BALIKESİR LANDFILL GAS (LFG) CAPTURE AND UTILIZATION PROJECT

Integrity

The monitoring report dated 2024-04-21 shows additionality confirmed by the VVB and reports no material findings or corrective actions required, which supports the project’s core integrity. At the same time, permanence is weakly evidenced because reversal events are marked as not addressed and no buffer pool percentage is found in the extracted record. The project is a landfill gas capture and utilization activity, so leakage and operational performance matter materially, but the available facts do not fully resolve those risks.

Transparency

Transparency is moderate because the project has a named verifier, Earthood, and a clear monitoring period in the monitoring report. However, the extracted record does not state the usage monitoring method, verified usage rate, or any claimed-versus-verified ERR comparison, which limits public MRV clarity. The registry is identified as VCS, but the record does not provide enough detail to fully reconstruct issuance quality from the extracted facts alone.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is middling because the monitoring report indicates a quantified leakage treatment, but the PDD previously said leakage was not addressed. The baseline is project-specific rather than a standardized or jurisdictional baseline, and the record does not state CORSIA eligibility or CCP status, so dual-market and over-claim risk cannot be ruled out. The absence of a verified usage rate also leaves some uncertainty about how much captured gas was actually utilized versus destroyed.

Documentation

Documentation quality is fairly good because multiple official documents were used, including the validation report, monitoring report, PDD, and issuance material, and extraction confidence is high. The monitoring report is recent relative to the crediting period, and the VVB is identified. Still, several important fields are unstated in the extracted record, including buffer pool coverage, baseline reassessment timing, and detailed usage monitoring information.

Overall

I privileged the monitoring report dated 2024-04-21 over the older validation report dated 2022-09-14 for facts that changed over time, because it is more recent and operationally specific. For the contradiction on additionality, I used the monitoring report’s combined test because it is the later document, while noting that the validation report had only an investment test; this is a documentation inconsistency but not a fatal one. For leakage, I privileged the monitoring report’s quantified treatment over the PDD’s earlier statement that leakage was not addressed, but the inconsistency still lowers reliability and claim safety.