1. Executive Summary
This Inception Report sets out the analytical framework, methodological approach, and confirmed work plan for the consultancy Feasibility Assessment of Carbon Finance to Support Operations and Maintenance of Rural Water Services in Latin America and the Caribbean (IDB RG-T4843, ATN/PS-22111-RG), commissioned under the SIRWASH Phase II initiative. The consulting consortium—comprising Virridy (carbon finance and digital monitoring expertise), the Millennium Water Alliance (MWA, WASH programming evidence and rural water sector knowledge), and COVA (formerly EOS International, safe drinking water implementation in Central America)—was contracted to provide a structured evidence base to inform whether, and under what conditions, voluntary carbon market mechanisms can generate meaningful revenue streams to support the long-term operations and maintenance of rural water services across the region.
The core question animating this work is one of financial sustainability: rural water services across Latin America and the Caribbean continue to face a structural O&M financing gap, with per-capita shortfalls estimated at $7–$43 per year depending on country and service level context. Safe drinking water interventions—piped supplies, household water treatment, point-of-use filtration, and chlorination systems—can generate measurable and verifiable greenhouse gas emission reductions by displacing the boiling of water over open biomass fires, a practice that remains widespread in rural LAC. These emission reductions can be quantified and certified under established voluntary carbon market methodologies, most notably the Gold Standard’s Technologies and Practices to Displace Decentralized Thermal Energy Consumption (TPDDTEC) methodology, the Gold Standard Safe Drinking Water methodology, and Verra’s VCS methodology for water purification. The global potential is substantial: recent analysis estimates that water sector carbon credit projects could generate over 1.6 billion credits annually, enabling more than $160 billion in water security investment over a decade. Yet carbon finance for the water sector remains incipient in LAC, with virtually no registered projects applying these mechanisms to rural water service O&M.
This consultancy will produce four deliverables over five months. The present Inception Report (D1) establishes the analytical framework—a four-dimensional feasibility assessment covering technical, institutional, operational, and market/financial conditions—and confirms the scope and methodology. Country-level feasibility assessments (D2) will provide in-depth analysis for Bolivia, Brazil, Haiti, and Peru, the four priority SIRWASH countries. A regional screening (D3) will extend the analysis to up to twelve additional LAC countries using a rapid assessment instrument derived from the D1 framework. The final synthesis and decision-support tool (D4) will consolidate findings into actionable guidance for the IDB, governments, and service providers. Given the constrained budget ($40,000), the work will be executed primarily through rigorous desk research, AI-assisted analysis, and targeted stakeholder engagement, supplemented by the consortium’s direct programmatic experience in the sector.
IDB confirmation of any priority research questions or scope adjustments that should be reflected in this framework prior to D1 acceptance. In particular: are there specific SIRWASH Phase I findings, non-public IDB sector assessments, or pending country-level data that the team should integrate?
2. Introduction & Context
2.1 The SIRWASH Initiative and Rural Water Sustainability in LAC
The Sustainable and Innovative Rural Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (SIRWASH) initiative is a regional program of the Inter-American Development Bank focused on strengthening the long-term sustainability of rural water and sanitation services across Latin America and the Caribbean. Phase I of SIRWASH generated a body of knowledge on service delivery models, institutional arrangements, and financing structures in the rural water sector, identifying a persistent gap between what rural water service providers can recover through user tariffs and what is actually needed to operate, maintain, and extend services over time.
Despite sustained infrastructure investment over the past two decades, access to safely managed drinking water remains a critical challenge in rural LAC. According to the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP), approximately 37 million people in rural areas of Latin America and the Caribbean lack access to at least basic drinking water services, and a far larger proportion lack access to safely managed services that meet continuous supply, quality, and on-premises criteria. The gap is not primarily one of infrastructure construction: many rural water systems are built but fall into disrepair within years of commissioning due to inadequate O&M financing, weak tariff collection, and limited technical capacity at the community level. Rural water service providers—whether community water committees, municipal utilities, or NGO-managed systems—frequently operate with revenues that cover less than 60% of recurrent costs, forcing a cycle of deferred maintenance that accelerates infrastructure deterioration and service failure.
SIRWASH Phase II identified carbon finance as one of a set of innovative financing mechanisms with potential to generate supplementary revenue for rural water service providers, thereby reducing dependence on government subsidies and donor transfers. This consultancy represents the operationalization of that insight: a structured, evidence-based feasibility assessment that moves from conceptual interest to a rigorous analytical determination of where, how, and under what conditions carbon finance could realistically contribute to O&M financing in LAC’s rural water sector.
Any non-public SIRWASH Phase I reports, country diagnostics, or internal IDB assessments that should inform the characterization of O&M financing gaps and service delivery models in the priority countries. Confirmation of whether the IDB has existing relationships with specific service providers, government agencies, or carbon market actors in Bolivia, Brazil, Haiti, or Peru that should be engaged as part of this consultancy.
2.2 Carbon Finance for Water: Global Evidence and Emerging Practice
The theoretical basis for carbon finance in the water sector rests on a straightforward causal chain: households lacking access to safely managed piped water typically treat their drinking water at home, most commonly by boiling over an open fire fueled by wood, charcoal, or agricultural residues. This combustion releases greenhouse gases—primarily CO2 and black carbon—that can be quantified and, under approved methodologies, attributed as emission reductions when a safe drinking water intervention eliminates or significantly reduces the need to boil. The emission reductions, once verified by an accredited third-party auditor and registered under a recognized carbon standard (Gold Standard or Verra), generate carbon credits that can be sold on voluntary carbon markets to buyers seeking to offset their own emissions or achieve sustainability commitments.
The global potential of this mechanism is large. Thomas et al. (2024), writing in ACS ES&T Water, estimate that water security projects globally could generate more than 1.6 billion voluntary carbon credits per year, enabling over $160 billion in water infrastructure investment over a decade if credits are priced at $10 per tonne CO2e—a conservative estimate given current voluntary market pricing for high-quality credits with strong co-benefits. The same analysis identifies safe drinking water interventions displacing household biomass boiling as among the highest-potential categories, given the combination of large addressable populations, high emission reduction per household, and relatively well-developed certification methodologies.
The most substantial real-world evidence base comes from sub-Saharan Africa, particularly Rwanda’s Tubeho Neza program (formerly “Healthy Homes”), implemented at national scale by DelAgua/Virridy with carbon finance from the Gold Standard voluntary market. By 2018, Tubeho Neza had distributed approximately 600,000 household water filters and improved cookstoves to rural households across Rwanda, financed through Gold Standard TPDDTEC carbon credits. A cluster-randomized controlled trial published in The Lancet Planetary Health found that the program reduced childhood diarrhea by 29% and acute respiratory infections by 25%, while generating significant fuel savings and livelihood benefits. A parallel RCT published in PLOS ONE demonstrated a 97.5% reduction in fecal water contamination among filter users. The program achieved over 90% sustained adoption rates in its pilot phase, supported by community health worker distribution networks. A comprehensive cost-benefit analysis found that health and livelihood benefits substantially exceeded program costs, with healthcare cost avoidance and fuel savings as the dominant value streams.
The Millennium Water Alliance’s 2024 Learning Paper on carbon credits for WASH interventions synthesizes lessons from Rwanda (Virridy/DelAgua), Tanzania (Water Mission), and Kenya (DRIP FUNDI), providing the most comprehensive practitioner guide currently available. It identifies the Gold Standard Safe Drinking Water methodology and the TPDDTEC methodology as the most relevant for household-scale safe water programs, maps eligibility criteria and baseline data requirements, and provides a Go/No-Go decision tree for organizations considering carbon credit integration. Critically, the MWA paper identifies several conditions where carbon finance is likely to be financially unviable: programs serving fewer than approximately 5,000 households (below which transaction costs exceed revenues), programs in contexts where non-renewable biomass is not the primary cooking fuel, and programs with insufficient MRV infrastructure to satisfy verification requirements. These findings will anchor the feasibility thresholds applied in this consultancy’s analytical framework.
The concept of “climate reparative finance” provides an additional framing that is increasingly relevant to this work. As argued by Thomas et al. (2023) in Science of the Total Environment, there is a moral and financial case for directing climate finance toward communities that have contributed least to historical emissions but face the greatest climate-related water insecurity. Rural communities in LAC that depend on biomass-fired water boiling are disproportionately located in areas of high climate vulnerability—Andean highlands subject to glacial retreat, Caribbean islands facing extreme weather intensification, and Amazonian communities affected by precipitation variability. Carbon finance applied to safe water access in these contexts thus serves a dual purpose: reducing emissions and compensating vulnerable communities for climate damages they did not cause.
2.3 Rationale for This Assessment in LAC
Despite the growing global evidence base, carbon finance for the water sector in Latin America and the Caribbean remains almost entirely undeveloped. The Gold Standard and Verra registries list fewer than a handful of water purification or safe water projects registered in LAC, none of which are linked to rural water service O&M. This stands in stark contrast to Africa, where dozens of certified projects exist, and to Asia, where similar mechanisms have been applied at scale in India and Cambodia. The reasons for this gap are multiple and interconnected: heterogeneous regulatory environments for voluntary carbon markets, limited awareness among WASH sector actors, uncertainty about which service delivery models are compatible with carbon credit certification requirements, and a lack of LAC-specific feasibility evidence.
The LAC context also presents distinctive features that may affect feasibility in ways not captured by the African and Asian evidence base. First, the fuel mix for household water treatment in LAC differs significantly across sub-regions: urban and peri-urban households in middle-income countries (Brazil, Peru, Colombia) typically use electric water heaters or gas, which cannot generate emission reductions under current methodologies, while rural households in Bolivia’s altiplano, Haiti’s rural departments, and Peru’s Amazonian communities rely heavily on non-renewable biomass. Second, LAC’s institutional landscape for rural water services is more diverse than Africa’s, ranging from Brazil’s state-level utilities (SAAE/CAEE systems) to Peru’s community-level Juntas Administradoras de Servicios de Saneamiento (JASS) to Haiti’s fragmented mix of NGO-operated and informal systems. Third, Article 6 of the Paris Agreement introduces new complexity around “corresponding adjustments” for internationally transferred carbon credits that did not exist when most sub-Saharan African projects were registered.
This consultancy is designed to generate the LAC-specific evidence needed to move from general interest to actionable determination. By combining in-depth country assessments (D2) with regional screening (D3), it will identify which LAC contexts are most favorable for carbon finance, what conditions must be met, and what steps governments, service providers, and development partners should take to realize the potential.
3. Analytical Framework
The analytical framework for this consultancy organizes the feasibility assessment across four dimensions: technical, institutional, operational, and market/financial. Each dimension is defined by a set of specific indicators that can be measured or scored using publicly available data and stakeholder interviews. Together, the four dimensions constitute a multi-criteria assessment that produces a composite feasibility score for each country and service delivery context under review. The framework is designed to be both rigorous enough to support credible conclusions and practical enough to be applied rapidly in the regional screening (D3).
3.1 Feasibility Dimensions
Technical Dimension 1: Technical Feasibility
Technical feasibility addresses whether the biophysical and programmatic conditions exist for a safe drinking water intervention to generate meaningful, certifiable greenhouse gas emission reductions. The central question is whether the targeted population is currently treating water at home using non-renewable biomass fuels—the precondition for emission reductions under current approved methodologies. If households are already accessing treated piped water, using electric boiling, or relying primarily on LPG, the emission reduction potential is greatly reduced or eliminated.
Key technical indicators include: (i) the prevalence of household water boiling in the target population, drawn from nationally representative household surveys (DHS, MICS, JMP); (ii) the primary fuel source for water boiling, distinguishing non-renewable biomass (wood, charcoal, agricultural waste) from renewable biomass, LPG, and electricity; (iii) the type and scale of safe water intervention proposed or existing, including whether it achieves the level of water quality improvement required to displace boiling (generally ≥3-log pathogen reduction); (iv) the population served and whether it exceeds the minimum scale threshold for financial viability (generally estimated at 5,000–10,000 households given current transaction cost structures); and (v) the wood fuel fraction (fNRB)—the fraction of biomass consumed that is non-renewable in the local context, a key parameter in emission factor calculations under Gold Standard and Verra methodologies.
Institutional Dimension 2: Institutional Feasibility
Institutional feasibility addresses whether the legal, regulatory, and governance environment in a given country supports the participation of rural water service providers in voluntary carbon markets. This is a multi-layered question in the post-Paris Agreement context, encompassing both national-level carbon market regulation and the organizational capacity of service delivery entities.
Key institutional indicators include: (i) voluntary carbon market regulatory status—whether the country has enacted legislation governing voluntary carbon credit projects, the sale of carbon credits internationally, and any requirements for government approval or revenue sharing; (ii) Article 6 positioning—whether the country has communicated a position on corresponding adjustments for voluntary market credits under Article 6.2 or 6.4, and whether this creates a risk that credits sold internationally would require adjustment to the national NDC; (iii) NDC ambition and sectoral targets—whether national climate commitments include the WASH or energy-at-household sector, which could affect additionality determinations; (iv) rural water sector governance—the legal status, financial autonomy, and contracting authority of rural water service providers, including whether they can enter into contracts with carbon project developers or must do so through government intermediaries; and (v) existing carbon project activity—whether the country has any registered voluntary carbon projects in the water, cookstove, or household energy sectors, which signals regulatory readiness and market familiarity.
Operational Dimension 3: Operational Feasibility
Operational feasibility addresses whether rural water service providers and their institutional environment have the practical capacity to implement and sustain the monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems required for carbon credit certification. This is frequently the binding constraint in low-income rural contexts, where the data collection and documentation demands of carbon standards can exceed the administrative capacity of small community-managed systems.
Key operational indicators include: (i) MRV infrastructure readiness—whether existing service monitoring systems (household surveys, water quality testing, usage records) generate the types of data required by certification methodologies; (ii) digital infrastructure availability—mobile network coverage, smartphone penetration, and the feasibility of digital data collection tools in the service area; (iii) service continuity and permanence—whether the intervention has a demonstrated track record of sustained operation and whether institutional arrangements support long-term continuity (a key concern for carbon standards’ 5–10 year crediting periods); (iv) organizational capacity—whether the service provider or a project developer partner has staff with the technical skills to manage carbon project documentation, validation, and verification processes; and (v) existing MRV precedents—whether other development programs in the country (health, cookstoves, forestry) have established data collection and verification systems that could be leveraged.
Financial Dimension 4: Market and Financial Feasibility
Market and financial feasibility addresses whether carbon credit revenues could realistically cover meaningful portions of O&M costs given prevailing market conditions, the scale of the intervention, and the transaction costs of carbon project development. This dimension is ultimately the “so what” of the entire assessment: even technically, institutionally, and operationally sound projects may not be worth pursuing if the revenues are insufficient to justify the investment in project development.
Key financial indicators include: (i) estimated annual credit volume, calculated from population served, boiling prevalence, fuel type, and applicable emission factor; (ii) prevailing voluntary market price range for safe water credits, currently $5–$20 per tonne CO2e for standard-quality credits and $15–$40 for high-quality credits with strong SDG co-benefit narratives; (iii) project development and verification costs, estimated at $50,000–$150,000 for initial validation and $30,000–$80,000 per verification cycle, which drives the minimum scale threshold; (iv) O&M financing gap for the relevant service delivery model, drawn from available national data and SIRWASH Phase I findings; and (v) revenue contribution ratio—the estimated share of annual O&M costs that carbon credit revenues could plausibly cover, which determines whether carbon finance is a marginal supplement or a potentially transformative revenue source.
3.2 Multi-Criteria Scoring Matrix
Each feasibility indicator is scored on a 1–5 scale, where 1 represents a critical barrier and 5 represents a strong enabling condition. Dimension scores are aggregated as unweighted averages within each dimension, and dimension scores are aggregated with equal weighting to produce a composite feasibility score. Countries or contexts scoring above 3.5 overall are classified as “High Potential,” those scoring 2.5–3.5 as “Conditional” (viable subject to specific interventions to address identified barriers), and those below 2.5 as “Low Potential.” In D2, this scoring matrix will be applied in full to each priority country; in D3, a simplified five-indicator rapid version will be applied to the twelve screened countries.
IDB feedback on whether the equal weighting of the four feasibility dimensions is appropriate, or whether market/financial feasibility should receive greater weight given the consultancy’s O&M financing focus. Also: confirmation of whether any specific minimum thresholds (e.g., minimum O&M contribution of 20%) should be built into the financial viability assessment.
| Dimension | Indicator | Data Sources | Score 1 (Critical Barrier) | Score 3 (Moderate) | Score 5 (Strong Enabler) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technical | T1. Household boiling prevalence | JMP, DHS/MICS, national surveys | <15% of rural HH boil water | 30–50% boil water | >65% boil water regularly |
| T2. Non-renewable biomass fuel share (fNRB) | IEA energy balance, national surveys, IPCC default values | <0.3 (mostly renewable/LPG) | 0.4–0.6 mixed fuel use | >0.7 (mostly non-renewable biomass) | |
| T3. Intervention type and water quality effectiveness | Program documentation, WHO guidelines | Intervention does not achieve 3-log pathogen reduction | Achieves basic but not comprehensive water quality targets | Achieves WHO safe water criteria; eliminates boiling need | |
| T4. Population scale (number of HH served) | Program data, census, service registers | <3,000 HH (below viability threshold) | 5,000–15,000 HH (borderline viable) | >25,000 HH (clearly viable at scale) | |
| T5. Emission reduction per household (tCO2e/HH/yr) | Methodology calculations; fuel use surveys | <0.3 tCO2e/HH/yr | 0.5–1.0 tCO2e/HH/yr | >1.5 tCO2e/HH/yr | |
| Institutional | I1. Voluntary carbon market legal framework | Country legal databases, IETA, national registry data | Carbon market activity prohibited or no legal basis | No specific framework but activity not prohibited; ambiguity | Clear enabling legislation; national registry operational |
| I2. Article 6 / corresponding adjustment risk | UNFCCC NDC registry, country communications | Country explicitly requires CAs for all VCM credits | Unclear position; negotiation pending | Country has excluded WASH/household energy from CA requirements | |
| I3. NDC ambition in water/household energy sector | UNFCCC NDC registry | Sector included in NDC baseline; high double-counting risk | Sector partially addressed; additionality arguable | Sector not included in NDC; additionality straightforward | |
| I4. Rural water governance and provider autonomy | SIRWASH diagnostics, national water law, IDB country assessments | No legal basis for service providers to contract with carbon developers | Legal basis exists but bureaucratic barriers are significant | Service providers have clear contracting authority and financial autonomy | |
| I5. Existing VCM project activity (water/cookstove sector) | Gold Standard registry, Verra registry | No registered projects; no precedent in country | 1–2 registered projects; limited precedent | Multiple registered projects; established market familiarity | |
| Operational | O1. Monitoring data quality and coverage | JMP national WASH monitoring reports; program M&E systems | No systematic service monitoring; data quality very poor | Periodic monitoring exists; quality variable | Continuous monitoring with digitized records; high data quality |
| O2. Digital infrastructure (mobile/internet coverage) | ITU/GSMA data; national telecom reports | <30% mobile network coverage in target areas | 50–70% mobile coverage; patchy internet | >80% coverage; digital data collection feasible | |
| O3. Service continuity track record | Program evaluations; utility annual reports; SIRWASH diagnostics | Service interruptions >50% of time; high reversal risk | Reasonable continuity with seasonal gaps | Demonstrated 5+ years of continuous operation; permanence credible | |
| O4. Project developer / carbon market capacity | Market scan; interviews with service providers and developers | No local or regional project developers present; no capacity | Limited capacity; would require significant TA to develop | Active developers present; relevant local capacity available | |
| O5. MRV precedent in country (other sectors) | Gold Standard/Verra registries; cookstove project databases | No VCM verification activity in country at all | Some forestry or cookstove MRV experience | Multiple completed verification cycles across sectors | |
| Financial | F1. Estimated annual credit volume (tCO2e/yr) | Calculated from T1–T5 indicators + methodology parameters | <5,000 tCO2e/yr (unviable after costs) | 10,000–30,000 tCO2e/yr (marginal viability) | >50,000 tCO2e/yr (clearly financially viable) |
| F2. Achievable credit price ($/tCO2e) | Voluntary carbon market pricing data; comparable project benchmarks | <$5/t (standard commodity market price) | $8–$12/t (mid-quality credits) | >$15/t (high-quality SDG co-benefit premium achievable) | |
| F3. Project development and verification cost burden | MWA Learning Paper Annex; comparable project costs | High cost burden relative to credit volume; negative NPV | Costs manageable but require aggregation or co-financing | Costs proportionate; positive NPV without subsidy | |
| F4. O&M financing gap ($/capita/yr) | SIRWASH diagnostics; national utility data; JMP financing data | Gap >$40/capita (carbon revenue marginal contribution) | Gap $15–$30/capita (carbon revenue covers 15–30%) | Gap <$10/capita (carbon revenue could cover 50%+ of gap) | |
| F5. Revenue diversification and blended finance potential | Country financial sector assessments; IDB sector knowledge | Carbon revenue only viable income; no blending potential | Some tariff revenue + potential for grants to blend | Multiple revenue streams; carbon complements strong tariff base |
Scoring guidance: Each indicator is scored 1–5. Dimension scores are the simple average of the five indicators within that dimension. Composite score is the unweighted average of the four dimension scores. Composite >3.5 = High Potential; 2.5–3.5 = Conditional; <2.5 = Low Potential. Individual indicators scoring 1 trigger a “critical flag” requiring explicit discussion regardless of composite score.
3.3 Carbon Credit Methodologies Under Review
Three principal voluntary carbon market methodologies are applicable to safe drinking water interventions in LAC. Each is reviewed below with respect to eligibility criteria, additionality requirements, and crediting periods. The suitability of each methodology for specific LAC contexts will be assessed in D2 and D3.
Gold Standard: Technologies and Practices to Displace Decentralized Thermal Energy Consumption (TPDDTEC)
TPDDTEC is the most widely used Gold Standard methodology for household water treatment projects. It quantifies emission reductions from interventions that displace the thermal energy previously used to boil water at the household level. Eligible project activities include the distribution of water filters (ceramic, membrane, UV), chlorination systems, gravity-fed piped supplies, and other point-of-use or point-of-collection safe water technologies that demonstrably eliminate or significantly reduce the need for biomass boiling.
Eligibility criteria: (i) The baseline scenario must involve biomass-based water boiling as the primary or significant household treatment practice; (ii) the intervention technology must achieve WHO Household Water Quality guideline compliance; (iii) the project must demonstrate that the technology is not already mandated by law or government policy (financial additionality); and (iv) the baseline fNRB value must exceed 0 (i.e., at least some fraction of biomass used is non-renewable).
Additionality: TPDDTEC uses a combined tool approach: financial additionality is demonstrated through an investment analysis showing that carbon revenues are necessary for project viability, and regulatory surplus (absence of mandatory policy requiring the intervention). In LAC, where government programs for household water treatment are relatively common (particularly in Peru and Brazil), additionality argumentation will require careful attention to distinguishing carbon-financed from government-mandated interventions.
Crediting period: Fixed 7-year period, renewable twice (maximum 21 years). Renewal requires baseline reassessment and updated fNRB calculations. In the LAC context, the 7-year window is sufficient to generate meaningful revenue streams, but the baseline renewal requirement means that projects must plan for updated household surveys and fuel use assessments at years 7 and 14.
- Emission factor calculation: uses approved country-specific or default emission factors for biomass combustion, adjusted by fNRB
- Monitoring requirements: includes household use surveys (minimum 10% random sample annually), water quality testing, and technology distribution records
- Key strength for LAC: well-established verification track record in Africa and Asia; verification bodies familiar with methodology
- Key challenge for LAC: monitoring requirements may exceed capacity of small rural service providers without project developer support
Gold Standard: Safe Drinking Water (SDW) Methodology
The Gold Standard Safe Drinking Water methodology was developed as a dedicated standard for programs providing safe water access, with an explicit focus on the health and development co-benefits (SDG 3, SDG 6) that distinguish safe water projects from cookstove or energy projects. It calculates emission reductions from the displacement of water boiling and explicitly accounts for the SDG premium that safe water projects can command in premium voluntary markets.
Eligibility criteria: (i) The project must provide access to water that meets WHO drinking water quality guidelines; (ii) the intervention must be demonstrated to displace boiling that would otherwise occur using biomass fuel; (iii) baseline water quality testing must confirm that source water is microbiologically unsafe without treatment; and (iv) technology distribution must be verified through household records and monitoring visits. The SDW methodology explicitly requires evidence of baseline boiling practice through household survey data—a requirement that the team will need to assess against data availability in each priority country.
Additionality: Similar to TPDDTEC, but with additional emphasis on the “systematic barrier” approach: projects can demonstrate additionality by showing that safe water access has been systematically inaccessible due to financial, geographical, or institutional barriers, rather than requiring a traditional financial barrier test. This may be advantageous in LAC rural contexts where geographic isolation and poverty are demonstrable barriers.
Crediting period: 7 years, renewable twice (21 years maximum). The SDW methodology additionally requires periodic third-party verification of continued technology functionality and household use rates—a more demanding operational requirement that will factor into the operational feasibility assessment.
- Key strength: SDG co-benefit premium narrative is particularly strong for safe water; strong buyer demand in premium markets
- Key challenge: baseline household survey requirements may be data-intensive in countries where national WASH data is patchy (notably Haiti)
- Relevance to LAC: this methodology may be particularly applicable in contexts like Haiti and rural Bolivia where piped water access is extremely limited and boiling with biomass is near-universal
Verra VCS: Methodology for Water Purification (VM0041 / AMS-III.AV)
Verra’s VCS methodology for water purification (historically referenced as AMS-III.AV under CDM lineage, now implemented under Verra’s own framework as VM0041) is the principal alternative to Gold Standard for water treatment carbon projects. It applies to technologies that purify water to drinking water standards, covering household water treatment (filters, UV, chlorination) and small-scale community supply systems. Verra’s REDD+ and cookstove project pipelines in LAC give it somewhat more regional market infrastructure than Gold Standard, which has been more heavily used in East Africa.
Eligibility criteria: (i) The water purification technology must demonstrably achieve WHO drinking water quality standards; (ii) baseline conditions must include use of non-renewable biomass for water boiling; (iii) the project must demonstrate measurable and verifiable emission reductions; and (iv) projects must be additional to baseline conditions and any existing mandatory policies. An important feature of VM0041 is that it can be applied to community-level piped water supply systems—not just household-level technologies—making it potentially applicable to a wider range of service delivery models common in LAC, including piped systems operated by community water committees (JASS in Peru, COAPS in Bolivia).
Additionality: Verra applies a combined additionality assessment: projects must pass both a regulatory surplus test and either a financial barrier test or a common practice test. The common practice test (showing that the proposed intervention is not widespread in the project area) may be easier to satisfy in remote rural LAC contexts where safe water access is genuinely uncommon.
Crediting period: Fixed 10-year periods, renewable once (20 years maximum). The longer initial crediting period compared to Gold Standard may be advantageous for project economics in LAC, where development costs are similar but the extended payback period improves NPV.
- Key strength: applicable to community-level systems (not just household devices), which better matches LAC rural water service delivery models
- Key strength: Verra has more established LAC market infrastructure through REDD+ and cookstove precedents
- Key challenge: VM0041 requires conservative emission factor assumptions that may reduce estimated credit volume compared to Gold Standard calculations
- Relevance to LAC: potentially the most relevant methodology for programs operating through community water committees or small-scale utilities
Methodology selection guidance: The choice between TPDDTEC, GS SDW, and VM0041 will depend on the service delivery model (household device vs. community system), the institutional structure of the project developer, and the target buyer market. In D2, each country assessment will include a methodology suitability analysis. In general, Gold Standard SDW may be preferred where health co-benefit narratives are central; VM0041 may be preferred where community-level piped systems are the primary delivery model.
4. Methodological Approach
4.1 Literature Review Scope
The evidence base for this consultancy was assembled through a structured literature review covering three primary domains: (i) the mechanics and economics of voluntary carbon markets for water and WASH interventions; (ii) the technical and epidemiological evidence base for safe drinking water interventions and their emission reduction potential; and (iii) the institutional and financial landscape of rural water service delivery in LAC. The review was conducted using a combination of systematic database searches (Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar) and targeted identification of practitioner literature from organizations active in the field (MWA, WaterAid, IRC, RWSN, IDB, World Bank, UNICEF).
Core reference documents informing this framework include: the MWA Learning Paper on Carbon Credits for WASH (2024), which provides the most comprehensive practitioner guide to methodology selection and Go/No-Go screening; Thomas et al. (2024) in ACS ES&T Water, which establishes the global potential for water sector carbon credits; Thomas et al. (2023) in Science of the Total Environment, which frames the climate reparative finance rationale; and the Decarbonizing Water Full Report (Mortenson Center & Castalia Advisors, 2024), which maps global investment pathways. The Rwanda Tubeho Neza evidence base—spanning a dozen peer-reviewed publications in The Lancet Planetary Health, PLOS ONE, BMC Public Health, and ACS Environmental Science & Technology—provides the empirical foundation for health impact, technology adoption, cost-benefit, and MRV lessons that will be drawn upon throughout the country assessments.
The literature review scope for this consultancy is deliberately focused on evidence that is directly actionable for the LAC assessment: methodological requirements and eligibility criteria from Gold Standard and Verra; real-world project economics from registered carbon projects; country-level data on household water treatment practices from JMP and DHS; and LAC-specific institutional analyses of rural water sector governance. The team is not undertaking a comprehensive review of the broader water security or climate finance literature; rather, the literature review serves to establish the factual and analytical basis for the four feasibility dimensions described in Section 3.
4.2 Country-Level Data Collection
Country-level data collection for the D2 priority country assessments will draw primarily on publicly available secondary data sources, supplemented by targeted stakeholder consultations. Given the $40,000 budget constraint, field visits are not planned; data collection will be conducted remotely using digital research tools and structured interviews by phone or video.
Primary public data sources: (i) WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) data on household drinking water treatment practices, rural access levels, and service continuity; (ii) Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) providing household-level data on water treatment, fuel use, and socioeconomic status; (iii) IEA energy balance data and IPCC default values for fNRB and biomass combustion emission factors; (iv) Gold Standard and Verra project registries for existing carbon project activity in each country; (v) UNFCCC NDC registry and Article 6 negotiation records; (vi) National WASH sector information systems (Brazil SNIS, Peru DATASS, Bolivia SIHA) for service provider data; (vii) IDB country strategy documents and project databases for existing rural water investments.
Stakeholder consultations: Targeted interviews will be conducted with 3–5 key informants per priority country, selected to cover government (national water regulatory agencies, environment ministries), civil society (rural water service providers, WASH NGOs), and carbon market actors (project developers, verification bodies active in the region). Interview protocols will be developed during the inception phase and shared with the IDB for review. MWA and COVA will contribute direct access to their existing organizational networks in the sector, reducing the need for cold outreach and improving the quality and relevance of stakeholder engagement. The team acknowledges that stakeholder engagement will be limited in scope relative to a full diagnostic mission; the goal is to validate desk research findings and identify gaps, not to substitute for country-level primary research.
MWA’s specific country contacts and existing relationships in Bolivia, Brazil, Haiti, and Peru, including any MWA member organizations with active programs in these countries. COVA’s specific contacts with rural water service providers and government counterparts in Central American countries that may be relevant to the regional screening (D3). The team requests a list of suggested stakeholder interview targets per priority country from the IDB project manager.
4.3 Regional Screening Methodology
The regional screening (D3) will apply a simplified version of the D1 analytical framework to up to twelve LAC countries beyond the four priority SIRWASH countries. The screening is designed to provide a comparative overview of carbon finance potential across the region, enabling the IDB and partners to prioritize future deeper assessments or pilot interventions.
The rapid screening instrument will use five composite indicators, one per feasibility dimension plus an integrated market potential indicator, each scored 1–5 using publicly available secondary data. The five indicators are: (i) Boiling Prevalence x fNRB Index (technical, combining JMP boiling data with IPCC/IEA fuel data); (ii) Regulatory Readiness Score (institutional, based on carbon market legal status and Article 6 position); (iii) MRV Availability Proxy (operational, based on digital infrastructure and existing monitoring systems); (iv) Financial Viability Ratio (market/financial, estimated credit revenue divided by estimated O&M gap); and (v) Scale and Aggregation Potential (cross-cutting, based on rural population without safely managed water and feasibility of aggregating multiple service providers into a single carbon project).
Data for the rapid screening will be drawn entirely from publicly available sources: JMP databases, UNICEF MICS, World Bank development indicators, IDB country strategies, and the Gold Standard/Verra project registries. No stakeholder consultations are planned for the screening countries, though the team will note where specific follow-up is recommended based on high screening scores. Country profiles will be standardized to a half-page format suitable for comparative tabular presentation in D3.
Confirmation of the twelve countries to be included in the regional screening. The team proposes the following candidate list (see Section 5.2), but requests IDB guidance on whether any should be prioritized, excluded, or substituted based on IDB portfolio and programming priorities.
5. Scope Confirmation
5.1 Priority Countries: Bolivia, Brazil, Haiti, Peru
The four priority SIRWASH countries were selected by the IDB based on their existing SIRWASH engagement and the diversity of rural water service delivery models they represent. The team confirms its understanding of the justification for each country and flags preliminary data availability assessments as follows:
Bolivia
Bolivia presents a compelling case for carbon finance feasibility analysis for several reinforcing reasons. Rural water coverage remains among the lowest in South America, with approximately 25% of the rural population lacking access to safely managed drinking water. The altiplano and valley regions are characterized by near-universal dependence on biomass fuels (primarily wood and yareta shrub) for both cooking and water treatment, yielding high fNRB values and significant emission reduction potential per household. Bolivia has an established institutional framework for community-based rural water services (EPSA system) with defined roles for community water operators (Entidades Prestadoras de Servicios de Agua), which may provide a credible organizational basis for carbon project development. However, Bolivia’s position on voluntary carbon markets is complex: the government has historically been critical of carbon markets as a development financing mechanism at the national policy level, and this ideological context will require careful treatment in the institutional feasibility assessment.
Data availability: JMP and DHS data available; national SIHA database provides some service provider information. Government engagement with carbon markets is limited; stakeholder identification for institutional assessment will require additional outreach.
Brazil
Brazil represents the most institutionally complex priority country but also potentially the most important from a scale perspective. The Northern and Northeastern regions of Brazil contain tens of millions of rural residents with limited access to safely managed water; many rural communities in Para, Maranhao, and Bahia states still rely on household water treatment including biomass boiling. Brazil has the most sophisticated carbon market regulatory framework in LAC, having enacted a federal voluntary carbon market law (Lei do Mercado de Carbono, 2023) and with active NDC implementation underway. Brazil’s National Information System on Sanitation (SNIS) provides unusually detailed data on rural water service provider performance, which could serve as a strong foundation for MRV systems. The country has significant precedent in voluntary carbon market activity through REDD+ and agricultural soil carbon projects, with established verification infrastructure and active project developers.
However, Brazil’s 2023 carbon market legislation introduces uncertainty around the applicability of voluntary market mechanisms, as the government is designing a regulated carbon trading scheme that may affect how voluntary market projects interact with national NDC accounting. The additionality of safe water interventions in states with active government water extension programs (e.g., Programa Cisternas in the semi-arid Northeast) will require careful documentation. Brazil’s rural water sector is also highly heterogeneous: while some regions approximate African rural contexts in terms of biomass dependence and service fragmentation, others are closer to middle-income service models with partial cost recovery and existing monitoring infrastructure.
Data availability: SNIS database, DHS, IBGE census data all available; strong secondary data base. Brazil’s carbon market law requires close monitoring as regulations are still being developed.
Haiti
Haiti represents both the most compelling technical case for carbon finance and the most challenging operational context in the priority country set. Rural water coverage is the lowest in the LAC region, with over 50% of the rural population lacking access to even basic drinking water services and near-universal reliance on household water boiling using charcoal and wood. Haiti’s heavy dependence on charcoal—a non-renewable biomass fuel derived from rapidly depleting forest resources—yields among the highest fNRB values in the region and the highest emission reduction potential per household. The theoretical case for carbon finance is thus strong: large populations, high boiling prevalence, high biomass dependence, and significant O&M financing gaps.
Against this technical opportunity, Haiti faces severe institutional and operational constraints. The political and security situation has deteriorated significantly since 2021, with governance structures fragmented and many development programs suspended or severely curtailed. Carbon market regulation is essentially non-existent; institutional actors with the capacity to develop and manage carbon projects are few and overstretched. The assessment will need to distinguish carefully between the technical potential (which is high) and the near-term operational feasibility (which is severely constrained), and to explore whether international NGOs and humanitarian organizations active in Haiti’s water sector (UNICEF, DINEPA, Water For People, COVA) could serve as project developer intermediaries in place of absent government or commercial actors.
Data availability: JMP and MICS data available but less comprehensive than for South American countries. Limited SNIS-equivalent system; reliance on NGO program data and DINEPA reports. COVA’s programming relationships in Haiti will be an important asset for stakeholder engagement.
Peru
Peru offers arguably the most institutionally promising context for carbon finance in the priority country set. The country has established community-level rural water governance through the Juntas Administradoras de Servicios de Saneamiento (JASS) system, which provides a large number of semi-formalized service providers that could in principle be aggregated into a carbon project portfolio. Peru has experience with voluntary carbon market mechanisms through its Amazon REDD+ sector, with multiple registered projects and established verification infrastructure. The Ministry of Environment (MINAM) has taken an active role in Article 6 rule development, and Peru was among the first countries to authorize Article 6.2 bilateral agreements, suggesting institutional sophistication around carbon market governance.
Peru’s rural water sector presents significant geographic heterogeneity: Andean highland communities (sierra) rely heavily on biomass for cooking and water treatment and face high fNRB conditions; Amazonian communities (selva) have varying fuel patterns depending on forest access and remoteness; and coastal communities (costa) generally have higher access rates and greater LPG penetration. This heterogeneity means that feasibility will vary significantly within Peru, and the country assessment will need to identify which geographic and service delivery contexts are most viable. The DATASS national rural water information system provides relatively good secondary data on JASS operational status, though data quality varies significantly by region.
Data availability: DATASS, SIASAR (Sistema de Información de Agua y Saneamiento Rural), DHS, and MICS all available; Peru has a relatively strong secondary data environment compared to Bolivia and Haiti.
IDB confirmation that the priority country justifications above align with the rationale and programming priorities informing the original country selection for SIRWASH Phase II. Any country-specific context, existing IDB portfolio investments, or planned SIRWASH Phase II activities that should be integrated into the D2 country assessments.
5.2 Proposed Regional Screening Countries
The team proposes the following twelve countries for inclusion in the D3 regional screening, selected to provide geographic and institutional diversity across LAC sub-regions while prioritizing countries where sufficient public data exists for meaningful rapid assessment. The selection reflects a combination of criteria: rural population without safely managed water access (primary criterion for technical potential), geographic balance across Central America, the Caribbean, and South America, and presence of IDB rural water sector engagement.
| Country | Sub-region | Primary Rationale for Inclusion | Preliminary Feasibility Signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Guatemala | Central America | High rural population without improved water; significant indigenous rural communities with biomass dependence; COVA organizational presence and knowledge | Medium-High (technical strong; institutional moderate) |
| Honduras | Central America | High rural water access gap; established community water operator model (JAA system); active cookstove carbon projects suggest some market infrastructure | Medium (technical moderate-high; MRV weak) |
| Nicaragua | Central America | Large rural population with limited safe water access; high biomass dependence; COVA implementation history in country | Medium (institutional barriers from political context) |
| El Salvador | Central America | COVA organizational base; urban-rural service gap; active NGO water sector; smaller population may limit scale | Medium-Low (scale may constrain viability) |
| Colombia | South America | Significant rural populations in Pacific and Amazon regions with low water access; established carbon market framework (REDD+, national carbon tax); relatively sophisticated institutional environment | Medium-High (institutional strong; technical heterogeneous) |
| Ecuador | South America | Rural water access gap concentrated in Amazonian and coastal populations; community water management tradition; emerging carbon market engagement | Medium (moderate on all dimensions) |
| Paraguay | South America | Rural coverage gap; significant Chaco population with biomass dependence; limited carbon market activity suggests first-mover opportunity | Medium-Low (institutional early-stage; technical moderate) |
| Dominican Republic | Caribbean | Caribbean middle-income context with rural water access gap; proximity to Haiti creates potential for comparative regional narrative; tourism-linked carbon buyer demand | Medium (scale moderate; institutional developing) |
| Jamaica | Caribbean | Rural water access challenges; climate vulnerability narrative strong; English-language market may facilitate premium buyer access | Medium-Low (small scale limits viability without aggregation) |
| Guyana | South America (Caribbean coast) | Hinterland indigenous communities with very limited water access; Guyana has emerging carbon market engagement (REDD+); climate finance narrative strong | Medium (technical high in interior; institutional nascent) |
| Belize | Central America | Rural water access gap; COVA regional context; small scale but English-language market access; nature-based solutions market familiarity | Low-Medium (scale constrains viability; best as aggregation case) |
| Panama | Central America | Indigenous comarca populations (Ngobe-Bugle, Guna Yala) face significant water access gaps despite national middle-income status; COVA regional operational context | Medium (technical strong in indigenous territories; institutional moderate) |
Confirmation of the twelve screening countries from the IDB project manager, including any substitutions or additions based on IDB portfolio priorities. Budget allocation for the D3 screening (twelve countries at $40K overall budget implies approximately $500–$700 per country screening profile for desk research); confirmation that this scope is acceptable or whether the country list should be reduced.
6. Work Plan
The consultancy spans five months (150 days) from the date of contract signature. Activities are organized into four sequential phases corresponding to the four deliverables. Given the lean budget, phases partially overlap to maximize efficiency: D3 regional screening preparation begins during the D2 country assessment phase, and D4 synthesis drafting begins once D3 is submitted. The following Gantt chart presents the work plan at task level across the five-month period.
Confirmation of the contract start date and any IDB institutional calendar constraints (e.g., reporting cycles, review periods) that should be reflected in the work plan. Also: confirmation of the IDB’s preferred submission format (Word document, PDF, or web report) and review period length (the team has assumed 10 working days per deliverable review cycle).
| Task | Responsible | Month 1 (Wk 1–4) | Month 2 (Wk 5–8) | Month 3 (Wk 9–12) | Month 4 (Wk 13–16) | Month 5 (Wk 17–21) | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| W1 | W2 | W3 | W4 | W5 | W6 | W7 | W8 | W9 | W10 | W11 | W12 | W13 | W14 | W15 | W16 | W17 | W18 | W19 | W20 | ||
| Phase 1: Inception & Analytical Framework (D1) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Literature review and evidence synthesis | Virridy / MWA | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Analytical framework development | Virridy | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Country scope and screening country confirmation | All + IDB | ||||||||||||||||||||
| D1 submission + IDB review | All | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Phase 2: Country-Level Feasibility Assessments (D2) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary data collection (all 4 countries) | Virridy / MWA / COVA | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Stakeholder interviews (3–5 per country) | MWA / COVA / Virridy | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Country note: Bolivia + Peru | Virridy (lead) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Country note: Haiti + Brazil | COVA / MWA (lead) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Cross-country synthesis and D2 drafting | Virridy | ||||||||||||||||||||
| D2 submission + IDB review | All | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Phase 3: Regional Screening (D3) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Rapid screening data collection (12 countries) | Virridy / COVA | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Country screening profiles and scoring | Virridy / COVA | ||||||||||||||||||||
| D3 submission + IDB review | All | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Phase 4: Final Synthesis & Decision-Support Tool (D4) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Synthesis drafting and findings integration | Virridy (lead) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Decision-support tool development | Virridy / MWA | ||||||||||||||||||||
| D4 final submission | All | ||||||||||||||||||||
Work plan note: Darker shading indicates primary activity; lighter shading indicates IDB review periods. The work plan assumes a 10-business-day IDB review cycle for each deliverable. Stakeholder knowledge-sharing sessions will be organized at the completion of D2 and D4; timing to be confirmed with the IDB project manager. All activities will be conducted remotely given the budget constraint; the team will flag if stakeholder access issues arise that could benefit from targeted in-person engagement.
Confirmation of the IDB’s preferred review cycle length and any scheduled project review meetings that should be integrated into the work plan. Budget allocation confirmation: the team requests guidance on whether the budget permits any in-country travel (even one field visit to a priority country) or whether the scope should remain entirely desk-based.
7. Team Composition & Responsibilities
The consulting consortium brings together three organizations with complementary expertise specifically relevant to this consultancy’s objectives. Virridy leads the consortium and provides the core carbon finance, MRV, and analytical capacity; MWA contributes sector-wide WASH programming knowledge, the institutional authority of its Learning Paper, and existing relationships with rural water actors across the development sector; COVA contributes direct field implementation experience with safe drinking water programs in Central America and Haiti, organizational relationships with government counterparts and NGO networks, and the perspective of an organization that has successfully operated water services in low-resource, high-vulnerability contexts.
Role: Consortium Lead, Analytical Framework, Carbon Finance Expertise
Virridy leads the consortium and holds primary responsibility for the design and application of the analytical framework, the carbon credit methodology analysis, the financial feasibility assessments, and the delivery of all four products. Virridy’s core expertise derives from its operational experience implementing the Rwanda Tubeho Neza program—the world’s largest carbon-financed household water and cookstove program—under the DelAgua/Virridy brand, which has generated millions of Gold Standard TPDDTEC carbon credits certified by independent third-party verifiers. This experience provides Virridy with unique practitioner-level knowledge of methodology requirements, verification processes, MRV design, and the commercial economics of safe water carbon projects that cannot be replicated from the secondary literature alone.
Within this consultancy, Virridy will: (i) lead development and documentation of the analytical framework (Section 3); (ii) coordinate and synthesize all country-level and regional screening analysis; (iii) lead financial feasibility calculations and carbon credit yield estimations; (iv) author the framework sections of D1, the synthesis sections of D2, all of D3, and D4; and (v) coordinate all deliverable submissions and IDB engagement. Virridy will also contribute digital MRV expertise relevant to the operational feasibility dimension, drawing on its experience with continuous water quality monitoring technologies.
- Lead personnel: Team Leader / Carbon Finance Specialist (senior, 10+ years carbon market and water sector experience)
- Support: Research and Analytical Specialist (AI-assisted desk research, data synthesis, report production)
- Estimated level of effort: ~60% of total consultancy LOE
Role: WASH Programming Evidence, Sector Relationships, Africa-to-LAC Learning
The Millennium Water Alliance is a global membership alliance of leading WASH-focused organizations with programmatic presence in Africa, Asia, and increasingly LAC. MWA’s 2024 Learning Paper on Carbon Credits for WASH Interventions—produced in partnership with NatureCo and drawing on case studies from Rwanda (Virridy), Tanzania (Water Mission), and Kenya (DRIP FUNDI)—is the primary practitioner guidance document for this consultancy’s methodology review and forms a key reference for the analytical framework. MWA’s involvement in this consortium ensures that the consultancy draws on the fullest available evidence base and that the LAC findings can be situated within a global comparative context.
Within this consultancy, MWA will: (i) provide expert review and validation of the analytical framework and carbon credit methodology analysis in D1; (ii) contribute to the cross-cutting technical and institutional analysis in D2, particularly the sections drawing on Africa-LAC comparative learning; (iii) conduct or support stakeholder outreach through its member network to identify key informants for country consultations; and (iv) review and validate the final decision-support tool in D4 to ensure it is consistent with and complementary to MWA’s existing Go/No-Go guidance.
- Lead personnel: WASH and Carbon Finance Specialist (MWA staff or senior associate with carbon-WASH programming experience)
- Estimated level of effort: ~25% of total consultancy LOE
MWA’s confirmation of specific personnel to be assigned, their time availability across the five-month period, and any existing MWA organizational relationships with WASH sector actors in Bolivia, Brazil, Haiti, or Peru that could support stakeholder engagement in D2.
Role: Field Implementation Knowledge, Central America Institutional Relationships, Haiti Engagement
COVA (formerly EOS International) is a non-governmental organization with a primary mission of providing safe drinking water for communities in Central America and the Caribbean, with programmatic experience in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, and Haiti. COVA brings to this consortium what neither Virridy nor MWA can provide: direct, recent implementation experience operating safe drinking water programs in the specific sub-regional contexts most relevant to the Central America and Caribbean portions of the regional screening (D3), and organizational relationships with rural water service providers, government counterparts, and community actors that will be critical for the Haiti country assessment in D2.
COVA’s experience operating water programs in fragile and post-crisis settings is particularly relevant for Haiti, where conventional data collection and stakeholder engagement approaches are severely constrained by the security and governance situation. COVA’s implementation track record also provides concrete operational data on the types of safe water interventions, service delivery costs, and community engagement models that are relevant to the technical and operational feasibility assessments.
Within this consultancy, COVA will: (i) lead the Haiti country note in D2, drawing on organizational knowledge of the Haitian rural water sector, DINEPA relationships, and NGO network contacts; (ii) contribute to the Central American country profiles in D3, particularly for El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, Belize, and Panama; (iii) provide implementation-level ground-truthing for operational feasibility assessments in Central America and the Caribbean; and (iv) contribute to identification and facilitation of stakeholder interviews in countries where COVA has organizational relationships.
- Lead personnel: COVA Water Programs Director or equivalent senior staff with Haiti and Central America experience
- Estimated level of effort: ~15% of total consultancy LOE
COVA’s confirmation of (i) specific personnel to be assigned; (ii) current operational status of COVA programs in Haiti and Central American countries; (iii) any COVA data on safe water intervention costs, service continuity, and community water treatment practices that can be used directly in the country assessments; and (iv) specific government and civil society contacts in Haiti and Central America who should be approached for D2 and D3 stakeholder consultations.
Budget Allocation Notes
Given the $40,000 total budget, the level of effort across the consortium is tightly constrained. The work plan is designed around AI-assisted desk research and analytical synthesis as the primary production method, supplemented by the consortium’s existing institutional knowledge rather than primary data collection. Stakeholder consultations will be limited to 3–5 per priority country, conducted by video or phone. The team will not conduct field visits or country travel unless the IDB authorizes supplemental budget for this purpose. All deliverables will be produced in English; Spanish translation of key findings summaries may be possible if budget permits but is not currently scoped.
IDB confirmation of budget allocation across deliverables and any flexibility for targeted in-country engagement if analysis reveals that specific stakeholder access is critical to the quality of findings. Guidance on whether any IDB-funded travel or country office support could supplement the consultancy’s stakeholder engagement activities in the priority countries.