Trustmark scheme proposal
Trustmark scoring — how the 10% pool is shared
When environmental credits are sold, 10% of the proceeds are shared among all scheme partners. Your share depends on your trustmark score. Here’s how that works.
First, the 10% pool
Under the proposed environmental credits split, when a landowner sells carbon credits (or other environmental credits) generated from their land within the scheme, 87% goes to that landowner, 3% goes to the managing entity for running costs, and 10% is shared among all scheme partners. This page explains how that 10% is divided.
The simple maths
The formula:Your share = (Your trustmark points ÷ Total trustmark points across all partners) × 10%
Visual example — five partners totalling 500 trustmark points:
| Partner | Trustmark points | % of pool | Share of 10% |
|---|---|---|---|
| You | 75 | 15% | 1.5% of total credit income |
| Partner A | 150 | 30% | 3.0% of total credit income |
| Partner B | 125 | 25% | 2.5% of total credit income |
| Partner C | 100 | 20% | 2.0% of total credit income |
| Partner D | 50 | 10% | 1.0% of total credit income |
| Total | 500 | 100% | 10% |
Proportional view:
- You15% (75 pts)
- Partner A30% (150 pts)
- Partner B25% (125 pts)
- Partner C20% (100 pts)
- Partner D10% (50 pts)
The higher your trustmark score, the larger your slice of the 10% pool. Your trustmark score reflects your contribution to the scheme — land quality, habitat type, and engagement. The exact methodology is still being designed.
Why weight it by trustmark rather than land area?
Distributing the 10% equally or purely by land area would not reflect the different ecological value different holdings contribute to the scheme. A smaller holding of high-quality blanket bog may contribute more to the scheme’s outcomes than a larger area of lower-value land. The trustmark approach attempts to make the distribution proportional to actual contribution.
Rationale. Equal distribution rewards participation. Trustmark-weighted distribution rewards contribution. The consortium will decide which principle — or which combination — is most fair.
If the consortium decides the trustmark scoring methodology is too complex or creates unfair outcomes, alternatives include: equal distribution across all partners regardless of holding size or quality; distribution by land area enrolled in the scheme; or distribution by specific habitat types (e.g. blanket bog units, woodland units). These alternatives have not been formally proposed — they are listed so you can see the decision space.
What the trustmark score measures — what’s known so far
The trustmark scoring methodology is still being designed.
The following principles have been proposed but not confirmed:
- Higher-quality or rarer habitat types score more highly
- Land in the most sensitive/important areas of the scheme geography may receive a weighting
- Active scheme engagement and management delivery may contribute to the score
- Scores may be updated over time as the scheme develops
The scoring criteria will need to be agreed by the consortium before the environmental credits split can be operated. This is on the agenda for the 30 April workshop.
A note on timing
In practice, the trustmark score becomes relevant only when environmental credits are actually sold. This may be years into the implementation phase. The trustmark scoring methodology should be agreed by the consortium and documented in the consortium charter before implementation begins — it does not need to be finalised before signing.
How this connects to the rest of the income framework
The 10% pool distribution applies only to Type 2 income (environmental credit income). It does not affect Type 1 (own-land trading — yours entirely), Type 3 (DEFRA scheme payments — separate mechanism), or Type 4 (scheme entity trading — governed by Models A–E). See the Income Treatment Reference for the full picture.
Question about trustmark scoring? Email Phil directly at phil@opensourcearts.co.uk or use the contact page. We’ll reply before the 30 April workshop where possible.