they just sort of step back a bit and let us do what we’re supposed to do. They were giving us authority.…you’re the guys do the burning, we’ll sit down and watch… we’ll watch you like an eagle. If you’re doing wrong things, we will know. We be notified by the old people: you’re doing the wrong thing.”

The Senior Ranger ensures that cultural responsibilities associated with land management activities are undertaken appropriately, with no dedicated funding as per the Ranger Coordinator position. Responsibilities of a Senior Ranger may include consulting Landowners to provide control and access to land for SFM projects, ensuring the right people for a relevant estate are informed and invited to become involved in any work happening on their estate, and maximising opportunities for intergenerational knowledge transfer. Fig. 2 illustrates conceptual relationships between IRGs, Landowners, and community members. One of the interviewed Arnhem Land leaders was previously a Ranger Coordinator and had since moved to the Senior Ranger role. As Senior Ranger, they found this role with focus on integrating cultural practices into IRG activities and ensuring the intergenerational transfer of knowledge more satisfying than the Ranger Coordinator role with its focus on administration and maintenance of largely external relationships. Conversely, another interview participant planned to leave the Senior Ranger role to fill the Ranger Coordinator role and was concerned about who would be available to undertake the cultural aspects of managing the IRG. In one of the locally hosted groups without a Senior Ranger position, interview participants complained that the newly arrived non-Indigenous Ranger Coordinator did not know any of the cultural protocols and was not including the right people in consultations. This had reduced project casual employment opportunities and omitted Landowners from fire planning processes.

When asked about poor outcomes or factors thwarting outcomes from SFM projects, people were reluctant to discuss problems; interview participants were uniformly optimistic. Nonetheless, in discussing project details, themes emerged across interviews about issues that detract from project outcomes (Table 5).

Fire has deep cultural significance to Aboriginal people across Arnhem Land. In addition to using fire for cultural purposes, the application of fire can improve access to the Country for hunting and harvesting, which can incentivise the use of fire outside of the IRG fire management program. Sometimes, this is done by Landowners; at other times, it can be community members with no recognised cultural authority to burn but with a wish to hunt in or access an area. Late dry season fires are an issue of concern as they can have damaging environmental, cultural and carbon abatement outcomes. These fires may have anthropogenic or natural ignition sources, and preventing their spread is difficult in the late dry season due to hot, dry and often windy conditions. While cool season mosaic burning remains the primary defence to limit the extent of late-season fires, wildfire suppression techniques are undertaken across Arnhem Land to defend and reinforce existing already burnt areas. These fire suppression techniques require the use of helicopters to fly to fire fronts and drop on-ground personnel with backpack leaf blowers to extinguish active fires. This requires high levels of organisation, resourcing, rapid deployment and specialised skills. There is recognised value in suppressing wildfires to reduce biodiversity impacts and retain carbon stores, but it is an expensive and relatively high-risk activity.

Landowners retain the right to burn their own estate as per legislation (Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976), and the negotiated agreement between IRGs and Landowners for control and access to an estate for savanna fire management does not include an obligation on behalf of the Landowners not to burn.

Education programs within townships about the costs of late season burning and encouraging fire management to remain limited to IRGs were suggested as potential solutions by interview participants. Some interviewees see non-Landowners abstaining from burning as a test of cultural respect and lament the lack of respect displayed when community members initiate late season burns for hunting or recreational purposes, especially on Country that is not theirs. An alternative solution proposed in the interviews was payment directly to Landowners to disperse the benefits from the project and encourage Landowners to enforce their cultural authority more directly to achieve a cohesive whole-of-community approach to fire management.

The lack of Landowner oversight of land management decisions was seen as a barrier to positive SFM project outcomes for 80% of interview participants. Land management and culture are strongly intertwined in Arnhem Land, but this is not always reflected in organisational structures. As outlined in the principles of governance for SFM projects, ideally Landowners have oversight of all land management activities. This oversight is often difficult to enact due to IRGs being hosted by existing township entities or managed by remote host entities with limited objectives regarding land management matters or with limited capacity to support IRGs creating strong links with Landowners.

A lack of focus on land management activities by local and remote hosts reduces the capacity of IRGs to prioritise cultural practice in land management activities and to achieve priorities in carbon abatement projects. Host entities that administer IRG grants and have executive responsibilities often provide diluted attention to land management priorities given other competing responsibilities. The management team within local host organisations can also have varying levels of sympathy or interest in land management priorities, with little accountability to Landowners for program outcomes. As a result, IRGs fluctuate in their capacity to support cultural practice, depending on their host entity’s current priorities and staffing capability, which in turn can reduce the capacity of both Rangers and Landowners to influence Project outcomes.

Three models exist within the Arnhem Land region for hosting IRGs and for collective decision-making about land management as described below (see Fig. 3). These models are analysed and compared using three governance attributes identifed in interviews that support SFM project success. Attributes include (1) membership at place-based scales with processes for participation and representation; (2) corporate objectives and processes to establish SFM Project development, reinvestment and benefit distribution priorities; and (3) active promotion of Landowner–IRG relationship to maintain connection between legal right (Landowners) and project operations (IRG). The ability of independent land management organisations to focus on land management and the priorities of Landowners was emphasised in interviews. It was noted that both locally and remotely hosted organisations had numerous other roles to undertake and were sometimes not willing or able to pursue the requests of Landowners or IRGs regarding land management priorities. Interview participants noted that discretionary funding and additional capacity built through SFM projects, both through externally recruited roles and through the enhanced leadership of Landowners, have enabled the three independent land management organisations to be established.

Fig. 3.

Conceptual model of relationship between Landowners, Indigenous Ranger Group and other non-land management related tasks in independent land management entity.

Three of the nine IRGs contracted by ALFA to undertake SFM project operations are independent land management organisations. Discretionary income available from SFM projects has been essential to these organisations for accessing required capital to establish independent organisations. These organisations enable frequent communication between Landowners and IRGs, with clear oversight of the operations and organisational management by Landowners in the region. This gives Landowners the opportunity to make decisions about land management issues in their region and how funding for and from land management activities is invested. It also requires that appropriate resources – operational, administrative and business, are available for the organisation to remain sustainable.

Four of the nine IRG’s contracted to ALFA for SFM operations have an existing local auspicing entity to enable IRG grant funding administration – a local organisation in a township within or adjacent to the operational area of the IRG. The dashed lines in Fig. 4. indicate the variability in the arrangements of these organisations. (1) membership of the organisation may be place-based, but processes for representation or participation can be absent or insufficient for the cultural nuances of land management activities; (2) these entities may/may not have objectives and processes to ensure IRG development, reinvestment or benefit distribution; (3) a lack of clear objectives and competing interests within the organisation may diminish capacity to foster active Landowner-IRG relationships, risking weak links between project legal right and operations. The organisations often have limited capacity to undertake core responsibilities and are stretched to administer IRGs with their additional operational and SFM business complexity. Interview participants believed that strong interaction between Landowners and Rangers within locally hosted IRGs and reinvestment into SFM projects is required to achieve desired operational and subsequent cultural, economic, social and environmental outcomes (25%, n = 6).

Fig. 4.

Conceptual model of relationship between Landowners and Indigenous Ranger Group and other non-land management related tasks in local host entity.

Two of the nine IRGs contracted by ALFA to undertake SFM project operations are remotely hosted by the Northern Land Council¹ (see Fig. 5). The geographical distance between the administrative centre in Darwin and operations in Arnhem Land is substantial (>600 km). (1) membership at place-based scale with processes for participation and representation is established through local IPA Committee. The committee’s ability to inform operational, administrative and business priorities of the SFM project is limited; (2) corporate objectives and processes to establish SFM project development, reinvestment and benefit distribution exist, but can be difficult for local IPA Committee to influence; (3) active promotion of Landowner–IRG relationship to maintain connection between legal right and project operations is undertaken by local IPA committee. A Landowner Committee is established to facilitate communication between IRGs and Landowners to oversee social, cultural and environmental project outcomes. Interview participants noted that although they make decisions about land management activities, decisions about money are made remotely with limited influence from Landowners and IRGs (10%, n = 2). This curtails many of the politico-cultural outcomes generated by SFM projects in alternative IRG governance arrangements.

Fig. 5.

Conceptual model of relationship between Landowners and Indigenous Ranger Group and other non-land management related tasks in remote host entity.

ALFA acts as an aggregating intermediary, accommodating various models of collective choice within the contracted IRGs at the administrative and operational scales of SFM Projects. The capacity to undertake complex business and administrative roles where land management activities intersect with carbon accounting and market exchanges is centralised in ALFA. To remain legitimate in such a powerful brokering role, ALFA is governed by a Board of Directors comprising representatives from a suite of ‘Wards’ that represent the operational area of participating IRGs (Fig. 6). Members (who must be Landowners from a designated Ward region in Arnhem Land) elect two Directors for 3 years. As well as ensuring that each Ward member is familiar with business and administration arrangements, this structure enables Landowners to have equal participatory project oversight despite the diverse governance structures of respective IRGs. This allows for cross-pollination of ideas between IRGs across Arnhem Land and facilitates Landowner access to external networks and opportunities that may not be possible within regional IRG governance arrangements.

Fig. 6.

ALFA governance model illustrating the diversity of IRG governance arrangements and Ward representation on the ALFA Board of Directors. In 2022, two remotely hosted IRGs occupied one Ward on the ALFA Board.

Many of the future priorities listed can be interpreted as an umbrella concept for a ‘good life’: ensuring future generations have opportunities to learn and lead with a strong knowledge of Aboriginal culture, strengthening IRGs to support the positive outcomes they deliver to people and Country, and engaging with training, employment, and enterprise options to develop viable livelihoods for people in their region. The achievement of these priorities requires the agency to make decisions at a scale that respects people–place relationships and promotes bespoke local benefits.

The Senior Ranger is a leadership position established across IRGs in Arnhem Land. Senior Rangers have substantial cultural authority and recognised knowledge in their community, coordinating the communications and operations of the IRG in accordance with cultural priorities, optimising ‘the right people in the right place’ for Landowner consultations and the cultural practice and intergenerational knowledge transfer opportunities on Country during operations. These cultural priorities are often not explicitly supported in IRG programs funded by the State (Yap and Yu 2016; Austin et al. 2018; Macdonald 2019). During the first 7 years of ALFA operations, discretionary funds through carbon market engagement have been reinvested into cultural priorities such as Women’s IRGs, Rock Art Programs and further employment and equipment for IRG activities (ALFA (Arnhem Land Fire Abatement NT Ltd) 2022).

The decision-making space between the Ranger Coordinator and the Senior Ranger is a significant site of two-way knowledge production in the governance of the Arnhem Land SFM projects. Operations are also intercultural, with emphasis placed on two-way science to accommodate western ideas of land management into Indigenous land management practices. The Ranger Coordinator, generally a non-Indigenous tertiary educated employee, is central to successful IRG operations through the coordination of logistics, funding and resourcing support. The low level of discussion and reference to the Ranger Coordinator role in interviews (n = 30% refs = 4) indicates a significant gap in the contemporary Arnhem Land IRG governance ecosystem, further addressed in the discussion. The focus of Arnhem Land leaders when discussing SFM project governance was solely on the cultural significance of the Senior Ranger role.

In Arnhem Land SFM projects, Aboriginal people with the required Western Knowledge to take intercultural leadership positions, such as the Ranger Coordinator role within the IRG, appear to be prioritising the Senior Ranger role to focus on the practice and transfer of Indigenous Knowledge to future generations. The Senior Ranger role is internally focused, with significant cultural knowledge required to perform the role. This prioritisation of the Knowledge system most at risk and holding the highest value to the place-based community puts Aboriginal leaders in a difficult position: they forego the opportunity to straddle intercultural divides and build bridges between Knowledge systems.

Although local Indigenous applicants are preferred for Ranger Coordinator roles, most Ranger Coordinators are tertiary educated, non-Indigenous or non-local Indigenous staff that move to the community for their employment period. This fact, coupled with the role’s demands, often leads to high turnover rates in Ranger Coordinator positions, contrasting with the locally based Ranger staff. This can create leadership turbulence within IRGs that affects work programs for months or years. This goes on to affect employment opportunities, funding opportunities and land management outcomes for the local community. It can also work against effective operation, governance, and economic viability of contracted IRGs in SFM projects.

ALFA and the discretionary income produced by SFM projects assist in managing this risk through additional support for operations and communications for IRGs within the partnership. ALFA also provides external partnership opportunities at an alternative institutional scale, constraining the ability of individual Ranger Coordinators to dominate or jeopardise external relationships (Woodward 2008). The Ranger Coordinator has apowerful role in establishing and maintaining relationships and opportunities for IRGs through external partnerships. Recruiting local Aboriginal people to the community-based Ranger Coordinator brokering role facilitates bridging Western and Indigenous Knowledge systems and promotes long-term commitment to the region. This would improve the potential for long-term stability in the role and greater capacity building in the region (Woodward 2008; Robinson and Wallington 2012). Future research to understand the barriers to recruiting local Aboriginal people into the Ranger Coordinator role would be valuable.

A future priority for interview participants in this research is to establish autonomous land management agencies at a scale that captures culturally meaningful relationships in decision-making. Delivering specialised services for the business and administration of ecosystem service economies whilst enabling decision-making at a people–place scale creates tension in the governance of organisations in Arnhem Land. The organisational alignments required to engage with carbon markets have triggered innovation over the last decade, with the emergence of ALFA and three IRGs within Arnhem Land that have moved from being administered through a remote or local hosting entity (refer Figs 3–5) to independent IRG governance at a people–place scale. Governance ecosystems in Arnhem Land will likely undergo further innovation to accommodate hybrid customary and State economies to access market opportunities such as contracted land and sea management, biodiversity conservation and nature repair, climate change and carbon, as Landowners negotiate their terms of engagement with these opportunities (Altman 2010; Curchin 2015).

Efforts to decentralise toward people–place scale land management may be destabilised if existing bureaucracies or local organisations move to maintain or increase their influence over the resources generated by SFM projects (Cumming et al. 2020), and the fragmentation of representation toward a localised scale may diminish effective regional representation (Smith 2011). Promoting and maintaining desired independent decision-making over land management priorities will require bespoke arrangements and long-term support from regional and national organisations committed to developing hybrid nature-based livelihoods.