Marine Renewable Energy Assets andthe Climate Bonds Standard
Background Document to Eligibility Criteria

Marine Technical Working Group
Climate Bonds Initiative

October 2017
(Updated Jul 2020 to incorporate dedicated installation vessels)

Prepared by:
Dr. Christine Negra, Versant Vision LLC

Prepared by:Sponsored by:Table of Contents
I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 2
Marine systems and climate change ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
Developing eligibility Criteria for bond certification .................................................................................................................... 3

II. Marine renewable energy investments and potential for growth............................................... 5
Incentives and state-of-play for marine renewable energy bonds....................................................................................... 5
Marine renewable energy investments with beneficial climate impacts ........................................................................... 7
Implications for eligibility Criteria for Marine Renewable Energy ........................................................................................ 7

III. Discussion and establishment of eligibility Criteria ...................................................................... 9
1. Specific features of the marine sector ............................................................................................................................................ 9
2. Potentially eligible Marine assets and activities ....................................................................................................................... 10
3. Foundation for disclosure requirements .................................................................................................................................... 15
4. Foundation for Marine Renewable Energy mitigation Criteria ...................................................................................... 16
5. Foundation for Marine adaptation and resilience Criteria ............................................................................................... 18
6. Alignment with other sectoral Criteria ....................................................................................................................................... 25

Appendix 1 – Working groups.............................................................................................................. 27
Appendix 2 – Definitions ........................................................................................................................ 29
Appendix 3 – Debt capital markets and green investments ........................................................... 30
Appendix 4 – Pathway to certification ................................................................................................ 33
Appendix 5 – Feedback from public consultation ............................................................................ 34
List of tables
Table 1. Examples of recent bonds in the marine renewable energy sector. .............................................................. 6
Table 2. Examples of interventions to mitigate GHG emissions and / or increase climate adaptation
capacity and resilience through marine renewable energy. ...................................................................................... 13
Table 3. Adaptation and resilience checklist. ................................................................................................................................ 23
Table 4. Stakeholders with direct interest in green investments span multiple sectors. ..................................... 31
Table 5. Examples of potential bond types, issuers, and revenue streams of bonds that could be eligible
for Climate Bonds Certification................................................................................................................................................. 32

Prepared by:Sponsored by:1

I. Introduction
The marine sector plays a critical role in the global carbon cycle, presenting opportunities forgreenhouse gas emission reductions and for carbon sinks. In addition, to counteract material impacts ofclimate change on communities and businesses that rely on marine systems, investments to promote
adaptation capacity and resilience will be necessary. Marine ecosystems and the benefits they provide
are threatened by changing weather patterns and acidification and temperature changes in ocean water.
At the same time, marine systems can contribute to the transition away from fossil fuel when renewableenergy systems are safely deployed. Science-based Criteria can enable investors to identify marine bondissuances that have a beneficial climate related impact, encouraging the flow of capital towards
responses to climate change such as renewable energy generation.

Marine systems and climate change
Marine resources are central to both local livelihoods and commerce, including energy generation,
seafood production, coastal economic activities, shipping, tourism, and mining, representing over USD 4
trillion per year in economic activity.1,2 The type, location, and intensity of marine resource use ischanging and economic damage from mismanagement of these resources has been estimated at overUSD 200 billion per year.3 One of the UN Sustainable Development Goals calls for conservation andsustainable use of the oceans, seas, and marine resources and sets out targets related to pollution,
resilience, acidification, sustainable management of fish and other resources, subsidy reform, knowledge
development, artisanal fishers, and legal frameworks.4
Marine related economic sectors contribute to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, yet are also an
important sink for atmospheric carbon. These sectors are also at risk from the impacts of GHG
emissions to the atmosphere: climate change poses significant risks to marine ecosystems with highpotential to negatively affect productive uses of some marine resources and related socio-economic
systems.5 Major climate change impacts to marine ecosystems include higher air and watertemperatures, sea level rise, rainfall and river discharge, changing weather, extreme events, and ocean
acidification.6 These impacts are affecting marine populations and species interactions, triggering
alterations in the magnitude, distribution, and timing of species abundance including economicallyimportant fisheries,7 and presenting an array of impacts and risks to coastal infrastructure. One estimateof the cost of avoidable climate change impacts on the world’s oceans is USD 322 billion per year by
2050.8
Appropriate investment in marine related sectors is essential for promoting climate change mitigation
and adaptation and facilitating increased resilience of communities, infrastructure, and ecosystems.9
These investments are especially important in emerging economies, where marine related sectors are
key contributors to economic activity, livelihoods, and nutritional security. Appropriate and responsible

1 Paul Holthus. “World Ocean Council: Ocean Investment Platform and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).” WOC 4th

Sustainable Ocean Summit. Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 30 Nov-2 Dec 2016.
2 WWF estimates annual economic value of coastal / oceanic environments at USD 2.5 trillion, excluding oil, gas, and mining(Hoegh-Guldberg O. et al. 2015. Reviving the Ocean Economy: the Case for Action. Gland, Switzerland: WWF International).
3 Hudson and Glemarec. 2012. Catalysing Ocean Finance: Transforming Markets to Restore and Protect the Global Ocean.
New York, USA: UNDP-GEF.
4 UN DESA, 2016. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg14
5 Doney et al. 2012. Climate change impacts on marine ecosystems. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 4:11-37.
6 Over one-quarter of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions have partitioned into ocean waters, decreasing aquatic pH
levels (via formation of carbonic acid) and negatively affecting shell formation, habitat, and food webs. Sea ice retreat is rapidlychanging marine systems in the Arctic.
7 Doney et al. 2012. Climate change impacts on marine ecosystems. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 4:11-37.
8 Noone et al. eds. 2012. Valuing the Ocean – Draft Executive Summary. Stockholm Environment Institute.
9 Climate mitigation activities generally have global beneficial impacts as compared to more localized (direct) benefits of climate
adaptation and resilience.

Prepared by:Sponsored by:2

investments in marine related sectors can help emerging countries transition to more sustainable growth
pathways including appropriate implementation of marine renewable energy capacity.
Within this broad marine context, this Background Document and associated Climate Bonds Standard
Marine Renewable Energy Criteria consider assets and use of proceeds specifically relating to Marine
Renewable Energy. This includes offshore or near-shore wind, offshore or near-shore solar, wave power
facilities, tidal power facilities, dedicated supporting infrastructure, and other emerging marine renewableenergy technologies. Criteria for other elements of the marine economy, most notably Fisheries,
Aquaculture, Coastal Infrastructure, and Marine transport, are under development and will follow
separately.

Developing eligibility Criteria for bond certification
Objective
To create sector-specific eligibility Criteria for investors, industry, and governments that will catalyze
increased investment and drive transparency and better reporting for projects and assets linked toMarine Renewable Energy Certified Climate Bonds.

Marine Technical Working GroupThe Climate Bonds Initiative convened a Technical Working Group (TWG) to: (i) define qualifying
marine renewable energy related assets and activities for certification under the Climate Bonds
Standard, and (ii) specify recommended monitoring and evaluation frameworks and appropriate
intersection with other standards and certification schemes where possible.
The work of the Marine TWG was initiated with a marine sector Issues Paper and a TWG survey.
These provided the foundation for development of this Background Document, which has been further
informed by desktop research, eleven full and subgroup TWG conference calls, and multiple rounds oftechnical review as well as advice and feedback received through engagement with the Industry
Working Group and through a six-week public consultation.
The Marine TWG has explored the issues around developing verifiable, science-based Criteria for
certifying bond offerings linked to marine assets and activities.10 Supported by technical lead specialists,
the TWG has undertaken the following tasks:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Review knowledge emerging from diverse sources regarding ‘green’ investments to develop a list of
potential marine renewable energy sector assets and activities with sufficient foundation fordevelopment of eligibility Criteria;
Discuss credible, existing certification programs, standards, and industry guidance relevant to marine
renewable energy assets;
Characterize available, cost-effective impact measurement techniques for climate mitigation,
adaptation, and resilience activities;
Develop initial versions of marine renewable energy eligibility Criteria for qualifying climate
mitigation, adaptation, and resilience investments, excluded activities, and recommended monitoringand evaluation frameworks;
Develop a succinct industry guidance document;11
Publish eligibility Criteria for public comment, revise, finalize, and seek Climate Bonds Standard
Board approval;

10 Importantly, the Marine Renewable Energy Criteria specify environmental performance, not financial performance.

11 This is specialized guidance for entities who will be hired by bond issuers to independently verify bond-eligible project

categories and planned reporting frameworks. It includes clarifications regarding boundaries or intersections with the Climate
Bonds Standard’s other sector specific Criteria (e.g. Water and Transport).

Prepared by:Sponsored by:3•Specify governance arrangements for updating and refining the eligibility Criteria and guidance overtime, in response to scientific and regulatory progress.

Marine Industry Working GroupA Marine Renewable Energy Industry Working Group (IWG), which is composed of potential bondissuers, investors, and verifiers, was also convened under the Climate Bonds Initiative Standard andCertification Scheme. The IWG mandate was to evaluate TWG proposals and to provide feedback
based on potential demand and industry interest.12 The IWG’s over-arching objectives were to provide
feedback on: (i) whether the Criteria are usable by the market, and (ii) if the Criteria ensure a marine
renewable energy asset or project is low carbon and climate resilient.
For a list of TWG and IWG members, please refer to Appendix 1.

This document
This Background Document provides context to the work of the Marine Technical Working Group(TWG) under the Climate Bonds Standard and Certification Scheme. It summarises the issues
considered by the TWG in developing certification eligibility Criteria.

Accompanying documents
1. Marine Renewable Energy Criteria Document: contains the complete Criteria requirements
2. Marine Renewable Energy Criteria Summary: a 2-page summary of the Marine Renewable Energy
Criteria
3. Climate Bonds Standard V2.1: gives the context, purpose and the complete requirements of the
Climate Bonds Standard (V2.1 is the most recent update). All certified bonds must comply with therequirements of this document, in addition to the relevant sector-specific Criteria.
4. Climate Bonds Standard & Certification Scheme Brochure: summarises the purpose, context andrequirements of the Climate Bonds Standard & Certification Scheme

12 The mandates of the technical and industry working groups are specified under the Climate Bonds Standard Program

governance structure. https://www.climatebonds.net/standards/about/governance2

Prepared by:Sponsored by:4II. Marine renewable energy investments and potential for growth
Capital markets have an important role to play in mobilizing equity and debt funding for green growthinvestments. They can enable the public to support renewable energy financing, both directly throughlisted vehicles as well as through institutional investors such as pension funds. Historically, ‘green’ and‘sustainability’ interest has primarily been directed at equities, however the debt capital markets are
rapidly expanding their role in the transition to a low carbon and climate resilient economy. (SeeAppendix 2 for further discussion.)
The Climate Bonds Initiative is focused on shifting the largest capital market of all: the USD 100 trillion
bond market.13 The strategy is to develop a large and liquid green bond market that will help drive
down the cost of capital for climate related projects in developed and emerging markets. This involves
improving aggregation mechanisms for fragmented sectors, supporting governments seeking to tap thedebt capital markets, and determining threshold performance levels that specify when investments are
sufficiently climate-compatible to merit the label of a climate bond.
Development of eligibility Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard is intended to broaden knowledge
and capacity among potential bond issuers and promote major growth of an investment-grade climatebond portfolio. By providing a clear definition of eligible activities, the Criteria provide assurance about
the climate benefits of certified bonds and help investors to find ‘low-carbon’ and ‘climate-smart’investment opportunities. Climate Bond Certification Criteria provide science-based guidance to both
reduce greenhouse gas emissions as well as increase the adaptive capacity and resilience of marine
systems that underpin investments.14

Incentives and state-of-play for marine renewable energy bonds
Increasing awareness among governments, companies, and financial institutions has spurred interest in
green labelled bonds and other investment vehicles as a mechanism to reduce risk and increasesustainability. Investor interest in marine renewable energy is likely to rise given increasing recognition of
the growing demand for non-fossil fuel energy.
Green bonds represent a viable financing strategy for marine renewable energy projects (i.e. installation,
operation, maintenance, decommissioning). Given the pre-commercial stage of many marine renewableenergy technologies, most examples of debt finance in this sector to date are in offshore wind. Appeal
to bond investors will hinge on increased technological and financial scale, predictable operational costs,
performance warranties from technology providers, secure electricity markets (e.g. purchase power
agreement), and overall higher levels of experience.15

13 Moody’s has forecast that the green bond market will grow to USD 70 billion in 2016.

http://www.reuters.com/article/climatechange-greenbonds-moodys-idUSL5N17O5MY Standard & Poor estimates corporate
green bond issuances adding up to as much as USD 28 billion this year.
14 Definitional work recognizes the diversity of countries, issuers, and verifiers as well as the potential for secondary uses of thesectoral Criteria by other entities such as the Green Climate Fund, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programs, and impact
investors.
15 Roberts DG. 2014. Project Finance for Ocean Energy: Issues to Consider.
http://www.icoe2014canada.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/1-RobertsDon_5-1.pdf

Prepared by:Sponsored by:5

Table 1. Examples of recent bonds in the marine renewable energy sector.

Issuer
Type: Certified Climate Bond (coupon 1.3%)16
Date: 2017
Value: EUR 650M
Issuer/borrower: Three Gorges Corporation
Type: 10-year green bond (coupon 1.125%)
Date: 2016
Value: EUR 1BN
Issuer/borrower: Iberdrola
Type: Peer-to-peer funding (coupon 8%, term 5year)
Date: 2017
Value: GBP 4.3M
Issuer/borrower: Atlantis Resources
Lender: Peer-to-peer investors
Type: Debt finance
Date: 2014
Value: GBP 7.5M
Issuer/borrower: MeyGen
Lender: Atlantis Resources / Scottish Enterprise
Renewable Energy Investment Fund
Type: 5-year loan facility
Date: 2014
Value: USD 20M
Issuer/borrower: Carnegie Wave Energy
LimitedLender: Clean Energy Finance Corporation
Type: Green bondDate: 2016
Value: USD 1.1BN
Issuer/borrower: TenneT IPO-TTH.AS (Dutch
state-owned grid operator)
Type: 5-year green bond (coupon 1.875%)
Date: 2015
Value: USD 500M
Issuer/borrower: Swedish Export Credit
Corporation

Description
For wind projects, both offshore and onshore, in Germany andPortugal. Attracted investors from Germany, France,
Switzerland, UK, Italy, Norway, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain,
UAE, Singapore, South Korea, Japan and Malaysia.
Proceeds will be used to finance and refinance onshore andoffshore wind power projects in Spain, Portugal and the UK.
Second opinion from Vigeo Eiris.
To produce the next generation of subsea technology andprogress more tidal power opportunities, including developmentof the second phase of MeyGen tidal project off the coast of
Scotland.
For installation of four 1.5MW offshore tidal turbines andonshore infrastructure.17

Commercial scale demonstration project for CETO arraysystem (wave power units).18 Revenue from sale of electricity
and desalinated water.

Investment in transmission cables from German offshore windfarms.19

For clean energy marine technologies (water and wastewater).
Includes other renewable energy, energy efficiency, recycling,water, sustainable construction / materials / transport). Second
opinion from CICERO.

In addition to existing bond issuances, potential climate bond issuers may derive useful insights frommarine renewable energy initiatives that employ other finance and policy mechanisms. For example,
Carnegie Wave Energy has secured £9.6m of EU funding to connect England’s first commercial-scalewave power project to the grid. Commission of a 15MW array at the Cornwall wave hub center isplanned for 2018 with commercial deployment in 2021.20
16 This bond was Climate Bonds Certified before the Marine Renewable Criteria were approved by the Climate Bonds

Standard Board. For this reason, it was eligible for certification under the Wind Criteria despite containing a mix of onshore andoffshore wind projects. Once the Marine Renewable Energy Criteria are approved for Climate Bonds Certification by the
Climate Bonds Standard Board, offshore wind projects will be evaluated using the Marine Renewable Energy Criteria as they
better cover issues such as siting, which are relevant given their location in complex marine ecosystems.
17 http://www.scottish-enterprise.com/knowledge-hub/articles/case-study/attract-investment/meygen
18 http://www.cleanenergyfinancecorp.com.au/media/releases-and-announcements/files/cefc-finance-supports-innovativeaustralian-wave-energy.aspx; http://carnegiewave.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/160112_Quarterly-Report_FINAL-ASXREADY.pdf
19 http://www.reuters.com/article/tennet-hldg-greenbond-idUSL8N18Z1R1
20 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/09/eu-plans-320m-funding-boost-for-budding-ocean-energy-industry

Prepared by:Sponsored by:6

Marine renewable energy investments with beneficial climate impacts
The Marine Renewable Energy Criteria are designed for certification of assets and activities that alignwith:(i) A global economic transition that limits global warming to 2°C (ideally 1.5°C);(ii) Adaptation and resilience to unavoidable climate change, which include addressing the conservationand sustainable use of the oceans, seas, and marine resources.
While global and regional projections of marine mitigation, adaptation, and resilience opportunities areavailable, investment opportunities need to be calibrated to specific geographic and sub-sectoral
contexts with consideration of success factors such as socio-economic conditions, tenure arrangements,
market access, and so on. Many companies have begun to invest in adapting their businesses and making
them more resilient to climate change. However, it is generally recognized that investment mechanisms
for climate change adaptation and resilience are at an earlier stage of development than mitigation
mechanisms, which have been tested in a broader range of sectors and geographies.21
In its deliberations, the TWG carefully navigated trade-offs between eligibility Criteria that reflect ahighly prescriptive or ‘high bar’ approach as opposed to an approach primarily focused on maximizing
marine renewable energy related green bond issuances. The former could result in few actual issuances(e.g. by limiting the scope of potential issuances; by imposing high monitoring and reporting costs) while
the latter risks weak environmental integrity and poor credibility.

Implications for eligibility Criteria for Marine Renewable Energy
How can Criteria meet the needs of bond issuers and investors?
To meaningfully grow the market, bonds in the marine sector should fit the needs of both investors andissuers. By determining the types of activities to finance through bonds, issuers will be key drivers for
growth in the marine climate bond market, however potential bond investors can also drive themarket's growth by signaling the types of investments they are eager to make.
For bond issuers, eligibility Criteria should:•••

Allow a relatively wide scope for eligible activities;
Indicate scientifically robust references and approaches for calculating climate benefits (e.g. guidelines
for selecting among existing methodologies and tools);
Cater to a range of potential issuers (and users of the guidance), including: (a) relatively large
companies, including banks, that are able to aggregate across sectors and industries, (b) smaller
companies and organizations, where there may need to be some aggregation and, or, concessional
support, and (c) government agencies.

For bond investors, eligibility Criteria should promote bond issuances that are:•••

Relatively straightforward, predictable, and easy to understand (e.g. in terms of the source andcredibility of expected cash flows);
Transparent regarding use of bond proceeds and intended impacts, allowing independent thirdparty scrutiny;
Sizeable and liquid, and preferably rated.

21 The UNFCCC (and associated IPCC guidance) encourages improving GHG measurement methodologies over time, while

also stressing that time-series information must be comparable.

Prepared by:Sponsored by:7

How can bond issuers use the Criteria?
To become certified under the Climate Bonds Standard, bond issuers must present evidence that theirbond meets the requirements of the Climate Bonds Standard (currently version 2.1) and the relevant
sector-specific Criteria. This evidence must be reviewed by a Climate Bonds Standard approved verifier,
who then issues an assurance report that the requirements of the Climate Bonds Standard has been
met. Issuers can then label their bond issuance as a Certified Climate Bond, on condition that they also
provide post-issuance reporting (again supported by an approved verifier’s report) of any amendments
to the pre-issuance information. Issuers must also provide annual reporting thereafter including any
further amendments as changes arise. For further information on the Certification process, please see
Appendix 3 and the Climate Bonds Standard and Certification Scheme brochure available on the
Climate Bonds website.
Bonds certified under Marine Renewable Energy Criteria must be used to finance assets and activities
that promote: (i) GHG mitigation through reduced emissions or increased carbon sequestration; and (ii)adaptation to climate change and facilitate increased climate resilience in the social, economic, andenvironmental systems in which they are located. Issuers must also demonstrate compliance withdisclosure requirements. Companies and other entities that seek to address GHG emissions and climate
risks will need to generate reasonably accurate estimates of GHG emissions reductions and avoided
risks and costs that result from adaptation and resilience investments. Bond issuers are encouraged toreview relevant inventory information for their country and sectors.
Bond issuers may seek financing for projects that span multiple marine sub-sectors. For example, climate
bonds could be part of the finance mix supporting Integrated Coastal Management, enabling local or
national governments to finance (or re-finance) projects that enhance climate adaptation capacity andresilience. Also, there is emerging interest in linking offshore renewable energy production to offshore
aquaculture or near shore renewable energy production to ports and associated infrastructure. Bondissuers may also seek financing for projects that span marine and other sectors. For example, they could
seek to finance a mix of onshore and offshore renewable energy facilities. Appropriate multi-use
financing is encouraged, but would have to meet requirements of all applicable Criteria such as Solar,
Onshore Wind, Geothermal or those under development for Marine Fisheries, Aquaculture, andCoastal Infrastructure.
Use of bond proceeds should follow industry best practices that are based on scientifically credible
sources and approaches. Bond issuers are encouraged to align investments with government plans andpriorities including Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the UNFCCC (the TWG notes
that, given significant country-by-country variation, strict requirements for adherence to hostgovernment targets may have unintended outcomes or create a non-level playing field). Alignment ofuse of bond proceeds with Marine Spatial Planning and other integrated approaches that evaluate
development activities within a broader context is also strongly encouraged.
In this first iteration of the Marine Renewable Energy Criteria, the TWG seeks to offer tangible andobjective Criteria for bond issuers and investors. This iteration will initiate early experience withbalancing the objectives of large volume of bond issues and environmental integrity. It is planned that
the Criteria will be reviewed one year after launch to take account of experience in practice and newly
emerging science. This will allow for any gaps to be filled, inconsistencies to be clarified, and newscientific knowledge and available methodologies to be integrated to shrink the error bars aroundmitigation estimates, while remaining realistic about cost-effective measurement. Revised eligibility
Criteria will not be retroactively applied to bonds already certified under an earlier version.

Prepared by:Sponsored by:8III. Discussion and establishment of eligibility Criteria
In developing the Marine Renewable Energy Criteria, the TWG reviewed a broad set of information
sources and considerations. Throughout its work, the TWG has attempted to balance two over-arching
objectives: (i) credibly verifying environmental outcomes of activities supported by bond issuances, and(ii) maximizing 'viable' bond issuances (i.e. eligibility Criteria are feasible for issuers to use and enable awide range of suitable marine sector interventions). This section summarizes the information used todevelop specific elements of the Criteria.

1. Specific features of the marine sector
All marine ecosystems are affected by human activity22 and key drivers include energy development,
coastal land use23 (e.g. urbanization, watershed management), pollution (e.g. untreated effluents), oceanbased trade, and growing global food and energy demand.24 Given the transboundary, interconnectednature of marine systems (and their interconnectivity with terrestrial systems), cumulative effects from a
range of sectoral drivers are felt from coastal zones out to deep sea environments. Efforts at sustainablemarine resource management are challenged by trade routes, ocean currents, and fisheries andmigratory species that cross multiple jurisdictions and international waters. Integrated responses such as
Marine Spatial Planning engage marine resource stakeholders in transparent assessment and siting ofmarine assets and activities.
While the marine sector is clearly an essential part of the global response to climate change, there areseveral features that differentiate it from other arenas for climate bond issuance.

Greenhouse gas emissions
Marine related sectors contribute to global GHG emissions, but also represent mitigation opportunities.
Marine ecosystems can act as both sources of or as sinks for GHGs. Spatial variation in GHG emissions
is very high, influenced by inherent ecosystems characteristics (e.g. different types of carbon pools) andmanagement decisions. Temporal cycles in GHG emissions, linked to management and other factors,
occur at multiple scales (e.g. annual, inter-annual). Impacts of natural events on rates of GHG emissions
can be large (e.g. storms) and it is difficult to separate ‘natural’ and anthropogenic impacts.
Many companies operating in the marine sector are exploring how they can increase the efficiency ofmanagement in their direct operations and in the operations of their suppliers to reduce GHG
footprints. Mitigation measures in marine related sectors can occur through renewable energy
generation, reduced GHG emissions, emission efficiency, and carbon sequestration. Highly
heterogeneous potential for GHG emissions and sequestration creates low certainty for net GHG
emissions estimates. For example, net carbon sequestration by coastal carbon sinks has been estimatedat 0.15 to 1.0 GtCO2 per year.25 Different carbon pools may be more or less vulnerable to future
release to the atmosphere (as well as saturation of carbon uptake) and management activities may havelong-term impacts (e.g. alteration of coastal systems may influence GHG emissions for many decades).
22 Halpern et al. 2016. A Global Map of Human Impact on Marine Ecosystems. Science, 219:948-952.

23 Silvestri S. Kershaw F. (eds.) 2010. Framing the Flow: Innovative Approaches to Understand, Protect and Value Ecosystem

Services across Linked Habitats. Cambridge, UK: UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre.
24 PEMSEA. 2015. Sustainable Development Strategy for the Seas of East Asia (SDS-SEA). Quezon City, Philippines:
Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia.
25 Hudson and Glemarec. 2012. Catalysing Ocean Finance: Transforming Markets to Restore and Protect the Global Ocean.
New York: UNDP-GEF.

Prepared by:Sponsored by:Climate change impacts
Climate change is likely to have material impacts on communities and businesses within marine related
sectors and investments to promote resilience are likely to be necessary. Appropriate investment inmarine related sectors is critical for promoting adaptation to climate change and facilitating increased
resilience for some of the world’s most vulnerable ecosystems and human communities. Climate change
threatens coastal resources and population centres, and is resulting in salinization of coastal agriculturaland groundwater resources. Long-term financing is required to restore and protect marine resources
and infrastructure.26 The UN Development Programme has estimated that ~USD 5 billion in public
investment will be needed in the next 10 to 20 years to combat degradation of coasts and oceans.27
The TWG has recommended that the Marine Renewable Energy Criteria include requirements forincreasing the adaptation capacity and resilience to climate change of bond-financed assets. Efforts toincrease adaptation capacity and resilience must recognize specific challenges in marine systems
including:••••

The potential impacts of changing sea level, precipitation, temperature, and other conditions on
marine and coastal systems are highly diverse and may be severe.
Ocean acidification represents a major disturbance to marine ecosystems especially food webs that
support fisheries.
The marine industry is concentrated in coastal regions that are often highly vulnerable to sea level
rise and increasing storm severity will affect all onshore and offshore areas.
Marine interventions have high relevance for adaptation efforts and importance for livelihoods andenvironmental integrity (e.g. biodiversity, watershed functioning, food and energy security and thus
political stability).

2. Potentially eligible Marine assets and activities
In determining eligible uses of certified bond proceeds, it is important to recognize the wide variation
across geographies and marine ecosystems as well as the complex mix of marine related assets andactivities. The general Climate Bonds Standard approach is to create sectoral eligibility Criteria that areopen to all assets and activities for which there is a credible, demonstrable climate benefit.

Which marine renewable energy assets are potentially eligible for certification?
A diverse array of technologies are being developed and deployed for marine renewable energy
generation from wind, sun, ocean waves, currents, and tides as well as salinity and seawatertemperature28 gradients through hundreds of projects involving hundreds of different companies aroundthe world.29 Current technologies include:•••

Offshore and near-shore wind and solar energy generation facilities
In-stream tidal energy generation facilities (e.g. vertical or horizontal axis turbines, lagoons, barragetechnologies, in-stream generators)30
Energy generation facilities using waves, ocean current, river current, ocean thermals, salinity
gradients, etc.

26 Bos et al. 2015. Marine conservation finance: The need for and scope of an emerging field. Ocean & Coastal Management.

114: 116-128.
27 Hudson and Glemarec. 2012. Catalysing Ocean Finance: Transforming Markets to Restore and Protect the Global Ocean.
New York: UNDP-GEF.
28 Primarily in equatorial areas, Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) generates consistent (‘baseload’) electric power
through conversion of the temperature differential between surface and deeper waters. http://www.otecnews.org/what-is-otec/
29 http://en.openei.org/wiki/Marine_and_Hydrokinetic_Technology_Database
30 The probability of significant environmental disruption is considered to be low for in-stream tidal systems (i.e. bottommounted turbines in locations with rapid tidal flows) and redeveloped barrage systems (i.e. turbines inserted into existing tidal
barriers or structures such as breakwaters), but, depending design, may be higher for new barrage systems and lagoon systems(e.g. negative effects on wetlands).

Prepared by:Sponsored by:
10

Located on shorelines, near-shore, or off-shore, floating attenuators, point absorbers, overtopping(reservoir) technologies, and other devices convert wave energy into electricity. Similarly, vertical andhorizontal axis turbines on stream generators and barrage and lagoon technologies capture tidal energy,
primarily in areas where the difference between low and high tide levels is great.31 Offshore wind energy
technologies, which can be bottom-mounted or on floating structures, are anticipated to undergo
significant deployment in the coming years. OTEC offers important potential for application indeveloping countries. Floating solar photovoltaic technologies can offer higher performance compared
to land-based installations (i.e. water provides better light reflection and panel cooling; less shading anddust accumulation).
Technology convergence has not yet occurred in this marine sub-sector and new applications continue
to emerge (e.g. floating tidal installations; floating / underwater data ‘farms;’ wave power for carbon
capture and storage; high voltage lines connecting offshore and onshore installations). Technologies varyin terms of capital costs, ratio of costs to power generation over a device’s lifetime, and net capacity (i.e.
ratio of actual to potential energy output)32 as well as climate benefits and environmental effects. In
addition to energy generation technologies, project developers may incur related capital costs for offshore transmission infrastructure (e.g. transformers and backbone), on-shore support facilities (e.g.
transmission terminus and transformers, turbines, grid connections, facilities for support vessels,
equipment storage, onshore assembly etc.), and operational production or manufacturing or distribution
facilities for key components, such as wind turbines and platforms.
Some marine renewable energy experts have indicated that the climate benefits of investments inmature technologies are primarily avoided GHG emissions, while for high-potential, but immaturetechnologies, R&D investments would also contribute to advancing a whole subsector and, on that basis,
could be attributed with a greater mitigation benefit. For example, a small-scale demonstration projectmight produce a relatively small GHG benefit (e.g. ~25GWh/year = 12,500 tonnes CO2 per year), butalso contribute to advancing fuller development of the marine renewable energy sector (e.g. displacing
2000 TWh/year of other generation = 1 billion tonnes CO2/year). One caveat is that, unlike for landbased wind energy, there is little convergence on standard marine renewable energy technologies given
the highly variable ocean environment (i.e. depth, bottom slope, sediments, water temperature, salinity).
R&D focused on easily scaled marine renewable energy technologies and deployment and maintenancestrategies may be most relevant. Another caveat is the difficulty of quantifying any additional mitigation
benefit beyond GHG emissions avoidance.
Marine renewable energy deployment is linked to interest in secure, local energy sources to increase
multi-scale energy security (e.g. local uses; diversified energy portfolio). Marine renewable energy
facilities deliver mitigation by meeting existing and growing energy demands through a renewable (i.e.
non-fossil fuel) source, although siting requires attention to potential threats to habitats and species (e.g.
noise, vibrations, disturbance, cables, direct bird strikes). As it progresses from research and prototyping
to commercial scale, marine renewable energy offers potential to meet power needs (e.g. 10% of theEuropean Union demand by 2050).33 In the UK, an estimated £100 million will be needed to bring 10
MW tidal energy arrays online and £200 million achieve commercial scale for wave energy.34 Wave
energy and possibly ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) can be a cost-effective method of
31 http://www.hydro.org/tech-and-policy/technology/marine-and-hydrokinetic/; http://www.emec.org.uk/marine-energy/
32 http://www.oceaneconomics.org/offshore_renewables/costs/

33 Ocean Energy Europe. 2015. Draft Ocean Energy Strategic Roadmap, building ocean energy for

Europe.
34 Catapult. 2014. Financing solutions for wave and tidal energy. Glasgow, Scotland: ORE Catapult.

Prepared by:Sponsored by:11desalination in water- and infrastructure-limited areas (e.g. island nations, remote coastal areas) providing
freshwater and power to move that water feasibly (i.e. without import of diesel or other fossil fuels).
The TWG recommends that the diverse set of existing marine renewable technologies be considered
eligible for climate bond certification, including marine technologies that are not yet widely deployed, solong as they meet the specified eligibility Criteria. However, renewable marine energy linked to oil andgas platforms would not be eligible as these fossil fuel sectors are excluded under the Climate Bonds
Standard.

What uses of bond proceeds are potentially eligible?
There are many different potential uses of bond financing:
Capital and operational expenses. Bond issuances are more commonly associated with capital
expenditures (‘capex’) than with operating expenditures (‘opex’), however it is certainly possible forbond structures to encompass operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. A combination of capex andopex may have relevance for marine renewable energy facilities. O&M may be central to achieving
beneficial climate-related impacts, particularly in relation to climate resilience. The TWG has discussed
the relevance to climate benefit (as opposed to financial viability) of specifying the allocation between
capex and opex or requiring specific performance metrics. It has also considered the merits of requiringbond issuers to demonstrate that necessary O&M has been adequately planned for (even if opex is notpart of the intended use of proceeds).
Acquisition or installation of new technologies is one type of capex expense. The outcomes associatedwith adoption of new technologies can vary based on the training and capacity of the people charged
with operating these technologies as well as the caliber of oversight systems.
Production of inputs. For example, this could include manufacture of turbine blades or energy
converters. In general, a green bond market seeking to finance more integrated responses to climatechange will need to focus on full supply chains, whole product life cycles, and all major stakeholders.
Supply chains vary dramatically in sourcing and structure and, to be eligible for certification, bondfinanced assets and activities must be 100% dedicated to renewable energy generation.
Monitoring, compliance, and enforcement. Monitoring data are necessary both for efficient operationof marine assets (e.g. energy facilities) and to demonstrate compliance with regulations and certification
schemes. Monitoring systems can be expensive and, in some cases, they are poorly implemented. The
TWG has discussed how bond eligibility Criteria should accommodate investment in ocean observation
buoys,35 tsunami warning systems,36 autonomous underwater vehicles, wave gliders,37 and othermonitoring equipment. These systems, often powered by small built-in wave or solar energy devices,38
as well as innovations in data management, may offer improved effectiveness and lower costs andcarbon footprint. Costs associated with regulatory compliance (e.g. demonstrating minimal impact frommarine renewable energy siting), traceability, transparency, or enforcement will also require a clearly
described connection to climate impacts if they are to be included as an intended use of certified bondproceeds.
Research and development (R&D) and technology. Investments in R&D and technology (e.g. piloting
new marine renewable energy technologies) may be pivotal or peripheral to securing beneficial climate35 Global Ocean Observing System - http://www.ioc-goos.org/

36 http://www.bom.gov.au/tsunami/about/detection_buoys.shtml

37 For example, drones are being deployed against illegal fishing in a massive marine reserve in the Pitcairn Islands(http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35783564).
38 Note that data buoy networks commonly require batteries and are left to sink at the end of useful life.

Prepared by:Sponsored by:12related impacts. As with human capacity investments, the TWG supports requirements that bondissuers demonstrate clear linkage between investments and climate mitigation and risk reduction.
Capacity building. Investments in human capacity for climate mitigation, adaptation, and resilience canbe considered ‘soft’ investments, although human dimensions of supply chains and marine ecosystems
are also recognized as critical to their functioning. For example, training and extension can be essential
to effective application of marine spatial planning, coastal use zoning, vulnerability assessment, regulations
and enforcement, ecosystem services valuation. Training facilities may represent a viable investment.39 A
definition of resilience that is constrained to biophysical assets and infrastructure – excluding humancapacity – may deliver weaker outcomes. Where clear linkages can be described between humancapacity building activities and beneficial climate-related impacts, the TWG supports their inclusion
within eligibility Criteria (e.g. strengthening technical management skills; governance; monitoring andreporting capability).
Small-scale enterprise development. In developing countries and other contexts, natural resource
based livelihood strategies represent a significant driver for environmental degradation and GHG
emissions. There is a solid rationale for investment in assets and activities that support small-scale
enterprise development that contributes to net climate benefits as an allowable use of certified climatebond proceeds.
Policy change and insurance. Public policies related to onshore and offshore resource use significantly
affect the potential for climate mitigation (e.g. marine renewable energy permitting), adaptation andresilience through marine assets and activities. Policy change often represents an important lever forachieving climate benefits, however, debt finance is an unlikely instrument for enabling climate-smart
policy shifts. Similarly, insurance schemes can be used to incentivize adaptation activities and to increasesocio-economic resilience as well as indirectly enable sustainability investments (e.g. reduced insurance
premiums for assets with increased resilience). In some cases, insurance schemes may be appropriate as
minor components of bond financed projects.
Consumer demand. For example, this could include activities linked to utilities’ interest in marine
renewable energy. Shifting market signals and building industry awareness and interest can be an
important precursor to mitigation, adaptation, and resilience investments. However, it may bechallenging to directly link consumer demand expenditures with beneficial climate-compatible assets.
Activities directed toward adoption of industry best practices and transparent reporting may represent
more relevant use of bond proceeds.
Table 2. Examples of interventions to mitigate GHG emissions and / or increase climate adaptation capacity and resilience throughmarine renewable energy.

Interventions

Dimensions / considerations

Renewable energy generation facilities in marine systems
Improve design / siting / upgrades to pilot
and established facilities that offset fossil
fuel based energy sources* Includes infrastructure capex and opex, transmission to the grid,
manufacture of components, permitting costs, etc.
– Reduce GHG emission (e.g. due to ecosystem disturbance;
operational design)– Improve climate resilience (to sea level rise; storms; seawater
acidification) and ecosystem services (e.g. habitat restoration)– Maximize climate benefits (e.g. co-siting with oyster reefs)

Undertake R&D– Develop / demonstrate more efficient or lower impact energy

generation technologies

39 For example, GreenWave operates a Seafood Hub in Fair Haven, Connecticut that aggregates, processes and markets ocean

farm products and is creating a growers’ co-op. http://greenwave.org/about-us/

Prepared by:Sponsored by:13

– Improve technologies and methods to support adaptation (e.g. to sea

level rise) and reduce disturbance of marine habitats and species

Establish / improve monitoring, data
management (i.e. collection, analysis,storage), and early warning systems– Improve management knowledge to reduce losses from climate

impacts

While there are important technological differences among the various forms of marine renewableenergy generation, the set of necessary considerations for eligibility related to siting, manufacture,
installation, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning are similar. Therefore, the TWG
recommends that the Criteria adopt an integrated approach that is relevant to different types of marine
renewable energy technologies.
In the original version of these criteria (published in 2018) the TWG did not recommend extending
eligibility to vessels or vehicles used for installation of new or upgraded marine renewable energy
sources (and similarly to grid expansion to accommodate them). However, following discussions held by
the Shipping Criteria TWG, it was deemed that such assets should be kept within scope of these Marine
Renewables criteria, and classified as eligible provided that they are dedicated to offshore wind power
assets. The Climate Bonds Shipping Criteria (developed in 2020) has similarly included dedicatedinstallation assets such as Wind Turbine Installation Vessels (WTIVs) and Jack-up Rigs as eligible. See
page 16 of this document for further rationale on this issue.

Resulting Criteria
In general, marine renewable energy assets relate to: (i) the establishment, acquisition, expansion, and/or ongoing management of a specified renewable energy facility, and (ii) the establishment, acquisition,
expansion and/ or ongoing management of related inputs and infrastructure to support these facilities.
These renewable energy facilities might include: Offshore wind facilities; offshore solar facilities; tidal
power facilities (both tidal range and tidal stream); wave facilities; ocean current; OTEC (ocean thermalenergy conversion); salinity driven energy facilities (e.g. using salinity gradients); and hybrids of the above.
These Criteria apply to projects or assets located in marine environments or estuaries. Similar
technologies located in river environments, for example run-of-river hydropower, impoundmenthydropower and pumped storage, will be eligible for Climate Bonds Certification under the Climate
Bonds Hydropower Criteria.
Use of bond proceeds eligible under the Marine Renewable Energy Criteria include:•

Offshore wind or offshore solar assets that operate or are under construction to operate:o Offshore wind or offshore solar energy generation facilitieso Transmission infrastructure and support facilities dedicated for renewable energy (e.g.
transformers, backbone, transmission terminus, grid connections, dedicated facilities for support
vessels and vehicles, equipment storage, onshore assembly)o Assets dedicated40 for supporting offshore RE infrastructure, such as Wind Turbine Installation
Vessels (WTIVs) and Jack-up rigs.41

40 In this particular case, “dedicated” means the asset is to be used only for the purposes of installation and operation of

offshore wind energy facilities and nothing else. Assets used for purposes other than installation and operation are not eligible.
Please refer to the footnote on page 14 for verification guidance.
41 For Certification of WTIVs or Jack-up Rigs dedicated to the installation and operation of offshore wind energy assets, during
pre-Certification, verifiers should ascertain that the vessel will be used solely for the installation, operation, maintenance ordecommissioning of renewable energy assets only. Those assets that also work in other sectors (e.g. Oil and Gas industry) arenot eligible. If this is not available before issuance, then verifiers must ensure on an annual, post-issuance reporting basis, thatthe asset(s) have only been leased or operated for offshore wind energy installation/operation. This can be done throughverification of receipts or accounts payable, against the overall revenue earned attributed to the asset.

Prepared by:Sponsored by:
14

•Tidal power; range and stream assets that operate or are under construction to operate:o Tidal energy generation facilities (e.g. turbine housing, turbines, causeway)o Dedicated transmission infrastructure and support facilities (e.g. transformers, backbone,transmission terminus, grid connections, dedicated facilities for support vessels and vehicles,
equipment storage, onshore assembly)o Dedicated operational production or manufacturing or distribution facilities for key components•

Wave assets that operate or are under construction to operate:o Wave energy generation facilities (e.g. floating attenuators, point absorbers, overtopping /reservoir technologies, oscillating water columns)
o Dedicated transmission infrastructure and support facilities (e.g. transformers, backbone,transmission terminus, grid connections, dedicated facilities for support vessels and vehicles,
equipment storage, onshore assembly)o Dedicated operational production or manufacturing or distribution facilities for key components•

Other – using ocean current, river current, ocean thermals, salinity gradients etc assets that operateor are under construction to operate:o Energy generation facilities
o Dedicated transmission infrastructure and support facilities (e.g. transformers, backbone,transmission terminus, grid connections, dedicated facilities for support vessels and vehicles,
equipment storage, onshore assembly)o Dedicated operational production or manufacturing or distribution facilities for key components

Assets and projects not (yet) eligible for Certification under these Criteria include:•

Dedicated operational production or manufacturing or distribution facilities for key components,
such as wind turbines, platforms, etc. are eligible under the Climate Bonds Standard Wind Criteria.

•

Dedicated operational production or manufacturing or distribution facilities for key components,
such as solar panels, etc. are eligible under the Climate Bonds Standard Solar Criteria.

•

Land-based Installation vehicles: If an issuer wishes to include installation vehicles in the bondissuance, the vehicles must comply with the Climate Bonds Standard Low Carbon Transport
Criteria. They are not automatically eligible under dedicated support facilities (note that this does
not apply to waterborne installation vessels).

•

River based hydropower, such as run-of-river hydropower, impoundment hydropower and pumped
storage: River based hydropower assets are not eligible for Climate Bonds Certification under the
Marine Renewable Energy Criteria. If an issuer wishes to include these assets in the bond issuance,
they must comply with the Climate Bonds Standard Hydropower Criteria.

3. Foundation for disclosure requirements
Transparency has emerged as a core principle of the global response to climate change. Companies andfinancial institutions are increasingly aware of the need to increase transparency regarding climate relatedrisks to their operations and portfolios in response to growing expectations from their customers,
business partners, investors, and regulators.42 In the green bond market, impact reporting by issuers is on
the rise.43 Over time, bond investors are likely to require transparent demonstration of material climate
benefits (i.e. GHG mitigation; climate risk reduction) and third party verification.
Part of the value associated with Climate Bonds Certification is increased transparency regarding use ofproceeds, an important step in shifting norms within the bond market overall. The Climate Bonds
42 EIU. 2017. No more excuses: Responsible supply chains in a globalised world. London, UK: The Economist Intelligence UnitLtd.
43 Climate Bonds Initiative. 2017. Post-issuance reporting in the green bond market. London, UK: Climate Bonds Initiative

Prepared by:Sponsored by:15

Standard aims to promote transparency on intended use of proceeds and independent review ofbaselines and proceeds management, thereby holding issuers accountable for bond-financed assets andactivities.

Resulting Criteria
In the interests of transparency and disclosure, issuers of Certified Climate Bonds are required to
publicly disclose the following in respect of the assets and use of proceeds incorporated in that issuance:
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Project location and size, including description of marine and coastal ecosystem in proximity toplanned installations, noting for example whether in marine protected areas or vulnerable marine
ecosystems;
Projected lifespan of the asset/project;
Key stakeholders involved, including other users of the area and surrounding area (sea, land or air
depending on what is applicable) of the facility(ies);
Description of project activities including details on installation, operation and decommissioning
activities;
Expected/current facility capacity and generation during and after the life of the bond;
Details of where the energy generated is being fed into, and estimated impact on grid mix;
Projected avoided GHG emissions compared to fossil fuel counterfactual (in kgCO2e) using
recognised conversion factors;
The planning standards, environmental regulations and other regulatory regulations that the project
has been required to comply with.

Where the bond portfolio includes several separately identifiable projects or groups of assets, these
conditions must be met for each separately identified project or asset grouping. Bond issuers should
determine these project boundaries, which may be based on geographical linkages.

4. Foundation for Marine Renewable Energy mitigation Criteria
To be certified under the Climate Bonds Standard, a bond issuance must promote mitigation throughdirectly or indirectly reduced GHG emissions, emission efficiency (i.e. fewer GHGs emitted per unit ofproduction), and/ or direct or indirect carbon sequestration (e.g. carbon uptake marine ecosystems).
Use of bond proceeds should be expected to be in alignment with a transition to a low-carbon global
economy that limits global warming to 2°C, ideally 1.5°C. Certification may be suitable for financing (orre-financing) assets and operations that are already meeting these expectations as well as for those thatwill improve performance through bond financing.

What is the rationale for automatic eligibility of marine renewable energy for the mitigation
component of the Criteria?
Marine renewable energy facilities deliver mitigation by meeting existing and growing energy demands
through a renewable (i.e. non-fossil fuel) source and are part of the necessary global transition from afossil fuel based energy economy.44 As these facilities enable the switch away from high-emitting fossil
fuel energy sources, they deliver significant mitigation impact through the displacement of higher GHG
emitting electricity generation towards a ‘low GHG power’ supply.
The GHG emissions associated with installation and operation of marine renewable energy facilities are
considered to be immaterial relative to the fossil fuel related GHG emissions offset over the timeframeof their anticipated deployment. For example, the clean energy generated by low carbon offshore windenergy installations amply compensates for the GHG emissions associated with production,
44 For example, onshore windfarms in China were found to deliver a 97% reduction in CO2 emissions relative to coal-basedenergy generation (Xue B et al. 2015. A lifecycle co-benefits assessment of wind power in China. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 41:338–346).

Prepared by:Sponsored by:16manufacture, and installation (e.g. offshore foundations, submarine cable),45 despite these being higher
than for onshore wind facilities.46 Therefore, the TWG recommends that marine renewable energy
facilities be considered as automatically meeting the mitigation component of the Marine Renewable
Energy Criteria.
For operational continuity when renewable energy systems are offline, limited fossil fuel back-up capacity
may be allowable for powering monitoring and operating equipment, resilience or environmental
protection measures, and restart capability.
In line with existing Criteria for onshore wind and solar energy, associated infrastructure fully dedicatedto renewable energy generation (including dedicated transmission lines connecting installations to thegrid) is also eligible for certification47 Likewise, manufacturing facilities and related assets and activities
that are fully dedicated to marine renewable energy technologies may also be eligible for climate bondcertification. This includes custom-built platforms, generation devices (e.g. turbines, blades), andspecialized submarine cables.

How does this link to the above disclosure requirement on GHG emissions?
Despite the automatic eligibility of marine renewable energy assets under the mitigation component ofthese Criteria, the disclosure component (discussed in the section above) does still require issuers todemonstrate that the projects financed deliver net GHG reduction relative to business as usual. Thisrequirement is included in recognition of the value of this information to investors.
Issuers are expected to benchmark their emissions performance against comparable sectoral bestpractice. In general, performance standards specify efficiency metrics, (e.g. tons of carbon emitted perunit of production) that represent best practice for specific economic sectors. For marine renewableenergy, a relevant metric will be avoided fossil fuel use measured in CO2-equivalent.
Energy and transport related sectoral Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard have made use oftechnology-based benchmarks, emissions profiles, and decarbonization scenarios provided by theInternational Energy Agency (IEA) in establishing performance standards required for certification. For
the Marine sector (as well as the Land Use sector), there is no comparable international standard-setting
agency. An overall mitigation resource is the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, developed by World Resources
Institute (WRI) and World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD), which specifies
standards for how to measure, manage, and report GHG emissions (although avoided emissions are notaddressed).48

Resulting Criteria
All eligible marine renewable energy assets automatically meet the Mitigation requirement of the
Climate Bonds Standard, provided that:••

The asset is100% dedicated to renewable energy
Any fossil fuel back up in place is limited to:o Powering monitoring, operating and maintenance equipment in the event of no renewable
power in the systemo Powering resilience or protection measures in the event of no renewable power in the systemo Restart capability

45 Wagner H-J et al. 2011. Life cycle assessment of the offshore wind farm alpha ventus. Energy, 36: 2459-2464.

46 Schleisner L. 2000. Life cycle assessment of a wind farm and related externalities. Renewable Energy, 20: 279-288.
47 This requirement is consistent with the Solar and (onshore) Wind Criteria of the Climate Bonds Standard.

48 http://www.ghgprotocol.org/ Articulates key principles including relevance, completeness, consistent methodologies,

transparency, and accuracy.

Prepared by:Sponsored by:17

5. Foundation for Marine adaptation and resilience Criteria
How are adaptation and resilience defined?
Operational definitions of climate adaptation and resilience continue to evolve in response to real-world
experience.49 As the market for ‘green’ investment grows, sectoral definitions will become increasingly
important for ensuring that investors are directing capital toward meaningful climate change responses.
Defining climate adaptation. Given the reality of significant unavoidable climate change, there is a clear
need for major public and private sector investment in adaptation capacity in all regions and economic
sectors. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines climate change adaptation as “Theprocess of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects. In human systems, adaptation seeks tomoderate or avoid harm or exploit beneficial opportunities. In some natural systems, human intervention may
facilitate adjustment to expected climate and its effects.” 50 The UN Environment Programme defines
private sector adaptation as “any activity which a private actor pursues that is performed differently whencompared to a counterfactual world without climate change.”51
Adaptation needs in the marine sector will vary by region, by sub-sector, and by many other factors
especially the nature of climate impacts (e.g. changing weather; sea level rise; ocean acidification; severe
storms). Marine and coastal systems are highly diverse in terms of the exposure and vulnerability ofonshore and offshore areas to climate change, including the likelihood of gradual degradation, episodic
disturbances, or regime alterations. The focus of adaptation efforts will commonly include ecosystemservices (e.g. preventing salinization of water supplies), built infrastructure and population centers, andbiodiversity (e.g. food webs that support fisheries).
Defining climate resilience. Resilience is defined by the IPCC as “The capacity of social, economic andenvironmental systems to cope with a hazardous event or trend or disturbance, responding or reorganizing inways that maintain their essential function, identity and structure, while also maintaining the capacity foradaptation, learning and transformation.” Resilience has also been described as “the ability of people,
communities and institutions to prepare for, withstand, and bounce back more rapidly from acute shocks andchronic stresses.”52
Increasing resilience requires defining ‘what will be more resilient to what?’ Different bond issuingentities (e.g. public, private) and technical experts will hold different conceptions about resilience targets
and objectives. Targets of resilience-building efforts could include ecosystem service flows, natural capitalstocks, communities, companies, jurisdictions, sectors, supply chains, et alia. The climate impacts that are
the focus of resilience-building efforts could be defined as altered weather patterns, extreme weather
events, degraded ecological conditions, and other direct stressors to marine assets as well as indirectstressors such as market shifts (in global commodity prices) that result from climate impacts at different
scales or in different regions.

How should issuers address adaptation and resilience of marine renewable assets andactivities?
To be certified under the Climate Bonds Standard, a bond issuance must promote adaptation to climatechange and facilitate increased climate resilience in the systems and areas where bond proceeds areused. Bond issuers are expected to anticipate and reduce risks that future or accelerated climate change
will negatively affect bond-financed marine assets. Inadequate investments can lead to wasted resources
and missed opportunities if investments are unable to withstand future climate changes.
49 For example, see work by the Resilience Alliance and the Stockholm Resilience Center.

50 IPCC. 2014. Summary for Policymakers on “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.” http://ipcc-

wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WG2AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
51 UNEP. 2016. Demystifying adaptation finance for the private sector. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment
Programme.
52 Judith Rodin. 2014. https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/blog/realizing-resilience-dividend/

Prepared by:Sponsored by:18

Despite ongoing scientific efforts, there is non-trivial uncertainty in estimates of climate change impacts
to marine ecosystems. This makes it difficult for marine asset managers to make appropriate near- andlong-term plans for sustainable operations (and complicates development of Criteria to bond issuers).
Yet, there are potential climate risks that could upend anticipated benefits resulting from mitigation,
adaptation, and resilience activities. As sea levels rise, marine assets in coastal zones may become‘stranded’ and any climate adaptation investment that doesn’t sufficiently account for this process could
be lost.
Understanding the assets that will be required to meet climate change impacts is therefore an importantpart of the Climate Bonds Initiative’s efforts to develop sectoral eligibility Criteria. The TWG
recommends that bond issuers use best available estimates to fully state potential climate impacts(including estimates of error) and how asset owners will mitigate these risks.
Issuers are expected to demonstrate that they have adequately anticipated current or future risks to thestructural integrity and continuous operation of bond-financed renewable energy facilities (e.g. platforms,
turbines, transmission cables, transformers, onshore infrastructure) including sea level rise, changing
patterns of wind or water movement, altered water chemistry or temperature, extreme events such as
floods or storms (i.e. frequency or intensity). Drawing on scientifically robust climate information,modeling, and scenarios, issuers should understand the nature of climate related risks and present plans
for monitoring, mitigating, and adapting to these risks (e.g. management capacity; maintenance programs;
contingency plans). These plans should align with jurisdictional adaptation plans.

How should issuers address adaptation and climate resilience of ecosystems andcommunities?
Improved adaptation capacity and climate resilience is expected for both bond-financed assets andactivities as well as the contribution these assets or activities make to increasing the climate resilience of
local or regional ecosystems and communities. Issuers are required to demonstrate that potential
negative impacts that can result from marine renewable energy facilities (on directly affected sites andon adjacent or indirectly affected sites) have been assessed and mitigated. These include disruption orharm to:•••At-risk or endangered species or habitats (e.g. noise, vibration, collision, new electromagnetic fields
from transmission cables)
Ecosystem services including water circulation, sediment transport, and other physical flows (e.g. sea
bed disturbance)
Resilience of other users of the marine and coastal space or relevant stakeholders or communities

Bond issuers should make explicit reference to climate adaptation capacity and resilience of specificlocalities and conditions (e.g. biodiversity, habitats,53 human communities), including future or emerging
climate conditions.
Protecting or enhancing ecosystems. While marine renewable energy represents an exciting newenergy source, siting of converters (and their mooring lines, power cables, etc.) must be done carefully
to minimize impacts on marine life.54 Risks are likely to be greater for device arrays compared to single
devices. Noise and vibration generated by installations may disrupt animals, such as marine mammals,
fish, birds, turtles, and invertebrates that rely on sound for navigation and other essential functions.55 The
potential for collision-related injury or mortality is a key parameter for impact assessment, particularly for
53 Refer to UN Convention on Biological Diversity, SDG commitments and indicators, Ocean Health Index, environmental andsocial safeguards used by the Asian Development Bank, and PwC’s Total Impact and Management and Measurement (TIMM)
methodology that looks at environmental, social, economic, and tax impacts.
54 Polagye et al. 2014. Instrumentation for Monitoring Around Marine Renewable Energy Converters: Workshop Final Report.
PNNL-23110 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Seattle, Washington.
55 Copping A et al. 2016.

Prepared by:Sponsored by:19

tidal energy projects. Some studies indicate higher turbine collision risk for larger fish.56 Alteration ofwater circulation, sediment transport, and other physical flows by marine renewable energy devices aswell as introduction of new electromagnetic fields (e.g. via suspended or seafloor cables) may negatively
impact habitat quality.57 Development of feasible instrumentation has focused on monitoring interactionsof marine animals with energy devices, animals’ distribution and habitat use, and sound issues.58
Siting of marine renewable energy facilities can encounter competition with ecologically sensitive areas,
shipping lanes, commercial fisheries, and military zones as well as recreational and other uses.59 As arelatively new set of technologies, limited data regarding environmental impacts (i.e. marine animals,
habitats) of installations generates uncertainty and slows siting and permitting processes, inhibiting costcompetitiveness with other electricity sources.60 Scientists and marine renewable energy proponents
encourage ‘retirement’ of monitoring requirements for risks demonstrated to have low probability ofharm, on a project-specific basis.61 The US Department of Energy and its partners operate the Tethys
online knowledge portal for studies of marine renewable energy environmental effects.62 Environmental
studies for marine renewable energy have predominantly evaluated wave energy converters and tidal
turbines.63
Marine renewable energy installations (including underwater cables) have a clear climate benefit (i.e.
GHG reduction). However, these installations may also present risks to local ecosystems and / orpelagic and migratory species and face risks from storms, sea level rise, and other climate impacts. Whilethe high environmental standards (through permitting, regulatory processes, and due diligence) being
applied to marine renewable energy deployment in many places should result in alignment withgovernment, industry,64 and scientific guidance and exclusion of projects with significant impacts or risks,
there may be important variation in the existence or rigor of such processes among countries.
Regulatory compliance costs constitute a material constraint to establishing commercially viable facilities.
Costs include pre-permitting data gathering, siting and permitting, long-term monitoring of potential
effects, and decommissioning. Limited data about multi-year deployment and operational costs ofmarine renewable energy at commercial scale is a challenge for confirming that deployment replaces
fossil fuel energy generation (i.e. results in real mitigation). In the case of marine renewable energy,
compliance costs are likely to be an essential hurdle to producing renewable tidal or hydrokinetic
energy.
The TWG considered excluding bottom-mounted (i.e. anchored to the seabed) marine renewableenergy facilities, which are more energy-intensive and disruptive to install than floating structures,
although not necessarily more so than onshore renewable energy facilities. Noting that floating
structures are anticipated to dominate future deployment,65 the TWG recommends that bottommounted technologies be eligible if compliance with screening Criteria (discussed below) isdemonstrated.
Issuers are also expected to anticipate and reduce risks posed by other sectoral activities that could
negatively affect bond-financed marine assets. For example, concerns have been raised that56 Hammar et al. 2015. A Probabilistic Model for Hydrokinetic Turbine Collision Risks: Exploring Impacts on Fish. PLoS ONE

10(3): e0117756.
57 Copping A et al. 2016.
58 Polagye et al. 2014. Instrumentation for Monitoring around Marine Renewable Energy Converters: Workshop Final Report.
Richland, Washington: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
59 Tierney SF. 2013. Planning for energy development: How Marine Spatial Planning could improve the leasing/permitting
processes for offshore wind and offshore oil/natural gas development. Analysis Group, Inc.
60 Copping A et al. 2016.
61 Polagye et al. 2014. Instrumentation for Monitoring around Marine Renewable Energy Converters: Workshop Final Report.
Richland, Washington: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
62 http://tethys.pnnl.gov/knowledge-base-marine-energy; http://tethys.pnnl.gov/map-viewer-marine-energy
63 Copping A et al. 2016. Annex IV 2016 State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine
Renewable Energy Development Around the World.
64 Refer to Offshore Renewables Joint Industry Program
65 https://www.boem.gov/Offshore-Wind-Energy/

Prepared by:Sponsored by:20

establishment of marine renewable energy facilities could have potential impacts on fisheries and fishingcommunities. Similarly, weak governance (e.g. in transboundary areas; of open access fisheries) can posea threat to the integrity of bond-financed assets. Relatedly, poorly designed adaptation and resilience
investments that create localized benefits could trigger negative effects off-site (e.g. storm surge
impacts). The TWG recommends that bond issuers outline major categories of risks (e.g. policy,
governance, technology) and risk mitigation strategies.
Installation and operation of marine renewable energy facilities produces construction waste andpollutants such as oil-based lubricants. At the end of useful deployment, marine renewable energy
facilities must be decommissioned in an environmentally responsible manner. To be approved forclimate certification, bond issuers are required to present plans for appropriate management of all
waste, pollutants, and decommissioned infrastructure (including recycling, as appropriate). These plans
should be aligned with all relevant jurisdictional rules.
Protecting or enhancing communities. Deployment or upgrades to marine renewable energy facilities
must protect or enhance the adaptive capacity and climate resilience of the socio-economic systems in
the areas where bond proceeds are used. Issuers should demonstrate that relevant localities and humancommunities are resilient and that adaptation capacity is sufficient to current and future climate impacts.
As part of pre-issuance reporting, issuers are expected to present information indicating how bondfinanced assets and activities protect or enhance adaptive capacity and resilience of other marine uses or
stakeholders in affected areas including any cumulative impacts of all existing and planned energy
generation facilities (e.g. alteration of water or sediment flows). To be approved for climate certification,bond issuers are required to present plans for effectively managing and minimizing conflict with otherusers of the marine and coastal space including alignment with marine spatial plans and compliance withjurisdictional rules and regulations. Issuers are encouraged to engage actively with other marine
stakeholders and to collaborate in planning for multiple uses, hazard response, and post-event recovery.

How can bond issuers comply with adaptation and resilience requirements?
To demonstrate that certified climate bond financing delivers improved adaptation capacity andresilience, issuers would ideally benchmark their performance against comparable sectoral best practice.
However, at this stage, there is inadequate agreement on definitions and best practices and universal
benchmarks are not generally available. In many cases, investments designed to last for decades will
most usefully undertake adaptation by anticipating multiple future scenarios and optimizing for long-term
flexibility. Where there are limits in knowledge for establishing clear guidance, managing for flexibility
and uncertainty (including uncertainty of uptake by industry) may be an optimal strategy.
Given the uncertainty of climate impacts for different areas and assets, it is not feasible to require issuers
to demonstrate that bond-financed assets and activities have resulted in adaptive and resilient outcomes.
Therefore, the TWG recommends a process-based approach to demonstrating compliance withadaptation and resilience Criteria. If issuers can demonstrate that their use of bond proceeds meets all
Criteria requirements using credible methodologies, they can be considered to have met the Marine
Renewable Energy Criteria. Issuers should also specify the timeframe by which percentages of the bondportfolio comply with eligibility with Criteria and monitoring and reporting requirements. Timing shouldbe aligned with any available, credible projections of climate risk (e.g. sea level rise).
Alignment with science, best practices, and government plans. Demonstrating compliance withadaptation and resilience Criteria should be linked to science-based targets (e.g. Aichi Biodiversity Goals
by the Secretariat of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity) and international, regional, or national
industry standards (recognizing that actual feasible outcomes will depend on local context and the nontrivial challenges of setting appropriate targets). Regulations and industry best practices may provide
appropriate baselines for adaptation and resilience activities as might tools for ecosystem valuation,socio-economic assessment (e.g. household income; employment), and vulnerability or risk assessment.
Prepared by:Sponsored by:21

Bond issuers can refer to national-level adaptation planning to understand major opportunities andconstraints for climate-smart marine projects in the regions where they operate.
The TWG reviewed the utility of requiring bond issuers to undertake a vulnerability assessment related
to the areas where bond proceeds would be used. Such assessments survey and integrate componentsof vulnerability (i.e. the combination of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity) to support adaptation
decisions.66 Available methodologies for vulnerability assessments are highly varied and there are gaps
for many relevant environmental features. Therefore, the TWG does not recommend requiring
vulnerability assessments be undertaken by bond issuers. Rather, an adaptation and resilience checklist
or scorecard should be developed for based on specific biophysical and other considerations (seeSections IV-VII).
Resilience improvements might also be measured against a baseline of current productive use of marine
assets and ecosystems (i.e. productive use continues despite increasing climate stressors). New scoring
tools are emerging that may provide an integrated baseline for climate risk (e.g. combined risks of storm
surge and tidal, fluvial, and rainfall induced flooding). Other resources for adaptation and resilience
include: (i) the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, approved by over 200 countries and theUnited Nations General Assembly in 2015, which establishes a global, voluntary, multi-sector framework
to disaster risk reduction;67 (ii) the Global Assessment Report (GAR) 2015, produced by UNISDR,
which evaluates risk exposure to the built environment globally.68
Alignment with existing certification schemes. In general, certification schemes are designed to provide
internationally credible standards that deliver sustainability outcomes. The TWG has found that theexisting set of certification schemes in the Marine sector do not adequately address important aspects ofclimate change mitigation, adaptation, and resilience nor do they cover the full range of technologies,
regions, asset classes, and activity types.
There are efforts underway to develop international standards for marine renewable energy by groups
such as the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)69 and the Ocean Energy Systems
Technology Collaboration Programme.70 However, at this stage, there no internationally relevant bestpractice standards for marine renewable energy that can be used as proxy standards for climate bondcertification. Therefore, issuers will need to directly demonstrate compliance with adaptation andresilience Criteria. The Criteria include a checklist of adaptation and resilience considerations that issuersmust adequately address by providing pre-issuance information regarding processes and plans for thedesign, implementation, and decommissioning phases of bond-financed assets and activities.

Resulting Criteria
Adaptation and climate resilience is a consideration for marine renewable energy facilities in a variety ofrespects. For example, offshore renewable projects will need to be robust in structure to cope withchanging wave heights whilst effective in capturing the energy from more severe stormy conditions. In
addition, as uses of the sea intensify (some of these driven by climate induced changes, for example
increased renewable energy from the seas), there may be greater competing demands for the limited
space available. However, there are no globally adopted best practice standards for addressing andassessing the adaptation and resilience risks and opportunities associated with marine renewable energy.
Therefore, we have established here a checklist that aims to provide a basic check that the issuer has
appropriately considered these issues and opportunities in both the design and the ongoing
66 Ellison J. 2012. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Planning for Mangrove Systems; Adaptation

approaches for key species; Implications for water management institutions
67 http://www.preventionweb.net/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf
68 http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/2015/en/home/documents.html#working_papers
69 The IEC has a technical committee working on design and performance of wave, tidal and other marine current converters.
http://www.iec.ch/dyn/www/f?p=103:7:0::::FSP_ORG_ID,FSP_LANG_ID:1316,25
70 The OES is an intergovernmental collaboration between countries, which operates under a framework established by theInternational Energy Agency. https://www.ocean-energy-systems.org/

Prepared by:Sponsored by:22management of the assets and projects. (N.B. Wave devices may not be designed to capture severe
stormy conditions, but rather to disengage to save the hardware.)To demonstrate compliance, all bond-financed assets and activities must satisfy the requirements of thechecklist detailed in Table 3. The checklist is a tool to verify that the issuer has implemented sufficient
processes and plans in the design, planning, and decommissioning phases of a project to ensure that theoperation and construction of the asset minimizes environmental harm and the asset is appropriately
adaptive and resilient to climate change and supports the adaptation and resilience of other stakeholders
in the marine environment.
All elements of this checklist must be addressed, and appropriate evidence provided that theserequirements are being met, or are not applicable in respect of the specific assets and projects linked tothe bond. It is expected that their evidence will encompass a range of assessment and impact reports
and associated data, including but not limited to those reports required to meet national and local
licensing and approval processes. This might include Development Consent Orders, planning regulations
adhered to, Environmental Impact Assessments, Marine Spatial Plans, Vulnerability Assessments andassociated Adaptation Plans.
Table 3. Adaptation and resilience checklist.

SectionRequirements

1. The issuer
understands theclimate relatedrisks andvulnerabilities tothe asset/ site

1.1 Processes are in place (as part of both the asset design and ongoing management) toassess key risks to the assets from a changing climate and its impact on marine conditions.
These key risks should include the following, plus any others felt to be of concern for theoperation 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 andschedules and potential system outages, impact on maintenance requirements). For all
facilities:• Sea level rise and storm surge• Extreme precipitation and flooding• Increase in geophysical hazards such as earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions andlandslides• Changes in wind and storm patterns and intensity• Changes in ocean temperature, currents and salinity levels
The issuer understands what level of climate change would mean the asset/site is no longer
viable, and understands under which climate change scenarios this would happen. These
processes and assessments use climate information, modelling and scenarios based on peer
reviewed methodologies and literature and considering the variability in modelled scenarios. If
a project does not have any climate related risks or vulnerabilities evidence must be given toshow how this was determined.

2. The issuer
understands the
improvements andimpacts in thelarger context(spatially andtemporally)
beyond the asset/
site. (i.e. theimpacts of theirown assets andactivities on the
broader ecosystemand stakeholders inthat ecosystem)

2.1 Processes are in place (as part of both the asset design, ongoing operation anddecommissioning) to assess the improvements and impacts the asset has on the resilience ofother stakeholders in the system in which it operates. These assessments address:• Any ways in which renewable energy facilities might affect, both positively and negatively,
the climate resilience of other marine users or relevant/local stakeholders/communities;• Any ways in which renewable energy facilities improve the adaptation capacity of othermarine users or relevant/local stakeholders/communities. For example: (i) any potential
impacts on other marine stakeholders of a highly dense concentration of renewable energy
facilities or associated transmission lines; (ii) any potential impacts that renewable energy
facilities may have on coastal resilience by taking strength out of the wind, waves, tidal
flows, tidal range or by altering sedimentation processes.
If a project does not have any impacts beyond the asset / site evidence must be given to show
how this was determined.

Prepared by:Sponsored by:23

Section

Requirements

3. The issuer has
designed andimplemented
strategies tomitigate and adapt
to these climate
risks andvulnerabilities

3.1 An adaptation plan has been designed and is being implemented to address the risks
identified in assessments outlined above. All risks identified are being addressed in the design
and management of the asset. The issuer has:• designed or amended asset maintenance plans to ensure that scheduled maintenance issufficient to cope with the ongoing impacts of climate change and a plan has been
established to govern how they approach emergency maintenance needs arising fromsudden climate change impacts (e.g. extreme storms);• remotely controlled or automated shutdown procedures, training, capacity and governancearrangements in place to manage the impacts of exceptional events (such as extreme
storms, winds etc.);• monitoring and reporting systems and processes to identify high risk scenarios;• contingency plans to address disruptions to operations or loss of the asset and any
resulting environmental or social damage;• processes for feeding risk assessments back into decision making;• a budget allocated to implementing the adaptation plan and has a named member of staff
responsible for its implementation;• complied with any existing broader or higher-level adaption plans, such as NAPAs.
3.2 Inspections are carried out regularly and there is a maintenance regime in place for future
inspections with evidence that this is adhered to.

4. Issuer is pursuing
strategies that
promote resilienceand adaptation
across the area inwhich it operates
and beyond

4.1 Issuer is involved in stakeholder engagement and collaboration (e.g. policy development,
consultation, collaboration and active engagement with other marine users). For example:• Engaging in hazard response planning for the area, or recovery planning and operations
after severe events;• Pursuing potential climate resilience benefits for the local area that could be delivered by
the marine renewable energy facility, such as a tidal lagoon providing additional storm surge
protection for local towns;• Alterations made to day-to-day operating procedures in response to stakeholder
engagement.

5. Issuer isdelivering positive
impacts (or noharm) in terms of
key sustainability
indicators that will
support climate
resilience in themarineenvironment

5.1 The asset or project does not put in jeopardy at risk or endangered species or habitats orunduly impact ecosystem services.
Where there are possible negative impacts to habitats, species, biodiversity, or ecosystemservices, mitigation measures are implemented to offset the negative impacts (e.g. noise andvibration generated by marine renewable energy arrays may disrupt animals, such as marine
mammals, fish, birds, turtles, and invertebrates that rely on sound for navigation and otheressential functions). The potential for collision-related injury or mortality of marine animals is a
key parameter for impact assessment, particularly for tidal energy projects. Alteration of water
circulation, sediment transport, and other physical flows by marine renewable energy devices
as well as introduction of new electromagnetic fields (e.g. via suspended or seafloor cables)
may negatively impact habitat quality. This might be especially relevant for tidal barrage, butshould be considered for all marine renewable arrays.
5.2 Waste is responsibly dealt with, including appropriate disposal of construction waste andoil-based lubricants, including recycling options where possible. Also, recycling where possibleof equipment after decommissioning.
5.3 The issuer has recognised and listed the potential risks for accidental site contamination
either from leakage of hydraulic fluid (or any other potential pollutant) or from wreckage /debris on the sea bed. Demonstrable steps have been taken to minimise these risks and plans
have been made for clean-up should a site contamination event occur.
5.4 Decommissioning of the plant is planned in a way that considers the environmental
impacts.
5.5 Issuer has plans and processes in place to effectively manage and minimize conflict withother users of the marine and coastal space.

Prepared by:Sponsored by:24

6. Alignment with other sectoral Criteria
What are the boundaries with other sectoral Criteria?
As new sectoral Criteria are developed under the Climate Bonds Standard, there is an ongoing effort toensure a consistent approach even as new types of eligibility considerations emerge. Sectoral boundaries
can be indistinct, possibly creating confusion for bond issuers seeking climate certification. Issuers ofmarine sector bonds will be entities with primary responsibility for management of marine assets seeking
to increase the sustainability of productive and conservation activities in marine and coastal ecosystems,
while reducing net GHG emissions.
Issuers should be guided toward sectoral Criteria based on the primary purpose of intended use ofproceeds. For the Marine Renewables sector, the primary purpose will establishing and operating marine
renewable energy generation facilities or associated supply chain activities.
Some marine related mitigation, adaptation, and resilience investments may be more usefully handled
through other sectoral Criteria of the Climate Bonds Standard, such as:§

Wind and Solar. Offshore wind and solar energy installations and associated transmission lines are
addressed in the Marine Renewable Energy Criteria. On-shore wind and solar energy facilities are
addressed by the Wind and Solar Criteria, respectively. The latter cover on-shore facilities and allowfor (i) development, construction and operation of wind and solar farms; (ii) operational production
or manufacturing facilities wholly dedicated to wind or solar energy development; (iii) wholly
dedicated transmission infrastructure for wind or solar farms. These Criteria are among the firstdeveloped under the Climate Bonds Standard and do not yet fully address ecological impacts,
adaptation, and resilience. In the next revision of the Wind and Solar Criteria these considerations
will be incorporated.

§

Low-Carbon Water Transport. Criteria are soon to be developed for water based transport, i.e.
shipping, both passenger and freight. This does not encompass port infrastructure but dedicatedinfrastructure to power zero-emission vehicles can be included in these criteria as eligible.

§

Water. There may be instances where marine renewable energy facilities are combined withdesalination facilities. In these cases each subset of assets would have to meet the relevant Criteria.

§

Hydropower. The technologies used for marine renewable energy and hydropower may be very
similar. However, due to siting considerations that are unique to marine environments and estuaries,
the Marine Renewable Energy Criteria apply to projects or assets located in marine environments
or estuaries and the Hydropower Criteria will apply to run-of-river hydropower, impoundmenthydropower and pumped storage, will be eligible for Climate Bonds Certification under the Climate
Bonds Hydropower Criteria.

§

Electrical Transmission and Distribution. Criteria are soon to be developed for electricaltransmission and distribution, i.e. grids, which will encompass infrastructure that links energy
generation facilities with transmission and distribution operators and consumers. Certain aspects tothis may be more relevant for issuers than simply dedicated infrastructure in these criteria.

Importantly, the Climate Bonds Standard generally excludes assets related to fossil fuels so upgrades,
efficiency improvements, and impact reduction for offshore oil and gas is not likely to fit within any
sectoral Criteria.

How should multi-sectoral bond issuances be handled?
Different types of mitigation, adaptation, and resilience activities can be combined within a bondissuance. For example, near-shore marine renewable energy facilities may be developed in conjunction
with energy efficiency improvements in port or tourism facilities or construction of desalination plants to
Prepared by:Sponsored by:25

meet freshwater shortfalls. Combination of diverse interventions are inherent to integrated coastalmanagement approaches.
The Climate Bonds Standard provides sectoral eligibility Criteria and guidance that is intended toprovide full coverage for assets and activities that deliver legitimate climate benefits. Bond issuers canemploy multiple sectoral Criteria in pursuing certification and must comply with all relevant componentsof the selected Criteria, relevant to their specific portfolio of assets.

Resulting Criteria
Marine renewable energy projects that are multi-use may also have to prove compliance with other
Sector Criteria to be eligible for Climate Bonds Certification. For example, if a project included bothmarine renewable energy and aquaculture on the same site it would be necessary for the issuer toprove compliance with both the Marine Renewable Energy Criteria and the Aquaculture Criteria.

Prepared by:Sponsored by:26

Appendix 1 – Working groups
Working group members
Marine Technical Working Group Members
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Christine Negra, Versant Vision LLC, Lead Specialist
Tanja Havemann, Clarmondial, Lead Specialist
Michael Adams, CEO, Ocean Assets
David Agnew, Science & Standards Director, Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)
Roberta Anderson, Sustainable Agriculture Expert, GlobalGAP
Andrew Buglass, Founder, Buglass Energy Advisory
Max Carcas, Managing Director, Euro Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) / Caelulum Ltd
Charles Colgan, Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey
Andrea Copping, Marine Sciences Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Klaas de Vos, Environmental Defense FundLouise Heaps, Chief Advisor on Marine Policy, WWF International
Lucy Holmes, International Sustainability Unit
Bill Karp, Scientist Emeritus, US National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA)71
Carmen Lacambra, Ecosystems-Based Adaptation Expert, Global Climate Adaptation Partnership /Grupo Laera
Michael Phillips, Director, Aquaculture & Genetic Improvement, CGIAR-World Fish
Nancy Saich, Senior Advisor on Climate Action & Environment, European Investment Bank (EIB)
Nick Shufro, Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
Administration, US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Brian Soden, Vice President, Science & Technology, Coastal Risk Consulting, LLC
Ryan Whisnant, Head of Professional Services, Partnerships in Environmental Management for theSeas of East Asia (PEMSEA)
Stuart Whitten, Economics & Future Pathways, CSIRO

Marine Renewable Energy Industry Working Group Members
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Yannis Calogeras, Bureau Veritas
Simon Currie, Norton Rose Fulbright
Richard Hill, Norton Rose Fulbright
Simon Dent, Althelia Ecosphere
Joop Hessels, ABN AMROPaul Holthus, World Ocean Council
Raquel Hughes, Tidal Lagoon Power
Fabian Huwyler, Credit Suisse
Derek Ip, Trucost (part of S&P Dow Jones Indices)David Kemp, M & G
Richard Sherry, M & G
James Donegan, Ocean Renewable Power Company
Lars Mac Key, Danske Bank
Alexander McPhail, World Bank

71 The scientific results and conclusions, as well as any views or opinions expressed herein, are those of the authors anddo not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or the Department of Commerce

Prepared by:Sponsored by:
27

•
•
•
•
•
•

Chris Milne, Scotrenewables Tidal Power Ltd
Peter Raftery, BlackRock
Monica Reid, Kestrel Inc
Mark Robinson, DNV.GL
John Shideler, NSF
James Sinfield, Carbon Trust

Prepared by:Sponsored by:28

Appendix 2 – Definitions
Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI): An investor-focused not-for-profit organisation, promoting large-scale investmentsthat will deliver a global low carbon and climate resilient economy. The Initiative seeks to develop mechanisms tobetter align the interests of investors, industry and government so as to catalyse investments at a speed and scalesufficient to avoid dangerous climate change.
Climate Bond: A climate bond is a bond used to finance – or re-finance - projects needed to address climatechange. They range from wind farms and solar and hydropower plants, to rail transport and building sea walls incities threatened by rising sea levels. Only a small portion of these bonds have been labelled as green or climate
bonds by their issuers.
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 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. Thismay be through climate mitigation impact and/ or climate adaptation or resilience. The CBS is made up of twoparts: the parent standard (Climate Bonds Standard v2.0) and a suite of sector specific eligibility requirements. 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
websiteClimate Bonds Standard Board (CBSB): A board of independent members that collectively represents $34 trillionof assets under management. 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 abond under the Climate Bonds Standard. The CBSB is constituted, appointed and supported in line with thegovernance arrangements and processes as published on the Climate Bonds Initiative website.
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 bondconforms with the Climate Bonds Standard.
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 a wide varietyof environmental projects, but in practice they have mostly been the same as Climate Bonds, with proceeds going
to climate change projects.
Marine renewable energy assets and projects: Assets and projects relating to the acquisition and / ormanagement of marine renewable energy facilities, and or the production of associated infrastructure. Thesefacilities might include: marine wind, tidal and wave, and other technologies such based on ocean salinity andthermals.
Technical Working Group (TWG): A group of key experts from academia, international agencies, industry andNGOs convened by the Climate Bonds Initiative. The TWG develops Sector-Specific Criteria - detailed technicalcriteria for the eligibility of projects and assets as well as guidance on the tracking of eligibility status during theterm of the bond. Their draft recommendations are refined through engagement with finance industry experts inconvened Industry Working Groups and through public consultation. Final approval of Sector Criteria is given by
the CBSB.

Prepared by:Sponsored by:29

Appendix 3 – Debt capital markets and green investments
Capital markets have an important role to play in mobilizing equity and debt funding forgreen growth.
Capital markets enable issuers to tap into large pools of private capital from institutional investors.
Bonds are appropriate investment vehicles for these investors as they are low-risk investments withlong-term maturities, making them a good fit with institutional investors’ liabilities (e.g. pensions to be
paid out in several decades).
Bond financing works well for low-carbon and climate-resilient infrastructure projects post-construction,
as capital markets also facilitate risk management. Across investors and financial markets, different
entities face different types and severities of risks related to climate change, depending on many factors
including degree of long-term exposure, likelihood of negative climate impacts, and ability to mitigate
impacts or shift positions. There are three broad channels through which climate change can presentrisks to financial stability72:
1. Physical risks: the impacts today on insurance liability and the value of financial assets that arise
from climate- and weather-related events, such as floods and storms that damage property or
disrupt trade;
2. Liability risks; the impacts that could arise in the future if parties who have suffered loss ordamage from the effects of climate change seek compensation from those they holdresponsible. Such claims could come decades in the future, but have potential to hit carbon
extractors and emitters – and, if they have liability cover, their insurers;
3. Transition risks: the financial risks that could result from the process of adjustment towards alower-carbon economy. Changes in policy, technology and physical risks could prompt areassessment of the value of a large range of assets as costs and opportunities become
apparent
Risks to financial stability will be minimised if the transition begins early and follows a predictable path,thereby helping the market anticipate the transition to a 2 degree world.
Maintaining and enhancing production from all ecosystems will increasingly require investments topromote GHG mitigation and climate adaptation capacity and resilience. This should be of immediate
interest to governments, which are developing and implementing the economic framework for natural
resource management, and to far-sighted asset owners and managers concerned about long-term
profitability and revenue predictability.
The green bond market can reward bond issuers and investors for sustainable investments that
accelerate progress toward a low carbon and climate resilient economy. Commonly used as long-term
debt instruments, green bonds are issued by governments, companies, municipalities, commercial anddevelopment banks to finance or re-finance assets or activities with environmental benefits. Greenbonds are in high demand and can help issuers attract new types of investors.
Green bonds are regular bonds with one distinguishing feature: proceeds are earmarked for projects
with environmental benefits, primarily climate change mitigation and adaptation. A green label is a
discovery mechanism for investors. It enables the identification of climate-aligned investments withlimited resources for due diligence. By doings so, a green bond label reduces friction in the markets andfacilitate growth in climate aligned-investments.

72 http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/speeches/2015/844.aspx

Prepared by:Sponsored by:30

Benefits for investors include balancing financial returns with environmental benefits, satisfying
environmental, social and governance (ESG) requirements or green investment mandates, enabling
direct investment in the greening of brown sectors and enabling hedging against climate policy risks.
Benefits for issuers include providing an additional source of green financing, matching maturity withproject life, improving investor diversification, attracting buy and hold investors, enhancing issuer’s
reputation and attracting strong investor demand leading to oversubscription.
Table 4. Stakeholders with direct interest in green investments span multiple sectors.

Stakeholder groups
Public sector: development banks,
ministries (e.g. environment, finance),
central banks, regulators (e.g. finance,
health and safety), states / provinces,
municipalities
Finance sector: investors and asset
owners (e.g. pension funds, sovereign
wealth funds, private equity funds), credit
agencies, banks, insurance/re-insurance
Corporate sector: companies, industry
associations
Market intermediaries: auditors,
accountants, lawyers, stock exchanges
Multilateral / civil sector: conservation
NGOs; development agencies

Examples• World Bank / Asian Development Bank / African Development
Bank (green bonds explicitly referencing mitigation, adaptation,and resilience).
• Climate-smart infrastructure (e.g. coastal protection investments)
backed by government guarantee.
• European Investment Bank (EUR 650M Climate AwarenessBond).
• Zurich Insurance (commitment to invest USD 2B green bonds).
• Barclays MSCI Green Bond Index.
• Marine renewable energy company: Investments in new /improved infrastructure. Returns from margin improvements,
government incentives. Backed by corporate balance sheet /
assets.
• S&P (climate rating).
• Green Bond Principles.
• IFAD (Guidelines for Integrating Climate Change Adaptation into
Fisheries and Aquaculture Projects).

How the Climate Bonds Standard & Certification Scheme can help grow the market
Development of eligibility Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard is intended to broaden knowledge
and capacity among potential bond issuers, investors and governments to promote major growth anddevelopment of climate bond portfolios and pipelines. The Criteria will facilitate the issuance of bonds
from issuers who would otherwise find it difficult to gain recognition for their investments with beneficial
climate-related impacts. ‘First mover’ Climate Bond issuers will especially need to minimize potential
reputational risks associated with making commitments about environmental credentials; independent
verification helps minimize these risks.
Additionally, creation of the Sector Criteria presupposes significant latent demand for bonds among
institutional investors that want to invest in ‘green’ initiatives with predictable cash flows. We see
evidence of this latent demand by the fact that green bonds and Climate Bonds are regularly
oversubscribed; there is currently greater investor demand than green bond issuance. By providing aclear definition of assets and projects eligible for green investment, the Climate Bonds Standard Criteria
can help investors to find desired investment opportunities as inaugural Climate Bonds Certified bondissuers step forward.
Lack of clear standards and definitions around green investments presents reputational risks for specificinvestments as well as green bonds more generally. Distinguishing between more and less green
investments can be challenging and investors without a technical background may not understand how
climate mitigation, adaptation, and resilience can be represented in a green-labeled bond issuance. Given
these obstacles, the Climate Bonds Standard and its Sector Criteria seeks to expand the credibility oflabeled climate bond issuances. Clear definitions and guidelines for bond issuers on the eligibility ofinvestments under the Climate Bonds Standards and Certification Scheme provides assurance forinvestors about the climate benefits of fixed income investments.
Prepared by:Sponsored by:
31

The Climate Bonds Standard is relevant to the needs and responsibilities of different types of
stakeholders. Institutional investors have a fiduciary duty to assess and compare investment risks,
including those risk that originate from climate change. Institutions seeking financing need to be able toidentify standards that are relevant to their finance needs and sector.73 Technical decision makers need
to be able to connect broad policy issues around climate mitigation to operational level decision-making.
Policymakers and office holders have responsibilities related to public finance, regulation, and delivery ofservices.
Clear guidance from the Climate Bonds Standard should help to grow the green bond market bymaking eligible assets and projects clearly identifiable as ‘low-carbon’ and ‘climate smart’ and allow
investors to easily incorporate them into investment strategies. It will also support the development of asecuritization market through gradual investor education on asset performance and increasing familiarity.
Governments, companies, and financial institutions need tools to screen out (minimize) climate relatedrisks and to proactively seek investments that mitigate climate risks. The Climate Bonds Standard and its
Sector Criteria provides science-based guidance to both reduce carbon emissions as well as increase
adaptive capacity and resilience of the assets and projects that underpin investments.
Table 5. Examples of potential bond types, issuers, and revenue streams of bonds that could be eligible for Climate Bonds Certification

Bond
types

Issuers

Revenue streams

PurposesPotential examples

Note: Some bonds may be a combination of two approaches e.g. asset-backed securities backed by government agencies or local authorities; orcovered bonds with financial institution and portfolio bond characteristics.

Publicsectorbonds

Government
agencyFinancial
institution
bonds

Bank

Portfolio
bonds

Project
bonds
Corporatebonds

Government budget via
dedicated Special
Purpose Vehicle (SPV)backed by government
guarantee
Pay back fromborrowers, backed bybankEnhance nationalenergy security
and transition toclean energy
generation
Increase financing
to high-quality
small-scaleborrowers

Assetmanager

Commercial activities

Leverage funding
for a mix ofinvestments

Project
owner e.g.
asset
manager
Energycompany

Revenues from new /improved productivity

Leverage funding
for a specificproject

Returns from margin andproductivity
improvements (backed
by corporate balance
sheet / assets).

Increase /diversify
investors; source
new forms ofsupply chain
investment

73 The concept of ‘stress testing’ for environmental risk has been introduced.

Risk of Commercial Banks” by the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China.

Prepared by:

Community-based marine
renewable energy projects.

Syndicated portfolio of loans to
set of small-scale borrowers,
especially with good historic
performance (e.g. small scalemarine renewable energy
generation projects).
Portfolio of diverse yet related
assets financed through agrouped bond issue (e.g. mix of
new and existing marine
investments).
Capex / opex for marine
renewable projects.
Investments in improved
infrastructure and certification of
supply chains.

See “Impact of Environmental Factors on Credit

Sponsored by:32

Appendix 4 – Pathway to certification
Climate Bonds Certification is available to bonds, or other debt instruments, funding assets or projects
that meet the requirements of the Climate Bonds Standard. The actual Certification process is a fivestep process shown in Figure 1.
First, the issuer must prepare the bond by identifying the assets or projects that will make up the use ofproceeds. For Climate Bonds Certification to be awarded, the use of proceeds must match assets andprojects deemed eligible under the Climate Bonds Standard’s Sector Criteria. Eligible assets are listed
under the Climate Bonds Standard’s Sector Criteria. One bond may contain eligible assets from a
mixture of different Sector Criteria.
Next, a prospective issuer must appoint an approved third party verifier, who will provide a verification
statement that the bond meets the Climate Bonds Standard. The Climate Bonds Standard allows
Certification of a bond prior to its issuance, enabling the issuer to use the Climate Bonds Certification
Mark in marketing efforts and investor roadshows. Subject to the recommendation of the third-party
verifier and all the relevant reports being submitted, the prospective issuer is awarded Climate Bonds
Certification.
Post bond issuance, the issuer and verifier have 12 months to submit a post-issuance report confirming
proceeds have been allocated to eligible assets. Thereafter, the issuer must prepare a brief reportannually to confirm that the bond is still in compliance with the Climate Bonds Standard.
Climate Bonds Certification is also available to bonds that have already been issued, this is referred to as
post-issuance certification. The issuer just needs to appoint a third-party verifier to prepare a reportstating that all use of proceeds fall within the Climate Bonds Standard’s eligible projects and assets.

Figure 1: Climate Bonds Certification process for prospective issuers

Prepared by:Sponsored by:

Appendix 5 – Feedback from public consultation
Public consultation for the Marine Renewable Energy Criteria was held 14th June – 12th July 2017. Public consultation consisted of two webinars and promotion
via the Climate Bonds blog and twitter. Technical Working Group and Industry Working Group members also promoted public consultation via their networks.

1
2
3

4

5

Feedback

Response

One of the biggest early adoption challenges forwave and tidal technologies remains the technicalrisk i.e. the reliability and downtime risks
Survivability of the asset in a hostile environmentis a key concern with marine renewable energy
assets
While best practice standards are not yet inplace for marine renewable energy there is somedevelopment going on. Keep an eye on DNV.GL,
Bureau Veritas, Lloyds Register & EMEC
Is it worth identifying at what stage of amachine/arrays development the investment istargeted? There will be device developers aiming
for investment in the first full scale prototype, but
the first commercial arrays could easily be
investable if there’s been a successful prototype.

What is being described here is a credit risk to the asset as it would
effect whether the asset makes the money it needs to.

No change

Email & followon callYes, we’ve aimed to tackle this with the adaptation & resilience
checklist including proof the issuer has considered whether theenvironment will become tougher due to climate change
Will follow these other initiatives and consider for further iterations
if appropriate.

Advised some specific changes to be made to
the adaptation & resilience checklist (see 6-10
in this table)
No change

Email & followon call

Discussed and concluded that these Criteria would not be
achievable for first prototype projects but it is very unlikely theywould issue debt to finance prototypes so that was not considered
to be a problem.

No change

Email & followon call

On page 6, section 4.1, row 8 (from top todown), recommend adding the following two
items:(1) Biomass energy(2) Hybrid Marine Renewable Energy, forexample with fish farming or tourism
also incorporated

Prepared by:

The Criteria are deemed achievable for any project other thanprototypes.
(1) Biomass energy is tackled by our bioenergy Criteria sowouldn’t be appropriate to add in here.
(2) The topic of multi-use installations did come up in the
TWG discussions. We do want to allow certification for
assets like this but they would have to meet more than
one set of Criteria. For example, if a project combined
marine renewable energy and aquaculture, to achieve

Sponsored by:

Result(1) No change(2) Discuss this in the Background
Document (i.e. that appropriate multiuse is encouraged but would have tomeet requirements of all applicable
Criteria). Mention in section 4.1 of theCriteria document:

SourceEmail & followon call

Email

FeedbackResponse
Climate Bonds Certification the project would have tomeet the requirements of the both the Marine Renewable
Energy Criteria and the Aquaculture Criteria (still underdevelopment). Until we have Criteria that can cover all
areas of the hybrid project we’d not be able to certify.

6

7

8

9

ResultAs a check on the longevity of devices, section 3
should specify inspections at suitable intervals,
evidence of inspection and that there is be a
regular maintenance regime in place.

Add this in

Bonds financing multiple projects may also haveto prove compliance with other Sector Criteria
to be eligible for Climate Bonds Certification.
For example, if a bond included both marine
renewable energy and aquaculture on thesame site it would be necessary for the issuer
to prove compliance with both the Marine
Renewable Energy Criteria and the
Aquaculture Criteria. Or if a bond included
onshore and offshore wind projects the issuer
would need to prove compliance with both
the Marine Renewable Energy Criteria and theWind Criteria.
Add in as 3.2 in Table 3:also in section 3, mention is made of training,
capacity and governance to manage extreme
events, but not specifically to suitable remotelycontrolled or automated emergency shut-down
procedures, which may be intended, but could
usefully be spelt out

Add this in

Inspections are carried out regularly and there
is a maintenance regime in place for future
inspections with evidence that this is adheredto.
In 3.1, table 3, edit text to read:under section 5 .1 should there also be
discussion of any measures to prevent bio-fouling
not presenting a risk to the eco-systemotherwise?
5.1 mentions noise etc during installation, but I
think should also mention during maintenance
operations

Biofouling is the accumulation of microorganisms, plants, algae oranimals on wetted surfaces. It can damage structures. Biofouling
occurs everywhere but is most significant economically to shipping
as it increases drag and, hence, fuel use.
Our use of installations was meant to mean renewable energy
arrays rather than just the installation phase of a project. Will edit
text to clarify

Prepared by:

The issuer has remotely controlled or
automated shutdown procedures, training,
capacity and governance arrangements in place
to manage the impacts of exceptional events(such as extreme storms, winds etc.)
Discussed with TWG and decided no change
necessary. Biofouling is a climate issues forvessel and not so relevant to marine renewablearrays.
In 5.1, table 3, edit text to read:E.g. Noise and vibration generated by marine
renewable energy arrays may disrupt animals,
such as marine mammals, fish, birds, turtles, andSponsored by:
35

SourceEmail & followon call

Email & followon call

Email & followon call
Email & followon call

Feedback10

11

Response

I think section 5 should also address the potential
for accidental site contamination – either fromleakage of hydraulic fluids etc. or from wreckage /debris on the sea bed. The risks should be
minimised in design and plans should be in place
for a clean-up / tidy up should the event occur

This suggestion would probably fit well under either 5.1 or 5.2.
Seems like a reasonable suggestion to stipulate something about
this being factored in during design but also having a stated plan forif accidental site contamination happens and recognising where thepossible risks / which chemicals will be present that could pose risks

Many tidal in-stream device designs are also
applicable to river environments. Are river
locations considered in the marine renewableenergy Criteria?

Deferred this question to the TWG and response was that as longas there isn’t a dam involved in the river renewable energy, these
Criteria could apply to those renewable energies too.

Prepared by:However, we need to make sure that we are not overlapping with
the Hydropower Criteria here.

ResultSourceinvertebrates that rely on sound for navigationand other essential functions. The potential forcollision-related injury or mortality of marine
animals is a key parameter for impact
assessment, particularly for tidal energy
projects. Alteration of water circulation,
sediment transport, and other physical flows by
marine renewable energy devices as well as
introduction of new electromagnetic fields (e.g.
via suspended or seafloor cables) may
negatively impact habitat quality. This might beespecially relevant for tidal barrage but should
be considered for all marine renewable arrays.
Added below text in at 5.3 (which has shifted
5.3 to become 5.4 and 5.4 to become 5.5)

Email & followon call

The issuer has recognised and listed thepotential risks for accidental site contamination
either from leakage of hydraulic fluid (or any
other potential pollutant) or fromwreckage/debris on the sea bed. Demonstrable
steps have been taken to minimise these risks
and plans have been made for clean-up shoulda site contamination event occur.
Added to 4.1:
These Criteria apply to projects or assets
located in marine environments or estuaries.**For the avoidance of doubt, run-of-riverhydropower, impoundment hydropower andpumped storage, will be eligible for Climate
Bonds Certification under the Climate Bonds
Hydropower Criteria.

Sponsored by:
36

Publicconsultation
webinarFeedbackResponse

ResultSource13

What happens if down the line some of thenewer and unexplored fields have a bigger
impact on biodiversity and ecosystems thanoriginally thought when approved?

We commit to review the Criteria one year after launch or earlier
if necessary. Whenever an issue is brought to our attention thatwould require alterations to be made to the Criteria we will review
them based on the new findings.

No change

Publicconsultation
webinar14

How can ship owners get involved in this?

Shipping is going to be covered separately by Shipping Criteria. We
plan to launch work on this by the end of 2017. Fishing vessels will
be covered by the Fisheries Criteria that is already being developed.

No change

Publicconsultation
webinar15

In Table 3, section 1 & 2, issuer may claim that
there are not any relevant risks. If this is the case,you’d want to be clear that you still expect
evidence to prove thisAgree

Add this text in 1.1 and 2.1:

Publicconsultation
webinarPrepared by:

If a project does not have any climate relatedrisks or vulnerabilities (1.1) / impacts beyond
the asset/site (2.1) evidence must be given toshow how this was determined

Sponsored by:37