Silivri WPP

Integrity

The project’s additionality case is relatively strong because the verification report says an investment test was used and that additionality was confirmed by the VVB. Permanence risk is low for a wind project, and the verification report says no reversal events were reported. Leakage is addressed with a zero deduction and a negligible-leakage justification, which supports the score, although the baseline remains project-specific rather than jurisdictional.

Transparency

The monitoring period is clearly identified, and the verification report names Re Carbon Ltd. as the verifier. However, the extracted record does not state total emissions reductions claimed or verified, and usage monitoring methodology is not found in the available documents. That limits how fully an external reviewer can reconstruct the MRV trail.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is helped by the project type, the VVB-confirmed additionality, and the explicit zero leakage deduction. Still, the grid emission factor differs between the monitoring report and the PDD, which introduces some over-crediting uncertainty. CORSIA eligibility and CCP status are not stated, so dual-market claim risk cannot be ruled out from the extracted record.

Documentation

The documentation set is fairly broad, with multiple official documents available and a verification report that records several corrective and clarification requests as closed before issuance. The extraction confidence is only medium, which reduces confidence in completeness. The crediting period also appears inconsistent across documents, suggesting the record is not fully harmonized.