MCC Validation Report Template

Document type: Normative template (MCC-100 cl. 0153) Version: 1.0 — DRAFT for adoption Prepared: 25 August 2026, programme administration Adoption route: amendment under FD-2026-08-24 signature authority, or first constituted board meeting (agenda item: ratification). Not adopted until recorded in the decision record and listed on /transparency/documents. Related: MCC-100 v2.2 cl. 0146–0162 · MCC-400 v1.1 Articles 49–65, 94–105 · MCC-850 v1.2 · Environmental and Social Safeguards Policy v1.0 · Sustainable Development Contribution Framework v1.0 · MCC PDD Template v1.1

---

Purpose and use

This template sets the mandatory structure of a Validation Report under the MCC Programme. MCC-100 cl. 0153 requires VVB assessments to be documented "using MCC templates"; until this document, none existed.

A validation report is the VVB's account of whether a project, as described in its Project Design Document (PDD), is eligible to generate Marine Conservation Credits: whether it applies an approved methodology correctly, whether its baseline is conservative, whether it is additional, whether its monitoring plan can deliver verifiable data, whether safeguards are adequate, and whether the stakeholder consultation was real. The report is a public document once the workflow completes (MCC-400 Art. 65).

How to use it. Complete every section in the order given. Do not remove or renumber headings. Where a section does not apply, keep the heading and state "Not applicable" with the reason. Every finding must be traceable to evidence the VVB actually examined; every conclusion must cite the clause or article it is drawn against. The report is written for a reader who has not seen the PDD.

Where AI-assisted analysis was used (MCC-400 Section 12, MCC-850): the report records each AI finding the VVB relied on or departed from, with the AI confidence value on the 0–100 scale (MCC-850 Amendment 3), the VVB's own conclusion, and the evidence for it (Art. 104–105). AI outputs are inputs to professional judgement, never substitutes (Art. 94).

---

V.0 Report identification

Field	Entry
Report reference	[VVB reference]
Report version / date	[v1.0 / date]
Validation and verification body	[legal name]
MCC accreditation number and status	[number · FULLY_ACCREDITED / PROVISIONAL]
Engagement reference in the MCC Registry	[validation record id]
Project name and MCC project code	[name · code]
Project developer	[legal name, registration number, country]
Host country	[country]
Applicable MCC methodology and version	[e.g. MCC-M008 v1.0]
Methodology family	[F01 / F02 / F03 / F04 / F05]
PDD version validated	[version · date · SHA-256 of the filed document]
Site visit	[dates · location] or [remote assessment approved by the Programme Administrator on date, Art. 55]

V.1 Scope statement (MCC-100 cl. 0154(a))

State what was validated, against which documents and rules, and what was excluded. Name the PDD version and every annex, the methodology version, and the programme documents applied (MCC-100 v2.2, the Safeguards Policy, the SD Contribution Framework, the family guidance). State whether this is an initial validation, a re-validation after material change, or a validation of a crediting-period renewal.

V.2 Audit team and independence (cl. 0154(e)–(f); MCC-400 Arts. 45–48)

Role	Name	Competence and accreditation scope	Days on engagement
Lead auditor
Technical expert(s)
Peer reviewer (not on the engagement team, Art. 61)

Conflict of interest. Reference the COI declaration filed in the MCC Registry for this engagement (declaration id, filing date, signer, screening result). State that no member of the team has a conflict under MCC-400 Art. 46, or describe the identified conflict and the mitigation approved by the Programme Administrator.

Statement of independence. [Name of body] confirms that it is independent of the project developer and of any party with a financial interest in the project, that no member of the audit team has provided consultancy to the developer within the preceding three years, and that the fee for this engagement is not contingent on its outcome.

V.3 Methodology and procedures applied (cl. 0154(b); MCC-400 Section 9)

1. Engagement plan (Art. 50): submitted to the Programme Administrator on [date]; scope, team, timeline, sampling approach, site-visit requirement.
2. Document review (Art. 51): list every document examined with version and hash where filed in the Registry.
3. Site visit (Arts. 53–55): dates, sites, what was physically verified, whom the team interviewed (developer staff, local stakeholders, host-country authority), and what independent measurements or observations were taken.
4. Sampling (Arts. 99–103 where AI-assisted): sampling design and achieved sample.
5. Interviews and stakeholder engagement: who, when, how records were kept.

V.4 Findings by assessment section (cl. 0151, cl. 0154(c))

For each of (a)–(i) below: the requirement assessed, the evidence examined, the VVB's assessment, and the findings raised (cross-referenced to V.5). State the conclusion for the section as Conforms / Conforms with conditions / Does not conform.

V.4(a) Project description, boundaries and baseline determination

V.4(b) Methodology application and appropriateness

Include the eligibility criteria of the applicable methodology and the family guidance, and confirm the methodology is APPROVED in the register at the date of validation (retired methodologies — M004–M006 under FD-2026-08-24 D14 — cannot be validated against).

V.4(c) Baseline conservatism

V.4(d) Additionality demonstration

V.4(e) Monitoring plan feasibility and data quality

Including the parameters, frequencies, devices and QA/QC in the PDD monitoring plan, and whether the plan can produce the data the methodology's quantification requires.

V.4(f) Environmental and social safeguards adequacy

Against the Environmental and Social Safeguards Policy v1.0; reference the safeguards assessment on the Registry and any ESMP.

V.4(g) Sustainable development contribution assessment

Against the SD Contribution Framework v1.0; the indicators proposed and their measurability.

V.4(h) Permanence risk assessment

The permanence horizon and buffer rate applicable to the family (canonical rates: F01 20 %, F02 25 %, F03 15 %, F04 10 % per FD-2026-08-24 D6, F05 30 %); reversal risks identified and mitigation.

V.4(i) Stakeholder consultation adequacy

Confirm the 30-day public consultation was held through the MCC Registry (MCC-100 cl. 0054), the comments received, the developer's responses and the published closing protocol; assess whether material comments were addressed.

V.4(j) Host-country position (MCC-100 cl. 0102–0122; FD-2026-08-24 D8)

Record the position on the Registry: use case (contribution basis / corresponding adjustment / compliance), authorisation status or not-applicable determination, engagement and notification status.

V.5 Findings register (MCC-400 Arts. 56–58)

#	Severity (Major NC / Minor NC / Observation / Forward action)	Requirement	Finding	Evidence	Developer response (date)	Resolution	Status

A positive opinion cannot be issued while any Major non-conformity is open (Art. 58). Minor non-conformities must be resolved before the first verification. All findings were communicated through the MCC Registry (Art. 57).

V.6 AI-assisted analysis record (MCC-400 Arts. 94–105; MCC-850)

AI finding	Confidence (0–100)	VVB conclusion	Concur / Differ	Evidence relied on	Effect on opinion

If no AI analysis was used, state so.

V.7 Estimated emission reductions, removals or conservation units (MCC-400 Art. 63(g))

The developer's ex-ante estimate by vintage, the VVB's assessment of its basis, and the VVB's own conservative estimate where it differs. For F04 under MCC-M008: verified mass basis (1 MCU = 100 kg verified recovered gear) and the 10 % buffer.

V.8 Validation opinion (cl. 0154(d); MCC-400 Art. 63(f))

Select one and state it in full:

POSITIVE. [Body] has validated the project [name, code] against the MCC Programme Standard v2.2, [methodology] and the documents listed in V.1 and concludes that the project, as described in PDD [version], meets the requirements for registration under the MCC Programme.

POSITIVE WITH CONDITIONS. …meets the requirements for registration subject to the conditions listed below, each of which must be satisfied before [first verification / registration]: [conditions with deadlines].

NEGATIVE. …does not meet the requirements for registration, for the reasons set out in V.4 and V.5.

Conditions attached to a positive-with-conditions opinion are entered on the Registry as forward actions.

V.9 Peer review statement (MCC-400 Arts. 61–62; Art. 63(i))

[Name], who was not a member of the engagement team, has reviewed this report for completeness and accuracy, adequacy of evidence, correctness of quantification and compliance with MCC requirements, and concurs with the opinion. Date. For provisionally accredited bodies, add the MCC-appointed peer reviewer's statement (Art. 36(a)).

V.10 Signature and accreditation (cl. 0154(e))

Lead auditor	[name, signature, date]
Authorised signatory of the VVB	[name, position, signature, date]
MCC accreditation number
Filed in the MCC Registry	[document id · SHA-256 · signed by (attestation) · date]

The report is filed on the project's document record in the MCC Registry and signed there by the filer (in-platform attestation, D10). The hash on the attestation is the hash of this file.

Annexes

• Annex 1 — Documents examined (title, version, date, Registry document id, SHA-256)
• Annex 2 — Site-visit record (itinerary, interviewees by role, photographs, independent measurements)
• Annex 3 — Findings correspondence (exported from the Registry)
• Annex 4 — Sampling record (where applicable)
• Annex 5 — COI declaration reference and screening result

---

Change log. v1.0 DRAFT (2026-08-25): first template. Drafted from MCC-100 v2.2 cl. 0146–0162 and MCC-400 v1.1 Arts. 49–65 and 94–105; buffer rates and D6/D8/D14 references per FD-2026-08-24.