MCC-HCA — Host Country Authorisation Procedure

Document control

Field	Value
Document code	MCC-HCA
Title	Host Country Authorisation Procedure
Version	2.0-draft
Status	DRAFT — FOR CONSULTATION
Date of this draft	3 September 2026
Tier	Tier 5 (Document Hierarchy & Precedence Register, per FD-2026-09-03 item D5 — the procedure named by MCC-001 clauses 5.10 and 10.5 and MCC-100 clause 16.5)
Effective date	None. This document is not in force. It takes effect only on approval under clause 10.1.
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; tabled for ratification by the Governing Board), item D3 in particular; the resolution of MCC-700 OD-3 (MCC-100 v3.0-draft, NOTE following clause 16.3). 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 Host Country Authorisation Procedure v1.0 (printed "MCC-HCA-v1.0", March 2026, status APPROVED) — reclassified by FD-2026-09-03 item D5; the document register records v1.0 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.
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 (for example "AUTHORIZED").
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

1. The predecessor v1.0 was one of the seven corpus documents printed "APPROVED" with no document-control apparatus at all — no version table, owner, approval body, decision record or effective date (Phase 0 source inventory). It also lay outside the independent audit's ten-file inventory and was never desk-reviewed. No signed approval instrument for the predecessor is in the programme record (Evidence Register ER-2026-001 §B3).
2. Phase 0 verification found the predecessor in direct conflict with the rest of the suite: it made host-country authorisation optional (clauses 0006 and 0040) against the mandatory gates of MCC-001, MCC-100 and MCC-700; it used three host-country categories against MCC-100 v2.2's four; it carried a fourth incompatible corresponding-adjustment status model; and its clause 0001 expanded "MCC" as "Mitigation Credit Company", which is wrong — the acronym means Marine Conservation Credits and nothing else (MCC-001 clause 1.2).
3. This version 2.0-draft is the conforming rewrite that the resolution of MCC-700 OD-3 calls for (MCC-100 v3.0-draft, NOTE following clause 16.3; MCC-700 v4.0-draft clause 17.3). It separates the two things the predecessor merged: domestic-legality evidence, which is mandatory and gates registration; and Article 6 authorisation evidence, which is never a gate and is recorded only as evidence-backed attributes (FD-2026-09-03 item D3). The predecessor PDF is reclassified by FD-2026-09-03 item D5; its withdrawal as a controlled copy, and its archiving as a superseded record, are executed when this version is adopted (clause 10.4).

Change history

Version	Date	Change	Instrument
1.0	March 2026 (printed)	Base text; printed status APPROVED; no document-control table; "Mitigation Credit Company" expansion; optional-authorisation posture	No such instrument is in the programme record (Evidence Register ER-2026-001 §B3).
2.0-draft	3 September 2026	Conforming rewrite under FD-2026-09-03 items D1–D8 and the OD-3 resolution: mandatory domestic-legality gate at registration restored, with continued-validity re-verification before every issuance; Article 6 authorisation separated as a never-gating attribute track under control table 5; the three-category country model retired together with MCC-100 v2.2's four-category model (no normative categorisation survives); the v1.0 corresponding-adjustment enumeration retired per MCC-CADCP v2.0 Annex A; "MCC" expansion corrected; procedure steps aligned to the lifecycle state machine of MCC-700 Annex B; platform data-model, API and indexing clauses removed to MCC-800 and the registry data dictionary; the non-canonical "Review Committee" abolished	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, authorisation, letter, 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 7.3 — Informational host-country engagement material. Proposed: no choice is proposed between publishing no engagement material, a contact list of DNAs and equivalent authorities only, or that list together with factual notes on published host-country Article 6 procedures. Until a choice is made, the draft's interim rule is the stricter one: no engagement material is published, no MCC communication characterises any country's Article 6 readiness, prospects or timelines, and developers are directed to the Party's own published sources. The predecessor's public Host Country Classification Register (MCC-HCA v1.0 clauses 0056–0075) is retired in every case. Basis: open decision put to public consultation (FDP-2026-001 Part 3). Decided by: the Governing Board on adoption of the suite. Comments are invited on whether such material would help developers without implying any view of a country's position.

Table of contents

1. Purpose, scope and application
2. Definitions and interpretation
3. The two evidence tracks and their legal effect
4. Track A — Domestic-legality evidence procedure
5. Track B — Article 6 authorisation evidence procedure
6. Corresponding-adjustment evidence recording
7. Host-country engagement; no normative categorisation
8. Records, registry recording and notifications
9. Roles and decision rights
10. Amendment, transitional provisions and entry into force

---

1. Purpose, scope and application

1.1 This Procedure (MCC-HCA) SHALL define the evidential intake, verification and recording steps for host-country instruments in the Marine Conservation Credits (MCC) Programme, implementing MCC-100 Section 16, MCC-700 Section 17 and the Article 6 Attribute/Status Matrix (canonical control table 5).

1.2 The acronym "MCC" means Marine Conservation Credits (MCC-001 clause 1.2); the predecessor's expansion "Mitigation Credit Company" is incorrect and SHALL NOT be used in any Programme document, register entry, certificate or communication.

1.3 This Procedure SHALL apply to every project and every unit of the Programme, in every host country, for both evidence tracks defined in Section 3.

1.4 This Procedure is a Tier 5 instrument under the Document Hierarchy & Precedence Register; it implements, and SHALL NOT weaken, narrow or disapply, the requirements of MCC-001 clauses 5.10 and 10.5, MCC-100 Section 16 and MCC-700 Section 17 (MCC-001 clause 2.2.3).

1.5 Where this Procedure refers to another MCC document, form, tool or register, the reference SHALL be read against the Document Hierarchy & Precedence Register; a requirement of this Procedure 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 Procedure are not yet published under document control: the Record Retention Schedule; the registry data dictionary and the rewritten MCC-800; MCC-CADCP v2.0 (put to consultation with this suite); and the evidence-intake forms of clause 4.4. Each dependent requirement is deferred under clause 1.5, never silently effective. The predecessor's "Host Country Classification Register" is retired (Section 7) and is not a dependency of this Procedure.

1.6 This Procedure states evidential steps and recording rules; it creates no decision authority, no gate other than those MCC-100 and MCC-700 already fix, and no registry implementation detail (data model, fields, interfaces, indexing), which are governed exclusively by MCC-800 and the registry data dictionary.

2. Definitions and interpretation

2.1 Terms used with initial capitals in this Procedure SHALL have the meanings assigned in the MCC Definitions Register, which is in force as MCC-100 Annex 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 SHALL apply as interim definitions.

2.2 The normative verb conventions of MCC-001 clause 3.1 SHALL apply throughout this Procedure; each numbered clause states one testable requirement; text introduced by "NOTE" or "GUIDANCE" is non-normative.

2.3 The following instrument types are distinct concepts and SHALL NOT be equated, merged or substituted for one another in any Programme document, registry field or communication:

2.3.1 Domestic instrument — a permit, licence, approval, concession, tenure grant or other authorisation required under the applicable law of the host country to implement the project activity; it evidences domestic legality and nothing else.

2.3.2 Host-country project approval — a written approval of the project issued by a competent host-country authority (which MAY be, but need not be, the instrument in clause 2.3.1); it is recorded in the host-country project approval/non-objection attribute.

2.3.3 Non-objection — a written statement by a competent host-country authority that it does not object to the project; a non-objection is not an approval, is not a domestic instrument, and is not, and SHALL NOT be treated as, Article 6 authorisation.

2.3.4 Letter of Authorisation (LoA) — the written instrument by which a participating Party authorises mitigation outcomes for a stated Article 6 use or purpose; an LoA evidences Article 6 authorisation only, and its existence or absence has no effect on domestic legality or on any lifecycle gate.

2.3.5 Article 6 authorisation — the Party's formal authorization of mitigation outcomes for a stated Article 6 use or purpose under the applicable Article 6 rules, recorded exclusively as the authorization attributes of control table 5.

2.3.6 Designated National Authority (DNA) — the authority designated by a host-country government for Article 6 purposes; where none is designated, the ministry, agency or body evidenced as competent by the host-country government.

2.3.7 Corresponding adjustment (CA) — as defined in MCC-CADCP clause 2.3.4 and MCC-700 clause 17.6 (a Party's accounting action, evidenced but never performed by MCC); not restated here.

NOTE — GENERATED CONTENT. Clauses 2.3.5 and 2.3.7 reproduce their single sources — the canonical terminology adopted through FD-2026-09-03 and MCC-700 clause 17.6 — verbatim in substance. Clauses 2.3.1 to 2.3.4 and 2.3.6 are this Procedure's own operative distinctions, drawn to implement FD-2026-09-03 item D3's separation of host-country project approval/non-objection from Article 6 authorization. On any divergence in the reproduced content, the source prevails; no local variation is permitted.

2.4 In this Procedure, "verification" of an instrument means the authenticity and scope checks of clauses 4.6 to 4.8 or 5.6 to 5.9, performed by the Programme Secretariat; it is distinct from the validation and verification performed by VVBs under MCC-400.

3. The two evidence tracks and their legal effect

3.1 This Procedure operates two evidence tracks, and every host-country instrument received SHALL be assigned to exactly one of them on intake:

3.1.1 Track A — Domestic legality. Evidence that the project complies with the applicable law of its host country. Track A is mandatory for every project: its evidence gates registration and is re-verified before every issuance (Section 4).

3.1.2 Track B — Article 6 authorisation. Evidence of a Party's Article 6 authorisation, first-transfer facts and corresponding-adjustment reporting. Track B is never mandatory and never a gate: its evidence, where it exists, is recorded as unit-level attributes only (Section 5).

3.2 Evidence of every domestic instrument identified for a project SHALL be submitted and verified before the project passes the GOVERNANCE_REVIEW gate; a project SHALL NOT be registered with outstanding required domestic instruments (MCC-100 clause 16.3; MCC-700 clause 17.3 and Annex B T6).

3.3 Continued validity of every required domestic instrument SHALL be confirmed in each monitoring report and verified before each issuance; where a required instrument lapses or is revoked, issuance SHALL be withheld and the project assessed for suspension under MCC-700 Annex B T9 (MCC-100 clause 16.4).

3.4 Article 6 authorisation SHALL NOT be a precondition to listing, registration or issuance of any unit (MCC-700 clause 17.4), and no step of this Procedure SHALL delay, condition or block any lifecycle transition on Track B evidence.

3.5 The default status of every MCC unit SHALL be NOT AUTHORIZED FOR ARTICLE 6 / VOLUNTARY USE ONLY; a project MAY be registered, and units MAY be issued, transferred and retired, with no Track B evidence whatsoever (FD-2026-09-03 item D3).

3.6 A non-objection SHALL NOT be recorded in, or treated as satisfying, any authorization attribute; it SHALL be recorded only in the host-country project approval/non-objection attribute (control table 5).

NOTE — resolution of the predecessor's optionality conflict. The predecessor made host-country authorisation optional at registration (v1.0 clauses 0006 and 0040), against the mandatory gates of MCC-001 cl. 0034, MCC-100 v2.2 cl. 0102–0115 and MCC-700 v3.1 cl. 8.1.1.2 (Phase 0). The resolution of MCC-700 OD-3 (MCC-100 v3.0-draft, NOTE following clause 16.3) split the question correctly, and this Section implements it: the predecessor's optional posture survives only in its correct half — Article 6 authorisation is optional (voluntary-first, item D3); domestic legality is not, and its evidence gates registration with continued-validity re-verification before every issuance. This Section reproduces the gate rule from its single sources (MCC-100 clauses 16.3–16.4; MCC-700 clause 17.3) and creates no gate of its own.

3.7 Where one physical document evidences facts on both tracks (for example an LoA that also recites a domestic approval), it SHALL be registered once and cross-referenced on both tracks, and each track's verification and recording steps SHALL be completed separately.

4. Track A — Domestic-legality evidence procedure

Step A1 — Identification (at submission; lifecycle states DRAFT → SUBMITTED, MCC-700 Annex B T1)

4.1 The project developer SHALL identify, in the submission package, every permit, licence, approval or other authorisation required under applicable host-country law to implement the project activity, or provide a reasoned legal confirmation that none is required (MCC-100 clause 16.2).

4.2 The identification SHALL state, for each instrument: the instrument type and legal basis; the issuing authority; the current status (held, applied for, or to be applied for); and, where held, the reference, issue date and any expiry date.

4.3 A reasoned legal confirmation under clause 4.1 SHALL be in writing, identify its author and the author's qualification, and state the legal analysis by which no instrument is required.

Step A2 — Evidence submission (before GOVERNANCE_REVIEW; states SUBMITTED through STAKEHOLDER_CONSULTATION)

4.4 The developer SHALL submit the original or a certified copy of each identified instrument, with a certified English translation where the original is in another language, through the evidence-intake channel and forms designated by the Programme Secretariat.

4.5 Instruments MAY be submitted at any time from submission onwards and SHALL all be on file before the GOVERNANCE_REVIEW gate is assessed; the Programme Secretariat SHALL notify the developer of any instrument still outstanding no later than the close of STAKEHOLDER_CONSULTATION.

Step A3 — Verification (within GOVERNANCE_REVIEW; MCC-700 Annex B T6)

4.6 The Programme Secretariat SHALL verify each submitted instrument for: issuer authority (the issuing body is competent under the identified legal basis); authenticity (signatures, seals and format, with direct confirmation from the issuing authority where authenticity is in doubt); conditions (any condition attached to the instrument is identified and its status recorded); and currency (the instrument is in force and covers the project activity, site and period) (MCC-700 clause 17.9).

4.7 The verification outcome for each instrument SHALL be recorded as PASS, FAIL or UNABLE_TO_VERIFY, with reasons, the verifying officer and the date.

4.8 An instrument recorded FAIL or UNABLE_TO_VERIFY SHALL NOT count towards clause 3.2; the Programme Secretariat SHALL notify the developer of the deficiency with reasons, and the return-for-revisions and refusal routes of MCC-700 Annex B (T15, T13) apply as the gate owner determines.

4.9 The verified Track A evidence position SHALL be confirmed at the GOVERNANCE_REVIEW gate by the first-instance registration body (MCC-700 Annex A row 7) as part of the T6 exit criteria; this Procedure confers no discretion to register a project with outstanding required domestic instruments.

Step A4 — Continued validity (states REGISTERED and ACTIVE; before every issuance)

4.10 The developer SHALL confirm the continued validity of every required domestic instrument in each monitoring report, and SHALL notify the Programme Secretariat in writing within thirty calendar days of any lapse, revocation, suspension, material variation or new instrument requirement (MCC-100 clauses 12.10 and 16.4).

4.11 Before each issuance, the Programme Secretariat SHALL re-verify currency of each required instrument (renewed evidence where an instrument has been renewed; a developer confirmation, checked against any expiry date on file, where it has not changed), and the VVB SHALL assess continued domestic-legality validity in each verification (MCC-100 clauses 16.4, 18.4 and 19.2(c)).

4.12 Where a required instrument has lapsed or been revoked, the Programme Secretariat SHALL withhold the issuance recommendation, record the lapse, and refer the project for suspension assessment under MCC-700 Annex B T9; issuance SHALL NOT proceed until conforming evidence is re-verified.

4.13 Each Track A verification and re-verification SHALL be completed within twenty business days of receipt of complete evidence, or the developer notified with reasons for the delay; this service level is administrative and does not extend any Annex B gate SLA.

4.14 Where any evidence received under this Procedure (on either track) discloses external-programme participation, or a potential duplicate registration, not declared under MCC-CADCP clause 5.3, the Programme Secretariat SHALL route the matter to the escalation procedure of MCC-CADCP clause 6.5; this Procedure performs no cross-programme check of its own.

5. Track B — Article 6 authorisation evidence procedure

Step B1 — Intake

5.1 A project developer, or a Party through the developer or directly, MAY submit an LoA or other authorization instrument for recording at any time; submission is voluntary and SHALL NOT be solicited as a condition of any Programme service.

5.2 The submission SHALL comprise the original or a certified copy of the instrument (with certified English translation where needed) and intake metadata: issuing Party and authority (DNA or evidenced equivalent); issue date; the stated Article 6 use or purpose; and the stated scope (project, methodology, volume, crediting or vintage period), each as written in the instrument.

5.3 An instrument that is a domestic approval or non-objection but not an Article 6 authorisation SHALL be reassigned to the host-country project approval/non-objection attribute and, where relevant, to Track A; the developer SHALL be informed of the reassignment and its reason.

Step B2 — Verification

5.4 The Programme Secretariat SHALL verify authenticity of the instrument by: inspection of signatures, seals and format against known exemplars where available; direct confirmation with the issuing authority through its published contact route; and cross-reference against any public register of authorisations the Party maintains.

5.5 The Programme Secretariat SHALL record the instrument's scope exactly as written — purpose, volume, period, methodology, conditions and any transfer conditions — and SHALL NOT construe the scope beyond its text or apply it by analogy (MCC-CADCP clauses 8.9 and 8.13).

5.6 Verification SHALL conclude with one of: VERIFIED (authenticity confirmed and scope recorded); NOT_VERIFIED (authenticity not confirmed, with reasons); or WITHDRAWN (submission withdrawn before conclusion) — recorded with officer and date.

5.7 The verification SHALL be completed within thirty calendar days of receipt of a complete submission, or the submitter notified with reasons; a NOT_VERIFIED outcome SHALL be notified with the specific deficiency, and resubmission is permitted without limit of right.

5.8 Verification of an instrument SHALL NOT be represented as MCC endorsement of the project, of the instrument's legal effect, or of any Article 6 compliance position; MCC verifies authenticity and records scope, nothing more.

Step B3 — Attribute recording

5.9 Upon a VERIFIED outcome, the Programme Secretariat SHALL set the Article 6 attributes of the units or batches within the instrument's stated scope, per the Article 6 Attribute/Status Matrix (canonical control table 5): the authorization purpose (AUTHORIZED_NDC_USE, AUTHORIZED_OIMP or AUTHORIZED_OTHER_PURPOSES, exactly as the instrument states); the authorization date and instrument reference; and, where the Party has reported one, the first-transfer definition recorded verbatim.

5.10 Every attribute SHALL be set only upon the documentary evidence being linked in the Evidence Register, mirrored to the registry record (MCC-100 clause 16.8); no attribute SHALL be set on intake metadata alone.

5.11 Attributes SHALL attach only to units or batches within the instrument's stated scope of volume, period and methodology; units outside that scope SHALL retain their default attributes, and no instrument SHALL be stretched across units its text does not cover.

5.12 Recording an authorization SHALL NOT alter any lifecycle state, gate outcome, issuance decision or claim permission; the effect of the attributes on claims is governed exclusively by the Claims Matrix (control table 6) and MCC-600.

Step B4 — Changes, revocation and withdrawal

5.13 A Party's amendment, revocation or withdrawal of an authorization, and a developer's request to withdraw recorded Article 6 claims, SHALL be recorded with the underlying instrument within ten business days of receipt, the affected attributes updated per control table 5 (REVOKED_OR_WITHDRAWN; withdrawal/revocation status with date and instrument), and affected unit holders notified (MCC-100 clause 16.14).

5.14 Revocation of an authorization SHALL NOT of itself invalidate any unit or reverse any retirement; the units revert to default attributes prospectively, the historical record is preserved in the audit trail, and consequences beyond the attributes follow the authorization's own terms as recorded.

5.15 The first-transfer event attribute SHALL be set to OCCURRED only upon a registry transaction matching the recorded first-transfer definition, with date and transaction reference, under the procedure of MCC-CADCP clause 8.9; this Procedure adds no further first-transfer mechanics.

6. Corresponding-adjustment evidence recording

6.1 Corresponding-adjustment evidence SHALL be recorded exclusively under MCC-CADCP clauses 8.6 to 8.8: the attribute is set to CA_EVIDENCE_RECORDED only where the Party's Article 6 reporting extract, or equivalent documentary evidence of the Party's reported adjustment, is linked in the Evidence Register, mirrored to the registry record, with document reference and reporting round.

6.2 The intake and authenticity steps of Section 5 apply to corresponding-adjustment evidence documents as they apply to authorization instruments.

6.3 No step of this Procedure SHALL require, instruct, schedule or purport to bind any Party's corresponding adjustment or reporting; MCC receives and records evidence only (MCC-700 clause 17.6).

6.4 The label "CA-Confirmed" SHALL NOT be used in any record, display or communication produced under this Procedure (MCC-700 clause 17.7); the predecessor's status enumeration (NOT_APPLICABLE / PENDING / AUTHORISED / CONFIRMED) is retired and migrates per MCC-CADCP v2.0 Annex A row 4.

7. Host-country engagement; no normative categorisation

7.1 No categorisation of host countries SHALL be normative in the Programme: no gate, attribute, verification depth, service level, claim or credit status SHALL depend on any country category, tier or classification.

NOTE — reconciliation of the category-model conflict. The record carried two incompatible categorisations: the predecessor's three categories keyed to Article 6 framework maturity (v1.0 clauses 0056–0075) and MCC-100 v2.2's four categories A–D with per-category corresponding-adjustment "commitments" (cl. 0106–0110). The conflict is resolved by retirement of both, not by choosing between them: MCC-100 v3.0-draft (Tier 2), put to consultation with this suite, abolishes its four categories and provides that "no categorisation of host countries is normative" (NOTE following MCC-100 clause 16.6), because a category records a promise or expectation about a state, while FD-2026-09-03 item D3 permits only evidence-backed facts per unit. A Tier 5 procedure cannot reintroduce what that Tier 2 text abolishes (MCC-001 clause 2.2.3), so the three-versus-four choice is not an open decision — both models are retired on adoption, and each Article 6 fact is an attribute under control table 5. The retirement mapping is in the change log.

7.2 The Programme Secretariat MAY maintain and publish informational engagement material for developers — including a list of DNAs and equivalent authorities with their published contact routes, and factual notes on published host-country Article 6 procedures — provided every entry cites its public source and carries the disclaimer of clause 7.4.

7.3 Whether the Programme maintains the informational engagement material of clause 7.2 at all, and if so at what granularity (contact list only, or contact list plus factual procedure notes), is put to consultation. The predecessor's public "Host Country Classification Register" with annual review (v1.0 clauses 0056–0075) is retired either way. Interim rule until decided — the stricter: no engagement material is published, and no MCC communication characterises any country's Article 6 readiness, prospects or timelines; developers are directed to the Party's own published sources. (Consultation question 1.)

7.4 Any informational material published under clause 7.2 SHALL state that it is informational only, confers no rights, determines no Programme outcome, and does not represent any country's position; it SHALL NOT rank, score, tier or categorise countries.

7.5 MCC staff SHALL NOT advise on, predict or warrant the availability, timing or outcome of any host-country decision; developers seeking Article 6 advice SHALL be directed to the host-country authorities or their own advisers.

7.6 Engagement with a host-country authority in the course of verification (clauses 4.6 and 5.4) SHALL be limited to confirming the facts of instruments; MCC SHALL NOT negotiate, solicit or propose authorisations, adjustments or accounting treatments on any project's behalf.

8. Records, registry recording and notifications

8.1 Every instrument, verification outcome, attribute change and notification under this Procedure SHALL be recorded with document reference, officer, timestamp and Evidence Register link, and retained per the Record Retention Schedule; until that Schedule is in force, no record within this Procedure's scope SHALL be destroyed.

8.2 The registry SHALL hold, for each affected unit or batch, the attribute values and document references of control table 5; the field-level implementation is defined in the registry data dictionary and MCC-800, and this Procedure defines no entity, field, endpoint or index.

NOTE. The predecessor's platform-integration content — the HostCountryAuthorisation entity definition, field lists, enum declarations, CRUD API endpoints, database table and indexing specifications (v1.0 clauses 0076–0096 and 0147–0184) — is removed from this Procedure: registry implementation belongs to MCC-800 and the registry data dictionary (audit §6.3), and the rewritten MCC-800 carries the obligation to implement the control-table-5 attribute set (including the split of the legacy loaStatus and correspondingAdjustmentStatus fields). Records created under the predecessor's model migrate per clause 10.5.

8.3 The public registry SHALL display the recorded attributes factually per MCC-100 clauses 20.3 and 20.4; no display generated under this Procedure SHALL aggregate attributes into a composite eligibility or readiness label (MCC-CADCP clause 9.1).

8.4 Affected unit holders and the project developer SHALL be notified of: a VERIFIED or NOT_VERIFIED Track B outcome (to the submitter); every attribute change under clause 5.13; and every Track A lapse that withholds issuance (to the developer) — in each case within the period the governing clause states, or within ten business days where none is stated.

8.5 Regular provision of registry extracts to a Party SHALL follow MCC-CADCP clause 8.14 (a recorded transparency service, never represented as accounting notification); the predecessor's transfer-notification and quarterly-CA-report obligations to host countries are not carried.

9. Roles and decision rights

9.1 Every evidential step of this Procedure SHALL be performed by the Programme Secretariat within its delegated authority (MCC-700 clauses 4.11 and 17.9); during the transitional period, MCC-700 Section 23 applies.

9.2 This Procedure confers no decision authority: gate decisions belong to the bodies designated in MCC-700 Annex A (the first-instance registration body at T6; the Registry Oversight Committee at issuance), and no verification outcome under this Procedure SHALL be represented as a registration or issuance decision.

9.3 The predecessor's "registry manager" role designation is superseded; its evidential functions are performed by the Programme Secretariat, and its decisional overtones (verification "certificates" operating as approvals) are not carried.

9.4 A person materially affected by an outcome under this Procedure (including a NOT_VERIFIED outcome or a withheld issuance recommendation) has the review and appeal rights that MCC-700 Sections 11 and 12 attach to the underlying decision type; this Procedure adds no separate appeal channel.

9.5 The "Review Committee" created by the predecessor (v1.0 clause 0186) is abolished: no Programme document may create a governance body other than the seven of MCC-001 clause 9.1.1 (MCC-001 clause 9.1.2); review of this Procedure follows Section 10.

10. Amendment, transitional provisions and entry into force

10.1 This Procedure (MCC-HCA version 2.0) SHALL enter into force upon approval under MCC-001 clause 12.3 for Tier 5 instruments — 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.

10.2 This Procedure MAY be amended by the Programme Secretariat within its delegated authority, with Independent Governing Board oversight and the minimum public notice fixed by MCC-001 clause 12.3; an amendment that would touch any gate, attribute definition or claim rule exceeds Tier 5 authority and SHALL instead be made in the governing Tier 2 or Tier 3 document.

10.3 This Procedure SHALL be reviewed at least annually against evolving Article 6 guidance and host-country practice, and the review outcome recorded; the review is performed by the Programme Secretariat and reported to the Standards Committee.

10.4 On entry into force, the predecessor MCC-HCA v1.0 SHALL be formally superseded and archived as an uncontrolled historical record with a superseded watermark.

10.5 Records created under the predecessor SHALL migrate as follows: (a) each stored LoA or authorisation document is re-verified and re-assigned to Track A or Track B under clause 3.1 and, on Track B, its attributes re-recorded per Section 5; (b) every correspondingAdjustmentStatus value migrates per MCC-CADCP v2.0 Annex A row 4; (c) every HostCountryAuthorisation record status (PENDING / VERIFIED / REVOKED) is preserved in the audit trail and its evidentiary content re-examined — no verified status SHALL carry over without the underlying document being linked in the Evidence Register. No HostCountryAuthorisation record exists, no letter of authorisation has ever been submitted, and no correspondingAdjustmentStatus value has ever been set (Evidence Register ER-2026-001 §A1, §A3; registry measurement of 1 October 2026).

10.6 Any project registered, or unit issued, before this Procedure enters into force SHALL have its Track A evidence position established or re-verified at its next monitoring report and before its next issuance; no issuance SHALL proceed for a project whose required domestic instruments are unevidenced. Two projects are in the lifecycle, both SUBMITTED and neither registered — MCC-2026-0001 (Gulf of Gabès, Tunisia, 31 August 2026) and MCC-DRAFT-7C51FD88 (Norway, 2 September 2026), both under MCC-M008. No host-country authorisation has been submitted for either and no unit has been issued. The Track A evidence position is therefore not established for either, and nothing is prejudiced: neither has passed completeness and no issuance is pending (Evidence Register ER-2026-001 §A1, §A3; registry measurement of 1 October 2026).

10.7 Every point listed under Consultation questions in this Procedure SHALL be resolved, and its resolution recorded in the Evidence Register or decision register, before this Procedure may carry any status other than DRAFT — FOR CONSULTATION.

---

End of MCC-HCA version 2.0-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.