Integrated Guidance for Climate-Resilient Infrastructure

Based on the review of over 150 existing publications and tools on climate-resilient infrastructure, the following key actions have been identified to support practitioners in integrating climate resilience into infrastructure development in the Feasibility and Preparation phase of the infrastructure lifecycle. These actions are summarized in the table below and grouped by theme. Each action is further elaborated on in this section and references and links to key publication and tools are shared.

View all Themes and Actions

Theme 1: Understand Climate Risks and Define Goals

Embedding climate resilience during the Feasibility & Preparation phase begins with a solid understanding of climate risks and their systemic interdependencies, building on insights and results from previous phases (see Policies and Plans phase). Practitioners can establish a clear evidence base by identifying climate risks and engaging stakeholders to align resilience goals with societal and investment priorities based on goals from previous phases (for example, National Adaption Plans). Defining resilience goals and metrics early ensures that they carry equal weight to financial and technical project parameters throughout the project life cycle, creating a consistent foundation for resilient decision-making.

3.1.1 Conduct climate risk assessment of project and interdependency screening

Objectives

If climate risks have not yet been assessed at the project level, they should be examined in depth at this stage to understand how assets, operations, and systems might be affected by climate hazards, both immediately and over the full asset life cycle, and to inform future decisions. Otherwise, projects might risk mis-design or maladaptation. This climate risk transparency also includes mapping out interdependencies of critical infrastructure sectors to avoid cascading failures, especially those triggered by climate risks. The aim is to provide a data-driven basis that guides resilience and adaptation choices for feasibility assessments and project planning.

Best Practice

Infrastructure owners and operators as well as designers and technical advisors can consider the following five best practices:

• This assessment should leverage and expand on existing data from National Adaptation Plans, sectoral plans, open data sources, or green project pipelines, wherever possible (see Theme 2.1 in the Prioritisation phase and  and Action 1.5.1 in the Policies and Plans phase).
• Picking an adequate climate data source can be a barrier due to the large number and varying quality of offerings; the best practice is to use and validate reliable, transparent climate data that meets recognised standards and evaluate the credibility, resolution, and relevance of datasets. Finally, sources and limitations should be documented to ensure consistency, traceability, and confidence in the analysis. Additional data sources include relevant project documents (for example, project proposal, location data and map) and existing studies from previous phases (for example, national climate risks assessments, geological and hydrogeological surveys) that have been conducted on similar project types and locations or with exposure to similar hazards (GCA, 2025).^[3]
• It is crucial to account for uncertainty by using multiple climate scenarios and highlighting the uncertainty within the projections.
• Adopting a systems mindset with multi-sector analysis can help identify critical supporting infrastructure and links to communities and vulnerable groups and integrate insights into decision-making across design, procurement, contracts, and budgeting.
• Alignment with recognised standards is important – and where national standards are mature, international benchmarks can be built on and adopted. Practitioners may prioritise long-term resilience by emphasising the resilience dividend (avoided losses, reliability, and socioeconomic stability) and build local capacity by strengthening local technical skills in climate science, systems modelling, and interdependency analysis as well as institutional capacities while closing data-quality gaps.

Process, Tools & Guidance

Climate Risk Screening

An initial climate risk screening qualitatively scans hazards and interdependencies, aligns with national thresholds, and flags areas that need granular assessment.

Useful tools include:

• GPSC/World Bank Climate and Disaster Risk Screening Tool^[4]
• ADB Climate Risk Management (CRM) Screening^[5]
• IIGCC Physical Climate Risk Appraisal Methodology (PCRAM) 2.0^[6]

Climate Risk Assessment

For areas flagged during the risk screening, a granular climate risk assessment is required to evaluate exposure, vulnerability, and socioeconomic impacts across scenarios and timelines, following standards such as ISO and aligning with national requirements. There is a broad landscape of tools for different user maturity and sectors – from raw climate data to analytical outputs to end-to-end solutions, such as climate risk assessments.

A guidance note by the World Bank proposes a simple methodology for climate stress tests: Integrating Climate Change & Natural Disasters in the Econ. Analysis of Projects: A Disaster & Climate Risk Stress Test Methodology^[7].

Interdependency Screening

An interdependency screening can identify and map critical links (for example, power, water, transport) and potential cascading failures (UNDRR Principles for Resilient Infrastructure, 2022^[8]). These risks can then be prioritised by ranking hazards and dependencies by likelihood and impact against predefined tolerance criteria.

The following guidance on interdependency screenings can be used:

• C40 guidance on infrastructure interdependencies in cities^[9]
• CISA Analysis of Critical Infrastructure Dependencies and Interdependencies^[10]
• International Science Council Briefing Note on Systemic Risk (2022)^[11]
• UNDRR Principles for Resilient Infrastructure (2022)^[8]
• Frameworks such as the World Bank Resilience Rating System^[12] can be used to score and focus effort wherever disruption potential is highest.

3.1.2 Engage national, sectorial, and local stakeholders to understand needs and priorities to inform resilience goals, feasibility assessment, and project preparation

Objectives

Engagement is needed to acquire a systems-thinking approach to infrastructure and help surface local knowledge, cross-sector dependencies, and co-benefits, such as nature-based solutions and social equity. National, sectorial, and local needs and priorities are therefore reflected in the Feasibility & Preparation phase.

Leveraging local knowledge to refine project scope, improve resilience and design choices, and manage political, social, environmental, and institutional risks of resilience measures early is key.

Joint dialogue across sectors should also identify opportunities and needs for shared resilience measures that require joint action such as broader flood barriers, and avoid maladaptation.

The process also aims to improve the legitimacy of resilience measures through transparent, ongoing engagement that meets formal requirements and reduces delays and resistance. For instance, 88% of OECD countries have a formal requirement to consider and respond to the inputs from stakeholder consultations, see OECD (2022)^[13]. Each of these measures can improve resilience outcomes (see C40 Inclusive Community Engagement Playbook, 2019)^[14].

Best Practices

Infrastructure owners and operators as well as government, users, and investors can consider the following three best practices:

• The engagement should be inclusive and equitable by using targeted outreach and accessible formats to involve affected, underrepresented, or vulnerable groups, such as women, informal workers, the elderly, and people with disabilities (see C40 Inclusive Community Engagement Playbook, 2019)^[14].
• Expectations management is central, as stakeholders may overestimate what they can influence, and conflicting interests and trade-offs can be inevitable. The process should accommodate grievance mechanisms (see PPIAF, 2025).^[15]
• It is best practice to align engagement with national requirements, MDB standards (for example, EBRD^[16] and ADB )^[17] and PPP guidance, and relevant certifications (for example, FAST-Infra, Blue Dot Network (also see 4.3.2 Best practices in the Funding and Financing phase) to keep funding options open. One frequent requirement is, for example, to consider local capacity-building to strengthen technical and institutional capabilities.

Process, Tools & Guidance

Data Collection and Stakeholder Identification

The process begins with data collection and stakeholder identification, compiling disaggregated datasets, such as gender, income, and age. This should be done using various types of data, such as register data and focus groups (see PPIAF^[18]; USAID & NREL^[19] ). Based on a longlist of stakeholders, a decision is made in terms of which groups may require specific attention in the development of the project, such as national authorities, donors, local communities, the sectorial ecosystem, and vulnerable populations.

The approach and tools used should be tailored by regulatory context:

For regions with advanced standards, it is important to ensure full regulatory compliance with local regulations and use additional guidelines, such as the following:

• PPIAF Stakeholder Identification, Engagement and Empowerment^[20]
• C40 Inclusive Community Engagement Playbook^[14]
• Energy: USAID & NREL Good practices to support robust stakeholder engagement in multi-sector energy transition planning^[19]

For regions with developing standards, climate adaptation should be proactively integrated and precedents that regulators can generalise by localising international best practices set (for example, sectorial guidance).

Understand Needs and Priorities

To enable meaningful input, it is important to understand the needs and priorities of stakeholder groups and how climate change may alter the project’s impacts on them. It is therefore best practice to create safe grievance and feedback channels, and structure consultations around key planning decisions affecting resilience (for example, project need, criteria, siting).

The following guidance can be used:

• OECD Infrastructure Governance/Toolkit (participation, coordination, evidence-informed planning) (2025)^[21]
• PPIAF Stakeholder Identification, Engagement and Empowerment^[22]
• C40 Inclusive Community Engagement Playbook (2019)^[14]
• NIST Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems (2016)^[23]
• NIST Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems (2020)^[24]

Sector-specific guidelines, such as for energy, include: USAID & NREL Strategies & good practices to support robust stakeholder engagement in multi-sector energy transition planning (2024).^[19]

Continued Dialogue

Stakeholder dialogue should continue throughout the project life cycle, maintaining regular efforts to keep stakeholders informed (in line with UNDRR (2023)^[25]  Principle P4.4 Encourage community participation) by reporting back (for example, “you said,  we did/did not” and why) and updating engagement plans whenever project parameters change.

MDBs provide guidance on the continuity of process, such as ADB Stakeholder Engagement and Information Disclosure^[17] and EBRD Environmental and Social Requirement 10: Stakeholder Engagement^[16].

3.1.3 Define climate resilience goals and associated metrics to be considered on par with project and financial decision parameters in all steps of the life cycle

Objectives

The objective is to formulate common resilience goals that align stakeholders on the importance of resilience and clearly articulate resilience intent in the project mandate for relevant hazard parameters (see UNDRR, 2023)^[25]. The goals should be measurable. Therefore, it is important to define resilience KPIs and metrics, such as service continuity and recovery time, which should be considered as decision criteria on par with project and financial decision parameters. Commitment to embedding resilience goals and metrics across all project stages and throughout the asset’s lifetime ensures that resilience remains equal in weight to financial and technical factors.

Best Practices

Infrastructure owners and operators can consider the following five best practices:

• Resilience goals should be outcome- and impact-based (rather than input-based), focusing on both project-level and system-wide resilience of and through
• The goal and the associated metrices should be in alignment with the Paris Agreement, national policies, and investor expectations, such as the World Bank Resilience Rating System and EU Taxonomy adaptation criteria, where applicable.
• Following UNDRR Principle 1: Continuously learning and the recommended key action P1.3 Analyse, learn, and formulate improvements^[26], flexibility should be built in by including review triggers that allow the goals to evolve as new data becomes available.
• To ensure credibility and enforceability, goals should be formally documented in instruments such as the Environmental and Social Commitment Plan (ESCP), specifying ownership, reporting cadence, and review points to ensure continuity despite cost pressures.
• Goals should be ambitious yet proportionate to risk, project lifetime, and irreversibility.

Process, Tools & Guidance

Define Intent and Scope

The general intent should be stated in written form, for example, “This project will integrate climate resilience and adaptation from feasibility through delivery.” The scope should describe the targeted outcomes and impacts in the form of resilience metrics, such as services covered, geographic extent, time horizons, and hazard parameters (for example, 1-in-10-year flooding) relevant to the project. For example, the JASPERS Practical sectoral guidance on climate resilience proofing (2024)^[27] advises to identify relevant hazards and timeframe by extending the hazard list to cover site-specific risks and matching the analysis period to the asset’s lifetime.

The World Bank Resilience Rating System^[12] provides detailed guidance for framing goals.

Outline Goal

The goal can be outlined by setting goal bands, such as minimum (to avoid maladaptation, see NGSF, p. 38)^[28] preferred, and stretch goals that can be refined along the lifecycle. The goals should be aligned with the Paris Agreement and national adaptation plans (see Policies and Plans phase), and proportional to risk and value-for-money considerations. A “do no significant harm” filter should be applied to avoid maladaptation, and iterative updates should be made as risk assessments evolve.

Key guidance includes:

• UNDRR Handbook (2023): Outcome- and service-oriented framing of resilience goal^[25]
• GCA Climate-Resilient Infrastructure Handbook (2025)^[3]
• IIGCC Physical Climate Risk Appraisal Methodology (PCRAM) 2.0^[6]
• The Joint MDB Methodological Principles for Assessment of Paris Agreement Alignment^[29] can be leveraged to determine whether an operation is “aligned” or “not aligned” with the mitigation and adaptation goals of the Paris Agreement.

Align with Requirements

Alignment of goals and metrics with finance and transparency requirements should be confirmed in parallel to ensure compliance with investor and governing-body standards, including World Bank RRS, EU Taxonomy adaptation criteria, and OECD (2025)^[21]. Examples of such requirements include implementing resilience measures that reduce vulnerabilities in a proven way and a Do-No-Significant-Harm analysis with regard to sustainability or biodiversity goals.

Embed Credibility Mechanisms

Credibility mechanisms should be embedded by anchoring goals in the project concept note and an ESCP, defining ownership, reporting cadence, and change control. Resilience metrics should be integrated into both project and financial KPIs, such as services covered, geographic extent, time horizons, and hazard parameters such as a 1-in-10-year flooding (see JASPERS Practical sectoral guidance on climate resilience proofing)^[30].

Theme 2: Assess Feasibility Considering Climate Risks

Integrating climate considerations into feasibility assessments shifts the focus from short-term viability to long-term asset under changing conditions. This requires combining technical, commercial, and environmental/social feasibility analyses with stress-testing and scenario modelling to capture climate uncertainty. Evaluating adaptation options and resilience strategies based on these insights allows practitioners to prioritise interventions that maintain service continuity, optimise costs, and strengthen project bankability.

3.2.1 Undertake (pre-)feasibility assessments (commercial, technical, and environmental/social) integrating climate risk assessment results and resilience goals

Objectives

The key objective is to test the project’s viability under plausible future conditions, so that go/no-go and scope decisions are evidence-based and account for physical climate hazards and uncertainty. This action also aims to demonstrate life cycle value for money assessing not just capital costs but also operation, maintenance, and decommissioning costs under climate stress across the entire asset life.

To avoid early lock-in, screening results (from section 3.1.1) and scenario ranges should be used to influence siting, layout, and scale decisions before mis-design and maladaptation make change costly and complex (see IPCC (2022)^[31] Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. C.4.). Accounting for system interdependencies also prevents failures across interconnected networks such as power, water, transport, and digital infrastructure. Thus, integrating climate risks and resilience goals into a technical, commercial, and environmental & social feasibility study minimises the likelihood of technical failure, identifies additional costs associated with climate risks, and ensures viability in a changing environment.

Best Practices

Infrastructure owners and operators as well as designers and technical advisors can consider the following six best practices:

• Dealing with uncertainty requires using scenario predictions as an input into feasibility studies. It is also recommended to avoid false precision, and record confidence levels while adjusting the depth of analysis to match the degree of risk and irreversibility.
• Resilience-conscious optioneering should build a portfolio of feasible alternatives that remain safe and functional across a defined range of future climate hazards and deep uncertainties (see IPCC, 2022) ^[32]. Options should be considered broadly and can range from green and grey measures (for example, Nature-based Solutions (NbS), physical hardening) operational adjustments, and, where justified, relocation. Solutions should emphasise flexibility and modularity (see OECD , 2024)^[33] and adaptive capacity and life cycle thinking with clear triggers for future upgrades.
• Systemic interdependencies identified in earlier assessments should be incorporated into feasibility work to capture cross-sector and cross-boundary links and to evaluate cascading or “domino” risks and shared solutions (OECD 2025) ^[21].
• Compliance with investor requirements, such as MDB and DFI climate-proofing or taxonomy frameworks, is essential, and a clear audit trail should be maintained.
• A broad risk approach that evaluates climate risks alongside other systemic risks provides a complete view of vulnerability.
• Integrating climate risks and resilience goals into (pre-)feasibility studies can often become a technical or financial barrier to certain stakeholders, such as local governments, with tight budgets or little expertise in this field. It is important to use instruments such as technical assistance (see 4.3.2 in the Funding and Financing phase) and (pre-)feasibility grants wherever needed and possible.

Process, Tools & Guidance

Technical Feasibility

Technical feasibility assesses whether the project can both be designed, built, operated, and maintained to deliver the required service levels and meet climate resilience requirements. Examples for resilience metrics include level of service (for example, availability of service, capacity, quality), and downtime, both under normal and stressed conditions. Feasibility assessments differ based on the type of project and the sector, but typically include the following elements that should include climate resilience:

• Defining objectives. Objectives and functional requirements should align with the project’s resilience goals.
• Optioneering. Long- and shortlists of technical options should maintain adaptive pathways wherever uncertainty is deep and should be evaluated for deliverability and achievability under varying climate scenarios.
• Technical stress-tests. Studies on technology, operations, maintenance, supply-chain reliability, and site or route conditions (geotechnical, hydrological, seismic, and topographical) should be stress-tested for climate impacts.
• Resource availability. Availability of construction materials and skilled labour should be verified.

Sector-specific guidance can be found in:

• PIARC (2023)^[34] for roads
• World Bank Good Practice Note for Energy Sector Adaptation (2019)^[35] for energy.
• IHA (2025)^[36]for hydropower and dams
• UIC Resilient Railways facing Heavy Rains (2025)^[37] and UIC Resilient Railways facing High Temperatures  (2025)^[38] for rail.
• ICAO  (2022)^[39] for airports

Commercial Feasibility

Commercial feasibility determines whether the project is bankable and generates positive socioeconomic value. Financial appraisal (cashflows to investors) should be distinguished from economic appraisal (net benefits to society) and aligned with PPP or public financing contexts. Climate risks and resilience goals should be incorporated into the typical elements of a commercial feasibility study:

• Financial modelling and bankability assessments should include CAPEX/OPEX profiles of resilience measures and residual risks, revenue assumptions, and repair or downtime costs under changing climate hazards during asset lifetime (affecting downtime, repair CAPEX, O&M).
• Cost-benefit analysis of resilience measures, such as identification, quantification, and monetization of economic and social costs/benefits, should capture resilience criteria, the cost of resilience, and the cost of inaction.
• Market and affordability testing, covering willingness-to-pay, ability-to-pay, tariff impacts, and equity, amongst others, should be performed for multiple climate scenarios.
• Procurement structure, payment mechanisms, and risk-allocation matrices should reflect climate risks.
• Initial funding and risk-transfer options – including insurance, guarantees, and contingency facilities – should be evaluated within climate-finance frameworks.
• Discount rates should be set consciously to avoid undervaluing long-term resilience, a phenomenon known as “tragedy of the horizon”.

The following guidance on commercial feasibility studies can be used:

• World Bank Climate Toolkits for Infrastructure PPPs (2022)^[40]
• World Bank Integrating Climate Change & Natural Disasters in the Econ. Analysis of Projects: A Disaster & Climate Risk Stress Test Methodology (2021)^[41]
• IMF Climate-Public Investment Management Assessment (2021)^[42]
• HM Treasury Green Book: Accounting for the effects of climate change (2025)^[43]
• Sector-specific guidance such as PIANC (2024) ^[44] for ports and waterways
• For Nature-based Solutions, see World Bank’s publication Assessing the Benefits and Costs of Nature-Based Solutions for Climate Resilience: A Guideline for Project Developers (2023)^[45]

Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA)

ESIA determines whether the project complies with applicable laws and international standards while avoiding or mitigating adverse impacts. It is key to evaluate how different climate scenarios alter project risks to people and ecosystems (e.g., dam safety, tailings stability, emergency access) across key dimensions such as land acquisition and resettlement, labour and working conditions, community health and safety, biodiversity and ecosystem integrity, cultural heritage, gender, and inclusion.

Relevant references include the World Bank Environmental and Social Framework (ESF): Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Risks and Impacts ^[46] and Good practice Note on Water Use  (2021) ^[47].

3.2.2 Prioritise options for strategies to address resilience goals based on feasibility assessment

Objectives

Decision-making should identify and prioritise, or select, the best option(s) by comparing multiple criteria that include resilience goals and metrics. These criteria can vary significantly by context due to, for example, local climate risk profiles and vulnerabilities. Resilience solutions should be embedded early to avoid misaligned option selection or costly maladaptation later.

Best Practices

Infrastructure owners and operators as well as designers and technical advisors can consider the following four best practices:

• Modern decision methods such as optioneering should be applied so that projects perform acceptably across a wide range of plausible futures rather than rely solely on “most likely” forecasts (see 2.1.1 in the Prioritisation phase). Uncertainty should be made explicit and used to guide robust and adaptive design and delivery plans. Clear pathways and triggers for future adjustments should be laid out and documented so that assets can be upgraded as climate signals evolve. UNDRR (2023)^[25] recommends to “build adaptive capacity into infrastructure systems at all life cycle stages to allow flexibility in decision-making, transitioning, and problem-solving” to account for uncertainty of future climate risks.
• Systemic interdependencies, especially cross-sector and cross-boundary links, identified in prior analyses should also be incorporated into decision-making; and cascading risks and shared solutions should be assessed (OECD, 2025)^[21].
• It is also important to understand and factor in criticality of single infrastructure assets for systems, such as having a single port in a country may increase the resilience requirements for that port, as it tends to be highly critical for a country’s economic activity.
• Trade-offs need to be made transparent between upfront costs, avoided losses, and service reliability. Multi-criteria decision analysis and life cycle economic tools should be used alongside traditional cost-benefit analysis (see HM Treasury, 2025) ^[50].

Process, Tools & Guidance

Resilience Needs

Recalling key vulnerabilities identified in earlier climate risk assessment (section 3.1.1)  and resilience goals (section 3.1.1) for the project define the resilience needs. For instance, needs may include flood protection for a road corridor or backup water supply for a treatment plant.

Prioritise Options

Viable resilience options should be evaluated and prioritised using multi-criteria and adaptive-management strategies (see 2.1.1 in the Prioritisation phase) that weigh, for example, cost-effectiveness, value for money, implementation time, co-benefits, longevity, flexibility, distributional impacts, and urgency.

The following guidance on option prioritization can be used:

• RAND Robust Decision Making^[51]
• Deltares Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways^[52]
• PPIAF Decision Tree Framework.
• IPCC Sixth Assessment Report Ch. 17: Decision Making Options for Managing Risk (2022)^[53]
• For water infrastructure, UNESCO Climate Risk Informed Decision Analysis (CRIDA)  ^[54] methodology is a participatory and bottom- up approach for integrating climate change into water resources planning.

Theme 3: Provide Project Plan Guidelines and Prepare Investor Readiness

Preparing resilient infrastructure projects for implementation and financing demands structured governance and transparent reporting, as well as embedding resilience in project planning guidelines. Practitioners can thus enhance accountability, attract sustainable finance, and ensure that resilience objectives are systematically carried through to execution.

3.3.1 Establish resilience governance to maintain and refine resilience goals and identify trade-offs to embed resilience at each step of the life cycle

Objectives

The main objective is to operationalise the resilience goals established in earlier phases through clear governance structures that embed, protect, review, and refine these goals at each life cycle stage.

Governance systems should continuously measure and monitor resilience KPIs as part of regular project and financial monitoring throughout the life cycle. OECD (2023)^[55] notes that only half of all infrastructure assets in 33 OECD countries are monitored against specific and pre-defined performance targets, even though performance monitoring is vital to strengthening resilience to shocks.

Best Practices

Infrastructure owners and operators as well as designers and technical advisors can consider the following five best practices:

• Governance should ensure clear mandates and ownership because ambiguity regarding who is responsible for resilience goals and metrics can lead to drift in later phases of the life cycle. Statutory or contractual mandates for life cycle compliance can help sustain accountability.
• Resilience governance should also withstand budget pressure, which often prioritises CAPEX over operational resilience, such as in the Procurement phase. This can be achieved by tying resilience goals and metrics to funding mechanisms, performance-based grants or scorecards, and lender requirements.
• Governance should make trade-offs explicit, balancing resilience with, for example, affordability, environmental/social disbenefits, and other decision criteria.
• Adaptive learning mechanisms – based on continuous monitoring, evaluation, and feedback – should allow resilience goals, metrics, and principles to evolve over time, in line with UNDRR (2023)^[25] and CISA (2025)^[56] guidance.
• Governance should align with financial and assurance frameworks, such as MDB or EU climate-proofing requirements and the World Bank Resilience Rating System^[12], to strengthen bankability and oversight.

Process, Tools & Guidance

Role Definition

Roles and accountabilities should be defined clearly such as appointing a “resilience champion” or defining mandates to ensure that lead practitioners maintain resilience goals over time.

The following frameworks and guidelines support in clarifying how to set up a governance system:

• CISA Infrastructure Resilience Planning Framework (2025)^[56]
• World Bank – Resilience Rating System (2021)^[12]
• FEMA National Resilience Guidance (2024)^[57]

Project and Resilience Performance Management

To embed resilience in project management, resilience considerations should be integrated into risk registers, steering committees, and reporting structures, ensuring that they are treated with equal importance as cost, schedule, and quality are.

Resilience KPIs, such as downtime after hazard events and performance thresholds under extreme weather, should be tied directly to contracts, grants, and lender scorecards, especially in the Procurement and Construction phases.

Relevant guidance and tools include:

• EU CER Directive (2022)^[58]
• World Bank – Resilience Rating System (2021)^[12]
• UNEP Climate Risk Landscape Report (2024)^[59]
• Quality Infrastructure Investment (QII) Partnership^[60], Principle QII.4: Resilience, and QII.6: Governance support that the World Bank provides

Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation systems including post-implementation should be established across all steps of the life cycle. It is important to allow for learning and adaptation, or triggers to adjust governance design when conditions change.

The same frameworks above can guide these monitoring structures together with the weADAPT Monitoring and evaluation of climate change adaptation (2023)^[61] as a general overview resource.

3.3.2 Adjust project planning guidelines (delivery, timeline) to be climate resilient by factoring in resource, skills, and technological capacity constraints

Objectives

Project preparation should anticipate climate disruptions in order to avoid costly delays and overruns. This can be done through proactively adjusting schedules to account for hazards and resource shortfalls. According to Schuldt et al. (2021) ^[62], around 45% of infrastructure projects already experience weather-related disruptions – a figure expected to rise as climate hazards intensify.

Embedding resilience in preparation ensures that climate risks are integrated into project guidelines from the outset so that vulnerabilities are identified and addressed early through design or scheduling adjustments. This approach demonstrates a proactive commitment to sustainability and reduces uncertainty for investors.

Best Practices

Infrastructure owners and operators as well as designers and technical advisors can consider the following two best practices:

• Scenario-based analyses should be used to assess how climate change may alter hazard patterns or intensify events – and these insights should guide the definition of buffers and adaptive measures in schedules.
• Preparation should also consider potential skill and capacity gaps across the life cycle. Anticipating shortages in climate-resilience expertise and delivery capacity enables workforce development and institutional strengthening to be embedded in project planning. This includes upskilling staff, creating new resilience-focused roles, and ensuring access to specialised technical knowledge throughout the life cycle.

Process, Tools & Guidance

Climate Patterns

The process begins by identifying relevant climate patterns, such as monsoons, floods, hurricanes, and heatwaves, which could disrupt construction or delivery schedules.

Guidance for this analysis is provided in the World Bank Climate and Disaster Risk Screening Tool^[4].

Supply Chain Vulnerabilities

Anticipating supply-chain vulnerabilities is essential. This includes assessing the exposure of critical materials and equipment to climate risks, such as reliance on single suppliers in vulnerable regions. Climate-smart scheduling should integrate climate data from risk assessments into high-level project schedules and supply-chain guidelines that will be further detailed in the following phases. Contingency measures, such as local sourcing, strategic stockpiles, and adjusted sequencing, should be defined early, and critical construction activities should be timed to avoid periods or sequences of high climate risk.

Relevant guidelines include the EAA Guidelines for Project Managers^[63] and the UNECE Guidelines on promoting climate resilient Public-Private Partnerships and infrastructure projects in support of the Sustainable Development Goals (2025)^[64].

Contracting

Resilience should be embedded in future contracting. Practitioners may ensure that later procurement and contract structures allocate risks to the parties best equipped and willing to manage them and link to insurance or public backstops for extreme or uninsurable risks. Adaptive clauses should be integrated into contracts to allow schedule adjustments or compensation triggers as climate risks evolve, and periodic updates should be required.

Tools include:

• World Bank – PPP Risk Allocation Tool (2019)^[65]
• World Bank – Climate Toolkits for Infrastructure PPPs (CTIP³) (2023)^[66]
• Further guidance can be found in the EBRD – PPP Regulatory Guidelines, Vol II^[67] (2024), including a detailed risk allocation matrix and the Incorporating Climate Risk in Performance-Based Contracts   (2018)^[68].

3.3.3 Prepare climate risk assessment methodology and results to ensure transparency, reproducibility, and investor readiness

Objectives

Climate risk results and methodology from screenings and assessments should be consolidated into a single comprehensive view that includes both acute and chronic risks. This unified dataset forms the evidence base for investors and supports a finance-ready investment case.

Best Practices

Infrastructure owners and operators as well as investors can consider the following two best practices:

• Risks should be categorised consistently so that each entry in the risk register is tagged and comparable with investor frameworks such as the TCFD and the World Bank’s Resilience Rating System. Registers should also align with finance taxonomies such as the EU Taxonomy and the Climate Bonds Initiative.
• By harmonising register fields with these standards, disclosures can meet investor due diligence requirements and facilitate access to sustainable finance. A consistent taxonomy for climate risks is essential so that all stakeholders – especially investors – “speak the same language.”

Process, Tools & Guidance

Unified Register

Data should be aggregated into a unified register that systematises results from all screenings and assessments, creating a single source of truth. Risks should be organised by type and by time horizon – short, medium, or long term – to focus resilience actions on the most material threats.

Templates and step-by-step support for this process are provided in the European Commission – Technical Guidance on the Climate Proofing of Infrastructure Projects (2021-2027)^[69].

Documentation

Investor-ready documentation includes a summary of methodologies, an executive summary of identified risks and adaptation strategies, a risk–response matrix outlining hazards, impacts, and corresponding measures, a life cycle cost analysis incorporating resilience actions, and evidence of governance and monitoring structures for resilience.

Useful reference material includes the JASPERS Practical Sectoral Guidance on Climate Resilience Proofing^[27].