evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice

Guatemala PINFOR / PROBOSQUE National Forest Incentives

Guatemala · Guatemala City · See the Guatemala profile

Guatemala's 28-year statutory forest PES: PINFOR (1996-2016) and PROBOSQUE (2015-present). ~USD 260 M paid, 38,000+ contracts, ~600,000 ha enrolled across plantations, agroforestry, natural forest management and degraded-land restoration.

~260 USD million
Total incentive payments disbursed (PINFOR) (1996-2016)
4.3 million
Beneficiaries (PINFOR) (1996-2016)
~38,000 projects
Projects funded (PINFOR) (1996-2016)
>363,000 ha
Area covered (PINFOR) (1996-2016)
64,000 contracts
New contracts (PROBOSQUE) (2015-present)
~600,000 ha
Combined enrolled area
+8.3 % relative to controls
Forest cover gain vs. matched control areas
+5.7 % relative to controls
Canopy height gain vs. matched control areas
Guatemala PINFOR / PROBOSQUE National Forest Incentives

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Instituto Nacional de Bosques (INAB)
Period
1996-present
Keywords
Forest, agroforestry, carbon, fire resilience, watershed

Context

Guatemala's National Forest Incentives Programme was established by Forestry Law 101-96 and is administered by the National Forest Institute (INAB). Its first cycle, PINFOR, ran 1996-2016; a second 30-year cycle, PROBOSQUE, has run since 2015.

Objectives

The programme incentivises plantation establishment, agroforestry systems, natural forest management and degraded-land restoration, with PROBOSQUE adding explicit targets for carbon sequestration, watershed protection, fire-resilient landscape restoration and agroforestry diversification.

Activities

Participation is voluntary; INAB disburses payments annually upon technical verification of enrolled parcels. The scheme is financed through a dedicated national forest fund and is documented in Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) and World Bank country programme reviews.

Results

PINFOR (1996-2016) distributed approximately USD 260 million to 4.3 million beneficiaries through ~38,000 projects covering over 363,000 hectares. PROBOSQUE (2015-present) added 64,000 new contracts, bringing combined enrolment across both programmes to nearly 600,000 hectares. A peer-reviewed evaluation (IOP Environmental Research Letters, 2023) found PINFOR sites achieved 8.3% greater forest cover and 5.7% taller canopy height relative to matched control areas. US Forest Service research documented the programme's contribution to wildfire-risk reduction through landscape-level fuel restructuring in participating forests.

Conclusions

Twenty-eight years of continuous statutory operation, annual technical verification, and independent review by the World Bank FCPF and a peer-reviewed matched-control study give the programme a comparatively strong evidence base among national forest-incentive schemes.

Implementation

Indicative cost
High (€500k–€5M) — Approximately USD 260 million was disbursed under PINFOR (1996-2016) to ~38,000 projects; PROBOSQUE (2015-present) added a further 64,000 contracts, financed through a dedicated national forest fund.
Time to results
Long (> 3 years) — PINFOR ran 1996-2016 (20 years); its successor PROBOSQUE is a 30-year cycle running since 2015; combined the programme has operated continuously for 28 years.
Staffing & skills
National Forest Institute (INAB) technical staff conducting annual on-site verification

Conditions for success

  • dedicated national forest fund providing predictable annual financing
  • statutory basis (Forestry Law 101-96) ensuring continuity across political cycles
  • voluntary participation combined with annual technical verification by INAB
  • explicit multi-objective design covering carbon, watershed, fire resilience and agroforestry

Common failure modes

  • carbon sequestration is a stated PROBOSQUE objective but is not independently credited or measured at programme scale

Where it fits

Governance type
national statutory programme
Scale
national (~600,000 ha enrolled)
Income level
lower-middle-income (Guatemala)

Data sources

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

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful