Not All Hectares Are Equal

Rewild Capital. in partnership with REHerd Africa

Carbon projects have traditionally treated rangelands as uniform, pricing hectares equally based on satellite greenness or simple area calculations. Our recent grazing feasibility study across southern African rangelands shows that a more targeted approach is needed. By stratifying landscapes by ecological condition, we can identify where investment and management will yield the greatest gains in natural capital.

Using K-means clustering on a 90-metre grid, combining data on grazing capacity, rainfall, rain-use efficiency, grass cover, and grass-cover trends unveils four ecological classes. Each has a distinct carrying capacity, degradation patterns, and restoration potential. These classes help us compare and prioritise areas for restoration and carbon investment based on their current condition and potential for improvement.

The four clusters — and what they mean for restoration potential

1. Portfolio anchor (Stable, high-capacity; C2)

C2 zones have high grass cover and rain-use efficiency, and positive grass trends (+2.3% per year). They have moderate grazing capacity (0.02 LUs / ha). These areas are performing well, but current stocking rates already exceed modelled capacity, leaving no room for more grazing. For carbon, these are conservation-hold zones. The focus should be on protecting existing soil and grass carbon stocks. Careful, planned grazing will help maintain ecosystem function and support ongoing soil carbon sequestration.

2. Distressed assets (Degraded, high-capacity; C3)

C3 clusters have the highest rainfall and carbon sequestration potential, as well as the highest rain-use efficiency and modelled grazing capacity (0.03 LUs / ha), but currently show negative grass trends (-0.3% per year) and low grass cover. These areas could support more grazers if managed properly, and in some corridors, forage reserves remain despite degradation. Restoration in C3 zones would deliver additional carbon gains, since without intervention, grass cover and soil carbon would continue to decline. Any improvements can be directly attributed to targeted restoration. So, while C3 areas have high potential, they are currently undervalued due to bush encroachment and overgrazing. By applying strategic herding, kraaling, bush-thinning, and fire management, these areas can deliver significant biodiversity and carbon gains while restoring grazing capacity.

3. Restoration Required (Degraded, low-Capacity; C1)

C1 areas have low productivity, declining grass cover (-0.7% per year), and are highly vulnerable to further degradation as they have the second-lowest grazing capacity (0.02 LUs / ha). Carbon finance here will need both concessionary and commercial funding to support restoration before carbon yields can be realised. While these areas require a longer-term strategy, they are essential to landscape resilience, especially if seasonal grazing plans are implemented.

4. The Hold (Stable, low-Capacity; C0)

C0 zones have high grass cover but low productivity and efficiency, and the lowest modelled grazing capacity (0.01 LUs / ha). The recommended approach is to protect existing cover, monitor closely, and avoid additional grazing pressure that could tip a stable but fragile system into decline.

‍

The Opportunity

African rangelands face mounting pressure from grazing and land conversion, but also support critical biodiversity (Hayley Clements  https://tinyurl.com/54a4znph). In the assessed landscapes, spatial analysis found that only a portion of the proposed cattle allocations are ecologically feasible, while others could be viable if livestock is redistributed from the most fragile clusters. Matching livestock demand to modelled forage supply, cluster by cluster and pixel by pixel, with depletion accounting and seasonal safety margins, shows how science can guide effective carbon projects. For developers and investors, ecological risk stratification is essential. It shows which areas are immediate investment priorities for restoration, which need careful protection, and which are longer-term natural assets for broader landscape resilience.

The standard approach for carbon projects—drawing a project boundary, estimating average values, and applying a single methodology—overlooks the spatial variation and rangeland heterogeneity that determine whether carbon gains are real and lasting. Cluster-based stratification highlights three key factors that flat-average accounting misses:

• Where additionality actually exists. C3 zones are declining without intervention. Restoration in these areas generates carbon gains that would not happen under business-as-usual, meeting the core test of additionality.

• Where reversal risk is highest. In some areas, proposed cattle allocations would create significant forage deficits across multiple clusters. Recognising this reversal risk to soil carbon allows us to design projects and interventions that align investment with priority areas and improve project viability.

• Where management intensity must match ambition. In areas where more grazing is unavoidable, safeguards such as planned herding, mobile kraaling, and water-point governance are essential (for example, through the REHerd Africa model). Carbon projects in these zones require real operational commitment, not just monitoring plans on paper.

The Road Ahead

If you want to build a resilient carbon portfolio based on real ecological performance, act now. Contact us to arrange a feasibility assessment or strategic consultation for your landscape. Position your project for proven, bankable carbon outcomes.

‍