1
Author nameDate
DOCUMENT TITLE
Author nameDateIna Porras, SMG21/03/14
(Nearly) 20 years of PES in Costa RicaPresented by Ina Porras, IIED
Fair and green?
Innovations for equity in smallholder PES: bridging research and practice Conference. Edinburgh 21 March 2014
2
Author nameDate
DOCUMENT TITLE
Context and people have changed…
3
Author nameDate
DOCUMENT TITLE
4
Author nameDate
DOCUMENT TITLE
5
Author nameDate
DOCUMENT TITLE
6
Author nameDate
DOCUMENT TITLE
PES not only about the environment…
• By Law;• For political buy• For reputation; • For mutual agreements;
7
Author nameDate
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
Author nameDate
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
Author nameDate
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
Author nameDate
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
Author nameDate
DOCUMENT TITLE
Who is who?
12
Author nameDate
DOCUMENT TITLE
But over 50% of contracts are now with corporations…
Who is being left out?
Recommended
