Three bands, no self-certification
Authority in the programme is deliberately split. The programme writes standards and operates the registry; accredited third parties decide whether projects meet them; the public record checks both. No band can complete an issuance alone.
MCC programme
Develops methodologies, registers projects, operates monitoring and the registry, manages the buffer pool. Cannot validate, verify or approve its own methodologies.
Independent parties
Accredited VVBs under ISO 14065 validate projects and verify outcomes. Methodologies are peer-reviewed and adopted by the Standards Committee after public consultation.
Public record
PDDs, validation and verification reports and issuance records are public by default. Every serial is checkable at /verify without an account.
Methodology change control
Drafting under MCC-200, open stakeholder consultation at the notice period the instrument’s tier requires (90/60/30/14 days), independent peer review, versioned publication under a recorded hash.
Reversals and buffer release
Sentinel-2 anomalies route to expert review under MCC-700. Confirmed reversals draw on the buffer pool; buffer release requires sustained monitoring performance.
Grievances and appeals
Project proponents, communities and third parties can raise grievances against any programme decision. Appeals are heard under MCC-700 by parties not involved in the original decision.
AI under human oversight
AI pre-screens design documents and flags remote-sensing anomalies under MCC-850. It never approves, validates or verifies — every issuance requires an accredited third-party opinion.
FPIC and benefit-sharing
Free, prior and informed consent, indigenous rights and equitable benefit-sharing are screened at validation under the ESS policy, per the GBF social safeguards.
Interest disclosure and recusal
Members of governance bodies file annual interest disclosures on the public governance register and recuse themselves from decisions in which they hold an interest (MCC-700 §13).