Charting New Waters: State of Watershed Payments - Forest Trends

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Number of Programs 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Figure 11a: Watershed Investments by Region, 2011 Latin America North America $85.9 million $360.5 million Africa $109.3 million Transactions by the Numbers Looking at demand, we see a range of “buyers” of watershed services across sectors, while private landholders – often agricultural producers and forestland holders – continue to be the most prominent “sellers.” However, interventions to enhance or maintain hydrological functions on public land make up more than 25% of transactions. Privately-generated watershed services are not uncommon; this category is mostly made up of point-source facilities in the United States (i.e., facilities that discharge to water bodies through a single conveyance) who have discharged less than their permit allows and thus been able to sell water quality credits. This group also holds some innovative programs, such as a mussel bed farmer in Sweden that is paid for nitrate filtration services by a municipality in lieu of constructing a wastewater treatment plant, 5 and a private nutrient bank in Virginia that restores degraded lands to generate nutrient credits. 5 See page 38. 6 | Charting New Waters 0 Source: Ecosystem Marketplace. Figure 10: New Programs by Year, Globally Oceania $149.2 million Europe $2.7 million Asia $7.5 billion Source: Ecosystem Marketplace. Figure 11b: Watershed Investments by Region, Historically L Latin America $ $527.6 million North America $6.3 billion Europe $57.7 million Afric Africa $864 $864.7 7 m $864.7 $864 7 million illi Oceania $1.8 billion Source: Ecosystem Marketplace. Asia $56.4 billion
On both the payer and provider side, participation is still largely voluntary. However, the share of participants driven by policy frameworks is growing, suggesting that compensation for watershed services is gaining popularity as a carrot to accompany regulatory sticks. Figure 13a. 25% Figure 12a: Global Demand for Investments in Watershed Services by Sector 11% 1% 25% 11% 6% 21% Federal St State/Province t /P i County Municipal Private Civil/NGO Academic Figure 12b: Global Supply of Investments in Watershed Services by Sector 1% 5% 9% Average payments per hectare ranged considerably, as evidenced by Figure 14. Payment levels can be affected by local resources, opportunity costs, the value (perceived or otherwise) and costs of the intervention itself, transaction costs, and also project stage. For example, Working for Water, the largest program in South Africa, reported hectares newly rehabilitated from invasive plant species in 2011. Intensive restoration will likely cost much more on a per-hectare basis than annual maintenance payments thereafter, or ongoing payments for soil and water conservation measures undertaken by agricultural producers. 7% 47% 7% 6% 4% 14% Federal State/Province County Municipal Private landholders Business/Industry Civil/NGO Source: Ecosystem Marketplace. Source: Ecosystem Marketplace. Figure 13a: Payer Driver, Watershed Investment Programs, Globally 42% 58% Voluntary Compliance Academic Communally‐Held y Lands Figure 13b: Provider Driver, Watershed Investment Programs, Globally Figure 13b. Provider Driver, Watershed Investment Programs Globally 23% Source: Ecosystem Marketplace. Source: Ecosystem Marketplace. 77% Voluntary Compliance State of Watershed Payments 2012 | 7
Page 1 and 2: Charting New Waters State of Waters
Page 3 and 4: Charting New Waters State of Waters
Page 5 and 6: Executive Summary Table 1: Summary
Page 7 and 8: In terms of environmental outcomes,
Page 9 and 10: Table 2: Key Elements of Project De
Page 11 and 12: Figure 4a: Watershed Investments by
Page 13 and 14: which are repurposing the wetland b
Page 15 and 16: eden 1 4 Germany 2 Switzerland Ital
Page 17 and 18: Table of Contents Executive Summary
Page 19 and 20: List of Figures Figure 1: Global An
Page 21 and 22: Foreword Water, like its flow throu
Page 23 and 24: Methodology Approach and Scope This
Page 25: Global Findings Table 3: Summary De
Page 29 and 30: It is interesting to contrast this
Page 31 and 32: Box 1: Environmental Co-Benefits:
Page 33 and 34: Investments in watershed services p
Page 35 and 36: Africa Table 6: Summary Details, Af
Page 37 and 38: Table 7: Active Programs, Africa La
Page 39 and 40: com”). The SIP-Private Public Sec
Page 41 and 42: Asia Table 8: Summary Details, Asia
Page 43 and 44: Such growth is despite a stricter s
Page 45 and 46: Often, watershed programs and provi
Page 47 and 48: Japan We tracked four programs in J
Page 49 and 50: sts ion ersity restoring riparian a
Page 51 and 52: Outlook - Southeast Asia In Southea
Page 53 and 54: Europe Table 9: Summary Details, Eu
Page 55 and 56: The EU has been historically less r
Page 57 and 58: degradation of the upland heath and
Page 59 and 60: WWF. Several local PES projects are
Page 61 and 62: Latin America Table 11: Summary Det
Page 63 and 64: A variety of payment mechanisms oft
Page 65 and 66: Table 12: Water Funds, Latin Americ
Page 67 and 68: Finally, a donor-funded program in
Page 69 and 70: North America Table 13: Summary Det
Page 71 and 72: Number of Programs All of the progr
Page 73 and 74: Source Water Protection Strategies
Page 75 and 76: Co-Benefits A number of programs tr
Page 77 and 78:
Box 5: Water Quality Trading in the
Page 79 and 80:
Table 17: Tracking Water Quality Tr
Page 81 and 82:
(a) Market Infrastructure Map 8: 20
Page 83 and 84:
$1,369,812 8,280,141 $186,747,204 >
Page 85 and 86:
anks. Driven by moratoria on new gr
Page 87 and 88:
Oceania Table 19: Summary Details,
Page 89 and 90:
Transaction Activity - Water Qualit
Page 91 and 92:
Other Activity A quasi-water qualit
Page 93 and 94:
The Global Outlook Charting New Wat
Page 95 and 96:
Bibliography Andeltová, L., & Nzyo
Page 97 and 98:
Nitrogen Credit Advisory Board. (20
show all

Charting New Waters: State of Watershed Payments - Forest Trends

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?