PCS CL 014 Clarifications Standard_v1.0

Document Control

Document identification

• Document code: PCS-CL-014

• Title: Clarifications Standard

• Scope: Defines the governance rules, eligibility limits, process requirements, and publication/traceability controls for issuing PCS Clarification Notes and formal interpretations applicable to PCS standards, methodologies, tools, and procedures.

• Outcome: Ensures clarifications improve consistency and usability without functioning as backdoor revisions, and that all interpretations remain transparent, version-controlled, and auditable.

Version history and change log

Table DC-1. Revision history

Version	Date	Status	Summary of changes	Prepared by	Approved by
v1.0	TBD	Draft	Initial release for public consultation	PCS	TBD

Superseded versions

No superseded versions for v1.0.

Governance note on versioning and archiving

Only the latest approved version of this Standard shall be used. Superseded versions shall be archived and retained for traceability and audit purposes. Clarifications issued under earlier versions remain accessible as historical records; however, new clarifications shall be governed by the version in force at the time the clarification is approved and published.

---

Acronym	Meaning
ACS	Activity Classification System (PCS internal)
AFOLU	Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use
ARR	Afforestation, Reforestation, and Revegetation
CDM	Clean Development Mechanism (UNFCCC)
CO₂e	Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
COP	Conference of the Parties (UNFCCC)
DNA	Designated National Authority (host country authority)
DoE	Designated Operational Entity (UNFCCC equivalent to VVB)
FAO	Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
GHG	Greenhouse Gas
GIS	Geographic Information System
GWP	Global Warming Potential
ICR	Independent Conclusion Report (technical review output)
IFM	Improved Forest Management
IPCC	Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ISO	International Organization for Standardization
ITMOs	Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes (Article 6)
LULUCF	Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry
MRV	Measurement, Reporting and Verification
NDC	Nationally Determined Contribution
PCS	Planetary Carbon Standard
PCUs	Planetary Carbon Units
QA/QC	Quality Assurance / Quality Control
REDD+	Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (+ sustainable management of forests, conservation, enhancement of carbon stocks)
SDG	Sustainable Development Goals
SRD	Scientific Rationale Document (in methodology submissions)
SRM	Silvicultural and Restoration Management
UNFCCC	United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
VVB	Validation and Verification Body

Chapter 1 - Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the Procedure

The purpose of this procedure is to establish the formal governance system used by the Planetary Carbon Standard for the development, revision, and clarification of methodologies and methodological tools. Methodologies form the technical foundation of PCS, providing the rules for baseline establishment, monitoring, and quantification of emission reductions and removals. This procedure ensures that all methodologies used under PCS are scientifically robust, internationally aligned, transparent, and developed through a rigorous, structured, and accountable process.

1.2 Role of Methodologies within PCS

Methodologies determine how climate mitigation outcomes are calculated, monitored, and verified. They define project boundaries, applicable technologies or activities, data requirements, uncertainty treatment, safeguarding conditions, leakage assessment, permanence considerations, and quantification equations.

Ensuring that methodologies remain current and credible is essential to the environmental integrity of Planetary Carbon Units and to maintaining trust among stakeholders, host countries, markets, and the global community.

1.3 Governing Authorities

The PCS Secretariat is responsible for administering the methodology governance process, including receiving submissions, conducting initial assessments, coordinating technical reviews, managing public consultation, and preparing recommendations. The PCS Regulatory Council is the final decision-making authority responsible for approving new methodologies, approving revisions to existing methodologies, and endorsing official clarification notes. All decisions are documented in the PCS Authorization Archive.

1.4 Applicability of this Procedure

This procedure applies to the development of new methodologies, revision of existing methodologies, issuance of clarification notes, integration of methodological tools, and all related governance actions. It applies equally to Regular Track projects and Nature-based Solutions Track projects.

Methodologies developed under other standards may be considered for adaptation under PCS only through the structured process defined in this procedure.

1.5 Principles Governing PCS Methodology Governance

Methodologies under PCS are governed by principles of scientific rigor, transparency, conservativeness, environmental integrity, practicality, replicability, and predictability. Conservativeness ensures that uncertainties do not lead to overestimation of emission reductions. Transparency ensures that methodological decisions, assumptions, and data sources are publicly accessible. Scientific rigor ensures that quantification is grounded in robust evidence. Predictability ensures that methodology governance follows clear, structured steps from submission to approval.

1.6 Relationship to PCS Framework and Operational Manual

This procedure supports the implementation of the PCS Framework v2.0 and complements the PCS Operational Process Manual, particularly the chapters addressing methodological requirements, validation, verification, and registry integration. In case of a conflict between documents, the PCS Regulatory Council determines the governing interpretation.

1.7 Transparency and Public Disclosure

All approved methodologies, revisions, technical review summaries, public consultation reports, and clarification notes are published through the PCS Registry to ensure transparency. The methodology governance process is publicly accessible, allowing stakeholders to follow decision pathways, rationale, and updates.

1.8 Continuous Improvement and Alignment with International Standards

PCS is committed to methodological advancement. This includes alignment with the IPCC, UNFCCC reporting frameworks, Article 6 requirements, scientific literature, updated emission factors, advances in digital MRV, and academic research. PCS periodically reviews existing methodologies and may initiate revisions where necessary to maintain alignment with evolving best practices. Continuous improvement ensures that PCS methodologies remain relevant, defensible, and globally credible.

1.9 Status of Approved Methodologies

Once approved, methodologies become part of the official PCS Methodology Library. They remain valid unless replaced, superseded, or archived by the PCS Regulatory Council. Approved methodologies must be applied exactly as published. Deviations are only permitted through the formal deviation procedure.

Chapter 2 - Principles Of Methodology Governance

2.1 Purpose of Methodology Governance Principles

The principles contained in this chapter provide the foundation for all methodological development, revision, and clarification under the Planetary Carbon Standard. They ensure that methodologies are based on sound science, internationally credible, transparent in their formulation, and capable of producing accurate and verifiable emission reduction and removal estimates. These principles guide the PCS Secretariat, Technical Reviewers, and the PCS Regulatory Council throughout every stage of methodology governance.

2.2 Scientific Integrity and Technical Rigor

Scientific integrity is central to the credibility of PCS methodologies. All methodological elements, including baseline logic, emission factors, monitoring parameters, and quantification equations, must be grounded in authoritative scientific sources such as the IPCC Guidelines, peer-reviewed studies, established research institutions, and empirically validated datasets.

Scientific assumptions must be justified with transparent references, and all methodological components must remain open to technical scrutiny. Where uncertainty exists, methodologies must apply approaches that do not risk over-estimating emission reductions or removals. Technical rigor requires that model structures, calculation steps, and quantification frameworks support replication by independent reviewers without ambiguity.

2.3 Transparency and Accessibility

PCS methodologies must be constructed through a process that is fully transparent to stakeholders and the public. All methodological assumptions, data sources, quantification procedures, and boundaries must be described clearly and made publicly accessible through the PCS Registry.

Documentation of decisions, including approval, rejection, revision, and clarification, must remain publicly available so that stakeholders can understand how methodological conclusions were reached.

Transparency ensures that methodologies and governance decisions can be independently reviewed and that methodological evolution remains traceable across different versions and generations.

2.4 Environmental Integrity

Environmental integrity is the primary objective of the PCS methodology system. Approved methodologies must ensure that credited outcomes represent emission reductions or removals that are real, measurable, additional, permanent to the extent applicable, independently verifiable, and without risk of double counting.

Baseline scenarios must reflect realistic and credible counterfactuals and may never be inflated to increase credit issuance. Additionality procedures must reliably distinguish actions driven by carbon finance from those that would have occurred anyway.

Where risks of leakage, reversal, or non-permanence exist, methodologies must incorporate appropriate mitigation requirements, monitoring provisions, or deductions. Methodologies must be conservative in design to ensure that uncertainties, data gaps, and variability do not result in over-crediting.

2.5 Consistency with International Standards

Methodologies must align with internationally accepted frameworks, including the IPCC Guidelines, UNFCCC reporting principles, ISO standards, and guidance relevant to Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. As international rules evolve, methodologies must be reviewed and updated to maintain alignment with global best practices. Consistency ensures that PCS methodologies remain interoperable with national reporting systems, international markets, and host country accounting requirements.

Where methodologies rely on external data or assumptions, the sources must be consistent with global scientific norms.

2.6 Conservativeness

Conservativeness is an essential principle ensuring that uncertainties and data limitations do not result in an overstatement of emission reductions or removals. When multiple scientifically plausible values are available for a parameter, methodologies must adopt the value that minimizes the risk of over-crediting.

When uncertainty cannot be resolved through measurement or empirical improvement, methodologies must incorporate conservative factors or deductions. Conservativeness is applied systematically across baseline determination, monitoring parameters, emission factors, modeling assumptions, and treatment of leakage or non-permanence risks.

2.7 Practicality, Feasibility, and Operational Usability

Methodologies must be practical for real-world implementation. Their monitoring requirements must reflect the capacities of project developers and the realities of field conditions, without compromising environmental integrity. Data collection must be feasible, monitoring frequencies must be realistic, and instructions must be sufficiently clear to allow project developers and VVBs to apply them consistently.

Methodologies that are impractically burdensome, excessively complex, or reliant on inaccessible data sources limit usability and may compromise accurate implementation. PCS therefore ensures that methodologies balance rigor with operational feasibility.

2.8 Consistency, Replicability, and Standardization

Replicability strengthens credibility. Methodologies must be written in a manner that produces consistent results when applied by different practitioners using the same input data. Instructions must be unambiguous, logically structured, and free from interpretive vagueness. Calculation steps must follow standardized formats so that project developers, validators, and verifiers can apply them consistently. Replicability ensures that independent assessments converge on the same quantification outcomes, reinforcing the technical reliability of PCS methodologies.

2.9 Safeguards Integration

Methodologies must be compatible with PCS environmental and social safeguard requirements. They must identify safeguard-relevant risks arising from project activity and indicate where specific monitoring, mitigation, or reporting requirements are needed.

Integration with safeguards ensures that methodological boundaries, baseline choices, and monitoring frameworks account for environmental and social considerations rather than focusing solely on emission accounting.

Where methodologies influence land use, ecosystems, or local communities, safeguards must be reflected explicitly within applicability and monitoring conditions.

2.10 Integration of Sustainable Development Contributions

Sustainable development is a core PCS principle. Where project activities contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals, methodologies should, when relevant, reference the key indicators required for robust assessment.

Any SDG contribution claimed under a methodology must be measurable and verifiable, supported by evidence, and consistent with the PCS SDG Impact Framework. Methodologies may not create opportunities for unsubstantiated or inflated SDG claims.

2.11 Compatibility with Digital MRV and Technological Evolution

Methodologies must be designed to remain compatible with current and emerging digital MRV approaches, including remote sensing, geospatial analysis, automated monitoring systems, data analytics, and blockchain-based verification. This compatibility requires methodologies to define parameters and monitoring frameworks that can be measured using digital systems where appropriate.

Methodologies must also be future-oriented, avoiding unnecessary barriers to the integration of new technologies that enhance accuracy, reduce burden, or improve transparency.

2.12 Predictability, Stability, and Responsible Transitioning

PCS methodologies must remain stable for reasonable periods to support investment confidence and operational continuity. When revisions are necessary, PCS must implement them responsibly, using clear transition rules and reasonable timelines.

Methodology updates must be communicated in advance, and project developers must have clarity on whether a methodology applies for the duration of a crediting period or becomes superseded. Stability prevents disruption, while structured transitions allow continuous improvement without penalizing ongoing projects.

2.13 Independence and Objectivity in Methodology Governance

All decisions regarding methodology development, revision, clarification, or retirement must be made independently of commercial or political interests. The PCS Secretariat ensures that technical reviewers, assessors, and external experts declare and avoid conflicts of interest.

Methodological proposals must be evaluated based on scientific merit and technical consistency alone. Objectivity ensures that methodology governance reinforces trust and avoids any perception that methodologies are designed to favor specific entities or projects.

2.14 Stakeholder Participation and Inclusive Review

A robust methodology governance system must reflect insights from diverse stakeholders, including project developers, validators, verifiers, scientific researchers, host country authorities, and civil society. Public consultations form an integral part of methodology evaluation, ensuring that all relevant perspectives are considered.

Stakeholder inputs must be reviewed objectively, documented transparently, and incorporated where appropriate. Inclusive participation strengthens methodological legitimacy and practical implementability.

2.15 Traceability and Version Control

Every methodology under PCS must have a unique version number, an effective date, and a clearly documented history. All revisions, clarifications, retirements, and decisions must be recorded in the PCS Authorization Archive and published on the PCS Registry. Archived versions must remain accessible to support historical interpretation and auditability. Traceability ensures that project developers, VVBs, and regulators can always determine which requirements apply to a given project and how methodologies have evolved.

2.16 Continuous Improvement

The methodology system must remain dynamic and responsive to evolving science, policy changes, technological advancements, field experience, and stakeholder feedback.

PCS commits to periodic assessment of methods, identification of gaps or outdated assumptions, and introduction of improvements that reflect advances in the carbon market. Continuous improvement ensures that PCS remains aligned with global best practice and maintains long-term credibility.

Chapter 3 - Submission And Approval Of New Methodologies

3.1 Purpose of the Submission and Approval Process

The submission and approval process ensures that all new methodologies proposed for use under the Planetary Carbon Standard meet the scientific, technical, environmental, and procedural requirements necessary to uphold the integrity of the PCS system. This process provides a structured pathway through which individuals, institutions, project developers, host country authorities, and technical experts may propose new approaches for quantifying emission reductions or removals. By following a uniform procedure, PCS ensures transparency, impartiality, methodological rigor, and consistent decision-making across all submissions.

3.2 Entities Eligible to Submit New Methodologies

New methodology submissions may be made by project developers, corporate entities, research institutions, civil society organizations, government agencies, multilateral institutions, and independent experts.

The PCS Secretariat may also initiate the development of new methodologies where gaps are identified or where advances in science, technology, or policy necessitate new methodological approaches. Regardless of the origin of the submission, all proposals must be assessed using the same standards and procedures set forth in this document.

3.3 Scope and Nature of New Methodology Proposals

A new methodology submission may relate to any sector, technology, activity, or intervention that results in greenhouse gas mitigation. The scope may include renewable energy, nature-based solutions, industrial processes, agriculture, waste management, transport, energy efficiency, technology-based removals, or any activity not adequately addressed by existing PCS methodologies.

The methodology must include clearly defined applicability conditions, boundaries, baseline approaches, monitoring procedures, quantification methods, and quality assurance requirements.

Proposals must demonstrate that the methodology addresses a genuine need within the PCS ecosystem and that existing methodologies cannot reasonably accommodate the targeted project type.

3.4 Submission Requirements

A methodology submission must be made using the official PCS Methodology Concept Note and Methodology Submission Form.

Submissions must include a comprehensive description of the intervention, justification for its inclusion in PCS, scientific references supporting the proposed approach, modeling frameworks where relevant, monitoring strategies, data sources, safeguards considerations, and quantification procedures. Supporting technical documentation, peer-reviewed studies, and empirical datasets must be included to substantiate the methodological logic.

The submission must also include an assessment of how the methodology aligns with the principles set forth in Chapter 2 of this procedure.

3.5 Completeness Review by the PCS Secretariat

Upon receipt of the submission, the PCS Secretariat conducts an initial completeness review to confirm that all required documentation, data sources, and supporting materials are included. The completeness review does not assess scientific validity or technical quality; its sole purpose is to ensure the submission is sufficiently structured for detailed evaluation. If critical components are missing, the Secretariat informs the proponent and requests additional information. The submission progresses to detailed review only when the completeness requirements are met.

3.6 Preliminary Assessment of Relevance and Suitability

Once the submission is deemed complete, the Secretariat performs a preliminary assessment to determine whether the methodology falls within the scope of PCS, whether it addresses an unmet need, and whether its foundational logic aligns with PCS principles. During this stage, the Secretariat considers whether the proposed methodology overlaps significantly with an existing PCS methodology, whether it proposes an innovative or necessary approach, and whether the intervention can be credibly quantified under PCS.

If the methodology is deemed unsuitable for further consideration, the Secretariat issues a reasoned decision explaining the grounds for rejection.

3.7 Initiation of Technical Review

If the methodology passes preliminary assessment, the PCS Secretariat initiates a technical review. The technical review is conducted by internal experts or by external Technical Reviewers selected based on their expertise in relevant scientific, sectoral, methodological, or environmental fields. The technical review evaluates the scientific validity, quantification logic, data requirements, uncertainty treatment, safeguards integration, and practical implementability of the methodology. The review examines the internal logic of the baseline scenario, the robustness of the monitoring plan, the credibility of default factors, and the consistency of the methodology with IPCC and UNFCCC guidance.

3.8 Interaction with the Proponent During Review

During the technical review, the PCS Secretariat or the assigned Technical Reviewers may request clarifications, additional evidence, expanded descriptions, or corrections from the methodology proponent. The interaction is iterative and continues until the technical issues identified are addressed.

All reviewer comments and proponent responses are documented as part of the methodology’s official record. The Secretariat ensures that exchanges remain objective and focused on resolving scientific, technical, or procedural issues.

3.9 Public Consultation Stage

After completion of the technical review, the methodology is released for public consultation. Public consultation ensures that relevant stakeholders, including project developers, VVBs, host country authorities, academic experts, and civil society, have an opportunity to provide feedback.

The consultation period is announced through the PCS Registry and remains open for a defined period. All comments received must be reviewed objectively by the Secretariat and Technical Reviewers.

The proponent may be asked to respond to comments or provide additional information. The Secretariat prepares a public consultation report summarizing all feedback and how it was addressed.

3.10 Preparation of the Secretariat Recommendation

Following the technical review and public consultation, the PCS Secretariat prepares a formal recommendation for the PCS Regulatory Council. The recommendation includes an assessment of the methodology’s scientific integrity, alignment with PCS principles, results of public consultation, proposed conditions or modifications, and a final judgment regarding its suitability for adoption. The recommendation must provide transparent justification for approval, conditional approval, or rejection.

3.11 Decision by the PCS Regulatory Council

The PCS Regulatory Council reviews the Secretariat’s recommendation and all associated documentation, including the technical review, public consultation report, and the proponent’s responses. The Council may approve the methodology as submitted, approve it with modifications, reject it, or request additional analysis.

Approval requires a formal decision recorded in the PCS Authorization Archive. Once approved, the methodology is assigned a version number and an effective date. Rejection must be accompanied by a documented rationale.

3.12 Publication of Approved Methodologies

Approved methodologies are published in the PCS Methodology Library through the PCS Registry. Publication includes the methodology text, version number, approval date, technical review summary, public consultation report, and relevant supporting documentation. The publication ensures full transparency and enables project developers and VVBs to apply the methodology immediately or in accordance with the designated effective date.

3.13 Applicability Period and Transition Rules

Once approved, new methodologies may have specific applicability rules or transition provisions depending on the nature of the project types they address. PCS may define the conditions under which ongoing projects may use the new methodology or whether new methodologies apply only to future project submissions. Transition rules ensure fairness, minimize disruption, and support orderly adoption across the PCS system.

3.14 Tracking of Submissions and Decisions

All steps in the submission and approval process, including reviewer comments, proponent responses, public consultation feedback, and final decisions, are recorded in the PCS Authorization Archive to ensure full traceability. This documentation enables retrospective review, supports governance audits, and ensures transparency in methodological evolution.

Chapter 4 - Revision Of Existing Methodologies

4.1 Purpose of Methodology Revision

Revisions to existing methodologies ensure that PCS maintains methodological integrity over time, adapts to scientific advancements, incorporates stakeholder feedback, responds to evolving policy frameworks, and remains aligned with international standards.

Methodology revision allows PCS to correct deficiencies, strengthen quantification logic, improve clarity, address identified risks, and integrate new data or technologies. The revision process safeguards the long-term credibility and accuracy of methodologies used to generate Planetary Carbon Units and ensures that they reflect best available scientific and technical knowledge.

4.2 Types of Revisions

Methodology revisions may range from minor editorial updates to substantive structural changes.

Minor revisions typically involve improvements in clarity, correction of typographical errors, clarification of instructions, or incorporation of non-material updates that do not affect calculation outcomes.

Major revisions involve changes to quantification equations, baseline logic, applicability conditions, monitoring requirements, default factors, leakage treatment, permanence provisions, or any element that may influence crediting outcomes.

PCS determines the classification of revisions based on their impact on methodology application and quantification results.

4.3 Triggers for Methodology Revision

Revisions may be initiated by the PCS Secretariat, by methodology proponents, by project developers, by VVBs, by host country authorities, or through the findings of oversight and implementation experience.

Common triggers include the emergence of new scientific studies, updated IPCC guidance, new emission factors, improvements in measurement technologies, identification of methodological inconsistencies, stakeholder recommendations, changes in regulatory frameworks, or evidence that current methodology provisions may lead to over-crediting or misapplication. Methodologies may also require revision to maintain alignment with Article 6 guidance or national accounting frameworks.

4.4 Submission Requirements for Methodology Revisions

A request for revision must be submitted using the PCS Methodology Revision Request Form. The request must describe the proposed changes in detail, provide justification for the revision, demonstrate that the changes remain consistent with PCS principles, and provide supporting evidence such as literature references, empirical datasets, or analysis demonstrating the need for modification.

If the revision request originates from a project developer or VVB, the submission must disclose any potential implications for ongoing validation or verification activities.

4.5 Completeness and Sufficiency Assessment

Upon receipt of a revision request, the PCS Secretariat conducts a completeness check to ensure that the required information has been provided. The Secretariat then performs a sufficiency assessment to determine whether the proposed revision warrants further consideration. The sufficiency assessment examines whether the rationale is credible, whether the revision aligns with PCS principles, and whether the proposed changes fall within the scope of methodology governance.

If the request is incomplete or insufficiently supported, the Secretariat may request additional documentation or decline the request with a written explanation.

4.6 Technical Review of Proposed Revisions

Revisions that pass the preliminary assessment undergo a technical review. The review may be conducted by internal PCS experts or external Technical Reviewers selected for their sectoral, scientific, or methodological expertise. The review evaluates the necessity, validity, and implications of the proposed revision. The Technical Reviewers assess whether the revision maintains environmental integrity, preserves conservativeness, strengthens or clarifies methodological logic, and supports replicability and consistent application. The review also examines potential impacts on uncertainty, baseline credibility, leakage risks, and safeguard considerations.

4.7 Stakeholder and Market Impact Analysis

The PCS Secretariat evaluates how the proposed revision may impact existing projects, ongoing validation or verification processes, market functioning, registry operations, and host country accounting.

The Secretariat assesses whether the revision may lead to increased or decreased crediting volumes and whether it could disrupt project implementation.

Where significant impacts are anticipated, the Secretariat may propose transition provisions or conditional implementation to ensure fairness and predictability.

4.8 Public Consultation for Major Revisions

Revisions classified as major must undergo public consultation. The methodology, proposed changes, supporting documentation, and technical review summaries are made publicly available through the PCS Registry. Stakeholders are invited to provide comments within a defined consultation period. The PCS Secretariat reviews all feedback, documents responses, and incorporates modifications where necessary. Public consultation ensures inclusiveness, transparency, and multi-stakeholder input into substantive methodological changes.

4.9 Preparation of Secretariat Recommendation

After completing the technical review and considering stakeholder input, the PCS Secretariat prepares a formal recommendation for the PCS Regulatory Council. The recommendation explains the rationale for the revision, summarizes the technical findings, presents the outcomes of public consultation, describes any potential risks or implementation challenges, and provides a final recommendation regarding approval, modification, or rejection of the proposed revision. The recommendation also includes a justification for whether the revision should be classified as major or minor and whether transition rules should apply.

4.10 Decision by the PCS Regulatory Council

The PCS Regulatory Council reviews the Secretariat’s recommendation and determines whether to approve the revision, approve it with modifications, reject it, or request additional analysis. The decision is formalized through a written resolution and recorded in the PCS Authorization Archive. Approved revisions are assigned a new version number and publication date. The Council may also define conditions or limitations associated with the revision.

4.11 Transition Arrangements

When methodological revisions affect crediting outcomes, monitoring procedures, or baseline requirements, transition arrangements are essential to ensure fairness and to minimize disruption to ongoing project activities. The PCS Secretariat develops transition rules specifying whether existing projects may continue using the previous version for a defined period, whether switching to the revised version is mandatory or optional, and whether any special conditions apply.

Transition rules must consider the project’s crediting period, stage of validation or verification, host country requirements, and the significance of methodological changes.

4.12 Publication of Revised Methodologies

Revised methodologies are published in the PCS Methodology Library with clear documentation of the version number, effective date, summary of changes, technical review findings, and public consultation outcomes. Archived versions remain publicly accessible to support traceability, auditing, and review of historical decisions. The PCS Registry must reflect the latest version and indicate whether previous versions remain applicable under transition rules.

4.13 Implications for Ongoing and Future Projects

Revisions may affect projects at different stages of development. Projects undergoing validation must apply the methodology version in effect as of their submission date, unless transition rules specify otherwise.

Projects already under monitoring or verification may continue using the methodology version approved for their crediting period unless methodological revisions are required to address risks related to environmental integrity.

All future project submissions must apply the latest approved version unless transition provisions state otherwise.

4.14 Recordkeeping and Traceability of Revisions

All methodology revisions, including rejected proposals, comments received, technical review findings, and decisions of the PCS Regulatory Council, are recorded in the PCS Authorization Archive. This ensures full traceability of methodological evolution and transparency for auditors, stakeholders, and host country authorities. Documentation remains available for retrospective analysis and for supporting methodological audits or inquiries.

Chapter 5 - Clarification Notes And Interpretations

5.1 Purpose of Clarification Notes

Clarification Notes serve as an official mechanism to interpret, explain, or refine specific provisions within an approved PCS methodology without altering its core structure, quantification logic, applicability conditions, or monitoring requirements. Their purpose is to resolve ambiguity, address inconsistencies, provide additional guidance to users, and ensure consistency in application across different projects and Validation and Verification Bodies.

Clarification Notes are intended to assist project developers, validators, and verifiers by offering authoritative explanations that improve methodological transparency and usability while preserving the original intent and integrity of the methodology.

5.2 Scope of Clarifications

Clarification Notes may address any issue that arises during methodology implementation, provided that the issue relates to interpretation rather than revision. Typical subjects include the meaning of specific terms, application of quantification steps, treatment of parameters, clarification of monitoring procedures, and resolution of contradictory or incomplete explanatory text. Clarifications may also address questions relating to the boundaries of applicability, procedures for additionality testing, or interpretation of safeguard-related provisions.

A clarification may only be issued when it does not materially affect the quantification outcome or the methodological logic.

Any change that could influence the volume of credits issued or that meaningfully modifies a calculation step must follow the formal revision process.

5.3 Sources of Requests for Clarification

Clarification requests may be submitted by project developers, VVBs, host country entities, academic or technical experts, or other stakeholders encountering interpretive uncertainties. The PCS Secretariat may also initiate a clarification when oversight activities, project reviews, or internal evaluations identify recurring misunderstandings or inconsistencies in methodology application.

Regardless of the source, all clarification requests must follow the same formal process established by PCS to ensure consistent treatment and transparent decision-making.

5.4 Submission Requirements for Clarification Requests

A clarification request must be submitted using the official PCS Clarification Request Form. The request must clearly identify the methodology, version number, and specific clause or section requiring clarification.

The request must describe the nature of the interpretive challenge, explain how it affects project implementation or validation/verification, and provide any supporting evidence demonstrating the need for formal interpretation.

The request must remain focused on interpretation; suggestions that imply methodological changes must be submitted instead through the methodology revision process.

5.5 Screening and Acceptance of Clarification Requests

Upon receiving a clarification request, the PCS Secretariat conducts an initial screening to verify completeness and to determine whether the request concerns interpretation or revision. If the Secretariat determines that the request seeks changes to methodological logic or quantification, the request is redirected to the methodology revision procedure.

Clarification requests that are incomplete or that lack sufficient detail are returned to the proponent for additional information. If the request is accepted, the Secretariat proceeds to evaluate the issue in greater depth.

5.6 Technical Evaluation of Clarification Requests

The PCS Secretariat evaluates the request by examining the methodology text, reviewing related provisions, and assessing whether the identified issue has arisen in other projects or validation processes.

If necessary, the Secretariat consults internal experts or external Technical Reviewers with specialized expertise in the relevant domain.

The evaluation determines whether the request reflects a genuine ambiguity, whether the clarification would enhance methodological consistency, and whether the issue can be resolved without altering the methodology. The evaluation also assesses potential implications for ongoing projects and verifications to ensure that clarifications do not inadvertently disadvantage project developers or VVBs who applied the methodology in good faith.

5.7 Preparation of Clarification Note

If the evaluation supports issuance of a clarification, the PCS Secretariat prepares a draft Clarification Note. The note must identify the methodology, the relevant section, the nature of the issue, and the official interpretation. The Clarification Note must provide clear, unambiguous guidance that can be applied consistently across all projects. Where relevant, the note may include examples or explanatory context to support correct implementation.

The Secretariat ensures that the clarification remains strictly interpretive and does not introduce new requirements or modify quantification approaches.

5.8 Review and Approval by the PCS Regulatory Council

The draft Clarification Note is submitted to the PCS Regulatory Council for review and approval. The Council examines the justification, evaluates the clarity and appropriateness of the interpretation, and confirms that the clarifying language does not constitute a revision.

If the Council determines that the issue requires modification of the methodology rather than interpretation, the note is not approved and the issue is redirected to the methodology revision process. Clarification Notes become effective only upon formal approval.

5.9 Publication and Communication of Clarification Notes

Approved Clarification Notes are published on the PCS Registry alongside the relevant methodology. Each note is assigned a unique identifier and an effective date and is linked to the specific methodology version to which it applies. The PCS Secretariat communicates the issuance of Clarification Notes to stakeholders, including VVBs and project developers, to ensure consistent application across the PCS system. Clarification Notes remain publicly accessible and form part of the official methodological guidance.

5.10 Applicability of Clarification Notes to Projects

Clarification Notes apply immediately to all ongoing and future project documentation and VVB assessments unless otherwise specified by the PCS Regulatory Council. Clarifications are intended to harmonize interpretation and do not retroactively invalidate prior decisions made under reasonable interpretations of the methodology.

Where a clarification significantly alters perceived meaning, the Secretariat may provide specific instructions or transition arrangements to ensure fairness and consistency across affected projects.

5.11 Traceability and Archiving of Clarifications

All clarification requests, evaluations, decisions, and approved notes are recorded in the PCS Authorization Archive. The archive preserves the full history of methodology interpretations, ensuring that auditors, VVBs, and regulatory authorities can understand how specific decisions evolved. Archived clarifications remain accessible for reference and may inform future revisions, methodological improvements, or policy updates. The documentation ensures that methodology use is fully traceable and defensible.

Chapter 6 - Public Consultation Requirements

6.1 Purpose of Public Consultation

Public consultation is a fundamental component of methodology governance under the Planetary Carbon Standard. Its purpose is to ensure that all new methodologies, major revisions, and significant clarifications undergo a period of transparent and inclusive review by stakeholders who may be directly or indirectly affected by methodological decisions. Public consultation enhances the technical quality, practicality, and acceptability of methodologies by allowing independent experts, project developers, VVBs, host country authorities, and civil society organizations to provide feedback based on diverse perspectives and practical experience. Consultation serves to strengthen methodological legitimacy, increase trust in the PCS system, and ensure that methodologies reflect the collective expertise of the global climate community.

6.2 Scope of Public Consultation

Public consultation applies to all new methodologies and all major revisions that may influence quantification outcomes, monitoring requirements, applicability conditions, uncertainty treatment, or environmental integrity. It may also apply to Clarification Notes when they address interpretive issues with broad implications. Minor revisions that are editorial or administrative in nature may proceed without public consultation at the discretion of the PCS Secretariat.

The scope of consultation encompasses the entire methodological proposal, including its assumptions, boundaries, baseline framework, monitoring plan, quantification equations, safeguard considerations, and implementation conditions.

6.3 Preparation for Public Consultation

Before initiating public consultation, the PCS Secretariat prepares a consultation package consisting of the methodology or revision text, the technical review findings, the methodology proponent’s supporting documentation, and any explanatory materials necessary to aid stakeholder review. The consultation package must be complete, clearly structured, and accessible.

The Secretariat ensures that stakeholders have sufficient context to provide meaningful input. If relevant, the package may include background scientific studies, references to IPCC guidelines, or comparative assessments with similar methodologies used internationally.

6.4 Announcement and Duration of the Consultation Period

The PCS Secretariat announces the launch of the public consultation through the PCS Registry and through communication channels used to notify accredited VVBs, project developers, host country authorities, and registered stakeholders.

The announcement specifies the consultation period, which must be of sufficient duration to allow stakeholders adequate time to review the materials and submit informed comments.

The typical consultation period is thirty days, though the PCS Secretariat may extend it when the methodology is complex, requires substantial technical examination, or attracts significant stakeholder interest.

6.5 Stakeholder Participation

Public consultation is open to all interested parties without restriction. Stakeholders who commonly participate include research institutions, universities, government agencies, environmental organizations, indigenous and community representatives, carbon market practitioners, and expert reviewers. Participation is voluntary and does not confer any decision-making authority, but all comments must be treated with seriousness, respect, and impartiality. Stakeholders may submit comments individually or as part of collective submissions from institutions or working groups.

6.6 Receipt and Management of Comments

All comments submitted during the consultation period are received by the PCS Secretariat and logged for formal review. The Secretariat catalogues each submission, ensuring that comments remain traceable to their source. Each comment must be retained in its original form without alteration.

The Secretariat may categorize comments into thematic areas such as scientific accuracy, methodological logic, monitoring feasibility, safeguards implications, or implementation challenges. Categorization allows reviewers to address comments systematically and to identify recurring themes or concerns.

6.7 Review and Consideration of Stakeholder Feedback

Once the consultation period ends, the PCS Secretariat and Technical Reviewers examine every comment in detail. Stakeholder feedback is evaluated for technical accuracy, relevance, practicality, and consistency with PCS principles.

The Secretariat does not prioritize comments based on the status or affiliation of the commenter; rather, each comment is assessed on its merit.

Where stakeholders identify methodological gaps, inconsistencies, or areas requiring clarification, the Secretariat evaluates whether changes are warranted.

Where comments propose revisions that fall outside the scope of clarification, they may inform subsequent methodological work or be forwarded to the methodology revision process.

6.8 Engagement with Methodology Proponent During Comment Review

If the methodology submission originated from an external proponent, the PCS Secretariat may request that the proponent respond to specific comments or provide additional information to address concerns raised during consultation. Engagement with the proponent ensures that proposed methodologies incorporate legitimate stakeholder insights and that the proponent has an opportunity to provide clarifications or supplementary evidence. All exchanges must remain objective, documented, and transparent.

6.9 Preparation of the Public Consultation Report

The PCS Secretariat prepares a formal Public Consultation Report summarizing all comments received, categorizing them into relevant themes, and documenting how each comment was addressed. The report explains whether comments resulted in modifications to the methodology, whether they were incorporated into clarifications, or whether they were considered but not adopted, with justification.

The Public Consultation Report becomes part of the official methodological record and must be published alongside the methodology for public reference.

6.10 Role of Public Consultation in Decision-Making

Public consultation plays a significant role in informing the Secretariat’s recommendation and the final decision of the PCS Regulatory Council. The Secretariat considers whether stakeholder input reveals issues that were not identified during the technical review, whether comments strengthen the scientific and operational logic of the methodology, and whether they indicate broader implementation challenges. The Regulatory Council reviews the consultation outcomes as part of its deliberations, ensuring that final methodology decisions reflect transparent and inclusive stakeholder engagement.

6.11 Publication of Consultation Outcomes

Once the methodology or revision is approved, the Public Consultation Report is published on the PCS Registry along with the final methodology. Publication provides full transparency into how stakeholder input contributed to the methodological decision, increases trust in the PCS system, and supports accountability. The public availability of the report allows future reviewers, VVBs, and project developers to understand the rationale behind methodological choices.

6.12 Continuous Feedback Loop for Future Methodology Improvements

Public consultation does not end with the publication of the methodology. The PCS Secretariat uses insights gained through consultation to identify recurring stakeholder concerns, methodological gaps, or areas requiring future revision. This ensures that public consultation contributes not only to the specific methodology under review but also to the long-term evolution of the PCS methodology ecosystem. Stakeholder engagement is therefore an ongoing process that informs continuous improvement and strengthens methodological governance.

Chapter 7 - Technical Review Process

7.1 Purpose of the Technical Review

The technical review is the central analytical component of methodology governance under the Planetary Carbon Standard. Its purpose is to ensure that all methodological proposals, revisions, and clarifications are scientifically sound, technically justified, internally consistent, operationally feasible, and aligned with PCS principles. The technical review evaluates the scientific basis, quantification framework, safeguards considerations, monitoring requirements, and broader implications of a methodology.

By examining methodologies in depth, the technical review protects the environmental integrity of the PCS system and ensures that methodologies can be applied consistently across diverse contexts.

7.2 Composition and Selection of Technical Reviewers

The PCS Secretariat appoints Technical Reviewers based on their expertise in the relevant sector, scientific discipline, or methodological domain. Reviewers may be internal staff or external specialists drawn from academic institutions, research organizations, international bodies, or technical consultancies. Selection is based on demonstrated subject-matter knowledge, professional experience, and familiarity with greenhouse gas accounting, IPCC principles, and MRV frameworks.

Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest before being assigned and must be completely independent of the methodology proponent and any project developer associated with the proposed activity.

The Secretariat may appoint multiple reviewers if the methodology spans multiple technical fields or if its complexity warrants multi-disciplinary input.

7.3 Responsibilities of Technical Reviewers

Technical Reviewers are responsible for conducting a comprehensive and impartial examination of the methodology. Their work includes evaluating the scientific validity of assumptions, assessing the robustness of baseline approaches, examining the clarity and completeness of applicability conditions, and reviewing quantification equations for accuracy and consistency.

Reviewers also assess monitoring requirements, the treatment of uncertainty and leakage, safeguard considerations, and the feasibility of the methodology in real-world contexts.

The reviewer’s mandate is to identify errors, gaps, inconsistencies, or weaknesses, and to recommend modifications that strengthen methodological integrity. All reviewer findings must be evidence-based and documented clearly.

7.4 Scope of Technical Evaluation

The technical evaluation examines every substantive element of the methodology. Reviewers begin with the underlying scientific rationale and assess whether the principles and assumptions supporting the methodology align with established scientific literature. They evaluate whether baseline scenarios reflect realistic counterfactual conditions and whether the methodology avoids inflated or unrealistic projections. Reviewers examine activity boundaries to ensure consistency between emission sources, sinks, and reservoirs.

Monitoring requirements are evaluated to confirm that data collection is feasible, reliable, and aligned with the quantification framework. The evaluation also considers safeguards, permanence, leakage, data quality, uncertainty management, and replicability.

The final assessment determines whether the methodology is technically defensible and whether it adheres to PCS principles.

7.5 Interaction Between Reviewers and the PCS Secretariat

Throughout the technical review, the PCS Secretariat maintains close communication with reviewers to provide administrative support, clarify procedural questions, and ensure timely progress. The Secretariat facilitates access to necessary documentation and coordinates interactions with the methodology proponent if clarifications are required. All communications are documented to maintain transparency.

Reviewers submit interim questions, identify areas requiring additional evidence, and request revisions from the proponent through the Secretariat. This structured interaction ensures that the technical review remains organized, objective, and efficiently managed.

7.6 Interaction with the Methodology Proponent

Technical Reviewers may request clarifications, data, or supporting documentation from the methodology proponent to resolve uncertainties or strengthen methodological logic. These interactions are mediated by the PCS Secretariat to ensure transparency and impartiality.

The proponent must provide accurate and timely responses to reviewer queries. Where the reviewer identifies deficiencies or inconsistencies, the proponent may be required to revise specific sections or provide supplemental evidence. All iterations between reviewers and the proponent are documented and form part of the methodology’s procedural history.

7.7 Evaluation of Safeguards and SDG Considerations

The technical review includes an assessment of how the methodology integrates environmental and social safeguard requirements and, where relevant, opportunities for SDG contributions.

Reviewers examine whether the methodology adequately identifies potential safeguard risks, whether monitoring requirements address relevant environmental and social impacts, and whether the methodology provides reliable mechanisms for assessing SDG-related claims.

The technical review ensures that methodologies do not inadvertently create negative environmental or social outcomes and that they support responsible project implementation.

7.8 Assessment of Consistency with PCS Principles

A core task of the reviewer is to assess whether the methodology adheres to the principles established in Chapter 2. Reviewers examine whether the methodology is transparent, conservative, scientifically grounded, practical, replicable, and aligned with international frameworks. The assessment ensures that methodological decisions are logically justified and that the methodology strengthens, rather than weakens, the PCS system.

Where inconsistencies with PCS principles are identified, reviewers must recommend modifications to bring the methodology into alignment.

7.9 Preparation of Reviewer Findings

At the conclusion of the evaluation, the Technical Reviewers prepare a written Technical Review Report summarizing their assessment. The report includes an overview of the methodology, a description of the review process, an evaluation of each methodological component, and a final conclusion regarding the methodology’s suitability. The report identifies strengths, weaknesses, recommended revisions, outstanding concerns, and any conditions required for approval.

Reviewer findings must be documented in clear, professional language that supports the decision-making process of the PCS Secretariat and the PCS Regulatory Council.

7.10 Secretariat Consolidation of Technical Findings

Once reviewer findings are submitted, the PCS Secretariat consolidates the results into a unified technical assessment. This consolidation synthesizes reviewer perspectives, identifies points of agreement and divergence, and synthesizes final recommendations. The consolidated assessment forms the basis for the Secretariat’s overall recommendation to the Regulatory Council.

Where reviewers disagree on key issues, the Secretariat must document the rationale for its interpretation and decision.

7.11 Transparency, Documentation, and Archiving

All technical review documents, including reviewer reports, proponent responses, and Secretariat consolidation notes, are archived in the PCS Authorization Archive.

The PCS Registry publishes a summary of the technical review, maintaining transparency for stakeholders and ensuring that methodological decisions remain publicly traceable.

Full documentation is retained for internal and external auditing, future methodological improvements, and governance verification.

7.12 Role of Technical Review in Final Decision-Making

The technical review provides the scientific and analytical foundation for the PCS Regulatory Council’s final decision. The Council relies on reviewer findings to evaluate methodological validity and consistency with PCS principles.

While the Council retains full authority over approval decisions, technical assessments heavily influence the outcome. Approval is granted only when the technical review concludes that the methodology is scientifically robust, operationally feasible, and aligned with PCS requirements.

Chapter 8 - Methodology Approval And Publication Procedures

8.1 Purpose of the Approval and Publication Stage

The approval and publication stage represents the final and most authoritative step in the methodology governance process under the Planetary Carbon Standard. This stage ensures that only scientifically credible, technically rigorous, and transparently reviewed methodologies become part of the official PCS Methodology Library.

Approval formalizes the methodology as an applicable standard for project development, validation, and verification, while publication ensures open access, traceability, and global transparency.

The approval and publication process is designed to safeguard integrity, maintain trust in PCS, and support consistent application of methodologies across all sectors and jurisdictions.

8.2 Role of the PCS Secretariat in the Final Preparation

Following the completion of the technical review and public consultation stages, the PCS Secretariat prepares a comprehensive methodology dossier for the PCS Regulatory Council. This dossier contains the final methodology text, the technical review reports, the public consultation summary, the proponent’s responses, and the Secretariat’s consolidated assessment. The Secretariat ensures that all documentation is complete, internally consistent, and reflective of all procedural steps. The dossier must present the methodology in a clear and logically organized format, demonstrating that the methodology is ready for formal decision-making. The Secretariat also verifies that all procedural requirements have been fulfilled before submitting the dossier to the Regulatory Council.

8.3 Review and Deliberation by the PCS Regulatory Council

The PCS Regulatory Council conducts a thorough review of the methodology dossier, giving careful consideration to scientific reasoning, technical soundness, stakeholder input, and alignment with PCS principles.

The Council may examine whether the methodology produces conservative and credible quantification outcomes, whether its monitoring requirements are realistic, and whether any outstanding issues identified during the technical review have been satisfactorily resolved.

The Council may request additional clarification from the Secretariat or seek further expert input if necessary. Deliberation is conducted with objectivity, independence, and full regard for environmental integrity.

The Council ultimately determines whether the methodology should be approved, approved with modifications, or rejected.

8.4 Approval Decision and Conditions of Use

If the Regulatory Council approves the methodology, the approval becomes formal through an official resolution. The Council may impose conditions of use, such as additional monitoring requirements, applicability restrictions, or specific implementation guidance to address identified risks. Approval signifies that the methodology is recognized as suitable for generating Planetary Carbon Units under the PCS.

If the Council approves the methodology with modifications, the PCS Secretariat incorporates the mandated changes before publication.

If the methodology is rejected, the Council provides a written rationale, ensuring transparency and accountability. Approval decisions are recorded in the PCS Authorization Archive.

8.5 Assignment of Version Number and Effective Date

Once approved, the methodology is assigned a unique version number that reflects its position within the PCS Methodology Library. The PCS Secretariat also assigns an effective date from which the methodology may be applied to new project submissions. The version number and effective date provide clear traceability and prevent ambiguity regarding which methodology version applies to specific project activities. The Secretariat ensures that version control is applied consistently across all methodologies, revisions, and clarifications.

8.6 Publication in the PCS Methodology Library

Following approval, the PCS Secretariat publishes the methodology in the PCS Methodology Library on the PCS Registry. Publication includes the full methodology text, the technical review summary, the public consultation report, the final decision statement from the Regulatory Council, and any applicable conditions of use.

Publication ensures full transparency and allows project developers, VVBs, host country authorities, and stakeholders to access the methodology without restriction. The methodology cannot be applied until it has been formally published and made publicly available.

8.7 Communication of Approval to Stakeholders

The PCS Secretariat communicates the methodology approval to all relevant stakeholders. Notification includes accredited VVBs, project developers, host country authorities, methodology proponents, and registered stakeholders. Communication ensures that all parties are aware of new methodological requirements, effective dates, and any transition provisions that may apply.

The Secretariat may also conduct capacity-building activities or issue explanatory notes to support correct and consistent application of approved methodologies.

8.8 Integration into the PCS Registry and Digital Systems

Upon publication, the methodology version is integrated into the PCS Registry and all digital MRV systems used by PCS. This integration ensures proper version referencing in project submissions, validation activities, verification reports, registry transactions, and issuance of PCUs. Integration into digital systems also ensures that methodologies remain accessible for automated MRV tools, blockchain hashing, and audit functions. Each methodology version must be uniquely identifiable through digital metadata associated with PCS documentation and registry entries.

8.9 Treatment of Previous Methodology Versions

When a new version of a methodology is approved, previous versions remain archived but no longer apply to new projects unless transition rules explicitly permit their use. The PCS Secretariat ensures that archived versions remain publicly accessible for reference and for the purpose of validating historical project data.

Archived versions are marked clearly as inactive to prevent unintended use. This process maintains transparency while ensuring that methodological evolution does not compromise historical traceability.

8.10 Transition Arrangements for Ongoing Projects

Methodology approval may affect ongoing project development, validation, or monitoring. To prevent disruptions, the PCS Secretariat may define transition arrangements specifying whether ongoing projects may continue using the previous version for a defined period, whether switching to the new version is optional, or whether certain methodological elements must be adopted immediately. Transition arrangements consider fairness, project timelines, host country frameworks, and the significance of methodological changes. These arrangements support orderly and predictable implementation across the PCS portfolio.

8.11 Documentation and Archiving of Approval Records

All methodology approval actions, including decisions, supporting evidence, reviewer reports, public consultation outcomes, and Secretariat recommendations, are archived in the PCS Authorization Archive. Archiving ensures transparency, supports governance verification, and allows future reviewers to trace the full history of methodological decisions. The archival system preserves both active and historical methodological records in a manner consistent with PCS documentation and data protection policies.

8.12 Role of Approval in Maintaining System Integrity

Methodology approval is not merely a procedural formality; it is a critical safeguard that protects the integrity of the PCS system. By ensuring that only rigorously evaluated, scientifically credible, and transparently reviewed methodologies are accepted, the approval process upholds the reliability of emission reductions and removals certified under PCS. The approval stage represents the culmination of a process that integrates scientific scrutiny, stakeholder participation, and independent oversight. It ensures that methodologies become durable and trustworthy components of the PCS ecosystem.

Chapter 9 - Recordkeeping And Documentation Requirements

9.1 Purpose of Recordkeeping Requirements

Recordkeeping requirements ensure that every methodology submitted, reviewed, revised, clarified, approved, or rejected under PCS is fully traceable, auditable, and transparently documented. These requirements safeguard the integrity of the methodology governance system by maintaining accurate, complete, and securely stored records of all procedural steps. Proper documentation enables future reviewers, auditors, host country authorities, and independent stakeholders to understand how methodological decisions were made, how comments were addressed, and how methodologies evolved over time. Recordkeeping also ensures compliance with international expectations for transparency and accountability in climate-related governance.

9.2 Responsibility of the PCS Secretariat for Documentation

The PCS Secretariat is responsible for maintaining complete and accurate records for all methodological processes. This includes submissions, completeness checks, technical reviews, public consultations, recommendations, decisions, and publication records. The Secretariat must preserve all correspondence, reviewer reports, proponent responses, internal analyses, meeting summaries, and administrative decisions related to methodology governance. These documents must be stored in secure systems that protect their integrity and ensure controlled access.

The Secretariat must ensure that recordkeeping remains consistent, chronological, and compliant with PCS documentation standards.

9.3 PCS Authorization Archive

All methodological records are integrated into the PCS Authorization Archive, which serves as the official ledger of decisions made under the PCS methodology governance system. The archive tracks the full lifecycle of methodologies, from initial submission to approval, revision, clarification, retirement, or rejection. Each methodology is assigned a unique identifier that links all related documentation within the archive.

The archive functions as the definitive institutional memory of PCS methodological governance and ensures transparency for stakeholders and regulatory bodies. Archival entries may also be linked to blockchain-verifiable hashes to secure the authenticity and immutability of key governance documents.

9.4 Documentation Required for New Methodology Submissions

All new methodology submissions must be retained in their original form along with any supporting documentation provided by the proponent. This includes the Methodology Concept Note, the full methodology text, scientific references, datasets, technical appendices, and any clarifications exchanged during the review process.

The Secretariat must also store records of the completeness review, the preliminary assessment, the technical review reports, and all subsequent communication with reviewers and the proponent. Public consultation inputs and the corresponding responses form an integral part of the methodological file and must be archived without alteration.

9.5 Documentation Required for Methodology Revisions

Revision-related records must include the rationale for revision, the revision request, any analytical studies that informed the revision, and internal assessments conducted by the PCS Secretariat. All technical review findings, proponent submissions, public consultation comments, revision-specific recommendations, and final decisions must be retained.

Revised methodology versions must be archived alongside their predecessor versions to support historical traceability. Records of transition arrangements for ongoing projects must also be maintained as part of the revision documentation.

9.6 Documentation Required for Clarification Notes

Clarification-related records include the Clarification Request Form, the specific issue prompting the need for interpretation, all Secretariat assessments, reviewer input where applicable, the draft Clarification Note, and the final note approved by the PCS Regulatory Council. Documentation must also capture any analysis performed to determine whether the request involved interpretation or revision.

All clarification notes must be linked to the methodology version to which they apply and must remain available for future audits and methodological updates.

9.7 Documentation of Stakeholder and Public Consultation

Public consultation constitutes a core component of methodological governance, and complete records of consultation must be preserved. These records include the consultation announcement, the consultation package, all comments received, internal analysis of comments, consolidated stakeholder matrices where used, and the final Public Consultation Report. Records of how stakeholder input influenced methodological decisions are essential to ensuring transparency and accountability.

All consultation documents must remain accessible via the PCS Registry for as long as the methodology remains active.

9.8 Documentation of Technical Review Processes

All technical reviews must be documented extensively. Reviewer reports, requests for clarification, the proponent’s responses, internal technical assessments, and Secretariat consolidation notes must be stored in full. Technical review documentation must be organized so that future auditors can trace how each methodological issue was analyzed, discussed, and resolved. Where multiple technical reviewers participated, their individual and consolidated assessments must be preserved to ensure transparency and completeness.

9.9 Documentation of Approval and Decision-Making

The PCS Regulatory Council’s decisions regarding methodologies must be documented in a clear and structured manner. Decision records must include the Council’s resolution, the justification for approval or rejection, any conditions applied, and the effective date of the decision. These decision records are maintained permanently in the PCS Authorization Archive. Methodology version numbers and approval dates must be recorded precisely to ensure that the correct versions are used for all project activities.

9.10 Publication Records and Registry Integration

The PCS Secretariat must maintain documentation of all publications related to methodologies. This includes publication dates, posted methodology texts, accompanying technical review summaries, consultation reports, and Clarification Notes.

Registry integration records must include the metadata associated with every methodology version, including version identifiers, links to archived versions, and cross-references to approval documents. Publication records support the auditing of registry operations and ensure the consistency of information across digital platforms.

9.11 Confidentiality, Security, and Data Protection Requirements

All methodology records must be stored in secure systems that comply with PCS data protection policies and any applicable legal requirements. Sensitive information such as proprietary datasets or personal information must be protected through encryption, restricted access, and secure storage procedures.

The PCS Secretariat must ensure that confidentiality obligations do not impede transparency of methodological decisions.

Confidential materials must be preserved but must not be publicly disclosed unless explicitly permitted.

9.12 Retention Period for Methodology Records

Records related to methodological governance must be retained for the duration of the methodology’s applicability and for an additional period consistent with PCS archival policy. Historical methodology versions and related governance documents must remain permanently accessible, as they are essential for auditing historical credit issuance, supporting dispute resolution, and documenting the evolution of PCS methodological frameworks. Clarifications, technical reviews, and revision records must be retained permanently due to their significance for governance integrity.

9.13 Traceability and Internal Auditability

Recordkeeping must ensure full traceability of all methodological decisions. Every step of the methodology process—from initiation to approval—must be documented in a way that allows internal and external auditors to reconstruct the sequence of events. Traceability ensures that PCS maintains a robust audit trail, supports compliance with Article 6 transparency frameworks, and preserves the credibility of methodological outcomes.

The Secretariat must conduct periodic internal audits of the recordkeeping system to verify completeness, accuracy, and compliance with PCS governance requirements.

Chapter 10 - Final Provisions

10.1 Purpose of the Final Provisions

The final provisions of this procedure establish the governing rules for the interpretation, implementation, amendment, and legal effect of the methodology governance framework under the Planetary Carbon Standard. These provisions ensure clarity regarding authority, version control, applicability, responsibilities, and the ongoing evolution of PCS methodological systems. They provide the institutional foundation for ensuring that this procedure remains operationally effective, legally sound, and aligned with the broader governance structure of PCS.

10.2 Governing Authority and Oversight

This procedure is issued under the authority of the PCS Regulatory Council, which is the highest decision-making body responsible for all rulings related to methodological development, revision, clarification, approval, and retirement.

The PCS Secretariat is responsible for administering the provisions contained herein, ensuring adherence to all procedural steps, and coordinating the technical and administrative aspects of methodology governance.

The Regulatory Council retains the exclusive authority to approve new methodologies, approve revisions, endorse Clarification Notes, and issue amendments to this procedure.

10.3 Applicability and Legal Standing

This procedure applies to all stakeholders participating in the development, assessment, or application of PCS methodologies, including project developers, VVBs, methodology proponents, host country authorities, and internal PCS personnel. All stakeholders involved in PCS project activities must comply with the methodologies approved under this procedure and must adhere to all provisions related to submission, review, and revision. This procedure forms an integral part of the PCS governance system and has the same legal standing as other governance documents approved by the PCS Regulatory Council.

10.4 Interpretation of this Procedure

The PCS Secretariat is responsible for providing authoritative interpretations of this procedure where ambiguity or uncertainty arises. Interpretations must remain consistent with the purpose, intent, and structure of the methodology governance system.

Where an interpretation is required that may affect the application of methodologies, the Secretariat may issue official guidance or refer the matter to the PCS Regulatory Council for clarification. Any conflict between procedural interpretations and decisions of the Regulatory Council is resolved in favor of the Council’s decision.

Interpretations must be documented and archived.

10.5 Authority to Amend the Procedure

Only the PCS Regulatory Council may amend, modify, or replace this procedure. Amendments may be initiated by the Secretariat, the Council, or other stakeholders where changes are required to maintain alignment with evolving scientific knowledge, international frameworks, Article 6 requirements, digital MRV capabilities, or stakeholder expectations.

Amended versions must undergo review and approval consistent with PCS governance rules. The amendment process must maintain procedural transparency, ensure that changes are communicated to all stakeholders, and include clear transition provisions.

10.6 Version Control and Effective Date

Each version of this procedure must include a unique version number, an effective date, and an accompanying summary of changes. The PCS Secretariat maintains version control to ensure that stakeholders can easily identify which version is applicable at any point in time. Only the most recent version published through the PCS Registry is valid for use, unless transition arrangements specify otherwise. Previous versions are archived to preserve historical traceability and support audits or retroactive evaluations.

10.7 Transition Measures for Updated Procedures

When this procedure is revised or replaced, the PCS Secretariat may establish transition measures to ensure an orderly shift from earlier versions. Transition measures may include temporary allowances, time-limited use of previous provisions, or specific instructions for ongoing methodology submissions, revisions, or clarifications. Such measures ensure that stakeholders engaged in active methodology development or project activities are not negatively affected by sudden procedural changes. Transitional arrangements must be fair, clearly communicated, and published through the PCS Registry.

10.8 Relationship with Other PCS Governance Documents

This procedure must be interpreted and applied in conjunction with other PCS governance documents, including the PCS Framework v2.0, the PCS Operational Process Manual, the PCS VVB Accreditation and Approval Procedure, safeguard and SDG guidance documents, and PCS registry protocols.

In the event of a conflict between this procedure and another PCS document, the PCS Regulatory Council determines the prevailing interpretation.

Methodology governance actions must remain consistent with the broader institutional structure and objectives of PCS.

10.9 Confidentiality and Data Protection

All records created under this procedure are subject to PCS confidentiality and data protection rules. The PCS Secretariat must ensure that confidential or proprietary information submitted by methodology proponents is protected from unauthorized disclosure. At the same time, PCS must uphold its public transparency commitments by publishing all methodology decisions, technical review summaries, consultation outcomes, and clarifications.

Confidentiality obligations apply only to materials legitimately identified as sensitive and do not restrict the disclosure of methodological information or governance outcomes.

10.10 Compliance and Enforcement

Failure to comply with this procedure may result in administrative action by the PCS Secretariat or the PCS Regulatory Council. Methodology proponents who fail to provide accurate information, who circumvent procedural steps, or who engage in conduct inconsistent with PCS principles may have their submissions rejected or suspended.

Stakeholders applying methodologies incorrectly may face oversight actions as described in relevant PCS processes.

Compliance with this procedure is essential for the integrity and credibility of PCS methodologies and the Planetary Carbon Units issued under them.

10.11 Official Language and Publication

The official language of this procedure is English. Translated versions may be produced for informational purposes; however, the English version prevails in all matters of interpretation and application. The official version of this procedure is published through the PCS Registry and remains accessible to all stakeholders.

10.12 Document Retention and Long-Term Availability

This procedure and all associated records must be retained permanently within the PCS Authorization Archive. Historical versions must remain available for audit, dispute resolution, and retrospective analysis, ensuring that the methodological governance system maintains long-term transparency and institutional continuity. Availability of historical records helps stakeholders understand the evolution of methodological frameworks and supports accurate reconstruction of methodological environments relevant to past credit issuance.

10.13 Entry into Force

This procedure enters into force on the date of its approval by the PCS Regulatory Council. From this date, all new methodologies, revisions, and clarifications must follow the processes described herein. Existing projects and methodologies remain subject to applicable transition measures. The Secretariat must communicate the entry into force to all relevant stakeholders.

Annex A - Methodology Submission Requirements

A.1 Purpose of this Annex

This annex defines the minimum information and supporting documentation that must be submitted when proposing a new methodology or requesting a major methodology revision under the Planetary Carbon Standard. These requirements ensure that submissions are complete, scientifically justified, technically robust, and aligned with the principles and governance structure outlined in this procedure. The PCS Secretariat uses this annex as the baseline checklist for the completeness review.

Table A-1: Mandatory Components of a Methodology Submission

Submission Component	Description of Requirement	Purpose in Evaluation
Methodology Concept Note	Summary of the intervention, rationale for development, intended applicability, and expected mitigation outcomes.	To establish relevance, need, and scope of the proposal.
Full Methodology Document (Draft)	Complete methodological text including applicability, boundaries, baseline logic, monitoring provisions, quantification procedures, and data requirements.	To provide a full technical basis for review and consultation.
Scientific Justification and References	Citations to IPCC, peer-reviewed literature, datasets, models, and empirical studies supporting assumptions and equations.	To demonstrate scientific credibility and alignment with best-available knowledge.
Baseline Approach Explanation	Detailed description and justification for baseline selection, counterfactual logic, and any models used.	To ensure baseline integrity and avoidance of inflated crediting.
Quantification Framework	Equations, parameters, calculation steps, uncertainty treatment, leakage analysis, permanence considerations, and monitoring links.	To assess accuracy, conservativeness, and replicability.
Monitoring Plan Requirements	Monitoring frequency, data collection methods, instrumentation details, remotely sensed or digital MRV components, and QA/QC measures.	To assess feasibility, data quality, and consistency with quantification.
Safeguard Integration	Identification of environmental and social risks and description of safeguard-related monitoring needs.	To ensure compatibility with PCS safeguard requirements.
SDG Contribution Logic (if applicable)	Explanation of potential SDG co-benefits, indicators, and evidence requirements.	To assess credibility of SDG claims under the PCS SDG Framework.
Implementation Feasibility Assessment	Evaluation of practicality, data availability, and potential implementation barriers in different host country contexts.	To determine usability and global applicability.
Comparison with Existing PCS or External Methodologies	Assessment of how the proposal differs from or complements existing methodologies.	To determine whether a new methodology is necessary.
Proponent Identity and Declaration	Organizational identity, contact information, conflict-of-interest declaration, and authorship.	To ensure transparency and accountability.

A.2 Submission Format

Methodologies must be submitted in editable digital formats (Word or equivalent), accompanied by all supporting datasets, models, or supplementary files. All documents must be clearly labeled and version-controlled by the proponent.

Annex B - Technical Review Criteria

B.1 Purpose of this Annex

This annex defines the standardized analytical criteria used by Technical Reviewers when evaluating new methodologies or major revisions. These criteria ensure that technical assessments are consistent, comprehensive, scientifically rigorous, and aligned with PCS principles.

Table B-1: Technical Review Criteria for Methodology Assessment

Review Area	Detailed Evaluation Focus	Reviewer Objective
Scientific Basis	Validity of scientific assumptions, alignment with IPCC guidance, credibility of empirical evidence.	To ensure methodology reflects best-available science.
Baseline Credibility	Realism of counterfactual scenario, justification for baseline choice, risk of inflated baselines.	To maintain environmental integrity and avoid over-crediting.
Applicability Conditions	Clarity, completeness, and enforceability of conditions defining where methodology may be applied.	To prevent misuse or misapplication across project contexts.
Boundaries and Activity Definition	Accuracy of source/sink identification, leakage pathways, and system boundaries.	To ensure completeness and alignment with physical processes.
Quantification Framework	Correctness of equations, internal consistency, treatment of uncertainty, leakage deductions, permanence considerations.	To confirm that unit issuance is scientifically robust and conservative.
Monitoring Requirements	Feasibility, reliability, MRV burden, digital MRV compatibility, data quality safeguards.	To ensure that monitoring produces verifiable, replicable results.
Safeguard Integration	Identification of risks, adequacy of safeguard-related monitoring, and alignment with PCS safeguard rules.	To ensure methodologies do not create environmental or social harm.
SDG Contributions (if applicable)	Credibility of proposed SDG impact logic and verifiability of indicators.	To prevent overstated or unverifiable sustainability claims.
Operational Feasibility	Practicality for project developers, consistency with host country contexts, availability of required data.	To evaluate implementability across diverse settings.
Consistency with PCS Principles	Transparency, conservativeness, replicability, alignment with international frameworks, and stability.	To ensure that methodologies strengthen PCS system integrity.
Clarity and Structure	Readability, absence of ambiguity, logical flow, and usability for project developers and VVBs.	To ensure the methodology can be applied reliably by practitioners.
Overall Assessment	Holistic evaluation of strengths, weaknesses, and readiness for approval.	To provide the basis for the Secretariat’s recommendation.

B.2 Reviewer Deliverables

Technical Reviewers must produce a written Technical Review Report documenting all findings, recommendations, concerns, and required modifications. The report must be clear, evidence-based, and sufficiently detailed to support decision-making by the PCS Secretariat and the PCS Regulatory Council.

Annex C - Document Control And Version History

C.1 Purpose of Document Control

This annex establishes the rules for managing versions, revisions, updates, and archival of the PCS Procedure for Methodology Governance. Document control ensures that only the current version is used, while previous versions remain archived for transparency, auditability, and historical reference. Clear versioning maintains procedural stability and supports alignment with international best practices.

Table C-1: Version History of the PCS Methodology Governance Procedure

Version Number	Effective Date	Summary of Changes	Approved By
v2.0 (2025 Edition)	[Insert Date]	Initial issuance of full PCS Procedure for Development, Revision, and Clarification of Methodologies, including Chapters 1–10 and Annexes A–C.	PCS Regulatory Council
v2.1	[Reserved]	Reserved for future updates aligned with developments in Article 6, IPCC updates, digital MRV improvements, or methodological restructuring.	PCS Regulatory Council
v2.2	[Reserved]	Reserved for administrative, editorial, or clarificatory amendments.	PCS Regulatory Council

C.2 Archival Requirements

All superseded versions of this procedure must be securely archived by the PCS Secretariat. Archival records must include the full procedural text, version identifiers, approval records, and any blockchain verification data. Archives remain accessible for audit, compliance review, and historical analysis.

C.3 Publication of Updated Versions

The most recent version of this procedure must be published on the PCS Registry and communicated to VVBs, project developers, methodology proponents, and host country authorities. Only the version published on the PCS Registry is considered authoritative.