This paper argues that humanity’s current governance and economic systems are structurally incapable of safeguarding Earth’s life-support systems. It proposes a reframing of planetary responsibility through a Commons Trust Framework, in which ecological integrity and future generations hold legal and moral primacy. Drawing from systems thinking, indigenous stewardship models, and emerging legal innovations (such as rights of nature and intergenerational governance), the paper outlines pathways toward a multi-level trust structure that redistributes authority, redefines prosperity, and embeds long-term ecological resilience at the core of global governance.
The framework aims to support policy-makers, civil society, and international institutions in developing governance models fit for a rapidly destabilizing world—one in which “remembering the future” becomes an ethical and practical necessity.

 

Introduction 

“The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones” – John Maynard Keynes 

Despite three decades of climate negotiations, global emissions continue to climb, reaching new highs in 2024. Our collective effort is constrained not by a shortage of solutions, but by our difficulty in stepping outside the very intellectual architecture that produced this crisis in the first place and by the system inertia that pulls us back toward familiar tools. We continue trying to solve problems generated by finance with more finance, rarely pausing to reexamine the monetary foundation and distribution structures that shaped them.

Climate finance has become central to COP discussions because preventing, adapting to, and recovering from climate change requires vast amounts of capital. Yet few acknowledge the structural contradiction at the heart of the global financial system: the world’s reserve currency – the U.S. dollar – is still functionally tied to fossil energy through the petrodollar structure. Since most oil and energy commodities are traded and settled in dollars, global demand for the currency is indirectly sustained by hydrocarbon flows. Interest rates, capital movements, and sovereign-debt dynamics thus remain more sensitive to oil prices and energy markets than to planetary boundaries. We are trying to build a decarbonized world with a monetary architecture designed for perpetual, carbon-fueled growth. As both the climate crisis and pressures for de-dollarization intensify, this energy-monetary linkage will become a major fault line in the global economy.

What is the alternative? How to escape this trap? This article is a two-part series on rethinking climate finance from the ground-up. Part I examines the structural limitations of market-based climate solutions and introduces Commons Trusts as a governance system rooted in ecological thresholds, fiduciary responsibility, and bioregional stewardship. Part II extends this architecture into the domain of money itself, exploring the Commons Reserve Currency (CRC) as a monetary framework anchored in the regenerative capacities of ecosystems. Alongside ecological Commons Trusts, Part II discusses social and digital commons – showing how all forms of shared value must ultimately operate within the biophysical limits of the Earth. Together, the two parts outline a potential pathway toward a finance and governance paradigm that no longer treats nature as a commodity, but recognizes it as a living commons – governed through responsibility, reciprocity, and regeneration.

Part I 

The Limits of Dominant Climate Instruments

Most policy responses remain locked within familiar market and state paradigms.
Carbon taxes, subsidy reforms, and renewable incentives attempt to discipline global capitalism by making pollution more expensive and clean energy cheaper. Cap-and-trade, offset schemes, green bonds, and blended finance aim to channel private capital into low-carbon infrastructure but leaving the underlying monetary and private ownership logic untouched.

These tools can reshape the energy mix, but they do not change the deeper truth: today’s climate-finance system remains tethered to an interest-bearing, debt-based, fossil-anchored monetary regime that must expand in order to remain stable. Because credit money is created through lending, aggregate debt must continually grow to service existing obligations. This structure hard-wires economies to seek perpetual GDP growth, driving resource overuse, inequality, and ecological collapse. Energy – and other natural assets such as minerals – continue to be treated as commodities whose value is defined by price, ownership, and speculation rather than by their ecological function or regenerative limits

In the global climate arena, this logic expresses itself in carbon markets and financialization of ecosystems, often enabled by public–private partnerships. REDD+, originally framed as a donor-to-country performance-based funding mechanism for forest conservation, has mutated into a market instrument. Private actors now trade forest carbon as speculative assets, with murky accountability and incentives misaligned with ecological reality. Alternative initiatives such as Amazon Indigenous REDD+ (RIA) – designed to move beyond carbon and market logics – remain underfunded precisely because they do not fit dominant financial paradigms.

The shift toward “market-over-governance” is not accidental; it is structural.
When public funds are insufficient, private markets enter – bringing capital, but also their own logic of pricing, ownership, and externalization. When intergovernmental coordination stalls, markets provide a politically convenient “neutral ground.” The promise of green growth relieves fiscal pressure on states while generating new opportunities for profit, often by commodifying the very ecosystems we seek to protect.

Why We Default to Market-Based Solutions

Markets dominate climate finance not because they are the best tool, but because they fit neatly into three long-standing systemic blind spots:

First, markets depoliticize complexity. By collapsing ecological and moral considerations into a single metric (price), markets create the appearance of order in an otherwise messy global system. This efficiency is appealing for policymakers: price signals coordinate billions of decisions without requiring difficult negotiations about responsibility, justice, or historical accountability. Complex questions about who should cut emissions and by how much, who should restore ecosystems, and who should pay are transformed into tradable quantities.

Second, they externalize accountability. Offset mechanisms are built on the premise that one actor can compensate for its harm by purchasing reductions from another. The responsibility for emissions or ecosystem damage becomes dispersed across contracts, brokers, verifiers, and financial intermediaries. No one is ultimately answerable to the Earth. By outsourcing coordination to markets, governments also sidestep political conflict over allocation, allowing institutions to avoid uncomfortable disputes about who must limit consumption or production.

Third, they appear borderless. Markets move faster than treaties or multilateral governance, and multinational corporations operate across jurisdictions with agility unmatched by public institutions. But this borderless quality often deepens vulnerability: corporations gravitate toward territories with weaker regulation, while legal instruments such as investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) can undermine national sovereignty and limit the ability of states to protect ecosystems. Markets offer speed, but at a cost to relational, place-based stewardship.

Ultimately, markets are adaptive but morally indifferent. States, by contrast, provide continuity and regulation but are rigid and prone to capture. Both systems dominate because they have institutional power – rules, budgets, bureaucracies, and incentives – that coordinate action at scale. Yet they share the same philosophical limitation: both frame climate action through quantitative, transactional, and sovereign logics rather than through the relational, qualitative, and ecological logics required to regenerate living systems.

The Missing Third Pillar: The Commons

Our deepest structural trap is this: markets privatize, states centralize – neither commonizes.

Where markets commodify ecosystems and states consolidate authority over them, the commons stands at the intersection of nature and community. The commons is not simply a shared resource; it is the web of relationships, agreements, cultural norms, and care practices through which people steward that resource together. It is a governance paradigm rooted in reciprocity, responsibility, and long-term attunement to place. 

Yet despite its promise, the commons lacks the institutional infrastructure – legal frameworks, financial mechanisms, organizational structures – necessary to coordinate at scale. Modern development over the past 300 years has relied heavily on the enclosure of commons: land, forests, water, culture, and even time. State-backed property systems converted shared inheritance into commodified units, allowing extraction to be rationalized as “development.”

To “commonify” is not to romanticize the past, but to repair what commodification severed: turning ownership into trusteeship, production into participation, and development into care.

A governance system for a flourishing world must hold all three domains in balance:
the state, which ensures equity and long-term vision; the market, which supports exchange and innovation; and the commons, which grounds both in relationship, reciprocity, and ecological regeneration. In this paradigm, not all sectors must be commonified. Commons governance is appropriate for domains where value is inherently shared, relational, and interdependent: ecological commons (forests, water, soil, oceans, biodiversity, carbon cycles) as well as social, cultural, and civic commons (knowledge, health, digital integrity, mobility, culture). Market actors continue to create enterprise value in manufacturing, retail, finance, pharmaceuticals, consumer electronics, and logistics. Large-scale infrastructure, coordinated fiscal systems, emergency response, and public goods remain essential roles for both state and market. 

Only when state, markets and commons operate in dynamic balance – harmonizing power, transaction, and care – can our institutions begin to approximate the adaptive, cyclical, life-sustaining patterns of living ecosystems. This is the essence of an eco-social contract: a relational architecture through which societies realign their governance, economic activity, and civic life with the natural systems that sustain life.

Why Current Climate Finance Fails

COP30’s launch of the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) reveals the persistence of the old paradigm rather than a shift into the commons. TFFF treats forests, defined as 20-30% canopy cover though far below 80% typically for tropical forests, primarily as financial assets whose “value” – estimated at $4 per hectare – must compete with industrial agriculture and extractive industries. The facility intends to invest US$125 billion largely in emerging-market sovereign and corporate bonds, requiring returns above 7.5%. Even with fossil fuels excluded, the portfolio remains tied to commodity expansion, infrastructure build-out, and macro-financial growth dynamics – the very forces accelerating forest degradation. Investment logic seeks scale, fungibility, and standardization; it rarely accommodates the place-based complexity, cultural meaning, and multidimensional wellbeing that real forest protection requires.

Can TFFF credibly claim to protect forests when the mechanisms that generate its returns remain structurally entangled with the drivers of deforestation? The contradiction echoes the limits of most market-based climate initiatives and risks adding new debt burdens to tropical forest countries already contending with extractive pressures. Backed by global financiers and designed through investment logic, such facilities cannot easily transcend the system they aim to reform. TFFF upgrades the instruments, but not the worldview.

Essentially, existing climate finance instruments – green bonds, carbon markets, blended finance, climate funds – are products of a specific historical configuration: a debt-based monetary system, fossil-fueled industrial growth, and the belief that price signals could discipline markets into ecological restoration. These tools once served important purposes: addressing liquidity constraints, de-risking climate investments, and mobilizing capital where governments could not. But they contain a structural flaw. Ownership and value are privatized, while risks and ecological costs are socialized. Tethered to a money system anchored in fossil metabolism and property regimes that treat forests and air as commodities, these instruments cannot – by design – regenerate the living systems upon which they depend.

Moreover, climate finance today remains fundamentally a state-market game. The commons enters late, usually as “stakeholders,” “beneficiaries,” or “implementation partners,” rarely as co-designers or co-governors. Technical complexity pushes indigenous peoples and ordinary citizens to the margins; the system speaks a language mostly experts can understand. Meanwhile, power lives in central banks, finance ministries, development banks, and global investors. Transactions are mediated through contracts and interest rates; care is confined to safeguards rather than embedded as a design principle.

From Market-Speculation to Commons-Trust

Commons Trusts – drawing deeply on the foundational work of James Bernard Quilligan – offer a structural alternative to both state control and market commodification. They are governance institutions – legal, ecological, and moral bodies – mandated to protect, steward, and regenerate shared resources on behalf of present and future generations. Commons can be ecological (forests, rivers), cultural (languages, traditions), physical (land, fisheries), or digital (knowledge ecosystems). Their stewards range from indigenous guardians and fisher cooperatives to digital communities and neighborhood associations.

At their core, Commons Trusts, also referred to as resources trusts or bioregional trusts, operationalize trusteeship – care, accountability, regeneration – while avoiding the pitfalls of centralized bureaucracy or speculative markets. Their architecture rests on seven interlocking pillars.

• The Commons as Shared Inheritance

In this system, planetary resources such as the atmosphere, oceans, forests, biodiversity, and climatic stability are held in trust, not owned. They are understood as shared wealth belonging to humanity and all beings, including future generations. This shift reframes governance from short-term extraction toward long-term prosperity and ecological continuity.

Beneficiaries include present and future generations, as well as more-than-human communities. This establishes a moral and legal baseline: ecosystems have standing, and life itself becomes a rights-bearing entity.

• Trusteeship Instead of Ownership

Instead of asking “Who owns this?” the commons framework asks, “Who cares for this, on behalf of all?”

Trustees are local institutions embedded in the ecosystems they steward, operating distinct from state or market actors. They include groups like indigenous nations, communities, and fisher and farmer organizations.

Usage boundaries are set, ecological thresholds enforced, and permits allocated as temporary use-rights, not as tradable commodities. For example, a Carbon Commons Trust determines allowable emissions for its jurisdiction based on ecological science and planetary boundaries. These use-rights are time-bound, non-transferable, and revocable, much like fishing licenses in a protected marine zone.

This design prevents corruption, speculation, and elite capture while preserving the principle that all use must stay within ecological ceilings.

• Commons Stewardship Fees, Not Speculative Markets

Access to shared resources is guided by a commons stewardship fee – a regenerative contribution that reflects the true ecological cost of using a finite commons. Unlike market prices shaped by supply and demand, this contribution applies equally to states, companies, and community enterprises, creating a level field based on ecological integrity rather than financial leverage.

Subsistence use by local communities remains protected. It simply requires a permit so that it stays within the bioregion’s carrying capacity and remains visible to collective governance. Commercial use, whether by companies or community enterprises, contributes to commons revenues, ensuring no one extracts more than the ecosystem can renew.

Commons contributions, returned directly to the land and the people, finance restoration, territorial monitoring, intercultural health, education, sacred sites, Life Plans, and dignified bioeconomic alternatives. A portion of the value generated is distributed as a social dividend – an expression of shared belonging and cooperation – functioning as an ecologically grounded form of universal basic income, which distinguishes itself from state welfare program or market profit-sharing scheme. 

For-profit corporations receive only temporary, non-transferable use-rights conditioned on FPIC (Free, Prior, and Informed Consent), ecological thresholds, and performance. Where outside expertise is necessary – as for satellite monitoring, drone patrols, forest restoration, or eco-tourism – companies are contracted as service providers, not granted access to exploit the commons directly. Institutional and private investors can now channel capital to these regenerative economy actors, thereby supporting bioregional restoration and local development. No speculative trading, no selling future environmental integrity, no false offsets.

• Fiduciary Law and Common Rights 

Fiduciary law replaces contracts of sale with binding duties of care: to preserve the regenerative capacity of bioregions and ensure fair, transparent distribution of benefits. In a Commons Trust, misuse of funds or falsification of accounts is not merely “poor management” – it is a breach of trust, enforceable under law. Community and human proxies acting on behalf of ecosystems or future generations can challenge trustees in court.

At the same time, commons rights ensure access to fundamental means of life – food, water, mobility, energy, culture – not as commodities allocated by markets or as entitlements dispensed by the state, but as relationships governed through collective stewardship.

These two legal pillars work together: commons rights define what must be protected and guaranteed for all, while fiduciary duties define how responsibilities are carried out, monitored, and enforced.

This dual architecture blends Western concepts of rights (expanding circles of care) with Eastern and indigenous notions of responsibility (what binds us together in collective purpose). It provides the legal backbone for a planetary order grounded in reciprocity and stewardship.

• Polycentric and Nested Governance

Commons governance is polycentric – multiple centers of decision-making, each with fiduciary duties to the public and to nature. Local autonomy is linked to regional coordination and global coherence.

Every commons has a Social/Commons Charter – essentially a localized eco-social contract specifying rights, duties, governance procedures, ecological limits, dispute resolution, and cultural values. Many indigenous “Planes de Vida” already function as such charters.

Local and regional trusts – for example, Amazon Rainforest Trusts, Nile Basin Water Trusts, or South Asia Marine Commons – would federate upward to coordinate ecological governance across scales.

At the global level, the UN Trusteeship Council could be revived to oversee planetary commons such as the atmosphere, oceans, polar regions, cyberspace, biodiversity, and peace.

• Dynamic Equilibrium Through Funding Mechanisms

True regeneration mirrors nature’s feedback loops. Unlike supply–demand equilibrium which balances human transactions but ignores ecosystem thresholds, commons trusts create a dynamic equilibrium between use and renewal:

• Commons budgets maintain shared principal
• Resource monetization is minimal and carefully bounded
• Commons revenues circulate to communities, not to capital accumulation
• Extraction and use remain within ecological caps.

This aligns financial flows with biophysical regeneration.

• Digital Coordination for Collective Stewardship

Instead of market exchanges, commons trusts can leverage open, verifiable registries (e.g., blockchain or public digital ledgers) to track use permits, restoration actions, and fund flows. Digital tools such as DAOs (Decentralized Autonomous Organizations), community tokens, and open-source protocols support transparency and shared accountability while preserving the relational nature of value.

This technology strengthens governance without reducing life to profit metrics.

In sum, to operationalize commons trusts, four ingredients are indispensable: small and effective trust bodies, transparent ecological data, legally enforceable fiduciary duty, and nested governance that scales without collapsing. 

Ultimately, the commons trust model embodies Lotka’s Maximum Power Principle: systems thrive when they sustain long-term regenerative power. By tying value to ecological renewal and distributing benefits through social cooperation, commons trust expand the society’s energetic capacity over time, strengthening resilience, stability, and collective wellbeing.

Importantly, commons trusts do not replace states or markets. They rebalance them and enhance complimentary advantages. In this paradigm, the state becomes a constitutional meta-trustee responsible for safeguarding ecological integrity, upholding fiduciary law, providing essential infrastructure, and ensuring that commons governance has full legal standing. The market becomes service providers operating within trust-governed systems. All the commercial entities require use permits (time-bound, non-transferable), commons stewardship fees (not market prices), compliance with social charters and ecological caps and verification through transparent ledgers. Within this triad, the commons becomes the primary steward and generator of shared value, re-synchronizing economy, ecology, and spirituality into one coherent whole. 

Function	Market	State	Commons Trust
Organizing Logic	Profit	Authority	Care & Regeneration
Accountability	Shareholders	Voters	All life & future generations
Ownership	Private	Public	Held in trust – no absolute owner
Incentive	Competition	Compliance	Stewardship & reciprocity
Value Flow	Accumulation	Redistribution	Circulation & renewal

This is the next necessary evolution of commons governance in a world seeking to regenerate its life-support systems.

Application: Protecting the Amazon Rainforests through the Commons Approach

“We need to heal the ways we think, feel, relate, exchange and exist as part of Pachamama.” – Maria Jara Qquerar, Quechua maestra

Across the Amazon, a quiet paradigm shift is emerging: forests and rivers are beginning to be understood as living commons whose health interconnects with that of communities and thus requires collective stewardships. Recent reforms – such as Ecuador’s constitutional recognition of indigenous land rights and Colombia’s landmark guarantee of indigenous governments’ administrative and budgetary autonomy – signal a move toward territorial self-governance rooted in biocultural rights. These openings create fertile conditions for a basin-wide transformation: the creation of Amazon Bioregional Trust. 

The heart of this approach lies in a Basin-Wide Amazon Commons Charter, a shared covenant that recognizes forests, rivers, carbon cycles and biodiversity as interconnected commons to be protected across borders. Each Amazonian country would adopt its own Trust Deed aligned with its legal traditions, building on existing foundations such as indigenous territorial rights, collective land titles, or the constitutional recognition of the Rights of Nature in Ecuador and Bolivia.

This creates a nested, fractal governance architecture rather than a centralized bureaucracy: Basin level provides coherence and ecological thresholds. National level adapts and integrates with law and policy. Territorial level exercises autonomy grounded in biocultural continuity. Community level becomes the primary steward and generator of value.

A Basin Council, essentially a revived trusteeship function, would integrate ecological science with indigenous ecological knowledge to set bioregional thresholds including limits on frontier expansion, maximum pollution loads for rivers, fishing quotas, zero-tolerance conservation areas, basin-wide carbon budgets, as well as rules for sacred sites and cultural corridors.

Representation is essential: indigenous federations, riverine and Afro-descendant associations, scientific bodies, national authorities, women’s groups, and communities affected by conflict or criminal economies all hold guaranteed seats. Decisions must reflect both ecological reality and territorial legitimacy.

At the territorial level, local commons trusts would bring these principles to life. They become the relational and operational heart of the system – spaces where communities design local rules, monitor forest health, resolve conflicts, propose livelihood and cultural projects. Precedents already exist throughout the region: The Asháninka maintain complex rotation and protection systems in Peru. The Kayapó manage vast nut and forest mosaics using sacred zones and managed-use areas. The Cofán in Ecuador have built highly effective community-led patrols safeguarding headwaters. Transborder networks such as the Amazon Sacred Headwaters Alliance coordinate reforestation, governance, and territorial monitoring.

These examples point to a consistent truth: indigenous stewardship protects forests more effectively than centralized enforcement. Their governance practices – rotational use, controlled burning, polycultures, seasonal decision-making, and ceremonial reciprocity – sustain long-term regenerative flows and strengthen ecosystem resilience while supporting human wellbeing. Commons trusts seek to recover, amplify, and formalize this wisdom in more bioregions, integrating digital tools, participatory monitoring, and cooperative structures so that broader societies can learn from and support these lifeways.

To align economic incentives with ecological thresholds, the Amazon Commons Trust operates across three levels – basin, national, and territorial. The Basin Council allocates the total permissible “use space” to territorial trusts based on ecological importance, population, cultural and territorial rights, historical use, and demonstrated stewardship. Territorial trusts then issue time-bound, non-transferable use permits, not tradable credits, for timber, NTFPs, fishing, water use, transport corridors, or carbon space. Subsistence use remains protected, while commercial use pays stewardship fees.

Commons contributions collected locally become the regenerative engine of the region. These funds support forest restoration, monitoring and deterrence, stipends for community guardians, youth-elder environmental programs, bioeconomy ventures, cultural and spiritual site protection and victims support in areas affected by environmental crime. A portion flows upward to maintain wildlife corridors and river basin health; another circulates locally as stewardship salaries or community dividends. All transactions are recorded on open digital ledgers, strengthening transparency and dramatically reducing corruption.

This architecture disrupts the mechanics of persistent environmental crime in two ways: 1) Non-transferable, performance-based use-rights make it far harder to launder illegal timber, minerals, or wildlife. 2) Stable, dignified livelihoods financed through commons revenues reduce economic dependence on illicit economies. When local commons trusts directly fund roles like forest guardians, drone monitors, ecological educators, or bioeconomy producers, the financial incentive to engage in illicit operations – including illegal logging, mining, coca cultivation, and animal trafficking – diminishes sharply.

This trust-based approach stands in stark contrast to carbon offset markets, which have often failed to protect forests and reduce carbon emissions. Offsets allow polluters to purchase “permission to emit” and call it climate neutrality; baselines are often inflated to generate more credits; benefits to communities are often meager or opaque. The commons trust model offers a fundamentally different logic: Ecological ceilings replace speculative pricing. Stewardship replaces carbon ownership. Reciprocity replaces market transactions. Local development replaces external control. Spiritual and ecological integrity becomes non-negotiable.

In practice, an Amazon Commons Trust must emerge through phases. A basin-wide entity (Amazon Bioregional Trust) may be the long-term anchor, but it cannot be legislated into existence overnight. Commons governance grows from below: through local and territorial trusts, intercultural assemblies, community-driven stewardship agreements, and resilience partnerships that adapt to the political realities of each country. In democratic contexts these may take the form of formal trusts; in more centralized or sensitive regimes, equivalent arrangements may appear as stewardship contracts, co-management pilots, or state-sponsored participatory councils. What matters is not the label but the direction of travel: increasing local custodianship, clear ecological thresholds, transparent fiduciary duties, polycentric cooperation, and nested coordination across scales. Over time, as these living experiments deepen ecological outcomes and strengthen community capacity, they provide the empirical and moral foundation for a future bioregional trust that can eventually coordinate across borders while respecting national sovereignty and territorial diversity.

Part II 

Transforming the Financial System: Addressing the Root 

Commons trusts outline a new socio-economic architecture for stewarding resources at local, bioregional, and planetary scales. Yet their transformative potential cannot be fully realized without re-examining the architecture of money itself. Climate finance cannot meaningfully evolve while it remains embedded in a monetary system detached from the Earth’s biophysical capacity to regenerate. Today, money is created through debt expansion, leverage, and expectations of perpetual growth that is historically powered by high-EROEI fossil fuels. As fossil EROEI declines and ecosystems lose regenerative capacity, the money supply continues to expand, amplifying instability and ecological overshoot. Ethical investing, ESG screens, and blended finance may soften the edges, but they do not alter the underlying dynamics. What is needed is a regenerative monetary logic aligned with the energy flows that sustain life, rather than one that violates the thermodynamic limits governing all living systems.

Across the world, experiments are emerging that hint at such a shift. Mutual credit networks – LETS, Sardex, the Swiss WIR – decouple community exchange from debt-driven scarcity. Community currencies reward caregiving, ecological work, and social reproduction that markets undervalue. Bioregional funds and land trusts pool capital for regeneration rather than speculation. Grassroots economics pilots, ecovillages, transition towns, and indigenous territorial systems embody relational economies in practice, even if at small scale.

These experiments signal that societies are reaching for a post-debt, post-fossil, post-extractive understanding of money – one grounded in relationship, reciprocity, and ecological limits. Yet none offers a fully integrated framework that can operate from the local to the planetary level.

The most comprehensive and coherent idea comes from the Commons Reserve Currency (CRC). Built upon the foundation of Commons Trusts, CRC envisions a monetary system tied to ecological regeneration that expands only through increased life-supporting capacity. Its allocation is based on measured regenerative performance – reforestation, biodiversity indicators, watershed health, canopy recovery, etc. The design of CRC serves as the missing link between localized commons governance and planetary-scale coordination.

Reimagining Money: The Commons Reserve Currency

The Commons Reserve Currency (CRC) – first articulated by James Bernard Quilligan – provides one of the most advanced frameworks for biophysical recalibrations of money aligned with universal natural laws, not just normative arguments. CRC begins with a radical but elegant proposition: money should be created from ecological regeneration, not from interest-bearing debt. Instead of grounding value in fossil energy, geopolitical power, or the creditworthiness of states, CRC anchors value in the health, renewal, and carrying capacity of Earth’s shared commons.

A Monetary System Rooted in Ecology

Today’s monetary systems expand through lending and contract through repayment. The result is a structural bias toward short-term gain, resource depletion, speculative accumulation, and fossil throughput regardless of climate pledges or environmental concern.

CRC reverses this logic by tying monetary expansion to the measurable improvement in ecosystem health. In this architecture, a composite planetary regeneration rate (the universal reserve base) replaces the interest rate. Rather than expressing the cost of borrowing, it expresses the capacity of biophysical systems to regenerate. This planetary index establishes the total amount of CRC that can exist within the economy.

The effect is profound: when ecosystems heal, the supply of CRC expands; when ecosystems degrade, issuance contracts. Money supply becomes an expression of planetary and bioregional vitality, not financial speculation or geopolitical influence.

This system opens a vast domain of transdisciplinary innovation, because defining and monitoring ecological surplus (regeneration above the threshold of ecological stability) and operationalizing allocation schemes becomes central to socioeconomic governance – just as inflation targeting is central to today’s monetary policy.

A Single Currency with One Ecological Ceiling 

In practice, CRC issuance happens at the level of the bioregion – the Amazon Basin, the Congo Basin, the Mekong Watershed, the Coral Triangle, the European Alps, and other ecologically coherent units. Each bioregion establishes a single Ecological Commons Trust (ELC), which functions as the monetary issuer for that region. The ECT calculates its annual CRC issuance capacity through a composite ecological regeneration index that integrates forest regrowth, watershed recovery, soil carbon gains, biodiversity integrity, atmospheric restoration, and pollution reduction. These indicators determine one unified biophysical ceiling – the maximum amount of currency the region’s ecosystems can support without degrading.

Once this upper bound is established, the Ecological Commons Trust allocates CRC downward to sectoral ecological sub-trusts (forest, river, soil, biodiversity), territorial Indigenous and community trusts, and non-ecological commons trusts (health, digital, knowledge, culture). These trusts receive allocations and must demonstrate regenerative contribution in their respective domains to maintain future allocations. 

Importantly, the Trusts differ not in their monetary power, but in the kind of regeneration they cultivate. Fast-scaling sectors – digital, AI, cultural production – cannot inflate the currency, because their allocation derives from ecological surplus. All trusts “rent” their issuance capacity from the biosphere’s allowable surplus, ensuring that every activity – whether digital infrastructure, health systems, or cultural revitalization – remains grounded in Earth’s carrying capacity.

CRC therefore avoids the internal asymmetries that plague multi-currency systems: no competition between trusts, no exchange-rate dynamics, no inflation driven by fast-growing sectors, and no geopolitical arbitrage. Value is unified because all issuance and all economic activity ultimately traces back to a singular foundation: Earth system integrity.

Market-developed sectors such as manufacturing, banking, transport, and global logistics pay for access to the commons on which their activities depend, and use CRC to transact these payments. For example, a manufacturing firm sourcing minerals or timber from the Congo Basin would pay commons stewardship fees in CRC to the Congo Rainforest Commons Trust. A global logistics company moving goods across oceans would pay similar CRC rent to an Ocean Commons Trust for the ecological impact of shipping lanes and marine pollution. In every case, the use of shared planetary systems requires payment into their regeneration, creating a continuous, self-correcting feedback loop between economic activity and the health of the Earth.

This fundamentally transforms industrial processes to adhere to the ecological thresholds and social wellbeing enforced by the Commons Trusts, which is similar to applying environmental and social safeguards, but the crucial difference is that these payments and performance metrics are the source of the currency’s value, not merely an external compliance cost.

Illustration: CRC Allocation for Digital and Health Commons Trusts in the Amazon 

To remain consistent with the Amazon Commons Trust architecture in Part I, it is helpful to illustrate how non-ecological commons (social, cultural, digital, health) participate in CRC allocation. Each Commons Trust – ecological or social – has its own domain-specific regeneration indicators. But only ecological regeneration determines the total issuance capacity for the region. Social and digital trusts receive allocated shares of that issuance based on how strongly their work supports long-term stewardship, cultural vitality, and relational integrity.

Digital integrity and community health do not “produce CRC” directly because they do not regenerate forests or rivers. However, they play essential roles in maintaining social conditions for ecological flourishing. In the Amazon, indigenous knowledge systems, territorial health, and digital infrastructure are part of a living biocultural web. Degradation of any of these weakens long-term ecological stewardship.

Health Commons Trust

Health in Amazonian terms is inseparable from ecology and spirituality. A Health Commons Trust would support:

• Community One Health systems linking human, animal, and ecosystem health
• Territorial epidemiology to monitor vector-borne diseases linked to deforestation
• Wildlife protection to reduce spillover risks
• Traditional medicine and shamanic knowledge
• Sacred site protection as spiritual-ecological health nodes
• Nutrition and agroforestry health (chagra systems, organic forest foods)

These are not commercial health services. Hospital construction, private clinics, pharmaceutical sales – those remain market or state responsibilities. The Health Commons Trust protects the parts of health that are collective, relational, ecological, and cultural – without replacing the state’s health service provision.

Digital Commons Trust

Digital systems in the Amazon are also deeply relational:

• Data sovereignty over territory maps, biodiversity, and ancestral knowledge
• Digital rights and privacy for indigenous communities
• Ethical AI for territorial monitoring
• Open MRV systems for forest and river health
• Community-owned digital infrastructure (mesh networks, open-source tools)

This is distinct from commercial telecom (e.g., Claro, Movistar) or private IT vendors. The Digital Commons Trust safeguards the domain where digital integrity and cultural data are part of collective wellbeing.

Suppose the Amazon bioregion shows measurable net-positive regeneration this year – soil carbon recovery, forest regrowth, improved river health, biodiversity indicators. These ecological gains translate into bioregion’s CRC issuance ceiling for the new year, say 100 CRC.

The Basin Council, following the Trust Deed, allocates these 100 CRC among the Forest, Health, and Digital Trusts. The weighting reflects factors such as ecological importance and urgency, cultural and health needs, community-defined priorities, fiduciary performance and long-term resilience goals. An example would be forest, health, digital receive 60, 25 and 15 CRC respectively. Digital receives the smallest allocation not because it is unimportant, but because it does not directly restore ecosystems; it supports the conditions for stewardship. If a trust mismanages funds or violates fiduciary duty, its future allocation is reduced or suspended.

Let us look at 15 CRC digital commons trust receives. It then distributes those funds to regenerative social functions, such as:

• Indigenous-led digital rights and literacy programs: 3 CRC
• Open MRV system upgrades for territorial monitoring: 4 CRC
• Public digital infrastructure (community solar, mesh networks, open data stores): 8 CRC

Importantly, the CRC is allocated in a polycentric, performance-based manner that directly mirrors the ecological and social complexity of the bioregion. It avoids fixed, bureaucratic silos by recognizing that all commons are interconnected (e.g., a forest restoration regenerates water cycles, biodiversity, and carbon sequestration simultaneously).

To address this interconnectedness and the nested nature of ecosystems – from the local community to the global climate – the allocation methodology is not imposed but must be co-designed through an inclusive process and formally established within the local Social/Commons Charters. For example, to ensure continuity for slow-moving regenerative work (language revitalization, intergenerational trauma healing from historical injustice and cultural continuity, etc.), the council may collectively decide on a minimal guaranteed allocation tied to those custodial roles.

This ensures a nested allocation structure grounded in fiduciary duties: communities receive the largest share for direct custodianship and day-to-day protection; territorial and regional Trusts receive a portion for coordination, knowledge exchange, and cross-border governance; and the Carbon Commons Trust receives a smaller share reflecting the planetary benefit (e.g., climate stabilization).

While allocation relies on ecological and social indicators, no metric can fully capture all dimensions of stewardship. Therefore, allocation methods require periodic review and culturally grounded conflict-resolution mechanisms.

In essence, CRC allocation is performance-based, but performance is redefined. It is measured not by extraction or output but by the health of one’s own commons, contribution to the regeneration of interconnected commons, and fidelity to the social charter that codifies care, cooperation, reciprocity, and intergenerational responsibility. There is no hoarding, no speculative trading, no competitive bidding, no political expansion. CRC issued from ecological regeneration circulates across ecological, social, and digital domains to strengthen the entire biocultural system. This is how an Amazon Commons Trust replaces extractive finance by recognizing that forests thrive only when communities, health, knowledge systems, and digital integrity thrive.

Transforming Trade and Macroeconomics

CRC fundamentally reshapes the structural dynamics of the global economy. Today, international trade is mediated through a hierarchy of sovereign currencies that forces many nations – particularly in the Global South – to earn or borrow foreign currency in order to import goods. When imports exceed exports, countries accumulate foreign debt and become vulnerable to currency volatility, austerity measures, and geopolitical pressure. This architecture entrenches dependency and reinforces the extractive comparative advantage: resource-rich countries supply raw materials, industrial powers supply high-value products, and consumption flows toward the Global North.

CRC dissolves these hierarchies by grounding value not in national monetary policy, financial markets, or geopolitical influence, but in ecological regeneration. No country can “print” its way to advantage. Issuance capacity expands only when ecosystems heal and contracts automatically when ecological limits are breached. 

Under CRC, the logic of trade deficits and balance-of-payments crises disappears. Since all participating nations draw value from the same regenerative base, rather than competing national currencies, no country is forced to earn or borrow a foreign sovereign currency to pay for necessary imports. The risk of exchange-rate crises dissolves because currencies do not compete; issuance is ecological, not geopolitical. Since CRC issuance is capped by ecological thresholds and governed by fiduciary duties, no country can accumulate monetary power through debt-fueled expansion or sustain persistent surpluses that destabilize others.

Trade under CRC becomes grounded not in extractive comparative advantage but in bioregional complementarity: regions contribute to global wellbeing through their regenerative capacities and through the cultural, technological, and knowledge commons they steward. The organizing logic of trade shifts from exploiting what is cheapest to sustaining what is life-supporting.

In this new architecture, global value chains naturally reconfigure themselves into global regeneration networks. Because money is created only when ecosystems regenerate, the entire industrial chain becomes immediately and transparently accountable for its ecological impact. Long, extractive supply chains shorten to reduce ecological footprints and support regional development. Regenerative sourcing becomes a structural requirement rather than an ethical choice. Ecological accounting becomes transparent: degradation in one part of the chain reduces issuance capacity for all linked Trusts.

This is not a technocratic reform of the existing system; it is a new macroeconomic paradigm – one that moves humanity beyond zero-sum geopolitics and financial vulnerability toward a cooperative order grounded in shared planetary stewardship. The table below illustrates the alignment of CRC architecture with the ecosystem.  

Feature	Conventional Money (Fiat + Petrodollar Logic)	Commons Reserve Currency (CRC)
Reserve Base	Sovereign debt, fossil energy, geopolitical power	Regenerative capacity of global and bioregional commons
Issuer	Central banks, commercial banks	Bioregional Commons Trusts
Basis of Value	Interest rate, GDP growth, capital accumulation	Regeneration rate: composite ecological indicators
Money Supply	Expands through lending; tied to fossil throughput	Expands when ecosystems regenerate; capped by ecological thresholds
Underlying Incentive	Borrow-produce-consume	Regenerate-preserve-share
Temporal Logic	Short-term profit & liquidity	Long-term resilience & regeneration
Monetary Policy Driver	Interest rates reacting to global capital & oil flows	Ecological health; no interest rate
Debt/Credit Dynamics	Debt drives growth; must expand to pay interest	Credit earned by stewardship; cannot exceed ecological surplus
Human Motivation Structure	Competition for yield	Cooperation for shared wellbeing
Exchange Rate Regime	Competitive, speculative, arbitraged	None; single CRC unit across all trusts
Stability Anchor	Geopolitics + fossil supply	Earth system integrity

The Transition: A Dual-Currency Era

We cannot adopt CRC overnight. As with all major monetary transformations, a transition era is inevitable. It would begin with carefully designed bioregional pilots – tested where governance conditions, data systems, and community leadership make early adoption feasible – and would coexist with existing fiat currencies for several decades, much as cash coexists with digital money and cryptocurrencies coexist with national currencies.

Over time, as institutions learn, indicators mature, and societies build the cultural and technical capacities for commons governance, the center of gravity shifts from a debt-based architecture to a regeneration-based architecture. The world would move gradually from extraction-driven finance toward an economy coordinated by ecological feedback.

At its heart, CRC is not simply a monetary innovation. It is a philosophical and civilizational shift. It repositions money as an instrument of care, not accumulation. It reconnects economics with ecological reality. And it restores the spiritual dimension of value by reminding societies that wealth originates not in markets or states, but in the living, regenerative capacities of the Earth itself.

Why We Are Not There Yet: The Challenge of Conscious Governance – and the Hope

If Commons Trusts and the Commons Reserve Currency (CRC) are structurally viable and conceptually elegant, why have they not yet taken root at scale? The answer is not technical – it is cultural and relational. The prevailing state-market regime scales by structurally bypassing the inner work that collective stewardship demands.

The state-market regime prevails because it coordinates rapidly without requiring moral or relational development. Price signals mobilize behavior without cultivating empathy, and bureaucratic procedures coordinate compliance without nurturing trust. Corruption, elite capture, and technocratic hubris persist not only because of greed, but because our existing institutions are structurally disconnected from shared wellbeing, causing environmental destruction and producing social inequality.

Commons governance, by contrast, requires relational literacy: the ability to perceive interdependence, negotiate conflict, uphold accountability, and act from care rather than scarcity or fear. These capacities are alive in many indigenous traditions and community-based practices, but they have not yet been practiced widely enough to guide national or planetary governance. 

A commons paradigm does not magically eliminate harmful behaviors; however, it reshapes the field of incentives, making extraction less rational and cooperation more rewarding. This requires both institutional scaffolding – legal frameworks, transparent ecological metrics, fiduciary duties – and cultural scaffolding – rituals, intergenerational learning, and relational accountability.

Paradoxically, commons trust itself helps cultivate the very capacities it requires. When communities receive dividends from regeneration, participate in commons decision-making, and witness value emerging through cooperation rather than competition, a different civic culture begins to form. Governance becomes meaningful and engaging. Participation becomes embodied. Collective consciousness expands.

The development of commons trusts also elevates fields long marginalized by the market logic: ecology and Earth sciences, anthropology, cultural studies, community governance, peacebuilding, and the liberal arts. A regenerative economy re-centers the disciplines that help humanity understand nature, culture, meaning, and relationship – dissolving the hegemony of reductionist approaches and opening space for human potential to flourish through more liberated educational and professional pathways. 

Encouragingly, the necessary cultural scaffolding is already forming in a new civic ecosystem: collective presencing, warm-data practices, deep ecology dialogues, indigenous wisdom circles, community assemblies, global peer-learning networks, and digitally enabled deliberation. They form a distributed scaffolding for collective intelligence – a way for communities to sense, understand, and act together across differences. This relational literacy is not peripheral to commons governance; it is its enabling condition.

From Finance-as-We-Know-It to Commons Finance

Ownership, price logic, and fossil-backed money were not historical mistakes. They were brilliant innovations for an earlier era. They rebuilt societies after war, dispersed political power after authoritarianism, enabled global trade, and lifted millions out of absolute poverty. These accomplishments deserve respect.

But the world they were built for – expanding frontiers, cheap fossil energy, stable climate systems – no longer exists. Their underlying operating logic, driven by perpetual growth and the externalization of costs, has pushed us into a new planetary condition: ecological destabilization and severe social fragmentation.

The task before us is not to dismantle the state or market, but to root both within a revitalized commons and align them with the Earth system. In this regime, the state ensures equity and long-term vision; the market enables efficiency and innovation; and the commons grounds both in care, reciprocity, and ecological coherence.

Transitioning from today’s climate finance to commons finance will require repurposing existing infrastructure and hybrid architecture. Much of the machinery built under climate finance – MRV systems, ecological data platforms, impact analytics – can serve the commons, but with a fundamental shift in purpose: from validating projects for investors to supporting collective sensemaking and guardianship of the commons.

New transitional institutions are already emerging. Bioregional Financing Facilities (BFFs) exemplify the shift from extractive finance to regenerative, place-based investment. Public–Commons Partnerships allow states to co-manage carbon or watershed funds with local trusts. Purpose-driven enterprises adopt fiduciary obligations to ecological outcomes. ReFi (Regenerative Finance) and DAO frameworks can build distributed trust rather than speculation. Eco-dividend systems channel commons revenues into guaranteed community wellbeing.

But institutional innovation alone is not enough. A cultural foundation must develop alongside it: one rooted in civic cooperation, shared stewardship, and place-based responsibility. Bioregional movements are re-attuning social identity to landscapes and watersheds; cities, facing climate stress and rising inequality, may become early adopters of commons trusts for clean air, shared mobility, and urban regeneration. In the Amazon, countries such as Colombia where indigenous territorial governance already holds recognized legitimacy may pioneer this stewardship model for addressing persistent ecological and social challenges. And at the global scale, a new form of cooperation becomes possible: a Commons Multilateralism in which flows of resources are governed by regeneration metrics and eco-social agreements rather than debt, geopolitics, or conditionality.

Ultimately, commoning is a cultural practice that restores relational fabric markets monetize and states often overlook. It slows time, sharpens attention, and reorients aspiration from accumulation to belonging. As civic capacity and ecological literacy deepen, societies naturally gravitate toward the commons paradigm – because life seeks forms that are life-enhancing. 

Commons finance provides a potential pathway towards a multi-scalar eco-social contract – one in which money expresses power as trusteeship, transaction as reciprocity, and care as fiduciary obligation. It reconnects economics, ecology, and spirituality into a coherent whole, while cultivating the social cooperation necessary for long-term stability and international collaboration. In this view, money is transformed from an instrument of domination into a reflection of relationship, anchored not in scarcity and extraction but in the continuity and flourishing of life.

What emerges is a more creative, caring, and inclusive society – one that returns to nature by conscious evolution.

The shift from climate finance to commons finance is, ultimately, a civilizational transition:
from extraction to regeneration,
from ownership to stewardship,
from fossil-backed money to life-backed value,
from price signals to relational intelligence,
from fear to interdependence.

It is an invitation – and a responsibility – to remake the foundations of economy and governance so that they regenerate the Earth that has always nurtured us.

Acknowledgement 

The source of inspiration of this paper stems from James Qualligan’s life-long intellectual quest and soul work in international development and commons. His vision and deep humanity pulse in the work and other spinoffs. Kosmos Journal is the first to publish many of his brilliant, foundational work on commons trust and CRC. I am deeply grateful and humbled to encounter his work and receive his resonance.

 

Return to the Table of Contents for Remembering the Future