{"id":20718,"date":"2026-05-20T14:02:37","date_gmt":"2026-05-20T10:32:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vastraholding.com\/en\/?p=20718"},"modified":"2026-05-20T14:10:16","modified_gmt":"2026-05-20T10:40:16","slug":"result-based-water-saving-finance-real-consumption-cut","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vastraholding.com\/en\/result-based-water-saving-finance-real-consumption-cut\/","title":{"rendered":"Outcome Based Financing for Water Saving Tech"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Results-Based Financing in Water-Saving Technologies<\/h1>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Water scarcity in agriculture is not only a matter of low rainfall or aging equipment; the core issue is how money is tied to water-related behavior. In many traditional programs, financial support is paid for the purchase of pumps, pipes, sensors, or irrigation control systems, and after installation, the link between public spending or private capital and the actual reduction in water use becomes weak. Results-based financing changes this logic by linking payment to a measurable output. In this model, technology gains its full financial value only when reduced withdrawals, lower consumption, improved water productivity, or reduced pumping energy is recorded and verified through a defensible method.<\/p>\n

This shift matters directly for food security, because water savings should not come at the cost of lower production or weaker farmer income. Credible global programs show that proper design must protect two goals at the same time: agricultural production must continue, and pressure on water resources must decline. This dual objective makes simple equipment-purchase loans insufficient, because buying technology alone does not guarantee that water has actually been saved for the farm, the network, or the basin. A results-based contract connects sensors, meters, and software to a financial system in which payment depends on a real reduction in consumption.<\/p>\n

In the water economy, the indicator on which payment is based must be clear from the outset. This indicator may be cubic meters of water saved, acre-feet of water conserved, reduced pumping energy, or improved water-use productivity. If the indicator is not properly defined, a project may appear successful while in practice it has only reduced the water applied to the farm without reducing real pressure on the basin. For this reason, results-based financing in water-saving technologies is, before being a financial instrument, an architecture for measurement, reporting, and verification.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Outcome\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

How Does Results-Based Financing Connect Capital to Real Water Reduction?<\/h2>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The RBF model in water investments rests on the principle that payment should be tied to the achievement of a specific result, not merely to the completion of an activity or the delivery of equipment. In water-saving projects, this result is credible only when the baseline, post-implementation consumption, and payment rule have been defined in advance. A private investor, development bank, government, or operator may act as the outcome buyer, but these roles can only be aligned when there is a shared measurable output. Therefore, the ideal contract is one that turns reduced water consumption or withdrawal into a payable financial indicator.<\/p>\n

In such a model, three components are interdependent. The first component is a defensible baseline that shows how much water the farm, network, or irrigation area consumed or withdrew before the project was implemented. The second component is post-implementation measurement, which records actual consumption during the performance period and must be adjusted for rainfall, evapotranspiration, cultivated area, crop type, soil, and management behavior. The third component is the payment or penalty rule, which determines the financial effect of each unit of water saved or each unit of energy reduced for the implementer, farmer, or investor.<\/p>\n\n

\u2013 Farm Service Agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the implementing agency for the Water-Saving Commodities Program:<\/cite> \u201cThe payment amount is based on a capped rate per acre-foot of water saved.\u201d<\/blockquote>\n

This statement captures the financial logic of the model well. When payment is capped based on water saved, public spending or grant support moves away from an open and unconditional payment model and comes closer to an auditable volumetric indicator. However, a payment cap alone is not enough, because the method for calculating saved water is not the same for activities such as canal piping, automation, tailwater recycling, or changes in irrigation management. The more diverse the technical activity, the greater the contract\u2019s need for a precise method for the baseline, climate adjustment, and engineering verification.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Why Are Baselines and Independent Measurement the Heart of Water-Saving Contracts?<\/h2>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

In performance-based projects, MRV or M&V is not a secondary technical component; it is the very element that makes payment possible. FEMP guidance for energy and water projects refers to general measurement and verification options in performance contracts, and IPMVP, despite its historical focus on energy, considers its framework applicable to water, cost savings, emissions reductions, and other measurable quantities. This point is decisive for smart irrigation, because post-project consumption only becomes meaningful when compared with an adjusted baseline. Otherwise, an apparent reduction in consumption may be the result of changes in rainfall, crop choice, or meter error.<\/p>\n\n

\u2013 Efficiency Valuation Organization, publisher of IPMVP:<\/cite> \u201cMeasurement and verification are fundamental to efficiency financing and energy performance contracts.\u201d<\/blockquote>\n

Transferring this logic from energy to water requires greater caution. In energy, reduced electricity or fuel consumption is usually easier to track through meters and operating patterns, but in agricultural water, rainfall, soil moisture storage, evapotranspiration, return flows, and farmers\u2019 planting decisions enter the calculation. For this reason, measurement risk in water contracts is higher than in a simple before-and-after calculation. A results-based contract must be designed around a reference meter, periodic reports, independent audits, and the option to hold back part of the payment until the result is verified.<\/p>\n\n

\u2013 U.S. Federal Energy Management Program:<\/cite> \u201cThese options provide general measurement and verification approaches for energy and water conservation projects.\u201d<\/blockquote>\n

Payment indicators must also be multilayered. The base indicator may be reduced water withdrawals or consumption in daily, seasonal, or annual cubic meters, but in agriculture, reducing water alone is not enough. If a contractor creates a short-term reduction in water use by under-irrigating the crop, the project has failed from the perspective of food security. For this reason, professional design must include a safeguard condition for crop yield, crop quality, or farm income, while also recording reduced pumping energy in kWh, pump operating hours, and pumped volume.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

What Do Global Payment-for-Water-Saved Programs Teach Agriculture?<\/h2>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

\u2013 The U.S. Water-Saving Commodities Program and Payment per Acre-Foot<\/h3>\n

The U.S. Department of Agriculture\u2019s Water-Saving Commodities Program is one of the closest official examples of linking agricultural production to water reduction. The program has up to $400 million in funding and is designed for activities that maintain agricultural production while saving water. The stated expectation is to save up to 50,000 acre-feet, equivalent to about 61.67 million cubic meters, across 250,000 acres, equivalent to about 101,172 hectares. The grant ceiling for each eligible organization is set at up to $15 million, and the implementation period for activities is defined as a maximum of five years.<\/p>\n\n

\u2013 Tom Vilsack, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture at the time the Water-Saving Commodities Program was announced:<\/cite> \u201cWe want to expand the tools to conserve agriculture while voluntarily saving water.\u201d<\/blockquote>\n

The importance of this example lies in the fact that payment is not made merely for purchasing technology; it is tied to approved activities and water saved. Eligible activities under this program range from canal lining or piping to improvements in headgates and turnouts, pumping, automation, data collection and transmission, tailwater recycling, rainwater harvesting, farm irrigation infrastructure upgrades, and changes in management or cropping patterns. This diversity shows that water-saving technology does not always mean a single digital tool and may instead involve a combination of physical infrastructure, data, management, and behavioral change. The key limitation is found at this same point, because the method for calculating water saved must be determined separately for each activity and based on credible technical documentation.<\/p>\n\n

\u2013 Colorado System Conservation and Volumetric Water Measurement at the Basin Level<\/h3>\n

The Lower Colorado River Basin System Conservation example is important for understanding the difference between farm-level savings and system-level conservation. In the Lower Basin pilot through the end of 2019, 16 projects targeted 175,347 acre-feet, equivalent to about 216.29 million cubic meters of water, at a cost of approximately $29.83 million and an average of $170.14 per acre-foot. This program was not designed to purchase smart irrigation technology, but it showed that payment for conserved water at the system level can be linked to a volumetric indicator and recent use history. In later designs as well, the emphasis on quantifiable and verifiable savings in Lake Mead makes the importance of volumetric MRV clear.<\/p>\n\n

\u2013 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the official federal water resources management agency:<\/cite> \u201cThe pilot program demonstrated that voluntary, compensated projects can conserve water for storage in the Colorado River system.\u201d<\/blockquote>\n

The main lesson of this case for agricultural technologies is that reduced consumption must clarify which system the saved water returns to. If less water is applied on the farm but the cultivated area expands or downstream return flows decline, the basin-level result may differ from the farm-level result. Therefore, in agricultural contracts, the payment indicator must distinguish between reduced withdrawals, reduced consumptive use, water saved for the system, and water productivity. Any payment that ignores this distinction is exposed to rebound risk and interpretive disputes among the farmer, investor, and water-using institution.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

What Model Do Urban Water Performance Contracts Offer for Smart Irrigation?<\/h2>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The urban water experience, especially contracts for reducing non-revenue water, is not direct evidence for smart irrigation, but it is highly instructive from a contract architecture perspective. In Ho Chi Minh City, the performance contract between Saigon Water Corporation and Manila Water in 2008 focused on leakage reduction, the creation of DMAs, and payment or penalties based on achieved results. The contract aimed to create 119 DMAs and reduce at least 38 MLD, and by the end of the contract, 122 MLD, equivalent to 122,000 cubic meters per day, of water savings had been reported. This example shows how zoning, metering, and before-and-after measurement can be converted into the financial language of a contract.<\/p>\n\n

\u2013 World Bank Public-Private Partnership Resource Center and PPIAF:<\/cite> \u201cBy the end of the contract, 122 million liters per day of water had been saved.\u201d<\/blockquote>\n

The payment details in Ho Chi Minh City are more important for designing agricultural contracts than the savings figure itself. According to the PPIAF report, leakage-reduction payment was 30 percent fixed and 70 percent performance-based, and if the minimum annual target was not achieved, a penalty of 800,000 Vietnamese dong was set for each cubic meter of unmet volume. This kind of combination shows that not all risks should be transferred to one party in the contract; part of the payment can cover certain implementation costs, while the main portion remains tied to results. For large irrigation areas, the logic of urban DMA design can be translated into irrigation network zoning, reference metering, baseline-performance comparison, and staged payments based on results.<\/p>\n

The PPIAF case-study collection also shows that performance contracting in urban water networks is not an isolated experience. In the report\u2019s appendix, examples such as Selangor, Bangkok, S\u00e3o Paulo, and Jamaica are listed with different volumetric targets or results, pursuing reductions in non-revenue water through measurable metrics. However, these examples should not be used as direct evidence for smart irrigation, because the technical environment of an urban network differs from farms, soil, plants, and climate. Their value lies in demonstrating the mechanisms of contracts, rewards, penalties, zoning, and results verification.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Measurement Risk in Smart Irrigation and the Difference Between Farm-Level and Basin-Level Savings<\/h2>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The main risk in a payment model based on real consumption reduction is measurement risk. Weather variability, changes in cropping patterns, crop prices, farmer behavior, return flows, soil water, and meter error can make it difficult to distinguish reduced withdrawals from reduced actual consumption. In its discussion of improved irrigation technologies, FAO warns that increased on-farm efficiency does not necessarily lead to water savings at the basin scale, because some of the water previously considered lost may have contributed to aquifer recharge or downstream flows. Therefore, the contract should not automatically treat every reduction in water applied to the farm as water saved for the system.<\/p>\n

Water-use productivity must also be interpreted carefully. For SDG indicator 6.4.1, FAO defines water-use efficiency at the national level as the sum of the water-use efficiencies of major economic sectors, weighted according to each sector\u2019s share of water withdrawals, and in 2023 it reported global agricultural water productivity at $0.7 per cubic meter. This indicator is useful for understanding the place of water in the economy, but it is not a substitute for project-level measurement in smart irrigation. The project must show how much water or energy has actually been reduced on the same farm or in the same area after adjusting for climate and agronomic variables.<\/p>\n\n

\u2013 FAO SDG Indicators Data Portal, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations:<\/cite> \u201cWater-use efficiency at the national level is the sum of the efficiencies of the major economic sectors.\u201d<\/blockquote>\n

To reduce measurement risk, several contractual tools must be placed alongside one another. Payment can be staged, with part of the amount remaining in a holdback account until the end of the performance period. An independent auditor, reference meter, field sampling, post-installation report, and annual M&V report help reduce disputes between the parties. In addition, the baseline must be climatic and managerial, not a raw number from the past, because a rainy year or a change in crop choice can create apparent savings and separate the financial result from actual performance.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Localizing a Results-Based Water Model for Iranian Agriculture<\/h2>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Iran presents a complex setting for results-based water contracts because of its climate and farm-operation structure. According to FAO and WEPS NENA data, the country\u2019s area is about 1.75 million square kilometers, its average annual rainfall is 228 millimeters, and roughly 90 percent of the country is arid or semi-arid. This context shows that reducing agricultural water use is not merely a technological issue; it is connected to food security, basin sustainability, and the possibility of investment in the agricultural value chain. From this perspective, practical design must rely on a current baseline, auditable metering, and data from the pilot itself, not on broad estimates that are insufficient for contractual payment.<\/p>\n

The more important challenge for Iran is the small-scale structure of farm operations. FAO reports that more than 80 percent of Iran\u2019s agricultural holdings are smaller than 10 hectares and often consist of scattered plots. This situation raises the cost of metering, sensor installation, field visits, contract management, and results auditing, making farm-by-farm implementation difficult. For this reason, a logical pilot for Iran should begin with a large irrigation area, a network that can be zoned, volumetric meters, and monitorable pumps, rather than with scattered plots where an auditable baseline has not yet been established.<\/p>\n\n

\u2013 World Bank, Program-for-Results financing instrument:<\/cite> \u201cThe distinguishing feature of PforR is the use of a country\u2019s own institutions and processes to implement the program.\u201d<\/blockquote>\n

This statement carries a clear message for localization in Iran. A results-based model cannot be implemented merely by importing sensors, controllers, or software; the domestic verification institution, the method for calculating the baseline, and the dispute-resolution process must be built at the same time. A development bank or public fund can act as the outcome buyer, while a private company or irrigation district carries out the technical and data-related implementation, but payment must be released only after independent verification of the result. Such an arrangement is consistent with the logic of RBF, PforR, and FEMP and reduces the risk of payment before the result is achieved.<\/p>\n

In Iran, focusing payment on results can bring equipment-purchase subsidies closer to real reductions in water consumption. However, the contract must make clear from the beginning which level the savings belong to: the farm, the network, the aquifer, or the basin. If ownership of the saved water, the criterion for transferring it to the system, and the condition for maintaining production remain ambiguous, the investor will not be able to build a reliable cash flow, and the farmer will not have a sustainable incentive to cooperate. Therefore, the appropriate implementation path is to design a limited, data-driven, auditable pilot that first proves MRV capacity and is then scaled to a larger level.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Making Water Technology Investment Decisions Based on Results, Not Equipment Purchases<\/h2>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

For investors, water-saving technology becomes attractive when its revenue stream is linked to a collectible indicator. If project revenue is defined through cubic meters of water saved, reduced pumping energy, or improved water productivity, economic evaluation shifts from a list of equipment toward data quality, verifiability, and the durability of farmer behavior. In this view, meters, sensors, weather stations, controllers, and software are not merely technical components; they are tools for producing financial evidence. Any piece of equipment that cannot support credible measurement of results has more limited value in a results-based contract.<\/p>\n

Hybrid financing models become meaningful at this same point. Blended finance is relevant when part of the results risk is absorbed by the government, a development bank, or grant funding, and private capital is repaid after the result is verified. Experiences such as the World Bank\u2019s water RBF, the Water-Saving Commodities Program, and performance contracts for reducing non-revenue water show that payment can be divided among fixed costs, performance incentives, and penalties for non-achievement. This risk allocation keeps the project away from two extremes: full payment before results on one side, and the transfer of all climate and behavioral risks to the implementer on the other.<\/p>\n

The final decision to enter such projects should begin with a simple question: is the water reduction measurable, attributable, and payable or not? If the answer is yes, technology can become an investment instrument through a performance contract, independent auditing, and staged payments. If the answer is no, purchasing equipment, even with high technical quality, may not lead to defensible savings. The future of investment in water-saving technologies depends on this very shift: from financing inputs to financing a result that is measurable for the farmer, the investor, and the water basin.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Outcome\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Paying for verified water savings shifts irrigation and water management investment from equipment purchases to measurable outcomes, defensible baselines, maintained farm output, and independent financial verification.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":20725,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[274,126],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-20718","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-finance-scf-supplychain","category-vastra-article"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vastraholding.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20718","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vastraholding.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vastraholding.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vastraholding.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vastraholding.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20718"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/vastraholding.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20718\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":20737,"href":"https:\/\/vastraholding.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20718\/revisions\/20737"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vastraholding.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/20725"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vastraholding.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20718"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vastraholding.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20718"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vastraholding.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20718"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}