Questions this guide addresses
- How do planning documents, candidate sites and letters of cooperation intent differ from actual approvals or rights?
- Which evidence should be checked first during the first 90 days of an environmental infrastructure pre-feasibility study?
- How should technical, financial, permitting, community acceptance and PPP procurement findings inform a proceed-or-stop decision?
Method and verification scope
- We drew transferable methods from pre-feasibility review plans, investor summaries and public communication standards for a Korean environmental infrastructure complex reviewed by PentaBay.
- Project names, locations, institutions, partners and financial model figures are withheld. Plans, assumptions and proposals are clearly distinguished from approvals, rights and commitments.
- The article draws on the World Bank's phased PPP preparation principles and IFC guidance on environmental and social risk management. It does not indicate approval, investment secured or public-sector support for a particular project.
01 · Evidence discipline
Planning documents do not establish approval, project rights or a revenue model
Urban plans, policy documents, candidate-site review notes and discussions with authorities can initiate a project review. They do not secure land-use rights, development or environmental permits, public procurement procedures, budgets, subsidies, throughput commitments or government guarantees. The first pre-feasibility task is to distinguish what each document establishes, rather than simply collect more documents.
In the anonymized environmental infrastructure case, PentaBay separately tracked planning premises, confirmed facts, review assumptions, recommendations and items requiring further verification. This allows a team to explain a project's potential without presenting approvals or commitments not yet secured as achievements.
02 · Start with the decision
The 90-day objective is a decision on further investment, not just a report
The World Bank's PPP guidance emphasizes progressively stricter project screening and reassessment before committing more resources to the next stage. Pre-feasibility work follows the same principle. Before producing documents that resemble detailed design, define the conditions for continuing the review and the risks that would require it to stop.
Decision questions must be specific. Is there a route to the required permits at the candidate site? Do feedstock volume, quality and supply duration align with demand for the output? Are CAPEX and OPEX estimates substantiated? Do the overall schedule and milestones account for community acceptance and public procurement?
03 · Parallel workstreams
Review the site, feedstock, market, permits and costs in parallel
An environmental infrastructure project can stop if a single critical condition is unmet, even when its technology is sound. Checking feedstock only after settling on a site, or community acceptance and permits only after selecting a technology, can force late design changes. Review site and administrative procedures, feedstock and demand, permits, technology and costs, stakeholders, the PPP procurement route and risk allocation in parallel over the 90 days.
Findings in each workstream change the assumptions in others. Feedstock volumes and characteristics affect plant size and OPEX; site location and transport distances affect collection costs and community impacts. Quality terms in sales contracts can change the technology choice and revenue model again. Update the cross-workstream issue register weekly so that one team's assumption is not treated as a confirmed fact by another.
Technical and logistics requirements
Check whether the site, access, feedstock, technology and logistics fit a single material balance and schedule.
Permits and public procedures
Identify the sequence and approving authorities for land, environmental, building, operating and public procurement procedures.
Commercial viability
Check the sustainability of input contracts, sales demand, pricing evidence, costs and payment security.
04 · Model traceability
Record a source, status and owner for every financial model figure
An early financial model organizes assumptions; it does not supply definitive answers. Link each material input, including CAPEX, OPEX, throughput, utilization, yield, price and schedule, to its original source, reference date, unit, review status and responsible person. Treating supplier budget quotes, comparable-project benchmarks, engineering assumptions and contract terms as equivalent evidence can make a precise-looking model misleading.
Apply an even more conservative approach to public support. Exclude subsidies, government guarantees, fixed tariffs, minimum volumes, loss compensation and exclusivity from the base case until confirmed in writing. First build a base case that is viable without support. Include potential support only in a separate upside scenario.
05 · Environmental & social
Use environmental and social findings to select project options, not just obtain final permits
The IFC Performance Standards connect stakeholder engagement and disclosure with the identification, avoidance, mitigation and management of environmental and social risks and impacts. A pre-feasibility study need not pretend that a complete ESIA already exists. It should, however, account for the expected impact area, sensitive facilities and locations, land and livelihoods, labor and safety, traffic, odor and noise, and community concerns when comparing technical options.
Engaging residents and institutions is not a process of collecting signatures of support. It means planning who has which rights and faces which impacts, what will be disclosed and answered when, and how design changes or grievance handling will inform decisions. Difficult questions raised early can reduce expensive delays later.
06 · Decision gate
At day 90, provide a decision with clear conditions
The final memo should not conceal risks behind a single average score. Distinguish critical requirements that must be resolved, matters that can be addressed conditionally in the next stage, risks to allocate in commercial negotiations, and reasons to stop. Link each conclusion to supporting and contrary evidence, a responsible person, a resolution deadline and the next-stage budget.
A decision to proceed does not mean approval or financial close. It means there is a basis for committing limited resources to the next stage of investigation, negotiation or design. A decision to stop is not necessarily failure either. Finding a structural defect before committing more money is an outcome of effective project development.
A 90-day environmental infrastructure pre-feasibility schedule
Run the main reviews in parallel so that evidence connects in time for decisions, rather than completing and handing over each workstream in sequence.
| Period | Core work | Main outputs | Decision question |
|---|---|---|---|
| Days 1–15 | Project development route and information requests | Claim-and-evidence register; data room index | What is fact, and what is assumption? |
| Days 10–30 | Site and administrative procedures | Register of rights, constraints, authorities and schedules | Can the candidate site be considered for actual project use? |
| Days 15–35 | Feedstock and demand | Evidence on volumes, quality, seasonality and counterparties | Do feedstock supply and output demand support the same plant size? |
| Days 20–45 | Permits | Permit list, dependencies and responsible persons | Are there permitting barriers that could stop the project? |
| Days 30–55 | Technology and CAPEX/OPEX | Options, sources and sensitivity analysis | Can the basis and range of the figures be verified? |
| Days 40–70 | Environmental, social, stakeholder and PPP review | Impacts, engagement and procurement route | Are community acceptance and public procedures reflected in the schedule? |
| Days 60–80 | Risk allocation | Register of risks, interfaces and unresolved issues | Who will control and bear each risk? |
| Days 75–90 | Proceed-or-stop decision | Conditional decision memo and next-stage budget | Is the basis for continuing strong enough despite the critical gaps? |
These periods are a practical work sequence drawn from an anonymized case, not statutory schedules or approval deadlines. Adjust them for the project's scale and jurisdiction.
Practical takeaways
- Planning documents and candidate sites are starting points for investigation. They do not prove that permits, land rights, demand or public support have been secured.
- Review the site, feedstock, demand, permits, costs, environmental and social impacts, PPP procurement route and risk allocation in parallel over 90 days. Identify critical gaps that could stop the project early.
- Financial model figures support decisions only when their sources and review status can be traced. Do not include subsidies, government guarantees, fixed tariffs or minimum throughput in the base case without definitive documentation.
Sources and further reading
Source titles are preserved in their original language. Figures retain the reference period stated by each source.
- World Bank PPP Resource CenterPPP Cycle ↗
Principles for progressively screening, structuring and appraising projects, with a decision at each stage on further development spending.
Accessed 2026-08-31 - World Bank PPP Resource CenterPPP Process ↗
Official guidance on iterative PPP structuring, appraisal and approval, and the early screening of weak projects.
Accessed 2026-08-31 - International Finance CorporationPerformance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability ↗
International standards for identifying, avoiding, mitigating and managing project risks and impacts, and engaging stakeholders.
Published / revised 2012 · Accessed 2026-08-31 - International Finance CorporationPerformance Standard 1: Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Risks and Impacts ↗
The core structure of environmental and social management systems, risk and impact assessment, stakeholder engagement and management programs.
Published / revised 2012 · Accessed 2026-08-31