*Fujian Zhangpu Liuao 45MW Wind Power Project

Integrity

The project uses ACM0002 with an investment-test additionality case, and the verification report by SGS United Kingdom Ltd reports no reversal events during the monitoring period. That said, the baseline was last reassessed in 2007, which is old, and leakage is not clearly settled in the verification record. The presence of multiple CARs and FARs also suggests the project needed substantive follow-up before the verification could be finalized.

Transparency

The documentation includes a named verifier, a clear monitoring period from 2011-05-28 to 2012-05-27, and a verified emissions quantity of 71,812. However, several MRV fields are not stated in available documents, including the usage monitoring method and multiple grid-factor inputs. The record is therefore usable but incomplete for a full public audit trail.

Claim Safety

As a wind project, the underlying activity is relatively low risk compared with projects that have major permanence or land-use exposure. Even so, the verification report does not clearly resolve leakage, and the project is marked CCP approved, which does not by itself remove over-crediting concerns. The absence of several quantified inputs also limits confidence in the exact claim strength.

Documentation

Three core documents were used, but the extraction confidence is only medium, so at least one source was not fully clear. The verification report contains several corrective-action items, and the record also shows a mismatch in the crediting-period dates between the verification report and the PDD. Those issues reduce confidence in the completeness and consistency of the documentation set.

Overall

I privileged the verification report for operational facts such as the verified emissions result, the VVB opinion, and the monitoring-period findings because it is the most recent assurance document. I also privileged the verification report over the PDD on the crediting-period dates because it is later and more specific to the monitored period, but I treated the discrepancy as a reliability weakness. The contradiction on leakage is material: the verification record says leakage was not addressed, while the monitoring report is described as quantified, so I scored conservatively and reduced confidence accordingly.