This is part one of a three-part series on the Environmental Stewardship initiative at Regen Network. In this first segment, we introduce the initiative and distinguish it from conventional payment-for-ecosystem-services approaches. Part two will delve into the first methodology and project developed as part of the Environmental Stewardship initiative. The third and final part will focus on reimagining the demand side of this initiative.

Introduction

The Environmental Stewardship initiative aims to support the adoption of holistic regenerative practices and gather data to enhance our understanding of how these practices impact ecosystem function. Methodologies developed under the Environmental Stewardship umbrella are designed to be relatively straightforward compared to the more intricate and costly methodologies traditionally used to generate outcome-based carbon credits.

The core concept behind Environmental Stewardship methodologies is that, for certain environmental practices, there is robust science-based evidence indicating their positive influence on ecosystem function. These practices should be encouraged to the fullest extent possible. These methodologies prioritize positive outcomes, with credit quantity and pricing based on the financial requirements to support regenerative practices.

Why “Environmental Stewardship”?

The term “Environmental Stewardship” was chosen because it encompasses all of Earth’s ecosystems, considers ecological and social dimensions, and emphasizes society’s responsibility to care for these resources. Cross-disciplinary scholarship around environmental stewardship has been growing, and a definition published by N. Bennett et al. (2018) captures its essence:

Local environmental stewardship is the actions taken by individuals, groups, or networks of actors, with various motivations and levels of capacity, to protect, care for, or responsibly use the environment in pursuit of environmental and/or social outcomes in diverse social-ecological contexts.

The primary motivation for implementing an Environmental Stewardship methodology should be a genuine interest in adopting regenerative practices to enhance and support healthy ecosystems. This viewpoint is eloquently framed by Aldo Leopold’s quote from “A Sand County Almanac” (1949):

A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.

Key Characteristics and Contrasts

One of the most significant distinctions between Environmental Stewardship methodologies and conventional payment-for-ecosystem-services methodologies is their perspective on ecosystems. The Environmental Stewardship approach recognizes ecosystems’ complexity and necessitates a holistic view. Simple, reductionist outcomes-based approaches that influence land management practices have a history of unintended negative consequences. Allowing Earth stewards the flexibility to leverage local and ancestral knowledge and adapt to environmental changes has been effective for millennia. Supporting practices that embrace complexity forms the foundation of the Environmental Stewardship initiative.

Environmental Stewardship aims to shift monetary value from natural resources to the human and material resources needed to implement regenerative practices. This change means that the economic benefit from regenerative practices is tied to implementation costs, rather than the value of additional natural resources (e.g., carbon or clean water) resulting from the project. Pricing Environmental Stewardship credits is typically based on the cost of implementing a specific ecosystem regeneration practice, emphasizing support for these practices rather than profit. In other words, how much is enough to implement a practice, not how much money a particular ecosystem service is worth to humans or the financial markets.

This also changes the emphasis from “incentivizing” through profit to “supporting” regenerative practices.

There is evidence that, in the long run, incentivizing good behavior does not always have long-term positive effects. This shift aligns with the goal of supporting good ecosystem regeneration behavior, reducing the emphasis on speculative profit. This approach also avoids the commodification of nature.

Setting a target to obtain a specific amount of money to implement a practice addresses concerns about commodifying nature and values ecosystems for their intrinsic worth rather than solely their financial value. Supporting good ecosystem regeneration behavior can take various forms, such as aiding communities in resisting projects with adverse environmental impacts, rather than the conventional approach of commodifying natural capital, such as carbon or biodiversity.

In contrast to outcome-based methodologies, the monitoring component of most Environmental Stewardship practices is designed to verify that a particular practice has been implemented. This verification process tends to be simpler than measuring specific outcomes. It reduces the costs associated with monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV), thus lowering the entry barrier for creating projects.

Another goal of the Environmental Stewardship initiative is to foster communities of people who use similar practices, facilitating the sharing of knowledge and lessons learned. Such a community could effectively manage the methodology by providing validators, setting credit prices, and distributing credits among participants. This high level of community involvement is often challenging in outcome-based methodologies, where conflicts of interest regarding the integrity of monitoring outcomes can arise due to their direct link to revenue generated from credits. In Environmental Stewardship, data collected regarding outcomes are used for knowledge generation, and accurate measurements serve the communities benefiting from the practice. This approach reduces incentives for fraudulent behavior and doesn’t rely solely on developing rules and enforcement protocols.

Environmental Stewardship methodologies typically have relatively short crediting periods with straightforward renewal processes. This flexibility allows for adjustments in the methodology based on new knowledge and unforeseen environmental changes. Shorter contracts also appeal to communities that have faced negative consequences from signing long-term agreements with external organizations.

Data Collection for Knowledge Generation

Data collection for knowledge generation is a crucial aspect of Environmental Stewardship methodologies. Unlike most outcome-based methodologies, where data collection primarily aims to determine the number of credits, Environmental Stewardship methodologies allocate a portion of credits (typically between 10% and 20%) explicitly for data collection to enhance understanding of the relationship between practices and outcomes. Collecting data with the intent of knowledge generation rather than revenue generation has a positive long-term impact on improving practices and directs additional funding to local communities. It also reduces risk for Earth stewards. Conventional outcome-based methodologies effectively use a reward and punishment framing since a land steward could lose money if sampling and other costs associated with a methodology exceed the income generated from credits, even if exceptional ecosystem benefits are realized.

Outcome-Based Projects

There has been some confusion regarding whether Environmental Stewardship methodologies must be practice-based. Initially conceived with a strict practice-based mindset, it became evident over time that some outcome-based methodologies could also be included, provided that the outcome is directly tied to the practice. To qualify as an Environmental Stewardship methodology, certain conditions must be met. Firstly, the methodology must take a holistic approach to improving or maintaining ecosystem function. Secondly, data collected during the project’s lifetime must be available for knowledge generation. Lastly, the credit price should meet a need, reflecting the resources required to implement a regenerative practice. It must be evident that revenue generated from credits will be used to cover expenses necessary to improve ecosystem function rather than solely for profit. For example, if a methodology was created to reduce plastic in the ocean, the outcome metric of the weight of plastic collected could be used to prove that the practice of removing plastic from the environment was happening. The price of the credit could be based on the fair wage for someone to collect a set weight of plastic.

What’s Next

We will continue to develop communities to create, along with support from the Regen Foundation, leveraging the social coordination platform Hylo. You can join the Regen Registry Hylo group using this link, look around, and select the groups you want to join. You can also create your own projects.

Since we are still early in Environmental Stewardship development, we expect some people will adopt Environmental Stewardship projects with the intent of transferring to an outcome-based methodology and, for those cases, we will provide the possibility of adding right of first refusal contracts to make the project more attractive for investors.

The Environmental Stewardship initiative is still evolving, with a focus on formalizing the concepts discussed here into a framework. During this period, we welcome feedback as we work with partners to have their methodologies approved for listing on the Regen Registry and develop resources to meet growing demand. We are also exploring ways to answer the question, “Who will buy these credits?” — a topic we will delve into in part three of this series. Your feedback is invaluable; please share your feedback on Regen Registry Hylo or send your comments to science@regen.network.

‍