Skip to content
Ecological Intelligence

Ecological evidence.
Independent perspective.
Explore Wild Lands ↗

Ecological Intelligence / Subject

co-governance

Global

Biodiversity-credit credibility is clustering around baseline design and who shares authority over the evidence

Evidence
Peer-reviewed comparative institutional analysis
Geography
12 voluntary biodiversity-credit schemes operating across multiple regions
System
Conservation finance / biodiversity markets

WHAT THE EVIDENCE SAYS

Researchers evaluated 12 comparable voluntary biodiversity-credit schemes against 15 criteria spanning governance, rights and equity, credit integrity and biodiversity monitoring. In multivariate analysis, baseline and sampling design and co-governance were the criteria most consistently associated with differences among schemes after false-discovery-rate correction; several other criteria showed descriptive but non-significant associations.

WHY IT MATTERS / OUR READ

High-tech monitoring cannot rescue a weak counterfactual, and verification cannot substitute for legitimate authority over what is measured and credited. The useful due-diligence question is upstream: how was change defined, sampled and governed before a biodiversity unit was issued?

CAVEATS / UNCERTAINTY

The market is young and the analytical sample is small, geographically limited and based on documented scheme architecture rather than realized biodiversity outcomes. Schemes can also change quickly as standards mature.

SOURCE

Communications Sustainability — primary study
View original evidence ↗

Across 12 voluntary credit schemes, baseline/sampling design and co-governance were the two criteria that most consistently structured differences among schemes after multiple-testing correction.

Read the Wild Lands assessment →
Peer-reviewed Latin America & Caribbean

Arhuaco water governance research points to co-governance—not substitution—as the resilient pathway

Evidence
Peer-reviewed
Geography
Upper Ariguaní River basin, Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Colombia
System
Mountain watershed and Indigenous territory

WHAT THE EVIDENCE SAYS

The study combined 48 community surveys, interviews and participatory mapping with 2000–2023 land-cover analysis and a dynamic socio-hydrological model. Indigenous norms and ritual practices remain central to water management, while agricultural expansion and forest loss increase pressure; modeled scenarios suggest Indigenous governance can slow deterioration but that co-governance with state institutions is more robust under mounting pressure.

WHY IT MATTERS / OUR READ

The result argues against treating traditional knowledge and formal institutions as competing substitutes. Durable watershed governance may depend on institutional arrangements that preserve Indigenous authority and knowledge while connecting them to broader regulatory capacity.

CAVEATS / UNCERTAINTY

The community sample was purposive rather than statistically representative, and the co-governance result comes partly from a model whose parameters embed assumptions and field interpretation. It should inform governance design, not be read as a universal causal estimate.

SOURCE

Human Ecology
View original evidence ↗

A new mixed-methods study in Colombia’s upper Ariguaní basin links Indigenous water knowledge, sacred sites, land-use change and socio-hydrological modeling.

Read the Wild Lands assessment →

Keep exploring

Follow the systems. Find the connections.

WildlifeLandWaterOceansClimateCitiesOne HealthGovernanceMethods / Monitoring
Browse the archive →