forest carbon partnership facility (fcpf) - validation ... · web view2020/09/02 · the...

Validation Report

Validation Report

Version [Version number][Date]

[Document Prepared by]

[Logo from the VVB may go here]

Validation Report Template

Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF)Carbon Fund

Validation Report (VAR)

ER Program Name and Country:

Crediting Period DD-MM-YYYY to DD-MM-YYYY

Name of the VVB:

Contact information of the VVB:

Date of the Validation Report: DD-MM-YYYY

Version:

Report Approved by DD-MM-YYYY

Version 1.0, August 2020 1


[To be deleted when completing the validation report template]

General information on completing the Validation Report template Purpose of the VARAll processes undertaken for reference-level setting, along with any technical corrections made to the reference level, shall go through Partial Validation by a Validation and Verification Body (VVB). The definition of Partial Validation is described in the Validation and Verification Guidelines.

Also, Country Programs wishing to generate CORSIA-eligible units shall go through full Validation. Full Validation requires an extensive assessment of the ER Program´s scope (sources, sinks, and carbon stocks), coherence with IPCC guidelines, policy, and design decisions and conformance of the Reference Level (RL) with applicable validation criteria (see Table 1 VVG). Partial Validation is mandatory for all FCPF Programs whilst full validation is optional.

The VAR is the document that sets out the Validation in accordance with the REDD Country Participant’s ER Monitoring Report Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) System, and the Methodological Framework and includes without limitation:

(i) The VVB’s opinion on the accuracy and completeness of Annex IV of the ER Monitoring Report;

(ii) The VVB´s opinion addressed to the FCPF Carbon Fund on the Reference Level whether representing a positive or negative opinion; and

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

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

Guidance on completing the VARGeneral guidelines on completing the VAR. Guidance text within the VAR template shall be considered as requirements and shall be met by the VVB.

Please complete all sections of this VAR. If sections of the VAR are not applicable, explicitly state that the section is “Intentionally left blank” and provide an explanation why this section is not applicable. If this validation is done concurrently with the first verification, then the VAR can make reference to the Verification Report (VER) without having to repeat the information contained in the VER. The instructions to the VAR are provided in green boxes. Instructions, including this section, should be deleted when submitting the VAR to the Facility Management Team.

Font of the body text shall be Calibri 10 black font

Provide definitions (for those not already defined within the FCPF Glossary of Terms) of key terms that are used and use these key terms and their variables consistently, using the same abbreviations, formats, subscripts, etc. If the VAR contains equations, please number all equations and define all variables used in these equations, with units indicated.

The presentation of values in the VAR, 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 units defined and/or mentioned by the International System Units (SI units – refer to http://www.bipm.fr/enus/3_SI/si.html) unless the MF or the IPCC Guidelines indicate otherwise (e.g. tonnes vs Mg).


http://www.bipm.fr/enus/3_SI/si.html


1. VALIDATION STATEMENT

The validation statement shall be in accordance with section 12.2 of the VVG. The following example of statement is provided.

e.g. The review and cross-check of explanations and justifications included in the Monitoring Report dated [DD-MM-YYYY] and supporting documents [have/have not] provided [VVB name] with sufficient evidence to determine with a reasonable level of assurance the compliance of the [ER Program’s name] with the applicable validation criteria set out in the FCPF requirements.

The scope covered by the [partial/full] validation includes the ER Program´s crediting period (DD-MM-YYYY to DD-MM-YYYY), the selected Reference Period [DD-MM-YYYY to DD-MM-YYYY], the accounting area [hectares], the REDD Country Participant’s Forest Monitoring System, the [national/centralized] REDD+ Programs and Projects Data Management System and the following GHG sources, sinks, REDD+ activities and carbon pools: [provide a list].

A total of [#] MCAR, [#] mCAR and [#] Observations were raised as part of the [partial/full] validation process. A total of [x] MCAR and [x] mCAR were successfully addressed by the ER Program and closed by the VVB and [#] Observations remain open. These findings are described in Appendix 1 of this report.

Regarding the Reference Level, it is [VVBs name]’s opinion that [ER Program’s name] meets the applicable validation criteria set out in the FCPF requirements and that it is free of material misstatements. Hence, [VVBs name] recommends the FCPF Carbon Fund to continue with the relevant subsequent steps to proceed with the verification of the FCPF Emission Reductions units.

Statement Issuing Date: __________________

Intended User: [World Bank Group, FCPF Carbon Fund Participants]

__________________________________ ___ ____________________________

[INSERT NAME OF TEAM LEADER of VVB] [LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF VVB]

>>



2. Agreement

2.1 Level of Assurance

Please state the level of assurance of the Validation.

“e.g. The audit assessment was conducted to provide a reasonable level of assurance concerning material misstatements, errors, or omissions in conformance with the validation criteria and scope stated in the VVG. The provisions undertaken to ensure such a reasonable level of assurance included”:

..

..:

Based on the previous provisions and considering the findings raised during the audit, a positive/negative evaluation statement reasonably ensures that the FCPF Program Reference Level is/is not materially correct and is/is not a fair representation of the GHG data and information provided in the ER Monitoring Report and supporting documents.

”

Refer to paragraph 29 of the VVG

>>

2.2 Objectives

Please briefly describe the objectives of Validation.

e.g. The objective of validation was to conduct a systematic, independent, and documented process for the evaluation of the GHG assertion made by the FCPF (program name) against the FCPF criteria applicable to partial/full validation to determine if the Program is in compliance to the agreed criteria, and its implementation can be expected to result in the proposed GHG reductions and removal enhancements as described in the Monitoring Report and its annex IV.

The validation was also conducted to determine the extent to which :

The Monitoring Report is correct and complete.

The Program methodological steps and data are publicly available.

The data reported enable the reconstruction of the reported Reference Level.

The reported Reference Level is materially accurate.

The sources of uncertainty are properly identified and analyzed in compliance with applicable criteria.

The components of the Forest Monitoring System include areas of risk of future non-compliance.

The ER Program’s scope in terms of sources, sinks and carbon pools is in accordance with the applicable Validation criteria.

The ER Program’s methods are in accordance with applicable Validation criteria as per the latest IPCC Guidelines.

The Reference Level is in accordance with applicable Validation criteria.



Refer to section 8.2 of the VVG..

>>

2.3 Criteria

Please briefly describe the criteria considered for Validation.

e.g. The criteria applicable to Validation include:

The following applicable criteria and indicators of the MF (complete)

The Buffer Guidelines, Guidelines on the application of the MF, Process Guidelines, Validation and Verification Guidelines and the FCPF Glossary of Terms

The guidelines contained in the ER Monitoring Report template and the Validation Report

The 2006 IPCC Guidelines

The 2013 IPCC wetlands supplements

The GFOI 2016 Methods and Guidance Document

ISO 14065:2013 and ISO 14064-3:2006

Any formal clarification provided by the FMT

Refer to section 8.3 of the VVG.

>>

2.4 Scope

Please describe the scope of the Validation.

e.g. The scope of Validation includes:

The Crediting Period

The applicable reporting period

The ER Program Accounting Area

The GHG sources and sinks associated with any of the REDD+ Activities accounted for as required by the Methodological Framework

The accounted Carbon Pools and greenhouse gases

The REDD Country Participant’s Forest Monitoring System

The national or centralized REDD+ Programs and Projects Data Management System


>>



2.5 Materiality

Please indicate the materiality threshold of the Validation. If this is the same as for the first verification and the first verification is conducted concurrently, this section can refer to the Verification Report.

The validation process based on the desk review and country visit found that there are not quantitative and/or qualitative material discrepancies affecting the reference level and/or the reference level setting. The process for estimating the threshold of materiality is described below: (complete).

The validation process based on the desk review and country visit found that quantitative and/or qualitative material discrepancies are affecting the reference level and/or the reference level setting. The process for estimating the threshold of materiality is described below: (complete)

Refer to section 8.5 of the VVG

>>



3. METHODOLOGY AND PLANNING

3.1 Validation Team

If the first validation and verification are conducted concurrently, this section can refer to the Verification Report.

Please describe the names, roles, and activities of each member of the Validation and Verification Team. Add as many rows as necessary.

Refer to section 7.6, 7.7, and 7.9 of the VVG

Name Role Activities

Desk

revi

ew

Site

visi

t

Repo

rting

Supe

rvisi

on

Tech

nica

l re

view

XXXX X X X X

XXX X X X

XXX X

3.2 Validation schedule

Please describe the schedule of the Validation, including the calendar for desk reviews, country visits, etc . If this is the same as for the first verification and the first verification is conducted concurrently, this section can refer to the Verification Report.


3.3 Methodology description

Please describe the methodology applied by the VVB Team to perform the Validation, including the procedures used for the risk assessment, sampling plan, and the main data sources & sets that have been subject to the Validation process. If this is the same as for the first verification and the first verification is conducted concurrently, this section can refer to the Verification Report

Refer to sections 9.1, 9.2, and 9.4 of the VVG.



>>

3.4 Review of documentation

Please describe and list the documentation that was reviewed by the VVB Team and how that documentation was used to perform the Validation.

Refer to paragraphs 46 and 47 of the VVG.

>>

3.5 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 Validation.

If no Country Visit was made, explain the rationale applied to confirm that the Validation process can rely entirely on a desk review without negatively affecting the required level of assurance.

If this is the same as for the first verification and the first verification is conducted concurrently, this section can refer to the Verification Report

Refer to paragraph 46 of the VVG.

>>



4. VALIDATION OF ER PROGRAM DESIGN

4.1 Completeness of ReportConfirm that the ER Program includes in Annex IV the necessary information required by sections specific to either full or partial validation.

Refer to section 8.2 of the VVG

>>

4.2 Sources and SinksOnly applicable to a full validation

Provide an assessment of how the ER Program justified the selection of applicable sources and sinks and how these were included in the ER Program Reference Level. Assess the extent and methods used by the ER Program to account for emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (if applicable).

Also, assess the justifications provided by the ER Program for the exclusion of sources and sinks and confirm that the ER Program has proposed plans for improving data on the excluded sources and sinks.

Refer to criterion 3 of the Methodological Framework

>>

4.3 Carbon pools and GHG Only applicable to a full validation

Assess the rationale used by the ER Program for the selection or exclusion of carbon pools and greenhouse gases. Evaluate that no overestimations are occurring due to the inclusion of non-significant carbon pools and GHG.

Confirm that the ER Program has proposed plans for improving data on the excluded carbon pools and GHG.


>>



4.4 Reference PeriodOnly applicable to a full validation

Confirm that the start and end dates of the Reference Period have been defined according to the FCPF MF.

Refer to criterion 11 of the Methodological Framework. Section 8.4 of the VVG.

>>

4.5 Forest DefinitionOnly applicable to a full validation.

Provide an assessment of the justifications provided by the ER Program for the selection of a forest definition, including how the chosen definition follows the guidance from UNFCCC decision 12/CP.17. If applicable, include in the assessment the operational definitions of sub-classes of forest used in the reconstruction of the Reference Level


>>

4.6 Calculation of average annual historical emissionsConfirm that the ER Program made a systematic and step-by-step assessment of the methods, assumptions, and approaches used for the calculation of the average historical emissions during the Reference Period, including equations. Also, confirm that the link between the equation parameters and the parameters under activity data and emission factors is clear.

Refer to Section 8.2 of the VVG.

For full validation: Provide a statement indicating that the equations and methods used in the RL establishment are correct and are in line with the IPCC Guidance and Guidelines. Refer to criterion 5 of the Methodological Framework; Section 8.2 of the VVG.

For full validation: Confirm that the methodology for forest degradation is the best available and that it is in compliance with the Methodological Framework. Refer to Indicator 3.3 of the MF and Section 5.1 and 8.2 of the VVG.

>>



4.7 Activity data and emission factors4.7.1 Activity data

Confirm that all parameters related to activity data have been reported in line with the guidelines provided in the ER-MR MR template (e.g. information is complete) and assess whether these parameters are free of errors and material misstatements. Explain the steps taken to conduct the assessment and provide details on how the following aspects have been covered for each of the parameters:

The reliability of the source and nature of the reported evidence justifies the selection of the monitored data and parameters.

Assessment of the correctness of each step of monitoring from measurement to data transfer and calculation.

Confirmation that methodological steps and data are publicly available in accordance with applicable criteria (Criterion 6 of the MF)

Provide an overall concluding statement addressing the sufficiency of quantity and appropriateness of quality of the evidence used to determine the GHG reductions and removals.

For full validation: Confirm that the activity data is compliant with the methodological framework and the IPCC Guidelines and Guidance. Refer to Indicators 14.1 and 14.2 of the MF.

Refer to Sections 8.2 and 10.2 of the VVG.

>>

4.7.2 Emission Factors

Confirm that all parameters related to activity data have been reported in line with the guidelines provided in the ER-MR MR template (e.g. information is complete) and assess whether these parameters are free of errors and material misstatements. Explain the steps taken to conduct the assessment and provide details on how the following aspects have been covered for each of the parameters:

The reliability of the source and nature of the reported evidence justifies the selection of the monitored data and parameters.

Assessment of the correctness of each step of monitoring from measurement to data transfer and calculation.

Confirmation that methodological steps and data are publicly available in accordance with applicable criteria (Criterion 6 of the MF).

Provide an overall concluding statement addressing the sufficiency of quantity and appropriateness of quality of the evidence used to determine the GHG reductions and removals

For full validation: Confirm that the Emission Factors are compliant with the methodological framework and the IPCC Guidelines and Guidance. Refer to Indicators 14.1 and 14.3 of the MF.

Refer to Sections 8.2 and 10.2 of the VVG.



>>

4.8 Adjustments to the average annual historical emissions over the reference period

For partial validation: Assess the calculations and spreadsheets for the quantification of the proposed upward or downward adjustment to the average annual historical emissions over the Reference Period and confirm if the methods, equations, data, and parameters used are correct.

For full validation: Provide an assessment of the justifications and explanations included by the ER Program for any proposed upward or downward adjustment to the annual historical emissions over the Reference Period and assess compliance with Criterion 13 of the Methodological Framework.

>>

4.9 Estimated Reference LevelPlease provide an assessment of the original or adjusted Reference Level for the ER Program for the Crediting Period. Confirm that the Reference Level is materially accurate.

Refer to criterion 10, indicator 10.2 and 10.3 of the Methodological Framework

>>

Crediting Period year 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)

20XX

20XX

20XX

…

…

T



4.10 Consistency of the Program’s Reference Level with national FREL/FRL and GHG Inventory

Only applicable to a full validation.

Assess if the Program´s proposed Reference Level is consistent with the national FREL/FRL submitted to the UNFCCC and with the country´s existing or emerging GHG inventory.

Refer to criterion 10, indicator 10.2 and 10.3 of the Methodological Framework

>>

4.11 Uncertainty of the Reference Level4.11.1 Identification and assessment of sources of uncertainty

Determine whether a step-wise approach for uncertainty analysis has been applied correctly for the identification of sources of random and systematic errors related to the activity data and emission factors for the estimation of the Reference Level. Confirm that the uncertainty analysis has been conducted in compliance with applicable criteria.

Refer to criterion 7 and 8 of the Methodological Framework and Annex Additional Guidelines for VVBs of the VVG.

>>

4.11.2 Uncertainty of the estimate of the Reference Level

Provide an assessment of the application of Monte Carlo simulation for the quantification of Uncertainty of the Reference Level and confirm that it has been performed correctly.

Refer to criterion 9 of the Methodological Framework; Annex Additional Guidelines for VVBs of the VVG

Sensitivity analysis and identification of areas for improvement of the MRV system

Assess the sensitivity analysis conducted to estimate the relative contribution of each parameter to the overall uncertainty. This includes Activity Data, Emission Factors, and integration. Confirm that the ER Program has proposed methods and actions to address sources of high uncertainty.



Refer to criterion 9 of the Methodological Framework; Annex Additional Guidelines for VVBs of the VVG

>>

4.12 Data quality and availability Assess whether the quality and description of the documented data and methods are detailed enough to enable the reconstruction of the Reference Level.

Confirm that the main methodological steps, relevant spatial information, maps, or synthesized data, along with their descriptions and sources, are publicly available online or that sufficient reasons exist to prevent certain information from being publicly disclosed.

Refer to indicators 6.1 and 6.2 of the Methodological Framework

>>



5. NON-COMPLIANCES AND OBSERVATIONS

Describe the process for the resolution of non-compliances (corrective actions and observations) raised by the validation team during the Validation

Please summarize the number of Corrective Action Requests and Observations issued as part of the validation process. Consider that all mCARs issued at Validation shall be suitably closed out by the REDD Country Participant at the beginning of the subsequent Crediting Period.

Refer to section 11 of the VVG



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

Please provide a list of all MAJOR Corrective Action Request (MCAR) , MINOR Corrective Action Request (mCAR) and Observations, clearly stating:

In the case of a non-compliance:

- Type of Corrective Action Request (MAJOR or MINOR)- VVG reference number against which non-compliance was found - Requirements as defined in the VVG/Methodology Framework- Objective evidence found by the team of the non-compliance - Any corrective actions taken and/or corrective action plan by the REDD Country Participant - VVB’s assessment and conclusion on the corrective action and/or corrective action plan- Status of non-compliance (i.e. Open or Closed)

In case of an observation:

- VVG reference number against which observation is issued - Requirements as defined in the VVG/Methodology Framework- Description of the possible risk for future non-compliance- Any response made by the REDD Country Participant or its authorized representative- VVBassessment on the response by the REDD Country Participant or its authorized representative- Status of Observation (i.e. Open or Closed)



Document information

Version Date Description

1.0 August 2020 Initial version adopted.


forest carbon partnership facility (fcpf) - validation ... · web view2020/09/02 · the...

Documents