Decision-Making Processes Policy

Version 0.9

1. Scope

This policy outlines the processes by which key decisions are made within the Nature Value Foundation (NVF). This includes decisions related to:

• Amendments to the Nature Climate Standard (NCS) and associated methodologies

• Project registration processes

• Carbon credit issuances and reversals

• Treatment of confidential information

For more details on appointments to the NVF board or key committees, please refer to the Appointments Policy, where the NVF’s governance structure is described.

2. Standard Changes

2.1. Responsible Body

The Board of Directors oversees all changes to the NCS.

2.2. Decision-Making Process

1. Proposed changes to the Standard may arise from market trends, regulatory developments, feedback from accreditation bodies, or stakeholder input.

2. If the need for a change is identified by a NVF team member, expert network member or relevant committee member, they should discuss this within their respective team. Once agreed, a draft proposal is prepared for internal review.

3. The proposal is then submitted to the Board of Directors. The appropriate member of Board of Directors will present the proposal. If more work is required, the proposal will be amended before moving forward.

4. Following approval by the Board of Directors, the proposed changes go through a public consultation period of at least 30 days.

5. Feedback from the consultation is reviewed, and necessary amendments are made before final approval by the Board of Directors.

6. Once approved, the Standard changes are published alongside a summary of the consultation responses and changes made as a result.

3. Methodology Changes

3.1. Responsible Body

The Board of Directors oversees all changes to NCS methodologies.

3.2. Decision-Making Process

1. New methodologies or changes to existing methodologies may arise from scientific advancements, industry trends, or stakeholder feedback. Regular reviews of existing methodologies as set out in the methodology update schedule may also prompt changes.

2. The Board of Directors will appoint an Expert Network member to lead the drafting process, involving other relevant Expert Network members or external consultants as needed. The draft will then be reviewed by all Expert Network members with relevant expertise.

3. If the Expert Network approves the draft, it enters a public consultation phase for at least 30 days.

4. Feedback is reviewed, and the relevant Expert lead prepares amendments based on the consultation responses. The revised proposal is then presented to the Board of Directors for final approval.

5. Once approved, the updated methodology is published with a report summarising the consultation responses and any changes made.

4. Methodology Suspension

4.1. Responsible Body

The Board of Directors oversees methodology suspensions.

4.2. Decision-Making Process

1. Methodologies may be suspended if there are concerns that carbon removal activities are being overestimated or if additionality is not ensured. This can be triggered by scientific developments or stakeholder feedback.

2. The Board of Directors will appoint an Expert Network member to lead the review of the methodology and prepare a report assessing whether suspension is necessary.

3. The Board of Directors will promptly review the report and make a decision.

4. If a methodology is suspended, it will be immediately removed from the NVF website, and no new projects may be validated against it until the issue is resolved.

5. Project Registration

5.1 Responsible Body

The Board of Directors manages project registration in collaboration with the Supervisory Board.

5.2. Decision-Making Process

1. Initial project registration begins once a Supplier signs the standard terms and conditions.

2. The Board of Directors appoints an NCS-accredited Validation and Verification Body (VVB). Selection criteria include expertise, geographic relevance, and capacity.

3. The VVB is trained on the relevant methodology.

4. Upon submission of the Validation Report, the Board of Directors reviews the report for completeness and alignment with the foundation’s objectives.

5. The Supervisory Board may review the registration recommendation to ensure alignment with the foundation’s goals.

6. The Board of Directors makes the final decision on registration, which is then communicated to the VVB and the Supplier. Approved projects are listed on the NCS registry.

6. Credit Issuance

6.1. Responsible Body

The Board of Directors oversees credit issuance with strategic oversight from the Supervisory Board.

6.2. Decision-Making Process

1. Following project registration, the VVB submits verification reports at regular intervals as specified in the relevant methodology.

2. The Board of Directors provides technical feedback on the verification report as necessary.

3. The Board of Directors evaluates the report to confirm data accuracy and compliance with the methodology, consulting with the Supervisory Board for significant decisions.

4. Credits are issued via the NCS registry and made publicly visible.

7. Reversal Management

7.1. Responsible Body

The Board of Directors manages credit reversals or cancellations, with support from the Advisory Board.

7.2. Decision-Making Process

1. The need for credit reversal or cancellation, whether due to data errors or monitoring outcomes, is identified and escalated to the Board of Directors.

2. The Board of Directors documents the issue. If deemed necessary, members of the Expert Network may be involved.

3. The Advisory Board provides additional oversight to ensure that decisions are transparent and uphold the integrity of NCS projects and credits by addressing any identified issues comprehensively and openly.

4. The Executive Committee promptly finalises the decision, communicates it to relevant stakeholders, and implements corrective actions.

8. Confidential Information

8.1. Responsible Body

The Board of Directors handles confidentiality requests, with additional guidance from the Advisory Board.

8.2. Decision-Making Process

1. Confidentiality requests are submitted by project proponents and assessed by the Board of Directors against NCS confidentiality guidelines.

2. For cases with broader implications, the Advisory Board is consulted for independent review and recommendations.

3. The Board of Directors makes the final decision, ensuring adherence to legal, reputational, and strategic considerations.

4. Approved requests result in the appropriate redaction or withholding of information from publication, while rejected requests are communicated transparently to the project proponent.