By Sakaria Shilongo
In late September 2025, a significant wildfire scorched approximately one-third to two-fifths of Namibia’s Etosha National Park, releasing a substantial pulse of non‑CO₂ emissions (CH₄ and N₂O) and CO₂, while some carbon remains as char and much of the CO₂ in savanna systems is typically re‑sequestered as vegetation regrows.
This event exemplifies a material carbon sequestration reversal, a key concept in Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use (AFOLU) accounting, and serves as a reminder of the challenges non‑permanence events pose for climate mitigation.
Understanding carbon reversal and non-permanence
Carbon sequestration through biomass growth stores greenhouse gases (GHGs) over decades, providing a crucial natural climate solution.
However, wildfires, such as the recent Etosha fire, release a large share of accumulated biomass carbon as trace gases (CH₄, N₂O) and CO, together with CO₂; some carbon persists as char, and in savanna/grassland systems the CO₂ released by burning is generally re‑sequestered over subsequent regrowth.
Using the IPCC 2006 AFOLU Tier 1 methodology, which for savanna/grassland burning reports non‑CO₂ gases (CH₄ and N₂O) only, and using mid‑/late‑dry‑season fuel‑consumption defaults, the fire’s non‑CO₂ pulse inside the park is approximately 0.43–0.65 million tCO₂e.
This applies Tier‑1 default emission factors for CH₄ and N₂O and AR6 GWP₁₀₀ values to reflect their differing climate impacts (CO₂ from savanna burning is not reported under Tier‑1 due to expected re‑sequestration).
This emission pulse is a classic “non‑permanence” event in AFOLU carbon accounting, wherein previously sequestered carbon is lost suddenly, undermining carbon stock integrity.
Non‑permanence challenges the durability of carbon offset credits and complicates long‑term carbon management, underscoring the importance of implementing Measurement, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) protocols that can robustly track both gains and reversals.
Valuing the carbon loss: An illustrative financial perspective
Namibia currently does not have an established carbon market framework that would recognize or trade such carbon sequestration from protected savanna and woodland ecosystems.
However, if Etosha’s savanna and woodland biomass carbon stocks were to be valued in existing international carbon markets, the non‑CO₂ emissions from the wildfire (per Tier‑1) suggest significant financial losses.
The Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), an economic metric that quantifies the societal harm of each tonne of CO₂ emitted, is estimated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency at approximately US$190 per tCO₂. Applying this figure as an illustrative per‑tCO₂e proxy to the non‑CO₂ pulse yields an illustrative climate damage cost of roughly US$81–$124 million.
Similarly, voluntary carbon market prices and regulated market benchmarks range broadly from around US$6.37 per tCO₂e in voluntary markets, while recent EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) allowances have traded around €78 per tCO₂ (used here only as a price comparator; EU ETS does not accept AFOLU wildfire emissions).
On those references, the non‑CO₂ pulse would imply approximately US$2.7–$4.1 million at recent VCM averages, or €33–€51 million at EU ETS allowance prices (price comparator only, not-realizable).
These calculations are intended to demonstrate the scale of carbon‑related financial risk associated with wildfire‑induced reversals, and to inform the design of reversal‑sensitive policy frameworks and any future market participation.
Implication for climate policy and carbon markets
The Etosha fire spotlights critical considerations for carbon crediting schemes and national greenhouse gas inventories under the Paris Agreement. High‑integrity AFOLU accounting must anticipate and address “reversal risks” linked to fire and other disturbances through conservative baseline setting, buffer pools, and transparent MRV.
Emerging frameworks, such as the Paris Agreement’s Article 6.4 supervisory body draft standards, are beginning to embed explicit requirements to manage reversals fully, including post‑crediting monitoring and reversal reporting.
This strengthens credibility and helps ensure emission reductions are balanced against potential non‑permanence liabilities.
Furthermore, fire management strategies that reduce the severity and frequency of catastrophic late dry season fires, like Early Dry Season (EDS) burns, offer scientifically supported pathways to improve carbon permanence.
Applying EDS reduces methane (CH₄) and nitrous oxide (N₂O) emissions, lowers fuel loads, and enhances ecosystem resilience, aligning biodiversity protection with carbon accounting integrity. (In savanna contexts, EDS programs target reductions in non‑CO₂ emissions and overall fire severity.)
Conclusion
The 2025 Etosha wildfire demonstrates how a single event can swiftly reverse years of sequestration and temporarily reduce biomass carbon stocks, underscoring the fragility of natural carbon stocks and the challenges posed by non‑permanence.
While Namibia has yet to develop a domestic carbon market framework that captures these dynamics, the financial and environmental implications highlighted here illustrate the substantial value and risk embedded in protected savanna and woodland ecosystems.
For Namibia and the global community, prioritizing rigorous greenhouse gas accounting, proactive fire management, and reversal‑sensitive carbon market design will be essential to safeguard climate goals and maintain carbon integrity in vulnerable ecosystems.
*Sakaria Shilongo, founder and managing consultant at ScopeZero Advisory (Pty) Ltd. Holds a BSc. in Civil Engineering and currently completing MSc. (Circular Economy and Sustainable Innovations) at ESDES Business School (Lyon, France).
He holds the prestigious certificate in Life Cycle Assessment (Quantifying Environmental Impacts) from MIT and is a GRI and CSRD certified sustainability reporting professional. For business enquiries: Email: contact@scopezeroadvisory.com
