GS avoidance Turkey Registry: Certified & crediting Documentazione completa General Methodology v2.0

Akbuk Wind Farm Project, Turkey

GS-741 ↗

5.7 / 10

Integrity

6.1

Transparency

5.4

Claim Safety

5.0

Documentation

6.2

Score Breakdown

Integrity

verified Additionality was confirmed by the VVB, and the project uses a project-based baseline under ACM0002.

missing Leakage treatment changed across reports, with one verification report describing leakage as negligible and a later one stating a quantified deduction, creating consistency concerns.

Transparency

verified The project has a named verifier, RINA Services S.p.A., and the monitoring period is clearly stated.

missing Public-facing claim clarity is weakened by missing usage-rate details and conflicting verified emissions figures across documents.

Claim Safety

verified The project is an avoidance-type wind project with a quantified leakage deduction of 0%, which is generally favorable for over-crediting risk.

missing The baseline is project-specific rather than jurisdictional, and the record does not state CORSIA or CCP status.

Documentation

verified Multiple official documents were available, including validation, verification, monitoring, PDD, and appendix materials, with high extraction confidence.

missing The extracted record contains contradictions on additionality, leakage justification, verified ERs, and crediting period timing, which lowers documentation reliability.

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

The project scores moderately well because the verification report confirms additionality and the methodology is ACM0002 with a project-based baseline. No material findings or corrective actions were reported in the verification record, and leakage is described with a quantified deduction of 0%. The score is held back by the contradiction between the validation report’s investment test and the later monitoring report’s combined test, plus inconsistent leakage wording across verification documents.

Transparency

Transparency is mixed: the verifier is identified as RINA Services S.p.A., and the monitoring period is clearly stated. However, key operational details such as usage-rate monitoring are not stated in the extracted record, and the verified emissions totals differ across documents. That inconsistency makes it harder to trace the claim trail cleanly.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is moderate because this is a renewable electricity avoidance project with a quantified zero leakage deduction, which reduces some over-crediting concerns. At the same time, the baseline is project-specific rather than a more robust jurisdictional baseline, and the record does not state whether the project is CORSIA-eligible or CCP-approved. The conflicting emissions and period figures also weaken confidence in the exact volume of claims.

Documentation

Documentation quality is fairly good because multiple official sources were used, including validation, verification, monitoring, the PDD, and an appendix, and extraction confidence is high. Still, the record contains several contradictions, especially on additionality test type, leakage justification, verified ER totals, and crediting period dates. Those inconsistencies reduce the reliability of the assembled evidence base.

Overall

I privileged the later monitoring report for the updated additionality framing and the later verification record for the quantified leakage treatment, because they are more recent and appear to reflect the final project accounting. I also privileged the later monitoring report’s crediting-period dates over the older verification-period dates, since the contradiction suggests the project continued into a later period. Even so, the conflicting verified emissions figures and date ranges indicate a material reliability issue, so the overall score is kept in the mid-range rather than higher.

Audit Analysis

This is a Gold Standard wind project with VVB-confirmed additionality, a project-specific baseline, and no material findings reported in the verification record. However, the record shows important documentation inconsistencies on additionality framing, leakage treatment, verified emissions reductions, and crediting period dates, which reduce confidence in the claim quality.

Project Description

The Akbuk Wind Farm Project (Akbuk WFP) utilises wind energy potential in Turkey and compensates energy requirement through a sustainable, environmentally and cost-effective way. The Project Developer and Owner, Ayen Enerji A.S., installed Akbuk WFP with 31.50 MWe total installed capacity (15 turbines) with estimated 100 GWh electricity generation per annum, near Akbuk and Akyenikoy towns of Didim District of Aydin Province, Turkey. Akbuk WFP was commissioned on 19/03/2009. Project Impacts and Benefits SDG 13: Climate Action - the project activity utilises wind power to generate clean electricity replacing the fossil fuel based generation prevalent in the domestic network. The emission reductions achieved from the project activity is approximately 68,000 tCO2e/year. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation - the project activity replaces the grid electricity, which is constituted of different fuel sources causing thermal electricity generation and greenhouse gas emissions. By replacing in the consumption of these fuels, it contributes to conservation of water. Amount of wastewater to be discharged to the environment is decreased. The expected avoidance of wastewater discharge is 3,188,395.61 m3/year. SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy - the project activity involves production of electricity through wind power and feeds it to the Turkish national grid. This reduces consumption of fossil fuel-based power generation and thereby helps increase utilisation of renewable energy. The annual expected electricity generation from this project activity is 100 GWh. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth - the project activity provides employment to about 10 employees, mostly from the local area, and at least one training to each employee per monitoring period. Some of the trainings which are being given include first aid, rescue, firefighting, electricity and safe weight handling. The employment of local people that have necessary technical qualifications for t

Red Flags

The documents disagree on the additionality test, with the validation report using an investment test while the later monitoring report refers to a combined test.
Verified emissions reductions and crediting period dates are inconsistent across documents, which raises reliability concerns about the reported issuance history.

Credit Vintages

	Issued	Retired	Available
2009	45,774	45,774	0
2010	62,559	53,059	9,500
2011	65,617	53,344	12,273
2012	65,266	64,284	982
2014	9,776	9,581	195
2015	60,740	58,027	2,713
2016	15,032	14,732	300
2021	14,701	3,009	11,692
2022	66,472	14,743	51,729
2023	13,370	0	13,370
Total	419,307	316,553	102,754

Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio

Provide a reconciled emissions and crediting-period schedule that explains the differing verified ER totals and date ranges across documents.
Publish a clear, single-source statement on additionality, leakage treatment, and any eligibility status relevant to external claims such as CORSIA or CCP.

Questi suggerimenti indicano quali prove pubbliche aggiuntive potrebbero migliorare il livello di confidenza di questa valutazione. Non garantiscono un punteggio futuro più alto.