Kuyucak 25.6 MW Wind Farm Project, Turkey

Integrity

The verification report confirms additionality through an investment test and says the VVB closed out the reported corrective actions before issuance. The project also shows a leakage deduction of 0% with leakage described as negligible, and no reversal events are reported in the extracted record. That said, the report also notes that the monitoring period was not consistent with the ER calculation spreadsheet, which weakens confidence in the underlying accounting.

Transparency

The monitoring report covers 2024-03-01 to 2024-11-10 and the verification report identifies KBS Certification Services Ltd. as the VVB, with smart-meter monitoring described. Still, the extraction confidence is low, and the record contains a major discrepancy in verified emissions reductions between 63,654 and 142,169. The crediting period also conflicts across documents, which reduces transparency and auditability.

Claim Safety

For a wind project, the project baseline and negligible leakage treatment are broadly supportive of claim safety. However, the large gap between claimed and verified emissions reductions, together with the conflicting verified totals across documents, raises over-crediting risk. The project is marked CORSIA-eligible, while CCP status is not mentioned, so dual-claim exposure cannot be ruled out from the extracted record.

Documentation

The record draws on many documents, and the verification report is dated 2025-07-25, which is reasonably recent. Even so, the extraction confidence is low, and several material findings and corrective actions were raised. The contradictions around emissions reductions, leakage treatment, benefit sharing, and the crediting period indicate incomplete or inconsistent documentation.

Overall

The project looks stronger on core project logic than on record reliability: additionality is VVB-confirmed and leakage appears negligible, but the documentation is inconsistent. I privileged the 2025-07-25 verification report for the latest values on leakage, additionality framing, and the current crediting period because it is the most recent and specific source, while noting that earlier documents conflict on leakage, additionality test type, CCP status, benefit sharing, emissions reductions, and crediting period. Those contradictions materially reduce confidence, and the low extraction confidence plus unresolved corrective-action history keep the overall score moderate rather than high.