Buyukduz Hydroelectric Power Plant, Turkey

Integrity

The verification report confirms additionality through an investment test and shows a quantified leakage deduction of 0%, which supports the project’s core crediting logic. However, the same report lists twelve assessment findings and requires corrective actions, while reversal events are not addressed and no buffer pool is stated, so permanence and robustness are only moderate.

Transparency

The project has a named verifier, Earthood Services Private Limited, and the monitoring period and issuance figures are reported in the verification report. Still, extraction confidence is low, several fields are not stated in available documents, and the evidence list is not clearly populated, which limits document-level transparency.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is helped by the fact that verified emissions reductions are slightly lower than claimed reductions, suggesting no obvious inflation in the final verified amount. That said, leakage justification is inconsistent across documents, and the project’s CORSIA eligibility and CCP status are not stated, leaving residual greenwashing and double-claim uncertainty.

Documentation

The documentation set includes a recent verification report and a relatively large number of extracted documents, which is a positive sign. But low extraction confidence indicates at least one key document was poorly readable, and the unresolved corrective actions mean the record is not fully clean or complete.

Overall

I privileged the later verification report dated 2023-12-19 over earlier records when there was a conflict, because it is more recent and should reflect the final verified status; this is why I treated leakage as not addressed and used the later grid emission factor and crediting-period information. The contradictions around leakage treatment, grid emission factor, and crediting period reduce reliability and pull scores down, even though the project has some strong points such as VVB-confirmed additionality. Under the gating logic, documentation is below a strong threshold and integrity is not high enough to warrant a top-tier overall score, so the project lands in the middle range.