Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds
Standard
Criteria Document

Version 3.2
August 2022

Version 3.3 | August 2022

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

Document revision
numberDate

Summary of changes

3.3 Clarified wording for assets
within scope and out of scope

August 2022

Clearer wording included on eligible
desalination assets in Table 1.
Clearer wording on water infrastructure assupporting sectors for which criteria do notexist being out of scope.

3.2 Minor revisions to Version
3

March 2022

Addition of missing question in A&R scorecard,
reclarification of scorecard completion for
Desalination assets.

3.1 Update to criteria to include
desalination assets

January 2021

Specific criteria were developed and added fordesalination plants. A separate low carbon
energy threshold is set for plants, along withan extra section for brine disposal andfeedwater in the A&R checklist.

2. Formal update to criteria(phase 2)

May 2018

Criteria added for nature-based and hybrid
water infrastructure covering such purposes aswater collection, storage, treatment anddistribution, flood protection and drought
resilience.

1. First publication of original
Criteria (phase 1)

Oct 2016

Acknowledgement
We, the Consortium consisting of the Climate Bonds Initiative, the Alliance for Global Water
Adaptation (AGWA), CDP, Ceres, and the World Resources Institute (WRI), gratefully
acknowledge John Matthews, Coordinator for the Alliance for Global Water Adaptation(AGWA) and lead specialist on the Technical Working Group for the Climate Bonds
Standard Water Infrastructure Criteria. John was instrumental in driving the development ofthese Criteria, leading the discussions with the Technical Working Group and Industry
Working Group.
We would also like to thank all members of the Technical Working Group and Industry
Working Group for their time and valuable expertise that helped shape these Criteria. A fulllist of all TWG and IWG members is available here.
We would like to extend our sincere gratitude to Stockholm International Water Institute(SIWI) for their support; and thanks to the US Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources
Conservation Service, the KR Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation for their funding
support.

Version 3.3 | August 2022

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

Table of Contents
1.

Definitions ..................................................................................................................... 42.

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 6
2.1.
Objectives.............................................................................................................. 6
2.2.
Supplementary information available ..................................................................... 6
2.3.
Revisions to these Criteria ..................................................................................... 7

3.

Scope of the Water Infrastructure Criteria...................................................................... 8
3.1.
Three stages of development - one set of Criteria ................................................. 8
3.2.
Assets covered (or not covered) by the Criteria ..................................................... 9
3.3.
Key elements to the Criteria................................................................................. 11

4.

The Water Infrastructure Criteria ................................................................................. 12
4.1.
Broad framework of the Criteria ........................................................................... 12
4.2.
Mitigation Component .......................................................................................... 17
4.2.1. All water projects and assets except for desalination ....................................... 17
4.2.2. Desalination projects and assets ..................................................................... 18
4.3.
Adaptation & Resilience Component ................................................................... 19

Appendix 1: Scorecard for evaluating the Issuer’s Vulnerability Assessment & Adaptation
Plan .................................................................................................................................... 22
Appendix 2: Experts engaged in development of the Water Infrastructure Criteria .............. 34
Appendix 3: Experts engaged in development of the Desalination Criteria .......................... 36

Version 3.3 | August 2022

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

1. Definitions
Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI): An investor-focused not-for-profit organisation promoting
large-scale investments that will deliver a global low carbon and climate resilient economy.
The Initiative seeks to develop mechanisms to better align the interests of investors,
industry, and government to catalyse investments at a speed and scale sufficient to avoid
dangerous climate change.
Climate Bond: A climate bond is a bond used to finance – or re-finance - projects needed toaddress climate change issues. They range from wind farms and solar and hydropower
plants, to rail transport and building sea walls in cities threatened by rising sea levels. Only asmall portion of these bonds have actually been labelled as green or climate bonds by theirissuers.
Certified Climate Bond: A Climate Bond that is certified under the Climate Bonds Standard
as meeting the requirements of the Climate Bonds Standard, as attested throughindependent verification.
Climate Bonds Standard (CBS): A screening tool for investors and governments that allows
them to identify green bonds where they can be confident that the funds are being used todeliver climate change solutions. This may be through climate mitigation impact and/ or
climate adaptation or resilience. The CBS is made up of two parts: the parent standard(Climate Bonds Standard V3) and a suite of sector specific eligibility requirements (Sector
Criteria). The parent standard covers the certification process and pre- and post-issuancerequirements for all certified bonds, regardless of the nature of the capital projects. The
Sector Criteria detail specific requirements for assets identified as falling under that specificsector. The latest version of the CBS is published on the Climate Bonds Initiative website.
Climate Bonds Standard Board (CBSB): The CBSB is responsible for approving i) Revisions
to the Climate Bond Standard, including the adoption of additional sector Criteria, ii)
Approved verifiers, and iii) Applications for Certification of a bond under the Climate Bonds
Standard. The CBSB is constituted, appointed and supported in line with the governancearrangements and processes as published on the Climate Bonds Initiative website.
Collectively, the CBSB represents $34 trillion of assets under management.
Climate Bond Certification: Allows the issuer to use the Climate Bond Certification Mark in
relation to that bond. Climate Bond Certification is provided once the independent Climate
Bonds Standard Board is satisfied the bond conforms with the Climate Bonds Standard.
Green Bond: Labelled green bonds are bonds designated such that proceeds be used forgreen projects, mostly climate change mitigation and/or adaptation projects. In theory, green
bonds proceeds could be used for a wide variety of environmental projects, but in practicethey have mostly been applied to the same use of proceeds as climate bonds, with proceeds
going to climate change projects.
Nature-based water infrastructure: Water infrastructure that reflects the intentional use of
ecological assets and/or ecosystem-based features, processes, and functions as an integral

4
Version 3.3 | August 2022

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

part of addressing water needs. Such infrastructure is intended to serve these functions in amanner that protects, manages, restores, and/or enhances natural features, processes, andsystems in a functioning and sustainable manner.
Natural features: Nature-based solutions, including natural processes and functions, thatdeveloped or evolved through biological, geo-chemical, or similar processes; these may beleft intact or restored through use of proceeds.
Nature-based solutions: A term referencing the explicit, planned, and intentional use of
ecosystems to meet human needs.
Nature-based features: Nature-based solutions that mimic characteristics of natural features
but are created by human design, engineering, and construction to provide specific services
such as groundwater recharge or water filtration.
Technical Working Group (TWG): A group of key experts from academia, international
agencies, industry and NGOs convened by the Climate Bonds Initiative. The TWG develops
Sector Criteria - detailed technical criteria for the eligibility of projects and assets as well as
guidance on the tracking of eligibility status during the term of the bond. Their draft
recommendations are refined through engagement with finance industry experts inconvened Industry Working Groups (IWG) and through public consultation. Final approval of
Sector Criteria is given by the CBSB.
Water Infrastructure Assets: Engineered, nature-based and hybrid water infrastructure forthe purposes of water collection, storage, treatment or distribution, or for flood protection or
drought resilience.

5
Version 3.3 | August 2022

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

2. Introduction
2.1.

Objectives

Investor demand for green and climate bonds is strong and will increase in line with thedelivery of quality products into the market. Standards, assurance and certification will beessential to improved confidence and transparency, which in turn will enable further strong
growth in the market.
The Climate Bonds Standard and Certification Scheme is an easy-to-use screening tool thatallows investors and intermediaries to assess claims for the climate integrity of bonds. It
provides a set of transparent, verifiable compliance measures that all Certified Climate Bonds
must meet. A key part of the Standard is a set of Sector Criteria that can screen assets andcapital projects for the purposes of identifying and certifying only those whose climate claims
have integrity, either through their contribution to climate mitigation and/ or to adaptation andresilience to climate change.
In terms of the Water Infrastructure Criteria, the contribution to adaptation and resilience has
two significant components: the ability of the asset to be robust and flexible in the face ofongoing and potential climate impacts, and the sustainability of the relationship between theasset and upstream and downstream ecosystems as climate shifts continue to evolve.
Sector Criteria are determined through a multi-stakeholder engagement process, including
Technical and Industry Working Groups (TWG, IWG), convened and managed by the Climate
Bonds Initiative, and a period of public consultation. The Climate Bonds Standard Board
reviews and approves Criteria prior to release to the market.
This document details:
The current scope of water infrastructure assets eligible for certification under the Climate
Bond Standard – Section 3;
The specific Sector Criteria under which these water infrastructure assets are eligible forcertification – Section 4.
In addition, all bonds certified under the Climate Bonds Standard must also comply with thecommon requirements set for all certified bonds. These common requirements are containedin the Climate Bond Standard V3.

2.2.

Supplementary information available

For more information on the Climate Bonds Initiative see www.climatebonds.net. For an
overview of the Climate Bond Standard & Certification Scheme, see
https://www.climatebonds.net/standards/brochure. The current version of the overarching
Climate Bond Standard is available athttps://www.climatebonds.net/standards/standard_download.
For further information on the Water Infrastructure Criteria specifically, the following packageof supplementary documents is available at http://www.climatebonds.net/standard/water:

6
Version 3.3 | August 2022

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

•
•
•
•

2.3.

Water Infrastructure Criteria brochure: a 2 page summary of these Criteria
FAQs introducing the Water Infrastructure Criteria
Water Infrastructure Criteria Background paper: summarising the discussions anddecisions of the TWG and IWG that gave rise to these Criteria.
Guidance to Issuers and Verifiers: guidance on the application of the Criteria laid out
in this document, including the nature of evidence and disclosure required forcompliance.

Revisions to these Criteria

Certification will not be withdrawn retroactively from bonds certified under earlier versions of
the Criteria.
That said, these Criteria represent a significant shift in how the bonds market view waterrelated investments and the best mechanisms for communicating risk, confidence, andrelevance between issuers, investors, and other key audiences that may also be important.
These Criteria will be reviewed annually by the Climate Bonds Initiative and other guiding
partners. They are likely to be revised and refined over time as more information and insightbecomes available — both as we learn more about the application of the Criteria to growing
numbers of bonds, and how these Criteria relate to other sectoral areas.
In particular, we expect that some new applications such as nature-based solutions will
become more mainstream and widespread, leading to more and more robust asset classes
such as aquifer storage and groundwater recharge. Our hope too is that these Criteria
themselves can help lead to a wider appreciation and more consistent application of climate
vulnerability assessments and the development of adaptation plans.
In all cases, we appreciate suggestions and observations that we can consider during therevision process. Please contact us if you have questions or recommendations.

7
Version 3.3 | August 2022

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

3. Scope of the Water Infrastructure Criteria
3.1.

Three stages of development - one set of Criteria

The Water Infrastructure Criteria of the Climate Bond Standard were developed in threephases. Phase 1 focused on engineered or “grey” infrastructure bond issuances, with final
Criteria released in October 2016. Typical investments in this category include water
infrastructure for the purposes of water collection, storage, treatment or distribution, or forflood protection or drought resilience. A total of five bonds were issued against this original
set between the initial release of the Criteria and early 2018.
Development of additional, supplementary criteria to incorporate nature-based solutions
began in late 2016, spanning green and hybrid water infrastructure.
Box 1 provides further guidance on the nature of green and hybrid water infrastructure.
Box 1: Green and hybrid water infrastructure assets: Sorting through Terminology
The terms used to describe the explicit and planned use of ecosystems and ecologicalprocesses to deliver services for humans are both highly variable and confusing andcontinue to proliferate. Rather than create new terms with these Criteria, we have focusedon a handful of key concepts and selected what seem to be widespread phrases promoted
by established and credible organisations.
Ecosystem services, ecological engineering, green and hybrid infrastructure (or more rarely“blue infrastructure”), ecosystem-based adaptation, green adaptation, and natural capitalare some of the many phrases used to refer to the use of ecosystems to provide
infrastructure services. Here, we refer to nature-based solutions (NBS), which is lesswidespread and newer than some of the other terms listed here but that has a growing
following. The definition we developed derives from two organisations that have gone far indeveloping and implementing NBS in recent years.
IUCN defines NBS as “actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural or
modified ecosystems that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively,
simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits.”1 The US Army Corpsof Engineers has taken a distinctly applied approach to the use of ecosystems as
infrastructure through what they call “natural features” and “nature-based features,”collectively called NNBF. These terms distinguish between projects that make use ofexisting ecosystems (natural features) versus engineered or “designed” components(nature-based features). They state:
Natural features are created through the action of physical, geological, biological andchemical processes over time. Nature-based features, in contrast, are created by humandesign, engineering, and construction (in concert with natural processes) to provide specificservices such as coastal risk reduction and other ecosystem services (e.g., habitat for fish
1

Cohen-Shacham, E., Walters, G., Janzen, C. and Maginnis, S. (eds.) 2016. Nature-based Solutions to address
global societal challenges. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

8
Version 3.3 | August 2022

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

and wildlife). Nature-based features are acted upon by processes operating in nature, andas a result, generally must be maintained by human intervention in order to sustain thefunctions and services for which they were built.2
Given that background, the TWG chose the following terms and definitions. Nature-based
solutions is a general category, referencing the explicit, planned, and intentional use of
ecosystems to meet human needs. Natural features are nature-based solutions that include
natural processes and functions, that developed or evolved through biological, geochemical, or similar processes; these may be left intact or restored through use of proceeds.
In contrast, nature-based features mimic characteristics of natural features but are createdby human design, engineering, and construction to provide specific services such as
groundwater recharge or water filtration.
Thus, a pre-existing wetland may be protected or enhanced to improve water quality as anatural feature, while a designed “new” wetland built as an adjunct to a water treatment
facility would be a nature-based feature. The Criteria favour the inclusion of natural features
but nature-based features are not excluded (and may even be the norm for hybrid naturebased solutions).
Therefore, an asset should be considered a nature-based or hybrid asset if:
A. It reflects the intentional use of natural and/or nature-based features, processes, andfunctions (see Section 1) as an integral part of addressing a human need and doing so in amanner that protects, manages, restores, and/or enhances natural features, processes, andsystems in a functioning and sustainable manner.
B. Where feasible, the project prioritises natural features over nature-based features. Suchfeatures include the protection, restoration, expansion, and/or creation of natural systems
and processes as an explicit component of the desired project outcomes.
A third phase of criteria development was completed in January 2021. This added specificrequirements for desalination plants that were not sufficiently covered in the previous phases.
This current, third version of the Criteria spans all three phases of development and theCriteria enable the certification of both engineered and/ or nature-based solutions.

3.2.

Assets covered (or not covered) by the Criteria

Broadly speaking, investments related to water infrastructure assets are subject to these
Criteria, noting a number of exceptions described below. This includes built, engineered, andnature-based assets designed to provide infrastructure services across a wide range ofsectors, including but not limited to healthcare and sanitation, natural resource management,
storage, flood and drought management, mining, manufacturing, refinery systems, andgeneral cooling uses. The “water sector” is a broad term, and many of water infrastructure

2

USACE. 2015. North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk.
Washington, DC: US Army Corps of Engineers.

9
Version 3.3 | August 2022

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

assets may not necessarily be easily labelled within the sector but overlapped with otherareas, such as storage and cooling systems that are water intensive.
Of course, the inherently interconnected nature of terrestrial, freshwater, and marine
ecosystems creates challenges for developing crisply delineated sectoral eligibility criteria forwater infrastructure, land use, and marine assets and activities. As noted above, investments
in freshwater resources can be implemented in many sectors including agriculture (e.g.,
irrigation), forestry, aquaculture, and many other industrial sectors.
In addition, in some cases, the same land base, asset, or bond may be used by different
operators for a variety or combination or purposes. For example, a single bond may coverwetlands restoration for the purposes of either or both restoring water services and a broader
array of ecosystem services such as ecosystem restoration and carbon sequestration.
It is proposed that the basic underlying principle is that issuers are guided to either the relevant
Forestry/Agriculture Criteria or Water Infrastructure Criteria depending on the purpose of theirprimary use of proceeds and responsibility. That is, projects and assets related to naturebased infrastructure are eligible for certification under these Criteria where water services are
the leading consideration in the asset management or use of proceeds. Examples include
forests and wetlands being managed to filter water, aquifers that store water for drinking or forflood control, and wetlands managed to attenuate storm surge or process wastewater effluent.
Where water benefits might be classified as co-benefits or supplemental components andfunctions, the forthcoming Forestry and other Criteria for ecosystem restoration should instead
be applied.
So, entities with primary responsibility for land use activities (e.g. agriculture, forestry,terrestrial conservation) seeking to increase the sustainability of productive and conservation
activities in terrestrial ecosystems (e.g. producing food, feed, fiber, fuel and supporting
ecosystem services such as soil fertility, terrestrial biodiversity), while reducing net GHG
emissions or ideally increasing sequestration should ensure compliance with the forthcoming
Forestry/Agriculture Criteria per that document.
Issuers with primary responsibility for management of water infrastructure assets such asincreasing the sustainability of high-quality water supply (e.g. community water systems,
aquifers, forested watersheds) against threats of depletion and contamination, treating water,
flood or drought mitigation, increasing / reducing flow transport of sediment, or managing
water resources for aquatic conservation, while reducing net GHG emissions whenappropriate, will need to comply with the Water Infrastructure Criteria per this document.
The requirements in the relevant Forestry/Agriculture Criteria for water infrastructure assets
will be designed for compatibility and consistency with the Water Infrastructure Criteria per
this document, simply adapted to different contexts.
Additionally, specific exceptions to the application of these Criteria are identified as follows.
•

The Water Infrastructure Criteria cannot be used for certifications in the fossil fuel,nuclear, or mining sectors.

10
Version 3.3 | August 2022

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document••

Assets related to water-driven energy, for example through hydropower, wave andtidal installations are not eligible under these Criteria. Readers are referred instead tothe specific Hydropower Criteria (due later in 2021) and Marine Renewable Energy
Criteria released in October 2017 respectively. For more information, see
https://www.climatebonds.net/hydropower andhttps://www.climatebonds.net/standard/marine respectively.
Water infrastructure assets used in the Land Use sector, such as irrigation systems for
agriculture, are subject to the forthcoming requirements of the Forestry/Agriculture
Criteria.

Further guidance on these distinctions is given in Section 3.2. If in doubt, please reach out tothe Climate Bonds Initiative for support.

3.3.

Key elements to the Criteria

As a general principle, bonds will meet the climate requirements of the Climate Bonds
Standard if the underlying assets and/or projects meet all the following requirements:••

Promote GHG Mitigation through reduced emissions or increased carbon
sequestration; andPromote adaptation to climate change and facilitate increased climate resilience in thesystems in which they are located; andComplete details of these requirements for the Water Infrastructure Criteria are in Section 4of this document.
In addition, any bond-issuing entity seeking certification under these Criteria is expected to beaware of and adhere to best practice guidelines or standards related to social and human rights
and broader environmental considerations in the context of water development. The Criteria
described in this document are intended to supplement and complement these other criteria
rather than overlap and compete with them.

11
Version 3.3 | August 2022

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

4. The Water Infrastructure Criteria
4.1.

Broad framework of the Criteria

Tables 1 & 2 indicate water infrastructure assets that may be eligible for inclusion in a Certified
Climate Bond, subject to meeting the Criteria laid out in this document. In general terms, theseassets cross two broad categories (noting that one or both may be present in a single
issuance):••

Engineered water infrastructure or water-use systems that collect, treat and distributewater, or that protect against floods or drought. Table 1 provides illustrative examples
though it is not a comprehensive list of every possible engineered water asset thatwould be eligible. This table includes desalination plants.
Nature-based water resources management systems that are managed to collect,
store, treat, or distribute water or to buffer floods or drought. These systems include
natural and nature-based features, processes, and functions as an integral part ofaddressing water-related needs. Table 2 provides illustrative examples though it is notintended to be a comprehensive list of eligible assets or projects.

Tables 1 and 2 also specify for each of these illustrative assets and projects their eligibility forcertification under the Climate Bonds Standard through the following symbols:•••

A green circle indicates these assets and projects are eligible for certification by thenature of the asset or project, with no further disclosure or documentation required.
An orange square indicates where eligibility is conditional on meeting specificrequirements. These requirements are described in more detail in Section 4.2 andSection 4.3.
A red triangle indicates where the asset or project is not eligible for certification under
any circumstances.

To be eligible for inclusion in a certified bond, assets and projects must meet both therequirements of the Mitigation and the Adaptation & Resilience components. Section 4.2
details the requirements of the Mitigation Component. Section 4.3 details the requirements of
the Adaptation & Resilience component.
For example, if a project has a green circle under Mitigation but an orange circle underAdaptation & Resilience, it must meet the requirements of the Adaptation & Resilience
component before it can be certified. If a project has an orange circle under Mitigation and anorange circle under Adaptation & Resilience, it must meet the requirements of both the
Mitigation and the Adaptation & Resilience components before it can be certified.

12
Version 3.3 | August 2022

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

Table 1: Illustrative built infrastructure assets covered by the Water Infrastructure Criteria
AssetsExample projects*

Water monitoring, including but
not limited to:•Stormwater warning systems•

Floodwater warning systems•

Dam failure warning systems•

Remote water quality/quality
monitoring systems, including
snowpack and remote sensing
systems•Drought warning systems•

Improving energy efficiency or
shifting to low carbon fuelsources•

Improving water management
and efficiency, e.g., by
reducing leaks, reducing
urban run-off•

Installation or upgrade ofwater capture and storage
infrastructure (excluding theexamples listed above)

smart networks
early warning systems fordroughts, floods
water quality monitoringprocesses

Water storage, including but notlimited to:
Rainwater harvesting systems
Storm water management
systems
Water distribution systems(excluding irrigation)
Infiltration ponds
Aquifer storage
Groundwater recharge systems
Sewer systems
Pumps
Sand dams

Water treatment, including but not •limited to:
Water recycling systems
Wastewater treatment facilities
Manure/ slurry treatment facilities

Mitigation

Adaptation&
Resilience

Shift from anaerobic toaerobic wastewater treatment
or separate solids fromwastewater management
systems•

Generating electricity fromsewage methane or biogas
production from thermalhydrolysis•

Waste energy recovery

13
Version 3.3 | August 2022

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

AssetsWater Desalination – theconstruction and/or operation of:

Example projects*•

Improving energy efficiency or
shifting to low carbon fuelsources•

Installation or upgrade ofwater treatment infrastructure(excluding the examples listed
above)•

Membrane technology
desalination with low carbon
energySeawater desalination plants
Brackish water desalination plants •Mitigation

Adaptation&
Resilience

Thermal technology
desalination plants with low
carbon energy•

Integrated Water and Power
Plants (IWPP)•

Desalination plants poweredby waste heat from fossil fuelpower plants or industrial
processes

Desalination plants supplying
water explicitly for:• Fossil fuel power stations• Nuclear power stations
Water distribution, including but
not limited to:•

Installation or upgrade ofwater irrigation systems, suchas high-efficiency drip, flood,and pivot irrigation systems.

•

Construction or upgrade offlood defence infrastructure

Rainwater harvesting systems
Gravity fed canal systems
Pumped canal or water
distribution system
Terracing systems

Flood defence, including but notlimited to:

14
Version 3.3 | August 2022

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

AssetsExample projects*•
Surge barriers
Pumping stations
LeveesGates

Mitigation

Adaptation&
Resilience

Installation or upgrade of flood
monitoring and warning
systems

Table 2: Illustrative nature-based-solutions and hybrid infrastructure covered by these Water
Infrastructure Criteria
AssetsExample Projects

Water storage, including but notlimited to:•

Active snowpack
management program•

Using parks, natural areas forstorm water management•

Creating groundwater
recharge areas for aquifer
storage•

Restoration of riparian
wetlands for flood storage•

Creation of safe delta floodzones as natural habitat for
the river to expand into•

Altering flow mechanics to
reduce the force of flood stage
flows

•

Use of pumps to transfer
waters to / from naturalaquifers

Rainwater harvesting systems
Aquatic ecosystems (lakes,
wetlands)
Aquifer storage
Snowpack Runoff
Groundwater recharge systems
Riparian wetlands
Storm water management

Flood defences, including but notlimited to:
Ecological retention, current force
reduction mechanisms
Relocation of assets fromfloodplains / “room for the river”

Drought defences, including but
not limited to:

Mitigation

Adaptation&
Resilience

15
Version 3.3 | August 2022

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

Aquifer / groundwater storage(pumped)Recharge zone management
Wetland storage
Snowpack management
Evaporation reduction efforts•

Metering / monitoring systems
to detect and warn against
flow, snowpack, orgroundwater systems forwater management anddrought warning•

Planting / removing vegetation
explicitly to modify watertemperatures, evaporation
rates, runoff patterns

Water treatment, including but not •limited to:
Natural filtration / recycling
systems (e.g. wetlands,
watersheds, forests)
Engineered natural filtration /settling systems
Forest and forest fire
management for water quality /quantity management
Storm water management,
including but not limited to:Permeable surfaces (parks,
roads, etc.) andevapotranspiration systems
Groundwater recharge
Rainwater harvesting
Constructed ecological retention
ponds
Forests for water quality
management?
Erosion control systems
Ecological restoration /management
Erosion control systems
Hydrological restoration

Wetland using native plants
for water filtration, nutrient
management•

Explicit integration of existing
natural features andecosystems for water quality
treatment, including land
cover management•

Removal of pavement,
creation of new substrate toimprove groundwater
absorption & reduce runoff•

Creation of wetland retention
ponds

•

Development of anenvironmental flows regime•

Restoration of hydrological
function, aquatic species /communities

16
Version 3.3 | August 2022

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

•

4.2.

Sediment transport to reduce /restore downstream
deposition

Mitigation Component

The Mitigation Component of the Water Infrastructure Criteria is intended to provide
transparency over the impact that the use of proceeds will have on GHG emissions and thedegree of mitigation that will be delivered over the operational lifetime of the project or asset.

4.2.1. All water projects and assets (except for desalination)
For use of proceeds subject to a Mitigation Assessment as indicated by an orange circle in
Table 1, they are eligible for certification only if either:a. No net GHG emissions impact is expected, and the issuer discloses the justification
for this decision with supporting documentation; orb. A negative net GHG emissions impact is expected, and the issuer has estimatedthe GHG mitigation impact that will be delivered over the operational lifetime of the
project or asset. This impact should be defined in terms of the decreased emissions
or increased sequestration relative to a business as usual baseline.
Baselines can be determined using credible methodologies such as (but not limited to) the
UNFCCC’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), Climate Action Reserve, American
Carbon Registry or national and state/provincial approved approaches or any other credible,
robust methodology used by a relevant national or international rating agency or authority (e.g.,
US Environmental Protection Agency standards).
If the asset or project relates to wetlands, the GHG assessment should be carried out withreference to the methodologies described in the IPCC guidelines for evaluating wetlands
greenhouse gas inventories (http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/wetlands/).
Under the requirements of the methodology selected, the issuer must describe• The calculations and assumptions used to arrive at the baseline;• Projected emissions over the life of the project and associated estimated GHG
emissions reduction;

17
Version 3.3 | August 2022

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document••

A credible, independently verifiable method of tracking actual emissions and mitigation
impact over the life of the bond;If the asset or project relates to nature-based solutions, details of the management
plan for the asset and any associated monitoring system in place to deliver andevaluate ongoing mitigation impacts.

These assumptions, values, and procedures must be conservative to ensure that the GHG
emission reductions or removals are not overestimated.
Further information on how to conduct a Mitigation Assessment is given in the Guidance Note
to Issuers and Verifiers available at http://www.climatebonds.net/standard/water

4.2.2. Desalination projects and assets
Desalination plants are eligible for meeting certification if meeting the criteria below:
The average carbon intensity of the electricity that is used for desalination is at or below
100g CO2e/kWh

Methodological notes:•

This threshold is to be met for every year of the bond lifetime.

•

Emissions may be scope 1 or scope 2, depending on whether the facility sources its
electricity from onsite or offsite generation.

•

Offsite generation may factor into the calculation of emissions intensity in thefollowing ways:a) If entirely sourcing electricity from a wider electrical grid, the grid factor (orgrid emissions intensity) is demonstrated to be at or below 100g CO2e/kWh3.
b) Private Purchase Agreements (PPAs) that demonstrate the facility will source
electricity from generation at or below 100g CO2e/kWh.

3

See the Electrical Grids and Storage Criteria for acceptable sources or methodology for grid factor.
18
Version 3.3 | August 2022

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

4.3.

Adaptation & Resilience Component

The Adaptation & Resilience Component of the Water Infrastructure Criteria is intended toprovide transparency over the asset’s resilience to climate change as well as its impact on otherstakeholders’ resilience to climate change. Such stakeholder impacts include their access towater in sufficient quantity and sufficient quality. From this perspective, ecosystems are also
considered a stakeholder.
Assets and projects that are (a) demarcated with an orange circle in the Adaptation andResilience column in Table 1, and (b) have an expected or remaining operational lifespan ofmore than 20 years, are subject to a Vulnerability Assessment / Adaptation Plan Evaluation.
In order to apply the Criteria, the issuer will need to have a Vulnerability Assessment - anassessment or diagnosis of realised climate impacts and potential climate risks. If the
Vulnerability Assessment finds that climate change will significantly impact the project or asset,
the issuer will also need to supply a corresponding Adaptation Plan - a management response
plan to the conclusions and findings of the Vulnerability Assessment, noting how identified
climate risks will be addressed. As such, the Vulnerability Assessment and the Adaptation Planare paired documents.
Although Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Plans remain somewhat new to the financecommunity, they are used routinely by water managers, engineers, and planners. They are notexpected to be long documents and can be quite concise narrative statements. They are likely
to refer to and depend on documents produced by other organisations or partners, includingones that do not explicitly refer to the issuance or issuer but that can inform the assessmentof climate vulnerability.
Taken together, the Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Plan (if required) and theirsupporting documents serve as the basis for applying the Criteria and determining the eligibilityof the bond for certification.
Eligibility for certification depends on the efficacy and thoroughness of the issuer’s Vulnerability
Assessment and Adaptation Plan and the underlying climate risk assessment andmanagement plans that they capture. Eligibility is assessed via a Scorecard or checklist
consisting of a series of binary questions.
This Scorecard is given in Appendix 1. It lists a series of questions that must be reported on,
where “evidence” of action, analysis or research should be sought, or where “disclosure” ofrelevant regulatory, governance, or legal documentation is required.
The Scorecard adopts a definition of climate vulnerability in terms of technical qualities of theassessment process and specific eco-hydrological and climate indicators, as well as aspectsof governance and conflict negotiations and how effectively water users share resources undershifting hydrological conditions. The Scorecard determines whether the issuers’ Vulnerability
Assessment and Adaption Plan sufficiently address these factors.
To achieve this, the questions in the scorecard are grouped into six sections.

19
Version 3.3 | August 2022

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

The first four are used to evaluate the issuer’s Vulnerability Assessment. Of these, the first
three are: 1) Allocation, 2) Governance, and 3) Technical Diagnostics. Together, these
sections address how water will be shared, negotiated, governed and allocated among
different stakeholders, and evaluate how the project will affect and be affected by current andfuture eco-hydrological conditions, the potential risks for an asset or project posed by current
and future climate impacts, and how the impact of that asset on relevant ecosystems maychange as the climate continues to evolve. These sections should be completed for all water
infrastructure assets – engineered, nature-based and hybrid.
The fourth section (Nature-Based Solutions) needs to be completed only for nature-based andhybrid infrastructure. It is made up of five subsections. These subsections are intended to
document (i) the state of knowledge around the site and existing services; (ii) ecologicalmanagement baselines; (iii) the extent and credibility of available data; (iv) broader ecologicalimpacts beyond the project itself; and (v), and ongoing monitoring and management capacity.
The fifth section (Desalination Plants) needs to be completed only for desalination projects
and assets. It is comprised of two questions. The questions are intended to ensure that theissuer has addressed brine disposal and feedwater intake issues.
The sixth section relates to the assessment of the Adaptation Plan. This section is briefer andfocuses on the adequacy of the coping mechanisms to address identified climate
vulnerabilities, including potential or uncertain vulnerabilities that arose from the vulnerability
assessment.
For each question in the scorecard, a ‘yes’ scores 1 point and a ‘no’ scores 0. In case of a ’n/a,’
please specify why the question is not applicable and reduce the potential sectional scoreappropriately. To meet the requirements of the Climate Bonds Standard Adaptation andResilience component:
The project must score at least 60% of the maximum potential score in all parts of the
Scorecard. (That is, must score >= 60% for Allocation, >=60% for Governance, >= 60% forTechnical Diagnostics, >= 60% for each subsection of Nature-Based Solutions, >= 60% for
Desalination Plants, and >= 60% in the Adaptation Plan Assessment). See Box 2 on the next
page for extra information regarding the Adaptation & Resilience Scorecard for Desalination.
It is the issuers’ responsibility to self-assess and self-score against the Scorecard the projector asset being funded by the bond proceeds in the first instance. Verifiers are required tocheck this using the information and evidence provided to them by the issuers.
See Figure 1 for a summary of this Adaptation & Resilience component. Further information
on how to conduct an Adaptation & Resilience Assessment, including guidance on the natureof the evidence required to support scoring and where that might be sourced, is given in the
Guidance
Note
toIssuersandVerifiers
availableat
http://www.climatebonds.net/standard/water

20
Version 3.3 | August 2022

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

Figure 1: Decision tree for the Adaptation & Resilience component of the Water
Infrastructure Criteria

Box 2. Supporting guidance the Adaptation & Resilience Scorecard for Desalination plants
is available at https://www.climatebonds.net/standard/water in the resources box.

21
Version 3.3 | August 2022

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

Appendix 1: Scorecard for evaluating the Issuer’s Vulnerability
Assessment & Adaptation Plan

Requirement
E = Provide
evidence
D = Disclose

Max
score

Actualscore

FOR EVALUTION OF THE ISSUER’S VULNERABLITY ASSESSMENTSECTION 1: ALLOCATION (To be completed for all water infrastructure assets)
1.1

Are there accountability mechanisms in place
for the management of water allocations thatare effective at a sub-basin and/or basin
scale?

D1

1.2

Are the following factors considered in thedefinition of the available resource pool?
• Non-consumptive uses (e.g. navigation,hydroelectricity)• Environmental flow requirements• Dry season minimum flow requirements• Return flows (how much water should be
returned to the resource pool, after use)
• Inter-annual and inter-seasonal variability• Connectivity with other water bodies• Climate change impacts

E

7

1.3

Is there a distinction between the allocation
regimes used in “normal” times and in timesof “extreme/severe” water shortage?

E

1

1.4

Are arrangements in place to accommodate
the potentially adverse impacts of climatechange on the resource pool? (E.g., using
best available science to plan for futurechanges in availability, undertaking periodic
monitoring and updating of plans as climate
science improves.)

E

1

1.5

Do plans define responses to “exceptional”
circumstances, such as an extended drought,that influence the allocation regime? (E.g.,
triggers water use restrictions, reduction inE1

Version 2 | March 201822

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

allocations according to pre-defined priority
uses, suspension of the regime plan, etc.)

1.6

For international / transboundary basins, isthere a legal mechanism in place to define
and enforce water basin allocationagreements? Is it flexible enough forincreased variability in water supplies due tomore frequent climate extremes?

D

1

1.7

Are water delivery agreements defined on the Ebasis of actual in situ seasonal/annual
availability instead of volumetric or otherwise
inflexible mechanisms?

1

1.8

Has a formal environmental flows (eEflows)/sustainable diversion limit or otherenvironmental allocation been defined for the
relevant sub-basin or basin? (If there is a preexisting plan, then has the environmental
flows program been updated to account for
the new project?)1

1.9

Have designated environmental flows /allocation programs been assured /implemented?

1

1.10

Has a mechanism been defined to update the Eenvironmental flows plan periodically (e.g.,
every 5 to 10 years) in order to account forchanges in allocation, water timing, and water
availability?

1

1.11

Is the amount of water available for
consumptive use in the resource pool linked
to an active, guiding public planningdocument? (E.g., a river basin management
plan or another planning document – pleaseindicate)

E

1

1.12

If present, is the water management plan astatutory instrument that must be followed
rather than a guiding document?

D

1

TOTAL ALLOCATION SCORE

E or DMax =18

SECTION 2: GOVERNANCE (To be completed for all water infrastructure assets)
Version 2 | March 201823

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

2.1

Have water entitlements been definedaccording to one of the following?
• Purpose that water may be used for• Maximum area that may be irrigated• Maximum volume that may be taken in anominated period• Proportion of any water allocated to adefined resource pool

D

1

2.2

Is the surface water system currently
considered to be neither over-allocated nor
over-used? How might climate change affect
this?

E

1

E

1

Is there a limit to the proportion (e.g.
Epercentage) of water that can be extracted?
How might this need to change if watersupplies become more variable due to climatechange? (e.g. will having sufficient amounts
to meet basic human needs take precedence
over others?)

1

N.B. Over-allocated would be if e.g. current
use is within sustainable limits but there
would be a problem if all legally approved
entitlements to abstract water were used.
Over-used would be if existing abstractions
exceed the estimated proportion of theresource that can be taken on a sustainablebasis.
2.3

If the investment uses groundwater, is thegroundwater water system currently
considered to be neither over-allocated nor
over-used?
N.B. Over-allocated would be if e.g. current
use is within sustainable limits but there
would be a problem if all legally approved
entitlements to abstract water were used.
Over-used would be if existing abstractions
exceed the estimated proportion of theresource that can be taken on a sustainablebasis.

2.4

Version 2 | March 201824

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

2.5

Are governance arrangements in place for
dealing with exceptional circumstances (suchas drought, floods, or severe pollution
events), especially around coordinatedinfrastructure operations?

D

1

2.6

Is there a process for re-evaluating recentD
decadal trends in seasonal precipitation andflow OR recharge regime, in order to evaluate“normal” baseline conditions?

12.7

Is there a formal process for dealing with new D
entrants?

1

2.8

For existing entitlements, is there a formal
process for increasing, varying, or adjusted
use(s)?

D1

2.9

Is there policy coherence across sectors
E(agriculture, energy, environment, urban) that
affect water resources allocation, such as aregional, national, or basin-wide Integrated
Water Resources Management (IWRM) plan?

1

2.10

Are obligations for return flows anddischarges specified and enforced?

D

1

2.11

Is there a mechanism to address impacts
from users who are not required to hold awater entitlement but can still take water fromthe resource pool?

D

1

2.12

Is there a pre-defined set of priority uses
within the resource pool? (E.g., according toor in addition to an allocation regime)

D

1

2.13

If there are new entrants and/if entitlement
Dholders want to increase the volume of water
they use in the resource pool and thecatchment is open, are these entitlements
conditional on either assessment of third party
impacts, an Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) or an existing user(s)forgoing use?

1

2.14

Are withdrawals monitored, with clear andlegally robust sanctions?

E

1

2.15

Are there conflict resolution mechanisms inplace?

E or D

1

Version 2 | March 201825

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

TOTAL GOVERNANCE SCORE

Max =
15

SECTION 3: TECHNICAL DIAGNOSTICS (To be completed for all water infrastructure assets)

3.1

Does a water resources model of theEproposed investment and ecosystem (orproposed modifications to existing investment
and ecosystem) exist?

1

Specify model types, such as WEAP, SWAT,RIBASIM, USACE applications). Scale should
be at least sub-basin.
3.2

Can the system model the response of the
managed water system to varied hydrologic
inputs and varied climate conditions?

E

1

3.3

Are environmental performance limits(ecosystem, species, ecological community)
and/or ecosystem services specified?

E

1

3.4

Can these performance limits be defined andquantified using the water resources?

E

1

3.5

Have these limits been defined based on
expert knowledge and/or scientific analysis?

E

1

3.6

Are these performance limits linked toinfrastructure operating parameters?

E

1

3.7

Are these limits linked to an environmental
flows regime?

E

1

3.8

For new projects, is there an ecologicalbaseline evaluation describing the pre-impact
state?

E

1

3.9

For rehabilitation / reoperation projects, isthere an ecological baseline evaluation
available before the projects was developed?

E

1

3.10

Has there been an analysis that details
impacts related to infrastructure construction
and operation that has been provided?

E

1

3.11

Are lost species and/or lost or modified
ecosystem functions specified for restorationin the environmental evaluation?

E

1

3.12

Have regional protected areas / nature
reserves been included in the analysis forE

1

Version 2 | March 201826

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

impacts from the investment asset and futureclimate impacts?
3.13

Does the model include analysis of regression E
relationships between climate parameters andflow conditions using time series of historicalclimate and streamflow data?

1

3.14

Does the model include climate informationfrom a multi-modal ensemble of climate
projections (e.g., from the Climate Wizard or
the World Bank’s Climate Portal) to assess
the likelihood of climate risks for the specified
investment horizon(s)?

E

1

3.15

Are changes in the frequency and severity ofrare weather events such as droughts andfloods included?

E

1

3.16

Are sub-annual changes in precipitationseasonality included?

E

1

3.17

Is GCM climate data complemented with ananalysis of glacial melt water and sea level
rise risks, where appropriate (e.g., high orcoastal elevation sites)?

E

1

3.18

Is paleo-climatic data (e.g., between 10,000
and >1000 years before present) included?

E

1

3.19

Is the number of model runs and duration ofmodel runs disclosed?

E

1

3.20

Has a sensitivity analysis been performed tounderstand how the asset performance andenvironmental impacts may evolve undershifting future flow conditions?

E

1

3.21

Is directly measured climate data available for E
more than 30 years and incorporated into thewater resources model?

1

3.22

Has evidence demonstrated that climatechange has already had an impact on
operations and environmental targets? Are
these impacts specified and, to the extent
possible, quantified? These impacts should
be responded to directly in the Adaptation
Plan.

1

Version 2 | March 2018

E

27

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

3.23

Does the evidence suggest that climateEchange will have an impact on operations andenvironmental targets over the operational
lifespan? Are these impacts specified and, tothe extent possible, quantified? These
impacts should be responded to directly in the
Adaptation Plan.

1

3.24

Is there a discussion of the uncertainties
associated with projected climate impacts on
both operations and environmental impacts?

1

E

TOTAL DIAGNOSTIC SCORE

Max =
24

SECTION 4: NATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS (To be completed for nature-based-solutions
and hybrid water infrastructure only)That is, this section only needs to be completed if:
A. As a nature-based solution, the asset reflects the intentional use of natural and/or
nature-based features, processes, and functions (see Box 1) as an integral part ofaddressing a human need and doing so in a manner that protects, manages,
restores, and/or enhances natural features, processes, and systems in afunctioning and sustainable manner.
B. Where feasible, the asset prioritises natural features over nature-based features.
Such features include the protection, restoration, expansion, and/or creation ofnatural systems and processes as an explicit component of the desired project
outcomes.
SECTION 4.1: SITE INVENTORY
How well do we understand the systems and processes at the project site?
4.1.1

Is this a “greenfield site” (i.e., undeveloped
land used for agriculture, landscape design,or left to evolve naturally)? If so, will existing
ecosystem services be expanded / supported/ maintained?

E

1

4.1.2

Has an eco-hydrological model beendeveloped?
Specify model type, such as WEAP, SWAT,RIBASIM, USACE.
Is this a quantitative model?
Has it been calibrated against site data?
Does the model include water quantity?

E

4

4.1.3

Has the calibrated eco-hydrological model
been reviewed by an independent expert?

E

1

Version 2 | March 201828

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

4.1.4

Have sources of pollution been analysed forE
the following (even if none have been found)?
• Point source• Nonpoint source

2

TOTAL SITE INVENTORY SCORE

Max =
8

SECTION 4.2: ECOLOGICAL BASELINES FOR MANAGEMENT
Do we understand how the ecological characteristics of the site will evolve over time?
4.2.1

Is there an inventory of species that can beused as a baseline for vegetation and animal
species?

E

1

4.2.2

If there is an inventory of species that can beused as a baseline for vegetation and animal
species, does it specify or identify
endangered / threatened species, ecologicalcommunities, or categories of species?

E

1

4.2.3

Have studies on current or potential climate
impacts on key species (e.g., endangered or
threatened species) been included?

E

1

4.2.4

Is the flow regime used as a basis for
ecological management?

E

1

4.2.5

Is there a climate trends analysis for the siteor region based on at least 30 years ofclimate data?

4.2.6

Is there an assessment of exotic invasive
species?

E

1

4.2.7

If there is an assessment of exotic invasive
species, has a plan been developed to copewith exotic invasive species?

E

1

4.2.8

Has there been an assessment of tradeoffs
between reliability vs environmental benefits
to support decision making processes?

E

1

1

TOTAL ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT
SCORE

Max =
8

SECTION 4.3: DATA INVENTORIES OF LOCALISED & INDIGENOUS ASSETS
Do we have access to adequate, credible data about the project site?
4.3.1

Is there an inventory of existing water-related
ecosystem services based on 30 or more
years of data?

Version 2 | March 2018

E

1

29

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

4.3.2

Does any existing inventory of water-related
ecosystem services related to runoff / landuse include the following data?
• Fire regime• Sediment / erosion load
• Nutrient load
• Land-use change

E

3

4.3.3

Do inventories of water-related ecosystemservices related to water quality include thefollowing data:• Water quality for environmental services(e.g., habitat, ecological communities,
erosion)• Water quality for human needs / services(e.g., drinking water, agriculture)

E

2

4.3.4

Is there an existing inventory of water-related E
ecosystem services related to water quantity?
• Water quantity for environmental services(e.g., habitat, flow regime)• Water quality for human needs / services(e.g., service reliability)

2

TOTAL EXISTING INVENTORIES SCORE

Max =
8

SECTION 4.4: BROADER ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS
Do we understand how the project’s impacts may extend beyond the site?
4.4.1

Has there been a determination of proposed / E
estimated impacts from project construction
and operations regarding local, upstream, anddownstream species / ecologicalcommunities?

1

4.4.2

Has there been a determination of proposed /estimated impacts on existing local,
upstream, and downstream eco-hydrologicalsystems from modification regarding:• Pollution• Downstream flow regime• Groundwater impacts• Land tenure (e.g., public vs private)

4

Version 2 | March 201830

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

4.4.3

Has there been a determination of proposed /estimated impacts and benefits on ecohydrological systems from changes inallocation via the following?
• Relevant environmental flows
management plans• Groundwater management plans

2

4.4.4

Has the monitoring system contributed to thedevelopment and goals of the basin
management plan?

1

TOTAL BROADER IMPACTS SYSTEMS
SCORE

Max =
8

SECTION 4.5: MONITORING & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Do we have effective management processes and tools to maintain ecological integrity
over time?
4.5.1

Have target performance indicators been
explicitly defined for:
Infrastructure services
Ecosystem services

E

2

4.5.2

Is there a monitoring plan in place for
infrastructure performance indicators?

E

1

4.5.3

Is there a monitoring plan in place forecosystem performance indicators?

E

1

4.5.4

Are monitoring outcomes connected to thedecision making and management /operations process?

E

1

4.5.5

Is there a multi-stakeholder basin
management plan?

D

1

TOTAL MONITORING & MANAGEMENTSYSTEMS SCORE

Max =
6

SECTION 5: DESALINATION PLANTS (To be completed for all desalination projects andassets)5.1

Are there measures in place to manage brine E or D
discharge which minimise impacts on theecosystem into which the brine is disposed?
For example:• Diffuser systems for seawater desalination

Version 2 | March 2018

131

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

•

•

•

•
•
5.2

Use of computer modelling to determine
the optimal brine discharge point(s) andlength of outfall or the number of openings
Regulatory compliance with maximum
allowable levels of water salinity around
discharge points
Continuous / frequent water quality
monitoring around the brine discharge
point(s)Mixing of brine with cooling water before
discharge
Recovery of metals and / or salt frombrine

Are there measures in place to manage
E or D
feedwater intake which minimise impacts on
the ecosystem from which the feedwater is
extracted? For example:• Subsurface intake wells for seawater
desalination• Use of computer modelling to determine
the optimal intake point(s) and the numberof openings• Compliance with feedwater intake
regulations• Continuous / frequent water quality
monitoring around the intake point(s)1

TOTAL DESALINATION SCORE

Max =
2

FOR EVALUTION OF THE ISSUER’S ADAPTATION PLAN
SECTION 6: ADAPTATION PLAN
AP. 1

Is there a plan to restore or secure
lost/modified ecosystem functions/species?

E

1

AP. 2

Is the adaptation plan for environmentalEtargets / infrastructure robust across specified
observed / recent climate conditions? Confer
VA

1

AP. 3

Is the adaptation plan for environmentalEtargets / infrastructure robust across specified
projected climate conditions? Confer VA

1

AP. 4

Is there a monitoring plan designed to trackEongoing progress and impacts to inform future
decisions?

1

Version 2 | March 201832

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

AP. 5

Is there a plan to reconsider on a periodic
basis the VA for operational parameters,
governance and allocation shifts, andenvironmental performance targets?
TOTAL ADAPTATION PLAN SCORE

Version 2 | March 2018

E

1

Max =
5

33

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

Appendix 2: Experts engaged in development of the Water Infrastructure
Criteria
Water Infrastructure Criteria development has been led by a consortium consisting of the
Climate Bonds Initiative, AGWA, Ceres, CDP and the World Resources Institute (WRI). To
develop the Water Infrastructure Criteria, focusing on engineered or built or engineered
water infrastructure, the consortium convened a Technical Working Group (TWG) and an
Industry Working Group (IWG), with representatives from investors, public utilities, water
NGOs and international policy bodies from around the world.
Technical Working Group Members:
Lead: John Matthews, Alliance for Global Water Adaptation (AGWA)
Ania Grobicki,RAMSAR
Aparna Sridhar, The Nature Conservancy (TNC)
Ari Raivetz, Organica Water
Betsy Otto, World Resource Institute (WRI)
Benjamin Denjean, Beijing Forest University
Bill Stannard, American Water Works Association (AWWA)
Bob Zimmerman, Charles River Watershed Association
Casey Brown, University of Massachusetts, Hydrology
Cate Lamb, Water Program, CDP
Cedo Maksimovic, Urban Water Research Group, Imperial College London
Cees van de Guchte, Deltares
Christian Severin, Global Environment Faciilty (GEF)
Charles B Chesnutt, USACE
Christine Chan, Alliance for Global Water Adaptation (AGWA)
Cynthia Lane, American Water Works Association (AWWA)
Dan Christian, Tetra Tech
Dave Hole, Conservation International
Debbie Larson-Salvatore, USACE
Elena Lopez-Gunn, Complutense University of Madrid
Erica Brown, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA)
Guy Pegram, Pegasys, South Africa
James Dalton, IUCN
Janet Cushing, USGS
Jason Fairbairn, Arup
John Joyce, Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI)
Jorge Gastelumendi, The Nature Conservancy (TNC)
Junguo Liu, IIASA, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Karen Yacos, Ceres
Larry Band, University of Virginia
Laurna Kaatz, Denver Water
LeRoy Poff, Colorado State University, Stream Ecology Lab
Lisa Hair, US EPA
Maija Bertule, UNEP-DHI
Manisha Singh, WiseLion LLC
Marco Follador, Way Carbon

Version 2 | March 201834

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

Margot Hill Clarvis, Earth Security Group
Matt Ries, Water Environment Federation
Melinda Massey, DC Water
Michael McClain, UNESCO-IHE
Monika Freyman, Ceres
Musonda Mumba, UNEP
Nancy Saich, European Investment Bank (EIB)Peter Streit, California Organised Investor Network (COIN)
Rob Cadmus, RAMSAR
Rochi Khemka, 2030 Water Resources Group
Sebastian Hyzyk, European Investment Bank (EIB)
Sharlene Leurig, Sustainable Water Infrastructure Program, Ceres
Stefanie Lindenberg, European Investment Bank (EIB)
Tatiana Fedotova, WBCSD
Ted Grantham, University of California, Berkeley
Thomas Panella, Asia Development Bank
Todd Gartner, World Resources Institute (WRI)
Torgny Holmgren, Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI)
Valerie Hickey, The World Bank
Will Sarni, Water Foundry
Xavier Leflaive, OECD
Industry Working Group members:
Adam Carpenter, American Water Works Association
Anais Blasco, WBCSD
Arturo Buenaventura Pouyfaucon, Abengoa Water
Bob Morgan, Beaver Water District
Cameron Ironside, International Hydropower Association
Chris Webb, HERRERA
Eric Schellekens, Arcadis
Gary Sharkey, PwC UK
Hannah Leckie, OECD
Jessica Robinson, Asria
Manisha Singh, Wiselion LLC
Martin Geiger, DEG
Matthew Kuzma, Organica Water
Mike Brown, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Monica Reid, Kestral Consulting
Nicole Hardiman, Illinois River Watershed PartnershipPaul Fleming, Seattle Public Utilities
Paul Wood, Water Fund LLC
Piet Klop, PGGM
Roman Gomez, IFC
Simon Petley, independent consultant

Version 2 | March 201835

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

Appendix 3: Experts engaged in development of the Desalination
Criteria
The addition of Criteria for Desalination to the Water Criteria has been led by a separate
TWG comprised of desalination technical experts. These experts similarly included
representatives from public utilities, water NGOs and international policy bodies from aroundthe world.
Technical Working Group Members:
Paul Buijs, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), Water
Desalination & Reuse Centre (WDRC)
Angelina Galiteva, President for NEOptions / Chair, California Independent System Operator(ISO)
Edward Jones, University of Utrecht
Heather Cooley, Pacific Institute
Molly Walton, Independent / formerly of the International Energy Agency (IEA)
Special thanks go also to Tom Pankratz, independent consultant and Global Water
Intelligence, for valued input from an industry perspective.

*************************************

Version 2 | March 201836

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

Version 2 | March 201837