--- type: summary title: "BFF Discovery Arc 1: Allocation Decision Governance" description: A provocation paper asking how bioregional financing facilities can combine expert rigour with community-held knowledge when deciding where capital goes. status: draft confidence: medium validation: machine timestamp: 2026-10-09 licence: CC BY-SA 4.0 tags: [bioregional-financing-facilities, discovery-arcs, capital-allocation, governance, participatory-finance, provocation-paper] sources: [] --- # BFF Discovery Arc 1: Allocation Decision Governance *Discovery Arc 1 is the first provocation paper in a series of four on Bioregional Financing Facilities (BFFs). Its cover reads "v.3.2", last updated 28 January 2026. Leon Seefeld is named as editor and main author, with contributions acknowledged from 21 named people. Read for this page: all 38 pages, including the process tables, the minimum-viable test, the principles and the hypothetical case story.* ## What it argues The arc asks one question. How can expert quality control, usually a top-down process, be reconciled with democratic allocation grounded in the knowledge of people closest to a place? (raw/[public]_v3_BFF Allocation Decision Governance_DiscoveryArc#1_28.01.2026.pdf, page 2). Its answer is that each needs the other. "Quality control and democratic allocation are not mutually exclusive." (raw/[public]_v3_BFF Allocation Decision Governance_DiscoveryArc#1_28.01.2026.pdf, page 3). A process that ignores community intelligence will miss risks. A participatory process with no rigour will fail to earn the trust of outside capital (raw/[public]_v3_BFF Allocation Decision Governance_DiscoveryArc#1_28.01.2026.pdf, page 3). The paper sets the standard nine-phase investment process beside a proposed regenerative version. Mandate definition becomes mandate sensing. Due diligence becomes "we diligence". The investment committee becomes an allocation committee that seeks consent (raw/[public]_v3_BFF Allocation Decision Governance_DiscoveryArc#1_28.01.2026.pdf, page 5). It closes by calling for models of discernment that are "rigorous without being technocratic, participatory without being populist" (raw/[public]_v3_BFF Allocation Decision Governance_DiscoveryArc#1_28.01.2026.pdf, page 30). ## Key points - **Shared governance is rare.** On a best-guess basis, only 0.3% to 0.7% of funds globally practise genuine shared governance in capital allocation, as of 2025. The share by assets is likely lower still (raw/[public]_v3_BFF Allocation Decision Governance_DiscoveryArc#1_28.01.2026.pdf, page 4). - **Where power sits today.** In a conventional fund, real decision power concentrates in three places: the limited partners or board, the CIO and managing partners, and the investment committee. Risk and compliance act as an underrated veto (raw/[public]_v3_BFF Allocation Decision Governance_DiscoveryArc#1_28.01.2026.pdf, pages 10 to 11). - **Six circles.** The proposed set-up has six circles: Purpose, Pattern, Consent, Capital, Portfolio and Learning. Rotating representatives from each would form the allocation committee (raw/[public]_v3_BFF Allocation Decision Governance_DiscoveryArc#1_28.01.2026.pdf, pages 11 and 22). - **Fractal by design.** No single group can know a whole bioregion. Governance must therefore be fractal, with small groups holding coherence while many others feed in context (raw/[public]_v3_BFF Allocation Decision Governance_DiscoveryArc#1_28.01.2026.pdf, pages 3 and 12). - **Emotion and place.** The process attends to fear, trust and responsibility in the room. Key moments should happen in person and in place, with contributors paid for their time. The authors accept this adds cost (raw/[public]_v3_BFF Allocation Decision Governance_DiscoveryArc#1_28.01.2026.pdf, pages 13 to 14). - **Small tests first.** Suggested formats include a table-top simulation and a shadow round on an existing deal. Another is a "micro-allocation" pot of €10k to €30k run through the whole process (raw/[public]_v3_BFF Allocation Decision Governance_DiscoveryArc#1_28.01.2026.pdf, pages 23 to 24). - **Eight principles to earn the mandate.** They include transparency of process, clear mandates, and decisions made in person and in place. "Without these embedded from the beginning, the BFF risks looking like another opaque fund with a new vocabulary." (raw/[public]_v3_BFF Allocation Decision Governance_DiscoveryArc#1_28.01.2026.pdf, pages 26 to 28). - **A fictional case.** The paper ends with an imagined Alder–Wye bioregion, which it says was written by an AI and refined by a person (raw/[public]_v3_BFF Allocation Decision Governance_DiscoveryArc#1_28.01.2026.pdf, page 32). ## Where it sits in this wiki - [[BFF Discovery Arc 2: Blended Finance and Catalytic Capital]] asks the next question: what should a facility's grant capital build? - [[BFF Discovery Arc 3: Risk and Value Sharing]] takes up an open question Arc 1 leaves. Investors can withdraw when risk rises, while communities cannot (raw/[public]_v3_BFF Allocation Decision Governance_DiscoveryArc#1_28.01.2026.pdf, page 18). Arc 3 designs for that asymmetry (synthesis). - [[BFF Discovery Arc 4: Multi-Capital Returns]] develops the "multi-capital target returns" that Arc 1 puts into the mandate-sensing phase (raw/[public]_v3_BFF Allocation Decision Governance_DiscoveryArc#1_28.01.2026.pdf, page 13) (synthesis). - [[The Bioregional Health Framework]] supplies the definition of health that Arc 1 makes the test of every allocation decision (synthesis). - [[BioFi Deep Dive: bioregional financing facilities in Europe]] presents the four arcs as one Bioregional Weaving Labs programme. It says Arc 1 governance is being tested across three BFF prototypes.