Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds
Standard
Criteria Document

Version 3
January 2021

Document revision number

Date

Summary of changes

3. Update to criteria to include
desalination assets

January 2021

Specific criteria were developed and added fordesalination plants. A separate low carbon
energy threshold is set for plants, along with an
extra section for brine disposal and feedwater inthe A&R checklist.

2. Formal update to criteria(phase 2)

May 2018

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

1. First publication of original
Criteria (phase 1)

Oct 2016

Version 3 | January 2021

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

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

Version 3 | January 2021

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

Table of Contents
1.

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

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

3.

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

4.

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

Appendix 1: Scorecard for evaluating the Issuer’s Vulnerability Assessment & Adaptation Plan .................. 22
Appendix 2: Experts engaged in development of the Water Infrastructure Criteria ........................................... 33
Appendix 3: Experts engaged in development of the Desalination Criteria.............................................................. 35

Version 3 | January 20

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

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

4
Version 2 | March 2018

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

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

5
Version 2 | March 2018

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

2. Introduction
2.1.

Objectives

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

2.2.

Supplementary information available

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

Water Infrastructure Criteria brochure: a 2 page summary of these Criteria
FAQs introducing the Water Infrastructure Criteria

6
Version 2 | March 2018

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

•
•

2.3.

Water Infrastructure Criteria Background paper: summarising the discussions and decisions of the
TWG and IWG that gave rise to these Criteria.
Guidance to Issuers and Verifiers: guidance on the application of the Criteria laid out in thisdocument, including the nature of evidence and disclosure required for compliance.

Revisions to these Criteria

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

7
Version 2 | March 2018

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

3. Scope of the Water Infrastructure Criteria
3.1.

Three stages of development - one set of Criteria

The Water Infrastructure Criteria of the Climate Bond Standard were developed in three phases. Phase
1 focused on engineered or “grey” infrastructure bond issuances, with final Criteria released in October
2016. Typical investments in this category include water infrastructure for the purposes of water collection,
storage, treatment or distribution, or for flood protection or drought resilience. A total of five bonds were
issued against this original set between the initial release of the Criteria and early 2018.
Development of additional, supplementary criteria to incorporate nature-based solutions began in late2016, spanning green and hybrid water infrastructure.
Box 1 provides further guidance on the nature of green and hybrid water infrastructure.
Box 1: Green and hybrid water infrastructure assets: Sorting through Terminology
The terms used to describe the explicit and planned use of ecosystems and ecological processes todeliver services for humans are both highly variable and confusing and continue to proliferate. Rather
than create new terms with these Criteria, we have focused on a handful of key concepts and selected
what seem to be widespread phrases promoted by established and credible organisations.
Ecosystem services, ecological engineering, green and hybrid infrastructure (or more rarely “blueinfrastructure”), ecosystem-based adaptation, green adaptation, and natural capital are some of themany phrases used to refer to the use of ecosystems to provide infrastructure services. Here, we referto nature-based solutions (NBS), which is less widespread and newer than some of the other terms
listed here but that has a growing following. The definition we developed derives from twoorganisations that have gone far in developing and implementing NBS in recent years.
IUCN defines NBS as “actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural or modified
ecosystems that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing humanwell-being and biodiversity benefits.”1 The US Army Corps of Engineers has taken a distinctly applied
approach to the use of ecosystems as infrastructure through what they call “natural features” and“nature-based features,” collectively called NNBF. These terms distinguish between projects that makeuse of existing ecosystems (natural features) versus engineered or “designed” components (naturebased features). They state:
Natural features are created through the action of physical, geological, biological and chemical processes
over time. Nature-based features, in contrast, are created by human design, engineering, andconstruction (in concert with natural processes) to provide specific services such as coastal risk
reduction and other ecosystem services (e.g., habitat for fish and wildlife). Nature-based features areacted upon by processes operating in nature, and as a result, generally must be maintained by humanintervention in order to sustain the functions and services for which they were built.2

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

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

8
Version 2 | March 2018

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

Given that background, the TWG chose the following terms and definitions. Nature-based solutions
is a general category, referencing the explicit, planned, and intentional use of ecosystems to meet humanneeds. Natural features are nature-based solutions that include natural processes and functions, thatdeveloped or evolved through biological, geo-chemical, or similar processes; these may be left intact orrestored through use of proceeds. In contrast, nature-based features mimic characteristics of naturalfeatures but are created by human design, engineering, and construction to provide specific services
such as groundwater recharge or water filtration.
Thus, a pre-existing wetland may be protected or enhanced to improve water quality as a naturalfeature, while a designed “new” wetland built as an adjunct to a water treatment facility would be anature-based feature. The Criteria favour the inclusion of natural features but nature-based features are
not excluded (and may even be the norm for hybrid nature-based solutions).
Therefore, an asset should be considered a nature-based or hybrid asset if:
A. It reflects the intentional use of natural and/or nature-based features, processes, and functions (seeSection 1) as an integral part of addressing a human need and doing so in a manner that protects,
manages, restores, and/or enhances natural features, processes, and systems in a functioning andsustainable manner.
B. Where feasible, the project prioritises natural features over nature-based features. Such features
include the protection, restoration, expansion, and/or creation of natural systems and processes as an
explicit component of the desired project outcomes.
A third phase of criteria development was completed in January 2021. This added specific requirements
for desalination plants that were not sufficiently covered in the previous phases. This current, third versionof the Criteria spans all three phases of development and the Criteria enable the certification of bothengineered and/ or nature-based solutions.

3.2.

Assets covered (or not covered) by the Criteria

Broadly speaking, investments related to water infrastructure assets are subject to these Criteria, noting a
number of exceptions described below. This includes built, engineered, and nature-based assets designed
to provide infrastructure services across a wide range of sectors, including but not limited to healthcare
and sanitation, natural resource management, storage, flood and drought management, mining,
manufacturing, refinery systems, and general cooling uses. The “water sector” is a broad term, and manyof water infrastructure assets may not necessarily be easily labelled within the sector but overlapped withother areas, such as storage and cooling systems that are water intensive.
Of course, the inherently interconnected nature of terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems creates
challenges for developing crisply delineated sectoral eligibility criteria for water infrastructure, land use, andmarine assets and activities. As noted above, investments in freshwater resources can be implemented inmany sectors including agriculture (e.g., irrigation), forestry, aquaculture, and many other industrial sectors.
In addition, in some cases, the same land base, asset, or bond may be used by different operators for avariety or combination or purposes. For example, a single bond may cover wetlands restoration for the9
Version 2 | March 2018

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

purposes of either or both restoring water services and a broader array of ecosystem services such as
ecosystem restoration and carbon sequestration.
It is proposed that the basic underlying principle is that issuers are guided to either the relevant
Forestry/Agriculture Criteria or Water Infrastructure Criteria depending on the purpose of their primary
use of proceeds and responsibility. That is, projects and assets related to nature-based infrastructure are
eligible for certification under these Criteria where water services are the leading consideration in theasset management or use of proceeds. Examples include forests and wetlands being managed to filter
water, aquifers that store water for drinking or for flood control, and wetlands managed to attenuate
storm surge or process wastewater effluent. Where water benefits might be classified as co-benefits or
supplemental components and functions, the forthcoming Forestry and other Criteria for ecosystem
restoration should instead be applied.
So, entities with primary responsibility for land use activities (e.g. agriculture, forestry, terrestrial
conservation) seeking to increase the sustainability of productive and conservation activities in terrestrial
ecosystems (e.g. producing food, feed, fiber, fuel and supporting ecosystem services such as soil fertility,
terrestrial biodiversity), while reducing net GHG emissions or ideally increasing sequestration should
ensure compliance with the forthcoming Forestry/Agriculture Criteria per that document.
Issuers with primary responsibility for management of water infrastructure assets such as increasing thesustainability of high-quality water supply (e.g. community water systems, aquifers, forested watersheds)
against threats of depletion and contamination, treating water, flood or drought mitigation, increasing /reducing flow transport of sediment, or managing water resources for aquatic conservation, while reducing
net GHG emissions when appropriate, will need to comply with the Water Infrastructure Criteria per thisdocument.
The requirements in the relevant Forestry/Agriculture Criteria for water infrastructure assets will be
designed for compatibility and consistency with the Water Infrastructure Criteria per this document,
simply adapted to different contexts.
Additionally, specific exceptions to the application of these Criteria are identified as follows.
•••

The Climate Bonds Standard and Certification Scheme does not support investments in the fossil
fuel, nuclear or mining sectors, and water infrastructure for these sectors is not covered by these
Criteria, or any others.
Assets related to water-driven energy, for example through hydropower, wave and tidal
installations are not eligible under these Criteria. Readers are referred instead to the specificHydropower Criteria (due later in 2021) and Marine Renewable Energy Criteria released in
October 2017 respectively. For more information, see
https://www.climatebonds.net/hydropower and https://www.climatebonds.net/standard/marine
respectively.
Water infrastructure assets used in the Land Use sector, such as irrigation systems for agriculture,are subject to the forthcoming requirements of the Forestry/Agriculture Criteria.

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

10
Version 2 | March 2018

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

3.3.

Key elements to the Criteria

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

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

11
Version 2 | March 2018

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

4. The Water Infrastructure Criteria
4.1.

Broad framework of the Criteria

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

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

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

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

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

12
Version 2 | March 2018

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

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

Water monitoring, including but notlimited to:•Stormwater warning systems•

Floodwater warning systems•

Dam failure warning systems•

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

Improving energy efficiency or
shifting to low carbon fuel sources•

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

Installation or upgrade of water
capture and storage infrastructure(excluding the examples listed
above)•

Shift from anaerobic to aerobic
wastewater treatment or separate
solids from wastewater
management systems•

Generating electricity fromsewage methane or biogas
production from thermalhydrolysis•

Waste energy recovery

smart networks
early warning systems for droughts,
floodswater quality monitoring processes

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

Mitigation

Adaptation& Resilience

13
Version 2 | March 2018

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

AssetsWater Desalination – theconstruction and/or operation of:
Seawater desalination plants
Brackish water desalination plants

Example projects*•

Improving energy efficiency or
shifting to low carbon fuel sources•

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

Reverse osmosis desalination withonsite low carbon energy•

Forward osmosis desalination witha renewable energy private
purchase agreement•

Multi-effect distillation desalination
plants using waste heat from a
Concentrated Solar Power (CSP)
plant

•

Integrated Water and Power
Plants (IWPP)•

Desalination plants powered bywaste heat from fossil fuel power
plants or industrial processes

Mitigation

Adaptation& Resilience

Desalination plants supplying water
explicitly for:• Fossil fuel power stations• Nuclear power stations
Water distribution, including but notlimited to:•

Installation or upgrade of water
irrigation systems, such as highefficiency drip, flood, and pivot
irrigation systems.

•

Construction or upgrade of flood
defence infrastructure

Rainwater harvesting systems
Gravity fed canal systems
Pumped canal or water distribution
systemTerracing systems
Flood defence, including but notlimited to:

14
Version 2 | March 2018

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

AssetsExample projects*•
Surge barriers
Pumping stations
LeveesGates

Mitigation

Adaptation& Resilience

Installation or upgrade of flood
monitoring and warning systems

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

Water storage, including but notlimited to:•

Active snowpack management
programRainwater harvesting systems
Aquatic ecosystems (lakes, wetlands)
Aquifer storage
Snowpack Runoff
Groundwater recharge systems
Riparian wetlands
Storm water management•

Using parks, natural areas forstorm water management•

Creating groundwater recharge
areas for aquifer storage

Flood defences, including but notlimited to:•

Restoration of riparian wetlands
for flood storage•
Ecological retention, current force
reduction mechanisms
Relocation of assets from floodplains /“room for the river”•

Creation of safe delta flood zones
as natural habitat for the river toexpand into•

Use of pumps to transfer waters
to / from natural aquifers

Drought defences, including but notlimited to:

Mitigation

Adaptation &Resilience

Altering flow mechanics to reduce
the force of flood stage flows

15
Version 2 | March 2018

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

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

Water treatment, including but notlimited to:•Metering / monitoring systems todetect and warn against flow,
snowpack, or groundwater
systems for water managementand drought warning•

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

Wetland using native plants forwater filtration, nutrient
management

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

Explicit integration of existing
natural features and ecosystems
for water quality treatment,
including land cover management

Removal of pavement, creation of
new substrate to improvegroundwater absorption & reducerunoffCreation of wetland retention
ponds

Ecological restoration / management•

Development of anenvironmental flows regime

Erosion control systems
Hydrological restoration•

Restoration of hydrological
function, aquatic species /communities

16
Version 2 | March 2018

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

•

4.2.

Sediment transport to reduce /restore downstream deposition

Mitigation Component

The Mitigation Component of the Water Infrastructure Criteria is intended to provide transparency overthe impact that the use of proceeds will have on GHG emissions and the degree of mitigation that will bedelivered over the operational lifetime of the project or asset.
4.2.1.

All water projects and assets except for desalination

For use of proceeds subject to a Mitigation Assessment as indicated by an orange circle in Table 1, they
are eligible for certification only if either:a.

No net GHG emissions impact is expected, and the issuer discloses the justification for thisdecision with supporting documentation; orb. A negative net GHG emissions impact is expected, and the issuer has estimated the GHG
mitigation impact that will be delivered over the operational lifetime of the project or asset.
This impact should be defined in terms of the decreased emissions or increased sequestration
relative to a business as usual baseline.
Baselines can be determined using credible methodologies such as (but not limited to) the UNFCCC’s
Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), Climate Action Reserve, American Carbon Registry or nationaland state/provincial approved approaches or any other credible, robust methodology used by a relevant
national or international rating agency or authority (e.g., US Environmental Protection Agency standards).
If the asset or project relates to wetlands, the GHG assessment should be carried out with reference tothe methodologies described in the IPCC guidelines for evaluating wetlands greenhouse gas inventories(http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/wetlands/).
Under the requirements of the methodology selected, the issuer must describe• The calculations and assumptions used to arrive at the baseline;• Projected emissions over the life of the project and associated estimated GHG emissions
reduction;• A credible, independently verifiable method of tracking actual emissions and mitigation impact
over the life of the bond;17
Version 2 | March 2018

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

If the asset or project relates to nature-based solutions, details of the management plan for theasset and any associated monitoring system in place to deliver and evaluate ongoing mitigation
impacts.

These assumptions, values, and procedures must be conservative to ensure that the GHG emission
reductions or removals are not overestimated.
Further information on how to conduct a Mitigation Assessment is given in the Guidance Note to Issuers
and Verifiers available at http://www.climatebonds.net/standard/water
4.2.2.

Desalination projects and assets

Desalination plants are eligible for meeting certification if meeting the criteria below:
The average carbon intensity of the electricity that is used for desalination is at or below
100g CO2e/kWhThis threshold is to be met for every year of the bond lifetime.

18
Version 2 | March 2018

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

4.3.

Adaptation & Resilience Component

The Adaptation & Resilience Component of the Water Infrastructure Criteria is intended to provide
transparency over the asset’s resilience to climate change as well as its impact on other stakeholders’ resilience
to climate change. Such stakeholder impacts include their access to water in sufficient quantity and sufficientquality. From this perspective, ecosystems are also considered a stakeholder.
Assets and projects that are (a) demarcated with an orange circle in the Adaptation and Resilience column
in Table 1, and (b) have an expected or remaining operational lifespan of more than 20 years, are subject
to a Vulnerability Assessment / Adaptation Plan Evaluation.
In order to apply the Criteria, the issuer will need to have a Vulnerability Assessment - an assessment or
diagnosis of realised climate impacts and potential climate risks. If the Vulnerability Assessment finds thatclimate change will significantly impact the project or asset, the issuer will also need to supply acorresponding Adaptation Plan - a management response plan to the conclusions and findings of the
Vulnerability Assessment, noting how identified climate risks will be addressed. As such, the Vulnerability
Assessment and the Adaptation Plan are paired documents.
Although Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Plans remain somewhat new to the finance community,
they are used routinely by water managers, engineers, and planners. They are not expected to be long
documents and can be quite concise narrative statements. They are likely to refer to and depend on
documents produced by other organisations or partners, including ones that do not explicitly refer to theissuance or issuer but that can inform the assessment of climate vulnerability.
Taken together, the Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Plan (if required) and their supporting
documents serve as the basis for applying the Criteria and determining the eligibility of the bond for
certification.
Eligibility for certification depends on the efficacy and thoroughness of the issuer’s Vulnerability Assessment
and Adaptation Plan and the underlying climate risk assessment and management plans that they capture.
Eligibility is assessed via a Scorecard or checklist consisting of a series of binary questions.
This Scorecard is given in Appendix 1. It lists a series of questions that must be reported on, where“evidence” of action, analysis or research should be sought, or where “disclosure” of relevant regulatory,
governance, or legal documentation is required.
The Scorecard adopts a definition of climate vulnerability in terms of technical qualities of the assessment
process and specific eco-hydrological and climate indicators, as well as aspects of governance and conflictnegotiations and how effectively water users share resources under shifting hydrological conditions. The
Scorecard determines whether the issuers’ Vulnerability Assessment and Adaption Plan sufficiently addressthese factors.
To achieve this, the questions in the scorecard are grouped into six sections.
The first four are used to evaluate the issuer’s Vulnerability Assessment. Of these, the first three are: 1)
Allocation, 2) Governance, and 3) Technical Diagnostics. Together, these sections address how water will
be shared, negotiated, governed and allocated among different stakeholders, and evaluate how the projectwill affect and be affected by current and future eco-hydrological conditions, the potential risks for an asset

19
Version 2 | March 2018

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

or project posed by current and future climate impacts, and how the impact of that asset on relevant
ecosystems may change as the climate continues to evolve. These sections should be completed for all
water infrastructure assets – engineered, nature-based and hybrid.
The fourth section (Nature-Based Solutions) needs to be completed only for nature-based and hybrid
infrastructure. It is made up of five subsections. These subsections are intended to document (i) the stateof knowledge around the site and existing services; (ii) ecological management baselines; (iii) the extent
and credibility of available data; (iv) broader ecological impacts beyond the project itself; and (v), andongoing monitoring and management capacity.
The fifth section (Desalination Plants) needs to be completed only for desalination projects and assets. It
is comprised of two questions. The questions are intended to ensure that the issuer has addressed brine
disposal and feedwater intake issues.
The sixth section relates to the assessment of the Adaptation Plan. This section is briefer and focuses on
the adequacy of the coping mechanisms to address identified climate vulnerabilities, including potential or
uncertain vulnerabilities that arose from the vulnerability assessment.
For each question in the scorecard, a ‘yes’ scores 1 point and a ‘no’ scores 0. In case of a ’n/a,’ please
specify why the question is not applicable and reduce the potential sectional score appropriately. To meetthe requirements of the Climate Bonds Standard Adaptation and Resilience component:
The project must score at least 60% of the maximum potential score in all parts of the Scorecard. (Thatis, must score >= 60% for Allocation, >=60% for Governance, >= 60% for Technical Diagnostics, >=60% for each subsection of Nature-Based Solutions, >= 60% for Desalination Plants, and >= 60% in the
Adaptation Plan Assessment)
It is the issuers’ responsibility to self-assess and self-score against the Scorecard the project or asset being
funded by the bond proceeds in the first instance. Verifiers are required to check this using the informationand evidence provided to them by the issuers.
See Figure 1 for a summary of this Adaptation & Resilience component. Further information on how to
conduct an Adaptation & Resilience Assessment, including guidance on the nature of the evidence
required to support scoring and where that might be sourced, is given in the Guidance Note to Issuers andVerifiers available at http://www.climatebonds.net/standard/water

20
Version 2 | March 2018

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

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

21
Version 2 | March 2018

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

Appendix 1: Scorecard for evaluating the Issuer’s Vulnerability Assessment &Adaptation Plan
Requirement
E = Provide
evidence
D = Disclose

Max
score

Actualscore

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

Are there accountability mechanisms in place forthe management of water allocations that are
effective at a sub-basin and/or basin scale?

D

1

1.2

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

E

7

1.3

Are arrangements in place to accommodate theEpotentially adverse impacts of climate change on
the resource pool? (E.g., using best available scienceto plan for future changes in availability, undertaking
periodic monitoring and updating of plans asclimate science improves.)1

1.4

Are arrangements in place to accommodate theEpotentially adverse impacts of climate change on
the resource pool? (E.g., using best available scienceto plan for future changes in availability, undertaking
periodic monitoring and updating of available pool.)1

1.5

Do plans define responses to “exceptional”
circumstances, such as an extended drought, that
influence the allocation regime? (E.g., triggers water
use restrictions, reduction in allocations according
to pre-defined priority uses, suspension of theregime plan, etc.)

1

Version 2 | March 2018

E

22

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

1.6

For international / transboundary basins, is there alegal mechanism in place to define and enforce
water basin allocation agreements? Is it flexible
enough for increased variability in water supplies
due to more frequent climate extremes?

D

1

1.7

Are water delivery agreements defined on the basis Eof actual in situ seasonal/annual availability insteadof volumetric or otherwise inflexible mechanisms?

1

1.8

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

E

1

1.9

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

E or D1

1.10

Has a mechanism been defined to update theenvironmental flows plan periodically (e.g., every 5
to 10 years) in order to account for changes inallocation, water timing, and water availability?

E

1

1.11

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

1

1.12

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

1

TOTAL ALLOCATION SCORE

Max =
18

SECTION 2: GOVERNANCE (To be completed for all water infrastructure assets)
2.1

Have water entitlements been defined according to D
one of the following?
• Purpose that water may be used for• Maximum area that may be irrigated• Maximum volume that may be taken in anominated period• Proportion of any water allocated to a definedresource pool

Version 2 | March 2018

123

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

2.2

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

E

1

E

1

N.B. Over-allocated would be if e.g. current use iswithin sustainable limits but there would be a
problem if all legally approved entitlements toabstract water were used.
Over-used would be if existing abstractions exceed
the estimated proportion of the resource that canbe taken on a sustainable basis.
2.3

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

2.4

Is there a limit to the proportion (e.g. percentage)of water that can be extracted? How might thisneed to change if water supplies become morevariable due to climate change? (e.g. will having
sufficient amounts to meet basic human needs takeprecedence over others?)

E

1

2.5

Are governance arrangements in place for dealing
with exceptional circumstances (such as drought,
floods, or severe pollution events), especiallyaround coordinated infrastructure operations?

D

1

2.6

Is there a process for re-evaluating recent decadaltrends in seasonal precipitation and flow OR
recharge regime, in order to evaluate “normal”
baseline conditions?

D

1

2.7

Is there a formal process for dealing with newentrants?

D

1

2.8

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

D1Version 2 | March 201824

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

2.9

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

1

2.10

Are obligations for return flows and discharges
specified and enforced?

D

1

2.11

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

1

2.12

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

1

2.13

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

1

2.14

Are withdrawals monitored, with clear and legally
robust sanctions?

E

1

2.15

Are there conflict resolution mechanisms in place?

E or D1

TOTAL GOVERNANCE SCORE

Max =
15

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

3.1

Does a water resources model of the proposed
investment and ecosystem (or proposed
modifications to existing investment andecosystem) exist?

E

1Specify model types, such as WEAP, SWAT,RIBASIM, USACE applications). Scale should be atleast sub-basin.
3.2

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

E

1

3.3

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

E

1

Version 2 | March 201825

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

3.4

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

E

1

3.5

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

E

1

3.6

Are these performance limits linked toinfrastructure operating parameters?

E

1

3.7

Are these limits linked to an environmental flows
regime?

E1

3.8

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

E

1

3.9

For rehabilitation / reoperation projects, is there an
ecological baseline evaluation available before theprojects was developed?

E

1

3.10

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

1

3.11

Are lost species and/or lost or modified ecosystem
functions specified for restoration in theenvironmental evaluation?

E

1

3.12

Have regional protected areas / nature reserves
been included in the analysis for impacts from theinvestment asset and future climate impacts?

E

1

3.13

Does the model include analysis of regression
E
relationships between climate parameters and flow
conditions using time series of historical climate andstreamflow data?

1

3.14

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

1

3.15

Are changes in the frequency and severity of rare
weather events such as droughts and floods
included?

E

1

3.16

Are sub-annual changes in precipitation seasonality
included?

E

1

3.17

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

E

1

Version 2 | March 201826

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

3.18

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

E

1

3.19

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

1

3.20

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

E

1

3.21

Is directly measured climate data available for morethan 30 years and incorporated into the water
resources model?

E

1

3.22

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

1

3.23

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

E

1

3.24

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

E

1

TOTAL DIAGNOSTIC SCORE

Max =
24

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

Version 2 | March 201827

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

4.1.1

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

E

1

4.1.2

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

E

4

4.1.3

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

E

1

4.1.4

Have sources of pollution been analysed for thefollowing (even if none have been found)?
• Point source• Nonpoint source

E

2

TOTAL SITE INVENTORY SCORE

Max =
8

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

Is there an inventory of species that can be used asa baseline for vegetation and animal species?

E

1

4.2.2

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

E

1

4.2.3

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

E

1

4.2.4

Is the flow regime used as a basis for ecologicalmanagement?

E

1

4.2.5

Is there a climate trends analysis for the site or
region based on at least 30 years of climate data?

4.2.6

Is there an assessment of exotic invasive species?

E

1

4.2.7

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

E

1

Version 2 | March 2018

128

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

4.2.8

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

1

TOTAL ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT SCORE

Max =
8

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

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

E

1

4.3.2

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

E

3

4.3.3

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

2

4.3.4

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

2

TOTAL EXISTING INVENTORIES SCORE

Max =
8

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

Has there been a determination of proposed /estimated impacts from project construction andoperations regarding local, upstream, anddownstream species / ecological communities?

Version 2 | March 2018

E

1

29

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

4.4.2

Has there been a determination of proposed /estimated impacts on existing local, upstream, anddownstream eco-hydrological systems frommodification regarding:• Pollution• Downstream flow regime• Groundwater impacts• Land tenure (e.g., public vs private)

4

4.4.3

Has there been a determination of proposed /estimated impacts and benefits on eco-hydrologicalsystems from changes in allocation via thefollowing?
• Relevant environmental flows management
plans• Groundwater management plans

2

4.4.4

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

1

TOTAL BROADER IMPACTS SYSTEMS SCORE

Max =
8

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

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

E

2

4.5.2

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

1

4.5.3

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

E

1

4.5.4

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

E

1

4.5.5

Is there a multi-stakeholder basin management
plan?

D

1

TOTAL MONITORING & MANAGEMENTSYSTEMS SCORE

Version 2 | March 2018

Max =
6

30

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

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

Are there measures in place to manage brine
E or D
discharge which minimise impacts on the ecosystem
into which the brine is disposed? For example:• Diffuser systems for seawater desalination• Use of computer modelling to determine theoptimal brine discharge point(s) and length ofoutfall or the number of openings• Regulatory compliance with maximum
allowable levels of water salinity around
discharge points• Continuous / frequent water quality monitoringaround the brine discharge point(s)• Mixing of brine with cooling water before
discharge• Recovery of metals and / or salt from brine

1

5.2

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

TOTAL DESALINATION SCORE

Max =
2

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

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

E

1

AP. 2

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

E

1

AP. 3

Is the adaptation plan for environmental targets /infrastructure robust across specified projectedclimate conditions? Confer VA

E

1Version 2 | March 201831

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

AP. 4

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

E

1

AP. 5

Is there a plan to reconsider on a periodic basis the E
VA for operational parameters, governance andallocation shifts, and environmental performancetargets?

1

TOTAL ADAPTATION PLAN SCORE

Max =
5

Version 2 | March 201832

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

Appendix 2: Experts engaged in development of the Water Infrastructure
Criteria
Water Infrastructure Criteria development has been led by a consortium consisting of the Climate
Bonds Initiative, AGWA, Ceres, CDP and the World Resources Institute (WRI). To develop the Water
Infrastructure Criteria, focusing on engineered or built or engineered water infrastructure, theconsortium convened a Technical Working Group (TWG) and an Industry Working Group (IWG), withrepresentatives from investors, public utilities, water NGOs and international policy bodies from aroundthe world.
Technical Working Group Members:
Lead: John Matthews, Alliance for Global Water Adaptation (AGWA)
Ania Grobicki,RAMSAR
Aparna Sridhar, The Nature Conservancy (TNC)
Ari Raivetz, Organica Water
Betsy Otto, World Resource Institute (WRI)
Benjamin Denjean, Beijing Forest University
Bill Stannard, American Water Works Association (AWWA)
Bob Zimmerman, Charles River Watershed Association
Casey Brown, University of Massachusetts, Hydrology
Cate Lamb, Water Program, CDP
Cedo Maksimovic, Urban Water Research Group, Imperial College London
Cees van de Guchte, Deltares
Christian Severin, Global Environment Faciilty (GEF)
Charles B Chesnutt, USACE
Christine Chan, Alliance for Global Water Adaptation (AGWA)
Cynthia Lane, American Water Works Association (AWWA)
Dan Christian, Tetra Tech
Dave Hole, Conservation International
Debbie Larson-Salvatore, USACE
Elena Lopez-Gunn, Complutense University of Madrid
Erica Brown, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA)
Guy Pegram, Pegasys, South Africa
James Dalton, IUCN
Janet Cushing, USGS
Jason Fairbairn, Arup
John Joyce, Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI)
Jorge Gastelumendi, The Nature Conservancy (TNC)
Junguo Liu, IIASA, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Karen Yacos, Ceres
Larry Band, University of Virginia
Laurna Kaatz, Denver Water
LeRoy Poff, Colorado State University, Stream Ecology Lab
Lisa Hair, US EPA
Maija Bertule, UNEP-DHI
Manisha Singh, WiseLion LLC
Marco Follador, Way Carbon
Margot Hill Clarvis, Earth Security Group
Version 2 | March 201833

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

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

Version 2 | March 201834

Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard – Criteria Document

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

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

Version 2 | March 201835