COMMISSION NOTICE —

Technical guidance on the climate proofing of infrastructure in the period 2021-2027

(2021/C 373/01)

DISCLAIMER: The purpose of this Notice is to give technical guidance on the climate proofing of investments in infrastructure covering the programming period 2021-2027. Article 8(6) of Regulation (EU) 2021/523 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) ( InvestEU Regulation ) requires the Commission to develop sustainability guidance. Article 8(6) a) sets out requirements on climate change mitigation and adaptation. Pursuant to Article 8(6) e), the sustainability guidance must include guidance to implementing partners on information to be provided for the purpose of the screening of the environmental, climate or social impact of financing and investment operations. Article 8(6) d) stipulates that the sustainability guidance shall allow to identify projects that are inconsistent with the achievement of climate objectives. This guidance on the climate proofing of infrastructure forms part of the sustainability guidance. Guidance by the Commission on the climate proofing of infrastructure projects, coherent with the guidance developed for other programmes of the Union where relevant, is also envisaged under Regulation (EU) 2021/1153 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) ( CEF Regulation ). The guidance is also deemed a relevant reference for the climate proofing of infrastructure under Article 2(37) and Article 67(3) j) of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) ( Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) ) as well as under the Recovery and Resilience Facility (4). The guidance has been developed by the Commission in close cooperation with potential implementing partners for InvestEU along with the EIB Group. This guidance may be complemented with additional national and sectoral considerations and guidance.

ABBREVIATIONS

AR4 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report AR5 IPCC Fifth Assessment Report C3S Copernicus Climate Change Service CC Climate change CBA Cost-benefit analysis CEF Connecting Europe Facility CF Cohesion Fund CJEU Court of Justice of the European Union CMIP Coupled Model Intercomparison Projects CO2 Carbon dioxide CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent CPR Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 DNSH Do no significant harm DWL Design working life EAD Expected annual damage EEA European Environment Agency EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EPCM Engineering, Procurement & Construction Management ERDF European Regional Development Fund ESG Environmental, social and governance ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment ECP Extended Concentration Pathway FEED Front end engineering design GHG Greenhouse gas GIS Geographical Information Systems GWP Global Warming Potential IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change JRC Joint Research Centre (European Commission) JTF Just Transition Fund KPI Key Performance Indicators NECP National Energy and Climate Plan O&M Operation and maintenance PCM Project Cycle Management RRF Recovery and Resilience Facility RCP Representative Concentration Pathways SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

2. SCOPE OF THE GUIDANCE 8

3. CLIMATE PROOFING OF INFRASTRUCTURE 11

3.1. Preparing for climate proofing 13

3.2. Mitigating climate change (climate neutrality) 18

3.2.1. Screening – Phase 1 (Mitigation) 20

3.2.2. Detailed analysis – Phase 2 (Mitigation) 21

3.2.2.1. Carbon footprint methodology for infrastructure projects 21

3.2.2.2. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions assessment 25

3.2.2.3. Baselines (carbon footprint, cost-benefit analysis) 26

3.2.2.4. Shadow cost of carbon 26

3.2.2.5. Verify compatibility with a credible GHG pathway to 2030 and 2050 28

3.3. Adaptation to climate change (climate resilience) 28

3.3.1. Screening – Phase 1 (adaptation) 31

3.3.1.1. Sensitivity 32

3.3.1.2. Exposure 32

3.3.1.3. Vulnerability 34

3.3.2. Detailed analysis – Phase 2 (adaptation) 34

3.3.2.1. Impacts, likelihood, and climate risks 34

3.3.2.2. Likelihood 35

3.3.2.3. Impact 36

3.3.2.4. Risks 39

3.3.2.5. Adaptation measures 39

4. CLIMATE PROOFING AND PROJECT CYCLE MANAGEMENT (PCM) 41

5. CLIMATE PROOFING AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) 43

Annex A EU funding for infrastructure 2021-2027 46

Annex B Climate-proofing documentation and verification 49

Annex C Climate proofing and project cycle management (PCM) 52

Annex D Climate proofing and environmental impact assessment (EIA) 64

Annex E Climate proofing and strategic environmental assessment (SEA) 77

Annex F Recommendations in support of climate proofing 87

Annex G Glossary 89

List of figures

Figure 1: Climate proofing and the pillars on ‘climate neutrality’ and ‘climate resilience’ 10

Figure 2: Overview of the climate-proofing process from Table 1 12

Figure 3: Projections of global warming until the year 2100 16

Figure 4: Overview of the climate mitigation related process for climate proofing 20

Figure 5: The concept of ‘scope’ under the carbon footprint methodology 23

Figure 6: Shadow cost of carbon for GHG emissions and reductions in EUR/tCO 2 e, 2016-prices 27

Figure 7: Overview of the climate adaptation-related process for climate proofing 29

Figure 8: Indicative overview of the climate vulnerability and risk assessment, and the identification, appraisal and planning/integration of relevant adaptation measures 30

Figure 9: Overview of the screening phase with the vulnerability analysis 31

Figure 10: Overview of the sensitivity analysis 32

Figure 11: Overview of the exposure analysis 33

Figure 12: Overview of the vulnerability analysis 34

Figure 13: Overview of the climate risk assessment in phase 2 35

Figure 14: Overview of the likelihood analysis 36

Figure 15: Overview of the impact analysis 37

Figure 16: Overview of the risk assessment 39

Figure 17: Overview of the process to identify, appraise and plan/integrate adaptation options 40

Figure 18: Overview of climate proofing and project cycle management (PCM) 42

Figure 19: Bodies leading the different stages of project development 43

Figure 20: Environmental Assessments (EAs) and Project Cycle Management (PCM) 44

Figure 21: Overview of the components of the climate-proofing documentation 49

Figure 22: Overview of the project cycle phases and project development activities 52

Figure 23: Involvement of the project promoter in the different project cycle phases 54

Figure 24: Overview of the links between PCM and mitigation of climate change 57

Figure 25: Overview of links between PCM and adaptation to climate change 59

List of tables

Table 1: Summary of climate proofing of infrastructure projects 8

Table 2: Screening list – carbon footprint – examples of project categories 20

Table 3: Overview of the three scopes that form part of the carbon footprint methodology and the assessment of indirect emissions for road, rail, and urban public transport infrastructure 23

Table 4: Thresholds for the EIB carbon footprint methodology 25

Table 5: Shadow cost of carbon for GHG emissions and reductions in EUR/tCO 2 e, 2016 prices 26

Table 6: Shadow cost of carbon per year in EUR/tCO 2 e, 2016-prices 27

Table 7: Magnitude of consequence across various risk areas 37

Table 8: Stages, developer aims, and typical processes and analyses in the project cycle 52

Table 9: Overview of PCM and the mitigation of climate change 57

Table 10: Overview of PCM and the adaptation to climate change 59

Table 11: Overview of PCM and environmental assessments (EIA, SEA) 62

Table 12: Overview of the integration of climate change in the main stages of the EIA process 65

Table 13: Examples of key questions on climate mitigation for the EIA 73

Table 14: Examples of key questions on climate adaptation for the EIA 74

Table 15: Examples of climate change issues to consider as part of SEA 79

Table 16: Key questions for the SEA related to the mitigation of climate change 82

Table 17: Key questions for the SEA related to the adaptation to climate change 84

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document provides technical guidance on the climate proofing of infrastructure covering the programming period 2021-2027.

Climate proofing is a process that integrates climate change mitigation and adaptation measures into the development of infrastructure projects. It enables European institutional and private investors to make informed decisions on projects that qualify as compatible with the Paris Agreement. The process is divided into two pillars (mitigation, adaptation) and two phases (screening, detailed analysis). The detailed analysis is subject to the outcome of the screening phase, which helps reduce the administrative burden.

Infrastructure is a broad concept encompassing buildings, network infrastructure, and a range of built systems and assets. For instance, the InvestEU Regulation includes a comprehensive list of eligible investments under the sustainable infrastructure policy window.

The guidance contained in this document meets the following requirements laid down in the legislation for several EU funds, notably InvestEU, Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), Cohesion Fund (CF), and the Just Transition Fund (JTF):

— It is consistent with the Paris Agreement and EU climate objectives, which means it is consistent with a credible greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction pathway in line with the EU’s new climate targets for 2030 and climate neutrality by 2050, as well as with climate-resilient development. Infrastructure with a lifespan beyond 2050 should also factor in operation, maintenance and final decommissioning under conditions of climate neutrality, which may include circular economy considerations.

— It follows the principle ‘energy efficiency first’, which is defined in Article 2(18) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5).

— It follows the principle ‘do no significant harm’, which is derived from the EU’s approach to sustainable finance and enshrined in Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6) (Taxonomy Regulation). This guidance addresses two of the environmental objectives in Article 9 of the Taxonomy Regulation, i.e. climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Quantifying and monetising greenhouse gas emissions remain the basis for the cost-benefit and options analysis. The guidance includes an updated carbon footprint methodology and an assessment of the shadow cost of carbon.

The climate vulnerability and risk assessment remains the basis for identifying, appraising and implementing climate change adaptation measures.

It is important to specifically and credibly document climate-proofing practices and processes, in particular as documentation and verification of climate proofing forms an essential part of the rationale for making investment decisions.

Based on lessons learnt from climate proofing major projects over the period 2014-2020, this guidance integrates climate proofing with project cycle management (PCM), environmental impact assessments (EIA), and strategic environmental assessment (SEA) processes, and it includes recommendations to support national climate-proofing processes in Member States.

Table 1

Summary of climate proofing of infrastructure projects

Climate neutrality Mitigation of climate change Climate resilience Adaptation to climate change Screening – Phase 1 (mitigation): Compare the project with the screening list in Table 2 of this guidance: — If the project does not require a carbon footprint assessment, summarise the analysis in a climate neutrality screening statement, which in principle (7) gives a conclusion on climate proofing as regards climate neutrality; — If the project requires a carbon footprint assessment, proceed to phase 2 below. Screening – Phase 1 (adaptation): Carry out a climate sensitivity, exposure and vulnerability analysis in line with this guidance: — If there are no significant climate risks warranting further analysis, compile the documentation and summarise the analysis in a climate resilience screening statement, which in principle gives a conclusion on climate proofing as regards climate resilience; — If there are significant climate risks warranting further analysis, proceed to phase 2 below. Detailed analysis – Phase 2 (mitigation): — Quantify GHG emissions in a typical year of operation using the carbon footprint method. Compare with the thresholds for absolute and relative GHG emissions (see Table 4). If the GHG emissions exceed any of the thresholds, carry out the following analysis: — Monetise GHG emissions using the shadow cost of carbon (see Table 6) and firmly integrate the ‘energy efficiency first’ principle in the project design, options analysis, and cost-benefit analysis. — Verify the project’s compatibility with a credible pathway to achieve the overall 2030 and 2050 GHG emission reduction targets. As part hereof, for infrastructure with a lifespan beyond 2050, verify the project’s compatibility with operation, maintenance and final decommissioning under conditions of climate neutrality. Detailed analysis – Phase 2 (adaptation): — Carry out the climate risk assessment including the likelihood and impact analyses in line with this guidance. — Address significant climate risk by identifying, appraising, planning and implementing relevant and suitable adaptation measures. — Assess the scope and need for regular monitoring and follow-up, for example critical assumptions in relation to future climate change. — Verify consistency with EU and, as applicable, national, regional and local strategies and plans on the adaptation to climate change, and other relevant strategic and planning documents. Compile the documentation and summarise the analysis in the climate neutrality proofing statement, which in principle gives a conclusion on climate proofing as regards climate neutrality. Compile the documentation and summarise the analysis in the climate resilience proofing statement, which in principle gives a conclusion on climate proofing as regards climate resilience. Compile the above-mentioned documentation and summaries into a consolidated climate screening / proofing documentation, which in most cases will be an important part of the rationale for making investment decisions. Include information on planning and implementing the climate-proofing process.

2. SCOPE OF THE GUIDANCE

Infrastructure – our built environment – is essential for the functioning of our modern society and economy. It provides the basic physical and organisational structures and facilities that underpin many of our activities.

Most infrastructure has a long lifespan or service life. Many infrastructures in service today in the EU were designed and built many years ago. In addition, most of the infrastructure funded over the period 2021-2027 will remain in service well into the second half of the century and beyond. In parallel, the economy will undergo a transition to net zero GHG emissions by 2050 (climate neutrality) in line with the Paris Agreement and with the European Climate Law, including meeting the new GHG emission targets for 2030. However, climate change will continue to increase the frequency and severity of a range of climate and weather extremes, so the EU will pursue the aim to become a climate-resilient society, fully adapted to the unavoidable impacts of climate change, building up its adaptive capacity and minimising its vulnerability in line with the Paris Agreement, the European Climate Law and the EU strategy on adaptation to climate change (8). It is therefore essential to clearly identify – and consequently to invest in – infrastructure (9) that is prepared for a climate-neutral and climate-resilient future. The two pillars of climate proofing are illustrated in Figure 1.

Infrastructure is a broad concept, which includes:

— buildings, from private homes to schools or industrial facilities, which are the most common type of infrastructure and the basis for human settlement;

— nature-based infrastructures such as green roofs, walls, spaces, and drainage systems.

— network infrastructure crucial for the functioning of today’s economy and society, notably energy infrastructure (e.g. grids, power stations, pipelines), transport (10) (fixed assets such as roads, railways, ports, airports or inland waterways transport infrastructure), information and communication technologies (e.g. mobile phone networks, data cables, data centres), and water (e.g. water supply pipelines, reservoirs, waste water treatment facilities);

— systems to manage the waste generated by businesses and households (collecting points, sorting and recycling facilities, incinerators and landfills);

— other physical assets in a wider range of policy areas, including communications, emergency services, energy, finance, food, government, health, education and training, research, civil protection, transport, and waste or water;

— other eligible types of infrastructure may also be laid down in the fund-specific legislation, for instance, the InvestEU Regulation includes a comprehensive list of eligible investments under the sustainable infrastructure policy window.

With due regard to the competences of the concerned public authorities, this guidance is primarily intended for project promoters and experts involved in the preparation of infrastructure projects. It may also be a useful reference for public authorities, implementing partners, investors, stakeholders, and others. For instance, it includes guidance on how to integrate climate change issues in environmental impact assessments (EIA) and strategic environmental assessments (SEA).

Figure 1

Climate proofing and the pillars on ‘climate neutrality’ and ‘climate resilience’

In general, the project promoter will include in the project organisation the expertise needed for climate proofing and coordinate with other work in the project development process, for instance, environmental assessments. Depending on the specific nature of the project, this may include bringing in a climate-proofing manager and a team of experts in climate change mitigation and adaptation.

From the date of its initial publication by the European Commission, this guidance should be integrated in the preparation and climate proofing of infrastructure projects for the period 2021-2027. Infrastructure projects that have completed the environmental impact assessment (EIA) and received the development consent no later than by the end of 2021, have concluded the necessary funding agreements (including for EU-funding) and that will begin the construction works not later than in 2022, are strongly encouraged to carry out climate proofing following this guidance.

During the operation and maintenance of infrastructure, it may often be relevant to revisit the climate proofing and any critical assumptions. This can be carried out at regular intervals (e.g. 5-10 years) as part of the asset management. Complementary measures may be taken to further reduce GHG emissions and address evolving climate risks.

The time, cost and effort put into climate proofing should be proportionate to the benefits. This is reflected, for instance, in the way the climate proofing process is divided into two phases, with screening in phase 1 and a detailed analysis only carried out in phase 2 where warranted. Planning and integration into the project development cycle should help avoiding duplication of work, for instance between climate proofing and environmental assessments, reduce cost and the administrative burden.

3. CLIMATE PROOFING OF INFRASTRUCTURE

Figure 2 illustrates the two pillars and main steps of climate proofing. Each pillar is divided in two phases. The first phase is screening and the outcome determines whether the second phase should be carried out.

Figure 2

Overview of the climate-proofing process from Table 1

As shown in Figure 2, the climate-proofing process should be documented in a consolidated climate screening / proofing documentation, which differs according to the phases carried out (see Annex B).

3.1. Preparing for climate proofing

When applying for support under specific instruments, the project promoter prepares, plans and documents the climate-proofing process covering mitigation and adaptation. This includes:

— assessing and specifying the project context, and project boundaries and interactions;

— selecting the assessment methodology, including key parameters for the vulnerability and risk assessment;

— identifying who should be involved and allocating resources, time and budget;

— compiling key reference documents such as the applicable national energy and climate plan (NECP) and relevant adaptation strategies and plans, including for instance National and local disaster risk reduction strategies;

— ensuring compliance with applicable legislation, rules and regulations, for example on structural engineering and the environmental impact assessment (EIA), and, where available, the strategic environmental assessment (SEA).

In this guidance, climate proofing is described as a linear approach taken by following a sequence of specific steps. However, often it will be necessary to return to an earlier step in the project development cycle, for instance if an adaptation measure is included in the project, making it relevant to revisit the sensitivity analysis. It may also be necessary to go back a step to ensure that any changes (e.g. new requirements) are properly integrated.

It is important to have a good understanding of the project context, i.e. the proposed project and its objectives, including all ancillary activities needed to support the project’s development and operation. An impact of climate change on any of the project activities or components may undermine the success of the project. It is essential to understand the overall importance and functionality of the project itself and its part in the overall context/system and to assess how essential (11) this infrastructure is.

The methodology and approach to climate proofing should be planned and explained in a logical and clear manner, including its main limitations. It should specify the sources of data and information. It should also explain the level of detail, steps to follow, and level of uncertainty of the underlying data and analysis. The aim is provide accessible, transparent and comparable validation of the climate-proofing process to feed into the decision making process.

The preparation of climate proofing includes selecting a credible pathway to achieve the EU’s 2030 and 2050 GHG emission reduction targets in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement and the European Climate Law. This will typically require an expert assessment (12) taking into account targets and requirements. The aim is to ensure that the GHG emission reduction targets and the energy efficiency first principle are integrated into the project development cycle.

Note that the timescale for the climate vulnerability and risk assessment should correspond to the intended lifespan of the investment being financed under the project. The lifespan is often (considerably) longer than the reference period used in the cost-benefit analysis, for example.

For instance, one of the main concepts of the Eurocodes (13) is the design working life (DWL), defined as the period for which the structure will be used with anticipated maintenance but without major repair. The DWL of buildings and other common structures designed using Eurocodes is 50 years, and the DWL of monumental buildings and bridges is envisaged as 100 years. In this way, structures designed in 2020 will withstand climatic actions (e.g. snow, wind, thermal) and extreme events expected up to 2070 (as for buildings), and up to 2120 for bridges and monumental buildings.

The climatic data on which the current generation of the Eurocodes is based are mostly 10-15 years old, with some exceptions of recent updates of national data. National uptake of the Eurocodes – as regards the choice of nationally determined parameters (NDPs) relevant to selecting climatic actions – is analysed in the recent JRC report (14) on the state of harmonised use of the Eurocodes. The JRC also provides guidance for countries adopting the Eurocodes on how to map seismic and climatic action on structural design (15).

In 2016, work started on the second generation of the Eurocodes (expected by 2023). This should include revising and updating snow, wind and thermal-related measures, converting ISO standards on actions from waves and currents and on atmospheric icing; and preparing a document with the probabilistic basis for calculating partial safety factors and load combination factors, taking into account the variability and interdependence of climatic actions.

During the intended lifespan of the infrastructure project there could be significant changes in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events due to climate change, which should be taken into account. Projects should also factor in potential sea-level rise, which is projected to continue into the future even if global warming stabilises in accordance with the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement.

It is among the initial tasks of the project promoter and expert team to decide on the climate projection dataset(s) to be used for the climate vulnerability and risk assessment – and this should be documented.

In most cases, the required datasets may be available in the Member State concerned (16). If these national/regional datasets are not available, the following climate change information sources could be considered as an alternative basis for the analysis:

— Copernicus Climate Change Service (17) (C3S), offering inter alia climate projections within the Copernicus Climate Data Store (18) (CDS);

— Other credible national/regional sources (19) of climate change information, data and projections (20), e.g. for outermost regions data from the concerned Regional Climate Models (21).

— In addition to the Copernicus Climate Change Service (22), the Copernicus (23) programme includes the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (24), Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service (25), Copernicus Land Monitoring Service (26), Copernicus Security Service (27), and the Copernicus Emergency Management Service (28). These services may provide useful data complementing C3S;

— National risk assessments (29) where relevant and available;

— Overview (30) of disaster risks the European Union may face;

— European Climate Adaptation Platform (Climate-ADAPT (31));

— European Commission Joint Research Centre (32) (JRC);

— Disaster Risk Management Knowledge Centre (DRMKC) e.g. Risk Data Hub (33), PESETA IV datasets hosted and downloadable on the Risk Data Hub, with projections of potential impacts and methodologies (34); and Disaster Loss data (35);

— European Environment Agency (36) (EEA);

— IPCC Data Distribution Centre (DDC (37)), and the IPCC (38) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5 (39)), IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1,5 °C (40), IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land (41), preparation of the 6th Assessment Report (AR6 (42));

— World Bank Climate Change Knowledge Portal (43).

The Paris Agreement aims in Article 2(a) to ‘Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1,5 °C above pre-industrial levels’.

An infrastructure project that is adapted to 2 °C global warming would in principle be consistent with the agreed temperature goal. However, each individual Party (country) to the Paris Agreement must calculate how it will contribute to the worldwide temperature goal. The current pledges, in the form of the existing and submitted nationally determined contributions (NDCs) may still lead to about 3 °C global warming if the level of ambition does not increase (44), which is ‘far beyond the Paris Agreement goals of limiting global warming to well below 2 °C and pursuing 1,5 °C’. Therefore, it may be relevant to consider stress testing infrastructure projects – through the climate vulnerability and risk assessment – for higher levels of global warming. The current set of NDCs is subject to review ahead of COP26 in Glasgow November 2021, and the EU has already formally submitted (45) to the UN its higher level of ambition to achieve at least 55 % reduction by 2030 compared to 1990 levels.

The expected increase in the global average temperature is often essential to select the global and regional climate datasets. However, for a specific project location, the local climate variables may change in a different manner than the global average. For instance, the temperature increase is usually higher over land (where most infrastructure projects are located) than over the sea. For instance, the increase in the average temperature over land in Europe is generally higher than the increase in the global average temperature. Hence, the most adequate climate datasets must be selected, be them for a specific region or projections from downscaled models.

Recent climate projection datasets refer to the underlying representative concentration pathway (RCP). Four pathways have been selected for climate modelling and for the GHG trajectories used by the IPCC (46) in the fifth Assessment Report (AR5) (47). Virtually all currently available climate projections are based on these four RCPs. A fifth RCP1.9 (48) was published in relation to the IPCC Special Report on global warming of 1,5 °C (SR15 (49)).

The pathways are designated RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5, RCP 6.0 and RCP 8.5. Figure 3 shows the projection of global warming up to 2100 (relative to the period 1986-2005 for which the average global warming is about 0,6 °C above preindustrial levels (50)).

Most of the simulations for AR5 were carried out with prescribed CO2 concentrations reaching 421 ppm (RCP 2.6), 538 ppm (RCP 4.5), 670 ppm (RCP 6.0), and 936 ppm (RCP 8.5) by 2100.

For comparison, atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to rise rapidly with the average for May 2019 peaking at 414.7 parts per million (ppm) at the Mauna Loa Observatory (51).

For practical applications in climate proofing, RCP 4.5 may be usable for climate projections until about 2060. However, for subsequent years, RCP 4.5 may begin to underestimate the changes – in particular if GHG emissions prove higher than anticipated. Hence, it could be more relevant to use RCP 6.0 and RCP 8.5 for current projections until 2100. Nonetheless, warming under RCP8.5 is widely considered to be greater than current business-as-usual scenarios (52).

Figure 3

Projections of global warming until the year 2100

Source: Figure SPM.6 from the Summary for Policymakers, Synthesis Report, IPCC 5 th Assessment Report.

For initial screening-type analyses, it is recommended to use climate projections based on RCP 6.0 or RCP 8.5. If RCP 8.5 is used for the detailed climate vulnerability and risk assessment, there may be no further need for stress testing (53). RCP 4.5 may be more relevant for projects where it is a practical option to increase the level of climate resilience during its lifetime as and when needed. This will usually require the asset owner regularly monitoring climate change, impacts, and the level of resilience. For instance, it may be feasible to increase gradually the height of some flood defence systems.

Selecting climate projections is the responsibility of the project promoter together with the climate-proofing manager and technical specialists. It should be seen as an integrated part of project risk management. National guidance and rules must also be followed.

The IPCC 6th Assessment Report will use updated climate projections (based on CMIP6 (54)) compared to the 5th Assessment Report (CMIP5) and a new set of RCPs. Once available, it will be important to integrate the newest set of climate projections into the climate-proofing process. For instance, CMIP6 added a new scenario (SSP3-7.0), right in the middle of the range of baseline outcomes produced by energy system models, which could possibly replace RCP8.5 for the purpose of climate proofing.

In terms of the timeframe, climate projections should typically cover the above-referred timescale, i.e. the anticipated lifespan of the project. Decadal climate predictions (55) may be used for short-term projects, i.e. usually up to the next decade. Decadal predictions are based on current climate conditions (e.g. ocean temperatures) and recent past changes, which provides a reasonable degree of certainty for this timescale. For medium to longer-term projects, i.e. up to 2030 and until the end of the century and beyond, it will be necessary to use scenario-based climate projections.

The resources available in the Member States to develop climate-resilient infrastructure have been mapped in a study (56) undertaken by the Commission and published in 2018. The study uses seven criteria (data availability, guidance, methodologies, tools, design standards, system and legal framework, institutional capacity) and covers transport, broadband, urban development, energy, and water and waste sectors.

Initial experience from major projects over the period 2014-2020, where at the beginning the climate change related requirements were new and Member States had little prior experiences, reveals demonstrable and substantial progress in the quality of climate proofing, though some issues remain:

— Beneficiaries often find it challenging to demonstrate how the projects contribute to EU and national climate policy objectives.

— Beneficiaries’ knowledge of national and regional strategies and plans is often weak.

— For transport projects, a sufficiently detailed traffic model is usually needed to calculate absolute and relative GHG emissions. It should be used initially at the strategy and planning phase of the project cycle when the main choices affecting GHG emissions are made, and then later on as part of the cost-benefit analysis. Traffic models have been developed in most countries and regions/cities. A lack of traffic models can impede the analysis, e.g. the analysis of options, modal switches and relative GHG emissions.

— Projects in the water sector had the fewest issues in terms of climate change mitigation reporting, but other sectors, such as energy, had more difficulties integrating calculations of GHG emissions into the CBA.

— The use of climate change as a criterion for options analysis was found lacking almost in all projects reviewed, as most projects were based on an analysis of historical options, with the exception of dedicated climate adaptation projects.

— More substantial progress was observed in countries where the largest beneficiaries (e.g. transport authorities) started collecting their own climate change data and working on scenarios and adaptation needs. In some Member States, the planning system is retroactive (responding to development proposals) rather than proactive (i.e. steering development patterns toward low-carbon and resilient forms).

Information on urban adaptation in Europe can for instance be found in EEA report No 12/2020 (57). The report details the climate-related impacts on European cities and towns and the effectiveness and cost efficiency of adaptation measures.

Technical guidance on the application of ‘do no significant harm’ is available in Commission Notice 2021/C 58/01 (58) under the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) (59), which refers to this guidance on climate proofing of infrastructure 2021-2027. Commission staff working document ‘Guidance to Member States – Recovery and resilience plans’, SWD(2021) 12 final (60), encourages, as regards investments in infrastructure, to apply the guidance on climate proofing established under the InvestEU Regulation.

3.2. Mitigating climate change (climate neutrality)

Mitigating climate change involves decarbonisation, energy efficiency, energy savings, and deploying renewable forms of energy. It involves taking action to reduce GHG emissions or increase GHG sequestration and is guided by EU policy on emission reduction targets for 2030 and 2050.

Member States’ authorities play an important role in the implementation of the EU policy objectives for reduction targets and may establish particular requirements for achieving those objectives. The guidance in this section is without prejudice of the requirements established in the Member States and of the supervision role of public authorities thereof.

The principle (61) of ‘ energy efficiency first ’ emphasises the need to prioritise alternative cost-efficient energy efficiency measures when making investment decisions, in particular cost-effective end-use energy savings.

Quantifying and monetising GHG emissions can support investment decisions.

In addition, a substantial share of the infrastructure projects that will be supported in the period 2021-2027 will have a lifespan that extends beyond 2050. Therefore, an expert analysis is needed to verify whether the project is compatible with, for instance, operation, maintenance and final decommissioning in the overall context of net zero GHG emissions and climate neutrality.

This guidance recommends, where applicable, using the EIB carbon footprint methodology (to quantify GHG emissions) and the EIB shadow cost of carbon method (to monetise GHG emissions).

In this guidance, carbon foot printing is used not only to estimate the greenhouse gas emissions for a project when it is ready to be implemented, but more importantly, to support the analysis and integration of low-carbon solutions during the planning and design stages. It is therefore essential to integrate climate proofing in the project cycle management from the outset. Having carried out a thorough climate-proofing process can determine a project’s eligibility for funding.

It does not, however, prescribe a specific cost-benefit analysis methodology as this may depend on fund-specific lending requirements and other factors. For CEF Energy projects, for instance, the main references are the ENTSO-E and ENTSO-G cost-benefit analysis methodologies, in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (62). The European Commission’s Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects (63) is used for major projects in the period 2014-2020, and remains a relevant reference (for mitigation as well as adaptation).

In many Member States, a cost-benefit analysis is also used for smaller projects to capture and assess all externalities created by a project and its comprehensive impact and value for money from the point of view of the public. In 2021, the European Commission will publish a guide to economic appraisals, with a simplified toolkit, for optional use by financing institutions in the period 2021-2027.

Early-stage and consistent assessment of a project’s expected greenhouse gas emissions over the many development stages will help mitigate its impact on climate change. A range of choices, notably during the planning and design stages, may affect the project’s overall GHG emissions over its lifespan, from construction and operation until decommissioning.

In certain sectors, for instance transport, energy and urban development, it is mainly at planning level that effective action must be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, it is at this stage that the choice between modes to serve certain destinations or corridors is made (e.g. public transport versus private car), which is often an important factor affecting both energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Similarly, an important role is played by policy and ‘softer’ measures, for instance incentives to use public transport, biking and walking.

Carbon footprint methodologies can be extended, for example to transport network planning, to give an immediate assessment of the extent to which the plan is producing the expected positive impacts on GHG emissions. This could be one of the main key performance indications for such plans. The calculations are typically based on a traffic model that reproduces the status of traffic on the network (e.g. flows, capacity, and level of congestion).

A similar approach can be taken for urban development, in particular considering the impact of the location decision of certain activities on mobility and energy use, for instance urban planning options on the form of development (e.g. in terms of density, location, land-use mix, connectivity and permeability, and accessibility). Evidence shows that different urban forms and housing patterns affect greenhouse gas emissions, energy demand, resource depletion, etc.

Particular caution is needed in any infrastructure project fuelled by or carrying fossil fuel, even if it includes energy efficiency measures. In all cases, a specific assessment should be made to assess compatibility with and to avoid significant harm to climate change mitigation objectives.

For instance, in cities, the bulk of GHG emissions are generated by transport, energy use in buildings, electricity supply, and waste. Therefore, projects in these sectors should aim to achieve climate neutrality by 2050, which in practical terms implies net zero GHG emissions. In other words, carbon-free technologies are needed to achieve carbon neutrality.

Within the EU, all building projects – whether renovation or new build projects – must meet the requirements of the EU Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (64), which has been transposed by the Member States into national building codes. For renovations, this requires meeting cost‐optimum refurbishment levels. For new buildings, this means nearly zero‐energy buildings (NZEBs).

Figure 4

Overview of the climate mitigation related process for climate proofing

3.2.1. Screening – Phase 1 (Mitigation)

Table 2 guides the process of screening infrastructure projects in terms of their GHG emissions, which divides projects into two groups based on the project category.

Table 2

Screening list – carbon footprint – examples of project categories (65)

Screening Categories of infrastructure projects In general, depending on the scale of the project, a carbon footprint assessment WILL NOT be required in these project categories. With reference to the climate-proofing process for climate change mitigation in Figure 7, the process concludes with phase 1 (screening). — Telecommunications services — Drinking water supply networks — Rainwater and wastewater collection networks — Small-scale industrial waste water treatment and municipal waste water treatment — Property developments (66) — Mechanical/biological waste treatment plants — R&D activities — Pharmaceuticals and biotechnology In general, a carbon footprint assessment WILL (67) be required for these project categories. With reference to the climate-proofing process for climate change mitigation in Figure 7, the process for this type of project categories will include phase 1 (screening) and phase 2 with a detailed analysis. — Municipal solid waste landfills — Municipal waste incineration plants — Large wastewater treatment plants — Manufacturing industry — Chemicals and refining — Mining and basic metals — Pulp and paper — Rolling stock, ship, transport fleet purchases — Road and rail infrastructure (68), urban transport — Ports and logistic platforms — Power transmission lines — Renewable sources of energy — Fuel production, processing, storage and transport — Cement and lime production — Glass production — Heat and power generating plants — District heating networks — Natural gas liquefaction and re-gasification facilities — Gas transmission infrastructure — Any other infrastructure project category or scale of project for which the absolute and/or relative emissions could exceed 20 000 tonnes CO2e/year (positive or negative) (see Table 7)

3.2.2. Detailed analysis – Phase 2 (Mitigation)

The detailed analysis includes quantifying and monetising GHG emissions (and reductions) as well as assessing consistency with the climate targets for 2030 and 2050.

3.2.2.1. Carbon footprint methodology for infrastructure projects

This guidance recommends the Carbon Footprint Methodologies (69) of the European Investment Bank (EIB) for calculating the carbon footprints of infrastructure projects. The methodology includes the default emissions calculation approach for e.g.:

— Waste water and sludge treatment

— Waste treatment management facilities

— Municipal solid waste landfill

— Road transport

— Rail transport

— Urban transport

— Building refurbishment

— Ports

— Airports

To monetise greenhouse gas emissions, the EIB carbon footprint methodology can be used and complemented by the separate publication The Economic Appraisal of Investment Projects at the EIB (2013) (70) and the Shadow Cost of Carbon (see Section 3.2.2.4).

The EIB methodology is in line with the International Financial Institution Framework for a Harmonised Approach to Greenhouse Gas Accounting, published in November 2015.

Many infrastructure projects result in emission reductions or increases when compared to the scenario if the project were not carried out, referred to as baseline emissions. In addition, many projects emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere either directly (e.g. fuel combustion or production process emissions) or indirectly through purchased electricity and/or heat.

The greenhouse gases included in the EIB carbon footprint methodology include the seven gases listed in the UNFCCC Kyoto Protocol (71), namely: carbon dioxide (CO2); methane (CH4); nitrous oxide (N2O); hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs); perfluorocarbons (PFCs); sulphur hexafluoride (SF6); and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3). The greenhouse gas emission quantification process converts all emissions into tonnes of carbon dioxide called CO2e (equivalent) using Global Warming Potentials (GWP) (72).

The carbon assessment should be included throughout the project development cycle with a view to promoting low-carbon choices and options, and be used as a tool to rank and select options (including in EIA and SEA).

It is recommended to adopt the same approach in the planning stage, for instance in the transport sector, where the main options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions focus on the options related to the operational setup of the network and to the selection of transport modes and policies.

The carbon footprint methodology uses the concept of ‘scope’ defined by the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (73).

Figure 5

The concept of ‘scope’ under the carbon footprint methodology (74)

Source: Figure 1 from the publication ‘EIB Project Carbon Footprint Methodologies’.

Table 3

Overview of the three scopes that form part of the carbon footprint methodology and the assessment of indirect emissions for road, rail, and urban public transport infrastructure

Scope Road, rail and urban public transport infrastructure All other projects Scope 1: Direct greenhouse gas emissions physically occur from sources that are operated by the project. For example, emissions produced by the combustion of fossil fuels, by industrial processes and by fugitive emissions, such as refrigerants or methane leakage. If applicable: Fuel combustion, process / activity, fugitive emissions Yes: Fuel combustion, process / activity, fugitive emissions Scope 2: Indirect greenhouse gas emissions associated with energy consumption (electricity, heating, cooling and steam) consumed but not produced by the project. These are included because the project has direct control over energy consumption, for example by improving it with energy efficiency measures or switching to consume electricity from renewable sources. If applicable: Transport (mainly electric rail) infrastructure projects that are operated by the owner of the infrastructure Yes: Electricity, heating, cooling Scope 3: Other indirect greenhouse gas emissions that can be considered a consequence of the activities of the project (e.g. emissions from the production or extraction of raw material or feedstock and vehicle emissions from the use of road infrastructure, including emissions from the electricity consumption of trains and electric vehicles). Yes: Indirect greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles using transport infrastructure including modal shift effects If applicable: Direct and exclusive upstream or downstream scope 1 and 2 emissions

The carbon footprint methodology includes the following main steps:

(1) Define project boundary

(2) Define the assessment period

(3) Emission scopes to include

(4) Quantify absolute project emissions (Ab)

(5) Identify and quantify baseline emissions (Be)

(6) Calculate relative emissions (Re = Ab – Be)

The project boundary describes what to include in calculating the absolute and relative emissions:

— Absolute emissions are based on a project boundary that includes all significant scope 1, scope 2 and scope 3 emissions (as applicable) that occur within the project. For example, the boundary for a stretch of motorway would be the length of motorway set out in the finance contract as the project and the calculation of absolute emissions would cover the greenhouse gas emissions of vehicles using that particular stretch of motorway in a typical year.

— Relative emissions are based on a project boundary that adequately covers the ‘with project’ and ‘without project’ scenarios. It includes all significant scope 1, scope 2 and scope 3 emissions (as applicable), but may also require a boundary outside the physical limits of the project to represent the baseline. For example, without the motorway, traffic would increase on secondary roads outside the physical limits of the project. The relative emissions calculation will use a boundary that covers the entire region affected by the project.

The absolute (Ab) greenhouse gas emissions are the annual emissions estimated for an average year of operation for the project.

The baseline (Be) greenhouse gas emissions are the emissions that would be generated under the expected alternative scenario that reasonably represents the emissions that would be generated if the project is not carried out.

The relative (Re) greenhouse gas emissions represent the difference between the absolute emissions and the baseline emissions.

The absolute and relative emissions should be quantified for a typical year of operation.

The carbon assessment should be included throughout the project development cycle and be used as a tool to rank and select options with a view to promoting low-carbon choices and options as well as the energy efficiency first principle.

The carbon assessment presented in this guidance is therefore a more elaborate tool in support of the low-carbon transition, which goes well beyond the one-off assessment usually accompanying applications to a financial institution for funding.

The project boundary describes what to include in calculating absolute, baseline, and relative emissions.

All relevant information should be included when quantifying a project’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Carbon foot printing involves many forms of uncertainty, including uncertainty about the identification of secondary effects, about the baseline scenarios and baseline emission estimates. Therefore, greenhouse gas estimates are by definition approximate.

Uncertainties inherent in greenhouse gas estimates or calculations should be reduced as far as is practical, and estimation methods should avoid bias. Where the level of accuracy is low, the data and assumptions used to quantify greenhouse gas emissions should be conservative.

Therefore, the carbon footprint methodology should be based on conservative assumptions, values and procedures. Conservative values and assumptions are those that are more likely to overestimate absolute emissions and ‘positive’ relative emissions (net increases), and underestimate ‘negative’ relative emissions (net reductions). If there are differences in the level of uncertainty or bias between the ‘with project’ and ‘without project’ scenarios, particular care may be needed.

3.2.2.2. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions assessment

Greenhouse gas emissions should be assessed against this guidance for individual investment projects with significant emissions (75). In addition, users are encouraged to check the legislation applicable to his/her investment.

The following table sets out the thresholds as set out for the EIB carbon footprint methodology.

Table 4

Thresholds for the EIB carbon footprint methodology (76)

— Absolute emissions greater than 20 000 tonnes CO2e/year (positive or negative) — Relative emissions greater than 20 000 tonnes CO2e/year (positive or negative)

Infrastructure projects (77) with absolute and/or relative emissions above 20 000 tonnes CO2e/year (positive or negative) must be subject to both phase 1 (screening) and phase 2 (detailed analysis) of the climate-proofing process for climate change mitigation, as shown in Figure 7.

Research (78) (on the project portfolio of the EIB) indicates that the thresholds in Table 4 capture approximately 95 % of the absolute and relative greenhouse gas emissions from projects.

3.2.2.3. Baselines (carbon footprint, cost-benefit analysis)

The baseline for the carbon footprint methodology is often referred to as the ‘likely alternative’ to the plan/project, and for the cost-benefit analysis as the ‘counterfactual baseline scenario’. For certain projects, there may be a difference between these baselines. In such cases, it is important to ensure consistency between the quantification of greenhouse gas emissions and the cost-benefit analysis. This should be adequately described in the cost-benefit analysis (where applicable) and summarised in the climate-proofing documentation.

CBA typically takes the form of a comparison between the ‘with project’ and ‘without project’ scenarios. From a climate-proofing (mitigation) perspective, it is important that the baseline project scenario is a credible representation of EU climate policy. This would exclude, for instance, a baseline in which highly-carbon intensive fuels are still in use in 2050. By contrast, it should be compatible with a credible greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction pathway in line with the EU’s new climate targets for 2030 and climate neutrality by 2050.

3.2.2.4. Shadow cost of carbon

This guidance uses the shadow cost of carbon published by the EIB as the best available evidence (79) on the cost of meeting the temperature goal of the Paris Agreement (i.e. the 1,5 °C target). The shadow cost of carbon is measured in real terms and indicated in 2016 prices.

The shadow cost of carbon to be used for infrastructure projects for the period 2021-2027 is given in the table below (see also Table 6 with annual values for the shadow cost of carbon).

Table 5

Shadow cost of carbon for GHG emissions and reductions in EUR/tCO2e, 2016 prices

Year 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 EUR/tCO2e 80 165 250 390 525 660 800

Source: EIB Group Climate Bank Roadmap 2021-2025.

To give an example, consider a project being assessed for financing today. It will take four years to construct, and then operate from 2025 for 20 years – i.e. to 2045. The project plan forecasts emissions for each year of operation. For the first year of operation, emissions are valued at EUR 165 per tonne. The value of emissions estimated to occur in 2030 is EUR 250 per tonne. If the project is estimated to emit in 2045, the emissions are valued at EUR 660 per tonne.

For the avoidance of doubt, these figures are only used to estimate the value of net carbon savings or emissions in a cost-benefit analyses representing society’s point of view. Demand forecasts and other related aspects of economic analysis or economic viability of projects are driven by current market price signals, which are influenced by the full range of support policies.

The figure below illustrates the shadow cost of carbon for the period 2020-2050:

Figure 6

Shadow cost of carbon for GHG emissions and reductions in EUR/tCO2e, 2016-prices

Source: EIB Group Climate Bank Roadmap 2021-2025.

Table 6 below provides the shadow cost of carbon for each year over the period 2020-2050. The values in Table 6 are calculated on the basis of the values in Table 5.

Table 6

Shadow cost of carbon per year in EUR/tCO2e, 2016-prices

Year EUR/tCO2e Year EUR/tCO2e Year EUR/tCO2e Year EUR/tCO2e 2020 80 2030 250 2040 525 2050 800 2021 97 2031 278 2041 552 2022 114 2032 306 2042 579 2023 131 2033 334 2043 606 2024 148 2034 362 2044 633 2025 165 2035 390 2045 660 2026 182 2036 417 2046 688 2027 199 2037 444 2047 716 2028 216 2038 471 2048 744 2029 233 2039 498 2049 772

The shadow cost of carbon is a minimum value to be used to monetise greenhouse gas emissions and reductions. Higher values for the shadow cost of carbon can be used for the purpose of climate proofing and cost-benefit analysis, for instance when higher values are used in the Member State or by the lending institution concerned or where there are other requirements. The shadow cost of carbon may also be adjusted when more information becomes available.

The CBA will usually include discounting of monetised GHG emissions. Reference is made to the Commission Guide (80), which explains the social discount rate. The guide recommends that for the social discount rate 5 % is used for major projects in Cohesion countries and 3 % for the other Member States (81). Whereas the guide refers to the period 2014-2020, it remains a useful reference for the period 2021-2027. The climate-proofing documentation should describe the social discount rate used.

3.2.2.5. Verify compatibility with a credible GHG pathway to 2030 and 2050

The project promoter should verify the project’s compatibility with a credible pathway in line with (82) the EU’s 2030 and 2050 GHG emission reduction targets and with the goals of the Paris Agreement and the European Climate Law (see chapter 3.1). As part of this process, for infrastructure with a lifespan beyond 2050, the project promoter should also verify the project’s compatibility with for instance operation, maintenance and final decommissioning under conditions of climate neutrality. This may entail factoring in circular economy considerations early in the project development cycle and the transition to renewable energy sources.

In addition, Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 on the Governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action (Governance Regulation) provides a governance mechanism based on long-term strategies, integrated national energy and climate plans (NECPs) covering ten-year periods starting from 2021 to 2030, corresponding integrated national energy and climate progress reports by the Member States and integrated monitoring by the Commission.

The NECPs set out the national objectives, targets and contributions for the five dimensions of the Energy Union, including the dimension ‘decarbonisation’, which refers to the ‘long-term Union greenhouse gas emissions commitments consistent with the Paris Agreement, other objectives and targets, including sector targets and adaptation goals’.

The NECPs are an additional and relevant reference for verifying compatibility with a credible GHG pathway (when the NECPs are amended and assessed in 2023 to include the EU’s new targets for 2030 and climate neutrality by 2050 as per the European Climate Law).

The project promoter should demonstrate that the project’s greenhouse gas emissions will be limited in a way that is consistent with the EU’s overall objectives for 2030 and 2050, and any more ambitious targets for the sector to which the project belongs.

3.3. Adaptation to climate change (climate resilience)

Infrastructure (83) is usually long-lasting and may be exposed for many years to a changing climate with increasingly adverse and frequent extreme weather and climate impacts.

Under the supervision and control of the concerned public authorities, the climate vulnerability and risk assessment helps identify the significant climate risks. It is the basis for identifying, appraising and implementing targeted adaptation measures. This will help reduce the residual risk to an acceptable level.

The project promoter should provide to the public authorities all required information to verify that the acceptable level of residual climate risks has been set with due regard to all legal, technical or other requirements.

As explained in chapter 4 and Annex C, it is recommended to integrate the climate vulnerability and risk assessment from the beginning of the project development process (84), including EIA, because this will generally provide the broadest range of possibilities for selecting the optimal adaptation options.

For example, the project location, which is often decided at an early stage, can be decisive for the climate change vulnerability and risks assessment. There will usually be more constraints when the climate vulnerability and risk assessment is initiated later in the project development, which could lead to suboptimal solutions being chosen.

Figure 7

Overview of the climate adaptation-related process for climate proofing

Climate change adaptation measures for infrastructure projects centre around ensuring a suitable level of resilience to the impacts of climate change, which includes acute events such as more intense floods, cloudbursts, droughts, heatwaves, wildfires, storms and landslides and hurricanes, as well as chronic events such as projected sea-level rise and changes in average precipitation, soil moisture and air humidity.

In addition to factoring in the climate resilience of the project, there must be measures to ensure that the project does not increase the vulnerability of neighbouring economic and social structures. This could happen, for instance, if a project includes an embankment that could increase flood risk in the vicinity.

Figure 8

Indicative overview of the climate vulnerability and risk assessment, and the identification, appraisal and planning/integration of relevant adaptation measures

This guidance permits the use of alternative approaches to the described climate vulnerability and risk assessment that are recent and internationally recognised approaches and methodological frameworks, for instance the approach applied by the IPCC in the context of the 6th Assessment Report (AR6) (85). The aim remains to identify significant climate risks as the basis for identifying, appraising and implementing targeted adaptation measures.

3.3.1. Screening – Phase 1 (adaptation)

Analysing the vulnerability of a project to climate change is an important step in identifying the right adaptation measures to take. The analysis is broken down into three steps, comprising of a sensitivity analysis, an assessment of current and future exposure, and then a combination of the two for the vulnerability assessment.

Technical specialists typically specify clearly the level and resolution of data required to analyse the issues sufficiently.

The aim of the vulnerability analysis (86) is to identify the relevant climate hazards (87) for the given specific project type at the planned location. The vulnerability of a project is a combination of two aspects: how sensitive the project’s components are to climate hazards in general (sensitivity) and the probability of these hazards occurring at the project location now and in the future (exposure). These two aspects can be assessed separately (as described below) or together.

Figure 9

Overview of the screening phase with the vulnerability analysis

Figure 9 provides an overview of the sensitivity, exposure and vulnerability analysis, which constitute phase 1 (screening) of the full process illustrated in Figure 8.

An initial screening may focus on climate hazards ranked as ‘high’ in the sensitivity analysis and/or the exposure analysis, as the input to the vulnerability assessment.

3.3.1.1. Sensitivity

The aim of the sensitivity analysis is to identify which climate hazards are relevant to the specific type of project, irrespective of its location. For example, sea-level rise is likely to be a significant hazard for most seaport projects, irrespective of their location.

The sensitivity analysis should cover the project in a comprehensive manner, looking at the various components of the project and how it operates within the wider network or system, for example by distinguishing between the four themes:

— on-site assets and processes,

— inputs such as water and energy,

— outputs such as products and services,

— access and transport links, even if outside the direct control of the project.

Assigning sensitivity scores to project types is best carried out by technical experts, i.e. engineers and other specialists with good knowledge of the project.

In addition, the project design may critically depend on specific (engineering or other) parameters. For example, the design of a bridge could be critically dependent on the water level in the river it crosses; or the uninterrupted operation of a thermal power plant could be critically dependent on sufficient cooling water and the minimum water level and maximum water temperature in the adjacent river. It may be important to include such critical design parameters in the climate sensitivity analysis.

Figure 10 provides an overview of the sensitivity analysis, which is part of phase 1 (screening) as illustrated in Figure 7.

Figure 10

Overview of the sensitivity analysis

A score of ‘high’, ‘medium’ or ‘low’ should be given for each theme and climate hazard:

— high sensitivity: the climate hazard may have a significant impact on assets and processes, inputs, outputs and transport links;

— medium sensitivity: the climate hazard may have a slight impact on assets and processes, inputs, outputs and transport links;

— low sensitivity: the climate hazard has no (or an insignificant) impact.

3.3.1.2. Exposure

The aim of the exposure analysis is to identify which hazards are relevant to the planned project location, irrespective of the project type. For example, flooding could be a significant climate hazard for a location next to a river in a floodplain.

The exposure analysis therefore focuses on the location whereas the sensitivity analysis focuses on the type of project.

The exposure analysis can be split in two parts: exposure to the current climate and exposure to the future climate. Available historic and current data for the project location (or project alternative locations) should be used to assess current and past climate exposure. Climate model projections can be used to understand how the level of exposure may change in the future. Particular attention should be given to changes in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events.

Figure 11 provides an overview of the exposure analysis, which is part of the phase 1 (screening) as illustrated in Figure 7.

Figure 11

Overview of the exposure analysis

Different geographical locations can be exposed to different climate hazards. It is useful to understand how the exposure of different geographic areas in Europe will change as a result of changing climate hazards, as illustrated in the list below.

For instance:

— areas where people depend on natural resources for income/livelihood

— coastal areas, islands and offshore locations are particularly exposed to increasing storm surge heights, wave heights, coastal flooding and erosion;

— areas with low and falling seasonal precipitation are often more exposed to increasing risks of drought, subsidence and wildfire;

— areas with high and increasing temperature are often more at risk of heatwaves;

— areas with increased seasonal precipitation (possibly combined with more rapid snowmelt and cloudbursts) are often more exposed to flash floods and erosion;

— areas containing both tangible and intangible cultural heritage.

It is important to understand what the exposed areas are, and how they and the people living there will be affected, as often these locations will see the greatest benefits from proactive adaptation.

The more local and specific the data is, the more accurate and relevant the assessment will be (see e.g. the list of data sources for the future climate in section 3.1).

Some hazards might require site-specific data and studies, for instance flash floods.

3.3.1.3. Vulnerability

The vulnerability analysis combines the outcome of the analysis of sensitivity and the analysis of exposure (when separately assessed).

Figure 12 provides an overview of the vulnerability analysis, which brings together the findings from the sensitivity and exposure analyses (see Figure 7).

Figure 12

Overview of the vulnerability analysis

The vulnerability assessment aims to identify potential significant hazards and related risk and it forms the basis for the decision to continue to the risk assessment phase. Typically it unveils the most relevant hazards for the risk assessment (these can be considered as the vulnerabilities ranked as ‘high’ and possibly ‘medium’, depending on the scale). If the vulnerability assessment concludes that all vulnerabilities are ranked as low or insignificant in a justified manner, no further (climate) risk assessment might be needed (this concludes the screening and phase 1). Nonetheless, the decision on vulnerabilities to take forward to a detailed risk analysis will depend on the justified assessment of the project promoter and the climate assessment team.

The location of an infrastructure, together with the adaptive capacity of local businesses, governments and communities, may influence an asset's climate sensitivity and vulnerability. Vulnerability to multiple climate hazards can also be strongly sector specific and closely linked to the technology used for construction and operation.

3.3.2. Detailed analysis – Phase 2 (adaptation)

3.3.2.1. Impacts, likelihood, and climate risks

The risk assessment provides a structured method of analysing climate hazards and their impacts to provide information for decision making.

This process works by assessing the likelihoods and severities of the impacts associated with the hazards identified in the vulnerability assessment (or initial screening of relevant hazards), and assessing the significance of the risk to the success of the project.

This should be part of the overall project risk assessment logic that permeates the whole project development process, so that risk can be addressed holistically and not as a stand-alone assessment.

It is recommended to start the risk assessment process at the earliest opportunity in project planning, because risks identified early can usually be managed and/or avoided more easily and cost effectively.

The aim is to quantify the significance of the risks to the project in the current and future climate conditions.

Figure 13 provides an overview of the likelihood analysis, impact analysis, and risk assessment, which form the basis for identifying, appraising, selecting and implementing adaptation measures. The complete process is illustrated in Figure 8.

Figure 13

Overview of the climate risk assessment in phase 2

Compared to the vulnerability analysis, the risk assessment more readily facilitates identification of longer cause-effect chains linking climate hazards to how the project performs across several dimensions (technical, environmental, social/inclusion/accessibility and financial, etc.) and looks at interactions between factors. Hence, a risk assessment may identify issues that are not picked up by the vulnerability assessment.

ISO 14091 (88) uses the concept of ‘impact chains’, which is an effective tool that helps to better understand, visualise, systemise and prioritise the factors that drive risk in the system. Impact chains serve as an analytical starting point for the overall risk assessment. They specify which hazards potentially cause direct and indirect climate change impacts and therefore form the basic structure for the risk assessment. They serve as important communication tools to discuss what is to be analysed and which climate and socioeconomic, biophysical or other parameters should be taken into account. In this way, they are useful to identify the targeted adaptation actions to take.

The risk assessment may include expert judgement by the assessment team and a review of related literature/historical data. It often involves running a risk identification workshop (89) to identify hazards, consequences and key climate-related risks, and to agree on the extra analysis needed to gauge the significance of risks.

The detailed risk assessment typically takes the form of quantitative or semi-quantitative assessments, often involving numerical modelling. These are best performed during smaller meetings or expert analyses.

3.3.2.2. Likelihood

This part of the risk assessment looks at how likely the identified climate hazards are to occur within a given timescale, e.g. the lifetime of the project.

Figure 14 provides an illustrative overview of the likelihood analysis, part of phase 2 as illustrated in Figure 13. Alternative scales could also be used to assess likelihood, for instance the scale used by IPCC (90).

Figure 14

Overview of the likelihood analysis

For some climate risks there can be considerable uncertainty about the likelihood of occurrence. It may require using expert judgement, based on currently best available information and data from registers, statistics, simulations, and current/past knowledge drawn from consultations with stakeholders. This should also include references to national, regional and/or local climate data and projections. Additional consideration should be given to how the likelihood of the climate risks may evolve over time. For instance, climate change-driven increases in the average temperature may significantly raise the likelihood of certain climate risks over the lifespan of a project.

3.3.2.3. Impact

This part of the risk assessment looks at the consequences if the climate hazard identified occurs. This should be assessed on a scale of impact per hazard. This is also referred to as severity or magnitude.

The consequences generally relate to physical assets and operations, health and safety, environmental impacts, social impacts, impact on accessibility for persons with disabilities, financial implications, and reputational risk. The assessment may need to cover the adaptive capacity of the system in which the project operates. It may also be relevant to consider how fundamental this infrastructure is to the wider network or system (i.e. criticality) and whether it may lead to additional wider impacts and cascading effects.

Figure 15 provides an overview of the impact analysis, part of phase 2 as illustrated in Figure 13.

Figure 15

Overview of the impact analysis

Typically, infrastructure projects have long lifespans, often in the range of 30 to 80 years. Temporary and emergency works, for example, can have shorter lifespans however. Not all components of an infrastructure project need to be assessed for the same (long) lifespan. For example, railway tracks will be replaced (as part of regular maintenance) more often than the railway embankment. Infrastructure projects with a lifespan of under five years will often not require the use of climate projections, but should still be resilient to the current climate.

For a range of climate hazards it can be expected (91) that the likelihood and impacts will change during the lifespan of the project, as global warming and climate change unfolds. The projected changes in likelihood and impacts should be integrated in the risk assessment. For this purpose, it can be useful to divide the lifespan into a sequence of shorter periods (e.g. 10-20 years). Particular attention should be given to weather extremes and cascade effects.

As illustrated below, the risk assessment should cover the risk areas relevant to each climate change scenario, and several levels of consequences:

Table 7

Magnitude of consequence across various risk areas (*1) (92)

Risk areas Magnitude of consequence 1 Insignificant 2 Minor 3 Moderate 4 Major 5 Catastrophe Asset damage / Engineering / Operational Impact can be absorbed through normal activity An adverse event that can be absorbed by taking business continuity actions A serious event that requires additional emergency business continuity actions A critical event that requires extraordinary / emergency business continuity actions Disaster with the potential to lead to shut down or collapse or loss of the asset / network Safety and Health First aid case Minor injury, medical treatment Serious injury or lost work Major or multiple injuries, permanent injury or disability Single or multiple fatalities Environment No impact on baseline environment. Localised in the source area. No recovery required Localised within site boundaries. Recovery measurable within one month of impact Moderate harm with possible wider effect. Recovery in one year Significant harm with local effect. Recovery longer than one year. Failure to comply with environmental regulations / consent Significant harm with widespread effect. Recovery longer than one year. Limited prospect of full recovery Social No negative social impact Localised, temporary social impacts Localised, long-term social impacts Failure to protect poor or vulnerable groups (93). National, long-term social impacts Loss of social licence to operate. Community protests Financial (for single extreme event or annual average impact) (*2) x % IRR (*3) < 2 % of turnover x % IRR 2-10 % of turnover x % IRR 10-25 % of turnover x % IRR 25-50 % of turnover x % IRR > 50 % of turnover Reputation Localised, temporary impact on public opinion Localised, short-term impact on public opinion Local, long-term impact on public opinion with adverse local media coverage National, short-term impact on public opinion; negative national media coverage National, long-term impact with potential to affect the stability of the government Cultural Heritage and cultural premises Insignificant impact Short term impact. Possible recovery or repair. Serious damage with wider impact to tourism industry Significant damage with national and international impact Permanent loss with resulting impact on society

3.3.2.4. Risks

Having assessed the likelihood and the impact of each hazard, the significance level of each potential risk can be estimated by combining the two factors. The risks can be plotted on a risk matrix (as part of the overall project risk assessment) to identify the most significant potential risks and those where adaptation measures need to be taken.

Figure 16

Overview of the risk assessment

Figure 16 provides an overview of the risk assessment, which brings together the findings of the likelihood and impact analysis (see Figure 13).

Judging what is an acceptable level of risk, what is significant and what not is the responsibility of the project promoter and expert team that carries out the assessment, specific to the circumstances of the project.

Whatever categorisation is used must be defendable, clearly specified and described in a clear and logical manner, and coherently integrated into the overall project risk assessment. For example, it may be considered that a catastrophic event, even if it is rare or unlikely, still represents an extreme risk to the project as the consequences are so severe.

3.3.2.5. Adaptation measures

If the risk assessment concludes that there are significant climate risks to the project, the risks must be managed and reduced to an acceptable level.

For each significant risk identified, targeted adaptation measures should be assessed. The preferred measures should then be integrated into the project design and/or its operation to improve climate resilience (94).

Figure 17 provides an overview of the process to identify, appraise/select, and implement/integrate/plan adaptation options, building on the preceding steps shown in Figure 8.

Figure 17

Overview of the process to identify, appraise and plan/integrate adaptation options

There is an increasing volume of literature and experience on adaptation options, appraisal and planning (95), as well as related resources (96) in the Member States.

More information on adaptation planning in the Member States is available on Climate-ADAPT (97).

Adaptation will often involve adopting a mix of structural and non-structural measures. Structural measures include modifying the design or specification of physical assets and infrastructure, or adopting alternative or improved solutions. Non-structural measures include land-use planning, improved monitoring or emergency response programmes, staff training and skills transfer activities, development of strategic or corporate climate risk assessment frameworks, financial solutions such as insurance against supply chain failure or alternative services.

Different adaptation options should be assessed to find the right measure or mix of measures that can be implemented to reduce the risk to an acceptable level.

Settling on the ‘acceptable level’ of risk depends on the expert team carrying out the assessment and the risk that the project promoter is prepared to accept. For example, there may be aspects of the project considered to be non-essential infrastructure where the costs of adaptation measures outweigh the benefits of avoiding the risks and the best option could be to allow the non-essential infrastructure to fail under certain circumstances.

Given the considerable uncertainty in future predictions for climate change hazards, the key is often to identify adaptation solutions (where possible) that will perform well in the current situation and in all future scenarios. Such measures are often termed low or no-regret options.

It may also be appropriate to consider flexible/adaptive measures such as monitoring the situation and only implementing physical measures when the situation reaches a critical threshold (or considering adaptation pathways (98)). This option may be particularly useful when climate predictions show high levels of uncertainty. It is appropriate as long as the thresholds or trigger points are clearly set out and the future proposed measures can be proven to address the risks sufficiently. Monitoring should be integrated in the infrastructure management processes.

Assessing the adaptation options can be quantitative or qualitative, depending on the availability of information and other factors. In some circumstances, such as relatively low-value infrastructure with limited climate risks, it may be sufficient with a rapid expert assessment. In other circumstances, in particular for options with significant socioeconomic impact, it will be important to use more comprehensive information, for example on the climate hazard’s probability distribution, the economic value of the associated (avoided) damages and the residual risks.

The next step is to integrate the appraised adaptation options into the project, at the right development stage, including investment and finance planning, monitoring and response planning, defining roles and responsibilities, organisational arrangements, training, engineering design and to ensure that the options comply with national guidelines and applicable law.

In addition, as good management practice, ongoing monitoring should be carried out throughout the operational lifetime of the project in order to: (i) check the accuracy of the assessment and feed into future assessments and projects; and (ii) identify whether specific trigger points or thresholds are likely to be reached, indicating the need for additional adaptation measures (i.e. staged adaptation).

The adaptation pillar of climate proofing should include:

— verifying the infrastructure project’s consistency with EU and, as applicable, national, regional and local strategies and plans on adaptation to climate change, and other relevant strategic and planning documents; and

— assessing the scope and need for regular monitoring and follow-up, for example of critical assumptions in relation to future climate change.

Both aspects should be properly integrated into the project development cycle.

4. CLIMATE PROOFING AND PROJECT CYCLE MANAGEMENT (PCM)

Project cycle management (PCM) is the process of planning, organising, coordinating, and verifying a project effectively and efficiently throughout its phases, from planning, implementation, operation to decommissioning.

Climate proofing should be integrated into the project cycle management from the outset, as illustrated in Figure 18 and explained in detail in Annex C.

Figure 18

Overview of climate proofing and project cycle management (PCM)

The climate-proofing process may involve different bodies taking the lead in different stages of the project development cycle. For instance, public authorities may lead the strategy/plan stage, the project promoter during the feasibility/design stage, and asset owners and managers later on.

The climate-proofing documentation is often verified before the project promoter submits the project application for approval to the financier, as illustrated in Figure 19. In this case, the verification should be carried out by an independent verifier. However, the documentation could also be verified by the financier as an initial step in the process leading to the investment decision.

Figure 19

Bodies leading the different stages of project development

5. CLIMATE PROOFING AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA)

Climate change considerations may form an important part of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of a project. This applies to both pillars of climate proofing, i.e. climate change mitigation and adaptation.

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is defined by Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (99) as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (100) (hereafter referred to as the EIA Directive).

Directive 2014/52/EU (the 2014 EIA Directive) applies, in accordance with Article 3, to projects for which screening is initiated (for Annex II projects), or the scoping was initiated or the EIA report was submitted by the developer (for Annexes I and II projects subject to an EIA procedure) on/after 16 May 2017.

Directive 2011/92/EU (the 2011 EIA Directive) applies to projects for which the screening was initiated (for Annex II projects), or the scoping was initiated or the EIA report was submitted by the developer (for Annexes I and II projects subject to an EIA procedure) before 16 May 2017.

The amended EIA Directive includes provisions on climate change. For projects under the 2014 EIA Directive, there is an overlap between the EIA process and the climate-proofing process. The two processes should be planned together to take advantage of the overlap.

The EIA applies to public and private projects listed in Annex I and II to the EIA Directive. All projects listed in Annex I are considered as having significant effects on the environment and are therefore subject to an EIA. For projects listed in Annex II, the national authorities must decide whether an EIA is needed. This is carried out through a screening procedure, by which the competent authority assesses whether a project would have significant effects on the basis of thresholds/criteria or a case-by-case examination, while taking into account the criteria laid down in Annex III to the EIA Directive.

This section focuses on the projects subject to an EIA, i.e. Annex I projects and Annex II projects ‘screened in’ by the competent authorities.

The projects listed in Annex I and II to the EIA Directive (incl. any changes or extensions to projects, which by virtue of, inter alia, its nature or scale, present risks that are similar, in terms of their effects on the environment, to those posed by the project itself) will, based on the indicated project types, usually warrant climate proofing (mitigation and/or adaptation).

For Annex II projects ‘screened out’ by the competent authorities under the 2011 EIA Directive, i.e. when an EIA is not required, it may nonetheless be relevant to carry out climate proofing in line with this guidance, for instance to comply with the legal basis for the targeted EU funding.

Figure 20

Environmental Assessments (EAs) and Project Cycle Management (PCM)

See Annex D for further guidance on climate change considerations in the EIA.

Lastly, climate change considerations may be an important component of the strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of a plan or programme, setting the framework for developing certain projects. This applies to both pillars of climate proofing, i.e. climate change mitigation and adaptation. See Annex E for guidance on climate proofing and SEA. However, with reference to Figure 23, this may be outside the scope of the project promoter.

(1) Regulation (EU) 2021/523 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 March 2021 establishing the InvestEU Programme and amending Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 (OJ L 107, 26.3.2021, p. 30).

(2) Regulation (EU) 2021/1153 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2021 establishing the Connecting Europe Facility and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1316/2013 and (EU) No 283/2014 (OJ L 249, 14.7.2021, p. 38).

(3) Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund Plus, the Cohesion Fund, the Just Transition Fund and the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and financial rules for those and for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, the Internal Security Fund and the Instrument for Financial Support for Border Management and Visa Policy (OJ L 231, 30.6.2021, p. 159).

(4) Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021 establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility (OJ L 57, 18.2.2021, p. 17).

(5) Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the Governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action, amending Regulations (EC) No 663/2009 and (EC) No 715/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Directives 94/22/EC, 98/70/EC, 2009/31/EC, 2009/73/EC, 2010/31/EU, 2012/27/EU and 2013/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Directives 2009/119/EC and (EU) 2015/652 and repealing Regulation (EU) No 525/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 328, 21.12.2018, p. 1), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32018R1999

(6) Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2020 on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment, and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 (OJ L 198, 22.6.2020, p. 13), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32020R0852

(7) Fund-specific requirements on e.g. the cost-benefit analysis may include GHG emissions.

(8) EU adaptation strategy: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2021:82:FIN

(9) New infrastructure as well as e.g. renewal, upgrading and extension of existing infrastructure.

(10) As reference on sustainable connectivity, see e.g. the Joint Communication ‘Connecting Europe and Asia – Building blocks for an EU Strategy’, JOIN(2018) 31 final, 19.9.2019.

(11) Certain infrastructure is designated ‘critical infrastructure’ in accordance with Council Directive 2008/114/EC of 8 December 2008 on the identification and designation of European critical infrastructures and the assessment of the need to improve their protection (OJ L 345, 23.12.2008, p. 7) includes the following definition. This guidance on climate proofing can be applied to infrastructure irrespective of whether it is designated ‘critical infrastructure’ or not.

(12) Taking into account, for instance, the guidance on aligning new projects with pathways towards low GHG emissions in the EIB Climate Bank Roadmap: https://www.eib.org/en/publications/the-eib-group-climate-bank-roadmap

(13) The Eurocodes are state-of-the-art reference design codes for buildings, infrastructures and civil engineering structures. They are the recommended reference for technical specifications in public contracts and designed to result in more uniform levels of safety in construction throughout Europe.

(14) JRC Report: Sousa, M.L., Dimova, S., Athanasopoulou, A., Iannaccone, S. Markova, J. (2019), State of harmonised use of the Eurocodes, EUR 29732, doi:10.2760/22104, https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC115181

(15) JRC Report: P. Formichi, L. Danciu, S. Akkar, O. Kale, N. Malakatas, P. Croce, D. Nikolov, A. Gocheva, P. Luechinger, M. Fardis, A. Yakut, R. Apostolska, M.L. Sousa, S. Dimova, A. Pinto, Eurocodes: background and applications. Elaboration of maps for climatic and seismic actions for structural design with the Eurocodes, EUR 28217, doi:10.2788/534912, JRC103917, https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC103917

(16) 2018 Study on ‘Climate change adaptation of major infrastructure projects’ undertaken for DG REGIO: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/studies/2018/climate-change-adaptation-of-major-infrastructure-projects

(17) Copernicus C3S: https://climate.copernicus.eu/

(18) Copernicus CDS: https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/#!/home

(19) 2018 Study on ‘Climate change adaptation of major infrastructure projects’ undertaken for DG REGIO: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/studies/2018/climate-change-adaptation-of-major-infrastructure-projects

(20) Horizon 2020 projects on climate and water resilience, for instance, CLAIRCITY, ICARUS, NATURE4CITIES, GROWGREEN, CLARITY, CLIMATE-FITCITY.

(21) https://cordex.org/

(22) Copernicus Climate Change: https://www.copernicus.eu/en/services/climate-change

(23) Copernicus: https://www.copernicus.eu/en

(24) Copernicus Atmosphere: https://www.copernicus.eu/en/services/atmosphere

(25) Copernicus Marine: https://www.copernicus.eu/en/services/marine

(26) Copernicus Land: https://www.copernicus.eu/en/services/land

(27) Copernicus Security: https://www.copernicus.eu/en/services/security

(28) Copernicus Emergency: https://www.copernicus.eu/en/services/emergency

(29) Under Decision No 1313/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 924), http://ec.europa.eu/echo/what/civil-protection/mechanism_en and http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32013D1313

(30) SD(2020) 330 final, https://ec.europa.eu/echo/sites/echo-site/files/overview_of_natural_and_man-made_disaster_risks_the_european_union_may_face.pdf

(31) Climate-ADAPT: https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/

(32) JRC: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/research-topic/climate-change and https://data.jrc.ec.europa.eu/collection?q=climate and the JRC paper: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC109146/mapping_of_risk_web-platforms_and_risk_data_online_final.pdf (the latter includes a list of exposure/vulnerability datasets at EU level but also used by Member States).

(33) Risk Data Hub: https://drmkc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/risk-data-hub/#/

(34) PESETA IV: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/peseta-iv

(35) Disaster Loss data: https://drmkc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/risk-data-hub#/damages

(36) EEA: https://www.eea.europa.eu/

(37) IPCC Data Distribution Centre (DDC): http://www.ipcc-data.org/ and https://www.ipcc.ch/data/

(38) IPCC: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, https://www.ipcc.ch/

(39) IPCC 5th Assessment Report (AR5): https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/

(40) IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1,5 °C: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

(41) IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/srccl/

(42) IPCC 6th Assessment Report (AR6) (planned for 2021 and 2022): https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/

(43) World Bank Climate Change Knowledge Portal: https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/

(44) UN Environment Programme (UNEP, UNEP DTU) – The Emissions Gap Report 2020: https://www.unep.org/emissions-gap-report-2020

(45) https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2020/12/18/paris-agreement-council-transmits-ndc-submission-on-behalf-of-eu-and-member-states/ and https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14222-2020-REV-1/en/pdf

(46) IPCC: United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: https://www.ipcc.ch/

(47) IPCC AR5: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/

(48) https://www.carbonbrief.org/new-scenarios-world-limit-warming-one-point-five-celsius-2100

(49) IPCC SR15: Special report on the impacts of global warming of 1,5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global GHG emission pathways, https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

(50) The period 1986-2005 is about 0,6 °C warmer than pre-industrial based on a simple comparison between figures SPM.1 and SPM.6 of the Summary for Policy Makers, IPCC 5th Assessment Report (AR5):

— SPM.1: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SPM.1_rev1-01.png

— SPM.6: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SPM.06-01.png

See also https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0007.1 (which estimates the difference to be between 0,55 °C and 0,80 °C).

(51) https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/mlo/

(52) https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-the-high-emissions-rcp8-5-global-warming-scenario

(53) For larger or longer-term projects in particular, the climate manager and expert(s) may consider taking a more robust approach involving additional RCPs and climate models.

(54) CMIP6: https://www.carbonbrief.org/cmip6-the-next-generation-of-climate-models-explained

(55) https://www.wcrp-climate.org/dcp-overview

https://www.dwd.de/EN/research/climateenvironment/climateprediction/climateprediction_node.html;jsessionid=1994BFE322D4CE5BA377CE5F57A2FE48.live21061

https://www.dwd.de/EN/climate_environment/climateresearch/climateprediction/decadalprediction/decadalprediction_node.html;jsessionid=3165E97F071FC5301708ED4EB6F7E9E5.live21061

(56) 2018 Study on ‘Climate change adaptation of major infrastructure projects’ undertaken for DG REGIO: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/studies/2018/climate-change-adaptation-of-major-infrastructure-projects

(57) EEA Report No 12/2020, Urban adaptation in Europe: how cities and towns respond to climate change, European Environment Agency, https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/urban-adaptation-in-europe

(58) DNSH: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.C_.2021.058.01.0001.01.ENG

(59) RRF: https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/recovery-coronavirus/recovery-and-resilience-facility_en

(60) https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/document_travail_service_part1_v2_en.pdf and https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/document_travail_service_part2_v3_en.pdf

(61) Energy efficiency first is defined in Article 2(18) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1999, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2018.328.01.0001.01.ENG

(62) Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2013 on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure and repealing Decision No 1364/2006/EC and amending Regulations (EC) No 713/2009, (EC) No 714/2009 and (EC) No 715/2009 (OJ L 115, 25.4.2013, p. 39), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT