Topic: watersheds

Aqueduct Metadata Document: Yellow River Basin Study

Sarah Parsons — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:43:16 -0500

Summary

Prior to the creation of the global Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas, indicators were developed and tested in a number of river basins worldwide. The results of the Yellow River Basin Study helped inform and shape the global Aqueduct Water Risk Framework. The Yellow River Basin study contains 14 indicators of water quantity, water variability, water quality, public awareness of water issues, access to water, and ecosystem vulnerability.

Aqueduct Metadata Document: Yangtze River Basin Study

Sarah Parsons — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:33:33 -0500

Summary

Prior to the creation of the global Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas, indicators were developed and tested in a number of river basins worldwide. The results of the Yangtze River Basin Study helped inform and shape the global Aqueduct Water Risk Framework. The Yangtze River Basin study contains 14 indicators of water quantity, water variability, water quality, public awareness of water issues, access to water, and ecosystem vulnerability.

Aqueduct Metadata Document: Orange-Senqu River Basin Study

Sarah Parsons — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:27:06 -0500

Summary

Prior to the creation of the global Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas, indicators were developed and tested in a number of river basins worldwide. The results of the Orange-Senqu River Basin Study helped inform and shape the global Aqueduct Water Risk Framework. The Orange-Senqu River Basin study contains 14 indicators of water quantity, water variability, water quality, public awareness of water issues, access to water, and ecosystem vulnerability.

Aqueduct Metadata Document: Colorado River Basin Study

Sarah Parsons — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:16:28 -0500

Summary

Prior to the creation of the global Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas, indicators were developed and tested in a number of river basins worldwide. The results of the Colorado River Basin Study helped inform and shape the global Aqueduct Water Risk Framework. The Colorado River Basin study contains 12 indicators of water quantity, water variability, water quality, public awareness of water issues, access to water, and ecosystem vulnerability.

Aqueduct Metadata Document: Mekong River Basin Study

Sarah Parsons — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 14:09:13 -0500

Summary

Prior to the creation of the global Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas, indicators were developed and tested in a number of river basins worldwide. The results of the Mekong River Basin Study helped inform and shape the global Aqueduct Water Risk Framework. The Mekong River Basin study contains 14 indicators of water quantity, water variability, water quality, public awareness of water issues, access to water, and ecosystem vulnerability.

ADVISORY: WRI Experts to Speak at Annual Conference on Ecosystem Services in Ft Lauderdale

James Anderson — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 17:11:03 -0500

Experts from the World Resources Institute will be joining leaders from business, government, and environment communities at the annual ACES and Ecosystems Markets 2012 Summit. The summit will take place from December 10 – 14 in Ft. Lauderdale, FL.

The goal of the summit is advance ecosystem services science and practice in conservation, restoration, resource management, and development decisions. It is being organized by the University of Florida and sponsored by the U.S. EPA, U.S. Forest Service, American Forest Foundation, World Resources Institute, and others.

WRI experts will discuss ecosystems-for-water programs, coastal ecosystem evaluations in the Caribbean, and processes for incorporating ecosystem services into public and private decision making.

Ecosystem goods and services – like freshwater, fiber, food, flood control, water purification and waste treatment – provide important benefits to business and society. Improving how ecosystem services are incorporated into decision making impacts ecosystems and the quantity, quality and profitability of the benefits they provide.

Full Agenda: http://www.conference.ifas.ufl.edu/aces/glance.html

WRI Experts available for interviews:

Craig Hanson, Director, People and Ecosystems Program

Janet Ranganathan, Vice President, Science and Research

Lauretta Burke, Senior Associate, Coral Reefs Initiative

Todd Gartner, Senior Associate, Conservation Incentives and Markets

For more information, please contact:
James Anderson, Press Officer, World Resources Institute, janderson@wri.org, (202) 729-7608

Insights from the Field: Forests for Water

Kevin Lustig — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:56:29 -0500

Summary

In the Neuse River Basin in North Carolina, WRI is working with partners to identify beneficiaries and their water-related dependencies. We learned that clear documentation of the risks that beneficiaries face from water pollution, drought, and watershed degradation will help jump-start their participation in emerging PWS programs.
In the Sebago Lake Watershed in Maine, WRI is finalizing a methodology for “green-gray” analysis that will provide beneficiaries a way to identify cost-effective green infrastructure solutions to water infrastructure demands of the 21st century. Green infrastructure comprises all natural, seminatural and artificial networks of multifunctional ecological systems within, around, and between urban areas at all spatial scales. We learned that, to convince public investment managers to invest in green rather than gray, it is important to make the financial and business case using the same basic methodologies that are used for calculating the costs and benefits of conventional gray approaches.
WRI is also working to develop PWS programs that help the city of Raleigh meet streetscape, conservation development, tree conservation, storm water management, and water quality goals contained in its Unified Development Ordinance in a least cost manner. We learned that market-based solutions like PWS can play a large role in land-use planning processes and that these processes may represent a large untapped demand driver for PWS programs throughout the South.

MEDIA ADVISORY: 4th Annual Ecosystem Markets Conference - Making Ecosystems Work

Lauren Zelin — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:18:28 -0400

Experts and innovators meet to chart the future of ecosystem conservation

The World Resources Institute (WRI) and the American Forest Foundation (AFF) co-host the 4th annual Ecosystem Markets Conference in Madison, Wisconsin, June 29 – July 1, 2011. Hundreds of experts, innovators, land owners, government officials, investors and academics will discuss how to make ecosystem markets work to conserve natural resources; followed by a field trip through Aldo Leopold’s backyard to see ecosystem services in action.

At a time when state and federal budgets for conservation are dwindling, ecosystems are being degraded and threats to natural resources are increasing, more market-driven solutions are necessary to open the next chapter in conservation. Through ecosystem markets, the many benefits that well-managed lands provide, such as clean water and wildlife habitat, are assigned a value that results in payments to landowners for providing these services. This win-win for the public and landowners is necessary to protect the planet’s natural resources.

The 2011 conference theme “Ecosystem Markets: Making Them Work” underscores the need for innovative thinking to bridge the gap between ecosystem market potential and reality. Participants will gather for two days of open-format meetings on topics including payments to landowners, policy and ethics, private investment, water quality, bioenergy, and more.

The conference will open with a video address by Harris Sherman, Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Senior representatives from the host organizations along with ecosystem services experts from around the world will participate in the conference and will be available for interviews.

What:
4th Annual Ecosystem Markets Conference. Website: http://ecomarketconference.com/

When:
June 29-30, 2011, conference sessions
July 1, 2011, field trip to working ecosystems and Aldo Leopold’s shack

Where:
The Madison Concourse Hotel and Governor’s Club
1 W. Dayton Street, Madison, WI
(Free parking is provided for our conference group)

Media Highlights:

Wednesday, June 29, 2011
* 8:15 a.m. – Welcome and video address by Harris Sherman, Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. Department of Agriculture
* 8:35 a.m. – Plenary Session 1: The Current State of Ecosystem Markets
* 10:20 a.m. – Plenary Session 2: Policies to Support Ecosystem Services and Markets
* 12:40 p.m. – Lunch and preview of Green Fire documentary, hosted by the Aldo Leopold Foundation and followed by a Q&A session

Friday, July 1, 2011
* 8:00 a.m. – Field trip; See below for details. * Experts available for interviews during the tour

For the full conference agenda, visit http://ecomarketconference.com/agenda/.

RSVP and Media Requests:

Amanda Cooke | AFF | ACooke@forestfoundation.org | 202-463-2731
Lauren Cole | WRI | LCole@wri.org | 202-729-7736

Follow the Twitter conversation - #ecomarkets2011

Field Trip Information - PHOTO OPPORTUNITY

What:
Tour the Leopold family shack and farm, and see sites conserved for ecosystem services through public/private partnerships, including the Leopold Waterfowl Production Area, Baraboo Oak Street dam removal site, and the Leopold Memorial Reserve constructed wetland. Detailed agenda: http://ecomarketconference.com/field-trip/.

When:
July 1, 2011 from 8:00 a.m.-3:30 p.m.

Where:
Meet at the Madison Concourse Hotel for bus departure.

Who:
Experts from WRI, AFF and other conference attendees will be available for interviews and photo opportunities during the Field Trip. Please contact Amanda Cooke or Lauren Cole to RSVP.

Thanks to the Aldo Leopold Foundation and the Sand County Foundation for their generous assistance in hosting and organizing the field trip.

Property Tax Incentives for Forest Conservation in the U.S. South

John Talberth — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 15:54:24 -0400

Current use valuation programs can encourage landowners to resist development pressures and leave forest as forest.

Development pressure on the outskirts of cities throughout the southern United States drives up land values and makes it more difficult for private landowners to keep their forestland. On average, in the South, short term returns for development can be $36,000 per acre. And for private landowners who want to keep their forest, rising property taxes can also provide a perverse incentive, because as the fair market value of the land increases, property tax bills rise. To help pay these increased taxes many landowners often resort to selling at least a portion of their lands despite their intention to keep their forests intact.

Current use valuation programs, as illustrated in a new WRI issue brief Current Use Valuation Programs: Property Tax Incentives for Preserving Local Benefits of Forests, are a tax benefit that states and counties in the South are using to encourage forestland owners to leave forest as forest and help resist development pressure. Under these programs, enrolled lands are assessed not at their fair market value (for housing development and the like) but at their value for timber production and other forest uses. This lowers the tax bill for landowners, improves the profitability of timber production, and helps reduce development pressure.

Road blocks to implementing effective Current Use Valuation Programs

Current use valuation programs exist throughout the South, but the scale of their implementation and overall effectiveness is limited for a variety of reasons. For example, some programs still provide low financial returns to landowners relative to the opportunity cost of development. Additionally, there are concerns from many local governments about the impact of reduced property taxes.

WRI’s report argues that overcoming these obstacles will require more consistent and accurate analysis of the overall fiscal impacts of current use valuation programs to determine whether protecting forests and other forms of open space result in a net drain or net surplus when the cost of providing community services is taken into account. Cost of community service studies and other forms of fiscal impact analysis demonstrate that by helping counties avoid infrastructure and community service costs (such as roads, electricity, and sewer infrastructure) of new residential developments, such programs can often save money in the long term (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Dollars Spent on Community Services per Dollar in Tax Revenue Received: Range of Values from Cost of Community Service Studies in the South, 1997-2007, (click to enlarge)

The report also discusses how a variety of modifications to existing programs will increase their popularity among local governments and landowners.

How can Current Use Valuation Programs Promote the Conservation of Forests?

This report outlines four changes to current use valuation programs that could make them more effective, as applied in the South.

Designated state reimbursement fund. States can offer reimbursement funds similar to the one pioneered in Georgia to help alleviate county concerns over short-term fiscal impacts from drops in property tax revenues. Reimbursement funds can be targeted at forestlands specifically rather than open space in general to provide a more direct link between current use valuation and forest protection.
Longer covenant (contract) periods. States and counties can extend covenant terms to match the minimum rotation age for commercial forest management. Extending covenant terms to 20 years or more would ensure that lands protected under current use valuation programs would be of sufficient age to generate income streams from the sale of commercial forest products. Extending covenant terms would also help reduce speculation on lands enrolled for shorter periods.
Management for ecosystem services. States and counties could increase the flexibility of current use valuation programs to allow landowners to enroll lands that provide important ecosystem service benefits but not necessarily cash income from the sale of forest products. Building in this flexibility would make it easier for landowners to enroll and help states and counties meet important objectives related to environmental conservation and improved quality of life for residents. This flexibility would also improve the economics of maintaining land in current use valuation status relative to conversion, by saving landowners the expense of investing in timber or crops when they otherwise would not have chosen to do so.
Extending current use valuation programs to restore forest cover on marginal farmland. On agricultural lands, states and counties could encourage forest restoration on marginal and idle cropland by removing crop income requirements for enrollment. Providing tax incentives to farmers who want to let these lands naturally transition back to forest could help increase the extent of southern forests by millions of acres in the decades ahead.

Implementing these changes to current use valuation programs could help alleviate concerns about the bottom line, and bolster the long-term effectiveness of current use valuation programs throughout the region. In addition, these changes could increase the acreage of southern forest protected from development and instead managed for timber, water, wildlife habitat, recreation, scenery, erosion control, watershed protection, reduction of flooding hazards and other ecosystem services increasingly important to the well-being of southern communities.

This brief is designed to inform state, county, and municipal decisionmakers; land-use planners; and other people working to conserve and sustainably manage forests.

To learn more about southern U.S. forests, visit: www.SeeSouthernForests.org. Developed by WRI with support from Toyota, this interactive site provides a wide range of information about southern forests, including current and historic satellite images that allow users to zoom in on areas of interest, overlay maps showing selected forest features and drivers of change, historic forest photos, and case studies of innovative approaches for sustaining forests in the region. To order hard copies of this issue brief, and other briefs in the Southern Forests for the Future Incentives Series, please contact us.

Current Use Valuation Programs: Property Tax Incentives for Preserving Local Benefits of Forests

Kathy Doucette — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 10:59:07 -0400

Summary

This paper explores current use valuation programs as one tool for conserving and fostering sustainable management of southern U.S. forests under private ownership. The brief identifies key constraints on existing programs and suggests measures that could be implemented to enhance program effectiveness.
As a result of rising property taxes on lands under development pressure, nonindustrial private forestland owners in the South often resort to selling all or a portion of their properties to pay tax bills. Rising property taxes also reduce the profitability of timber production and induce corporate and industry landowners to engage in real estate sales as an alternative activity.
Current use valuation programs are one way that states and counties in the South are encouraging landowners to forgo unwanted development sales. Under these programs, enrolled forest and agricultural lands are assessed not at their fair market value but at their value for current uses. This lowers the tax bill for landowners, improves the profitability of timber production, and helps reduce development pressure.
Though current use valuation programs in one form or another are authorized by statute in all southern states, the programs’ general implementation and programmatic effectiveness is often limited by perceived negative fiscal impacts, minimal economic benefits to landowners relative to conversion, land speculation, and lack of promotion of sustainable forest management.
With respect to fiscal impacts, research shows that while current use valuation programs may cause a short-term loss of revenue, preserving these lands can actually result in positive, long-term fiscal benefits. This is because the cost of providing community services and public infrastructure on lands converted to residential use often exceeds the property tax revenues generated. Making counties more aware of this fact can help overcome reluctance to offer current use valuation.
Changes that can increase the overall implementation and programmatic effectiveness of current use valuation programs include state reimbursement funds for short-term reductions in tax revenues, longer covenant terms, allowances for ecosystem service management, and the inclusion of marginal or idle cropland transitioning into forest.
With these modifications, current use valuation programs can be a tool for not only keeping forest as forest but also stimulating a wide range of beneficial management activities, such as reforestation and management of ecosystem services.
This brief is designed to inform state, county, and municipal decisionmakers; land-use planners; and other stakeholders working to conserve and sustainably manage forests.

Comparison Tables of State Nutrient Trading Programs in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Maggie Barron — Wed, 18 May 2011 14:43:50 -0400

Over the last ten years, four Chesapeake Bay states—Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia—introduced nutrient trading programs to provide wastewater treatment plants with flexible options for meeting and maintaining permitted nutrient load limits. At least one other bay state, Delaware, also convened a work group to discuss developing such a program. Through these programs, wastewater treatment plants may purchase credits or offsets generated by other wastewater treatment plants or farms that reduce the nutrients they release to impaired water bodies. States are also exploring options for construction and urban stormwater programs to buy and sell credits and offsets.

To date, most credit transactions have occurred between buyers and sellers in the same state. Efforts to enact the recent Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), however, could provide more opportunities for interaction by trading partners from different states. For example, regulated entities could seek credits or offsets from other states when the supply in their own state has been exhausted. In addition, entities in states that do not have a trading program could seek credits or offsets from entities in states that do have such a program.

Although the elements of many of the trading programs are identical or very similar, such as calculation platforms, included pollutants, and allowable participants, there are several differences as well. Examples are the time period that defines the life of a credit or offset and the varying types and values of trading ratios. States may need to address these and other differences before permitting more cross-state transactions. Regardless of how these differences are resolved, government regulations require credit transactions to be documented in the public record.

The World Resources Institute (WRI) has compiled into comparison tables the key design elements of the four state trading programs. The tables comprise a reference document for policymakers and others addressing the programs’ differences. These design elements are grouped into twelve categories based on their common characteristics. All the information is current as of May 2011; was paraphrased directly from the statute, regulation, policy, or guidance documents; and has been reviewed by trading experts. Nonetheless, this information will undoubtedly change as the states refine their strategies for implementing the TMDLs.

List of Tables

Legal Authorities and Guidance Documents
Pollutants and General Eligibility Requirements
Point Source Participation Requirements
Market Functionality
Baseline Requirements
Trading Ratios
Credit or Offset Restrictions
Certification and Verification Processes
Septic Hookup Provisions
Compliance and Enforcement Provisions
Risk Management Provisions
Registry Vehicles and Oversight Agencies

World Water Day: How Cities Cause “Dead Zones”

Mindy Selman — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:54:03 -0400

WRI identifies 13 new eutrophic areas around the world.

World Water Day this year focuses on “Water for Cities,” but what about water from cities? Urban runoff is one of the biggest threats to water quality around the world, with serious impacts on economies and people. However, it’s a problem that most cities are only starting to address.

Nutrient Pollution and Urban Runoff

Eutrophication occurs when water bodies are polluted with nutrients (for example, chemicals from fertilizer and sewage) that wash into surface waters from farms and urban areas that can cause oxygen depletion, fish kills, and ecosystem collapse. These are often called “dead zones” – because of the impact on fish and other sea life.

These issues can be especially problematic in urban areas. When it rains, nutrient pollution from lawns, pet waste, and vehicle exhaust washes into nearby waterways. This sewage (sometimes treated, sometimes not) is often discharged into nearby bodies of water.

Eutrophic Areas Around the World

In January, the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) identified 534 low-oxygen “dead zones” and an additional 228 sites worldwide exhibiting signs of marine eutrophication. Thanks to responses from readers, WRI has since discovered 13 additional sites that are already eutrophic and in danger of becoming dead zones, bringing the total number of coastal areas around the world known to be suffering from nutrient pollution to 775.

Explore our Interactive Map of Eutrophication & Hypoxia

Some of the newly recorded sites have symptoms caused by urban runoff:

Halifax, Canada: Due to the growth of urban populations, Halifax Harbour and Bedford Basin receive high concentrations of urban waste that are high in nitrogen, phosphorus and other organic matter. Compounding the problem, municipal sewage is entering Bedford Basin from neighboring Bedford and Sackville, and a recent failure of the Halifax treatment plant resulted in high levels of fecal coliform pollution in the Inner Harbor. As a result, people can no longer safely swim or fish in certain areas. As the urban area around Halifax has grown since with 1960s, there have been more severe symptoms of eutrophication, including phytoplankton blooms and fish-kills.
Algeciras, Spain: The nearby Palmones River Estuary is located in a small area with a high population and a mixture of agricultural, urban and industrial land. Symptoms of eutrophication in the estuary have been observed since the early 1990’s, caused by high phosphorous concentrations from urban runoff, organic sewage from nearby towns, and waste from both a paper mill and nearby industrial park. Recent reports indicate the system is highly eutrophic and already many shellfish species have been diminished or depleted.

Development in the City of Algeciras exerts tremendous pressure on the bay. Photo credit: Wikimedia/Falconaumanni

In addition to sea water, fresh water sources often suffer eutrophication. In some extreme cases, local rivers and lakes can become so polluted by urban runoff that they are unsuitable for drinking water or even industrial uses. One striking example of this is Tai Lake in China, where urban runoff, combined with sewage and industrial discharge, led to a massive toxic blue-green algae bloom in May 2007. The bloom rendered the water in the lake too polluted for human, agricultural or industrial uses, and residents were forced to import water from other locations.

States and Cities Taking Action

Some regions are starting to take steps to reduce urban runoff and address wastewater issues:

In New Jersey, in an effort to reduce the nutrient load to Barnegat Bay, a bill was recently passed that will limit the nutrient content of lawn fertilizers in the state.
In Maryland, a June 2000 bill imposed strict standards for enhanced nutrient removal on all major wastewater treatment plants, in an effort to control pollution entering the Chesapeake Bay.
Around the Great Lakes, where eutrophication is a growing problem, New York, Michigan and other surrounding states have enacted phosphorus bans for detergents.
Some cities, like Portland, OR, have begun to manage urban runoff through the use of “green infrastructure” such as forest lands, rooftop gardens, rain gardens, wetlands, ponds and trees planted along stream banks to intercept runoff and cycle nutrients before it can reach surface waters.

WRI has also released the full data set (Excel, 975 Kb) available for 775 eutrophic sites worldwide. We hope that by making this data set widely available, we can help advance the critically important research and policy discussions to address the problems associated with eutrophication.

Protecting Forests to Protect Water in the U.S. South

Logan Yonavjak — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:21:59 -0500

When it comes to providing clean water, investments in forest conservation can save money.

Clean water doesn’t come cheap. Communities and businesses often rely on expensive water filtration infrastructure to ensure their clean water supplies. But what if they could save money by protecting upstream forests instead of building new, costly water treatment infrastructure?

The World Resources Institute (WRI) investigates this potential in Forests for Water: Exploring Payments for Watershed Services in the U.S. South. The issue brief provides an overview of how businesses and water utilities in the United States and Latin America are pursuing upstream forest conservation as a cost-effective means of ensuring clean water supplies. It also suggests how many of these approaches could be applicable in the southern United States.

Connecting Forests and Clean Water

Forests are often overlooked for the freshwater benefits they provide, but two-thirds of the nation’s water originates from forested lands in the United States. This water comes from precipitation that is filtered through forests, and much of it ends up in streams. In addition to filtering and purifying water, forests naturally regulate the timing and amount of water flows, which helps lessen flooding during heavy rainstorms. Forests also help curb erosion and prevent excess nutrients from fertilizer from entering nearby bodies of water.

Businesses and communities enjoy immense economic benefits from these forest “ecosystem services” (Figure 1). For example:

By naturally filtering water, forests can reduce drinking water treatment costs. For example, New York City famously saved billions of dollars in water filtration costs by conserving the forests and natural landscapes of the Catskills instead of paying for a new water filtration system.
By curbing erosion, forests can keep sediment and excess nutrients out of waterways. For instance forest buffers near streams can prevent nitrogen from entering waterways at approximately one-third of the cost per pound of nitrogen relative to wastewater treatment plant upgrades.
By filtering water through its porous soils, a forest can minimize wastewater treatment costs. For example, according to the Army Corps of Engineers a forest or forested wetland can filter water at approximately one-seventh of the cost per thousand gallons than can conventional wastewater treatment systems.

Figure 1: Green Infrastructure Can Be Less Expensive Than Gray Infrastructure: (Click to enlarge)

The Business Case for Conserving Forests for Clean Water

Public utilities, wastewater treatment plants, and governments are not the only ones that can benefit from conserving forests. Businesses that depend on a supply of clean water, such as beverage companies, power companies with hydroelectric facilities, microchip manufacturers, and housing developers may have a business case, as well.

However, these services that forests provide are threatened. In the southern United States, suburbanization has put forests, and thus the region’s clean water supply, at risk (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Watersheds of the Southern United States: (Click to enlarge)

One innovative approach for tackling this threat is to use “payments for watershed services.” Payments for watershed services provide landowners financial incentives to conserve, sustainably manage, and/or restore forests for one or more of the kinds of watershed services mentioned above. Such payments typically involve downstream beneficiaries paying upstream forest owners or forest managers.

There are three general types of payments for watershed services that companies and governments could take advantage of to cut costs:

voluntary payments to upstream landowners to reduce the cost of doing business;
payments to minimize the cost of meeting a regulation; and
payments made to generate public benefits like improved water quality.

“Payments for watershed services are a novel way to cost-effectively sustain clean water supplies while generating other benefits such as habitat conservation,” said Patricia Pineda, group vice president of philanthropy and the Toyota USA Foundation. “Innovative ideas like this one are the reason Toyota is proud to partner with WRI as part of the company’s commitment to the Clinton Global Initiative.”

From “Gray” Infrastructure to “Green” Infrastructure

Many payments for watershed services share a common trait: they are investments in “green infrastructure” instead of “gray infrastructure.” In other words, they are investments in forests and natural open space instead of in human-engineered solutions to address water quantity or quality problems.

Now that decision-makers are focusing sharply on budgets and cost-effectiveness, the time has come to see a forest for the water, not just for the trees.

To access this brief and other issue briefs in the Southern Forests for the Future Incentives Series, and to learn more about southern U.S. forests, visit: www.SeeSouthernForests.org. Developed by WRI with support from Toyota, this interactive site provides a wide range of information about southern forests, including current and historic satellite images that allow users to zoom in on areas of interest, overlay maps showing selected forest features and drivers of change, historic forest photos, and case studies of innovative approaches for sustaining forests in the region. To order free hard copies of this issue brief, and other briefs in the Southern Forests for the Future Incentives Series, please contact us.

Forests for Water: Exploring Payments for Watershed Services in the U.S. South

Maggie Barron — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:35:36 -0500

Summary

The forested watersheds of the southern United States provide a number of benefits—including water flow regulation, flood control, water purification, erosion control, and freshwater supply—to the region’s citizens, communities, and businesses.
The loss and degradation of forests can reduce their ability to provide these watershed-related ecosystem services.
Payments for watershed services provide landowners financial incentives to conserve, sustainably manage, and/or restore forests specifically to provide one or more watershed-related ecosystem services. Such payments typically involve downstream beneficiaries paying upstream forest owners or forest managers.
There are three general types of payments for watershed services: (1) voluntary payments by downstream entities to upstream landowners to reduce the costs of doing business, (2) payments made to minimize an entity’s cost of meeting a regulation, and (3) payments made to generate public benefits. A number of instances of each type of payment have been piloted in the United States, Latin America, and elsewhere.
Many payments for watershed services share a common trait: they are investments in “green infrastructure” instead of “gray infrastructure.” In other words, they are investments in forests and natural, open space instead of in human-engineered solutions to address water quantity or quality problems. In many instances, investments in green infrastructure can be more cost effective than investments in gray infrastructure.
Entities that may have a business case for making a payment for watershed services include beverage companies, power companies with hydroelectric facilities, manufacturers that rely on clean freshwater supplies for processing, housing developers, public and private wastewater treatment plants, city and county governments, drinking water utilities, and public departments of transportation, among others.
These entities can pursue a number of steps to capture the potential benefits of payments for watershed services, including identifying those forests most responsible for their clean water supplies, conducting economic analyses of green versus gray infrastructure, and exploring public/private financing partnerships.
Upstream landowners can pursue a number of steps to advance— and ultimately benefit from—payments for watershed services, including developing an understanding of the watershed-related ecosystem services their forests provide, actively looking for emerging payment opportunities, and collaborating with other landowners to achieve economies of scale when engaging beneficiaries of the services their forests provide.
This issue brief is intended as an introductory resource primarily for entities that depend upon stable supplies of clean freshwater in the southern United States and are looking for cost-effective approaches to sustain this supply. This brief also provides information to southern landowners interested in potential revenue streams generated by conservation and sustainable management of forests.

Watersheds of the Southern United States

Maggie Barron — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 16:38:48 -0500

In the Southern United States, the watersheds with the greatest ability to produce clean water and with the most consumers tend to be the forested watersheds of the east (top). But these are often the same watersheds upon which development pressure is greatest (bottom).