RESUMO
Watershed management may have widespread potential to cost-effectively deliver hydrologic services. Mobilizing the needed investments requires credible assessments of how watershed conservation compares to conventional solutions on cost and effectiveness, utilizing an integrated analytical framework that links the bio-, litho-, hydro- and economic spheres and uses counterfactuals. We apply such a framework to a payment for watershed services (PWS) program in Camboriú, Santa Catarina State, Brazil. Using 1â¯m resolution satellite imagery, we assess recent land use and land cover (LULC) change and apply the Land Change Modeler tool to predict future LULC without the PWS program. We use current and predicted counterfactual LULC, site costs and a Soil and Water Assessment Tool model calibrated to the watershed to both target watershed interventions for sediment reduction and predict program impact on total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations at the municipal water intake-the principal program objective. Using local water treatment and PWS program costs, we estimate the return on investment (ROI; benefit/costs) of the program. Program ROI exceeds 1 for the municipal water utility in year 44, well within common drinking water infrastructure planning horizons. Because some program costs are borne by third parties, over that same period, for overall (social) program ROI to exceed 1 requires delivery of very modest flood and supply risk reduction and biodiversity co-benefits, making co-benefits crucial for social program justification. Transaction costs account for half of total program costs, a result of large investments in efficient targeting and program sustainability. Co-benefits justify increased cost sharing with other beneficiaries, which would increase ROI for the utility, demonstrating the sensitivity of the business case for watershed conservation to its broader social-economic case and the ability to forge institutional arrangements to internalize third-party benefits.
RESUMO
The potential for conservation of individual species has been greatly advanced by the International Union for Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) development of objective, repeatable, and transparent criteria for assessing extinction risk that explicitly separate risk assessment from priority setting. At the IV World Conservation Congress in 2008, the process began to develop and implement comparable global standards for ecosystems. A working group established by the IUCN has begun formulating a system of quantitative categories and criteria, analogous to those used for species, for assigning levels of threat to ecosystems at local, regional, and global levels. A final system will require definitions of ecosystems; quantification of ecosystem status; identification of the stages of degradation and loss of ecosystems; proxy measures of risk (criteria); classification thresholds for these criteria; and standardized methods for performing assessments. The system will need to reflect the degree and rate of change in an ecosystem's extent, composition, structure, and function, and have its conceptual roots in ecological theory and empirical research. On the basis of these requirements and the hypothesis that ecosystem risk is a function of the risk of its component species, we propose a set of four criteria: recent declines in distribution or ecological function, historical total loss in distribution or ecological function, small distribution combined with decline, or very small distribution. Most work has focused on terrestrial ecosystems, but comparable thresholds and criteria for freshwater and marine ecosystems are also needed. These are the first steps in an international consultation process that will lead to a unified proposal to be presented at the next World Conservation Congress in 2012.