Water pricing: are 'polluters' paying the environmental costs of flow regulation?

River ecosystems are severely affected by dams and reservoirs. The Water Framework Directive states that polluters should be financially responsible for the caused environmental damage. Nevertheless, the environmental costs associated to flow regulation often are not fully paid by water users. This study presents an approach to value the environmental costs of flow regulation based on the "polluter pays" principle, i.e., the amount to be paid should be proportional to the caused environmental impact. The procedure includes three major steps: (i) assessing the admissible range of regulated flow variability based on flow data during the pre-dam period, (ii) estimating the daily environmental impact of regulated flows according to the resulting hydrological change in terms of the intensity, duration and frequency of the impact, and (iii) calculating the environmental costs of flow regulation subject to spatiotemporal characteristics. This paper applies the proposed methodology in the Luna River, Spain. The advantages over other water cost valuation methodologies are discussed. The approach enlarges the current recognition of water environmental costs and represents a simple and practical management tool for achieving the objectives of the Water Framework Directive

The environmental costs of water flow regulation: an innovative approach based on the ‘Polluter Pays’ principle

The EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) explicitly requires the full cost recovery of water services, including the environmental costs incurred from the damage that water uses inflict on the environment. Although flow regulation by river damming is one of the most prominent human impact on fresh water ecosystems its environmental costs are not properly included in water pricing. This paper presents a novel approach to assessing the environmental costs of flow regulation based on the polluter-pays principle. The methodology includes three steps: (i) assessing the admissible range of regulated flow variability, derived from the natural flow regime variability, (ii) estimating the daily environmental impact of regulated flows according to deviations from the admissible range of flow variability, and (iii) calculating the environmental costs of flow regulation. The procedure is applied to four river case studies in Spain, UK and Norway. The advantages over other water cost valuation methods are discussed. The methodology enlarges the current recognition of environmental costs of water use and represents a practical management tool within the WFD context, encouraging transparency and stakeholder communication

Agroforestry is paying off – Economic evaluation of ecosystem services in European landscapes with and without agroforestry systems

The study assessed the economic performance of marketable ecosystem services (ES) (biomass production) and non-marketable ecosystem services and dis-services (groundwater, nutrient loss, soil loss, carbon sequestration, pollination deficit) in 11 contrasting European landscapes dominated by agroforestry land use compared to business as usual agricultural practice. The productivity and profitability of the farming activities and the associated ES were quantified using environmental modelling and economic valuation. After accounting for labour and machinery costs the financial value of the outputs of Mediterranean agroforestry systems tended to be greater than the corresponding agricultural system; but in Atlantic and Continental regions the agricultural system tended to be more profitable. However, when economic values for the associated ES were included, the relative profitability of agroforestry increased. Agroforestry landscapes: (i) were associated to reduced externalities of pollution from nutrient and soil losses, and (ii) generated additional benefits from carbon capture and storage and thus generated an overall higher economic gain. Our findings underline how a market system that includes the values of broader ES would result in land use change favouring multifunctional agroforestry. Imposing penalties for dis-services or payments for services would reflect their real world prices and would make agroforestry a more financially profitable system

How is agroforestry perceived in Europe? An assessment of positive and negative aspects by stakeholders

Whilst the benefits of agroforestry are widely recognised in tropical latitudes few studies have assessed how agroforestry is perceived in temperate latitudes. This study evaluates how stakeholders and key actors including farmers, landowners, agricultural advisors, researchers and environmentalists perceive the implementation and expansion of agroforestry in Europe. Meetings were held with 30 stakeholder groups covering different agroforestry systems in 2014 in eleven EU countries (Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom). In total 344 valid responses were received to a questionnaire where stakeholders were asked to rank the positive and negative aspects of implementing agroforestry in their region. Improved biodiversity and wildlife habitats, animal health and welfare, and landscape aesthetics were seen as the main positive aspects of agroforestry. By contrast, increased labour, complexity of work, management costs and administrative burden were seen as the most important negative aspects. Overall, improving the environmental value of agriculture was seen as the main benefit of agroforestry, whilst management and socio-economic issues were seen as the greatest barriers. The great variability in the opportunities and barriers of the systems suggests enhanced adoption of agroforestry across Europe will be most likely to occur with specific initiatives for each type of system