Screening Tool | Carbon Finance for Rural Water in LAC

How to use this tool: Complete all three stages sequentially. Stage 1 checks basic eligibility. Stage 2 scores four feasibility dimensions (100 points total). Stage 3 estimates carbon credit yield and potential revenue. All inputs update results in real time.

Preliminary Eligibility Check

Six binary criteria — all must be met to proceed to Stage 2

Q1 — Intervention type Does the intervention provide safe drinking water to a population that currently lacks it?

Q2 — Baseline fuel use Is there evidence that the target population currently boils or treats water using fuel (biomass, charcoal, LPG)?

Q3 — Scale threshold Is the target population at least 10,000 beneficiaries?

Q4 — Applicable methodology Is there a carbon credit methodology applicable to the intervention? (Gold Standard TPDDTEC, GS Safe Water, or Verra VCS)

Q5 — Regulatory environment Does the country's regulatory environment permit voluntary carbon market participation?

Q6 — Operational entity Is there an operational entity (service provider, NGO, or government agency) capable of sustaining the intervention for at least 5 years?

◯

Answer all six questions above to see eligibility result.

Feasibility Scoring

Four dimensions, 5 indicators each — rated 1–5. Maximum composite score: 100.

Technical Technical Feasibility

0 / 25

▼

Boiling prevalence among target population1=<20% 2=20–40% 3=40–60% 4=60–80% 5=>80%

Non-renewable biomass fraction (f_NRB)1=<0.3 2=0.3–0.5 3=0.5–0.7 4=0.7–0.85 5=>0.85

Population scale of intervention1=<15K 2=15–30K 3=30–75K 4=75–150K 5=>150K

Intervention proven effective1=Untested 3=Some evidence 5=RCT-validated efficacy

Climate and geography favorable for intervention1=Unfavorable 3=Moderate constraints 5=Highly favorable

Institutional Institutional Readiness

0 / 25

▼

Carbon market legal framework1=Hostile 2=Unclear 3=Emerging 4=Established 5=Mature

Article 6 / NDC alignment1=Opposed 2=Undecided 3=Engaged 4=Bilateral arrangements 5=Fully operational

Water sector governance1=Weak 2=Fragmented 3=Functioning 4=Strong 5=Excellent

Government engagement with voluntary carbon markets1=None 3=Some engagement 5=Active supporter

Existing carbon project precedent in country1=None 3=Other sectors 5=Water/WASH projects active

Operational Operational Capacity

0 / 25

▼

Service provider organizational capacity1=Minimal 3=Moderate 5=Strong — experienced O&M teams

MRV infrastructure availability1=None 2=Manual only 3=Digital emerging 4=Digital deployed 5=Comprehensive IoT/cloud

Baseline and monitoring data collection systems1=None 3=Basic survey systems 5=Robust national systems

Community engagement capacity1=Low 3=Moderate 5=High with CHW networks

Project developer / carbon expert access1=None in region 3=Available but limited 5=Experienced with water/WASH projects

Financial Financial Viability

0 / 25

▼

Estimated credit yield per household per year1=<0.2 tCO₂e 2=0.2–0.4 3=0.4–0.6 4=0.6–0.8 5=>0.8 tCO₂e/HH

O&M financing gap severity1=Minimal gap 3=Moderate gap 5=Severe gap requiring >$20/capita/year

Transaction cost ratio (development cost vs. revenue)1=Prohibitive >50% 2=High 30–50% 3=Moderate 15–30% 4=Manageable 5–15% 5=Low <5%

Carbon credit pricing outlook1=<$5/tCO₂e 2=$5–10 3=$10–15 4=$15–25 5=>$25

Co-benefit narrative strength (SDG alignment)1=Weak 3=Moderate SDG alignment 5=Strong multi-SDG with health evidence

Feasibility Score Results

Technical

/ 25

Institutional

/ 25

Operational

/ 25

Financial

/ 25

Technical Feasibility

Institutional Readiness

Operational Capacity

Financial Viability

60 / 100

Conditional Viability

Score suggests feasibility with significant prerequisites. Address weakest dimensions before proceeding.

Carbon Credit Yield Calculator

Estimate annual emission reductions and potential revenue — all results update instantly

Country Preset:

Program Parameters

Target population (beneficiaries)

Average household size (persons/HH)

Boiling prevalence (60%)

60%

Non-renewable biomass fraction, f_NRB (0.70)

0.70

Fuel consumption per HH per year (kg wood equivalent)

Emission factor (kg CO₂/kg wood)

Financial Parameters

Suppressed demand factor (0–1)

Buffer / permanence deduction (10%)

10%

Carbon credit price scenarios (USD / tCO₂e)

Low

Mid

High

O&M reference gap (USD/capita/year — used for gap-closure estimate)

Boiling Households

—

HH served by carbon project

Gross Emission Reductions

—

tCO₂e per year

Net Annual Credits
—
tCO₂e/yr after buffer

Credits per HH/yr

—

tCO₂e / household

10-Year Cumulative
—
tCO₂e (undiscounted)

Revenue per Capita/yr

—

USD at mid price

Metric	Low ($8/t)	Mid ($15/t)	High ($25/t)
Annual Revenue	—	—	—
Annual Revenue per Capita	—	—	—
O&M Gap Closed (vs. reference gap)	—	—	—
10-Year Cumulative Revenue	—	—	—

O&M Gap Coverage at Mid Price — Revenue as % of annual O&M financing need

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%+

Project Development Roadmap

Typical pathway from screening to first carbon credit issuance for a rural water carbon project in LAC.

Time to First Credit Issuance

12 – 18 months

Total Development Cost

$100K – $285K

Annual Verification Cost

$10K – $25K / cycle

Pre-Feasibility Screening 1–2 weeks

Use this tool to assess eligibility, score dimensions, and model credit yield.

Stage 1 eligibility check
Stage 2 feasibility scoring (target: >50 composite)
Stage 3 yield and revenue modeling
Go / no-go decision for investment in PDD

Baseline Survey & Data Collection 2–3 months

Quantify boiling prevalence, fuel use, and population parameters required for methodology compliance.

Household survey (minimum 250–400 HH statistically representative)
f_NRB assessment (national study or proxy data)
Fuel consumption diary / stove-use monitor data
Water quality testing to confirm safe water provision

Project Design Document (PDD) 2–4 months $30K – $70K

Formal documentation of the project, methodology application, and emission reduction calculations.

Select applicable standard (Gold Standard TPDDTEC, GS Safe Water, or Verra VCS)
Develop baseline scenario and additionality demonstration
Design MRV plan and monitoring parameters
Engage project developer or carbon consultant

Stakeholder Consultation 1–2 months

Required by all major standards — document community support and local government endorsement.

Community meetings and free, prior, informed consent process
Local government and water authority engagement
Grievance mechanism establishment
Safeguards screening (environmental and social)

Validation (Third-Party Audit) 2–3 months $15K – $35K

Independent validation body reviews PDD against standard requirements.

Select accredited Validation/Verification Body (VVB)
Provide all supporting documentation and data
Address validation findings and clarification requests
Receive validation statement

Registration with Standard 1–3 months $5K – $15K

Submit validated PDD to Gold Standard, Verra, or applicable registry for official registration.

Submit PDD and validation report to registry
Public comment period (typically 30 days)
Pay registration fees
Receive project registration confirmation and ID

Implementation & Monitoring Ongoing

Execute water service delivery while collecting monitoring data per approved MRV plan.

Operate safe water service continuously
Conduct regular household usage surveys
Collect water quality, flow, and operational records
Maintain audit-ready documentation and data systems

Verification & Credit Issuance Annual $10K – $25K / cycle

Independent verification of monitored emission reductions triggers issuance of tradeable carbon credits.

Submit monitoring report to VVB
Third-party verification of monitored data
Registry issues verified carbon units (VCUs / GSCs)
Credits listed on registry and available for sale or retirement

Note on Article 6: Projects targeting international voluntary carbon markets should assess the host country's NDC and Article 6 bilateral agreements. Corresponding adjustments (CA) may be required, which can affect credit pricing and buyer eligibility. Consult the country's designated national authority (DNA/REDD+ focal point) early in the process.