MCC VVB ACCREDITATION AND ENGAGEMENT TERMS

Version 1.1 | 24 August 2026

v1.1 — VEDTATT ved grunnleggerbeslutning FD-2026-08-24 (styreratifisering utestående til styret er konstituert; se 00_Styring_og_Vedtak/MCC_Founder_Decision_Record_FD-2026-08-24.md). Korrigert etter regelverksrevisjonen 24.08.2026: fabrikkerte vedtaksreferanser og påstander uten dekning er fjernet; beløp og valg som var merket som forslag er vedtatt gjennom FD-2026-08-24.

Document Owner: MCC Board & Technical Committee Last Updated: 24 August 2026 Next Review: September 23, 2026 Status: ADOPTED v1.1 — FD-2026-08-24 (board ratification pending)

ARTICLE 1: DEFINITIONS

VVB: Validation and Verification Body; ISO 14065 accredited organization providing independent assessment of MCC projects.

Accreditation: MCC Board approval of VVB to conduct validation and verification within defined scope (methodology families F01-F05; geographic regions).

COI: Conflict of Interest; financial, professional, or personal relationship affecting VVB independence.

Validation: Ex-ante assessment of project design document (PDD) completeness and methodology compliance.

Verification: Ex-post assessment of monitoring data accuracy and carbon quantification.

Findings: VVB conclusions categorized as major non-conformity, minor non-conformity, observation, or forward action.

Opinion: VVB's professional conclusion on project validity (approve or reject).

ARTICLE 2: ACCREDITATION REQUIREMENTS

2.1 Mandatory Accreditation

All VVBs conducting MCC validation/verification must hold:

ISO 14065 accreditation (current, non-expired)
Scope: GHG validation and verification services for project-level greenhouse gas quantification

Acceptable Equivalent: ISO 17029 accreditation (accepted post-2027 when CRCF Union Registry launches)

Accreditation Verification:

MCC confirms accreditation with accreditation body (ABD)
Bi-annual verification (accreditation must be current)

2.2 Methodology Scope

VVB must demonstrate competence in:

At least one methodology family (F01-F05)
Preferred: 2+ families (broadens assignment eligibility)

Competence Demonstrated by:

Staff CVs (marine scientists, GHG engineers, conservation experts)
Reference projects (prior validation/verification experience, Verra/GS credentials)
Training certifications (ISO 14064, GHG quantification, coastal ecosystems)

2.3 Marine Expertise

VVB must demonstrate marine knowledge:

Coastal ecosystem familiarity (mangrove, seagrass, kelp, peatland, tidal dynamics)
Permanence risk assessment capability (coastal erosion, storm history, climate impacts)
Co-benefits quantification (fisheries, biodiversity, community resilience)
Small Island Developing States (SIDS) familiarity (preferred, not required)

ARTICLE 3: ACCREDITATION PROCESS

3.1 Four-Stage Process (Timeline: ~65 days)

Stage 1: Application (5 days)

VVB submits application package to MCC (online portal or email)
Package includes: ISO 14065 certificate, staff CVs, reference projects, conflict-of-interest declaration
MCC Programme Administrator reviews completeness
If incomplete: request clarification (2-day response)

Stage 2: Desk Review (20 days)

MCC technical staff reviews application materials
Assesses competence, experience, training
Requests additional documentation if needed (e.g., "Please provide three completed Verra validation reports as reference")

Stage 3: Competence Assessment (30 days)

MCC (or external assessor) conducts technical interview with VVB
Covers: methodology understanding, permanence risk assessment, finding categorization, report writing
May include written test (sample PDD review)
Decision: competent or needs improvement

Stage 4: Board Decision (10 days)

MCC Board reviews competence assessment
Votes on accreditation (simple majority)
Approval → VVB added to approved list, public website
Rejection → Feedback provided; can reapply after 6 months

Total Timeline: ~65 days (may be faster with complete application)

ARTICLE 4: CONFLICT OF INTEREST (COI) REQUIREMENTS

4.1 Automated 4-Tier COI Screening

Every project assignment triggers automated COI screening:

Tier 1: Financial COI Check

VVB has no equity stake in project developer (>5% ownership)
VVB revenue not contingent on project approval (fixed fee, not performance-based)
Checks: Public stock registries, Beneficial Ownership databases

Tier 2: Consultancy COI Check (3-Year Lookback)

VVB has not provided consulting services to project developer in prior 3 years
Consulting examples: baseline design, due diligence, technology advice
If <2 years ago: REJECT (too recent)
If 2-3 years ago: CONDITIONAL (independent review team required; staff rotation)
If >3 years ago: CLEARED

Tier 3: V&V Conflict Check (Geographic/Sectoral)

VVB has not validated/verified same ecosystem type in same region recently (within 2 years)
Example: If VVB verified Indonesian mangrove #1, cannot verify Indonesian mangrove #2 within 2 years
Resolution: Alternative VVB assigned OR staff rotation + independent team

Tier 4: Personal Relationships Check

VVB staff have no family relationships with project staff
VVB staff have no prior employment relationships with project developer
VVB discloses any relationships; independent reviewer assigned if needed

4.2 COI Disclosure and Management

Annual COI Declaration:

VVB submits updated COI declaration (April each year)
Covers: financial interests, past/current clients, staff family relationships
Failure to disclose: grounds for suspension

COI Escalation:

If COI detected during project review, project reassigned to alternative VVB
Cost: MCC covers reassignment; no penalty to project developer
Public notice: If material COI discovered, MCC notifies applicant

ARTICLE 5: VVB ASSIGNMENT PROCESS

5.1 MCC Assigns VVBs (Not Project-Selected)

Principle: MCC assigns VVB to prevent applicants from selecting favorable VVBs.

Assignment Algorithm:

Geographic Match: VVB must have experience in project country/region
Methodology Match: VVB must have scope for project methodology (F01-F05)
COI Check: Automated screening (Article 4) passes
Workload Balance: VVB not overloaded (capacity check)
Random Selection: Among qualified VVBs, randomly selected (fairness)

Example:

Project: Seagrass restoration in Portugal (F02)
Eligible VVBs: VVB-A (F02 scope, Portuguese experience), VVB-B (F01-F05 scope, Mediterranean experience)
COI Check: Both pass
Random Selection: VVB-A assigned
Notification: Applicant notified (can appeal within 14 days)

5.2 Applicant Appeal of VVB Assignment

Process:

Applicant objects to assigned VVB (email within 14 days of assignment)
MCC Board reviews appeal (within 20 days)
Board determines if COI or fairness concern valid
If valid: alternative VVB assigned; if not valid: original VVB stands
Rare (applicants rarely appeal)

ARTICLE 6: VALIDATION REQUIREMENTS

6.1 Completeness Check

Duration: <4 hours (AI-assisted; VVB reviews AI report)

VVB Verifies:

PDD against methodology module (F01-F05 checklist)
All required sections present: baseline, quantification, monitoring plan, additionality, permanence, safeguards, FPIC

Output: Completeness report (sent to applicant + MCC)

6.2 Structured Intake Interview

Duration: 2-4 hours (video call or in-person)

VVB Conducts: Structured questionnaire (80+ questions per methodology)

Topics Covered:

Baseline data: historical records, sources, methods
Quantification: formulas, emission factors, uncertainty
Additionality: financial test, regulatory test, common practice test
Permanence: coastal erosion rates, storm history, climate risks
Monitoring: frequency, methods, quality assurance
Safeguards: community consultation, FPIC, livelihood support

Output: Interview transcript + VVB notes

6.3 Document Review and Methodology Compliance

Duration: 5-10 business days

VVB Conducts:

Detailed PDD review (technical depth)
Methodology compliance checklist
Quantification formula verification
Baseline establishment assessment
Additionality proof evaluation
Permanence mechanism verification
Safeguards self-assessment review
Cross-reference against benchmarks (IPCC, sector norms)

Output: Detailed methodology compliance checklist; major/minor findings identified

6.4 Site Visit (Mandatory for Complex Projects)

Duration: 3-7 days on-site (or remote with Board approval)

VVB Activities:

Project site inspection
Community stakeholder interviews
Baseline data validation (historical records, field observations)
Photography and GPS coordinates (audit trail)
Permanence mechanism site visit (conservation area, legal status)

Output: Site visit report (photos, GPS, observations, stakeholder feedback)

6.5 Stakeholder Consultation (2-Round)

VVB Oversight (not facilitator; applicant conducts):

Round 1: In-Person Consultation (30-90 days)

Applicant meets community leaders, local government, conservation groups
VVB observes/validates process
Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) obtained (especially indigenous)
Attendance documented (names, organizations, signatures)

Round 2: Written Comment Period (30 days public + 30 days applicant response)

Draft PDD published
30-day comment period open
All comments received and recorded
Applicant responds to every comment (published)
VVB reviews responses (adequacy of engagement)

VVB Output: Consultation validation report

6.6 Findings Resolution

Duration: 30-90 days (applicant response timeline)

VVB Issues Report:

Major non-conformities (must be resolved before approval)
Minor non-conformities (must be resolved within 30-90 days)
Observations (recommendations; not barrier to approval)

Applicant Response:

30-day response deadline (for major findings)
Submits additional evidence, revised plans, or corrective actions
VVB reviews responses

VVB Determination:

Major findings closed → approval
Minors pending → approval with commitment to resolve
Unresolved majors → rejection (applicant may appeal to Board)

6.7 Validation Approval and Registration

VVB Issues Final Validation Report:

Opinion: "Project meets MCC standard; recommend approval" or "Does not meet standard; recommend rejection"
Findings: summary of major/minor/observations
Conditions: if any commitments pending
Report submitted to MCC Board

MCC Board Review:

Confirms VVB decision (usually rubber-stamp for competent VVBs; rare overrule)
Approves project registration

Project Status: REGISTERED (PDD approved; serial number issued; awaiting implementation + monitoring)

ARTICLE 7: VERIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

7.1 Annual Monitoring Review

Duration: 2-3 weeks (document review)

VVB Reviews:

Annual monitoring report (data quality, completeness)
Monitoring data vs. PDD monitoring plan (frequency, methods)
Quantification calculations (correct formula application, emission factor use)
Safeguards progress (community consultation, employment, co-benefits realized)

7.2 Site Visit or Remote Verification

Duration: 3-5 days (on-site) or 2-3 days (remote)

On-Site Process:

Site visit with spot-check measurements (seagrass coverage, soil samples, GPS)
Stakeholder interviews (project staff, community, local partners)
Permanence mechanism confirmation (conservation area still protected)
Safeguards delivery validation (employment records, training)
Photographs and documentation

Remote Alternative:

Video tour (project staff conducts)
Third-party local interviews (independent consultant)
Satellite imagery review
Data validation (spot-checks not possible)

7.3 Verification Report and Findings

Duration: 1-2 weeks

VVB Issues:

Verification Report (opinion on data accuracy)
Findings (major/minor/observations)
Recommended credits for issuance (adjusted for any quantification errors)

Major Finding Example:

Finding: Seagrass coverage measured 50 hectares vs. projected 70 hectares
Impact: Credits reduced from 70,000 to 50,000
Recommendation: Investigate Year 2 underperformance (disease, storm, suboptimal conditions)
Credits Issued: 50,000 (adjusted)

7.4 Credit Issuance

Upon MCC Board Approval:

Serial numbers generated (MCC-MCU-F02-PT01-2026-001001 through -051000)
Credits issued to registry (status: ISSUED)
Applicant notified (credits ready for sale/retirement)
Project added to MCC portfolio; announcement made

ARTICLE 8: PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

8.1 Accuracy (≥95% Threshold)

Metric: Post-issuance audits verify VVB major findings hold up.

Example:

VVB found major non-conformity: "Baseline underestimated by 30%"
Post-issuance audit (year 2): Re-checks baseline calculation
Finding holds (baseline was indeed underestimated) = accurate
Finding does not hold (audit finds baseline correct) = inaccurate

Target: ≥95% of major findings accurate upon post-issuance audit

If <95%: Investigation; coaching + potential suspension

8.2 Timeliness (95% Compliance)

SLA Targets:

Completeness check: 4 business days
Intake interview: 20 days
Document review: 40 days
Site visit: 50 days
Stakeholder consultation: 90 days
Findings resolution: 30-90 days
Total validation: 120-150 business days

Measurement: % of projects meeting timeline

If <95% compliant: Schedule pressure; workload review; potential fee reduction (Article 11.3)

8.3 Independence (Zero Tolerance)

VVB must maintain independence:

No financial interest in project success
No personal relationships with project staff
No prior consulting to project developer

Violation: Immediate suspension + investigation

8.4 Stakeholder Satisfaction (4/5-star target)

Post-validation survey:

Applicant rates VVB on: professionalism, clarity, responsiveness, fairness
Target: ≥4/5 stars average

Low satisfaction: Feedback discussion; improvement plan required

ARTICLE 9: PERFORMANCE MONITORING

9.1 AI-Assisted Tracking (Monthly)

MCC AI monitors:

Report quality (clarity, completeness, specificity)
Timeline compliance (on-time delivery)
Finding distribution (major/minor ratio; outliers flagged)
Efficiency metrics (hours spent, productivity)

Output: Monthly dashboard (MCC internal; shared with VVB quarterly)

9.2 Calibration Audits (Annual)

Process:

MCC selects 3-5 projects per VVB for calibration review
Independent auditor re-reviews VVB validation/verification reports
Compares: VVB findings vs. auditor findings
Assessment: Aligned, Under-Rigorous, Over-Rigorous, or Systematic Error

Output: Calibration report (confidential to VVB; public performance tier)

Performance Tiers (Published):

Tier A (Excellent): Aligned with benchmarks
Tier B (Good): Minor calibration recommendations
Tier C (Below Standard): Significant alignment issues; coaching required

9.3 Suspension Grounds

MCC may suspend VVB (no new projects assigned) for:

Fraud detected (falsified findings, fabricated data)
Systematic independence violation (repeated COI overlooked)
Catastrophic quality failure (>50% of major findings contradicted post-issuance)
Regulatory loss (loses ISO 14065 accreditation)
Timeline failure (consistently >50% late)

Process:

MCC Board votes
Suspension effective immediately (no new projects)
Investigation conducted (30-90 days)
Public announcement if warranted
Permanent deaccreditation if investigation confirms violation

Applicant Impact: Projects reassigned to alternative VVB; MCC covers transition costs

ARTICLE 10: FEES

10.1 Accreditation Fee

Amount: €[TBD] — proposed EUR 2,500, subject to Board decision

Due: Upon application submission

Non-refundable: If application rejected, fee not returned

Covers: Application review, desk review, assessment

10.2 Annual Maintenance Fee

Amount: €[TBD] — proposed EUR 1,500 per year, per VVB accreditation, subject to Board decision

Due: Annually on accreditation anniversary

Covers: Registry maintenance, calibration audits, performance monitoring

Continues: Until VVB requests deaccreditation or deaccredited by Board

10.3 Per-Engagement Oversight Fee

Amount: €[TBD] — proposed EUR 500 per engagement, subject to Board decision

Note: These are fees payable to MCC for accreditation and programme oversight. They are distinct from, and unrelated to, the fees a VVB charges a project developer for an engagement, which are addressed in the MCC VVB Indicative Fee Schedule.

Collected by: MCC from applicant; remitted to MCC (VVB does not receive)

Covers: MCC Board oversight, file management, dispute resolution support

10.4 Fee Adjustments for Performance

If VVB exceeds timelines:

1-2 week overrun: Notice (no penalty)
2-4 week overrun: 10% annual maintenance fee reduction (next year)
4+ week overrun: 25% reduction + escalation to Board

ARTICLE 11: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS

11.1 Professional Indemnity Insurance

VVB must maintain:

Professional indemnity insurance (errors & omissions)
Minimum coverage: USD 2,000,000 per occurrence and USD 5,000,000 in aggregate (aligned with MCC-400 Article 16; set by FD-2026-08-24, item D7).
Coverage period: Maintains active accreditation

Annual Proof: Certificate of insurance submitted to MCC (at accreditation renewal)

Underwriter: Rated A or higher by credit rating agency

ARTICLE 12: CONFIDENTIALITY AND DATA PROTECTION

12.1 Project Confidentiality

VVB may access:

Project Design Document
Monitoring reports
Community consultation records
Site visit notes
Internal applicant financials (if relevant to feasibility)

VVB must keep confidential:

Applicant financial terms (project cost, revenue)
Proprietary baseline methodologies
Community benefit-sharing details (if sensitive)

Exception: Data published per MCC Transparency Policy (Article 2)

12.2 Data Protection (GDPR, etc.)

VVB must:

Comply with GDPR (if EU-based or processing EU personal data)
Protect personal data of community members
Retain records per ISO 14065 (7+ years)
Provide data upon request (applicant's GDPR right)

ARTICLE 13: GOVERNING LAW

VVB Terms governed by: [TBD by Board — proposed: Norwegian law].

Dispute Resolution: Arbitration under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, seat of arbitration London. The same governing law and forum apply to the Applicant Terms and the Registry Terms.

ARTICLE 14: AMENDMENT

MCC may amend VVB Terms with 60-day notice. Changes effective for new projects immediately; existing project VVBs grandfathered until project completion (or next crediting period renewal).

Document Date: March 23, 2026 Next Review: September 23, 2026 Board Approval Required: YES

ENDRINGSLOGG v1.1 (24.08.2026)

Fjernet referansene til styrevedtak D-2026-08-04/05/07 (finnes ikke); gebyrer og lovvalg er merket som forslag. Forsikringskravet er FASTSATT til USD 2M/5M ved FD-2026-08-24 (D7); konflikten mot MCC-400 art. 16 er dermed lukket (MCC-700 pkt. 5.2 rettes tilsvarende). MERK, ikke rettet i dette utkastet: akkrediteringsprosessen i art. 3 (4 stadier/styrevotum) avviker fra MCC-400 (5 stadier/witness audit/Programme Administrator), og COI-sonene i art. 4 avviker fra MCC-400 art. 46 — harmonisering krever styrevalg av hvilken tekst som vinner. Grunnlag: regelverksrevisjonen 24.08.2026 (vedlegg 6).

Vedtatt 24.08.2026 ved FD-2026-08-24. Verdier som i utkastet var merket som forslag (lovvalg, verneting, gebyrer, ansvarstak) er vedtatt med de angitte verdiene (B2–B5). Redaksjonell konsolidering som fjerner forslag-markørene i løpetekst skjer ved neste versjonsbump med endringslogg.