1
D1: Inception Report & Analytical Framework
Analytical framework, methodology, carbon credit methodology review, work plan, and team composition.
Due: 30 days — 20% payment
2
D2: Country-Level Feasibility Assessments
In-depth assessments for Bolivia, Brazil, Haiti, and Peru across four feasibility dimensions.
Due: 90 days — 35% payment
3
D3: Regional Screening
Rapid feasibility screening of up to 12 additional LAC countries with comparative analysis.
Due: 120 days — 20% payment
4
D4: Decision-Support Tool & Final Synthesis
Final report with strategic recommendations and Excel-based screening tool with yield estimation.
Due: 150 days — 25% payment
Commenting: All deliverable drafts support inline commenting. Select any text to add a comment. Click the comment icon (bottom-right) to view and manage comments.
D1
Inception Report & Analytical Framework
Product 1 — Due 30 days after contract signature — 20% payment
1. Executive Summary
Brief overview of the consultancy objectives, approach, and expected outputs.
2. Introduction & Context
2.1 Background: SIRWASH Initiative & Rural Water Sustainability in LAC
- Overview of the SIRWASH Phase II framework
- Persistent O&M challenges in rural water services across LAC
- Limited financial resources, weak cost-recovery, institutional constraints
2.2 Carbon Finance as an Emerging Mechanism for Water Services
- How safe drinking water interventions reduce GHG emissions (avoiding biomass-based water boiling)
- Current state of carbon finance for water globally
- Voluntary carbon market standards applicable to safe water (Gold Standard, Verra)
Key references: Decarbonizing Water (ACS) — 1.6B+ annual credit potential | Climate Reparative Finance | MWA Learning Paper — Go/No-Go decision tree
2.3 Rationale for this Assessment
- Knowledge gaps specific to LAC and rural service contexts
- Need for structured feasibility evidence to inform IDB and government decision-making
3. Analytical Framework
3.1 Feasibility Assessment Dimensions
- Technical feasibility: Baseline water treatment practices, biomass dependence, population scale, intervention types
- Institutional feasibility: Regulatory frameworks, carbon market participation rules, service delivery institutional arrangements
- Operational feasibility: MRV capacity, data collection infrastructure, operational models for rural water services
- Market/financial feasibility: Carbon credit pricing, transaction costs, revenue potential vs. O&M financing needs
Key references: Digital MRV Technologies (ACS) — MRV roadmap | Who Pays for Water? — $7-43/capita gaps
3.2 Assessment Criteria & Scoring Approach
- Multi-criteria assessment matrix for each feasibility dimension
- Viability thresholds and classification (viable / conditionally viable / non-viable)
- Approach to handling uncertainty and data gaps
3.3 Carbon Credit Methodologies Under Review
- Gold Standard: Technologies and Practices to Displace Decentralized Thermal Energy Consumption (TPDDTEC)
- Gold Standard: Safe Drinking Water methodology
- Verra VCS: Methodology for water purification
- Eligibility criteria, additionality requirements, crediting periods
From MWA Learning Paper: Key methodologies include Gold Standard's safe water supply methodology (requiring baseline boiling prevalence) and Verra's methodology for water treatment systems. The Go/No-Go decision tree (Section 4.4) provides a structured screening approach.
4. Methodological Approach
4.1 Literature Review & Evidence Synthesis
- Systematic review of carbon finance for water/WASH interventions
- Review of existing carbon credit projects in the water sector globally
- Applicable lessons from Rwanda (Tubeho Neza), Tanzania, Kenya, and Ethiopia case studies
Case study evidence: Rwanda Tubeho Neza (Lancet) — diarrhea -29%, respiratory -25% | Rwanda pilot (PLOS ONE) — >90% sustained adoption
4.2 Country-Level Data Collection Strategy
- Data sources: national WASH surveys, census data, energy balance data, regulatory databases
- Stakeholder consultation approach (government agencies, service providers, carbon market actors)
- Key informant interview protocols
4.3 Regional Screening Methodology
- Selection criteria for the broader set of LAC countries (up to 12)
- Rapid assessment indicators and data sources
- Comparative scoring methodology
5. Scope Confirmation
5.1 Priority Countries: Bolivia, Brazil, Haiti, Peru
- Justification for in-depth assessment focus
- Preliminary country profiles and data availability assessment
- Key WASH interventions and operational contexts to be analyzed in each
5.2 Regional Screening Countries (proposed)
- Proposed country selection with rationale
- Screening scope and depth of analysis
6. Work Plan & Schedule
- Gantt chart mapping phases 1–4 across the 150-day timeline
- Key milestones and deliverable submission dates
- Coordination meeting schedule with the IDB
- Knowledge-sharing session plan
7. Team Composition & Responsibilities
- Team structure and task allocation
- Level of effort per team member per phase
D2
Country-Level Feasibility Assessments
Product 2 — Due 90 days after contract signature — 35% payment
1. Executive Summary
Cross-cutting findings across all four priority countries, highlighting where carbon finance for safe drinking water is most and least viable.
2. Methodology Recap
- Summary of the analytical framework from D1
- Data sources accessed, stakeholders consulted, and any scope adjustments
3. Cross-Cutting Analysis
3.1 Baseline Water Treatment Practices in LAC
- Prevalence of household water boiling across the four countries
- Fuel types used (non-renewable biomass, LPG, electricity) and implications for emission reduction potential
- Urban vs. rural differences; regional variation within countries
Key references: MWA Learning Paper — Section 2.4 on eligible WASH projects; Section 3.2 on emission reduction potential | Rwanda RCT (PLOS ONE) — 97.5% contamination reduction benchmark
3.2 Carbon Credit Methodology Applicability
- Which methodologies apply to each country context
- Additionality considerations
- Crediting period implications and baseline revision requirements
3.3 Institutional & Regulatory Landscape
- Carbon market legal frameworks in each country
- Government positions on Article 6 / corresponding adjustments
- Existing carbon project activity in the water/WASH sector
From MWA Learning Paper: Carbon trading regulations vary significantly by country. LAC regulatory landscapes require detailed assessment similar to the Ethiopia analysis in Annex 6.2.
3.4 MRV Readiness & Digital Infrastructure
- Existing monitoring systems for rural water services in each country
- Data collection capacity and digital infrastructure availability
- Applicability of digital MRV approaches (sensors, remote sensing)
Key references: Digital MRV Technologies (ACS) | Electronic Sensors Rwanda (ACS) — sensor vs. self-reported discrepancies
4. Country Note: Bolivia
4.1 Country Context
- Rural water sector overview: coverage, service models, institutional framework
- Household water treatment practices and fuel sources
- Climate and biophysical conditions relevant to carbon credit generation
4.2 Feasibility Assessment
- Technical: Emission reduction potential estimates
- Institutional: Regulatory readiness, government engagement with carbon markets
- Operational: Service provider capacity, MRV infrastructure
- Financial: Estimated credit yield, revenue potential vs. O&M costs
4.3 Opportunities & Constraints
4.4 Viability Assessment Summary
5. Country Note: Brazil
Same structure as Bolivia (4.1–4.4), adapted to Brazil's context.
- Focus on rural and semi-urban contexts in Northern and Northeastern regions
- Brazil's carbon market regulatory framework and NDC commitments
- Existing WASH monitoring systems (SNIS) as MRV foundation
6. Country Note: Haiti
Same structure as Bolivia (4.1–4.4), adapted to Haiti's context.
- Highest vulnerability: limited infrastructure, high biomass dependence
- Potentially strongest emission reduction case (high boiling with biomass)
- Severe institutional and operational challenges for MRV and sustained delivery
Key references: Rwanda cost-benefit (ScienceDirect) — model for Haiti context | Rwanda process evaluation (BMC) — CHW distribution model
7. Country Note: Peru
Same structure as Bolivia (4.1–4.4), adapted to Peru's context.
- Diverse contexts: highland, Amazon, coastal rural communities
- JASS (Juntas Administradoras de Servicios de Saneamiento) as operational model
- Peru's carbon market experience (forestry sector) as institutional enabler
8. Comparative Analysis & Key Findings
- Comparative feasibility matrix across the four countries
- Common enablers and barriers identified
- Implications for D3 regional screening and D4 decision-support tool
D3
Regional Screening of Carbon Finance Potential
Product 3 — Due 120 days after contract signature — 20% payment
1. Executive Summary
Regional overview of carbon finance viability across up to 12 LAC countries, identifying highest-potential contexts and common barriers.
2. Screening Methodology
2.1 Country Selection Criteria
- Geographic representation across LAC sub-regions
- Variation in rural water sector maturity, institutional capacity, and service models
- Data availability and existing IDB engagement
2.2 Rapid Assessment Indicators
- Emission reduction potential: Household boiling prevalence, fuel type, rural population without improved water sources
- Institutional readiness: Carbon market regulation, Article 6 positioning, water sector governance
- Operational capacity: Rural water service delivery models, monitoring infrastructure, data systems
- Market conditions: Existing carbon project activity, investor interest, transaction cost factors
2.3 Data Sources & Limitations
- JMP data, national census and household surveys, WHO/UNICEF data
- Carbon registry databases (Gold Standard, Verra)
- IDB country strategies and sector assessments
3. Regional Carbon Finance Landscape
3.1 Carbon Market Activity in LAC Water Sector
- Existing registered carbon projects in the water/WASH sector
- Methodologies used, credit volumes, and pricing trends
- Lessons from non-water carbon projects in LAC (forestry, cookstoves)
Key references: Decarbonizing Water Full Report | Carbon Markets & Green Infrastructure (Nature) — $15.6B potential
3.2 Regulatory & Policy Overview
- Country-by-country regulatory status
- NDC commitments and implications
- Article 6 readiness
4. Country Screening Profiles
Standardized rapid assessment for each screened country:
- Rural water sector snapshot (coverage, service models, O&M financing)
- Baseline water treatment practices and biomass fuel dependence
- Institutional and regulatory readiness score
- Estimated emission reduction potential (order of magnitude)
- Overall viability classification (high / medium / low potential)
Candidate countries: Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Paraguay, Guyana, Suriname, Jamaica, Belize. Final selection confirmed in D1.
5. Comparative Analysis
5.1 Regional Patterns & Clusters
- Country groupings by feasibility level
- Sub-regional patterns (Central America vs. Caribbean vs. South America)
- Scale considerations: population thresholds for viability
5.2 Heat Map: Carbon Finance Readiness across LAC
Visual comparison matrix across key feasibility dimensions.
5.3 Comparison with Priority SIRWASH Countries
- How screened countries compare to D2 findings
- Additional opportunities beyond the SIRWASH focus
6. Key Findings & Implications
- Regional opportunities: where carbon finance for water is most promising
- Common constraints: regulatory gaps, data limitations, scale challenges
- Inputs to D4 decision-support framework
D4
Decision-Support Tool & Final Synthesis Report
Product 4 — Due 150 days after contract signature — 25% payment
Part A: Final Synthesis Report
A.1 Executive Summary
High-level findings, strategic recommendations, and actionable next steps for the IDB, governments, and development partners.
A.2 Synthesis of Findings
A.2.1 Technical Feasibility Across LAC
- Where emission reduction potential is highest and why
- Which safe water interventions are most applicable to carbon crediting in LAC
- Minimum population and scale thresholds for financial viability
A.2.2 Institutional & Regulatory Readiness
- Countries with enabling environments vs. those requiring reform
- Article 6 and corresponding adjustment implications
- Institutional arrangements needed
A.2.3 Operational Requirements
- MRV infrastructure needs and digital readiness assessment
- Organizational capacity for carbon project development
- Role of service providers, project developers, and intermediaries
Key references: Digital MRV Roadmap (ACS) | Accountability through Feedback (ACS) | Lume continuous monitoring
A.2.4 Financial Viability
- Estimated carbon credit revenue potential across LAC
- Comparison with O&M financing gaps
- Transaction costs and project development economics
- Revenue-sharing models and benefit distribution
Key references: Who Pays for Water? — $7-43/capita gaps | Rwanda cost-benefit
A.3 Opportunities & Risks
A.3.1 Key Opportunities
- Countries and contexts with highest viability
- Integration with existing IDB water sector investments
- South-South cooperation potential
A.3.2 Key Risks & Limitations
- Carbon market price volatility
- Additionality challenges
- Permanence and reversal risks
- Reputational risks in voluntary markets
A.3.3 Mitigation Strategies
- Diversified revenue models (carbon + tariff + subsidy)
- Phased market entry
- Quality standards and safeguards
A.4 Strategic Recommendations
- For the IDB: investment programming, TA, knowledge products
- For governments: regulatory reforms, institutional arrangements, enabling policies
- For service providers: operational readiness, partnership models, capacity building
- For carbon market stakeholders: methodology development, aggregation, pricing
Part B: Decision-Support Screening Tool
B.1 Purpose & Target Users
- Designed for: governments, IDB project teams, development partners
- Use case: rapid preliminary assessment of carbon finance potential
From MWA Learning Paper (Section 4.4): The Go/No-Go Decision Tree provides a precedent. Our tool should build on this while adapting to LAC rural water contexts and adding quantitative scoring.
B.2 Screening Framework Structure
B.2.1 Stage 1: Preliminary Eligibility Check
- Intervention eligible under existing carbon methodology?
- Evidence of baseline GHG emissions from water treatment?
- Regulatory environment compatible with voluntary markets?
B.2.2 Stage 2: Feasibility Scoring
- Emission reduction potential (population, boiling prevalence, fuel type)
- Institutional readiness (regulatory framework, governance)
- Operational capacity (MRV readiness, service model, data)
- Financial viability (credit volume, pricing, transaction costs, O&M gap)
B.2.3 Stage 3: Viability Classification
- Scoring thresholds and decision rules
- Classification: High / Conditional / Low / Not recommended
- Recommended next steps per classification
B.3 Carbon Credit Yield Estimation Module
- Simplified model to estimate annual credit potential
- Inputs: population served, boiling prevalence, fuel type, intervention type
- Outputs: estimated tCO₂e/year, annual revenue range
Key references: MWA Annex 6.9 — Safe Water Carbon Yield Model | Decarbonizing Water (ACS)
B.4 Project Development Roadmap
- Step-by-step guidance from screening to credit issuance
- Key stakeholders and roles at each stage
- Typical timelines and costs
- Common pitfalls and success factors
B.5 Tool Format & Delivery
- Excel-based interactive tool with guided inputs and automated scoring
- User guide and worked examples
- Reference tables with country-specific parameters