4.5 MW bundled wind power project

Integrity

The project has a positive integrity signal because the VVB confirmed additionality through an investment test, and the project is a wind power activity under AMS I.D. However, leakage is not addressed in the monitoring report, no leakage deduction is stated, and no buffer pool or reversal information is available, so permanence and leakage controls are only weakly evidenced. The project-specific baseline and the absence of a recent reassessment also limit robustness.

Transparency

Transparency is moderate at best: the VVB is named, the monitoring period is stated, and verified reductions are reported as 5,103 tCO2e in the monitoring record. Against that, the monitoring report lists many corrective actions and notes missing supporting documents such as technical equipment details, commissioning certificates, PPAs, O&M agreements, JMRs, invoices, and calibration certificates, which weakens MRV traceability.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is constrained by the project-specific baseline, the lack of a stated leakage deduction, and the contradiction between a validation report that treated leakage as negligible and a monitoring report that says it was not addressed. The project is explicitly not CORSIA-eligible, which helps on one channel, but there is no CCP status stated. The conflicting verified emissions figures across documents also raise over-crediting and reliability concerns.

Documentation

The document set is reasonably broad, with evidence drawn from the PDD, validation report, monitoring report, and issuance-related records, and the extraction confidence is high. Even so, the monitoring report contains numerous corrective actions and several missing source records, and the crediting period information conflicts between documents. That combination suggests the file is usable but not fully clean or complete.

Overall

I privileged the more recent monitoring report for operational details such as the stated leakage treatment and the later credited-period framing, but I also weighed the earlier validation report where it provided more favorable leakage language and a different emissions figure. The contradictions on grievance mechanism, safeguards, leakage, verified reductions, and crediting period indicate material reliability issues, so the score is adjusted downward. Because integrity remains above the low threshold, the overall score is not capped, but the project still lands in a middling-risk category.