Climate Bonds Initiative Hydropower Criteria

Hydropower Criteria
The Hydropower Criteria for the
Climate Bonds Standard & Certification Scheme

March 2021
Version 1.0

VersionDate

Description

1.0

25 March 2021

Initial publication0Climate Bonds Initiative Hydropower Criteria

Definitions
Accredited Assessor: An accredited assessor is an individual who has 1) Completed a programme of training
authorised by the Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Council, 2) Obtained a License which represents anagreement between the Accredited Assessor and the Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol governancecouncil regarding the terms and conditions of their accreditation, and 3) Adopted a code of conduct and compliancewith all the terms of that License. The Climate Bonds Initiative is not engaged with this accreditation process.
Approved Verifiers: Organisations approved by the Climate Bonds Initiative to provide assurance services to issuersof Certified Climate Bonds. The duties of Approved Verifiers include providing assurance that the requirements of the
Climate Bonds Standard (including these and other sector specific Criteria) are met.
Certified Climate Bond: A Climate Bond that is certified by the Climate Bonds Standard Board as meeting therequirements of the Climate Bonds Standard, as attested through independent verification.
Climate Bond: A climate bond is a bond used to finance – or refinance - projects needed to address climate change.
They range from wind farms and hydropower plants, to rail transport and building sea walls in cities threatened byrising sea levels. Only a small portion of these bonds have been labelled as Green or Climate Bonds by their issuers.
Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI): An investor-focused not-for-profit organisation, promoting large-scale investmentsthat will deliver a global low carbon and climate resilient economy. The Initiative seeks to develop mechanisms tobetter align the interests of investors, industry and government so as to catalyse investments at a speed and scalesufficient to avoid dangerous climate change.
Climate Bonds Standard (CBS): A screening tool for investors and governments that allows them to identify Green
Bonds where they can be confident that the funds are being used to deliver climate change solutions. This may bethrough climate mitigation impact and/ or climate adaptation or resilience. The CBS is made up of two parts: the parent
standard (Climate Bonds Standard V3.0) and a suite of sector specific eligibility Criteria. The parent standard covers
the certification process and pre- and post-issuance requirements for all certified bonds, regardless of the nature of
the capital projects. The Sector Criteria detail specific requirements for assets identified as falling under that specificsector. The latest version of the CBS is published on the Climate Bonds Initiative website
Climate Bonds Standard Board (CBSB): A board of independent members that collectively represents $34 trillion ofassets under management. The CBSB is responsible for approving i) Revisions to the Climate Bonds Standard,
including the adoption of additional sector Criteria, ii) Approved Verifiers, and iii) Applications for Certification of a bondunder the Climate Bonds Standard. The CBSB is constituted, appointed and supported in line with the governancearrangements and processes as published on the Climate Bonds Initiative website.
Climate Bond Certification: allows the issuer to use the Climate Bond Certification Mark in relation to that bond.
Climate Bond Certification is provided once the independent Climate Bonds Standard Board is satisfied the bondconforms with the Climate Bonds Standard.
Green Bond: A Green Bond is a bond the proceeds of which are allocated to environmental projects. The term
generally refers to bonds that have been marketed as “Green”. In theory, Green Bonds proceeds could be used for awide variety of environmental projects, but in practice they have mostly been the same as Climate Bonds, withproceeds going to climate change projects.
Hydropower assets and projects: Assets and projects relating to the construction, acquisition and / or managementof hydropower facilities and dedicated infrastructure These facilities might include run-of-river, impoundmenthydropower and pumped storage. Marine applications using similar technology are not within the scope of the
document.
Industry Working Group (IWG): A group of key organisations that are potential issuers, verifiers and investors
convened by the Climate Bonds Initiative. The IWG provides feedback on the draft sector Criteria developed by the
TWG before they are released for public consultation.
Technical Working Group (TWG): A group of key experts from academia, international agencies, industry and NGOs
convened by the Climate Bonds Initiative. The TWG develops the Sector Criteria - detailed technical criteria for theeligibility of projects and assets as well as guidance on the tracking of eligibility status during the term of the bond. Its
draft recommendations are refined through engagement with finance industry experts in convened Industry Working
Groups and through public consultation. Final approval of Sector Criteria is given by the CBSB.

1Climate Bonds Initiative Hydropower Criteria

Table of Contents
Definitions .............................................................................................................................. 1
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................. 2
1

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6

2
3

Potentially eligible use of proceeds................................................................................. 5
Eligibility Criteria ............................................................................................................. 6
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4

4

The Climate Bonds Standard ............................................................................................... 3
The need for Hydropower Criteria ........................................................................................ 3
Assets and projects in scope for the Criteria ........................................................................ 3
Key elements of the Criteria ................................................................................................. 4
This document and supplementary information available ..................................................... 4
Revisions to these Criteria ................................................................................................... 4

Overview.............................................................................................................................. 6
Mitigation Criteria for hydropower facilities (including pumped storage) ............................... 6
Mitigation Criteria for supporting infrastructure ..................................................................... 8
Climate Adaptation and Resilience Criteria .......................................................................... 8

Reporting requirements ................................................................................................ 10
Appendix 1: Technical Working Group (TWG) and Industry Working Group (IWG) ...................... 11
TWG Members & Observers ........................................................................................................ 11
IWG Members .............................................................................................................................. 11

The Climate Bonds Initiative gratefully acknowledges the Technical and Industry Working Group members who
supported the development of these Criteria. Proposals were agreed by consensus in the Technical Working
Group, noting a variety of views on specific issues, and taking into account the feedback from the Industry
Working Group.
Technical and Industry Working Group Members are listed in Appendix 1.

2

Climate Bonds Initiative Hydropower Criteria

1 Introduction
1.1 The Climate Bonds Standard
Investor demand for Green Bonds and Climate Bonds is strong and will increase in line with the delivery of
quality products into the market. However, investor concerns about the credibility of green labelling are also
growing. Standards, assurance and certification are essential to improve confidence and transparency, which
in turn will enable further strong growth in the market.
The Climate Bonds Standard & Certification Scheme is an easy-to-use screening tool that provides a clear
signal to investors and intermediaries on the climate integrity of Certified Climate Bonds.
A key part of the Standard is a suite of sector-specific eligibility Criteria. Each set of Sector Criteria sets climatechange benchmarks for that sector that are used to screen assets and capital projects so that only those thathave climate integrity, either through their contribution to climate mitigation, and/ or to adaptation andresilience to climate change, will be certified. Where a bond encompasses a mixed portfolio of assets acrossseveral sectors, each sub-category of assets will be subject to the relevant Sector Criteria for those assets.
The Sector Criteria are determined through a multi-stakeholder engagement process, including Technical andIndustry Working Groups (TWG and IWG, respectively), convened and managed by the Climate Bonds
Initiative (CBI), and are subject to public consultation. Finally, they are reviewed and approved by the Climate
Bonds Standard Board (CBSB).
The second key part of the Climate Bonds Standard is the overarching Climate Bonds Standard document.
This provides the common fund management and reporting requirements that all Certified Climate Bonds must
meet, in addition to meeting the specific Sector Criteria.

1.2 The need for Hydropower Criteria
A number of bond issuers are already issuing Green Bonds to finance or refinance hydropower projects andassets. Not all of these Green Bonds have been well received in the market, due to concerns over actual or
potential negative impacts of the specific assets and projects linked to those Green Bonds.
To ensure consistency and credibility for those wishing to issue or invest in Green Bonds linked to hydropower,
it is therefore necessary to determine robust and transparent screening Criteria, which will ensure that any
hydropower projects and assets that meet those Criteria are ‘climate compatible’ (i.e. are sufficiently low
carbon and enabling greater climate adaptation and resilience in a world of unavoidable climate change, in linewith the goals of the Paris Agreement), and are not causing significant negative impacts in respect of a numberof wider environmental or social issues.
These Criteria are intended to provide such robust and transparent screening for the Green Bonds market.

1.3 Assets and projects in scope for the Criteria
These Criteria apply to use of proceeds relating to:•••Power stations:o Run-of-rivero Impoundment
o Pumped storage
Applications of in-stream technology.
Existing infrastructure dedicated to eligible facilities, such as dedicated transmission lines.

The scope of these Criteria are assets and projects:• That are already operational; or• Are in an advanced state of planning.
Further details of the scope of these Criteria are in Section 2, Table 1.

3

Climate Bonds Initiative Hydropower Criteria

1.4 Key elements of the Criteria
As a general principle, bonds will meet the requirements of the Climate Bonds Standard if the associated useof proceeds:••

Promotes low GHG infrastructure, andPromotes adaptation to climate change and facilitate increased climate resilience in the systems inwhich they are located.

Complete details of the reporting requirements for the Hydropower Criteria are in Section 3 of this document.

1.5 This document and supplementary information available
This document details:• The current scope of hydropower assets and projects eligible for certification under the Climate Bonds
Standard – Section 2;• The specific eligibility Criteria under which these assets and projects can be certified – Section 3;• Reporting requirements for issuers – Section 4• List of TWG and IWG members – Appendix 1
Supporting information is available at as follows:
1. The Hydropower Criteria Background Document: for the full background to the process of determining
Criteria relating to hydropower assets and use of proceeds, including the rationale for the approaches
and decisions taken.
2. Hydropower FAQs: answering the most commonly asked questions regarding the Hydropower Criteria.
3. The Climate Bonds Standard V3.0: contains the requirements of the overarching Climate Bonds
Standard
4. The Climate Bonds Standard & Certification Scheme Brochure: provides an overview of the Climate
Bonds Standard & Certification Scheme, of which these Criteria are a part.
For more information on the Climate Bonds Initiative and the Climate Bonds Standard & Certification Scheme,
see www.climatebonds.net. For the hydropower homepage see http://www.climatebonds.net/hydropower.

1.6 Revisions to these Criteria
These Criteria will be reviewed no more than 36 months after launch, earlier if the need arises, at which point
the TWG will take stock of issuances that arise in the early stages and any developments in improved
methodologies and data that can increase the climate integrity of future bond issuances. More specifically, in
respect of decarbonisation pathways for the power sector, CBI will review the emissions intensity thresholds
for all renewable energy sector criteria within 2 years of the launch of these Criteria.
As a result, the Criteria are subject to revision over time. However, certification will not be withdrawn
retroactively from bonds certified under earlier versions of the Criteria.

4Climate Bonds Initiative Hydropower Criteria

2 Potentially eligible use of proceeds
Table 1 presents use of proceeds that might be included in a Certified Climate Bond, subject to meeting theCriteria described in Section 3. Table 1 is provided for illustrative purposes and is not an exhaustive list of
every possible asset or project that would be eligible.
The assets in Table 1 are eligible for inclusion in a Certified Climate Bond if they meet:• The Mitigation requirements (see Sections 3.2., 3.3 and 3.4 for details); AND• The Adaptation and Resilience requirements (see Section 3.5 for details).
Bonds financing multiple projects will be required to prove compliance with other Sector Criteria to be eligible
for Climate Bonds Certification. For example, if a bond includes both wind projects and hydropower projects it
would be necessary for the issuer to prove compliance with both the Wind Criteria and the Hydropower Criteria
for those projects, respectively.
Table 1 provides signposting as follows:• A green circle indicates these assets, when fully described and documented, automatically meet theCriteria requirements, with no further disclosure or documentation required.
• An amber square indicates that the eligibility of these assets is conditional on meeting specificrequirements.

Table 1: Illustrative use of bond proceeds eligible for Climate Bonds Certification under the Hydropower
Criteria
AssetsExample use of proceeds

Mitigation

Adaptation
resilience&

Power generation
Power generation facilities (withand without storage, including
run-of-river, impoundment andpumped storage)

Supporting infrastructure

Land acquisition for the purpose of establishinghydropower facilities, including land acquired for the
purpose of creating or adapting of water courses, See Section 3.2, See Section 3.5
reservoirs, etc.
and for pumped
storage also
Section 3.3
Equipment and resources for establishing andoperating hydropower facilities, including reservoirs
and dams.
See Section 3.2, See Section 3.5
and for pumped
storage also
Section 3.3
Dedicated transmission lines from an eligiblehydropower facility to the main grid
See Section 3.4 See Section 3.5

Table 2: Assets and projects not eligible for Certification under the Hydropower Criteria
AssetsExplanation for exclusion

VehiclesIf an issuer wishes to use a portion of the proceeds to (re)finance any vehicles, thevehicles must comply with the Climate Bonds Standard Transport Criteria.

Hydropower-like assets in amarine environment

Marine-based, hydropower-like assets are not covered by these Criteria. If an issuer
wishes to use a portion of the proceeds to (re)finance hydropower-like assets or
projects in a marine environment, those assets or projects must comply with the
Climate Bonds Standard Marine Renewable Energy Criteria.

5Climate Bonds Initiative Hydropower Criteria

3 Eligibility Criteria
3.1 Overview
The Hydropower Criteria has two components:
1. Mitigation component – details in Section 3.2 (hydropower facilities and pumped storage) and Section
3.3 (supporting infrastructure and components)
2. Adaptation and resilience component – details in Section 3.4.

3.2 Mitigation Criteria for hydropower facilities (including pumped storage)
The following Criteria apply to all hydropower facilities: run-of-river, impoundment and pumped storage. They
are summarised in Figure 1 below.
A hydropower facility in operation before 2020 is eligible if it has either:• A power density1 > 5W/m2; OR• GHG emissions intensity < 100g CO2e/kWh.
A hydropower facility commencing operation in 2020 or after2 is eligible if it has either:• A power density > 10W/m2; OR• GHG emissions intensity < 50g CO2e/kWh.
The power density criterion is referred to below as the ‘GHG Risk Predictive Screen’. The GHG emissions
intensity criterion is referred to below as the ‘Low GHG Compatibility Test’.
In addition, pumped storage facilities must also meet one of the following criteria:
1. The facility is demonstrably purposefully built in conjunction with intermittent renewables, as in the
Hatta Dam project in the United Arab Emirates, for example.
AND / OR
2. The facility is contributing to a grid which already has a share of intermittent renewables deployment ofat least 20% OR has credible evidence of programmes in place that increase the share of intermittent
renewables to this level within the next 10 years. Evidence of such programmes might be the current
development of renewable energy facilities that are due to come online in the near term, or the auctionof PPAs for renewables.
AND / OR
3. The facility can credibly demonstrate that the pumped storage will not be charged with an off-peak grid
intensity that is higher than the intensity of the electricity that it will displace when it is discharged. For
example, demonstrating that there is no combination of the following in the merit order: (i) mid-meritcoal and (ii) gas used at times of peak demand.

Clarification Note 1: Calculating GHG emissions intensity
The GHG emissions intensity is the average GHG emissions intensity, including emissions associated with thereservoir only and allocated to hydropower only, averaged over an estimated 100-year life of the facility. Thiscan be estimated in one of two ways:•

Using the G-res tool developed by the International Hydropower Association in collaboration with the
UNESCO Chair for Global Environment Change (see here). The issuer will provide a validated result
to the Approved Verifier for the verifier to confirm compliance with these Criteria.

1Power density is defined as the nameplate capacity of the facility divided by the surface area of the reservoir.
It is noted that TWG member Richard Taylor was not in agreement with the establishment of 10W / 50g thresholds for facilities becoming
operational in 2020 or thereafter.
2

6

Climate Bonds Initiative Hydropower Criteria•

Site-specific assessments carried out by the issuer or its appointed consultant, so long as theassessment follows the guidelines laid out in the IEA Hydro Framework as described in the ‘Guidelines
for the Quantitative Analysis of Net GHG Emissions from Reservoirs’.3 In this instance, the CBIApproved Verifier must review the site-specific assessment carried out to confirm that i) theseguidelines have been followed; and ii) the resulting estimated emissions intensity is below the relevant
threshold.

Clarification Note 2: Only allocated emissions count
A hydropower facility should be deemed to meet the GHG emissions intensity threshold so long as theemissions apportioned or allocated to hydropower fall below the relevant threshold (even if the full, unallocatedemissions do not).
When calculating GHG emissions allocated to hydropower, the following should be excluded:••

The GHG emissions associated with any pre-existing natural water body, and
The GHG emissions associated with the broader range of services that the facility might provide.

Regarding exclusion of emissions associated with any pre-existing natural water body, this is automatic in thedesign of the G-res tool. Regarding exclusion of emissions associated with a broader range of services thatthe facility might provide, an allocation methodology is needed to determine the relative importance of different
reservoir services and apportion emissions to them proportionally. The G-res tool includes such an allocation
mechanism, and given the proposed use of the G-res tool for assessing GHG emissions in total, for simplicity
and consistency it is proposed that the allocation methodology using the operating regime approach in G-res
be used to determine the allocated emissions for a hydropower facility for the purposes of the Low GHGCompatibility Test.
For issuers undertaking an on-site GHG assessment, the methodology of the Allocation Module in the G-res
tool (using the Operating Regime variant), should be replicated to allocate the estimated unallocated emissions
to the multiple services that the reservoir may provide.

Clarification Note 3: Geographic scope of the assessment
The GHG assessment for the Climate Bonds Standard needs to estimate the GHG footprint of the hydropower
facility as a whole, including the reservoir and upstream and downstream impact, and not just the incremental
footprint of any specific investment (see Box 1).
For the purposes of clarification, this means that in the case of a retrofit or the addition of a new turbine to an
existing facility, the GHG assessment would need to account for not just the incremental impact of the retrofit
or new turbine, but the adjusted footprint of the whole facility post-retrofit or upgrade, to see if post-retrofit, thefacility is producing sufficiently ‘low carbon power’ to qualify for certification under the Climate Bonds Standard.
Box 1: Defining the scope of the facility, its footprint and the GHG assessment
There are two distinct concepts in determining the scope of the application of these criteria:
1. The facility boundary: we take this here to mean the “unit of development” where the investment takes
place: any dam, reservoirs, engineered structures, engineered changes to watercourses, equipment for thegeneration of electricity and transmission lines.
2. The facility footprint refers to the set of impacts which the facility may have, including within the facility
boundary, upstream or downstream impacts.

3 These guidelines have been issued in two volumes:

Volume 1: Measurement Programmes and Data Analysis. These
guidelines provide best practice that aims to assist the reader to measure, analyze data and model net GHG emissions
from multipurpose reservoirs. Volume 2 – Modelling: Guidelines for Quantitative Analysis of Net GHG Emissions from
Reservoirs. This defines procedures and best practices for the modelling of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions from
Freshwater Reservoirs. From this framework, readers can undertake sufficient analysis and study to understand theprocess of GHG emissions from an existing or planned reservoir correspondent to long-term horizons. For further
information see: http://www.ieahydro.org/annex-xii-hydropower-and-the-environment

7

Climate Bonds Initiative Hydropower Criteria

Figure 1: Decision tree showing steps that determine whether a facility passes or fails the Mitigation
Component of the Hydropower Criteria

3.3 Mitigation Criteria for supporting infrastructure
Very simply, the following infrastructure is automatically eligible for inclusion in a Certified Climate Bond if thehydropower projects and assets to which is it dedicated meets the Criteria described in Sections 3.2 and 3.4:•

Dedicated transmission lines linking the eligible hydropower facility with the main grid.

3.4 Climate Adaptation and Resilience Criteria
The requirements below apply to all hydropower facilities seeking inclusion in a Certified Climate Bond. All
must be met for the facility to pass the Adaptation and Resilience Component of the Hydropower Criteria andbe eligible for inclusion in a Certified Climate Bond.
•

The facility seeking inclusion in a Certified Climate Bond must have undergone an assessment under
the ESG Gap Analysis Tool. This analysis must have been carried out by an Accredited Assessor.
This assessment will identify any significant gaps that the facility demonstrates against international
good practice. If any significant gaps are identified, an Environmental and Social Action Plan (ESAP)
must be established to address those gaps including details on how and when these gaps will beclosed.

8

Climate Bonds Initiative Hydropower Criteria
AND•

The Approved Verifier must verify that this assessment demonstrates:oooNo more than 10 significant gaps have been found in total across the assessment. N.B. If
some section(s) are not deemed applicable for a particular facility, and no assessment ismade for that section(s) then this maximum gap threshold will be reduced proportionallyaccordingly;AND
No more than 2 significant gaps in each section assessed;
AND
None of those gaps would mean that the Mitigation Criteria above are not met (seeClarification Note 4) or relate to FPIC (see Clarification Note 5).

AND•

Where an ESAP has been necessary to address any significant gaps, the Approved Verifier mustverify that the ESAP demonstrates:
o The majority (i.e., > 50%) of significant gaps identified will be closed within 12 months;
ANDo All remaining significant gaps will be closed within 24 months

AND•

The issuer commits to re-engage the Accredited Assessor to confirm that these gaps have indeed
been closed within the timeframe(s) specified in the ESAP.

Of course, however credible the plans to close any identified gaps, there is always a risk that issuers may not
be able to close them in the stated timeframes. If an issuer is unable to close any identified gaps within thestated timeframes, certification under the Climate Bonds Standard will be withdrawn.
Clarification Note 4: The GHG assessment within the ESG Gap Analysis
As described in Section 3.2, for any facility to be included in a Certified Climate Bond, it must meet the
Mitigation Component requirement of a power density threshold of greater than 5 or 10W/m2, or an emissions
intensity threshold of less than 50 or 100g CO2e/kWh. There is no flexibility in this requirement. Therefore, if
the ESG assessment identifies 10 significant gaps or fewer, but one of these gaps is that the facility does notmeet the requirements of the Mitigation Component, then that facility cannot be included in a Certified Climate
Bond. In essence, it is a ‘deal-breaker’ gap.
Clarification Note 5: The FPIC assessment within the ESG Gap Analysis
The requirement for Free, Prior and Informed Consent is addressed within the ESG Gap Analysis Tool. Thereis no flexibility in this requirement. That is, if the ESG assessment identifies 10 significant gaps or fewer, but
one of these gaps is that the FPIC has not been received, then that facility cannot be included in a Certified
Climate Bond. In essence, it is a ‘deal-breaker’ gap.
Clarification Note 6: Multiple facilities under one assessment
Where an issuer is seeking to include a number of facilities in a single Certified Climate Bond, it may bepossible to assess these in a single assessment under the ESG Gap Analysis Tool. This is at the discretion of
the Accredited Assessor. It is understood that in some circumstances (for example the close location of two
facilities in a single watershed and ecosystem), this may be possible, but would need to be determined on acase-by-case basis by the Accredited Assessor.
Clarification Note 7: Facilities already assessed under the HSAP
If a facility has already undergone assessment under the full Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol(‘HSAP’), then the results of that can be translated into the necessary scoring methodology given thecloseness of the ESG Gap Analysis Tool and the HSAP. Therefore, there is no additional requirement for thatfacility to also undergo an assessment under the ESG Gap Analysis Tool.

9Climate Bonds Initiative Hydropower Criteria

4 Reporting requirements
In accordance with the Climate Bonds Standard, it is the issuer’s responsibility to provide to the Approved
Verifier the information necessary to demonstrate compliance with each component of the Criteria. Per therequirements outlined above, it is therefore necessary for the issuer to provide the Approved Verifier with:

•

•
•
•
•

Either:o

Evidence that the power density of the facility is > 5 or 10W/m2 (depending on the operational
start date of the facility); ORo The validated results of the G-res assessment, with as much supporting information as isnecessary for the verifier to confirm the emissions intensity is < 50 or 100g CO2e/ kWh(depending on the operational start date of the facility); ORo The results of the appropriate on-site assessment with as much supporting information as isnecessary for the verifier to confirm the emissions intensity is < 50 or 100g CO2e/ kWh(depending on the operational start date of the facility).
Any additional information required in the case of pumped storage as detailed in Section 3.3.
The accredited assessors’ report on the assessment carried out under the ESG Gap Analysis Tool,and the associated ESAP (if significant gaps were identified);
Assurance that the Accredited Assessor will be re-engaged within the immediately following 24-month
period to assess whether all significant gaps identified have indeed been closed;
Information on whether FPIC has been received.

Furthermore, it is required that the issuer publicly disclose the Accredited Assessor’s report on the assessment
carried out under the ESG Gap Analysis Tool (and associated ESAP if required). Climate Bonds Initiative will
provide links to these documents on the Certification page of its website. If not explicitly noted in those
documents, the issuer should also separately publicly disclose the power density and/ or GHG emissions
intensity of the facility, whichever has been used to comply with the mitigation component of these criteria.
It is also encouraged that disclosure be made of any identified impacts on protected areas such as Ramsar
and UNESCO World Heritage sites not already covered by the requirements of the ESG Gap Analysis Tool.
In accordance with the overarching reporting requirements as laid out in the Climate Bonds Standard V3.0,
issuers are required to provide this information once the proceeds have been allocated to specific hydropower
projects and assets. In the majority of cases, this will be pre-issuance of the bond, particularly in the case ofrefinancing. However, where a portion of the proceeds is allocated to specific projects or assets post-issuanceof the bond, or proceeds are reallocated to different hydropower projects and assets, then this information isrequired either at the post-issuance reporting stage or the next annual report, whichever is sooner.

10

Climate Bonds Initiative Hydropower Criteria

Appendix 1: Technical Working Group (TWG) and Industry Working Group (IWG)
TWG Members & Observers
TWG members:
Alliance for Global Water Adaptation - John Matthews
IEA Technology Collaboration Program on Hydropower – Niels Nielsen
IHE Delft - Miroslav Marence
IIED - Jamie Skinner
Independent Consultant and IHA accredited assessor - Joerg Hartmann
International Hydropower Association – Eddie Rich and formerly Richard Taylor and Cameron Ironside
IUCN - James Dalton(Former Commissioner) National Planning Commission, South Africa - Mike Muller
Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum & Energy - Oivind Johansen
RMT Renewables Consulting Ltd – Richard Taylor
State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO) – Daniel Menebhi
TNC - Jorge Gastelmundi - David Harrison
Water Power & Law Group PC - Richard Roos-Collins
WWF - Jian-hua Meng

TWG observers:
Pravin Karki, Rickard Liden, Diego Rodriguez of World Bank Group – acting in a personal capacity
CBI Technical Advisor:
Independent Consultant - Helen Jackson

IWG Members
Hydro Tasmania - Alex Beckitt
Brookfield Renewable (Brazil) - A Fonseca dos Santos
Amec Foster Wheeler - Murray Simpson
Hindustan Electric Power Ltd - Awadh Gir
Eletrobras - Pedro Luiz de Oliveira Jatoba
EDF - Alexandre Marty, Jean Copreaux
Mott McDonald - Bruno Trouille
CECEP (China) - Chang He, Wenqin Lu
EBRD - Christian Carraretto
FMASE (Brazil) - Philip Hauser
S&P Trucost - Derek Ip
ERM - Duncan Russell, Sarah Fee
M&G Investment - David Kemp
Citi - Courtney Lawrence
NAB - David Jenkins
JP Morgan - Charles Gooderham
DNV-GL - Mark Robinson
PwC (Canada) - David Greenall
EY (China) - Judy Li
Zhongcai Green Finance - Yang Yeo
EY (Aus) - Pip Best
Emergent Ventures India - Atul Sanghal
Kestrel Consulting - Monica Reid
Lianhe - Jingyun Liu
TUV Nord -Tahsin Choudhury

11