​

Phase I turns a farm opportunity into a reviewable implementation plan.

Phase I — Planning & Preparation is where a Kokonut farm establishes enough shared context to move from intention into accountable execution. It should answer:

• What land or operating right is involved?
• Who is responsible for day-to-day farm execution?
• What local problem and opportunity are being addressed?
• What is already known about the site?
• What production system is being proposed?
• What infrastructure and preparation are needed?
• What does the budget assume?
• Where will capital come from?
• Which decisions belong to local operators, funders, reviewers, or shared governance?
• What evidence must exist before stronger claims are made?
• What risks could make the plan fail?
• What specific conditions will trigger Phase II?

The goal is not to make every farm identical. The goal is to make the farm legible enough that operators, reviewers, funders, contributors, software, and future partners can understand the same baseline without inventing missing facts.

Phase I is complete when the farm is ready to execute a defined next step responsibly — not when a calendar says enough time has passed.

---

​

Phase I at a glance

---

​

What Phase I should produce

A useful Phase I package normally contains the following outputs.

---

​

Phase I is a readiness loop, not a straight line

This loop should be revisited whenever Phase I work reveals that:

• the land basis changed;
• an operator changed;
• the budget changed materially;
• the farm design is unsuitable;
• water or soil constraints are worse than expected;
• a buyer assumption failed;
• a permit or external dependency appeared;
• the evidence plan is insufficient;
• the funding route changed.

---

​

Phase I workstreams

​

1. Establish the land and operating basis

Before discussing impact, funding, or crop forecasts, define the real-world operating context. Document:

• site / project name;
• geographic context;
• land size and what that number means;
• mapped boundary where appropriate;
• owner / lessor / agreement counterparty where appropriate;
• owned / leased / agreement / other operating basis;
• relevant term or constraint;
• local operator(s);
• operator acknowledgment of the proposed plan;
• material access, easement, water, or infrastructure dependencies;
• sensitive information that should not be published publicly.

​

Important distinction

A farm record describes the operating context. It does not create legal rights to the land.

Where land rights or legal agreements matter, use the actual legal records and qualified review appropriate to the jurisdiction.

---

​

2. Build the 13-field baseline record

Use the Common Data Schema to create a compatible baseline. The current fields cover:

• date;
• location;
• land size;
• revenue streams;
• target markets;
• forecast budget;
• source of funding;
• public-goods allocation;
• governance/coordination context;
• token/economic narrative;
• project summary;
• local problem;
• proposed solution.

But Phase I should preserve the semantic boundaries already defined on the schema page. Examples:

• land_size must state whether it means total mapped, agricultural, active production, or another basis;
• forecasted_budget is a forecast;
• target_market is a market hypothesis;
• public_goods_allocation can be a planning assumption rather than a realized transfer;
• governance_mechanism should not imply one actor governs the entire farm;
• token_allocation should not invent token rights when none apply.

Required field ≠ verified fact.

Material values should point to supporting records.

---

​

3. Diagnose the site and operating context

The diagnosis should answer the questions that materially affect design and risk.

​

Physical / ecological context

Depending on the farm:

• soil texture / condition;
• drainage;
• slope;
• erosion;
• water source and reliability;
• rainfall / seasonality;
• heat / storm / drought exposure;
• vegetation / land cover;
• existing trees / perennial systems;
• biodiversity observations;
• access / roads;
• existing infrastructure.

​

Operating context

• available labor / operator capacity;
• local services;
• electricity / connectivity where relevant;
• tools / equipment;
• storage;
• security;
• logistics;
• market access.

​

Social / community context

• who operates the farm;
• who may be affected;
• who may participate;
• local problem statement;
• community relationships;
• consent / privacy considerations;
• relevant public-benefit hypotheses.

​

Evidence methods can include

• survey / cadastral / legal records where appropriate;
• GPS;
• drone / orthomosaic;
• QGIS or other GIS;
• field observation;
• soil probes;
• lab sampling where methodologically justified;
• photos;
• interviews;
• market research;
• public datasets;
• remote sensing.

---

​

4. Define the farm and production design

The farm design should connect local conditions to a realistic operating hypothesis. It can include:

• short-, medium-, and long-cycle crops;
• perennial / agroforestry systems;
• syntropic design where appropriate;
• nursery systems;
• poultry / animals where appropriate;
• ground cover;
• biomass / nutrient loops;
• irrigation;
• soil amendments;
• infrastructure;
• harvest/logistics pathways.

​

Crop / production selection should consider

​

Forecasts stay forecasts

A Phase I production model can estimate:

• plant counts;
• yield;
• loss rate;
• price;
• gross revenue;
• cost;
• public-goods allocation;
• timing.

Those values should remain visibly modeled until Phase II actuals replace them.

---

​

5. Design infrastructure and preparatory works

Infrastructure planning should identify:

• what exists;
• what must be repaired;
• what must be built;
• what must be procured;
• owner / responsible party;
• expected cost;
• acceptance criteria;
• maintenance requirement;
• evidence of completion.

Possible categories include:

• water / irrigation;
• drainage / erosion control;
• nursery;
• biofactory / input preparation;
• storage;
• tools / PPE;
• poultry/animal infrastructure where relevant;
• fencing / access;
• energy / lighting;
• community/training infrastructure;
• monitoring / data equipment;
• connectivity.

​

Soil preparation can belong in Phase I

If the farm needs pre-production:

• bed formation;
• land clearing;
• cover establishment;
• soil amendment;
• biochar;
• compost / biological inputs;
• erosion controls;

those activities can occur during Phase I after the relevant baseline is captured and the work is authorized. This is still preparatory work until sustained Phase II production begins.

---

​

6. Define operator capability and training needs

Phase I should identify who needs to know how to do what. Possible competency areas:

• farm / crop operations;
• syntropic/agroforestry management;
• irrigation;
• soil input preparation;
• animal care where relevant;
• safe tool / equipment use;
• harvest handling;
• buyer / logistics workflows;
• field logging;
• MRV data capture;
• financial / procurement reporting;
• maintenance;
• incident / risk escalation.

​

Training evidence can mature

Phase I usually needs enough capability evidence to justify the Phase II responsibility being assigned. It does not need to pretend training alone proves long-term Human Capital outcomes.

---

​

7. Build the budget and funding route

A Phase I budget should be traceable. For each material line item, document where practical:

• description;
• quantity;
• unit cost;
• total;
• currency/asset;
• vendor / recipient where known;
• basis / quote;
• milestone;
• owner;
• contingency;
• evidence requirement.

​

Funding status matters

Separate:

• proposed;
• requested;
• approved;
• received;
• committed;
• spent.

Do not use source_of_funding to blur those stages.

​

Not every farm needs Moloch funding

A farm might be:

• locally funded;
• grant-funded;
• partner-funded;
• self-funded;
• funded through Kokonut shared treasury;
• funded through more than one source.

Use the authority appropriate to the actual capital source. If Moloch treasury capital is requested, use the current Farm Funding Proposal process.

---

​

8. Validate the market hypothesis

Phase I should distinguish:

“we intend to sell here”

from:

“a buyer has committed to buy.”

Useful market evidence can include:

• buyer interviews;
• current prices;
• historical prices;
• competing supply;
• quality requirements;
• minimum volume;
• packaging;
• payment terms;
• transport;
• certification requirements;
• letters of interest;
• purchase orders;
• signed buyer agreements where they exist.

A price found online or in one market visit is not sufficient evidence for guaranteed revenue.

​

Sensitivity should be visible

Test at least the material variables:

• price;
• yield;
• loss;
• harvest timing;
• cost;
• labor;
• buyer availability.

---

​

9. Establish the MRV baseline and evidence plan

MRV starts before the intervention when the later claim depends on change from a starting condition. The durable sequence is:

observe → structure → review → publish → attest when useful → interpret

​

Baseline design should be claim-driven

​

Evidence plan should name

• claim / milestone;
• source record;
• method;
• units;
• reporting period;
• operator / recorder;
• reviewer;
• publication decision;
• privacy level;
• optional attestation;
• next comparison point.

---

​

10. Build the risk register

Phase I should expose assumptions that could fail. Useful risk categories include:

• land / access;
• water;
• weather / climate;
• agronomic;
• animal welfare/biosecurity;
• labor / operator capacity;
• infrastructure;
• procurement;
• financial / liquidity;
• buyer / market;
• data quality;
• legal / permit;
• privacy / community;
• technology;
• methodology / impact-claim;
• governance / authorization.

For each material risk: The goal is not to make Phase I “risk-free.” The goal is to prevent hidden assumptions from becoming surprise failures.

---

​

11. Route authority and dependencies

Phase I should explicitly answer:

Who has authority to decide each material issue?

Example:

​

Dependencies should be visible

Examples:

• land agreement;
• permits;
• utility access;
• vendor quote;
• operator acknowledgment;
• technical integration;
• reviewer availability;
• grant condition;
• external certification requirement.

---

​

Phase I readiness

Phase I is reviewable when the material questions below have answers supported by records.

---

​

Phase I completion record

Do not use one universal completion checklist blindly. A farm should have a farm-specific completion record stating which conditions apply. A strong record can include:

• land / operating basis documented;
• local operator(s) identified and acknowledged;
• 13-field baseline completed and reviewed for semantic clarity;
• site diagnosis completed at the level required by the design;
• crop / production plan documented;
• infrastructure / preparation scope documented;
• material baseline measurements captured before relevant interventions;
• budget and funding status documented;
• market assumptions documented;
• required operator training / capability documented;
• risk register reviewed;
• MRV/evidence plan approved by the applicable reviewer;
• legal / permit / external dependencies identified;
• applicable funding authorization completed;
• preparatory milestones accepted where required;
• Phase II scope, owners, first milestones, and reporting cadence defined;
• unresolved issues and assumptions explicitly recorded.

---

​

Formal funding is only one possible Phase I path

​

When shared Kokonut treasury capital is requested

The Farm Funding Proposal should define:

• authority requested;
• operator acknowledgment;
• land / operating basis;
• scope;
• budget;
• recipients/vendors;
• disbursement milestones;
• release conditions;
• MRV/evidence plan;
• risks/dependencies;
• change control;
• acceptance reviewer;
• closeout.

The lifecycle remains:

authorization → execution → operational delivery → evidence / acceptance → closeout

Those are different states.

​

When no Moloch funding is requested

A farm can still complete Phase I if:

• its capital source is legitimate and documented;
• local/operator authority is clear;
• the Framework baseline is usable;
• risks/dependencies are visible;
• the evidence plan exists;
• the Phase II trigger is accepted by the relevant people/process.

Kokonut Framework compatibility does not require every farm to receive Kokonut treasury capital.

---

​

What Phase I does not guarantee

Phase I reduces avoidable uncertainty. It does not eliminate uncertainty.

---

​

Adelphi and Terra Viva show two different Phase I states

​

Adelphi — historical Phase I reference

Current Kokonut documentation places Adelphi at:

• Phase I — Complete
• Phase II — Active
• Phase III — Upcoming
• Phase IV — Ongoing across phases

Adelphi’s Phase I history includes documented:

• baseline planning;
• site mapping;
• infrastructure;
• soil preparation;
• training;
• production design;
• funding support, including Public Nouns Proposal #69;
• MRV/evidence setup.

Adelphi is useful as a completed reference. It should not be copied line-for-line by another farm.

---

​

Terra Viva — the first real second-farm Phase I test

Current Kokonut documentation describes Kokonut Terra Viva as:

• roughly 50,000 m² of adjacent land;
• under agreement;
• entering Phase I — Planning & Preparation;
• the next documented replication test.

That makes Terra Viva strategically important. The question is not:

“Can we copy Adelphi?”

The question is:

Can the same baseline schema, authority boundaries, readiness logic, evidence design, and development-phase method remain useful for a second real farm with its own context?

​

Terra Viva should not yet be described as

• an operating farm;
• a Phase II production system;
• successful Framework replication;
• an extension whose outcomes can be merged into Adelphi;
• proof that Adelphi economics or ecology automatically transfer.

Phase I is where those assumptions should be tested.

---

​

Advancing to Phase II

Phase II — Production & Regeneration begins when the farm-specific Phase II trigger is accepted. That trigger can include conditions such as:

• required land/operating basis confirmed;
• operator responsibility confirmed;
• production design accepted;
• required preparatory infrastructure usable;
• relevant baseline captured;
• applicable funding available;
• required procurement complete;
• material risks accepted/mitigated;
• first crop/production plan ready;
• first reporting cycle defined;
• evidence responsibilities assigned.

The trigger should state who accepts it. Depending on the farm, acceptance might involve:

• local operator;
• budget owner;
• funder;
• Moloch for a treasury milestone;
• agronomy reviewer;
• evidence/MRV reviewer;
• legal/partner reviewer;
• another scoped authority.

​

Optional transition record

The transition can be published in Kokonut Intelligence / Hub records and optionally attested through EAS when durable public provenance is useful. An attestation is not required merely because a farm changed phases.

---

​

How different readers should use Phase I

---

​

Current maturity

---

​

Continue through the Framework

Phase I succeeds when it makes the next decision accountable: the farm, operators, assumptions, capital, risks, evidence, and transition conditions are visible enough that execution can begin without pretending uncertainty has disappeared.