Ecological impact needs both evidence and risk context.

Kokonut uses EBF and CRISP to help DAO members, farm operators, Impact Guild contributors, grant reviewers, and institutional partners interpret the evidence produced by the MRV workflow. These frameworks do two different jobs:

EBF explains the ecological, economic, social, and sustainability value a farm produces.
CRISP explains which risks could prevent the projected carbon or ecological outcomes from being achieved.

Together, they help Kokonut move from broad regenerative claims to a clearer impact profile: what happened, what evidence supports it, what remains uncertain, and what should be reviewed next.

Compare EBF and CRISP →Read MRV Methodology

Use this page when preparing annual impact reports, reviewing farm proposals, assessing carbon-risk claims, or explaining Kokonut impact to partners.

EBF and CRISP help structure impact and risk analysis. They do not automatically certify a farm, guarantee carbon-credit issuance, guarantee financial returns, or replace MRV evidence, legal review, agronomic review, or DAO governance.

EBF and CRISP at a glance

Framework	Full name	Core question	Kokonut use
EBF	Ecological Benefits Framework	What ecological and community benefits did the farm create?	Annual impact reporting across ecological, economic, social, and sustainability dimensions
CRISP	Carbon Risk Identification and Scoring Principles	What could prevent projected carbon or ecological benefits from being delivered?	Annual risk review for carbon-delivery, climate, policy, financial, and operator risk
MRV	Measurement, Reporting, and Verification	What evidence supports the claim?	Continuous data pipeline that produces records for EBF reports and CRISP scoring

Think of MRV as the evidence layer, EBF as the impact interpretation layer, and CRISP as the risk interpretation layer.

Where these frameworks fit in Kokonut

Kokonut does not use EBF or CRISP as replacements for farm data. It uses them to interpret farm data that has already been collected, structured, published, and anchored through the MRV pipeline.

Stage	Output	Primary owner	Where it appears
Continuous farm activity	Field logs, harvest records, soil readings, satellite indices, training records	Farm team, Impact Guild, agents	Kokonut Hub, Farm Registry, MRV records
Continuous MRV	Structured evidence payloads and attestations	Impact Guild, Technology Guild	IPFS/Filecoin, Farm Registry, EAS, Data Hub
Annual EBF report	Impact profile across ecological, economic, social, and sustainability dimensions	Impact Guild	Data Hub, annual report, EAS summary attestation
Annual CRISP review	Risk scoring and mitigation notes	Impact Guild, Technology Guild, DAO reviewers	Data Hub, EBF report appendix, proposal review context
DAO learning	Updated assumptions for future farms and proposals	DAO members, Guilds	Governance forum, proposal templates, Framework updates

EBF — Ecological Benefits Framework

What EBF does

EBF gives Kokonut a shared language for describing value that carbon-only accounting often misses. A regenerative farm may improve soil health, protect biodiversity, train local workers, expand community food access, generate revenue, preserve cultural knowledge, and distribute public goods. EBF helps organize those benefits into a reportable structure so they can be discussed, compared, funded, and improved.

What EBF does not do

EBF is not a sensor, a database, a farm registry, a carbon credit standard, or an automatic certification. It is an interpretation framework. It requires evidence from MRV, financial records, field observations, community logs, and DAO reporting before any impact claim can be considered credible.

EBF reporting dimensions

EBF dimension	What it asks	Example Kokonut evidence	Related capital forms
Environmental impact	Is the land improving?	Vegetation indices, soil readings, biodiversity records, nursery species counts, land-use records	Natural Capital
Economic impact	Is the farm creating durable economic value?	Harvest records, revenue actuals, public goods allocation, jobs created, infrastructure deployed	Financial + Material Capital
Social impact	Is the community gaining capacity and benefit?	Training logs, employment records, community events, participation records, leadership roles	Social + Human Capital
Sustainability	Can the system keep improving over time?	Multi-year MRV trend, risk controls, organic certification status, governance records, SDG evidence	All 8 Forms of Capital

How Kokonut produces an EBF report

An EBF report should be assembled from evidence, not written as a promotional summary.

Evidence source	What it contributes
Farm Registry records	Farm identity, location, land size, infrastructure, production zones, operators
Satellite and remote sensing	Vegetation-health trends, land-cover signals, ecological-change indicators
Soil and field observations	Soil moisture, electrical conductivity, temperature, crop condition, operator notes
Harvest records	Production actuals, crop cycles, losses, revenue assumptions, and forecast comparison
Community records	Employment, training, participation, public goods activities, local engagement
DAO records	Funding decisions, proposal commitments, governance actions, and reporting obligations
EAS attestations	Public evidence anchors for important measurement, reporting, and governance events

Strong EBF reporting separates actuals from forecasts. A projected benefit can guide planning, but it should not be described as delivered impact until it is supported by evidence.

CRISP — Carbon Risk Identification and Scoring Principles

What CRISP does

CRISP helps Kokonut evaluate the risk associated with carbon-delivery and ecological-delivery claims. This matters because a farm may have a promising regeneration thesis but still face weather risk, methodological risk, operator risk, financial risk, regulatory risk, and data quality risk. CRISP makes those risks visible before claims are overused in proposals, partner materials, or public impact reports.

What CRISP does not do

CRISP is not a pass/fail certification, not a guarantee of carbon delivery, and not a replacement for scientific carbon methodology. It is a risk-scoring and due diligence framework. It helps reviewers ask better questions about whether projected benefits are likely to be delivered and verified.

Five CRISP risk factors

Risk factor	What it reviews	Kokonut evidence to inspect
Carbon yield risk	Whether projected sequestration or carbon benefit assumptions are plausible	Baseline methodology, vegetation trends, soil data, biochar records, species mix, reporting period
Climate catastrophe risk	Whether drought, flood, fire, storms, or erosion could damage the system	Local climate data, water infrastructure, ground cover, erosion controls, disaster history
Policy and legal risk	Whether rules, land tenure, certification, or jurisdictional issues could disrupt claims	Land records, legal review, certification status, DAO proposal terms, compliance notes
Financial risk	Whether the farm can survive cost overruns, price changes, delays, or revenue shortfalls	Budget, reserves, crop diversification, revenue actuals, buyer relationships, treasury records
Project developer risk	Whether operators and supporting Guilds can execute the plan	Operator track record, field updates, milestone completion, support structure, reporting discipline

When Kokonut applies CRISP

CRISP should be applied repeatedly, not once.

Moment	Why CRISP matters
Proposal review	Helps DAO members see whether projected benefits are realistic enough to fund
Phase I baseline	Establishes early risk assumptions before operations scale
Annual reporting	Updates risk scores using real MRV data and farm performance
Major expansion	Reviews whether new land, crops, infrastructure, or markets change delivery risk
Partner reporting	Gives grant reviewers and institutional partners a structured risk context

How EBF and CRISP work together

EBF and CRISP answer different sides of the same trust question.

EBF asks:   What value did the farm create?
CRISP asks: What risks affect the farm's ability to keep delivering that value?
MRV asks:   What evidence supports the answer?

A strong Kokonut impact profile includes all three:

Layer	Without it	With it
MRV	Claims remain self-reported	Claims are tied to inspectable records
EBF	Value is reduced to revenue or carbon	Multiple forms of ecological and community value are visible
CRISP	Risk is ignored or hidden	Delivery uncertainty is named, scored, and mitigated

How this applies to Adelphi

At Adelphi, the EBF and CRISP workflow should help reviewers connect farm activity to evidence and risk.

Adelphi activity	EBF relevance	CRISP relevance	Evidence to inspect
Syntropic plots	Environmental impact, sustainability	Carbon yield, climate risk	Satellite indices, field observations, crop logs
Nursery and at-risk species	Environmental impact, social impact	Project developer risk	Species inventory, distribution records, field updates
Biofactory and biochar	Environmental impact, sustainability	Carbon yield, methodology risk	Input logs, soil data, biochar production records
Poultry loop	Economic impact, sustainability	Financial and operator risk	Egg records, manure processing logs, feed records
Training gazebo	Social impact, human capital	Project developer risk	Workshop records, attendance logs, community reports
Public goods allocation	Economic impact, social impact	Financial risk	Revenue actuals, allocation reports, DAO records

Adelphi can serve as a reference implementation, but each new farm still needs its own baseline, local risk review, MRV setup, operator assessment, and DAO-approved proposal.

Reviewer checklist

Use this checklist before treating an EBF or CRISP output as decision-ready.

Has the farm completed a baseline record through the Common Data Schema?
Are claims separated into actuals, forecasts, estimates, and assumptions?
Is each impact claim tied to a measurable source?
Are carbon and climate claims backed by methodology, reporting period, and evidence?
Are risks scored, explained, and paired with mitigation plans?
Are uncertainty and data gaps visible to DAO members?
Is the output published where reviewers can inspect it?
Are important records anchored through EAS or another verifiable public evidence layer?

What this page does not guarantee

These frameworks improve reporting quality, but they do not remove execution risk.

Risk	Why it still matters
Agricultural risk	Weather, pests, soil conditions, irrigation failures, and labor constraints can affect outcomes
Market risk	Prices, buyers, certification, and logistics can change revenue assumptions
Methodology risk	Carbon and ecological claims require defensible measurement methods
Data-quality risk	Missing or inconsistent records weaken reporting credibility
Governance risk	DAO decisions, proposal quality, and contributor coordination affect implementation
Legal and policy risk	Land, certification, environmental, or carbon-credit rules can change

Next steps

MRV — Evidence Layer

See how farm activity becomes structured payloads, IPFS records, EAS attestations, Data Hub entries, and annual impact reports.

8 Forms of Capital

Understand the value categories Kokonut uses before translating farm activity into EBF-style reports.

Pillars of Value

Use the six evaluation questions that help DAO members decide whether a farm is worth funding.

Common Data Schema

Start with the farm record that makes proposals, MRV, EBF reports, and CRISP scoring comparable.

Adelphi Farm Summary

See the live reference farm where Kokonut applies the Framework, MRV, SDG reporting, and farm-level evidence.

Proposal Templates

Turn impact and risk assumptions into a DAO-reviewable proposal with evidence, budget, milestones, and next steps.

Read MRV Methodology →Explore Adelphi Data

Framework Components

Framework Features

Framework Add-ons

Development Phases

Ecological Impact Frameworks

Ecological impact needs both evidence and risk context.

EBF and CRISP at a glance

Where these frameworks fit in Kokonut

EBF — Ecological Benefits Framework

What EBF does

What EBF does not do

EBF reporting dimensions

How Kokonut produces an EBF report

CRISP — Carbon Risk Identification and Scoring Principles

What CRISP does

What CRISP does not do

Five CRISP risk factors

When Kokonut applies CRISP

How EBF and CRISP work together

How this applies to Adelphi

Reviewer checklist

What this page does not guarantee

Next steps

MRV — Evidence Layer

8 Forms of Capital

Pillars of Value

Common Data Schema

Adelphi Farm Summary

Proposal Templates

​Ecological impact needs both evidence and risk context.

​EBF and CRISP at a glance

​Where these frameworks fit in Kokonut

​EBF — Ecological Benefits Framework

​What EBF does

​What EBF does not do

​EBF reporting dimensions

​How Kokonut produces an EBF report

​CRISP — Carbon Risk Identification and Scoring Principles

​What CRISP does

​What CRISP does not do

​Five CRISP risk factors

​When Kokonut applies CRISP

​How EBF and CRISP work together

​How this applies to Adelphi

​Reviewer checklist

​What this page does not guarantee

​Next steps

MRV — Evidence Layer

8 Forms of Capital

Pillars of Value

Common Data Schema

Adelphi Farm Summary

Proposal Templates

Ecological impact needs both evidence and risk context.

EBF and CRISP at a glance

Where these frameworks fit in Kokonut

EBF — Ecological Benefits Framework

What EBF does

What EBF does not do

EBF reporting dimensions

How Kokonut produces an EBF report

CRISP — Carbon Risk Identification and Scoring Principles

What CRISP does

What CRISP does not do

Five CRISP risk factors

When Kokonut applies CRISP

How EBF and CRISP work together

How this applies to Adelphi

Reviewer checklist

What this page does not guarantee

Next steps