(Nealy) 20 years of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) in Costa Rica highlighted the evolution of group contracts which aimed to reduce transaction costs but faced challenges due to capacity issues. Indigenous groups navigate legal associations for funding contracts but often lack control over internal financial distribution. Priority setting in PES leans towards large landowners, resulting in inequities while over 50% of current contracts are held by corporations, raising questions about inclusivity.

1. 1
Author name
Date
DOCUMENT TITLE
Author name
Date
Ina Porras, SMG
21/03/14
(Nearly) 20 years of PES in Costa
Rica
Presented by Ina Porras, IIED
Fair and green?
Innovations for equity in smallholder PES: bridging research and practice Conference.
Edinburgh 21 March 2014

2. 2
Author name
Date
DOCUMENT TITLE
Context and people
have changed…

3. 3
Author name
Date
DOCUMENT TITLE

4. 4
Author name
Date
DOCUMENT TITLE

5. 5
Author name
Date
DOCUMENT TITLE

6. 6
Author name
Date
DOCUMENT TITLE
PES not only about the
environment…
• By Law;
• For political buy
• For reputation;
• For mutual agreements;

7. 7
Author name
Date
DOCUMENT TITLE
Group contracts
• Between 1997-2002
• One contract for group of
landowners. Reduced transaction
costs, easier to manage.
• Did not work - not enough capacity to
self-enforce.
• Evolved into group contract for
technical advice

8. 8
Author name
Date
DOCUMENT TITLE
Indigenous groups
• Contracts only with legal association
• No power on internal distribution of
funding;
• Increasingly important in light of
REDD+ commitments
• Some grumbles, but overall highly
effective when they work

9. 9
Author name
Date
DOCUMENT TITLE
Priority to areas with low
development (SDI)
• Relatively useful (easy, roughly
correlated with opportunity cost)
• But it is not measured against land
ownership
• Large landowners benefit the most:
over 1/3 have more than 100 ha, with
average value of nearly US$900k.
• Too rough – lets in many who don’t
need priority

10. 10
Author name
Date
DOCUMENT TITLE
Priority for small
properties
• < 50 hectares
• Good because high fixed entry costs;
• Encourage small properties around
urban areas;
• “Small” ≠ poor or vulnerable: land
prices widely vary: 50 ha @ $3.5
million in St Domingo and @$125k in
Upala.

11. 11
Author name
Date
DOCUMENT TITLE
Who is who?

12. 12
Author name
Date
DOCUMENT TITLE
But over 50% of
contracts are now with
corporations…
Who is being left out?