CarbonMeld CarbonMeld Carbon Observatory
Tools
ProjectsDevelopersComparePortfolioCCP trackerA–Z index BuyersCORSIA supplyCheck an offerAPI & MCP Method About the System Editorial Policy Score Your Project
EN
Workbench ProjectsDevelopersComparePortfolioCCP trackerA–Z index
← All projects
Re-assessment pendingGSWindTurkeyRegistry: RegisteredACM0002

*Anemon Intepe Wind Farm, Turkey

Developer: Anemon Enerji Elektrik Uretim A.S

GS-1669 ↗ · current registry ID: GS347

Worked comparison example (English)

#1418of 5075 in Renewable energy#144of 432 in Türkiye#283of 2180 in Gold Standard (GS)#990of 3472 in ACM0002

Score from methodology v2.1 (analysis of 1 Sep 2026). Re-assessment under v2.2 pending.

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 5.9 / 10
Integrity 🔒 Transparency 🔒 Claim Safety 🔒 Documentation 🔒
Dimension scores are locked — the faint arcs are empty tracks, not zero scores.

Scale 0–10 · method weights: integrity 35% · transparency 25% · claim safety 25% · documentation 15%.

Re-assessment pending · v2.1

Scored2026-09-01medium confidence

evidence:27/28registry documents analyzed · 3red flags

Generated by CarbonMeld Analysis Pipeline · Methodology · Editorial Policy · About the System
Download Report (PDF)

Analysis

The Anemon Intepe Wind Farm is a Gold Standard wind project with VVB-verified additionality and a consistent monitoring record, but it carries moderate integrity concerns due to a project-specific baseline, absence of a stated buffer pool, a minor one-day forest fire reversal, and a history of numerous (though closed) calculation and data-handling errors across multiple verification cycles. The project is a lower-risk renewable energy type, and the 0% leakage deduction is reasonable for wind, but the lack of a jurisdictional baseline and the medium extraction confidence temper confidence in the overall claim.

Red Flags

3 red flags detected — Unlock with Premium

Findings

Risk Indicators

Additionality

🔒

Permanence

🔒

Leakage

🔒

Baseline

🔒

Safeguards

🔒

Double-claim

🔒

Risk indicator details are a Premium feature

Score Breakdown

Score factors per dimension are a Premium feature — Unlock with Premium

Detailed Analysis

The detailed per-dimension analysis is a Premium feature — Unlock with Premium

Evidence

Unlock the full analysis

Per-dimension scores, risk indicators, 3 red flags, score factors, detailed analysis, and 28 registry documents (27 analyzed).

€9+ VAT · 30-day pass · one-time, no auto-renewal

Every rated project, PDF reports, API access, portfolio alerts and per-dimension scores with red-flag details in side-by-side comparisons for 30 days (public-data comparison is free; fair use: 30 projects per day).

Price + VAT · By paying you accept the Terms of Use — digital content, no refunds. How Premium works

Eligibility & market

What can you claim with this credit?

Four checks buyers ask about, from the registry and the Integrity Council (ICVCM).

  • Airlines (CORSIA)

    No CORSIA label on the registry

    Not usable for airlines' CORSIA obligations.

    Source: registry label

  • Integrity label (ICVCM CCP)

    Methodology not approved by ICVCMACM0002

    The Integrity Council assessed this methodology as not meeting the Core Carbon Principles.

    Source: ICVCM assessment

  • Removal or reduction

    Emission reduction or avoidance

    Prevents or reduces emissions — fits contribution claims, not SBTi neutralisation.

    Source: registry label

  • Paris Agreement (Article 6)

    Not published

    This registry does not publish Article 6 authorizations.

Information only, from public sources. Claim rules (CORSIA, SBTi, EU rules on green claims) change: check them before making a public claim. Since 27 September 2026, EU consumer rules do not allow “climate neutral” product claims based on offsets.

Registry labels last checked:2026-09-27

Credit Vintages

IssuedRetiredAvailable
2007
37,27037,2700
2008
61,59661,5960
2009
59,12459,1240
2010
57,86757,8670
2011
62,66262,6620
2012
62,89662,8960
2013
16,80816,8080
2022
26,575026,575
2023
53,811053,811
2024
61,743061,743
Total500,352358,223142,129

Methodology versions used

The methodology version stated in each monitoring, verification and issuance document, by period, compared with the official methodology pages.

  1. 2007ACM0002 v6.0since replaced by v22.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  2. 2007–2013ACM0002 v20.0since replaced by v22.0

    monitoring report

    official page · verified on

  3. 2008ACM0002 v6.0since replaced by v22.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  4. 2021ACM0002 v20.0since replaced by v22.0

    monitoring report

    official page · verified on

  5. 2021–2023ACM0002the documents for this period state different versions (v20.0, v21.0)

    monitoring report + verification report

  6. 2022–2023ACM0002 v20.0since replaced by v22.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  7. 2023–2024ACM0002 v20.0since replaced by v22.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  • ACM0002: Active (CDM / UNFCCC) · official page · verified on

A version is shown only when the document's own text writes it next to the methodology code. Current versions, status and CCP ranges come from the official pages linked, checked on the date shown.

Documents on the registry

Where to buy

Got an offer for these credits? Check it against the registry →

+ Know where to buy this?

Listing multiple projects? Send us a CSV at [email protected].

⚑ Dispute this rating

Profile & governance

Analysis ProvenanceACM0002
Methodology·Editorial Policy·About the System

Are you the project owner?

Metadata correction (free)

Name, country, marketplace or links incorrect? Let us know.

Does not modify the score.

[email protected] →

Contest this rating

Something wrong in the analysis, or a registry document we have not used? Send us the link to the public source: you get a reference and an answer within 30 days.

Contest this rating →