SAMSUN LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY PROJECT, TURKEY

Integrity

The verification report confirms additionality through an investment test and names an independent VVB (verification_report 2022-04-01), which supports integrity. However, there are seven corrective action requests in the verification/monitoring documents indicating misreported emission reductions, inconsistent equipment/capacity data, and use of an outdated monitoring form (monitoring_report 2022-04-01). Buffer pool percentage is not stated and reversal events are listed as not addressed, which raises permanence concerns. Baseline methodology is project-specific (ACM0002) with a reassessment in 2025, which is positive but not sufficient to offset the above issues.

Transparency

Transparency is mixed: the project lists a named VVB, a monitoring period, registry (Gold Standard) and many evidence documents (n_docs_used = 40). However, min extraction confidence is low (at least one key document poorly readable) and there are clear contradictions across documents (e.g., presence of FPIC/grievance, ERR totals, grid emission factor), which reduces confidence in which figures are authoritative. Some key inputs (buffer pool percentage, usage rate assumptions, FNRB) are not stated in the extracted record.

Claim Safety

There is elevated claim risk because the project is CORSIA-eligible (corsia_eligible true) and CCP status is not mentioned, so dual-claim management is unclear. The project reports a leakage deduction of 0% but the justification varies between 'quantified' in the latest verification and 'deemed negligible' in earlier documentation, and grid emission factor values conflict between 0.3953 and 0.559 across reports — these contradictions create over-crediting risk. No reversal events are addressed and buffer pool is not stated, increasing risks from reversals.

Documentation

Documentation breadth is good (validation, verification, monitoring reports and stakeholder consultation listed), and a recent baseline reassessment is recorded (2025). Nevertheless, the extraction confidence is low and the verification process produced several corrective actions, indicating gaps in how information was presented and verified. The verification report is recent (2022) and generally privileged, but unresolved CARs lower the documentation quality.

Overall

I privileged the most recent verification/monitoring documents (verification_report and monitoring_report dated 2022-04-01) when resolving contradictions because they are the latest authoritative reviews; where an unknown source supplied a conflicting 'verified ERR' figure dated 2022-03-13 I still prefer the named verification report outputs. Specific contradictions addressed: FPIC and grievance mechanism — older PDD (2012-04-13) did not show these, while the verification report (2022-04-01) confirms FPIC and a grievance mechanism; I privileged the 2022 verification since it reflects later stakeholder work. Total ERR/ERR verified — records conflict (values 58,669; 288,074; 330,393); I privilege the most recent verification monitoring package (2022) but note unresolved discrepancies flagged by CARs and an unknown-source higher verified ERR (2022-03-13) which reduces ER reliability. Leakage justification — changed from 'deemed negligible' (2020) to 'quantified' (2022); I privilege the 2022 verification which suggests improved treatment, but the leakage deduction remains 0% and the prior inconsistency weakens confidence. Additionality test type — varies between 'combined' (2021) and 'investment' (2022); I privilege the 2022 confirmation of an investment test but flag inconsistency. Grid emission factor — conflicting values (0.559 in 2020 vs 0.3953 in 2022); I privilege the 2022 verification but the change materially affects ERs and indicates baseline sensitivity. Crediting period — updated in 2022 to 2018–2025 versus earlier 2011–2018; I accept the 2022 period as current but note the change. In sum, the most recent verification documentation is used preferentially, but numerous contradictions and CARs meaningfully reduce confidence and the scores have been adjusted downward to reflect data reliability concerns.