FPIC and Benefit-Sharing Records: What a Carbon Verifier Asks For

A verifier checks consent and benefit sharing by reading a project's records, then, under VCS v5, interviewing stakeholders it picks itself (§4.1.14). Between them, Verra VCS v5, Gold Standard and Plan Vivo ask for: who was identified and how, what they were told before deciding, signed meeting records, the consent decision, the benefit-sharing plan and what was paid out, and a grievance log from receipt to resolution. Not every standard asks for every record; the table below shows which does.

Checked 1 November 2026 against the ⁠VCS Standard v5.0 and ⁠v4.7, Verra's ⁠overview of VCS v5 effective dates (updated 27 October 2026), Gold Standard's ⁠Stakeholder Consultation and Engagement Requirements v2.1, ⁠Safeguarding Principles & Requirements v2.1, ⁠Land Use & Forests Activity Requirements v1.2.1, ⁠Agriculture Activity Requirements v1.1 and ⁠Stakeholder Consultation Report template v3.0, the ⁠PV Climate Project Requirements V5.7 and ⁠PDD template V5.7, and the ⁠UN-REDD FPIC Guidelines. Clause numbers are each document's own. Not legal advice.

Which records does a verifier ask for?

Plan Vivo also records how each of those communities decides (2.1.2). Under Verra, agreements with landholders may still be needed to show the right to operate (§3.6.2). Gold Standard's participant agreement confirms the participant's rights, that they have passed the carbon rights to the developer, and that the land title or similar entitlement is uncontested.

Free template from Restoration Scope: ⁠FPIC and benefit-sharing records (Google Sheets). Tabs for groups, participants, meetings, attendance, information shared, consent, payments, income and grievances, linked by ID. Columns that a rule asks for cite the clause in their header note, and a Checks tab counts what is still missing.

When does a carbon project need FPIC?

Each standard sets its own trigger:

• Verra VCS v5. Before the start date, from customary rights holders and Indigenous Peoples, when any one of three applies: they are present in the project area, there are competing claims to land or resource rights involving customary rights, or the risk assessment finds risks to their cultural heritage or traditional livelihoods (§3.17.11).
• Plan Vivo. From all Indigenous Peoples and local communities with statutory or customary rights to land or resources in the project area (2.6.1).
• Gold Standard. For changes in legal land-tenure arrangements (P.4.3.2) and before taking Indigenous Peoples' cultural, intellectual, religious or spiritual property (P.4.4.5). Where a project may affect Indigenous Peoples' rights, lands or resources, it also needs an Indigenous People Plan (P.4.4.7), and its safeguarding principle aims to secure FPIC wherever Indigenous Peoples' or local farmers' rights, lands, resources or livelihoods may be affected (Principle 4(g)). The project developer must also hold uncontested land title for the whole project boundary to complete design certification (P.4.3.3); when the developer doesn't hold it, LUF 2.1.10 (afforestation and reforestation) and Agriculture 3.4.3 let the people who do endorse the project in an agreement.

The VCS v5 rules apply to projects whose start date is on or after 1 July 2027; Verra ⁠moved that date from 1 January 2027 on 27 October 2026. Projects that start earlier follow the stakeholder rules of VCS v4.7, which allow a project to affect property rights only with FPIC and a transparent agreement with fair compensation (§3.18.8), but asks for neither the signed bilingual agreement, the yearly financial report to participants nor the 21-day acknowledgement. Existing projects take up the v5 rules at their next crediting-period renewal, or verification with a baseline reassessment, submitted on or after 1 January 2030. They then need a stakeholder engagement plan, an input tracker, ongoing consent where §3.17.11 applies, a benefit-sharing mechanism where §3.17.12 applies and an updated grievance mechanism, but not the project implementation agreement (Verra's effective dates overview, V5#16 and V5#58).

The UN-REDD Guidelines are written for countries' national REDD+ programmes, not private projects, but they describe an FPIC process step by step. Their checklist (p.27) lists decisions on sharing benefits from Indigenous Peoples' or forest communities' lands or resources among the activities likely to need consent.

The records, in the order you make them

What should the consent record show?

Under VCS v5, the project implementation agreement is the consent record (§3.17.17). It states whether consent is granted, conditioned or withheld; complies with national law; is written in English and in a language the rights holders understand; covers the activities, the area, each party's duties, start and end dates, how often updates will come, the benefit-sharing terms where a mechanism is required and, where relevant, the land or resource use rights the group keeps; flags any confidential information; is signed by representatives with valid powers; and is public unless the group asks for it to stay private.

Records that are easy to miss:

• A refusal. Withheld consent is a decision to record, not a meeting to forget (VCS v5 §3.17.17; UN-REDD 3.6).
• The conditions. A conditioned yes needs the conditions written down (VCS v5 §3.17.17(1), §3.17.19(2)). UN-REDD recommends agreeing how often they are reviewed (section 4), and the group can review its consent if they aren't met (3.6).
• The timing. Plan Vivo asks that participants get the information early enough to consider it before signing (3.18.3).
• The copy. Each Plan Vivo participant gets a copy of their agreement (3.18.6).
• Who signed, and with what mandate (VCS v5 §3.17.17(5)).

What to record for benefit sharing

Where a project affects land or resource rights holders, or customary rights holders or Indigenous Peoples are in the project area, VCS v5 asks for the benefit-sharing mechanism to be designed with them before the start date, with projected revenues and expected costs shared at design, then operating costs and gross or projected revenues reported to participants every year (§3.17.12–13). The mechanism sets out each monetary and in-kind benefit, its timeline and a reporting schedule (§3.17.14). Project activities themselves, such as the planted trees, don't count as benefits; what comes from them, such as non-timber forest products, counts only if it goes entirely to participants. Infrastructure the project needs, safeguard mitigation measures and workers' salaries don't count either (§3.17.15).

Plan Vivo sets a number: at least 60% of credit-sale income, after host-country charges, taxes or similar fees, must directly benefit participants and local stakeholders, counted over the crediting period rather than per issuance (3.16.2 and its guidance). Each Project Agreement states the minimum a participant is eligible to receive if monitoring targets are met, and what happens if they aren't (3.16.6); the annual report covers income, spending and transfers (4.9); and a certified independent auditor checks the project's finances every year (5.5). Gold Standard asks that benefits are shared equitably with Indigenous Peoples and sets no percentage (P.4.4.6).

In practice that means a payment ledger: date, recipient, kind (cash, in kind, training, community fund), amount, what it pays for, a receipt, and whether it counts as a benefit. The template's Checks tab divides counted benefits by credit income after host-country charges to show the Plan Vivo share.

What should the grievance log show?

One row per grievance, from the day it arrives: date, channel, whether it is anonymous, who raised it, what it is about, the complainant's own words, the acknowledgement date, the stage, the action, who is responsible, the resolution date and whether the complainant was told.

• VCS v5: a published mechanism with several channels, anonymous ones included, each grievance acknowledged within 21 days and tracked to resolution, in three stages: amicable, neutral mediation, then arbitration or courts (§3.17.22–23). People must have access to it, and to Verra's own grievance process, from the first contact (§3.17.4(10)).
• Gold Standard: at least a continuous input and grievance book at an agreed place (3.8.3), and for land-use projects a phone line and email too (LUF Annex D). Concerns and actions go into each annual and monitoring report (3.10).
• Plan Vivo: every issue documented, an independent arbitrator named, and the mechanism described in each Project Agreement (3.17). Consent issues can be raised through it at any time (2.6.7).

How does the verifier check?

Under VCS v5 the auditor visits the site at validation and crediting-period renewal, at the first verification, at verifications with a baseline reassessment or a project description deviation that affects methodology applicability, additionality or the baseline, and whenever its own risk assessment calls for one (§4.1.10–4.1.12). It chooses the stakeholders it interviews itself, and shows the interviews were free from the proponent's influence (§4.1.14). A record that names a person is a record the verifier may ask that person about. VCS v5 asks you to keep all records secure and retrievable for at least two years after the end of the total crediting period (§3.24.1); Plan Vivo asks for a secure database the verifier can reach for the whole project period (4.10).

Keeping the records on each participant

A spreadsheet works while one person keeps it. Once several field officers hold meetings and sign agreements in villages without signal, minutes sit in one folder, signatures in another and payments in a third, and the verifier's interview list turns into a search.

Restoration Scope keeps these records on each participant's file, linked to their group, their farm and the meetings they attended. We set up the consent step in the field survey: the agreement text to read out, the answer saved even when it is a refusal, a signature, and the location from the phone. Field teams can work offline, and each save reaches the project when the phone has signal. See Restoration Scope for carbon projects.

More guides: Plan Vivo vs Gold Standard vs Verra for smallholder agroforestry, carbon standards for nature projects compared and getting ready for a VM0047 verification.

Disclosure: Restoration Scope makes field and monitoring software for carbon projects. We are not a standard, a registry or a verifier, and we don't issue credits.