You're viewing sample data. This is a live preview of the workspace, populated with a fictional organisation so you can see how it works. Create an account to start your own.
Kelp Restoration — Tasman Bay (sample)
A credible, well-instrumented restoration proposal with strong community governance. The scoring rests on measurable ecosystem function rather than durable carbon storage, which the proposal states plainly.
- Additionality20% weight72
Sites were surveyed as denuded in two independent baselines, and no restoration funding existed before this proposal.
- Permanence20% weight68
Kelp is a fast-cycling carbon store; the proposal is honest that its durable claim rests on ecosystem function, not long-lived sequestration.
- Measurability20% weight84
Quarterly diver transects plus drone canopy imagery give a defensible measurement chain.
- Co-benefits15% weight88
Documented fishery recovery and two paid local monitoring roles.
- Governance15% weight79
Iwi partnership agreement is in place with a named consent holder.
- Transparency10% weight74
Raw survey data is published, though the financial model is only summarised.
- Independent baseline evidence that the reef sites were degraded before intervention.
- Quarterly diver transects cross-checked against drone canopy imagery.
- Formal iwi partnership with a named consent holder.
- Two paid local monitoring roles created.
- Kelp carbon is fast-cycling; this should not be reported as durable removal.
- Marine heatwave exposure could reverse canopy gains in a single season.
- Financial model is summarised rather than published in full.
Tier
ecosystem-health
Cadence
Quarterly
Recommended
Yes
Canopy area and species counts move seasonally, so a quarterly cadence captures recovery without over-reporting noise.
Overall assessment
This proposal scores 78/100 (Strong). It is unusually candid about the limits of its own carbon claim, which raises rather than lowers confidence.
Strengths
- Measurement chain is genuinely verifiable: quarterly transects are cross-checked against drone canopy area, so a single failed survey doesn't invalidate the period.
- Governance is settled before funding rather than promised after it.
Where it is weakest
- Permanence (68) is the binding constraint. Giant kelp turns over on a 1–2 year cycle, so this should not be reported as long-lived removal.
- The financial model is summarised rather than published, limiting independent scrutiny.
Recommended next step
Publish the cost breakdown per hectare and adopt the suggested dMRV cadence below.