Kargilik 24 MW Hydropower Plant, Turkey

Integrity

Additionality is relatively strong on paper because the validation documentation confirms additionality via a barrier analysis and it is confirmed by the VVB. The baseline is project-specific under ACM0002, and the extracted record does not state when the baseline was last reassessed, which weakens robustness for a long crediting period (2006-03-28 to 2016-03-27). Leakage is applied as a 0% deduction, but the monitoring report (2020) indicates leakage was not addressed while the validation report (2020) indicates leakage was quantified, creating uncertainty about whether leakage was properly treated.

Transparency

The extracted record provides a clear monitoring period (2011-04-01 to 2016-03-27) and a grid emission factor value (0.616), supporting basic MRV traceability. The extracted record also shows claimed and verified ERs both equal to 220,348, suggesting internal consistency within the latest figures. However, multiple documents report different ER totals, which reduces transparency because users cannot easily reconcile which numbers govern issuance without deeper registry cross-checking.

Claim Safety

The project is explicitly not CORSIA-eligible, which lowers the risk of certain aviation-related double-claiming narratives. Still, the presence of materially different ER totals across validation/verification vintages increases over-crediting risk and makes public claims harder to substantiate. Leakage treatment is also a claim-safety concern because a 0% deduction paired with inconsistent justification (quantified vs not addressed) can be perceived as under-accounting.

Documentation

Documentation coverage is fairly strong: the extracted record includes a PDD, validation report(s), monitoring report(s), and issuance evidence, with 15 documents used and high extraction confidence. No material findings or corrective actions are reported in the extracted record, which supports procedural completeness. Nevertheless, safeguards and grievance mechanism information appears in the 2020 monitoring report but is absent in the 2010 monitoring report, indicating that social documentation may not have been consistently maintained across periods.

Overall

Overall scoring is pulled down mainly by contradictions that affect core crediting numbers and leakage treatment. For ER totals, the most recent validation report (2020-06-26) reports 220,348, while earlier documents report 85,249 (validation report, 2009-11-23) and 125,315 (validation/verification documentation, 2011-08-17); the 2020 figure is privileged because it is the most recent and aligns with the extracted record’s claimed vs verified totals, but the spread indicates reliability risk. For leakage justification, the validation report (2020-06-26) stating leakage was quantified is privileged over the monitoring report (2020-06-08) stating it was not addressed because validation typically specifies methodological treatment; the inconsistency still warrants a downward adjustment. For safeguards and grievance mechanism, the later monitoring report (2020-06-08) is privileged over the earlier monitoring report (2010-08-08) as the more recent disclosure, but the change over time suggests uneven reporting rather than a stable, well-evidenced safeguards system.