PCS TG 005 User Input Risk Tool Guide_v1.0

Document Control

Document identification

• Document code: PCS-TG-005

• Title: User Input Risk Tool Guide

• Scope: Guidance for completing the PCS user input tool used to support non-permanence risk assessment, including required data fields, evidence expectations, update cycles per monitoring period, traceability requirements, and record retention.

• Application: Supports consistent completion of the user input tool and assists VVBs and PCS reviewers in validating the completeness and defensibility of submitted risk inputs.

Version history and change log

Table DC-1. Revision history

Version	Date	Status	Summary of changes	Prepared by	Approved by
v1.0	TBD	Draft	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Superseded versions

No superseded versions for v1.0.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 Tool Guide shall be used for new project registrations and related submissions. Superseded versions shall be archived and retained for traceability and audit purposes, including for

Chapter 1 - Introduction and Purpose

1. The PCS User Input Non-Permanence Risk Tool is designed to collect, organize, and standardize the project-level data required for assessing non-permanence risk under the Planetary Carbon Standard. This tool serves as the primary interface through which Project Developers submit numerical values, qualitative assessments, and supporting evidence that feed into the comprehensive risk assessment procedures described in PCS-TA-005.

2. While PCS-TA-005 provides the methodological framework for scoring risks and determining buffer contributions, the present tool functions as a structured data template. It ensures that all information necessary for a complete and consistent risk analysis is provided in an organized format suitable for validation and verification. The tool improves transparency, replicability, and efficiency by guiding users through each category of required inputs.

3. The User Input Tool does not perform risk calculations. Instead, it compiles the information needed to apply the equations, weighting factors, and adjustment procedures defined in PCS-TA-005. This includes natural hazard indicators, anthropogenic pressure descriptors, management and governance attributes, mitigation measures, and project-specific contextual factors. The structured layout ensures that project developers provide both quantitative and qualitative data in a manner that can be easily reviewed by the PCS Secretariat and independently verified by accredited VVBs.

4. The tool must be completed during project design and updated for each monitoring period. All entries must be supported by documented evidence. Users must ensure internal consistency between this tool, the Monitoring Report, and the risk methodology to avoid discrepancies. The tool facilitates standardized reporting across diverse project types and ecosystems, enabling consistent application of risk scoring procedures across the PCS portfolio.

5. By consolidating all required inputs into a unified format, PCS-TA-006 enhances the robustness of non-permanence risk assessments and supports the environmental integrity of buffer allocations.

Chapter 2 - Structure of the User Input Tool

1. The PCS User Input Non-Permanence Risk Tool is organized into a set of standardized data-entry modules, each corresponding to a major component of the risk assessment framework established in PCS-TA-005. The structure ensures that all required information is collected in a clear and systematic format, enabling project developers, reviewers, and verifiers to track inputs across risk categories without ambiguity.

2. The tool is divided into discrete sheets or sections, each dedicated to one category of risk or supporting evidence. These sheets align with the four major risk domains—natural, anthropogenic, management, and governance—as well as additional modules for mitigation measures, project context, documentation references, and change tracking across monitoring periods.

3. Each sheet contains structured tables designed to capture both qualitative descriptions and numerical values associated with risk scoring. The layout guides users through a consistent reporting process, ensuring proper alignment between user-provided data and the scoring procedures in PCS-TA-005. The tool also provides dedicated fields for evidence citations, spatial references, and cross-links to monitoring documentation.

2.1 Natural Risk Input Sheet

1. This sheet captures all user-entered information relating to the natural hazards that may affect carbon permanence. The sheet includes fields for historical fire occurrence, extreme weather exposure, pest and disease prevalence, hydrological instability, elevation ranges, vegetation type, and related environmental conditions. Users must provide both a descriptive summary and supporting datasets that justify their inputs.

2.2 Anthropogenic Risk Input Sheet

1. This section collects information on human-driven pressures, including encroachment, illegal extraction activities, competing land-use claims, and proximity to settlements or infrastructure. It also includes fields for describing community dynamics, economic incentives influencing land use, and historical disturbance patterns attributable to human activity.

2.3 Management and Operational Risk Input Sheet

1. This sheet documents the project’s internal capacity to manage and maintain carbon stocks over time. It includes entries for funding structure, financial stability, staffing capacity, institutional arrangements, long-term stewardship commitments, and operational systems. Users must describe the processes and resources in place to ensure sustained project functionality.

2.4 Institutional and Governance Risk Input Sheet

1. This sheet focuses on factors beyond the project’s direct control, including land tenure clarity, regulatory stability, environmental governance strength, and administrative oversight capacity. It requires documentation of land rights, permits, applicable legal frameworks, and historical governance performance in the project region.

2.5 Mitigation Measures Input Sheet

1. Because mitigation measures influence the mitigation adjustment factor (M), this sheet collects detailed descriptions of all risk-reducing actions implemented by the project. Users must document operational status, evidence of implementation, geographic extent, responsible entities, and the anticipated effect on each risk category. This sheet must align with mitigation descriptions in the Monitoring Report.

2.6 Summary Sheet for All User Inputs

1. This sheet consolidates critical inputs across all risk domains into a single overview. It does not perform risk calculations but organizes information to support efficient review by PCS reviewers and VVBs. The summary sheet also indicates whether all required fields have been completed and whether supporting evidence has been uploaded or referenced.

2.7 Monitoring Period Update Sheet

1. Each monitoring cycle requires updating the User Input Tool. This sheet documents changes in natural hazard conditions, anthropogenic pressures, management improvements, governance shifts, and mitigation enhancements. It also records disturbances, mortality events, and modifications to risk-relevant project characteristics. The update sheet ensures that risk inputs remain dynamic and reflective of real conditions.

2.8 Evidence Reference Sheet

1. This sheet provides space for listing all supporting documents referenced in the input tool, including maps, datasets, scientific studies, financial records, legal documents, patrol logs, or hydrological reports. Each entry includes a reference code that can be linked back to individual fields in the risk input sheets.

Proper referencing is essential for validation and verification.

2.9 User Instructions and Definitions Sheet

1. To ensure consistent interpretation, the tool includes a definitions sheet summarizing key terms, parameter descriptions, and instructions for completing each section. This ensures that all users follow the same procedures and understand how inputs relate to the risk scoring process in PCS-TA-005.

2.10 Structural Integrity and Version Control

1. The tool includes built-in version control fields, including tool version number, date of preparation, monitoring period, and responsible personnel. These fields ensure traceability and prevent inconsistencies across reporting cycles. Each version of the tool must be archived for audit purposes.

Chapter 3 - User Responsibilities

1. The User Input Non-Permanence Risk Tool relies on complete, accurate, and verifiable information provided by the Project Developer. Because the tool feeds directly into the risk scoring procedures defined in PCS-TA-005, the quality of user submissions determines the reliability of the overall risk assessment. This chapter establishes the responsibilities of all users who prepare, update, and submit the tool as part of the project design or monitoring process.

3.1 Responsibility for Accuracy and Completeness

1. Project Developers are responsible for ensuring that all data entered into the tool are accurate, internally consistent, and complete. Each field must reflect actual project conditions and must be supported by objective evidence. Users may not omit required fields or provide placeholder values unless explicitly allowed. Any uncertainties or limitations in the data must be documented transparently in the notes section of the corresponding sheet.

2. The PCS Secretariat and Validation and Verification Bodies rely on the information submitted through this tool to conduct regulatory reviews. Inaccurate or incomplete entries may delay validation or verification, result in requests for clarification, or lead to revised risk scoring outcomes.

3.2 Responsibility for Evidence Submission

1. All inputs entered in the tool must be substantiated with evidence. This includes geospatial datasets, ecological studies, management plans, legal documents, hazard maps, enforcement records, hydrological assessments, and any other relevant sources. Evidence must be accessible, clearly referenced, and traceable. Each data point entered in the tool must correspond to a cited document listed in the Evidence Reference Sheet.

2. Users must ensure that all attachments or referenced documents are submitted alongside the Monitoring Report or uploaded into the PCS Registry according to submission protocols.

3.3 Responsibility for Consistency Across PCS Documents

1. The values entered in this tool must be consistent with all corresponding information reported in:

• the Project Submission Form

• the Monitoring Report

• the Validation Report

• the Verification Report

• the Non-Permanence Risk Methodology (PCS-TA-005)

1. If discrepancies arise, users must revise the tool or update the relevant project documentation to align with the most accurate information. Consistency across documents is essential for auditor confidence, replicability of risk scoring, and the integrity of the buffer allocation process.

3.4 Responsibility for Timely Updating

1. Users must update the tool:

• during initial project design

• at every monitoring period

• whenever material changes occur (e.g., land tenure adjustments, major disturbances, new mitigation measures)

1. Failure to update the tool may result in outdated risk scores and misaligned buffer contributions. The Monitoring Period Update Sheet must be used to document all changes since the previous submission.

3.5 Responsibility for Transparency and Traceability

1. All entries must be transparent. Any assumptions and data transformations must be described clearly. Where expert judgment is used, the rationale underlying such judgment must be documented precisely in the comments section.

2. Traceability is required for every entry. This means that:

• the origin of the data

• the method used to derive it

• and the evidence supporting it must all be clearly referenced so that a VVB can independently verify the input.

3.6 Responsibility for Version Control

1. Each submission of the tool must:

• include the tool version number

• indicate the monitoring period or submission date

• identify the person or team responsible for preparing the information

• document any modifications or corrections from prior versions

1. Version control ensures that all historical versions remain auditable and that PCS can reconstruct prior risk assessments if needed.

3.7 Responsibility for Compliance with PCS Procedures

1. Users must ensure that all entries in the tool comply with the PCS Framework, the Non-Permanence Risk Assessment Methodology, and applicable procedures. Inputs must not conflict with regulatory boundaries, eligibility rules, or methodological definitions. Any uncertainties or deviations must be submitted through the PCS deviation request process and approved before use.

Chapter 4 - Data Requirements

1. The accuracy of the Non-Permanence Risk Assessment depends on the quality and completeness of the data provided by the Project Developer. This chapter defines the specific data required in each section of the User Input Tool. The input requirements reflect the four risk domains defined in PCS-TA-005—natural, anthropogenic, management, and governance—along with supporting contextual and mitigation-related information. All data entered must be supported by verifiable evidence and properly referenced in the Evidence Sheet.

4.1 Natural Risk Data Requirements

1. This section captures all environmental and biophysical conditions that influence the likelihood of carbon reversals due to natural hazards. The following table defines the required inputs.

Table 4.1 — Natural Risk Inputs

Data Field	Description	Format	Evidence Required
Historical wildfire occurrence	Frequency and severity of fire events within project boundary	Qualitative + quantitative	Fire maps, satellite data, government records
Extreme weather exposure	Occurrence of cyclones, storms, droughts, floods	Descriptive + metrics	Meteorological data, IPCC hazard datasets
Pest and disease prevalence	Known outbreaks affecting vegetation	Qualitative	Forestry health reports
Hydrological variability	Flooding, salinity intrusion, drainage constraints	Narrative + measurements	Hydrological assessments
Elevation and topographic risk	Slope, erosion susceptibility	Quantitative	DEM, hazard maps
Vegetation type and structure	Dominant species, ecological sensitivity	Narrative	Ecological surveys

All natural hazard information must reflect historical patterns and present-day conditions.

4.2 Anthropogenic Risk Data Requirements

1. This section collects data related to human activities and socio-economic factors that increase the risk of carbon loss.

Table 4.2 — Anthropogenic Risk Inputs

Data Field	Description	Format	Evidence Required
Encroachment pressure	Settlement growth, agricultural expansion, grazing intensity	Narrative + spatial	Land use maps, census data
Illegal extraction risk	Timber harvesting, charcoal production, resource removal	Qualitative + records	Enforcement logs, patrol reports
Competing land-use claims	Overlapping tenure, informal use rights	Narrative	Legal documents, community statements
Proximity to infrastructure	Roads, markets, industrial zones	Spatial	GIS layers
Historical anthropogenic disturbances	Human-caused fires, clearing events	Narrative	Remote sensing analysis

Inputs must reflect current threats and trends that could influence carbon permanence.

4.3 Management Risk Data Requirements

1. Management risk reflects the capacity of the project entity to implement and sustain effective carbon management over time. Required inputs are listed below.

Table 4.3 — Management Risk Inputs

Data Field	Description	Format	Evidence Required
Financial stability	Funding structure, long-term capital commitments	Narrative + financial	Budget plans, audited statements
Operational capacity	Staffing, technical expertise, institutional capability	Narrative	Organizational charts, resumes
Long-term management plans	Duration and enforceability of management commitments	Narrative	Management plans, agreements
Monitoring and enforcement systems	Patrols, fire control, restoration operations	Narrative	SOPs, patrol logs
Project governance structure	Decision-making arrangements, oversight mechanisms	Narrative	Governance documents

Inputs must demonstrate the project’s capacity to maintain carbon stocks for the long term.

4.4 Governance Risk Data Requirements

1. This section evaluates external political, institutional, and legal conditions relevant to carbon permanence.

Table 4.4 — Governance Risk Inputs

Data Field	Description	Format	Evidence Required
Land tenure clarity	Type of tenure, disputes, legal status	Narrative + legal	Titles, agreements
Policy and regulatory stability	Consistency of environmental and land-use laws	Narrative	Government policy documents
Institutional oversight capacity	Strength of local/regional environmental agencies	Narrative	Governance assessments
Historical governance performance	Past enforcement reliability and public administration	Narrative	Reports, case studies
Conflict risk	Social or political instability influencing land tenure	Narrative	Conflict assessments

Governance inputs must accurately reflect the operating environment beyond the project’s control.

4.5 Mitigation Measures Data Requirements

1. Mitigation measures influence the mitigation adjustment factor (M). Data must clearly document the operational status, geographic extent, and effectiveness of measures implemented.

Table 4.5 — Mitigation Measures Inputs

Data Field	Description	Format	Evidence Required
Fire management measures	Firebreaks, early detection, community fire plans	Narrative + spatial	Maps, SOPs
Hydrological interventions	Tidal restoration, drainage repair, water control	Narrative	Engineering reports
Community engagement mechanisms	Agreements, benefit-sharing systems	Narrative	Signed agreements
Enforcement systems	Patrols, surveillance, reporting frameworks	Narrative	Logs, SOPs
Restoration and maintenance activities	Planting, thinning, mangrove rewetting	Narrative	Field reports
Financial safeguards	Contingency funds, performance bonds	Narrative	Financial documents

Mitigation must be described with enough clarity to enable verification.

4.6 Supporting Contextual Information

1. The tool requires certain contextual inputs to ensure correct interpretation of risk data.

Table 4.6 — Contextual Inputs

Data Field	Description
Project boundary and area	Defined spatial extent for which risk is assessed
Stratification	Subdivision of project area, if applicable
Historical land-use patterns	Trends influencing risk
Ecological condition baseline	Pre-project vegetation and degradation state
Host country NDC commitments	Article 6 relevance

These inputs ensure alignment with PCS framework requirements.

4.7 Evidence Reference Requirements

1. All entries must be supported by referenced evidence. Each field in the tool has a corresponding evidence reference column that links to:

• maps,

• datasets,

• legal documents,

• management plans,

• policy documents,

• monitoring logs,

• or geospatial layers.

1. Evidence must be:

• authentic,

• traceable,

• accessible during validation and verification.

Chapter 5 - Evidence Requirements and Quality Standards

1. All entries in the User Input Tool must be supported by objective, verifiable, and traceable evidence. The credibility of the Non-Permanence Risk Assessment depends on the quality and reliability of the documentation submitted. This chapter defines the types of evidence required, the standards of quality that must be met, and the conditions under which certain sources of information may be used. These requirements apply to all risk categories and mitigation measures entered into the tool.

5.1 Purpose of Evidence Requirements

1. Evidence ensures that all user-provided inputs reflect actual project conditions rather than assumptions or subjective interpretations. Proper documentation enables the PCS Secretariat and Validation and Verification Bodies to replicate the assessment process and confirm that risk scores are justified. The quality of evidence influences the confidence that reviewers place in user-submitted data and can affect the final risk rating if inconsistencies are identified.

5.2 Categories of Acceptable Evidence

1. Evidence submitted in support of the User Input Tool generally falls into one of the categories below. Each category must meet minimum quality standards to be deemed acceptable.

• Scientific and Technical Studies These include ecological assessments, hydrological studies, forestry inventories, and technical evaluations conducted by qualified professionals. Such documents must include clear methodologies, dates of preparation, and authorship.

• Geospatial and Remote Sensing Data Satellite imagery, hazard maps, fire history layers, land cover or land-use maps, and digital elevation models are essential for natural risk inputs. Geospatial data must be sourced from recognized platforms and must include timestamps.

• Legal and Administrative Documents Land tenure certificates, permits, concession agreements, governance records, and regulatory documents must be official, current, and complete. Documents must include signatures, dates, and issuing authorities.

• Management and Operational Records Patrol logs, staffing records, management plans, restoration activity reports, and financial statements are essential for management risk inputs. Documents must demonstrate consistency with actual field operations.

• Community Agreements and Social Documentation Letters of intent, benefit-sharing agreements, and conflict-resolution documents must reflect authentic and verifiable engagement with local stakeholders.

• Monitoring Logs and Field Records Field records provide essential information on disturbances, mortality, recruitment, and on-ground mitigation actions. These logs must be original, dated, and attributable to the project’s monitoring team.

5.3 Quality Standards for Evidence

1. Evidence must meet specific quality criteria to be considered valid for risk assessment purposes.

• Traceability Each document must be traceable to an identifiable source. For data derived from external databases, the dataset name, version, and access date must be provided. For internal records, the responsible unit or individual must be identifiable.

• Authenticity Documents must be genuine and unaltered. Official documents must retain seals, signatures, or authenticity markers. Digital sources must include verifiable URLs or metadata.

• Relevance Evidence must directly support the input field it is linked to. Irrelevant or contextual documents that do not explicitly justify the input will not be accepted.

• Timeliness Evidence must reflect conditions relevant to the monitoring period. Outdated documents may be accepted only when the underlying conditions have not changed, and the document remains valid.

• Completeness Evidence must cover the full scope of the input being justified. Partial studies or incomplete datasets may require supplemental documents.

• Consistency Evidence submitted across different sections of the tool must not conflict. Conflicting information must be resolved by submitting additional clarification or updated documentation.

5.4 Evidence Referencing and Cross-Linking

1. Each entry in the User Input Tool includes a corresponding field for referencing evidence. Users must:

• assign a unique reference code to each supporting document,

• list all documents in the Evidence Sheet,

• cross-link reference codes to specific entries in each risk sheet, and

• ensure that all files are uploaded or attached according to PCS submission protocols.

1. Cross-linking enables VVBs to review material efficiently and reduces the likelihood of rejections or requests for corrections.

5.5 Treatment of Expert Judgment

1. Expert judgment may supplement evidence only when objective data sources are unavailable. When used, expert judgment must:

• be provided by individuals with demonstrable expertise,

• include a detailed explanation of the reasoning applied,

• reference any supplementary data considered,

• be used conservatively.

Expert judgment cannot replace evidence where objective sources exist.

5.6 Minimum Evidence Requirements by Risk Category

• Natural Risk Requires at minimum: hazard maps, climate datasets, vegetation assessments.

• Anthropogenic Risk Requires: land-use maps, enforcement records, demographic data.

• Management Risk Requires: financial documents, staffing records, operational plans.

• Governance Risk Requires: tenure documents, policy documents, historical governance assessments.

• Mitigation Measures Requires: operational protocols, implementation logs, spatial documentation.

These minimums must be met regardless of project type.

5.7 Evidence Quality Issues and Resolution

1. If an input is supported by low-quality, outdated, or indirectly relevant evidence, the PCS Secretariat or VVB may request additional documentation. Users must respond promptly and may need to submit revised inputs. Failure to provide adequate evidence may result in default conservative scoring for the affected risk factor.

Chapter 6 - Submission, Update Cycles, and Validation Requirements

1. The User Input Non-Permanence Risk Tool must be submitted, updated, and maintained in accordance with the PCS project cycle. This chapter defines the procedures for initial submission, updates during monitoring periods, requirements for resubmission after material changes, and the verification and validation processes that ensure the accuracy and credibility of the information provided. These procedures ensure traceability throughout the project lifecycle and alignment with PCS-TA-005.

6.1 Initial Submission at Project Design

1. The User Input Tool must first be completed and submitted as part of the Project Submission documentation. At this stage, the tool must include all baseline risk inputs, supporting evidence, and contextual information necessary for PCS-TA-005 to produce an initial risk profile and buffer contribution estimate.

2. The initial submission must:

• reflect pre-project conditions and risks;

• include all known mitigation plans;

• align with project design documents, feasibility studies, and baseline assessments;

• be consistent with the Project Submission Form and the initial Validation Report.

Incomplete or inconsistent submissions will be returned for correction before validation proceeds.

6.2 Updates During Each Monitoring Period

1. The tool must be fully updated for each monitoring period. Updates must reflect:

• changes in natural hazard conditions,

• changes in anthropogenic pressures,

• modifications to management systems,

• governance or tenure developments,

• mitigation measures implemented,

• disturbance events, mortality, and recruitment,

• any material shift in project operations or context.

1. The Monitoring Period Update Sheet must be used to document all changes. If no significant changes occur, this must be explicitly stated and supported by evidence confirming stability.

6.3 Submission After Material Changes

1. Certain events require immediate or off-cycle updates to the User Input Tool, due to their potential effect on carbon permanence. These include:

• major disturbance events (fire, cyclone, pest outbreak, large-scale illegal clearing),

• changes in land tenure or legal rights,

• restructuring of the project entity or management capacity,

• policy changes that materially alter governance risk,

• implementation or discontinuation of key mitigation measures.

1. When such events occur, the User Input Tool must be resubmitted within the timeframe specified by PCS, even if it is outside the regular monitoring cycle. Failure to update the tool may result in temporary suspension of issuance or reassessment of buffer contributions.

6.4 Requirements for Resubmission After Corrective Actions

1. If PCS or a Validation and Verification Body identifies inconsistencies or deficiencies in the tool, the Project Developer must submit a revised version addressing all comments. Corrections must be clearly described in the version control section, and updated evidence must be attached where applicable.

2. Repeated deficiencies may trigger a deeper audit or require strengthening of monitoring and documentation processes.

6.5 Validation Requirements

1. During project validation, the VVB must confirm that:

• all required fields are completed;

• the tool aligns with project design documentation;

• evidence is credible, relevant, and traceable;

• inputs match the definitions and criteria of PCS-TA-005;

• mitigation measures are realistically represented;

• the tool supports replication of the initial risk score.

1. The VVB must document its findings in the Validation Report and confirm whether the tool meets PCS requirements.

6.6 Verification Requirements in Monitoring Periods

1. During verification, the VVB must review:

• all updated entries in the tool,

• the Monitoring Period Update Sheet,

• evidence supporting changes in risk conditions,

• implementation of mitigation measures,

• disturbance event documentation,

• consistency between monitoring data and the User Input Tool.

1. The VVB must confirm that all updates are accurate and credible, and that no risk-related information has been omitted.

2. If discrepancies arise between observed conditions and user inputs, the VVB may require revised entries or reclassification of risk factors.

6.7 PCS Secretariat Review and Approval

1. The PCS Secretariat conducts compliance and completeness checks before accepting each submission. The Secretariat may:

• request clarifications,

• require additional evidence,

• adjust entries if they conflict with PCS procedures,

• or return the tool for resubmission.

1. Approval of the User Input Tool is a prerequisite for accepting the Non-Permanence Risk Assessment results for the monitoring period.

6.8 Version Control and Document Retention

1. Each submission of the tool must record:

• version number,

• date of submission,

• monitoring period,

• identity of preparer(s),

• summary of changes since prior version.

1. All versions must be retained for the entire crediting period and for any additional duration required by PCS or host country regulations. This ensures a complete audit trail and supports retrospective analysis if necessary.

6.9 Integration with PCS Registry Submissions

1. The User Input Tool forms part of the official Monitoring Report package submitted to the PCS Registry. All evidence files referenced in the tool must be uploaded in the same submission. The Registry stores each version securely and maintains the audit trail visible to authorized users.