Sapphire 49.5 MW Wind Farm Project
Score Breakdown
Integrity
verified additionality confirmed by the VVB (verification report cited)
missing leakage not addressed in the latest monitoring report and buffer percentage not stated
Transparency
verified VVB named (LGAI Technological Center, S.A.) and monitoring period provided (2021–01–01 to 2022–12–31)
inferred ✗ contradictory verified emission reduction figures across documents (52,737 vs 111,455), lowering data reliability
Claim Safety
missing project-level baseline (ACM0002, project baseline) which increases over-crediting risk compared with jurisdictional baselines
inferred ✗ key double-claim indicators not stated (CORSIA/CCP status unknown) and conflicting ERR figures
Documentation
verified multiple documents listed (PDD and monitoring reports) and 14 documents extracted
inferred ✗ minimum extraction confidence is medium and there are explicit contradictions in core metrics
Detailed Analysis
Integrity
Additionality was confirmed by the VVB according to the verification material, which is a positive sign. However, the project uses a project-level baseline under ACM0002 and the baseline reassessment date is not stated in available documents, reducing robustness. Leakage treatment is weak: the monitoring report lists a 0% leakage deduction but the latest monitoring report states leakage justification is not addressed; buffer pool percentage is not provided. No material findings or corrective actions were reported, and no reversal events are recorded in the extracted records.
Transparency
The VVB is named (LGAI Technological Center, S.A.) and the monitoring period is stated (2021-01-01 to 2022-12-31), which supports transparency. However, there are clear contradictions in total verified emissions reductions (52,737 vs 111,455) across documents and the minimum extraction confidence is only medium, which lowers confidence in reported figures and the consistency of public disclosure. Key inputs such as grid emission factor and final non-renewable biomass values are not found in the extracted record.
Claim Safety
Risk of over-crediting is elevated: the project relies on a project-specific baseline (ACM0002) and there are inconsistent ERR numbers that suggest reporting or calculation discrepancies. Leakage justification is inconsistent across reports (one report says quantified; the later report says not addressed) while the applied leakage deduction is 0%, increasing greenwashing/over-crediting risk. CORSIA and CCP statuses are not stated, so double-claim risk cannot be ruled out.
Documentation
Documentation is mixed: 14 documents were used and core documents (PDD, monitoring reports) are present. The most recent monitoring report is dated 2022-09-01. Extraction confidence is medium, and an 'unknown' evidence document and several contradictions indicate gaps. No corrective actions or material findings are listed in the extracted verification record.
Overall
I privileged the more conservative readings where contradictions exist to avoid overstating performance. For total verified emission reductions I treated the lower figure (52,737 tCO2e reported in an earlier monitoring report dated 2022-09-05) as the more conservative baseline for assessing over-crediting risk, because choosing the larger figure would risk overstating project performance; however the most recent conflicting value (111,455 dated 2024-03-28) is noted and reduces confidence. For leakage justification I privileged the later monitoring report (2022-09-01) that states leakage is not addressed rather than an earlier April 2022 report that indicated quantified leakage; treating leakage as not addressed is conservative and lowers integrity/claim-safety scores. For the crediting period contradiction I used the later monitoring report's stated period (2019-08-02 — 2024-08-01) as the operative claim because it is the more recent record. These contradictions and the medium extraction confidence reduced the transparency, documentation and claim-safety scores accordingly.
Audit Analysis
The project has some procedural strengths (VVB-reviewed additionality, named VVB, FPIC and grievance mechanism), but material reliability gaps reduce confidence: contradictory verified emission reduction figures, missing leakage justification despite a reported 0% deduction, and incomplete baseline reassessment data. Overall quality is moderate but several data gaps raise risk of over-crediting.
Project Description
This 52.8 MW wind farm, (initially registered as 49.5 MW) is operated by Sapphire Group in the Jhimpir Wind Corridor, Sindh, Pakistan. It comprises 33 GE wind turbines delivering clean energy to the national grid and was the first wind project in Pakistan funded by the U.S. Development Finance Corporation (DFC) Project Impacts and Benefits Sapphire Wind Power Project comprises 33 GE wind turbines and delivers clean energy to the national grid. From Nov 2015 to Mar 2024, the project has displaced 966,203 MWh of electricity from fossil fuel-based power plants in Pakistan. This amount of energy is equivalent to 483,100 tCO2e. The project delivers ~130,000 MWh/year and reduces ~65,000 tCO2e/year. As a socially responsible corporate entity, Sapphire Wind Power Company Limited (SWPCL) actively engages in various Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives, aligning with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 7, 8, and 13. The company has implemented the following initiatives in nearby communities. Quality Education Constructed and maintaining three primary schools in the project vicinity. Employing qualified teachers and providing solar panels for lighting and fans. State-of-the-art medical and healthcare facility Only project in the region with a state-of-the-art medical facility and ambulatory service for the local population, operated in collaboration with Agha Khan Hospital Karachi. Free-of-cost medicines and the capacity to treat up to 30 patients per day. Catering to three villages with a total population of 280. Potable water supply Provision of drinking water bowsers to the local community. Constructed three water storage tanks for the local community Local Employment 47 locals employed Engaging locals in civil construction contracts. Disposal of waste/black water disposal contracts with locals. Solar home solutions Provided 20 solar PV home solutions for locals Environmental sustaina
Red Flags
- Contradictory total emission reductions reported (52,737 vs 111,455 tCO2e)
- Leakage not adequately justified in the most recent monitoring report despite a 0% leakage deduction
Credit Vintages
| Issued | Retired | Available | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 26,540 | 5,265 | 21,275 | |
| 2020 | 78,688 | 4,499 | 74,189 | |
| 2021 | 60,128 | 1,302 | 58,826 | |
| 2022 | 51,327 | 8,277 | 43,050 | |
| Total | 216,683 | 19,343 | 197,340 |
Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio
- Reconcile and publicly document the verified emission reduction figures with an updated verification statement (clarify 52,737 vs 111,455 tCO2e)
- Provide a clear leakage assessment and justification (or a quantified leakage deduction) and disclose buffer pool percentage or reversal risk treatment
Questi suggerimenti indicano quali prove pubbliche aggiuntive potrebbero migliorare il livello di confidenza di questa valutazione. Non garantiscono un punteggio futuro più alto.
Risk Indicators
VVB-confirmed
buffer unclear
not addressed
project baseline
FPIC & grievance present
CORSIA/CCP status unknown
Where to buy
Marketplaces
+ Know where to buy this?
Listing multiple projects? Send us a CSV at [email protected].
⚑ Dispute this rating
Sei il proprietario di questo progetto?
Correzione metadati (gratuita)
Nome, paese, marketplace o link errati? Segnalacelo.
Non modifica lo score.
[email protected] →Rivalutazione con nuovi documenti
Hai documentazione aggiornata non ancora inclusa? Puoi richiedere un nuovo run della pipeline con i nuovi input.
Invia Documenti →