evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

ESPH Procuencas Watershed Tariff Programme (Costa Rica)

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

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 64% 40/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Heredia's public utility ESPH has charged customers a watershed fee (US$0.01-0.03/m3) since 2000 to pay upstream landowners ~US$120/ha/year, reaching ~1,900 ha under contract with 21 landowners by 2008 -- an early Central American utility-financed watershed PES scheme.

US$0.01-0.03 per m3
Environmental water tariff surcharge (2004-late 2000s)
~US$120 per hectare per year
Payment to upstream landowners
US$165 per hectare per year
Opportunity cost benchmark (cattle ranching)
1,191-1,900 hectares
Hectares under contract (mid-to-late 2000s)
21-23
Landowners under contract (mid-to-late 2000s)
~US$1 million
Cumulative tariff revenue
~US$800,000
Funds disbursed for conservation

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Empresa de Servicios Publicos de Heredia (ESPH) - Procuencas Programme
Period
2000-present
Keywords
municipal water utility, water tariff financing, payments for environmental services, forest conservation

Context

Heredia, north of San José, Costa Rica, draws its drinking water from forested upper watersheds vulnerable to conversion to pasture and agriculture. In 2000 its public utility ESPH (Empresa de Servicios Públicos de Heredia) became one of the first Latin American utilities to fund watershed protection directly through a dedicated water tariff rather than general taxation or donor grants.

Activities

ESPH added an environmental surcharge to household water bills (about US$0.01 per cubic metre in 2004, rising to roughly US$0.02-0.03 in later years), channelled through its Procuencas programme to pay upstream landowners approximately US$120 per hectare per year to conserve or reforest their land. The payment level was calculated against the estimated US$165-per-hectare-per-year opportunity cost of cattle ranching, adjusted by a hydrological-importance correction factor for each parcel.

Results

By the mid-to-late 2000s the programme had signed contracts covering between 1,191 and 1,900 hectares with 21-23 landowners, funded by roughly US$1 million in cumulative tariff revenue, of which about US$800,000 had been disbursed for conservation activities. It is frequently cited by the CBD, IIED, Ecosystem Marketplace and Costa Rica's central bank as an early, replicable model for tariff-financed watershed PES.

Conclusions

Most of the publicly available quantitative results date to the 2000s. More recent independent figures on current hectares, participant numbers, or measured water-quality and dry-season-yield outcomes are scarce, so the programme's impact beyond its pilot-to-early-scale phase is not well documented outside ESPH's own materials.

Implementation

Indicative cost
High (€500k–€5M) — ~US$1 million cumulative tariff revenue documented by the mid-to-late 2000s (~US$800,000 disbursed), placing it in the high band; more recent totals are not published.
Time to results
Long (> 3 years) — Tariff and payment mechanism running continuously since 2000 (over 25 years), though detailed recent-year figures are not available.
Staffing & skills
ESPH (public utility), upstream landowners as service providers

Conditions for success

  • dedicated tariff-based financing insulated from general budget or donor cycles
  • payment level calculated against an explicit opportunity-cost benchmark, adjusted by a parcel-level hydrological-importance factor

Common failure modes

  • publicly available quantitative results largely stop at the 2000s
  • no recent independent hectare, participant or water-quality/yield outcome data was found, so it is unclear whether the programme sustained or grew its early scale

Where it fits

Governance type
municipal/public water utility
Scale
sub-national (single watershed, ~1,200-1,900 hectares)
Income level
upper-middle income (Costa Rica)

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