No hay notas en la diapositiva.
One or more downstream beneficiariesmight buy different amounts of GWCs, like buying a “share” of the upstream landscape & downstream impact. The contract would require annual payments (fixed; or a royalty% of profits) to maintain the share & impact.In return, they will be able to increase margins through cost saving, green image.Downstream users are not in a position to monitor/provide myriad contracts with upstream managers. But broker is.Broker must be legal body/entity (Bank, WUA, NGO, or the GWC Fund). Better if it already exists: lower investment cost than setting up a new one. Depends on local conditions what kind of body (may be more complex: require several players to act together?).Broker provides upstream benefits (loan, training, tenure security, hardware etc.), based on what kind of benefits in the given situation will trigger behavior change in land management practices.The model could also involve initial larger investment larger than the annual payment. It depends on the particulars of the PES contract how this becomes interesting for the downstream beneficiary.Possible problem: investing downstream beneficiaries may be hesitant to invest on their own, in case there are other major downstream players that don’t invest but also gain from the investments and land management practice changes. Need considerable lobbying/concerted efforts in this case.