Regenerate Caribbean MVP

Colour = natural-capital class

Initiative circles scale with disclosed budget (bigger = more funding); sites are larger rings. Positions are approximate centroids; overlapping pins are jittered.

Natural-capital value vs restoration funding

Natural-capital value against this scope's initiatives & estimated budget (disclosed + imputed from reference tickets). % of value/yr = annualised estimated funding ÷ mid-point value; the signal flags classes below the adequate level implied by the 5–7× benchmark.

ClassEst. value / yrInitiativesEst. budget% of value/yrSignal

Only {{ fundingAdequacy.span }}-yr window. “Est. budget” imputes undisclosed projects from the median disclosed ticket of same-class reference projects, so totals exceed disclosed figures. Initiatives touching several classes count in each.

Where the wider-Caribbean values come from

{{ v.cls }} — {{ v.basis }}. {{ v.cite }}

Not yet priced regionally: {{ valueUnpriced }}

Blue-carbon stocks — one-off value, not annual

{{ carbonStockTotal }} standing stock

Kept out of the per-year table above on purpose. These are valuations of carbon already stored, accumulated over thousands of years — a one-off asset and the basis of the blue-carbon credit opportunity, not yearly income. Quoting them as annual value is the single most common error in Caribbean natural-capital figures.

{{ c.stockNote }}. {{ c.detail }}

Caution: {{ c.caution }}

Coastal flood protection — avoided damages / yr

Coral reefs{{ coastalProtection.reefs }}/yr

Mangroves{{ coastalProtection.mangroves }}/yr

{{ coastalProtection.roiNote }} — {{ coastalProtection.roiSource }}

Restoration funding — need vs committed

stated need, BES islands 2020–2030 ({{ funding.needNature }} nature · {{ funding.needInfra }} infrastructure)

≈€15M

recent named EU + national commitments (below)

Dutch OCT value — two independent cross-checks

TEEB Total Economic Value / yr

TNC ecosystem-service value / yr

Six OCTs{{ dutchChecks.tncTotal }}

Caribbean natural-capital value

{{ ncBig }} / year

Scope {{ ncScopeName }}

{{ n.name }} {{ n.label }}

Sources

Estimated natural-capital value

{{ ncValueLabel }} / year

Dutch Caribbean OCTs · 9 asset classes · indicative TEEB / WRI ranges

Share of upper-bound value by class — reefs & beaches dominate.
{{ discBudgetLabel }} (most amounts undisclosed).

Funding adequacy vs benchmark · Dutch Caribbean OCTs

Estimated current restoration spend (disclosed + imputed) annualised over ~{{ fundingAdequacy.span }} yrs. Benchmark: restoration finance must scale 5–7× — conservation finance needs are “five to seven times higher than current spending” (zu Ermgassen & Löfqvist, Current Biology 2024; funding gap >US$700B/yr, Deutz et al. 2020).

est. current · {{ fundingAdequacy.curPctLabel }} of ES value/yr

adequate (≈6×) · {{ fundingAdequacy.adqPctLabel }} of value

CurrentAdequate (5–7×)

Wider Caribbean snapshot

Restoration activity beyond the Dutch OCTs — the pool of proven funders & methods the programme can draw on.

initiatives

organizations

countries

disclosed funding

Initiatives per natural-capital class

Organizations by type

Restoration momentum

Share of initiatives launched in the last 5 years — higher means activity is accelerating.

Most active organizations

Lead organisations by number of initiatives, with estimated funding mobilised (disclosed + imputed).

OrganisationInitiatives ledCountEst. value

Initiative funding started per year

Disclosed funding Estimated (disclosed + imputed)

Dutch-Caribbean funders new to the wider region

{{ revSub }} — candidate exports the OCTs could share basin-wide.

Derived: a Dutch funder is flagged “new to wider” when its name shares no significant term with any wider-Caribbean record — an indicative proxy. A methodology comparison awaits explicit Dutch-method tagging in the dataset.

Regional Natural Capital Management Effectiveness Simulator

Why sequence matters: stop the destruction first, then restore. Values in US$, present value over the chosen horizon.

Reef Mangrove · Seagrass · Watershed — coming

Value at stake: {{ sim.valueAtStake }}/yr on the lead islands alone.

Scenario presets

Investment

Sequence

Durable value per US$1 of restoration: 0.14 into polluted water vs 1.20 after source closure (~9×). Vega Thurber et al. 2014; Piscadera worked example.

Regional facilities

Circular / co-financing

Revolving-fund recycle rate{{ sim.recycle.display }}

Horizon

Discount

Below futility gate (θ = {{ sim.gateTheta }}): value-destroying

Restoring into today's water returns only 0.14 of durable value per US$1 spent — under the RNCMF G2 stop rule this is excluded. Close the source first. Nutrient enrichment doubles disease and more than triples bleaching (Vega Thurber et al. 2014); the effect reverses ~1 year after the source stops.

Durable natural-capital value retained + recovered

BCR is the gross value ratio; RPS is the framework's own metric — it also carries delivery readiness (M) and finance durability (F), which is why facilities and circular finance raise RPS more than they raise BCR.

benefit–cost ratio

per US$1 restoration · {{ sim.perEuroNote }}

vs restore-into-polluted

scenario RPS (V×M×F ÷ C)

total programme cost

Regional facilities — enabler track

Facilities score by what they unlock across the portfolio, never by their own hectares. STENAPA Marine Lab, Statia is in development ($2–4M placeholder).

EPS — value unlocked per US$1

facility capex

portfolio value unlocked

MRV inside C · credits certifiable

Self-financing share by year

Year {{ sim.horizonLabel }}: {{ sim.finalShare }} of upkeep ({{ sim.upkeepLabel }}) covered by revenue

Reclaimed-water revenue is sourced (~$1M/yr per 2,000 m³/day). Credit and visitor-fee contributions are illustrative — no published figure exists yet. Upkeep modelled at 4% of programme cost (illustrative).

Year 1green = upkeep fully coveredYear {{ sim.horizonLabel }}

paid roles (validated range 150–250)

professionals trained (100–150)

Labour figures Monte Carlo-validated Aug 2026 (~140 FTE-years); scaled proportionally to spend and never beyond the validated range.

Source-control cut — % cut of untreated inputs scales linearly from the $15M default = 30% cut, capped at 50%.

Value retained — source-control spend × conservative BCR {{ sim.bcrBasis }} (RNCMF), scaled by the annuity factor for your horizon/discount (20y @ 3% = 14.88; 20y @ 5% = 12.46).

Value recovered — restoration spend × durable value per US$1: 0.14 polluted → 1.20 clean, interpolated on the fraction of source closure achieved.

Hectares — restoration budget ÷ US$404k/ha (Bayraktarov et al. 2019 median); −15–30% at production scale with facilities (midpoint 22.5% applied).

Facilities — U = Σ Δ(V × M′ × F) over dependent initiatives; EPS = U ÷ C_facility, shown as the sourced 1.3–2.2 range (midpoint applied). Monitoring cost −20–30% (25% applied); MRV stays inside C.

RPS — (V^α × M^β × F^γ) ÷ C^δ with α=β=γ=δ=1. M rises with facilities (MRV feasibility, ecological prior); F rises with each finance vehicle and the recycle rate.

G2 futility gate — excluded when the recoverable fraction falls below θ = 0.15, published in advance.

All constants from the Regenerate Caribbean reef data pack v1.0 (concept note v2.5, Controllable Destruction report Aug 2026, RNCM Framework v0.1). Parameters marked illustrative are not sourced figures.