UBEC Stewardship Decision Guide
Four Pathways to Participation: Evaluation Framework & Decision Matrices
Document Version: 1.0
Date: December 31, 2025
Purpose: Guide stewards through the evaluation and decision-making process for all four core beneficiary pathways
"I am because we are" — Ubuntu
This guide embodies the Ubuntu principle that our individual decisions affect the collective. As stewards, we hold sacred trust to ensure the 65% token allocation reaches those who will strengthen our regenerative food systems and local food sovereignty.
Table of Contents
- Introduction to Stewardship
- The Four Pathways Overview
- Evaluation Committee Composition
- Universal Evaluation Framework
- Pathway 1: Farmer Decision Matrix
- Pathway 2: Community Decision Matrix
- Pathway 3: Community Activator Decision Matrix
- Pathway 4: Living Lab Decision Matrix
- Decision Outcomes & Process
- Appeals Process
- Post-Decision Support
- Appendices
Introduction to Stewardship
The Sacred Trust
As evaluation committee members and stewards, you hold a sacred responsibility: ensuring that UBEC tokens flow to those who will strengthen our collective mission of regenerative food systems and local food sovereignty. This is not merely an administrative function—it is an act of Ubuntu in practice.
Guiding Principles for Stewards
1. Serve the Whole Every decision should strengthen the entire ecosystem, not just benefit individual applicants.
2. Practice Ubuntu Embody diversity, reciprocity, mutualism, and regeneration in your evaluation process.
3. Seek Understanding Before judging, seek to understand. Ask clarifying questions. Honor each applicant's story.
4. Balance Heart and Head Use both rigorous criteria AND intuitive wisdom. Numbers inform but don't dictate.
5. Assume Good Faith Begin with trust. Most applicants genuinely want to contribute to food sovereignty.
6. Acknowledge Limitations We cannot fund everyone. Saying "not yet" is sometimes the most loving response.
7. Commit to Transparency All decisions should be explainable, defensible, and documented.
The Four Pathways Overview
The UBEC Protocol dedicates 65% of issued utility tokens to four core beneficiary types:
| Pathway | Definition | Token Range | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🌾 Farmer | Individual farmers or farming households operating small-scale regenerative agriculture | 1,000 - 50,000 UBEC | 30-60 days |
| 🏘️ Community | Collective organizations building local food sovereignty | 10,000 - 200,000 UBEC | 45-90 days |
| 🌟 Community Activator | Facilitators serving multiple farmers and communities | 20,000 - 100,000 UBEC/year | 45-75 days |
| 🌱 Living Lab | Educational institutions integrating environmental monitoring and citizen science | 5,000 - 25,000 UBEC (setup) | 30-45 days |
How the Pathways Interconnect
┌─────────────────────┐
│ Community Activator │
│ (Facilitates) │
└──────────┬──────────┘
│
┌───────────────────┼───────────────────┐
│ │ │
▼ ▼ ▼
┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐
│ Farmer │◄───►│ Community │◄───►│ Living Lab │
│ (Produces) │ │ (Organizes) │ │ (Educates) │
└─────────────┘ └─────────────┘ └─────────────┘
│ │ │
└───────────────────┴───────────────────┘
│
┌──────────▼──────────┐
│ Bioregional Food │
│ Sovereignty │
└─────────────────────┘
Evaluation Committee Composition
Required Representation
Each evaluation should include perspectives from:
| Role | Expertise | Primary Focus |
|---|---|---|
| UBEC Team Member | Protocol knowledge, token mechanics | Alignment with mission |
| Experienced Regenerative Farmer | Practical agricultural knowledge | Regenerative viability |
| Community Organizer | Collective governance, social dynamics | Community benefit |
| Indigenous/Traditional Knowledge Holder | Ancestral wisdom, local ecology | Cultural appropriateness |
| Food Sovereignty Advocate | Movement context, political economy | Systemic impact |
| Technical Expert | Soil science, permaculture, IoT | Technical feasibility |
| Educational Specialist | Pedagogy, especially Waldorf/anthroposophical | Learning integration |
| Regional Representative | Local context, relationships | Place-based relevance |
Quorum Requirements
| Decision Type | Minimum Evaluators | Consensus Required |
|---|---|---|
| Farmer Application | 3 | Majority (2 of 3) |
| Community Application | 5 | Supermajority (4 of 5) |
| Community Activator Application | 4 | Supermajority (3 of 4) |
| Living Lab Application | 4 | Majority (3 of 4) |
Universal Evaluation Framework
The Five Dimensions of Ubuntu Alignment
Every application is evaluated across five dimensions, each weighted at 20% of the total score:
| Dimension | Core Question | Token Element |
|---|---|---|
| 🌬️ Diversity | Does this bring unique value to the ecosystem? | Air (UBEC) |
| 💧 Reciprocity | Will there be balanced giving and receiving? | Water (UBECrc) |
| 🌍 Mutualism | Does this create mutual benefit for all parties? | Earth (UBECgpi) |
| 🔥 Regeneration | Will this heal and restore rather than deplete? | Fire (UBECtt) |
| 🔗 Interdependence | Does this strengthen the web of relationships? | All tokens |
Universal Scoring Scale
| Score | Rating | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Exemplary | Exceeds expectations in every way; model for others |
| 4 | Strong | Clearly meets criteria with notable strengths |
| 3 | Adequate | Meets minimum criteria; some areas for growth |
| 2 | Developing | Shows potential but significant gaps exist |
| 1 | Insufficient | Does not meet criteria; major concerns |
| 0 | Absent | No evidence of this criterion |
Score Thresholds for Decisions
| Overall Score | Decision Recommendation |
|---|---|
| 4.0 - 5.0 | Full Approval |
| 3.0 - 3.9 | Conditional Approval |
| 2.0 - 2.9 | Deferred (guidance for reapplication) |
| 0.0 - 1.9 | Declined |
Pathway 1: Farmer Decision Matrix
Applicant Profile
Who Applies: Individual farmers or farming households operating small-scale agricultural operations committed to regenerative food production.
Token Range: 1,000 - 50,000 UBEC
Evaluation Timeline: 30-60 days
Farmer Evaluation Criteria Matrix
Category A: Regenerative Commitment (25% of total)
| Criterion | Weight | Score 5 (Exemplary) | Score 3 (Adequate) | Score 1 (Insufficient) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1. Soil Health Practices | 6% | Multiple integrated practices (no-till, cover crops, composting, biochar) with documented improvement | Basic soil health practices in place or planned | No soil health focus; chemical-dependent |
| A2. Biodiversity Enhancement | 5% | Active habitat creation, polyculture, multiple species integration | Some diversity planning; monoculture reduction | Monoculture; no biodiversity consideration |
| A3. Water Conservation | 5% | Rainwater harvesting, drip irrigation, swales, greywater systems | Basic water management; some conservation | No water conservation; wasteful practices |
| A4. Integrated Pest Management | 5% | Companion planting, beneficial insects, zero synthetic pesticides | Reduced pesticide use; biological controls | Heavy pesticide reliance; no alternatives |
| A5. Agroforestry/Polyculture | 4% | Food forests, silvopasture, integrated annual/perennial systems | Some tree integration; simple polyculture | No tree integration; annual monoculture |
Category B: Scale Appropriateness (15% of total)
| Criterion | Weight | Score 5 (Exemplary) | Score 3 (Adequate) | Score 1 (Insufficient) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B1. Human-Scaled Operations | 5% | Hand tools, appropriate technology, human labor central | Mix of small machinery and hand labor | Industrial equipment; factory farm mentality |
| B2. Size Appropriate to Context | 5% | Farm size matches local needs and capacity | Reasonable size with some overextension | Too large for sustainable management |
| B3. Labor Model | 5% | Family/community labor; fair wages if hired | Primarily local labor; some external | Exploitative labor; distant workers |
Category C: Community Benefit (25% of total)
| Criterion | Weight | Score 5 (Exemplary) | Score 3 (Adequate) | Score 1 (Insufficient) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1. Local Food Supply | 7% | Primary supplier for local families; food hub participant | Regular local market sales | No local sales; all exported |
| C2. Community Food Access | 6% | Sliding scale, donations, gleaning programs, food bank partner | Some accessibility initiatives | No accessibility consideration |
| C3. Knowledge Sharing | 6% | Hosts workshops, mentors others, writes guides | Willing to share when asked | Unwilling to share; protective |
| C4. Cooperative Spirit | 6% | Active in farmer networks; collaborative marketing | Participates when convenient | Isolated; competitive mindset |
Category D: Sustainability Indicators (20% of total)
| Criterion | Weight | Score 5 (Exemplary) | Score 3 (Adequate) | Score 1 (Insufficient) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1. Long-Term Viability | 5% | 5-year plan with succession; diverse revenue | 3-year plan; some diversification | No long-term thinking |
| D2. Resilience Strategies | 5% | Climate adaptation, crop insurance alternative, savings | Some risk mitigation | Highly vulnerable; no backup |
| D3. Diversification | 5% | Multiple crops, value-added products, agritourism | Some diversification | Single crop/revenue stream |
| D4. Closed-Loop Systems | 5% | On-farm composting, animal integration, waste=resource | Some loop closure | Linear inputs/outputs |
Category E: Symbiotic Relationships (15% of total)
| Criterion | Weight | Score 5 (Exemplary) | Score 3 (Adequate) | Score 1 (Insufficient) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E1. Ecosystem Integration | 4% | Farm is habitat; wildlife corridors; native plants | Some wildlife consideration | Farm as separate from nature |
| E2. Farmer Collaboration | 4% | Equipment sharing, bulk buying, joint marketing | Occasional collaboration | No peer relationships |
| E3. Wildlife Habitat | 4% | Hedgerows, ponds, nesting sites, pollinator gardens | Some habitat preservation | No wildlife consideration |
| E4. Soil Biology | 3% | Actively cultivates microbiology; soil food web focus | Basic understanding; some practices | Soil as dead medium |
Farmer Decision Matrix Scoring Sheet
FARMER APPLICATION EVALUATION
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Applicant: ________________________________ Date: ______________
Evaluator: ________________________________ Region: ____________
CATEGORY A: REGENERATIVE COMMITMENT (25%)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
A1. Soil Health Practices (6%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
A2. Biodiversity Enhancement (5%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
A3. Water Conservation (5%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
A4. Integrated Pest Management (5%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
A5. Agroforestry/Polyculture (4%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
Category A Total: _____%
CATEGORY B: SCALE APPROPRIATENESS (15%)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
B1. Human-Scaled Operations (5%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
B2. Size Appropriate to Context (5%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
B3. Labor Model (5%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
Category B Total: _____%
CATEGORY C: COMMUNITY BENEFIT (25%)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
C1. Local Food Supply (7%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
C2. Community Food Access (6%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
C3. Knowledge Sharing (6%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
C4. Cooperative Spirit (6%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
Category C Total: _____%
CATEGORY D: SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS (20%)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
D1. Long-Term Viability (5%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
D2. Resilience Strategies (5%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
D3. Diversification (5%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
D4. Closed-Loop Systems (5%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
Category D Total: _____%
CATEGORY E: SYMBIOTIC RELATIONSHIPS (15%)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
E1. Ecosystem Integration (4%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
E2. Farmer Collaboration (4%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
E3. Wildlife Habitat (4%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
E4. Soil Biology (3%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
Category E Total: _____%
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
TOTAL WEIGHTED SCORE: ________/5.0
UBUNTU ALIGNMENT ASSESSMENT (Qualitative)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
🌬️ Diversity: □ Strong □ Adequate □ Developing □ Weak
💧 Reciprocity: □ Strong □ Adequate □ Developing □ Weak
🌍 Mutualism: □ Strong □ Adequate □ Developing □ Weak
🔥 Regeneration: □ Strong □ Adequate □ Developing □ Weak
🔗 Interdependence: □ Strong □ Adequate □ Developing □ Weak
RECOMMENDATION
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
□ Full Approval (4.0-5.0) Suggested Allocation: _______ UBEC
□ Conditional Approval (3.0-3.9) Conditions: ____________________
□ Deferred (2.0-2.9) Guidance: ________________________
□ Declined (0.0-1.9) Reason: __________________________
EVALUATOR NOTES:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Signature: _________________________ Date: _____________________
Token Allocation Guidelines for Farmers
| Factor | Lower Range (1,000-10,000) | Mid Range (10,001-30,000) | Upper Range (30,001-50,000) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Farm Size | < 2 hectares | 2-10 hectares | > 10 hectares |
| Project Complexity | Simple transition | Moderate infrastructure | Major transformation |
| Community Impact | Household + neighbors | Local market/CSA | Regional food hub |
| Local Cost of Living | Low-cost region | Medium-cost region | High-cost region |
| Specific Needs | Seeds, hand tools | Small equipment, training | Infrastructure, systems |
Pathway 2: Community Decision Matrix
Applicant Profile
Who Applies: Existing community organizations or forming collectives with shared commitment to food sovereignty and regenerative practices.
Token Range: 10,000 - 200,000 UBEC
Evaluation Timeline: 45-90 days
Community Evaluation Criteria Matrix
Category A: Collective Commitment (20% of total)
| Criterion | Weight | Score 5 (Exemplary) | Score 3 (Adequate) | Score 1 (Insufficient) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1. Community Engagement | 5% | Broad participation; multiple stakeholder input; documented consensus | Core group engaged; some broader input | Top-down; limited engagement |
| A2. Shared Vision | 4% | Articulated, documented vision; community-validated | Vision exists but not widely shared | No clear shared vision |
| A3. Democratic Processes | 4% | Transparent decision-making; documented governance | Basic voting/consensus mechanisms | Autocratic or unclear process |
| A4. Inclusive Participation | 4% | Active efforts to include marginalized voices | Open to all but no proactive inclusion | Exclusive or gatekeeping |
| A5. Conflict Resolution | 3% | Documented processes; trained facilitators | Informal but functional mechanisms | No conflict resolution capacity |
Category B: Regenerative Approach (20% of total)
| Criterion | Weight | Score 5 (Exemplary) | Score 3 (Adequate) | Score 1 (Insufficient) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B1. Ecosystem-Based Practices | 5% | Watershed thinking; habitat restoration; native species | Some ecological consideration | Extractive mindset |
| B2. Biodiversity Protection | 4% | Active conservation; seed saving; genetic diversity | Some biodiversity awareness | Monoculture approach |
| B3. Soil & Water Stewardship | 4% | Community-scale water harvesting; collective composting | Basic shared resource management | No collective stewardship |
| B4. Cultural Preservation | 4% | Traditional practices honored; indigenous knowledge integrated | Some cultural connection | Cultural disconnection |
| B5. Intergenerational Transfer | 3% | Youth programs; elder integration; knowledge documentation | Some intergenerational activity | No intergenerational focus |
Category C: Community Benefit (25% of total)
| Criterion | Weight | Score 5 (Exemplary) | Score 3 (Adequate) | Score 1 (Insufficient) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1. Food Access Improvements | 6% | Comprehensive food security strategy; multiple access points | Some food access initiatives | No food access improvement |
| C2. Economic Circulation | 5% | Local currency; cooperative ownership; reinvestment loops | Some local economic activity | External economic dependency |
| C3. Skills & Knowledge Building | 5% | Regular workshops; mentorship; skill-sharing systems | Occasional training opportunities | No capacity building |
| C4. Social Cohesion | 5% | Regular gatherings; social infrastructure; mutual aid | Some community-building activities | Fragmented community |
| C5. Marginalized Empowerment | 4% | Specific programs for underserved populations | Awareness of equity issues | No equity consideration |
Category D: Organizational Capacity (20% of total)
| Criterion | Weight | Score 5 (Exemplary) | Score 3 (Adequate) | Score 1 (Insufficient) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1. Governance Structure | 5% | Documented bylaws; clear roles; regular elections | Basic structure exists | No clear governance |
| D2. Financial Management | 5% | Transparent accounting; budget process; audit capacity | Basic bookkeeping; some transparency | No financial systems |
| D3. Communication Systems | 4% | Multiple channels; regular updates; accessible to all | Basic communication exists | Poor communication |
| D4. Project Management | 3% | Proven track record; milestone tracking; accountability | Some project experience | No project management capacity |
| D5. Partnership Networks | 3% | Active partnerships; regional connections; resource sharing | Some external relationships | Isolated organization |
Category E: Equity & Inclusion (15% of total)
| Criterion | Weight | Score 5 (Exemplary) | Score 3 (Adequate) | Score 1 (Insufficient) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E1. Diverse Participation | 4% | Reflects community demographics; diverse leadership | Some diversity in participation | Homogeneous participation |
| E2. Accessibility | 3% | Physical, economic, language accessibility addressed | Some accessibility consideration | Barriers to participation |
| E3. Fair Benefit Distribution | 3% | Documented equity framework; progressive distribution | Awareness of fair distribution | Benefits concentrated |
| E4. Power-Sharing | 3% | Rotating leadership; distributed authority | Some power distribution | Concentrated power |
| E5. Historical Justice | 2% | Addresses historical injustices; land acknowledgment | Awareness of historical context | Ignores historical context |
Community Decision Matrix Scoring Sheet
COMMUNITY APPLICATION EVALUATION
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Community/Organization: ____________________ Date: ______________
Evaluator: ________________________________ Region: ____________
Number of Members: ____________ Geographic Scope: ______________
CATEGORY A: COLLECTIVE COMMITMENT (20%)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
A1. Community Engagement (5%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
A2. Shared Vision (4%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
A3. Democratic Processes (4%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
A4. Inclusive Participation (4%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
A5. Conflict Resolution (3%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
Category A Total: _____%
CATEGORY B: REGENERATIVE APPROACH (20%)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
B1. Ecosystem-Based Practices (5%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
B2. Biodiversity Protection (4%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
B3. Soil & Water Stewardship (4%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
B4. Cultural Preservation (4%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
B5. Intergenerational Transfer (3%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
Category B Total: _____%
CATEGORY C: COMMUNITY BENEFIT (25%)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
C1. Food Access Improvements (6%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
C2. Economic Circulation (5%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
C3. Skills & Knowledge Building (5%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
C4. Social Cohesion (5%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
C5. Marginalized Empowerment (4%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
Category C Total: _____%
CATEGORY D: ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY (20%)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
D1. Governance Structure (5%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
D2. Financial Management (5%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
D3. Communication Systems (4%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
D4. Project Management (3%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
D5. Partnership Networks (3%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
Category D Total: _____%
CATEGORY E: EQUITY & INCLUSION (15%)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
E1. Diverse Participation (4%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
E2. Accessibility (3%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
E3. Fair Benefit Distribution (3%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
E4. Power-Sharing (3%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
E5. Historical Justice (2%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
Category E Total: _____%
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
TOTAL WEIGHTED SCORE: ________/5.0
COMMUNITY RATIFICATION STATUS
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
□ Community ratification vote completed
□ Vote percentage in favor: ______%
□ Authorized representatives confirmed
RECOMMENDATION
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
□ Full Approval (4.0-5.0) Suggested Allocation: _______ UBEC
□ Conditional Approval (3.0-3.9) Conditions: ____________________
□ Deferred (2.0-2.9) Guidance: ________________________
□ Declined (0.0-1.9) Reason: __________________________
Signature: _________________________ Date: _____________________
Token Allocation Guidelines for Communities
| Factor | Lower Range (10,000-50,000) | Mid Range (50,001-120,000) | Upper Range (120,001-200,000) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Community Size | < 50 households | 50-200 households | > 200 households |
| Project Scope | Single initiative | Multiple integrated projects | Comprehensive food system |
| Infrastructure Needs | Minimal | Moderate (food hub, equipment) | Major (processing, storage) |
| Geographic Reach | Neighborhood | District/municipality | Regional/multi-community |
Pathway 3: Community Activator Decision Matrix
Applicant Profile
Who Applies: Experienced individuals with track records in regenerative agriculture and/or community organizing, seeking to serve multiple farmers and communities.
Token Range: 20,000 - 100,000 UBEC annually
Evaluation Timeline: 45-75 days
Community Activator Evaluation Criteria Matrix
Category A: Expertise & Experience (25% of total)
| Criterion | Weight | Score 5 (Exemplary) | Score 3 (Adequate) | Score 1 (Insufficient) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1. Regenerative Agriculture Knowledge | 6% | Deep expertise; certification; published work | Solid practical knowledge | Basic understanding only |
| A2. Community Organizing Skills | 5% | Proven track record; multiple successful projects | Some organizing experience | No organizing experience |
| A3. Training & Facilitation | 5% | Trained facilitator; curriculum development; evaluation | Can lead workshops effectively | Limited facilitation skills |
| A4. Conflict Resolution | 5% | Mediation training; demonstrated resolution | Can navigate basic conflicts | Avoids or escalates conflicts |
| A5. Cultural Competency | 4% | Multilingual; worked across cultures; humble learner | Some cross-cultural experience | Culturally unaware |
Category B: Service Orientation (20% of total)
| Criterion | Weight | Score 5 (Exemplary) | Score 3 (Adequate) | Score 1 (Insufficient) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B1. Commitment to Serving Others | 5% | Track record of service; testimonials; references | Genuine desire to serve | Self-interest primary |
| B2. Humility & Listening | 4% | Asks more than tells; honors local knowledge | Generally receptive | Expert mindset; doesn't listen |
| B3. Adaptability | 4% | Tailors approach to context; flexible methods | Can adapt when necessary | Rigid approach |
| B4. Respect for Local Autonomy | 4% | Empowers local decision-making; doesn't impose | Generally respectful | Controlling or paternalistic |
| B5. Long-Term Dedication | 3% | Multi-year commitment; succession planning | 2+ year commitment | Short-term thinking |
Category C: Network & Reach (20% of total)
| Criterion | Weight | Score 5 (Exemplary) | Score 3 (Adequate) | Score 1 (Insufficient) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1. Existing Farmer/Community Relationships | 5% | 20+ ongoing relationships; trusted advisor | 10+ relationships; known quantity | Few existing relationships |
| C2. Geographic Scope | 4% | Multi-region; travel capacity; diverse contexts | Single region with depth | Limited geographic reach |
| C3. Diversity of Contexts Served | 4% | Urban/rural; various scales; multiple cultures | Some diversity of experience | Narrow experience |
| C4. Movement Connections | 4% | Connected to broader food sovereignty movements | Some movement awareness | Isolated from movements |
| C5. Peer Reputation | 3% | Strong recommendations from peers; sought-after | Positive peer relationships | Unknown or poor reputation |
Category D: Methodological Approach (20% of total)
| Criterion | Weight | Score 5 (Exemplary) | Score 3 (Adequate) | Score 1 (Insufficient) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1. Participatory Methods | 5% | Co-creation; community-led design; empowerment focus | Uses participatory approaches | Top-down methods |
| D2. Ubuntu Alignment | 5% | Embodies all four principles; can articulate philosophy | Understanding of Ubuntu values | Misaligned values |
| D3. Systems Thinking | 4% | Sees interconnections; works at multiple scales | Some systems awareness | Linear thinking |
| D4. Innovation & Adaptation | 3% | Develops new approaches; learns and iterates | Can adapt existing methods | Relies on outdated approaches |
| D5. Evidence of Effectiveness | 3% | Documented outcomes; case studies; before/after | Some evidence of impact | No evidence of effectiveness |
Category E: Capacity & Commitment (15% of total)
| Criterion | Weight | Score 5 (Exemplary) | Score 3 (Adequate) | Score 1 (Insufficient) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E1. Time Availability | 4% | Full-time commitment possible; clear schedule | Part-time with clear boundaries | Limited or uncertain availability |
| E2. Organizational Skills | 4% | Excellent planning; meets deadlines; systems in place | Adequate organization | Disorganized |
| E3. Communication Abilities | 4% | Clear writing and speaking; responsive; accessible | Adequate communication | Poor communicator |
| E4. Realistic Scope | 3% | Proposal matches capacity; achievable timeline | Reasonable scope | Overcommitted or unrealistic |
Community Activator Decision Matrix Scoring Sheet
COMMUNITY ACTIVATOR APPLICATION EVALUATION
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Applicant: ________________________________ Date: ______________
Evaluator: ________________________________ Region: ____________
Proposed Scope: □ Full-time □ Part-time Geographic Focus: _____
CATEGORY A: EXPERTISE & EXPERIENCE (25%)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
A1. Regenerative Agriculture Knowledge (6%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
A2. Community Organizing Skills (5%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
A3. Training & Facilitation (5%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
A4. Conflict Resolution (5%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
A5. Cultural Competency (4%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
Category A Total: _____%
CATEGORY B: SERVICE ORIENTATION (20%)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
B1. Commitment to Serving Others (5%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
B2. Humility & Listening (4%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
B3. Adaptability (4%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
B4. Respect for Local Autonomy (4%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
B5. Long-Term Dedication (3%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
Category B Total: _____%
CATEGORY C: NETWORK & REACH (20%)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
C1. Existing Relationships (5%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
C2. Geographic Scope (4%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
C3. Diversity of Contexts (4%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
C4. Movement Connections (4%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
C5. Peer Reputation (3%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
Category C Total: _____%
CATEGORY D: METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH (20%)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
D1. Participatory Methods (5%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
D2. Ubuntu Alignment (5%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
D3. Systems Thinking (4%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
D4. Innovation & Adaptation (3%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
D5. Evidence of Effectiveness (3%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
Category D Total: _____%
CATEGORY E: CAPACITY & COMMITMENT (15%)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
E1. Time Availability (4%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
E2. Organizational Skills (4%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
E3. Communication Abilities (4%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
E4. Realistic Scope (3%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
Category E Total: _____%
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
TOTAL WEIGHTED SCORE: ________/5.0
REFERENCE CHECK SUMMARY
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Reference 1: _______________ Relationship: _______ Rating: ___/5
Reference 2: _______________ Relationship: _______ Rating: ___/5
Reference 3: _______________ Relationship: _______ Rating: ___/5
PORTFOLIO REVIEW
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
□ Case studies reviewed: _____ Quality: □ Strong □ Adequate □ Weak
□ Testimonials verified: _____ Quality: □ Strong □ Adequate □ Weak
□ Impact documentation: □ Quantified □ Qualitative □ Insufficient
RECOMMENDATION
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
□ Full Approval (4.0-5.0)
Annual Allocation: _______ UBEC (stipend + project funds)
□ Monthly disbursement □ Quarterly disbursement
□ Conditional Approval (3.0-3.9) Conditions: ____________________
□ Deferred (2.0-2.9) Guidance: ______________________
□ Declined (0.0-1.9) Reason: ________________________
Signature: _________________________ Date: _____________________
Token Allocation Guidelines for Community Activators
| Factor | Lower Range (20,000-40,000/yr) | Mid Range (40,001-70,000/yr) | Upper Range (70,001-100,000/yr) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Commitment Level | Part-time (10-20 hrs/wk) | Half-time (20-30 hrs/wk) | Full-time (30+ hrs/wk) |
| Participants Served | 10-30 farmers/communities | 30-75 farmers/communities | 75+ farmers/communities |
| Geographic Scope | Single bioregion | Multiple bioregions | Regional/national |
| Project Complexity | Training/workshops | Training + organizing | Comprehensive ecosystem building |
| Experience Level | 3-5 years | 5-10 years | 10+ years |
Pathway 4: Living Lab Decision Matrix
Applicant Profile
Who Applies: Educational institutions (schools, universities) or community learning organizations with land suitable for diverse ecosystems and commitment to environmental education.
Token Range: 5,000 - 25,000 UBEC (initial setup)
Evaluation Timeline: 30-45 days
Living Lab Evaluation Criteria Matrix
Category A: Educational Commitment (25% of total)
| Criterion | Weight | Score 5 (Exemplary) | Score 3 (Adequate) | Score 1 (Insufficient) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1. Educational Mission | 6% | Environmental education central; documented curriculum | Some environmental programming | No environmental education focus |
| A2. Curriculum Integration Plan | 5% | Detailed cross-curricular integration; teacher training | Basic integration plan | No integration planning |
| A3. Student Engagement Capacity | 5% | Active student programs; outdoor learning culture | Some student involvement | Limited student engagement |
| A4. Age-Appropriate Design | 5% | Multi-age programming; developmental considerations | Single-age focus with adaptability | No age-appropriate design |
| A5. Long-Term Sustainability | 4% | Institutionalized; budget line; succession plan | 3+ year commitment | Short-term or uncertain |
Category B: Physical Infrastructure (20% of total)
| Criterion | Weight | Score 5 (Exemplary) | Score 3 (Adequate) | Score 1 (Insufficient) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B1. Suitable Land | 5% | 1,000+ m² diverse ecosystems; multiple habitats | Adequate space; some diversity | Insufficient land or diversity |
| B2. Accessibility | 4% | Full accessibility; multiple entry points; safe paths | Basic accessibility | Accessibility barriers |
| B3. Food Production Potential | 4% | Garden beds; fruit trees; greenhouse potential | Some food growing capacity | No food production capacity |
| B4. Water Features | 4% | Pond, stream, or rain garden; aquatic education | Access to water features | No water features |
| B5. Sustainable Site Management | 3% | Organic maintenance; native plantings; no chemicals | Moving toward sustainability | Chemical-dependent management |
Category C: Technical Capacity (20% of total)
| Criterion | Weight | Score 5 (Exemplary) | Score 3 (Adequate) | Score 1 (Insufficient) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1. WiFi/Network Connectivity | 5% | Reliable outdoor WiFi; sufficient bandwidth | Can establish connectivity | No connectivity possible |
| C2. Technical Support | 5% | Dedicated IT staff; maintenance capacity | Access to technical support | No technical support |
| C3. Data Management Understanding | 4% | Data literacy; privacy awareness; systems in place | Basic data understanding | No data management capacity |
| C4. Equipment Maintenance | 3% | Maintenance schedule; replacement budget | Can maintain with guidance | No maintenance capacity |
| C5. Digital Integration | 3% | Existing digital systems; integration capacity | Basic digital tools | No digital infrastructure |
Category D: Citizen Science Orientation (20% of total)
| Criterion | Weight | Score 5 (Exemplary) | Score 3 (Adequate) | Score 1 (Insufficient) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1. Scientific Observation Methods | 5% | Protocols in place; accuracy focus; documentation | Basic scientific approach | No scientific methodology |
| D2. Data Quality Commitment | 5% | Quality control processes; calibration awareness | Understands data quality importance | No data quality consideration |
| D3. Broader Network Participation | 4% | Connected to citizen science networks | Willing to participate | Isolated approach |
| D4. Public Data Sharing | 3% | Open data commitment; accessible formats | Willing to share data | Reluctant to share |
| D5. Research Ethics | 3% | Ethics training; student safety protocols | Basic ethics awareness | No ethics consideration |
Category E: Community Integration (15% of total)
| Criterion | Weight | Score 5 (Exemplary) | Score 3 (Adequate) | Score 1 (Insufficient) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E1. Public Access/Community Involvement | 4% | Community open days; volunteer programs; public access | Some community connection | Closed to community |
| E2. Local Environmental Partnerships | 4% | Active partnerships; joint projects | Some local connections | No environmental partnerships |
| E3. Food Sovereignty Contribution | 4% | School garden feeds community; seed sharing | Some food sharing | No food sovereignty connection |
| E4. Knowledge Sharing | 3% | Hosts workshops; shares learnings publicly | Shares when asked | No knowledge sharing |
Living Lab Decision Matrix Scoring Sheet
LIVING LAB APPLICATION EVALUATION
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Institution: ______________________________ Date: ______________
Evaluator: ________________________________ Region: ____________
Site Size: ____________ m² Student Population: ________________
CATEGORY A: EDUCATIONAL COMMITMENT (25%)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
A1. Educational Mission (6%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
A2. Curriculum Integration Plan (5%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
A3. Student Engagement Capacity (5%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
A4. Age-Appropriate Design (5%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
A5. Long-Term Sustainability (4%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
Category A Total: _____%
CATEGORY B: PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE (20%)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
B1. Suitable Land (5%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
B2. Accessibility (4%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
B3. Food Production Potential (4%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
B4. Water Features (4%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
B5. Sustainable Site Management (3%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
Category B Total: _____%
CATEGORY C: TECHNICAL CAPACITY (20%)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
C1. WiFi/Network Connectivity (5%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
C2. Technical Support (5%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
C3. Data Management Understanding (4%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
C4. Equipment Maintenance (3%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
C5. Digital Integration (3%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
Category C Total: _____%
CATEGORY D: CITIZEN SCIENCE ORIENTATION (20%)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
D1. Scientific Observation Methods (5%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
D2. Data Quality Commitment (5%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
D3. Broader Network Participation (4%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
D4. Public Data Sharing (3%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
D5. Research Ethics (3%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
Category D Total: _____%
CATEGORY E: COMMUNITY INTEGRATION (15%)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
E1. Public Access/Community (4%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
E2. Environmental Partnerships (4%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
E3. Food Sovereignty Contribution (4%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
E4. Knowledge Sharing (3%) Score: ___/5 = _____%
Category E Total: _____%
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
TOTAL WEIGHTED SCORE: ________/5.0
SITE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Assessment Type: □ In-Person Visit □ Virtual Assessment
Date of Assessment: ______________
Site Suitability: □ Excellent □ Adequate □ Marginal □ Unsuitable
Key Observations: ____________________________________________
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
□ Teachers consulted: _____ Support level: □ Strong □ Moderate □ Low
□ Administration approval: □ Full □ Conditional □ Pending
□ Student input gathered: □ Yes □ No
RECOMMENDATION
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
□ Full Approval (4.0-5.0)
Setup Allocation: _______ UBEC
Equipment Package: □ Basic □ Standard □ Advanced
□ Conditional Approval (3.0-3.9) Conditions: ____________________
□ Deferred (2.0-2.9) Guidance: ______________________
□ Declined (0.0-1.9) Reason: ________________________
Signature: _________________________ Date: _____________________
Token Allocation Guidelines for Living Labs
| Factor | Lower Range (5,000-10,000) | Mid Range (10,001-18,000) | Upper Range (18,001-25,000) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Site Size | < 1,000 m² | 1,000-3,000 m² | > 3,000 m² |
| Technical Complexity | Basic sensors | Standard sensor array | Advanced monitoring network |
| Student Reach | < 100 students | 100-500 students | > 500 students |
| Community Integration | School-focused | Some community access | Full community integration |
| Ecosystem Diversity | Single habitat type | Multiple habitats | Comprehensive ecosystem |
Decision Outcomes & Process
The Four Decision Types
1. Full Approval ✅
Definition: Applicant meets all criteria with strong performance; immediate token allocation.
Requirements: - Overall score: 4.0 - 5.0 - No critical gaps (no category below 3.0) - Ubuntu alignment: Strong across all dimensions - Committee consensus or supermajority
Next Steps: 1. Agreement drafting (7-14 days) 2. Applicant review and signing 3. Technical setup (wallet, trustlines) 4. Token allocation within 7 days of wallet verification 5. Onboarding and welcome orientation
2. Conditional Approval ⚠️
Definition: Applicant meets most criteria but specific conditions must be met before token allocation.
Requirements: - Overall score: 3.0 - 3.9 - Identifiable conditions that can be met - Strong potential demonstrated - Committee agrees conditions are achievable
Common Conditions: - Complete specific training - Develop missing documentation - Establish required partnerships - Demonstrate community support - Address specific technical gaps - Secure institutional approval
Next Steps: 1. Written notification with specific conditions 2. Timeline for meeting conditions (30-90 days typically) 3. Support provided to meet conditions 4. Follow-up assessment when conditions reported met 5. Full approval upon condition satisfaction
3. Deferred 🔄
Definition: Applicant shows promise but is not yet ready; guidance provided for reapplication.
Requirements: - Overall score: 2.0 - 2.9 - Potential for future success evident - Gaps are addressable with time and effort - Not a fundamental misalignment
Guidance Provided: - Specific areas needing development - Resources and support available - Suggested timeline for reapplication - Mentorship connections when appropriate
Next Steps: 1. Written feedback with specific guidance 2. Resource packet for development 3. Connection to peer network or mentor 4. Invitation to reapply (typically 6-12 months) 5. Support during development period
4. Declined ❌
Definition: Applicant does not meet criteria; explanation provided.
Requirements: - Overall score: 0.0 - 1.9 - Fundamental misalignment with mission - Critical gaps that cannot be readily addressed - Or significant concerns identified
Reasons for Decline: - Scale inappropriate (industrial vs. human-scaled) - Values misalignment (extractive vs. regenerative) - Capacity concerns (unable to implement effectively) - Integrity concerns (misrepresentation, conflicts) - Unsuitable context (location, timing, circumstances)
Next Steps: 1. Written explanation of decision 2. Alternative pathway suggestions when appropriate 3. Appeals process information 4. May reapply after significant changes
Decision Documentation Requirements
Every decision must include:
- Completed Scoring Matrix - All criteria scored with justification
- Ubuntu Alignment Assessment - Qualitative evaluation of all five principles
- Evaluator Notes - Key observations, concerns, and strengths
- Reference Check Summary (for Activators) - Verified testimonials
- Site Assessment Report (for Farmers and Living Labs) - Observation findings
- Community Validation Summary (for Communities) - Engagement evidence
- Committee Discussion Notes - Key points from deliberation
- Final Recommendation - Signed by all evaluators
- Token Allocation Rationale - Justification for specific amount
Appeals Process
Right to Appeal
All applicants receiving Conditional Approval, Deferred, or Declined decisions have the right to appeal within 30 days of notification.
Grounds for Appeal
Appeals may be submitted based on:
- Procedural Error - Evaluation process not followed correctly
- New Information - Relevant information not available during evaluation
- Misunderstanding - Key aspects of application misinterpreted
- Discrimination - Unfair treatment based on protected characteristics
- Factual Error - Evaluation based on incorrect facts
Appeal Process
Step 1: Submit Written Appeal (within 30 days)
│
▼
Step 2: Appeal Acknowledgment (within 7 days)
│
▼
Step 3: Appeal Review Committee Formation
(Different members from original committee)
│
▼
Step 4: Document Review (14 days)
│
▼
Step 5: Applicant Hearing (if requested)
│
▼
Step 6: Appeal Decision (within 30 days of submission)
│
├──► Appeal Upheld: Original decision stands
│
├──► Appeal Partially Upheld: Modified decision
│
└──► Appeal Granted: New evaluation or reversed decision
Appeal Review Committee
The Appeal Review Committee must include: - At least one UBEC team member (different from original) - At least one community elder or respected leader - At least one peer from the same pathway (Farmer for farmer appeals, etc.)
Appeal Decision Criteria
The Appeal Review Committee evaluates: - Whether proper procedures were followed - Whether new information materially changes assessment - Whether original evaluation was fair and reasonable - Whether any bias or error affected the outcome
Post-Decision Support
For Approved Applicants
Month 1: Intensive Support - Welcome orientation and onboarding - Technical setup assistance - Connection to peer network - First token transactions support - Regular check-ins
Month 3: First Formal Check-In - Progress review - Challenge identification - Plan adjustments if needed - Peer learning connections
Month 6: Mid-Term Assessment - Comprehensive progress review - Impact assessment - Additional support needs - Continued funding assessment (for Activators)
Month 12: Annual Evaluation - Full impact review - Holonic score assessment - Renewal process (for Activators) - Success celebration and documentation
Support Resources Available
| Resource | Description | Access |
|---|---|---|
| Peer Network | Connect with same-pathway participants | Online forum + regional gatherings |
| Technical Help Desk | Wallet, token, platform support | Email + chat support |
| Mentor Matching | Experienced participants available | Request through liaison |
| Resource Library | Guides, templates, best practices | Online knowledge base |
| Problem-Solving Support | Help navigating challenges | Liaison + committee |
Challenge Response Protocol
When participants encounter difficulties:
- Early Warning System - Regular check-ins identify struggles early
- Intervention Assessment - Determine type and level of support needed
- Additional Support Provision - Deploy appropriate resources
- Plan Modification - Adjust expectations and timelines when needed
- Grace and Accountability - Balance flexibility with responsibility
Appendices
Appendix A: Ubuntu Principles Quick Reference
| Principle | Element | Token | Key Question | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Diversity | Air | UBEC | Does this bring unique value? | Distinctive approach, inclusive participation |
| Reciprocity | Water | UBECrc | Is there balanced exchange? | Giving AND receiving; not one-way |
| Mutualism | Earth | UBECgpi | Does everyone benefit? | Win-win relationships; sustainable partnerships |
| Regeneration | Fire | UBECtt | Does this heal and restore? | Positive impact; leaving things better |
| Interdependence | All | All | Does this strengthen connections? | Network building; ecosystem thinking |
Appendix B: Red Flags Checklist
The following warrant additional scrutiny or may indicate decline:
Mission Alignment Red Flags: - [ ] Industrial scale or mindset - [ ] Extractive rather than regenerative approach - [ ] No community benefit orientation - [ ] Competitive rather than cooperative spirit - [ ] Short-term thinking only
Capacity Red Flags: - [ ] No clear governance or leadership - [ ] Financial mismanagement history - [ ] Inability to complete basic application - [ ] No relevant experience or expertise - [ ] Unrealistic timelines or budgets
Integrity Red Flags: - [ ] Misrepresentation in application - [ ] Inconsistencies in documentation - [ ] Poor references or inability to provide references - [ ] History of conflicts or failed partnerships - [ ] Unwillingness to be transparent
Appendix C: Decision Timeline Summary
| Pathway | Application to Decision | Agreement Drafting | Token Allocation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Farmer | 30-60 days | 7-14 days | 7 days after wallet |
| Community | 45-90 days | 14-21 days | 7 days after wallet |
| Community Activator | 45-75 days | 7-14 days | 7 days after agreement |
| Living Lab | 30-45 days | 7-14 days | 7 days after wallet |
Appendix D: Evaluator Code of Conduct
All evaluation committee members commit to:
- Confidentiality - Application details not shared outside committee
- Impartiality - Recuse from conflicts of interest
- Respect - Treat all applicants with dignity
- Thoroughness - Review all materials carefully
- Timeliness - Complete evaluations within deadlines
- Documentation - Record decisions and rationale
- Collaboration - Engage constructively in committee discussions
- Continuous Learning - Improve evaluation skills over time
Appendix E: Glossary of Terms
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Bioregion | Geographic area defined by ecological and community boundaries |
| Core Beneficiary | Farmer, Community, Community Activator, or Living Lab receiving 65% allocation |
| Holonic Score | Composite measure of Ubuntu alignment (0-1 scale) |
| Regenerative | Practices that restore and heal rather than deplete |
| Food Sovereignty | Community control over food systems |
| Token Allocation | UBEC tokens granted to approved beneficiaries |
| Trustline | Stellar network permission to hold specific tokens |
| Ubuntu | African philosophy meaning "I am because we are" |
Document Information
Version History: - v1.0 (December 31, 2025) - Initial release
Attribution: This project uses the services of Claude and Anthropic PBC to inform our decisions and recommendations. This project was made possible with the assistance of Claude and Anthropic PBC.
Review Schedule: This guide should be reviewed and updated quarterly, or whenever significant changes to the evaluation process occur.
Feedback: Stewards and applicants are encouraged to provide feedback on this guide to continuously improve the evaluation process.
"When we evaluate applications, we are not gatekeeping—we are stewarding sacred resources for the benefit of all. Every decision we make ripples through the ecosystem. May we decide with wisdom, compassion, and the seventh generation in mind."