Modeled Bankability of Tropical Reforestation and Forest Protection
We modeled a forest-carbon project for each eligible square-kilometre grid cell across the tropics. For each cell, we calculated the lowest carbon price that produces a 12% return. These prices form a supply curve for bankable land and carbon. We then added prospective revenue from bark methane uptake to each project cash flow. No registry credits bark methane yet. The full analysis is available to partners and investors under NDA.
Modeled Effects on Reforestation Finance and Delivery
The spatial model estimates changes in bankable area and peak funding need. A separate completion scenario applies an assumed response to land that is already bankable. The response has not been fitted to observed project completion data. These results answer different questions and are reported separately.
What the Supply Curve Shows
The supply curve reports the lowest carbon price at which a project in each eligible tropical grid cell would produce a 12% return.
Most Modeled Reforestation Land Becomes Bankable Between $50 and $75
At low carbon prices, almost none of the eligible land is bankable. The bankable area rises steeply between about $50 and $75 per tonne of CO₂, then flattens, because by $75 most of the modeled plantable land is already bankable. Whether a given site is bankable depends mostly on tree growth and forgone farm income.
At $50, Methane Revenue Makes More Reforestation Land Bankable
The carbon-only model estimates 32.0 Mha of bankable reforestation land at $50 per tonne. Prospective methane revenue increases that area by 1.7 Mha under GWP100 and 6.5 Mha in the GWP* scenario. These are changes in modeled bankability. They do not show how much land will be financed or planted.
Demand Weighting Produces a Range of Bankable Area
We weighted the supply-curve results using assumed distributions of carbon purchase prices. Across those assumptions, prospective methane revenue adds 0.8 to 1.7 Mha under GWP100 and 3.1 to 6.3 Mha in the GWP* scenario. These results depend on the assumed price distributions. Observed purchase volumes were not used.
The Cost Uses Mapped Net Agricultural Income
A major cost of a reforestation project is the farm income the land would give up. We take that from a published map of net farm income across the tropics, and check it against two independent maps of farm value. The model also includes establishment, monitoring, verification, and project costs.
The Geographic Pattern
The same pricing method applies across the tropical study area, so the analysis shows where reforestation is more or less readily bankable. The public map uses three broad tiers and contains no site-level detail. The precise maps are part of the full analysis.
What Each Result Measures
The model separates effects on the bankability threshold, peak funding need, and project completion. It also separates spatial model outputs from scenarios that have not been fitted to project data.
Methane Revenue Expands the Modeled Frontier
The Model Applies a $50 Carbon Price
The model compares carbon-only and methane-inclusive project cash flows for each tropical grid cell.
GWP100 adds 1.7 Mha; GWP* adds 6.5 MhaPrice Assumptions Produce an Area Range
The model weights the supply-curve shift using assumed distributions of carbon purchase prices.
GWP100 adds 0.8 to 1.7 Mha; GWP* adds 3.1 to 6.3 MhaMethane Revenue Reduces Peak Funding Need
The Model Uses a One-Year Payment Lag
The peak cumulative funding need is calculated across the same grid cells used for the bankability result.
GWP100 reduces it 1.3%; GWP* reduces it 4.5%Advance Purchases Require Project Evidence
An advance purchase can affect a project before its investment decision. A restoration claim requires evidence of that causal effect and eligibility under the host and methane methods.
The spatial model does not estimate this effectAdded Revenue Could Improve Completion
The Scenario Applies an Assumed Response
The response has not been fitted to observed project completions. It shows one possible effect of added revenue.
GWP100 adds 0.3 to 0.5 Mha; GWP* adds 1.2 to 1.9 MhaThe Scenario Uses Land That Is Already Bankable
The completion areas are conditional estimates. They do not represent newly bankable land and are not added to the frontier result.
No combined delivery result is reportedEarly measurement may preserve records that an eventual methodology requires. The analysis does not assign a land-area result to early adoption or retrospective eligibility. Any value depends on the final methodology and on whether earlier measurements qualify.
How to Read a Supply Curve
Each eligible grid cell has a break-even price: the lowest carbon price at which its modeled project clears a 12% return. At a given carbon price, bankable land includes each grid cell with a break-even price at or below it. Adding methane revenue lowers each break-even price, so more land becomes bankable at the same carbon price.
The Shape of the Reforestation Supply Curve
GWP* Is a New-Sink Scenario
No registry credits bark methane yet. The model applies GWP100, the metric registries currently use for methane, and a separate GWP* scenario. GWP* represents the warming-equivalent effect of a change in the methane removal rate. The model uses it to examine a newly established sink. It is not a current crediting basis.
The Full Analysis Is Available Under NDA
The full spatial bankability analysis includes the method, per-price results for both credit types, cost and bankability maps, sensitivity tests, and the decision record. We share it with partners and investors under a mutual NDA.
These modeled results depend on stated assumptions. They do not forecast SelvaFlux delivery. Bark-methane crediting is not yet approved, so the model prices it as a prospective credit.