The Association’s proprietary framework for classifying and measuring regenerative impact. Referenced in the General Terms and Conditions (GT-1.6 and GT-2), the Ownership Agreement (Annex 2), the Stewardship Agreement (Clause 4), and the Intrapreneurship Agreement (Clause 2). This document specifies what the framework is, how it is applied, and how measurement works in practice.
What the Regenerative Impact Framework Is
The Regenerative Impact Framework is the evaluative vocabulary through which ReGenerativa assesses whether its activities are genuinely regenerative. It answers a question that is easy to ask and hard to answer: how do we know if we are actually getting better?
“Regenerative” is one of the most overused words in contemporary discourse. It can mean anything from composting a vegetable peel to redesigning a global supply chain. The Framework does not attempt to be a universal standard — it is ReGenerativa’s specific articulation of what better looks like, grounded in the six dimensions of the Regenerative Covenant (GT-2).
It is not a certification system. It is not a scoring rubric. It is a shared language for honest assessment — a way of asking, at each hub and each gathering, which dimensions of life are flourishing and which are being neglected.
The Six Dimensions
Each dimension corresponds to a commitment in the Regenerative Covenant (GT-2.2). The dimensions are not ranked — all are necessary, and neglect of any one will eventually undermine the others.
Dimension A — Land and Ecological Systems
The question: Is the living world of this place — its soil, water, biodiversity, and ecological processes — more alive, more diverse, and more resilient than it was when we arrived?
What we measure:
- Soil health: organic matter content, biological activity, water retention
- Biodiversity: species richness (plants, insects, birds, fungi), habitat coverage
- Water: infiltration, retention, quality, consumption per person-day
- Energy: renewable proportion, total consumption, efficiency trends
- Waste: total waste generated, proportion composted or recycled, landfill fraction
- Food: proportion of food consumed that is produced on-site or within the bioregion
Baseline and targets: Each hub establishes a baseline assessment at commencement of the Ownership Agreement (recorded in Agreement 1 Annex 2 — Permitted Use and Regenerative Impact). Targets are set for 1-year and 3-year horizons. Methods are chosen for local relevance and practicability — a simple soil test and an annual species count is more valuable than an elaborate system that never gets done.
Reference practices:
- Annual soil test (basic: OM%, pH, P, K, N)
- Seasonal biodiversity walks with simple species counts
- Monthly utility meter readings
- Harvest and food production logs
Dimension B — Human Health and Well-Being
The question: Are the people who pass through this place leaving more whole — more rested, more nourished, more connected to their bodies and to life — than when they arrived?
What we measure:
- Physical: access to nutritious food, sleep quality, physical activity, bodily safety
- Emotional: sense of being held, welcomed, and valued; absence of harassment or harm
- Relational: quality of connections formed, depth of encounter, experience of belonging
- Psychological: sense of meaning and agency; reduction of isolation
- Economic: access to livelihoods that support dignity; reduction of financial precarity
How we assess: For hubs hosting multi-day stays, a simple end-of-stay reflection is the primary instrument — not a survey, but a structured conversation or written reflection touching on: what nourished you, what was hard, what you are taking away. The steward holds these and offers an aggregate picture to the Association seasonally.
For the network more broadly, the annual gathering includes a collective well-being reflection — not a happiness score, but an honest community conversation about what is flourishing and what is struggling.
Note: Well-being cannot be reduced to metrics. The Framework holds quantitative and qualitative evidence with equal seriousness.
Dimension C — Knowledge and Cultural Vitality
The question: Is the living knowledge of regenerative practice — the skills, traditions, stories, and innovations that make this way of life possible — being transmitted, refined, and amplified?
What we measure:
- Skills taught and learned: what competencies are being transferred between people
- Cross-generational exchange: are elders and young people learning from each other?
- Innovation: what new practices, adaptations, or combinations of knowledge are emerging from the network?
- Documentation: is the knowledge being captured in ways that others can access?
- Cultural expression: are art, story, music, ritual, and ceremony present? Are they being created, not just consumed?
How we assess: Each hub maintains a simple skills log — what was taught here, by whom, to whom. The Mentorship Agreement’s contribution tracking (Agreement 4) feeds directly into this dimension. Intrapreneurship ventures (Agreement 7) that develop new practices are scored here.
At the network level, the Association maintains a skills and knowledge inventory — updated annually, available to all members.
Dimension D — Economic Fairness and Material Infrastructure
The question: Is the economic life of this network structured so that the people who do the work of care and regeneration can afford to live, and so that the value they create flows back to strengthen what enables them?
What we measure:
- Cost coverage: what proportion of hub operating costs are covered by network activity?
- Contribution compensation: are stewards, mentors, and contributing members able to sustain themselves through their network participation?
- Infrastructure investment: what shared infrastructure has been built or improved?
- NRC flows: is the Network Regeneration Contribution being paid, and where is it going?
- Precarity reduction: are members less economically precarious than they were?
How we assess: Financial transparency is built into the annual reporting cycle. Each hub reports its cost coverage annually. The Association publishes aggregate Unified Fund flows in the bilancio sociale (GT-4.7). Patterns of hardship escalating into Council Allocation requests under GT-4.4(c) provide indirect evidence — persistent demand indicates structural economic failure, not individual misfortune.
Note: This dimension is where the gap between stated values and operational reality most often appears. A network that talks about care while leaving its stewards unable to pay rent has not yet made good on its covenant.
Dimension E — Community and Relational Culture
The question: Is there a real community here — one where people know each other, trust each other, and will actually show up for each other when it matters?
What we measure:
- Density of relationship: how many people in the network know each other well enough to ask for help?
- Conflict resolution: when tensions arise, do they get addressed or suppressed?
- Belonging: do members report feeling genuinely part of something?
- Seasonal rhythm: are the equinox and solstice gatherings happening? Who is coming? Is attendance growing?
- Mutual aid: are members helping each other outside formal agreements?
- New member integration: how quickly do new members move from stranger to participant to contributor?
How we assess: This dimension resists quantification most strongly. The primary instruments are: the seasonal gatherings (which are themselves both a measurement and a practice of community), conflict-mediation conversations and Council Allocation requests (which reveal the quality of relational trust and where it is breaking down), and the stewards’ seasonal reports, which include a qualitative community section.
A simple annual question asked at the winter gathering: Who here would you call in an emergency? The breadth and depth of that answer is the most honest measure of community health the network has.
Dimension F — Governance and Ethical Integrity
The question: Is the Association governing itself in the way it claims to — transparently, participatively, with genuine subsidiarity — and is there honest alignment between what we say and what we do?
What we measure:
- Participation: what proportion of members participate in the General Assembly and seasonal governance?
- Transparency: are financial reports, decision logs, and meeting minutes accessible and legible to all members?
- Subsidiarity: are decisions being made at the level closest to those affected?
- Accountability: when something goes wrong, is it acknowledged and addressed?
- Value alignment: are the agreements we sign the agreements we actually live by?
How we assess: Annual governance review at the winter gathering. The Board presents: participation rates, key decisions made and their rationale, decisions delegated to hubs, and an honest account of where governance fell short. Members respond.
The Association’s internal Decision Log is the primary instrument of this dimension — it is only useful if it is honest. A Decision Log that only records good decisions is not a governance tool; it is propaganda.
How to Use the Framework
At hub level — seasonal assessment
Each hub, at each equinox and solstice gathering, holds a brief Regenerative Impact review. This does not need to be formal. The steward prepares a one-page summary — a paragraph per dimension — describing what has moved, what has stalled, and what needs attention. The group discusses it. Key observations go into the hub’s seasonal report to the Association.
Format (one page per hub per season):
| Dimension | Trend | Key observation | What needs attention |
|---|---|---|---|
| A — Land | ↑ / → / ↓ | [one sentence] | [one sentence or “none”] |
| B — Health | |||
| C — Knowledge | |||
| D — Economy | |||
| E — Community | |||
| F — Governance |
At network level — annual synthesis
The Association synthesises all hub seasonal reports into an annual Regenerative Impact report, included in the bilancio sociale. This report:
- Identifies which dimensions are consistently improving across the network
- Names which dimensions are consistently lagging
- Surfaces patterns that individual hubs might not see (e.g. economic precarity appearing across multiple hubs suggests a structural issue)
- Sets network-level targets for the coming year
At agreement level — activation
When a new agreement is activated (Ownership, Intrapreneurship, Partnership), the Regenerative Impact Framework is used to classify the activities and set baseline measurements. This is the function served by Agreement 1 Annex 2 — Permitted Use and Regenerative Impact and Agreement 7 Annex 1 — Venture Sheet.
From assessment to response
The seasonal assessment is not only a record — it is the input to the network’s regenerative balance (GT-2.7). A dimension persistently trending downward across seasons, or active harm to any dimension, opens a graduated, relational, reversible response: support and re-tuning for a hub struggling in good faith; and, only for wilful or persistent uncured harm, the graduated intervention of GT-4.8(b), up to the last resort of GT-2.7(b). Honest non-attainment is never a fault (GT-2.4); the assessment stays a practice of honest attention, never a score or a ranking.
What the Framework Is Not
The Regenerative Impact Framework is not:
- A certification or label that can be achieved and then forgotten
- A compliance checklist that can be satisfied by ticking boxes
- A ranking system that puts hubs or ventures in competition with each other
- A justification for activities that serve one dimension while actively harming another
It is a shared practice of honest attention. Its value is proportional to the honesty with which it is applied.
Evolution
This framework is a living document. As the network learns what genuinely matters at each hub and across the whole, the measurement practices will evolve. New indicators will be added; unhelpful ones will be dropped. The dimensions themselves are stable — they reflect the structure of the Regenerative Covenant — but how we attend to them will deepen over time.
Proposed changes to the framework are discussed at the annual gathering and approved by the Board. Changes are recorded in the Decision Log with rationale.
Version: 1.4 — June 2026 (added “From assessment to response” → GT-2.7) Next review: Spring Equinox 2027
Part of the ReGenerativa Companion Documents. Governed by the General Terms and Conditions GT-1.6 and GT-2.