how to underwrite natural infrastructure like an asset class

how to underwrite natural infrastructure like an asset class\n============================================================\ntraditional infra underwriting looks at demand and availability payments. natural infrastructure underwriting looks at hazard reduction as a service and pays from the beneficiaries of that reduction.\n\ntl;dr: map hazard to asset, quantify the service, price premiums from those who benefit, issue ensurance certificates with mrv covenants, and align exit/hold with long-term stewardship.\n\n## map hazard to dependency\nstart with the specific threat (surge, flood, fire) and the asset it endangers (port berths, runways, transmission spans, highway corridors). precision matters—the service you’re buying must match the hazard.\n\n## quantify the service\nuse defensible references to estimate storage, attenuation, or fire spread reduction from wetlands, floodplains, or fuel breaks. mrv ties those estimates to observed performance.\n\n## structure premiums and certificates\nprice premiums from direct beneficiaries (operators, off-takers, adjacent asset owners). layer certificates (senior/mezz) for risk/return, define tenor, and set payout logic tied to service delivery.\n\n## set mrv and covenants\nremote sensing plus field checks on a set cadence. covenants should point to service metrics (storage volume, vegetative cover, fuel load) rather than vague “good condition.”\n\n## define exit and stewardship\ndecide up front: hold, roll, or transfer to long-term stewardship once return targets are hit. governance should keep ecological performance aligned with financial performance.\n\n## sources\n- usace — engineering with nature — mrv-aligned cases\n- epa — green infrastructure — performance/cost references\n- noaa sea level rise technical report — surge/flood context\n- swiss re institute — natural catastrophes — loss data for risk framing\n\ncta: review an example approach