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 pendingGSOtherTurkeyRegistry: RegisteredAMS-I.D

*Burgaz Wind Farm Project, Turkey

Developer: Yeniden Enerji Elektrik Uretim Anonim Sirketi

GS-1403 ↗ · current registry ID: GS439

Worked comparison example (English)

#1774of 5075 in Renewable energy#172of 432 in Türkiye#380of 2180 in Gold Standard (GS)#675of 2003 in AMS-I.D

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

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 5.7 / 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:26/28registry documents analyzed · 5red flags

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

Analysis

The Burgaz Wind Farm is a grid-connected renewable electricity project with a verified investment additionality test, a jurisdictional baseline, and no reported carbon reversals. However, significant data contradictions across verification cycles (grid emission factor, ERR figures, baseline method), dual CCP/CORSIA eligibility, and low extraction confidence in the source documents introduce meaningful uncertainty into the credit's reliability.

Red Flags

5 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, 5 red flags, score factors, detailed analysis, and 28 registry documents (26 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)

    Stated in the project documents

    The documents claim CORSIA eligibility, but no registry label confirms it: check vintage and authorization.

    Source: project documents (not confirmed by the registry)

  • Integrity label (ICVCM CCP)

    Methodology not approved by ICVCMAMS-I.D

    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
9,3779,3770
2008
27,53227,5320
2009
25,07925,0790
2010
24,67124,6710
2011
28,94928,9490
2012
28,70228,7020
2013
4,3382,3342,004
2018
11,64511,6450
2019
21,15518,5712,584
2020
24,71324,7130
2021
10,83145210,379
2022
23,168023,168
2023
25,297025,297
2024
5,73905,739
Total271,196202,02569,171

Methodology versions used

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

  1. 2007–2009AMS-I.D v13.0since replaced by v18.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  2. 2009–2010AMS-I.D v13.0since replaced by v18.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  3. 2010–2011AMS-I.D v13.0since replaced by v18.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  4. 2011–2012AMS-I.D v13.0since replaced by v18.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  5. 2012–2013AMS-I.D v13.0since replaced by v18.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  6. 2018–2021AMS-I.D v18.0current version

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  7. 2022–2024AMS-I.D v18.0current version

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  • AMS-I.D: 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

Retired by

Organisations named as beneficiaries in the registry's public retirement records.

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 ProvenanceAMS-I.D.: Grid connected renewable electricity generation
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 →