Verification Guidelines Version DRAFT, (under consultation) · 1. Introduction Verification is the periodic assessment by an Independent Reviewer of the amount of ERs generated by

Verification Guidelines

Version 1.0


Version DRAFT, (under consultation)

Version 1.0 1

Contents 1 Introduction 1

2. Normative references 2

3. Terms and Definitions 2

4. Verification process 2

5. Requirements for Independent Reviewers 2

5.1 Accreditation 2

5.2 Technical Competence 2

5.3 Independent Review Team 2

5.4 Conflict of Interest 4

5.4 Liability of Independent Reviewers 4

6. Principles 4

6.1 General Principles 4

6.2 Principles Applicable to Independent Reviewers 5

7. Verification basis 5

7.1 Objectives 5

7.2 Level of assurance 6

7.3 Scope 6

7.4 Criteria 7

7.5 Materiality level 7

8. Verification Planning 7

8.1 General 7

8.2 Risk assessment 8

8.3 Verification Plan 8

8.4 Sampling Plan 9

8.5 Assessment of Forest Monitoring System 9

9. Evaluation of the GHG Assertion 9

10. Issuing Non-Compliances & Observations 10

11. Verification Statement 10

Annex I – Verification Report Template 1

1. Introduction Verification is the periodic assessment by an Independent Reviewer of the amount of ERs generated by the ER Program since the last Verification Report or, in the case of the first Verification, since the ER Program Start Date in accordance with the REDD Country Participant’s MRV System and the Methodological Framework, and includes the written assurance by the


Version 1.0 2

Independent Reviewer that during the relevant Reporting Period the ER Program Measure(s) have achieved the ERs as reported in the Verification Report.

This Verification Guidelines (VG) defines the requirements for Verification of Emission Reduction Programs (“ER Program”) under the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility Carbon Fund (FCPF CF). The objective of the Verification Guidelines is to:

a) Enhance the overall integrity of the FCPF Carbon Fund; b) Enhance consistency and clarity of minimum requirements for verification under the

FCPF Carbon Fund; c) Improve the consistency, quality and transparency in the preparation, execution and

reporting of verifications under the FCPF Carbon Fund.

2. Normative references

3. Terms and Definitions For the purposes of the VG, the terms and definitions described in the [FCPF Glossary of Terms] [glossary of the Methodological Framework, the Buffer Guidelines and the ERPA General Conditions] shall apply.

4. Verification process The verification process is described in the [Process Guidelines].

5. Requirements for Independent Reviewers 5.1 Accreditation The Independent Reviewer shall be accredited under ISO 14065 for scope ISO 14064-2, specifically for Land Use and Forestry [and the FCPF Carbon Fund], by an accreditation body that is a member of the International Accreditation Forum. 5.2 Technical Competence

5.3 Independent Review Team The Independent Reviewer shall meet the requirements on Competence set out in ISO 14065 and in the following paragraphs. The Independent Reviewer shall possess the relevant technical competences to perform verifications under the FCPF Carbon Fund. The verification team collectively shall have the following skills and competences:

a) expertise in forests in REDD+ Countries; b) expertise in carbon accounting; AND c) expertise in jurisdictional assessments.

The Independent Reviewer shall guarantee the inclusion of the following roles and competences in their verification teams:

a) Team Leader:1

1 The role of Lead Author and Technical Expert can be filled by the same auditor.


Version 1.0 3

i. advanced academic qualifications with masters or equivalent in forest sciences; ii. at least 7 year of relevant experience and demonstrated ability to lead and

manage audit teams; iii. Proven expertise in auditing of data and information; iv. Proven ability to perform verifications of GHG assertions, AND v. Proven experience in verification of ERs in the forestry sector and/or REDD+.

b) Technical Expert(s): i. advanced academic qualifications with masters or equivalent in forestry or

another technically related field with at least master’s degree (MSc) and qualification on remote Sensing assessments/GIS and forest accounting;

ii. at least 5 years of relevant experience working in the forest sector in developing REDD+ Countries;

iii. at least 3 years of proven experience in remote sensing and GIS applied to forests; AND

iv. at least 3 years of proven experience in LULUCF carbon accounting in developing REDD+ Countries.

c) Technical Reviewer2: i. advanced academic qualifications with masters or equivalent in forest sciences;

ii. at least 7 years of relevant experience working in the forest sector in developing REDD+ Countries; AND

iii. at least 3 years of proven experience in technical review of the verification of reported ERs in the forestry sector and/or REDD+.

The Independent Reviewer shall provide to the Accreditation Body and the FMT enough evidence to prove their competence abilities and skills of the management and accomplishment of the products requested.

The different members of the team of Independent Reviewers will be involved in the different activities of verification as set out in the table below.

Table 1. Required competencies for each team member

Role Competences Activities

De

sk r

evie

w

Site

vis

it

Re

po

rtin

g

Sup

ervi

sio

n

Tech

nic

al

revi

ew

Team Leader • Forestry / REDD

• Auditing / MRV

• Carbon accounting

X X X X

Technical Expert(s) • Forestry / REDD

• REDD and GIS

• Carbon accounting

X X X

Technical Reviewer • REDD / MRV

• Internal review X

2 Competences can be filled by more than one person


Version 1.0 4

5.4 Conflict of Interest

Verification under the FCPF requires a high level of neutrality and independence, and the selected Independent Reviewer shall act impartially and shall avoid unacceptable conflicts of interest.

The Independent Reviewer shall meet the requirements on impartiality set out in ISO 14065. 5.5 Liability of Independent Reviewers

The Independent Reviewer shall demonstrate that it has evaluated financial risks associated with its activities and has arrangements (e.g. insurance, reserves) sufficient to cover liabilities arising from the activities in accordance to ISO 14065.

The total aggregate liability of Contractor for claims asserted by Purchaser under or in connection with this Contract, regardless of the form of the action or the theory of recovery, shall be limited to USD 5,000,000 in any consecutive 12 month period. Independent Reviewers providing Services in the United States and all Contractors and Subcontractors incorporated in the United States should have a Professional Liability insurance in the amount of USD 5,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate.

a) Subject to Section 14 of the General Terms and Conditions for Consulting Services (August 2016) (“General Conditions”), the selected Independent Reviewer shall indemnify and hold the Trustee and the Bank, its officers, officials and employees harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits, including reasonable attorney fees, arising out of or in connection with the Independent Reviewer’s (including subcontractors or anyone for whom they may be responsible) performance under this Contract, except for injuries and damages caused by the sole negligence of the Trustee or the Bank.

b) Subject to Sections 15 and 16 of the General Conditions, the Trustee or the Bank may, as appropriate, hold the selected Independent Reviewer liable and request payment of damages for excess emission reductions that have been erroneously verified when such error is the result of the Independent Reviewer’s (including subcontractors or anyone for whom they may be responsible) negligence, fraud or intentional misconduct.

6. Principles

6.1 General Principles The Independent Reviewer shall guide its verification following the principles of relevance, completeness, consistency, accuracy and conservativeness and transparency:3

a) Relevance: select the GHG sources, GHG sinks, GHG reservoir, data and methodologies appropriate to the needs of the intended user 4.

3 Based on the principles set out by ISO 14064-2:2006 – Greenhouse gases – Part 2: Specification with guidance at the project level for quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions or removal enhancements; it is reproduced with the permission of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). This standard can be obtained from any ISO member and from the website of the ISO Central Secretariat at the following address: <http:// www.iso.org>. Copyright remains with ISO. 4 “Intended users” include REDD Country Participants, Independent Reviewers, the FMT, buyers of Emission Reductions and local and other stakeholders.


Version 1.0 5

b) Completeness: include all relevant GHG emissions and removals, and all relevant information to support criteria and procedures.

c) Consistency: enable meaningful comparisons in ER Program-related information. d) Accuracy and conservativeness: reduce bias and uncertainties as far as practical or

otherwise use conservative assumptions, values and procedures to ensure that reported Emission Reductions are not overestimated.

e) Transparency: disclose sufficient and appropriate ER Program-related in a truthful manner to allow intended users to make decisions with reasonable confidence.

6.2 Principles Applicable to Independent Reviewers In line with the ISO 14064-3, when carrying-out verification, Independent Reviewers shall apply the following general principles:

a) Impartiality: Remain independent of the activity being verified, and free from bias and conflict of interest. Maintain objectivity throughout the verification to ensure that the findings and conclusions will be based on objective evidence generated during the verification process.

b) Ethical conduct: Demonstrate ethical conduct through trust, integrity, confidentiality and discretion throughout the verification process.

c) Evidence-based approach: Ensure the verification engagement employs a rational method for reaching reliable and reproducible verification conclusions and is based on sufficient and appropriate evidence.

d) Fair presentation: Reflect truthfully and accurately verification activities, findings, conclusions and reports.

e) Documentation: Document the verification and ensure it establishes the basis for the conclusion and conformity with the criteria.

f) Conservativeness: When assessing comparable alternatives, use a selection that is cautiously moderate.

g) Confidentiality: Ensure that confidential information obtained or created during verification activities is safeguarded and not inappropriately disclosed.

h) Due professional care: Independent Reviewers shall exercise due professional care and judgment in accordance with the importance of the task performed and the confidence placed by clients and intended users.

7. Verification basis

7.1 Objectives Verification is the periodic assessment by an Independent Reviewer of the amount of ERs generated by the ER Program since the last Verification Report or, in the case of the first Verification, since the ER Program Start Date in accordance with the REDD Country Participant’s MRV System and the Methodological Framework, and includes the written assurance by the Independent Reviewer that during the relevant Reporting Period the ER Program Measure(s) have achieved the ERs as reported in the Verification Report. The objectives of the verification are to:

a) Assess the extent to which reported ERs and the revised Reference Level (if technical corrections are applied) can be reconstructed using a transparent and coherent step-by-step process;

b) Determine whether the ER Program has conducted the uncertainty analysis in compliance with the Methodological Framework;

c) Assess the extent to which the methodologies and methods used to estimate GHG emissions and removals during the Reporting Period are consistent with the Reference Level and with the Monitoring Plan as described in the ER-PD;


Version 1.0 6

d) Assess the extent to which the ER Program has implemented its strategy to mitigate and/or minimize potential Displacement and has considered reporting on any on changes in major drivers in the ER Accounting Area;

e) Assess the extent to which the ER Program’s implementation mitigates significant risks of Reversals identified in the assessment to the extent possible, and addresses the sustainability of ERs;

f) Determine whether the ER Program has quantified ERs allocated to the Uncertainty, Reversal and Pooled Reversal Buffer during the Reporting Period in compliance with the Methodological Framework;

g) Assess the extent to which the ERs generated under the ER Program have not been counted or compensated for more than once;

h) Determine whether the national or centralized REDD+ Programs and Projects Data Management System and ER transaction registry are implemented and operated in compliance with the Methodological Framework;

i) Assess the extent to which reported ERs are materially accurate, i.e. free of material misstatements, errors or omissions;

j) Identify opportunities for future technical improvements to the Forest Monitoring System;

k) Assess the extent to which the validated Reference Level or the revised Reference Level (if technical corrections5 are applied) is materially accurate, i.e. free of material misstatements, errors or omissions; AND

l) Determine whether the technical correction to the Reference Level is in accordance with the Methodological Framework.

7.2 Level of assurance The level of assurance shall be reasonable, with respect to material misstatements, errors or omissions6. 7.3 Scope The scope of verification covers:

a) The ER Program Accounting Area as defined in the ER Program’s Final ER Program Document (ER-PD);

b) The GHG sources and sinks associated with any of the REDD+ Activities accounted for as set in the ER Program’s Final ER-PD;

c) The Carbon Pools and greenhouse gases accounted for as set in the ER Program’s Final ER-PD;

d) The applicable Reporting Period as set in the applicable MR; e) The Reference Period as set in the ER Program’s Final ER-PD for purposes of assessment

of the validated Reference Level or the revised Reference Level; f) The REDD Country Participant’s Forest Monitoring System as set in the ER Program’s

Final ER-PD; g) The national or centralized REDD+ Programs and Projects Data Management System

and ER transaction registry.

5 The FMT Guidance Document on Methodological Framework 2: Guidance on Technical corrections to GHG emissions and removals reported in the reference period is available at https://bit.ly/2IenGi3 6 It is expected that Independent Reviewers will be able to reach a reasonable level of assurance. Emission reductions reported by ER programs will mostly rely on activity data estimated based on Earth Observation data obtained via sampling, as emission factors are generally fixed in the Final ER-PD for the ERPA term. Independent Reviewers may reach a reasonable level of assurance in this case by re-sampling the sample and assessing the extent to which interpretation of the sampling unit has been done in accordance with REDD Country Participants’s protocols and confirming the accuracy of the interpretation using independent sources (e.g. TimeSync, Collect Earth, Google Earth,…).

https://bit.ly/2IenGi3


Version 1.0 7

7.4 Criteria The Independent Reviewer shall guide its verification following the principles of relevance, completeness, consistency, accuracy and conservativeness, and transparency. The criteria for the verification are:

a) The Methodological Framework’s criteria and indicators that are applicable for monitoring and reporting and presented in the following table. Other criteria and indicators are related to policy and design decisions (e.g. forest definition, REDD+ activities included, Carbon pools and GHG gases); Table 2. Criteria and Indicators applicable to monitoring.

Criteria and Indicators Topic

6 Data availability.

7-9 Uncertainty analysis.

14 Consistency of monitored estimates with RL.

17.3, 17.4 Implementation and monitoring of displacement mitigation.

18.2, 19-21 Implementation, monitoring and accounting of reversals.

22-23 Calculation of Emission Reductions.

37 - 38 REDD projects and programs DMS and ER transaction registry

b) The Carbon Fund Buffer Guidelines; c) The validated methodology as described in the ER Program’s Final ER-PD and its ER

Monitoring Plan; d) The guidance provided in the ER Monitoring Report Template.

The following documents may be considered as documents that provide acceptable methods for satisfying requirements provided in the above criteria:

a) the IPCC 2006 Guidelines; and b) GFOI 2016 Methodology and Guidance Document.

7.5 Materiality level The threshold for quantitative materiality with respect to the aggregate of misstatements, errors or omissions relative to the total reported GHG emissions and removals or emission reductions shall be 1%. Qualitative materiality refers to intangible issues that affect the GHG assertion (e.g. issues with management system and controls, poorly managed documentation) and non-compliance with the Methodological Framework.

8. Verification Planning

8.1 General The planning of verification of reported ERs shall follow a risk-based approach7 in compliance with ISO 14064-3.

7 The risk-based approach consists of an auditing approach based on areas of highest perceived risk of material misstatement. Areas that display low complexity or have minimal bearing on the eligibility or quantification of program emission reductions should receive lower priority and attention relative to areas with high complexity and significant implications for program eligibility or emission reductions.


Version 1.0 8

8.2 Risk assessment The Independent Reviewer shall conduct a risk assessment of the sources and the magnitude of potential errors, omissions and misstatements:

a) the inherent risk of a material discrepancy occurring; b) the risk that the controls of the ER Program will not prevent or detect a material

discrepancy; c) the risk that the Independent Reviewer will not detect any material discrepancy that

has not been corrected by the applicable management system and controls. The verification will include evidence-gathering activities and techniques as described in ISO 14064-2. The Independent Reviewer will use amongst others the following evidence to plan the verification:

a) The MR for the relevant reporting period and all supporting documentation (including spreadsheets, spatial information, maps and/or synthesized data);

b) The ER-PD sections related to carbon accounting (Section 7 to 13) and all supporting documentation (including spreadsheets, spatial information, maps and/or synthesized data);

c) Annex to the MR including any proposed technical corrections to the Reference Level; d) If applicable, the MR and Verification Report of the previous reporting period and all

supporting documentation (including spreadsheets, spatial information, maps and/or synthesized data);

e) Country visits or field visits8 (as applicable) and teleconferences with the REDD Country Participant or other Stakeholders.

The Technical Assessment Reports of the relevant ER Program and the recommendations made in the relevant Carbon Fund Meeting Chair’s Summary should serve as background information for the first verification. Several opportunities for improvement have been identified in these documents and could serve as additional information to understand inherent errors and management controls and guide the Independent Reviewers assessment. 8.3 Verification Plan The Independent Reviewer shall develop a documented verification plan in compliance to ISO14064-3. This shall address, as a minimum, the following:

a) verification objectives; b) verification scope; a) identification of the verification team and their roles on the team; b) schedule of verification activities including country/site visits.

More information on this approach may be found at https://americancarbonregistry.org/carbon-accounting/verification/acr-vv-guideline-v1-1.pdf/view or http://www.climateactionreserve.org/how/verification/verification-program-requirements document/ 8 It is expected that field visits or on-site visits will not be common in the verification of jurisdictional programs. In most of ER programs, reported Emission Reductions will rely on activity data estimates through Earth Observation data obtained in a centralized Forest Monitoring System with few field data. In these cases, the Independent Reviewer may conduct the verification without a field visit as the evidence-gathering activities are not required to be conducted in the field. There might be exceptions where the verifier identifies field visits as part of the evidence-gathering activities.


Version 1.0 9

The verification plan shall be revised as necessary during the course of the verification process. The Independent Reviewer shall communicate the verification plan to the FMT and the REDD Country Participant, and any ulterior revision.

8.4 Sampling Plan The Independent Reviewer shall develop an sampling plan or evidence-gathering plan based on the results of the risk assessment and in compliance to ISO14064-3. This sampling plan should include a plan for sampling sources of errors to assess the degree to which they are free of material errors, mistakes and misstatements. The sampling plan should take into account:

a) The basis of verification, i.e. level of assurance, materiality threshold, verification scope, verification criteria;

b) The assessment of ‘inherent risk’, ‘risk of control failure’ and the ‘risk of detection’ for all possible measured, estimated or calculated parameters;

c) amount and type of evidence (qualitative and quantitative) necessary to achieve the agreed level of assurance, including an indication on whether sampling will be used to detect a material error, mistake or misstatement;

d) if sampling is applied, methodologies for determining representative samples; The sampling plan shall be amended, when necessary, based on any new risks or material concerns that could potentially lead to errors, omissions and misrepresentations that are identified throughout the verification process, and each version shall be approved by the Team Leader. The Independent Reviewer shall use the sampling plan as an input to develop the verification plan and it should not be shared with the REDD Country Participant. 8.5 Assessment of Forest Monitoring System The Independent Reviewer shall assess the Forest Monitoring System of the ER Program and its controls for sources of potential errors, omissions and misstatements. For this, the Independent Reviewer shall consider:

a) The selection and management of GHG related data and information; b) Processes for collecting, processing, consolidating and reporting GHG data and

information; c) Systems and processes that ensure the accuracy of the data and information; d) Design and maintenance of the Forest Monitoring System; e) Systems and processes that support the Forest Monitoring System; f) Results of previous assessments, if available and appropriate.

9. Evaluation of the GHG Assertion The Independent Reviewer shall evaluate whether the evidence collected in the assessments is sufficient and if it supports the GHG assertion made by the ER Program. The Independent Reviewer shall consider materiality in evaluating the collected evidence. Based on this evaluation, the Independent Reviewer shall conclude whether or not the GHG assertion is without material discrepancy, and whether the verification activities provide the level of assurance established in Section 6.3. In line with ISO14065, conclusions on the GHG assertion shall be drawn by person(s) different from those who conducted the verification activities.


Version 1.0 10

In case the REDD Country Participant amends the GHG assertion, the Independent Reviewer shall evaluate the modified GHG assertion to determine whether the evidence supports the modified GHG assertion.

10. Issuing Non-Compliances & Observations The Independent Reviewer shall, after the country/site visit, issue a list of findings including the list of observed non-compliances and observations. While doing so it shall refer to the specific requirement, the objective evidence used to raise the finding and the description of the finding. The Independent Reviewer shall use the following gradation to identify the level of non-compliance:

a) MAJOR Corrective Action Request (MCAR) shall be issued where: i. the evidence provided to prove conformity is insufficient;

ii. mistakes have been made in applying assumptions, data or calculations which could have a material influence on the results;

iii. non-compliance with relevant criteria; iv. the REDD+ Country Participant has failed to implement or made inadequate

progress with the MINOR CAR from previous verifications.

b) MINOR Corrective Action Requests (mCAR) shall be issued where: i. the evidence provided to prove conformity is insufficient, but does not lead to

a material error, omission or misstatement, and/or a breakdown in the systems delivery9;

ii. mistakes have been made in applying assumptions, data or calculations which could have a material influence on the future results;

iii. the REDD+ Country Participant presents a response plan following the issuance of the MCAR but full implementation of the response plan has to be verified in the next verification event.

c) Observations (OBS) shall be issued where: i. there is no objective evidence to prove that there is a non-conformity, but the

Independent Reviewer observes practices and/or methods that could result in future MCAR and mCAR;

ii. the Independent Reviewer wishes to make a recommendation for improvement within the applied methodology and/or GHG reporting that will enhance overall performance against this VG’s General Principles.

The Independent Reviewer shall make sure that all MCARs are suitably closed out by the REDD Country Participant prior to issuing a positive opinion.

11. Verification Statement The Verification Report issued by the selected Independent Reviewer shall comprise of, at a minimum, the following elements as required by the Verification Report Template provided in Annex:

a) A description of the level of assurance, scope, criteria and materiality level applied; b) A description of the activities undertaken as part of the verification including the

evidence-gathering procedures used to assess the GHG assertion;

9 For instance, the REDD Country Participant might be using a protocol for collecting the data that has some

defects, but it enables nonetheless to collect data that is free of material misstatements.


Version 1.0 11

c) An overview of the findings of the verification in relation to how the ER Program meets the applicable Criteria, including information on how any non-conformities were addressed;

d) A description of opportunities for future technical improvements to the Forest Monitoring System in the form of Observations;

e) A verification opinion, addressed to the FCPF Carbon Fund, on the GHG assertion whether representing an unmodified, modified or adverse opinion; and

f) A statement of the quantity of Verified ERs the ER Program has generated during the relevant reporting period.


Version 1.0 12

Document information

Version Date Description

1.0 xxxx

Verification Report Template

Version 1.0 1

Annex I – Verification Report Template

Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) Carbon Fund

Verification Report (VR)

ER Program Name and Country:

Reporting Period Covered In this Report: DD-MM-YYYY to DD-MM-YYYY

Number of net ERs generated by the ER Program during the Reporting Period covered in this report:

Number of ERs allocated to the Uncertainty Buffer

Number of ERs allocated to the Reversal and Pooled Reversal buffer

Name of the Independent Reviewer:

Contact information of the Independent Reviewer:

Date of the Verification Report: DD-MM-YYYY

Version:

Verification team:

Start date of the verification services: DD-MM-YYYY

WORLD BANK DISCLAIMER The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in VR does not imply on the part of the World Bank any legal judgment on the legal status of the territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. The Facility Management Team and the REDD Country Participant shall make this document publicly available, in accordance with the World Bank Access to Information Policy and the FCPF Disclosure Guidance


Version 1.0 2

General information on completing the Verification Report template

Purpose of the VR All ERs generated by the ER Program during each Reporting Period shall be subject to verification by an Independent Reviewer. The VR is the document that sets out the verification in accordance with the REDD Country Participant’s MRV System and the Methodological Framework and includes without limitation:

(i) a statement of the amount of verified ERs the ER Program has generated in the relevant Reporting Period since the previous Verification (or, in the case of the first Verification, since the ER Program Start Date); and

(ii) information on such other matters as may be required by the REDD Country Participant’s MRV System and the Methodological Framework.

The FCPF Carbon Fund Methodological Framework and the Verification Guidelines (“VG”) contain a glossary which defines specific terms used in the Methodological Framework and the VG, respectively. Unless otherwise defined in this VR template, any capitalized term used in this VR template shall have the same meaning ascribed to such term in the Methodological Framework and the VG.

Guidance on completing the VR Please complete all sections of this VR. If sections of the VR are not applicable, explicitly state that the section is left blank on purpose and provide an explanation why this section is not applicable. The instructions to the VR are provided in blue boxes. Instructions, including this section, should be deleted when submitting the VR to the Facility Management Team. Where applicable, standard text is provided (in green boxes) for use by the Independent Reviewer. Provide definitions (for those not already defined within the Methodological Framework and the VG) of key terms that are used and use these key terms and their variables consistently, using the same abbreviations, formats, subscripts, etc. If the VR contains equations, please number all equations and define all variables used in these equations, with units indicated. The presentation of values in the VR, including those used for the calculation of emission reductions, should be in international standard format e.g 1,000 representing one thousand and 1.0 representing one. Please use International System Units (SI units – refer to http://www.bipm.fr/enus/3_SI/si.html).


Version 1.0 3

1. VERIFICATION STATEMENT

Please provide a summary of the conclusions of the verification, including any qualifications or limitations, as well as identified areas for future technical improvement. Please note that conclusions on the GHG assertion shall be drawn by person(s) different from those who conducted the verification activities. Refer to section XXX below and sections XXX and XXX of the VG.

Positive recommendation: It is [INSERT INDEPENDENT REVIEWER’S NAME]’s opinion that the results provided in the ER Monitoring Report by [INSERT NAME OF REDD COUNTRY PARTICIPANT OR ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE] dated [INSERT DATE OF ER MONITORING REPORT]:

- have been obtained applying the validated methodology described in the ER Program Description and in the Monitoring Plan, as well as the relevant requirements of the Methodological Framework, as described by the Verification Criteria;

- are free from errors, omissions or misrepresentations that could lead to material misstatements.

Furthermore, recommendations for improvements in future Monitoring Periods are summarised as Minor Corrective Action Requests (MINORs) or Observations. These MINORs and Observations are listed in Appendix [INSERT APPENDIX NUMBER] of this ER-Verification Report. [INSERT INDEPENDENT REVIEWER’S NAME] has verified that the values for the indicators in this ER Monitoring Period ([INSERT START AND END DATE OF MONITORING PERIOD]) are:

Negative recommendation It is [INSERT INDEPENDENT REVIEWER’S NAME]’s opinion that the results provided in the ER Monitoring Report by [INSERT NAME OF REDD COUNTRY PARTICIPANT OR ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE] dated [INSERT DATE OF ER MONITORING REPORT]:

- have/have not been obtained applying the validated methodology described in the ER Program Description and in the Monitoring Plan, as well as the relevant requirements of the Methodological Framework, as described by the Verification Criteria;

- are not free from errors, omissions or misrepresentations that could lead to material misstatements.

The audit team has issued [ADD NUMBER] of MAJOR Corrective Actions Requests (MAJORS). Furthermore, recommendations for improvements in future Monitoring Periods are summarised as Minor Corrective Action Requests (MINORs) or Observations. These MAJORS, MINORs and Observations are listed in Appendix [INSERT APPENDIX NUMBER] of the Verification Report. Based on its findings [INSERT INDEPENDENT REVIEWER’S NAME] has not been able to verify that the values for the indicators in this Monitoring Period ([INSERT START AND END DATE OF MONITORING PERIOD])


Version 1.0 4

Statement Issuing Date: __________________ Intended User: [World Bank Group, FCFF Carbon Fund Participants, and ISFL Contributors] __________________________________ ___ ____________________________ [INSERT NAME OF TEAM LEADER of IE] [LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF IE]


Version 1.0 5

2. Introduction

Please provide an introduction to the verification report, briefly summarizing the aims of the verification process and the context in which it takes place. Refer to paragraph XXX of the VG.


Version 1.0 6

3. Verification Basis 3.1 Level of Assurance

Please state the level of assurance of the verification for each of the individual parameters that are within the scope of the IR’s verification. Refer to paragraph XXX of the VG.

3.2 Objectives

Please briefly describe the purpose of verification. Refer to section XXX of the VG.

3.3 Scope

Please describe the scope of the verification. Refer to section XXX of the VG.

3.4 Materiality

Please indicate the materiality threshold of the verification. Refer to paragraph XXX of the VG.


Version 1.0 7

4 METHODOLOGY 4.1 Methodology description

Please describe the methodology applied by the Independent Review Team to perform the verification including the main data sources & sets that have been subject to the verification process. Refer to section XXX of the VG.

4.2 Verification team

Please describe the names, roles, competences and activities of each of the members of the Independent Review Team. Refer to paragraph XXX of the VG.

Name Role Activities

De

sk r

evie

w

Site

vis

it

Re

po

rtin

g

Sup

erv

isio

n

Tech

nic

al

revi

ew

XXXX • X X X X

XXX • X X X

XXX • X

4.3 Verification schedule

Please describe the schedule of the verification. Refer to section XXX of the VG.

4.4 Review of documentation

Please describe the documentation that was reviewed by the Independent Review Team and how that documentation was used in order to perform the verification. The list of documents and reference numbers will be included in Annex. Refer to section XXX of the VG.


Version 1.0 8

4.5 REDD Country visit

Please briefly describe the dates and activities performed during the REDD Country visit and related teleconferences, including the people interviewed, sites and organizations visited and the main findings and how these were relevant to the verification. If a field visit or on-site visit was required, please describe the sites visited. Refer to section XXX of the VG.

4.6 Reporting of findings

Please describe how Non-Compliances and Observations have been issued as part of the verification process. Please, refer to section XXX of the VG.

4.6.1 Observations


Version 1.0 9

5. VERIFICATION OF ER PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 5.1 Implementation status of the ER Program and changes compared to the ER-PD

Highlight any key changes or deviations in the ER Program’s design and key assumptions compared to the description of the ER Program in the ER-PD. Refer to criterion 17.3 and 27 of the Methodological Framework

5.2 Update on major drivers and lessons learned

Please include an assessment on whether there have been changes in major drivers of deforestation and forest degradation and how these might affect the Displacement risks associated with the ER Program and any lessons from the ER Programs’ efforts to mitigate potential Displacement. Refer to indicator 17.4 and 27 of the Methodological Framework

5.3 System for measurement, monitoring and reporting emissions and removals

occurring within the monitoring period

5.3.1 Organizational structure for measurement, monitoring and reporting and relation with the National Forest Monitoring System

Please describe the organization of the measurement, monitoring and reporting that was used during the Reporting Period including:

• Organizational structure, responsibilities and competencies, linking these to the diagram requested in the next section 5.3.2;

• Role of communities in the forest monitoring system;

• Use of and consistency with standard technical procedures in the country and the National Forest Monitoring System.

Highlight any changes compared to the description that was provided in the ER-PD. Refer to criterion 15 and 16 of the Methodological Framework

5.3.2 Measurement, monitoring and reporting approach

Please provide a systematic and step-by-step description of the measurement and monitoring approach applied during the Reporting Period for estimating the emissions and removals from the Sources/Sinks, Carbon Pools and greenhouse gases selected in the ER-PD. Provide line diagrams showing all relevant monitoring points, parameters that are monitored and the integration of data until reporting in a schematic way. Include equations that show the calculation steps of GHG emissions and removals and that show the parameters that will be listed in Section Error! Reference source not found.. These equations should show all steps from the input of measured and default parameters to the aggregation into final reported values. Discuss the choice and the source of all the equations used. Highlight any changes compared to the description that was provided in the ER-PD. Refer to criterion 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14 and 16 of the Methodological Framework


Version 1.0 1

6. VERIFICATION OF GHG ASSERTION 6.1 ER Program Reference level for the Reporting Period

Please provide an assessment of the Reference Level for the ER Program for the Reporting Period covered in this report as provided in the most recent version of the ER Program Document. Refer to XXX of the VG

Year of reporting period t

Average annual historical emissions from deforestation over the Reference Period (tCO2-

e/yr)

If applicable, average annual historical emissions from forest degradation over the Reference Period (tCO2-

e/yr)

If applicable, average annual historical removals by sinks over the Reference Period (tCO2-e/yr)

Adjustment, if applicable (tCO2-e/yr)

Reference level (tCO2-

e/yr)

1

2

…

Total

6.2 ER program emissions by sources and removals by sinks

Provide a summary of the assessment on the quantification of the emissions by sources and removals by sinks from the ER Program during the Reporting Period. Refer to XXX of the VG

Year of reporting period t

Emissions from deforestation (tCO2-e/yr)

If applicable, emissions from forest degradation (tCO2-e/yr)*

If applicable, removals by sinks (tCO2-

e/yr)

Net emissions and removals (tCO2-e/yr)

1

2

…

Total * if integrated methods have been used to measure deforestation and forest degradation, this should be clearly indicated in the description and the combined result can be reported if it is not possible to separate


Version 1.0 2

6.3 Uncertainty of Emission Reductions

6.3.1 Uncertainty analysis

Provide an assessment on whether the step-wise approach for uncertainty analysis has been applied correctly, i.e. identification of sources of error is complete, SOPs and QA/QC procedures exist to reduce systematic errors, random errors have been reduced as far as practical. Refer to criterion 7 and 8 of the Methodological Framework

6.3.2 Uncertainty of the estimate of Emission Reductions

Provide an assessment on whether the residual uncertainty has been calculated correctly. Refer to criterion 7 and indicators 9.2 and 9.3 of the Methodological Framework

Source x Source y … Total

A Median

B Upper bound 90% CI (Percentile 0.95)

C Lower bound 90% CI (Percentile 0.05)

D Half Width Confidence Interval at 90% (B – C / 2)

E Relative margin (D / A) % %

F Uncertainty discount % %

6.4 Transfer of Title

6.4.1 Ability to transfer title

Assess whether there are REDD projects or Programs that could contest the title to Emission Reductions and assess whether there have been changes in the Program Entity’s ability to transfer title. Refer to criterion 28, indicator 28.3 and criterion 36, indicator 36.2 and indicator 36.3 of the Methodological Framework

6.4.2 Implementation and operation of Program and Projects Data Management

System

Please describe the design and operation by the ER Program and/or the host country of an appropriate arrangement to avoid having multiple claims to an ER Title. Discuss the design and provide evidence of the implementation and operation of a Program and Projects Data Management System in accordance with the requirements of the Methodological Framework. If applicable, highlight any changes compared to what was anticipated in the ER-PD and explain why these changes were made.

Refer to criterion 37 of the Methodological Framework


Version 1.0 3

6.4.3 Implementation and operation of ER transaction registry

Please describe the design and implementation by the host country of an appropriate arrangement to ensure that any ERs from REDD+ activities under the ER Program are not generated more than once; and that any ERs from REDD+ activities under the ER Program sold and transferred to the Carbon Fund are not used again by any entity for sale, public relations, compliance or any other purpose. Discuss the design and provide evidence of the implementation and operation of an ER transaction registry in accordance with the requirements of the Methodological Framework. If applicable, highlight any changes compared to what was anticipated in the ER-PD and explain why these changes were made.

Refer to criterion 38 of the Methodological Framework

6.4.4 ERs transferred to other entities or other schemes

Please identify the quantity and use of any ERs from the ER Program sold, assigned or otherwise used by any other entity for sale, public relations, compliance or any other purpose including ERs that have been set-aside to meet Reversal management requirements under other GHG accounting schemes. Refer to Criterion 23 and Criterion 38 of the Methodological Framework

6.5 Reversals

6.5.1 Occurrence of major events or changes in ER Program circumstances that

might have led to the Reversals during the Reporting Period compared to the previous Reporting Period(s)

Please identify the major events or changes in ER Program circumstances during the Reporting Period that might have led to a Reversal or impact the risk of Reversals. Indicate if these events have previously been reported to the Trustee. Highlight any non-human induced Force Majeure event, impacting at least 25% of the ER Program Accounting Area. Please confirm if any Reversals from ERs that have been previously transferred to the Carbon Fund have occurred during the Reporting Period. Refer to indicator 21.1 of the Methodological Framework

6.5.2 Quantification of Reversals during the Reporting Period

Using the table below, please confirm and quantify any Reversals of ERs that have been previously transferred to the Carbon Fund, that might have occurred during the Reporting Period. Refer to indicator 19.1 of the Methodological Framework and the FCPF ER Program Buffer Guidelines

6.5.3 Buffer ERs

Please confirm the selection of one of the options identified in the Methodological Framework to account for Reversals from ERs that have been transferred to the Carbon


Version 1.0 4

Fund during the Term of the ERPA. If this selection is different from the one selected in the ER-PD, please explain what led to this change. Refer to criterion 19 of the Methodological Framework

6.5.4 Reversal risk assessment under option 2

Please provide the Reversal risk assessment for this Reporting Period based on the ER Program Buffer Guidelines. Please report using the table shown below and compare with the previous risk assessment. Refer to criterion 19 of the Methodological Framework and the FCPF ER Program Buffer Guidelines

Risk Factor Risk indicators Default Reversal Risk Set- Aside Percentage

Discount Resulting reversal risk set-aside percentage

Default risk N/A 10% N/A 10%

Lack of broad and sustained stakeholder support

10%

Lack of institutional capacities and/or ineffective vertical/cross sectorial coordination

10%

Lack of long term effectiveness in addressing underlying drivers

5%

Exposure and vulnerability to natural disturbances

5%

Total reversal risk set-aside percentage

Total reversal risk set-aside percentage from ER-PD or previous monitoring report (whichever is more recent)


Version 1.0 5

6.6 Calculation of emission reductions

Quantify the Emission Reductions for the Reporting Period and summarize the result using the table below. Negative values represent removals while positive values represent emissions. Refer to criterion 22 of the Methodological Framework

Total Reference Level emissions during the Reporting Period (tCO2-e)

Net emissions and removals under the ER Program during the Reporting Period (tCO2-e)

Emission Reductions during the Reporting Period (tCO2-e)

7. REFERENCES

Please provide a list of documents and data obtained from the REDD Country Participant and reference documents and any other data used in the verification process.


Version 1.0 6

APPENDIX 1: OVERVIEW OF NON-COMPLIANCES & OBSERVATIONS ISSUED DURING THE VERIFICATION BY THE VERIFICATION TEAM

Please provide list of all MAJOR, MINOR Non-conformities and Observations, clearly stating: In case of the non-conformity:

- Type of Non-Conformity (MAJOR or MINOR) - VG reference number against which non-compliance was found - Requirements as defined in the VG/Methodology Framework - Objective evidence found by the team of the non-conformity - Any corrective actions taken and/or corrective action plan by the REDD Country

Participant - Independent Reviewer’s assessment and conclusion on the corrective action and/or

corrective action plan - Status of non-conformity (i.e. Open or Closed)

In case of an observation:

- VG reference number against which observation is issued - Requirements as defined in the VG/Methodology Framework - Description of the possible risk for future non-compliance - Any response made by the REDD Country Participant or its authorized representative - IE assessment response by the REDD Country Participant or its authorized

representative - Status of Observation (i.e. Open or Closed)


Version 1.0 7

Document information

Version Date Description

1.0 xxxx

Documents

Verification Guidelines Version DRAFT, (under consultation) · 1. Introduction Verification is the periodic assessment by an Independent Reviewer of the amount of ERs generated by