Waste Management Criteria

Waste Management Criteria
The Climate Bonds Standard & Certification Scheme’s
Waste Management Criteria
Criteria Document
August 2022

1

Waste Management Criteria

Document revision number

Date

Summary of changes

1.2 – Clarification of criteria
wording

August 2022

Clarification is made in table 5 (criteria for
sorting facilities) to align with the correct
Background Paper wording. Facilities sorting
waste for EfW must demonstrate recycled
waste goes to an eligible recycling facility,
along with the residual waste going to aneligible EfW facility.

2

Waste Management Criteria

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
C&I waste - commercial & industrial waste
CD&E waste - construction, demolition and excavation waste
CH4 - methane
CI - carbon intensity
CO2 - carbon dioxide
CO2e - carbon dioxide equivalent
CV - calorific value
E-waste - electronic waste
EfW – energy from waste
EPR - Extended Producer Responsibility
GIB - Green Investment BankGWMO - The Global Waste Management Outlook
GWP - global warming potential
HDPE - high density polyethylene
ICT - information and communications technology
IEA - International Energy Agency
IPCC - The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
LCA - life cycle assessment
MBT – mechanical biological treatment
MRFs - material recovery facilities
MSW - municipal (solid) waste
PAS - Publicly Available Specification
PET - polyethylene terephthalate
PP – polypropylene
SLCP - short-lived climate pollutant
TCFD - Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures
WEEE - waste electrical and electronic equipment

List of Tables and Figures
Figure 1: Municipal waste and resource management assets/activities
Table 1: Summary scope of eligible projects and assets for Climate Bonds Certification under the Waste
Management Criteria.
Table 2: Potential assets which have overlaps with other Climate Bonds Certification Criteria.
Table 3: Criteria for Waste Collection
Table 4: Criteria for Waste Storage
Table 5: Criteria for Waste Sorting
Table 6: Criteria for Recycling and Reuse
Table 7: Criteria for Composting
Table 8: Criteria for Anaerobic Digestion
Table 9: Criteria for Energy from Waste
Table 10: Criteria for landfill gas recovery
Table 11: Checklist for evaluating the Issuer’s Adaptation & Resilience performance in respect of a waste
management facility
Box 1: Step by Step Approach to assessing the qualifying carbon intensity of Energy from Waste

3

Waste Management Criteria

Definitions
Certified Climate Bond: A Climate Bond that is certified by the Climate Bonds Standard Board as meeting therequirements of the Climate Bonds Standard, as attested through independent verification.
Climate Bond Certification: allows the issuer to use the Climate Bond Certification Mark in relation to thatbond. Climate Bond Certification is provided once the independent Climate Bonds Standard Board is satisfied
the bond conforms with the Climate Bonds Standard.
Climate Bond: A climate bond is a bond used to finance – or refinance - projects needed to address climatechange. 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 a small portion of these bonds have been labelled as green or
climate bonds by their issuers.
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 so as to catalyse investments
at a speed and scale sufficient to avoid dangerous climate change.
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 to deliver 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 v2.1) and a suite of sector specific eligibility Criteria.
The parent standard covers the certification process and pre- and post-issuance requirements 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 specific sector. The latest version of the CBS is published on the Climate
Bonds Initiative website.
Climate Bonds Standard Board (CBSB): A board of independent members that collectively represents $34
trillion of assets under management. The CBSB is responsible for approving i) Revisions to the Climate Bonds
Standard, including the adoption of additional sector Criteria, ii) Approved verifiers, and iii) Applications forcertification of a bond under the Climate Bonds Standard. The CBSB is constituted, appointed and supported
in line with the governance arrangements and processes as published on the Climate Bonds Initiative website.
Green Bond: A Green Bond is where proceeds are allocated to environmental projects. The term generally
refers to bonds that have been marketed as “Green”. In theory, Green Bonds proceeds could be used for awide variety of environmental projects, but in practice they have mostly been the same as Climate Bonds, withproceeds going to climate change projects.
Industry Working Group (IWG): A group of key organisations that are potential issuers, verifiers andinvestors convened by the Climate Bonds Initiative. The IWG provides feedback on the draft sector Criteria
developed by the TWG before they are released for public consultation.
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 the Sector Criteria - detailed
technical criteria for the eligibility of projects and assets as well as guidance on the tracking of eligibility statusduring the term of the bond. Their draft recommendations are refined through engagement with financeindustry experts in convened Industry Working Groups and through public consultation. Final approval of
Sector Criteria is given by the CBSB.
Waste Management Assets and Projects: Assets and projects relating to the management of waste, and/or
the development or acquisition of associated infrastructure. These facilities might include: energy from waste,anaerobic digestion, recycling and other technologies such as the installation of effective gas collection andrecovery systems on landfill sites.
The Climate Bonds Initiative gratefully acknowledges the Technical and Industry Working Group members
who provided their expertise and advice in the development of these Criteria. Members are listed in Appendix
1. Particular thanks are given to Resource and Waste Solution’s Terry Coleman, the lead specialist
coordinating the development of the Criteria through the Technical Working Group and to Golder Associates
for the use of their WRATE software (www.wrate.co.uk).
4

Waste Management Criteria

Table of Contents
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

3

List of Tables and Figures

3

Definitions

4

1

6

2

3

4

Introduction
1.1.

Overview of this document

6

1.2.

The Climate Bonds Standard

6

1.3.

The need for Waste Management Criteria

6

1.4.

Assets and projects in scope for the Criteria

7

1.5.

Key elements to the Criteria

7

1.6.

This document and supplementary information available

7

1.7.

Revisions to these Criteria

8

Assets92.1. Assets covered by these Criteria

92.2. Assets not covered by this Criteria

10

The Eligibility Criteria for Waste Management11

3.1. Mitigation Requirements

11

3.2. Adaptation & Resilience Requirements

15

Appendices
Appendix 1: TWG and IWG members

18
18

5

Waste Management Criteria

1 Introduction
1.1.

Overview of this document

The focus of this Criteria Document is municipal waste management. It is the first Criteria for waste
management that CBI is publishing. The document sets out the requirements and conditions underwhich waste management assets can be certified under the Climate Bonds Standard.

1.2.

The Climate Bonds Standard

Investor demand for Green Bonds and Climate Bonds is strong and will increase in line with thedelivery of quality products into the market. However, investor questions about the credibility of greenlabelling are also growing. Standards, assurance & certification is essential to improve confidence andtransparency, 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 that provides
a clear signal to investors and intermediaries on the climate integrity of Certified Climate Bonds.
A key part of the Standard is a suite of sector-specific eligibility Criteria. Each Sector Criteria setsclimate change benchmarks for that sector that are used to screen assets and capital projects so that
only those that have climate integrity, either through their contribution to climate mitigation, and/or toadaptation and resilience to climate change, will be certified. Where a bond encompasses a mixed
portfolio of assets across several sectors, each sub-category of assets will be subject to the relevant
Sector Criteria for those assets.
The Sector Criteria are determined through a multi-stakeholder engagement process, including
Technical and Industry Working Groups, convened and managed by the Climate Bonds Initiative, andare subject to public consultation. Finally, they are reviewed and approved by the Climate Bonds
Standard Board.
The second key part of the Climate Bonds Standard is the overarching Climate Bonds Standard V3.
This gives the common fund management and reporting requirements that all Certified Climate Bonds
must meet, in addition to meeting the appropriate specific Sector Criteria.

1.3.

The need for Waste Management Criteria

The World Bank has estimated GHG emissions from waste management alone as 5% of global GHG
emissions or 1.6 billion tonnes CO2e, primarily from open dumping and disposal in landfills without
landfill gas capture systems1. Even this underestimates the sector’s potential for climate change
mitigation, when the overall effects of better waste and resource management are taken into account.
Prevention, reuse, recycling, and energy recovery can all reduce methane emissions from landfill,
avoid emissions linked to resource extraction and production using virgin materials, and offer analternative energy source to fossil fuels. Accounting the whole lifecycle, incorporating the benefits ofrecycling and energy recovery, the sector has the potential to contribute a 10 to 15% reduction in
global GHG emissions2.
The sector already has $300 billion of active projects3, of which $85 billion relates to MSW4. The
investment required to deal with future waste management within a 2ºC scenario is difficult toquantify, particularly as it is the capital cost that is of interest, that cost depends on the type ofmanagement system and a lot of the investment will be in developing countries. The World Energy
1Kaza, S., Lisa, Y., Bhada-Tata, P. and Van Der Woerden, F., (2018). What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste
Management to 2050. Overview booklet. World Bank, Washington, DC.
2
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF). 2013. Towards the Circular Economy: Economic and business rationale for an
accelerated transition. Isle of Wight, UK: EMF.
3
Over a two-year period January 2013 to December 2014.
4
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF). 2013. Towards the Circular Economy: Economic and business rationale for an
accelerated transition. Isle of Wight, UK: EMF.

6

Waste Management Criteria

Council has estimated the global waste to energy market will reach $40 billion by 20235. Moreover,the capital expenditure for waste management in developing Asian countries has been estimated at
between $23.7 and $90.3/tonne for composting and energy from waste respectively6. The overall
investment required, taking an average of the global waste forecast to be generated between 2016
and 2050, is between $2.1 trillion and $7.8 trillion.
Historically, both the public sector: national or local governments, international and financing
institutions, and the private sector have financed investments in the sector7. The majority of public
sector funding has been from local or regional government, making service delivery vulnerable topolitical factors and national economic problems8. Although private operators have more flexibility
because their income can be related to the cost of service delivery, they also require external funding
to upgrade or develop new, capital intensive facilities.

1.4.

Assets and projects in scope for the Criteria

These Criteria apply to assets and projects relating to the following aspects of the treatment ofmunicipal solid waste and similar waste:
●
●
●
●
●
●

Collection (including collection infrastructure, containers) 9
Sorting to separate recyclables
Reuse and recycling (including processing into secondary raw materials and repair)Composting & anaerobic digestion of green/garden/yard and food waste
Thermal treatment with energy recovery of residual waste (outside the EU only)
The installation of gas recovery systems for landfill sites (for non-operational landfill sites
only)Further details of the scope of the Criteria are in Section 2, Table 1.

1.5.

Key elements to the Criteria

As a general principle, bonds will meet the requirements of the Climate Bonds Standard, namely thatthe associated use of proceeds:●●

Promote low carbon infrastructure;
Promote adaptation and resilience to climate change both in respect of assets and projects
themselves and the systems in which they are located.

Complete details of the requirements in respect of Waste Management assets and projects aredetailed in Section 3 of this document. The reporting requirements associated with theserequirements are summarised in Section 4.

1.6.

This document and supplementary information available

This document details:●●●

The current scope of waste management assets and projects eligible for certification under
the Climate Bonds Standard – see Section 2;
The Climate Mitigation and Adaptation & Resilience requirements that these assets andprojects must meet to be eligible for inclusion in a Certified Climate Bond – see Section 3;
Mandatory disclosure requirements for certified bonds – see Section 4.

5

Waste to Energy 2016, World Energy Council.
João Aleluia, Paulo Ferrão, Assessing the costs of municipal solid waste treatment technologies in developing Asian
countries, Instituto Superior Técnico, University of Lisbon, Waste Management
7
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF). 2013. Towards the Circular Economy: Economic and business rationale for an accelerated
transition. Isle of Wight, UK: EMF.
8
Ibid.
9
Collection vehicles and other transport infrastructure are covered under CBI’s Transport Criteria documents.
6

7

Waste Management Criteria

Supplementary information available online in addition to this document include:
1. Waste Management Criteria Brochure: a 2-page summary of the Waste Management Criteria.
2. Waste Management Background Paper: full background to the process of determining these
Criteria, including issues raised and discussed by the TWG, and arguments and rationale forthe approaches and decision taken.
3. Climate Bonds Standard V3: the umbrella document laying out the common requirements that
all Certified Climate Bonds need to meet, in addition to the sector-specific Criteria (V3 is themost recent update version).
4. Climate Bonds Standard & Certification Scheme Brochure: an overview of the purpose,context and requirements of the Climate Bonds Standard & Certification Scheme.
For more information on the Climate Bonds Initiative and the Climate Bond Standard & Certification
Scheme, see www.climatebonds.net. For the documents listed above, seewww.climatebonds.net/standard/waste. For more information on the Climate Bonds Initiative and the
Climate Bond Standard & Certification Scheme, see www.climatebonds.net/standard.

1.7.

Revisions to these Criteria

These Criteria will be reviewed within three years of launch, at which point the TWG will take stock ofissuances that arise in the early stages and any developments in improved methodologies and datathat can increase the climate integrity of future bond issuances. As a result, the Criteria are likely tobe refined over time, as more information becomes available. However, certification will not be
withdrawn retroactively from bonds certified under earlier versions of the Criteria.

8Waste Management Criteria

2 Assets
These Criteria cover assets and activities that deal with municipal waste (MSW) which consists ofwaste from households and similar wastes from industry and commerce. They therefore exclude otherwastes from industry and commerce, all hazardous wastes and CD&E wastes. Assets and activities
dealing with waste prevention are also out of scope of these Criteria, as are all assets and activities
dealing with wastes other than MSW or similar wastes.
The scope of eligible assets and activities is presented in Table 1 using a traffic light system for easeof use as follows:●●●

Green: almost certain to be compatible with a low carbon or climate-resilient economy in all
circumstances and assumed to be automatically eligible for certification
Red: excluded either because they are incompatible with a low carbon or climate-resilient
economy or because determining their eligibility is outside the mandate of the Waste
Management Criteria.
Amber: requiring further assessment to determine its eligibility

2.1. Assets covered by these Criteria
Table 1: Summary scope of eligible projects and assets for Climate Bonds Certification under the
Waste Management Criteria.
Eligible activity types

Example use of proceeds

Material Reuse

Facility repairing and/or reusing products orcomponents for same purpose for which
they were conceived.

Material Recycling

Facilities producing recycled glass, metal,
paper, and plastic from post-consumer
waste.

Mitigation

Adaptation& resilience

Facilities using recycled glass to produce
glass aggregate.

Collection Infrastructure

Containers provided for waste.

Composting

Facility producing compost via green waste
such as food, garden or yard wastes.

Anaerobic Digestion

Facility processing food, garden or yard, orother organic materials to produce biogas
and digestate for e.g. electricity generation

9

Waste Management Criteria

Pre-sorting

Facilities for segregating mixed recyclables
into separate, saleable streams, e.g.
material recovery facilities (MRFs).

Waste Incineration or Gasification& Energy Recovery

Facility producing electric and/or heat via
the combustion of municipal solid waste OR
mixed residual waste.

Facility producing electric and/or heat via
gasification of residual municipal solid
waste.

Decommissioned Landfill only, with Project to capture biogas from nonGas Capture & Energy Generation operational landfill (ceased receiving waste
except inert restoration materials).

2.2. Assets not covered by this Criteria
Table 2: Potential assets which have overlaps with other Climate Bonds Certification Criteria.
Assets or Activity

Comments on Applicable Sector Criteria

Municipal Solid
Waste Prevention

Manufacturing facilities reducing their waste generation both pre and postconsumer are not within the scope of the Waste Management Criteria. They
will be considered when Manufacturing Criteria are developed.

Remanufacturing
Facility

Manufacturing facilities using reclaimed or recycled materials to manufacture
goods and services are not within the scope of the Waste Management
Criteria. They will be considered when Manufacturing Criteria are developed.

Land Transport

Vehicles used within the waste facilities are eligible for certification if they meet
the Transport Criteria. Other mobile plant assets within the facility itself are
eligible for certification under the Waste Management Criteria when part of awider eligible project.
All collection vehicles and those used for transfer of waste are also eligible but
must comply with the Transport Criteria.

10Waste Management Criteria

3 The Eligibility Criteria for Waste Management
These Criteria cover waste management operations for waste once it has become waste. For the
avoidance of doubt, all mobile plant used at waste management facilities, such as forklifts, loading
shovels etc. are included within the assets covered by these Criteria.
The Waste Management Criteria has two sets of requirements:••

Mitigation Requirement
Adaptation and Resilience Requirement

3.1. Mitigation Requirements
Waste Collection
Table 3: Criteria for Waste Collection
Assets covered

Eligibility Criteria

ISO containers,
recycling bins, wheeledbins, green/ garden
waste containers

Made from 100% recycled and recyclable materials. Containers forresidual waste will not be eligible unless part of an investment that
also includes an equivalent number of separate containers formaterial recycling.
Support source segregation of waste.

Collection vehicles

Must meet Transport Criteria

Waste Storage
Table 4: Criteria for Waste Storage
Assets covered

Eligibility Criteria

Storage and bulking
facilities

Dedicated to eligible waste processing asset(s) downstream. Those
downstream assets do not need to be certified but do need to meet thecriteria for that asset type. All waste stored must be transferred to thoseassets.

Collection vehicles

Must meet Transport Criteria

11Waste Management Criteria

Waste Sorting, Separation and MRFs
Table 5: Criteria for Waste Sorting
AssetscoveredEligibility Criteria

Sorting facilities

Facilities sorting mixed recyclables into separate glass, metal, plastic, paper,
etc. are eligible for certification where the outputs are demonstrated via
invoices or weighbridge tickets to go to facilities that are or would be certifiable
under the recycling criteria per Table 6.

(Includes
material
recoveryfacilities(MRFs) andsome MBT
plant.

Facilities processing mixed residual waste to produce feedstock for EfW are
eligible where they separate waste components for recycling and both therecycling and residual outputs are demonstrated via evidence to go to facilities
that are or would be certifiable under the Climate Bonds Waste Management
criteria.
In other words, they go to facilities that are or would be, respectively,
certifiable under the Recycling and Reuse Criteria per Table 6 (for therecycling outputs), and under the EfW criteria per Table 9 (for the residual
outputs).

Recycling and Reuse
Table 6: Criteria for Recycling and Reuse
Assets covered

Eligibility Criteria

Facilities processing
recyclable waste
fractions into secondary
raw materials

The secondary raw materials (such as steel, aluminum, glass,plastics) cease to be waste and are sold to be used as secondary raw
materials.

Facilities collecting, sort,clean, refurbish,recondition and/ or repair
products

The products are put back to their original use without any further
pre-processing required.
For waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) specifically,
the product is covered by an ecolabelling scheme and only those
products meeting the three lowest energy use categories are eligible.

12

Waste Management Criteria

Composting
Table 7: Criteria for Composting
Assets covered

Facilities processing foodand/ or green/ garden/
yard waste to produce
compost for agricultural,municipal or consumer
applications

Eligibility Criteria•••

Zero measurable methane emissions
Monitoring, sampling and control of the following is carried out
in accordance with PAS100 guidance or equivalent nationalor state standard or guidance:- Waste inputs (to ensure only source separated,uncontaminated garden/yard and other appropriate waste
is received).
- The process (for example, to ensure temperature,moisture and emissions are aligned with correct process
operation); and- Product quality (properly sampled and analysed forparameters that would affect its use: for example, heavy
metals and other biocidal substances, particle size,
contamination, stability).
The resulting product is not landfilled and replaces non-wastematerial in the market.

Anaerobic Digestion
Table 8: Criteria for Anaerobic Digestion
Assets covered
Facilities which produce
power and/ or heat using
food and/ or green/ yard
waste

Eligibility Criteria
•
•
•

•

Total methane emissions <= 1285g CH4/ tonne of waste input(this is approximately equivalent to 100g CO2e/ kWh)
Woody waste must be segregated before or after processing
and sent to an eligible EfW or composting plant
Monitoring, sampling and control of the following is carried out
in accordance with PAS110 guidance or equivalent nationalor state standard or guidance- Waste inputs (to ensure only source separated,uncontaminated food and other appropriate waste isreceived).
- The process (for example, to ensure temperature andemissions are aligned with correct process operation).
And- Product quality (properly sampled and analysed forparameters that would affect its use: for example, heavy
metals and other biocidal substances, nutrients andcontamination).
The solid and liquid products are not landfilled and replace
non-waste materials in the market.

13Waste Management Criteria

Energy from Waste
Table 9: Criteria for Energy from Waste
Assets covered

Eligibility Criteria

Facilities which produce
power and/ or heat/cooling by the thermal
processing of residual
waste, including rejects
from recycling/
composting/ AD

For EfW facilities outside the EU only:
•
•
•
•
•

Plant efficiency >= 25%; AND
Bottom ash recovery; AND>= 90% recovery of metal from ash; AND
Average carbon intensity of electricity and/ or heat over thelife of the plant <= waste management allowance (see Box 1
for how to determine this); AND
The capacity of the plant does not exceed the calculated
residual waste at any time in the plant’s life.

N.B. EfW facilities within the EU are not eligible for certification.

Box 1. Step by Step Approach to assessing the qualifying carbon intensity of Energy from Waste
Step 1: Obtain the best available, detailed waste compositional analysis for the waste input.
Step 2: Adjust if necessary for changes in recycling since the analysis.
Step3: Combine with proximate analysis of the different waste fractions (calorific value, total carbon
content, estimated proportion of fossil carbon), calculate the net CV and the fossil carbon content of
the projected waste input.
Step 4: Calculate what would be the emissions intensity of the EfW plant gCO2e/kWh produced at theminimum qualifying efficiency when the dense and film plastic has been removed (termed the waste
management allowance.
Step 5: This figure is the emissions intensity that must be demonstrated to be met if the plant is to beconsidered as eligible under this Criterion.
Note that it is not necessary to remove all the dense and film plastics. The qualifying limit can beachieved through other (or a combination of) measures, such as increased plant efficiency due, e.g.
to the recovery and supply of heat.

Landfill Gas Recovery
Table 10: Criteria for landfill gas recovery
Projects covered
Projects to capturebiogas from closed
landfill facilities

Eligibility Criteria•••

Gas capture >= 75%; AND
Gas used to generate electricity and input to the natural gas
grid or used as vehicle fuel; AND
The landfill is not accepting further waste (with the exceptionof restoration materials)

14

Waste Management Criteria

3.2. Adaptation & Resilience Requirements
Adaptation and Resilience Checklist
The Adaptation & Resilience checklist focuses on the processes the issuer should demonstrate they
have been through to determine if the issuer is asking and evaluating the right questions at the rightstages of development and if the issuer is monitoring and reporting appropriately.
To meet the requirements, issuers must demonstrate that:●●●

Climate related risks and vulnerabilities to the asset are identified; andImpacts in, and beyond, the asset to ecosystems and stakeholders are identified; andStrategies to mitigate and adapt to the climate risks and vulnerabilities identified to protect theasset.

All elements of this checklist must be addressed, with appropriate evidence provided that theserequirements are being met or are not applicable in respect of the specific assets and projects linked
to the bond. It is expected that the evidence will encompass a range of assessment and impact
reports and associated data, including, but not limited to, those reports required to meet national andlocal licensing and approval processes. This might include Development Consent Orders,
Environmental Impact Assessments, Vulnerability Assessments and associated Adaptation Plans.
Table 11: Checklist for evaluating the Issuer’s Adaptation & Resilience performance in respect of awaste management facility
Item

Proof given

Overall assessment

Section 1: The issuer identifies the climate related risks and vulnerabilities to the asset/site

Processes are in place (as part of both the asset design andongoing management) to assess key risks to the assets from achanging climate.
These key risks should include the following, plus any others
felt to be of concern for the operation of these assets. The risks
should be identified and interpreted in terms of the impact on
the asset and the related effects for the business – e.g. impact
on operating feasibility and schedules, and potential systemoutages, impact on maintenance requirements etc.
N.B. This list taken from World Banks Climate and Disaster
Risk Assessment Tool
●
●
●
●
●

Temperature changes, and extremes in temperature
Extreme precipitation and flooding
Drought
Sea level rise and storm surge
Strong winds

How these affect the asset or site in question will be highlyvariable and will be for the issuer to identify and relate to theiroperations. These assessments should use climate
information, modelling and scenarios from a peer-reviewed
source.

15

Waste Management Criteria

This assessment should be done regularly. The frequency of
the assessment will depend on the nature of the climate
related risks and vulnerabilities, and should be specified by theissuer and reported against in subsequent annual reporting.

Section 2: The issuer identifies the impacts in larger context (spatially and temporally) beyond theasset/site (i.e. the impacts of the underlying assets and projects on the broader ecosystem andstakeholders in that ecosystem)
Processes should be in place (as part of both the asset designand ongoing management) to assess the impact of the waste
management asset on the climate resilience of otherstakeholders in the social, economic and environmental
system in which it operates and how to mitigate or reduce any
negative impacts
These assessments address:
●
●
●
●
●
●

Any ways in which waste management facilities might
affect the climate resilience of otherusers/stakeholders?
Any ways in which waste management facilities
improve the adaptation capacity of otherusers/stakeholders?
For example, they may include:
Impact on water quality and quantity for other users inthe basin
Waste and pollution emitted
Fire hazards

Section 3: The issuer has designed and implemented strategies to mitigate and adapt to theseclimate risks and vulnerabilities

16

Waste Management Criteria

An adaptation plan has been designed and is being
implemented to address the risks identified in the assessments
above.
The issuer has designed or amended asset maintenance plansto ensure that scheduled maintenance is sufficient to cope withthe ongoing impacts of climate change; and a plan has been
established to govern how to approach emergency
maintenance needs arising from sudden climate change
impacts (e.g. extreme storms).
The issuer has training, capacity and governancearrangements in place for how the organisation will deal with
the impacts of exceptional events (e.g. droughts, floods,
severe pollution events, extreme storms, winds etc.).
The issuer has monitoring and reporting systems andprocesses to identify high risk scenarios.
The issuer has contingency plans to address disruption tooperations or loss of the asset and any resulting environmental
or social damage.
The issuer has processes for feeding risk assessment backinto decision-making.
The issuer has a budget allocated to implementing theadaptation plan and has a named member of staff responsiblefor its implementation.
The issuer complies with any existing broader or higher-level
adaptation plans, such as NAPAs.

17

Waste Management Criteria

4 Appendices
Appendix 1: TWG and IWG members
Working group members
Waste Management Technical Working Group Members
Adam Read - Ricardo Energy & Environment
Adrian Barnes - Green Investment Bank
Amrita Sinha - C40
Bernie Thomas - Resources Futures
Brendan Edgerton - World Business Council on Sustainable Development
Carla Tagliaferri - University College London
Chris Hoy - Ricardo Energy & Environment
Dominic Hogg - Eunomia
Gary Crawford - Veolia / International Solid Waste Association
Jess Allan - Anaerobic Digestion and Bioresources Association
Keith James - WRAP
Libby Bernick – Trucost
Margaret Bates - University of Northampton
Mariel Vilella - Zero Waste Europe
Mia (Chang) He - CECEP Consulting
Phil Coughlan - Herrera
Professor Richard Murphy - University of Surrey
Samantha Arnold - Golder Associates
Shui-e Yin - Environmental Sanitation Engineering Technology Reseaarch Center of Ministry of
Housing and Urban-Rural Development
Sourabh Manuja - The Energy and Resources Institute
Stuart Ferguson - London Waste & Recycling Board
Suneel Pandey - The Energy and Resources Institute
Terry Coleman - Resource and Waste Solutions LLP (Lead Technical Consultant)
Thom Koller - Anaerobic Digestion and Bioresources Association
Wenqin Lu - CECEP Consulting
Waste Management Industry Working Group Members
Alexandra Licurse - Debt Capital Markets Origination
Andrew McIntyre - ADB
Atul Sanghal - Emergent Ventures
Charles Gooderham - ERM
Chiael Anderson - ERM
Chiew Lee TAN - NEA
Chindarat Taylor
Damasco Zagaglia - ISS
Desmond Ho – NEA
Doug Farquhar - DNV GL
Dr. Tahsin Choudhury - Tuev Nord
Duncan Russel - ERM
Emilie Hagan - Atelier Ten
Eng Kim TAN - NEA
Grace Sapuay
Hailei Zhu (Albert) - CQC
18

Waste Management Criteria

Herman Oterdoom
James Leung - NEA
Janina Lichnofsky - ISS
John Sayer - Carbon Care Asia Limited
John Scanlon - Suez
Joseph BOEY - NEA
Julien Grimaud - 2ei
Larry Grant - Eden Eco Solutions
Margaret Andrews - Suez
Mark Berry - Norton Rose FulbrightMark Fisher - EY
Melanie Eddis - ERM
Mike Cao - Shanghai Mu Yi Investment Advisors Ltd.
Michael van Brunt - Covanta
Monica Reid - Kestrel Verifiers
Myles Cohen - Earth Link
Paul Gilman - Covanta
Pip Best - EY
Rainer Winte - Tuev Nord
Robert Rosenberg - ISS
Sarah Fee - ERM
Soo San ONG - NEA
Stacey Mack - NSF
Stan Krpan - Sustainability Victoria
Stuart Hayward Higham - Suez UK
Susan Robinson - WM
Tara Hemmer - WM
Tina Sentner - NSF
Xing Lan - Carbon Care Asia Limited
Yixiang - Coamc
Yongjun Li - Tuev Nord19