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: RegisteredAMS-I.D

Karadere Wind Power Plant

Developer: Fiba Yenilenebilir Enerji Holding A.Ş

GS-175 ↗ · current registry ID: GS1303

Worked comparison example (English)

#3022of 5087 in Renewable energy#312of 431 in Türkiye#1037of 2172 in Gold Standard (GS)#1111of 2004 in AMS-I.D

Score from methodology v2.1 (analysis of 5 Sep 2026). Re-assessment under v2.2 pending.

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 5.2 / 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

Scored2026-09-05medium confidence

evidence: 25/31 registry documents analyzed · 5 red flags

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

Analysis

The Karadere Wind Power Plant is a Gold Standard avoidance project with VVB-confirmed additionality and smart-meter monitoring, but is undermined by a large volume of corrective actions (13 CARs, 1 FAR on bat monitoring), multiple cross-document contradictions on baseline method and leakage treatment, and an unusual situation where the verified emission reduction exceeds the claimed figure for the 2024 monitoring period. The project's inherent low-risk profile as a wind avoidance project is partially offset by data-reliability concerns and a 0% leakage deduction whose justification is inconsistent across documents.

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

On this page: the analysis of 5 Sep 2026, marked “Re-assessment pending”. Per-dimension scores, risk indicators, 5 red flags, score factors, detailed analysis, and 31 registry documents (25 analyzed).

€9+ VAT per month · card subscription, renews automatically until you cancel

Every rated project, PDF reports, API access, portfolio alerts and per-dimension scores with red-flag details in side-by-side comparisons (public-data comparison is free; fair use: 30 projects per day). Cancel any time from your account page. Crypto: $9 for one month, no automatic renewal.

Price + VAT · By subscribing or paying you accept the Terms of Use — the card subscription renews every month until you cancel; 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 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
2014
15,81215,8120
2015
32,66932,6690
2016
35,67435,6740
2017
37,46637,4660
2018
40,67640,6760
2019
38,52538,5250
2020
42,08042,0800
2021
40,91929,44011,479
2022
42,11629,85312,263
2023
19,4194,50014,919
Total345,356306,69538,661

Methodology versions used

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

  1. 2014–2015AMS-I.D v17.0since replaced by v18.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  2. 2015–2017ACM0002 v17.0since replaced by v22.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  3. 2017–2019ACM0002 v17.0since replaced by v22.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  4. 2019–2021ACM0002 v17.0since replaced by v22.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  5. 2021–2023ACM0002 v20.0since replaced by v22.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  • ACM0002: Active (CDM / UNFCCC) · 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. (+2)

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 →