Protecting people and the environment: Lessons learnt from Br azil’s Bolsa Verde,
China, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, South Africa and 56 other experiences
35
terms of environmental conservation initiatives on the continent. It enjoys sustained political support for its job creation efforts and fight against poverty. According to UNDP,
“[b]y combining sustainable water management and biodiversity protection with social protection and public works programming, this programme shows how budget spending
can invest in natural capital by underwriting economic and social development” UNDP, 2012, p. 53; Department of Water Affairs, 2014; Ministry of Water and Environmental
Affairs, 2014; Rodricks, 2010.
4.7 Comparison of case studies and Bolsa Verde
The table below summarizes and compares key facts on the four case studies presented above in addition to Bolsa Verde. It can be noted that the PES schemes vary
significantly in design and implementation according to the objective for and context in which they were created. In Costa Rica, Mexico, and China, environmental degradation
was the initial and foremost reason for the launch of the schemes. The Bolsa Verde
programme and Ecuador’s Socio Bosque, on the contrary, also aimed to fight extreme poverty in rural areas from the outset. The Costa Rican, Mexican, and Chinese
programmes do not target families as priority units, but rather individuals and institutions. In contrast, the Brazilian programme focuses on families according to the Bolsa Família
concepts and methods.
The targeting mechanisms in each of the five case studies include a geographic dimension with a focus on environmentally vulnerable areas. However, the way in which
social criteria are included varies significantly across programmes. In Costa Rica, Mexico, and Ecuador, a credit point mechanism has been developed that includes both
environmental and social criteria. In China, entire villages in environmentally vulnerable areas are included, whereas in Brazil the social targeting mechanism uses the Bolsa
Família programme’s existing tools. The costs of the Latin American programmes, given their relatively small size in
terms of number of participants, enrolling some tens of thousands of establishments, families, andor individuals, seems to remain moderate. Under the Chinese programme,
aggregate costs appear to be higher, but the outlays need to be seen against the fact that SLCP covers an enormous geographical area affecting 27 million households and aims to
fight both environmental and social risks silting rivers leading to the loss of agricultural area and high rural poverty, which are crucial challenges for China. Future evaluations
should analyse the costs of the respective programmes in detail.
36
Protecting people and the environment: Lessons learnt from Brazil’s Bolsa Verde,
China, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, South Africa and 56 other experiences
Table 4. Comparison of the five case studies
Country Costa Rica
Mexico Ecuador
China Brazil
Programme
Pago por Servicios Ambientales PPSA
Pago por Servicios Ambientales
Hídrologicos PSAH Socio Bosque
Sloping Lands Conversion
Programme SLCP
Bolsa Verde
Year started
1996 2003
2008 2002
2011
Reason for launch
Intense deforestation
Intense deforestation
Intense deforestation, high poverty rate in forest areas
part of the National Development Plan
Severe flooding due
to soil erosion Part of the extreme
poverty eradication plan and need to
avoid deforestation
Legal basis
Ley Forestal 7.575, Ley de la
Biodiversidad 7.788 Ley Federal de
Derechos Art. 223 Acuerdo 169 2008,
Ministerio del Ambiente Forest Law
1998 Water Law 2002
Law 12.512 Decree 7.572
Type of ES All four
Watershed protection,
biodiversity, carbon sequestration
All four Watershed
protection Not specified, could
be considered as all four types
Land included
ha 1 million 2012,
nationwide 2.2 million 2012,
nationwide 1.23 million 2013
20 million 2011,
focus on east- west
11.3 million 2011, mainly Legal
Amazon
34
Providers
15,375 contracts 1997
–2012 5,400 contracts,
many of which are group contracts
2003 –12
161,755 people 27 million
rural households
2002 –08
72,112 families 2011
–14
Budget
2012: 42.4 million 341.8 million
1997 –2012
2010: 83.6 million 429 million 2003
– 12
18 million 2008 –13.
4.3 billion 2002
–10 2013: 38 million
2014: 44 million
Financing
Government budget, fuel tax, water tax
sale of carbon credits, private
funds, grants and loans
Government budget, water-usage fee,
voluntary private contributions, grants
and loans Government Budget
MAE, it is aimed to diversify sources
Government budget
Government budget MMA
Compens. hayear
41 –294
On average: 64 32
–98 0.50
–60 depending on the total
number of hectares included
36 –50
500family regardless of ha
Duration of contract
5, 10, or 15 years, reapplication
possible 5 years,
reapplication possible
20 years, renewed automatically
2, 5, or 8 years
2 years, renewable for an undefined
duration
Monitoring
Mainly site visits, complemented by
satellite images; no social monitoring
Mainly annual satellite images,
complemented by site visits; no social
monitoring Satellite imagesaerial
photography and site visits; social monitoring:
review of regular spending reports against investment
plans Site visits;
no social monitoring
Environmental monitoring through
satellite images + sample site visits;
social monitoring through Bolsa Família
Possible exit doors
Agroforestry Forest management
plans Right to non-destructive
activities; investment plan; capacity building
workshops; provision of access to credit
Right to extract
products from planted
forests Not yet established,
exit doors could be created via training,
usage and management plans,
agroforestry, and development of
extractivist value chains
34
Bolsa Verde targeted the Legal Amazon in 2011 and has been extended to the North-East, Central, West, and South since 2012.
Protecting people and the environment: Lessons learnt from Br azil’s Bolsa Verde,
China, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, South Africa and 56 other experiences
37
5. Lessons learned from
literature and case studies
This chapter presents the main design aspects of pro-poor PES schemes as mentioned in the literature, focusing on social rather than environmental aspects. A description
follows on whether and how the presented PES case studies, including, when applicable, the South African public employment programme, address these design aspects. The
design aspects presented here therefore provide a useful list of relevant aspects to take into consideration when designing a new pro-poor PES scheme or when evaluating and
modifying an existing one to strengthen its pro-poor bias.
5.1 Participants of the PES scheme
Regarding the ES providers, a key question is whether some poor people are excluded from participating due to the targeting criteria, a complicated or costly
application process, andor other transaction costs.
35
Another reason for the possible exclusion of poor people refers to a strict enforcement of rules necessary to reach
environmental goals. In regards to the buyers, it is relevant to ask if poor people are among the buyers and have to pay for the services provided.
5.1.1. Are poor people excluded as providers due to targeting criteria?
The decision of whom and what to target reflects the main objective of a programme. Thus, a PES that primarily has an environmental objective will prioritize targeting persons,
households, or organizations in areas of high environmental risk those above the horizontal line in figure 2 below, while a programme with a key social objective will
primarily target the most vulnerable people even though they might not live in the most threatened environmental areas those left of the vertical line in figure 2 below. If
eligibility criteria focus on ecological aspects, a programme is very likely to exclude some poor people as environmental service hotspots do not necessarily coincide with
areas where poor people live bottom left box in figure 2 below Leimona et al., 2009, p. 86.
Figure 2. Targeting priorities
35
In this section, “poor” is defined in terms of monetary poverty. High
Environmental Risk
Poor people High
Environmental Risk
Non-poor people
Low Environmental
Risk Poor People
Low Environmental
Risk Non-poor
people