Mandsaur Wind Power Project in Madhya Pradesh

Integrity

The verification report from Applus+ Certification confirms additionality through an investment test, which supports the project’s core integrity case. The same report states that no extreme event caused a reversal, and leakage is described as negligible with a 0% deduction. However, buffer pool coverage is not stated, and the baseline is project-specific rather than clearly standardized, which keeps the score below the top tier.

Transparency

The verification report provides the monitoring period, methodology, VVB name, and crediting period, so the project is not opaque. That said, the extracted record does not include total claimed or verified emission reductions, and usage monitoring method is not stated in available documents. The absence of these figures limits public traceability of the issuance claim.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is helped by the VVB-confirmed additionality test and the stated negligible leakage treatment. Still, the record does not provide claimed-versus-verified ER totals, so over-crediting cannot be independently checked from the extracted facts. CORSIA eligibility is marked true, while CCP status is not mentioned, which leaves some residual dual-claim risk.

Documentation

Documentation breadth is decent because the extracted record draws on the PDD, verification report, monitoring report, and stakeholder consultation materials. The project also shows social process evidence through FPIC, a grievance mechanism, and benefit sharing. Even so, the minimum extraction confidence is only medium, and the record contains several findings and contradictions that reduce documentation quality.

Overall

The project looks reasonably solid for a wind asset under Gold Standard, with VVB-confirmed additionality and no reported reversal event in the verification report. I privileged the verification report over the older monitoring report where contradictions existed, because it is more recent and more specific to the verified period; this means I accepted the 2016-04-01 to 2026-03-31 crediting period, the negligible leakage treatment, and the report’s statement that no extreme event caused reversal. The contradictions still matter: reversal events are otherwise not addressed in the extracted record, leakage is inconsistent across documents, and the crediting period differs from the monitoring report, so reliability is reduced even though the core project case remains acceptable.