PES Intermediaries

1. Which field checks are due?DEC-DP39-001 · Verification schedule · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

What to check. Book an independent check before a claim is considered.

Validation required

Method. Count calendar days after the agreed check date. A future date gives zero overdue days.

What this means. 5 calendar days after the agreed check date.

Next step. Arrange the independent field visit.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Agreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; Agreed check date; Date of this review; Proposed checking team; Field visit arranged

Other required evidence. Agreement; service; monitoring period; protocol; verifier; due date; evidence.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama farmer group · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Agreement and version	Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1
Who carries out the work	Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example
Who funds the agreement	Downstream water-user fund — example
Agreed check date	2025-07-15
Date of this review	2025-07-20
Proposed checking team	Independent watershed review team — example
Field visit arranged	Missing
Days past the check date	5	calendar days

Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement.

Proposed checking role. Scheme coordinator with the independent checker or relevant specialist.

After the action. On-time completion with verified outputs and resource use.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.
FAO Payments for environmental services what role in sustainable agricultural development — Institution publication. ESA Working Paper 11-20; section 2 printed pages 3–5; sections 3 and 4 on evidence, costs and equity. Conditional agreements, baseline/additionality, monitoring, funding and fairness. Does not set a Sri Lankan scheme, rate, tariff or automatic payment rule.

Institution and data context

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
UN SEEA Ecosystem Accounting — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO PES and food security — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

2. How much agreed work passed the check?DEC-DP39-002 · Service delivery · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

What to check. Separate work that passed, failed and still needs a visit.

Validation required

Method. Checked area = area meeting conditions + area needing correction. Agreed area = checked area + area not checked. Do not pay for unvisited or failed area.

What this means. 20 ha meet the example conditions; 2 ha need correction and 2 ha still need a visit.

Next step. Check the remaining area and correct failed work.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Agreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; Area in the annual agreement [ha]; Area visited and checked [ha]; Area meeting the agreed conditions [ha]; Checked area needing correction [ha]; Area not checked yet [ha]; Signed field-check record; Field record and protocol

Other required evidence. Agreement; baseline; service quantity; monitoring evidence; verification; period.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama farmer group · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Agreement and version	Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1
Who carries out the work	Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example
Who funds the agreement	Downstream water-user fund — example
Area in the annual agreement	24	ha
Area visited and checked	22	ha
Area meeting the agreed conditions	20	ha
Checked area needing correction	2	ha
Area not checked yet	2	ha
Signed field-check record	Documented
Field record and protocol	Example field record / riverbank care checklist 1
Area meeting the conditions	20	ha
Area still to check	2	ha
Area needing correction	2	ha

Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement.

Proposed checking role. Scheme coordinator with the independent checker or relevant specialist.

After the action. Independently verified service, authorized payments and unresolved grievances.

FAO PES and food security — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO designing PES — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.
FAO Payments for environmental services what role in sustainable agricultural development — Institution publication. ESA Working Paper 11-20; section 2 printed pages 3–5; sections 3 and 4 on evidence, costs and equity. Conditional agreements, baseline/additionality, monitoring, funding and fairness. Does not set a Sri Lankan scheme, rate, tariff or automatic payment rule.

Institution and data context

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
UN SEEA Ecosystem Accounting — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO PES and food security — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

3. What was checked, proposed and paid?DEC-DP39-003 · Service accounting · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

What to check. Keep the physical work record and the money record separate.

Validation required

Method. Keep hectares separate from rupees. Unpaid authorised amount = authorised amount − paid amount. A contract payment is not a monetary value of the ecosystem.

What this means. 20 ha in the physical log; LKR 250,000 proposed and LKR 0 recorded as paid. These are different records.

Next step. Keep this as a proposal until separately authorised.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Agreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; Area meeting annual conditions [ha]; Payment proposed for this agreement and year [LKR]; Payment authorised in a separate decision [LKR]; Payment actually recorded [LKR]; Payment record or pending reference

Other required evidence. Service flow; ecosystem asset; beneficiary; valuation method; price year; area.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama farmer group · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Agreement and version	Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1
Who carries out the work	Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example
Who funds the agreement	Downstream water-user fund — example
Area meeting annual conditions	20	ha
Payment proposed for this agreement and year	250,000	LKR
Payment authorised in a separate decision	0	LKR
Payment actually recorded	0	LKR
Payment record or pending reference	No payment authorised or paid in this example
Area meeting the conditions	20	ha
Proposed payment	250,000	LKR
Recorded payment	0	LKR
Authorised amount not yet paid	0	LKR

Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement.

Proposed checking role. Scheme coordinator with the independent checker or relevant specialist.

After the action. Reconciled physical and monetary accounts with disclosed uncertainty.

UN SEEA Ecosystem Accounting — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.
FAO Payments for environmental services what role in sustainable agricultural development — Institution publication. ESA Working Paper 11-20; section 2 printed pages 3–5; sections 3 and 4 on evidence, costs and equity. Conditional agreements, baseline/additionality, monitoring, funding and fairness. Does not set a Sri Lankan scheme, rate, tariff or automatic payment rule.

Institution and data context

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
UN SEEA Ecosystem Accounting — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO PES and food security — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

4. How much does a field check cost?DEC-DP39-004 · Verification cost · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

What to check. Compare verification costs using the same agreed unit.

Validation required

Method. Total checking cost = staff + travel + other non-overlapping costs. Cost per accepted hectare = total / accepted hectares. A zero accepted area has no unit-cost result.

What this means. LKR 100,000 checking cost / 20 accepted ha = LKR 5,000 per accepted ha.

Next step. Compare checking costs under the same protocol.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Agreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; Checking staff cost [LKR]; Travel and field cost [LKR]; Other checking costs without overlap [LKR]; Area accepted under the same protocol [ha]

Other required evidence. Verification expense; accepted service quantity; unit; agreement; period.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama farmer group · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Agreement and version	Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1
Who carries out the work	Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example
Who funds the agreement	Downstream water-user fund — example
Checking staff cost	60,000	LKR
Travel and field cost	20,000	LKR
Other checking costs without overlap	20,000	LKR
Area accepted under the same protocol	20	ha
Checking cost per accepted hectare	5,000	LKR/ha
Total checking cost	100,000	LKR

Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement.

Proposed checking role. Scheme coordinator with the independent checker or relevant specialist.

After the action. Actual comparable unit cost and service/output quality.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.
FAO Payments for environmental services what role in sustainable agricultural development — Institution publication. ESA Working Paper 11-20; section 2 printed pages 3–5; sections 3 and 4 on evidence, costs and equity. Conditional agreements, baseline/additionality, monitoring, funding and fairness. Does not set a Sri Lankan scheme, rate, tariff or automatic payment rule.

Institution and data context

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
UN SEEA Ecosystem Accounting — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO PES and food security — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

5. Is the scheme ready to start?DEC-DP39-005 · Scheme readiness · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

What to check. Identify who must settle missing scheme rules.

Validation required

Method. Check each scheme requirement. A completed checklist does not authorise a PES scheme.

What this means. 2 items remain. Documentary completeness is not scheme approval, eligibility or safeguard clearance.

Next step. Resolve the listed missing or conflicting evidence.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Agreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; Responsible scheme owner identified; Authority to run the scheme confirmed; Work and intended environmental benefit defined; Payer and funding commitment recorded; Checking and payment rules recorded; Complaint and appeal route recorded; Scheme-rule document

Other required evidence. Scheme owner; legal authority; service definition; rules; funding; appeals.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama farmer group · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Agreement and version	Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1
Who carries out the work	Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example
Who funds the agreement	Downstream water-user fund — example
Responsible scheme owner identified	Documented
Authority to run the scheme confirmed	Missing
Work and intended environmental benefit defined	Documented
Payer and funding commitment recorded	Missing
Checking and payment rules recorded	Documented
Complaint and appeal route recorded	Documented
Scheme-rule document	Draft watershed care scheme — example
Items to settle	2	items

Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement.

Proposed checking role. Scheme coordinator with the independent checker or relevant specialist.

After the action. Evidence-backed corrective closure and recurring nonconformances.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.
FAO Payments for environmental services what role in sustainable agricultural development — Institution publication. ESA Working Paper 11-20; section 2 printed pages 3–5; sections 3 and 4 on evidence, costs and equity. Conditional agreements, baseline/additionality, monitoring, funding and fairness. Does not set a Sri Lankan scheme, rate, tariff or automatic payment rule.

Institution and data context

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
UN SEEA Ecosystem Accounting — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO PES and food security — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

6. Can this group join the scheme?DEC-DP39-006 · Provider eligibility · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

What to check. Refer an application using the agreed joining rules.

Validation required

Method. Check documented rights, voluntary participation, area, joining rules and obligations. A checklist does not grant eligibility or change land rights.

What this means. 1 items remain. Documentary completeness is not scheme approval, eligibility or safeguard clearance.

Next step. Resolve the listed missing or conflicting evidence.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Agreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; Land or resource-use rights documented; Voluntary participation recorded; Proposed area identified; Applicable joining rules recorded; Work and payment conditions understood; Joining-rule and application reference

Other required evidence. Rights evidence; service area; eligibility rules; consent; obligations; authority.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama farmer group · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Agreement and version	Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1
Who carries out the work	Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example
Who funds the agreement	Downstream water-user fund — example
Land or resource-use rights documented	Documented
Voluntary participation recorded	Documented
Proposed area identified	Documented
Applicable joining rules recorded	Documented
Work and payment conditions understood	Missing
Joining-rule and application reference	Draft joining rules / farmer-group application — example
Items to settle before referral	1	items

Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement.

Proposed checking role. Scheme coordinator with the independent checker or relevant specialist.

After the action. Documented determinations, processing time and appeal outcomes.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.
FAO Payments for environmental services what role in sustainable agricultural development — Institution publication. ESA Working Paper 11-20; section 2 printed pages 3–5; sections 3 and 4 on evidence, costs and equity. Conditional agreements, baseline/additionality, monitoring, funding and fairness. Does not set a Sri Lankan scheme, rate, tariff or automatic payment rule.

Institution and data context

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
UN SEEA Ecosystem Accounting — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO PES and food security — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

7. Did the scheme add an environmental improvement?DEC-DP39-007 · Additionality · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

What to check. Compare the same indicator inside the scheme and at a suitable comparison site.

Verified published formula · Difference-in-differences arithmetic

Method. Difference in differences = (scheme after − before) − (comparison after − before). The arithmetic alone does not prove that the payment caused an improvement.

What this means. Ground cover improved 20 percentage points more than at the comparison site. This does not alone establish a causal effect or an extra payable service.

Next step. Ask a specialist to assess additionality and the study assumptions.

Inputs, example and sources

World Bank · Impact Evaluation in Practice Second Edition
Institution publication · Chapter 7, table 7.2, printed page 140, PDF page 170

The formula is verified. Causal interpretation still requires a defensible study design, comparison and assumptions.

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Agreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; Scheme ground cover before [%]; Scheme ground cover after [%]; Comparison ground cover before [%]; Comparison ground cover after [%]; Earlier observation; Later observation; Comparable sites, season and method documented; Baseline and existing obligations

Other required evidence. Baseline scenario; proposed action; existing obligations; counterfactual; uncertainty.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama farmer group · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Agreement and version	Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1
Who carries out the work	Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example
Who funds the agreement	Downstream water-user fund — example
Scheme ground cover before	60	%
Scheme ground cover after	85	%
Comparison ground cover before	62	%
Comparison ground cover after	67	%
Earlier observation	2024-06-30
Later observation	2025-06-30
Comparable sites, season and method documented	Documented
Baseline and existing obligations	Fixed-point ground-cover survey; existing duties checked separately — example
Difference between the two changes	20	percentage points
Change inside the scheme	25	percentage points
Change at the comparison site	5	percentage points

Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement.

Proposed checking role. Scheme coordinator with the independent checker or relevant specialist.

After the action. Verified outcomes, costs, distributional effects and evidence strength.

World Bank Impact Evaluation in Practice Second Edition — Institution publication. Chapter7 difference-in-differences. Published difference-in-differences estimator and study assumptions; aggregate examples do not establish causation.
SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.
FAO Payments for environmental services what role in sustainable agricultural development — Institution publication. ESA Working Paper 11-20; section 2 printed pages 3–5; sections 3 and 4 on evidence, costs and equity. Conditional agreements, baseline/additionality, monitoring, funding and fairness. Does not set a Sri Lankan scheme, rate, tariff or automatic payment rule.

Institution and data context

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
UN SEEA Ecosystem Accounting — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO PES and food security — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

8. Did land clearing move outside the agreement area?DEC-DP39-008 · Leakage · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

What to check. Check neighbouring land for possible displacement of damage.

Verified published formula · Difference-in-differences arithmetic

Method. Compare changes over the same observation window: (neighbour after − before) − (comparison after − before). A positive difference is a reason to investigate, not proof that the scheme caused clearing.

What this means. Neighbouring clearing increased by 0.8 ha; comparison-area clearing increased by 0.1 ha. The extra 0.7 ha is a signal to investigate, not proof of displacement caused by the agreement.

Next step. Investigate neighbouring clearing and possible causes.

Inputs, example and sources

World Bank · Impact Evaluation in Practice Second Edition
Institution publication · Chapter 7, table 7.2, printed page 140, PDF page 170

The formula is verified. Causal interpretation still requires a defensible study design, comparison and assumptions.

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Agreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; New clearing in the neighbouring area before [ha]; New clearing in the neighbouring area after [ha]; New clearing in a separate comparison area before [ha]; New clearing in the comparison area after [ha]; Earlier observation; Later observation; Equal observation windows and fixed comparable areas documented; Map and field-check reference

Other required evidence. Project boundary; neighboring activities; baseline; follow-up; causal evidence.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama farmer group · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Agreement and version	Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1
Who carries out the work	Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example
Who funds the agreement	Downstream water-user fund — example
New clearing in the neighbouring area before	0.6	ha
New clearing in the neighbouring area after	1.4	ha
New clearing in a separate comparison area before	0.4	ha
New clearing in the comparison area after	0.5	ha
Earlier observation	2024-06-30
Later observation	2025-06-30
Equal observation windows and fixed comparable areas documented	Documented
Map and field-check reference	Two fixed 200 ha observation areas; same clearing definition and season — example
Difference between the two increases	0.7	ha
Increase in neighbouring clearing	0.8	ha
Increase in comparison-area clearing	0.1	ha

Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement.

Proposed checking role. Scheme coordinator with the independent checker or relevant specialist.

After the action. Verified outcomes, costs, distributional effects and evidence strength.

World Bank Impact Evaluation in Practice Second Edition — Institution publication. Chapter7 difference-in-differences. Published difference-in-differences estimator and study assumptions; aggregate examples do not establish causation.
SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.
FAO Payments for environmental services what role in sustainable agricultural development — Institution publication. ESA Working Paper 11-20; section 2 printed pages 3–5; sections 3 and 4 on evidence, costs and equity. Conditional agreements, baseline/additionality, monitoring, funding and fairness. Does not set a Sri Lankan scheme, rate, tariff or automatic payment rule.

Institution and data context

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
UN SEEA Ecosystem Accounting — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO PES and food security — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

9. Could the agreed work be lost or damaged?DEC-DP39-009 · Permanence · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

What to check. Arrange a field check and the response required by the agreement.

Validation required

Method. Reported damaged area cannot exceed the previously accepted area. Follow the agreed response; do not infer a penalty, debt or carbon reversal from an area report.

What this means. Follow up 3 ha under the agreement. Any liability or payment adjustment needs its own evidence and authority.

Next step. Agree and record the required response.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Agreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; Previously accepted area [ha]; Area reported as damaged [ha]; Damage checked in the field; Required repair or response plan recorded; Reported cause and evidence

Other required evidence. Service durability; hazards; tenure; maintenance; reversal evidence; contract conditions.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama farmer group · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Agreement and version	Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1
Who carries out the work	Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example
Who funds the agreement	Downstream water-user fund — example
Previously accepted area	20	ha
Area reported as damaged	3	ha
Damage checked in the field	Documented
Required repair or response plan recorded	Missing
Reported cause and evidence	Storm damage to riverbank planting — example
Reported area needing follow-up	3	ha

Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement.

Proposed checking role. Scheme coordinator with the independent checker or relevant specialist.

After the action. Verified control effectiveness and residual risk with evidence.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.
FAO Payments for environmental services what role in sustainable agricultural development — Institution publication. ESA Working Paper 11-20; section 2 printed pages 3–5; sections 3 and 4 on evidence, costs and equity. Conditional agreements, baseline/additionality, monitoring, funding and fairness. Does not set a Sri Lankan scheme, rate, tariff or automatic payment rule.

Institution and data context

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
UN SEEA Ecosystem Accounting — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO PES and food security — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

10. Which service agreement is practical?DEC-DP39-010 · Contract design · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

What to check. Compare cost, measurable work and provider safeguards together.

Validation required

Method. Total cost = provider payment + checking cost. Compare with the matching annual budget and review every safeguard. Lower cost alone does not select the best agreement.

What this means. Provider payment plus checking costs LKR 400,000 per year. Budget balance: LKR 50,000.

Next step. Compare the benefits and obligations with the parties.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Agreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; Proposed provider payment [LKR/year]; Monitoring and checking cost [LKR/year]; Available annual scheme budget [LKR/year]; Work can be checked with a defined protocol; Rights and voluntary participation documented; Livelihood and environmental safeguards documented; Intended benefit and evidence needed

Other required evidence. Service options; measurability; costs; livelihood effects; rights; funding.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Riverbank vegetation care · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Agreement and version	Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1
Who carries out the work	Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example
Who funds the agreement	Downstream water-user fund — example
Proposed provider payment	300,000	LKR/year
Monitoring and checking cost	100,000	LKR/year
Available annual scheme budget	450,000	LKR/year
Work can be checked with a defined protocol	Documented
Rights and voluntary participation documented	Documented
Livelihood and environmental safeguards documented	Documented
Intended benefit and evidence needed	Riverbank vegetation and soil cover; monitor stream conditions separately
Annual budget left after the proposal	50,000	LKR/year
Total annual scheme cost	400,000	LKR/year

Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement.

Proposed checking role. Scheme coordinator with the independent checker or relevant specialist.

After the action. Verified benefits, costs and adverse effects versus the agreed baseline.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.
FAO Payments for environmental services what role in sustainable agricultural development — Institution publication. ESA Working Paper 11-20; section 2 printed pages 3–5; sections 3 and 4 on evidence, costs and equity. Conditional agreements, baseline/additionality, monitoring, funding and fairness. Does not set a Sri Lankan scheme, rate, tariff or automatic payment rule.

Institution and data context

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
UN SEEA Ecosystem Accounting — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO PES and food security — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

11. What payment can we propose?DEC-DP39-011 · Payment proposals · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

What to check. Calculate an example amount, then check the agreement evidence.

Validation required

Method. Annual proposal = min(accepted hectares × annual rate, annual cap). Subtract payments for the same agreement and year. Refer an amount only when required evidence is documented. This screen makes no payment.

What this means. 20 ha × LKR 12,500 per ha/year = LKR 250,000, capped at LKR 300,000. Annual proposal: LKR 250,000. Confirm the evidence and matching funds; no amount is ready for authorisation.

Next step. Complete the evidence and funding before referral.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Agreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; Area meeting the annual agreement conditions [ha]; Illustrative annual rate per accepted hectare [LKR/ha/year]; Annual cap for this agreement [LKR/year]; Amount already paid for these same annual conditions [LKR]; Independent field-check record documented; Rights and voluntary agreement documented; Funding confirmation documented; Field-check and rate references; Confirmed funds available for this annual proposal [LKR]

Other required evidence. Verified quantity; approved rate; cap; contract conditions; funding; verification reference.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama farmer group · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Agreement and version	Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1
Who carries out the work	Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example
Who funds the agreement	Downstream water-user fund — example
Area meeting the annual agreement conditions	20	ha
Illustrative annual rate per accepted hectare	12,500	LKR/ha/year
Annual cap for this agreement	300,000	LKR/year
Amount already paid for these same annual conditions	0	LKR
Independent field-check record documented	Documented
Rights and voluntary agreement documented	Documented
Funding confirmation documented	Missing
Field-check and rate references	Example field record / draft annual rate schedule 1
Confirmed funds available for this annual proposal	200,000	LKR
Calculated annual proposal before payments	250,000	LKR
Proposal less amount already paid	250,000	LKR
Amount ready to refer for authorisation	Unavailable	LKR

Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement.

Proposed checking role. Scheme coordinator with the independent checker or relevant specialist.

After the action. Independently verified service, authorized payments and unresolved grievances.

FAO PES and food security — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO designing PES — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.
FAO Payments for environmental services what role in sustainable agricultural development — Institution publication. ESA Working Paper 11-20; section 2 printed pages 3–5; sections 3 and 4 on evidence, costs and equity. Conditional agreements, baseline/additionality, monitoring, funding and fairness. Does not set a Sri Lankan scheme, rate, tariff or automatic payment rule.

Institution and data context

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
UN SEEA Ecosystem Accounting — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO PES and food security — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

12. How would the payment be shared?DEC-DP39-012 · Benefit sharing · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

What to check. Check the amounts and resolve objections before confirming a sharing plan.

Validation required

Method. Allocated amount = farmer-group + worker + administration shares. It must not exceed the proposed payment. Matching totals do not prove consent or fairness.

What this means. LKR 250,000 allocated in the draft; LKR 0 unallocated; 2 objections remain.

Next step. Resolve objections and obtain agreement on this plan.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Agreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; Payment available in the proposed plan [LKR]; Proposed farmer-group share [LKR]; Proposed field-worker share [LKR]; Disclosed administration share [LKR]; Unresolved objections [cases]; Affected participants agreed to this version; Sharing-plan version

Other required evidence. Agreement version; beneficiaries; allocation rules; consent; objections; evidence.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama farmer group · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Agreement and version	Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1
Who carries out the work	Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example
Who funds the agreement	Downstream water-user fund — example
Payment available in the proposed plan	250,000	LKR
Proposed farmer-group share	200,000	LKR
Proposed field-worker share	40,000	LKR
Disclosed administration share	10,000	LKR
Unresolved objections	2	cases
Affected participants agreed to this version	Missing
Sharing-plan version	Draft benefit-sharing plan 1 — example
Amount allocated in the draft plan	250,000	LKR
Amount not allocated	0	LKR
Unresolved objections	2	cases

Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement.

Proposed checking role. Scheme coordinator with the independent checker or relevant specialist.

After the action. Resolved concerns, participation and compliance with recorded commitments.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.
FAO Payments for environmental services what role in sustainable agricultural development — Institution publication. ESA Working Paper 11-20; section 2 printed pages 3–5; sections 3 and 4 on evidence, costs and equity. Conditional agreements, baseline/additionality, monitoring, funding and fairness. Does not set a Sri Lankan scheme, rate, tariff or automatic payment rule.

Institution and data context

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
UN SEEA Ecosystem Accounting — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO PES and food security — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

13. Is the same work being claimed twice?DEC-DP39-013 · Double counting · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

What to check. Review the same place, work and period before deciding whether claims conflict.

Validation required

Method. Flag mapped overlap only when the same work and units share a period. An overlap is not automatically double counting: check both agreements and any permitted combination of benefits.

What this means. Common area: 5 ha; common period: 214 days. Permitted combinations require evidence from both agreements.

Next step. Review both agreements before combining the claims.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Agreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; Parcel or mapped work reference; Other agreement and purpose; Area claimed in this agreement [ha]; Area claimed in the other agreement [ha]; Mapped area common to both claims [ha]; This claim begins; This claim ends; Other claim begins; Other claim ends; Same work and unit confirmed; Both agreements permit the combined claims

Other required evidence. Service unit; location; period; agreement; credit or claim registry; rights.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama farmer group · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Agreement and version	Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1
Who carries out the work	Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example
Who funds the agreement	Downstream water-user fund — example
Parcel or mapped work reference	Example riverbank plot Laggala 01
Other agreement and purpose	Example second riverbank-care agreement
Area claimed in this agreement	20	ha
Area claimed in the other agreement	8	ha
Mapped area common to both claims	5	ha
This claim begins	2025-01-01
This claim ends	2025-12-31
Other claim begins	2025-06-01
Other claim ends	2025-12-31
Same work and unit confirmed	Documented
Both agreements permit the combined claims	Missing
Overlapping claim area to review	5	ha
Overlapping claim period	214	calendar days

Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement.

Proposed checking role. Scheme coordinator with the independent checker or relevant specialist.

After the action. Confirmed unique support and unresolved overlap cases.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.
FAO Payments for environmental services what role in sustainable agricultural development — Institution publication. ESA Working Paper 11-20; section 2 printed pages 3–5; sections 3 and 4 on evidence, costs and equity. Conditional agreements, baseline/additionality, monitoring, funding and fairness. Does not set a Sri Lankan scheme, rate, tariff or automatic payment rule.

Institution and data context

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
UN SEEA Ecosystem Accounting — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO PES and food security — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

14. How should we measure the work and its benefits?DEC-DP39-014 · Monitoring design · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

What to check. Choose a repeatable work check and a separate environmental outcome measure.

Validation required

Method. Compare defined indicators, units, sampling effort, seasons, baseline and cost. Practice checks and environmental outcomes answer different questions; no numeric score chooses the protocol.

What this means. Fixed-point ground cover (% ground covered). Practice compliance; not proof of cleaner water. Estimated monitoring cost: LKR 60,000 per year.

Next step. Obtain the baseline or complete the sampling protocol.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Agreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; Indicator; Measurement unit; What the indicator measures; When to measure; Estimated annual monitoring cost [LKR/year]; Sampling method and quality checks documented; Comparable baseline available

Other required evidence. Service definition; causal pathway; baseline; feasible measurements; uncertainty; cost.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fixed-point ground cover · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Agreement and version	Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1
Who carries out the work	Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example
Who funds the agreement	Downstream water-user fund — example
Indicator	Fixed-point ground cover
Measurement unit	% ground covered
What the indicator measures	Practice compliance; not proof of cleaner water
When to measure	Same season each year, with quarterly work checks
Estimated annual monitoring cost	60,000	LKR/year
Sampling method and quality checks documented	Documented
Comparable baseline available	Missing
Annual monitoring cost to compare	60,000	LKR/year

Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement.

Proposed checking role. Scheme coordinator with the independent checker or relevant specialist.

After the action. Verified benefits, costs and adverse effects versus the agreed baseline.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.
FAO Payments for environmental services what role in sustainable agricultural development — Institution publication. ESA Working Paper 11-20; section 2 printed pages 3–5; sections 3 and 4 on evidence, costs and equity. Conditional agreements, baseline/additionality, monitoring, funding and fairness. Does not set a Sri Lankan scheme, rate, tariff or automatic payment rule.

Institution and data context

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
UN SEEA Ecosystem Accounting — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO PES and food security — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

15. Is there enough money for the full agreement?DEC-DP39-015 · Funding sustainability · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

What to check. Separate future commitments, money received and money spent.

Validation required

Method. Full-period need = annual cost × years on a constant-price example basis. Funding gap = need − confirmed commitments. Keep disbursement and spending separate; actual agreements may need a year-by-year budget.

What this means. 3 years × LKR 400,000 per year = LKR 1,200,000. Funding still to secure: LKR 300,000.

Next step. Secure the full-period funding gap.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Agreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; Provider payments, checking and administration per year [LKR/year]; Agreement funding period [years]; Confirmed funding for that full period [LKR]; Money actually received under that commitment [LKR]; Eligible expenditure already recorded [LKR]

Other required evidence. Contract costs; buyer commitments; disbursements; monitoring cost; duration; conditions.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama farmer group · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Agreement and version	Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1
Who carries out the work	Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example
Who funds the agreement	Downstream water-user fund — example
Provider payments, checking and administration per year	400,000	LKR/year
Agreement funding period	3	years
Confirmed funding for that full period	900,000	LKR
Money actually received under that commitment	200,000	LKR
Eligible expenditure already recorded	150,000	LKR
Funding still to secure	300,000	LKR
Total funding needed for the full period	1,200,000	LKR
Committed money not yet received	700,000	LKR
Received money not yet spent	50,000	LKR

Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement.

Proposed checking role. Scheme coordinator with the independent checker or relevant specialist.

After the action. Verified funding, spend and deliverables reconciled without double counting.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.
FAO Payments for environmental services what role in sustainable agricultural development — Institution publication. ESA Working Paper 11-20; section 2 printed pages 3–5; sections 3 and 4 on evidence, costs and equity. Conditional agreements, baseline/additionality, monitoring, funding and fairness. Does not set a Sri Lankan scheme, rate, tariff or automatic payment rule.

Institution and data context

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
UN SEEA Ecosystem Accounting — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO PES and food security — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

16. Could participation harm a household or its rights?DEC-DP39-016 · Provider safeguards · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

What to check. Resolve livelihood and participation risks before proceeding.

Validation required

Method. Check each safeguard with affected people and responsible specialists. A count does not clear a safeguard or replace consent.

What this means. 1 items remain. Documentary completeness is not scheme approval, eligibility or safeguard clearance.

Next step. Resolve the listed missing or conflicting evidence.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Agreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; Land and resource-use rights understood; Food-production effects checked; Income and labour effects checked; Women and vulnerable groups can participate; Voluntary informed participation recorded; Accessible complaint route recorded; Safeguard review reference

Other required evidence. Provider needs; opportunity costs; land rights; food production; safeguards; consent.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama farmer group · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Agreement and version	Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1
Who carries out the work	Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example
Who funds the agreement	Downstream water-user fund — example
Land and resource-use rights understood	Documented
Food-production effects checked	Missing
Income and labour effects checked	Documented
Women and vulnerable groups can participate	Documented
Voluntary informed participation recorded	Documented
Accessible complaint route recorded	Documented
Safeguard review reference	Draft livelihood and rights review — example
Safeguard items still to resolve	1	items

Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement.

Proposed checking role. Scheme coordinator with the independent checker or relevant specialist.

After the action. Verified control effectiveness and residual risk with evidence.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.
FAO Payments for environmental services what role in sustainable agricultural development — Institution publication. ESA Working Paper 11-20; section 2 printed pages 3–5; sections 3 and 4 on evidence, costs and equity. Conditional agreements, baseline/additionality, monitoring, funding and fairness. Does not set a Sri Lankan scheme, rate, tariff or automatic payment rule.

Institution and data context

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
UN SEEA Ecosystem Accounting — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO PES and food security — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

17. Which complaints need a response?DEC-DP39-017 · Grievances and appeals · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

What to check. Show the recorded deadline and who should respond.

Validation required

Method. For an open complaint, days overdue = max(0, review date − due date). Use the agreed procedure; do not invent a legal deadline.

What this means. Question about the draft benefit-sharing plan. 15 calendar days overdue on the review date.

Next step. Follow up the overdue response with the responsible role.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Agreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; Complaint; Complaint received; Response due under the recorded procedure; Review date; Complaint closed; Responsible contact role; Appeal route

Other required evidence. Case; agreement; issue; receipt; response; deadline; independent appeal route.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama farmer group · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Agreement and version	Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1
Who carries out the work	Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example
Who funds the agreement	Downstream water-user fund — example
Complaint	Question about the draft benefit-sharing plan
Complaint received	2025-06-01
Response due under the recorded procedure	2025-06-15
Review date	2025-06-30
Complaint closed	No
Responsible contact role	Scheme grievance focal point — example
Appeal route	Independent appeal role to be agreed
Calendar days past response deadline	15	days
Calendar days since receipt	29	days

Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement.

Proposed checking role. Scheme coordinator with the independent checker or relevant specialist.

After the action. Response time, aged cases, completion and reopened cases.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.
FAO Payments for environmental services what role in sustainable agricultural development — Institution publication. ESA Working Paper 11-20; section 2 printed pages 3–5; sections 3 and 4 on evidence, costs and equity. Conditional agreements, baseline/additionality, monitoring, funding and fairness. Does not set a Sri Lankan scheme, rate, tariff or automatic payment rule.

Institution and data context

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
UN SEEA Ecosystem Accounting — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO PES and food security — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

18. Is the checker independent?DEC-DP39-018 · Independent review · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

What to check. Check who prepared the claim, who reviews it and any declared interests.

Validation required

Method. The claim preparer and independent checker must be distinguishable. Review appointment, declared interests, protocol and findings; different names alone do not prove independence.

What this means. Prepared by Provider monitoring officer — example; checked by Independent watershed review team — example. 1 independence items need attention.

Next step. Resolve the independence concerns before relying on the check.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Agreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; Who prepared the claim; Who checks the claim; Checking role and appointment documented; Interests and independence checks documented; Checking protocol documented; Signed findings recorded; Independence review reference

Other required evidence. Verifier appointment; interests; creator identity; protocol; evidence; sign-off.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama farmer group · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Agreement and version	Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1
Who carries out the work	Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example
Who funds the agreement	Downstream water-user fund — example
Who prepared the claim	Provider monitoring officer — example
Who checks the claim	Independent watershed review team — example
Checking role and appointment documented	Documented
Interests and independence checks documented	Missing
Checking protocol documented	Documented
Signed findings recorded	Documented
Independence review reference	Example appointment and interest-declaration record
Independence items to resolve	1	items

Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement.

Proposed checking role. Scheme coordinator with the independent checker or relevant specialist.

After the action. Evidence-backed corrective closure and recurring nonconformances.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.
FAO Payments for environmental services what role in sustainable agricultural development — Institution publication. ESA Working Paper 11-20; section 2 printed pages 3–5; sections 3 and 4 on evidence, costs and equity. Conditional agreements, baseline/additionality, monitoring, funding and fairness. Does not set a Sri Lankan scheme, rate, tariff or automatic payment rule.

Institution and data context

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
UN SEEA Ecosystem Accounting — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO PES and food security — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

19. Should the agreement continue, change or close?DEC-DP39-019 · Renewal decisions · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

What to check. Compare the three choices using results, obligations, feedback and funding.

Validation required

Method. Compare renewal, redesign and closure separately. Record the obligations and effects of each; no automatic renewal or closure follows from the cheapest cost.

What this means. Renew the agreement. Estimated cost: LKR 400,000. Remaining obligation: Complete outstanding field checks before any renewal.

Next step. Resolve results, feedback or funding gaps.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Agreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; Choice to review; Estimated next-period cost or closure cost [LKR]; Results and outstanding obligations reviewed; Provider feedback reviewed; Funding or closure resources confirmed; Work or commitments that still need attention

Other required evidence. Verified outcomes; costs; compliance; provider feedback; risks; funding.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Renew the agreement · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Agreement and version	Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1
Who carries out the work	Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example
Who funds the agreement	Downstream water-user fund — example
Choice to review	Renew the agreement
Estimated next-period cost or closure cost	400,000	LKR
Results and outstanding obligations reviewed	Documented
Provider feedback reviewed	Documented
Funding or closure resources confirmed	Missing
Work or commitments that still need attention	Complete outstanding field checks before any renewal
Cost of this choice to compare	400,000	LKR

Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement.

Proposed checking role. Scheme coordinator with the independent checker or relevant specialist.

After the action. Verified benefits, costs and adverse effects versus the agreed baseline.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.
FAO Payments for environmental services what role in sustainable agricultural development — Institution publication. ESA Working Paper 11-20; section 2 printed pages 3–5; sections 3 and 4 on evidence, costs and equity. Conditional agreements, baseline/additionality, monitoring, funding and fairness. Does not set a Sri Lankan scheme, rate, tariff or automatic payment rule.

Institution and data context

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
UN SEEA Ecosystem Accounting — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO PES and food security — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

20. Do the service name, unit and agreement match?DEC-DP39-020 · Scheme records · Suggested priority: Lower

Try this decision

What to check. Ask the data owner to resolve differences before joining records.

Validation required

Method. Keep both original names and units. Planted hectares are not automatically hectares meeting an annual care condition. Record any confirmed equivalence; never silently convert them.

What this means. Source: Riverbank restoration / ha planted. Agreement: Annual riverbank vegetation care / ha meeting annual care conditions.

Next step. Ask the data owner to confirm names, units and meaning.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Agreement and version; Who carries out the work; Who funds the agreement; Name used in the source; Name in the agreement; Unit used in the source; Unit required by the agreement; Matching meaning confirmed by the data owner; Definition and mapping reference

Other required evidence. Service label; physical unit; method; agreement ID; period; steward mapping.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama farmer group · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Agreement and version	Laggala Pallegama riverbank care / draft 1
Who carries out the work	Laggala Pallegama farmer group — example
Who funds the agreement	Downstream water-user fund — example
Name used in the source	Riverbank restoration
Name in the agreement	Annual riverbank vegetation care
Unit used in the source	ha planted
Unit required by the agreement	ha meeting annual care conditions
Matching meaning confirmed by the data owner	Missing
Definition and mapping reference	Draft service definition / agreement version 1
Definition issue to resolve	1	items

Illustrative watershed-care agreement. Contract rules, rate, payer, monitoring and safeguards need confirmation in Institution review. Maintained hectares do not establish a measured water-quality improvement.

Proposed checking role. Scheme coordinator with the independent checker or relevant specialist.

After the action. Unmapped/conflicting concepts and history preserved across revisions.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.
FAO Payments for environmental services what role in sustainable agricultural development — Institution publication. ESA Working Paper 11-20; section 2 printed pages 3–5; sections 3 and 4 on evidence, costs and equity. Conditional agreements, baseline/additionality, monitoring, funding and fairness. Does not set a Sri Lankan scheme, rate, tariff or automatic payment rule.

Institution and data context

GCF FP124 project and documents — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
UN SEEA Ecosystem Accounting — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
FAO PES and food security — Institution publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

Field	Unit	Required
Forest Type	Confirm if needed	No
Forest Name	Confirm if needed	No
Range	Confirm if needed	No
Beat	Confirm if needed	No
Division	Confirm if needed	No
FA Division	Confirm if needed	No
GFCODE	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
Area Final	Confirm if needed	No
District	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Field	Unit	Required
Watershed_Type	Confirm if needed	No
Watershed_Name	Confirm if needed	No
Catchment_Name	Confirm if needed	No
Basin_Name	Confirm if needed	No
Region_Name	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
Perimeter	Confirm if needed	No
area	Confirm if needed	No
Watershed_Number	Confirm if needed	No
Hectares	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

1. Choose a question

2. Check the example

3. Check each decision

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

4. Existing data forms for your institution

5. Documents and images

What you can try

What your institution needs to confirm

6. Data structure management

What you can try

What your institution needs to confirm

7. Users and access

What you can try

What your institution needs to confirm

9. Anything else we should change?

PES Intermediaries

1. Choose a question

2. Check the example

3. Check each decision

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

4. Existing data forms for your institution

5. Documents and images

What you can try

What your institution needs to confirm

6. Data structure management

What you can try

What your institution needs to confirm

7. Users and access

What you can try

What your institution needs to confirm

8. Can you share data regularly?

9. Anything else we should change?