Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T06:10:09.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Paying the forest for electricity: a modelling framework to market forest conservation as payment for ecosystem services benefiting hydropower generation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2011

MAURICIO E. ARIAS ,
THOMAS A. COCHRANE ,
KEITH S. LAWRENCE ,
TIMOTHY J. KILLEEN  and
TRACY A. FARRELL
MAURICIO E. ARIAS
Affiliation:
University of Canterbury, Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, Christchurch, New Zealand
THOMAS A. COCHRANE*
Affiliation:
University of Canterbury, Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, Christchurch, New Zealand
KEITH S. LAWRENCE
Affiliation:
Conservation International, 1919 M Street, NW Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036, USA
TIMOTHY J. KILLEEN
Affiliation:
Conservation International, 1919 M Street, NW Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036, USA
TRACY A. FARRELL
Affiliation:
Conservation International, 1919 M Street, NW Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036, USA
*
*Correspondence: Thomas A. Cochrane Tel: +64 3 364 2378 Fax: +64 3 364 2758 e-mail: tom.cochrane@canterbury.ac.nz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The operation and longevity of hydropower dams are often negatively impacted by sedimentation. Forest conservation can reduce soil erosion, and therefore efforts to maintain upstream forest cover within a watershed contribute to the economic life span of a hydropower facility. The cost of forest conservation can be viewed as an investment in hydropower and be financed via a payment for ecosystem services (PES) scheme. A novel modelling framework is used to estimate payments for forest conservation consisting of: (1) land-use change projection; (2) watershed erosion modelling; (3) reservoir sedimentation estimation; (4) power generation loss calculation; and (5) PES scheme design. The framework was applied to a proposed dam in Cambodia (Pursat 1). The estimated net present value of forest conservation was US$ 4.7 million when using average annual climate values over 100 years, or US$ 6.4 million when considering droughts every eight years. This can be remunerated with annual payments of US$ 4.26 ha−1 or US$ 5.78 ha−1, respectively, covering forest protection costs estimated at US$ 0.9 ha−1 yr−1. The application of this type of PES represents a rational option that allows for conservation and development of hydropower watersheds susceptible to erosion and sedimentation.

Keywords

forest conservationpayment for ecosystem servicesreservoir sedimentationsediment yieldsoil erosionsustainable hydropowerwatershed management
Type
THEMATIC SECTION: Payments for Ecosystem Services in Conservation: Performance and Prospects
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 38 , Issue 4: Thematic section. Payments for Ecosystem Services in Conservation: Performance and Prospects , December 2011 , pp. 473 - 484
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aruna Technology Ltd (2006) The Atlas of Cambodia: National Poverty and Environment Maps. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: Save's Cambodia's Wildlife/Danida.Google Scholar
Badola, R. & Hussain, S.A. (2005) Valuing ecosystem functions: an empirical study on the storm protection function of Bhitarkanika mangrove ecosystem, India. Environmental Conservation 32 (1): 85–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruijnzeel, L.A. (2004) Hydrological functions of tropical forests: not seeing the soil for the trees? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 104 (1): 185–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brune, G.M. (1953) Trap efficiency of reservoirs. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 34 (3): 407–418.Google Scholar
Cochrane, T.A., Norton, L.D., Castro, C. & Cavigglione, J.H. (2004) Development of a river sediment transport monitoring system for large reservoirs. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 20 (6): 771–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Constanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groots, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P. & van den Belt, M. (1997) The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387 (May 15): 253–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costanza, R., Pérez-Maqueo, O., Martinez, M.L., Sutton, P., Anderson, S.J. & Mulder, K. (2008). The value of coastal wetlands for hurricane protection. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 37 (4): 241–248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cruz, W., Francisco, H. & Conway, Z. (1988) The on-site and downstream costs of soil erosion in the Magat and Pantabangan Watersheds. Journal of Philippine Development 15 (26): 85–111.Google Scholar
Emerton, L. (2005) Values and Rewards: Counting and Capturing Ecosystem Water Services for Sustainable Development. IUCN Water, Nature and Economics Technical Paper No 1. IUCN, The World Conservation Union.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fu, K.D., He, D.M. & Lu, X.X. (2008) Sedimentation in the Manwan reservoir in the Upper Mekong and its downstream impacts. Quaternary International 186 (1): 91–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, A., Pierret, A., Boonsaner, A., Valentin, C., Orange, D. & Planchon, O. (2009) Potential and limitations of payments for environmental services (PES) as a means to manage watershed services in mainland Southeast Asia. International Journal of the Commons 3 (1): 16–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greiber, T. (2009) Payments for Ecosystem Services. Legal and Institutional Frameworks. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.Google Scholar
Hajramurni, A. (2010) Makassar dam threatened by sediment, experts say. The Jakarta Post May 21 [www document]. URL http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/05/21/makassar-dam-threatened-sediment-experts-say.htmlGoogle Scholar
IHA (2010) Activity Report. International Hydropower Association, London, UK [www document]. URL http://www.hydropower.org/downloads/ActivityReports/IHA_Activity_Report_2010.pdfGoogle Scholar
Keskinen, M. (2008) Water resources development and impact assessment in the Mekong Basin: which way to go? Ambio 37 (3): 193–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Killeen, T.J. (2007) A Perfect Storm in the Amazon Wilderness, Development and Conservation in the Context of the Initiative for Integration of the Regional Infrastructure of South America (IIRSA). Applications in Applied Biodiversity Science, Volume 7. Washington, DC, USA: Conservation International.Google Scholar
King, P., Bird, J. & Haas, L. (2007) The Current Status of Environmental Criteria for Hydropower Development in the Mekong Region: A Literature Compilation. Vientiane, Lao PDR: ADB/MRC/WWF.Google Scholar
Klipsch, J.D. & Hursh, M.B. (2007) HEC-ResSim Reservoir System Simulation User's Manual Version 3.0. Computer Program Documentation 82. Davis, CA, USA: US Army Corps of Engineers, Institute of Water Resources, Hydrologic Engineering Center.Google Scholar
Kummu, M., Lu, X.X., Wang, J.J. & Varis, O. (2010) Basin-wide sediment trapping efficiency of emerging reservoirs along the Mekong. Geomorphology 119 (3–4): 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kummu, M. & Varis, O. (2007) Sediment-related impacts due to upstream reservoir trapping, the Lower Mekong River. Geomorphology 85 (3): 275–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kummu, M. & Sarkkula, J. (2008) Impact of the Mekong River flow alteration on the Tonle Sap flood pulse. Ambio 37 (3): 185–192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lamb, D. & Gilmour, D. (2000) A Succinct Overview of the Issues from the Scientific Sessions as a Basis for Interfacing with Policy. UNESCO Symposium on Forest-Water-People in the Humid Tropics. Bangi, Malaysia: UNESCO.Google Scholar
Leimgruber, P., Kelly, D.S., Steininger, M.K., Brunner, J., Ller, T. & Songer, M. (2005) Forest cover change patterns in Myanmar (Burma) 1990–2000. Environmental Conservation 32 (4): 356–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, X.X. & Higgitt, D. L. (2001) Sediment delivery to the Three Gorges: 2. Local response. Geomorphology 41 (2): 157–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MA (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.Google Scholar
Mayaux, P., Holmgren, P., Achard, F., Eva, H., Stibig, H. & Branthomme, A. (2005) Tropical forest cover change in the 1990s and options for future monitoring. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 360 (1454): 373–384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mohd Shahwahid, H.O., Awang Noor, A.G., Abdul Rahim, N., Zulkifli, Y. & Razani, U. (1997) Economic benefits of watershed protection and trade-off with timber production: a case study in Malaysia. Research Report. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
MRC (2009 a) Hydropower Project Database. Vientiane, Lao PDR: Mekong River Commission.Google Scholar
MRC (2009 b) Mekong River Commission Spatial Database. Vientiane, Lao PDR: Mekong River Commission [www document]. URL http://www.mrcmekong.org/spatial/data_catalog.htmGoogle Scholar
Mulder, I., ten Kate, T. & Scherr, S. (2006) Private sector demand in markets for ecosystem services: preliminary findings. Adapted from full report submitted to the UNDP-GEF project: Institutionalizing Payments for Ecosystem Services, supplement III. Mobilizing Private Sector Buyers for Ecosystem Services. Washington, DC, USA: Forest Trends Association.Google Scholar
Nagle, G.N. (2002) The contribution of agricultural erosion to reservoir sedimentation in the Dominican Republic. Water Policy 3 (6): 491–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, D.W. (2001) The economic value of forest ecosystems. Ecosystem Health 7 (4): 284–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renard, K.G., Laflen, J.M., Foster, G.R. & McCool, D. K. (1994) The revised universal loss equation. In: Soil Erosion Research Methods, ed. Lal, R., pp. 105–126. Delray Beach, FL, USA: St Lucie Press.Google Scholar
Rojas, M. & Aylward, B. (2002) The Case of La Esperanza: A Small, Private, Hydropower Producer and a Conservation NGO in Costa Rica. Land-Water Linkages in Rural Watersheds Case Study Series. Rome, Italy: FAO.Google Scholar
Rowcroft, P. (2008) Frontiers of change: the reasons behind land-use change in the Mekong Basin. Ambio 37 (3): 213–218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sadiki, A., Faleh, A., Navas, A. & Bouhlassa, S. (2007) Assessing soil erosion and control factors by the radiometric technique in the Boussouab catchment, Eastern Rif, Morocco. CATENA 71 (1): 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shields, F.D Jr, Simon, A. & Steffen, L.J. (2002) Reservoir effects on downstream river channel migration. Environmental Conservation 27 (1): 54–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Syvitski, J.P.M., Vörösmarty, C. J., Kettner, A.J. & Green, P. (2005) Impact of humans on the flux of terrestrial sediment to the global coastal ocean. Science 308 (5720): 376–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tallis, H., Ricketts, T., Nelson, E. & Ennaanay, D. (2010) InVEST 1.005 Beta User's Guide:Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs. Stanford, USA: The Natural Capital Project.Google Scholar
Ton, S., Odum, H.T. & Delfino, J.J. (1998) Ecological-economic evaluation of wetland management alternatives. Ecological Engineering 11 (1): 291–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WCD (2000) Dams and Development. A New Framework for Decision-making. The Report of the World Commission on Dams. London, UK and Sterling, VA, USA: Earthscan Publications Ltd [www document]. URL http://www.unep.org/dams/WCD/report/WCD_DAMS%20report.pdfGoogle Scholar
Winchell, M., Srinivasan, R., Di Luzio, M. & Arnold, J. (2010). ArcSWAT Interface for SWAT2009: User's Guide. Temple, TX, USA [www document]. URL http://swatmodel.tamu.edu/software/arcswatGoogle Scholar
Zheng, J., He, X., Walling, D., Zhang, X., Flanagan, D. & Qi, Y. (2007). Assessing soil erosion rates on manually-tilled hillslopes in the Sichuan Hilly Basin Using 137Cs and 210Pbex measurements. Pedosphere 17 (3): 273–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Arias Supplementary Appendix

Arias Supplementary Appendix

Download Arias Supplementary Appendix(File)
File 113.7 KB