MCC-200 — Methodology Framework

Document control

Field	Value
Document code	MCC-200
Title	Methodology Framework
Version	3.0-draft
Status	DRAFT — FOR CONSULTATION
Date of this draft	3 September 2026
Tier	Tier 3 (Document Hierarchy & Precedence Register, per FD-2026-09-03 item D5)
Effective date	None. This document is not in force. It takes effect only on approval under clause 17.1.
Document owner	Programme Administrator (transitional, until a Secretariat is staffed — FD-2026-10-01 Schedule 1, C3)
Approved by	Not approved. Prepared for public consultation.
Decision basis	Founder Decisions FD-2026-09-03, items D1–D8 (adopted 3 September 2026 in the programme working channel; to be tabled for ratification by the Governing Board). FD-2026-09-03 is recorded in the decision register as attested by the founder on 7 September 2026; no executed copy has been filed (the register at /governance/decisions shows its status).
Supersedes	MCC-200 Methodology Framework v2.0 (March 2026, printed status APPROVED), reclassified by FD-2026-09-03 item D5; the document register records v2.0 as in force until this version is adopted, when its withdrawal as a controlled copy is executed (FD-2026-09-07 item A8: scheduled, not executed). See the baseline declaration below.
Companion instrument	Methodology Template, document code MCC-200-T1, version 1.0-draft (Tier 5), published for consultation together with this draft
Language convention	British English; RFC-style normative verbs (SHALL/MUST = mandatory; SHOULD = recommended, deviation to be documented; MAY = optional). Canonical registry enumeration values and status labels are quoted verbatim from the adopted control tables and retain their spelling.
Classification	Public — consultation draft
Consultation period	30 days (FD-2026-10-01 Schedule 1, C4), from the opening recorded on the consultation register (FD-2026-09-04 item 2; FD-2026-10-01 item 5)

Baseline declaration and version-identity resolution

The controlled identity of the predecessor text is defective and is resolved here by declaring a new baseline:

1. The circulated MCC-200 v2.0 PDF displays "Status: APPROVED" but contains no document-control table at all — no version history, owner, approval body, decision-record reference or effective date (Phase 0 source inventory: one of seven corpus documents printing APPROVED with no document-control apparatus). Its table of contents page is blank, and its locked-portfolio table splits across pages with an isolated continuation row (audit §6.4).
2. No signed approval instrument for MCC-200 v2.0 exists in the programme record (SYS-14); the programme's document corpus was searched on 3 September 2026 and no such instrument is in it (Evidence Register ER-2026-001 §B3).
3. The predecessor contradicts itself internally: clauses 0012–0016 define F03 as "Marine Ecosystem Conservation" and F05 as "Upstream Waste Prevention", while clauses 0031.1–0031.2 use "F03 (Fisheries)" and "F05 (MPA Management)" (200-01 CRITICAL; SYS-02).
4. The predecessor prints all ten methodologies M001–M010 as "Active" although no methodology dossier, consultation record or peer review exists in the programme record for any of them, and no approval decision exists for any of them except M008 (FD-2026-08-24 item 1, D6: "M008 → APPROVED"; FD-2026-09-01 item D1; each recorded in the decision register as attested by the founder, with no executed copy filed) (200-02 CRITICAL; SYS-14).

Resolution. This version 3.0-draft is declared the new baseline of MCC-200. It is rebuilt from the canonical control tables adopted under FD-2026-09-03 (in particular the Family–Methodology–Instrument Matrix, item D2, and the Methodology Status Register, item D6) and consolidates the predecessor's substance only where it survives those decisions and the independent audit of 3 September 2026. The version number 3.0 is used so that no reader can mistake this text for the unevidenced "v2.0 APPROVED" identity; version 2.x is not re-used for any consolidation. The predecessor is reclassified by FD-2026-09-03 item D5; the document register records it as in force until this version is adopted, when the withdrawal of its PDF as a controlled copy, and its archiving as a superseded record, are executed (clause 17.3; FD-2026-09-07 item A8: scheduled, not executed).

Change history

Version	Date	Change	Instrument
1.0	Not recorded: no adoption instrument for version 1.0 is in the programme record (Evidence Register ER-2026-001 §B3)	Initial framework	No such instrument is in the programme record; the document corpus was searched on 3 September 2026 (Evidence Register ER-2026-001 §B3)
2.0	March 2026 (printed)	"Revised to integrate Environmental and Social Safeguards, Sustainable Development Contribution, Host Country Authorisation, Corresponding Adjustments, Buffer Pool, and Operational Roadmap"; printed status APPROVED; no document-control table	No such instrument is in the programme record; the document corpus was searched on 3 September 2026 (Evidence Register ER-2026-001 §B3)
3.0-draft	3 September 2026	Full rewrite against the independent audit of 3 September 2026 (findings SYS-01 to SYS-15 and 200-01 to 200-09) and Founder Decisions FD-2026-09-03 D1–D8: family catalogue generated from the canonical Family–Methodology–Instrument Matrix; Methodology Status Register reproduced with M001–M010 at CONCEPT/DRAFT and the "locked portfolio" concept retired; permanence horizons (100-year F01 claim, CRCF/VM0033 alignment) deleted and replaced by the durability-class/enforceable-commitment discipline of MCC-100 Section 11; cross-cutting quantification standard added (GWP set, uncertainty, materiality, missing data, crediting periods, baseline validity); mandatory Methodology Template (MCC-200-T1) created; complete dossier, peer-review and consultation requirements made preconditions of any APPROVED status; GFS pilot methodology requirements defined under F03 with split ledgers; overlap remedies strengthened; SDG indicator operationalisation required	FD-2026-09-03 items D1–D8

NOTE (non-normative). This document is issued for public consultation. Nothing in it asserts that any approval, accreditation, eligibility, registration, issuance or operational history exists unless a linked record is identified in the MCC Evidence Register. Points the Programme has not decided, or on which it proposes a rule for comment, are listed under Consultation questions below and marked in the text.

Consultation questions

Each point below is open for comment. A proposal is the administration's proposal, put to consultation under founder direction FD-2026-10-01; it is not a rule in force. The suite is to be adopted as one instrument once its longest consultation period has closed (FD-2026-10-01 Schedule 1, C4). Because it includes the Constitution, whose amendment is within the competence of the constituted Governing Board (FD-2026-08-24 item D11, recorded in the decision register as attested by the founder, with no executed copy filed), each point below is decided by the Governing Board on adoption of the suite; a clause of this text that provides another route for adopting it alone is itself open to comment.

1. Clause 9.6 — Permanence-class applicability by family. Proposed: the population of the permanence-class column of the Family–Methodology–Instrument Matrix set out in the clause 9.6 table, as drafted, to be baselined into control table 2 as a conforming elaboration under FD-2026-09-03 item D2; the Tier 3 permanence and buffer standard prevails on any divergence once in force. Basis: the drafting of this Framework (clause 9.6 and its NOTE); FD-2026-10-01 item 4. Decided by: the Governing Board on adoption of the suite. Comments are invited on the applicability stated for each family.

2. Clause 13.6 and Annex A — Code of the GFS pilot methodology. Proposed: a new methodology code, assigned when the pilot module is approved. No code is assigned by this consultation, and no project registered under MCC-M008 is re-coded by it. Basis: FD-2026-09-03 item D6 (a new code, not a re-use of M008, whose printed scope is "Marine Plastic Pollution Prevention"); FD-2026-10-01 Schedule 1 (Q10). Decided by: the Governing Board on adoption of the suite; the code itself is then assigned by the Standards Committee under clause 5.9 when the pilot module is approved. Comments are invited on assigning the code only on approval of the pilot module.

3. Annex B — Quantification and crediting parameters (open item OD-C1). Proposed: the materiality thresholds of table B-3, the 10 per cent uncertainty ceiling of B-4, and the crediting periods, renewals and maximum baseline validity of table B-5, as drafted. They are drafting proposals benchmarked on published crediting-programme and assurance practice, not evidenced operational decisions (Annex B-1). Basis: the drafting of this Framework, carried as open item OD-C1; FDP-2026-001 Part 3; FD-2026-10-01 item 4. Decided by: the Governing Board on adoption of the suite. Comments are invited on each value.

Table of contents

1. Purpose, scope and application
2. Normative references, definitions and interpretation
3. Framework architecture and division of labour
4. Methodology families
5. Methodology status and the Methodology Status Register
6. Methodology development
7. Mandatory methodology content and the Methodology Template
8. Cross-cutting quantification rules
9. Permanence and durability in methodology design
10. Methodology approval
11. The methodology dossier
12. Version control, revision, withdrawal and retirement
13. Pilot methodologies and the GFS pilot
14. Overlap and double counting in methodology design
15. Safeguards, sustainable development and co-benefits in methodologies
16. Amendments and transitional provisions
17. Entry into force Annex A — Methodology Status Register (normative reproduction) Annex B — Quantification and crediting parameters (normative; values proposed for consultation)

---

1. Purpose, scope and application

1.1 This Methodology Framework (MCC-200) SHALL govern the development, drafting, testing, approval, versioning, revision, withdrawal and retirement of every methodology, methodology module and quantification tool of the Marine Conservation Credits (MCC) Programme.

1.2 This Framework SHALL apply to every Tier 4 instrument of the Programme: methodologies, methodology modules, pilot methodology modules, quantification tools and calculators.

1.3 This Framework is a Tier 3 instrument under the Document Hierarchy & Precedence Register; precedence is governed by MCC-001 Section 2.

1.4 Where this Framework refers to another MCC document, form, tool or register, the reference SHALL be read against the Document Hierarchy & Precedence Register; a requirement of this Framework that depends on a referenced instrument is ineffective until MCC-001 clause 2.5 is satisfied for that instrument.

NOTE. The following instruments referenced in this Framework are not in force: the Record Retention Schedule (MCC-810); the MCC-600 Claims Code, drafted as v1.0-draft and put to consultation with this suite (claims are governed meanwhile by the Claims Policy v1.1, adopted under FD-2026-08-24 and recorded in the document register as in force); the rewritten Tier 3 permanence and buffer standard (MCC-BPM v2.0-draft), including its durability classification (Schedule 1); the Non-Permanence Risk Tool; the rewritten Environmental & Social Safeguards Policy (MCC-ESS v2.0-draft); the reissued MCC-400 (v2.0-draft); the versioned serial specification (MCC-800 v2.0-draft, Schedule 1), put to consultation with this suite, the serial format in force being that of MCC-800 v1.1 article 27 (FD-2026-08-24 item D13); and the Methodology Template MCC-200-T1, a companion consultation draft to this Framework. Except where stated, each is put to consultation with this suite. The Definitions Register is in force (clause 2.1). The MCC-SDCF conformity review was completed on 3 September 2026 as CR-2026-001, which found MCC-SDCF v1.0 non-conforming; MCC-SDCF v2.0-draft is put to consultation with this suite. Each dependent requirement is deferred under clause 1.4, never silently effective. The predecessor's citation forms "MCC-SDCF-v1.0", "MCC-CADCP-v1.0", "MCC-HCA-v1.0" and "MCC-ESS-v1.0" are replaced by the canonical titles of the Document Hierarchy & Precedence Register.

1.5 No methodology, module or tool SHALL take effect, and no project SHALL rely on one, except in accordance with this Framework and the Methodology Status Register.

1.6 Every methodology SHALL be designed for independent third-party validation and verification, and SHALL NOT presume any AI or automated assessment as a final authority (MCC-001 clause 5.4; MCC-100 Section 22).

2. Normative references, definitions and interpretation

2.1 Terms used with initial capitals in this Framework SHALL have the meanings assigned in the MCC Definitions Register, which is in force (v1.0; FD-2026-08-24 item D12, recorded in the decision register as attested by the founder, with no executed copy filed); where the Definitions Register does not define a term, the canonical meanings adopted through FD-2026-09-03 (the Unit/Product Dictionary and the canonical terminology annexed to the audit control tables) SHALL apply as interim definitions.

2.2 The normative verb conventions of MCC-001 clause 3.1 SHALL apply throughout this Framework: SHALL/MUST mandatory; SHOULD recommended with documented deviation; MAY optional; statements not using these verbs carry no normative force.

2.3 Each numbered clause of this Framework SHALL state one testable requirement; text introduced by "NOTE" or "GUIDANCE" is non-normative.

2.4 A methodology MAY define a local term only where the term is unique to that methodology, and SHALL NOT redefine any term in the Definitions Register (MCC-001 clause 3.4).

2.5 In this Framework, "methodology" means a Tier 4 instrument that defines, for a specified activity type within one family, the complete applicability, boundary, additionality, baseline, quantification, leakage, permanence, monitoring, safeguards-integration and validation/verification requirements under which units or labels may be generated.

2.6 In this Framework, "quantification tool" means a Tier 4 calculator, model, dataset or parameter set referenced by a methodology and used in determining a credited quantity.

3. Framework architecture and division of labour

3.1 The programme-level requirements that every credited outcome must satisfy — eligibility, additionality, baselines, quantification and conservativeness, leakage, permanence and reversals, and monitoring, reporting and verification data — are stated in MCC-100 Sections 6 to 12; this Framework governs how methodologies are developed, structured, tested, approved, versioned and retired so as to satisfy them, and SHALL NOT weaken any MCC-100 requirement; on any divergence between a restatement in this Framework and the MCC-100 clause it cites, MCC-100 prevails and this Framework is corrected.

3.2 Every methodology SHALL implement each applicable requirement of MCC-100 Sections 6 to 12 as specific, testable methodology provisions; a methodology provision that conflicts with MCC-100 is void to the extent of the conflict.

3.3 Governance of methodology decisions — the recommending body, accountable decision-maker, quorum, voting threshold, conflict rule and appeal route for methodology approval, major revision, minor revision and status change — is stated exclusively in MCC-700 clauses 7.2 and 7.4 and Annex A (rows 3, 4 and 5); this Framework states neither a decision threshold nor a decision owner.

3.4 Every methodology SHALL be structured using the Methodology Module System, comprising modules MOD-01 to MOD-10:

Module	Function
MOD-01	Applicability
MOD-02	Boundary, baseline and additionality
MOD-03	Quantification, uncertainty and leakage
MOD-04	Monitoring
MOD-05	Reporting
MOD-06	Validation
MOD-07	Verification
MOD-08	Permanence, durability and risk
MOD-09	Safeguards and co-benefits
MOD-10	Registry, data and claims

3.5 The mandatory content of each module SHALL be as fixed in Section 7 and the Methodology Template (MCC-200-T1); a methodology omitting any applicable module, or any mandatory element of a module, is incomplete and SHALL NOT be approved.

3.6 Modules MAY share common approaches across methodologies of one family where scientifically appropriate, subject to methodology-specific tailoring documented in each methodology.

3.7 Every module SHALL be drafted in plain language accessible to project developers and stakeholders, with detailed calculation procedures, reference data and worked examples placed in technical annexes.

4. Methodology families

4.1 The Programme SHALL operate one and only one methodology family catalogue, comprising families F01 to F05 as defined in the canonical Family–Methodology–Instrument Matrix (control table 2, adopted under FD-2026-09-03 item D2); the table in clause 4.2 is generated from that Matrix and is not locally variable.

4.2 The families, their activities and their instrument mapping are:

Code	Canonical family name	Activities	Instrument	Boundary control
F01	Coastal blue-carbon removals/restoration	Mangrove, tidal/salt marsh, seagrass restoration where an approved carbon methodology quantifies net removals	MCC-CC + optional MCC-CB label	Reversal-risk controls required
F02	Coastal blue-carbon avoided loss/protection	Avoided conversion/degradation of mangrove, tidal/salt marsh and seagrass	MCC-CC only where an approved baseline/additionality/leakage method exists	Avoided-emission flow; protect existing stock and address reversal risk
F03	Sustainable fisheries and fishing-gear interventions	Ghost-gear prevention/retrieval, gear life extension, fuel or replacement-gear manufacturing avoidance	Split: MCC-CC only for a separately quantified LCA/GHG outcome; MCC-MOU for the marine outcome	Home of the GFS pilot (FD-2026-09-03 item D6)
F04	Marine pollution prevention/removal	Plastic, waste, runoff and ship-source interventions	MCC-MOU by default; MCC-CC only under a separate approved GHG methodology	No carbon claim from mass removed alone
F05	Marine habitat and biodiversity conservation	MPAs, coral/oyster habitat, kelp-biodiversity and other conservation outcomes	MCC-MOU + co-benefit statements	No carbon tonnes absent a specific scientifically accepted carbon methodology

NOTE — GENERATED CONTENT. The table in clause 4.2 reproduces verbatim its single source, the Family–Methodology–Instrument Matrix (canonical control table 2, adopted under FD-2026-09-03 item D2), as restated identically in MCC-100 clause 5.2 and, in summary form, MCC-001 clause 7.1. On any divergence, the source prevails and this reproduction is corrected; no local variation is permitted.

NOTE. The predecessor's family taxonomy — clauses 0011–0022 (F01 "Blue Carbon Sequestration" through F05 "Upstream Waste Prevention", mapped to the credit types MCC-CC/MCC-HYB/MCC-MCU) and the contradictory family names in clauses 0031.1–0031.2 ("F02 Restoration", "F03 Fisheries", "F05 MPA Management") — is superseded in full (200-01; SYS-02; FD-2026-09-03 item D2). The instrument types MCC-HYB and MCC-MCU no longer exist (FD-2026-09-03 item D1): no methodology SHALL map any outcome to them.

4.3 Every family reference in every methodology, module, tool, register entry and platform display SHALL be generated from the Family–Methodology–Instrument Matrix; translation from the superseded family semantics SHALL proceed only via the old-to-new mapping in control table 2.2.

4.4 Every methodology SHALL be assigned to exactly one family; an activity spanning two families SHALL be covered by separate methodologies (or separate modules of a split methodology) with separate ledgers and no cross-crediting (MCC-100 clause 5.9).

4.5 A methodology in family F04 SHALL produce MCC-MOU outcomes by default; it SHALL define an MCC-CC outcome only in a separately approved GHG methodology or GHG module with its own boundary, baseline, additionality, quantification and verification provisions, and no carbon claim SHALL arise from mass of material removed or prevented alone.

4.6 A methodology in family F05 SHALL NOT define any MCC-CC outcome unless and until a specific, peer-reviewed and conservatively tested carbon methodology for the activity passes independent expert review and is approved under Section 10 (MCC-001 clause 7.7).

4.7 The permanence-class applicability of each family SHALL be as stated in clause 9.6, which proposes the population of the permanence-class column of the Family–Methodology–Instrument Matrix.

5. Methodology status and the Methodology Status Register

5.1 The Methodology Status Register (canonical control table 7, adopted under FD-2026-09-03 item D6) is the single source of methodology status; Annex A restates it under rule A-1, and the public register SHALL display exactly its content (MCC-700 clause 18.4).

5.2 Methodology status SHALL take exactly one of the following values: CONCEPT, DRAFT, CONSULTATION, PILOT, APPROVED, WITHDRAWN/RETIRED; no other status value (including "Active", "Conditional" and "Locked") SHALL be used in any Programme document, register or display.

NOTE. The predecessor's statuses "Active" (clauses 0050, 0121 and the Section 9 portfolio table) and "Conditional" (clauses 0050–0051), and the "locked portfolio" designation (clauses 0117–0119), are retired. Locking presupposed approved content that does not exist in the programme record (FD-2026-09-03 item D6, immediate consequences).

5.3 The meaning of each status is:

5.3.1 CONCEPT — an identified methodology idea with a defined activity scope and family assignment; no complete text exists; no project use of any kind.

5.3.2 DRAFT — a substantially complete methodology text exists but has not completed peer review, consultation or approval; no project registration or issuance.

5.3.3 CONSULTATION — the complete draft is undergoing the peer-review and public-consultation process of Section 10; no project registration or issuance.

5.3.4 PILOT — the methodology is approved for pilot application only, under Section 13, with the restrictions recorded in the Methodology Status Register; no issuance except as Section 13 permits.

5.3.5 APPROVED — the full requirements of clause 5.5 are met and the approval decision is recorded; the methodology is available for project registration within its applicability conditions.

5.3.6 WITHDRAWN/RETIRED — the methodology is no longer available for new projects; Section 12 governs the consequences for existing projects and issued units.

5.4 A methodology SHALL NOT advance to any status without the entry evidence for that status linked in the Evidence Register, and no status SHALL be displayed anywhere without that linkage (MCC-001 clause 10.11).

5.5 A methodology SHALL NOT carry the status APPROVED (nor any legacy label such as "Active" or "Approved") unless all of the following exist and are linked in the Evidence Register: (a) the complete methodology dossier defined in Section 11; (b) the public consultation record; (c) the independent expert peer-review record; and (d) the signed approval decision of the body designated in MCC-700 Annex A row 3 (MCC-700 clause 18.3; MCC-001 clause 7.3).

5.6 FD-2026-09-03 item D6 sets methodologies M001–M010, M008 included, to the status CONCEPT (or DRAFT where a substantially complete text exists and is identified in the Methodology Status Register) until clause 5.5 is satisfied for each; the methodology register still records MCC-M008 v1.1 as APPROVED.

5.7 The regression of a methodology's status below the level printed in a superseded document SHALL be recorded in the Methodology Status Register with the date, the instrument effecting it and a public notice; the register entry SHALL NOT delete or obscure the previously printed status.

NOTE — M008. The predecessor's Section 9 table printed M008 (Marine Plastic Pollution Prevention) as "Active", and the founder has reported an "M008 v1.1 / Approved" printing with one real pilot project submitted under it. On 3 September 2026 the platform recorded MCC-M008 at version 1.1, status APPROVED, published and effective 24 August 2026. No instrument had created version 1.1 when the platform recorded it as published and effective on 24 August 2026; the consolidated text was created on 1 September 2026 under FD-2026-09-01 item D1 as editorial codification (recorded in the decision register as attested by the founder, with no executed copy filed), so the platform's version field ran ahead of the instrument by eight days. Both projects the registry holds were submitted against this methodology and stand at SUBMITTED (Evidence Register ER-2026-001 §A4; registry counts of 1 October 2026). FD-2026-09-03 item D6 sets M001–M010, M008 included, to CONCEPT/DRAFT, and the regression is recorded openly in Annex A; the methodology register still records MCC-M008 v1.1 as APPROVED (Evidence Register ER-2026-001 §A4; methodology register, 1 October 2026). The consequences for the two submitted projects — held at their current lifecycle gate and not cancelled — are governed by clause 16.5 and MCC-100 clause 25.3, and no project registered under MCC-M008 is re-coded by this consultation (FD-2026-10-01 Schedule 1, Q10).

5.8 A project SHALL NOT be registered, and no unit SHALL be issued, under a methodology whose status does not permit it under this Section (MCC-100 clause 5.6); a methodology status change SHALL trigger the project-hold mechanics of MCC-700 clause 9.5 for affected projects.

5.9 Methodology codes (M-codes, and the pilot code under clause 13.6) SHALL be assigned by the Standards Committee per FD-2026-09-03 item D6, recorded in the Methodology Status Register, and never re-used for a different scope.

6. Methodology development

6.1 Any person MAY propose a new methodology or a revision by submitting a methodology concept note to the Programme Secretariat, stating: the activity type and proposed family assignment under the Family–Methodology–Instrument Matrix; the intended instrument (MCC-CC, MCC-MOU or both, with split ledgers where both); the scientific basis with citations; the expected additionality rationale; and known overlaps with existing methodologies or external programmes.

6.2 Concept notes SHALL be screened by the Standards Committee (through its technical working groups, MCC-700 clause 4.6.4) for family fit, scientific plausibility, instrument-mapping conformity with control table 2, and absence of prohibited scope; a screened-in concept SHALL be entered in the Methodology Status Register at CONCEPT.

6.3 Methodology drafting SHALL use the Methodology Template (MCC-200-T1) without structural deviation; a draft not conforming to the Template SHALL be returned before review.

6.4 Every quantitative choice in a draft methodology — boundary, baseline approach, data hierarchy, parameters, defaults, uncertainty treatment, leakage mechanisms, deductions — SHALL be supported by cited scientific evidence or documented conservative reasoning; undocumented expert judgement SHALL NOT be a basis for any quantitative choice (MCC-100 clause 8.5).

6.5 Every default value published in a methodology SHALL be demonstrably conservative for the applicability conditions in which it may be used, with the derivation and sources documented in the methodology's technical annex.

6.6 Every quantification tool referenced by a methodology SHALL be versioned, SHALL carry machine-readable test cases with expected outputs, and SHALL pass those tests before release and after every change; a methodology SHALL identify the exact tool versions it requires.

6.7 A draft methodology SHALL include at least one complete worked example demonstrating every equation, parameter, deduction and rounding step from input data to issued quantity, reproducible by an independent reviewer.

6.8 Test calculations SHALL demonstrate that the methodology's outputs respond conservatively to missing data, boundary values and parameter uncertainty, and the test record SHALL form part of the dossier (Section 11).

6.9 Methodology development records — concept note, drafts, evidence, review comments and responses — SHALL be retained per the Record Retention Schedule; until that Schedule is in force, no development record SHALL be destroyed.

6.10 Development of a methodology SHALL NOT be represented, at any stage before APPROVED status, as implying that approval will occur or that projects may rely on the draft.

7. Mandatory methodology content and the Methodology Template

7.1 Every methodology SHALL be drafted using the Methodology Template (MCC-200-T1), and SHALL contain every Template section applicable to its family and instrument, completed in full; the Template's drafting instructions are non-normative guidance, and its mandatory section requirements restate the requirements of this Section.

7.2 MOD-01 Applicability. Every methodology SHALL define testable applicability conditions covering: the eligible activity type; geographic and ecosystem applicability; technology and practice scope; conditions under which the methodology SHALL NOT be applied; the required legal and tenure preconditions; and the family and instrument mapping generated from control table 2; every applicability condition SHALL be assessable at validation from stated evidence.

7.3 MOD-02 Boundary, baseline and additionality. Every methodology SHALL define: the spatial, temporal and gas/outcome-metric boundary with every included source, sink, reservoir or outcome metric and a conservative justification for every exclusion (MCC-100 clause 8.2); the baseline determination procedure implementing MCC-100 Section 8, including the four-tier data hierarchy of MCC-100 clause 8.3, baseline validity per Annex B, update and renewal rules (MCC-100 clauses 8.7 and 8.9), the treatment of trends and policy effects (MCC-100 clause 8.6) and the suppressed-activity cap (MCC-100 clause 8.8); and the additionality demonstration implementing each applicable test of MCC-100 Section 7 — regulatory surplus, common practice with a defined penetration metric and data sources, barrier and investment analysis where required, prior consideration, perverse-incentive and anti-gaming controls, and continued-additionality reassessment.

7.4 Every methodology whose activity removes, retrieves or remediates a harm (including gear retrieval and pollution removal) SHALL define specific anti-gaming controls demonstrating that crediting cannot incentivise causing, worsening or fabricating the harm (MCC-100 clause 7.6).

7.5 MOD-03 Quantification, uncertainty and leakage. Every methodology SHALL state: every equation used to compute the credited quantity; every parameter with name, symbol, unit, data source, measurement method, measurement frequency, default value (where permitted) and uncertainty treatment (MCC-100 clause 9.1); the uncertainty estimation and propagation method and the discount function applied above the Annex B uncertainty threshold (MCC-100 clauses 9.3 and 9.4); the missing-data procedures, each demonstrably conservative (MCC-100 clause 9.5); every leakage mechanism for the activity type with its quantification, monitoring and full deduction (MCC-100 Section 10); the conservative deductions applied and their order per MCC-100 clause 9.9; and the round-down rule of MCC-100 clause 9.8 at every rounding step.

7.6 A quantification that cannot be independently recomputed from the stated equations and recorded data SHALL NOT support issuance (MCC-100 clause 9.1); every methodology SHALL be tested for recomputability under clause 6.7 before approval.

7.7 MOD-04 Monitoring. Every methodology SHALL define the monitoring plan requirements of MCC-100 Section 12 for its activity type: every monitored parameter with measurement method, instrument class, accuracy specification, calibration requirement, statistical sampling design with confidence and precision targets, monitoring frequency, data owner and QA/QC controls; the remote-sensing rules (sensor classes, resolution, classification method, accuracy assessment and ground-truthing frequency) where remote sensing is permitted (MCC-100 clause 12.5); and the chain-of-custody and data-lineage requirements tracing every reported value to its original observation (MCC-100 clause 12.4).

7.8 MOD-05 Reporting. Every methodology SHALL define the monitoring-report content and frequency for its activity type, conforming to MCC-100 clauses 12.7 to 12.10, including disclosure of concurrent programmes and finance stacking per MCC-100 Section 17.

7.9 MOD-06 Validation and MOD-07 Verification. Every methodology SHALL define the methodology-specific validation and verification requirements — the matters a VVB SHALL assess beyond the programme minima of MCC-100 Section 18, the site-inspection triggers, and the evidence classes required — and, for any methodology producing both GHG and marine-outcome results, SHALL require separate assurance objectives, separate materiality application and separately identifiable conclusions for each statement (MCC-100 clause 18.5); VVB competence, sampling and independence requirements are stated exclusively in MCC-400 and SHALL NOT be varied by any methodology.

7.10 MOD-08 Permanence, durability and risk. Every methodology SHALL implement Section 9.

7.11 MOD-09 Safeguards and co-benefits. Every methodology SHALL implement clauses 15.1 to 15.6.

7.12 MOD-10 Registry, data and claims. Every methodology SHALL define: the data fields its projects must supply to the registry; the outcome metric and unit precision for MCC-MOU issuance; the MCC-CB label indicators it supports, if any, each with scope, indicator definition, measurement protocol and period; and the claim constraints applicable to its units, generated from the Claims Matrix (control table 6) — no methodology SHALL define claim wording of its own.

7.13 A methodology for an MCC-MOU outcome SHALL define exactly one physical outcome metric per unit type, with its measurement basis and precision; it SHALL NOT define any equivalence, exchange rate or aggregation between different outcome metrics or between an MCC-MOU and any quantity of CO2e (MCC-100 clause 4.6).

8. Cross-cutting quantification rules

8.1 The rules in this Section apply to every methodology and quantification tool, in addition to MCC-100 Sections 8 to 10; where a methodology proposes a stricter rule, the stricter rule applies.

8.2 Units. All quantification SHALL use metric units; every GHG quantity SHALL be expressed in tonnes of CO2e.

8.3 Global warming potentials. GHG quantification SHALL use, suite-wide, the 100-year global warming potential values of the Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change specified in Annex B-2, as listed for the covered gases there; no methodology SHALL use a different GWP set, time horizon or gas-specific variant.

8.4 A change in the applicable GWP set (upon a new IPCC Assessment Report) SHALL be adopted by amendment of Annex B and SHALL apply prospectively to each project from its next baseline re-validation or crediting-period renewal, whichever is earlier; issued units SHALL NOT be recomputed.

8.5 Materiality. The quantitative materiality thresholds per assurance engagement type SHALL be those in Annex B; the aggregate of uncorrected misstatements SHALL be below the applicable threshold before any verification statement supports issuance (MCC-100 clause 9.6).

8.6 Uncertainty. Every methodology SHALL fix its uncertainty threshold, which SHALL NOT exceed the ceiling in Annex B-4, and SHALL require an uncertainty discount where the combined uncertainty of the credited quantity exceeds that threshold, using a discount function that scales the reduction to the excess uncertainty and can never increase the credited quantity (the threshold remains "fixed by the methodology" as MCC-100 clause 9.4 provides; Annex B-4 caps it); uncertainty SHALL NOT be transferred to, or compensated from, the buffer pool.

8.7 Missing data. Every methodology SHALL define missing-data procedures for each monitored parameter class; every substituted value SHALL be demonstrably conservative, missing data SHALL never increase a credited quantity, and where no conservative substitution is possible the affected quantity SHALL NOT be credited (MCC-100 clause 9.5).

8.8 Crediting periods. The crediting-period length and renewal limits per family SHALL be those in Annex B; renewal SHALL require baseline re-evaluation and additionality reassessment (MCC-100 clauses 6.4, 7.7 and 8.7).

8.9 Baseline validity. The maximum baseline validity interval per family SHALL be that in Annex B, and SHALL in no case exceed the ten-year programme ceiling of MCC-100 clause 8.7(c); a methodology MAY fix a shorter interval and SHALL do so where the drivers of the baseline are volatile.

8.10 Rounding. Every rounding step in any methodology or tool SHALL round down at the smallest permitted unit precision (MCC-100 clause 9.8).

8.11 Deduction order. Every methodology SHALL apply the ordered deduction sequence of MCC-100 clause 9.9 and SHALL NOT reorder, net or merge its steps.

8.12 No methodology or tool SHALL contain any step that permits a negative deduction, a credit for an unmeasured outcome, or crediting outside the validated boundary (MCC-100 clause 9.10).

9. Permanence and durability in methodology design

9.1 Every methodology crediting stored carbon (families F01 and F02, and any stored-carbon component of an F03 methodology) SHALL require each project to be assigned a durability class from the durability classification of the Tier 3 permanence and buffer standard, and SHALL define the activity-specific evidence for that assignment.

9.2 Every such methodology SHALL require each project to evidence its enforceable commitment period as MCC-100 clause 11.2 defines it (binding legal commitments, secured tenure or use rights, funded monitoring, and reversal-liability arrangements, in aggregate), and SHALL define the documentation standard for each element.

9.3 No methodology SHALL state, assume or permit any permanence or durability horizon, claim or label that exceeds the enforceable commitment period evidenced under clause 9.2 (MCC-100 clause 11.3); in particular, no methodology SHALL carry a 100-year or "permanent" storage designation absent contracts, tenure, monitoring funding, replenishment liability and wind-down protection covering that full period.

NOTE. Predecessor clauses 0031.1 to 0031.3 — the family-differentiated permanence horizons (100-year F01 horizon against a 30-year binding commitment; 30-year F02/F05 horizons) and the claimed alignment of the F01 horizon with the EU Carbon Removal Certification Framework "permanent storage" category and Verra VM0033 — are deleted in full and not carried in any form (SYS-09; 200-04; 200-05). The CRCF's permanent-removal methods concern secure storage over centuries for specific activities; no MCC methodology meets a cited CRCF requirement, and under MCC-001 clause 8.8 no alignment claim may be made without a completed, documented external assessment of defined scope. Durability classes and their minimum enforceable-period rules are defined once, in the rewritten Tier 3 permanence and buffer standard (MCC-BPM v2.0-draft, Schedule 1 — Durability Classification, put to consultation with this suite), not here.

9.4 Every stored-carbon methodology SHALL define the project-level inputs to the Non-Permanence Risk Tool — the activity-specific risk factors (including natural disturbance, tenure, financial, management and community-dependence factors relevant to the family), the evidence required for each, and the treatment of unassessable factors as maximum-risk — such that a completed and verified risk assessment exists before any issuance (MCC-100 clause 11.10).

9.5 Every stored-carbon methodology SHALL define: the reversal-monitoring parameters and detection methods for the full enforceable commitment period; the reporting trigger of MCC-100 clause 11.7; and the quantification method for a verified reversal, noting that compensation is governed by MCC-700 clause 16.7 and is not variable by methodology.

9.6 The permanence-class applicability per family is:

Family	Permanence-class applicability (proposed population of the Family–Methodology–Instrument Matrix permanence-class column)
F01	Stored carbon — durability class required per the Tier 3 permanence and buffer standard; buffer participation required
F02	Stored carbon (protected stock) — durability class required; buffer participation required
F03	Flow-based by default (LCA/GHG avoided emissions carry no permanence horizon); durability class required only for any stored-carbon component a methodology defines
F04	Not applicable — MCC-MOU outcomes; no buffer participation; any separately approved GHG module is flow-based unless it credits storage
F05	Not applicable — MCC-MOU outcomes; no buffer participation

NOTE — GENERATED CONTENT (proposed). The table in clause 9.6 is drafted to populate the permanence-class column that control table 2 leaves open pending the rewritten permanence standard (SYS-09). It binds as a rule of this Framework on approval, and is proposed to be baselined into control table 2 as a conforming elaboration under FD-2026-09-03 item D2; the durability classes themselves (names, minimum enforceable periods) are defined in the Tier 3 permanence and buffer standard, and this table does not define any class. That standard's classification now exists in draft as MCC-BPM v2.0-draft Schedule 1 (Durability Classification v1.0-draft), whose Section S6 adopts this table's stored/flow split and refines it with per-family minimum classes derived from the Annex B-5 crediting periods; on any divergence, the Tier 3 permanence and buffer standard prevails once in force, and this table and control table 2 are conformed to it. (Consultation question 1.)

9.7 Flow-based outcomes (avoided emissions without a storage component) and all MCC-MOU outcomes SHALL NOT contribute to, or draw on, the buffer pool (MCC-100 clause 11.9), and no methodology SHALL route baseline or quantification uncertainty, leakage or safeguards risk to the buffer pool (MCC-700 clause 16.3).

9.8 For MCC-MOU methodologies, "permanence" language SHALL NOT be used; where the durability of an outcome matters to its claim (for example habitat-hectare-years), the methodology SHALL express duration inside the outcome metric itself and its monitoring requirements.

10. Methodology approval

10.1 Every new methodology, and every major revision, SHALL complete the approval process of this Section in full before any status of PILOT or APPROVED is recorded; no step SHALL be waived, shortened or run concurrently with a later step.

10.2 The approval process steps are, in order: (a) completeness screening of the dossier against Section 11; (b) independent expert peer review under clauses 10.3 to 10.5; (c) public consultation under clauses 10.6 to 10.8; (d) revision and documented response; and (e) the approval decision under clause 10.9.

10.3 Peer review SHALL be performed by no fewer than two independent expert reviewers per methodology, each with documented scientific or technical competence in the activity type and no conflict of interest under MCC-700 Section 5, appointed by the Standards Committee.

10.4 Peer review SHALL assess, at minimum: scientific rigour and currency of the evidence base; boundary completeness; baseline and additionality logic; quantification validity, conservativeness and recomputability (including the worked example and test calculations); leakage coverage; permanence and risk treatment under Section 9; monitoring feasibility; and consistency with MCC-100, this Framework and the Template.

10.5 Each peer-review report, and the proponent's written response to every material review finding, SHALL be published with the consultation and form part of the dossier; an unresolved material adverse finding SHALL be reported to the approval body with the recommendation.

10.6 Following peer review, the complete draft methodology and dossier (with only the redactions permitted by MCC-100 clause 20.7) SHALL be published for public consultation for no less than the minimum period MCC-001 clause 12.3 prescribes for Tier 4 instruments.

10.7 Consultation SHALL be open to all stakeholders, including project developers, VVBs, host-country representatives, environmental organisations, Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and civil society; comments SHALL be logged in a public consultation record.

10.8 The proponent SHALL publish written responses to all material comments before the consultation record closes; where the draft is materially superseded during consultation, MCC-001 clause 10.12 applies (re-scope by published notice, or close and restart).

10.9 The approval decision SHALL be taken by the body designated in MCC-700 Annex A row 3, on the Standards Committee's reasoned recommendation, and SHALL be issued in writing with reasons, published, and linked in the Evidence Register; approval SHALL be refused where any dossier element, peer-review response or consultation response is incomplete.

10.10 An approval decision MAY attach conditions precedent or conditions of use; a condition SHALL be specific, testable and recorded in the Methodology Status Register, and a methodology whose conditions precedent are unmet SHALL NOT advance in status.

10.11 Approval of a methodology SHALL NOT be represented as conferring any external programme eligibility, regulatory status, or alignment with any external framework (MCC-001 clauses 8.7 and 8.8).

10.12 Methodology decisions carry the appeal rights stated in MCC-700 Annex A, heard under the review standard of MCC-700 clause 12.6.

10.13 On approval, the methodology SHALL be assigned its version number, entered in the Methodology Status Register at its decided status, and published in full with its dossier index.

11. The methodology dossier

11.1 The methodology dossier is the complete evidence package for a methodology; no methodology SHALL be recorded as PILOT or APPROVED without a complete dossier, and the Methodology Status Register SHALL link each dossier element for each methodology at or above DRAFT (audit exit test: no APPROVED status without dossier).

11.2 The dossier SHALL comprise:

11.2.1 the complete methodology text, containing every applicable module MOD-01 to MOD-10, drafted on the Methodology Template (MCC-200-T1);

11.2.2 the complete quantification module, including every equation, the full parameter tables (name, symbol, unit, source, measurement method, frequency, defaults, uncertainty treatment), every referenced quantification tool at its exact version with its machine-readable test cases, and the worked example of clause 6.7;

11.2.3 the uncertainty analysis: the uncertainty estimation and propagation method, the demonstration of the discount function against the Annex B threshold, and the conservativeness test record of clause 6.8;

11.2.4 the applicability conditions (MOD-01) with the evidence standard for each condition;

11.2.5 the monitoring plan template for projects, implementing clause 7.7;

11.2.6 the validation and verification requirements (MOD-06/MOD-07), including the separate GHG and marine-outcome assurance objectives where applicable;

11.2.7 the permanence and risk module (MOD-08) with the Non-Permanence Risk Tool inputs of clause 9.4, for stored-carbon methodologies;

11.2.8 the safeguards and co-benefits module (MOD-09) and the sustainable development indicator protocols of clause 15.4;

11.2.9 pilot evidence, where Section 13 or the approval body requires piloting: the pilot design, monitoring results, validation and verification records, and the pilot evaluation report;

11.2.10 the peer-review record: reviewer identities and competence statements, conflict declarations, review reports, and the proponent's responses;

11.2.11 the public consultation record: notice, published texts, logged comments, and published responses to material comments; and

11.2.12 the adoption instrument: the signed approval decision with its conditions, linked in the Evidence Register.

11.3 The dossier index SHALL be published with the methodology; dossier elements SHALL be public except for the redactions permitted by MCC-100 clause 20.7.

11.4 A dossier element that is missing, superseded or unsigned SHALL be treated as absent; partial dossiers SHALL NOT be aggregated across versions to satisfy clause 11.1.

12. Version control, revision, withdrawal and retirement

12.1 Every methodology SHALL be version-controlled with a public version history; every version SHALL state its creating instrument, and all versions SHALL remain publicly archived.

12.2 Revisions SHALL be classified as minor (clarification, correction or technical revision that does not change scope, baseline methodology, quantification method or safeguards substance) or major; the classification SHALL be recorded with reasons by the Standards Committee.

12.3 A major revision — scope expansion, baseline-methodology change, or quantification change — SHALL be treated as a new methodology, with the full approval process of Section 10 including fresh peer review and fresh consultation, as MCC-700 clause 18.2 requires; a substantive change to safeguards content SHALL also be classified major.

12.4 Minor revisions SHALL be decided under MCC-700 Annex A row 5, with stakeholder notification and a published change note; a minor revision SHALL NOT alter any credited quantity for any project.

12.5 On approval of any revision, a new version number SHALL be assigned and the Methodology Status Register updated.

12.6 Transitional arrangements for each revision SHALL specify: the date from which new projects must use the new version; whether and for how long existing projects may continue under the prior version; and the treatment of monitoring periods spanning the transition; a transitional period SHALL NOT exceed two years except where the Standards Committee documents operational or scientific necessity.

12.7 A project MAY transition to a newer methodology version only where doing so maintains or improves conservativeness and environmental integrity, assessed at its next verification.

12.8 A methodology MAY be withdrawn or retired only by decision under MCC-700 Annex A row 4, with public notice of no fewer than 180 calendar days except where an integrity defect requires immediate withdrawal, in which case the notice SHALL state the defect and take effect immediately.

12.9 A retired or withdrawn methodology SHALL remain available for the verification, issuance-completion and retirement of outcomes already verified or monitoring periods already commenced, as the retirement decision specifies, but SHALL NOT be available for new projects.

12.10 Revision, withdrawal or retirement of a methodology SHALL NOT of itself cancel validly issued units; cancellation of issued units occurs only on a defect finding with due process under MCC-100 clause 23.5.

12.11 Where a methodology defect is found that affects quantities not yet issued, issuance under the methodology SHALL be withheld until the defect is corrected; where it may affect issued units, the matter SHALL be processed under MCC-100 Section 23.

12.12 Every methodology SHALL be reviewed for scientific currency at least every five years, and earlier upon material scientific, legal or policy change (MCC-001 clause 10.9).

13. Pilot methodologies and the GFS pilot

13.1 A pilot methodology is a methodology approved for restricted pilot application to generate the operational and scientific evidence required for full approval; PILOT status SHALL be granted only under the approval process of Section 10 applied to the pilot module, with the restrictions of this Section recorded in the Methodology Status Register.

13.2 Every pilot methodology SHALL state: the maximum number of pilot projects; the pilot crediting restrictions (including whether any issuance is permitted at all); the data-collection and evaluation plan; the pilot duration; and the criteria against which the pilot will be evaluated for full approval, revision or termination.

13.3 Pilot projects SHALL pass every lifecycle gate of MCC-700 Annex B without relief (MCC-700 Annex B rule B-6); piloting SHALL NOT shorten consultation, reduce verification or waive safeguards.

13.4 Units SHALL NOT be issued under a pilot methodology unless the pilot module expressly permits issuance, every MCC-100 Section 19 prerequisite is met, and the issuance restriction recorded in the Methodology Status Register is respected; pilot participation SHALL confer no crediting guarantee.

13.5 Every pilot project SHALL operate under a signed pilot agreement covering, at minimum: the absence of any crediting guarantee; data-sharing for pilot evaluation; enhanced scrutiny and additional monitoring; withdrawal rights; and fee treatment.

The GFS pilot methodology (family F03)

13.6 A pilot methodology for ghost-fishing-gear (GFS) interventions SHALL be developed under family F03, with a new methodology code assigned under clause 5.9. The code is a new one, assigned when the pilot module is approved, rather than a re-use of M008, whose printed scope is "Marine Plastic Pollution Prevention" (FD-2026-09-03 item D6); no code is assigned by this consultation, and no project registered under MCC-M008 is re-coded by it. (Consultation question 2.)

13.7 The GFS pilot methodology SHALL produce two independently reported results in separate ledgers, with no cross-crediting, netting or conversion between them (FD-2026-09-03 item D6):

13.7.1 a net greenhouse-gas result (MCC-CC), only where conservatively quantified and verified under an LCA/GHG boundary limited to the avoided manufacturing and transport of replacement fishing gear (and any other LCA elements the module conservatively includes); and

13.7.2 marine conservation outcomes (MCC-MOU), expressed as verified gear-loss prevention or gear-recovery metrics defined under clause 7.13.

13.8 No tonne of CO2e SHALL be quantified, issued or claimed from gear mass removed or prevented alone; the GHG ledger SHALL be populated only by the LCA/GHG quantification of clause 13.9.

13.9 The GFS pilot dossier SHALL contain, in addition to every Section 11 element:

13.9.1 the complete LCA boundary specification: the replacement-gear counterfactual and its evidence base; the demonstrated causal link between the intervention and avoided gear manufacturing and transport; every life-cycle stage included and a conservative justification for every exclusion; the functional unit; and the cut-off rules;

13.9.2 the replacement-rate evidence: the demonstrated baseline rate at which lost or degraded gear is replaced, from cited fishery-specific or peer-reviewed data, with a conservative default where site data are unavailable;

13.9.3 emission-factor sourcing for gear materials, manufacturing processes and transport, each with source, vintage, geographic applicability and conservative selection rationale;

13.9.4 the conservativeness tests of clause 6.8 applied to the LCA result, including sensitivity analysis on the replacement rate, material composition and transport distances;

13.9.5 the gear-loss-prevention and recovery outcome metrics: definition, measurement protocol (including at-sea and portside evidence, gear marking or tracking where used), verification evidence classes, and anti-gaming controls under clause 7.4 (including controls against the deposition or staging of gear for credited retrieval);

13.9.6 the split-ledger monitoring plan template, keeping GHG parameters and marine-outcome parameters separately traceable end-to-end;

13.9.7 validation and verification requirements applying separate assurance objectives and materiality to the GHG statement and to each marine-outcome statement (MCC-100 clause 18.5); and

13.9.8 the pilot evaluation criteria: the evidence thresholds on which the GHG leg may be proposed for full approval, revised or terminated.

13.10 The GFS pilot's GHG leg is flow-based (avoided emissions); it SHALL NOT participate in the buffer pool and SHALL NOT carry any permanence designation (clause 9.6); if any stored-carbon component is ever proposed, it requires a major revision under Section 12.

13.11 Any project submitted under M008 whose activity is in substance a ghost-gear intervention MAY be offered transfer into the GFS pilot under a clause 13.5 pilot agreement, per clause 16.5; transfer SHALL require the developer's documented consent and SHALL NOT carry over any status, assessment result or crediting expectation from the M008 submission.

Kelp and coral (M003, M004)

13.12 Carbon crediting of kelp and coral activities is suspended (MCC-001 clause 7.7; MCC-100 clause 5.8); M003 and M004 are re-scoped as marine-outcome pilots under family F05 producing MCC-MOU outcomes only, and their prior MCC-CC scope SHALL NOT be applied, referenced or marketed.

13.13 The suspension of clause 13.12 MAY be lifted for an activity only by approval, under Section 10, of a specific, peer-reviewed and conservatively tested carbon methodology for that activity that passes independent expert review addressing, at minimum: carbon fate and export pathways; attribution of storage to the credited activity; boundary closure for laterally transported carbon; measurement uncertainty; and reversal treatment. No peer-reviewed scientific basis for any kelp or coral carbon proposal is in the programme record (Evidence Register ER-2026-001 §B5).

14. Overlap and double counting in methodology design

14.1 Every methodology SHALL implement the double-counting prohibitions and definitions of MCC-100 Section 17 for its activity type, and SHALL cite the Tier 3 double-counting standard as the authoritative control framework.

14.2 MOD-02 of every methodology SHALL require identification of every other crediting programme, ecosystem-services payment scheme or attribute-generating arrangement operating in, or overlapping with, the project boundary or activity scope.

14.3 An overlap with another programme or arrangement SHALL be resolved before registration and before issuance by rights, boundary, registry and claim reconciliation evidencing, for every overlapping outcome, boundary, period and metric, de-registration, cancellation, transition or demonstrated distinctness (MCC-100 clause 17.4); a downward baseline adjustment alone SHALL NOT be treated as resolving an overlap.

NOTE. This supersedes predecessor clause 0072, under which overlap was addressed by adjusting the baseline downward or excluding overlapping benefits — a remedy the audit found inadequate to prevent double issuance and double claiming across overlapping boundaries (200-09).

14.4 Every methodology SHALL define, where its activity can displace the harm or the activity to another location, programme or jurisdiction, a cross-programme displacement assessment within its leakage provisions (clause 7.5), quantified and deducted, not merely disclosed.

14.5 Where a project activity also satisfies an obligation or scheme outside the Programme, the methodology SHALL define an allocation rule that prevents the same environmental attribute being issued, used or claimed twice, consistent with MCC-100 clauses 17.2 and 17.3; disclosed finance stacking that duplicates no attribute is not an overlap.

14.6 MOD-05 SHALL require projects to disclose, at submission and annually, every concurrent programme, certification or regulatory framework applicable to the same activity (MCC-100 clause 17.5), and MOD-06/MOD-07 SHALL require explicit validation and verification of overlap resolution.

NOTE. The predecessor's host-country corresponding-adjustment provisions (clauses 0078–0079, requiring the registry to maintain a corresponding-adjustments register and "host country corresponding adjustment tracking") are superseded by the Article 6 attribute model of FD-2026-09-03 item D3: Article 6 facts are discrete evidence-backed registry attributes under MCC-100 Section 16 and control table 5; MCC records evidence of a Party's corresponding adjustment and never performs, instructs or tracks-as-owed one. Methodologies SHALL NOT contain corresponding-adjustment logic.

15. Safeguards, sustainable development and co-benefits in methodologies

15.1 Every methodology SHALL integrate the Environmental & Social Safeguards Policy as the authoritative safeguards framework: MOD-09 SHALL define the activity-specific and family-specific safeguards risks of the methodology's scope (including, as applicable: ecosystem integrity, biodiversity, access restrictions, livelihood and marine-tenure impacts, customary fishing rights, Indigenous Peoples' rights, cultural heritage, labour rights, community health and safety, and technology and waste risks) and the screening triggers each risk raises under that Policy.

15.2 A methodology's safeguards provisions SHALL feed, and SHALL NOT substitute for, the Programme's safeguards process: exclusion-list screening, risk categorisation, assessment instruments, FPIC where applicable, grievance and remedy are governed by MCC-100 Section 14 and the Environmental & Social Safeguards Policy.

15.3 Safeguards conformity SHALL be assessed at every validation and verification (MCC-100 clauses 14.10 and 18.3–18.4); no methodology SHALL permit issuance without the safeguards clearance of MCC-100 clause 14.13.

15.4 Every methodology SHALL define its sustainable development indicators under the Sustainable Development Contribution Framework (MCC-SDCF v2.0-draft, put to consultation with this suite after conformity review CR-2026-001 of 3 September 2026 found MCC-SDCF v1.0 non-conforming), and for every indicator SHALL specify: definition; baseline determination; measurement protocol; monitoring frequency; attribution rationale; assurance requirement; and the rule preventing the same benefit being counted under more than one indicator or claimed by more than one party.

15.5 A generic SDG badge or emphasis claim SHALL NOT be made or enabled by any methodology; sustainable development claims SHALL be indicator-level, evidence-backed and verified (MCC-100 clause 15.4).

NOTE. The predecessor's family SDG-emphasis tables (clauses 0057–0061 and the Section 4 table) were keyed to the superseded family map and prescribed emphasis without indicator protocols (200-08); they are not carried. Family-level SDG guidance, if any, is re-keyed to the canonical families in the rewritten MCC-SDCF (v2.0-draft, put to consultation with this suite).

15.6 Every methodology supporting MCC-CB labels SHALL define each label's co-benefit indicator with scope, measurement protocol, period and verification requirement; a label indicator SHALL NOT quantify or imply any quantity of CO2e, and label verification SHALL be separately identifiable from unit verification.

15.7 Sustainable development and co-benefit assessment SHALL NOT create additional units, increase any credited quantity, or accelerate any lifecycle stage.

16. Amendments and transitional provisions

16.1 This Framework MAY be amended only by: a written proposal; a public consultation of no less than the minimum period MCC-001 clause 12.3 prescribes for Tier 3 amendments; a Standards Committee review and reasoned recommendation; and approval under the decision type in MCC-700 Annex A row 2.

16.2 Every amendment SHALL be published as a changelog entry and a clean consolidated text stating the instrument that creates the resulting version number; no amendment SHALL take effect before its referenced normative dependencies exist (clause 1.4).

16.3 The Governing Board was constituted on 26 August 2026 with two members (GB-2026-001, recorded in the decision register as attested by the founder, with no executed copy filed); no other governance body of MCC-001 clause 9.1.1 has been constituted; every function this Framework assigns is exercised, until the relevant body is constituted, by the founder under MCC-700 Section 23, logged for ratification.

16.4 Pursuant to FD-2026-09-03 item D6 and this Framework: M001–M010 stand at the statuses recorded in Annex A; the "locked portfolio" designation is retired; and no methodology, module or tool of the predecessor corpus SHALL be applied except as Annex A and Section 5 permit.

16.5 M008 and projects submitted under regressed methodologies. For every project submitted under a methodology whose status regressed under FD-2026-09-03 item D6 — including the two projects submitted under M008 (clause 16.5.5):

16.5.1 the submission is not cancelled and is not invalidated; listing and submission are administrative entries conferring no approval (MCC-001 clause 11.6);

16.5.2 the project is held at its current lifecycle state with a dated hold annotation (MCC-700 clause 9.5; MCC-100 clause 13.17), and SHALL NOT proceed to registration, validation sign-off or issuance while the methodology's status does not permit it;

16.5.3 the developer SHALL be notified in writing within five business days of the adoption of this Framework's status register correction, stating the hold, its reasons (the independent audit and FD-2026-09-03 item D6), the applicable service levels, the preservation of the developer's fee position, and the available paths forward;

16.5.4 the available paths are: (a) completion of the methodology's dossier, consultation, peer-review and approval chain under Sections 10 and 11, whereupon the hold lifts; or (b) where the project is in substance a ghost-gear intervention, transfer by documented consent into the F03 GFS pilot under clause 13.11; and

16.5.5 the notice, the developer's response and every consequential step SHALL be recorded in the Evidence Register. The registry holds two projects, both at SUBMITTED and both against M008 — MCC-2026-0001 (Gulf of Gabès Ghost Gear Recovery) and MCC-DRAFT-7C51FD88 (Norwegian Ghost Gear Recovery) — and neither has passed the completeness check; the platform has no fee-collection path, and the registry records no fee taken and no commitment made to any project developer (Evidence Register ER-2026-001 §A3; FD-2026-10-01 Schedule 1, Q14).

16.6 Public consultations opened on methodology texts before this draft (including the reported open consultations on F01 methodology texts) SHALL be handled per MCC-001 clause 10.12: re-scoped by published notice stating that the consulted texts are reclassified CONCEPT/DRAFT and that responses will be treated as early input to the rewritten texts, or closed and restarted; no approval SHALL rest on a consultation conducted on a superseded text (MCC-100 clause 25.6). The consultation register records one F01 consultation on methodology texts — "MCC-F01 Blue Carbon Sequestration — Methodologies M001 (Mangrove), M002 (Seagrass), M003 (Salt Marsh)", opened 31 August 2026 on 30 days' notice on the published text mcc-f01-methodologies-m001-m003-v0-1. At the date of this draft it was open, with no comments received, and M001–M003 stood at v0.1, UNDER_REVIEW and unpublished. Its notice period ended on 30 September 2026, and it was closed on 1 October 2026 with its closing protocol published; the texts were not adopted as tabled (consultation register and its closing protocol).

16.7 Every parameter of the predecessor keyed to the superseded families, instruments or permanence horizons (including any buffer rate, permanence horizon or crediting assumption derived from clauses 0031.1–0031.3) is suspended and SHALL NOT be applied; replacement parameters are those of Annex B and the rewritten Tier 3 permanence and buffer standard.

16.8 Points the Programme has not decided, or on which it proposes a rule for comment, are listed under Consultation questions and marked in the text; each SHALL be resolved, and its resolution recorded in the Evidence Register or decision register, before this Framework may carry any status other than DRAFT — FOR CONSULTATION.

17. Entry into force

17.1 This Framework (MCC-200 version 3.0) SHALL enter into force upon approval under the decision type in MCC-700 Annex A row 2 — during the transitional period, upon a Founder Decision recorded and tabled for ratification under MCC-700 Section 23 — on a stated date, following the public consultation on this draft and completion of the acceptance tests in Section 9 of the independent audit dated 3 September 2026.

17.2 This draft is published with status DRAFT — FOR CONSULTATION and confers no rights and imposes no obligations until entry into force.

17.3 On entry into force, MCC-200 v2.0 SHALL be formally superseded and archived as an uncontrolled historical record with a superseded watermark; its substance survives only as consolidated in this text.

17.4 The Methodology Template (MCC-200-T1) SHALL be adopted as a Tier 5 instrument together with, or after, this Framework; until MCC-200-T1 is adopted, no methodology draft SHALL advance beyond CONCEPT.

---

Annex A — Methodology Status Register (normative reproduction)

A-1 This Annex restates the Methodology Status Register (canonical control table 7, adopted under FD-2026-09-03 item D6), which is the single source of methodology status (clause 5.1): every status value, family and instrument migration, and disposition is restated verbatim, and the annotation cells ("Evidence required to advance"; the M008 disposition) carry their citations conformed to this Framework under the dated conforming-elaboration note recorded on the Register (3 September 2026). On any divergence in a status, migration or disposition, the source register prevails and this restatement is corrected; no local variation of a status, migration or disposition is permitted.

A-2 "Printed status" records what the superseded MCC-200 v2.0 Section 9 portfolio table displayed; it is preserved for transparency and is not a current status. MCC-100 v2.2 clause 0005 called all ten methodologies "approved"; no dossier, consultation record or peer review for any of them exists in the programme record, and no approval decision for any of them except M008 (FD-2026-08-24 item 1; FD-2026-09-01 item D1; each recorded in the decision register as attested by the founder, with no executed copy filed) (200-02; SYS-14).

Code	Name (as printed)	Family (old → canonical)	Instrument (old → canonical)	Printed status	Current status (FD-2026-09-03 item D6)	Evidence required to advance
M001	Mangrove Restoration and Sequestration	F01 → F01	MCC-CC → MCC-CC	Active	CONCEPT	Full dossier per Section 11 (modules MOD-01 to MOD-10; additionality, baseline, leakage, uncertainty per Sections 7–8); consultation record; independent peer review; signed approval decision
M002	Seagrass Meadow Establishment and Sequestration	F01 → F01	MCC-CC → MCC-CC	Active	CONCEPT	As M001
M003	Kelp Forest Cultivation and Sequestration	F01 → F05 (outcome pilot)	MCC-CC → MCC-MOU	Active	CONCEPT — carbon scope suspended (clause 13.12)	Peer-reviewed, conservatively tested kelp carbon methodology passing independent expert review per clause 13.13 before any MCC-CC scope; outcome-pilot dossier for MOU scope
M004	Coral Reef Restoration and Sequestration	F01 → F05 (outcome pilot)	MCC-CC → MCC-MOU	Active	CONCEPT — carbon scope suspended (clause 13.12)	As M003, for coral
M005	Mangrove Protection and Stock Preservation	F02 → F02	MCC-HYB → MCC-CC (+ optional MCC-CB)	Active	CONCEPT	Full dossier including an approved avoided-loss baseline/additionality/leakage method meeting the F02 boundary control
M006	Seagrass Meadow Protection and Stock Preservation	F02 → F02	MCC-HYB → MCC-CC (+ optional MCC-CB)	Active	CONCEPT	As M005
M007	Marine Protected Area Establishment and Biodiversity Conservation	F03 (old: Marine Ecosystem Conservation) → F05	MCC-HYB → MCC-MOU (+ co-benefit statements)	Active	CONCEPT	Outcome-metric dossier (indicator, baseline, attribution, assurance per clause 7.13); no carbon tonnes absent an accepted carbon methodology (clause 4.6)
M008	Marine Plastic Pollution Prevention	F04 → F04 (ghost-gear/GFS scope carved out to the F03 pilot)	MCC-MCU → MCC-MOU	Active. The printing reflects the platform's methodology record, not an instrument; the platform recorded version 1.1 eight days before the consolidated text was created under FD-2026-09-01 item D1 as editorial codification (recorded in the decision register as attested by the founder, with no executed copy filed; Evidence Register ER-2026-001 §A4).	CONCEPT/DRAFT — regression recorded 3 September 2026 under FD-2026-09-03 item D6; the two submitted projects held per clause 16.5, not cancelled; no project registered under MCC-M008 is re-coded by this consultation (FD-2026-10-01 Schedule 1, Q10)	Full dossier; scope split: plastic-mass outcomes (F04, MCC-MOU) versus replacement-gear LCA/GHG (F03 pilot, MCC-CC leg); consultation; peer review; signed approval decision
M009	Ship-Based Ballast Water Treatment and Species Invasion Prevention	F04 → F04	MCC-MCU → MCC-MOU	Active	CONCEPT	Full dossier; no carbon claim absent a separately approved GHG methodology (clause 4.5)
M010	Upstream Plastic Waste Prevention and Diversion	F05 (old: Upstream Waste Prevention) → F04	MCC-MCU → MCC-MOU	Active	CONCEPT	Full dossier; as M009
No code assigned — a new code is assigned when the pilot module is approved (clause 13.6) (Consultation question 2.)	GFS/ghost-fishing-gear pilot methodology	New, under F03	Split ledger: MCC-CC (LCA-based avoided manufacturing and transport of replacement gear, conservatively quantified and verified) + MCC-MOU (verified gear-loss prevention/recovery metrics)	Does not exist	PILOT (to be drafted) — Section 13 requirements apply	Pilot dossier per clauses 11.2 and 13.9: separate GHG and marine-outcome ledgers; LCA boundary and conservativeness tests; monitoring plan; independent validation/verification; no tonne from gear mass alone

A-3 Advancement beyond DRAFT requires, at minimum: the complete dossier (Section 11), the public consultation of clause 10.6, the independent peer review of clauses 10.3–10.5, and a signed approval decision linked in the Evidence Register (clause 5.5).

A-4 No row of this Annex asserts that any dossier element exists; every "Evidence required to advance" entry is outstanding in full at the date of this draft.

---

Annex B — Quantification and crediting parameters (normative; values proposed for consultation)

B-1 This Annex fixes the suite-wide quantification parameters that MCC-100 clauses 6.4, 9.2, 9.4 and 9.6 delegate to MCC-200. The numeric values in tables B-3 to B-5 are proposed for consultation: they are drafting proposals benchmarked on published crediting-programme and assurance practice, not evidenced operational decisions, and are confirmed or varied on approval of this Framework. Every numeric value in this Annex is confirmed or varied on approval as a single open item, OD-C1. (Consultation question 3.)

B-2 Global warming potential set (clause 8.3). The applicable set is the 100-year GWP values of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (Working Group I) for all gases quantified under any MCC methodology; each methodology SHALL list, in its parameter tables, the AR6 100-year value for every gas in its boundary, cited to the report. Changes follow clause 8.4.

B-3 Materiality thresholds (clause 8.5), per assurance engagement type:

Engagement type	Proposed materiality threshold
Validation (all instruments)	Qualitative materiality: any error, omission or misrepresentation that could change the validation conclusion is material
Verification of a GHG statement — average annual credited quantity ≤ 100,000 MCC-CC	5 per cent of the reported quantity
Verification of a GHG statement — average annual credited quantity > 100,000 MCC-CC	2 per cent of the reported quantity
Verification of a marine-outcome (MCC-MOU) statement	5 per cent of the reported outcome quantity
Verification of an MCC-CB label indicator	5 per cent of the reported indicator value, or the qualitative standard where the indicator is non-numeric

B-4 Uncertainty threshold ceiling and discount (clause 8.6). Each methodology SHALL fix its own uncertainty threshold, expressed as the maximum half-width of the 90 per cent confidence interval of the credited quantity as a percentage of its mean; that threshold SHALL NOT exceed the ceiling of 10 per cent. Each methodology SHALL define a discount function that scales the reduction at least linearly with the excess over its fixed threshold and SHALL apply it before the buffer step of the MCC-100 clause 9.9 sequence.

B-5 Crediting periods, renewals and baseline validity (clauses 8.8 and 8.9), per family:

Family	Crediting period	Renewals	Maximum baseline validity
F01	20 years	Up to 2, each requiring baseline re-evaluation and additionality reassessment	10 years
F02	20 years	Up to 2, as F01	10 years
F03	7 years	Up to 2, as F01	5 years
F04	7 years	Up to 2, as F01	5 years
F05	7 years	Up to 2, as F01	5 years
GFS pilot (F03)	Pilot crediting period not exceeding 3 years	Non-renewable as a pilot; continuation requires full approval under Section 10	3 years

B-6 A crediting period SHALL NOT extend beyond the project's evidenced enforceable commitment period for stored-carbon activities (MCC-100 clauses 11.2–11.4), and no crediting-period length in this Annex is a permanence or durability claim.

B-7 Where this Annex is silent on a parameter, the methodology SHALL propose a conservative value with evidence, decided in the methodology approval.

---

End of MCC-200 version 3.0-draft. Status: DRAFT — FOR CONSULTATION. Not in force. Points the Programme has not decided, or on which it proposes a rule for comment, are listed under Consultation questions above and marked in the text.