Policy Brief

ADVANCING CLIMATERESILIENCE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVESIN INFRASTRUCTURE
PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND
FINANCE
Task Force 8

Inclusive, Resilient, and Greener
Infrastructure Investment and Financing

1

Yannick Autret (Ministère de la Transition écologique)
Ryan Bartlett (World Wildlife Fund)
Nicolas J.A. Buchoud (Grand Paris Alliance)
Raffaele Della Croce (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development)
Evan Freund (World Wildlife Fund)
Linda Krueger (The Nature Conservancy)
Kate Newman (World Wildlife Fund)
Sophie Menard (CDC Biodiversité)
Beatriz Nofal (Centre d'Actions et de Réalisations Internationales)
Anna Willingshofer (The Nature Conservancy)

ADVANCING CLIMATE RESILIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTALOBJECTIVES IN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING, DEVELOPMENTAND FINANCE

1

Abstract
General sustainability principles are commonly agreed as the basis for infrastructure
investments. Private investors are focusing on environmental, social and governance(ESG) compliant projects. And yet, too many infrastructure projects still do notincorporate environmental and biodiversity objectives in line with the Paris Agreement,
the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and other environmental commitments.
Post-pandemic recovery priorities and new geopolitical tensions have also increased thedivergence between short-sighted action and long-term sustainability goals. To shift
course effectively in a context of rising political and economic uncertainties and growing
environmental losses, the transition towards sustainable infrastructure systems has tochange. We propose two larger recommendations to achieve the Quality Infrastructure
Investment (QII) principles in this context: 1) establish interoperable sustainability norms
for infrastructure planning, investment and maintenance and 2) enhance interinstitutional
coordination to break silos and increase data availability. The four proposed sustainability
norms are: 1) plan based on land/seascape-scale natural capital and ecosystem services
data; 2) improve existing infrastructure efficiencies and invest in maintenance; 3)
modernise project cost-benefit analysis to enhance sustainability outcomes and 4) planand design for “nature-positive” and biodiversity “net-gain.” The brief then provides policy
recommendations for the Group of 20 (G20) in establishing each norm.

ADVANCING CLIMATE RESILIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTALOBJECTIVES IN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING, DEVELOPMENTAND FINANCE

2

Challenges
The impacts of trends in biodiversity loss, climate change extremes and the effects of the
COVID-19 crisis have been made starkly clear by ever more alarming science from the world’s
leading scientific bodies. The Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) definitively states the critical need to rapidly transition to a development
paradigm with deep cuts in emissions and far greater investment in resilience and adaptation(IPCC, 2022). And yet, as the world faces another new crisis in Europe with ripple effects in
rapidly rising prices for essential basic needs in energy and food and numerous other basic
goods, there is renewed pressure to once again defer this essential transition. The mostimportant lessons emerging from this crisis, however, clearly show exactly the opposite needfor immediate investment in sustainably planned, designed and built natural and hard
infrastructure of the 21st century, not the 20th.
The central role of infrastructure in global sustainability and environment goals (both in termsof positive benefits and negative impacts), including adaptation and mitigation commitments
in nationally determined contributions (NDCs), targets of the CBD and improved access to basic
services like food, water and energy security in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has
long been acknowledged by global leaders. Leaders of the Group of Seven (G7) endorsed the“G7 Ise-Shima Principles for Promoting Quality Infrastructure Investment” in Japan in 2016,
with explicit focus on environmental, climate and social considerations in three of fiveprinciples (G7, 2016). The 2019 G20 Summit in Osaka revised these further with stronger
sustainability language, endorsing six principles, including “3) integrating environmental
considerations in infrastructure; 4) building resilience against natural disasters; 5) integratingsocial considerations in infrastructure investment” (G20, 2019). The latest G7 leaders’communique from the United Kingdom is even stronger in this regard, clearly articulating theimportance of not just strong ESG standards in infrastructure development, but nature-based
solutions (NbS) as part of larger resilience strategies (G7, 2021).
International and regional financial and technical institutions have in turn begun tooperationalise the QII principles by aligning safeguard systems and investment screening
criteria. However, while this is having some impact in screening out unsustainable investments,
particularly those most likely to increase carbon emissions, both the impacts on biodiversity
and the multiple benefits of nature-based infrastructure solutions (or “natural” infrastructure)continue to be insufficiently considered. This is due to recurrent challenges: insufficient dataat the right scale and technical capacity within many countries to provide it and assess risks,and still weak recognition by policy and decisionmakers of the importance of a paradigm shift
ADVANCING CLIMATE RESILIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTALOBJECTIVES IN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING, DEVELOPMENTAND FINANCE

3

towards explicitly planning based on this information. In sum, while some individual projects
might be meeting more stringent ESG standards and accounting for NbS benefits, they are still
not part of a larger holistic shift in norms that is critical for country commitments and global
goals in sustainability.
Current sustainability shortcomings in many public infrastructure investment projects
Recent definitions of sustainable infrastructure have more clearly articulated a comprehensive
approach across the full lifecycle of a project to ensure economic and financial, social,environmental (including climate resilience) and institutional sustainability (IDB, 2018; UNEP,
2021). In addition, private sector investors have shown an increasing interest in ESG
considerations. Yet application of the environmental factors in decision making remains
uneven. Mitigating greenhouse gas emissions is gaining attention but biodiversity andecosystem services remain the least integrated factors. One cited reason for this lag inaddressing nature is that available key performance indicators are not readily translated into aquantifiable financial impact, leaving biodiversity to be considered only during the latter due
diligence stages of the process (Oliver Wyman & WWF, 2020).
Infrastructure investors rely on environmental impact assessments and other institutionalsafeguards to try to limit environmental damage, but these measures are applied too late.
Employed on a project-by-project basis, they preclude community consultation at
land/seascape scales upstream of detailed designs and financing arrangements, fail toconsider systems-scale cumulative dynamics and impacts across sectors, make mitigation
measures seem like costly add-ons and do not promote biodiversity gains (UNEP, 2021).
Project-level design also rarely sufficiently considers well-researched forecasts of future
infrastructure service needs based on socioeconomic trends or climate scenarios.
Decisionmakers at the local, national and global level are still not realising the full potential ofnature-based infrastructure solutions. While ecosystem services are increasingly valued, theirbenefits are rarely incorporated into infrastructure sector plans because current cost-benefit
analysis standards and practices do not sufficiently consider the true negative costs of built
assets or, perhaps even more significantly, the positive benefits of these solutions (even withsignificantly increased global awareness in recent years of the potential of nature-based
solutions, due in part to an increasing economic case for their multiple benefits). Nature-based
infrastructure solutions are fundamentally disadvantaged compared with built infrastructure inboth policy and practice, rarely classified as a comparable or substitute solution for service
delivery due to the lack of guidance and engineering know-how.
These sustainability weaknesses in current infrastructure development practices are resulting
in collective action failures and classic “tragedies of the commons” at the national and global
scale, where the cumulative impact of multiple projects at the landscape scale and entire
ADVANCING CLIMATE RESILIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTALOBJECTIVES IN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING, DEVELOPMENTAND FINANCE

4

sectors globally are still driving negative impacts on wildlife, climate, deforestation and landdegradation, regardless of project-level sustainability. Simply stated, without significant
change in this status quo, the estimated US$90 trillion in anticipated additional infrastructuredevelopment investment by 2040 will make meeting the goals of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the CBD and the United Nations Convention to
Combat Desertification (UNCCD) impossible (Global Commission on the Economy and Climate,2016).

ADVANCING CLIMATE RESILIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTALOBJECTIVES IN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING, DEVELOPMENTAND FINANCE

5

Proposals for G20
To address these challenges and help countries meet their commitments to global sustainability
goals we propose the following two overarching considerations applied to the infrastructure
sector:•reforms in planning, investment and maintenance to achieve universal sustainability
norms applied to all large scale, high-impact infrastructure investments; and•increased institutional coordination at all levels to increase transparency and data accessand improve project planning for sustainability.

These two considerations include the establishment of specific norms, the policy
recommendations necessary to achieve them and provide the necessary framework for
improvements in planning and delivering more sustainable infrastructure.
Recommendation 1: Establish interoperable sustainability norms for infrastructure planning,
investment and maintenance
The realities of increasing climate change impacts and future risks, social changes like massmigration and a worsening biodiversity crisis, alongside increasingly cheaper, more pervasive
data and technology and the increasingly demonstrated potential of NbS all create both newopportunities and demands for improved strategic and spatial planning for infrastructure. 1 The
global community also recognises this need, demonstrated by updated targets and on-goingnegotiations for the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) under the CBD and the recent UN
Environment Assembly (UNEA) resolution on the impacts of infrastructure on biodiversity andthe opportunities of nature-based approaches (UNEA, 2022).
While there are an increasing number of tools that support spatial planning processes (Krueger
et al., 2021; Head et al., 2020), including closing critical information gaps in biodiversity andecosystem services through national accounts and sub-national assessments (UNSEEA, 2022),
large-scale infrastructure projects with significant impact are still being planned and developed
without such processes (Head et al., 2020; Solutions Lab, 2020). This is resulting in fewer multi-

1

Nature-based solutions are actions to protect, sustainably manage and restore natural and modified ecosystems
that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-being andbiodiversity benefits. https://www.iucn.org/theme/nature-based-solutions
ADVANCING CLIMATE RESILIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTALOBJECTIVES IN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING, DEVELOPMENTAND FINANCE

6

benefit projects without the necessary trade-off analyses of larger temporal or spatial scale
impacts on biodiversity or climate risks, or sufficient stakeholder buy-in to endorse projects,
ultimately resulting in significant conflicts or cost-overruns and projects not designed to the new
realities of a non-stationary climate (IDB, 2019).
The absence of established norms threatens universal uptake and adoption of improved
planning and financing practices. For example, the Organization for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD) Building Resilience report (2018), supporting the Italian G20 Quality
Infrastructure Agenda in 2021, offers a new governance approach for infrastructure. Thisapproach seeks to get the best out of the asset over its lifecycle, across functions and tasks andthe entire infrastructure system/network, leveraging new technologies and NbS opportunities.
Harmonising these approaches through the establishment of sustainability norms described
below – achieved through regulatory reform, market incentives, technical capacity development
and support, increased transparency and improved governance – should reduce uncertainty andimprove decision making for sustainability, thereby reducing sectoral risks and increasing
overall private and public investment for high demand infrastructure services.
1) Plan based on land/seascape-scale natural capital and ecosystem services data
Landscape-scale existing natural capital assets and their provision of ecosystem services,
accounting for climate risks, should be evaluated in all infrastructure planning decisions to
identify opportunities for restoration towards biodiversity net-gain (described in greater detailbelow) and ensure avoidance of future development of large scale, high impact development incritical biodiversity habitats. For example, many countries and global institutions are
increasingly carrying out geospatial information systems (GIS) based-analyses that harness
increasingly high resolution and relatively low-cost spatial data on a global scale to better
understand current natural capital assets and the critical ecosystem services they provide –either directly supporting or in lieu of engineered infrastructure services – to guide spatial andstrategic planning decisions for economic development (UNSEEA, 2022). 2 There are also2

For example, the governments of the Bahamas and Belize worked with the Natural Capital Project (a consortiumof environmental NGOs and academic partners) to evaluate coastal ecosystem values to guide coastal
development planning, including assessing the benefits of alternatives between nature-based infrastructure likemangroves and coral reefs and hardened sea walls (Natural Capital Project, 2019). These are just two examples ofan increasingly long list of similar assessments carried out around the world, now ubiquitous enough to support
the adoption of this norm (UNSEEA, 2022). Multiple multilateral development banks, for example, now have natural
capital labs, to serve exactly this purpose.
ADVANCING CLIMATE RESILIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTALOBJECTIVES IN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING, DEVELOPMENTAND FINANCE

7

increasingly simple tools that downscale and evaluate climate change impacts and risks,
allowing for capturing uncertainty through scenario planning (USGS, 2021).
Policy recommendation: The G20 should require that all countries develop national tosubnational land/seascape-scale assessments of their natural capital and ecosystem services
as the basis guiding future QII, and that they channel funding and technical capacity necessary
to implement these assessments.
2) Improve existing infrastructure efficiencies and invest in maintenanceIn 2021, G20 leaders endorsed the G20 Policy Agenda on Infrastructure Maintenance,
acknowledging that resilient, properly funded, well maintained and optimally managed systems
are essential to preserving infrastructure assets over their lifecycles. They also committed toscaling up and encouraging the implementation of NbS or ecosystem-based approaches as
valuable tools that provide economic, social, climate and environmental benefits. Ongoing
maintenance of infrastructure assets can and should be considered from the earliest stages ofa business case analysis (project conceptualisation) to ensure sustainable funding models are
put in place, along with contract structures that incentivise maintenance, such as public-private
partnerships (PPPs) or private finance initiatives (Arup and Lloyds, 2017). “Low maintenancedesign” can be particularly beneficial in harsh environmental conditions, or where funding is
scarce. “Designing for maintenance” can also help ensure infrastructure design supports accessand maintenance (Arup and Lloyds, 2017).
Countries should improve the footprint or utilisation of existing assets to adopt newtechnologies, increase resilience to more frequent climate extremes and transition to arenewable energy future and restore ecological connectivity instead of investing in entirely newlarge scale, high-impact infrastructure projects to meet similar needs. Improving maintenancemanagement and increasing investment for infrastructure maintenance makes it possible toboost the resilience of infrastructure against a variety of threats, has a positive financial returnfor developed and developing countries and creates additional opportunities for maintaining
intact habitats and restoring ecological connectivity (Andrew Gregory, Emma Spence, Paul Beier,
Emily Garding, 2021).
Infrastructure efficiencies are incentivised within frameworks of fiscal responsibility andtransparency, financial integrity and debt sustainability. Where possible, consideration should
therefore be given to maintaining existing infrastructure assets over the provision of new assets.
Over-investment in new infrastructure can compound budget constraints, leading to increased
and unnecessary spending requirements for maintaining new assets (IDB, 2022). As stated by
UNEP (2021), “procurement processes that place value on the full lifecycle benefits of
ADVANCING CLIMATE RESILIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTALOBJECTIVES IN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING, DEVELOPMENTAND FINANCE

8infrastructure can help to ensure more accurate cost estimates, which in turn contribute to thefiscal sustainability of infrastructure investments.” Additionally, monitoring asset performance
during the operation phase measures the asset’s condition, use and functionality, allowing amore efficient use of assets and reduction of lifecycle costs. Without a clear view of the age
profile and quality of the asset base, it is impossible for operators to budget appropriately for
maintenance funding.
To meet increasing demand and climate adaptation needs, rather than expanding capacity
through new infrastructure, governments can maximise asset use and quality for users throughdemand management techniques, “smart infrastructure,” or, when possible, NbS. As seen in anOECD report (2021), new technologies and data science encompassing earth observation,
remote sensing, big data, the Internet of things (IoT), cloud technologies, Building Information
Modelling (BIM) and machine learning are transforming how infrastructure is operated andmaintained while NbS might offer innovative, cost-effective opportunities for supporting
infrastructure sustainability and resilience.
Policy Recommendation: The G20 should endorse, through all future QII guidance, that
additional investment in efficiencies and financing of maintenance is both considered prior toinvestments in new assets and sufficient to addresses new climate-related risks andopportunities to enhance service delivery and create nature-positive outcomes and biodiversity
net-gains.3
3) Modernise project cost-benefit analysis to enhance sustainability outcomes
There are several analytical, policy and planning-oriented tools that are deployed at various
stages of the planning and design process for landscape-scale analysis and single project
evaluation. These include, but are not limited to, strategic environmental assessments (SEAs),
cost-benefit analysis (CBA), environmental and social impact assessments and feasibility
studies. While theoretically comprehensive, in practice these tools insufficiently address the new
realities of climate variability, dependencies on natural capital and ecosystem services andneeds for biodiversity net-gain.
CBA is one particularly critical tool of both public policy and infrastructure planning. The
systematic process of calculating the benefits and costs of policy options and projects is now
widely regarded as an essential step in the policy and planning process. Yet there are large

3This is consistent with the recommendations in the September 2021 TF7 Policy Brief “Maintain Resilient
Infrastructure Systems” (Evans et al., 2021).
ADVANCING CLIMATE RESILIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTALOBJECTIVES IN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING, DEVELOPMENTAND FINANCE

9variations in the extent to which cost-benefit analysis is being used in environmental policy
development and project planning and evaluation. There are also wide differences in the extent
to which various environmental impacts are being considered in these analyses, acrosseconomic sectors and across analytical contexts. For example, in general, energy sector
investments and policy proposals are relatively well covered in cost-benefit analyses. But there
is often far narrower coverage of non-climate environmental impacts in those assessments thanin assessments of investment projects in, for example, the transportation sector (OECD, 2018).
The valuation of ecosystem services has become a crucial element (perhaps the most crucial
element) in quantifying the contribution of ecosystems and biodiversity to human well-being, but
the quantification and application of these services within a CBA are still relatively nascent(Dasgupta et al., 2021; MCC, 2021).
Policy recommendation: The G20 should endorse, through all future QII guidance, that investors
use cross-disciplinary advances in modelling climate impacts and ecosystem-service benefits
to more systematically and comprehensively capture ecosystem-service, climate andbiodiversity costs and benefits.
4) Plan and design for “nature-positive” and biodiversity “net-gain”
Recognising the realities of new climate extremes and biodiversity loss driven by land usechange and habitat loss, global actors are embracing a relatively new sustainability concept of
biodiversity net-gain, defined as “an approach to development, and/or land management, thataims to leave the natural environment in a measurably better state than it was beforehand”(government of the UK, 2021). While previous definitions of sustainable infrastructure havefocused on minimising or avoiding impact to the maximum extent possible in line with the latest
ESG standards (ie IFC PS6), this new paradigm shifts emphasis from “doing less harm” to more
substantial restoration contributions towards increasing the overall environmental footprintcompared with prior project development. In their 2021 TF7 Policy Brief, Krueger et al. create astrong definition for net-gain as infrastructure that should be planned and developed tomaximise use of degraded lands, avoid development in irreplaceable sites essential for
conservation, avoid fragmentation and restore and maximise ecological connectivity; and “seekto strengthen, rather than replace, nature’s ability to provide services.” (Krueger et al., 2021).
Policy Recommendation: The G20 should endorse through all future QII guidance that all newlarge scale/high impact infrastructure investments should be planned and designed to meet
emerging standards for nature-positivity and biodiversity-net gain.

ADVANCING CLIMATE RESILIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTALOBJECTIVES IN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING, DEVELOPMENTAND FINANCE

10

Recommendation 2: Enhance interinstitutional coordination to break silos and increase data
availability.
Insufficient interinstitutional collaboration is a critical barrier preventing countries fromsuccessfully planning and developing sustainable infrastructure (IDB, 2018). Establishing theabove norms and creating the conditions for countries to meet sustainability commitments
under global agreements will require both improved coordination within governments – acrosscurrently siloed key agencies and ministries – and between government and the private sector(Nofal, 2021).
Any single infrastructure project is the result of a series of planning decisions based on
consultations at different scales, directly connected to the larger surrounding ecology andsocioeconomic system. However, the sustainability objectives stated by many international
players over the past few years require the development of new resources and the creation ofbridges between the transportation, energy and biodiversity communities, which have only justbegun to emerge. Faced with the challenge of potentially contradictory public policies, there aresubstantial risks in addressing critical sustainability needs through a piecemeal or siloedapproach.
Private investors increasingly recognise the business case for sustainability and require assets
to meet ESG criteria to manage risks, respond to regulatory requirements and initiatives such as
the European Union taxonomy for sustainable activities (European Commission, 2020). There
are a number of innovative examples in this space, including the informal Club for Linear
Infrastructure and Biodiversity (CILB), a group of the largest private/public transportation firms
in France increasing investment in biodiversity restoration in their footprints, or the Biodiversity
and Infrastructure Synergies and Opportunities for European Transport Networks (BISON)
project, which aims to create a joint forum built around research to facilitate collaboration
between institutional and operational actors, not only in developing a shared vision but above allin concrete, holistic action, in line with the transformative changes called for by theIntergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) toaddress worsening biodiversity loss (European Commission, 2022; IPBES, 2019). 4 In thisrespect, the mobilisation of research resources contributes to the establishment of common
dialogue tools between actors from very diverse communities. Another example is the SOURCE
sustainability preparation platform tool, developed by the Sustainable Infrastructure Foundation

4

Additional examples include the Infrastructure and Ecology Network of Europe (IENE) and associated networks
across Africa and Asia. https://www.iene.info/
ADVANCING CLIMATE RESILIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTALOBJECTIVES IN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING, DEVELOPMENTAND FINANCE

11

(SIF) to create a harmonised digital platform for tracking sustainability objectives in major
infrastructure projects. SOURCE is a comprehensive platform for both traditional procurement
and PPPs and utilised by all major multilateral development banks.5
Policy Recommendation: The G20 should promote, through all future QII guidance, increased
funding and uptake of platforms that break down sector silos and contribute to shared andcoordinated approaches amongst infrastructure stakeholders.
Conclusion
Due to a combination of multiple crises, the gaps between aspirations for sustainable
development and the impact of decades of infrastructure investments that have overlookedenvironmental priorities could become even larger. The COVID-19 pandemic might soon be alost opportunity to trigger a system change if trillions of dollars continue to be invested inunsustainable projects that exponentially accelerate negative impacts on ecosystems throughdeforestation and degradation, compromising ecosystem services and biodiversity criticallyimportant to country commitments and global sustainability goals.
This dichotomy is clearly evidenced by global spending in response to the COVID-19 pandemic,
with some regional recovery packages in line with the necessary transition, but most spending
to prop up unsustainable industries and projects. And we are seeing history repeating itself witha new energy crisis in Europe and around the world resulting from the war in Ukraine once again
eliciting the wrong response, with some leaders pushing for short-term stability throughincreased investments in fossil fuel-based infrastructure at the cost of long-term sustainability.
While there continues to be significant progress in the proliferation of infrastructure
sustainability tools and standards, there is a more fundamental need for change in practice toactually institute the norms outlined in this brief as common practice across all projects andclose these enormous gaps between aspirations and reality. If instituted, the norms and policy
recommendations we propose in this brief would help G20 countries and the rest of the world
shift towards more effective sustainable investments.
These norms are even more relevant in the context of the current war in Ukraine and potential
geopolitical ramifications, including future potential divisions between the G7 and G20. In thenear future, there might be large differences among competing infrastructure plans such as the5

https://public.sif-source.org/source/

ADVANCING CLIMATE RESILIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTALOBJECTIVES IN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING, DEVELOPMENTAND FINANCE

12G7 Build Back Better World or the Belt and Road Initiative that can only be solved if all
approaches are generally aiming for the same sustainability outcomes.

ADVANCING CLIMATE RESILIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTALOBJECTIVES IN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING, DEVELOPMENTAND FINANCE

13

References
Amy Rosenthal, Gregory Verutes, Katie Arkema, Chantalle Clarke, Maritza Canto, Samir Rosado,
and Spencer Wood. 2016. InVest Scenarios Case Study: Coastal Belize.
Andrew Gregory, Emma Spence, Paul Beier, Emily Garding, 2021 “Toward Best Management
Practices for Ecological Corridors”.
Castagnino, S., S. Subudhi, J. Sogorb, and P. Colomar. 2020. The Role of Infrastructure Stimulus
in the COVID-19 Recovery and Beyond. Boston Consulting Group.
BCG. 2020. Analysis for WWF Sustainable Infrastructure strategic framework.
Battacharya, A; Nofal, B; Krueger, L; Jeong, M; Gallagher,K; and Studart, R; Policy and Institutional
Framework for Delivering on Sustainable Infrastructure, T20 Japan 209 Policy Brief, May
2019, published by ADBI in Building the Future of Quality Infrastructure, chapter 1, Pages
14-22 . https:// www.adb.org/publications/building-future-quality-infrastructure
Bivens, J. 2017, The potential macroeconomic benefits from increasing infrastructure
investment, Economic Policy Institute.
Dasgupta, P., et al. The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review, February 2021.
European Commission, 2022. Biodiversity and Infrastructure Synergies and Opportunities for
European Transport Networks. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101006661
European Commission. 2020. EU Taxonomy for sustainable activities. Accessed 6/1/21.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/businesseconomy-euro/banking-and-finance/sustainablefinance/eu-taxonomy-sustainable-activities_enG20,

2014. G20 Leaders’communique.html

Communique.

http://www.g20.utoronto.ca/2014/2014-1116-

GovernmentoftheUnitedKingdom,
2021.
Environment
Act
2021.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2021/30/part/6/crossheading/biodiversity-gainin-planning/enacted
G7, 2016. G7 Ise-Shima Principles for Promoting Quality Infrastructure Investment. (2016).

ADVANCING CLIMATE RESILIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTALOBJECTIVES IN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING, DEVELOPMENTAND FINANCE

14

G7, 2021. CARBIS BAY G7 SUMMIT COMMUNIQUÉ: Our Shared Agenda for Global Action to Build
Back
Better.
https://www.g7uk.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Carbis-Bay-G7Summit-Communique-PDF-430KB-25-pages-3.pdf
G20,

2019. G20 PRINCIPLES FOR QUALITY INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT.
https://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/g20_summit/osaka19/pdf/documents/en/an
nex_01.pdf

The Global Commission on Economy and Climate, 2016. The Sustainable Infrastructure
Imperative:
FinancingforBetterGrowthandDevelopment
https://newclimateeconomy.report/2016/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2016/08/NCE_2016_Exec_summary.pdf
IDB, 2018. What is Sustainable Infrastructure: A Framework to Guide Sustainability Across the
Project Lifecycle
IDB, 2022. From Structures to Services: The Path to Better Infrastructure in Latin American and
the Caribbean (https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/FromStructures-to-Services-The-Path-to-Better-Infrastructure-in-Latin-America-and-theCaribbean.pdf)
IPCC, 2022: Summary for Policymakers [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, E.S. Poloczanska, K.
Mintenbeck, M. Tignor, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem
(eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution ofWorking Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck,
A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press. In Press.
Krueger Linda, Ryan Bartlett, Peter Boswell, Nicholas Buchoud, Louis Downing, Nathalie Gaullier,
Kate Newman, Beatriz Nofal, Maria Cecilia Ramirez Bello, Anna Willingshofer. September,
2021. A COMPASS FOR GLOBAL RECOVERY: INTEGRATING ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIAINTO INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT. T20 Italy 2021,Task Force 7: Infrastructure
Investment and Financing.
MSCI. 2021. Green Bonds Financing a Green and Inclusive Recovery. Accessed February 25,
2021.
https://www.msci.com/esg/postcovid19/financing-a-green-and-inclusiverecovery

ADVANCING CLIMATE RESILIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTALOBJECTIVES IN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING, DEVELOPMENTAND FINANCE

15

The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), 2021. Solicitation for Economic Consulting
Services.
Natural Capital Project, 2019. https://naturalcapitalproject.stanford.edu/news/ensuringcoastal-resilience-bahamas.
Nofal, Beatriz (2021) A Global Partnership for Infrastructure Sustainability, in Global Solutions
Journal 7: Recoupling. Available from: http://www.global-solutions-initiative.org/3d-flipbook/global-solutions-journal-7-summit-2021-edition
OECD (2022) The Blue Dot Network: A proposal for a global certification framework for quality
infrastructure investment
https://www.oecd.org/corporate/oecd-and-the-blue-dotnetwork.htm
OECD (2021), "Building resilience: New strategies for strengthening infrastructure resilience andmaintenance", OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 05, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/354aa2aa-en.
OECD(2020), OECD Recommendation on the Governance ofhttps://www.oecd.org/gov/infrastructure-governance/recommendation

Infrastructure,

Oliver Wyman and WWF. 2020. Incorporating Sustainability into Infrastructure.
Peter Head, Ryan Bartlett, Steven Crosskey, Anuj Malhotra, Rowan Palmer., 2020. T20 Saudi
Arabia. Policy Brief: Policies And Implementation Guidelines For Data-Driven, Integrated,
Risk-Based Planning Of Sustainable Infrastructure.
The Solutions Lab: Scaling for Sustainable Infrastructure. Results Booklet: 10-Month MultiStakeholder Journey from 2019 to 2020
Trevor Maynard, Lucy Stanbrough, Samantha Stratton-Short, Belinda Hewitt, 2017. Future
Cities: Building Infrastructure Resilience (a joint ARUP and Lloyds publication).
https://assets.lloyds.com/assets/pdf-arup-lloyds-arup-future-cities-2017/1/pdf-aruplloyds-arup-future-cities-2017.pdf
UNEA, 2022. Draft Resolution for the fifth session of the United Nations Environment AssemblySustainable and Resilient Infrastructure. Submitted to the Secretariat by the Governmentof
Mongolia
on21
December2021.
https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/37744
UNEP. 2021. International Good Practice Principles for Sustainable Infrastructure. Nairobi.
ADVANCING CLIMATE RESILIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTALOBJECTIVES IN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING, DEVELOPMENTAND FINANCE

16

UN System of Environmental Accounting, 2022.
US Geological Survey, 2021 Data Spotlight: Downscaled Climate Projections to Inform Climate
Research in the South-Central U.S. Region.
World Bank, 2019. Hallegate, S., Rentschler, Jun & Rozenber, J. Lifelines: The Resilient
Infrastructure Opportunity.

ADVANCING CLIMATE RESILIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTALOBJECTIVES IN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING, DEVELOPMENTAND FINANCE

17