Eligible project proponents are organisations involved in the design, development, and implementation of high-quality nature-based carbon market projects. Examples of eligible organization types include:

• Local or international NGOs. 
• Indigenous Peoples (IPs), Local Communities (LCs) and grassroot organizations 
• Private project developers. 
• Forestry and agricultural companies, including innovative start-ups. 
• Cooperatives. 
• Other entities with relevant expertise and on-the-ground capacity. 

For more information on the requirements of project proponents refer to Chapter 2.2.2 Eligible project proponents of the Guidelines for Applicants [🡇] .

We assume that this question refers to the intended project. A project that is not yet registered as a voluntary carbon project (e.g. for carbon removals) may be eligible, as one of the key objectives of the WALD Innovation Facility is to support projects in reaching registration with a recognized carbon standard, such as the Gold Standard (GS) or Verified Carbon Standard (VCS), during the grant funding period.

Yes, a consortium of local organisations is eligible to apply. One organisation must act as the lead partner and will serve as the “Grantee” in the grant agreement, bearing full responsibility for the technical and financial implementation of the project.

The following requirements apply to consortia:

• Consortium size: There is no specific limit, but the consortium must demonstrate sufficient competence and capacity. 
• Representation: The lead partner must submit a representation letter and coordinate the design and implementation of the project on behalf of the consortium. The lead partner must act as the primary representative and will be the sole recipient of the grant funding. 
• Local government units can participate as partners in the consortium. 

There are no specific, quantitative requirements, e.g. having managed xx projects of yy size, on the level of experience of an organisation applying for the Innovation Facility Fund.  

The project proponent must demonstrate competence as well as technical and financial capacities relevant to the proposed project and have a track record of managing comparable projects. . Project proponents must also have prior experience in the application of robust environmental and social safeguard policies during the implementation of projects. 

For more information on the requirements of project proponents refer to Chapter 2.2.2 Eligible project proponents of the Guidelines for Applicants [🡇] .

Local organizations must meet the following additional requirements:

• Governance and Management: A governing body, such as a Board of Directors or Executive Committee, must oversee financial operations. 
• Financial Systems: A computerized accounting system capable of tracking income and expenditures separately for each project or grant is required. 
• Audited Financial Statements: Audited financial statements for the past two years must be submitted. If the latest financial year is not covered, an explanation must accompany the submission. 
• Annual Audit: An independent external auditor (or internal auditor for public bodies) must conduct annual audits, with the most recent auditor’s report and management letter provided. 
• Operational Capacity: The organization should demonstrate a track record of managing similar projects with measurable outcomes. 
• Policies and Procedures: Documented policies on accounting, procurement, and ethics, including measures to address bribery and corruption, are required. 
• Financial Documentation: Proper records, such as invoices and timesheets, must be retained for a minimum of ten years after the final financial report is submitted. 

These requirements ensure applicants have the financial and operational capacity to manage the grants responsibly. For further details, refer to the guidelines of applicants and Section F “Due diligence and financial capacity” of the Concept Note [🡇].

The term “project proponent” applies to individual legal entities within a network. Each entity can submit a proposal as the lead partner. However, entities may act as partners in multiple applications.

Local organisations are not explicitly required to have government co-applicants. However, the project must demonstrate government engagement where necessary, including obtaining required authorizations and working with national and traditional authorities when involving Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities.  

The WALD Innovation Facility is not intended for projects that have already achieved full validation under a carbon standard. Projects that have already been validated are not eligible The Facility prioritises initiatives in advanced preparation working towards validation, that seek funding to work toward achieving full validation and registration with an eligible carbon standard (e.g., Gold Standard or Verified Carbon Standard). 

Banks, financial institutions, UN organisations, and universities are not eligible to serve as lead project proponents. 

The Facility prioritizes organisations with the on-the-ground capacity to manage and implement nature-based carbon projects. Therefore, we strongly encourage the named institutions to consider forming a consortium with suitable project partners who possess the necessary operational capacity for project implementation. By partnering with an eligible lead organisation, these institutions can play a supporting role, contributing their expertise and resources while ensuring effective project execution. 

Government institutions are not eligible to serve as lead project proponents. 

The Facility prioritizes organisations with the on-the-ground capacity to manage and implement nature-based carbon projects. Therefore, we strongly encourage the named institutions to consider forming a consortium with suitable project partners who possess the necessary operational capacity for project implementation. By partnering with an eligible lead organisation, these institutions can play a supporting role, contributing their expertise and resources while ensuring effective project execution. 

There is no specific preference for global versus local organisations. The primary focus lies on the organisation’s capacity to manage and implement projects effectively, regardless of their scale. Emphasis is placed on the readiness, technical expertise, and demonstrated ability to deliver outcomes aligned with the Innovation Facility’s objectives.

Projects funded by the Innovation Facility must be implemented in countries that:

1. Are on the OECD DAC list of ODA recipients. 
2. Are not subject to international sanctions, including those imposed by: 
   • The United Nations (UN). 
   • The European Union (EU). 
   • The Federal Republic of Germany. 
   • Switzerland. 
   • Any other organisations to which these countries belong. 

Countries failing to comply with these criteria will be deemed ineligible for funding. For detailed information, refer to Chapter 2.2.3, Eligibility Criteria for Projects, in the Guidelines for Applicants [🡇] .

Geographic distribution between continents is not a factor in the selection process.  Projects are evaluated based solely on their alignment with the eligibility criteria and objectives, provided they are located in an eligible country.

No, the Innovation Facility exclusively supports projects that are specific to one single country. Multi-country projects are not eligible under the current Guidelines for Applicants [🡇].

No, the eligibility criteria focus on sanctions imposed on an entire country or its governing regime. If a country is on the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) list and is not subject to international sanctions imposed by the United Nations (UN), European Union (EU), Germany, or Switzerland, it remains eligible for funding, even if specific individuals are sanctioned. 

Except for peatlands, projects focused on other types of inland wetlands are eligible as well, as long as the project proponents can prove significant carbon removal.

Funded projects must be located near Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) to contribute effectively to the conservation of these critical areas, which may inevitably overlap with or include protected areas. The eligibility of such projects depends on the nature of the proposed activities and is assessed on a case-by-case basis. Projects are not eligible if they pose risks of causing adverse impacts to biodiversity and ecosystem integrity, even inadvertently, such as through infrastructure or equipment development. For projects in or near protected areas, all activities must strictly align with the management plan of the respective area to ensure compliance with conservation and protection objectives.

Project proponents are advised to select a single main category for their application. However, they can describe a potential combination of different categories and its added value in suitable sections of the Concept Note [🡇].

For the IF there are no explicit rules on combining thematic areas provided they belong to the eligible project categories. However, the Facility emphasizes innovation and encourages projects that align with nature-based carbon removal goals. Combining these areas might be possible if the added value and feasibility are well-documented in the Concept Note. It should be noted that project proponents are advised to select a single main category for their application. They can describe a potential combination of different categories and its added value in suitable sections of the Concept Note.  

Please note that it is suggested to apply approved carbon methodologies, which are usually focused on specific project types. A combination may also be challenging for that reason.

The Innovation Facility does not support grassland projects and does not support BiCRS or BECCS projects. Eligible activities are focused on restoration of forests, inland wetlands, and coastal wetlands. If grassland projects can align with the general criteria for eligible categories (e.g., include restoration of forest areas, silvopastoral systems, or agroforestry systems) and meet rigorous carbon, biodiversity and social standards, they may be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Yes, Improved Forest Management (IFM) is not excluded.

However, the facility emphasizes projects that focus on restoration and associated removals rather than avoided emissions. To align with the Innovation Facility’s objectives, IFM projects should demonstrate a clear focus on additional carbon sequestration and biodiversity gains, as opposed to a focus on avoided timber harvest.

No, Agricultural Land Management (ALM) is excluded in this Call for Concepts.

The Innovation Facility is prioritizing other categories, such as forests, wetlands, and blue carbon ecosystems.

Project proponents must demonstrate that there hasn’t been any land-use change (e.g., no deforestation in the project accounting area) in the last 10 years, as such areas would be ineligible to claim removals under most standards. Proponents must provide credible evidence of land-use history, including remote sensing data, land-use maps, or historical records, to support their claims. 
 
This is a standard requirement in restoration projects, which have deforestation cut-off dates to ensure there is no perverse incentive to deforest areas for subsequent carbon project (e.g., ARR) development. .

No, the selected Projects should focus on generating carbon removals. Projects using REDD+, JREDD, or blends between REDD and WRC methodologies are not eligible.

Establishing nurseries may not inherently disqualify a project from funding under the WALD Innovation Facility; however, the project must meet the required level of maturity and readiness for immediate implementation upon grant agreement. The facility prioritizes projects that have already completed the initial design phase, including feasibility studies, stakeholder mapping, and other preparatory steps. 

Given the short grant funding period (maximum of 24 months), projects are expected to focus on concrete restoration activities and achieving significant milestones, such as project validation with a leading carbon standard. While establishing a nursery may be necessary for some projects—for example, those planning restoration with native species or involving a succession of planting activities—proponents must clearly demonstrate that this step will not delay early planting activities or the achievement of grant outcomes within the funding timeframe. They must also show that establishing or upgrading a nursery is feasible and integral to achieving the project goals effectively and on schedule.

No, there is no specified maximum distance between a proposed project site and a Key Biodiversity Area (KBA). This flexibility is intentional to accommodate the varying ecological and contextual factors that influence the appropriate distance. These factors include the site’s specific characteristics, the type of habitat or ecosystem, and the movement patterns of species in the area. We recognize that ecological impact is shaped not only by proximity but also by the project’s design, objectives, and how well it integrates with the surrounding environment. 
 
Applicants are expected to provide evidence in their concept note showing that the proposed project site is situated close enough to create a positive impact on the KBA. The emphasis is on demonstrating an appropriate level of proximity that aligns with the unique ecological and contextual needs of the project, rather than adhering to a fixed measurement. This approach encourages tailored solutions that reflect the distinct dynamics of each project location.

No, biochar carbon removal projects are not explicitly listed as eligible categories under the WALD Innovation Facility Call for Concepts. The funding prioritizes projects that focus on forests, wetlands, and blue carbon ecosystems, with carbon removal achieved through restoration, reforestation, agroforestry, and natural ecosystem recovery​.  

Yes, agroforestry projects that integrate biodiversity-positive interventions like natural regeneration, assisted natural regeneration, and planting native species are eligible. The WALD Innovation Facility explicitly supports projects that promote carbon sequestration and biodiversity enhancement.  

Projects focused on reintroducing native species face eligibility challenges if they involve cutting down existing trees and forests—particularly if this leads to carbon release and negative environmental effects. Reintroducing native species in the context of the restoration of new and additional forests on land not covered with forests may be eligible as per the defined project categories. 
 

Yes. Projects in or near legally protected or officially proposed areas will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. For instance, the project could contribute positively to the objectives of the conservation area. Under all circumstances, the WALD Innovation Facility requires projects to ensure that they do not inadvertently cause adverse biodiversity or ecosystem impacts. Providing detailed documentation of preventive measures can improve the project’s eligibility. The final decision will depend on the project’s potential risks and mitigation strategies. 

Project proponents must describe their right to manage and control the project site. This can be demonstrated through: 

• Direct ownership (land titles, deeds). 
• Management rights (long-term lease agreements, concessions, government permits). 
• Agreements with local landowners (formal MoUs, signed contracts). 

Agreements need to consider the right on carbon. If the proponent does not own the land, they must describe how they have secured rights to manage and implement the project. The necessary legal documents will have to be submitted at a later stage if the application has been successfully shortlisted.  

The project area* must not have undergone significant land-use change in the last ten years to be eligible.  

Specific requirements apply per eligible project category. Details are defined in VCM standards and methodologies chosen by the project.

For tree-based restauration:  Deforested and significantly degraded land due to human influence within the last decade is ineligible.   
In all cases, applicants must submit land-use maps covering at least ten years before the project start date, with a preferred resolution of 30x30m or higher​. Projects should provide historical satellite imagery or government land records to demonstrate compliance.  

Note that the calculation of the expected carbon sequestration will also require the development of a change matrix of the different land use types and activities included (Compare section C.2.x in the guidelines)  

*The project area is defined as area located within the project boundaries on which restoration activties are implemented.  For instance AR projects require that each discrete site included to the boundary is eligible as per chosen methdologoy. 

No, the only set percentage to follow in the grant budget is the use of min 60% for on-the-ground restoration activities. However, project proponents are encouraged to keep indirect costs lean to maximize on-the-ground impact. While no specific percentage ceiling is set, all indirect costs must be reasonable, justified, and aligned with the project’s objectives.

Yes, costs for feasibility studies, project design document (PDD) preparation, certifications, and project launch are eligible under the “Preparation of the nature-based carbon project” category of the Grant budget [🡇].

Costs for already existing and purchased tools, including machinery or software, are generally not eligible for inclusion in the budget. Only new acquisitions that are directly related to the project and comply with the eligibility criteria specified in the guidelines can be considered. However, reasonable costs for the use and maintenance of existing tools that are directly linked to the proposed project may be included. Overall, the budget should be reasonable and well-justified, while meeting the budget guidelines.

Yes, the Innovation Facility does not cover taxes, public charges, or related fees, including registration fees or staff income tax. These costs must be borne by the grant recipient.

No, application costs are not covered by the Innovation Facility. Only costs incurred during the grant funding period of the approved project are eligible.

Compensation under the WALD Innovation Facility grant is monetary, covering eligible costs associated with project implementation. 

The grant supports expenses that are necessary for project implementation and success, including monitoring tools, technology, and equipment. Given that innovation is a key focus of the Facility, development of new software can be eligible as long as applicants clarify and justify the necessity and added value of software development in their Concept Note.  

Yes, standard overhead costs (also referred to as indirect costs) are allowed, covering office rental, telecom services, utilities, insurance, and administrative fees. However, the Facility encourages keeping these costs lean, ensuring that most of the funding goes towards direct project implementation 

The WALD Innovation Facility actively wants to support projects that attract private capital and that can be scaled up. It therefore encourages the development of financial instruments and mechanisms that can help to scale projects. However, a careful balance will need to be found in project design. Note that the IF grant focusses on coverage of actual restoration costs in the ramp-up phase of carbon and biodiversity projects.

The 60% allocation requirement applies only to the grant amount provided by the WALD Innovation Facility. The required 25% match funding from the applicant can be allocated flexibly, as long as it supports the overall project goals. 

No, training and education activities do not count toward the minimum 60% budget allocation for restoration. The grant explicitly requires that at least 60-70% of funds go toward on-the-ground restoration, such as: 

• Land preparation 
• Seedling purchases and planting 
• Etc. 

While community engagement and training are supported under the community development category, they do not replace direct restoration efforts in the budget allocation​. 

Yes, the Innovation Facility requires grantees to provide match funding that amounts to at least 25% of the grant amount, in addition to the grant funding provided by the Innovation Facility.

The 25% match funding must come from other financing sources secured by the proponent, such as private sector investors or government programs.

There is no restriction on using match funding from existing partnerships, including governmental partnerships. Match funding can come from both private and governmental sources, whether these are part of new or existing collaborations. 

However, it is important to note that one of the core objectives of the initiative is to encourage applicants to actively seek additional funding sources throughout the funding period. This includes leveraging relationships with the private sector to secure further financial support for the long-term sustainability of the project. Applicants are therefore encouraged to explore diverse funding opportunities to enhance the project’s impact and future viability.

Applicants are not required to secure the 25% match funding at the start of the grant. However, selected projects must provide regular updates on project finances, including progress towards achieving the required co-financing. Final proof of the 25% match funding must be submitted by the end of the funding period. Failure to secure and proof the 25% match funding by this deadline will be tantamount to failure to abide by the contractual obligations.  

While income from the Voluntary Carbon Market (VCM) can be an essential part of a project’s long-term financial strategy, the WALD Innovation Facility encourages applicants to demonstrate additional investment sources and financial sustainability plans. The grant is designed to catalyze private sector investments, and projects must have a clear roadmap for financial viability beyond the two-year funding period.