To Credit, or not to Credit.
What’s in a name?
Many people ask why Regen Network has chosen to use the term “Ecocredit”. Doesn’t the use of the word “Credit” bring negative connotations of carbon cowboys, failed markets, and fraudulent claims? “they ask”. Why yes, it brings all of those things.
This blog will give an overview of the etymology of the term ecocredits, this history of its use within the Regen Network community, and some of the alternatives that have been considered. Ultimately what is important is that we are using a term that is unambiguous in the aim of the agreement between counter parties. So this blog is an exploration of the ambiguities and complexities, and will be used as a conversation piece with our core and broader communities as we continue to work on alignment, coherence and fulfilling the vision of a market/commons hybrid infrastructure that is co-goverened by land stewards, scientists, and market participants.
A brief history of Regen Network’s use of the term ecocredit
If you look at the whitepaper (any version of it from early drafts in 2017 to the final draft published in October 2017, and even the final stable version 1.1 republished with minor updates in Feb 15 2021, you will find no mention of the word “credit” or “ecocredit”. You wont even find the term in the Token Economics Technical paper (which mostly focused on the economics of the proof of stake network and the data infrastructure)
Regen Network has used the term ecocredits only from 2020 and onward, as we were sucked into a carbon and credit go to market strategy. The use of the term credit is first found in our Registry Program Guide published on December 18th of 2020 to serve as the foundation for what we would have called “ecological contracts” in the early days. A contractual framework for understanding counter party responsibilities, reporting requirements, baseline definitions, additionality definitions etc.
In the early days of conceptualizing the system that would be needed to weave relational and ecological value deeply into our monetary, financial and cultural systems, we focused on the technical approach that would create a system based on open science, community governance and the highest quality tools for counter parties to express preference about present and future ecological state, and make counter party contracts about that state. So instead of the term credits, a reader will find the concepts of “Ecological State Protocol”, “Ecological Contracts” and “Supply Protocols”.
Fast forward to 2024, and we use the term ecocredits everywhere.
There is an Ecocredit module that allows users to define crediting standards, govern those standards (with the group module, and soon DAODAO). It allows users to mint/issue credits, sell those credits, and other users to buy and retire those credits. Fulfilling the needs of a modern market for “offset credits”, but also we hope (and have evidence to support) fulfilling the original needs for Ecological Contracting which includes a spectrum of bilateral and multi party contracts based in shared understanding about ecological health that include:
- asset based accounting
- value based accounting
- contribution based accounting
- carbon offset and mitigation based accounting
- carbon removal based crediting
- payment for results
- environmental stewardship payments
- ecological benefit accounting and payments
- ecosystem service accounting and payments
And probably more.
So, now that I’ve offered a brief history of Regen Network’s usage and relationship with the complicated and fraught term “credits” and “crediting” through our portmanteau of “Ecocredit” as a placeholder for a spectrum we hope embraces the full needs for nature markets and nature based solutions, let’s dive into the fun part: the etymology of “credit”, a few alternatives (and their etymological roots). At the end maybe we can have a vote.
But first let’s look at what MOST PEOPLE mean when the use the word credit when it relates to ecosystem health, nature markets, and climate finance.
Most people, when thinking about the word credit as it relates to nature markets, think about it as a tradable certificate that allows them to offset carbon pollution. This has been a bit of a problem as nature based carbon cycles are notoriously challenging to monitor and quantify, and there is also a lot of social pressure on the scientific process related to financial markets, making scandals like the recent furor over Verra’s voluntary carbon market standard for avoided deforestation (REDD+). According to google’s data extraction from UNFCCC’s materials A carbon Credit is: CARBON CREDIT. Also known as an “offset”, this is a generic term used to assign a value to a reduction, avoidance or capture of GHG emissions achieved by a certified project. It is equivalent to one metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). There are existing markets for Biodiversity Offset “credits” as well, which similarly represent (usually in a like for like exchange between a specific protected ecosystem) the funding of conservation in exchange for the permission to develop or pollute a specific ecosystem in question. But is this the only usage of the term credit? People, companies, and even countries get credit ratings, (a rating of the likelihood a person or company will pay back a loan). Academics “get credit” for papers they write or contribute to. To learn more about the broader use of the term and why we’ve continued to use it beyond the conventional definition of carbon crediting let’s dive into the etymology of the word credit.
Understanding the etymology of “credit,” rooted in the Latin “credere” for “to trust,” illuminates its profound significance in ecosystem service markets, particularly when reimagined through the Regen Network’s use of “ecocredit.” This foundational trust is pivotal, not only in underpinning the transactional relationships within these markets but also in extending the concept of crediting beyond mere harm reduction or mitigation to embrace enhancements in ecological health, net gains, and uplifts.
In ecosystem service markets, such as carbon credit markets, the traditional focus has indeed been on offsetting harm or reducing negative impacts on the environment. However, this perspective, while essential, represents only a portion of the potential inherent in crediting systems. An evolved understanding recognizes credits not merely as compensations for ecological damage but as acknowledgments of positive contributions towards ecological health and resilience. The concept of “ecocredit,” as developed by Regen Network, exemplifies this broader vision, emphasizing not just the mitigation of environmental harm but the promotion of net ecological gains and the upliftment of ecosystems.
Credits, in this expanded view, are not limited to representing a balance of harm but are seen as tokens of improvement and positive change. They quantify and certify actions that not only minimize environmental impact but actively enhance ecosystem vitality. This shift towards a more inclusive definition of crediting — encompassing both reduction of negatives and augmentation of positives — reflects a deeper understanding of the role of trust in forging right relationships between humans and the natural world.
By framing credits within this broader context, it becomes clear that ecosystem service markets can serve as platforms for not only counterbalancing anthropogenic pressures but for promoting and rewarding regenerative practices. This dual focus aligns with the core principle of trust, highlighting the need for transparent, verifiable, and quantifiable measures that not only prevent and mitigate harm but also enhance and uplift ecological systems.
Therefore, while the term “ecocredit” inherently suggests a mechanism for offsetting environmental impacts, its use within the Regen Network ambitiously extends to signify a unit of ecological improvement. This approach underscores the potential of crediting systems to foster a deeper connection and commitment to the health of our planet, advocating for a holistic view of environmental stewardship that values both harm reduction and the active promotion of ecological well-being.
In essence, the true power of crediting, grounded in trust and mutual understanding, lies not just in its ability to rectify wrongs but in its capacity to propel us towards a more harmonious and sustainable relationship with the natural world. This expanded conception of credit, as both a measure of mitigation and a marker of ecological enhancement, offers a promising pathway towards realizing the full potential of markets for public goods and natural capital.
This concept transcends conventional boundaries by emphasizing not only the mitigation of environmental harm but also the promotion of ecological health and uplift. In this broader context, alternatives to the term “credit” can further enrich our understanding and application of these principles, incorporating notions of positive ecological contributions alongside harm reduction.
As you’re reading the alternatives (and there are many more than I list I am sure!) keep in mind the full spectrum of counter party and multi party agreements about ecological health, and our commitment to serving placed based communities to define their own monitoring, quantification and verification approaches and standards to ensure a deep connection between culture, ecosystem, and serve as the foundation for a transformational and regenerative economy:
1. EcoUnit: Deriving from “unit,” a term of Old French origin meaning “single, individual; a unit, atom,” EcoUnits signify singular, quantifiable actions or outcomes that contribute to ecological health. This term emphasizes the measurability and individuality of contributions towards sustainability, framing each action as a distinct component of a larger ecological improvement strategy. The focus on “unit” underscores the precision and specificity in ecological contributions, highlighting the granular nature of positive impacts.
2. BioToken: “Token” comes from the Old English “tacn,” meaning “a sign, symbol, evidence.” BioTokens represent symbols of ecological actions or benefits, encapsulating the symbolic nature of contributions to ecosystem health. As tokens, these symbols serve as tangible representations of commitment to ecological stewardship, embodying the trust and belief in collective efforts to enhance and sustain environmental well-being. The term conveys a sense of participation and exchange within a community dedicated to ecological regeneration.
3. EcoCertificate (or EcoCert): With “certificate” tracing back to the Latin “certificare,” meaning “to make certain,” EcoCertificates are documents or digital records that verify and make certain the ecological improvements achieved. They provide a formal acknowledgment of specific actions or outcomes that positively impact the environment, offering a level of validation and trust in the quantifiable benefits realized. This term emphasizes the importance of verification and trust in certifying contributions to ecological health.
4. EcoCoin: “Coin” is derived from the Latin “cuneus,” referring to a wedge or stamp used in minting money. EcoCoins metaphorically mint the value of ecological actions into a form that can be exchanged or accumulated, mirroring the tangible value creation of financial currencies but focused on environmental wealth. This term suggests a translation of ecological value into a universally recognizable and tradable format, highlighting the economic integration of ecological benefits.
Each of these alternatives — EcoUnit, BioToken (or ecotoken), EcoCertificate, and EcoCoin — carries unique connotations and highlights different aspects of the relationship between human actions and ecological health, from individual contributions and symbolic participation to verified achievements and value creation.
And of course, let’s define Ecocredit as well to be fair:
“Ecocredit” signifies a quantifiable unit of environmental benefit, rooted in the mutual trust between a community of actors and specific ecosystems, validated through science-based reporting or traditional ecological knowledge to foster right relationships for ecological health and sustainability.
To expand on this, “Ecocredit” symbolizes the establishment of right relationships between a community of actors — ranging from local communities to global institutions — and specific ecosystems. This relationship is grounded in a shared commitment to the health and vitality of these ecosystems, underscored by trust that is not just presumed but actively built and maintained.
In the framework of “Ecocredit,” trust is cultivated through various means, including shared, science-based reporting that relies on empirical data and analysis to monitor and measure ecological health. This approach can be complemented or, in some contexts, substituted by traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), which values the insights and practices honed by indigenous and local communities through generations of direct interaction with their environments. TEK represents a rich source of understanding and connection to the land, offering valuable perspectives on sustainable stewardship and conservation practices.
The implementation and recognition of “Ecocredit” can involve a wide range of actors, from international institutions dedicated to environmental conservation and climate action to regional actors and local communities directly engaged with specific ecosystems. The inclusivity of “Ecocredit” acknowledges the importance of diverse contributions and perspectives in achieving ecological balance and health. It emphasizes the necessity of collaboration across different levels of governance and society, reflecting a holistic approach to ecosystem stewardship.
By integrating both modern scientific methodologies and traditional ecological knowledge, “Ecocredit” offers a comprehensive model for understanding and interacting with natural systems. This dual approach ensures that trust — the cornerstone of “Ecocredit” — is built on a foundation of transparent, verifiable actions and outcomes that are respectful of both global standards and local wisdom.
In essence, “Ecocredit” represents a quantifiable measure of commitment to and achievement in maintaining or enhancing ecosystem health, driven by a collective trust in the methods and metrics used to evaluate these efforts. Whether through the lens of shared scientific endeavors or the application of traditional ecological insights, “Ecocredit” stands as a testament to the shared responsibility and trust required to foster sustainable, right relationships between humanity and the natural world.
I’m curious to hear which term resonates most with you and why. Do you prefer the precision of EcoUnits, the community symbol of BioTokens, the verified achievements of GreenCertificates, or the value translation of EcoCoins? How do you see these concepts enhancing our understanding and practice of promoting ecological health and sustainability?
