evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Reciprocal Water Agreements (ARA) — Los Negros Watershed Programme, Bolivia

Bolivia · Los Negros, Florida Province · See the Bolivia profile

Evidence: Descriptive / self-reported Top 64% 40/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Since 2003, Fundación Natura Bolivia's reciprocal water agreements have paid upstream farmers in-kind (beehives, seedlings, training) to protect cloud forest; by 2023 the model covered ~24,000 farmers across ~80 municipalities, financed by municipal water tariffs.

46
Farmers enrolled (2003)
2,774 hectares
Forest area protected (pilot) (2003)
158,000 USD
Expansion funding (in-kind goods) (2011)
8,000
Farmers enrolled (2019)
350,000 hectares
Forest area protected (2019)
~24,000
Farmers enrolled (national scale) (2023)
~600,000 hectares
Forest area protected (national scale) (2023)
~80
Municipalities participating (2023)
23
New protected areas created (2023)
~3.4 million hectares
Protected area total (2023)
1.5 million
Population served (Río Grande basin)
Reciprocal Water Agreements (ARA) — Los Negros Watershed Programme, Bolivia

Details

Maturity
Scaling
Promoter
Fundación Natura Bolivia
Period
2003-present
Keywords
watershed protection, in-kind PES, cloud forest conservation, water funds, municipal co-financing

Context

Since 2003, Bolivia's Los Negros watershed programme has used reciprocal water agreements (ARAs) to compensate upstream farmers — with beehives, fruit-tree seedlings and training rather than cash — for protecting cloud forest that feeds downstream irrigation and municipal water supplies. Led by Fundación Natura Bolivia, the model was designed to work around weak land-tenure documentation that made conventional land purchase or formal PES contracts difficult. It has since scaled from a single village pilot into a template replicated across roughly 80 Bolivian municipalities.

Objectives

Protect upstream cloud forests to secure downstream water supply for irrigation and municipal use, while navigating weak land-tenure documentation that constrains formal land-based conservation contracts.

Activities

In-kind compensation to upstream farmers (beehives, fruit-tree seedlings, training); establishment of municipal water funds co-financed by water-user tariffs (~1 boliviano/month) and municipal tax revenue; designation of protected areas; ongoing water-tariff collection.

Results

The programme grew from 46 farmers protecting 2,774 hectares in 2003 to a reported ~24,000 farmers protecting ~600,000 hectares across ~80 municipalities by 2023, with 23 new protected areas (~3.4 million hectares) created across 20 municipalities and roughly 1.5 million people served in the Río Grande basin.

Conclusions

Financing has progressively shifted from donor/NGO seed capital toward domestic sources (tariffs, municipal budgets), suggesting a path to sustainability, but reported figures are self-reported programme outputs (participants, contracted area) rather than independently measured environmental outcomes, and no rigorous counterfactual evaluation of deforestation or water-supply impacts has been published.

Implementation
Indicative cost
Medium (€50k–€500k) — In-kind incentives (beehives, seedlings, training) plus water-fund seed capital; 2011 expansion funded with $158,000 in goods; ongoing costs increasingly covered by water-user tariffs (~1 boliviano/month) and municipal tax allocations rather than large donor grants.
Time to results
Long (> 3 years) — Piloted in 2003 with 46 farmers; incremental expansion through 2011 and 2019; reported at near-national scale (~24,000 farmers, ~80 municipalities) by 2023 — over two decades of continuous operation.
Staffing & skills
Fundación Natura Bolivia programme staff, Municipal water utility partners, Local farmer associations coordinating in-kind exchanges

Conditions for success

  • Existing trust between the NGO and upstream farming communities
  • Municipal water utilities willing to co-finance water funds via tariffs
  • Weak land-tenure documentation worked around via reciprocal (non-cash) agreements rather than formal land titling

Common failure modes

  • Continued dependence on donor funding for new water funds
  • Property-rights ambiguity limiting contract enforceability
  • Lack of independent monitoring of actual hydrological/deforestation outcomes

Where it fits

Governance type
municipal/NGO partnership
Scale
subnational to national replication
Income level
lower-middle income

Commonly funded by

Philanthropic / foundation funding

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.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful