SÜTAS TIRE BIOGAS PLANT

Integrity

The verification record shows additionality was confirmed by Earthood Services Limited, and the PDD describes a combined additionality test. However, leakage is only described as deemed negligible in the monitoring report, with no quantified deduction, and reversal risk is not clearly addressed because the record says reversal events are not addressed rather than explicitly absent. The baseline is project-based, but the last reassessment date is not found in the available documents.

Transparency

The documentation identifies the verifier and gives a monitoring period from 2022-08-22 to 2024-05-31, which supports some traceability. At the same time, the extracted record does not provide verified emission reduction totals, usage monitoring details, or a baseline reassessment date. The absence of these items limits the ability to independently check the reported performance.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is moderate because the project sits under a Gold Standard methodology for manure management and municipal solid waste, which is a recognized framework. But the record lacks quantified leakage treatment, does not state verified usage rates, and does not provide the emission reduction totals needed to check over-crediting risk. The contradictions on additionality test type and crediting period further weaken confidence in the claim.

Documentation

The file set includes a PDD and monitoring report, and the validation process appears active: many corrective action and clarification requests were raised and then closed. Still, extraction confidence is only medium, and several important items are missing from the extracted record, including buffer pool coverage, baseline reassessment, and quantified ERR figures. The project also has unresolved documentation gaps around reversal treatment and leakage quantification.

Overall

Overall, this is a mid-quality project file with some strong points, especially VVB-confirmed additionality and a documented validation process. However, the contradictions must be weighted conservatively: the PDD is cited as using a combined additionality test while another source suggests an investment test, so the PDD is privileged because it is the primary design document, but the inconsistency still reduces reliability. Likewise, the monitoring report is privileged for the later crediting period and leakage characterization, yet the PDD’s differing period and the lack of quantified leakage or ERR totals keep the overall score below strong-investment grade confidence.