In this article we summarise the key findings of this research for you. We aim to give you valuable insights into the way grazing management can influence woody regeneration, as well as the way it influences carbon sequestration. We also want to share four grazing management principles which can serve as guidance for implementing HIR projects.

The role of grazing management and climate in regeneration

Australian rangelands, which cover approximately 80% of the Australian continent, are playing a major role in helping to reduce climate change. Here, projects are avoiding greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), by retaining vegetation and not clearing it, or by removing CO2 from the atmosphere and storing it in vegetation (e.g. Human-induced regeneration (HIR) method).

These processes are commonly referred to as ‘abatement’ and the rangelands are providing approximately half of the abatement coming from the Australian land sector.

The main way this is achieved is by running nature-based carbon projects that operate under the HIR method. These projects use grazing management to help the native woody vegetation regenerate.

Figure 1: Current spatial distribution of different carbon farming projects across Australia under the ACCU (Australian Carbon Credit Unit) Scheme. Project areas represent project boundaries with colours indicating different vegetation and agricultural methods [Protecting existing forest – Avoided Clearing (AC) & Deforestation (AD); Managed forest and harvesting (Forestry); Assisted regeneration of native forests – (Human-induced Regeneration (HIR) and Native Forest from managed regrowth (NFMR)); Planting native forest – Rapid Environmental Plantings (REP); Soil Carbon; and Savanna Burning (SVB)].

Each tonne of CO2 that is stored in this woody vegetation generates an Australian Carbon Credit Unit (ACCU) that can be sold on the carbon market. Profits from these sales are channelled back through the farm gate, providing an additional source of income as well as an incentive to continue to undertake and expand this valuable work.

The science behind the way this works is that trees and shrubs can absorb CO2 through photosynthesis, forming biomass (trunks, branches, foliage, roots) in which it is stored. This process also contributes to carbon storage in the soil.

Grazing management can influence regeneration of woody vegetation in rangelands both directly and indirectly.

However, in order to optimise regeneration outcomes, grazing management decisions need to be made in response to climate-driven opportunities.

GreenCollar has been doing a lot of work in this area recently.

While climate is an important driver of woody regeneration, well implemented grazing management can ensure this growth reaches its fullest potential to achieve the best, most effective and long lasting results.

For example,

• resting paddocks from grazing during above average rainfall events can help increase successful seedling survival and regeneration because it provides an opportunity for woody seedling germination and recruitment to take place without negative impact from high grazing pressure;

• for regeneration of species that are palatable to livestock, recruitment of woody shrubs and trees will be most successful when rest periods coincide with an above average rainfall event, which triggers germination – ideally, this would be followed-up by further rainfall, which would then ensure establishment and survival of woody regeneration;

• for both palatable and unpalatable species, employing grazing management to achieve increased levels of ground cover will result in ideal seedbed conditions for successful germination and establishment – because it improves landscape function by retaining soil moisture and protecting seedlings.

Climate influences diet selection among herbivores

Understanding what and where animals graze is an important consideration in managing native woody vegetation in rangelands. In order to influence regeneration outcomes, management decisions need to respond to climate-driven opportunities and risks. Opportunities come about from high rainfall events. Risks result from protracted periods of low rainfall.

What animals prefer to eat, and what they actually eat, will depend on the seasonal conditions and the other types of feed that is available.

In the rangelands, the prevailing seasonal conditions determine the availability of forage, which then influences grazing patterns. Different herbivores will each have different dietary preferences. But what they eat is determined by what else is on offer.

When diverse sources of forage are abundant, livestock and feral animals are able to be more selective in their diets. They can choose their preferred options (preferences) based largely on the species they find most palatable. They can do this because there is plenty of feed on offer.

By contrast, under dry conditions, the available feed options are reduced and dietary preferences can shift.

Goats will always consume a large proportion and a wider range of tree and shrub species relative to sheep and cattle. Sheep (Merino) and cattle ordinarily prefer pasture.

For example, under good seasonal conditions, the diet of a goat may contain up to 83% of hopbush (Dodonea viscosa). At the same time, merino sheep may have <6% of mulga (Acacia aneura) in their diets.

However, under dry conditions, merino sheep can increase their consumption of mulga to around 22% of their diets.

In fact, under deteriorating seasonal conditions, sheep, goats, cattle (and rabbits) will each increase their potential to consume a greater proportion of woody vegetation (seedlings, young and mature plants) than they would consume when conditions are good.

Under extremely dry conditions, most livestock, native and feral animals can turn to vegetation that would ordinarily be unpalatable to them.

Grazing behaviour changes in response to the availability of water

The distance livestock, native and feral animals have to travel to water will influence where they graze.

Waterpoints act as a focal point for animals, so grazing impact will be greatest close to water and decrease with distance from water.

This zone of impact is referred to as the ‘piosphere’.

The size of a paddock, the number of water points and dietary preferences will alter or distort the pattern of grazing. Merino sheep and goats will graze within 3 km of a water source. Cattle can graze up to 5 to 10 km from water. However, most of the time, grazing takes place close to water.

For example, cattle will spend 80 – 90% of their time grazing within 2-3 km from water.

Livestock and feral animals are more dependent on water than kangaroos which, while they can also graze 5 to 10 km from water, are more efficient at conserving water than domestic animals.

Many factors influence an animal’s demand for water. These include body condition, animal physiology and temperature.

The piosphere effect illustrates the importance of water-point management and the role of infrastructure (water points and fencing) in influencing grazing behaviour. However, the availability of forage is the most important factor.

What is total grazing pressure and grazing intensity?

The combined impact of grazing on vegetation, which includes livestock, feral and native herbivores, is referred to as total grazing pressure. It is a significant factor in influencing the balance between pasture and woody vegetation.

At times the total grazing pressure can be almost double the grazing intensity exerted by livestock alone. It is therefore essential to manage all components of total grazing pressure, including domestic and non-domestic herbivores.

What impact does grazing management have on carbon sequestration?

Grazing management has the potential to directly affect the pattern of woody growth over time, and consequently the amount of carbon sequestration at critical stages of growth, which include:

• initial condition of the landscape (how much the land is degraded)
• woody germination and establishment
• woody growth and drought-induced mortality

and indirectly by influencing:

• the size of the regenerating soil seed bank, and
• the incidence of fire.

In the early stages of regeneration, grazing management will primarily influence patterns of carbon sequestration by influencing the fate of woody seedlings and the early growth of juvenile plants. Specific grazing management activities that will assist these stages include:

• the removal of grazing by all herbivores
• the manipulation of the type of herbivore (e.g., cattle vs sheep or goats – see above), and
• the control of total grazing pressure.

Additionally, grazing management can influence the accumulation of carbon stocks at other stages of the regeneration process. This is particularly the case in the early years of a project when the height of regenerating woody plants are still within the grazing reach of livestock or feral herbivores.

Grazing management has the potential to influence the magnitude and pattern of carbon accumulation by:

• dictating the size of the soil seed bank available to commence the regeneration process by providing a buffer against the effects of seed predation (e.g harvesting by ants) and (long-lasting) effects of preceding fire on seed production of woody species;
• influencing the functionality of the landscape within the carbon project area as this affects retention of water needed to create ideal seedbed conditions and to support establishment and growth;
• determining successful establishment by ensuring the survival of seedlings during the first summer and potentially regulating competitive effects between pasture biomass and seedlings;
• determining the growth rate of young plants and thus the time required to reach reproductive maturity, forest canopy height, and the susceptibility of regenerating stands to future drought (to the extent this is determined by plant size); and
• regulating the level of fuel (for example, from grasses) within HIR projects and surrounding areas, can reduce the likelihood and severity of a fire that could have a negative impact on regenerating woody vegetation.

Figure 4: These photographs show the impact of grazing less palatable species following dry periods when little alternative forage is available. The photo on the left shows a clear browse line in Limestone Wattle (Acacia sclerosperma) found in Western Australia. The photo on the right shows re-sprouting Buddah (Eremophila mitchellii), which is widespread across eastern Australian rangelands, re-sprouting after effective grazing management decisions have been made.

Key take-aways

Our research demonstrates that, while rainfall patterns set the potential for carbon accumulation in HIR projects, it is clear that management of grazing can directly and indirectly enhance this process in varying ways at different stages of the lifecycle of regenerating native woody vegetation.

Specifically, understanding and applying principles for successful grazing management can positively influence:

• initial landscape condition,
• germination and establishment,
• growth and mortality, and
• will determine the direction and pattern of carbon accumulation.

The grazing management principles below are intended to support landholders in the management of carbon projects.

Two main methods

The two main methods that were developed are known, in short-cut, as the managed fertiliser and the gully rehabilitation method.

They work on the same principle as a carbon project. Instead of amounts of carbon removed from the atmosphere, amounts of DIN and fine sediment that are prevented from entering the waters of the Great Barrier Reef generate a credit that can be sold on an environmental market. In this case, it is the Reef Credit market instead of the carbon market.

Under the managed fertiliser method, GreenCollar establishes a seven year baseline (similar to the 10 year baseline in a carbon project) by assessing records of fertiliser application, soil tests, crop and pasture yield and other land management information.

Then, when the project commences, a project plan is prepared for implementation. It outlines changes to farming practices, which are aimed at reducing the DIN used in the project area. A projection of the number of Reef Credits that the project should generate is included.

For managed fertiliser projects, one Reef Credit is equivalent to one kilogram of DIN prevented from reaching the waters of the Great Barrier Reef.

The gully method is a much more infrastructure-intensive undertaking. It involves re-engineering the landscape to remediate the sizeable erosion gullies, as well as producing a project plan to manage the land once it is reinstated. Remediation of gullies can include reshaping, revegetating, engineering control structures and managing grazing.

Planning involves land surveys, water flow modelling and aerial imagery analysis in order to prepare the conceptual designs and scope of works.

For every 538 kilograms of fine sediment that is prevented from reaching the Great Barrier Reef, one Reef Credit is generated.

On this basis, it is easy to appreciate that managed fertiliser projects have been much easier to get off the ground. They have been the source of the 46,000 Reef Credits that have so far been delivered.

However, last year, we were extremely proud to see the first gully project come into being.

The first Reef Credit project to tackle fine sediment pollution

The first gully rehabilitation project was implemented on 40 hectares by the owners of a property in the Bowen River catchment in north Queensland. The construction phase was completed in mid 2025.

It is the first gully rehabilitation project of its kind in the world using a market-based approach to catchment restoration.

Before

The constructed system prevents fine sediment run-off by employing erosion control techniques which include landforming, improvement in soil condition, installation of engineered controls to halt and slow sediment mobilisation and the stabilisation of soil with native revegetation. Our engineering partner was Verterra Ecological Engineering.

The project was largely made possible because of an agreement with Far North Queensland ports operator, Ports North. Ports North committed to purchasing Reef Credits from the project over three years. This will satisfy part of their approval under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act for their Cairns Shipping Development Project, which is deepening and widening the shipping channel network.

In effect, the amount of prevented sediment represented by the Reef Credits purchased over the three years will offset that produced by the Cairns Shipping Development Project.

At the same time, after covering the construction costs put up by GreenCollar, proceeds from the sale will go to the landholder.

After

The successful implementation of this project has already provided confidence in the Reef Credit market: a number of other land managers are now in the planning stages of gully projects.

As these projects scale and expand, more and more erosion gullies will be remediated, preventing significant amounts of fine sediment from entering the catchment areas which flow into the Great Barrier Reef.

At the same time, improvements in land management are helping to improve the bottom line for the agriculturalists taking on these projects.

This criticism we are referring to uses the Australian Government’s National Forest and Sparse Woody Vegetation (NFSWV) data set.

This data set is derived from Landsat imagery and was designed to assess national-scale changes in woody vegetation cover.

The critics looked at this data in relation to 182 HIR projects in Australia.

Landsat imagery is high-quality satellite imagery of Earth’s land surfaces.

It has been collected jointly by NASA and the US Geological Survey on a continuous basis since 1972.

Researchers have used Landsat’s archive to study how cities have grown, coastlines have shifted, crop cycles have changed and how forests have transformed.

These are broad changes detected over a landscape.

Since 1988, it has also provided imagery that tracks changes in woody vegetation cover, updating it on an almost annual basis.

Cathy and her colleagues compared this publicly available NFSWV data to high-resolution airborne LiDAR obtained from representative HIR project sites in the Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia rangelands.

(LiDAR is an active remote sensing technology that uses laser light pulses to measure distances and create precise, 3D representations of environments and objects).

In looking further into the analysis that forms the foundation of the criticisms, another important point to understand is that the NFSWV images are taken from space and are made up of pixels that each represent approximately 30 square metres of land.

Though this means large areas of land can be captured, the resolution is not high – it is not detailed enough to detect changes in individual plants or at the property scale, where carbon projects operate.

In contrast, LiDAR has a much finer spatial resolution, capable of charting an individual tree or stand of vegetation.

Categorising growth phases

These NFSWV satellite images classify the density of vegetation into three categories: non-woody (less than 5% cover), sparse woody (5-19% cover) and forest (20% cover or more).

The illustration below shows what this looks like.

The classification of this imagery into these three categories is driven by the level of detail that the imagery can detect.

While it is sufficient to group stands of vegetation into each of these three categories of growth, there is no finer detail available.

This means that only changes between categories can be detected.

Changes that occur within a category can not be detected.

The growth in HIR projects, which absorbs and stores carbon as trees regenerate – and is measured to generate credits, takes place wholly within the ‘sparse woody’ category.

Under the HIR method, evidence of this transitioning growth must be tracked over a 15-year timeframe, using regular ‘gateway checks’.

It is during this growth phase that the trees absorb and store carbon, every tonne of which generates a carbon credit.

Only areas that pass gateways can generate credits.

The 15 year timeframe is a representation of how long it takes these trees to grow to a point where they can satisfy the technical definition of ‘forest cover’.

Our investigation of the claims

As we have explained, the classification system on which the criticisms rely can only detect whether vegetation fits into one of the three categories.

It cannot detect if growth is ‘taking place’ within the middle ‘sparse woody’ category.

However, LiDAR can detect this detail and, along with on ground measurement, has provided the evidence that these claims are wrong.

Additionally, on a number of occasions, tests by Cathy’s team have shown that the analysis the critics conducted miscategorised the vegetation.

Specifically, NFSWV detected 40% less sparse woody vegetation than LiDAR.

This was mostly in relation to early stage regeneration, which NFSWV categorised as sitting within the ‘non-forest’ category.

It also commonly misrepresented forest cover (>20%) as sparse woody vegetation.

Another point that is critical to understand is that all HIR projects are only in their early to mid-life stages. The oldest projects are less than 10 years old. So none of these projects are near transitioning to forest cover (the 15 year point).

Ill-matched comparison areas

The analysis the critics undertook also relied on the use of comparison areas, which are a standard feature of experimental design.

Good quality comparison areas would feature similar initial vegetation condition, soil properties, hydrological regimes, fire history, historical and current land management practices, and so on.

However, rather than undertaking research that would identify areas in the proximity that would approximate the landscape and condition of the projects areas, they simply looked at areas that were within 3km of the project perimeter.

This resulted in poorly matched comparison areas which differed significantly in size and character.

This comparison could not therefore be relied upon to indicate whether regeneration was the result of HIR processes that did not exist before the project, or not.

Why this matters

This sort of flawed analysis has driven significant criticism of HIR projects.

We wanted to provide you with evidence and reassurance that it is incorrect.

Though the HIR method has come to an end (‘sunsetted’) and no new HIR projects can commence, the existing projects continue toward forest attainment and their permanence period.

The projects we have developed with landholders operate under the highest levels of scientific and technical knowledge available to us today. And we continue to update our processes as advances in technology and science develop.

We stand by our projects.

This sort of criticism will continue and we will continue to sense check it and defend our partners and projects against inaccuracy.

Next-generation vegetation methods

Our contribution to the development of two significant next-generation vegetation methods, designed to expand opportunities for farmers and landholders to participate in environmental markets, while maintaining high environmental integrity, was of particular importance.

The first of these, the proposed Avoided Re-clearing and Native Reforestation (ARNR) method, would combine avoided re-clearing of native forests with native reforestation through planting or natural regeneration.

The Queensland Government, which is leading the development of the method, responded positively to many of GreenCollar’s recommendations.

The proposed Integrated Farm and Land Management (IFLM) method is the second, which would provide a modular ACCU Scheme framework. It would allow landholders to combine multiple vegetation and carbon management activities across a single property within one audit and reporting structure.

Our feedback contributed to the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water strengthening its recognition of direct biomass measurement, which can provide greater confidence that credited carbon outcomes reflect what is measured on the ground.

We also participated in consultation on the Carbon Farming Outreach Program, contributing practical insights to the development of training and resources for landholders who are considering participation in carbon markets.

GreenCollar advocated for practical eligibility and implementation settings that recognise the realities of land management while maintaining strong environmental integrity.

Policy processes

Beyond carbon, GreenCollar contributed to national and state policy processes covering environmental law reform, water quality, primary industries, conservation and carbon-farming development.

These included the Senate inquiry into Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act reform, the Productivity Commission’s Net Zero inquiry and consultations in Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia.

Across these consultations, GreenCollar advocated for policies that deliver meaningful environmental outcomes, maintain market integrity, reduce unnecessary barriers for landholders, provide greater certainty for long-term projects and attract private investment into regional Australia.

Our advocacy draws on detailed technical and scientific analysis to provide governments with the evidence needed to support practical policy positions and workable solutions.

This combination of practical experience and technical expertise will be particularly important when GreenCollar contributes to the Australian Government’s 2026–27 review of the Safeguard Mechanism, which will help shape future demand for ACCUs and investment in carbon projects.

As governments continue to reform Australia’s carbon and nature markets, GreenCollar will continue bringing practical experience from regional Australia into policy discussions.

We will continue helping to ensure environmental markets remain credible, investable and capable of delivering lasting benefits for farmers, communities and nature.