# Executive summary

HOW to fund, farm, and reforest trees that have side-benefits – and babies!

**Nature does not respond to talk. We've crossed 7/9 planetary boundaries. In 2026, we don't need to quantify *****why***** to plant a tree. We just need to plant one — or pay the person who did.** 

This methodology works at smallfarmer-scale (one hectare). It works to fund more trees in three ways (agroforestry, reforestation, *or* natural regrowth) — more trees are alive and growing. It also works for agrobiodiversity, and these layers overlap. It's a payment protocol, in other words grassroots people get paid, cash, not talked to or about. It was co-developed with Indigenous Peoples and local communities in the humid tropics, *then* translated for global markets by a small team of scientists. It pays cash in exchange for outcomes anyone can verify by walking the plot — and [peer validators](/practice-guide/validation/peer-validator-criteria) who do. 

Smallfarmers decide what grows in the tropical forest belt. Roughly 600 million farms under two hectares feed about a third of the planet on a tenth of the agricultural land ([Lowder et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105455)). One billion people live inside the forests themselves ([Newton et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.08.016)). They have not been paid for the land-use decisions they make every day. Less than 1% of global climate finance reaches them ([Gjefsen 2021](https://news.mongabay.com/2021/11/indigenous-people-get-less-than-1-of-climate-funding-its-actually-worse-commentary/)). This is the largest under-priced lever in tangible planetary outcomes, and it is the lever this methodology is built around.

<figure><img src="https://1172926139-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FQlKpTR8KkK45VWYPUpbc%2Fuploads%2FHn3tIVrl8wFmCzDCnT03%2Fsexytrees_payment_mechanism.png?alt=media&amp;token=0c27b5e4-b3b4-486f-ac7a-965a7f8e0e9f" alt="The SexyTrees payment mechanism, shown as four boxes in a left-to-right flow. A teal box on the left represents the upstream seedling production cost ($1 per seedling). Three green boxes follow, showing survival-conditional payments to the farmer: $1 at planting, $0.50 if the tree is alive at six months, and $0.50 if the tree is alive at twelve months. Total cost per surviving tree: $3."><figcaption><p>#SexyTrees finance and economics. Or "HOW to negotiiate with a smallfarmer at a farmers market".</p></figcaption></figure>

**The mechanism is intentionally simple.** $1 to plant a tree. $0.50 if the tree is alive at six months. $0.50 if it's alive at twelve months. One sentence, communicable verbally at a farmers' market anywhere on Earth. The first time we paid for outcomes instead of plans, we hit suspiciously high survival rates — farmers replant when they're paid for living trees, which is the point. All-in cost lands closer to $5 per surviving tree once you include nurseries, monitoring, and field operations. We say so to funders up front; clarity is efficient.

**The supply chain runs through women's groups.** Mobile community nurseries, \~$2,000 to set up, sell seedlings at \~$1/unit. They sidestep most nursery certification regimes, cut transport emissions, and route cash to women who need to stay home with children. The nursery is the most important piece of infrastructure in this protocol — not the kiln, not the drone, and not the eDNA filter.

**Two agroforestry systems bracket the work.** [*Inga* alley cropping](/trees/agroforestry/inga-agroforestry) (*Inga edulis* and related species) is nitrogen-fixing, native to the humid tropics, has three decades of field evidence (Hands et al. 1995, 1998, 2021), and produces a sweet sap that pulls insects off production crops — a benefit smallfarmers see in weeks, not years. The second is the [*chagra*: ancestral Indigenous](/trees/agroforestry/chagras) food forests, place-based, typically tended by elder women, simultaneously food production, childcare, spiritual practice, and school. Between the industrial simplicity of *Inga* and the [biological sophistication of the *chagra*](/trees/chagras) lies most of what is worth saving.

**Credits follow trees, and** [**stack; they do not bundle**](/foundations/orthogonal-stacking#stacking-vs-bundling)**.** The same trees generate biodiversity, carbon, and water data across the dimensions of the [Ecological Benefits Framework (EBF)](/foundations/orthogonal-stacking#orthogonal-ecosystem-dimensions), in separate layers. Tree-based carbon via per-pixel drone NDVI. Biochar via low-tech Kon-Tiki kilns using *Inga* prunings. Biodiversity uplift via eDNA collected through the Water Bucket Protocol. Each is measured ex-post. We credit what happened, not what a model said should happen — under current conditions, there is no other defensible choice (Lorenz 1963; Sakschewski et al. 2025).

**This methodology is bricolage by design.** We name what we don't yet know:

* We do not claim to be agronomists, agroforestry, or forestry experts. We are grassroots economics negotiators living and working on planetary boundaries. We describe a *payment mechanism* that rewards them, specifically if they are at a disadvantage in advocating for themselves.
* We do not claim to have the final word on crediting climate credits from these systems. This science is rapidly evolving, and markets are in upheaval. What we can do is tell you how we are *currently* derisking our data collection and market strategy. In general, trees are paid immediately, pilot data is collected now; IBUs and other credits are credited retroactively once the science clears.
* We do not credit ex-ante climate credits of any kind. With seven of nine planetary boundaries crossed, modeling future ecosystem trajectories isn't epistemically defensible. (Less than one-fifth of carbon credits surveyed in recent literature constitute real emission reductions; [Probst et al. 2024](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-53645-z). The receipts are public.)
* We do not quantify some Indigenous work, such as the *chagra*. It resists standardized metrics by design, falls under protected Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), and our role is to financially support its preservation through agrobiodiversity markets, not to flatten it into a credit.

**The funding model is insetting, not REDD+.** Trees are sold directly via grants and supply-chain agreements with European companies sourcing agricultural products from project regions. Land is not for sale. (European climate funds keep asking. We keep saying no.)

**This methodology was designed for behavior change.** Carbon was the wrong initial transaction point for tropical smallfarmers — invisible, slow, and structured around timelines that grassroots economies don't run on. *Trees* are visible, verifiable, and immediately tangible. By making restorative agroforestry the most financially rational choice at the one-hectare level, and by routing revenue directly to the farmers and Indigenous Peoples who generate it, the protocol moves money to the people with the most direct power over tropical forest outcomes. They have always been the lowest-cost restoration force on the planet. Now they get paid like it.

**Status.** We're already planting and selling #SexyTrees. Google it; we usually come up third. The protocol is in active pilot across sites in Colombia, Ecuador, Brazil, and Mexico. It has been reviewed publicly and privately by global experts in agroforestry, biodiversity science, complexity theory, and market design. It is published under CC BY 4.0 — free for academic, NGO, community, project developer, and commercial use with attribution. Certifiers incorporating it into paid certification services enter a royalty agreement with Savimbo Inc.

**The question this methodology was born from is the one it still asks:** what's worth more, an ideal scientific protocol that nobody plants under, or thousands of trees alive at twelve months while the science iterates? We placed our bet on the trees. They're in the ground.

> “Trees have already been invented.” — Hecht et al, [Carbon in woodlands](https://doaj.org/article/02c37f7291824564ab8964575f3d5462)

The Savimbo Team\
[eco at savimbo.com](mailto:eco@savimbo.com)\
[savimbo.com ](https://www.savimbo.com/about)

<details>

<summary>© 2026 Savimbo Inc.</summary>

*Suggested citation: Savimbo Inc. (2026). The Savimbo SexyTrees Methodology (#SexyTrees): Executive Summary.*[*https://sexytrees.savimbo.com*](https://sexytrees.savimbo.com/) ​Full methodology: Burbank, D., Lopez, J., Jamauca, L., & Lopez Rojas, A.I. (2026). <https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/EUYMP>

*The #SexyTrees methodology is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0*\
*International (CC BY 4.0). Anyone — academic, NGO, community, project-developer,*\
*or commercial — may freely use, adapt, and build on the methodology, with*\
*attribution.*

*"#SexyTrees" and "Savimbo" are trademarks of Savimbo Inc. and are not licensed*\
*under CC BY 4.0. Applying the methodology is free under that license; using the*\
*#SexyTrees name or seal to brand, market, or sell a certification service*\
*requires a separate trademark licensing (royalty) agreement with Savimbo Inc.*\
*Certifiers: contact* [*eco at savimbo.com*](mailto:eco@savimbo.com)

</details>


# The story behind #SexyTrees: from an Austin pitch to Amazonian reforestation

How the Sexy Trees protocol got named, and why its sexy

In 2022, Savimbo launched with admission to the [SputnikATX accelerator](https://www.sputnikatx.com/) from a whitepaper written during a road trip.&#x20;

All three founders had deep expertise and 10k hours of synergistic domain knowledge. But at first glance, it wasn't apparent. Drea (seemingly an ecotourist), hired Johny (seemingly a hiking guide), and paid him with help from Fernando (seemingly a local fixer). They were sitting at the kitchen table in former FARQ territory in the deep Colombian Amazon when the first $5 in digital money landed in Jhony's first mobile bank account. In that moment, the three of them realized suddenly they had hacked something, a finance problem that Amazon had never solved before. The intersection of Starlink, mobile banking, and digital payments had opened a new horizon to finance conservation precisely on the border of primary forests.&#x20;

Drea buried herself in a month of writing, Fernando cooked, Jhony thought they both were crazy, and the application that emerged landed immediately with funders who knew something innovative when they saw it.&#x20;

But the terms of the initial investment required the three founders to split across two worlds. [Jhony Lopez](https://www.linkedin.com/in/hector-jhony-lopez-381786308/) and [Fernando Lezama](https://www.linkedin.com/in/fernando-lezama-386645299/) were running the first reforestation pilot in the Colombian Amazon — negotiating with a smallfarmer who had cleared his land and was willing to replant. [Drea Burbank](https://www.linkedin.com/in/dreaburbank/), the American co-founder, was eight floors up in a downtown Austin penthouse, next to a petroleum microtrading firm, trying to wire investor money down to a windowless hut by a primary forest.

The cultural and economic distance was bigger than the geographic one. Drea was training the first grassroots staff in broken Spanish over Starlink. Jhony and Fernando, who didn't speak the language of carbon markets and venture capital, were taking pragmatic action anyway — supplementing the planting instructions with what they actually knew, and reporting back in photos and pilot data.&#x20;

They barely knew each other and were almost immediately separated. But they held on to the thread that kept them together and took action anyway. They didn't start with trust; they earned trust. They started with ethics. Each of them independently did what they said they would do.

The first plot went in. A tree at a time. And the photo evidence came back.

<figure><img src="https://1172926139-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FQlKpTR8KkK45VWYPUpbc%2Fuploads%2F5ja0gj1Lk9Nt9OIhNG6K%2Fsexytrees.gif?alt=media&amp;token=9167865a-67ff-4653-b8f7-51c2f53a6424" alt="Jhony Lopez planting the first batch of #SexyTrees. "><figcaption><p><strong>Figure 1</strong>. Savimbo founder Jhony Lopez opening Savimbo´s first Indigenous-led Amazonian reforestation plot.</p></figcaption></figure>

Back in Austin, at the end of the accelerator, Drea received the photos the day she was pitching the project to a room of urban investors. The deck was about carbon markets, methodologies, and Indigenous-led reforestation. Halfway through, she lost her footing. Standing in front of a sea of uncomprehending faces, trying to translate an Amazonian reality to a room that had never been below the canopy, facing her own disconnection, she went silent. Then, recalling the photo, said the only thing she could think of:

*"If you're nice to me, I'll send you a sexy photo of a tree."*

The room laughed - the phrase landing where technical presentations had failed. Then dozens of smiling people approached after the pitch, asking for their photo.  Some of them are still Savimbo subscribers today.

The first photo was a .gif of Jhony framing a hand-planted seedling — the opening of Savimbo's first Indigenous-led Amazonian reforestation plot, in a region with a 10% deforestation rate. He was wearing rubber boots. The tree was small.

That was the meme. That's still the meme. **#SexyTrees** is what we call the trees Savimbo plants and the protocol that pays for them. It's deliberately silly, and it's deliberately tangible. Nature doesn't take payment in the form of talk. Reports, conferences, spreadsheets, AI — none of it gets a single tree into the ground. A photo of a real tree in a real place, planted by a real person who got paid for it, who was trustworthy despite all the reasons not to be, does.

When the accelerator ended, Drea packed her bags. Savimbo was built from below the canopy. It's unabashedly jungle-first — three founders with a shared vision, working to stop deforestation, preserve what was left, and pay the people doing the work.&#x20;

And that's what makes a tree sexy.

<div align="center"><figure><img src="https://1172926139-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FQlKpTR8KkK45VWYPUpbc%2Fuploads%2FElz6B5cCXVB4g2TQG8KY%2FSavimbos%20three%20founders.png?alt=media&amp;token=9133c6d6-c6cc-4b5f-b8fe-c1232961d98c" alt="Savimbos three founders and their 10k hours of previous expertise. "><figcaption><p>Jhony with 20+ years in below-canopy conservation, Drea 20+ years in high-tech and hard science, Fernando 20+ years in Indigenous governance, finance, and below-canopy negotiations. </p></figcaption></figure></div>


# Front Material


# Contents

The contents of the #SexyTree methodology

#### [Executive summary](/)

#### [Index of figures ](/front-material/index-of-figures)

#### [Index of tables](/front-material/index-of-tables)&#x20;

#### [Acronyms and abbreviations](#acronyms-and-abbreviations)

#### [Getting started ](/getting-started)

#### [Introduction](/foundations)

#### [Terms and Definitions](#terms-and-definitions)

#### [References](/references)

#### [Appendices](/appendices)

#### [Document history](/document-history)

#### [Disclaimer](/disclaimer)


# Index of figures

Figures made, photographed, created, or otherwise diagrammed for #SexyTrees methodology

[**Figure A**.](/foundations/the-why-experience) The original #SexyTrees plot with Jhony Lopez

[**Figure B.**](https://sexytrees.savimbo.com/front-material/pages/YKekfvZjaMsRFbJDHEP4#figure-b.-worlds-shittiest-graphic-explaining-the-carbon-and-biodiversity-markets) World's shittiest graphic explaining the carbon and biodiversity markets

[**Figure C.**](/trees/agroforestry#figure-c-agroforestry-spectrum-from-healthy-chaos-to-healthy-order) Agroforestry spectrum from healthy chaos to healthy order

[**Figure D.**](/trees/agroforestry#figure-d-venn-diagram-describing-who-should-be-funded-in-agroforestry) Venn diagram describing who should be funded in agroforestry

Figure F. Steps in applying the #SexyTrees approach

[**Figure G.**](https://sexytrees.savimbo.com/front-material/pages/qjpo9j7t2EpJM7cwl9BV#figure-ga.-rudimentary-diagram-of-uplift-biodiversity-crediting-methodology-with-a-normalized-curve) Linear regression normalized curve generated by eDNA sampling

[**Figure H.**](/biodiversity-credits/biodiversity-unit#figure-h-interoperable-biodiversity-unit-diagrams-that-apply-to-uplift-biodiversity-crediting) Interoperable Biodiversity Unit diagrams that apply to uplift biodiversity crediting.&#x20;

[**Figure I.**](https://sexytrees.savimbo.com/trees/agroforestry/inga-agroforestry#figure-i.-inga-alley-cropping-on-jose-abel-training-site-in-sucumbios-ecuador) Inga alley cropping photo collage

[**Figure J.**](https://sexytrees.savimbo.com/front-material/pages/TziqsYkBxSzMffYEujWM#figure-j.-chaos-and-complexity-theory-producing-errors-in-natural-systems-data-and-statistical-analy) Chaos and complexity theory producing errors in natural systems data

[**Figure K.**](/trees/agroforestry/chagras) Indigenous *chagras* as a black box system


# Index of tables

Tables used in the Sexy Trees methodology.

[**Table A.** Eligibility criteria for SexyTrees](https://sexytrees.savimbo.com/front-material/pages/fmTPRFmAVU0X2cAYr2sC#table-1.-eligibility-criteria-for-isbm)

Table B. Mechanisms for generating sexy trees with credit revenue options


# Acronyms and abbreviations

\#SexyTrees acroynyms and abbreviations

| Acronym | Term                                                            |
| ------- | --------------------------------------------------------------- |
| AFS     | Agroforestry systems                                            |
| AI      | Artificial intelligence                                         |
| CBD     | Convention on Biological Diversity                              |
| CGIAR   | Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research       |
| COP     | Conference of the Parties                                       |
| DSI     | Digial Sequence Information                                     |
| EBF     | Ecological Benefits Framework                                   |
| eDNA    | Environmental deoxyribonucleic acid or environmental DNA        |
| HGB     | Human genetic bycatch                                           |
| IBU     | Interoperable Biodiversity Unit                                 |
| IDsov   | Indigenous Data Sovereignty                                     |
| IEP     | Independent Experts Panel                                       |
| ILO     | International Labour Organization                               |
| IP      | Indigenous Peoples                                              |
| ISBM    | Indicator Species Biodiversity Methodology                      |
| IUCN    | International union for conservation of nature                  |
| iVBC    | Innovation voluntary biodiversity credit                        |
| KML     | Keyhole markup language                                         |
| LC      | Local communities                                               |
| LiDAR   | Light detection and ranging                                     |
| ML      | Machine learning                                                |
| MRV     | Monitoring, reporting and verification                          |
| NBS     | Nature-based solutions                                          |
| NBSAP   | National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plan                |
| NGO     | non-governmental organization                                   |
| NDVI    | Normalized difference vegetation index                          |
| NUS     | Neglected underutilized species                                 |
| OTC     | Over-the-counter                                                |
| PACT    | Permanent additional carbon tonne                               |
| PACS    | Payments for agrobiodiversity conservation services             |
| PAR     | Participatory action research                                   |
| PES     | Payments for ecosystem services                                 |
| PMP     | Project management plan                                         |
| SDGs    | Sustainable development goals                                   |
| STP     | #SexyTrees project                                              |
| TEK     | Traditional ecological knowledge                                |
| UNESCO  | United Nations educational scientific and cultural organization |
| VBC     | Voluntary biodiversity credit                                   |
| WWF     | World Wildlife Fund                                             |


# Terms and definitions

Special terms and definitions relevant to #SexyTrees

The following terms are relevant to this methodology and the relevant physical and economic sciences.&#x20;

**Agroforestry:** A land-use system that intentionally integrates trees with crops to enhance productivity, biodiversity, and ecosystem services.

**Biodiversity hotspots:** A biogeographic region characterized by exceptionally high levels of species richness and a significant degree of habitat loss. These areas are recognized for their extraordinary concentration of endemic species, meaning species that are found nowhere else in the world.

**Community property:** Everything collected or generated about a community's land and life under a consent — data, footage, and related metadata such as location and time. Under [data soverignty principles](/foundations/data-sovereignty), the community should own its community property at all times; buyers, certifiers, and registries receive only a limited, revocable license to use it, never the data itself.&#x20;

**Conservation:** Protection of intact ecological zones, as distinguished from **Restoration** below. There *is* a technical distinction between 'conservation' and ‘preservation’. “*Conservation seeks the proper use of nature, while preservation seeks protection of nature from use*"([Becker and Ghimire 2003](https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol8/iss1/art1/)). For simplicity and readability with a non-technical IP and LC audience, we have used the term conservation throughout.

**Data concierge:** A representative appointed by the project, available to the community for everything concerning its data — to explain, retrieve, correct, display, or withdraw it on request. Project side. Ongoing.

**Data steward:** A community member appointed by the community to hold the community's side of its data relationship with projects. The steward is informed of all community property before it is shared or posted, and is trained to access and store that data on the community's behalf. Community-side. Ongoing.

**Data sovereignty:** also known as Indigenous Data Sovereignty (IDSov). The principle that Indigenous communities have rights over data about, from, or concerning them — including environmental genetics data (eDNA, , mapping data, and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK). Data-oriented. Ongoing.

**Date-time stamp:** Data that indicates a specific date and time when an event occurred or when a particular record was created or modified.

**Ecosystem connectivity:** Connectivity (i.e. ecological connectivity) is the unimpeded movement of species and the flow of natural processes that sustain life on Earth. It may thus also refer to continuous ecosystems often connected through ecological corridors. There are two types of connectivity: structural (in which the continuity between ecosystems is identified) and functional (in which the movement of species or processes is verified).&#x20;

**Ecosystem integrity:**  An ecosystem is generally understood to have integrity when its dominant ecological characteristics (e.g. elements of composition, structure, function, and ecological processes) occur within their natural ranges of variation, and extinction, and can withstand and recover from most perturbations. In the context of the IBU this term is more precisely defined as"*all ecological niches available to, and filled by, native species*".&#x20;

**Ecosystem services:** The benefits people derive from ecosystems.

**Ecosystem value:** The planet-wide value of an ecosystem in the context of global biodiversity loss. Often referred to as “significance” in other contexts.

**FPIC** = Free, Prior, and Informed Consent. The international human rights principle under UNDRIP (2007) requiring genuine agreement from Indigenous communities before any project affects their lands. Process-oriented. Pre-project.

**Geocode:** Latitude and longitude values that uniquely identify a particular point or area on a map in decimal degrees format.&#x20;

**Home range:** The specific geographic area or territory that an individual animal typically occupies and uses for its essential activities. It represents the spatial extent within which an individual carries out its daily life functions such as foraging, mating, seeking shelter, and defending resources.

**Indicator species:** In this methodology, this term is specifically defined as inclusive of the more precise academic terms for sentinel species (indicative of environmental disturbances or pollutants), umbrella species (representative of a larger ecosystem for conservation management), endangered, locally endangered, or threatened species (at risk of extinction in the near future), and rare species (not commonly found or with a limited population its natural habitat).&#x20;

**Intact ecosystem:** It refers to primary, undisturbed ecosystems with all healthy attributes in balance (composition, structure, and function) and where their natural ecological processes develop without interruption. These ecosystems have all the niches available to native species and are fully occupied accordingly. In some contexts the word "natural" has been substituted, such as "natural forests" in place of "primary forests" to acknowledge that ecosystems are alive and evolving.&#x20;

**“In situ” conservation:** The conservation of ecosystems and natural habitats and the maintenance and recovery of viable populations of species in their natural surroundings and, in the case of domesticated or cultivated species, in the surroundings where they have developed their distinctive properties.

**Monitoring period:** This is sometimes called crediting time and most projects will have a minimum monitoring timeframe of one years. Monitoring period should not be conflated with Unit time (one month) or the duration of an observation (60 days).&#x20;

**Net gains in biodiversity:** It corresponds to the difference in gains in biodiversity values from the baseline of the project compared to those obtained during the implementation of the conservation project.&#x20;

**Open access:** Release of data to public scientific databases (e.g. [NCBI's Sequence Read Archive](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra)), where anyone may download and reuse it. It is the one data choice that cannot be undone: withdrawing consent stops future use but cannot reach copies already public.&#x20;

***Pagamento*** is a technical term for a specific cultural practice: a material offering (coca, tobacco, food, stones, woven thread, cotton, sometimes blood) deposited at sacred sites — *cerros*, water sources, lineage huacas, the four corners of a *chagra* — as repayment to the Earth, the ancestors, or the spirit-owners of a place for what has been taken or received.

**Restoration:** the process of assisting the (partial) recovery of a degraded, damaged, or destroyed ecosystem toward its natural structure, function, and biodiversity. As measured by an increase in **Integrity** as defined above. Sometimes referred to as Uplift.&#x20;

**Risk of extinction:** The probability that a species will go extinct in a given period of time.

**Species:** Group of individuals or natural populations that are actually or potentially interbreeding, reproductively isolated from other similar groups by their physiological properties (reducing incompatibility between parents or sterility of hybrids, or both).

**Species richness:** The population of different species present in a particular area or ecosystem. It is a measure of biodiversity that quantifies the diversity of species within a given habitat or geographical region, but it does not speak to the abundance or distribution of the species.

**Species distribution:** The geographic area or range where a particular species is found and occurs naturally. It includes all the locations and habitats where individuals of a species are predicted to exist.&#x20;

<br>


# Getting started

Clear and transparent instructions for #SexyTrees crediting from an IP or LC project

**The instructions below provide the necessary steps for #SexyTrees projects to demonstrate ongoing outcomes by planting holistically awesome trees.** We detail the design and implementation of conservation-first ecosystem projects, projects that aim primarily to avoid the loss of intact regional biodiversity in biodiversity hotspots or equivalent ecosystems.&#x20;

It contains clear incentives for IP or LC to participate in, and benefit from these projects, thus reducing human predation through hunting or trafficking activities. The methodology delivers eligibility for third-party validation and results-based payments under emerging global market mechanisms. Initiatives must:

*(Note: Savimbo's requirements might differ slightly from that of individual crediting bodies. Each accreditation body such as* [*Cercarbono* ](https://www.cercarbono.com/)*adopting the standard might slightly alter this list and should be consulted directly for projects seeking certification rather than simply MRV.)*

* [ ] Design within the framework of the ten [Principles](/project-description/principles).
* [ ] Meet [Eligibility and inclusion requirements](/project-description/eligibility-criteria).
* [ ] Get [Baseline](/baseline-assessment) biodiversity measures for their ecosystem(s) from public data:
  * [ ] [Agents and drivers](/baseline-assessment/analysis-of-agents-and-drivers-of-biodiversity-loss) of biodiversity loss
  * [ ] Baseline [biodiversity richness](/baseline-assessment/baseline-biodiversity-optional) (if available)
  * [ ] [Ecosystem value](/baseline-assessment/baseline-ecosystem-categorization) and boundaries from a recognized source.
  * [ ] [Indicator species](/baseline-assessment/indicator-species-selection) that qualify for monitoring, justification, and characteristics
  * [ ] Indicator species [integrity score](/baseline-assessment/indicator-species-integrity-score)
* [ ] Describe their [Project](/project-description) in a PMP with site-specific data including:&#x20;
  * [ ] [Project boundaries](/project-description/project-boundaries) in time and space including jurisdiction(s), land rights, contracts, any ecosystem/jurisdictional segmentation, and potential leakage area.
  * [ ] [Implementation plan ](/project-description/implementation-plan)and methods,
  * [ ] [Monitoring plan](/monitoring-plan) and methods,
  * [ ] Indicator species [Observations](/project-description/implementation-plan/indicator-species-observations) in raw data (geocodes may be private).
  * [ ] Alignment with [Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)](/sdg-contributions)
* [ ] Continuously [calculate](/biodiversity-credits/calculation) credits using the open-source code
* [ ] Continuously [monitor and report](/monitoring-plan) via crediting bodies/registries or MRV purchasers

We remain hopeful and determined that this methodology will have the intended effect of directly empowering the people with the biggest global impact on conserving biodiversity.

#### **Figure F. Steps in applying the #SexyTrees approach**


# SexyTrees protocol scope: agroforestry, reforestation, chagras

Introduction to the #SexyTrees methodology

### What this protocol covers

This is an *economic* protocol for restoration initiatives aiming to recover the ecological function of degraded tropical land by *adding more native trees.* This protocol is interoperable between agroforestry, reforestation, or natural regrowth and extends to traditional Indigenous *chagras* (see [Table B](#table-b-mechanisms-for-sexytrees-with-credit-revenue-options)).&#x20;

<div><figure><img src="https://1172926139-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FQlKpTR8KkK45VWYPUpbc%2Fuploads%2F668Dd22wpQxEq9TEyj3D%2Findigenous-woman-farmer-tropical-agroforestry-reforestation-colombia.jpeg?alt=media&amp;token=e5105292-1458-42d1-97b6-908dd0d54bab" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure> <figure><img src="https://1172926139-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FQlKpTR8KkK45VWYPUpbc%2Fuploads%2FKy7W6Mp5awh2Pm2aLkBs%2Fkamentsa-chagra-leader-miguel-chindoy-cosmovision-mural-putumayo-colombia.jpeg?alt=media&amp;token=75b511f3-9419-4141-8a64-2b58e9da66bb" alt="Miguel Chindoy, on behalf of Agropueblos, Asociación Indígena para la Gobernanza de los Primeros Pueblos"><figcaption><p>Miguel Chindoy, Indigenous author of the <a href="/trees/chagras"><em>chagras</em></a> section.</p></figcaption></figure></div>

<div><figure><img src="https://1172926139-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FQlKpTR8KkK45VWYPUpbc%2Fuploads%2FMINrzpKwkSRG2hQkMGZz%2F%20tropical-rhizomes-wheelbarrow-propagation-putumayo-savimbo.png?alt=media&amp;token=e5ee821c-ae20-4339-8f9d-4578ea858aed" alt="Wheelbarrow full of freshly harvested pink-fleshed tropical rhizomes with distinctive concentric vascular ring patterns visible in cross-section, dug up for propagation and replanting on a Putumayo agroforestry site, Colombia. Vegetative propagation of food and ornamental species supports Savimbo&#x27;s grassroots SexyTrees reforestation methodology."><figcaption><p>Vegetative propagation in action — rhizomes dug from a mature stand,</p></figcaption></figure> <figure><img src="https://1172926139-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FQlKpTR8KkK45VWYPUpbc%2Fuploads%2FdWqOMWVvVxA2waGCvRFF%2Ffarmers-planting-tropical-tree-seedlings-putumayo-savimbo-sexytrees.jpeg?alt=media&amp;token=7ce5dec6-1d74-43f1-ade4-c9025c42cc20" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure> <figure><img src="https://1172926139-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FQlKpTR8KkK45VWYPUpbc%2Fuploads%2Fz4wb2b44y4e25EfZcbJ8%2Ftropical-insect-larvae-leaf-biodiversity-amazon-edna-sampling.jpeg?alt=media&amp;token=f5c4df00-dfd6-48db-a0e3-125b372eaeeb" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure></div>

All included activities restore soil fertility, [biodiversity](/biodiversity-credits/biodiversity-unit), [water quality](/water-credits/water-unit), and [nature-based carbon](/carbon-credits) on lands previously deforested or under unsustainable cultivation, while providing food security and livelihoods to smallfarmer and Indigenous implementers. They must have proven to either reverse or reduce pressure on deforestation. Enrolling plots must be segmented by area, as they constitute variance in human activities and intended human use; however, please note that agrobiodiversity is a gene-based unit.   &#x20;

### Mechanisms and credit pathways

#### Table B: Mechanisms for #SexyTrees to directly earn recurring revenue and/or qualify for outcomes-based forward financing

<table><thead><tr><th width="159.11328125">Mechanism</th><th width="94.3359375">Tree</th><th width="100.66015625">Tree carbon</th><th width="110.4296875">Biochar carbon</th><th width="130.2734375">Biodiversity</th><th width="100.54296875">Water</th><th>Agrobiodiversity</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Agroforestry</td><td>🌱🌱🌱</td><td>🌱🌱🌱</td><td>🌱🌱🌱</td><td>🌱🌱🌱</td><td>🌱🌱🌱</td><td>🌱🌱🌱</td></tr><tr><td>Reforestation</td><td>🌱🌱🌱</td><td>🌱🌱🌱</td><td>🌱🌱🌱</td><td>🌱🌱🌱</td><td>🌱🌱🌱</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Natural regrowth</td><td></td><td>🌱🌱🌱</td><td></td><td>🌱🌱🌱</td><td>🌱🌱🌱</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Chagras</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>🌱🌱🌱</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Chagras* are included because [they are awesome](/trees/chagras), often include trees, and their protocols overlap on a subset of high-quality sites for the preservation of rare crops. Separating them from the protocol is unnecessarily reductive, including them synergistic. &#x20;

This protocol is written with standard generic guardrails for sites using it for MRV-based crediting with or without auditing. If it is adopted under a certifying body, many of the sections will be streamlined or redundant, depending on the certifier (See [Document history](/document-history)).

### What's not included

We don't cover afforestation carbon in this methodology, although we do [advocate for its inclusion](/carbon-credits/the-lace-problem) in crediting the carbon layer.&#x20;

### EUDR compliance

As a side effect of sheer 😎, all plots are EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR)-compliant, and can prove it, so we automate those certificates into the supply chain from grassroots suppliers for free as part of the protocol.&#x20;


# Foundations

Logical and theoretical paradigms that form the basis of the Sexy Trees methodology.

To measure ecosystems for financial markets, we must first negotiate paradigms between Nature (best represented in [Indigenous sciences](/trees/chagras)) and [financial markets](/foundations/emerging-markets) (one of our most optimized industrial-world sciences).&#x20;

Here are multidisciplinary paradigms that have we have adopted, which took years to build, so as to cover the emerging science in the next section, but encourage readers to review the logical frameworks we operate in independently.

<table data-view="cards"><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th data-hidden data-type="content-ref"></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><h3><i class="fa-spiral" style="color:blue;">:spiral:</i></h3></td><td>Nature is complex and chaotic.</td><td><a href="/foundations/complex-and-chaotic">Complex &amp; chaotic</a></td></tr><tr><td><h3><i class="fa-square-person-confined" style="color:$danger;">:square-person-confined:</i></h3></td><td>Markets for Nature are emerging.</td><td><a href="/foundations/emerging-markets">Emerging markets</a></td></tr><tr><td><h3><i class="fa-angle-90" style="color:yellow;">:angle-90:</i></h3></td><td>Ecosystems have orthogonal dimensions.</td><td><a href="/foundations/orthogonal-stacking">Orthogonal dimensions</a></td></tr><tr><td><h3><i class="fa-reply-clock" style="color:$warning;">:reply-clock:</i></h3></td><td>Ex-post measurement rewards the right people.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><h3><i class="fa-hands-asl-interpreting" style="color:cyan;">:hands-asl-interpreting:</i></h3></td><td>Grassroots economics are more tangible.</td><td><a href="/foundations/grassroots-economics">Grassroots econonomics</a></td></tr><tr><td><h3><i class="fa-hand-shaka" style="color:pink;">:hand-shaka:</i></h3></td><td>Postcolonial co-design recruits more intelligence.</td><td><a href="/foundations/postcolonial-co-design">Postcolonial co-design</a></td></tr><tr><td><h3><i class="fa-trowel-bricks" style="color:orange;">:trowel-bricks:</i></h3></td><td>Bricolage refines solutions faster.</td><td><a href="/foundations/bricolage">Bricolage &amp; more</a></td></tr></tbody></table>


# The why, experience

Core insights from early experience

We feel it is wise, and honest, to start with the knowns and unknowns of our endeavor. In the form of a story.&#x20;

At the time we write this, the human species has crossed seven of nine planetary boundaries (Sakschewski et al. 2025). The latter article was written after the 30th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP30) in Belem, when scientists of The Earth League concluded that “too little was done too late” (Rockström et al. 2025). The (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research 2025) has called it “a time of rising planetary risks after a missed decade of action”.&#x20;

This book chapter is written on behalf of tangibility. It is written for the youth of today, on behalf of the youth of tomorrow, and it is written about #SexyTrees. &#x20;

Throughout this chapter, Nature is capitalized deliberately. We intentionally defer extended commentary here — this is not our epistemology to define. Our Indigenous co-founders, friends, and collaborators have done a good job of speaking in their own voices on the topic, and we instead refer to their explanations. Capitalizing the word summarizes our view that Nature is living sovereign, of which humans are one part among many, laws of Nature preexist and supersede human law, and more. This is not a rhetorical choice — it is an operational constraint on our science, our economics, and our protocol design.

Nature does not take payment in the form of talk. Reports, conferences, spreadsheets, analysis, research, artificial intelligence (AI), or protests mean nothing to Nature. These are human endeavors that organize us and give us meaning, but they are not a mechanism of negotiation with planetary boundaries. Nature is implacable and beautiful, in its simple focus on tangibility. Carbon markets were designed to transact on behalf of planetary boundaries (Newell et al. 2014), and reform efforts are underway (Rights and Resources Initiative; Rights and Resources Initiative). However, these markets continue to struggle scientifically, economically, and structurally — and their structural exclusions fall disproportionately on the smallholder and Indigenous farmers best positioned to deliver results. (Roston 2025; Swinfield 2025).&#x20;

What is not failing — and what the effects of deforestation on our planet’s biogeochemical cycles (Schlesinger 1997), and atmospheric ‘sky rivers’ (Sheil 2018) so clearly illustrate is essential to the maintenance of our planet, other species, and human food systems — is #SexyTrees.&#x20;

What makes a tree “sexy”? This meme came from Savimbo out of desperation. Our first funding came from urban venture capital firms in the heart of Austin, Texas. This was at the height of consumer optimism and carbon greenwashing in 2022, the peak of carbon’s Gartner Hype Cycle ‘inflated expectations’ (Mingay 2022). Finance had separated Savimbo’s three founders and put them in increasingly disparate and disconnected contexts. During the accelerator, Drea Burbank, the American co-founder of Savimbo, worked out of a penthouse in downtown Austin’s tallest skyscraper, next to a petroleum microtrading firm, implementing their first investment dollars to make a business case for the grassroots Latin American project. She struggled to divert funding to the jungle, training the first grassroots staff virtually in broken Spanish. Jhony Lopez and Fernando Lezama, the two Indigenous cofounders of Savimbo in the Colombian Amazon, struggled to understand the planting instructions, but they took tangible action anyway, supplementing pragmatic solutions and reporting their success in photographs and pilot data of their first reforestation project, carefully negotiated with a friendly smallfarmer who had deforested land they were willing to replant.&#x20;

In Austin, starting at a sea of urban faces, trying to make an argument for the planet, for smallfarmers, for tangible action in the height of an inflated urban startup finance bubble, Drea forgot the pitch. And instead stood silent, wordless, with the challenge of communicating the Amazonian reality in that setting. Then said simply, staring at the uncomprehending audience, “If you’re nice to me, I’ll send you a sexy photo of a tree.”&#x20;

But this simple message landed where nothing else had. Dozens of laughing people, some still subscribers to Savimbo today, came up randomly from the audience and asked for a photo of a #SexyTree.

The first photo, immortalized here, is a .gif of Jhony framing a hand-tended, hand-carried planting of Amazon trees. The first reforestation plot in an area with a 10% deforestation rate in the last two decades due to illegal economies (Agudelo-Hz et al. 2023; Global Forest Watch 2024). A symbol of hope, holistic Indigenous reforestation, founders struggling to maintain their connections past the cultural barriers tearing them apart, and the seemingly insurmountable task ahead. Reforesting an entire state with minimal resources, a tradition of slash-and-burn farming, and impoverished communities with a history of violence, forgotten by governments and excluded from international markets (Gatehouse 2012).&#x20;

#### **Figure 1**. Savimbo founder Jhony Lopez opening Savimbo´s first #SexyTrees reforestation plot.

<figure><img src="https://1172926139-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FQlKpTR8KkK45VWYPUpbc%2Fuploads%2F5ja0gj1Lk9Nt9OIhNG6K%2Fsexytrees.gif?alt=media&amp;token=9167865a-67ff-4653-b8f7-51c2f53a6424" alt="Jhony Lopez planting the first batch of #SexyTrees. "><figcaption><p><strong>Figure 1</strong>. Savimbo founder Jhony Lopez opening Savimbo´s first Indigenous-led Amazonian reforestation plot.</p></figcaption></figure>

When the accelerator ended, Drea packed her bags and returned to the Amazon with a Starlink, a GPS, and an office packed into a bag. Then Savimbo was co-designed from below the canopy in a windowless hut, next to a pristine river and a primary forest in the heart of the Colombian Amazon. It was made for, and from, a jungle paradise. It was built by the three founders fighting together to stop deforestation, with restricted resources, chain-saws at the borders of protected lands, and in real-time negotiations with its neighbors and 70 enrolled smallfarmers with land rights. And if you want to know why Savimbo is different — this is why.&#x20;

The first year in the Amazon, Drea learned humility, because the grassroots economics Fernando and Jhony managed so effortlessly were completely distinct from any economics she had ever witnessed. This chapter explains what we have learned about executing projects on the ground and how that has changed our science and finance perspectives and methodologies.&#x20;

This chapter is about “#SexyTrees”, a symbol of tangibility and of Indigenous and Western science working in harmony. It is about grassroots economics and how to optimize for local action. But please don’t forget, mired in the complexity of science, policy, technology, economics, and law — what #SexyTrees represent. They represent tangible work done by a standing army of the one billion people who live in tropical forests (Newton et al. 2020); based on tough below-canopy negotiations; on their terms, and with their resources, knowledge, and impact.&#x20;

We are negotiating for the living planet with the best science and the toughest, smartest people our species has to offer, and with the help of other species that live in symbiosis with us, and under the laws of Nature, which will always supersede human laws. &#x20;

And we are not negotiating alone.

<br>


# Orthogonal dimensions

Using principles of orthogonality to describe and measure multidimensional uniqueness

*<mark style="color:$danger;">This is a</mark>* [*<mark style="color:$danger;">bricolage</mark>*](/foundations/bricolage) *<mark style="color:$danger;">protocol; which means we are building it in public! Some pages are under construction — but check back soon its updating fast!</mark>*&#x20;

Nature does not live in databases. Nor is it neatly divisible. Certainly, our linear computing systems and statistics do poor justice to natural patterns like fractals. Indeed, many of our Indigenous friends bemoan the deconstructionist nature of industrial world analytics in the natural sciences (Forestiero 2022).&#x20;

However, and pragmatically, the current economics of Nature are becoming increasingly computerized. Making databases or metrics that are overly simplified gives measurement noise, fails to account for harmful effects, and wastes time in confusion (Muller 2018). But its also true that simplifying data can lead to elegant solutions in complex systems that cannot be accurately characterized (Mitchell 2009). Additionally, multidimensional measurements can reduce harm by measuring unintended effects  (Scott 1998).

Just like complex three-dimensional mathematical shapes can be described in an x-y-z axis, ecosystems can be better characterized in clean orthogonal dimensions. Orthogonality implies linear independence between dimensions (Szabo 2015), such that variation in one dimension (e.g., carbon) does not determine variation in another (e.g., biodiversity).

Orthogonal structures are essential for describing ecosystems such as forests exhibiting the ‘empty-forest syndrome’ (Redford 1992) or high-carbon monoculture agricultural systems where eucalyptus damages non-native water tables, or trees are planted in native grasslands (Villalba-Martínez et al. 2025). In all of these cases, carbon, biodiversity, and water show orthogonality (See [Fig. B](#figure-b.-worlds-shittiest-graphic-explaining-the-carbon-and-biodiversity-markets)).&#x20;

#### **Figure B.** World's shittiest graphic explaining the carbon and biodiversity markets

<figure><img src="https://1172926139-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FQlKpTR8KkK45VWYPUpbc%2Fuploads%2Fwur6lnLvUQYzk3RFPJkF%2FSV_%20Ecosystem%20graphic.png?alt=media&amp;token=20246ae2-206a-4ffe-abea-1b34421835a4" alt="Four-panel diagram contrasting carbon and biodiversity markets using apples as ecosystems. Carbon data alone rates a healthy forest and a non-native eucalyptus plantation as equally &#x22;awesome.&#x22; Stacking biodiversity data on top exposes the plantation as an ecological disaster. Illustrates the orthogonal-data principle behind Savimbo&#x27;s SexyTrees reforestation methodology." width="375"><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

We think ecosystems are best characterized in six orthogonal dimensions, as defined in the Ecological Benefits Framework (EBF): soil, air, water, biodiversity, carbon, and equity. The framework was not developed through a top-down academic approach but through three sequential grassroots practitioner workgroups who collectively defined the dimensions based on their applied experience. The workgroups ran from peer expert networks recruited from ocean sustainable fishing, organic farming, and regenerative agriculture and converged reliably on the same dimensions.&#x20;

Three of the EBF dimensions neatly align with the Rio Conventions, and have emerging or established markets with some standardization [(](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z907mScq_zQJyqts29ganDMpyMYYJ7QGLfTPfakuNU0/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.uzgkzqo64ccv)see section [The Protocol)](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z907mScq_zQJyqts29ganDMpyMYYJ7QGLfTPfakuNU0/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.uzgkzqo64ccv). Of these, only carbon has an easily agreed-upon unit, although the IBU biodiversity unit proposed later in this chapter does have market traction. The six dimensions each face independently emerging science and markets, and their interactions remain poorly characterized — a fragmentation that our stacking framework is specifically designed to navigate. But as a basic framework on which to orient, we think EBF is the most reliable place for anyone working with Nature from an industrial world context to start.&#x20;


# Nature is complex and chaotic

Before complexity theory covered the bases, now we have to add chaos theory

Nature has always been complex ([Bak and Paczuski 1993](https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-7058/6/12/26)). Now it's chaotic ([Bernardini et al. 2025](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eve.2025.100060), [Rockström 2009](https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08967), [Sakschewski 2025](https://doi.org/10.48485/pik.2025.017)).&#x20;

> *"More than three-quarters of the Earth's support systems are not in the safe zone. Humanity is pushing beyond the limits of a safe operating space, increasingly the risk of destabilising the planet." — Johan Rockström, 2025*

We are now in ‘black swan’ territory ([Sornette 2009](https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1470006)), with chaotic weather events increasingly likely ([IPCC 2021](https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.013)).

AI does extend our [cognitive horizon](#user-content-fn-1)[^1]. That is a real tool in dealing with this problem, but it will not *save* us. It will not solve the problem for us.&#x20;

Machine learning (ML) is pattern recognition AI. Which means it is particularly error-prone in this context, for the same reasons described in the Nobel-prize-winning work that is the basis of the book [*Thinking Fast and Slow*](https://amzn.to/43EpoS1) about why human intuition breaks down on some structured problems ([Tversky & Kahneman 1974](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124)). ML recognizes patterns, which means it doesn't work when the pattern *breaks*. &#x20;

Long-term prediction made with AI may fail catastrophically *regardless of the data* available ([Fan et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.012080)). In this world, in our lifetimes, in your lifetime if you are reading this, predictions based on the past, no matter how expensive or detailed, are increasingly unreliable.

#### Figure J. Chaos and complexity theory producing errors in natural systems data and statistical analysis

<div><figure><img src="https://1172926139-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FQlKpTR8KkK45VWYPUpbc%2Fuploads%2FdjE99iVQE0GT6YahInum%2Fresidual_normal_probability.png?alt=media&amp;token=d5d73a0f-9766-437d-aa08-7f05c539f301" alt="Data points S-curve away from the diagonal reference line at the extremes — visible signal that the data isn&#x27;t actually normal."><figcaption><p>When data is linear, points fall neatly on a line. Like this.</p></figcaption></figure> <figure><img src="https://1172926139-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FQlKpTR8KkK45VWYPUpbc%2Fuploads%2F2rXLIJpH76Y36u91cvcv%2Flinear_fit_curved_data.png?alt=media&amp;token=ff355048-fe1b-4b4c-9c78-b13a0e53ad8a" alt="A straight line forced onto curved data — the line misses both the low and high ends"><figcaption><p>Nonlinear data our stats start to fail. The line goes through the middle. But misses both ends. The data isn't linear.</p></figcaption></figure> <figure><img src="https://1172926139-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FQlKpTR8KkK45VWYPUpbc%2Fuploads%2F12ukgWb2X4i5fuwngsWH%2Fpoisson_vs_linear.png?alt=media&amp;token=73c158c0-24eb-4e48-8b95-ae37f22edc25" alt="Scatter points spreading above the 1:1 reference line — linear models systematically underestimate the high end."><figcaption><p>Sometimes linear models work near zero. The tail is where reality lives. And reality is bigger than the line.</p></figcaption></figure></div>

<div><figure><img src="https://1172926139-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FQlKpTR8KkK45VWYPUpbc%2Fuploads%2FDNFOTWiNRKizzeqogUWy%2Fbifurcation_full.png?alt=media&amp;token=16b6bae0-7dda-4435-99f9-3f38b6f21542" alt="A bifurcation diagram showing the transition from a single stable value through period-doubling into chaos."><figcaption><p>Nature doesn't even pretend to follow these rules. This is real data, from a real system. There IS a pattern. It's just smarter than us.</p></figcaption></figure> <figure><img src="https://1172926139-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FQlKpTR8KkK45VWYPUpbc%2Fuploads%2F0PN5d3Wh805wjJBcu3Gm%2Fbifurcation_zoom.png?alt=media&amp;token=e68a42e8-3b41-4188-9714-323d2b41405f" alt="Zoomed view of the chaotic region, revealing bands of order embedded inside the chaos."><figcaption><p>Zoom in and the chaos has order inside it. Zoom in on that order and there's more chaos. All the way down.</p></figcaption></figure></div>

### Some basics of complex systems

Complex systems aren't just hard to measure — they're *impossible* to fully quantify ([Anderson 1972](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.177.4047.393)). That's a property of complexity itself, not a tooling problem.

* **Emergence** — system-level properties don't exist at the component level; the whole has behaviors the parts don't ([Anderson 1972](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.177.4047.393)).
* **Non-linearity** — outputs aren't proportional to inputs; small perturbations can cascade, large ones can dissipate ([Strogatz 2015](https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469\(1963\)020)).
* **Feedback loops** — components shape each other; cause and effect run in circles, not lines ([Meadows 2008](https://amzn.to/4ub7fGE)).
* **Sensitivity to initial conditions** — tiny differences in starting state diverge exponentially over time; this is the formal definition of chaos ([Lorenz 1963](https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469\(1963\)020)).
* **Tipping points** — systems sit in stable regimes until a threshold is crossed, then flip abruptly to a new one ([Scheffer et al. 2009](https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08227)).

The vast majority of Indigenous scientists we have talked to have scoffed at the reductionist mindset toward Nature. This isn't a lack of understanding of reductionism; it's a clear dismissal of the approach as the *wrong tool for the job*.&#x20;

> *"With due respect, but without baggage, we express that we understand, but we lament the logic that those who hold technological power and economic power wield control over the world; because through this path, power has become an obsession of powerful nations that have blinded their essence as children of the earth and have become masters of the planet. In this utilitarian logic, they have objectified the world and commodified everything that exists, and this is now the backbone of the system that states have adopted today." - Miguel Chindoy,* [*The voice of the Indigenous Peoples of the world on the planetary environmental emergency*](https://www.savimbo.com/blog/the-voice-of-the-indigenous-peoples-of-the-world-on-the-planetary-environmental-emergency)

### Some basics of chaotic systems

The simple distinction between complex and chaotic is that complex systems *can* be stable. Chaotic ones can't. Complexity is structure; chaos is what happens when that structure tips into instability.

* **Deterministic but unpredictable** — the rules are fully known, the future still isn't ([Lorenz 1963](https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469\(1963\)020%3C0130:DNF%3E2.0.CO;2)).
* **Sensitive dependence on initial conditions** — the butterfly effect; tiny causes, vast consequences ([Lorenz 1963](https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469\(1963\)020%3C0130:DNF%3E2.0.CO;2)).
* **Bounded but never-repeating** — chaotic trajectories don't fly to infinity, but they never exactly retrace their path. They trace a "strange attractor" — a shape in possibility space that the system orbits forever without repeating ([Ruelle & Takens 1971](https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01646553)).
* **Prediction horizons are finite by mathematical necessity** — past a certain point, no amount of measurement precision or computing power helps. The error compounds faster than the data informs ([Palmer 2000](https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/63/2/201)).
* **Statistics survive; trajectories don't** — you can characterize the *shape* of the chaos (averages, ranges, frequencies of regimes) even when you can't predict any specific path ([Eckmann & Ruelle 1985](https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.57.617)).

That's why ML breaks on chaotic systems specifically: ML learns from trajectories, but in chaos, the trajectory is the part that *can't* be generalized. Only the statistical envelope can.

### How to work in complex and chaotic systems

The point of working in these systems is to work smarter, not harder. In other words, we need to listen to the world's best scientists (above) and *work within the constraints*.&#x20;

* **Don't try to measure everything** (even with AI, *especially* with AI!). Choose dimensions that are orthogonal and tangible; sample, don't enumerate. Completeness is impossible. Signal that can't be gamed is the goal.
* **Don't try to predict the future far in advance.** Prediction horizons are mathematical, not technical — no amount of data closes the gap past a certain point. Use [short feedback loops](/foundations/bricolage) instead of long forecasts.
* **Optimize for butterfly effects.** In a chaotic system, the leverage is at the tipping points — small inputs in the right place produce disproportionate outcomes. The #SexyTrees payment structure ($1 plant / $0.50 alive at 6mo / $0.50 alive at 12mo) is a butterfly: a tiny per-tree payment that flips farmer behavior at scale.
* **Don't assume you know what's going to happen. Look at what actually did.** Ex-post measurement only. Models are maps; when they conflict with the territory, trust the territory.

[^1]: The mental ability to hold a wider array of facts for processing.


# Nature markets are emerging markets

Units, insights, parameters, and beginning with the end in mind

<mark style="color:$danger;">This is a</mark> [<mark style="color:$danger;">bricolage</mark>](/foundations/bricolage) <mark style="color:$danger;">protocol; which means we are building it in public! Some pages are under construction — but check back soon its updating fast!</mark>&#x20;

To measure ecosystems for financial markets, we must first negotiate paradigms between Nature (best represented in Indigenous sciences) and financial markets (one of our most optimized induss

Humanity is only beginning to understand and value the limits of growth (Strauss 2012). Our economic sciences operated under the assumptions that the commons had no owner, no regulation, and no limit (Hardin 1968). Now valuing natural commons, the associated risks of its destruction to a nation, a planet, and its food supply, are completely unoptimized processes and science (Constanza et al. 1997). Full of human hubris, errors of cognitive horizon, and, like any emerging market, rife with speculation and misrepresentation (Taleb 2007).&#x20;

Ironically, one of the world's most optimized markets is agriculture, transacted as a commodity.  Perhaps the planet’s least optimized one is planetary sciences, which should be tangible but transacts in assets, commodities, charities, greenwashing claims, and fiat and blockchain Over-the-counter (OTC) exchanges with wide heterogeneity and enthusiastic grassroots abandon. The collision of the two is a source of unending confusion for anyone who works in either of them these days.

Early markets typically go through a predictable cycle, called the Gartner Hype Cycle. A period of heightened expectations, followed by disillusionment, then standardization (Fig. 2).&#x20;

<br>

\
Figure 2. Phases of the Gartner-Hype cycle. Reproduced from <https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/4017574> &#x20;

Savimbo was born from a consulting group specializing in frontier markets, hard science, and high-tech bubbles. As such, we know from years of experience in several frontier markets that the way to survive the ups and downs is to keep focused on tangibility, value, standardization, and interoperability.&#x20;


# Postcolonial co-design

Units, insights, parameters, and beginning with the end in mind

<mark style="color:$danger;">This is a</mark> [<mark style="color:$danger;">bricolage</mark>](/foundations/bricolage) <mark style="color:$danger;">protocol; which means we are building it in public! Some pages are under construction — but check back soon its updating fast!</mark>&#x20;

This page will describe how we break down boundaries between technology, innovation, and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK).

### Why TEK is different

### Why academic authorship needs to adapt

### Ethics as a critical discipline


# Data sovereignty

Indigenous data sovereignty (IDsov) and how it applies in this protocol

*<mark style="color:$danger;">This is a</mark>* [*<mark style="color:$danger;">bricolage</mark>*](/foundations/bricolage) *<mark style="color:$danger;">protocol; which means we are building it in public! Some pages are under construction — but check back soon its updating fast!</mark>*&#x20;

**Properly applying** [**data sovereignty**](#user-content-fn-1)[^1] **practices and principles significantly alters project design at all levels. Therefore, it must be understood and applied early in all collaborations.**&#x20;

Data is not like other things a project handles. It can be copied perfectly, instantly, and forever.

We treat data about, from, or concerning Indigenous, AfroDescendant, or local communities as an asset under their control — not a free resource to be extracted, aggregated, or monetized by outside parties.

This is an ethical decision, a business policy, and will eventually, in our opinion, be robust international law.&#x20;

### Data soverienty and FPIC

<mark style="color:violet;">TL:DR = FPIC is the process, data sovereignty is the substance</mark>&#x20;

Data falls under standard [Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)](/appendices/fpic) guidelines with the caveat that it can be easily copied and used in perpetuity, making ongoing consent difficult. It also has risks of being mistranslated, and it's very difficult for grassroots communities to stay adequately informed on it. Thus, it requires additional controls, and data sovereignty could be considered the practical feasibility and rules that allow for the extensio[^2]n of FPIC principles to this specific domain, which is definitely an emerging case.

### Data versus information&#x20;

We learned quickly not to assume epistemology[^3] in data negotiations with grassroots communities. For this primer, we will use the word "data" and the word "information" as separate but related concepts.&#x20;

* **"data"** as it is understood in the industrialized world is already covering too wide a variety of topics (eg. copyright, intellectual property, genetic data, bioactive compounds, cultural practices)
* **"data"** as it is often interpreted by grassroots communities, extends into memory, history, communication between living beings, and a much broader scope than an industrial person might anticipate. For this expanded scope, we will use the word "information".

### Marching orders for current work

There is a fear of working on this topic, of being prosecuted by history.&#x20;

However, the very definition of ethics is making decisions under uncertainty, with power ([Jonas, 1984](https://amzn.to/4uikaGI)). Therefore, the ethical risks of choosing not to engage must be weighed carefully against the risks of action ([Rachels, 1975](https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM197501092920206); [Spranca, Minsk & Baron, 1991](https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031\(91\)90011-T)).

In late 2025, we participated in a preliminary collective opinion from Indigenous leaders recruited from across the world, with different backgrounds and data perspectives. The following instructions from that group are the marching orders we are currently working under.&#x20;

* **A proper collective Indigenous opinion** can only be formed with an authentic Participatory Action Research (PAR) study. In the absence of that tool, which we have been unable to fund, we can only work on preliminary feedback.&#x20;
* **Inaction is not appropriate**. This work is valuable, and preliminary negotiations and education are warranted if they are narrow and not misrepresented as collective decisions.&#x20;
* **Format is critical.** Academic formats are not viable tools for collective decision-making involving traditional communities whose first languages are often rare and who may have very limited understanding. [Multimedia, multilingual content](https://www.savimbo.com/data) is required with concepts broken down into component modules.
* **Training must be funded** for advocates to begin translating the risks, benefits, and threats of data in the information age to elders, leaders, communities, and collectives. Emergent positioning should be expected, and longitudinal workgroups, case studies, and negotiating panels are required.&#x20;
* **Any work on this topic must be enforceable first**. History has shown rampant abuse on this topic because data can be copied and reused or misused. It's critical that we focus on negotiating enforceable cases with narrow scope first and avoid any broad claims to applicability.&#x20;
* **Data is too broad a term**. The feedback we have gotten from our ethics panel is extensive, ranging into the fields of quantum physics, information, and cultural practices, which significantly exceeded the realm of any Sexy Trees projects. We have decided to work from the basis of narrow case studies, like the [eDNA consent case](/appendices/edna-case-study) in the appendix. Then properly negotiate conscribed cases and build [a library of practical-use documents](https://www.savimbo.com/data). Broad permissions are too easy to misuse and do not account for the heterogeneity of either Indigenous thought or information-age threats on the topic. &#x20;

### Authoritative sources on data sovereignty

* The right to collect and use of community property should be guided by the [IEEE Recommended Practices on Indigenous Peoples Data Provenance Standard](https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/2890/10318/)
* Data should be stored with Local Context TK labels (knowledge) and BK notices (DSI). As in the [Cyverse database](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://user.cyverse.org/\&sa=D\&source=docs\&ust=1780233721017082\&usg=AOvVaw1ofYffUMjx6EObkNvtNkWC)

[^1]: Often referred to as Indigenous data soverienty or IDsov. When applicable to all communities we'll use the general term.&#x20;

[^2]:

[^3]: Ways of knowing about the world. For instance book learning, vs practical experience.&#x20;


# Bricolage is doing things economically

Bricolage, iteration, A/B testing, and beginning with the end in mind

<mark style="color:$danger;">This is a</mark> [<mark style="color:$danger;">bricolage</mark>](/foundations/bricolage) <mark style="color:$danger;">protocol; which means we are building it in public! Some pages are under construction — but check back soon its updating fast!</mark>&#x20;

This protocol is different than other protocols.  We are developing it in public.&#x20;

Here is why:&#x20;

* **Humility = how to build things.** We can't let our egos and fear of criticism get in the way. We're big fans of the "shitty first draft". The desire to present a *fait accompli* has led to slowed development pipelines in this space, a lack of critique, and serial instead of parallel processing.&#x20;
* **We feel a sense of urgency.** The planet is making a pivot, and all our talking heads are still talking, while the people closest to the reality are screaming that the house is on fire. "[We don't eat money](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/11/12/indigenous-activists-storm-cop30-climate-summit-in-brazil-demanding-action)." is perhaps the most succinct version from Gilmar, a Tupinamba Indigenous protester at COP30 in 2025. We're in a planetary emergency and need to start acting like it. This doesn't mean sloppy work, but opening the kimono on a development pipeline that could help someone else with their build is the right action right now.&#x20;
* **We practice open science**. To benefit Indigenous authors, we do have copyrights and royalties for people who make a profit off the implementation of this work. It's basically a sliding-scale pricing system that includes an open-source component.&#x20;

### Bricolage

We are impossibly proud of doing things "LatAm-style". Getting them done with the materials that *are* available now. One example of this might be Mackelmore's song [*Thrift Shop*](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK8mJJJvaes). There are billions of people on the planet who don't have good funding for academic-level reforestation projects, but have two hands and seeds. This protocol is for *them*.&#x20;

<figure><img src="https://1172926139-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FQlKpTR8KkK45VWYPUpbc%2Fuploads%2F5ja0gj1Lk9Nt9OIhNG6K%2Fsexytrees.gif?alt=media&amp;token=9167865a-67ff-4653-b8f7-51c2f53a6424" alt="Jhony Lopez planting the first batch of #SexyTrees. "><figcaption><p><strong>Figure 1</strong>. Savimbo founder Jhony Lopez opening Savimbo´s first Indigenous-led Amazonian reforestation plot.</p></figcaption></figure>

There is an ethos in a world of late-stage capitalism of watching conspicuous consumerism on social media, and looking for a better, perfect, peer who does things prettier and with more resources. We truly admire some of the formal professsional reforestation projects we've seen, and we truly can't afford them.&#x20;

Then we decided, so what if we don't have more resources? We get our projects done the best we can *anyway*. There is an art to getting things done when you are broke, and it starts with not being ashamed of being broke.&#x20;

The people we represent, and work for, did not convert their resources, or other people's resources, into money. That means they just have less of it. That does not mean they are lesser people.&#x20;

This entire protocol was done cheaply, with not-famous, not-rich people who were really smart. They all put what they [did have to contribute](/authors) into it, and that's bricolage.&#x20;

Iteration

A/B testing


# Grassroots economics

Paying the people who matter because they take tangible action

<mark style="color:$danger;">This is a</mark> [<mark style="color:$danger;">bricolage</mark>](/foundations/bricolage) <mark style="color:$danger;">protocol; which means we are building it in public! Some pages are under construction — but check back soon its updating fast!</mark>&#x20;

The people who control the world's food supply are economically disempowered, but as an economic group have an outsized impact on planetary boundaries.

* \~1.6 billion people live in natural forests ([Newton et al. 2020](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.08.016)), in functional control of these planetary boundaries
* \~600M farms worldwide are smaller than 2ha and produce \~35% of the world’s food by volume, despite controlling only about 12% of the global agricultural land ([Lowder et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105455)).&#x20;
* small-scale and family farms produce about 50% of the world’s total food calories with \~30% of agricultural land ([Samberg et al. 2016](https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/12/124010); [World Economic Forum 2020](https://www.weforum.org/meetings/bold-actions-for-food-as-a-force-for-good-2020/)).
* Indigenous Peoples and local communities protect 40% of the intact planet and 22% of its biocritical regions ([ICCA Consortium 2021](https://report.territoriesoflife.org/)), and (an estimated, if debated) 80% of the biodiversity ([Fernández-Llamazares et al. 2024](https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02811-w), [Mongabay 2024](https://news.mongabay.com/2024/09/do-indigenous-peoples-really-conserve-80-of-the-worlds-biodiversity/) ), and get just <1% of the climate funding ([Mongabay 2021](https://news.mongabay.com/2021/11/indigenous-people-get-less-than-1-of-climate-funding-its-actually-worse-commentary/)).&#x20;

### Characteristics of grassroots economies

We openly acknowledge postcolonialism as an explicit aim for planetary science, and limits of growth.  This perspective is threaded throughout our conclusions ([Funes 2022](https://atmos.earth/political-landscapes/ipcc-report-colonialism-climate-change/); [IPCC 2023](https://atmos.earth/political-landscapes/ipcc-report-colonialism-climate-change/)).

We think postcolonial economics is one of the most exciting, interesting, and meaningful fields of study in this century. But it does lie outside the scope of this methodology 🤓.  Instead, we have included practical recommendations in the [practice guide](https://sexytrees.savimbo.com/practice-guide/), including links to sample contracts, principles, and policies on the [blog](https://www.savimbo.com/blog) and [about](https://www.savimbo.com/about) pages, and open source code and science on the [economics](https://www.savimbo.com/economics) and [equity](https://www.savimbo.com/equity) pages.&#x20;

Instead, we will address some core characteristics of grassroots economies, and differentiating factors for trade and projects in this context, as cultural competency and understanding trade in this context is essential for conducting it fairly.&#x20;

First, these economies are unique, tangible, and pragmatic. They include transactions with both local fiat physical currencies and/or [social capital](https://www.savimbo.com/blog/bridging-and-bonding-social-capital) (non-monetary exchange).&#x20;

Many grassroots communities have at least partial food security ([FAO 2015](https://www.fao.org/3/a-i4646e.pdf)), although labor productivity is lower and financial poverty is common.&#x20;

But explicit understanding of the economic value of food security as an asset is often lacking, lacking direct comparison to disadvantaged urban populations who lack access to food production access. Around the world, these groups are frequently categorized by ethnicity (Indigenous, AfroDescendant, tribal, or local community). But ethnicity, culture, and economics in practice are often heterogeneous and fluid. Savimbo often finds it simpler to differentiate incoming communities by legal and economic status in terms of collectivism, sovereignty, and land rights.&#x20;

But the details of the practice of postcolonialism in general are outside the scope of this chapter. Suffice it to say we negotiate&#x20;

With humility, as we are not anthropologists, our current practice-based understandings, as a community business partner, screening a number of new grassroots communities every month around the world, are the following:&#x20;

#### Collectivism:&#x20;

Some communities have divided land rights into small parcels with individual decision-makers, while others require collective decision-making. There is a wide spectrum of the ratios of individual vs collective decision-making across the communities we work in, regardless of legal status. Where possible, and when asked, we encourage collectivism because of its association with ecological protection (Herrera Arango 2018; Yang et al. 2024). It is unquestionably more work to get a collective decision made, but the benefits far outweigh the costs, from our perspective. One of the immediate benefits is including women and elders, who often are not front-and-center in early negotiations with outsiders. For us, this significantly derisks projects and makes economics more stable and equitable.&#x20;

#### Sovereignty:&#x20;

The difference between most local communities and Indigenous Peoples and some AfroDescendant and tribal cultures is national sovereignty under international law (International Labour Office 2003; Organización Internacional del Trabajo Oficina Regional para América Latina y el Caribe 2009). These communities are equal to, and often in cultural and economic competition with, modern nation-states, also called ‘host nations’, that surround or border them. Sometimes they represent large parts of the population of a country. Simply looking at economic status misses important legal, economic, rights, and power differentiators at play that factor strongly into the communities’ economic decision-making, reliance on money for subsistence, land rights, FPIC compliance, and negotiating power.&#x20;

Economically, many local communities are disadvantaged in modern economic structures. (While not serfs in a legal sense, many local communities occupy neo-feudal economic positions: formally free, but structurally dependent and value-constrained.) In contrast, Indigenous Peoples and their contemporaries are hybrid, plural, and strategic in their economic choices—not categorically outside modernity, but selective and utilitarian in their engagement with its paradigms. Both may experience low socioeconomic status, but this should not be assumed, as it is an independent factor in communities’ self-perceptions of “wealth” and their access to natural capital.

#### Land rights&#x20;

Land rights must be considered a separate, but interconnected, data layer from climate action data. Frequently conflated, land control, rights to sale of ecological credits without double-counting, and benefit-sharing rights should be analytically separated.&#x20;

Control over land does not automatically imply uncontested control over carbon, biodiversity, or other ecosystem-service revenues. In practice, project feasibility depends not only on biophysical potential but on whether communities hold the legal authority, contractual standing, and governance capacity to enter long-term environmental transactions. For smallholder and Indigenous agroforestry, this means that rights analysis should include at least five layers: customary land rights, legal land rights, rights to environmental attributes, internal community governance and consent, and benefit-sharing arrangements. This is not a secondary social consideration but a core project-design variable, since weak rights alignment can undermine permanence, claims validity, and equitable distribution.

For simplicity, we’ll just look at basic legal land rights, divided into three categories: customary, tenure, and title-based rights.&#x20;

This is critical for negotiating climate payments from agroforestry systems (AFS). Even when grassroots owners have title, most smallfarmers can only sell via insetting due to economies of scale. Indigenous Peoples often only have tenure or territorial rights instead of title rights, and might not have control over mineral, water, or air rights on their customary territory, which can block or disrupt projects if government extraction overrides them. Only title holders can certify and sell on exchanges, and tenure rights are often not long enough to negotiate a sale due to certifier restrictions (30-100 year contract length). Conflicting land claims at different governing levels, and out-of-date or double-titling are common, especially in zones with a history of conflict and displacement due to violence.&#x20;

This means that existing land-rights inequity directly transfers into climate markets inequity.  Our protocols are designed and negotiated to operate in one-hectare parcels, specifically to include smallfarmers.  But the biggest structural barrier to agroforestry adoption and spread among our target populations is unquestionably the land rights data layer.&#x20;

For a more comprehensive, qualified, and updated understanding of these three factors, we strongly recommend the work of Rights and Resources Initiative, which is a fast-moving, contemporary organization at the forefront of defining equity and negotiating land rights around the world [(Rights and Resources Initiative)(Rights and Resources Initiative)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=18625540\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). In particular, their work on the Land Rights Standard is widely regarded by many communities we work with as one of their most representative and informed negotiators and definitive operating principles.&#x20;

Grassroots economics

Carbon was the wrong initial transaction point for these populations for two reasons (directly related to the opportunities for financial fraud and market intermediation).&#x20;

First, it is invisible; no one can directly visualize a ton of carbon, only the organic material housing it. Invisibility creates verification gaps that fraud exploits. Second, it has extended timelines (2-5 years for project certification and credit sale, requiring up-front investing and land title) [(Buys et al. 2006)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=14165620\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). Extended timelines require upfront investment that intermediaries capture, exacerbating inequities already rooted in unequal access to capital.

Carbon simply does not respect or optimize the pragmatism and intelligence of grassroots economics. Small farmers and Indigenous People have tangible sciences (different expectations of epistemological knowledge) and economics that occur in dramatically shortened timescales (shorter-term economics) [(Buys et al. 2006; Hale 2006; Foley 2018; Boogaard 2021; Global Forest Coalition 2024)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=14165620,16545595,16473535,2551241,18625554\&pre=\&pre=\&pre=\&pre=\&pre=\&suf=\&suf=\&suf=\&suf=\&suf=\&sa=0,0,0,0,0). These are cultural preferences, no less valuable paradigms than industrial world finance paradigms. And, Savimbo would argue vehemently, these preferences are perhaps more aligned with the outcomes we actually want.&#x20;

So the most important people in the world, for our purposes, are the least economically incentivized to work on the problem. But paradoxically, their incentives might be the most aligned with its actual solution.<br>

<br>


# The actions, more trees

Effective scalable grassroots adoption

After bringing to market a biodiversity crediting protocol that generated $30/ha/yr in conserved side of deforestation borders, which halted the deforestation in our zone, we turned our attention to the deforested side of the plots for reforestation.&#x20;

We have 104+ ecological project sites in our pipeline in 26 countries, the most developed countries are Colombia (11), Ecuador (4), Panama (4), and Mexico (3). This gave us an excellent opportunity to watch different agroforestry solutions operating in situ across the world before selecting two that had serious value to Nature, and were appealing to grassroots practitioners.&#x20;

We knew we needed a systematic agricultural protocol that could replace industrial monoculture, and one that valued Indigenous chagra systems (Hernandez Marentes et al. 2022), also known as chakra (Vera V et al. 2019) or chacra (Caradonna and Apffel-Marglin 2018), and other forms of holistic traditional cultivation. These protocols were very different but describe an observed spectrum of grassroots solutions. We decided that if we could address both ends of the spectrum, we could monetize most projects.&#x20;

The chief paradigms of Indigenous systems are better characterized in Indigenous literature. But we often recommend the work by Dr. Lyla June as a starting point on “architecting abundance” (Johnston 2022). As Lyla has pointed out, Indigenous food systems are biologically engineered for overproduction. For instance, pre-contact Hawaiʻi supported an estimated population of 300,000 with ahupuaʻa systems integrating uplands, streams, and fishponds. Precolonial Arctic clam gardens are complex geoengineered structures that holistically benefit the surrounding ecology while providing relatively passive food sources (Nelson and Reed 2025). These paradigms have been suppressed in colonization, but not lost, and we often find them reemerging when Indigenous practitioners are involved in the co-design of agricultural methods.&#x20;

<br>

<br>


# More trees

How and why to plant trees+ with the #SexyTrees methodology

The #SexyTrees protocol is about humans funding humans to produce more trees. We do venerate natural forests and protect them under our [conservation protocol](https://isbm.savimbo.com/).&#x20;

Most times when humans create "more trees" they use a wide variety of mechanisms. We've bucketed them into general themes of  and with real-world, real-time applications — we use iteration, continuous improvement, [bricolage](/foundations/bricolage), and A/B testing instead of formal academia. &#x20;

Here we present three basic mechanisms, discuss solutions that are already working, and describe how to adopt them faster, fairer, and more fluidly.&#x20;

<table data-view="cards"><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th data-hidden data-card-cover data-type="image">Cover image</th><th data-hidden data-type="content-ref"></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><h3><i class="fa-tree" style="color:green;">:tree:</i></h3></td><td><h4>Reforestation</h4></td><td>Food forests and  natural regrowth. </td><td><a href="https://1172926139-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FQlKpTR8KkK45VWYPUpbc%2Fuploads%2F668Dd22wpQxEq9TEyj3D%2Findigenous-woman-farmer-tropical-agroforestry-reforestation-colombia.jpeg?alt=media&amp;token=e5105292-1458-42d1-97b6-908dd0d54bab">indigenous-woman-farmer-tropical-agroforestry-reforestation-colombia.jpeg</a></td><td><a href="/trees/reforestation-systems-that-work">Reforestation systems that work</a></td></tr><tr><td><h3><i class="fa-tree-deciduous" style="color:cyan;">:tree-deciduous:</i></h3></td><td><h4>Agroforestry</h4></td><td>Place-based systems from order to chaos.</td><td><a href="https://1172926139-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FQlKpTR8KkK45VWYPUpbc%2Fuploads%2FdWqOMWVvVxA2waGCvRFF%2Ffarmers-planting-tropical-tree-seedlings-putumayo-savimbo-sexytrees.jpeg?alt=media&amp;token=7ce5dec6-1d74-43f1-ade4-c9025c42cc20">farmers-planting-tropical-tree-seedlings-putumayo-savimbo-sexytrees.jpeg</a></td><td><a href="/trees/agroforestry">Agroforestry</a></td></tr><tr><td><h3><i class="fa-flower-tulip" style="color:$success;">:flower-tulip:</i></h3></td><td><h4>Chagras</h4></td><td>An authentic Indigenous primer on chagras. </td><td><a href="https://1172926139-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FQlKpTR8KkK45VWYPUpbc%2Fuploads%2FKy7W6Mp5awh2Pm2aLkBs%2Fkamentsa-chagra-leader-miguel-chindoy-cosmovision-mural-putumayo-colombia.jpeg?alt=media&amp;token=75b511f3-9419-4141-8a64-2b58e9da66bb">kamentsa-chagra-leader-miguel-chindoy-cosmovision-mural-putumayo-colombia.jpeg</a></td><td><a href="/trees/chagras">Chagras</a></td></tr></tbody></table>

<br>


# Reforestation systems that work

How to fund reforestation under the #SexyTrees methodology

<mark style="color:$danger;">This is a</mark> [<mark style="color:$danger;">bricolage</mark>](/foundations/bricolage) <mark style="color:$danger;">protocol; which means we are building it in public! Some pages are under construction — but check back soon its updating fast!</mark>&#x20;

We do reforestation with a food-forest protocol and natural regrowth. More coming soon!


# Agroforestry systems that work

How to fund agroforestry under the #SexyTrees methodology

**Good agroforestry isn't one thing; it's a spectrum from healthy chaos to healthy order, and this payment protocol covers both ends (see** [**Fig. C**](#figure-c-agroforestry-spectrum-from-healthy-chaos-to-healthy-order)**).**&#x20;

Good agroforestry reduces pressure on primary forests by improving food production in deforested areas and halting the cycle of slash-and-burn agriculture ([Teo, 2025](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-025-01532-w)).&#x20;

> *"When this work began, my driving concern was for both the survival of the world's remaining rain forests and the well-being of those millions of families who were trapped in poverty and food insecurity by a widely failing agricultural technique. Considering the scale of the social and environmental problem, it seemed almost inconceivable that no alternative existed, or could exist."* — [Hands 2021](https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201204), *R. Soc. Open Sci.*

Whether agroforestry actually reduces deforestation at landscape scale — rather than just delivering local benefits — has remained an open question. A 2025 causal-inference study across 38 subnational regions of Southeast Asia closed some of that gap, finding that agroforestry produced a net reduction in deforestation of roughly 250,000 hectares per year, equivalent to nearly 59 megatonnes of CO₂e annually ([Teo et al. 2025](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-025-01532-w)).&#x20;

The mechanism is the logic at the heart of #SexyTrees: when diversified tree systems supply alternative income — fuelwood, timber, fruit — the economic pressure to clear more forest drops.&#x20;

An important note that the effect was not uniform. Agroforestry curbed forest loss in some regions and accelerated it in others, depending on governance, tenure security, and local economics — a heterogeneity the authors are explicit about. Their policy conclusions [mirror our own](/foundations/grassroots-economics): secure land tenure, genuine community engagement, and honest leakage accounting are what separate agroforestry that spares forests from agroforestry that simply displaces clearing elsewhere, or worse, accelerates it.

### What is a good agroforestry system?&#x20;

There is a dizzying array of possibilities for place-based food cultivation with agroforestry. We spent six months with a rolling workgroup for this methodology, and arrived at some core conclusions.&#x20;

The group surfaced high-quality field-tested agroforestry practitioners around the world (see [Authors](broken://pages/oCaTY2NlUC2HNJYMiCvN) for non-anonymous participants). They were using a variety of different markets to fund their services, including climate credits (carbon or biodiversity), grants(academic, international development, food security, climate resistance, seed banks), high-tech funding (AI, eDNA, and blockchain), payments for ecosystem services (PES), charity funding, and crop subsidies (organic or sustainable food premium pricing).&#x20;

Too truths coexisted in the peer group. The Indigenous practitioners were more advanced, and as a result were using Nature's chaos and complexity wholeheartedly. But most of the agroforestry systems blended this perspective with Western industrial production. We've addressed this in the protocol by describing *chagras* both as one end of a spectrum *and* as a completely different paradigm that is its own category entirely.&#x20;

This group has continued to expand over the following year-and-a-half of protocol development, but the following observations have been relatively consistent over the last year.

* **Native trees are a pretty good rule**. It doesn't *always* hold; there are some strong arguments for non-native nurse trees in some sticky bioremediation, contamination, or sterile food production situations (e.g., breadfruit, even eucalyptus, or plastic trees). But some of the most useful plants (water hyacinth has immense bioremediation properties, bamboo is a miracle solution for paper and construction materials) are truly invasive outside of their ecosystem.
* **Actors are** [**easy to distinguish**](#how-to-figure-out-who-to-work-with-and-fund)**.** You have to ask a group to let you pay the landowner to plant a tree directly to know if they are talking from actual practice. This single requiest reliably separated groups that were presenting themselves as agroforestry practitioners, from those that were actually practicing agroforestry, a true Venn diagram.   No other question was as reliable.&#x20;
* **Place-based differences must be removed from the equation**. Desert, mountain, tropical, and island ecology dramatically change the practices and obscure common themes that can be used to scale funding. This increases infighting among practitioners like the blind men and the elephant.
* **Agroforestry&#x20;*****does*****&#x20;have a basic theme.** The agroforestry enthusiasts all have different ecosystems, and their enthusiasm reflects a place-specificity that, debate semantics,  But practically nature has a pattern, and most groups were using similar themes to interact with it.&#x20;
* **Agroforestry&#x20;*****does not*****&#x20;have a consistent nomenclature.** There is a distressingly [wide variety of terms](/practice-guide/inga-agroforestry/plot-dimensions#on-semantics) in academic disciplines (farmers trade organizations, permaculture, silviculture, and agronomy backgrounds) and cultural differences (smallfarmer, vs indigenous vs conscious living community enthusiasts). This means search engines remain siloed for ontology problems, but possibly AI engines can aggregate findings. <br>

### How to figure out who to work with and fund

One major finding from our work with the rolling workgroup was how to reliably identify practitioners who were viable to work with for outcomes-based funding.&#x20;

**TL:DR = do a test outcomes payment.**&#x20;

As you can see from the Venn diagram below, you can't rely on what people say to figure out who to reliably fund. In our direct experience, in the 25 countries we work in, there is a large iceberg of virtually silent high-quality practitioners on the ground, and many of the people at conferences and workgroups talking about agroforestry have no physical signature on ground vetting, or even any connection with ground activities.&#x20;

Some people at conferences *do* check out out, and have quite authentic grassroots programs, the problem is that they sound virtually identical to their peers in a virtual or Western setting.&#x20;

We found that the most authentic, fast, and valid way to distinguish who is in the pink circle is not traditional site visits. It's still relatively easy for intermediary orgs to mask authentic ground activity with a well-paid local guide in the short time a traveler has available.&#x20;

It's actually quite simple and can be done virtually. It's to ask to pay a distributed group of landowners in the region a small outcomes-based payment for the trees they had planted. That immediately distinguished people who were actively reforesting from those who weren't, as reforestation is a physical labor task; people actively doing it have to buy supplies, compensate planting staff, and run operations. They both need funding and have immediate and pragmatic responses on where to plant, what authentications are in place, and who to pay in a distributed fashion.&#x20;

Orgs that haven't be compensating locals with their budgets will almost universally self-select out at that point as it would lead to questions from locals as to why they haven't been paid previously. Harsh, but effective. The orgs that stay and follow through are worth working with and tend to go the distance.&#x20;

#### Figure D: Venn diagram describing who should be funded in agroforestry

<figure><img src="https://1172926139-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FQlKpTR8KkK45VWYPUpbc%2Fuploads%2FXmDii1O7o4VFDJiqxGAy%2Fagroforestry-talk-vs-action-venn-diagram.png?alt=media&amp;token=5ae4f1c9-d5ff-41c8-a738-d5213137504c" alt="Venn diagram contrasting &#x22;people who say they do agroforestry&#x22; (yellow circle, labeled TALK) with &#x22;people who actually do agroforestry&#x22; (pink circle, labeled ACTION). A small overlap in the middle represents those who do both — talk about it and practice it."><figcaption><p>To isolate the pink circle for funding, arrange a #SexyTrees outcome payment. </p></figcaption></figure>

### Covering the spectrum of good agroforestry

To financially cover the spectrum of high quality agroforesty providers, it became clear quickly that place-based issues were a red herring. Instead, we had to address [reductionism](/trees/agroforestry/chagras#reductionism-and-black-boxes), and more importantly, reject it in the case of the highest-quality systems we found, [Indigenous chagras.](/trees/chagras)&#x20;

We decided to focus on two example grassroots agroforestry systems for real-world testing our proposed payment protocol. We hypothesized that real-world payments that worked for either end of the spectrum could be blended to address any individual site.

The spectrum is from healthy chaos to healthy order.&#x20;

* [**Healthy order**](/trees/agroforestry/inga-agroforestry)**.** For the sake of this protocol, we chose the rigorously field-tested system of Inga alley cropping to represent systematic, ordered, agroecological systems. This is a 37-year-old design, with a history of field cultivation, and a Cambridge science team ([Hands 2021](https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201204) and [Inga Foundation](/practice-guide/community/field-schools#inga-foundation-in-honduras)). We included an [Inga agroforestry practice guide](/trees/agroforestry/inga-agroforestry) for interested adopters.&#x20;
* [**Healthy chaos**](/trees/agroforestry/chagras)**.** We found the most advanced (and difficult to quantify) science in authentically preserved Indigenous chagras systems. We chose the 5-year-old teaching of the Kamëntsá from Colombia (Miguel Chindoy and [Agropueblos](/practice-guide/community/field-schools#agropueblos-in-sibundoy-colombia)) to test outcome-based payments at the chaotic end of the spectrum.  We included a [chagra practice guide](/practice-guide/chagras/reward-protocol) for interested adopters.

#### Figure C: Agroforestry spectrum from healthy chaos to healthy order

<figure><img src="https://1172926139-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FQlKpTR8KkK45VWYPUpbc%2Fuploads%2FIDzEUqpr7A16kNz9yfUS%2Fagroforestry-healthy-chaos-healthy-order-credit-qualification.png?alt=media&amp;token=760a8a97-cfdd-4aee-972d-04543ca1d6b1" alt="Diagram showing a spectrum from &#x22;healthy chaos&#x22; on the left to &#x22;healthy order&#x22; on the right, with a pink dot marking an example site&#x27;s position near the center. Below the spectrum, two overlapping triangular regions indicate qualification likelihood: agrobiodiversity units (purple) dominate at the chaos end, while tree and climate credit units (teal) dominate at the order end. The example site near center falls in the overlap zone where both unit types may qualify."><figcaption><p>Where a site falls between healthy chaos and healthy order determines which credit units it qualifies for. The example site shown straddles both.</p></figcaption></figure>


# Inga agroforestry

Inga alley cropping as an example of healthy order in agroforestry systems

<mark style="color:$danger;">This is a</mark> [<mark style="color:$danger;">bricolage</mark>](/foundations/bricolage) <mark style="color:$danger;">protocol; which means we are building it in public! Some pages are under construction — but check back soon its updating fast!</mark>&#x20;

Inga alley cropping is the perfect system to provide a real-world anchor to the 'order' end of the [good-agroforestry spectrum](https://sexytrees.savimbo.com/trees/agroforestry#figure-c-agroforestry-spectrum-from-healthy-chaos-to-healthy-order) (see [Fig. C](/trees/agroforestry#figure-c-agroforestry-spectrum-from-healthy-chaos-to-healthy-order)).&#x20;

We were first introduced to the system by an NGO working in Ecuador. Nicola Peel from [Rainforest Saver](https://sexytrees.savimbo.com/practice-guide/community/field-schools#jose-abel-in-lago-agrio-ecuador) mentioned Inga alley cropping, developed over 37 years of iterative field testing by Mike Hands from Cambridge, working with the [Inga Foundation](https://sexytrees.savimbo.com/practice-guide/community/field-schools#inga-foundation-in-honduras). What caught our attention is that she mentioned that smallfarmers in Ecuador were adopting it with no funding, because they liked the results (Nicola Peel, Rainforest Saver, pers. communication, 5 December 2023) (See [Fig. I)](https://sexytrees.savimbo.com/trees/agroforestry/pages/5HR7WHMxgdwgEhsE3fCQ#figure-i.-inga-alley-cropping-photo-collage).&#x20;

We have strong respect for the [pragmatism and economic decision-making](https://sexytrees.savimbo.com/foundations/grassroots-economics#characteristics-of-grassroots-economies) of smallfarmers. If they have adopted a new protocol, it's for a reason.&#x20;

It turns out Latin American small farmers and Indigenous communities *really* like Inga. A 1997 region-by-region farmer-priority survey across three areas of the Peruvian Amazon: Yurimaguas, Pucallpa, and Iquitos — ranked Inga as one of the top five preferred species for agroforestry ([Sotelo et. al. 1997](https://repositorio.catie.ac.cr/handle/11554/6701)). In ⅘ of our pilot sites, communities were already intercropping with Inga trees (*Guamo* in Latin America).&#x20;

We chose the classic hedgerow conformation, [Inga alley cropping](/practice-guide/inga-agroforestry/plot-dimensions#alley-or-hedgerow-architecture) (see Fig, as the systematic end of the evaluation spectrum, although there are some fascinating [matrix conformations](/practice-guide/inga-agroforestry/plot-dimensions#matrix-or-nurse-species-architecture) that are well tested and hold equal promise. &#x20;

### **Systematic agroforestry — Inga alley cropping**

We have encountered much more complex and structured systems for polycropping. Perhaps the best example of this is the well-researched academic work done by Evert Thomas and the team at [Alliance Bioversity International - CIAT](https://alliancebioversityciat.org/tools-innovations/diversity-restoration-d4r) in Peru and Colombia ([Fremout et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14079), [Tscharntke et al. 2023](https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12936)).&#x20;

However, these ecosystem-tailored systems are often not easily accessible to the average smallfarmer. Do they work better? We think so. Are they easy to teach to a beginner? Probably not. For agronomists serious about industrial-scale production, we recommend the spatially explicit, climate-adjusted species-selection tools developed by Bioversity/CIAT — [Diversity for Restoration](https://www.diversityforrestoration.org) and, for agroforestry design specifically, [CacaoDiversity](https://www.cacaodiversity.org).

Inga alley cropping offers three converging advantages — ecological, economic, and pragmatic. It is built on a widespread native tree, it restores degraded land into food production at low input cost, and it is simple enough for a grassroots smallfarmer to learn and deploy rapidly — making food security achievable across much of the humid tropics of Latin America.&#x20;

#### Figure I. Inga alley cropping photo collage

<figure><img src="https://1172926139-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FQlKpTR8KkK45VWYPUpbc%2Fuploads%2FD67OC93n6dbkI4if8TPr%2Finga-alley-cropping-cacao-banana-polyculture-sucumbios-ecuador-savimbo-sexytrees.png?alt=media&amp;token=f7e4d769-186d-4b41-a67b-370266b951dd" alt="Multi-strata tropical agroforestry in action: a Savimbo field team walks an Inga alley between rows of young cacao with banana plants in the mid-canopy at a SexyTrees pilot site in Putumayo, Colombia. The brown mulch path is freshly pruned Inga biomass — the leaf-mulch mechanism that suppresses weeds, cycles phosphorus, and replaces slash-and-burn on degraded humid-tropical soils."><figcaption><p><em>Inga edulis</em> alley cropping with cacao and banana in mature plot at <a href="https://rainforestsaver.org/">Rainforest Saver</a> site in Sucumbios, Ecuador — Savimbo staff training in <a href="https://sexytrees.savimbo.com/practice-guide/community/field-schools#jose-abel-in-lago-agrio-ecuador">José Ramírez training program</a>.</p></figcaption></figure>

<div><figure><img src="https://1172926139-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FQlKpTR8KkK45VWYPUpbc%2Fuploads%2Fl4EZlWKFPLpqoMCOc4fv%2Finga-edulis-guama-pods_1.jpg?alt=media&amp;token=8ed30555-8b6f-4e69-b570-1b631b57e908" alt="Juvenile seed pods of Inga edulis, the ice-cream bean tree, hanging in clusters from a branch"><figcaption><p><em>Inga edulis</em> — the ice-cream bean (guama) — fruiting (juvenile pods). Photo: <a href="https://www.flickr.com/people/92252798@N07">Dick Culbert</a>, CC BY 2.0.</p></figcaption></figure> <figure><img src="https://1172926139-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FQlKpTR8KkK45VWYPUpbc%2Fuploads%2Fl64VwC7cDvV3aVuCDfOV%2Finga-edulis-guama-pods_2.jpg?alt=media&amp;token=ed674d8a-b9eb-437d-b773-a89e834f4fb3" alt="Mature seed pods of Inga edulis, the ice-cream bean tree, hanging in clusters from a branch"><figcaption><p><em>Inga edulis</em> fruiting (mature pods). Pods like these feed families between harvests. Photo: <a href="https://www.flickr.com/people/92252798@N07">Dick Culbert</a>, CC BY 2.0.</p></figcaption></figure> <figure><img src="https://1172926139-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FQlKpTR8KkK45VWYPUpbc%2Fuploads%2F0Pd4Zfxp9HaHWmXQbpT6%2Finga-edulis-foliage.jpg?alt=media&amp;token=631b55ad-83ad-41d9-953d-886487d1526d" alt="Glossy pinnate leaves of a young Inga edulis, the ice-cream bean tree, grown as a specimen at a botanical garden"><figcaption><p><em>Inga edulis</em> foliage — evenly pinnate, dark-green leaves. This nitrogen-fixing legume is the workhorse species of Inga alley cropping, prized for fast growth and a dense, weed-suppressing canopy. Photo: <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Daderot">Daderot</a>, CC0.</p></figcaption></figure></div>

For clarity, we defer to the [Inga Foundation](https://sexytrees.savimbo.com/practice-guide/community/field-schools#inga-foundation-in-honduras) as the ideal source for foundational science and updated planting protocols. But we've done our best to summarize what we've been able to retain — as we learn it.

Inga alley cropping is not an Indigenous system. It came out of systematic academic fieldwork that smallfarmers adopted because it worked. Dr. Mike Hands at the University of Cambridge co-developed the modern protocol over 37 years of trials with local communities in Honduras and Costa Rica, work documented across three foundational papers ([Hands et al. 1995](https://www.scopenvironment.org/downloadpubs/scope54/); [Hands 1998](https://shop.kew.org/the-genus-inga-utilization); [Hands 2021](https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201204)) and continued today through the [Inga Foundation](https://sexytrees.savimbo.com/practice-guide/community/field-schools#inga-foundation-in-honduras). The system has since been successfully deployed across diverse ecosystems, altitudes, and climates.

> *"The opposite of deforestation is not necessarily simple 'reforestation'. Restoration of the landscape has to imply the reversal of soil degradation; the restoration of SOM and the restoration of the microbial populations that formerly retrieved, retained and recycled essential nutrients."* — [Hands 2021](https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201204), *R. Soc. Open Sci.*

Inga alley cropping has been field-tested over decades, with measurements for soil chemistry, yields, and long-term productivity ([Hands 1995, 1998, 2021](https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201204)). The system is straightforward in description: fast-growing *Inga edulis* trees planted in rows, food crops grown in the alleys between them — maize, beans, cacao, pepper, alone or in polyculture. The science behind why it works is less obvious.&#x20;

The system is specifically designed to replace motivators and cycles of slash-and-burn agriculture. , a common cause of deforestation in the humid tropics. Farmers burn new fields to temporarily increase nutrient availability due to the soil´s acidic, nutrient-leaching nature ([Juo and Manu 1996](https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8809\(95\)00656-7); [Bezerra et al. 2024](https://doi.org/10.3390/su16229994)).&#x20;

Slash-and-burn farming gets its productivity from a one-time fertility pulse: phosphorus, which is otherwise scarce in highly weathered tropical soils, leaches from burned forest biomass through soil macropores and briefly becomes available to crops ([Hands et al. 1995](https://www.scopenvironment.org/downloadpubs/scope54/)). The pulse is short. Within a few seasons, the phosphorus is gone, and the farmer clears more forest.&#x20;

Inga alley cropping intentionally replaces this with a continuous cycle. It concentrates large densities of root biomass in the top 10 cm soil layer, forming dense networks of fine roots and mycorrhizal associations in the upper soil and mulch layers, and mobilizes phosphorus from decomposing leaf litter and pruned biomass. Thus approximating the nutrient cycling of an intact tropical forest (where fine roots are concentrated in the upper few centimeters of soil and are largely absent below \~20 cm dept). The same plot stays productive. No new burning required.

Species selection was explicit and concrete. *Inga edulis* outperformed other tested alley species — *Gliricidia sepium* and *Erythrina fusca* — which lost productivity over time and produced insufficient mulch cover for long-term use [(Hands 2021)](https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201204). Trials measured biomass production, weed control, and tolerance to pollarding. The genus *Inga* contains over 300 species [(Hands 1998)](https://www.kew.org/kewbooks/the-genus-inga-utilization); *I. edulis* is the current recommended workhorse, though the science continues to evolve. It maintains productivity under repeated pruning, and the pruned branches become mulch. There is an elevation limit: native to Amazon basin lowlands, *I. edulis* reportedly performs best below 1,600m, with a biological ceiling near 2,200m [(NFTA 1993](https://winrock.org/factnet/fact-net-fact-sheets/inga-edulis-a-tree-for-acid-soils-in-the-humid-tropics/); [Rainforest Saver)](https://rainforestsaver.org/how-to-and-the-science/step-by-step-guide-to-inga-alley-cropping/). Other Inga species — *I. densiflora*, *I. oerstediana, I/ punctata* — extend into Andean foothills, and some pilot sites use these, although we haven't found any good research on them as yet.

Many sites we interviewed had analogs of Inga trees, nitrogen-fixing trees they swear by. We are fairly rigid on the [policy of using native trees](https://sexytrees.savimbo.com/trees/agroforestry) for the SexyTrees protocol. Therefore, we have been neutral on the selection of analogs for other ecosystems in Nepal, Asia, and Kenya. Not every ecosystem can afford rigorous field-testing for trees that locals report work. Besides Honduras, Inga alley cropping is nowadays used in Guatemala, Costa Rica, Peru, Colombia, Ecuador, Cameroon, Kenya, and other parts of Africa, and at pilot sites in Southeast Asia [(Rainforest Saver; Inga Foundation 2026)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=18625090,18626662\&pre=\&pre=\&suf=\&suf=\&sa=0,0).&#x20;

It's of note that Inga Foundation has evolved to a more sophisticated economic model, which they call the “Guamo model,” based on real-world experience with >300 Honduran families [(Hands 2021)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=18625117\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0).&#x20;

1. Production of basic grains (Inga-alley cropping hedgerows),&#x20;
2. Cash crops (hedgerow),&#x20;
3. Fruit trees (matrix), and&#x20;
4. Reforestation with tropical hardwoods (matrix)

This is an interesting evolution and points to expanded income generation beyond food security. We think it's worth studying for sites looking at [EUDR-compliant crops](/markets/tree-unit) and engaged in collective market negotiations for cash crops.&#x20;

\ <br>


# Indigenous chagras

How to fund chagras under the #SexyTrees methodology

<mark style="color:$danger;">This is a</mark> [<mark style="color:$danger;">bricolage</mark>](/foundations/bricolage) <mark style="color:$danger;">protocol; which means we are building it in public! Some pages are under construction — but check back soon its updating fast!</mark>&#x20;

Authentic Indigenous *chagras* are the perfect systems to provide a real-world anchor to the 'chaos' end of the [good-agroforestry spectrum](https://sexytrees.savimbo.com/trees/agroforestry#figure-c-agroforestry-spectrum-from-healthy-chaos-to-healthy-order) (see [Fig. C](/trees/agroforestry#figure-c-agroforestry-spectrum-from-healthy-chaos-to-healthy-order)). &#x20;

We need to be humble about our ability to understand these systems, and have included Miguel Chindoy as a qualified Indigenous practitioner for a [harmonizing voice](/trees/chagras). However, we include the outsiders' perspective for reference.

### Chagras and money

To talk about rewarding chagras with money is essentially a bicultural endeavor. There are strong arguments for and against undertaking this.&#x20;

The majority of traditional chagra systems we reviewed use [social capital](https://www.savimbo.com/blog/bridging-and-bonding-social-capital?srsltid=AfmBOor-LQWasxHnS4OR1aT11Ch5fLwwW0L7iNQiBf5dfCgmtgcpp4-U), *minga*, or other means of non-monetary compensation for maintenance. Adding external compensation is a change, and might not be a good one, depending on how the community views what is already occurring.&#x20;

We'll summarize the arguments we heard over the past year from traditional leaders across Latin America and the Carribean:&#x20;

* **'For' argument:** *Chagras* and *chagra* science are at risk of being degraded or lost, and many communities have authentically asked for financial compensation and funding to keep them active and preserve endangered traditional crops.
* **'Against' argument:** *Chagras* are a living symbol of collective living for traditional cultures that do not operate on money but on barter and collective contribution. Offering money for work in a *chagra* is a cultural contamination.&#x20;

We are not in a position to make the final decision on this. Communities have to make it themselves with their internal guidance. We do appreciate that it's not a simple decision for many leaders concerned about preserving culture.

Instead, we sat down to figure out if we *did* negotiate for the communities who asked to receive financial compensation, *how* could that compensation be arranged to achieve the maximum benefit in fair trade, with the least cultural dilution or reductionism.&#x20;

Thus, we present an outsider's impression of *chagras* as a black-box funding system, followed by an authentic, [independent traditional voice](/trees/chagras).&#x20;

### *Chagras*, reductionism, and black boxes

Our outsiders' understanding of chagras and the strength of the debate came when we first  realized they had a role as schools to teach Nature to children (Miguel Chindoy, Agropueblos pers. Communication, 13 January 2026). We finally understood that chagras had a unique esoteric dimension.&#x20;

By observation, they are typically run by *abuelas* (elder women of high esteem) in the community, often co-occurring with childcare. An early attempt to review them for physical characterization under this stacking protocol revealed a production system consistent with the literature that was as impossibly complex as it was productive — place-based, with a variety of unquantified species, elegant mixed food production cycles, and plant knowledge ([González and Kröger 2020](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102257)).&#x20;

Our team was entirely stumped until we realized they could not be quantified at all. Any more than taking a sample of water from a stream characterizes a river. Furthermore, we realized that the attempt was disrespectful (with or without invitation) in the same way such an attempt would be out of place in a monastery of Japanese monks tending a zen garden. Instead, we have decided to share our understanding that they are a practical and systematic experience of Nature, co-occurring with spirituality, culture, and tradition. &#x20;

While some peers have attempted to measure biocultural credits for chagras, Savimbo has a core policy that culture is not for sale. Instead, we have decided to approach chagras like wind on water, acknowledging that one can never capture the wind.&#x20;

There is plenty of scientific precedent for such a system; most notably, machine learning (ML). A [black box](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box) system in science, computing, and engineering has internal workings that are too tangled to interpret — so it can only be viewed in terms of its inputs and outputs ([Bunge 1963](https://doi.org/10.1086/287954)). There is robust theory and processes for working with these systems, and no reason not to apply them in rewarding *chagras*.&#x20;

#### Figure K: Indigenous *chagras* as a black box system

<figure><img src="https://1172926139-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FQlKpTR8KkK45VWYPUpbc%2Fuploads%2F2kxHCGOeHek3ga2ijVBK%2Fchagra-black-box-payment-model.png?alt=media&amp;token=d7af4071-9a50-49bd-8d61-9522b592e1de" alt="Diagram comparing a machine-learning model and a chagra as black boxes, each judged on outputs rather than internal mechanism"><figcaption><p>A machine-learning model and an Indigenous <em>chagra</em> are both black box systems.</p></figcaption></figure>

Ethics and episemic reasoning both point to the same conclusion: attempts to understand *chagras* internal workings are both unnecessarily invasive and likely inaccurate.&#x20;

### Compensating *chagras* for genetic conservation

One easy way to compensate chagras, without attempting to reduce them, is as a conservation system for rare crops. A core pillar of our previous conservation work has been the observation that one *does not have to quantify to conserve*.&#x20;

There are pros and cons to various markets:&#x20;

* **Charity funding** often relies on external NGOs for storytelling, advocacy, reporting, and negotiating. As a result, its not uncommon to observe mistranslation of culture, interrupted funding cycles, or financial intermediation.&#x20;
* **Payments for ecosystem services (PES)** such as Peru's Payments for Agrobiodiversity Conservation Services (PACS) schemes, have been implemented by the Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT in Peru's Puno region ([Drucker and Ramirez 2020](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104810)). But require direct transactions with institutions and attendant complexity — including disrupted funding cycles.&#x20;
* **Area-based climate credits** like nature-based carbon credits have traditionally been the primary vehicle for climate finance, yet they differ fundamentally from gene-based models such as agrobiodiversity or seed banks in scope and collateral. These models focus on land tenure and titling as the primary financial collateral because they are often priced by the hectare, generating revenue from the physical extent of the land. However, are relatively small areas, often only 1-2 hectares or less, as compared to industrial cultivation with outsized value.&#x20;

Economically, there is a significant difference in the relationship to host nations between selling outcomes (consulting or commodities transaction) or payments for ecosystem services (employment transaction). We believe that paying for tangible outcomes preserves communities' privacy, autonomy, and independence in how results are delivered. Given the esoteric nature of chagras, the minimum invasiveness for a fair trade is ideal.

Furthermore, this unit, which could be easily produced from the number and variety of species in a chagra, could be translated to the Agrobiodiversity Index [(Jones et al. 2021)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=11838938\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0) with a minimum of fuss.&#x20;

For outcomes-based payments to the chagras, we have tentatively concluded the best market to access is the agrobiodiversity market that incentivizes the preservation of biological diversity related to agriculture  (Ducros et al. in prep.), including neglected underutilized species (NUS; ([Talucder et al. 2024](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2024.101116)).&#x20;

The development of gene-based units will need to be aligned with several emerging international standards. For instance, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has an internationally negotiated mechanism aimed at fair and equitable benefit-sharing from the use of Digital Sequence Information (DSI) on genetic resources. This is operationalized as the Cali Fund, a multilateral financial mechanism for the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits from the Use of Digital Sequence Information on Genetic Resources.&#x20;

How this fund will be compliant with Indigenous Data Sovereignty (IDSov) the field of translation of Indigenous rights to data and IP rights, is still unclear. But what is clear is that in the past, genetic information such as Digital Sequence Information (DSI) has been treated as a “free” raw resource to be mined for global markets (including the pharmaceutical industry). Now, this process is termed digital colonialism or biopiracy. These ethics are under intense scrutiny, and genetic data are being negotiated as an inherent biocultural asset [(TDG 2024; Flores 2025)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=18625961,18626900\&pre=\&pre=\&suf=\&suf=\&sa=0,0). A gene-based unit does not require the physical alienation or "fencing" of land to generate value. While land tenure is a prerequisite for security, the Agrobiodiversity Index Unit (AIU) derives its value from the information density and genetic diversity within that land. It shall allow for “genetic data sovereign exports” where the economic input is control over data (IDSov) rather than the physical extraction of resources.

By using a simplified peer-rating algorithm for cultural authenticity of chagras, we could obviate the need to seek Western approval for intact esoteric traditions. However, we still need accessible measurement and operationalization of more tangible characteristics. These claims ideally aim at genetic diversity to meet climate resilience, climate adaptation, or food security funding. We think DSI information might be unnecessary, and ethically problematic to obtain, house, or measure.  Thus, this protocol is still under active negotiation with representative Indigenous communities, scientists, and certifying bodies in several countries.&#x20;

It’s of interest to us that these two real-world holistic agricultural systems have ended up accessing radically different markets with different units (area-based vs gene-based). However, we note that over the course of our community feedback period, most grassroots AFS fall somewhere in the middle of these two systems on a spectrum, so two overlapping protocols for the two ends of the spectrum could be adapted to a wide variety of agricultural sites as needed and fit several different place-based AFS.&#x20;

To narrow the scope of this chapter, we will only address area-based crediting from standardized systems in the following sections. But we do hope to add gene units to further discussions.

\ <br>


# The chagra: an ancestral model of biodiversity

Contributions to the various mechanisms for biodiversity credits

*An authoritative standalone essay by Miguel Chindoy, on behalf of* [*Agropueblos*](/practice-guide/community/field-schools#agropueblos-in-sibundoy-colombia)*, Asociación Indígena para la Gobernanza de los Primeros Pueblo&#x73;**,** April 2026*

***

The [*chagra*](#user-content-fn-1)[^1] across diverse territories of Latin America and its equivalents elsewhere in the world, constitutes far more than an agricultural production system: it is a living expression of biodiversity in which Indigenous peoples, Afrodescendant peoples, and local communities not only interact with nature — we are constitutive of it. This understanding breaks with the Western vision that separates society and nature; in its place, it proposes a relational ontology in which the human, the vegetal, the animal, and the spiritual coexist in an interdependent fabric. From this perspective, biodiversity is not merely a sum of species, but a network of living relationships that includes knowledges, practices, languages, and spiritualities, configuring complex biocultural systems.

<figure><img src="https://1172926139-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FQlKpTR8KkK45VWYPUpbc%2Fuploads%2FT3EPpJ4f0QxtQJ5sL0EN%2FSnapseed%202.png?alt=media&amp;token=aa634c01-b619-4441-bd96-dd12a261c44d" alt="Composite portrait of five Indigenous grandmothers — abuelas, seed keepers, traditional knowledge holders — from the Agropueblos program in Putumayo, Colombia. Shown with ceramic vessels, medicinal plants, sugarcane, and heirloom seeds from their home gardens. Intergenerational Indigenous women&#x27;s leadership anchors Savimbo&#x27;s grassroots reforestation and agroforestry methodology."><figcaption><p><em>Chagra</em> lineage holders in Agropueblos collective — Sibundoy, Colombia. </p></figcaption></figure>

In this sense, the *chagra* must be understood through a multi-conceptual lens that articulates ecological, cultural, economic, spiritual, and juridical dimensions. It is not only cultivation — it is school, laboratory, temple, market, and political space. Various ethnoecological studies have demonstrated that traditional systems such as the *chagra* contain levels of biological diversity [superior to many modern agricultural systems](#user-content-fn-2)[^2], which constitutes a key strategy for the *in situ* conservation of biodiversity. This complexity allows us to recognize the *chagra* as an integral unit of territorial management that materializes principles of deep sustainability, sustained on the following points:

1. **The logic that sustains the&#x20;*****chagra*** proceeds from careful attention to the order of nature, grounded in the principle of unity in diversity. Our ancestors understood that life is sustained by cooperation among species and not by exclusionary competition, and so they designed polyculture systems in which medicinal, food, ritual, and forest plants coexist in harmony. This ecological organization favors nutrient cycling, biological pest control, and climatic resilience, constituting a [highly efficient model](#user-content-fn-3)[^3] from an agroecological standpoint. The *chagra* thus stands as a sophisticated ancestral technology that today is in dialogue with contemporary sciences.
2. **The&#x20;*****chagra*****&#x20;is a space for the reaffirmation of the social fabric and community cohesion.** The activities developed there — sowing, weeding, harvesting, and others — are carried out collectively, strengthening bonds of solidarity, reciprocity, and shared responsibility. In the Kamëntšá language, one of the 560 Indigenous languages of Latin America and the Caribbean ([Eberhard et al. 2023](https://www.ethnologue.com/)), the concept **JENA BUATAMBAN** expresses this practice with depth: *mutual teaching through mutual aid in work*. This notion embodies a community pedagogy in which knowledge is transmitted by doing, sharing, and accompanying, making the *chagra* a fundamental social institution for the reproduction of collective life.
3. **The&#x20;*****chagra*****&#x20;is a dynamic reservoir of ancestral knowledge** spanning from seed management to complex botanical knowledges, lunar calendars, and artistic expressions. It is here that a true science of life is developed, based on observation, experience, and intergenerational transmission. Here the voices of the elders emerge as guardians of memory, of women as caretakers of diversity, and of children and youth as the continuators of knowledge.
4. **The&#x20;*****chagra*****&#x20;guarantees the food sovereignty of communities** by constituting a permanent pantry of diverse, nutritious, and culturally appropriate foods. The diversity of species ensures balanced diets and reduces dependence on external markets, strengthening food autonomy. Furthermore, production without agrochemicals contributes to the health of ecosystems and people, consolidating a direct relationship between food, territory, and well-being. From this perspective, the *chagra* nourishes not only bodies but also identities and forms of life.
5. **The&#x20;*****chagra*****&#x20;is the guardian of ritual and spiritual spaces** where offerings, *pagamentos*, and practices of energetic harmonization are carried out. These acts — incomprehensible to dominant rationality — are fundamental to the equilibrium between visible and invisible worlds. The spiritual dimension of the *chagra* regulates the use of the territory and orients productive practices, establishing ethical and cosmological limits that prevent over-exploitation. Studies have noted that these practices [constitute complex systems](#user-content-fn-4)[^4] that contribute to environmental conservation.
6. **The&#x20;*****chagra*****&#x20;contributes to the economic sustainability of communities** through the generation of surpluses that can be exchanged or marketed. This economic component does not respond to a logic of accumulation but of sufficiency and redistribution, allowing complementary income without rupturing ecological equilibrium. Documented experiences show that products from biodiverse systems carry high cultural and nutritional value, opening opportunities for fair-trade and sustainable commerce models ([FAO 2018](https://www.fao.org/3/CA2227EN/ca2227en.pdf)).
7. **The&#x20;*****chagra*****&#x20;is a space of territorial and environmental governance.** Through its management, communities exercise control, care, and protection over the territory, configuring practices of stewardship that ensure the conservation of strategic ecosystems. This exercise is inscribed in systems of customary law that regulate access, use, and management of natural goods. In this sense, the *chagra* can be understood as a basic unit of governance through which territorial autonomy is materialized.

### Quantifiable indicators of the chagra for biodiversity credits

For purposes of its incorporation into biodiversity credit schemes, the *chagra* allows for the definition of measurable indicators that integrate ecological and biocultural variables — indicators that express not only quantitative values but also complex relationships among nature, culture, and territory:

1. **Species richness.** Refers to the total number of cultivated, associated, and spontaneous species present per unit of area within the *chagra*. Its importance lies in making visible the level of biodiversity maintained by the system, showing how biological diversity is not incidental but the result of cultural planning. Higher species richness is associated with greater ecological resilience, better capacity to adapt to climate change, and greater stability of productive systems.
2. **Diversity index.** Beyond a count of species, this index evaluates the distribution and relative abundance of each species within the system. In the *chagra*, this indicator reflects the balance between dominant and secondary species, evidencing the absence of monoculture logic and the presence of balanced coexistence. Its measurement allows the ancestral notion of "unity in diversity" to be technically translated into terms intelligible to monitoring and verification schemes.
3. **Carbon capture.** Measures the quantity of carbon stored both in aboveground biomass (crops, trees, shrubs) and in soil. *Chagras*, by integrating perennial species, annual crops, and diverse vegetal cover, have a high capacity for carbon capture and storage, contributing to climate change mitigation. Measurement can be carried out through methodologies recognized by the IPCC ([IPCC 2019](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/2019-refinement-to-the-2006-ipcc-guidelines-for-national-greenhouse-gas-inventories/)), facilitating integration into environmental markets and compensation schemes.
4. **Functional diversity.** Evaluates the variety of functions species fulfill within the *chagra* — such as food, medicine, ritual, soil protection, or water regulation. Unlike conventional agricultural systems, where a productive function predominates, the *chagra* integrates multiple functions in a single space, which increases its ecological and cultural value. This functional diversity is key to the sustainability of the system and its capacity for adaptation.
5. **Soil conservation.** The *chagra* contributes significantly to soil health, which can be measured through organic matter content, soil structure, and water-holding capacity. These elements evidence processes of natural regeneration derived from practices such as crop rotation, the use of vegetal cover, and the non-use of agrochemicals. A healthy soil ensures not only productivity but also essential ecosystem services.
6. **Food sovereignty index.** Measures the proportion of food consumed by the community that comes directly from the *chagra*. Beyond a quantitative figure, it reflects the level of food autonomy, the nutritional quality of the diet, and the continuity of cultural practices associated with food. High dependence on the *chagra* indicates lower vulnerability to external crises such as price rises or food scarcity.
7. **Knowledge transmission indicator.** Evaluates the participation of different generations (elders, adults, youth, and children) in *chagra* activities. Its importance lies in the fact that biodiversity is not sustained without knowledge, and this in turn depends on living processes of teaching and learning. The *chagra* functions as an intergenerational school where knowledge of seeds, natural cycles, and cultural practices is transmitted.
8. **Ecological connectivity index.** Analyzes the relationship between the *chagra* and surrounding ecosystems, evaluating whether ecological continuity or landscape fragmentation exists. *Chagras*, being integrated into broader territorial matrices (forests, rivers, mountains), contribute to biological connectivity, facilitating species flows and habitat conservation. This aspect is key to understanding their contribution beyond the cultivated area.

These indicators allow for the construction of baselines, monitoring, and verification within biodiversity compensation schemes, integrating ecological and cultural dimensions.

### Juridical argument for the recognition of the chagra in biodiversity mechanisms

The recognition of the *chagra* as a valid unit within biodiversity credit schemes finds solid grounding in international Indigenous peoples' law and in global biodiversity instruments.

**1. ILO Convention 169 (**[**ILO 2003**](https://www.ilo.org/publications/ilo-convention-indigenous-and-tribal-peoples-1989-no-169-manual)**)** establishes the obligation of States to protect the values, practices, and ways of life of Indigenous peoples, including their own forms of use and management of territory (arts. 5, 7, and 15). The *chagra*, as an integral system of production, knowledge, and spirituality, falls directly within these provisions, which implies that any market or compensation mechanism must recognize, respect, and strengthen it, guaranteeing the effective participation of communities in decision-making and in the benefits derived.

**2.** **The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (**[**UNDRIP 2007**](https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples.html)**)** reinforces this framework by recognizing the right of peoples to maintain, control, protect, and develop their traditional knowledges and cultural manifestations (art. 31), as well as their spiritual relationship with lands, territories, and resources (art. 25). The *chagra* cannot be reduced to an economic asset without violating these rights; on the contrary, its inclusion in biodiversity markets must guarantee Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) and mechanisms for the fair and equitable distribution of benefits.

**3.** **The Convention on Biological Diversity (**[**CBD 1992**](https://www.cbd.int/traditional/)**)**, particularly in its Article 8(j), obliges States to respect, preserve, and maintain the knowledge, innovations, and practices of Indigenous communities relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. It also promotes equitable participation in the benefits derived from their use. Within this framework, the *chagra* constitutes a concrete expression of these traditional knowledges, such that its recognition within biodiversity credit schemes is not only pertinent but juridically required.

In a complementary way, **the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (**[**CBD 2022**](https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-15/cop-15-dec-04-en.pdf)**)** recognizes the fundamental role of Indigenous peoples and local communities as guardians of biodiversity, establishing specific targets related to their participation, their territories, and respect for their rights. In particular, the targets oriented toward the conservation of 30% of global biodiversity and the restoration of ecosystems are only attainable through the strengthening of systems such as the *chagra*, which already operate as effective models of *in situ* conservation.

In the emerging context of biodiversity markets, various international fora have signaled the need to establish social and environmental safeguards that prevent the undue commodification of nature and the appropriation of traditional knowledge. Initiatives such as the principles for biodiversity credits and discussions in spaces like the CBD COP and the World Economic Forum have emphasized that these mechanisms must be measurable, verifiable, additional, and, above all, just. The *chagra* meets these criteria by offering clear biodiversity indicators, but it requires that its implementation be anchored in collective rights and not in extractive logics.

Consequently, from a juridical perspective, the inclusion of the *chagra* in biodiversity credit schemes is not a concession, but an obligation derived from international commitments assumed by States. Its recognition implies guaranteeing autonomy, participation, protection of traditional knowledge, and equitable distribution of benefits, avoiding new forms of dispossession under sustainability narratives. In this way, the *chagra* is positioned not only as an ecological model but as a subject of juridical protection within the framework of global biodiversity governance.

### Conclusion on *chagras*

The *chagra*, understood as an integral biocultural system, allows us to profoundly rethink the place of Indigenous peoples, Afrodescendant peoples, and local communities in the global governance of biodiversity and climate action. Far from being considered solely as vulnerable populations or recipients of benefits, we are above all strategic actors, fundamental allies, and co-managers in the construction of responses to the climate crisis. Ancestral episteme, traditional practices, and our historical relationship with nature constitute a concrete, proven, and current basis for confronting contemporary challenges.

The climate crisis is not solely a technical or environmental problem but a civilizational crisis that lays bare the limits of development models based on extraction, homogenization, and the commodification of nature. Faced with this scenario, systems such as the *chagra* offer real alternatives sustained on principles of diversity, equilibrium, reciprocity, and sustainability. The capacity of these systems to conserve biodiversity, capture carbon, regenerate soils, and sustain local economies demonstrates that the peoples who practice them are not vestiges of the past but bearers of solutions for the present and the future.

To recognize Indigenous peoples, Afrodescendant peoples, and local communities as guardians of nature also implies recognizing our political agency, our autonomy, and the right to participate on equal terms in decision-making scenarios. This is not a matter of symbolic inclusion but of establishing effective mechanisms of shared governance in which traditional knowledge systems and our own institutions have a central place. In this sense, the *chagra* is not only a productive space but a node of governance from which territorial control is exercised, the use of natural goods is regulated, and sustainable forms of life are projected.

Likewise, within the framework of emerging biodiversity markets, it is fundamental to prevent these instruments from reproducing the same logics of exclusion and dispossession that have historically affected our peoples. The incorporation of the *chagra* into these schemes must be accompanied by robust safeguards that guarantee respect for collective rights, the protection of traditional knowledge, and the fair and equitable distribution of benefits.

Moreover, the indicators proposed in this document demonstrate that it is possible to translate the complexity of the *chagra* into verifiable metrics without stripping it of its cultural and spiritual dimension. This possibility opens a strategic field for positioning communities as legitimate providers of ecosystem and biocultural services, strengthening economic autonomy and the capacity for advocacy. However, this process must be accompanied by participatory methodologies that respect the tempos, dynamics, and cosmovisions proper to each people.

Finally, it is necessary to transit toward a paradigm shift in which Indigenous peoples, Afrodescendant peoples, and local communities are no longer seen as passive subjects within environmental policies, but as active partners in the construction of global solutions. The *chagra*, in its integrality, embodies this possibility: it is territory, it is knowledge, it is economy, it is spirituality, and it is right. To recognize and strengthen it not only contributes to the conservation of biodiversity but opens paths toward more just, sustainable, and balanced forms of inhabiting the world.

Consequently, any serious strategy in the face of the climate crisis and biodiversity loss must begin from the effective recognition of original peoples as strategic allies. Not to do so would be an ethical omission and a technical and political error that would limit the real possibilities of confronting the global crisis. The *chagra*, as a concrete expression of these systems of life, thus positions itself as an integral proposal that articulates ancestral knowledge with contemporary challenges, demonstrating that the deepest solutions may be found in the practices that have sustained life across generations.

[^1]: A system of representations of profound importance for Indigenous communities. It is considered a space of fertility, socialization, and the transmission of ancestral knowledge and ways of knowing, making it one of the fundamental manifestations of the Indigenous cosmovision — insofar as it generates a connection between human beings, nature, and the spiritual order.

[^2]: "Recent advances in ecological research render this general approach anachronistic and call instead for solidarity with smallholder farmers across the world who are currently struggling to achieve food sovereignty."

[^3]: "New approaches and technologies involving the application of agroecological science combined with Indigenous knowledge systems are being driven by a significant number of peasants, NGOs, and some governmental and academic institutions, and are demonstrating an improvement in food security while conserving natural resources and empowering local, regional, and national peasant organizations and movements."

[^4]: These conceptions and practices pose an important ontological challenge to traditional politics — considered as a sphere of rational debate among human beings over the natural order — precisely because other actors come to be recognized as subjects in the negotiations over that order.


# Tree credits from agroforestry systems

How to credit water under the #SexyTrees methodology

The communities we work with consistently identify water access and quality as among their most immediate and non-negotiable concerns. There is an urgent need to democratize scientific, legal,  governance, and inclusion in environmental decision-making, particularly around pollution control and water governance [(Fernández-Llamazares et al. 2020)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=12476267\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). However, effective water interventions typically require sustained access to legal frameworks, hydrological science, monitoring infrastructure, and regulatory enforcement—resources from which these communities have been systematically excluded [(World Bank 2006)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16133002\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0).&#x20;

Land use and water outcomes have well-established links [(Bruijnzeel 2004; Ellison et al. 2017)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=18749401,18749441\&pre=\&pre=\&suf=\&suf=\&sa=0,0). Loss of forest cover and soil organic matter increases erosion and sedimentation, reduces water retention, and elevates pollutant loads in rivers and aquifers. Conversely, AFS, riparian buffers, and soil amendments such as biochar improve infiltration, reduce nutrient and chemical runoff, enhance water-holding capacity, and immobilize heavy metals and organic pollutants [(de Koning et al. 2011; Beesley et al. 2011; Zhang et al. 2013; Gwenzi et al. 2017)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=7427273,18627092,4550563,9176331\&pre=\&pre=\&pre=\&pre=\&suf=\&suf=\&suf=\&suf=\&sa=0,0,0,0). These interventions are particularly relevant in tropical regions where degraded soils and high rainfall amplify water quality risks.&#x20;

Unlike carbon, water services are inherently local, basin-specific, and difficult to aggregate into standardized, fungible units. Global water credit markets remain largely theoretical, fragmented, and regulatory rather than market-driven. Where water payments have worked — surcharges on Colombian water bills financing upstream conservation, Costa Rican companies paying farmers to restore headwaters for beer, juice, and hydroelectric production — they have succeeded precisely because they are local, bilateral, and tied to tangible use rather than abstracted into tradable units [(Pagiola et al. 2005)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=18749359\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0).

A key economic insight for this dimension came from successful institutional projects in the New York City watershed involving upriver farmers. Designers concluded that small, action-based payments to upstream land stewards were an effective way to get financial resources to communities to combat water problems. However, this project relied on institutional cost-avoidance logic rather than tradable credits [(Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=18625648\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0).&#x20;

The Ecuadorian Socio Bosque program has shown hydrological effects through a per-hectare conservation payment. After two years, the national government program enrolled 500,000 hectares with over 60,000 beneficiaries. While this is not a free-market mechanism, it remains of high interest to our team in terms of its grassroots economics, adoption, community satisfaction, and poverty alleviation [(de Koning et al. 2011)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=18627092\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0).&#x20;

We have seen successful water protection from Rights of Nature legal cases involving women in Peru [(Kauffman et al. 2025)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=18625620\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). The communities were more successful when they organized on behalf of the waterway itself. However, we believe it's inherently unrealistic to quantify absolute hydrological outcomes in most grassroots projects, requiring dense, long-term monitoring and sophisticated science.&#x20;

Instead, we are investigating and co-designing a grassroots action-based water credit protocol that rewards tangible practices with well-established links to water resilience. These include (1) conservation of intact waterways and riparian zones, (2) restoration of degraded watercourses,(3) application of low-technology biochar to improve soil structure, reduce contaminant mobility, and increase water retention, (4) stabilization of artisanal mine sites to eliminate heavy metal contamination at source (candidate protocol, under development), (5) use of mangroves to filter nitrogen runoff.&#x20;

We are developing an experimental unit — 1 water credit = 100 gallons of usable water per month — where "usable" collapses the quality/volume distinction: water that exists but is too contaminated to use, and clean water not retained in the watershed, are both non-usable by the same definition. This unit remains unvalidated in the field and functions as a proposed standard rather than a market instrument, but it provides a tractable anchor for protocol development and buyer communication. Its primary value lies in democratizing access to environmental finance, supporting local stewardship, and reducing near-term pressures that drive water degradation.&#x20;

Future development will require scientific validation of attribution, improved hydrological indicators, and integration of contaminant-specific metrics (including mercury) before broader market standardization can be responsibly pursued.

So we have analyzed all the crediting options we think are available to an agroforestry system. And we believe they make sense, could reach a market, and are tantalizingly close to being realizable. But it's clear from our analysis that although we can advance science from these actions, we are not in a position to credit the best actions available to us reliably.&#x20;

The layers are sound. The theory holds. The protocols are emerging, and pragmatic implementation can probably yield the financial system we theorized. But when, and can smallfarmers afford to implement these systems now?&#x20;

Humanity is a clever species, and we can figure this out. We will find out how to measure, quantify, and weigh the above dimensions. But if we wait until we do implement AFS to guarantee food security, we will truly be out of time.

<br>

<br>


# Tree unit

HOW to segment carbon on restoration sites.

Benefits of the ISBM approach:

* Capacity for immediate deployment.
* Bridging of communication between modern science and Indigenous ecosystems understanding.
* Simple and straightforward implementation.
* Understandable, unified remuneration protocol.
* Verifiable and scientifically provable evidence of biodiversity.
* Inclusion of populations that are vulnerable and have never before been able to benefit from the financial system.
* Consideration of the complexity of primary forest, based on scientific understanding of complexity theory.
* Downstream benefits to other ecologies that depend on maintaining resilient primary rainforests and other primary ecosystems.

Bridging modern and Indigenous perspectives for the preservation of the planet is the primary driver of the ISBM. Bringing together these forces is our best hope for the immediate preservation of the natural treasures and ecosystem services that are essential for human and planetary survival.

<br>


# Tree calculations

HOW to segment carbon on restoration sites.

Benefits of the ISBM approach:

* Capacity for immediate deployment.
* Bridging of communication between modern science and Indigenous ecosystems understanding.
* Simple and straightforward implementation.
* Understandable, unified remuneration protocol.
* Verifiable and scientifically provable evidence of biodiversity.
* Inclusion of populations that are vulnerable and have never before been able to benefit from the financial system.
* Consideration of the complexity of primary forest, based on scientific understanding of complexity theory.
* Downstream benefits to other ecologies that depend on maintaining resilient primary rainforests and other primary ecosystems.

Bridging modern and Indigenous perspectives for the preservation of the planet is the primary driver of the ISBM. Bringing together these forces is our best hope for the immediate preservation of the natural treasures and ecosystem services that are essential for human and planetary survival.

<br>


# Markets

How to credit water under the #SexyTrees methodology

The communities we work with consistently identify water access and quality as among their most immediate and non-negotiable concerns. There is an urgent need to democratize scientific, legal,  governance, and inclusion in environmental decision-making, particularly around pollution control and water governance [(Fernández-Llamazares et al. 2020)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=12476267\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). However, effective water interventions typically require sustained access to legal frameworks, hydrological science, monitoring infrastructure, and regulatory enforcement—resources from which these communities have been systematically excluded [(World Bank 2006)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16133002\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0).&#x20;

Land use and water outcomes have well-established links [(Bruijnzeel 2004; Ellison et al. 2017)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=18749401,18749441\&pre=\&pre=\&suf=\&suf=\&sa=0,0). Loss of forest cover and soil organic matter increases erosion and sedimentation, reduces water retention, and elevates pollutant loads in rivers and aquifers. Conversely, AFS, riparian buffers, and soil amendments such as biochar improve infiltration, reduce nutrient and chemical runoff, enhance water-holding capacity, and immobilize heavy metals and organic pollutants [(de Koning et al. 2011; Beesley et al. 2011; Zhang et al. 2013; Gwenzi et al. 2017)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=7427273,18627092,4550563,9176331\&pre=\&pre=\&pre=\&pre=\&suf=\&suf=\&suf=\&suf=\&sa=0,0,0,0). These interventions are particularly relevant in tropical regions where degraded soils and high rainfall amplify water quality risks.&#x20;

Unlike carbon, water services are inherently local, basin-specific, and difficult to aggregate into standardized, fungible units. Global water credit markets remain largely theoretical, fragmented, and regulatory rather than market-driven. Where water payments have worked — surcharges on Colombian water bills financing upstream conservation, Costa Rican companies paying farmers to restore headwaters for beer, juice, and hydroelectric production — they have succeeded precisely because they are local, bilateral, and tied to tangible use rather than abstracted into tradable units [(Pagiola et al. 2005)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=18749359\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0).

A key economic insight for this dimension came from successful institutional projects in the New York City watershed involving upriver farmers. Designers concluded that small, action-based payments to upstream land stewards were an effective way to get financial resources to communities to combat water problems. However, this project relied on institutional cost-avoidance logic rather than tradable credits [(Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=18625648\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0).&#x20;

The Ecuadorian Socio Bosque program has shown hydrological effects through a per-hectare conservation payment. After two years, the national government program enrolled 500,000 hectares with over 60,000 beneficiaries. While this is not a free-market mechanism, it remains of high interest to our team in terms of its grassroots economics, adoption, community satisfaction, and poverty alleviation [(de Koning et al. 2011)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=18627092\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0).&#x20;

We have seen successful water protection from Rights of Nature legal cases involving women in Peru [(Kauffman et al. 2025)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=18625620\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). The communities were more successful when they organized on behalf of the waterway itself. However, we believe it's inherently unrealistic to quantify absolute hydrological outcomes in most grassroots projects, requiring dense, long-term monitoring and sophisticated science.&#x20;

Instead, we are investigating and co-designing a grassroots action-based water credit protocol that rewards tangible practices with well-established links to water resilience. These include (1) conservation of intact waterways and riparian zones, (2) restoration of degraded watercourses,(3) application of low-technology biochar to improve soil structure, reduce contaminant mobility, and increase water retention, (4) stabilization of artisanal mine sites to eliminate heavy metal contamination at source (candidate protocol, under development), (5) use of mangroves to filter nitrogen runoff.&#x20;

We are developing an experimental unit — 1 water credit = 100 gallons of usable water per month — where "usable" collapses the quality/volume distinction: water that exists but is too contaminated to use, and clean water not retained in the watershed, are both non-usable by the same definition. This unit remains unvalidated in the field and functions as a proposed standard rather than a market instrument, but it provides a tractable anchor for protocol development and buyer communication. Its primary value lies in democratizing access to environmental finance, supporting local stewardship, and reducing near-term pressures that drive water degradation.&#x20;

Future development will require scientific validation of attribution, improved hydrological indicators, and integration of contaminant-specific metrics (including mercury) before broader market standardization can be responsibly pursued.

So we have analyzed all the crediting options we think are available to an agroforestry system. And we believe they make sense, could reach a market, and are tantalizingly close to being realizable. But it's clear from our analysis that although we can advance science from these actions, we are not in a position to credit the best actions available to us reliably.&#x20;

The layers are sound. The theory holds. The protocols are emerging, and pragmatic implementation can probably yield the financial system we theorized. But when, and can smallfarmers afford to implement these systems now?&#x20;

Humanity is a clever species, and we can figure this out. We will find out how to measure, quantify, and weigh the above dimensions. But if we wait until we do implement AFS to guarantee food security, we will truly be out of time.

<br>

<br>


# EUDR & EU-Mercosur

HOW to segment carbon on restoration sites.

Benefits of the ISBM approach:

* Capacity for immediate deployment.
* Bridging of communication between modern science and Indigenous ecosystems understanding.
* Simple and straightforward implementation.
* Understandable, unified remuneration protocol.
* Verifiable and scientifically provable evidence of biodiversity.
* Inclusion of populations that are vulnerable and have never before been able to benefit from the financial system.
* Consideration of the complexity of primary forest, based on scientific understanding of complexity theory.
* Downstream benefits to other ecologies that depend on maintaining resilient primary rainforests and other primary ecosystems.

Bridging modern and Indigenous perspectives for the preservation of the planet is the primary driver of the ISBM. Bringing together these forces is our best hope for the immediate preservation of the natural treasures and ecosystem services that are essential for human and planetary survival.

<br>


# Tree calculations

HOW to segment carbon on restoration sites.

Benefits of the ISBM approach:

* Capacity for immediate deployment.
* Bridging of communication between modern science and Indigenous ecosystems understanding.
* Simple and straightforward implementation.
* Understandable, unified remuneration protocol.
* Verifiable and scientifically provable evidence of biodiversity.
* Inclusion of populations that are vulnerable and have never before been able to benefit from the financial system.
* Consideration of the complexity of primary forest, based on scientific understanding of complexity theory.
* Downstream benefits to other ecologies that depend on maintaining resilient primary rainforests and other primary ecosystems.

Bridging modern and Indigenous perspectives for the preservation of the planet is the primary driver of the ISBM. Bringing together these forces is our best hope for the immediate preservation of the natural treasures and ecosystem services that are essential for human and planetary survival.

<br>


# Copy of Water credits from agroforestry systems

How to credit water under the #SexyTrees methodology

*<mark style="color:$danger;">This is a</mark>* [*<mark style="color:$danger;">bricolage</mark>*](/foundations/bricolage) *<mark style="color:$danger;">protocol; which means we are building it in public! Some pages are under construction — but check back soon its updating fast!</mark>*&#x20;

The communities we work with consistently identify water access and quality as among their most immediate and non-negotiable concerns. There is an urgent need to democratize scientific, legal,  governance, and inclusion in environmental decision-making, particularly around pollution control and water governance [(Fernández-Llamazares et al. 2020)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=12476267\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). However, effective water interventions typically require sustained access to legal frameworks, hydrological science, monitoring infrastructure, and regulatory enforcement—resources from which these communities have been systematically excluded [(World Bank 2006)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16133002\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0).&#x20;

Land use and water outcomes have well-established links [(Bruijnzeel 2004; Ellison et al. 2017)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=18749401,18749441\&pre=\&pre=\&suf=\&suf=\&sa=0,0). Loss of forest cover and soil organic matter increases erosion and sedimentation, reduces water retention, and elevates pollutant loads in rivers and aquifers. Conversely, AFS, riparian buffers, and soil amendments such as biochar improve infiltration, reduce nutrient and chemical runoff, enhance water-holding capacity, and immobilize heavy metals and organic pollutants [(de Koning et al. 2011; Beesley et al. 2011; Zhang et al. 2013; Gwenzi et al. 2017)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=7427273,18627092,4550563,9176331\&pre=\&pre=\&pre=\&pre=\&suf=\&suf=\&suf=\&suf=\&sa=0,0,0,0). These interventions are particularly relevant in tropical regions where degraded soils and high rainfall amplify water quality risks.&#x20;

Unlike carbon, water services are inherently local, basin-specific, and difficult to aggregate into standardized, fungible units. Global water credit markets remain largely theoretical, fragmented, and regulatory rather than market-driven. Where water payments have worked — surcharges on Colombian water bills financing upstream conservation, Costa Rican companies paying farmers to restore headwaters for beer, juice, and hydroelectric production — they have succeeded precisely because they are local, bilateral, and tied to tangible use rather than abstracted into tradable units [(Pagiola et al. 2005)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=18749359\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0).

A key economic insight for this dimension came from successful institutional projects in the New York City watershed involving upriver farmers. Designers concluded that small, action-based payments to upstream land stewards were an effective way to get financial resources to communities to combat water problems. However, this project relied on institutional cost-avoidance logic rather than tradable credits [(Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=18625648\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0).&#x20;

The Ecuadorian Socio Bosque program has shown hydrological effects through a per-hectare conservation payment. After two years, the national government program enrolled 500,000 hectares with over 60,000 beneficiaries. While this is not a free-market mechanism, it remains of high interest to our team in terms of its grassroots economics, adoption, community satisfaction, and poverty alleviation [(de Koning et al. 2011)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=18627092\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0).&#x20;

We have seen successful water protection from Rights of Nature legal cases involving women in Peru [(Kauffman et al. 2025)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=18625620\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). The communities were more successful when they organized on behalf of the waterway itself. However, we believe it's inherently unrealistic to quantify absolute hydrological outcomes in most grassroots projects, requiring dense, long-term monitoring and sophisticated science.&#x20;

Instead, we are investigating and co-designing a grassroots action-based water credit protocol that rewards tangible practices with well-established links to water resilience. These include (1) conservation of intact waterways and riparian zones, (2) restoration of degraded watercourses,(3) application of low-technology biochar to improve soil structure, reduce contaminant mobility, and increase water retention, (4) stabilization of artisanal mine sites to eliminate heavy metal contamination at source (candidate protocol, under development), (5) use of mangroves to filter nitrogen runoff.&#x20;

We are developing an experimental unit — 1 water credit = 100 gallons of usable water per month — where "usable" collapses the quality/volume distinction: water that exists but is too contaminated to use, and clean water not retained in the watershed, are both non-usable by the same definition. This unit remains unvalidated in the field and functions as a proposed standard rather than a market instrument, but it provides a tractable anchor for protocol development and buyer communication. Its primary value lies in democratizing access to environmental finance, supporting local stewardship, and reducing near-term pressures that drive water degradation.&#x20;

Future development will require scientific validation of attribution, improved hydrological indicators, and integration of contaminant-specific metrics (including mercury) before broader market standardization can be responsibly pursued.

So we have analyzed all the crediting options we think are available to an agroforestry system. And we believe they make sense, could reach a market, and are tantalizingly close to being realizable. But it's clear from our analysis that although we can advance science from these actions, we are not in a position to credit the best actions available to us reliably.&#x20;

The layers are sound. The theory holds. The protocols are emerging, and pragmatic implementation can probably yield the financial system we theorized. But when, and can smallfarmers afford to implement these systems now?&#x20;

Humanity is a clever species, and we can figure this out. We will find out how to measure, quantify, and weigh the above dimensions. But if we wait until we do implement AFS to guarantee food security, we will truly be out of time.

<br>

<br>


# Water unit

HOW to segment carbon on restoration sites.

Benefits of the ISBM approach:

* Capacity for immediate deployment.
* Bridging of communication between modern science and Indigenous ecosystems understanding.
* Simple and straightforward implementation.
* Understandable, unified remuneration protocol.
* Verifiable and scientifically provable evidence of biodiversity.
* Inclusion of populations that are vulnerable and have never before been able to benefit from the financial system.
* Consideration of the complexity of primary forest, based on scientific understanding of complexity theory.
* Downstream benefits to other ecologies that depend on maintaining resilient primary rainforests and other primary ecosystems.

Bridging modern and Indigenous perspectives for the preservation of the planet is the primary driver of the ISBM. Bringing together these forces is our best hope for the immediate preservation of the natural treasures and ecosystem services that are essential for human and planetary survival.

<br>


# Water calculations

HOW to segment carbon on restoration sites.

Benefits of the ISBM approach:

* Capacity for immediate deployment.
* Bridging of communication between modern science and Indigenous ecosystems understanding.
* Simple and straightforward implementation.
* Understandable, unified remuneration protocol.
* Verifiable and scientifically provable evidence of biodiversity.
* Inclusion of populations that are vulnerable and have never before been able to benefit from the financial system.
* Consideration of the complexity of primary forest, based on scientific understanding of complexity theory.
* Downstream benefits to other ecologies that depend on maintaining resilient primary rainforests and other primary ecosystems.

Bridging modern and Indigenous perspectives for the preservation of the planet is the primary driver of the ISBM. Bringing together these forces is our best hope for the immediate preservation of the natural treasures and ecosystem services that are essential for human and planetary survival.

<br>


# Biodiversity credits from agroforestry systems

How to credit biodiversity under the #SexyTrees methodology

<mark style="color:violet;">TL:DR = The biodiversity crediting layer is experimental; we'll keep this page updated real-time.</mark>

Biodiversity credits from uplift or restoration protocols currently average $300/unit ([Paynter et al. 2024](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381459737)). We know high-quality agroforestry systems (AFS) are reliably associated with greater biodiversity than monoculture crops ([Scales and Marsden 2008](https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892908004840); [Martello et al. 2024](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2023.121592)).  Therefore, financial systems meant to fairly compensate them would reliably incorporate crediting in the [biodiversity dimension](/foundations/orthogonal-stacking).&#x20;

However, this is not a simple proposition. These credits take an [average of two years to generate](https://unit.savimbo.com/time#longer-term-projects), lack standardization (see [Current science](/biodiversity-credits/calculation#the-current-state-of-the-science)), and biodiversity credits are a frontier market (see [Frontier Market](/foundations/orthogonal-stacking#nature-markets-are-emerging-markets) ).&#x20;

This layer of the protocol is experimental. We have done a thorough review and concluded that our [environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding](/biodiversity-credits/calculation#edna-as-a-measurement-approach) is the only metric our group can truly get behind.  But we would not choose an emerging technology if there was anything else reasonably available.&#x20;

This tool is not standardized (see [Calculation](/biodiversity-credits/calculation)).  It lacks basic science and market data that would inform its unit economics for projects. We also need to generate reasonable statistical parameters from the related methodology. It also lacks reference libraries widely across biodiverse zones. &#x20;

Currently, we can only describe the [most accurate theoretical protocol](/biodiversity-credits/calculation) and our sampling methodology to prove it in real-world piloting (see [Water Bucket Protocol](/biodiversity-credits/water-bucket-protocol)) with the caveat that costs are likely still prohibitive ($200/sample + unknown number of samples to reach scientific certainty).&#x20;

We conclude uplift biodiversity credits are not currently economically feasible at the 1-ha scale, but could be feasible if projects reach a bigger area or have paired academic research funding.&#x20;

In the interim, SexyTrees can be planted and measured around more tangible methods, [trees planted,](/tree-credits) and [biochar sequestered](/carbon-credits). This is easy access to the market, already has a sales pipeline, and is more forgiving in terms of scientific accuracy.&#x20;

Next steps and theoretical basis for the updating protocol follow.&#x20;

<br>

{% columns %}
{% column %}
{% content-ref url="/pages/UaKYJCH79Umqc7392lzy" %}
[Biodiversity unit](/biodiversity-credits/biodiversity-unit)
{% endcontent-ref %}

{% endcolumn %}

{% column %}
{% content-ref url="/pages/qjpo9j7t2EpJM7cwl9BV" %}
[Biodiversity calculation](/biodiversity-credits/calculation)
{% endcontent-ref %}
{% endcolumn %}

{% column %}
{% content-ref url="/pages/hWjImJXjXoydiFvxDeh5" %}
[Water Bucket Protocol](/biodiversity-credits/water-bucket-protocol)
{% endcontent-ref %}
{% endcolumn %}
{% endcolumns %}


# Biodiversity unit

Output format of biodiversity credits under the #SexyTrees protocol

The Interoperable Biodiversity (IBU) unit reliably normalizes [Time](https://unit.savimbo.com/time) to one month, [Area](https://unit.savimbo.com/area) to one hectare, and [Value](https://unit.savimbo.com/value) to Baseline assessments from public data sources.&#x20;

What remains for methodologies to determine is a reliable assessment of [Integrity](https://unit.savimbo.com/integrity) uplift.&#x20;

Note, although the below graphic shows a 6-month monitoring period for simplicity, the accepted industry timeline for uplift crediting is a [monitoring period](https://unit.savimbo.com/time#longer-term-projects) of two years. &#x20;

#### Figure H: Interoperable Biodiversity Unit diagrams that apply to uplift biodiversity crediting.&#x20;

{% embed url="<https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/17Phk-sT6wltFOpzyELzl4kiiFNEaulQSajgettLh-_I/edit?usp=sharing>" %}


# Biodiversity calculation

Calculating biodiversity credits under the #SexyTrees protocol

<mark style="color:$danger;">This is a</mark> [<mark style="color:$danger;">bricolage</mark>](/foundations/bricolage) <mark style="color:$danger;">protocol; which means we are building it in public! Some pages are under construction — but check back soon its updating fast!</mark>&#x20;

Generating Interoperable Biodiversity Units (IBUs) in an uplift scenario requires an increment-sensitive, absolute measure of ecosystem integrity that can be tracked over time, affordably, and without expert personnel on-site. No currently published protocol meets this requirement to our satisfaction.&#x20;

Accurate assessments of absolute integrity require increment-sensitive scales anchored in well-defined reference conditions. Our previous protocol has been successful in certifying, crediting, and [OTC-trading](https://carbon-pulse.com/432328) with [offtake agreements](https://carbon-pulse.com/450718/). But because the ISBM relies on indicator-species presence or absence (an inherently binary scale at the higher end of integrity), it cannot achieve this level of granularity but is limited to conservation scenarios.&#x20;

To our knowledge, no existing certifiable protocol currently offers absolute uplift measurements. So we set out to develop one, starting with the question of which available tools can reliably monitor which scale-based metrics.&#x20;

### There are a lot of metrics

In nature credits, raw data compiles into metrics. Metrics are analyzed by methods (incorporating statistical controls) that are then abstracted into units for interoperability and trading.&#x20;

We think its eaiser to start with units and work backwards, narrowing the field as you go, but you can work either direction. The point is you don't need all the metrics available; you need the right metrics for your argument, and those metrics need to produce an interoperable unit.

Carbon has >170 methods for its measurement. Biodiversity will likely have a lot more because the life in an ecosystem is much more complex than its inorganic components.&#x20;

Here is a nice summary we like from [BioInt](https://www.bioint.fr/biodiversitymeasurementapproaches), our go-to deep-nerds on Western biodiversity science ([BioInt](https://www.bioint.fr/biodiversitymeasurementapproaches), 2025).&#x20;

<figure><img src="https://1172926139-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FQlKpTR8KkK45VWYPUpbc%2Fuploads%2F8i55VtJRMxQlMhEobAFU%2FBiodiversity%20measurement%20approaches%20-%20Bioint.png?alt=media&amp;token=c93f1a7b-6364-4e68-bf3c-7336ef6b90e4" alt=""><figcaption><p>Overview of biodiversity measurement approaches from <a href="https://www.bioint.fr/biodiversitymeasurementapproaches">BioInt,</a> V4 2025. Used with permission. Citations for the graphic on BioInt site. </p></figcaption></figure>

Biodiversity is measured at two scales. Alpha diversity captures what's at a single site — species richness (which species) and evenness (how individuals are distributed across them). Beta diversity captures how composition changes between sites or over time. Both presence/absence and abundance feed into alpha diversity, but they're not interchangeable in the field. [ISBM](https://isbm.savimbo.com/executive-summary) (the conservation protocol) uses presence/absence only.  In that case abundance counts require more training, more time, and more cost per sample, which would have priced communities out of running the protocol themselves. The trade-off is real: a presence/absence protocol is cheaper to run and more inclusive, but coarser than a protocol that counts individuals. Credits issued under it should be priced and described accordingly, and we expect this distinction to eventually show up in market prices.

For this protocol, an uplift protocol, we had to pick a method that would capture more granular changes, predominantly in tropical forests. That narrows the scope considerably, because we pick the metric based on the argument we are trying to make.

We knew the indices we were looking for. To show biodiversity recovery in degraded tropical forests begin with increases in bird activity and diversity  (within 4 years: [Roels et al. 2019](https://doi.org/10.5751/ACE-01330-140109)) and arthropod diversity (first 5-8 years: ([Cole et al. 2016](https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2220); [Pinto et al. 2025](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2025.122749)). Further, incorporating multiple taxonomic groups improves the ability of biodiversity metrics to distinguish primary forests from agroforestry systems ([Kessler and Bromet 2013](https://doi.org/10.1890/08-1074.1)), and ideally, we have both abundance and species richness of habitat specialists serve as informative indicators ([Scales and Marsden 2008](https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892908004840)).&#x20;

### The current state of the science

We reviewed each available tool class systematically before arriving at our proposed approach. On extensive investigation, it's clear that claims to measure biodiversity restoration are scientifically problematic.&#x20;

We do not consider this a deterrent to the attempt, but begin with awareness of the true limitations in the field.  &#x20;

**Indicator species observation (ISBM).** The existing certified biodiversity crediting protocol — Savimbo's [Indicator Species Biodiversity Methodology (ISBM)](https://isbm.savimbo.com/) — uses the presence or absence of indicator species as its metric. This binary scale cannot detect gradual restoration trajectories. It is therefore restricted to conservation scenarios where ecosystems are already at or near full integrity, and is not applicable to agroforestry uplift.

**Arthropod trapping**. While arthropod trapping is a reliable academic methodology, to base market-wide scale and grassroots adoption it's impractical. As a tool its invasive, requires significant taxonomic expertise for identification, and involves substantial permitting in most jurisdictions — making it unsuitable for community-led, low-cost monitoring at scale.

**Acoustic monitoring.** Acoustic approaches avoid the invasiveness of trapping and can capture early bird diversity signals ([Roels et al. 2019](https://doi.org/10.5751/ACE-01330-140109)). However, insect species cannot yet be identified acoustically ([van Klink et al. 2024](https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2023.0101)), acoustic biodiversity indices perform poorly and inconsistently across ecosystems ([Alcocer et al. 2022](https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12890)), and automated bird detection still fails in tropical biomes ([Funosas et al. 2025](https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7832874/v1)). Acoustic data thus cannot provide the multi-taxon signal needed to anchor an absolute integrity curve.

**Visual point counts**. Visual surveys rely on trained expert observers and produce limited verifiable documentary evidence for third-party audits. They are also highly sensitive to observer effort and skill, undermining comparability across sites and time.

**Remote sensing (NDVI, LiDAR, satellite)**. Vegetation indices and canopy structure metrics derived from drone or satellite imagery are valuable for carbon assessments (see [Carbon](/carbon-credits)) but do not capture faunal community composition or below-canopy biodiversity. A dense canopy can coexist with severely degraded faunal assemblages. Remote sensing is therefore orthogonal to biodiversity measurement as defined by the IBU — it measures a different dimension and cannot substitute for it.

The conclusion from this review is that credible, scalable, multi-taxon, increment-sensitive biodiversity monitoring in smallholder agroforestry systems requires a tool that is non-invasive, deployable without taxonomic expertise, capable of detecting multiple species groups simultaneously, and feasible under the logistical and economic constraints of remote tropical settings. The team has concluded that, at present, only environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding ([Lacoursière-Roussel 2019](https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.14177)) satisfies these criteria.

### eDNA as a measurement approach

Environmental DNA refers to genetic material shed by organisms into their surrounding environment — water, soil, or air — and collected non-invasively for analysis ([Power et al. 2023](https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.497)). eDNA detection has been validated as suitable for Indigenous- and smallholder-led monitoring due to its non-invasiveness, adaptability to remote field settings, and ability to detect multiple species simultaneously ([Bélisle et al. 2026](https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.70253)). eDNA surveys targeting terrestrial organisms are recognized as promising tools for agricultural systems, though their implementation in these contexts remains at an early stage ([Kestel et al. 2022](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157556)).

Serious limitations of this approach include equity, scientific practicality, and ethics.&#x20;

* **Equity risks** include affordability, lack of skills to interpret, store, or access data, or laboratory services. Communities are inherently reliant on ethical partners for this technology, and are therefore at a disadvantage in exercising their sovereignty.
* **Scientific challenges** are significant. Spatial and temporal resolution is scale-dependent and variable across ecosystems, as DNA degradation rates and dispersion patterns differ by geography and season ([Kestel et al. 2022](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157556)). Taxonomic identification is generally less accurate in tropical regions due to gaps in local biodiversity reference databases ([Chimeno et al. 2023](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290173)). Random error in eDNA samples can affect data integrity and must be acknowledged ([Lahoz-Monfort et al. 2016](https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12486)). These constraints are addressed in part through the Water Bucket Protocol design (see [WBP](/biodiversity-credits/water-bucket-protocol)) and through our ongoing work on reference level establishment (see [Ongoing work](#ongoing-development)).
* **Ethical risk** requires explicit acknowledgment: eDNA sampling has the potential to [inadvertently collect human DNA](/appendices/edna-case-study). Consent frameworks, constraints on analysis scope, and data storage governance fall under the principles of [Indigenous Data Sovereignty (IDSov)](/foundations/data-sovereignty) and are addressed in our concurrent ethics protocols and public materials, which should be consulted alongside this methodology (see Practice Guide [eDNA consents](/practice-guide/edna/ethical-consents)).

But the technology is improving too rapidly to ignore. The emergence of portable sequencing technologies such as Oxford Nanopore Technology opens the possibility of in-field data generation — from collection through to analysis — without requiring sample export, which substantially reduces logistical barriers and IDSov risks in remote settings ([Sánchez-Vendizú et al. 2025](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-05697-z)). The #SexyTrees protocol is designed to be compatible with in-field sequencing as this technology matures.

### Pragmatic first steps for eDNA

We don't need to name every species to measure biodiversity uplift. Metabarcoding works as a community fingerprint — tracking shifts in richness and evenness over time without resolving every sequence to a Latin binomial.&#x20;

A statistically significant increase between baseline and follow-up sampling is a valid, if crude, metric of ecological improvement. This falls reasonably aligned with the ISBM's successful strategy of good-enough logic, and rigorous logical parameters ([ex-post](/foundations/orthogonal-stacking#nature-was-complex-now-its-also-chaotic), ecosystem-compared-to-itself), and reduces dependence on tropical reference databases, which remain patchy. We acknowledge that building those databases still matters for genetic accuracy ([Di Capua et al. 2024](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-69520-2)), but academic science is not the market's science and has fundamentally different aims.

### Theoretical eDNA measurement

The #SexyTrees biodiversity crediting pathway therefore proceeds in two stages.&#x20;

* **Stage 1 data collection** (current pilots), projects establish eDNA baselines and plant #SexyTrees, generating ex-post tree survival data eligible for outcomes-based payments (see [Trees](/tree-credits)).&#x20;
* **Stage 2 per-project normalized curve** (in development), once reference levels are established and the IBU conversion pathway is certified, accumulated eDNA time-series data from Stage 1 plots will be eligible for retroactive IBU issuance for the uplift biodiversity dimension.

This ex-post approach is explicitly chosen over ex-ante projection. Our position is that IBU issuance is always tied to measured outcomes, not modeled predictions — consistent with both the logic of [complexity science](/foundations/orthogonal-stacking#nature-was-complex-now-its-also-chaotic) and the integrity requirements of commodities exchange trading.

### Stage 1 — Data collection

#### Figure H. Rudimentary diagram of Water Bucket Protocol (WPB) bucket placement.&#x20;

<figure><img src="https://1172926139-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FQlKpTR8KkK45VWYPUpbc%2Fuploads%2FVoQ4YCrRv3Zh2X7m3cwC%2Fwbp_aerial_plot_1ha.png?alt=media&amp;token=feb22cf8-6bf7-4492-9e9c-3627e2654579" alt="Aerial schematic of a ~1-hectare agroforestry plot with four eDNA sampling buckets arranged in a diamond around the plot&#x27;s centroid, each ~10 m from its neighbours. Two light-coloured buckets (yellow, sky blue) target pollinators; two dark terrain-coloured buckets (brown, forest green) target wood-dwelling insects. A 50 m scale bar is shown; bucket symbols are enlarged for legibility."><figcaption><p>Aerial layout of the Water Bucket Protocol (WBP). Four bleach-sterilised buckets are placed around the centroid of an agroforestry plot (averaging ~1 ha)</p></figcaption></figure>

### Stage 2 — Per-project normalized curve

#### Figure Ga. Rudimentary diagram of uplift biodiversity crediting methodology, with a normalized curve generated from using eDNA from the Water Bucket Protocol (WPB).

<figure><img src="https://1172926139-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FQlKpTR8KkK45VWYPUpbc%2Fuploads%2FwFZkxuSz0wmJQEV2DDEU%2Fbiodiversity-integrity-uplift-sexytrees-4-year-reforestation-amazon.png?alt=media&amp;token=c39470bd-1368-4958-a012-59a53e276f17" alt="Bar-stack graph showing biodiversity integrity increasing linearly from degraded land at year zero to near-primary-forest levels by year four across hectares of SexyTrees-compliant reforestation, measured by eDNA methodology under Savimbo&#x27;s Water Bucket Protocol. Each stack represents one hectare&#x27;s measured biodiversity integrity score."><figcaption><p>Unrealistic (should be 60-80yr uplift) diagram showing eDNA linear regression method for eDNA absolute integrity sampling. </p></figcaption></figure>

This is an illustrative image of linear regression with a random selection of 1-ha plots in a project area used to generate a normalized curve.&#x20;

But the 4-year recovery to primary forest is rhetorically powerful but scientifically naive. Real eDNA-measured biodiversity recovery on tropical agroforestry typically doesn't hit primary-forest values at year 4 — published trajectories using traditional plot-based botanical inventories usually show 60–80 years to full recovery on most metrics, with some functional traits never converging ([Rozendaal et al. 2019](https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau3114); [Poorter et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abh3629)). (Which is why principle #1 remains protecting primary forests first.)

Here is a more realistic (if still wildly optimistic), visual timeline for our plots.

#### Figure Gb. *Slightly* more realistic diagram of uplift biodiversity crediting linear regression.

<figure><img src="https://1172926139-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FQlKpTR8KkK45VWYPUpbc%2Fuploads%2Fkng5ZV4wOxMA0QwmSIRS%2Fbiodiversity-uplift-regression-sexytrees-20-year-edna-water-bucket-protocol.png?alt=media&amp;token=e3166837-0d70-41a1-bb3c-eb40d01614c1" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

### Ongoing development

Additional items under active development or negotiation include:

* **Integrity curve normalization**: Establishing the species richness and community composition signals that correspond to defined integrity increments in tropical agroforestry recovery trajectories, enabling translation of eDNA metabarcoding outputs into IBU-compatible integrity scores.
* **Reference database gaps:** Tropical eDNA identification depends on local species sequence databases that are currently incomplete. The protocol is being co-developed with sequencing partners and regional biodiversity data initiatives to fill the most critical gaps for the Putumayo and broader LAC agroforestry context.
* **In-field sequencing integration:** Piloting of Oxford Nanopore-based sequencing in the field to evaluate whether a closed data pipeline (collection → analysis → credit claim, without export) is operationally feasible and IDSov-compliant.
* **Third-party certification pipeline:** Three certifiers have expressed willingness to adopt the protocol into their biodiversity crediting programs upon successful validation. Formal certification requirements are being aligned in parallel with protocol development.


# Water bucket protocol

Theory of the Water Bucket Protocol (WBP) for uplift biodiversity crediting

<mark style="color:$danger;">NOTE: This is a</mark> [<mark style="color:$danger;">bricolage</mark>](/foundations/bricolage) <mark style="color:$danger;">protocol; which means we are building it in public! Some pages are under construction — but check back soon its updating fast!</mark>&#x20;

The Water Bucket Protocol is Savimbo's field method for collecting environmental DNA (eDNA) at agroforestry plots, used to quantify [biodiversity uplift](/biodiversity-credits) over time. It feeds the [Interoperable Biodiversity Unit (IBU)](/biodiversity-credits/biodiversity-unit) — the only currently certified biodiversity credit instrument. This page describes the methodology and its limitations; for field implementation steps, see the [Practice Guide](/practice-guide/edna/water-bucket-protocol).

We intentionally chose a simple name for a practical solution to an incredibly complex frontier-science problem. The multidisciplinary source of the protocol is described in [Appendix B](/appendices/wbp-case-study) and Authors contributed significantly to its refinement.&#x20;

For step-by-step instructions on practical field use, see Practice Guide [Water Bucket Protocol](https://sexytrees.savimbo.com/practice-guide/)

### **Purpose of the WBP**

This protocol is meant to standardize frontier-science eDNA analysis in remote field sites operated by Indigenous and local youth.

**The water bucket protocol standardizes eDNA data collection.** By using filtered water, a standardized time period, and plot centroids, it reduces noise and enhances signal in eDNA data collection. To recap the [Biodiversity calculation](/biodiversity-credits/calculation) section, this offers a consistent approach for comparing sites over time to assess changes in ecosystem integrity.&#x20;

**The aim is to reduce costs and improve accuracy when using eDNA as a metric**. Results will need to be statistically normalized to a per-project standardized curve for integrity uplift over time. The WBP simply makes that easier by reducing the available data to a more meaningful set, reducing he sample size necessary to meet the output requirements for Interoperable Biodiversity Units (IBU) and qualify for recurring revenue from uplift biodiversity credits (roughly $300/unit, see [Biodiversity unit](/biodiversity-credits/biodiversity-unit)). &#x20;

#### Limitations of the WBP

There are serious practical constraints to field testing eDNA. The absence of established eDNA reference levels across ecosystems remains the primary challenge for using eDNA in biodiversity uplift assessments via IBUs, compounded by the logistical difficulties of exporting samples and the costs of analysis to obtain eDNA metrics. One possible approach is to establish a baseline sampling of eDNA in untouched or old-growth forests, representing conservation in Fig. 4C. Simple traditional biodiversity metrics, such as species richness, are well-suited for community-based monitoring but have low statistical power and thus require substantial sampling effort to reliably detect ecological changes [(Lamb et al. 2009)](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2008.06.001).&#x20;

Random error in eDNA samples may also be high and affect data integrity [(Lahoz-Monfort et al. 2016)](https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12486). Cost-effective monitoring thus requires statistically robust sampling, ideally with regional normalized curves — though these may be more expensive to develop in more biodiverse zones.

That said, we believe in progressing limits where we find them, as practically as possible. The protocol below is intended to reduce sampling noise in a cost-effective way.

#### **Sampling location**

While our IBU calculations are designed for one-hectare areas, sampling is performed at the centroid of a plot (averaging five hectares) to optimize for the conditions of the agroforestry system itself rather than the biodiversity that tends to accumulate at the edges of farmed areas. Plot size should be used as a covariate in later statistical modeling (see[ Biodiversity calculations](/biodiversity-credits/calculation)).


# Carbon credits from agroforestry systems

How to credit carbon under the #SexyTrees methodology

*<mark style="color:$danger;">This is a</mark>* [*<mark style="color:$danger;">bricolage</mark>*](/foundations/bricolage) *<mark style="color:$danger;">protocol; which means we are building it in public! Some pages are under construction — but check back soon its updating fast!</mark>* <br>


# The lace problem

HOW to segment carbon on restoration sites.

The single biggest problem with calculating carbon to date can be summed up in "the lace problem". Deforestation sites in the global south more closely resemble tatted lace at their borders than neatly conscribed lines.&#x20;

While this methodology is conceptually a restoration methodology, we reccomend the carbon layer extends outside of restoration segments and covers the entire enrolled land plot.&#x20;

however the benefits of conscribing a site to only restoration when assessing its carbon is minimal.&#x20;

<br>


# Biochar

HOW to segment carbon on restoration sites.

*<mark style="color:$danger;">This is a</mark>* [*<mark style="color:$danger;">bricolage</mark>*](/foundations/bricolage) *<mark style="color:$danger;">protocol; which means we are building it in public! Some pages are under construction — but check back soon its updating fast!</mark>*&#x20;

<br>


# Agrobiodiversity

How to credit agrobiodiversity under the #SexyTrees methodology

*<mark style="color:$danger;">This is a</mark>* [*<mark style="color:$danger;">bricolage</mark>*](/foundations/bricolage) *<mark style="color:$danger;">protocol; which means we are building it in public! Some pages are under construction — but check back soon its updating fast!</mark>*&#x20;

We're separating agrobiodiversity in the protocol because it's a different unit, a gene-based unit, than the area-based biodiversity unit. However, most of the certifiers we work with include genetic diversity agrobiodiversity actions (seed banks, agrobiodiversity index crops) as a different action in the same programs with area-based biodiversity actions.&#x20;

<div align="center"><figure><img src="https://1172926139-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FQlKpTR8KkK45VWYPUpbc%2Fuploads%2FMINrzpKwkSRG2hQkMGZz%2F%20tropical-rhizomes-wheelbarrow-propagation-putumayo-savimbo.png?alt=media&amp;token=e5ee821c-ae20-4339-8f9d-4578ea858aed" alt="Wheelbarrow full of freshly harvested pink-fleshed tropical rhizomes with distinctive concentric vascular ring patterns visible in cross-section, dug up for propagation and replanting on a Putumayo agroforestry site, Colombia. Vegetative propagation of food and ornamental species supports Savimbo&#x27;s grassroots SexyTrees reforestation methodology." width="375"><figcaption><p>Vegetative propagation in action — rhizomes dug from a mature stand, sliced, and ready for a new site. </p></figcaption></figure></div>

Both are regulated by


# Agrobiodiversity unit

Calculating biodiversity credits under the #SexyTrees protocol


# Agrobiodiversity calculation

Calculating biodiversity credits under the #SexyTrees protocol

The core of the methodology is this. We have a fungible, traceable, and culturally translatable metric for conserved biodiversity which is interoperable with other biodiversity metrics and methodologies.

A VBC under the ISBM represents 30 days of 1 hectare of a protected ecosystem with a value corresponding to the baseline [ecosystem value](/baseline-assessment/baseline-ecosystem-categorization) (normalized to [four levels](broken://pages/GoF1DuLugVqclmsJE1pn)). The protection of the ecosystem is determined by the presence of a qualified [indicator species](/baseline-assessment/indicator-species-selection) and its [integrity score](broken://pages/QqFJtdCzkyrmvPDU84hu). Which if <1.0, may result in fractional crediting.&#x20;

Here is an example site, with one year of data showing an interactive view of this methodology. Following, we will explain the sequential steps required to arrive at this view.&#x20;

Covariates

While our IBU calculations are designed for one-hectare areas, sampling is performed at the centroid of a plot (averaging five hectares) to optimize for the conditions of the agroforestry system itself rather than the biodiversity that tends to accumulate at the edges of farmed areas. Plot size should be used as a covariate in later statistical modeling (see[ Biodiversity calculations](/biodiversity-credits/calculation)).

#### Figure 7. Biodiversity credits appearing and disappearing over time with different species observations.

<figure><img src="broken://files/pD7ayqENCwH7z6OX5GWJ" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

It should be noted that calculations are simple in theory, and relatively complex in execution. The complexity has been offloaded to [open-source computer code](/appendices/appendix-g-sample-open-source-code-and-calculation) in order to make the observation points required at a project level simpler.&#x20;

Here we explain the theory and the logic of the computer code but recommend BCPs use automated calculations from a vetted source.&#x20;

However, all calculations can be easily automated, and open-source code for this is available [Appendix G](/appendices/appendix-g-sample-open-source-code-and-calculation) while manual calculations are demonstrated in [Appendix M](broken://pages/IloWhnlgTRtRstgCn0Ni). &#x20;

The calculations are devised to avoid double-crediting under a simplified methodology that does not identify individual species. Any specific hectare of land can only be counted only once at any given time, and cannot achieve a value greater than 1.0, nor will it achieve full crediting if the indicator species found there does not merit it.&#x20;


# Overall description

Purpose, scope, objectives, and limitations for the biodiversity methodology

This methodology is written for the general public to understand and to provide a framework for projects that want to implement VBCs. It provides project-level guidance and examples of how to implement the biodiversity methodology. It is intended to add to the mechanisms for global conservation of biodiversity by introducing or adhering to the following elements:&#x20;

* Adherence to [Principles](/project-description/principles) of completeness, reliability, conservatism, consistency, evidence, accuracy, and transparency.
* Reliance on public, verifiable data for ecosystem characterization ([Baseline assessment](/baseline-assessment)). &#x20;
* Intentional simplification of the primary data required from a project ([Project description](/project-description)) for IP and LC inclusion.
* An interoperable [Unit](broken://pages/ox3DmCalI8KrUH9JZg10) for biodiversity crediting that collates well with other projects.&#x20;
* Automated [Calculation](/biodiversity-credits/calculation) of ISBM VBCs using open-source software.&#x20;
* Credits can be used for certification and commodities sale, or merely as MRV for outcomes-based funding.&#x20;


# Objectives

Objectives of the indicator species biodiversity methodology

* Rapid implementation of economic models for IP and LC-led species conservation.
* Facilitate the inclusion of, and funds to, vulnerable populations and minorities who have a strong conservation history.
* Contribute to international biodiversity targets through voluntary actions by corporations, philanthropists, and any other parties who need transparent outcome metrics.
* Contribute to the national conservation goals of each country and their species inventories.


# Scope

Scope of indicator species biodiversity methodology

This methodology can be applied by any natural or legal person, public or private, that intends to establish a BCP that relies on indicator species monitoring. ISBM allows biodiversity preservation projects to qualify for payments for results or similar compensations, as well as to contribute to international mitigation in the framework of voluntary projects.&#x20;

The methodology cannot be used for offsets. We are [fundamentally opposed](broken://pages/PxtjRKxTLEU5Gp1mri8X) to [biodiversity offsetting](https://www.propublica.org/article/biodiversity-offsets-guinea-world-bank-group-chimpanzees-outbreak).&#x20;

The methodology is applicable to ISBM projects located in countries that have ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity ([Convention on biological biodiversity n.d.](https://observatoriop10.cepal.org/en/treaty/convention-biological-diversity)). Projects should align with local regulations and National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans ([UNDP 2023](https://www.undp.org/press-releases/nbsap-forum-20-launched-support-action-and-collaboration-nature)). However it can be applied with permission in other countries.&#x20;

This methodology is applicable when a project is or is not in an overlapping situation with an NBSAP. In the overlap scenario, it allows for consistent monitoring between the ISBM baseline scenario, the project scenario, and the NBSAP.

The CBD activity ([Norden et al. 2015](https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1500403112)) covered by this methodology:&#x20;

* Conservation of biological diversity corresponds to the maintenance of intact biodiverse ecosystems that could have been eroded by hunting or habitat loss and is given because of the sum of the hectares that show full integrity during the resulting period in a baseline scenario that contains IUCN-threatened species, or IUCN threatened habitats under national or international standards.&#x20;

The scope of this methodology is designed for simplicity and rapid deployment. The first iteration of the methodology includes only conservation activities.  Future versions are likely to include restoration,  habitat management, or climate change-related activities under the CBD.

<br>


# Limitations

Limitations of the indicator species biodiversity methodology

This methodology does not seek to fully quantify biodiversity in its crediting area. Instead, it seeks to provide a fair, transparent, and usable proxy metric for the conservation of ecological zones which are known to be high-value targets for planetary health.&#x20;

While this methodology can show the extension of conserved ecosystem as rare and endangered species extend their habitats, and activity, it should not be used to show gains in ecosystem integrity (degraded ecosystem improvements). Which will fall under other methodologies that ideally can interoperate with our [Unit](broken://pages/ox3DmCalI8KrUH9JZg10).

This methodology is not designed for use for a particular species. Instead, it is encouraged for projects to collect data from as many qualifying species as possible to demonstrate an intact ecosystem in many taxonomic kingdoms.&#x20;

As a standalone metric for conserved biodiversity, this methodology is designed to stack or bundle with other important ecological assets. Including soil, air, water, carbon, and equity. However, while it is possible for the presence of biodiversity to infer the presence of intact soil, water, and carbon flows, this methodology should not be used to quantify such inferences which would require specific ecological metrics that fall outside its bounds.<br>


# Baseline assessment

The use of public data in establishing project context

The baseline scenario in this methodology consists of [categorizing the ecosystem](/baseline-assessment/baseline-ecosystem-categorization), [estimating the biodiversity richness](/baseline-assessment/baseline-biodiversity-optional), and estimating the threat of [biodiversity loss](/baseline-assessment/baseline-risk-of-biodiversity-loss). Projects must update their baseline scenario once every five years with current data and [calculations](broken://pages/GoF1DuLugVqclmsJE1pn) may change as a result.

In the ISBM, unlike carbon projects, VBC calculations are not made from a projected baseline scenario, against a projected project scenario [(Pollock et al., 2020)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=10899578\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). Rather, this methodology is simplified for direct market access to IP and LC.  In other words, these are not areas that need restoration or improvement, but these areas are in threat of being disrupted or damaged. Maintaining these intact ecologies, rather than changing them, is the appropriate outcome of these projects. The ISBM baseline scenario establishes the global value of, and threat toward, the BCP’s intact ecosystem from all publicly-available sources.  Then the BCP project scenario establishes the crediting area for that intact ecosystem.&#x20;

In this context, historical and projection data is useful, but not required as it may be very difficult to obtain, and prohibitively exclusive to IP and LC-led projects in biodiverse regions with a lack of access to research funding and in-situ researchers ([Appendix C](broken://pages/eKi6fiwzALWs3VDjKtjq)).&#x20;

Given the need for conservation prior to full quantification, external standards such as the IUCN Red List of ecosystems and geographically distributed data can serve as proxy metrics where baseline data is unavailable. However, baseline scenarios should be revalidated every five years for updated data.


# Baseline ecosystem categorization

As with other elements of the methodology, ecosystem categorization relies on publicly-available information. Unfortunately, public biodiversity research is often siloed under one classification schema or another. BCPs should identify their ecosystem classification in as many accepted categorization schemas as possible to extend the depth of public data which can be applied to their site.&#x20;

For example, biodiversity hotspots contain a high level of endemic species and have undergone greater than 30% destruction which makes them incredibly high-value for immediate protection ([Kareiva and Kareiva 2017](https://oxfordre.com/environmentalscience/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.001.0001/acrefore-9780199389414-e-95)).&#x20;

Table 3 shows the accepted ecosystem categorization schemes. A sample categorization for Colombia is provided in [Appendix C](broken://pages/eKi6fiwzALWs3VDjKtjq).

#### **Table 4. Accepted ecosystem categorization schemas**&#x20;

| **Name**                                                                                                                                                             | **Definition**                                                                                                                                                                                                                     | **Criteria**                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| [IUCN Red List of Ecosystems](https://assessments.iucnrle.org/)                                                                                                      | 509 ecosystem units                                                                                                                                                                                                                | Decline in distribution, decline in composition and structure, restricted geographic distribution, quantitative analysis.                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
| [Biodiversity hotspots](https://www.cepf.net/our-work/biodiversity-hotspots/hotspots-defined)                                                                        | 36 recognized hotspots                                                                                                                                                                                                             | Two strict criteria: Contain at least 1,500 species of vascular plants found nowhere else on Earth (known as "endemic" species). Loss of least 70 percent of primary native vegetation.                                                                                                                                                             |
| [CBD National targets](https://www.cbd.int/nbsap/targets/)                                                                                                           | Defined according to one of the ecosystem classifications or National Classification Systems, developed by countries                                                                                                               | Biome or vegetation Type, climate, biodiversity hotspots (high species richness and endemism), freshwater vs. marine, succession stage (primary / secondary), size and spatial scale (from micro-ecosystems to biomes), functional Roles (carbon sinks, water purification systems, or habitats for endangered species), anthropogenic Influence... |
| [IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology](https://iucnrle.org/global-eco-typo)                                                                                                | 8 realms, 14 biomes                                                                                                                                                                                                                | Realms (climate), biomes (convergent ecological functions), ecosystem functional groups (contrasting assemblages of species engaged in those functions). Designed for monitoring and reporting on ecosystem status, including the assessment of ecosystem services provided.                                                                        |
| [UN-FAO Land cover classification system (LCCS)](https://www.fao.org/land-water/land/land-governance/land-resources-planning-toolbox/category/details/en/c/1036361/) | 20 global ecological zones                                                                                                                                                                                                         | Climate (precipitation, temperature, and the length and severity of dry and cold periods), landform, soil, vegetation, water availability, biotic interactions.                                                                                                                                                                                     |
| [Holdridge](https://www.iucnredlist.org/about/green-status-species)                                                                                                  | 38 life zones                                                                                                                                                                                                                      | Biotemperature, precipitation, potential evapotranspiration (EVP), EVP/P ratio, latitude, and altitude.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
| [Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World (TEOW)](https://www.worldwildlife.org/publications/terrestrial-ecoregions-of-the-world)                                         | 14 biomes, 867 ecoregions                                                                                                                                                                                                          | Climate (temperature, precipitation, and seasonality), geology and soil type, topography, flora and fauna, natural disturbance regimes, and ecological and evolutionary processes.                                                                                                                                                                  |
| [UNEP Forest Biodiveristy Intactness Index](https://data-gis.unep-wcmc.org/portal/home/item.html?id=20b950b0dea045d1b0798a307ca9d8c1)                                | Assesses the impacts of forest management on biodiversity intactness across the globe                                                                                                                                              | Describes the average abundance of a taxonomically and ecologically broad set of species in an area, relative to their abundances in an intact reference ecosystem                                                                                                                                                                                  |
| [IUCN Habitats Classification Scheme](https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/habitat-classification-scheme)                                                           | 18 major, 108 minor habitats                                                                                                                                                                                                       | Biogeography, latitudinal zonation and depth in marine systems.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
| [WWF for Nature Ecoregions](https://www.worldwildlife.org/)                                                                                                          | 8[ biogeographic realms](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogeographic_realm), containing 867 smaller ecoregions. Each ecoregion is classified into one of 14 major habitat types, or[ biomes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biome). | Primarily designed for conservation planning and identifying areas of high biodiversity significance.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
| [Ramsar Wetland Classification](https://www.dcceew.gov.au/water/wetlands/ramsar)                                                                                     | 2,331 Ramsar sites in May 2018 covering over 2.1 million square kilometres (810,000 sq mi).                                                                                                                                        | Recognizes 12 Marine/Coastal Wetlands, 20 Inland Wetlands, 10 Human-made wetlands. Criteria: Sites containing representative, rare or unique wetland types, sites of international importance for conserving biological diversity (based on species and ecological communities, waterbirds, on fish).                                               |
| [World Heritage List UNESCO](https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/)                                                                                                        | It establishes that certain places on Earth have exceptional universal value.                                                                                                                                                      | Sites are chosen that combine the concept of nature conservation with the preservation of cultural sites.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |


# Analysis of agents and drivers of biodiversity loss

The analysis of agents and causes of biodiversity loss builds on the [eligiblity criteria](/baseline-assessment/baseline-biodiversity-optional) and is supported by secondary information collected on socio-economic variables of historical processes of biodiversity loss and habitat degradation. The agents and causes included are those that are associated with unsustainable uses of habitat zones, but also those that show the potential for reversal by project activities in the form of sustainable management or leveraged conservation processes including ethnic factors, cultural conservation, and livelihoods.

The analysis of agents and causes should be an iterative process, updated every five years as information becomes available, to improve the effectiveness of BCP actions (Figure 4).&#x20;

In its first iteration, the main results should be incorporated into:

* A first portfolio of BC activities. This methodology currently only includes conservation activities, but projects are encouraged to describe and define activities they used to achieve their outcomes.&#x20;
* The [spatial delimitation](/project-description/project-boundaries/spatial-limits-of-the-bcp) of the BCP areas, including the final location of the segments of BC activities.
* The [temporal delimitation](/project-description/project-boundaries/temporal-limits-of-the-bcp) of the BCP.

It is recommended that assessments are carried out on an annual basis according to the circumstances of the BCP. This means that the first diagnosis of causes and actors is done in the consolidation of the PDD, and once a year thereafter. Project findings and dialogues at the local level should be incorporated with new information on socio-economic factors, and the actions can be updated based on the annual assessment.&#x20;

The BCP should describe the drivers and causes of direct biodiversity loss, as well as the associated underlying causes that will determine the dynamics of BD activities (Table 2). It is recommended to use a variety of information (e.g., traditional knowledge, IP and LC experts, expert consultation, participatory social assessments, literature review, etc.).

Underlying causes are classified as those related to social, economic, demographic, technological, political, institutional, and cultural factors. The behavior of the underlying and direct causes should be described at the project level.

Clear knowledge of direct and underlying causes will aid BCP developers in designing targets for project activities that are effective, context-based, and IP and LC-informed.&#x20;

#### **Table 5. Drivers and causes of direct biodiversity loss.**&#x20;

| Activity/driver of biodiversity loss                                       | Mapping indicator                                                                                              | Common data sources                                                                                                                                  | <p>Common data sources</p><p>for biodiversity loss (national</p><p>level)</p>                                                                                                                          | <p>Examples of other</p><p>indirect data</p>                                                                                                                                              |
| -------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| **DIRECT CAUSES**                                                          | <p><br></p>                                                                                                    | <p><br></p>                                                                                                                                          | <p><br></p>                                                                                                                                                                                            | <p><br></p>                                                                                                                                                                               |
| Commercial agriculture                                                     | Habitat destruction, large areas logged, post-harvest land use.                                                | Historical satellite imagery.                                                                                                                        | Traditional biodiversity or habitat inventories/field measurements.                                                                                                                                    | Commodity prices, agricultural censuses, share of gross domestic product, exports, etc.                                                                                                   |
| Subsistence farming, smaller crops, and rotational crops                   | Small, logged areas, usually associated with rotation cycles.                                                  | Historical satellite images with high temporal density or high resolution to determine rotation patterns.                                            | Traditional biodiversity or habitat inventories/field measurements.                                                                                                                                    | Population growth in rural and urban areas, agricultural imports and exports, and land use practices, etc.                                                                                |
| Expansion of infrastructure                                                | Road network, new mines, and built-up areas.                                                                   | Historical satellite images.                                                                                                                         | Traditional biodiversity or habitat inventories/field measurements.                                                                                                                                    | Growth in urban and rural population, infrastructure development programmes, import and export prices of raw materials.                                                                   |
| Climate change                                                             | Coastline changes, desertification.                                                                            | Historical satellite images with habitat mapping.                                                                                                    | IPCC Reports, national reports, remote sensing, and satellite data.                                                                                                                                    | Proxy indicators, comparison with historical records, paleontological data.                                                                                                               |
| Extraction of habitat products for subsistence, local and regional markets | Very small-scale canopy damage, understorey impacts, footpaths.                                                | Land use/land cover maps, remote sensing and satellite imagery, ethnobotanical surveys.                                                              | Biodiversity on-the-ground surveys in areas where products are extracted, scientific research papers, national biodiversity databases, government reports, conservation organizations, etc.            | Land use practices (e.g., agricultural burning), links to other activity data attributable to burning, fire prevention, and natural fires.                                                |
| Subsistence hunting or biological trafficking                              | Very small-scale canopy damage, understorey impacts, footpaths.                                                | Limited historical data. Information from local studies or national proxies. Only long-term cumulative changes can be observed by satellite imagery. | Limited historical data. Information from local scale studies. Community-based monitoring has a key role. Other indirect methods of measuring habitat changes can be employed.                         | Surveys and interviews with local communities, market surveys.                                                                                                                            |
| Other disturbances (e.g., uncontrolled fires)                              | Burn scars and associated impacts.                                                                             | Historical fire-related satellite data, analyzed in conjunction with Landsat-type data.                                                              | Regular estimation of biodiversity loss can be measured consistently for different periods depending on data availability.                                                                             | Vegetation sampling, monitoring indicator species.                                                                                                                                        |
| **INDIRECT OR UNDERLYING CAUSES**                                          | <p><br></p>                                                                                                    | <p><br></p>                                                                                                                                          | <p><br></p>                                                                                                                                                                                            | <p><br></p>                                                                                                                                                                               |
| Economic inequality                                                        | Land conversion and deforestation, resource exploitation.                                                      | National statistical agencies, household surveys, and international organizations.                                                                   | Biodiversity databases like IUCN, GBIF. Socioeconomic surveys that incorporate questions related to biodiversity interactions, Environmental Impact assessments (EIAs) Land use and land cover change. | Land use change and fragmentation, consumption patterns, socioeconomic surveys and household data.                                                                                        |
| Policy failures                                                            | Land conversion and deforestation, habitat fragmentation, resource exploitation, illegal wildlife trafficking. | Land-use change analysis species inventories, habitat quality and fragmentation assessment.                                                          | National and regional environmental agencies , research institutions, NGOs, biodiversity monitoring programs.                                                                                          | Conservation policy analysis evaluating the effectiveness of such policies , stakeholder interviews and surveys, including local communities conservation organizations and policymakers. |
| Weak law enforcement                                                       | Illegal logging and timber trade, protected area invasion, agricultural expansion, mining, etc.                | Land-use change analysis species inventories, habitat quality and fragmentation assessment.                                                          | Government agencies, NGOs,, Customs and borders control agencies , research and academic institutions, public reports.                                                                                 | illegal wildlife trade monitoring, satellite imagery and remote sensing, expert surveys and interviews.                                                                                   |
| Lack of local engagement                                                   | Habitat loss, loss of traditional ecological knowledge,illegal activities, fragmentation.                      | Land-use change analysis species inventories, habitat quality and fragmentation assessment.                                                          | Biodiversity surveys and inventories, community-based monitoring programs, traditional ecological knowledge, community organizations, stakeholder interviews and local surveys.                        | Community-based monitoring, local ecological knowledge social surveys.                                                                                                                    |
| Global demand for resources                                                | Land conversion and deforestation, resource and species exploitation.                                          | Land-use change analysis species inventories, habitat quality and fragmentation assessment.                                                          | Remote sensing and satellite data, Regional and national biodiversity inventories, Global Biodiversity information Facility (GBIF), IUCN.                                                              | Land use and land cover change analysis, global trade data, supply chain analysis, economic indicators, corporate sustainability reports.                                                 |


# Baseline biodiversity (optional)

Species richness, ecosystem characterization, endemic species and other metrics of native ecosystem

Data on biodiversity richness may not be available within ecosystem classification. Where it is available to a project it should be included.&#x20;

However, the ISBM does not require full biodiversity classification, only clear identification of indicator species that both the Indigenous people and global scientists recognize as distinct indicator species.&#x20;

Where possible projects must draw on publicly available sources to characterize species richness and endemic species for the following taxonomic groups: All identified species of trees, vascular plants, amphibians, reptiles, birds, insects, mammals, fish, and fungi.&#x20;

A sample table for Putumayo, Colombia is provided in [Appendix D](broken://pages/3AoMULLBhZOxGsFOaUkI).


# Baseline risk of biodiversity loss

Determining baseline risk of loss from public sources

The baseline risk of biodiversity loss can be extrapolated from public data at the level of the ecosystem (i.e., IUCN Red List ecosystem with a threat level of Critically Endangered) or it can be gathered from the list of threatened species native to the region (i.e., UICN Red List of Threatened Species native to the ecosystem). Habitat loss data such as deforestation rates for the zone from Global Forest Watch ([www.globalforestwatch.org/map](https://www.globalforestwatch.org/map/)) can be provided as supporting material.


# Indicator species selection

Selection and characterization of indicator species

Indicator species must be selected using a scientific, data-driven approach that considers local ecology, IP and/or LC needs and traditional knowledge of totemic animals, threat factors, and conservation goals.

Species must have documented sensitivity to environmental changes and an ability to represent the integrity of the broader ecosystem although this may be a partial score (see[ Integrity score](/baseline-assessment/indicator-species-integrity-score)).&#x20;

Projects must characterize a full list of potential indicator species for their ecosystem meeting the criteria below. These lists are in the process of being normalized in public databases by independent experts. However, in the initial iteration of the methodology, projects are encouraged to review the list early, with external experts both IP and/or LC and regional academic or conservation biologists prior to implementing a monitoring plan. BCPs should make an effort to collect observations from all qualifying species but are recommended to have 1-3 main species for consistency in tracking and monitoring (see [Monitoring](/monitoring-plan)).&#x20;

### Qualifying categories of indicator species

Eight categories are available for consideration: Sentinel, Rare, Endangered, Umbrella, Trafficked, Keystone, Emblematic, and Endemic. BCPs must provide public research from a reputable source to identify the indicator species.

* **Sentinel species**: Provide published research from a reputable source to identify sentinel species, their reaction to environmental changes, and their ability to serve as a proxy metric for the ecosystem being conserved.&#x20;
* **Rare species**: Provide published research from a reputable source to identify rare species and their ability to serve as a proxy metric for the ecosystem being conserved.&#x20;
* **Endangered species**: Categorize all indicator species for IUCN level ([Appendix E](/appendices/appendix-e-sample-selection-of-indicator-species)), ([www.iucnredlist.org](http://www.iucnredlist.org)). Note that in order to qualify as an indicator species under threat level alone, the species must be IUCN status Critically endangered or Endangered on the subnational, national, or international level.&#x20;
* **Umbrella species**: Provide published research from a reputable source to identify umbrella species and their ability to serve as a proxy metric for the ecosystem being conserved.&#x20;
* **Trafficked species**: Include only those trafficked species that appear on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora ([CITES](https://cites.org/eng/disc/species.php)) list.&#x20;
* **Keystone species**: Provide published research from a reputable source to identify keystone species and their ability to serve as a proxy metric for the ecosystem being conserved.&#x20;
* **Emblematic species**: Provide published research from a reputable source to identify culturally significant species, such as their historical or mythological significance, role in traditional ceremonies or rituals, use in arts and crafts, or their symbolic representation in cultural narratives. IP and LC will often have totemic animals for their ecosystem and this knowledge should not be ignored as it often represents ecological understanding not yet appreciated by Western science. IP and LC also often have early warning signals of species threat which justifies the inclusion of species they put high priority on monitoring.
* **Endemic species**: Identify species as restricted to a particular geographic region and not naturally found anywhere else. Endemic species are important indicators of the uniqueness and ecological significance of a particular region.&#x20;

Many projects may end up identifying qualifying indicator species (e.g., harpy eagle for Colombia) which are rare, and may or may not generate observations. BCPs must take care to be inclusive of high-value species in their dataset of [Observations](/project-description/implementation-plan/indicator-species-observations), but realistic about the selection of species that can be reliably used for monitoring a large area (e.g., jaguar for Colombia). &#x20;

Species must be fully characterized including latin name, common name, IP and/or LC names where applicable, indicator type(s), national and international IUCN threat levels, CITES status, and home range (with scientific references). Please refer to [Figure 12](#figure-12-indicator-species-selection-example-for-colombia) below as an example of the indicator species in Putumayo, Colombia ([Appendix E](/appendices/appendix-e-sample-selection-of-indicator-species)).

#### **Figure 12: Indicator species selection example for Colombia**

<div data-full-width="true"><figure><img src="https://content.gitbook.com/content/QlKpTR8KkK45VWYPUpbc/blobs/1LfMIPZbcszOH3X4yZft/WhatsApp%20Image%202023-09-29%20at%2016.42.55.jpeg" alt="Example of indicator species selection table for Colombia. "><figcaption></figcaption></figure></div>

Indicator species must also be ranked by their ability to represent the ecosystem with an Ecosystem [integrity ratio](broken://pages/GoF1DuLugVqclmsJE1pn) between 0-1 where 1 indicates the full capability of representing the ecosystem. These scores must be supported by public data and will be reviewed by the IPE assigned to the project. A sample species list with external data for ratings is provided in [Appendix E](/appendices/appendix-e-sample-selection-of-indicator-species).


# Indicator species integrity score

The ability of indicator species to represent an intact ecosystem

An indicator species integrity score is intrinsic to the species, and its evolved niche in, sensitivity to, and fragility without, its natural ecosystem. It is generated from public data and/or traditional ecological knowledge.

The ISBM is designed to represent intact ecosystems, however, some easily-monitored indicator species may fail to adequately represent the ecosystem they are found in. Species that can live in contaminated systems will have a lower integrity score. Spotting one of those species gives only partial credit because the species could occur in an ecosystem that is not fully intact. However, species that are more representative may be difficult to monitor. To democratize the methodology for IP and LC which may be inexpert, or under-resourced monitors we have introduced an indicator species integrity score which allows for non-idealized observations in lieu of perfected data.&#x20;

&#x20;For instance, many IP may find a tapir easier to locate than a jaguar, and in many Indigenous nations across the Amazon, it is a totemic animal. However, it is not fully representative of an intact ecosystem, so it would have an integrity score of 0.5.&#x20;

After generating a list of [available Indicator species](/baseline-assessment/indicator-species-selection), they must also be ranked by their ability to represent the ecosystem with an integrity score between 0-1.0 where 1.0 indicates the full capability of representing the ecosystem. These scores will be used in [Integrity calculation](broken://pages/GoF1DuLugVqclmsJE1pn) and must be supported by public data if available, and expert opinion when not, and will be reviewed by the VVB assigned to the project.&#x20;

A sample species list with external data for ratings is provided in [Appendix E](/appendices/appendix-e-sample-selection-of-indicator-species).

#### **Figure 12a: Indicator species integrity score example for Colombia**

<div data-full-width="true"><figure><img src="https://content.gitbook.com/content/QlKpTR8KkK45VWYPUpbc/blobs/1LfMIPZbcszOH3X4yZft/WhatsApp%20Image%202023-09-29%20at%2016.42.55.jpeg" alt="Example of indicator species selection table for Colombia. "><figcaption></figcaption></figure></div>


# SDG contributions

Contribution to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals

Projects may wish to report their contribution to the UNSDGs. This methodology is specifically designed to preserve the environment with a directive towards financial inclusion and the preservation of local cultures. As a result of the design of each project, different SDGs may be relevant, and it is up to each project to evaluate the need for reporting on the outcomes as they relate to the SDGs.

Any projects reporting on their UNSDG goals must choose a maximum of five SDG focus areas, and include the specific target area by number. For qualification with UNSDG accounting, sub-topics must be specified for every goal. For each target, projects are expected to provide specific metrics and report on the metrics on a regular basis.&#x20;

For example, SDG Goal 12 is "Responsible consumption and production." The project might focus on "12.a — Support developing countries to strengthen their scientific and technological capacities to move towards more sustainable patterns of consumption and production." The metric to accomplish the goal could be the number of camera traps installed to capture indicator species.

<br>


# Project description

Data needed from an IP and LC project for crediting

The project description defines site-specific, project-generated data that is unique to the ecosystem, and IP and/or LC implementing the project.&#x20;

The calculation of VBCs is closely tied to the presence of indicator species within project boundaries and by extension a conserved ecosystem, not only for habitat but for biodiversity populations.&#x20;

Thus projects are rewarded not for activities, or for projections, but for outcomes, on an ongoing annual basis.&#x20;

The steps to follow for a successful BCP are outlined in the [Getting started](/getting-started) section.  They are intentionally simple because the methodology is outcomes-driven.


# Principles

Principles for biocredit projects and their operability at project level

The principles listed here aim for a fair representation and credible accounting of VBCs achieved by BCPs.

The principles set out the basis for the justifications and explanations required in this document and the BCP should refer to the relevant principles and how they have been applied according to Cercarbono’s Protocol and the guidelines of the CBS.&#x20;

1. **Accuracy:** Measurements that the BCPs align with or are reasonably close to the actual values of nature.&#x20;
2. **Coherence:** The results of biodiversity conservation in both the baseline and project scenarios must be comparable over time. Any changes in data, scope, calculation methods, or other factors that are relevant to the time series need to be clearly documented. The calculations performed by the BCP must be reproducible and technically validated so that they can generate consistently well-supported results.&#x20;
3. **Comparability:** The results obtained by the BCP activity should be comparable against the use of methodologies, guidelines, and protocols, among others, such that the estimation and calculation of biodiversity conservation achieved by the BCP can be independently assessed and comparable.&#x20;
4. **Completeness:** All significant data sources generated by the BCP shall be included, as appropriate to the type of program or project.&#x20;
5. **Conservatism:** Conservative assumptions, values, and procedures should be used to ensure that biodiversity losses are not underestimated and that biodiversity conservation is not overestimated. On the feasibility of using two values of the same parameter at the same scale, the most conservative one should be used.
6. **Consistency:** The assumptions, values, and procedures used by the BCP for the calculation of VBCs must be technically sound, consistent, comparable, and reproducible.
7. **Simplicity:** The methodology is designed to be easy to use, understand, and validate for local and Indigenous people and by the corporate, consumer, and financial clients who buy the VBC. Using streamlined and vetted science to efficiently solve for nature’s complexity.&#x20;
8. **Empowered participation and fairness:** Human, as well as environmental sustainability, is critical to climate impact. The methodology prioritizes full participation and consent of marginalized communities by their traditions, as well as appropriate compensation.


# Principles of working with IP and LC

International standards of working with Indigenous Peoples

Many of these principles are equally applicable to LC and we encourage a higher standard of accountability to these communities where appropriate. However, it is worth noting that IP have specific protections at the international level that must be recognized as outlined in United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN DRIP) ([United Nations 2007](https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf))

As this methodology is designed for by, and for, Indigenous Peoples, projects on Indigenous lands should also demonstrate intentional adherence to [Global Alliance demands](https://globalalliance.me/about/demands/.) in the design, including:

* **Land rights:** The rights of Indigenous peoples over the lands they occupy must be recognized.
* **Free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC):** Any intervention in IP territories must undergo a process of free, prior, and informed consent.
* **Direct funding:** Direct access to climate funding.
* **Protection of life:** IP conservation leaders must not continue to be criminalized or assassinated.
* **Traditional knowledge preservation:** Policies developed in IP territories must consider traditional knowledge, which needs to be incorporated into climate change strategies.

Projects must implement a fair and equitable way of distributing project funds to the actual individuals on the ground. The technology for funds disbursement must have safeguards against corruption and eliminate middlemen and other potential diversions or dilutions of funds from the people who are actually preserving the ecosystem. The methodology is designed to preserve endemic biodiversity by enabling Indigenous communities to become stewards of the ecosystem and deploying small farmers relying on traditional hunter-gatherer lifestyles to conserve the jungle and monitor for indicator species.&#x20;

Finally, BCPs must show a plan for equitable distribution of access to data from the project including promotional materials, project data about ecosystems and biodiversity, video and photographic data, and photographs of participants with IP and LC communities involved using FAIR and CARE guidelines ([Carroll et al. 2021](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-021-00892-0)).


# Eligibility criteria

Inclusion criteria for projects wishing to use this methodology

The #SexyTrees methodology applies to projects that meet the following eligibility criteria:

#### **Table A. Eligibility criteria for #**&#x53;exyTrees

<table><thead><tr><th width="178">Criteria</th><th>Description</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Project activities</td><td>Restoration initiatives aiming to recover the ecological function of degraded tropical land by <em>adding more trees</em> — including agroforestry, reforestation, or natural regrowth or any combination of the three. The agroforestry activities reverse partial losses of soil fertility, biodiversity, water retention, and tree-based carbon on lands previously deforested or under unsustainable cultivation, while providing food security and livelihoods to smallfarmer and Indigenous implementers. For small-scale restoration of degraded land using agroforestry practices</td></tr><tr><td>Implementation entity</td><td>Entities implementing the projects can be any recognized legal entity, but they should have a clear mandate from local IP and/or LC communities to represent the project in their area (see <a href="/appendices/fpic">FPIC</a>).</td></tr><tr><td>Land rights</td><td>Proof of land ownership, possession, stewardship, or land-use rights must be legally valid and compliant with international law (human rights, and Indigenous rights), jurisdictional law, and customary rights or Indigenous law (see <a href="/project-description/eligibility-criteria/land-ownership-and-law">Land</a> and  <a href="/appendices/appendix-x-sample-legal-proof-of-land-control">Appendix C</a>). BCPs must have documentation for all land-rights holders for project implementation.</td></tr><tr><td>Identification of stakeholders and beneficiaries</td><td>All IP and LCs must be identified, and their inclusion in remuneration from the project must be transparently disclosed.</td></tr><tr><td>Vulnerability</td><td>The project area is degraded and/or deforested or under unsustainable agricultural use if no program is implemented.</td></tr><tr><td>Prior funding or stacking</td><td>As addressed in the additionality section. The location to be conserved has not received previous funding through mechanisms that overlap in time or duplicateconflict with the funding to be allocated by biodiversity credit. Projects may only stack VBCs with carbon crediting if they can clearly demonstrate they are doing additional activities (over and above what they are doing for carbon).</td></tr><tr><td>Project Scale</td><td>The minimum project geography must encompass an area that is the size of the natural range of an individual of the indicator species that qualify for validation of biodiversity. Projects can include adjacent or non-adjacent properties with a trajectory to create contiguous areas.</td></tr><tr><td>Geographical location</td><td>No limitations. This methodology was developed with tropical rainforests in mind but it can be adapted with appropriate evidence for other geographies.</td></tr><tr><td>Legal projects</td><td>Projects must comply with all relevant local, regional, national, and international laws and regulations.</td></tr><tr><td>Project duration</td><td>Projects should be viable for the long-term future, preferably for a maximum of 30 years, but IP and LC contracts may be structured as autorenewing yearly, and cancellable after one year.</td></tr><tr><td>Governance</td><td>Governance of the project should be driven by a collaborative approach with IP and LC and transparency into all aspects of the project.</td></tr></tbody></table>


# Land ownership and law

Proving legal rights over the land being protected

Participants in the biodiversity crediting system must prove their legal rights to the land. Credits may go to owners and stewards of the land as well as individuals and organizations with other types of rights to the land (ie. hunting rights). All parties with legal rights to the land must be rewarded for preservation rather than exploitation of the land. The projects should provide a description of the property rights and land area involved.&#x20;

Land rights can vary from site to site, and must follow jurisdictional requirements. This methodology is specifically designed to allow IP and LCs with incomplete land rights to participate in conservation activities if they can provide clear proof of land tenancy. A sample land validation protocol is provided for the Colombian national jurisdiction ([Appendix B](/appendices/appendix-x-sample-legal-proof-of-land-control)).

The following types of legal rights are recognized by the ISBM:

* Legal ownership in the form of title, or&#x20;
* Land use rights (for example, hunting rights or logging contracts), or
* Stewardship (local groups allowed to occupy and sustain themselves on the territory).

The BCP must demonstrate or obtain the expressed written authorization of an individual, public or collective organization, holder, or administrator of the land and boundaries on which the project activity is implemented. If more than one type of legal right applies, all parties must provide authorization.  In the case of privately owned land, express proof must be provided by the owner or holder of the land authorizing the BCP to be carried out.&#x20;

The ISBM offers the provision for legal stewardship rather than necessitating outright ownership of the land, based on political, social, and cultural arguments in historically biodiverse zones. From a cultural perspective, many IPs simply do not recognize the rights of humans to “own” natural resources. On numerous occasions, ISBM co-originators have emphasized that the land cannot be owned only stewarded. In other cases, the government of the country may be maintaining legal rights to the lands and prohibiting full legal ownership by Indigenous peoples. In the absence of legal title to land, proof of guardianship or land stewardship can be used by the BCP, provided necessary documentation is submitted (For an example, see [Appendix B](/appendices/appendix-x-sample-legal-proof-of-land-control)).


# Additionality

Characterization of the project's need for biodiversity crediting

General additionality of this methodology must be demonstrated by applying the decision tree that appears in the current version of the Cercarbono's [Biodiversity Certification Programme Protocol](https://www.cercarbono.com/biodiversity-certification-programme/) and covers financial, normative, and regulatory surplus additionality scenarios, to demonstrate that the biodiversity conservation is directly related to the project activity(ies) and not an external source.

The additionality of actions measured by methodology in particular is simplified to enable IP and LC inclusion.

This methodology judges outcomes from the perspective of other species. Humans may make marginal improvements in degraded ecosystems, and certainly, for severely degraded ecosystems this can easily be a 200%-fold, or 300%-fold improvement. However, restored ecosystems can never be fully available to the complete variety of native species in the way that undisrupted ecosystems are.&#x20;

Thus, for projects occurring in high-biodiversity, high-threat ecosystems, additionality is inherent in the [Ecosystem characterization](/baseline-assessment/baseline-ecosystem-categorization) and [Value normalization](broken://pages/GoF1DuLugVqclmsJE1pn). For example, any intact ecosystem on an IUCN red list, or biodiversity hotspot ecosystem is inherently additional due to its threatened status.&#x20;

The [Integrity calculations](broken://pages/QqFJtdCzkyrmvPDU84hu) in this methodology are meant to establish acceptable proof of a conserved ecosystem. Thus instead of providing evidence for a change, they provide reasonable evidence of no change which is inherently additional in a threatened ecosystem.&#x20;

In the context of conservation, where external sources have validated that an ecosystem is under threat, additionality merely needs to demonstrate that the project maintains the presence of biodiversity and that activities are not duplicated by other sources.


# Project boundaries

Boundaries of the biodiversity crediting project in time and space

Projects have spatial and temporal limits. The use of grouped projects is encouraged under this methodology which was designed for lateral spread and viral behavior change among, and between, IP and LC.&#x20;

The main input for identifying project boundaries is land enrolled in the BCP and thus eligible for crediting, and the dates of that enrollment. We will address each in turn.&#x20;


# Spatial limits of the BCP

Simplifying mapping for IP and LC participants

BCPs do not need to provide complex spatial data, such as [habitat mapping](https://www.space-intelligence.com/habitatmapper-landcover-mapping/) data to be eligible under this methodology ([Space Intelligence, n.d.](https://www.space-intelligence.com/habitatmapper-landcover-mapping/)). Many ecosystem classification systems and the tools for that classification are incomplete, untested, or financially and technically exclusive.  Thus we have intentionally simplified technologies and tools for describing projects spatially.&#x20;

However, the spatial limits of the BCP must be explicitly defined in the PMP for land rights, Indigenous rights, and crediting algorithms.&#x20;

### Data layers

A BCP may contain three spatial data layers: areas, indicator species observations, and segments. These must be identified and delimited.

* **Observations** are comprised of the union of home ranges of indicator species generated during a BCP ([Calculation](broken://pages/gGy2yptVa6ev9tqN07zI)).
* **Areas** allow for the macro division of the BCP, to separate surrounding areas from those where observations can be credited ([Calculation](broken://pages/gGy2yptVa6ev9tqN07zI)).
* **Segments** can be used for projects that overlap two different ecosystems (ie. ocean , coastline, and mangrove), or two different jurisdictional areas (ie, different landowners).

### Observations data layer

This data layer is generated by direct observations of the union of home ranges of indicator species during project implementation ([Area calculation](broken://pages/gGy2yptVa6ev9tqN07zI))

### Project area data layer

There are distinct project areas within a BCP, which may contain intact ecosystems as well as adjacent land, or ecosystems with some level of disruption.

Project areas are described below and depicted in [Figure 4a](https://sexytrees.savimbo.com/project-description/project-boundaries/pages/8Lo4ZWnsaIysqFPiiT1W#figure-4a.-diagram-of-spatial-areas-of-bcp).&#x20;

* **Reference area** is the geographical region or ecosystem(s) where the analysis of [agents and drivers](/baseline-assessment/analysis-of-agents-and-drivers-of-biodiversity-loss) of biodiversity loss is carried out, and [indicator species](/baseline-assessment/indicator-species-selection) are defined. It should be bounded by micro-watersheds overlapping or adjacent to the BCP area. It is the broadest region of the BCP and includes all the other areas. The reference area must be defined in a geographic information system. It must include habitat areas and may or may not include non-habitat areas. The reference area is not subject to monitoring but must be re-evaluated in case of a reworking of the baseline scenario.&#x20;
* **Project area** is the legally enrolled land within the BCP. This is the area where the BCP has permission or contract to issue biodiversity credits within ([Eligibility criteria](/project-description/eligibility-criteria)). It is explicitly dedicated to biodiversity conservation, under contract with the BCP, and where the VBCs will be generated and rewards distributed. In grouped projects, land plots cannot overlap.
* **Crediting area** is the intersection of [indicator species observations](/project-description/implementation-plan/indicator-species-observations) and *project area*. Crediting areas may be segmented for ecosystems (different indicator species), value (different ecosystem threat classifications), or jurisdictional (crossing the border between two legal plots) reasons.&#x20;
* **Potential leakage area** is radically simplified for IP and LC inclusion to the area home ranges of species observed within, but extending *beyond* the Project area, animals likely ranging beyond crediting areas, this signal can be easily monitored from ongoing project data. If the analysis of agents and causes of biodiversity loss defines further drivers a BCP may decide to expand this area and describe and monitor a leakage management area for preventive action (See [Additional monitoring requirements](/monitoring-plan/additional-monitoring-requirements)).
* **(Optional) Project activities area** this optional area can be described by BCPs but is not required. One aim of the methodology is to allow for a wide, and fluid range of locally-determined activities and reward for outcomes — thus stimulating experimentation from IP and LCs who know their ecosystems better than outside agents.&#x20;

Since PI and CL often have small plots, this area will not always be contiguous and may consist of several separate patches within the reference area. Each of these patches must contribute to the project's conservation objectives, and their combined size defines the project area.

#### Figure 4a. **Diagram of spatial areas of BCP**

<figure><img src="broken://files/ghux4QdWO6KnTTfJO6JT" alt=""><figcaption><p><strong>Figure 4a.</strong> Diagram of spatial Areas of BCP with addition of the indicator species observations layer demonstrating creditable areas, buffer zone, total project area, and project boundary </p></figcaption></figure>

In developing your project, it's crucial to distinguish between the reference area and the *project area or crediting area*. The *reference area* refers to the entire geographical extent of the project, which might include both areas designated for conservation and other regions, such as infrastructure, human settlements, or areas that do not contribute to the project's biodiversity conservation objectives.

Some BCPs may obtain written permission to use indicator-species observations generated outside the *project area*, where home ranges extend within the *project area* but all observations must fall within the *reference area* as described below.&#x20;

As LCs frequently have small land plots, *project area* may not always be contiguous and could consist of multiple separate patches within the *reference area*. Each of these patches should contribute to the project's conservation goals, and their combined extent defines the *project area*.&#x20;

IP projects may be grouped with neighboring LCs in grouped projects. This is encouraged when all parties agree as it contributes to conservation outcomes. This difference does not require segmentation as it is merely a difference in land ownership, but it will require different inclusion parameters and FPIC protocols (See [Appendix K](/appendices/fpic)).&#x20;

In summary, crediting area is confined to the legally enrolled land, which is covered by a union of indicator species home ranges normalized to a circle. ([Area calculations](broken://pages/gGy2yptVa6ev9tqN07zI)). Home ranges that overlap legally enrolled land compose an important metric, the potential leakage area ([Spatial limits](/project-description/project-boundaries/spatial-limits-of-the-bcp)).

### Segments data layer

Projects that have substantial differences within the project area will need to be segmented for crediting. The most common reasons a project must be segmented are the following:&#x20;

* **Ecosystems** may change within the project area. For instance a large project that crosses ocean, to coastline, to mangrove swamps will have completely different ecosystem baseline classifications and indicator species.&#x20;
* **Threat** many projects may protect the borders of ecosystems with different threat levels, and thus different crediting values. (see [Value calculations](broken://pages/GoF1DuLugVqclmsJE1pn)). Indicator species observations must be segmented for accurate crediting.&#x20;
* **Jurisdiction** projects that overlap countries borders must credit separately under Cercarbonos standard, grouped projects may overlap regional boundaries with different governing parameters such as states.

#### Figure 4b. Project area with satellite mapping

<figure><img src="https://content.gitbook.com/content/QlKpTR8KkK45VWYPUpbc/blobs/OvarmRyOQNfBIgiGOB79/IMG-20231218-WA0002%20copy.jpg" alt=""><figcaption><p><strong>Figure 4b.</strong> Project area for grouped project with satellite mapping showing segmentation by biodiversity hotspot boundaries.</p></figcaption></figure>

### Mapping guidelines

Please follow these guidelines when mapping your project, and determining its boundaries:

* **Ecosystems:** In line with the focus on maintaining and enhancing biodiversity within functional intact ecosystems, the boundary should primarily encompass regions that maintain their ecological processes. If the project contains more than one ecosystem, it needs to be segmented by ecosystem ([Baseline ecosystem characterization](/baseline-assessment/baseline-ecosystem-categorization)). &#x20;
* **Geographic description:** BCPs must provide a detailed geographic description of the project area in the PMP. This should include information about its physical characteristics (e.g., topography, climate), ecological features (e.g., ecosystem types, key species), and human aspects (e.g., land use, local communities). Describe any factors that might influence the project's implementation or outcomes.
* **Maps:** Include clear and detailed maps of the project and activity areas. Maps should include the project's geographic boundary and important features within it. Features could include habitat types, locations of key habitats, areas of particular conservation interest, ecosystem boundaries, and human settlements or infrastructure. Whenever possible, maps should be produced with GIS software or handheld GPS devices to ensure accuracy and clarity.
* **Boundary justification:** Provide a justification for the chosen boundary. Explain how the boundary aligns with the home range of the chosen indicator species and encompasses a functional intact ecosystem. Discuss any considerations or challenges encountered in defining the boundary, and how these were addressed.
* **Indigenous lands:** Include clear information about Indigenous lands included within or near the project area. Indigenous lands have different requirements for legal enrollment and must clearly delineated (See [Appendix K](/appendices/fpic)) . &#x20;


# Temporal limits of the BCP

Clear timing of the biodiversity crediting project

The temporal limits of the BCP must be explicitly defined in the PDD. VBCs may only be issued for conservation outcomes during the period determined by these limits. VBCs can be earned retroactively, see below.&#x20;

The temporal limits are the result of the long-term need for conservation against biodiversity loss, balanced against the contractual hesitance on the part of IP and LCs, the scientific limits of prediction in complex systems, acceptable market pricing, and the fundamental impermanence of biodiversity itself.&#x20;

The methodology was written to allow for annual crediting based on evidence of continued presence of indicator species, rather than an assumed future state. Temporal limits are defined by six different periods ([Figure 5](https://sexytrees.savimbo.com/project-description/project-boundaries/pages/Q3InCvaUHABsx5GvzF00#figure-5.-temporal-delimitation-of-the-bcp)).&#x20;

* **BCP start date:** The date on which the first on-the-ground actions were initiated, which led to conservation results. 5 years prior to the validation of the PMP if project activities are well documented and have constituted effective and proactive conservation.
* **Historical period:** Period in which ecosystem function, native indicator species, and drivers of biodiversity loss have been characterized. This period should not be less than five years before the project start date, and be justified for the stated CBD activities.
* **Baseline period:** Period in which agents and drivers, ecosystem data, and indicator species public data is monitored for changes. Baseline reassessments are required every 5 years and
* **BCP duration:**  Time range (in years) for the conservation contracts that are in place. Contracts with a maximum duration of 30 years are cancellable after 1 year. These 30 years can occur in three consecutive accreditation periods of 10 years each. Predicted biodiversity loss in the absence of intervention is optionally estimated during this period as data may be slim, and these projections are scientifically limited. The starting year of this period should coincide with the project start date where the first BCP interventions are carried out in the territory.&#x20;
* **Results period (VBC crediting period)**: Range of time (in years) over which BCP activities and the results of those actions are monitored in terms of observation of indicator species. The duration of this period is equal to the duration of the project activity and may not be less than one year.&#x20;
* **Verification times:**  The periods of time within the results period in which the issuance of VBCs is certified/verified based on the indicator species observational data. Baseline reassessments are required every 5 years and a maximum interval of 3 years between successive verifications is allowed.&#x20;

  .&#x20;

#### Figure 5. Temporal delimitation of the BCP

<figure><img src="broken://files/RGNnFAcmFrknUtXpIN0q" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>


# Grouped projects

Designing for viral behavior change among IP and LC conservationists and their neighbors

This methodology was specifically designed for behavior change and lateral spread between and among IP and LC, whether adjacent smallfarmers, around the borders of game parks, and between Indigenous groups and their smallfarming neighbors. Thus grouped projects are encouraged, and the design of grouped projects are specifically addressed.&#x20;

Grouped projects benefit biodiversity as animals range outside the borders of conserved areas, and ecosystem connectivity is a clear global conservation target [(Vilar et al. 2020)](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/aqc.3269).&#x20;

Projects can begin as, or convert to grouped projects, at any point in their progress. It is understood that  IPs have an international right to [*ongoing* consent](https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf), and both groups LCs [desire shorter-term contracts ](https://isbm.savimbo.com/appendices/appendix-i-letters-of-support/miguel-chindoy-indigenous-leader)specifically so they have the freedom to adjust to changing scientific standards or undesirable business relationships. Thus projects are allowed to reduce crediting area as long as the [1-year minimum](/project-description/project-boundaries/temporal-limits-of-the-bcp) crediting period has been met. &#x20;

Biodiversity is enhanced at the intersection of ecosystems, so it is possible a grouped project in the same geographic region may extend laterally to cover new ecosystems or indicator species. In this case, the project must provide segmentation and adjust the [Project description](/project-description) and [Baseline assessment](/baseline-assessment) if applicable. For instance, a wetland project extends into marine ecosystems, and when those projects are grouped, it enhances both environments. However, the indicator species may not be the same for those types of adjacent grouped projects. &#x20;

Once a BCP has implemented scalable infrastructure for the monitoring and reporting, scaling should be fairly straightforward. Updated Project boundaries can be provided during verification times if the [Monitoring plan](/monitoring-plan) remains internally consistent.

As a note, given 5 year retroactivity, and clear monitoring data in the Leakage area, there is a strong financial incentive for neighboring lands to convert to conservation, and claim retroactive crediting. This is by design, should be encouraged, and contributes greatly to the 20% growth in conserved areas and behavior change in hunting of rare animals (jaguar and harpy eagle) witnessed in the [pilot project](/appendices/wbp-case-study) for this methodology. &#x20;

In BCP projects using this methodology in de novo sites, it is strongly encouraged to start with a small area, prove the model sufficiently to IP and LCs first with tangible results then grow laterally year-over-year based on conservation successes and earned-trust.


# Implementation plan

How to implement a biodiversity crediting project

This methodology is applicable in resilient ecosystems with intact biodiversity that are under threat of a loss in biodiversity without intervention, or financial additionality. Projects should demonstrate a capacity to preserve endemic biodiversity by enabling IP and LC to become stewards of the ecosystem and deploying staff relying on traditional hunter-gatherer lifestyles to conserve the jungle and monitor for indicator species.

Each of the project activities must be under the responsibility of the project developers, and compliant with certification standards if applicable.&#x20;

Implementation plans have been intentionally simplified, as the primary data from a project is not a plan, but an outcome. Where possible, BCPs should provide a clear description of:

* Stakeholder relationships and analysis&#x20;
* Technical feasibility given available monitoring equipment
* Financial feasibility and costs associated with monitoring
* Legal feasibility within jurisdictional boundaries
* Risks and uncertainties
* Capacity and expertise, including IP and LC representation&#x20;
* Governance, including IP and LC representation


# Measurement approaches

How to use the ISBM measurements effectively

The ISBM methodology requires primary data for an indicator species observation. Primary data that qualifies under this methodology must be able to identify an indicator species accurately, and have a geocode, and a date-time stamp.&#x20;

Monitoring techniques that are not capable of delivering an accurate location for a species via triangulation or direct capture (ie, eDNA which could be generated anywhere along a watershed, untriangulated audio recordings) are excluded from this methodology. Identification techniques that are incomplete or inaccurate (i.e. uncharacterized DNA) are also excluded. However, some experimental approaches such as infrared drone may prove valid and useful and we do not preclude the use of techniques that meet the technical requirements.

Direct (video camera) AND indirect (e-DNA from monkey feces) observations are admissible in this methodology as long as the species being tracked can be geolocated by the indirect observation. For instance, feces from a spider monkey with a home range of 64km could not geolocate a tree whose fruit was found in the feces to sufficient accuracy, unless the crediting area extended beyond 4km in all directions of the observation, but it *could* accurately geolocate spider-monkey presence.

Raw data will require some post-processing with the identification of indicator species within the observation. And may require further processing such as auto-labelings of recordings, or triangulation of sonar.&#x20;

Observations must include:

* **Verifiable unique, primary evidence** of the presence of the individual species using appropriate equipment for the particular type of plant or animal. All evidence must be collected first-hand by the participants in the project, or neighboring sites within the spatial and temporal project boundaries ([Project boundaries)](/project-description/project-boundaries) and cannot be extrapolated from unaffiliated second- or third-party sources.
* **Geotagging and time-tagging of the evidence.** For areas where geotagging and time tagging are technically impossible, or financially unfeasible for the project, trusted participants/biodiversity guardians may provide written notarization of the observation time and location.
* **Species identification**. Ideally verified by a third-party such as iNaturalist.

The equipment chosen for the evidence is determined by the project itself. For example, in jungle areas, game cams may be the only viable means to use without disrupting the environment, and high-humidity might limit the use of audio-recording devices.  In the ocean, sound recording devices may be more practical for detecting whales. In state-managed parks, animals may already be tagged. ISBM recommends each project choose the technology that is least disruptive to the wildlife in their project areas.

It is important and relevant to note that this methodology has been democratized by a reliance on primary data. In this context, the raw data must be unique, of a high-quality, and accurately represent the BCP.


# Indicator species observations

Data generated from a indicator species project used in crediting

Indicator species observations require raw data (audio recording, video, or photo) date-time stamp, and geocode in decimal degrees format.&#x20;

For rare, threatened, trafficked, or endangered indicator species projects are encouraged to mask geocodes for public PMPs through free sites like [iNaturalist ](https://www.inaturalist.org/signup?return_to=https://www.inaturalist.org/aboput)or [Earthranger](https://www.earthranger.com/), and arrange private review by crediting bodies.&#x20;

#### **Figure 6. Indicator species observations with geocode and date-time stamp**&#x20;

<figure><img src="broken://files/aScJHK5u9C9TdQ0MYg43" alt=""><figcaption><p><em><strong>Figure 6b.</strong> Indicator species observations with geocode and date-time stamp.</em> Note: geocodes have been hidden.</p></figcaption></figure>

It should be noted that automated data such as satellite telemetry for game cameras is prohibitively expensive for most IP and LC projects. Therefore, the vast majority of projects will require trusted human coders to add geocode and date-time stamp metadata to observations. However, this does not fundamentally differ from the requirements for carbon studies in quantifying carbon load and is controlled for by independent IEP analysis of project data and  IEP site visits.&#x20;


# Risks and uncertainty

Ambiguity in project implementation

Indicator species are assumed to be impermanent in their very nature. And we acknowledge we are working in a complex, chaotic system. Thus under the ISBM methodology, credits are issued based on achieved outcomes alone and leakage (if relevant) is implemented at the program level ([Project areas](/project-description/project-boundaries) and [Monitoring plan](/monitoring-plan)).&#x20;

However, the PMP should include a pragmatic assessment of risk and sources of uncertainty in project metrics. It is recommended to acknowledge at least the following sources of uncertainty:

* **Uncertainty in the calculation process**: Probability of making errors in data entry, calculation, or interpretation of results.
* **Implementation uncertainty**: Project execution always involves some risk in terms of the ability of the team to carry out the program. Projects may encounter unforeseen obstacles, staffing problems, or other types of project management issues.
* **Technical monitoring device uncertainty**: how accurate is your chosen methods and what error do they produce?&#x20;
* **Biodiversity science uncertainty:** Biodiversity science is an evolving field, and projects often rely on external sources and incomplete science for indicator species selection, ecosystem classification, and the ability of the species to represent the ecosystem.
* **Risks in natural disturbances** (eg. forest fires, hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods, and droughts)&#x20;
* **Risks of human-induced events** (e.g. fires, acts of terrorism, and war).


# Effective participation

Ensuring full consent and active participation of Indigenous peoples and local communities

This methodology was written by, and for, IP and LC, and its impact is directly related to that focus.&#x20;

The ISBM has been co-developed over one year with an on-site collaboration of biologists, conservationists, and Indigenous small farmers who live in the Putumayo Amazon, technologists, and more than five [Indigenous groups](https://www.savimbo.com/indigenous) (Kamëntsá, Cofan, Pasto, Emberá Chami, and Inga). Each of these groups represents an essential contribution to its relevance (See detailed description in [Appendix H](/appendices/wbp-case-study)).&#x20;

To truly preserve biodiversity hotspots and functional rainforests requires a tremendous amount of work with the IP and LC, respecting cultural differences in perspectives of time and trust  [(Stewart and Gosling et al., 2021)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=14951058\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). Methodologies that are overly complex or structurally exclusive can be inadvertently harmful to IP and LC through inadvertently financing corrupt behaviors or individuals. But more importantly, they are simply ineffective as the people who best know how to preserve these species are the ones least consulted in markets intended to have that effect.

*“Incumbent power structures have excluded diverse perspectives, by design or through ignorance. The facilitation of diverse voices needs more than an invitation. It requires investment, the provision of tools and information to bring all representatives to the same baseline of understanding on varied topics, from the complexities of carbon markets to the intricacies of Indigenous land practices.”* [*(Cheikosman, 2023)*](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=15064921\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0)

Free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) is a right and requirement that must be respected at all times and should not be framed merely as an “process of FPIC”. This requires that Indigenous Peoples can determine whether and how to be consulted, effective participation in decision-making, and the right to give or withhold their free, prior, and informed consent. A more detailed description of the key elements of FPIC can be found in Appendix H which is not comprehensive and should be tailored to BCP site and participating communities.&#x20;

Please note, the IEP must verify free, prior and informed consent through ground-truthing as outlined in Appendix I . Simply having it on paper or in a standard without detailed implementation guidance is not sufficient.

The ISBM was designed by and for IP and LC. If The BCP projects are not IP or LC run and/or managed they must have an effective participation protocol that includes:

* **A stakeholder map**, an institutional map of the governance structure or institutions and leaders associated with decision-making in the territory, associated with the BCP activities.
* **Consensual decision with local governance structures.** Which must include clear information about the nature, size, pace, reversibility and scope of any activity, including information about possible risks, benefits, should be made available as part of any FPIC process.
* **Mapping of FPIC processes** including a schedule of BCP decision-making meetings.
* **A conflict management protocol** which includes handling of petitions, complaints, claims, and requests, and their traceability
* **A document of agreement**, signed by the local community representative parties for the development of the BCP. In this case, community representativeness is given, as a minimum, by explicit agreement with the local governance structures and represented in their designated leader(s). &#x20;


# Community involvement

How the community benefits from a project, including data!

In addition to the methodology for proof of biodiversity, projects need to show that they have a fair and equitable way of distributing project funds to the actual individuals on the ground. The technology for funds disbursement must have safeguards against corruption and eliminate middlemen and other potential diversions or dilutions of funds from the people who are actually preserving the ecosystem. The methodology is designed to preserve endemic biodiversity by enabling Indigenous communities to become stewards of the ecosystem and deploying small farmers relying on traditional hunter-gatherer lifestyles to conserve the jungle and monitor for indicator species.&#x20;

Finally, BCPs must show a plan for equitable distribution of access to, ownership of, and crediting for data from the project including promotional materials, project data about ecosystems and biodiversity, video and photographic data, and photographs of participants with IP and LC communities involved using FAIR and CARE guidelines [(Carroll et al., 2021)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=10929355\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0).&#x20;

Many projects are the collaboration of public and private parties with IP and LCs. For projects which have public funding (eg. a UNESCO World Heritage site) and a local community involved (i.e. fishing villages protecting and surrounding the site). All parties, their motivation, and funding sources must be clearly identified.


# Capacity for action

Projects stakeholder engagement from the community

The organization executing the project must provide documentation of their capacity to successfully implement and monitor the project in their area. In addition to the legal documents, the team should have demonstrated project management capacities. Ideally, the organization will have IP and LC among the management team. When the project is not run locally or by local people, the project team should provide justification for the remote management and demonstrate the capabilities of the team to execute the project.&#x20;

This methodology places emphasis on IP and LC involvement. Therefore, projects should consider cultural competency in all aspects of working with Indigenous people, from the capture of data all the way through direct payments to the people on the ground. The project execution team must provide details that show their consideration of the full circle of activities, and that they have a clear and transparent plan for implementation of the program with IP and LC.

Capacity for action includes the financial capabilities for the deployment of the project. The project should provide its financial projections and capitalization tables for the organizations involved. When outside investors are involved, projects should be transparent about the return on investment expectation of outside investors. Biodiversity credits for ISBM cannot be used for offsets, therefore the financial expectations of investors need to be aligned with this use of eventual credits. ​The structure of agreements or contracts to ensure administrative capacity should consider [safeguards](/project-description/effective-participation/safeguards-checklist).


# Financial transparency

Projects must have financial transparency regarding their IP and LC relationships

Many ecological crediting programs have been conducted without the inclusion or profit sharing of IP or LC. In the case of biodiversity, the exclusion of IP and LC is directly detrimental to project efficacy as these are the stakeholders most likely to participate in predation activities if their livelihoods are not addressed.&#x20;

It is not within the purview of this methodology to enforce financial equity. There are many subtle, and non-subtle practices that have been deployed against IP and LC around the globe with reverberating economic effects — and many IP and LC communities will struggle to form projects de novo due to a lack of equipment or scientific training.&#x20;

While we hope that the methods we have outlined give IP and LC an equal, or perhaps advantageous playing field for biodiversity crediting, some projects will inevitably arrive for crediting with borderline financial practices. We have reduced the risk for IP and LC by enabling one-year contracts which allow them to seek the best business partners they can find. We are hopeful that financial transparency will reveal any undesirable practices for buyers, and that the market will join us in rewarding more equitable projects. &#x20;

In the case where landowners or BCP project developers are not the same as IP or LC, the BCP must explicitly define these populations and how, when, and in what proportion proceeds from VBCs are distributed to these communities. &#x20;

The value of the VBCs will be determined by the market, as will the percentages that need to be paid to the different parties. The ISBM will not define guidelines but instead requires full transparency of the mechanisms and amounts of remuneration of the different layers. While the different types of rights-holders may get different remuneration, they all have full transparency into the remuneration of the others in the preservation effort.&#x20;

It is within the purview of this methodology to require complete disclosure from projects as to four things:&#x20;

* How much of the company implementing the BCP is owned by IP and/or LC
* How much of the revenue from sale of biodiversity credits is given to IP and/or LC and in what format (pre- or post crediting, net or gross)
* How much  of the expense of project implementation is assumed by IP or LC
* What proportion of staff employed by the project is IP and/or LC,, and how much of project staff salaries is paid to IP and/or LC


# Safeguards checklist

Projects must have clear safeguards and complete the following checklist

It is recommended that the definitions and monitoring systems for safeguards considered in the BCP follow the guidelines that each country includes in their reports in accordance with UNFCCC decision 12/CP19.&#x20;

The implementation of activities and benefit sharing should be transparent and known to the communities and local governance structures in the BCP area. Most project benefits and monetized funding from the gross sale of biodiversity credits should reach communities through sustainable productive enterprises, payments for environmental services, or actions to strengthen local forest governance.

In the case of contracts between technical intermediaries and communities, it is recommended that these should not exceed 30 years, cancellable after 1 year, and with renewal options that honor the will of the communities.

In addition, The BCP must submit the following checklist:

* [ ] **Transparency of costs and market price:** Equality in the division of revenues is not always possible because of differentials in the land rights for certain areas, however, transparency is always achievable. Therefore, projects must put in place processes to ensure all costs associated with the project and the current market price of biodiversity credits are made transparent to all stakeholders. This information should be communicated in a clear and timely manner and allow for open discussions among the stakeholders such that there is no inequality of information access.
* [ ] **Land rights:** The project team is responsible for implementation and reporting on measures to avoid infringing land tenure and land use rights. The BCP should be based on the documented will of communities and landowners and no communities should be participating against their will. Agreements and contracts to demonstrate the administrative capacity of the BCP developer over its monitoring area should not include changes in holdership, possession, or occupation of communities, nor should they establish concession processes between communities and technical partners.
* [ ] **BCP actions should be complementary to national forest objectives:** Where there are conflicts between the national objectives and Indigenous rights, the BCP should include measures to align the interests and operate within the limits of national objectives. The project should cite which of the land's public policy goals it contributes to through the implementation of its activities.
* [ ] **Fair distribution of income:** Income from the project should be distributed in a way that is fair and also properly incentivizes people based on their land rights. It is recommended to utilize mechanisms such as smart contracts to directly distribute funds to individual community members' bank accounts. This will help avoid potential corruption risks and increase transparency. All financial transactions should be traceable and auditable.
* [ ] **Legal safeguards and exit clauses:** Incorporate legal safeguards and clearly defined exit clauses into contracts with IP and LCs, buyers, and investors. This will protect the rights and interests of all parties involved, and allow for safe withdrawal from the project under certain circumstances. Provide explicit provisions for contract revision or renewal.
* [ ] **Indigenous rights:** All agreements, contracts, and remuneration for biodiversity credits must honor the rights of the people who have been the historical possessors of the land. Recognize that the Indigenous groups have the right to take control of their own institutions, ways of life, their economic development or to maintain or strengthen their cultural knowledge, language, religion, etc., in accordance with ILO Convention 169.
* [ ] **Empowerment strategy for IP and LCs:** The innovation of providing income to IP and LCs means that they are being compensated in ways that may be new to them and may have implications in terms of their culture and empowerment. IP and LCs should have access to resources and education that will allow them to understand the implications of these changes so that they can implement an empowerment strategy for local communities, recognizing their vital role in biodiversity conservation. This should include capacity-building initiatives such as financial management and digital literacy training, and ensure respectful, inclusive engagement practices that incorporate local knowledge and preferences. The BCP must report on measures for the maintenance and promotion of the knowledge, practices, and techniques of IP and LCs.
* [ ] **Data accessibility and privacy:** Projects are required to make project data accessible to all stakeholders while respecting privacy and confidentiality obligations. This may require innovative communications strategies, such as providing audio information in Indigenous languages, capacity building for community leaders, and other provisions that ensure that people actually understand the data that they are seeing and also understand what data privacy they are entitled to. Establish clear protocols for data sharing to ensure stakeholders have the necessary information for informed decision-making and accountability.


# Monitoring plan

How to maintain a consistent metric for the integrity of an intact ecosystem

The ISBM is unique in that project data for crediting is, in and of itself, proof of monitoring, reporting, and verification. In this context, annual crediting and monitoring are the same activity.&#x20;

It should be noted that the unpredictability of animal tracking frequently leads to lapses in data collection. Because this is a results-only methodology, IP and LC groups can work as frequently or infrequently as they wish to. Although we caution that projects that begin with a large amount of observations, then taper off might be viewed with suspicion by an IEP.&#x20;

It is recommended that projects plan a simple, but sustainable monitoring plan that can be consistently conducted throughout the year, with a budget that accounts for equipment failures. It is better to have consistent sightings in a small area, than lots of sightings that taper off throughout the year.

BCPs should collect data from as many qualifying indicator species as possible. To standardize and scale operations they must select a minimum of 3 species from 2 different kingdoms for ongoing monitoring. &#x20;

We strongly suggest the use of pilot data in designing a monitoring plan as rapid iteration in the initial phases of a project are both desirable and encouraged. When selecting indicator species for ongoing monitoring please consider the following:

* **Clear link to biodiversity objectives:** Choose indicator species that have clear links to stated BCP activities. Ideally, the relationship between indicators and project objectives should be demonstrated by documentation of scientific literature.&#x20;
* **Multiple indicator species:** Natural systems are extremely complex, and even variables that are carefully chosen to reflect conservation may sometimes fluctuate for reasons unrelated to the project. While technically even one indicator species is enough to implement the methodology, monitoring only a few species may increase the risk of failing to document actual biodiversity. Although there is no single ideal number of indicator species to be monitored, each project should manage a balance between choosing too few indicator species and too many. &#x20;
* **Monitoring:** This methodology encourages BCPs to select some indicator species that are not too expensive to monitor, that can be easily monitored by members of the IP and LCs, and that are not dependent on outside experts or equipment. But the inclusion of rare species that are difficult to find provides a more comprehensive view of the ecosystem and should be considered.&#x20;

#### **Table 6. Example of simple monitoring plan**&#x20;

| Timeframe  | Indicator species | Data collection method                                                    | Monitoring frequency | Data storing method                        | Area monitored |
| ---------- | ----------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------- | ------------------------------------------ | -------------- |
| Year 1-5   | 5                 | Cell phones                                                               | Two months           | Airtable                                   | 10k            |
| Year 6-10  | 20                | Camera trap + cell phones                                                 | Two months           | Earth ranger database                      | 20k            |
| Year 11-15 | 30                | Camera trap, cell phones, audio recording                                 | Two months           | Private database connected to Earth ranger | 50k            |
| Year 15-30 | 50                | Camera trap, cell phones, audio recording, and selectively tagged animals | Continous            | Private database connected to Earth ranger | 16k            |


# Monitoring report

Summary of results during the monitoring period

The biodiversity credit calculation is automated and produces a report from observational data.&#x20;

The monitoring period and reports can be as frequently as 1 year, and as infrequently as 5 years and must include:&#x20;

* Changes in [Baseline assessment](/baseline-assessment) if applicable
* Adaptive changes in [Implementation plan](/project-description/implementation-plan)
* Any changes in project boundaries (such as scaling from a [Grouped project](/project-description/project-boundaries/grouped-projects)) with .kml format
* Any changes in Stakeholders, or project governance
* Secure upload of raw project data for indicator species observations
* Comparison report of Crediting area vs Leakage management area in hectares for current vs prior years of project implementation ([Project areas](/project-description/project-boundaries/spatial-limits-of-the-bcp#project-area-data-layer))
* Ideally publically-validated indicator species observations (i.e. iNaturalist)

The BCP shall include, in the monitoring report, a short qualitative summary of the activities carried out during each verification period and their effectiveness in terms of biodiversity conservation.


# Additional monitoring requirements

Projects of greater area or complexity

Where applicable, extended reporting may be necessary, including: ​​

* **Leakage reporting.** Projects that identified a [leakage management area](/project-description/project-boundaries) in their baseline assessment will need to include additional data in their monitoring plan to support the management of these areas.&#x20;
* **Habitat use and habitat change within the BCP area.** It is beneficial to monitor habitat loss, although the technology to do this well (ie. satellite mapping) may be exclusionary to IP and LC. The ISBM is designed to allow indicator species themselves to provide a proxy metric for habitat changes that are difficult to prove otherwise (degradation, noise pollution, poaching, etc.). Observations for indicator species also represent proxy metrics for project activities. Thus project data itself is ex-post tables of activity data by stratum carried out throughout the duration of the BCP. If sites already have this data, we recommend inclusion in monitoring reports.&#x20;
* **Impacts of natural disturbances and other catastrophic events.** Decreases in biodiversity from external forces over which the project proponent has no control including natural disturbances (eg. forest fires, hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions,  floods, and droughts) or human-induced events (e.g. fires, acts of terrorism, and war) will be reflected in observations and crediting directly. If this occurs BCPs should include a description in their monitoring report. <br>


# Authors, experts, fieldwork, contributors, acknowledgements

Document authors, contributors, and Indigenous advisors

Authorship of this methodology has been difficult to assign properly, as many contributors have worked on different aspects of the design. We have opted for a formal scientific authorship list, a contributor listing, and a piloting practitioner list — as we feel the grassroots practitioners have contributed significantly by proving the model in practice, even if they never participated in writing.

It is important to use it to demonstrate equitable and accurate authorship of scientific work. But, in the case of this methodology, it was quite difficult, as there were so many disciplines, contributors, and even definitions of 'science'. For clarity and credit, we've opted for the following approach.&#x20;

#### Multicategory authorship

Authors fall into one or more of four categories:&#x20;

1. [Direct authors](#direct-methodology-authors) of the methodology as per traditional academic criteria.
2. [Indigenous or local leaders](#practitioners-field-experts-and-piloting-sites) who are practitioners, field experts and piloting sites, advising on the practice guide, informing methodology creation by application and piloting feedback, or independently teaching its core tenets.
3. [Collaborators](#methodology-contributors) and [acknowledgements](#acknowledgements), including multidisciplinary scientists, practitioners, experts, and peers. Some of whom do *not* endorse this work, but provided foundational scientific work.
4. [Reviewers](/document-history) who have publicly commented on or otherwise informed its development without direct endorsement

#### Notes on authorship:&#x20;

* This methodology has been informed by exposure to traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) from several Indigenous groups, but is not directly attributable to one group in particular. We have chosen to cite individual contributing Indigenous advisors below, and removed any plant knowledge that may require Nagoya protocols. &#x20;
* In some ways, funders are authors, as what gets funded gets produced. In that spirit, [Naturatech LAC](https://www.naturatech.org/premio) quite obviously contributed funding, peer support, applied science advising, and went far beyond traditional funders in that regard. Their funders, [BID Labs](https://bidlab.org/en) Colombia made this possible.  Additional research was funded by [Bioversity/CIAT](https://alliancebioversityciat.org/) and the [Institute of Plant Sciences.](https://www.santannapisa.it/en/istituto/scienze-delle-piante/agroecology)&#x20;
* This is a living document and the author list is expected to expand as the methodology is intentionally stacked, different authors might work on different layers. We've outlinked to component layers where possible.&#x20;

### Direct methodology authors

Authors listed in alphabetical order. Included according to compliance with[ ICMJE authorship/contributorship criteria](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html\&sa=D\&source=docs\&ust=1692640291864244\&usg=AOvVaw3-5d-OiRF4t1uTiayaGJzU). *Note: given the scope of the topics in the methodology, we are using a contributor/guaranteur model and including authors who contributed substantial writing and/or intellectual basis for core content.*&#x20;

<table><thead><tr><th width="173.171875">Name</th><th>Title, affiliation</th><th>Contribution</th><th>Guaranteur</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Anja Hutschenreiter</td><td>Species Monitoring Specialist Group, IUCN</td><td>Scientific writing, financial innovation, project managment</td><td>CSO at <a href="https://savimbo.com">Savimbo</a> during drafting of version 1.1 and led writing of version 1.0 (Yale book chapter)</td></tr><tr><td><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/dreaburbank/">Drea Burbank, MD</a></td><td>CEO, Savimbo</td><td>Scientific writing, financial innovation, project managment</td><td>Full methodology</td></tr><tr><td>Kristy Deiner</td><td>SimplexDNA</td><td>WBP inception, scientific writing</td><td>Co-author of version 1.0 (Yale book chapter)</td></tr><tr><td>Matteo Dell'Acqua</td><td>Researcher, Institute of Plant Sciences, Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies </td><td>Research grant, WBP field testing, scientific writing</td><td>Co-author of version 1.0 (Yale book chapter)</td></tr><tr><td>Santiago Romero Garcia</td><td>Ecology, Savimbo</td><td>Field testing, scientific writing</td><td>Full methodology</td></tr><tr><td>Sara Verni</td><td>Researcher, Institute of Plant Sciences, Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies </td><td>Research grant, WBP field testing, scientific writing</td><td>Co-author of version 1.0 (Yale book chapter)</td></tr><tr><td>Miguel Chindoy</td><td>Director, <a href="https://agropueblos.com/">Agropueblos</a></td><td>Standalone <a href="/trees/chagras">Chagra</a> chapter</td><td>Standalone <a href="/trees/chagras">Chagra</a> chapter</td></tr><tr><td><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/wariflores/">WarīNkwī Flores</a></td><td><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/kinray-hub/">Kinray Hub</a></td><td>IDsov input, grassroots agroforestry insights, scientific writing</td><td>Contributor to version 1.0 (Yale book chapter), Co-author and designer of <a href="/appendices/edna-case-study">eDNA contract</a>, piloting site negotiator</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Note:** All contributing authors for an academic citation have been included according to[ ICMJE authorship/contributorship criteria](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html\&sa=D\&source=docs\&ust=1692640291864244\&usg=AOvVaw3-5d-OiRF4t1uTiayaGJzU). However, we find these criteria to be insufficient for the type of work this methodology represents.&#x20;

### Practitioners, field experts, and piloting sites

Indigenous nations are listed if applicable.&#x20;

<table><thead><tr><th>Name</th><th>Title, affiliation</th><th width="115.90234375">Country, Indigenous nation (if applicable)</th><th width="122.68359375">Piloting site</th><th>Protocol<select multiple><option value="DmB0rC0R0sp7" label="Water Bucket Protocol" color="blue"></option><option value="rsHtqo8d1SUl" label="Tree credits" color="blue"></option><option value="IWmTwE2rqHLq" label="Agrobiodiversity credits" color="blue"></option></select></th><th>Insights</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/karen-yulieth-serna-7721982a3/?lipi=urn%3Ali%3Apage%3Ad_flagship3_profile_view_base%3Bnu%2B2%2FSH3QoWEnacwUgpHYg%3D%3D">Karen Yulieth Serna</a>, <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/">Jeidy Caicedo</a></td><td>Selva, <a href="https://savimbo.com">Savimbo</a></td><td>Colombia</td><td>Villagarzon, Putumayo</td><td><span data-option="DmB0rC0R0sp7">Water Bucket Protocol, </span><span data-option="rsHtqo8d1SUl">Tree credits</span></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/jheison-urney-asencio-llanos-93b0182b9">Jheison Urney Asencio Llanos</a>, <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/ana-gamboa-476495412/">Ana Gamboa</a></td><td>Equipo, Conservacion Internacional</td><td>Colombia</td><td>Puerto Guzman</td><td><span data-option="DmB0rC0R0sp7">Water Bucket Protocol</span></td><td>Community negotiations, systematic academic agroforestry installations.</td></tr><tr><td><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/galo-chiriboga88/">Galo Chiriboga</a></td><td><a href="https://foresteria-analoga.org/">REFA </a>(Ecuadorian Analog Forestry Network)</td><td>Ecuador</td><td></td><td><span data-option="rsHtqo8d1SUl">Tree credits</span></td><td>Community negotiations, Field-based scientific feedback. Authentic agroforestry profiders.</td></tr><tr><td><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/nataly-grefa-rios-4a53682a3/">Nataly Grefa Rios</a></td><td>Director, <a href="https://bio.site/observatoriosachakamayuk">Observatorio Sacha Kamayuk</a></td><td>Ecuador </td><td>Marcapata, Ecuador</td><td><span data-option="rsHtqo8d1SUl">Tree credits</span></td><td>Agroforestry science, Inga protocols, grassroots economics and community negotiations</td></tr><tr><td>María Pastora Juajibioy Chindoy</td><td></td><td>Colombia, Kamëntsá (Camsá)</td><td>Sibundoy, Putumayo</td><td><span data-option="IWmTwE2rqHLq">Agrobiodiversity credits</span></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Miguel Chindoy</td><td><a href="https://agropueblos.com/">Agropueblos</a></td><td>Colombia, Kamëntsá (Camsá)</td><td>Sibundoy, Putumayo</td><td><span data-option="IWmTwE2rqHLq">Agrobiodiversity credits</span></td><td>Piloting site for Indigenous chagra protocol. Authorship above. </td></tr></tbody></table>

### Collaborators

Technical advisors and negotiators are listed in alphabetical order.  Contributed intellectually to the work without meeting formal [ ICMJE authorship/contributorship criteria](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html\&sa=D\&source=docs\&ust=1692640291864244\&usg=AOvVaw3-5d-OiRF4t1uTiayaGJzU). *Note: there are strong debates in various fields as to some of the technical decisions in this protocol, and contributors should not be assumed to endorse all aspects of the protocol, which is extensive and multidisciplinary.*&#x20;

<table><thead><tr><th width="195.12890625">Name</th><th width="244.078125">Title, affiliation</th><th>Contribution</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexandra-rosero/">Alexandra Rosero</a></td><td>Ecology, <a href="https://www.savimbo.com/">Savimbo</a></td><td>Portable seedling nurseries design and architecture</td></tr><tr><td><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/darina-onoprienko/">Darina Onoprienko</a></td><td>CEO, <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/agrivero/">Agrivero</a></td><td>Scientific consulting and cafe cultivation</td></tr><tr><td><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/evert-thomas-a7760236/">Evert Thomas</a></td><td>Senior Scientist <a href="https://alliancebioversityciat.org/">Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT</a></td><td>Scientific advisory on agroforestry, agrobiodiversity, grassroots economics, and eDNA</td></tr><tr><td><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/fernando-lezama-386645299">Fernando Lezama</a></td><td>Indigenous, <a href="https://www.savimbo.com/about">Savimbo</a></td><td>Indigenous practitioners, <a href="/appendices/fpic">FPIC principles</a> and practice, rights, and TEK science and <a href="/foundations/data-sovereignty">data sovereignty</a></td></tr><tr><td><a href="https://es.savimbo.com/blog/jhony-lopez-protector-of-the-jaguars">Jhony Lopez</a></td><td>Biodiversity, <a href="https://savimbo.com">Savimbo</a></td><td>Field testing <a href="/practice-guide/edna/water-bucket-protocol">Water Bucket Protocol</a>, <a href="/biodiversity-credits">biodiversity</a>, <a href="/origin">reforestation</a></td></tr><tr><td><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/niamh-kennerdale-176b92151/">Niamh Kennerdale</a></td><td>Biotechnology, <a href="https://www.kin-ray-hub.com/">Kinray Hub</a></td><td><a href="/foundations/data-sovereignty">Indigenous data soverignty</a></td></tr><tr><td><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicola-peel-7117806/">Nicola Peel</a> and <a href="https://linkedin.com/in/antony-melville-9204269/?skipRedirect=true">Antony Melville</a></td><td><a href="https://rainforestsaver.org/">Rainforest Saver</a></td><td>Ecuador pilot sites, technical advising on <a href="/trees/agroforestry/inga-agroforestry">Inga Alley Cropping</a></td></tr><tr><td><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/soheilsalehian/">Soheil Salehian</a></td><td><a href="https://www.understory.earth/">Understory Labs</a></td><td>Below-canopy forest monitoring, LiDAR in <a href="/carbon-credits">Carbon credits</a> layer, general top-level nerding 🤓</td></tr></tbody></table>

### Acknowledgements

In alphabetical order. This methodology builds on fundamental science, and independent groups who do not necessarily endorse its findings or agree with its decisions, but whose feedback or independent work was influential in its content, or provided structural support or comparison models.&#x20;

| Name                                                                                                                                                                                                                 | Title, affiliation                                                                             |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| [Ana Rosa de Lima](https://www.linkedin.com/in/ana-de-lima/)                                                                                                                                                         | [Melibees](https://www.meli-bees.org/)                                                         | Advising on grassroots agroforestry experiences, and introduction to authentic grassroots providers.                                                                                                                                                  |
| [Constanza Gomez Mont](https://www.linkedin.com/in/constanzagomezmont/), [Eduardo Gomez Restrepo](https://www.linkedin.com/in/eduardobiocolombia/), and [Regina Cervera](https://www.linkedin.com/in/reginacervera/) | [C-Minds](https://www.cminds.co/) and [NaturaTech](https://www.naturatech.org/)                | Innovative financing structures, strategy, scientific, technical, and economics advising                                                                                                                                                              |
| Eniel David Cruz                                                                                                                                                                                                     | Researcher Eastern Amazon, [Embrapa Amazônia Oriental, Belém, Pará](https://www.eniel.com.br/) | Author of the 2021 Embrapa technical communication on [*Inga edulis* germination](http://www.eniel.com.br/). Advising on [germination and planting sections](https://sexytrees.savimbo.com/practice-guide/inga-agroforestry/inga-seeds-and-planting). |
| [Florencia Montagnini](https://www.linkedin.com/in/florencia-montagnini-a6882646/) and Luke Schubert                                                                                                                 | <p>Program in Tropical Forestry and Agroforestry</p><p>Yale School of the Environment</p>      | Chapter editorial and academic refinement                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
| [Michael Nichols](https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelgnichols/)                                                                                                                                                      | Michael Nichols Law                                                                            | [eDNA data soverienty consents](/practice-guide/edna/ethical-consents)                                                                                                                                                                                |
| [Mike Hands](https://www.ingafoundation.org/about/the-team/mike-hands/)                                                                                                                                              | [Inga Foundation](https://www.ingafoundation.org/)                                             | Fundamental and basic science on Inga Alley Cropping. Note: does *not* endorse Savimbo's per-tree payment model.                                                                                                                                      |

### Competing Interests

**Human Subjects Statement:** No human subjects were involved in this research.&#x20;

**Funding and Support:**  This research was financially supported by grant funding from Institute of Plant Sciences, funding from NaturaTech LAC, Savimbo Inc., and contributions by its authors.  Note: The article contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the affiliated or sponsoring institutions.

**Conflict of Interest:** Savimbo Inc. is a social enterprise that sells biodiversity credits and has a biodiversity methodology that sometimes earns royalties when other people use it. Andrea Burbank is the CEO of Savimbo, Jhony Lopez and Fernando Lezama are cofounders, Anja Hutschenreiter, and Santiago Garcia have been employed by Savimbo. The other authors have no competing interests.&#x20;


# References — Sexy Tree methodology bibliography

All sources cited across the #SexyTrees protocol, methodology pages, and credit documentation.

Great science papers about #SexyTrees we love and think are super smart. \
UPDATED: May 23, 2026

Abulu, L., Gabay, A., & Hyolmo, S. L. (2024, September 26). *Do Indigenous peoples really conserve 80% of the world's biodiversity?* Mongabay. <https://news.mongabay.com/2024/09/do-indigenous-peoples-really-conserve-80-of-the-worlds-biodiversity/>

Agudelo-Hz, W\.-J., Castillo-Barrera, N.-C., & Uriel, M.-G. (2023). Scenarios of land use and land cover change in the Colombian Amazon to evaluate alternative post-conflict pathways. *Scientific Reports*, *13*, 2152. <https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-29243-2>

Alcocer, I., Lima, H., Sugai, L. S. M., & Llusia, D. (2022). Acoustic indices as proxies for biodiversity: A meta-analysis. *Biological Reviews*, *97*(6), 2209–2236. <https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12890>

Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT. (n.d.). *CacaoDiversity: A decision-support tool for cacao agroforestry and seed sourcing*. Retrieved Jun 28, 2026, from <https://cacaodiversity.org/>

Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT. (n.d.). *Diversity for Agroforestry: A decision-support tool for tree species selection in agroforestry systems*. Retrieved Jun 28, 2026, from <https://diversityforagroforestry.org/>

Altieri, M. A., & Toledo, V. M. (2011). The agroecological revolution in Latin America: Rescuing nature, ensuring food sovereignty and empowering peasants. *The Journal of Peasant Studies*, *38*(3), 587–612. <https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2011.582947>

Anderson, P. W. (1972). More is different: Broken symmetry and the nature of the hierarchical structure of science. *Science*, 177(4047), 393–396. <https://doi.org/10.1126/science.177.4047.393>

Bak, P., & Paczuski, M. (1993). Why nature is complex. *Physics World*, *6*(12), 39–43. <https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-7058/6/12/26>

Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. (2000). *Design rules, Volume 1: The power of modularity*. MIT Press. <https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262024662/design-rules/>

Balmford, A., Keshav, S., Venmans, F., Coomes, D. A., Groom, B., Madhavapeddy, A., & Swinfield, T. (2023). Realizing the social value of impermanent carbon credits. *Nature Climate Change*, *13*(11), 1172–1178. <https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01815-0>

Beesley, L., Moreno-Jiménez, E., Gomez-Eyles, J. L., et al. (2011). A review of biochars' potential role in the remediation, revegetation and restoration of contaminated soils. *Environmental Pollution*, *159*(12), 3269–3282. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.07.023>

Bélisle, A. C., Croteau, B., To, T. A., Couillard, J., Polson, G., & Langlois, V. S. (2026). Tracking terrestrial wildlife with environmental DNA: Methods designed by and for Indigenous organizations. *Journal of Applied Ecology*, *63*, e70253. <https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.70253>

Berger, J. (2026, March). *The most authoritative review of business & biodiversity to date tells us what a good measurement of biodiversity is and which measurement approaches are valid for which use cases* \[Post]. LinkedIn. <https://www.linkedin.com/posts/joshuaberger_ipbes-2026-business-biodiversity-measurement>

Berger, J. (2025, June 5). *What are the most effective—and scalable—technologies to measure biodiversity?* \[Post]. LinkedIn. <https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7336648140877430785/>

Bernardini, A. E., Bertolami, O., & Francisco, F. (2025). Chaotic behaviour of the Earth System in the Anthropocene. *Evolving Earth*, *3*, 100060. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eve.2025.100060>

Bezerra, J., Arroyo-Rodríguez, V., Arasa-Gisbert, R., & Meave, J. (2024). Multiscale effects of slash-and-burn agriculture across the tropics: Implications for the sustainability of an ancestral agroecosystem. *Sustainability*, *16*(22), 9994. <https://doi.org/10.3390/su16229994>

Biodiversidad en América Latina y el Caribe. (2018). *La chagra, un sistema ancestral de conexión con la tierra*. <https://www.biodiversidadla.org/Articulos/La-chagra-un-sistema-ancestral-de-conexion-con-la-tierra>

Boogaard, B. (2021). Epistemic injustice in agricultural development: Critical reflections on a livestock development project in rural Mozambique. *Knowledge Management for Development Journal*, *16*, 28–54. <https://www.km4djournal.org/index.php/km4dj/article/view/498>

Bruijnzeel, L. A. (2004). Hydrological functions of tropical forests: Not seeing the soil for the trees? *Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment*, *104*(1), 185–228. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2004.01.015>

Budak, T. G. (2025). Existing landscape of international climate law. In *Beyond treaties: Rethinking legal mechanisms for international climate governance* (pp. 43–77). Springer Nature Switzerland. <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-86022-5_2>

Bull, J. W., Gordon, A., Law, E. A., et al. (2014). Importance of baseline specification in evaluating conservation interventions and achieving no net loss of biodiversity. *Conservation Biology*, *28*(3), 799–809. <https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12243>

Bunge, M. (1963). A general black box theory. *Philosophy of Science, 30*(4), 346–358. <https://doi.org/10.1086/287954>

Buys, P., Chomitz, K. M., De Luca, G. D., et al. (2006). *At loggerheads? Agricultural expansion, poverty reduction, and environment in the tropical forests*. World Bank. <https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/223221468320336327/>

Caradonna, J. L., & Apffel-Marglin, F. (2018). The regenerated chacra of the Kichwa-Lamistas: An alternative to permaculture? *AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples*, *14*(1), 13–24. <https://doi.org/10.1177/1177180117740708>

Carbon Credits. (2025). *Biochar carbon credits in 2025: Stable prices amid weakening demand*. <https://carboncredits.com/biochar-carbon-credits-in-2025-stable-prices-amid-weakening-demand/> \[Note: source data listed author as "L. J." or "J. L." — the published article on carboncredits.com does not appear to have a single named author and is attributed institutionally; verify against your in-text citation.]

Carbon Pulse. (2025, September 1). *Cercarbono is set to issue first ever biodiversity credits to Colombian project*. <https://carbon-pulse.com/426151/>

Chimeno, C., Schmidt, S., Cancian de Araujo, B., et al. (2023). Abundant, diverse, unknown: Extreme species richness and turnover despite drastic undersampling in two closely placed tropical Malaise traps. *PLoS ONE*, *18*(8), e0290173. <https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290173>

Chindoy, M. (2026, April). *La chagra, un modelo ancestral de biodiversidad: Aportes para los diversos mecanismos de créditos por biodiversidad* \[The chagra, an ancestral model of biodiversity: Contributions to diverse biodiversity credit mechanisms]. Asociación Indígena para la Gobernanza de los Primeros Pueblos (Agropueblos). <https://sexytrees.savimbo.com/trees/the-chagra-an-ancestral-model-of-biodiversity>

Cole, R. J., Holl, K. D., Zahawi, R. A., et al. (2016). Leaf litter arthropod responses to tropical forest restoration. *Ecology and Evolution*, *6*(15), 5158–5168. <https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2220>

Convention on Biological Diversity. (1992). *Convention on Biological Diversity, Article 8(j): Traditional knowledge, innovations and practices*. United Nations. <https://www.cbd.int/traditional/>

Convention on Biological Diversity. (2022). *Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework* (CBD/COP/DEC/15/4). <https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-15/cop-15-dec-04-en.pdf>

Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R. V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P., & van den Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. *Nature*, *387*(6630), 253–260. <https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0>

Cox, T. (2023). *WEF: Biodiversity credit demand could reach $180 bln by 2050 in radical future*. Carbon Pulse. <https://carbon-pulse.com/241018/>

Cruz, E. D. (2021). *Germinação de sementes de espécies amazônicas: Ingá-cipó (Inga edulis Mart.)* \[Germination of seeds from Amazonian species: Ingá-cipó (*Inga edulis* Mart.)] (Comunicado Técnico No. 329). Embrapa Amazônia Oriental. <https://www.infoteca.cnptia.embrapa.br/infoteca/handle/doc/1135460>

Cruz-Cano, R., Kolb, M., Saldaña-Vázquez, R. A., Bretón-Deval, L., Cruz-Cano, N., & Aldama-Cervantes, A. (2024). Existing evidence on the use of environmental DNA as an operational method for studying rivers: A systematic map and thematic synthesis. *Environmental Evidence*, *13*(1), 2. <https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-024-00325-6>

de Koning, F., Aguiñaga, M., Bravo, M., et al. (2011). Bridging the gap between forest conservation and poverty alleviation: The Ecuadorian Socio Bosque program. *Environmental Science & Policy*, *14*(5), 531–542. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2011.04.007>

Delacote, P., L'Horty, T., Kontoleon, A., West, T. A. P., Creti, A., Filewod, B., LeVelly, G., Guizar-Coutiño, A., Groom, B., & Elias, M. (2024). Strong transparency required for carbon credit mechanisms. *Nature Sustainability*, *7*(6), 706–713. <https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-024-01310-0>

Di Capua, I., Luise, F., Zampicinini, G., et al. (2024). Integrative approach to monitoring metazoan diversity and distribution in two Mediterranean coastal sites through morphology and organismal eDNA. *Scientific Reports*, *14*, 19291. <https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-69520-2>

Di Sacco, A., Hardwick, K. A., Blakesley, D., Brancalion, P. H. S., Breman, E., Cecilio Rebola, L., Chomba, S., Dixon, K., Elliott, S., Ruyonga, G., Shaw, K., Smith, P., Smith, R. J., & Antonelli, A. (2021). Ten golden rules for reforestation to optimize carbon sequestration, biodiversity recovery and livelihood benefits. *Global Change Biology*, *27*(7), 1328–1348. <https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15498>

Dinerstein, E., Vynne, C., Sala, E., et al. (2019). A global deal for nature: Guiding principles, milestones, and targets. *Science Advances*, *5*(4), eaaw2869. <https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaw2869>

Drucker, A. G., & Ramirez, M. (2020). Payments for agrobiodiversity conservation services: An overview of Latin American experiences, lessons learned and upscaling challenges. *Land Use Policy*, *99*, 104810. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104810>

Dwibedi, S. K., Behera, B., & Khawajazada, F. (2023). Biochar production and its impact on sustainable agriculture. In V. C. Pandey (Ed.), *Bio-inspired land remediation* (pp. 445–474). Springer International Publishing. <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04931-6_17>

Eberhard, D. M., Simons, G. F., & Fennig, C. D. (Eds.). (2023). *Ethnologue: Languages of the world* (26th ed.). SIL International. [https://www.ethnologue.com](https://www.ethnologue.com/)

Eckmann, J.-P., & Ruelle, D. (1985). Ergodic theory of chaos and strange attractors. *Reviews of Modern Physics*, 57(3), 617–656. <https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.57.617>

Ecosystem Services Market Consortium LLC. (2018). *Economic assessment for ecosystem service market credits from agricultural working lands*. <https://ecosystemservicesmarket.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Informa-IHS-Markit-ESM-Study-Sep-19.pdf>

Ellison, D., Morris, C. E., Sheil, D., et al. (2017). Trees, forests and water: Cool insights for a hot world. *Global Environmental Change*, *43*, 51–61. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.01.002>

Fan, H., Jiang, J., Zhang, C., et al. (2020). Long-term prediction of chaotic systems with machine learning. *Physical Review Research*, *2*(1), 012080. <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.012080>

FAO. (2015). *The state of food insecurity in the world 2015. Meeting the 2015 international hunger targets: Taking stock of uneven progress*. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. <https://www.fao.org/3/a-i4646e.pdf>

FAO. (2018). *Biodiversity for sustainable agriculture: FAO's work on use and conservation of biodiversity for food and agriculture*. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. <https://www.fao.org/3/CA2227EN/ca2227en.pdf>

Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Fa, J. E., Brockington, D., et al. (2024). No basis for claim that 80% of biodiversity is found in Indigenous territories. *Nature*, *633*, 32–35. <https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02811-w>

Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Garteizgogeascoa, M., Basu, N., et al. (2020). A state-of-the-art review of Indigenous Peoples and environmental pollution. *Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management*, *16*(3), 324–341. <https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4239>

Flores, B. M., Montoya, E., Sakschewski, B., et al. (2024). Critical transitions in the Amazon forest system. *Nature*, *626*, 555–564. <https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06970-0>

Flores, W. (2025). *Aporte: Análisis crítico de la plurinacionalidad, la Soberanía de Datos Indígenas y los Derechos de la Naturaleza en el Plan Nacional de Fomento al Biocomercio (PNFB)*. Zenodo. <https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17783988>

Foley, D. (2018). Indigenous methodology: Is it invented or is it legitimate? *Journal of Australian Indigenous Issues*, *21*(3), 20–38. <https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.142821743320555>

Forestiero, S. (2022). The historical nature of biological complexity and the ineffectiveness of the mathematical approach to it. *Theory in Biosciences*, *141*(3), 213–231. <https://doi.org/10.1007/s12064-022-00369-7>

Funes, Y. (2022). *Yes, colonialism caused climate change, IPCC reports*. Atmos. <https://atmos.earth/political-landscapes/ipcc-report-colonialism-climate-change/>

Funosas, D., Sebastián-González, E., Morant, J., et al. (2025). A global assessment of BirdNET performance: Differences among continents, biomes, and species. *Research Square*. <https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7832874/v1>

Fremout, T., Thomas, E., Taedoumg, H., Briers, S., Gutiérrez-Miranda, C. E., Alcázar-Caicedo, C., Lindau, A., Kpoumie, H. M., Vinceti, B., Kettle, C., Ekué, M., Atkinson, R., Jalonen, R., Gaisberger, H., Elliott, S., Brechbühler, E., Ceccarelli, V., Krishnan, S., Vacik, H., … Muys, B. (2021). Diversity for Restoration (D4R): Guiding the selection of tree species and seed sources for climate-resilient restoration of tropical forest landscapes. *Journal of Applied Ecology*. <https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14079>

Gatehouse, M. (2012). *The Putumayo atrocities*. Latin American Bureau. <https://lab.org.uk/the-putumayo-atrocities/>

Geckeler, C., Kirchgeorg, S., Strunck, G., Bendix Thostrup, F., Sangermano, F., Desiderato, A., Lüthi, M., Jucker, M., Gonzalez Herrera, M. A., Franco-Sierra, N. D., Pulido-Santacruz, P., Chang, J. J. M., Ip, Y. C. A., Mächler, E., Svenning, A., Mougeot, G., Høye, T. T., Fopp, F., Pellissier, L., … Mintchev, S. (2025). Field deployment of BiodivX drones in the Amazon rainforest for biodiversity monitoring. *IEEE Transactions on Field Robotics*, *2*, 336–\[end page tbd]. <https://doi.org/10.1109/TFR.2025.3574945> | <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/11018361>

Gjefsen, T. (2021, November). *Indigenous people get less than 1% of climate funding? It's actually worse (commentary)*. Mongabay. <https://news.mongabay.com/2021/11/indigenous-people-get-less-than-1-of-climate-funding-its-actually-worse-commentary/>

Global Forest Coalition. (2024). *Who really benefits? How REDD+ fails forests and those who protect them*. <https://globalforestcoalition.org/who-really-benefits-how-redd-fails-forests-and-those-who-protect-them-a-new-briefing-from-gfc/>

Global Forest Watch. (2024). *Putumayo, Colombia deforestation rates & statistics*. <https://www.globalforestwatch.org/dashboards/country/COL/26/>

González, N. C., & Kröger, M. (2020). The potential of Amazon indigenous agroforestry practices and ontologies for rethinking global forest governance. *Forest Policy and Economics*, *118*, 102257. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102257>

Valle, G. (ca. 2010). *Manual of Inga agroforestry*. Rainforest Saver. <https://rainforestsaver.org/how-to-and-the-science/inga-alley-cropping-manual/>

Gupta, A., & Sisodia, S. (2026). *Carbon credit market size*. Global Market Insights. <https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/carbon-credit-market>

Gwenzi, W., Chaukura, N., Noubactep, C., & Mukome, F. N. D. (2017). Biochar-based water treatment systems as a potential low-cost and sustainable technology for clean water provision. *Journal of Environmental Management*, *197*, 732–749. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.03.087>

Hale, C. R. (2006). Activist research v. cultural critique: Indigenous land rights and the contradictions of politically engaged anthropology. *Cultural Anthropology*, *21*(1), 96–120. <https://doi.org/10.1525/can.2006.21.1.96>

Handsley-Davis, M., Kowal, E., Russell, L., & Weyrich, L. S. (2021). Researchers using environmental DNA must engage ethically with Indigenous communities. *Nature Ecology & Evolution*, *5*(2), 146–148. <https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01351-6>

Hands, M. R., Harrison, A. F., & Bayliss-Smith, T. (1995). Phosphorus dynamics in slash-and-burn and alley cropping systems of the humid tropics. In H. Tiessen (Ed.), *Phosphorus in the global environment: Transfers, cycles and management* (SCOPE 54, pp. 155–170). Wiley. <https://www.scopenvironment.org/downloadpubs/scope54/>

Hands, M. R. (1998). The uses of *Inga* in the acid soils of the rainforest zone: Alley-cropping sustainability and soil-regeneration. In T. D. Pennington & E. C. M. Fernandes (Eds.), *The genus Inga: Utilization* (pp. 53–86). The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. <https://shop.kew.org/the-genus-inga-utilization>

Hands, M. R. (2021). The search for a sustainable alternative to slash-and-burn agriculture in the world's rain forests: The Guama model and its implementation. *Royal Society Open Science*, *8*(2), 201204. <https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201204>

Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. *Science*, *162*(3859), 1243–1248. <https://doi.org/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243>

Haynes, B., Botts, J., Brito, R., & Spring, J. (2025). *Illegal loggers profit from Brazil's carbon credit projects*. Reuters. <https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/illegal-loggers-profit-brazils-carbon-credit-projects-2025-07-07/> \[Note: source data listed this as 2023; the Reuters investigation was published 7 July 2025. Date corrected.]

Hecht, S. B., Pezzoli, K., & Saatchi, S. (2016). Chapter 10. Trees have already been invented: Carbon in woodlands. *Collabra*, *2*(1), 18. <https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.69>

Hernandez Marentes, M. A., Venturi, M., Scaramuzzi, S., et al. (2022). Traditional forest-related knowledge and agrobiodiversity preservation: The case of the chagras in the Indigenous Reserve of Monochoa (Colombia). *Biodiversity and Conservation*, *31*(8), 2243–2258. <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-021-02263-y>

Herrera Arango, J. (2018). *Collective land tenure in Colombia: Data and trends*. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). <https://www.cifor-icraf.org/publications/pdf_files/infobrief/7032-infobrief.pdf>

Hirayama, B. (2025). LEGO's 0.002mm specification and its implications for manufacturing. *The Wave*. <https://www.thewave.engineer/articles.html/productivity/legos-0002mm-specification-and-its-implications-for-manufacturing-r120/>

Houngbo, G. F. (2020). *Why small farms are key to the future of food — and how we can support them*. World Economic Forum. <https://www.weforum.org/meetings/bold-actions-for-food-as-a-force-for-good-2020/>

ICCA Consortium. (2021). *Territories of Life: 2021 report*. <https://report.territoriesoflife.org/>

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. (2025). *IEEE recommended practice for provenance of Indigenous Peoples' data* (IEEE Std 2890-2025). IEEE Standards Association. <https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/2890/10318/>

Inga Foundation. (2026). *Our projects*. <https://www.ingafoundation.org/projects/>

International Labour Office. (2003). *ILO Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, 1989 (No. 169): A manual* (Rev. ed.). International Labour Organization. <https://www.ilo.org/publications/ilo-convention-indigenous-and-tribal-peoples-1989-no-169-manual>

IPBES. (2026). *Methodological assessment report of the impact and dependence of business on biodiversity and nature's contributions to people* (X. Rueda, M. Jones, & S. Polasky, Eds.). IPBES Secretariat. <https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17185116>

IPCC. (2019). *2019 refinement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories* (E. Calvo Buendia, K. Tanabe, A. Kranjc, J. Baasansuren, M. Fukuda, S. Ngarize, A. Osako, Y. Pyrozhenko, P. Shermanau, & S. Federici, Eds.). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. <https://www.ipcc.ch/report/2019-refinement-to-the-2006-ipcc-guidelines-for-national-greenhouse-gas-inventories/>

IPCC. (2023). *Climate change 2023: Synthesis report*. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. <https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/>

Johnston, L. (2022). *Architects of abundance: Indigenous regenerative food and land management systems and the excavation of hidden history* \[Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest. [https://search.proquest.com/openview/17597a179528716e1a9e8515ca76ec77](https://search.proquest.com/openview/17597a179528716e1a9e8515ca76ec77/)

Jonas, H. (1984). *The imperative of responsibility: In search of an ethics for the technological age*. University of Chicago Press. <https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/I/bo3624199.html>

Jones, S. K., Estrada-Carmona, N., Juventia, S. D., et al. (2021). Agrobiodiversity Index scores show agrobiodiversity is underutilized in national food systems. *Nature Food*, *2*, 712–723. <https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00344-3>

Joseph, S., Cowie, A. L., Van Zwieten, L., Bolan, N., Budai, A., Buss, W., Cayuela, M. L., Graber, E. R., Ippolito, J. A., Kuzyakov, Y., Luo, Y., Ok, Y. S., Palansooriya, K. N., Shepherd, J., Stephens, S., Weng, Z., & Lehmann, J. (2021). How biochar works, and when it doesn't: A review of mechanisms controlling soil and plant responses to biochar. *GCB Bioenergy*, *13*(11), 1731–1764. <https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12885>

Juo, A. S. R., & Manu, A. (1996). Chemical dynamics in slash-and-burn agriculture. *Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment*, *58*(1), 49–60. <https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8809(95)00656-7>

Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1994). Systems competition and network effects. *Journal of Economic Perspectives*, *8*(2), 93–115. <https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.8.2.93>

Kauffman, C., & Haas, C. (2025). *Peru court case: Rights of the Marañón River*. Eco Jurisprudence Monitor. <https://ecojurisprudence.org/initiatives/rights-of-maranon-river-case/>

Kessler, M., Abrahamczyk, S., Bos, M., et al. (2009). Alpha and beta diversity of plants and animals along a tropical land-use gradient. *Ecological Applications*, *19*(8), 2142–2156. <https://doi.org/10.1890/08-1074.1>

Kestel, J. H., Field, D. L., Bateman, P. W., et al. (2022). Applications of environmental DNA (eDNA) in agricultural systems: Current uses, limitations and future prospects. *Science of the Total Environment*, *847*, 157556. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157556>

Klepke, M. J., Sigsgaard, E. E., Jensen, M. R., Olsen, K., & Thomsen, P. F. (2022). Accumulation and diversity of airborne, eukaryotic environmental DNA. *Environmental DNA*, *4*(6), 1323–1339. <https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.340>

Lacoursière-Roussel, A., & Deiner, K. (2019). Environmental DNA is not the tool by itself. *Journal of Fish Biology*, *98*(2), 383–386. <https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.14177>

Lahoz-Monfort, J. J., Guillera-Arroita, G., & Tingley, R. (2016). Statistical approaches to account for false-positive errors in environmental DNA samples. *Molecular Ecology Resources*, *16*(3), 673–685. <https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12486>

Lamb, E. G., Bayne, E., Holloway, G., et al. (2009). Indices for monitoring biodiversity change: Are some more effective than others? *Ecological Indicators*, *9*(3), 432–444. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2008.06.001>

Lefebvre, D., Williams, A., Meersmans, J., et al. (2020). Modelling the potential for soil carbon sequestration using biochar from sugarcane residues in Brazil. *Scientific Reports*, *10*, 19479. <https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-76470-y>

Lorenz, E. N. (1963). Deterministic nonperiodic flow. *Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences*, 20(2), 130–141. [https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1963)020<0130:DNF>2.0.CO;2](https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469\(1963\)020%3C0130:DNF%3E2.0.CO;2)

Lowder, S. K., Sánchez, M. V., & Bertini, R. (2021). Which farms feed the world and has farmland become more concentrated? *World Development*, *142*, 105455. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105455>

Martello, F., Dáttilo, W., Souza-Campana, D. R., et al. (2024). Eucalyptus plantation reduces diversity and disrupts predator-prey correlations of soil invertebrates within Atlantic Forest. *Forest Ecology and Management*, *553*, 121592. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2023.121592>

Meadows, D. H. (2008). *Thinking in systems: A primer* (D. Wright, Ed.). Chelsea Green Publishing. <https://amzn.to/4ub7fGE>

Mingay, S. (2022). *Hype cycle for sustainability, 2022*. Gartner Research. <https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/4017030>

Mitchell, M. (2009). *Complexity: A guided tour*. Oxford University Press. <https://global.oup.com/academic/product/complexity-9780199798100>

Muller, J. (2018). *The tyranny of metrics*. Princeton University Press. <https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691174952/the-tyranny-of-metrics>

Natural Resources Conservation Service. (n.d.). *Water management*. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Retrieved February 4, 2026, from <https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/water-management>

Nelson, M. K., & Reed, G. (2025). Indigenous critiques and recommendations for reclaiming nature-based solutions. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, *122*, e2315917121. <https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2315917121>

Newell, R. G., Pizer, W. A., & Raimi, D. (2014). Carbon markets: Past, present, and future. *Annual Review of Resource Economics*, *6*, 191–215. <https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100913-012655>

Newton, P., Kinzer, A. T., Miller, D. C., et al. (2020). The number and spatial distribution of forest-proximate people globally. *One Earth*, *3*(3), 363–370. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.08.016>

OECD. (2020). *A comprehensive overview of global biodiversity finance*. OECD. <https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/a-comprehensive-overview-of-global-biodiversity-finance_a07ac1ee-en.html>

Organización Internacional del Trabajo. (2009). *Convenio Núm. 169 de la OIT sobre pueblos indígenas y tribales en países independientes; Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas*. Oficina Regional para América Latina y el Caribe. <https://www.ilo.org/es/media/443541/download>

Pagiola, S., Arcenas, A., & Platais, G. (2005). Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? An exploration of the issues and the evidence to date from Latin America. *World Development*, *33*(2), 237–253. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.07.011>

Palmer, T. N. (2000). Predicting uncertainty in forecasts of weather and climate. *Reports on Progress in Physics*, 63(2), 71–116. <https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/63/2/201>

Paynter, J., Lopez, A. I., Vallejo, A., Flores, N. K., Balp, E., & Burbank, A. D. (2024). *An interoperable unit for area-based biodiversity conservation: Wicked problems, simple solutions* \[Preprint]. ResearchGate. <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381459737>

Perfecto, I., Vandermeer, J., & Wright, A. (2009). *Nature's matrix: Linking agriculture, conservation and food sovereignty*. Earthscan. <https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849770132>

Pinto, C. M., Camper, B. T., Flatt, E., & Whitworth, A. (2025). Dung beetle communities change quickly following tropical forest restoration: A case study from southern Costa Rica. *Forest Ecology and Management*, *587*, 122749. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2025.122749>

Poorter, L., Craven, D., Jakovac, C. C., et al. (2021). Multidimensional tropical forest recovery. *Science*, *374*(6573), 1370–1376. <https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abh3629>

Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. (2025). *Commentary: Rising planetary risks after missed decade of action*. <https://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/commentary-scientists-outline-rising-planetary-risks-after-missed-decade-of-action>

Power, H., Takahashi, M., Jarman, S., & Berry, O. (2023). What is environmental DNA? *Environmental DNA*, *5*(6), 1743–1758. <https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.497>

Probst, B. S., Toetzke, M., Kontoleon, A., et al. (2024). Systematic assessment of the achieved emission reductions of carbon crediting projects. *Nature Communications*, *15*, 9562. <https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-53645-z>

Rachels, J. (1975). Active and passive euthanasia. *New England Journal of Medicine*, *292*(2), 78–80. <https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM197501092920206>

Ram N (2023) The ethics of human sequences in environmental samples. *Nat Ecol Evol* 7:796–797. <https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02072-2>

Rainforest Saver. (n.d.). *Rainforest Saver*. Retrieved February 3, 2026, from [https://rainforestsaver.org](https://rainforestsaver.org/)

Redford, K. H. (1992). The empty forest. *BioScience*, *42*(6), 412–422. <https://doi.org/10.2307/1311860>

Resnicow, K., & Vaughan, R. (2006). A chaotic view of behavior change: A quantum leap for health promotion. *International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity*, *3*, 25. <https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-3-25>

Rights and Resources Initiative. (n.d.). *The land rights standard*. <https://rightsandresources.org/land-rights-standard/>

Rockström, J., et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. *Nature*, *461*(7263), 472–475. <https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08967>

Rockström, J., Schlosser, P., Bhowmik, A. K., et al. (2025). Living beyond limits: Consequences of missing the decisive decade for preserving our planet's life-supporting systems. *One Earth*, 101527. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2025.101527>

Roels, S. M., Hannay, M. B., & Lindell, C. A. (2019). Recovery of bird activity and species richness in an early-stage tropical forest restoration. *Avian Conservation and Ecology*, *14*(1). <https://doi.org/10.5751/ACE-01330-140109>

Rozendaal, D. M. A., Bongers, F., Aide, T. M., et al. (2019). Biodiversity recovery of Neotropical secondary forests. *Science Advances*, *5*(3), eaau3114. <https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau3114>

Roston, M. (2025). The market that won't trade: Fixing structural failures in the spot market for carbon removals. *SSRN*. <https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5224158>

Rubicon Carbon. (2024). *Ponterra, Microsoft, Rubicon Carbon and Carbon Streaming launch 3.2Mt nature-based carbon removal project*. [https://rubiconcarbon.com/blog/ponterra-microsoft-rubicon-carbon-and-carbon-streaming-launch-3-2mt-nature-based-carbon-removal-project](https://rubiconcarbon.com/blog/ponterra-microsoft-rubicon-carbon-and-carbon-streaming-launch-3-2mt-nature-based-carbon-removal-project/)

Sakschewski, B., Caesar, L., Andersen, L., et al. (2025). *Planetary health check 2025*. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. <https://doi.org/10.48485/pik.2025.017>

Samberg, L. H., Gerber, J. S., Ramankutty, N., et al. (2016). Subnational distribution of average farm size and smallholder contributions to global food production. *Environmental Research Letters*, *11*(12), 124010. <https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/12/124010>

Sánchez-Vendizú, P., Erkenswick, G., Reyes, J., López Clinton, S., Silvestre Espejo, T., Cáceres, G., Libke, Z., Arana, A., Mendoza-Silva, J., Tirapelle, C., Williams, S., Swamy, V., Martínez-Altamirano, J., Esteves, J., Barnuevo-Bullón, J. P., Hernández-Mejía, J., Caffo, X., Salazar-Aragón, R., Gutiérrez-Jiménez, L., … Watsa, M. (2025). Decoding the Peruvian Amazon with in situ DNA barcoding of vertebrate and plant taxa. *Scientific Data*, *12*(1), 1545. <https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-05697-z>

Savimbo. (2024). *Indicator species biodiversity methodology: For conservation of intact regional biodiversity using indicator species*. Cercarbono. <https://isbm.savimbo.com/>

Scales, B. R., & Marsden, S. J. (2008). Biodiversity in small-scale tropical agroforests: A review of species richness and abundance shifts and the factors influencing them. *Environmental Conservation*, *35*(2), 160–172. <https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892908004840>

Scheffer, M., Bascompte, J., Brock, W. A., Brovkin, V., Carpenter, S. R., Dakos, V., Held, H., van Nes, E. H., Rietkerk, M., & Sugihara, G. (2009). Early-warning signals for critical transitions. *Nature*, 461(7260), 53–59. <https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08227>

Schlesinger, W. H. (1997). *Biogeochemistry: An analysis of global change* (2nd ed.). Academic Press. <https://www.elsevier.com/books/biogeochemistry/schlesinger/978-0-12-625155-5>

Schmid, D. V. (2023). Are forest carbon projects in Africa green but mean? A mixed-method analysis. *Climate and Development*, *15*(1), 45–59. <https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2022.2054400>

Scott, J. C. (1998). *Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed*. Yale University Press. <https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300078152/seeing-like-a-state/>

Sendanayake, S. V., Thambiratnam, D. P., Perera, N., Chan, T., & Aghdamy, S. (2019). Seismic mitigation of steel modular building structures through innovative inter-modular connections. *Heliyon*, *5*(11), e02751. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02751>&#x20;

Sharma, R. (2024). *Biochar carbon credits market research report 2033*. Market Intelo. <https://marketintelo.com/report/biochar-carbon-credit-market>

Sharma, S., Dhal, S., Rout, T., & Acharya, B. S. (2022). Drones and machine learning for estimating forest carbon storage. *Carbon Research*, *1*, 21. <https://doi.org/10.1007/s44246-022-00021-5>

Sheil, D. (2018). Forests, atmospheric water and an uncertain future: The new biology of the global water cycle. *Forest Ecosystems*, *5*, 19. <https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-018-0138-y>

Sornette, D. (2009). Dragon-kings, black swans and the prediction of crises. *SSRN*. <https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1470006>

Sotelo Montes, C., & Weber, J. C. (1997). Priorización de especies arbóreas para sistemas agroforestales en la selva baja del Perú \[Prioritization of tree species for agroforestry systems in the Peruvian lowland jungle]. *Agroforestería en las Américas*, *4*(14), 12–17. <https://repositorio.catie.ac.cr/handle/11554/6701>

Spranca, M., Minsk, E., & Baron, J. (1991). Omission and commission in judgment and choice. *Journal of Experimental Social Psychology*, *27*(1), 76–105. <https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(91)90011-T>

Steinberg, S. R., & Kincheloe, J. L. (2012). Employing the bricolage as critical research in science education. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), *Second international handbook of science education* (pp. 1485–1500). Springer Netherlands. <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_95>

Strauss, M. (2012). *Looking back on the limits of growth*. Smithsonian Magazine. <https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/looking-back-on-the-limits-of-growth-125269840/>

Strogatz, S. H. (2015). Nonlinear dynamics and chaos: With applications to physics, biology, chemistry, and engineering (2nd ed.). Westview Press. <https://amzn.to/4veSjYQ>

Swinfield, T. (2025). *Scientific credibility for high-integrity voluntary carbon markets*. Cambridge Open Engage. <https://www.cambridge.org/engage/coe/article-details/679385946dde43c9082f7009>

Szabo, F. E. (2015). Chapter O. In *The linear algebra survival guide* (pp. 253–271). Elsevier. <https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780124095205/the-linear-algebra-survival-guide>

Taleb, N. N. (2007). Black swans and the domains of statistics. *The American Statistician*, *61*(3), 198–200. <https://doi.org/10.1198/000313007X219996>

Talucder, M. S. A., Ruba, U. B., & Robi, M. A. S. (2024). Potentiality of neglected and underutilized species (NUS) as a future resilient food: A systematic review. *Journal of Agriculture and Food Research*, *16*, 101116. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2024.101116>

Teo, H. C., Lamba, A., Ng, S. J. W., Nguyen, A. T., Dwiputra, A., Lim, A. J. Y., Nguyen, M. N., Tor-ngern, P., Zeng, Y., Dewi, S., & Koh, L. P. (2025). Reduction of deforestation by agroforestry in high carbon stock forests of Southeast Asia. *Nature Sustainability, 8*(4), 358–362. <https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-025-01532-w>

Tribune de Genève. (2024). *Genève internationale: Le chef Huni Kui défend les savoirs traditionnels à l'ONU*. <https://www.tdg.ch/geneve-internationale-le-chef-huni-kui-defend-les-savoirs-traditionnels-a-lonu-910369023177>

Tscharntke, T., Ocampo-Ariza, C., Vansynghel, J., Ivañez-Ballesteros, B., Aycart, P., Rodriguez, L., Ramirez, M., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Maas, B., & Thomas, E. (2023). Socio-ecological benefits of fine-flavor cacao in its center of origin. *Conservation Letters, 16*(1), e12936. <https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12936>

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. *Science*, 185(4157), 1124–1131. <https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124>

United Nations. (2007). *United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples* (A/RES/61/295) \[English version]. <https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples.html>

United Nations Environment Programme. (2022). *Emissions gap report 2022*. United Nations. <https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2022>

Universities-National Bureau Committee for Economic Research. (1962). *The rate and direction of inventive activity: Economic and social factors*. National Bureau of Economic Research.

van Klink, R., Sheard, J. K., Høye, T. T., et al. (2024). Towards a toolkit for global insect biodiversity monitoring. *Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B*, *379*, 20230101. <https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2023.0101>

Vargas Roncancio, I. D. (2011). *Sistemas de conocimiento ecológico tradicional y sus mecanismos de transformación: El caso de una chagra amazónica* \[Traditional ecological knowledge systems and their transformation mechanisms: The case of an Amazonian chagra] \[Master's thesis, Universidad Nacional de Colombia]. Repositorio UNAL. <https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/handle/unal/7655>

Vera Vera, R. R., Cota-Sánchez, J. H., & Grijalva Olmedo, J. E. (2019). Biodiversity, dynamics, and impact of chakras on the Ecuadorian Amazon. *Journal of Plant Ecology*, *12*(1), 34–44. <https://doi.org/10.1093/jpe/rtx060>

Villalba-Martínez, C. J., Souza-Alonso, P., Piñeiro, V., et al. (2025). Soil sustainability challenges in eucalypt afforestation of floodplain grasslands in Paraguay's Humid Chaco: Carbon and phosphorus dynamics. *Forest Ecology and Management*, *595*, 123034. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2025.123034>

Waheed, A., Xu, H., Qiao, X., et al. (2025). Biochar in sustainable agriculture and climate mitigation: Mechanisms, challenges, and applications in the circular bioeconomy. *Biomass and Bioenergy*, *193*, 107531. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2024.107531>

We Don't Have Time. (2025). *National emergency briefing*. <https://www.wedonthavetime.org/events/national-emergency-briefing>

Weber, K. (2025). *Biochar is the unsung market driver of carbon dioxide removal (CDR)*. SINTEF Blog. <https://blog.sintef.com/energy/biochar-is-the-unsung-market-driver-of-carbon-dioxide-removal-cdr/>

Whitmore L, McCauley M, Farrell JA, et al. (2023) Inadvertent human genomic bycatch and intentional capture raise beneficial applications and ethical concerns with environmental DNA. *Nat Ecol Evol* 7:873–888. <https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02056-2>

World Bank. (2006). *At loggerheads? Agricultural expansion, poverty reduction, and environment in the tropical forests*. The World Bank. <https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/223221468320336327/>

Wynn, D., & Eckert, C. (2017). Perspectives on iteration in design and development. *Research in Engineering Design*, *28*(2), 153–184. <https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-016-0226-3>

Yang, Y., Yuan, Y., Liu, P., et al. (2024). Crucial to me and my society: How collectivist culture influences individual pro-environmental behavior through environmental values. *Journal of Cleaner Production*, *454*, 142211. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142211>

Zavaleta, D., Yovera, F. F., Conza, J., Rodríguez, C., Cruz Neira, A., Atkinson, R. J., & Thomas, E. (2022). *Manual de renovación de copa de cacao: Lecciones aprendidas del cacao Blanco de Piura y Chuncho de Cusco* \[Manual for cacao canopy renovation: Lessons learned from Blanco de Piura and Chuncho de Cusco cacao]. Bioversity International. <https://hdl.handle.net/10568/125646>

Zhang, X., Wang, H., He, L., et al. (2013). Using biochar for remediation of soils contaminated with heavy metals and organic pollutants. *Environmental Science and Pollution Research*, *20*(12), 8472–8483. <https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-013-1659-0>


# Appendices

Project examples, IPLC input, and scientific support

The Appendices in this section are provided to contextualize the information in the ISBM by showing its application to a particular site in Villagarzon, Putumayo, Colombia, and providing information on how, and why this methodology was developed to serve IP and LC in this region, and scientific support for its wider application among IP and LC around the world. &#x20;


# Case study: how postcolonial co-design produced the WBP

Bicultural co-design braiding traditional ecological knowledge and frontier science

<mark style="color:$danger;">This is a</mark> [<mark style="color:$danger;">bricolage</mark>](/foundations/bricolage) <mark style="color:$danger;">protocol; which means we are building it in public! Some pages are under construction — but check back soon its updating fast!</mark>&#x20;

This is a story of good friends and great innovations.&#x20;

People who crossed out of the traditional funding and credentialing silos to make something happen fast for an ecosystem with a 10% annual deforestation rate ([Global Forest Watch 2024](https://www.globalforestwatch.org/dashboards/country/COL/26/)), in the Tropical Andean biodiversity hotspot, within the Amazon jungle, a planetary boundary crossing its tipping point ([Flores et al. 2024](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06970-0)).

This is the future of planetary science, and anyone who debates it isn't working for reality.&#x20;

### The chain of collaboration

We are recommending a chain of parallel collaboration: across disciplines, institutions, continents, and ways of knowing — compressed into months instead of the years a conventional research pipeline takes.&#x20;

The utility of the [Water Bucket Protocol (WBP](/biodiversity-credits/water-bucket-protocol)) is in itself central evidence for the Sexy Tree methodologies' core argument. We're not preaching an ideology. We're showing a working solution.&#x20;

Postcolonial co-design was, and is, an ethical preference for us. But by applying it, we have shown it's also a practical way to 'get sh\*t done' for lack of a better term. It's operationally faster, methodologically stronger, and produces tools that actually function in the field.&#x20;

The ethics aren't the cost. They're the mechanism, and the results make the argument for their adoption.

### What each contributor brought

The collaboration started the way the best ones do: people with radically different training and incompatible structural incentives trusted each other enough to share half-built ideas and stress-test them in the open.

The trail began with a metabarcoding paper by Danish and German scientists ([Klepke et al. 2022](https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.340)).&#x20;

That paper inspired a trial protocol for agroforestry systems, because a Swiss eDNA startup ([SimplexDNA](https://www.simplexdna.com/)) — run by a US expat sitting on cross-market comparison data ([Kristy Deiner](https://www.linkedin.com/in/kristy-deiner-44021111/)) — recommended it to a bee startup in Germany, who had funding for field testing.

We are working outside of our training. As an MD-turned-planetary-scientist from a biogeochemistry course ([Drea Burbank](https://www.linkedin.com/in/dreaburbank/)) and a PhD trained in neuroethology and conservation ([Anja Hutschenreiter](https://www.linkedin.com/in/anja-hutschenreiter-9b58892b6/)). Because of this, we *knew* we didn't know what we were doing and avoided the trap of metaignorance[^1]. We spent an unusual amount of time talking to a wider selection of eDNA experts, finding Kristy had the best domain expertise and most active projects internationally, with a lot of unpublished practical insights, including actual costs for the Global South.&#x20;

We negotiated and incorporated the European preliminary results and field experience into a parallel project in Latin America. A Canadian-funded charity in Peru ([Bioversity/CIAT](https://alliancebioversityciat.org/)), running a research grant from Italian researchers in Pisa, Italy, in Putumayo, Colombia. Researchers were working on frontier academic topics but were willing to reconsider the planned protocol and incorporate an experimental methodology into previously funded work.&#x20;

The ground team testing the protocol relied on local negotiators ([Jhony Lopez](https://www.linkedin.com/in/hector-jhony-lopez-381786308/) and [Fernando Lezama](https://www.linkedin.com/in/fernando-lezama-386645299/)) to get safe access to field testing in a red zone, international lawyers to get proper consents defined for any human DNA ([Michael Nichols](https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelgnichols/) and [WarīNkwī Flores](https://www.linkedin.com/in/wariflores/)), and local field staff working with international researchers to get supplies and maintain adequate conditions ([Santiago Romero](https://www.linkedin.com/in/santiago-r-2126b7328/), [Jeidy Caicedo](https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeidy-caicedo-ab9106378/), and [Karen Yulieth Serna](https://www.linkedin.com/in/karen-yulieth-serna-7721982a3/?lipi=urn%3Ali%3Apage%3Ad_flagship3_profile_view_base%3Bnu%2B2%2FSH3QoWEnacwUgpHYg%3D%3D))

#### **Figure X. Savimbo team and scientific collaborators doing eDNA sampling in the Colombian Amazon.**&#x20;

### Why the chain worked

This is not a standardized methodology. It is barely science. And it is already stopping deforestation by characterizing restoration biodiversity credits on experimental markets.

### What this protocol still needs

### The unanswered question

[^1]: When someone is unaware they are ignorant. They don't know they don't know.&#x20;


# Case study: how we began working on proper consents for eDNA

Bicultural co-design working on proper consents for eDNA

<mark style="color:$danger;">This is a</mark> [<mark style="color:$danger;">bricolage</mark>](/foundations/bricolage) <mark style="color:$danger;">protocol; which means we are building it in public! Some pages are under construction — but check back soon its updating fast!</mark>&#x20;

eDNA had a problem, and it was a doozy.&#x20;

Environmental DNA (eDNA) is genetic material that organisms continuously shed into water, soil, and air; sampling and sequencing it lets many species be detected at once without trapping, handling, or harming any of them ([Power et al. 2023](https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.497)). That non-invasiveness, low cost, and multi-species reach make eDNA metabarcoding one of the few biodiversity-monitoring tools well suited to remote, community-led field settings ([Kestel et al. 2022](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157556); [Bélisle et al. 2026](https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.70253)).

The same sensitivity that makes eDNA powerful creates a serious ethical problem. Deep-sequencing eDNA workflows capture human genetic material — from the people living and working on the land being sampled — just as readily as the target species, a phenomenon termed *human genetic bycatch* ([Whitmore et al. 2023](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02056-2)). This is not trace contamination: recovered human sequences can be of high enough quality to identify disease-associated variants and infer the genetic ancestry of nearby populations ([Whitmore et al. 2023](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02056-2)), raising direct concerns about consent, privacy, surveillance, and data ownership ([Ram 2023](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02072-2)). For Indigenous and local communities the stakes compound: genomic information can be swept into a biodiversity sample, deposited in an open-access repository, and become effectively permanent and uncontrollable — a textbook breach of Indigenous data sovereignty if collected without informed, ongoing consent ([Handsley-Davis et al. 2021](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01351-6)).

### The chain of collaboration

The collaboration began with the observation that eDNA could capture identifiable human DNA ([WarīNkwī Flores](https://www.linkedin.com/in/wariflores/) from [Kinray Hub](https://www.kin-ray-hub.com/)) also known as human genetic bycatch (HGB). This was confirmed by eDNA scientists ([Kristy Deiner](https://www.linkedin.com/in/kristy-deiner-44021111/) from [SimplexDNA](https://www.simplexdna.com/)).&#x20;

We were overwhelmed by the risks and weight of dealing with this problem. Over two years, we interviewed the top 3-5 eDNA companies and several academic experts operating globally and confirmed they both knew this and had not included consents, human ethics reviews, or practical controls in the lab for the storage of human DNA.&#x20;

There was a financial reason for this, which representatives at these companies privately disclosed. eDNA libraries are rapidly evolving, and storing samples for later analysis allows reanalysis and expanded datasets, contributing to the per-sample value of retrieved Ecological genetics. &#x20;

At the time, we were not working in eDNA and decided to pick our battles. Until we confirmed that, yes, we did have to [work with eDNA for agroforestry](/biodiversity-credits/calculation#edna-as-a-measurement-approach). Although by then, papers were being published on the problem, we reconfirmed with industry contacts that no one had developed an adequate consent form or had any plans to do anything about it.&#x20;

Cleanup would have to begin with us. On our pilot site, with the advisors and legal expertise we had to hand. In other words, cleanup was going to be [bricolage](/foundations/bricolage).&#x20;

### What each contributor brought

We worked with active labs to define what protocols were available for controlling human DNA analysis ([Kristy Deiner](https://www.linkedin.com/in/kristy-deiner-44021111/) from [SimplexDNA](https://www.simplexdna.com/)). Then consulted several international lega firms to see if any could help us with proper contracts. We could not afford the right legal teams, and none would do it pro bono. We tried to raise funds with over a dozen grant applications, and private requests for aid, and were also unsuccessful.&#x20;

So we settled on legal experts with experience in medical consents to get proper consents defined for any human DNA ([Michael Nichols](https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelgnichols/) from Nichols Law). Then involved academic scientists with experience in both eDNA and IDsov ([WarīNkwī Flores](https://www.linkedin.com/in/wariflores/)). &#x20;

After drafting a consent, we sent it to several academic advisors for collaborative editing. This included ethics consults with our internal bicultural ethics panel. It was decided that the ethical risks of sampling without a consent, was higher than sampling with an early draft of a consent.&#x20;

We drafted a consent that could be forked, cloned, and versioned on GitBook.&#x20;

Local field staff worked with international researchers to practice doing informed consent in the field ([Santiago Romero](https://www.linkedin.com/in/santiago-r-2126b7328/), [Jeidy Caicedo](https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeidy-caicedo-ab9106378/), and [Karen Yulieth Serna](https://www.linkedin.com/in/karen-yulieth-serna-7721982a3/?lipi=urn%3Ali%3Apage%3Ad_flagship3_profile_view_base%3Bnu%2B2%2FSH3QoWEnacwUgpHYg%3D%3D))

#### **Figure X. Savimbo team and scientific collaborators doing eDNA sampling in the Colombian Amazon.**&#x20;

### Why the chain worked

This is a bicultural problem. It's not enough to simply communicate the risk on the ground or control the sequences in the lab. The entire monetary and non-monetary value chain and data interpretation loop need to be connected, educated, and functioning across two very different cultural contexts.&#x20;

We cannot emphasize enough the paradigm differences between the DSI commercial scouting going on with AI processing of lab data, and Indigenous communities parsing consent. These concepts must be simplified, translated into context (including metaphors), and the feedback is ongoing, not just one a time service.

We refer to the [data-steward + data-concierge model](https://www.savimbo.com/data#steward-concierge) as a practical way to facilitate community data rights within the context of a rapidly evolving technology situation. This relationship reduces harm and mitigates risk for all parties. Its inexpensive and has worked for us practically in multiple disciplines.&#x20;

### What this protocol still needs

The data consents have been created, and tested with community communicators. The final contract will be loaded to GitHub and then available to fork and clone. The initial contract is very limited in scope, it only applys to laboratory situations where samples are destroyed. We are aware that there are extensive resources for storage and proper handling of human identifiable DNA but feel unqualified at the moment

* It's relatively easy to protect communities from active identification, its much harder to protect them from commercial exploitation.&#x20;

<a href="https://www.savimbo.com/contracts/#edna" class="button primary">eDNA sample contract (in development)</a>

### The unanswered question


# FPIC: Free, Prior, and Informed Consent in Sexy Trees project design

Effective free, prior, and informed consent (+ongoing which we really like!)

**Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) is not an optional step, but a mandatory one.** &#x20;

For certifiers and buyers of any climate project involving grassroots communities, it's also a compliance and legal risk issue. In short, do it. Do it right. And get someone to [double-check that you did it properly](https://savimbo.com/fpic) privately, because it will definitely happen publicly at some point.&#x20;

We would be remiss not to address FPIC, but equally remiss to present ourselves as defining its requirements when there are far more authoritative sources. What follows are *operational answers from a working organization*, not conceptual contributions to the literature or policy. We have added some [practice recommendations](/practice-guide/fpic/fpic-tips-and-tricks) we adhere to, refer externally to [definitive sources](#authoritative-sources-on-fpic), and strongly recommend our place-based [peer-nominated FPIC validation service](https://www.savimbo.com/fpic) for your jurisdiction.&#x20;

It cannot be emphasized enough that FPIC, like any type of consent, is ongoing. Projects must make provisions early in their design for what happens if consent is revoked and how [data will be handled](/foundations/data-sovereignty) in that scenario. &#x20;

### Authoritative sources on FPIC

Some guides for effective FPIC we recommend include, but are not limited to:&#x20;

* Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) [FPIC Guide](https://rspo.org/wp-content/uploads/RSPO-Free-Prior-and-Informed-Consent-FPIC-Guide-2022_RSPO-GUI-T08-002-V2-ENG.pdf)
* First People's Worldwide FPIC [Due-diligence questionnaire](https://www.colorado.edu/program/fpw/sites/default/files/attached-files/fpic_due_diligence_questionnaire-2.pdf)
* Forest People's Program [Good faith negotiation guide](https://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/publication/2010/09/fppkeyelementsgoodfaithdec08eng.pdf)
* Sirge Coalition [FPIC guide](https://www.sirgecoalition.org/fpic-guide)
* Convention on Biological Diversity[ Mo’ otz Kuxtal Guidelines](https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/8j-cbd-mootz-kuxtal-en.pdf)


# Appendix X: Sample legal proof of land control

This methodology has been intentionally broadened to include both owners, and validated stewards of land — or "land control".

Land control is defined as, and may encompass: ownership of land, possession of land in a STP, or stewardship of land in a BCP.  This methodology requires evidence of a BCP presence on, regular visitation to, or management authority over the land enrolled. And project areas must be entitled to receive payments to protect it.&#x20;

Carbon projects have failed in many areas where groups were unable to qualify for legal land rights, but still had control of the land, and thus [continued deforesting illegally](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/06/14/climate/congo-rainforest-logging.html).&#x20;

Therefore, we have broadened the applicability of this protocol to the concept of land control.&#x20;

A sample protocol for land ownership as compared to land stewardship is provided in this annex for projects working under Colombian national jurisdiction. BCPs must follow national requirements for their jurisdiction.  &#x20;

#### B.1 Colombian land ownership requirements.

Under Colombian law, land can be held in ownership or stewardship. Ownership documents:

* Title: The legal title of ownership of the land. Resguardo titles are issued to Indigenous peoples.&#x20;
* Escritura: A deed which entitles the holder to legal ownership of the land.

The Colombian government requires Escritura or Title as a vehicle for proof of land ownership, and current international certifying standards for carbon markets do as well. &#x20;

#### B.2 Colombian land stewardship requirements.

In addition to ownership, Colombian law recognizes land stewardship, occupancy, or possession  through the Compreventa document.&#x20;

* Compreventa: Purchase agreement which is inadequate to prove legal ownership of the land, but can provide documentation of long-term stewardship for eventual progression to land ownership.&#x20;

A sample mechanism for legal requirements is given below.&#x20;

#### **Table 8. Additional requirements for documentation of land stewardship under Colombian law**

| Document                             | Requirements                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
| ------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Sale document                        | Authenticated or unauthenticated written document in which the sample applicant who acquired the property by sale must contain at least the date of subscription, the name of the seller and buyer, the sale price, the method of payment , the detailed description of the property.              |
| Affidavit of Sound Posession         | Declaration out of court before a notary, and signed by two wittnesses to exercise sound possession.                                                                                                                                                                                               |
| Community certification              | Certificate of being a member of the community action board of the respective jurisdiction where the property is located.                                                                                                                                                                          |
| Land survey                          | Location plan and location of the property. It must have a true description of the property, whether it is the registration page, topographic survey, description of boundaries and/or milestones where the location and area of the property and the surrounding areas are established in detail. |
| Property tax reciepts (if available) | You must prove the payment of property tax in applicable plot for the last 5 years.                                                                                                                                                                                                                |

<br>


# Appendix I: Letters of support

Letter of support from scientific experts

We've asked scientists to write letters of support to substantiate our scientific decisions in this methodology. Specifically:&#x20;

* **Agroforestry scientists**. Biologists and specialists in entomology, herpetology, ornithologists, marine science, primatology, and apex predators.&#x20;
* Agroecologists
* **Advocates.** Organizations with a long track record in grassroots reforestation. There are fantastic practitioners across the globe with the influence and track record to comment intelligently.&#x20;
* **Indigenous groups and advocates.** Anthropologists, sociologists, ethicists, linguists, and ethnologists who truly understand the lifestyle, needs, and business practices of Indigenous, AfroDescendant, Tribal, or local community groups and are capable of advocating for them on a global stage.&#x20;

Letters are included before in order of submission.&#x20;

<figure><img src="broken://files/2VRNYetfFPkkLAyxUCEB" alt=""><figcaption><p>Jhony Lopez and Fernando Ayerbe, Putumayo July 2023</p></figcaption></figure>


# Appendix E: Sample selection of indicator species

Example database with indicator species data for pilot site in Villagarzón, Colombia

A sample table of indicator species for our pilot BCP site in Putumayo, Colombia is shown in the table below. And you can copy and use a template for tracking your data:

* 1\) [<mark style="background-color:green;">Signup for Airtable</mark>](<https://airtable.com/invite/r/fxsn6mcE >) for free
* 2\) Copy the [<mark style="background-color:green;">Sample observation database</mark>](https://airtable.com/appCrJEBJX5lDwZ2R/shrTEy84ICs3dIXWm/tblSGRFmIU1FbLIQM/viwaSqv9TqSyU2Jds?blocks=hide) to use for your own BCP

Some easy-to-use public data sources for gathering this data include (but are definitely not limited to):&#x20;

* [International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)](https://www.iucnredlist.org/search/map)
* [World Wildlife Fund (WWF)](https://www.wwf.org.co/?316724/WWF%2DColombia%2Dpresents%2DLiving%2DColombia%2DReport%2D%2D2017)
* [iNaturalist](https://www.inaturalist.org/)

#### **Table 11. Species chosen as indicators for biodiversity crediting.** *Note: Please scroll right for full table.*&#x20;

<table data-header-hidden><thead><tr><th width="165"></th><th width="104"></th><th width="96"></th><th width="87"></th><th width="88"></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Name</td><td>IUCN category</td><td>National threat</td><td>CITES level</td><td>Home range*</td><td>Indicator type**</td><td>Ecosystem integrity ratio</td></tr><tr><td>Jaguar (<em>Panthera onca</em>)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/fr/search/stats?redListCategory=nt">NT</a></td><td><a href="https://www.minambiente.gov.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/resolucion-1912-de-2017.pdf">VU</a></td><td><a href="https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/app/2023/E-Appendices-2023-02-23.pdf">Appendix I</a></td><td><a href="https://airtable.com/app8nBhenY8WKKGDW/tbl38uVjTpCJD6qDr/viwTMumzsBXg540Gm/rec4jqYWMGmTNMmTJ/fld8j7SA4KQyTZLoz?copyLinkToCellOrRecordOrigin=gridView">380</a></td><td>Rar, End, Umb, Key, Emb</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Spectacled bear (<em>Tremarctos ornatus</em>)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/22066/123792952">VU</a></td><td><a href="https://www.minambiente.gov.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/resolucion-1912-de-2017.pdf">VU</a></td><td><a href="https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/app/2023/E-Appendices-2023-02-23.pdf">Appendix I</a></td><td><a href="https://airtable.com/app8nBhenY8WKKGDW/tbl38uVjTpCJD6qDr/viwTMumzsBXg540Gm/recmHArOb8v1C1vSX/fld8j7SA4KQyTZLoz?copyLinkToCellOrRecordOrigin=gridView">150</a></td><td>Rar, End, Umb, Emb</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Harpy eagle (<em>Harpia harpyja</em>)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/22695998/197957213">VU</a></td><td><br></td><td><a href="https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/app/2023/E-Appendices-2023-02-23.pdf">Appendix I</a></td><td><a href="https://airtable.com/app8nBhenY8WKKGDW/tbl38uVjTpCJD6qDr/viwTMumzsBXg540Gm/recw3agg5WgAHzYWA/fld8j7SA4KQyTZLoz?copyLinkToCellOrRecordOrigin=gridView">150</a></td><td>Rar, End, Umb, Key, Emb</td><td>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>Black alligator (<em>Melanosuchus niger</em>)</td><td><br></td><td><a href="https://www.minambiente.gov.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/resolucion-1912-de-2017.pdf">VU</a></td><td><a href="https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/app/2023/E-Appendices-2023-02-23.pdf">Appendix I</a></td><td><a href="https://airtable.com/app8nBhenY8WKKGDW/tbl38uVjTpCJD6qDr/viwTMumzsBXg540Gm/recURoWqYipyOWbMx/fld8j7SA4KQyTZLoz?copyLinkToCellOrRecordOrigin=gridView">0.13</a></td><td>Rar, End, Key</td><td>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>Crested eagle (<em>Morphnus guianensis</em>)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/22695998/197957213">NT</a></td><td><a href="https://www.minambiente.gov.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/resolucion-1912-de-2017.pdf">NT</a></td><td><br></td><td><a href="https://airtable.com/app8nBhenY8WKKGDW/tbl38uVjTpCJD6qDr/viwTMumzsBXg540Gm/recdmVLZHyPutypzl/fld8j7SA4KQyTZLoz?copyLinkToCellOrRecordOrigin=gridView">17.3</a></td><td>Rar, End</td><td>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>Mountain tapir (<em>Tapirus terrestris</em>)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/21474/45174127">VU</a></td><td><a href="https://www.minambiente.gov.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/resolucion-1912-de-2017.pdf">CR</a></td><td><a href="https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/app/2023/E-Appendices-2023-02-23.pdf">Appendix II</a></td><td><a href="https://airtable.com/app8nBhenY8WKKGDW/tbl38uVjTpCJD6qDr/viwTMumzsBXg540Gm/rec7pu9BWdufSVnSj/fld8j7SA4KQyTZLoz?copyLinkToCellOrRecordOrigin=gridView">16.4</a></td><td>End, Umb</td><td>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>Tapir (<em>Tapirus pinchaque</em>)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/21473/45173922">EN</a></td><td><a href="https://www.minambiente.gov.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/resolucion-1912-de-2017.pdf">EN</a></td><td><a href="https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/app/2023/E-Appendices-2023-02-23.pdf">Appendix I</a></td><td><a href="https://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?pid=S2007-33642016000200271&#x26;script=sci_arttext">24</a></td><td>End, Umb</td><td>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>Titi monkey (<em>Cebuella pygmaea)</em></td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/136926/200203263">VU</a></td><td><br></td><td><br></td><td><a href="https://airtable.com/app8nBhenY8WKKGDW/tbl38uVjTpCJD6qDr/viwTMumzsBXg540Gm/recOFxPeD2naiS28H/fld8j7SA4KQyTZLoz?copyLinkToCellOrRecordOrigin=gridView">0.5</a></td><td>Rar, End</td><td>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>Otter (<em>Pteronura brasiliensis</em>)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/18711/222719180">EN</a></td><td><br></td><td><a href="https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/app/2023/E-Appendices-2023-02-23.pdf">Appendix I</a></td><td><a href="https://airtable.com/app8nBhenY8WKKGDW/tbl38uVjTpCJD6qDr/viwTMumzsBXg540Gm/reciUEZ3xa5BtZ2Vn/fld8j7SA4KQyTZLoz?copyLinkToCellOrRecordOrigin=gridView">19.5</a></td><td>Rar, End</td><td>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>Anteater (<em>Myrmecophaga tridactyla</em>)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/14224/47441961">VU</a></td><td><a href="https://www.minambiente.gov.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/resolucion-1912-de-2017.pdf">VU</a></td><td><a href="https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/app/2023/E-Appendices-2023-02-23.pdf">Appendix II</a></td><td><a href="https://airtable.com/app8nBhenY8WKKGDW/tbl38uVjTpCJD6qDr/viwTMumzsBXg540Gm/reccjNEetzd4YU31Z/fld8j7SA4KQyTZLoz?copyLinkToCellOrRecordOrigin=gridView">90</a></td><td>End, Umb</td><td>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>Charapa turtle (<em>Podocnemis unifilis</em>)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/17825/97397562">VU</a></td><td><a href="https://www.minambiente.gov.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/resolucion-1912-de-2017.pdf">EN</a></td><td><br></td><td><a href="https://airtable.com/app8nBhenY8WKKGDW/tbl38uVjTpCJD6qDr/viwTMumzsBXg540Gm/reciNydVaLFrxGPUR/fld8j7SA4KQyTZLoz?copyLinkToCellOrRecordOrigin=gridView">420</a></td><td>End, Umb</td><td>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>Spike (<em>Ocotea quixos</em>)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/192556503/192556553">LC</a></td><td><a href="https://www.minambiente.gov.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/resolucion-1912-de-2017.pdf">EN</a></td><td><br></td><td><a href="https://airtable.com/app8nBhenY8WKKGDW/tbl38uVjTpCJD6qDr/viwTMumzsBXg540Gm/rectYpnSmB2vTCSu3/fld8j7SA4KQyTZLoz?copyLinkToCellOrRecordOrigin=gridView">64</a></td><td>Rar, End</td><td>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>Cedar (<em>Cedrela Odorata</em>)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/32292/68080590">VU</a></td><td><a href="https://www.minambiente.gov.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/resolucion-1912-de-2017.pdf">EN</a></td><td><a href="https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/app/2023/E-Appendices-2023-02-23.pdf">Appendix III</a></td><td><a href="https://airtable.com/app8nBhenY8WKKGDW/tbl38uVjTpCJD6qDr/viwTMumzsBXg540Gm/rec1mJMnxY6U5Gg3H/fld8j7SA4KQyTZLoz?copyLinkToCellOrRecordOrigin=gridView">615.8</a></td><td>End</td><td>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>Military macaw (<em>Ara militaris</em>)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/22685548/179407584">VU</a></td><td><a href="https://www.minambiente.gov.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/resolucion-1912-de-2017.pdf">VU</a></td><td><a href="https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/app/2023/E-Appendices-2023-02-23.pdf">Appendix II</a></td><td><a href="http://esearchgate.net/publication/275973154_Estado_del_conocimiento_y_nuevos_aportes_sobre_la_historia_natural_del_Guacamayo_Verde_Ara_militaris">125</a></td><td>End</td><td>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>Giant armadillo (<em>Priodontes maximus</em>)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/18144/47442343">VU</a></td><td><a href="https://www.minambiente.gov.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/resolucion-1912-de-2017.pdf">EN</a></td><td><a href="https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/app/2023/E-Appendices-2023-02-23.pdf">Appendix I</a></td><td><a href="https://airtable.com/app8nBhenY8WKKGDW/tbl38uVjTpCJD6qDr/viwTMumzsBXg540Gm/recnLenKm0EDdVcua/fld8j7SA4KQyTZLoz?copyLinkToCellOrRecordOrigin=gridView">4.5</a></td><td>Rare</td><td>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>Wattled curassow (<em>Crax globulosa</em>)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/22678537/92777596">EN</a></td><td><a href="https://www.minambiente.gov.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/resolucion-1912-de-2017.pdf">EN</a></td><td><a href="https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/app/2023/E-Appendices-2023-02-23.pdf">Appendix II</a></td><td><a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/19400829211026170">0.963</a></td><td>End</td><td>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>Black-and-chestnut eagle (<em>Morphnus guianensis</em>)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/22695991/118209977">EN</a></td><td><a href="https://www.minambiente.gov.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/resolucion-1912-de-2017.pdf">EN</a></td><td><br></td><td><a href="https://airtable.com/app8nBhenY8WKKGDW/tbl38uVjTpCJD6qDr/viwTMumzsBXg540Gm/recdmVLZHyPutypzl/fld8j7SA4KQyTZLoz?copyLinkToCellOrRecordOrigin=gridView">0.5</a></td><td>End</td><td>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>Yellow pony (<em>Handroanthus serratifolius</em>)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/61985509/145677076">EN</a></td><td><br></td><td><br></td><td><a href="https://airtable.com/app8nBhenY8WKKGDW/tbl38uVjTpCJD6qDr/viwTMumzsBXg540Gm/recz1T08gNMmLYq4P/fldLOV4K3eXX30EPS?copyLinkToCellOrRecordOrigin=gridView">615.8</a></td><td>End</td><td>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>Ribs (<em>Ampelocera albertiae</em>)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/169480988/181628415">EN</a></td><td><br></td><td><br></td><td><a href="https://airtable.com/app8nBhenY8WKKGDW/tbl38uVjTpCJD6qDr/viwTMumzsBXg540Gm/recQYg8JLFk7TStGC/fld8j7SA4KQyTZLoz?copyLinkToCellOrRecordOrigin=gridView">100</a></td><td>End</td><td>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>Avocado (<em>Persea schiedeana</em>)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/34402/172963980">EN</a></td><td><br></td><td><br></td><td><a href="https://airtable.com/app8nBhenY8WKKGDW/tbl38uVjTpCJD6qDr/viwTMumzsBXg540Gm/recO893LqVWNDRsIy/fld8j7SA4KQyTZLoz?copyLinkToCellOrRecordOrigin=gridView">615.8</a></td><td>End</td><td>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>Churuco (<em>Lagothrix lagotricha</em>)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/160881218/192309103">VU</a></td><td><a href="https://www.minambiente.gov.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/resolucion-1912-de-2017.pdf">VU</a></td><td><br></td><td><a href="https://airtable.com/app8nBhenY8WKKGDW/tbl38uVjTpCJD6qDr/viwTMumzsBXg540Gm/recPRkWVAegIeoTWd/fld8j7SA4KQyTZLoz?copyLinkToCellOrRecordOrigin=gridView">11</a></td><td>End</td><td>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>Coppery-chested jacamar (<em>Galbula pastazae</em>)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/22682206/209328844">LC</a></td><td><a href="https://www.minambiente.gov.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/resolucion-1912-de-2017.pdf">VU</a></td><td><br></td><td><a href="https://birdscolombia.com/2021/03/01/jacamar-cobrizo-coppery-chested-jacamar-galbula-pastazae/#:~:text=Se%20estima%20que%20hay%201.1%20y%201.8%20individuos%20por%20km2">1</a></td><td>End</td><td>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>Agami heron (<em>Agamia agami</em>)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/22697200/93602031">VU</a></td><td><br></td><td><br></td><td><a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/26428227">1250</a></td><td>End</td><td>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>(Nymphargus siren)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/54992/85874078">VU</a></td><td><br></td><td><br></td><td><a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10531-021-02117-7">0.4</a></td><td>End</td><td>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>Gualanday (Jacaranda mimosifolia)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/32027/68135641">VU</a></td><td><br></td><td><br></td><td><a href="https://airtable.com/app8nBhenY8WKKGDW/tbl38uVjTpCJD6qDr/viwTMumzsBXg540Gm/rec2v8pf0WmH1mp77/fld8j7SA4KQyTZLoz?copyLinkToCellOrRecordOrigin=gridView">50</a></td><td>End</td><td>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>White barbi hillock (Tayassu pecari)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/41778/44051115">VU</a></td><td><br></td><td><br></td><td><a href="https://airtable.com/app8nBhenY8WKKGDW/tbl38uVjTpCJD6qDr/viwTMumzsBXg540Gm/rec5UDIeCw1WzFMzB/fld8j7SA4KQyTZLoz?copyLinkToCellOrRecordOrigin=gridView">200</a></td><td>End</td><td>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>Solitary eagle (Buteogallus solitarius)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/22695849/179321501">NT</a></td><td><a href="https://www.minambiente.gov.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/resolucion-1912-de-2017.pdf">CR</a></td><td><br></td><td><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jean-Marc-Thiollay/publication/238747661_Censusing_of_diurnal_raptors_in_a_primary_rainforest_Comparative_methods_and_species_detectability/links/55b79d7108ae092e965726d9/Censusing-of-diurnal-raptors-in-a-primary-rainforest-Comparative-methods-and-species-detectability.pdf">100</a></td><td>End</td><td>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>Smoked barbecue (Minquartia guianensis)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/32956/9737660">NT</a></td><td><br></td><td><br></td><td><a href="https://airtable.com/app8nBhenY8WKKGDW/tbl38uVjTpCJD6qDr/viwTMumzsBXg540Gm/recOdLeIhQYGLsVVi/fld8j7SA4KQyTZLoz?copyLinkToCellOrRecordOrigin=gridView">8</a></td><td>End</td><td>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>Blue kettle (Aburria aburri)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/22678440/92773628">NT</a></td><td><br></td><td><br></td><td><a href="https://airtable.com/app8nBhenY8WKKGDW/tbl38uVjTpCJD6qDr/viwTMumzsBXg540Gm/recEE4IhabNkm0fFO/fld8j7SA4KQyTZLoz?copyLinkToCellOrRecordOrigin=gridView">1</a></td><td>End</td><td>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>Real toucan (Ramphastos ambiguus ambiguus)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/22727999/94967701">NT</a></td><td><br></td><td><br></td><td><a href="https://airtable.com/app8nBhenY8WKKGDW/tbl38uVjTpCJD6qDr/viwTMumzsBXg540Gm/recE4j4O7ZByIMbvT/fld8j7SA4KQyTZLoz?copyLinkToCellOrRecordOrigin=gridView">450</a></td><td>End</td><td>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>Ornate hawk-eagle (Spizaetus ornatus)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/22696197/211084620">NT</a></td><td><br></td><td><br></td><td><a href="https://journals.sfu.ca/ornneo/index.php/ornneo/article/download/316/ON%2029%20%282018%29%20153-158.pdf/2342">4</a></td><td>End</td><td>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>Mountain cypress (Austrocedrus chilensis)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/31359/2805519">NT</a></td><td><br></td><td><br></td><td><a href="https://airtable.com/app8nBhenY8WKKGDW/tbl38uVjTpCJD6qDr/viwTMumzsBXg540Gm/recudgn696hGdN2tt/fld8j7SA4KQyTZLoz?copyLinkToCellOrRecordOrigin=gridView">12.6</a></td><td>End</td><td>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>(Hemiphractus bubalus)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/55366/85898639">VU</a></td><td><br></td><td><br></td><td><a href="https://www.biotaxa.org/hn/article/view/37073">0.1</a></td><td>End, Edc</td><td>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>Green anaconda (Eunectes murinus)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/44580041/44580052">LC</a></td><td><br></td><td><br></td><td><a href="https://airtable.com/app8nBhenY8WKKGDW/tbl38uVjTpCJD6qDr/viwTMumzsBXg540Gm/recCaFMiW22wcM6wA/fld8j7SA4KQyTZLoz?copyLinkToCellOrRecordOrigin=gridView">0.4</a></td><td>Rar, Key</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>(Phyllomedusa tarsius)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/55864/11382243">LC</a></td><td><br></td><td><br></td><td>10</td><td>Edc</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>(Lithobates palmipes)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/58689/11812112">LC</a></td><td><br></td><td><br></td><td><a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10531-021-02117-7">0.4</a></td><td>Edc</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>Capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/10300/22190005">LC</a></td><td><br></td><td><br></td><td><a href="https://airtable.com/app8nBhenY8WKKGDW/tbl38uVjTpCJD6qDr/viwTMumzsBXg540Gm/recOifKHmQUDS2jvs/fld8j7SA4KQyTZLoz?copyLinkToCellOrRecordOrigin=gridView">0.2</a></td><td>Rar</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>Snake 24 (Bothrops atrox)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/44582135/44582154">LC</a></td><td><br></td><td><br></td><td><a href="https://airtable.com/app8nBhenY8WKKGDW/tbl38uVjTpCJD6qDr/viwTMumzsBXg540Gm/reckKZaOnAgdLkaXZ/fld8j7SA4KQyTZLoz?copyLinkToCellOrRecordOrigin=gridView">0.6</a></td><td>Rar</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>Black toad snake (Bothrocophias hyoprora)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/15204024/15204030">LC</a></td><td><br></td><td><br></td><td><a href="https://www.reptilesofecuador.com/bothrops_lojanus.html">0.6</a></td><td>Rar</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>Blue yellow macaws (Ara ararauna)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/22685539/131917270">LC</a></td><td><br></td><td><br></td><td><a href="https://airtable.com/app8nBhenY8WKKGDW/tbl38uVjTpCJD6qDr/viwTMumzsBXg540Gm/recNsqDjG1J1AOkfS/fld8j7SA4KQyTZLoz?copyLinkToCellOrRecordOrigin=gridView">15</a></td><td>Rar</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>Scarlet macaws (Ara macao)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/22685563/163778999">LC</a></td><td><br></td><td><a href="https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/app/2023/E-Appendices-2023-02-23.pdf">Appendix I</a></td><td><a href="https://airtable.com/app8nBhenY8WKKGDW/tbl38uVjTpCJD6qDr/viwTMumzsBXg540Gm/reclMjXUIVc5ftCqU/fld8j7SA4KQyTZLoz?copyLinkToCellOrRecordOrigin=gridView">15</a></td><td>Rar</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>Wink (Boa constrictor)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/197462/2486405">LC</a></td><td><br></td><td><a href="https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/app/2023/E-Appendices-2023-02-23.pdf">Appendix I</a></td><td><a href="https://airtable.com/app8nBhenY8WKKGDW/tbl38uVjTpCJD6qDr/viwTMumzsBXg540Gm/rec8FhQ4tf7K2gyP2/fld8j7SA4KQyTZLoz?copyLinkToCellOrRecordOrigin=gridView">790</a></td><td>Rar</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>Acai (Euterpe oleracea)</td><td><br></td><td><br></td><td><br></td><td><a href="https://airtable.com/app8nBhenY8WKKGDW/tbl38uVjTpCJD6qDr/viwTMumzsBXg540Gm/recNR3oKpfwuPdABK/fld8j7SA4KQyTZLoz?copyLinkToCellOrRecordOrigin=gridView">38.5</a></td><td>Rar</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>Ceiba (Ceiba pentandra)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/61782438/61782442">LC</a></td><td><br></td><td><br></td><td><a href="https://airtable.com/app8nBhenY8WKKGDW/tbl38uVjTpCJD6qDr/viwTMumzsBXg540Gm/rec2IT5QAZxq75IR6/fld8j7SA4KQyTZLoz?copyLinkToCellOrRecordOrigin=gridView">7854</a></td><td>Rar</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>Milpeso palm (Oenocarpus bataua)</td><td><br></td><td><br></td><td><br></td><td><a href="https://airtable.com/app8nBhenY8WKKGDW/tbl38uVjTpCJD6qDr/viwTMumzsBXg540Gm/recNH0vU7iX1F9Juw/fld8j7SA4KQyTZLoz?copyLinkToCellOrRecordOrigin=gridView">452.4</a></td><td>Rar</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>Wild grape (Pourouma cecropiifolia)</td><td><a href="https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/145590526/145683986">LC</a></td><td><br></td><td><br></td><td><a href="https://airtable.com/app8nBhenY8WKKGDW/tbl38uVjTpCJD6qDr/viwTMumzsBXg540Gm/recyR0gdBhGlRRRtl/fld8j7SA4KQyTZLoz?copyLinkToCellOrRecordOrigin=gridView">615.8</a></td><td>Rar</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td><br></td><td><br></td><td><br></td><td><br></td><td><br></td><td><br></td><td><br></td></tr></tbody></table>

\*The unit of measurement for the area of ​​life in the case of the taxa of the kingdom Animalia is presented in Km2 and for those of the kingdom Plantae in m2

\*\* Where Indicator type is abbreviated as rare (Rar), endangered(End), umbrella (Umb), keystone(Key), emblematic(Emb), endemic (Edc)

<br>


# Appendix G: Sample open-source code and calculation

Google Earth Engine demo and access to ISBM code on Savimbo GitHub

Open-source code for biodiversity credit calculations is available to the public at the [Savimbo GitHub](https://github.com/savimbo).&#x20;

We have the intent of making this code easier to use and available to IP and LC projects with an interface which can auto-credit from, and to, a free Airtable database after we begin biodiversity certification in 2024. Free Airtable [sign up ](https://airtable.com/invite/r/fxsn6mcE)is available now.  IP projects can signup for the waitlist on this interface now and obtain Airtable database templates by emailing <ops@savimbo.com>

Demo calculations are also available on  Google Earth Engine has pledged to provide free accounts to Indigenous groups involved in climate change. Noncommercial [sign up](https://earthengine.google.com/noncommercial/) is available.&#x20;

**Figure 11. Google Earth Engine code sample**&#x20;

<figure><img src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/rVQ0Wv_v9_eXa7qOghqAvJhwResowct17qRiUSD-lO_eatzZqyiNhfpKmprKNcRWdVXXkv2FuYyAetkdA1BzOcf6d7EWeGqmRpKVVMGmk89gLOQd8i1K-Ia4A7ixXu0Xo2XSlovBPF8KPN24COHu6a4" alt=""><figcaption><p><em><strong>Figure 11</strong></em>. Google Earth Engine code sample</p></figcaption></figure>

Code sample, code under external revision.  Can be accessed through Google Earth Engine at this [link.](https://code.earthengine.google.com/e914e4bf1b4fd252f4ad90318ca2371e) Or in Savimbo GitHub at this [link.](https://github.com/savimbo) Contact ***ops at savimbo.co**m* if you would like to be a code reviewer.&#x20;

```markup
// Load plot18 polygon
var plot18_data = require("users/drea/map:plot18_data");
var plot18 = plot18_data.polygon;

// Calculate plot area in hectare
var plotArea = plot18.area();
var plotAreaHectares = plotArea.divide(10000);

// Load jaguar points
var points_jaguar_data = require("users/drea/map:points_jaguar_data");
var puntos = points_jaguar_data.points;
var radios = [];
var sumMultipliedArea = ee.Number(0);

// Define a feature collection to store intersection polygons
var intersectionPolygons = ee.FeatureCollection([]);

// Define the assignedArea function
var assignedAreaFunction = function(offset) {
  var day = startDate.advance(offset, 'day');
  var dayString = day.format('YYYY-MM-dd');
  var feature = ee.Feature(null, { date: dayString, intersectionArea: intersectionArea });
  return feature.set('date_area', ee.String(dayString).cat(' - ').cat(intersectionArea));
};

// Calculate radios and buffers for each point
for (var i = 0; i < puntos.length; i++) {
  var point = puntos[i].geometry;
  var date = puntos[i].date;

  // Calculate the start date by subtracting 30 days
  var startDate = ee.Date(date).advance(-30, 'day');
  
  // Calculate the end date by adding 30 days
  var endDate = ee.Date(date).advance(30, 'day');
  
  // Create a feature with the point geometry and date as properties
  var feature = ee.Feature(point, { date: date });
  
  var pointBuffer = feature.buffer(800);
  radios.push(pointBuffer);
  
  // Calculate intersection with plot18
  var intersection = pointBuffer.intersection(plot18);
  
  // Calculate area in hectares
  var area = intersection.area().divide(10000);
  
  // Get the month and year of the date
  var month = ee.Date(date).get('month');
  var year = ee.Date(date).get('year');
  
  // Generate a label for the month and year
  var monthYearLabel = ee.String(month).cat('-').cat(year).cat(' Hectarias N°');
  
  // Calculate intersection with plot18 for the current point
  var intersectionPlot18 = pointBuffer.intersection(plot18);
  
  // Calculate area in hectares for the intersection with plot18
  var intersectionArea = intersectionPlot18.area().divide(10000);
  var multipliedArea = intersectionArea.multiply(60);
  
  // Add multipliedArea to the sum
  sumMultipliedArea = sumMultipliedArea.add(multipliedArea);
  
  // Define the jaguar range of dates
  var jaguarRange = endDate.difference(startDate, 'day');
  
 // Assign intersectionArea value to each day of the jaguar range
  var assignedArea = ee.FeatureCollection(ee.List.sequence(0, jaguarRange.subtract(1)).map(assignedAreaFunction));
  
  // Print the results for each point
  print('Jaguar:', i + 1);
  print('Date of image capture:', date);
  print('Start Date:', startDate.format('YYYY-MM-dd'));
  print('End Date:', endDate.format('YYYY-MM-dd'));
  print('Total Intersection Area per day in hectares:', intersectionArea);
  print('Multiplied Intersection Area * 60:', multipliedArea);
  print('Assigned Area per day:', assignedArea);
  print('----------------------');
  
  // Add the current point buffer to the map in blue color
  Map.addLayer(pointBuffer, { color: 'blue' }, 'Radio ' + (i + 1));
  
  // Add the intersection geometry to intersectionPolygons
  intersectionPolygons = intersectionPolygons.merge(intersection);
}

// Perform polygon unions to avoid duplicates
var unionPolygons = intersectionPolygons.union();

// Calculate the total area of intersections without duplicates
var totalIntersectionArea = unionPolygons.geometry().area().divide(10000);

// Display the results
print('Total intersection area hectares:', totalIntersectionArea);
print('Plot18 area hectares:', plotAreaHectares);
print('Sum of Multiplied Intersection Area hectares * 60 days:', sumMultipliedArea);

// Add the plot18 layer to the map
Map.addLayer(plot18, { color: 'gold' }, "plot18");
Map.centerObject(plot18);

```


# Appendix X: Peer validator checklist

Guidelines for selection of a community peer-nominated validator

For the Trees component of the #SexyTrees protocol, the primary data is usually sufficient to establish proof of planting. Sattelite monitoring is evolving to the point that any numbe of providers cwe recommend community-level peer validators.&#x20;

Below is a checklist of characteristics of good community peer validators.&#x20;

### IEP evaluation checklist

A basic checklist for IEP validation includes:&#x20;

**Biology**

* [ ] Are the Indicator species appropriately chosen for the ecosystems involved?&#x20;
* [ ] Are the Indicator species scores extrapolated from public data accurate?&#x20;
* [ ] Is a randomly selected subset of observations accurate to 90%?
* [ ] (Optional) Have iNaturalist validators given observations a "Research grade" level of independent validation?

**Topography**

* [ ] Are maps accurate and internally consistent? Do segments, titles, or ecosystems overlap?&#x20;

**Compliance**

* [ ] Are land titles valid in the jurisdiction in question? If full land title is not involved, has the BCP adequately demonstrated Land control?&#x20;

**Site visit**

* Ground-truthing site verification of FPIC


# FAQ

Frequently asked questions and answers from the hactivists at Savimbo

<details>

<summary><strong>Who are you guys and why did you think you could do this?</strong></summary>

We're [hactivists](https://www.savimbo.com/blog/biodiversity-credits-hacktivists-and-indigenous-groups)! Well, hactivists from two different cultures. Like the [kindergarteners in *The Culture Code*](https://danielcoyle.com/excerpt-culture-code/) we didn't think — we forgot about our status in the scientific hierarchy — and we just *did*. The truth is, it took abandonment of our egos, transdisciplinary thinking, overeducated geniuses in two civilizations, twenty years of grinding grassroots activism, some very accomplished data scientists, and the use of Indigenous ecological knowledge to come up with this method. Automating it was just a side benefit for IP and LC. The carbon market hasn't been fair. The biodiversity market can learn from that.&#x20;

If we had a flag it would read: "This planet is awesome!"

</details>

<details>

<summary><strong>What is a Voluntary Biodiversity Credit?</strong></summary>

A Voluntary Biodiversity Credit (VBC) is a unit for the preservation or restoration of biodiversity on a specific area of land. The voluntary part means VBCs cannot be offset. In other words just because you paid for someone to preserve or restore biodiversity somewhere, does mean you have permission to destroy biodiversity somewhere else.&#x20;

Some people and companies will pay to preserve other species just because they care, and they can. A VBC is an easy way for someone who doesn't know you, doesn't live in your ecosystem, to feel safe that they are paying you for a concrete action that is well tracked. Sometimes these are certified, sometimes they are just used as an outcome metric to support actions.&#x20;

The nice thing about using a credit system, is that you can measure biodiversity gains in multiple ecosystems, or with multiple actions. Buyers can buy credits from a wide variety of projects. You could buy credits from increasing pollinators like bees, conservation of intact ecosystems, restoration of ecosystems, or eradication of invasive species.&#x20;

Biodiversity credits are part of the evolution towards recognizing natural resources as an important part of the world economy. Credits just mean that one kind of outcome metric is roughly equal to another.&#x20;

</details>

<details>

<summary><strong>What is the unit of your Voluntary Biodiversity Credit?</strong></summary>

We've worked really hard to use a unit, which works well in *all* ecosystems, with *all* kinds of actions. It even works for tracking ecosystem impacts for people who want to be honest about how they have hurt biodiversity.  Our unit is normalized to: *Area + Value + 𝚫Integrity + Time*

* Area in hectares
* Ecosystem value ([14 schemas](https://isbm.savimbo.com/baseline-scenario/baseline-ecosystem-categorization#table-3.-accepted-ecosystem-categorization-schemas) normalized by experts to [Platinum, Gold, Silver, and Bronze](https://isbm.savimbo.com/calculation/value-calculations#table-4.-ecosystem-rank-for-vbcs)).&#x20;
* 𝚫Integrity where a -1 means a totally destroyed ecosystem, and a +1 means a totally intact ecosystem with no other funding. Partial gains get fractional crediting.
* Time of 1 month

</details>

<details>

<summary><strong>Why would a corporation buy a biodiversity credit?</strong></summary>

Individuals, governments, non-profits, and businesses are increasingly recognizing the need to invest in planetary health. A healthy ecosystem is important to reduce the risks of doing business, including the risk of natural disasters, social unrest, and regulatory risks. While many people simply want to invest in biodiversity because it is the right thing to do, today, even those with an eye on the bottom line recognize that the stability of their business is dependent on the stability of the underlying planetary resource base. Therefore, biodiversity credits are gaining momentum as either supplements to carbon credits, or as a superior indicator of ecosystem health in some cases.&#x20;

Biodiversity credits are based on complexity science applied to complex dynamic systems. The scientific evidence points to the ability of these systems to self-regulate and self-heal when stewarded according to Indigenous wisdom. By creating verifiable measures to prove the sustained health of the ecosystem, biodiversity credits provide everyone the ability to participate in the restoration and preservation of intact ecosystems.

</details>

<details>

<summary><strong>Are indicator species enough to quantify ecosystems?</strong></summary>

* *"In a Biodiversity Crediting System indicator species do not represent a fuller list or richness within a system nor the functions performed within that system. This is a simple approach that may not represent its true credit value. Everything small and large counts!"*

Indicator species are not enough to quantify ecosystems. They are enough to conserve them. By definition, ecosystems are unquantifiable.&#x20;

Ecosystems like the Tropical Andean Amazon, where this methodology was written are complex, now chaotic ecosystems. We make no attempt to fully quantify them, even the best, most complete, scientific methods we have right now would still be incomplete.&#x20;

This methodology is written to conserve them.&#x20;

We fully support more complete scientific study in our area. Researchers are invited (even shamelessly begged) to come study it! But with almost no scientific work in this area, a 16% deforestation rate, and no other sources of funding, if we waited for full system quantification, there would be no ecosystem left to measure!&#x20;

This methodology is for IP and LCs guarding ecosystems like ours. People who might know everything about it, but in an Indigenous language, or with kinesthenic knowledge. Indicator species are an easy way to communicate across the quantification gap. A proxy metric so everyone can agree the system is worth preserving for study, and that it HAS been preserved.&#x20;

</details>

<details>

<summary><strong>Why are you just measuring jaguars?</strong></summary>

* *"As I understand it’s a Jaguar Protection Plan with the hope of maintaining some Biodiversity."*

Hahaha. There are a lot of jaguars in our material!  Actually, on our site we measure [54 indicator species](https://airtable.com/app8nBhenY8WKKGDW/tbl38uVjTpCJD6qDr/viw9PZpxbus2SVVMo?blocks=hide). A list reviewed by three independent regional biologists with surprisingly few changes. The truth is, we often talk about the jaguar because its an indicator species found throughout the Amazon and its a good example of how the methodology works. Its Rare, Endangered, Umbrella, Keystone, Sentinal, and Emblematic to both Indigenous groups, scientists, and the general public.&#x20;

But we believe all species are important and we also track and credit from rare mammals like the Bush Dog, birds like the Harpy Eagle, trees like the Espingo, and snakes like the Boa constrictor. The truth is a good project should be demonstrating multiple species, and multiple kingdoms of species.&#x20;

But this isn't that hard with IP and LCs because people who really live in harmony with abundant ecosystems naturally tend to be proud of, and want to share, a variety of the wildlife that surrounds them.

We're a playful and curious species at heart. This work tends to bring that out in people. &#x20;

</details>

<details>

<summary><strong>How are you dealing with ecosystem characterization using different ecosystem proxies and taxonomies?</strong></summary>

We're trying to completely eliminate the need for complex ecosystem quantification. It's a barrier to entry for Indigenous groups. Instead, we rely on open data from a number of qualified bodies such as UICN, WWF, and Biodiversity hotspots and universities in our area.&#x20;

The methodology is purposefully designed so that no matter what the ecosystem, the local and Indigenous people can identify indicator species and utilize the methodology. We have been exploring a variety of ecosystems, including marine systems, and are finding that the methodology is robust and can be applied even to very diverse types of ecosystems.

</details>

<details>

<summary><strong>What is the motivation behind this methodology?</strong></summary>

The ISBM was developed with one purpose in mind: rewarding the true guardians of the biodiverse regions with direct payments so they could scale local services.&#x20;

</details>

<details>

<summary><strong>What are the key features of the methodology for IP and LC projects?</strong></summary>

The Savimbo Biodiversity Methodology emphasizes the involvement of IP and LC in project implementation and decision-making. It recognizes the importance of trusted human coders for data collection, addresses potential leakage, controls non-permanence, and accounts for risks, uncertainties, and SDG contributions.

Perhaps the best thing for IP and LCs is that the methods here are easy for them to use, but find welcoming support in the scientific, and corporate communities. People naturally understand indicator species and find it easier to communicate about them as a proxy metric than something intangible like carbon.

</details>

<details>

<summary><strong>How can IP and LC projects benefit from using this methodology?</strong></summary>

By adopting the Savimbo Biodiversity Methodology, IP and LC projects can effectively quantify and credit their biodiversity conservation efforts. This can enhance their recognition, credibility, and access to potential financial incentives, supporting the sustainable management of their lands and resources while contributing to global biodiversity conservation goals.

We think they really benefit from direct payments. By choosing a methodology that is fair, transparent, and inexpensive to use they can reduce intermediaries and language barriers and communicate through data that everyone understands.&#x20;

</details>

<details>

<summary><strong>What about studies that have shown that giving IP and LC direct payments can corrupt their cultures or create unintended consequences?</strong></summary>

Fundamentally, there is no outside authority that should tell IP and LC what is good for them. Savimbo's founders include Indigenous peoples and we consult with our IP and LC global panel on a weekly basis.&#x20;

This methodology was meant to be fair trade, for fair work. The work was done, it should be paid for. It is not our role to determine whether IP and LCs are capable of managing money. We do seek to eliminate interference in IP andLC's affairs and thus restore full autonomy through to determine what they want to do with the money they deserve for their work in preserving the Earth's ecosystems for millennia.&#x20;

We do make transparent tools available to communities for accounting. We think communities with a proven track record of conservation should have full autonomy in funds management. But we also think these communities would benefit from being able to track and demonstrate what they did with the funding so they can get more from other sources, for other types of climate or conservation actions.&#x20;

Biodiversity might be the easiest to start measuring, but it is certainly not the only ecological activity IP and LCs are capable of managing themselves.&#x20;

</details>

<details>

<summary><strong>What about studies that have shown that giving IP and LC direct payments can corrupt their cultures or create unintended consequences?</strong></summary>

Fundamentally, there is no outside authority that should tell IP and LC what is good for them. Savimbo's founders include Indigenous peoples and we consult with our IP and LC global panel on a weekly basis.&#x20;

This methodology was meant to be fair trade, for fair work. The work was done, it should be paid for. It is not our role to determine whether IP and LCs are capable of managing money. We do seek to eliminate interference in IP andLC's affairs and thus restore full autonomy through to determine what they want to do with the money they deserve for their work in preserving the Earth's ecosystems for millennia.&#x20;

We do make transparent tools available to communities for accounting. We think communities with a proven track record of conservation should have full autonomy in funds management. But we also think these communities would benefit from being able to track and demonstrate what they did with the funding so they can get more from other sources, for other types of climate or conservation actions.&#x20;

Biodiversity might be the easiest to start measuring, but it is certainly not the only ecological activity IP and LCs are capable of managing themselves.&#x20;

</details>

<details>

<summary><strong>Why don't you use measures of forest health typical to carbon credit systems?</strong></summary>

Measurements of forest health today typically measure the size of the forest by looking for signs of deforestation, such as a reduction in the density of the trees, or deterioration of the health of the trees and large fauna around the edges of the forest. These measures are not relevant to biodiversity for several reasons:

1. The ISBM measures biodiversity by measuring the actual species on the land. This is a direct, rather than an indirect, measure of the flora and fauna of the location.
2. By the time there is forest thinning or damage to the edges on satellite, the biodiversity deterioration has often been going on for years, below the canopy and it may be too late to save certain species.
3. The methodologies for these measures, such as satellite imagery, cannot be used by the Indigenous people who are the guardians of more than 80% of the intact biosystems on Earth. To reward the people guarding the land, we need to find measures that can directly credit the people doing the work. Overly technical means of measurement tend to end up benefiting the technology providers, not the actual land guardians.&#x20;
4. ISBM reflects the latest understandings of complexity theory and the actual behavior of complex adaptive systems. By using multiple indicator species, the methodology also takes into account the differences in the ecosystem due to changing weather patterns, seasonal and other types of cycles (for example, animals that come out with irregular patterns, like 17-year locusts). Any of these changes might cause a change in the species being observed within a healthy ecosystem.
5. ISBM can be applied to many types of bioregions. While it was developed in the Amazon jungle, we are researching the application of the methodology as it pertains to marine life. It can also be used in national parks and forests where animals are tagged, in arid zones, arctic areas, and other ecosystems. There is no need to develop new types of measures: anywhere that biodiversity exists is a place where indicator species exist.
6. The methodology creates a common language between IP and LC and the scientific community. By correlating species recognized by the Indigenous people with species recognized by science, we are increasing our common understanding, bridging communities, and expanding the body of scientific knowledge.
7. The ISBM creates peer pressure among the Indigenous peoples and among their tribes for the preservation of indicator species. By rewarding social behaviors and activities for conservation, we create positive peer role models within communities, and between communities. This type of positive social pressure is exactly what is needed to generate long-term outcomes for increasing biodiversity.
8. A large animal (eagle, jaguar) may have a range that also covers adjacent farms, and the ISBM pays the smallfarmers and property owners who are maintaining practices that allow the free roaming of these animals. This means that farmers can potentially make money from observations of indicator species on their neighbors land. Farmers who might see some of the predators as pests now can see them as a source of income. They will also experience peer pressure from their neighbors to tolerate the animals on their land because the neighbors will also get rewarded. This virtuous cycle can expand the potential of these biosystems to survive when animals can co-exist with people. Furthermore, it allows animals to carry other species with them in the form of seeds, insects, and other types of pollinators who can now migrate from a healthy ecosystem to one that is restoring itself.

</details>

<details>

<summary><strong>Why is the home range normalized to a circle?</strong></summary>

* *"Is the circle overlaid on a land cover or other layer so it includes only suitable species niches/distributions? Otherwise, the circle could be a significant overestimate of the home range for that individual."*

While it is possible to map the home range of any particular individual based on tagging or other sophisticated methods, it can be both invasive, and overly technical. Therefore, for simplicity, fungibility, and market standardization, the ISBM standardizes observations to circular area of publicly acknowledged home range.&#x20;

We recognize that species do not range within a circular area, nor can we know whether they were spotted at the middle or edge of their home range.&#x20;

Other methodologies will likely incorporate more sophisticated sampling. This methodology was written for IP and LC, and recognized experts in the field have [expressly indicated this compromise is acceptable](https://isbm.savimbo.com/appendices/appendix-i-letters-of-support), although this simplification may affect market pricing for these credits.&#x20;

</details>

<details>

<summary><strong>Why don’t you identify individual [jaguars, sharks, etc] it’s so easy!</strong></summary>

Because while it might be easy for a jaguar, or a mountain gorilla, its NOT easy for a harpy eagle, a sea turtle, etc. And we’re writing a methodology that works globally, for IP and LC.&#x20;

We accept that this means we will lose the ability to prove population growth, and density at a sophisticated level, and believe this compromise may also affect market pricing. Because of this compromise, the methodology accounts for multiple observations of animals by creating a union of the territories in which the indicator species are sighted. We cannot know, because we didn’t ask, if two observations are the same jaguar, or two jaguars. When two observations overlap, the area in which they overlap is paid once, not twice.

</details>

<details>

<summary><strong>Is the Savimbo methodology open source or privately licensed?</strong></summary>

The Savimbo ISBM methodology is the intellectual property of Savimbo Inc., which has made it open-source and free for the public to use [along with its code](https://github.com/savimbo/biocredits-calc). We ask that you cite us, credit us, and the [methodologies authors](https://isbm.savimbo.com/front-material/authors) fully in any scientific use.&#x20;

We are working with a number of certifiers, projects, scientists, and global regulators to spread the methodology as widely as possible. Our intent was never to restrict use to Savimbo smallfarmers and Indigenous groups, but instead to shift climate markets in favor of [Savimbo's growers](https://www.savimbo.com/growers), with the understanding that many projects might use the methodology who were unaffiliated.&#x20;

Savimbo is [a B-corp](https://www.savimbo.com/about/#structure).&#x20;

* The for-profit arm [Savimbo Inc.](https://www.savimbo.com/about) does receive some royalties for the use of the methodology depending on the certifier. We accept capital there to expand the methodology or its technical services.&#x20;
* The non-profit arm [Empulsive Ink](<https://www.empulsive.ink >), accepts [donations](https://donate.stripe.com/00g4iQeSXfwN3wk14c?locale=en&__embed_source=buy_btn_1O8RKNBzObJNiHwFR18OZwZD) for the time and expenses of our independent panel of Indigenous leaders who also comment on biodiversity crediting, and biodiversity markets internationally. These arms are separate and operate independently. Not all of our independent leaders are proponents of biodiversity crediting, or affiliated with Savimbo projects. (Legal name Empulsive Inc. in 88-1869344)

</details>

<details>

<summary><strong>Why don’t you have a buffer pool in this methodology?</strong></summary>

* &#x20;*“Do you need to deal with a buffer pool? You only address permanence by mentioning the inherent impermanence of biodiversity. With a reduced emphasis on permanence, when would a buffer pool be needed?”*

The ISBM does not require a buffer pool. Our methodology has tangible credits, based on achieved outcomes.&#x20;

However, some of the crediting bodies that use our methodology do assign a buffer pool based on the length of a project or other factors.&#x20;

</details>

<details>

<summary><strong>How should projects select indicator species in this methodology?</strong></summary>

Indicator species are selected based on their ability to represent the ecosystem and the availability of public data supporting their ratings. Species have to be acceptable both to the scientific community and the IP and LC (who use different taxonomies). The selection process takes into account factors such as species' ecological roles, sensitivity to habitat changes, and public data availability.

</details>

<details>

<summary><strong>How many indicator species should a project select?</strong></summary>

A project needs to have characterized all the available indicator species in their ecosystem, and show data from three indicator species in two taxonomic kingdomes to be valid.&#x20;

However, Savimbo recommends data from 15-30 species of different types for the project. On the ground, the IP and LC will use those species that are most meaningful to them, but it may be that because of changes in seasons or weather, certain species will be more abundant during different periods of time. Furthermore, adding additional species prevents over-compensation for one species, and it brings awareness to the richness of the ecosystems.

</details>

<details>

<summary><strong>Trees don't move. Why would they qualify as an indicator species?</strong></summary>

Trees chosen as indicator species should be those that are particularly rare or sensitive to a myriad of factors. For example, certain plants require pollinators who would not be present if there is significant damage to the air quality. Furthermore, during the initial monitoring period, our Indigenous teams were able to identify species of plants and trees that had never before been identified in the global community.&#x20;

The methodology gives IP and LC the incentive to provide information on rare and sensitive flora that may have gone undiscovered otherwise. Often these species are not high in carbon load, and in some instances, they have been cleared for invasive species that were higher in carbon load.&#x20;

By issuing biodiversity credits for rare native species, we help projects that were better ecologically for the zone, make as much or more revenue than projects that only focused on trees for their carbon value.&#x20;

</details>

<details>

<summary><strong>How is non-permanence controlled in the methodology?</strong></summary>

Non-permanence is an inherent characteristic of biodiversity. We do not believe that promises about future outcomes lead to good changes in behavior. We believe that we need to reward what is, regularly and in good faith to show that species are worth preserving.&#x20;

We often compare this to riding in a taxi. The taxi driver might only get paid for one ride at a time, but he takes care of his car because that is how he makes his living. We are paying for a biodiversity load one year at a time, but we work with IP and LC who take care of their species because that is how they have already learned to live.&#x20;

</details>

<details>

<summary><strong>Is hunting forbidden in the methodology?</strong></summary>

We do not tell IP and LCs how to manage their land. Instead, we ask them to show clearly that any hunting occurring on the land has not impacted animals at a population level to qualify for crediting. Most Indigenous groups and local communities we work with have lived for thousands of years as hunter-gatherers without hurting their ecosystems.&#x20;

We defer to them for population management, and reward evidence of adequately managed populations.&#x20;

</details>

<details>

<summary><strong>Does the biodiversity methodology align with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)?</strong></summary>

Yes, the Savimbo Biodiversity Methodology aligns with the SDGs. Projects following this methodology are required to report their contributions to the SDGs using their certifiers tooling. We also encourage the use of the [Ecological Benefits Framework](https://www.canyouchangethefuture.org) which we have found helpful for ecologically complex projects.&#x20;

</details>

<details>

<summary><strong>What might future iterations of the methodology include?</strong></summary>

We do see the potential for negative integrity scores for invasive species in future. But not in this version of the methodology.

</details>


# Document history

Document, version, and methodology history

This methodology has undergone independent public and private feedback since its inception and continues to receive periodic updates. Several certification bodies have considered adopting it, and they will adapt it for use within their crediting frameworks, leading to "forks". The Savimbo version will remain publicly available, with expanded sections for projects not seeking accreditation or using the methodology for outcomes tracking or MRV alone.&#x20;

### File versioning (Savimbo version)

<table><thead><tr><th width="92">Version</th><th width="209">Date</th><th width="169">Name</th><th>Description</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.0</td><td>June 2025 - Jan 2026</td><td>Savimbo</td><td>Savimbo internal draft</td></tr><tr><td>1.1</td><td>Jan - May 2026</td><td>Savimbo and collaborating authors</td><td>Savimbo book chapter</td></tr><tr><td>1.2</td><td>May 5, 2026</td><td>Savimbo and collaborating authors</td><td>Whitepaper public draft</td></tr></tbody></table>

### Methodology versions

<table><thead><tr><th width="149">Version</th><th width="209">Last updated</th><th width="169">Name</th><th>Description</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Savimbo</td><td>May 5, 2025</td><td>1.1-S</td><td>Public version maintained with additional parameters for projects who will not seek certification but instead deliver MRV data directly to buyers or sponsors</td></tr></tbody></table>

### Public reviewers

This document has incorporated feedback through a number of public and private reviewers. Public reviewers whose comments informed revisions are listed in order of contribution, however they remain independent and are not responsible for the final content.&#x20;

<table data-header-hidden><thead><tr><th width="375"></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/alvaro-vallejo-b0058b294">Alvaro Vallejo</a></td><td>Scientific reviewer, Independent</td></tr></tbody></table>


# Disclaimer

We are dedicated scientists, but we are not an independent certifying body!

This document is provided "as is" for informational purposes only, and the authors and contributors make no representations or warranties, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, adequacy, validity, reliability, availability, or completeness of any information contained herein. The information provided does not constitute legal, financial, or other professional advice, and should not be used as a substitute for professional advice. This document does not establish any legal rights or responsibilities, and it does not modify or supersede any statutory obligations under applicable laws and regulations. The implementation of this methodology may involve risks, uncertainties, and assumptions, and the authors and contributors shall not be held responsible for any losses or damages, direct or indirect, that arise from its use. Before implementing this methodology, we recommend seeking appropriate legal, financial, and technical advice. We also recommend verifying the latest versions of all applicable laws, regulations, and best practices. Any action you take upon the information in this document is strictly at your own risk, and we will not be liable for any losses or damages in connection with the use of this document.


# Practice Guide

<h2 align="center">HOW to plant #SexyTrees right now!</h2>

Browse the topics below or ask Chiron in any language for anything you need help with.

<p align="center"><button type="button" class="button primary" data-action="ask" data-icon="gitbook-assistant">How can we help?</button><a href="https://ask.savimbo.com/" class="button secondary" data-icon="paper-plane">Ask Chiron</a></p>

&#x20;This guide is written as interactively and simply as possible. It is a [bricolage protocol](/foundations/bricolage), which means it is updated regularly as our understanding evolves and the practice community expands.&#x20;

Throughout the manual, you'll find 🤓 emojis as nerd alerts on more advanced science. You will also find undecided emojis 🧐 to describe our active experiments where we're still making up our minds.&#x20;

{% hint style="info" %}
This symbol will give you simple rules you can follow, which build on the core science, so you can just skip to what to do next.&#x20;
{% endhint %}

<table data-view="cards"><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th data-hidden data-card-target data-type="content-ref"></th><th data-hidden data-card-cover data-type="image">Cover image</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><h3><i class="fa-wheat" style="color:green;">:wheat:</i>  </h3></td><td><h4><strong>Inga alley cropping</strong></h4></td><td>Basic agroforestry implementation</td><td><a href="/practice-guide/inga-agroforestry/inga-guamo-overview">INGA AGROFORESTRY</a></td><td data-object-fit="cover" data-alt="Inga edulis seedling regenerating between cut logs in tropical rainforest agroforestry — a nitrogen-fixing legume used in alley cropping to restore degraded land, suppress weeds, and build soil phosphorus on Amazon ultisols. Core species in pilot testing sites for Savimbo&#x27;s SexyTrees economic grassroots reforestation methodology in Putumayo, Colombia."><a href="https://4194359947-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FUBWP4JDLn07D1d4y0DKE%2Fuploads%2FYckz4NoyR7YbX3gEgycJ%2Finga-edulis-seedling-tropical-reforestation-savimbo-sexytrees.jpg?alt=media&amp;token=f0314172-36ad-4fa3-9635-77bbf95a902a">inga-edulis-seedling-tropical-reforestation-savimbo-sexytrees.jpg</a></td></tr><tr><td><h4> <i class="fa-bag-seedling" style="color:pink;">:bag-seedling:</i> </h4></td><td><h4><strong>Bokachi</strong></h4></td><td>Healthier seedlings with jungle tea </td><td><a href="/practice-guide/bokashi/what-is-bokashi">BOKASHI</a></td><td><a href="https://4194359947-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FUBWP4JDLn07D1d4y0DKE%2Fuploads%2FibyilrZYcrMMlpQ6CVbk%2Fbokashi-preparation-50-gallon-drum-putumayo.jpg?alt=media&amp;token=ca869290-cb9c-4693-96dd-44fa6267b6a9">bokashi-preparation-50-gallon-drum-putumayo.jpg</a></td></tr><tr><td><h4> <i class="fa-map-location-dot" style="color:orange;">:map-location-dot:</i></h4></td><td><h4><strong>Land &#x26; maps</strong></h4></td><td>Land rights, topography, and more</td><td><a href="/practice-guide/land-rights/land-control">LAND &amp; MAPS</a></td><td><a href="https://4194359947-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FUBWP4JDLn07D1d4y0DKE%2Fuploads%2Fm30psWjKC1xWVnijQhrx%2Fintact-amazon-rainforest-indigenous-land-rights%20Large.jpeg?alt=media&amp;token=26bf416c-b7e6-40b1-865d-7941cc8e4c59">intact-amazon-rainforest-indigenous-land-rights Large.jpeg</a></td></tr><tr><td><h3> <i class="fa-presentation-screen" style="color:blue;">:presentation-screen:</i> </h3></td><td><h4><strong>Biochar production</strong></h4></td><td>On-site low-tech biochar production</td><td><a href="/practice-guide/biochar/kon-tiki-kiln">BIOCHAR</a></td><td><a href="https://4194359947-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FUBWP4JDLn07D1d4y0DKE%2Fuploads%2FhW1Y594ANb24p2P4jOGe%2Fbiochar-production-kon-tiki-kiln-putumayo.jpg?alt=media&amp;token=1c17390f-a803-400a-9499-512252aabde0">biochar-production-kon-tiki-kiln-putumayo.jpg</a></td></tr><tr><td><h4><i class="fa-hand-holding-seedling" style="color:$success;">:hand-holding-seedling:</i></h4></td><td><h4><strong>Nurseries</strong></h4></td><td>Portible nurseries that can be built on site</td><td><a href="/practice-guide/nurseries/mobile-seedling-nurseries">Mobile seedling nurseries</a></td><td><a href="https://4194359947-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FUBWP4JDLn07D1d4y0DKE%2Fuploads%2FdZToHD9UF4zZXQC7usbO%2Fseedling-nursery-germination-bed-brick-build-putumayo.jpg?alt=media&amp;token=69fbafb4-9598-4ddb-9ed3-8c6c325d1062">seedling-nursery-germination-bed-brick-build-putumayo.jpg</a></td></tr><tr><td><h3><i class="fa-kiwi-fruit" style="color:orange;">:kiwi-fruit:</i></h3></td><td><h4><strong>Cash crops</strong></h4></td><td>Production crops our farmers prefer</td><td><a href="/practice-guide/cash-crops/cacao">CASH CROPS</a></td><td><a href="https://4194359947-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FUBWP4JDLn07D1d4y0DKE%2Fuploads%2Frf1yL3fdfVI4e3elgg5A%2Fsavimbo-cacao-producer-agroforestry-plot-villagarzon-putumayo.jpeg?alt=media&amp;token=9072c36f-543e-4f5f-93ee-81a1470d4e6f">savimbo-cacao-producer-agroforestry-plot-villagarzon-putumayo.jpeg</a></td></tr></tbody></table>

{% columns %}
{% column width="33.33333333333333%" %}

### &#x20;Featured

{% content-ref url="/pages/S29VVzz7c6UvDHC9aEPX" %}
[What is Inga alley cropping?](/practice-guide/inga-agroforestry/inga-guamo-overview)
{% endcontent-ref %}

{% content-ref url="/pages/GDG7kRAYJwSDvD6FQ9yj" %}
[What makes a good peer validator? ](/practice-guide/validation/peer-validator-criteria)
{% endcontent-ref %}
{% endcolumn %}

{% column width="33.33333333333333%" %}

### Popular articles

{% content-ref url="/pages/BUMEexrpwcv2bk2pK5BT" %}
[What is bokashi?](/practice-guide/bokashi/what-is-bokashi)
{% endcontent-ref %}

{% content-ref url="/pages/BZGFhWJQtWB70oHTaXJQ" %}
[FPIC tips and tricks](/practice-guide/fpic/fpic-tips-and-tricks)
{% endcontent-ref %}
{% endcolumn %}

{% column %}

### Recently updated

{% content-ref url="/pages/dJUZdiTWs4Oz1ptCaNgZ" %}
[Inga seeds and planting](/practice-guide/inga-agroforestry/inga-seeds-and-planting)
{% endcontent-ref %}

{% content-ref url="/pages/ZsjVccqS7If9SPt6cSI5" %}
[Inga and plot dimensions](/practice-guide/inga-agroforestry/plot-dimensions)
{% endcontent-ref %}
{% endcolumn %}
{% endcolumns %}

&#x20;

### Humility

We are not agronomists or academic agroforestry experts. We are grassroots practitioners, friends of smallfarmers, curious Farmers' Almanac types, and people who love forests, who listen to a lot of good advice, put it into practice, and try to keep an open mind on what's working in the field, as well as what experts say (not always the same thing).&#x20;

### <i class="fa-presentation-screen">:presentation-screen:</i>asdf

Our main focus and area of expertise is improving the economics of grassroots scale. Obviously, we want to scale good systems (which is why we have collected this information like magpies). Ethically, if we have good systems, we feel a responsibility to share what we've learned publicly, and for free. However, we have to admit our inadequacies.

It's always possible that we made mistakes, mistranslated, or misunderstood. So we've done our best to give primary sources where possible, and give some example case studies of where we implemented and what we learned in the [Community](/practice-guide/community/field-schools), [Field schools](/practice-guide/community/field-schools), and [References](/references) sections


# Getting started checklist

Everything you need to do to go from sign-up to a published site.

New here? Follow these steps to get up and running as quickly as possible.

{% stepper %}
{% step %}

#### Check land permissions

Trees have to have a place to live, and someone who lets them live there. We're fully aware of the complexity of land rights in most of the tropical forests we live and work in. As a result we've made a simpler, practical list of what land rights someone needs to get paid to plant trees. See&#x20;
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

#### Invite your team

Head to **Settings → Members** and invite colleagues by email. Assign roles based on what they need to do: editors can create and edit content, reviewers can comment, and admins can manage settings.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

#### Create your first project

Click **New project** from your workspace dashboard. Choose a template or start from scratch.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

#### Add your content

Start writing pages, or import existing content from Markdown files, a URL, or a supported third-party platform.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

#### Customise your site

Add your logo, set your brand colours, and configure your navigation under **Settings → Appearance**.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

#### Publish

When you're ready, hit **Publish**. Your site will be live at your platform subdomain — or set up a custom domain to use your own.
{% endstep %}
{% endstepper %}

{% hint style="success" %}
Done all of the above? You're all set. Check out the rest of the help centre if you run into anything, or use the **Ask** button to chat with the assistant.
{% endhint %}


# What is Inga alley cropping?

Why we're big fans of Inga alley cropping as an agroforestry system

Below is why Savimbo recommends and uses Inga alley cropping. There are more sophisticated systems; however, we recommend this system because it's highly likely to be successful, whereas other systems might not have the same success rate.

They might be better, they might be worse.

It's a pragmatic bird-in-the-hand approach for starting with agroforestry systems. And we do recommend a mindset of experimentation and constant A/B testing of plots on all sites and even on individual farms.

So the standard published Inga plot formulations described here is a good gold standard to start with, and begin testing against. Use [Inga and plot dimensions](/practice-guide/inga-agroforestry/plot-dimensions) for spacing and layout details of both alley-cropping and matrix nurse-species plots.

{% embed url="<https://youtu.be/yzHqKGJN2m4?si=zyNWDgX3WEWUSgp>\_" %}

### Basic characteristics

You'll probably find that if you live in Latin America or the Caribbean, *Inga* also often called *Guamo*, is already used in your zone. It's pretty common to find it among traditional agroforestry cultivation methods when we interviewed Indigenous leaders in Ecuador, Panama, Colombia, and Brazil.

What is different about the alley cropping system we describe here is rigorous academic field testing from multiple sources, and the result on our current practice choices on [planting density and plot dimensions](/practice-guide/inga-agroforestry/plot-dimensions), which Inga species to use (*Inga edulis* is the most common), [preparation of seedlings](/practice-guide/inga-agroforestry/inga-seeds-and-planting), mulching and [pruning calendars](/practice-guide/inga-agroforestry/inga-and-pruning-schedules), information about [adjuvant fertilizers](/practice-guide/inga-agroforestry/fertilizer-and-mulch) (specifically for recouperating depleted soils), and other factors that make it more successful and predictable in scaling food production, soil remediation, and family food security.

### Related topics

* **Plan the system:** [Inga and plot dimensions](/practice-guide/inga-agroforestry/plot-dimensions) and [Inga and pruning schedules](/practice-guide/inga-agroforestry/inga-and-pruning-schedules)
* **Start planting:** [Inga seeds and planting](/practice-guide/inga-agroforestry/inga-seeds-and-planting) and [Inga and fertilizer](/practice-guide/inga-agroforestry/fertilizer-and-mulch)
* **Manage the plot:** [Inga and weeding](/practice-guide/inga-agroforestry/inga-and-weeding) and [Inga FAQ](/practice-guide/inga-agroforestry/inga-faq)


# Inga seeds and planting

What Inga or Guamo seeds look like and how to prepare them for alley cropping

This is important to understand about Inga alley cropping practices. Inga seeds cannot be stored. They are *recalcitrant* — that means they won't survive drying, freezing, or storage, so they have to go from pod to soil within days ([Cruz, E.D. 2021](https://www.infoteca.cnptia.embrapa.br/infoteca/handle/doc/1135460)).&#x20;

This is why Inga reforestation is farmer-network work, not seed-bank work: the supply chain has to be alive.

After the fruits are harvested the seeds must be processed (pulp removal and washed) then sown right away to avoid pest damage.&#x20;

<div><figure><img src="https://4194359947-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FUBWP4JDLn07D1d4y0DKE%2Fuploads%2FXCG2vhN2Xm3frWvWRYr4%2FSV_%20Inga%20seeds.png?alt=media&amp;token=ddbabc4a-5da4-420d-81f0-69796972fa5d" alt="Fresh Inga edulis seeds (guamo, ice cream bean) — the recalcitrant tropical legume at the core of Inga alley cropping. Seeds cannot be dried or stored; they must be planted within days of harvest. Used in SexyTrees reforestation and agroforestry methodology for nitrogen fixation, phosphorus cycling, and acid-soil tolerance."><figcaption><p><em>Inga edulis</em> also known as <em>Guamo</em> seeds used for <em>Inga</em> alley cropping. Note: We can't remember if this is our image! But its such a good example we're using until told otherwise! </p></figcaption></figure> <figure><img src="https://4194359947-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FUBWP4JDLn07D1d4y0DKE%2Fuploads%2FHWdX9YZ0gawneDCPZQ4L%2Finga-edulis-viviparous-seeds-germinating-amazon-reforestation.jpeg?alt=media&amp;token=a1d1f02a-1e75-49a0-ac94-78af8289649c" alt="Hand holding several dark Inga edulis seeds with long pale radicles already emerging — viviparous germination characteristic of this nitrogen-fixing Amazonian legume — held above a cleared planting site in Putumayo, Colombia. Foundational species for alley cropping in Savimbo&#x27;s SexyTrees pilot reforestation sites."><figcaption><p>Distinctive purple-black kidney-shaped seeds with the long tap root already emerging are classic <em>Inga edulis</em> vivipary (the seeds germinate inside the pod before falling)</p></figcaption></figure></div>

#### When to plant

Planting should be done at the start of the rainy season or at most by the middle of it. ([Eniel David Cruz](https://www.infoteca.cnptia.embrapa.br/infoteca/handle/doc/1135460) Pers. Comm May 8, 2026)&#x20;

### Seedlings vs direct sowing

We've heard differing opinions about cultivating seedlings vs direct sowing.&#x20;

* [**Embrapa**](/practice-guide/community/field-schools#embrapa-amazonia-oriental) recommends seedlings for planting for better quality plants — more uniform — compared to direct seeding. ([Eniel David Cruz](https://www.infoteca.cnptia.embrapa.br/infoteca/handle/doc/1135460) Pers. Comm May 8, 2026)&#x20;
* [**Jose Abel**](/practice-guide/community/field-schools#jose-abel-in-lago-agrio-ecuador) recommends direct planting for efficiency, scale, and farmer adoption. (Jose Abel Pers. Comm Feb, 2026)&#x20;

We've tried both and are still weighing our preferred options 🧐 in ongoing A/B testing plots. There is no doubt that direct planting was easier to undertake, but we have to decide which works best on our sites, and have discussed it with the farmers so they are informed of the risks and benefits.&#x20;

#### Instructions for seedlings&#x20;

Seedlings are ready to be planted at 60 cm height.  Any taller and the root system can become root-bound. ([Eniel David Cruz](https://www.infoteca.cnptia.embrapa.br/infoteca/handle/doc/1135460) Pers. Comm May 8, 2026)&#x20;

#### Instructions for direct sowing&#x20;

Direct seed planting shouldn't be buried more than 5 cm deep ([Eniel David Cruz](https://www.infoteca.cnptia.embrapa.br/infoteca/handle/doc/1135460) Pers. Comm May 8, 2026).


# Inga and pruning schedules

What inga seeds look like and how to prepare them for alley cropping

In *Inga* alley cropping, there are a few different terms that mean different technical things for removing biomaterials. For instance, when Savimbo plants an [alley conformation](/practice-guide/inga-agroforestry/plot-dimensions#alley-or-hedgerow-architecture) with the [direct sowing method](/practice-guide/inga-agroforestry/inga-seeds-and-planting#seedlings-vs-direct-sowing), we sometimes plant seeds at a higher density, then *thin* the rows of planted Inga to achieve a density of 0.5m

*When to prune*

*Problem 1 (mine).* I translated "altura de la cintura" as "waist height (approximately 1.5 m)." That equation is wrong. Waist height on an average Andean/Amazonian adult is \~95–105 cm. Hands' canonical pruning height is **1.5 m** — which is chest-to-shoulder height, not waist. Hands gives a range of 1.0–1.75 m, but he calls 1.0 m "the suggested minimum with *Inga*." If Jeidy is genuinely cutting at waist, the Putumayo pilots are pruning at the *bottom* of Hands' tolerable range, which has consequences (slower foliage recovery, fewer nodes available for regrowth). If Jeidy meant chest height, her word choice is loose and we should fix it in source. Worth asking her.

*How to prune*

*Problem 2 (Jeidy's).* She says first pruning at one year of age. Hands 2021 says **two years**: "families were told that they could not expect any material benefit from the system for at least 2 years; i.e. until the *Inga* had closed its canopy and had achieved site-capture." Figure 7 caption: "*Alley of Inga edulis at 2 years' growth and ready for the first pruning.*" The 1998 experimental sites pruned earlier (9 months La Conquista, 16 months San Juan), but those were paraquat-controlled experimental conditions. **The farmer-validated Guama Model is 2 years.** If Putumayo is genuinely getting canopy closure and site capture at 1 year, that's a real Amazon-vs-Honduras difference (better soils, faster growth) and Hands would want to know about it — not a casual edit.


# How do I lay out an Inga agroforestry plot?&#x20;

Dimensions, recommended densitites, plot architecture and other deep-nerd practice guidelines.

*<mark style="color:$danger;">Note: this article is still under construction, and information is being corroborated. Especially the matrix diagrams. This is a</mark>* [*<mark style="color:$danger;">bricolage</mark>*](broken://pages/sU80QbSDJl3ALyzYPg18) *<mark style="color:$danger;">protocol; which means we are building it in public! Some pages are under construction — but check back soon its updating fast!</mark>*&#x20;

There is more than one way to lay out an Inga or Guamo plot. The right plot architecture should be chosen for the crop.&#x20;

* [Alley cropping](/practice-guide/inga-agroforestry/plot-dimensions#alley-or-hedgerow-architecture) supports annual grain crops between hedgerows of Inga that are [pruned sporadically](/practice-guide/inga-agroforestry/inga-and-pruning-schedules), leading to [long-term mulch](/practice-guide/inga-agroforestry/fertilizer-and-mulch#mulch-and-inga-alley-cropping) and weed suppression.
* [Matrix planting](#matrix-or-nurse-species-architecture) is for perennial crops grown alongside Inga that's lopped sporadically for shade management. The 4 m spacing is the same, but they are fundamentally different systems.&#x20;

<div><figure><img src="https://4194359947-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FUBWP4JDLn07D1d4y0DKE%2Fuploads%2FvxWPM2FZNcRrjF0FVU91%2Falley-cropping-planting-layout-measurement-savimbo-sexytrees-putumayo.jpeg?alt=media&amp;token=821b4296-5fcc-42d4-a2f7-c9af3e937394" alt="Two Savimbo team members laying out alley-cropping spacing with a stake and string line in a Putumayo agroforestry plot, with a single emergent tree on the horizon and freshly cut brush in the foreground. Field measurement step from Savimbo&#x27;s SexyTrees reforestation protocol — payment-on-survival methodology for grassroots tropical reforestation in the Colombian Amazon."><figcaption><p>Jhony and Paulita on the Selva team planting <em>Inga</em> in hedgerow conformation.</p></figcaption></figure> <figure><img src="https://4194359947-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FUBWP4JDLn07D1d4y0DKE%2Fuploads%2FKBZm5sCSB84bIAzeKvnQ%2Ffarmers-planting-tropical-tree-seedlings-putumayo-savimbo-sexytrees.jpeg?alt=media&amp;token=8edd38f5-fac9-4a5b-b757-ccdbc1652c9e" alt="Two Savimbo team members laying out planting grid spacing with a stake and string line in a Putumayo agroforestry plot, with a single emergent tree on the horizon and freshly cut brush in the foreground. Field measurement step from Savimbo&#x27;s SexyTrees reforestation protocol — payment-on-survival methodology for grassroots tropical reforestation in the Colombian Amazon."><figcaption><p>Karen on the Selva team planting <em>Inga</em> in matrix conformation</p></figcaption></figure></div>

### Alley or hedgerow architecture&#x20;

Alley architecture leads to the classic alley view. It's best used for permaculture crops.&#x20;

<mark style="color:green;">**TL:DR = 5k trees/ha = 4m alleys × 0.5m within-row spacing.**</mark>&#x20;

In plain language, the optimal recommended spacing/planting density for our sites at this time is four-meter alleys with a half-meter plant spacing within rows, which calculates to five thousand *Inga* trees per hectare.&#x20;

This assumes 100% survivability, and in practice, most sites plant more densely, then weed to achieve the desired spacing (see [Operational calendar](/practice-guide/inga-agroforestry/inga-and-pruning-schedules) below).&#x20;

#### Optimization of alley spacing

There has been some debate in the field as to the optimal spacing, with competing farmer groups in Honduras and Ecuador, and iterative real-world testing over time. We included the historical variance and who promoted it below (see [Table A](#table-a.-historical-variance-in-inga-alley-cropping-density-with-current-recommended-density-of-5k-h)), but all our sites use the density from [Hands 2021](https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201204) published from the multi-decade research series.

We know Inga alley cropping's weed-control mechanism depends on canopy closure and permanent mulch cover ([Hands 2021](https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201204)). Hands' trials tested this between 5,000–10,000 trees/ha, and the Inga Foundation recommends 5,000 (Hands 1995, 1998, 2021, pers. com. 2026).&#x20;

#### **Table A. Historical v**ariance in *Inga* alley cropping density, with Savimbo's current recommended alley or hedgerow density of 5k/ha

<table><thead><tr><th width="139.9296875">Density</th><th>Source</th><th>Status</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>10,000/ha</td><td>Comparison protocol Hands 1995, 1998 papers</td><td>Experimental variation, not for farmers</td></tr><tr><td><strong>5,000/ha</strong></td><td><a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201204"><strong>Hands' 2021 paper</strong></a><strong>, 2026 pers. comm. recommendation</strong></td><td><strong>What Savimbo uses</strong></td></tr><tr><td>2,500/ha</td><td><a href="https://rainforestsaver.org/how-to-and-the-science/inga-alley-cropping-manual/">Valle 2010</a> and <a href="https://rainforestsaver.org/">Rainforest Saver</a>, Ecuador</td><td>See debate below</td></tr></tbody></table>

We cannot find a published controlled trial to shed light on the debate about lower densities. Rainforest Saver reports good results at \~2,500/ha (1m) across 150+ Ecuadorian sites, based on field observation rather than controlled trials.

In our assessment, whether 2,500/ha reliably achieves the *optimal* canopy closure and permanent cover has not been adequately tested head-to-head. Because the Honduras/Costa Rica and Ecuador programs differ in both ecology and planting density, the two variables are confounded — part of why our team flags the field reporting as hard to compare directly. However, we have chosen to go with the higher (5,000/ha) density for our plots,  given that we also use [direct sowing rather than seedling cultivation](/practice-guide/inga-agroforestry/inga-seeds-and-planting#seedlings-vs-direct-sowing), so the additional planting costs are minimal.&#x20;

### **Matrix or nurse species architecture**

Matrix architecture leads to a grid pattern. It's best used for establishing crops or interplanted crops. This is for helping native species establish themselves when planted into invasive grassland.&#x20;

**TL:DR = 3 options, 4m × 4m grid (nurse), 2:2 (cacao),&#x20;*****tresbollillo*****&#x20;lattics (hardwoods)**

Many of our sites report significant repeated machete clearings to get trees to establish themselves. Inga is tough and competitive. and needs some machete work to establish, but far less so than many native trees. Using Inga decreases manual labor and makes it easier for embattled farmers to reforest their sites.  Native species are added after establishment, but before canopy closure ([Hands 2021](https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201204)).&#x20;

When Inga is used as a matrix species there are three different conformations we are seeing in the literature. We've done our best to make diagrams of what we've read, but admit these aren't as good as on-site training with authors of original material.&#x20;

#### Grid matrix (mixed species)&#x20;

Plant Inga in 4m grids, intercropping with production crops like ([Fig Aa](#figure-aa-standard-planting-configuration-for-inga-matrix-nurse-species)). Reportedly this works well for chontaduro, banano, plátano, possibly pepper, and sinchi inchi.

#### Figure Aa: Standard planting configuration for Inga matrix nurse species

<figure><img src="https://4194359947-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FUBWP4JDLn07D1d4y0DKE%2Fuploads%2FfF3t3PBEFD896QvzG1ri%2Finga-matrix-4m-square-grid-agroforestry.png?alt=media&amp;token=c2169680-cd0a-4898-aa14-4fdb330b469c" alt="Plan view diagram of Inga trees planted in a 4 by 4 meter square matrix at approximately 625 trees per hectare, the baseline nurse-species geometry for tropical agroforestry." width="563"><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

#### Banding matrix (cacao)

Plant Inga at 4m in staggered bands with cacao trees ([Fig Ab](#figure-ab-banded-planting-configuration-for-cacao-plots-using-inga-matrix-nurse-species)).&#x20;

#### Figure Ab: Banded planting configuration for cacao plots using Inga matrix nurse species

<figure><img src="https://4194359947-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FUBWP4JDLn07D1d4y0DKE%2Fuploads%2FC9RJ4wdZHSuPUSff8iKW%2Finga-cacao-staggered-rows-agroforestry.png?alt=media&amp;token=57d3ca41-3127-4fc7-a9c8-136b12797e3b" alt="Plan view diagram of two-by-two staggered row planting pattern, with two offset rows of Inga alternating with two offset rows of cacao at approximately 600 trees per hectare and a 3:1 cacao-to-Inga density ratio." width="563"><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

#### Tresbollilo lattice (hardwoods)

Plant Inga in *tresbolillo* at 4 m. But leave space for native hardwoods in a staggered configuration ([Fig Ac](#figure-ac-tresbollilo-lattice-planting-configuration-for-hardwoods-using-inga-matrix-nurse-species)). Geometrically, this creates a grid where every hardwood is bounded by 6 Inga — a hexagon. After 6–12 months, when the Inga is established and providing shade, but before the canopy closes, plant the hardwood saplings into those hexagonal gaps. ([Hands 2021](https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201204)).&#x20;

#### Figure Ac: Tresbollilo lattice planting configuration for hardwoods using Inga matrix nurse species

<figure><img src="https://4194359947-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FUBWP4JDLn07D1d4y0DKE%2Fuploads%2FlhzcMG3laEwG83Kevi5h%2Finga-tresbolillo-hardwood-reforestation.png?alt=media&amp;token=e0e1539e-d2ef-4fb3-9605-f17b7c3ab8ab" alt="Plan view diagram of Inga planted in tresbolillo crowsfoot configuration at 4 meter spacing, with one in four positions replaced by hardwood timber trees sitting in hexagonal gaps surrounded by six Inga nurse trees, from Hands 2021 reforestation methodology." width="563"><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

Hands reports in the 2000 Cam project: 2 ha planted this way, 15 species of rainforest trees in the gaps (including *Terminalia* and *Swietenia* as eventual emergents). Twenty years on, the hardwoods now tower over the Inga nurses, and the strip functions as a biological corridor — toucans and brown jays have brought in additional understory species like *Xylopia frutescens* that nobody planted.

### On semantics

There are lots of different words for "things grown together". (And a lot of infighting, defining, and redefining as a result, exacerbated by endless indexing, ontology creation, and search terms).&#x20;

We confess that we found this confusing, and suspect that smallfarmers do too.&#x20;

* **Permaculture** uses vocabulary terms like guilds, polyculture, food forests, stacking, zones, and sectors.
* **Silviculture**, forest ecology, and restoration ecology use the word 'matrix species' to describe a dominant overstory or nurse species that defines the structural background into which target species get interplanted.

At the end of the day we're interested in action not talk so don't want to waste a lot of time on terms, just clarity of the right actions. We'll use the word matrix in this guide as its clear on actions.&#x20;

#### Table B. List of terms for "things grown together" and what they describe.

| Term            | Field of origin                   | What it describes                                  |
| --------------- | --------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------- |
| Alley cropping  | Tropical agronomy (IITA, 1970s)   | Hedgerow trees + intercrop in alleys               |
| Matrix planting | Forest restoration / silviculture | Nurse/canopy species + interplanted target species |
| Guild           | Permaculture                      | Mutually beneficial species cluster                |
| Food forest     | Permaculture                      | Multi-strata edible polyculture                    |
| Polyculture     | Agronomy (broad)                  | More than one species in a plot                    |

### Things we are unsure about

Precise information on which type of conformation is best for which crop is conflicting and sometimes paywalled. We defer to [Inga Foundation](/practice-guide/community/field-schools#inga-foundation-in-honduras) papers where possible, and peer-learning from like ecosystems (altitude and soil matching) or [site-experimentation](/practice-guide/iteration/what-is-a-b-testing) when that's not possible.&#x20;

**Notes:**

* [Hands 1998](https://shop.kew.org/the-genus-inga-utilization) reports the 2.5 m alleys at La Conquista produced "*the highest bean yields*" in his trials, but were "*too narrow for maize*". Perhaps because beans tolerate shade better than maize, but we were unable to obtain updated information.&#x20;
* Farmers in Ecuador reported growing cassava (yuca) and peas at 3m, but Hands didn't test these. No data either way.
* Cacao, chontaduro, banano, and plátano have been planted at 4 m alleys in some of our sites, but Hands does not use alley cropping for these crops at all. Same 4m spacing but matrix conformation. We think this is protocol drift, not a viable variant.&#x20;


# Inga and weeding

What inga seeds look like and how to prepare them for alley cropping

**Foliage-as-mulch is Hands ✓.** Hands 2021 §12: "the foliage is stripped from the branches and mulched onto the soil surface. \[…] The mulch will settle at about 100–150 mm in depth within a few days." Direct mulching matches.

Sources include Inga Foundation (academic literature, pers. communication, and acknowleged best training site. Rainforest Saver (Ecuador training network) with Jose Abel as the ground trainer.&#x20;

### Format

* Matrix nurse for hardwood reforestation
* Alley cropping for&#x20;
* Pepper on Gliricidia stakes within Inga alleys (3m)
* Cacao under Inga (3:1, \~600/ha total)

### Nursery operational detail

* Nursery operational detail (bag size, shade %, timing).&#x20;
* Mortality rates and replant strategy

### Species selection logic

There is regional variation in the preferred Inga species but this is not in the academic literature as far as we can determine, and by report only.&#x20;

species matrix (altitude × climate × soil)

### Cation supplementation rules

* Degraded soils benefit from dolomite + K-Mag (Hands 2021)
*

### Operational and pruning calendar

n practice most sites plant more densely, then weed to achieve the desired spacing (see .&#x20;

### Diagnostic indicators (healthy vs failing stand)

#### **Figure X. Savimbo team and scientific collaborators doing eDNA sampling in the Colombian Amazon.**&#x20;

#### CATIE — Turrialba, Costa Rica

The most directly Hands-adjacent institution. Hands' original Cambridge experimental sites (Sarapiquí, San Juan) were on Costa Rican soil and CATIE has run parallel agroforestry research for 50+ years. Their cacao-shade and coffee-shade Inga work is published and operational.

**Institutional contact (gatekeeper):**

* General: <catie@catie.ac.cr>
* Tel: +506 2558 2341 / 2558 2595
* Address: Sede Central, Turrialba 30501, Costa Rica

**Named researchers worth reaching:**

* **Dr. Muhammad Ibrahim** — Leader, GAMMA Program (livestock-environment-agroforestry). <mibrahim@catie.ac.cr>. Long Hands-parallel career on silvopastoral systems and Inga as fodder/shade. Probably the senior person on agroforestry there.
* **Dr. Elías de Melo Virginio Filho** — Researcher, Coffee & Cocoa Genetic and Agroforestry Improvement Unit. Coordinates the Volcafe-CATIE partnership and the ECOM agroforestry training program for technicians. Direct email obfuscated on CATIE site; reachable via <catie@catie.ac.cr> to his attention, or via ResearchGate. He's actively training technicians on agroforestry implementation right now — exactly your gap.
* **Adriana Escobedo Aguilar** — leads sustainable agribusiness team, oversees Master's in Sustainable Agribusiness Management. Reachable via ResearchGate. Useful if the SexyTrees protocol needs an academic anchor on the economics side.

#### IIAP — Instituto de Investigaciones de la Amazonía Peruana, Iquitos

The Peruvian Amazon institution most likely to have what you need on regional adaptation, since they sit in the heart of *Inga edulis*'s native range and have been working on it operationally for decades — including the Sotelo-Montes & Weber farmer-priority work that named *I. edulis* as a top species for the region.

**Institutional:**

* Headquarters: Av. Abelardo Quiñones km 2.5, Iquitos, Perú
* Web/portal: iiap.gob.pe (their email contact form is the standard route)
* Allpahuayo Research Center (CIA-EBJAA): iiap.gob.pe/ebjaa — has demonstration plots including Inga and other Amazonian agroforestry species

**Worth knowing:** IIAP's most-cited Inga work was Sotelo-Montes and Weber (1997) on farmer species priorities in Yurimaguas, Pucallpa, and Iquitos. That paper alone gives you the region-by-region prioritization framework you're missing. **John Weber** (formerly ICRAF/IIAP, now retired but still publishes) and **Carmen Sotelo-Montes** would be the lineage to trace. Weber is reachable via ICRAF alumni networks.

**Best opening move:** Through CIFOR-ICRAF Peru rather than direct, because ICRAF has a formal partnership with IIAP and a Lima office. CIFOR-ICRAF Peru: cifor-icraf.org/locations/latin-america/peru/ — they'll route you cleanly to whichever IIAP staff are currently active on Inga.

os. That paper alone gives you the region-by-region prioritization framework you're missing. **John Weber** (formerly ICRAF/IIAP, now retired but still publishes) and **Carmen Sotelo-Montes** would be the lineage to trace. Weber is reachable via ICRAF alumni networks.




---

[Next Page](/llms-full.txt/1)