evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

ESPH Pago por Servicios Ambientales Hídricos — Municipal Water-Tariff PES (Heredia, Costa Rica)

Costa Rica · Heredia · See the Costa Rica profile · See the Heredia profile

Evidence: Descriptive / self-reported Top 81% 33/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Since 2000, Costa Rica's Heredia water utility ESPH has charged customers a dedicated water tariff to fund direct payments to upstream landowners — over ₡1.2 billion (~US$2M+) invested 2002-2020 across roughly 1,000 hectares of conserved and reforested watershed.

1.90 ₡/m³
Initial water tariff (2000) (2000)
3.80 ₡/m³
Water tariff (2004) (2004)
10.71 ₡/m³
Water tariff (2023 residential) (2023)
~47,720 ₡/ha/year
Conservation payment rate (2004) (2004)
26
PES contracts (2006) (2006)
768 hectares (plus purchased/agreement land, ~1,173 ha total)
Area covered (2006) (2006)
42
Active PES contracts (2020) (2020)
~1,000 hectares
Area conserved (2020) (2020)
9,806 hectares
Priority zone size
~1,226 million ₡ (over US$2 million)
Cumulative PES investment (2002-2020)
5 properties (~24.6 ha) for ~443 million ₡
Land purchased for direct protection (2002-2020)
200,000+ people / 52,000+ accounts
Customers served
60-100 US$/m²
Land values in watershed (development pressure)

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Empresa de Servicios Públicos de Heredia (ESPH S.A.)
Period
2000-present
Keywords
water tariff, watershed conservation, municipal utility PES, forest contracts

Context

ESPH S.A., the public utility jointly owned by the municipalities of Heredia, San Rafael and San Isidro, was empowered by Costa Rica's 1998 Law 7789 to fund watershed conservation through its water tariffs. On 8 March 2000, regulator ARESEP approved a dedicated 'tarifa hídrica' (initially ₡1.90/m³), making ESPH the first Costa Rican utility to price environmental costs into its water bill; direct payment contracts with upstream landowners began in 2002, alongside a parallel land-purchase programme. The scheme is independent of Costa Rica's national FONAFIFO programme and covers five to six micro-watersheds feeding the city's supply, which serves over 200,000 people through more than 52,000 customer accounts.

Activities

Payment rates were raised in 2004 (tariff to ₡3.80/m³, conservation payments to about ₡47,720/ha/year) and the tariff has since risen further, to ₡10.71/m³ residential in the 2023 schedule.

Results

By 2006 the utility had 26 PES contracts covering 768 hectares plus purchased and agreement land, for roughly 1,173 ha conserved; by 2020, ESPH reported 42 active PES contracts covering close to 1,000 hectares within a 9,806-hectare priority zone, with cumulative PES investment of about ₡1,226 million (over US$2 million) between 2002 and 2020, plus roughly ₡443 million spent purchasing five properties (about 24.6 ha) for direct protection.

Conclusions

A 2007 World Bank technical review states explicitly that no quantitative evidence exists on the scheme's impact on water flow or water quality — monitoring has relied on GIS and field visits rather than measured hydrological outcomes. Independent case-study literature also flags a free-rider problem, chronic underfunding relative to identified priority areas, and an equity concern that participating landowners skew toward wealthier property owners in a watershed under mounting urban-development pressure.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Medium (€50k–€500k) — Funded through a dedicated water tariff (₡1.90/m³ in 2000, risen to ₡10.71/m³ residential by 2023); cumulative PES investment of about ₡1,226 million (over US$2 million) 2002-2020, plus about ₡443 million for direct land purchase.
Time to results
Long (> 3 years) — Tariff approved March 2000; direct payment contracts began 2002 and the scheme remains active as of the 2023 tariff schedule — over 20 years of continuous operation.
Staffing & skills
Empresa de Servicios Públicos de Heredia (ESPH S.A.) staff, Upstream landowners under PES contracts

Conditions for success

  • Statutory tariff mechanism (Law 7789, ARESEP-regulated) providing a dedicated revenue stream independent of national FONAFIFO funding
  • Combination of direct payment contracts and a parallel land-purchase programme
  • Rates periodically raised (tariff and per-hectare payment) to keep pace with costs

Common failure modes

  • A 2007 World Bank technical review found no quantitative evidence of impact on water flow or quality; monitoring relies on GIS and field visits rather than measured hydrological outcomes
  • Free-rider problem: downstream municipalities benefit without contributing to the tariff
  • Chronic underfunding relative to the identified 9,806-hectare priority zone
  • Equity concern that participating landowners skew toward wealthier property owners amid rising urban land values (US$60-100/m²)

Where it fits

Governance type
municipal public utility PES, statutory tariff
Scale
municipal/watershed (5-6 micro-watersheds)
Income level
upper-middle-income

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Similar practices you may find useful