Aliaga Wind Power Project
GS-217
Score Breakdown
Integrity
verified The verification evidence supports additionality through an investment test, and the monitoring report reports no material findings or corrective actions.
missing Leakage is not quantified in the monitoring record, and the project file contains a contradiction with the validation report saying leakage was deemed negligible.
Transparency
verified The monitoring period, VVB name, and verified emissions reduction are stated in the monitoring report, giving some MRV visibility.
missing Public registry status is not in the public registry, and key MRV elements such as usage monitoring and leakage treatment are incomplete or inconsistent.
Claim Safety
verified This is a renewable-energy avoidance project under ACM0002, which is generally lower risk than removal projects.
missing The project is not CORSIA-eligible, and the conflicting emissions-reduction figures and baseline-related inconsistencies weaken confidence in the claimed climate benefit.
Documentation
verified Multiple official document types were available, including a PDD, validation report, and monitoring report, and extraction confidence is high.
missing Several important social and methodological fields are missing or contradicted, including FPIC, grievance mechanisms, leakage justification, and the crediting period.
Detailed Analysis
Integrity
The project has a reasonably strong additionality basis because the monitoring report identifies an investment test and says the VVB confirmed additionality. The monitoring report also reports no material findings and no corrective actions, which supports implementation quality. That said, leakage is not quantified in the monitoring record, and the file contains a direct contradiction with the validation report, which weakens confidence in the overall integrity case.
Transparency
The monitoring report provides core MRV details such as the monitoring period, the VVB name, and the verified emissions reduction. However, usage monitoring is not stated, leakage treatment is incomplete, and the project is not in the public registry, which limits external traceability. The documentation also contains conflicting values for the credited amount and crediting period, reducing transparency further.
Claim Safety
As a wind power avoidance project using ACM0002, the project is structurally less exposed to permanence risk than removal projects. Even so, the claim is weakened by the absence of a quantified leakage deduction in the monitoring record and by contradictions around whether leakage was deemed negligible. The project is also not CORSIA-eligible, which limits claim portability and does not help the safety case.
Documentation
The evidence base includes multiple official document types, and extraction confidence is high, which is a positive sign. Still, several important items are missing or only partially documented, including FPIC, grievance mechanisms, leakage justification, and buffer pool information. The contradiction on the crediting period and the emissions-reduction figure also suggests the record is not fully coherent.
Overall
I privileged the monitoring report for the reported 2022 monitoring-period values because it is the most directly relevant source for issued/claimed performance in that period, while the validation report was used as a secondary source where it appeared more specific or later. The contradictions on grievance mechanisms, safeguards, leakage justification, additionality confirmation, benefit sharing, FPIC, emissions-reduction totals, grid emission factor, and crediting period materially reduce reliability, so the scores are held to a moderate level rather than a strong one. Because integrity remains above the low-risk threshold, the overall score is not capped by the gate rule, but the documentation and transparency weaknesses keep the project in the middle range.
Audit Analysis
This is a wind avoidance project with a VVB-confirmed investment-test additionality claim and no material findings reported in the monitoring record. However, the documentation shows several reliability issues, including contradictions on safeguards, leakage treatment, credited volume, and crediting period, which reduce confidence in the claims.
Project Description
The Aliaga wind power project is a 19.2 MW wind power plant based in Izmir, Turkey. The project is located in a district occupied by refineries, ship dismantling sites and other industries that significantly impact air quality. Whereas, this project consists of 8 Wind Turbine Generators of 2.4 MW each, generating approximately 58 GWh of clean energy per year, contributing to a reduction of CO2 emissions and supporting the transition to a low carbon economy. Project impacts and benefits: Generates approximately 58 GWh clean energy and reduces emissions by 31,847 tCO2eq annually. Project protects one of the last pastures in a heavily industrialised district, ensuring it’s not occupied by other industries or urbanization. Employees have been locally hired. Night patrols of security officers increases safety of the area, creating a more secure environment for shepherds and their herds. More than 6 km of roads were improved for the project and are now used by local people. Supporting the local economy, services such as cleaning, water procurement, pest control and transportation are procured from local companies. Project is regularly visited by engineers and technicians of local electrical transmission and distribution companies, university engineering students, elementary school students and other organisations such as “Turkish Women in Renewables and Energy” and “Turkish Wind Energy Association”. Visitors are instructed on the wind farm which contributes to their training + builds awareness. Food aid in Ramadan is given to employees, shepherds and locals in the area. Financial aid has been given to local organisations such as Aliağa Farmers’ Association. Project certification documents can be found in the Gold Standard Impact Registry . N.B. Individual vintages cannot be selected for purchase. Purchases will include credits from the vintage range stated.
Red Flags
- The monitoring report says safeguards and grievance mechanisms were not documented, while the validation report says they were present.
- The reported credited emissions reduction differs between documents, and the crediting period also conflicts across sources.
Credit Vintages
| Issued | Retired | Available | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | 14,172 | 14,172 | 0 | |
| 2019 | 25,536 | 25,536 | 0 | |
| 2020 | 28,103 | 8,075 | 20,028 | |
| 2021 | 30,670 | 0 | 30,670 | |
| 2022 | 29,940 | 6,964 | 22,976 | |
| 2023 | 24,999 | 0 | 24,999 | |
| 2024 | 29,338 | 0 | 29,338 | |
| 2025 | 5,896 | 3,079 | 2,817 | |
| Total | 188,654 | 57,826 | 130,828 |
Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio
- Provide a reconciled document trail that resolves the contradictions on leakage, safeguards, FPIC, grievance mechanisms, credited volume, and crediting period.
- Publish a clear leakage assessment, baseline reassessment history, and complete MRV package in a public registry entry.
Questi suggerimenti indicano quali prove pubbliche aggiuntive potrebbero migliorare il livello di confidenza di questa valutazione. Non garantiscono un punteggio futuro più alto.
Risk Indicators
VVB-confirmed investment test
Avoidance project with no reversal events reported
Leakage not quantified in monitoring record
Project-specific baseline; reassessment timing not stated
Safeguards inconsistently documented across reports
Not CORSIA-eligible; CCP status not stated
Where to buy
Marketplaces
+ Know where to buy this?
Listing multiple projects? Send us a CSV at [email protected].
⚑ Dispute this rating
Sei il proprietario di questo progetto?
Correzione metadati (gratuita)
Nome, paese, marketplace o link errati? Segnalacelo.
Non modifica lo score.
[email protected] →Rivalutazione con nuovi documenti
Hai documentazione aggiornata non ancora inclusa? Puoi richiedere un nuovo run della pipeline con i nuovi input.
Invia Documenti →