Hydrological services in the Atlantic Forest, Brazil_ An ecosystem-based adaptation using ecohydrological monitoring

Prévia do material em texto

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Climate Services
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cliser
Hydrological services in the Atlantic Forest, Brazil: An ecosystem-based
adaptation using ecohydrological monitoring
Denise Taffarelloa,⁎, Maria do Carmo Calijuria, Ricardo A. Gorne Vianib, José A. Marengoc,
Eduardo Mario Mendiondoa
a Department of Hydraulics and Sanitation (SHS) (EESC), University of Sao Paulo (USP), Av. Trabalhador Sãocarlense, 400, São Carlos, SP 13566-590, Brazil
b Federal University of Sao Carlos (UFSCar), Rodovia Anhanguera, Km 174, Araras, SP, Brazil
c Brazilian Center of Monitoring and Early Warning of Natural Disasters, CEMADEN, Rod. Pres. Dutra, Km 138, 12247-016 Sao Jose dos Campos, SP, Brazil
A R T I C L E I N F O
Keywords:
Ecohydrology
Hydrological services
Payments for ecosystem services
Adaptive management
Climate change
Brazilian Atlantic Forest
A B S T R A C T
Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) involves using services on which human well-being depends to help people
adapt to the impacts of climate change. Aiming at strengthening ecosystem resilience and reducing ecosystem
and people’s vulnerability, EbA has been encouraged worldwide as an option for climate change. Payments for
Ecosystem Services (PES) are incentives offered to farmers and landowners to provide an ecological service and
are currently proposed as a method for EbA and water resources sustainability on a global scale. However,
organized information on PES in Brazil is limited. This paper provides a concise review of PES initiatives in the
Brazilian Atlantic Forest, where various PES projects on watershed protection (Water-PES) have been set up. We
found 16 ongoing Water-PES in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. The first initiative was launched in 2005 and since
then these projects have grown rapidly. In spite of the advances made in many of these initiatives, they seldom
have baseline hydrologic data and an implemented strategy for ecohydrological monitoring. Thus, we discuss
how PES projects could be more effective by implementing hydrological monitoring based on ecohydrological
concepts. Special attention has been given to explaining how the recent Impact-Vulnerability-Adaptation idea
could be integrated into Water-PES. As can be seen from the review, these projects contribute as EbA options for
climate change, thereby carrying practical implications for environmental policy makers.
1. Introduction
Brazil has the largest biological diversity in the world and 35% of its
biodiversity can be found in the Atlantic Forest. This biome boasts high
levels of endemism, species richness, but also has high rates of devas-
tation. Only 11–16% percent of the Brazilian Atlantic forest still re-
mains on the coastline (Ribeiro et al., 2009; Viani et al., 2012) and a
40–50 km zone extending inland (Ab’Sáber, 2003), although there have
been trends of an incipient net growth in specific areas (Molin et al.,
2017).
In spite of being reduced and fragmented, the Atlantic Forest has
greater plant species diversity (20,000 vascular plant species, Myers
et al., 2000) than that found in North America (about 17,000 species)
and Europe (around 12,500 species). Therefore, the Atlantic Forest is
one of the world’s most important areas for biodiversity conservation
(Brazil, 2015).
Due to the global importance of this biome, because (i) it is a bio-
diversity hotspot (from a total of 36 hotspots on the planet) and (ii)
comprises a carbon sink, the Atlantic Forest can provide an important
opportunity for restoration or conservation initiatives of economic
importance. One of these initiatives is the Atlantic Forest Restoration
Pact (Melo et al., 2013; Rodrigues et al., 2009), which is a pub-
lic–private partnership that aims to restore 150,000 km2 of forest by
2050 using native species.
Moreover, the Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) adopting in-
centive strategies to conserve (Buckley and Pegas, 2014; Joly et al.,
2014) or restore (Banks-Leite et al., 2014; Palmer and Filoso, 2009)
ecosystems offers possible solutions to prevent the degradation of water
resources and related ecosystems. This procedure can be instrumental
not only to reduce the risks of inadequate land use, but also to manage
and adapt to climate change (Underwood, 2015; Seppelt et al., 2011).
In turn, the concept of Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) as ‘using
biodiversity and ecosystem services to help people adapt to the adverse
effects of climate change’ was defined by the Convention on Biological
Diversity – 10 th Conference of the Parties (CoP) (CBD, 2010). Ac-
cording to EbA, protecting ES is required to help people and ecosystems
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2017.10.005
Received 15 May 2017; Received in revised form 3 October 2017; Accepted 25 October 2017
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: taffarellod@gmail.com (D. Taffarello), calijuri@sc.usp.br (M.d.C. Calijuri), viani@cca.ufscar.br (R.A.G. Viani), jose.marengo@cemaden.gov.br (J.A. Marengo),
emm@sc.usp.br (E.M. Mendiondo).
Climate Services 8 (2017) 1–16
Available online 03 November 2017
2405-8807/ © 2017 Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/).
T
to reduce their vulnerability and strengthen their resilience to impacts
of climate change (Marengo et al., 2015). Thus, an EbA method could
result from the ecohydrological baseline and monitoring of Water-PES
projects, which can assess the maintenance of healthy river systems.
This proposal is flexible, replicable and offers a good cost-benefit re-
lationship. Besides, it is easily understood as PES have been recognized
as a measuring indicator for EbA (BFN/GIZ, 2013).
Latin America was the pioneer of implementing PES projects
(Balvanera et al., 2012, Ojea and Martin-Ortega, 2015), mainly fo-
cusing on watershed protection. Costa Rica was the first country to set
up a formal PES, called Programa de Pagos por Servicios Ambientales in
1997. Government subsidies helped water users (e.g. hydropower
companies) pay land owners for benefits derived from conservation
actions in watersheds. However, the very first formal PES was created
in Cauca Valley, Colombia in the mid-1990s, where silvopastoral
practices were used in a pilot project to protect upper watersheds
(Pagiola et al., 2010; Echavarria, 2002).
The first publication on ecosystem services in Latin America was in
the late 1990s. Fearnside (1997) proposed ecosystem services to
achieve sustainable development in the Brazilian Amazon basin. PES
had already been viewed as a long-term strategy for the well-being of
forests and the “forest guardians”. This article provided the foundations
for the subsequent creation of the “Bolsa Floresta” program (Viana
et al., 2013).
Currently, there are many initiatives in various contexts (Balvanera
et al., 2012; Bremer et al., 2016a) to align economic investments with
human/ecosystem welfare in Latin America (Goldman-Benner et al.,
2012). Recently, the Water Funds, an institutional, biophysical and
economic platform, has expanded into various countries (Bremer et al.,
2016a). However, these projects are still small-scale operations and
efforts are needed to improve measurements and valuation methods.
In the current debate on how the flow of ecosystem services can be
quantified, this paper highlights some ecohydrological variables as
promising tools. Ecohydrology is the interaction between biota, hy-
drology and soil (Zalewski and Robarts, 2003) and incorporating its
concepts can help to fill the gap between environmental scientists and
engineers to achieve sustainable and integrated water resources man-
agement (Zalewski, 2015, 2014). Ecohydrology, therefore, provides the
devices to address the current environmental challenges, such as the
imbalance between water demand and available water resources. This
subject received more attention after the post-2015 Development
Agenda (UN-Water, 2014) was published, especially in Brazil. Morediscussions are expected during the 8th World Water Forum, which will
be held in Brasilia, Brazil in 2018.
Thus, the study aims to review PES projects in the Brazilian Atlantic
Forest as the basis for addressing the use of ecohydrological variables to
improve the ecosystem-based adaptation practices. The hydrological
variables represent compositions of variables to evaluate and quantify
the hydrological services on the basin scale and are extracted from a set
of primary hydrological variables (h: level, Q: flow, t: time of duration,
P: precipitation, Prob: probability of occurrence, among others) (Chow
et al., 1988).
2. Methods
The strategy to explain how the literature for this review was se-
lected is based on a combination of methods including a workshop,
literature analyses and interviews. These different methods provided a
robust vision not only of the state-of-the-art of the Water-PES in the
Brazilian Atlantic Forest, but also the weak hydroclimatological mon-
itoring of these PES projects. Building on the results from the literature
review, we then asked how Water-PES projects could be a positive
answer to anthropogenic disturbances on both local and landscape
scales, as well as how ecohydrological features of river basins could
influence adaptations to climate change.
Thus, the methods combined to obtain (1) updated information
about Brazilian Water-PES projects; and (2) insights into EbA for cli-
mate change, which are described in the following subsections.
2.1. Workshop
The first author of this manuscript was responsible for co-organizing
a two-day workshop on PES in Brazil in 2011. The workshop, held in
Sao Paulo city, had at least 400 participants and stimulated fruitful
discussions. The presenters explained that Federal, state and municipal
governments, as well as non-profit organizations and private companies
started PES initiatives that have been developing in various regions in
Brazil. The experiences and information gained from the PES projects
were shared with the participants leading to fruitful discussions. Later,
the presenters co-authored a Brazilian reference book on PES, entitled
Experiences of Payments for Ecosystem Services in Brazil (Experiências
de Pagamentos por Serviços Ambientais no Brasil). A working paper re-
lated to this book is available at: https://openknowledge.worldbank.
org/handle/10986/17854.
2.2. Literature review
The literature review was conducted based on Brazilian reference
books on PES and international peer-reviewed articles. We compiled
data using previous information provided by Guedes and Seehusen
(2011) only considering actual PES cases, as well as Pagiola et al.
(2013). Then, we expanded and made a list of PES initiatives by con-
sulting scientific published documents.
We prioritized peer-reviewed articles, but also considered grey lit-
erature publications, theses and reports known due to the professional
experience of the authors. The papers were searched in the following
databases: ‘web of science’, ‘ISI web of knowledge’, ‘sci verse scopus’
and ‘google scholar’ until mid-2015. The expressions searched were
payments for ecosystem services, payments for environmental services,
payments for watershed protection, hydrological services in Brazil,
hydroclimatological services in Brazil and Brazilian hydro-
meteorological services. Without using any filters, we found more than
1000 articles. Then, we focused on Brazilian initiatives.
Information was acquired on more than 60 Brazilian PES projects,
classified into four types of ES: (a) protecting river basins (Water-PES);
(b) carbon sink; (c) biodiversity protection; and (d) scenic beauty pro-
tection.
According to Zanella et al. (2014), payments for watershed pro-
tection are the most well-known among conservation tools in Brazil.
Based on this and on our literature review, we selected Water-PES in
watersheds covered by the Brazilian Atlantic Forest biome to be the
focus of this research. Based on a sample of 60 PES projects, we selected
only 16 Water-PES in Brazil’s Atlantic Forest in the period between
2005 and 2013 (Table 1).
2.3. Interviews
In addition to methods 2.1 and 2.2, a questionnaire was sent to PES
project managers and specialists in conservation to obtain supplemen-
tary information. The questions were related to the PES project area,
drainage areas in their river basins, aims and objectives of the project,
number of beneficiaries, Water-PES value, method for PES value de-
termination, presence (or not) of baseline, hydrological monitoring, etc.
In case of any doubts after the e-mails were sent, we called these spe-
cialists by phone to clarify any issues.
In short, the approach to develop this review was based on a com-
bination of workshops, literature reviews and interviews. First, we
summarized the information about PES for the protection of watershed
(Water-PES) projects implemented in Brazil’s Atlantic Forest. Based on
these methods, we made tables summarizing data and information
about the studied experiences. Then, we presented the development of
ecohydrology and EbA concepts, and discussed how Water-PES projects
D. Taffarello et al. Climate Services 8 (2017) 1–16
2
Ta
bl
e
1
G
en
er
al
in
fo
rm
at
io
n
ab
ou
t
W
at
er
-P
ES
in
it
ia
ti
ve
s
im
pl
em
en
te
d
in
th
e
A
tl
an
ti
c
Fo
re
st
,B
ra
zi
l.
El
ig
ib
le
ac
ti
on
s
fo
r
PE
S:
FC
–
fo
re
st
co
ns
er
va
ti
on
,
FO
–
fo
re
st
re
st
or
at
io
n,
O
A
–
or
ga
ni
c
ag
ri
cu
lt
ur
e,
SC
–
so
il
co
ns
er
va
ti
on
pr
ac
ti
ce
s.
In
it
ia
ti
ve
na
m
e
(s
ta
rt
in
g
ye
ar
)a
Lo
ca
ti
on
(s
ca
le
)
A
re
a
(k
m
2
)
Po
te
nt
ia
l
be
ne
fi
ci
ar
ie
s
(n
°
of
in
ha
bi
ta
nt
s)
A
rr
an
ge
m
en
t/
fu
nd
in
g
(p
ilo
t
in
st
it
ut
io
n
in
bo
ld
)
Le
ga
l
in
st
ru
m
en
t
to
gu
ar
an
te
e
fu
nd
in
g
or
pr
oj
ec
t
El
ig
ib
le
ac
ti
on
s
fo
r
PE
S
D
ur
at
io
n
of
PE
S
co
nt
ra
ct
s
(y
ea
rs
)
W
ho
im
pl
em
en
t/
pa
y
co
st
s
of
el
ig
ib
le
ac
ti
on
s?
1
–
C
on
se
rv
ad
or
da
s
Á
gu
as
(2
00
5)
b
Ex
tr
em
a-
M
G
(l
oc
al
)
60
(P
os
se
s
an
d
Sa
lt
o
ca
tc
hm
en
ts
)
8,
8
m
ill
io
n
(m
et
ro
po
lit
an
ar
ea
of
Sã
o
Pa
ul
o
an
d
PC
J
R
iv
er
ba
si
n)
Pu
bl
ic
(m
un
ic
ip
al
,s
ta
te
an
d
fe
de
ra
l)
,p
ri
va
te
,N
G
O
,p
ri
va
te
fo
un
da
ti
on
,
w
at
er
sh
ed
co
m
m
it
te
e
(P
C
J
w
at
er
us
er
fe
es
)
Y
es
(m
un
ic
ip
al
la
w
an
d
de
cr
ee
)
FC
,F
O
,S
C
5
(r
en
ew
ab
le
)
Ex
tr
em
a
m
un
ic
ip
al
it
y
w
it
h
re
so
ur
ce
s
fr
om
pa
rt
ne
rs
.
N
o
co
st
s
fo
r
la
nd
ow
ne
rs
.
2
–
O
ás
is
-S
ão
Pa
ul
o
(2
00
6)
Sã
o
Pa
ul
o-
SP
(l
oc
al
)
82
0
3,
7
m
ill
io
n
(m
et
ro
po
lit
an
ar
ea
of
Sã
o
Pa
ul
o)
Pr
iv
at
e
fo
un
da
ti
on
,p
ri
va
te
N
o
FC
5
(r
en
ew
ab
le
)
Bo
ti
cá
ri
o
Fo
un
da
ti
on
3
–
Pr
od
ut
or
de
Á
gu
a/
C
om
it
ês
La
go
s
Sã
o
Jo
ão
(2
00
7)
R
io
de
Ja
ne
ir
o:
Sã
o
Jo
ão
,B
ac
ax
á
an
d
C
ap
iv
ar
i
w
at
er
sh
ed
s
(l
oc
al
)
38
25
25
0,
00
0
W
at
er
sh
ed
co
m
m
it
te
e,
FU
N
B
O
A
S
(L
ag
os
Sã
o
Jo
ão
w
at
er
us
er
fe
es
)
Y
es
(w
at
er
sh
ed
co
m
m
it
te
e
re
so
lu
ti
on
s)
FC
,F
O
,O
A
,
SC
,r
ur
al
sa
ni
ta
ti
on
2
(r
en
ew
ab
le
)
Pr
oj
ec
t
th
ro
ug
h
di
re
ct
ex
ec
ut
io
n
or
co
nt
ra
ct
in
g
th
ir
d
pa
rt
ie
s.
N
o
co
st
s
fo
r
la
nd
ow
ne
rs
.
4
–
O
ás
is
-A
pu
ca
ra
na
(2
00
9)
b
A
pu
ca
ra
na
-P
R
;
SP
M
R
(l
oc
al
)
26
87
40
0,
00
0
Pu
bl
ic
(m
un
ic
ip
al
),
pr
iv
at
e
fo
un
da
ti
on
St
at
e
w
at
er
su
pp
ly
an
d
sa
ni
ta
ti
on
co
m
pa
ny
.
Y
es
(1
%
of
sa
ni
ta
ti
on
co
m
pa
ny
re
ve
nu
e
at
th
e
m
un
ic
ip
al
it
y
gu
ar
an
te
ed
by
m
un
ic
ip
al
la
w
FC
,F
O
,O
A
,
SC
4
(r
en
ew
ab
le
)
La
nd
ow
ne
r
ex
ec
ut
e
th
ro
ug
h
re
so
ur
ce
s
ob
ta
in
ed
fr
om
sa
ni
ta
ti
on
co
m
pa
ny
5
–
Bo
ls
a
V
er
de
(2
00
8)
M
in
as
G
er
ai
s
st
at
e
(r
eg
io
na
l)
32
.3
(m
un
ic
ip
al
it
ie
s
at
M
in
as
G
er
ai
s
st
at
e)
7,
6
m
illio
n
Pu
bl
ic
(s
ta
te
–
re
so
ur
ce
s
fr
om
a
sp
ec
ifi
c
fu
nd
an
d
fr
om
fi
ne
s
ap
pl
ie
d
by
th
e
st
at
e
fo
re
st
ry
in
st
it
ut
e)
Y
es
(s
ta
te
la
w
an
d
de
cr
ee
)
FC
,F
O
5
(r
en
ew
ab
le
)
W
he
n
ne
ce
ss
ar
y,
th
e
la
nd
ow
ne
r
ex
ec
ut
e
th
ro
ug
h
re
so
ur
ce
s
ob
ta
in
ed
fr
om
pr
oj
ec
t,
ap
ar
t
fr
om
PE
S
6
–
Pr
od
ut
or
de
Á
gu
a
–
PC
J
(2
00
9)
b
N
az
ar
é
Pa
ul
is
ta
-S
P
an
d
Jo
an
óp
ol
is
-S
P
(l
oc
al
)
42
.1
(C
an
ca
n
an
d
M
oi
nh
o
ca
tc
hm
en
ts
)
8.
8
m
ill
io
n
(m
et
ro
po
lit
an
ar
ea
of
Sã
o
Pa
ul
o
an
d
PC
J
R
iv
er
ba
si
n)
N
G
O
,p
ub
lic
(m
un
ic
ip
al
,
st
at
e
an
d
fe
de
ra
l)
,
w
at
er
sh
ed
co
m
m
it
te
e
(P
C
J
w
at
er
us
er
fe
es
)
N
o
FC
,F
O
,S
C
3
Pr
oj
ec
t
th
ro
ug
h
di
re
ct
ex
ec
ut
io
n
or
co
nt
ra
ct
in
g
th
ir
d
pa
rt
ie
s.
N
o
co
st
s
fo
r
la
nd
ow
ne
rs
.
7
–
Pr
od
ut
or
es
de
Á
gu
a
e
Fl
or
es
ta
(2
00
9)
b
R
io
da
s
Pe
dr
as
-R
J
(l
oc
al
)
27
8
(U
pp
er
Pi
ra
í
ba
si
n)
8
m
ill
io
n
(m
et
ro
po
lit
an
ar
ea
of
R
io
de
Ja
ne
ir
o)
W
at
er
sh
ed
co
m
m
it
te
e
(G
ua
nd
u
w
at
er
us
er
fe
es
),
O
N
G
,p
ub
lic
(m
un
ic
ip
al
,s
ta
te
,
fe
de
ra
l)
Y
es
(w
at
er
sh
ed
co
m
m
it
te
e
re
so
lu
ti
on
s)
FC
,F
O
,r
ur
al
sa
ni
ta
ti
on
1
(r
en
ew
ab
le
by
1
ye
ar
)
Pr
oj
ec
t.
N
o
co
st
s
fo
r
la
nd
ow
ne
rs
.
8–
9
–
Pr
og
ra
m
a
R
efl
or
es
ta
r
(2
00
9,
Fl
or
es
ta
s
pa
ra
vi
da
an
d
Pr
od
ut
or
ES
de
Á
gu
a)
b
,c
Es
pi
ri
to
Sa
nt
o
St
at
e
(r
eg
io
na
l)
62
22
(S
ão
Jo
sé
,G
ua
nd
u
an
d
Be
ne
ve
nt
e
ba
si
ns
,a
nd
V
it
or
ia
M
et
ro
po
lit
an
R
eg
io
n
(V
M
R
))
1,
90
0,
00
0
(V
M
R
po
pu
la
ti
on
)
Pu
bl
ic
(s
ta
te
),
FU
N
D
Á
G
U
A
Y
es
(s
ta
te
la
w
)
FC
,F
O
,S
C
3
(r
en
ew
ab
le
)
In
pu
ts
pr
ov
id
ed
by
pr
oj
ec
t
bu
t
ex
ec
ut
io
n
is
by
th
e
la
nd
ow
ne
r.
10
–
C
am
bo
ri
ú
(2
00
9,
bu
t
pr
oj
ec
t
im
pl
em
en
ta
ti
on
st
ar
te
d
in
20
13
)b
C
am
bo
ri
u-
SC
(l
oc
al
)
17
,1
96
17
0,
00
0
(fi
xe
d
po
pu
la
ti
on
)
an
d
80
0,
00
0
(t
ou
ri
st
s
in
So
ut
h
Su
m
m
er
)
M
un
ic
ip
al
En
te
rp
ri
se
of
W
at
er
an
d
Sa
ni
ta
ti
on
,N
G
O
,
pu
bl
ic
(m
un
ic
ip
al
,
st
ar
e,
fe
de
ra
l)
,
w
at
er
co
m
m
it
te
e,
pr
iv
at
e
Y
es
(m
un
ic
ip
al
la
w
gu
ar
an
te
e
a
%
of
w
at
er
co
m
pa
ny
re
ve
nu
e)
FC
,F
O
,S
C
–
Pr
oj
ec
t.
N
o
co
st
s
fo
r
la
nd
ow
ne
rs
11
–
M
in
a
d’
Á
gu
a
(2
01
0)
Sã
o
Pa
ul
o
st
at
e
(r
eg
io
na
l)
88
44
(2
2
w
at
er
sh
ed
s
in
m
un
ic
ip
al
it
ie
s
at
Sã
o
Pa
ul
o
st
at
e)
87
4,
48
6
Pu
bl
ic
,t
hr
ou
gh
th
e
st
at
e
fu
nd
FE
C
O
P
an
d
pa
rt
ne
rs
hi
p
am
on
g
m
un
ic
ip
al
it
ie
s.
Y
es
(s
ta
te
la
w
,d
ec
re
e
an
d
re
so
lu
ti
on
)
FC
,F
O
2–
5
Pr
oj
ec
t.
N
o
co
st
s
fo
r
la
nd
ow
ne
rs
12
–
C
or
re
do
re
s
do
V
al
e
(2
01
0)
Pa
ra
íb
a
R
iv
er
va
lle
y
(l
oc
al
)
15
80
–
Pu
bl
ic
an
d
pr
iv
at
e,
w
it
h
pa
rt
ic
ip
at
io
n
of
pr
iv
at
e
co
m
pa
ni
es
–
Sa
ni
ta
ry
m
ea
su
re
sd
–
–
13
–
Pr
od
ut
or
de
Á
gu
a
–
G
ua
ra
ti
ng
ue
tá
(2
01
1)
b
G
ua
ra
ti
ng
ue
tá
-S
P
(l
oc
al
)
10
5
(G
ua
ra
ti
ng
ue
tá
11
2,
09
1
Pu
bl
ic
(m
un
ic
ip
al
,f
ed
er
al
),
pr
iv
at
e,
N
G
O
Y
es
(m
un
ic
ip
al
la
w
an
d
de
cr
ee
)
FC
,F
O
,S
C
3–
10
Pr
oj
ec
t.
N
o
co
st
s
fo
r
la
nd
ow
ne
rs
14
–
Pr
od
ut
or
de
Á
gu
a
do
R
io
V
er
m
el
ho
(2
01
1)
Sã
o
Be
nt
o
do
Su
l-S
C
(l
oc
al
)
23
0
(R
io
V
er
m
el
ho
ba
si
n)
75
,0
00
Pu
bl
ic
(m
un
ic
ip
al
),
M
un
ic
ip
al
w
at
er
su
pp
ly
an
d
sa
ni
ta
ti
on
co
m
pa
ny
,
pr
iv
at
e
fo
un
da
ti
on
Y
es
(m
un
ic
ip
al
la
w
)
FC
,F
O
2
–
10
(r
en
ew
ab
le
)
In
pu
ts
ar
e
pr
ov
id
ed
by
pr
oj
ec
t
bu
t
ex
ec
ut
io
n
is
by
th
e
la
nd
ow
ne
r.
15
–
V
in
he
do
(2
01
2)
V
in
he
do
-S
P
(l
oc
al
)
82
63
,6
85
Pu
bl
ic
Y
es
(m
un
ic
ip
al
la
w
)
FC
,F
O
5
Pr
oj
ec
t.
N
o
co
st
s
fo
r
la
nd
ow
ne
rs
(c
on
tin
ue
d
on
ne
xt
pa
ge
)
D. Taffarello et al. Climate Services 8 (2017) 1–16
3
can become more effective and reduce the vulnerability to impacts on
climate change, using an example of EbA.
3. Water-PES projects in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest
The first Atlantic Forest (and Brazilian) PES scheme, the “Projeto
Conservador das Águas” at Extrema-MG began in 2005 (Richards et al.,
2015, 2017). Since then, Water-PES initiatives have rapidly expanded
in the Atlantic Forest, and, on average, 1.5 new Water-PES projects
have been initiated per year. The Atlantic Forest can be found in 17
Brazilian states, but we found Water-PES projects only in six states of
South and South-East Brazil (Fig. 1), indicating Water-PES projects are
not equally distributed through this vast and populous biome. Sao
Paulo state, which is the most populated and richest (highest gross
national product) state in Brazil, concentrated 40% of the implemented
Water-PES practices in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest.
Despite the fact that Water-PES projects in the Atlantic Forest vary
in terms of their coverage area and number of beneficiaries, only three
out of the 16 initiatives (“Mina D’Água”, “Bolsa Verde” and “Programa
Reflorestar”) are state programs run on a regional scale (Table 1). Most
of the initiatives are developed on a local scale in important catchments
for urban water supply. For example, “Conservador das Águas” and
“Produtor de Água/PCJ” are within the Cantareira Water Supply
System, while “Oásis São Paulo” covers the Guarapiranga and Billings
reservoirs. Both systems supply water to the 20 million people who live
in the São Paulo metropolitan area.
All the Water-PES projects in the Atlantic Forest pay for rural
landowners, often through legal agreements (PES contracts varying in
the number of years), which is not always the case for other Latin
America countries (Bremer et al., 2016a). Moreover, most of them (12)
have already established legal instruments to secure projects and the
allocation of financial resources over time. Finally, all the initiatives
have the conservation of forest remnants as an eligible action for PES,
while forest restoration, soil conservation, organic agriculture and
adoption of rural sanitary measures (for example, installation of septic
tanks or sewage treatment) are considered for only some of them.
Forest restoration, when considered as an eligible action, focuses on
riparian areas called Permanent Protection Areas (PPA) according to
the Brazilian forest law (Soares-Filho et al., 2014). Landowners are
obliged to restore degraded PPA. Thus, our results show that Water-PES
initiatives in the Atlantic Forest often pay for actions in legally pro-
tected areas. Furthermore, most of the Water-PES initiatives provide
other benefits to participants, which are not included in the payments,
sponsoring part or all of the costs for land management actions that
generate PES (Table 1). Thus, some Water-PES projects are an oppor-
tunity for landowners to receive PES, as well as to comply with Brazi-
lian forest law, with no additional costs.
We found public (federal, state and municipal) initiatives, private
(companies and foundations) and non-profit organizations working
with Water-PES (Table 1). The arrangements they made vary and in-
volve multiple stakeholders, corroborating the idea that, for PES, one
size does not fit all (Bremer et al., 2016a). Having the local government
leading the PES project is the most common situation in the Atlantic
Forest. One rare case is the Oasis Project in São Paulo, where the
leading institution is a private foundation (Table 1). Interesting cases
arise from “Produtor de Água/PCJ”, “Produtores de Água e Floresta”
and “Conservador das Águas”, located in watersheds that charge water
users (Table 1). In these initiatives, PES for landowners are made di-
rectly by the River Basin Committee, using the resources obtained from
charging for water use.This scheme fits the user-payer and provider-
recipient concepts. Other frequent arrangements include setting up a
working-group to develop hydrological monitoring (Bremer et al.,
2016b) and the direct involvement of water supply and sanitation in-
stitutions. In some initiatives, such as the “Camboriu River” and “Oásis-
Apucarana”, the legal arrangements were already established to ensure
part of the revenue of these companies for the project (Table 1).Ta
bl
e
1
(c
on
tin
ue
d)
In
it
ia
ti
ve
na
m
e
(s
ta
rt
in
g
ye
ar
)a
Lo
ca
ti
on
(s
ca
le
)
A
re
a
(k
m
2
)
Po
te
nt
ia
l
be
ne
fi
ci
ar
ie
s
(n
°
of
in
ha
bi
ta
nt
s)
A
rr
an
ge
m
en
t/
fu
nd
in
g
(p
ilo
t
in
st
it
ut
io
n
in
bo
ld
)
Le
ga
l
in
st
ru
m
en
t
to
gu
ar
an
te
e
fu
nd
in
g
or
pr
oj
ec
t
El
ig
ib
le
ac
ti
on
s
fo
r
PE
S
D
ur
at
io
n
of
PE
S
co
nt
ra
ct
s
(y
ea
rs
)
W
ho
im
pl
em
en
t/
pa
y
co
st
s
of
el
ig
ib
le
ac
ti
on
s?
16
–
Pr
od
ut
or
de
Á
gu
a
–
Sã
o
Fr
an
ci
sc
o
X
av
ie
r
(2
01
4)
b
Sã
o
Jo
sé
do
s
C
am
po
s-
SP
(l
oc
al
)
7.
5
28
67
Pu
bl
ic
Y
es
(m
un
ic
ip
al
la
w
)
FC
,F
O
2
Pr
oj
ec
t.
N
o
co
st
s
fo
r
la
nd
ow
ne
rs
a
M
ai
n
so
ur
ce
s
of
in
fo
rm
at
io
n:
A
gu
ed
a
et
al
.(
20
13
),
Br
em
er
et
al
.(
20
16
a,
b)
,E
M
A
SA
(2
01
6)
,H
en
ri
qu
e
(2
00
9)
,K
le
m
z
et
al
.(
20
13
),
K
le
m
z
et
al
.(
20
16
),
N
un
es
et
al
.(
20
13
),
Pa
do
ve
zi
et
al
.(
20
13
),
Pr
ef
ei
tu
ra
Sã
o
Be
nt
o
do
Su
l&
Sa
m
ae
(2
01
0)
,
Pr
ef
ei
tu
ra
M
un
ic
ip
al
de
Sã
o
Jo
sé
do
s
C
am
po
s
(2
01
5)
,P
re
fe
it
ur
a
M
un
ic
ip
al
de
V
in
he
do
(2
01
2)
,R
ic
ha
rd
s
et
al
.(
20
15
),
Si
lv
a
et
al
.(
20
13
),
So
ss
ai
et
al
.(
20
13
),
V
ia
ni
an
d
Br
ac
al
e
(2
01
5)
,v
on
G
le
hn
et
al
.(
20
13
),
Y
ou
ng
an
d
Ba
kk
er
(2
01
4)
.I
nf
or
m
at
io
n
w
as
al
so
co
lle
ct
th
ro
ug
h
di
re
ct
co
nt
ac
t
w
it
h
pr
oj
ec
t
m
an
ag
er
s.
b
In
it
ia
ti
ve
s
lin
ke
d
to
th
e
“W
at
er
Pr
od
uc
er
Pr
og
ra
m
”
fr
om
th
e
Br
az
ili
an
W
at
er
A
ge
nc
y
(A
N
A
).
c
W
e
pr
es
en
te
d
th
e
ge
ne
ra
li
nf
or
m
at
io
n
fr
om
“P
ro
gr
am
a
R
efl
or
es
ta
r”
.H
ow
ev
er
,w
e
co
un
te
d
tw
o
w
at
er
-P
ES
in
it
ia
ti
ve
s
he
re
be
ca
us
e
“P
ro
gr
am
a
R
efl
or
es
ta
r”
is
a
st
at
e
pr
og
ra
m
cr
ea
te
d
ba
se
d
on
tw
o
pr
ev
io
us
pi
lo
tp
ro
je
ct
s:
“F
lo
re
st
as
pa
ra
a
V
id
a
–
20
09
”
an
d
“P
ro
du
to
rE
S
de
Á
gu
a
–
20
09
”.
d
Ex
am
pl
es
ar
e
se
pt
ic
ta
nk
s
an
d
in
di
vi
du
al
do
m
es
ti
c
se
w
ag
e
tr
ea
tm
en
t
sy
st
em
s.
D. Taffarello et al. Climate Services 8 (2017) 1–16
4
Finally, six projects are linked to the “Water Producer” program, a
concept that was introduced in Brazil by the National Water Agency,
with the objective of supporting Water-PES projects that focus on
improving water quality, increasing water supply and flow regulation
(ANA, 2012). The six initiatives of the Water Producer Program have
local characteristics, diverging with regard to scale of action,
Fig. 1. Brazilian Water-PES Projects per state in the Atlantic Forest biome. The size of the blue circles is related to the number of projects of payment for ecosystem services for watershed
protection per Brazilian state in the Atlantic Forest. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
D. Taffarello et al. Climate Services 8 (2017) 1–16
5
Ta
bl
e
2
O
ut
co
m
e
of
th
e
im
pl
em
en
te
d
W
at
er
-P
ES
in
it
ia
ti
ve
s
in
th
e
A
tl
an
ti
c
Fo
re
st
,B
ra
zi
l,
re
la
te
d
to
fi
na
nc
ia
l
in
ve
st
m
en
t,
pa
ym
en
t
va
lu
es
an
d
pr
oj
ec
t
ar
ea
pe
r
in
it
ia
ti
ve
.
So
ur
ce
s
of
in
fo
rm
at
io
n
ar
e
de
sc
ri
be
d
in
Ta
bl
e
1.
In
it
ia
ti
ve
na
m
e
In
ve
st
m
en
t
(t
ho
us
an
d
U
S$
)
N
um
be
r
of
PE
S
co
nt
ra
ct
s/
ag
re
em
en
ts
w
it
h
la
nd
ow
ne
rs
Pa
ym
en
t
va
lu
ea
(U
S$
/h
a/
ye
ar
)
A
re
a
of
la
nd
m
an
ag
em
en
t
(h
a)
1
–
C
on
se
rv
ad
or
da
s
Á
gu
as
(2
00
5)
93
0
(o
nl
y
fo
r
PE
S)
21
0
71
36
38
(2
45
6
of
so
il
co
ns
er
va
ti
on
,
34
2
of
fo
re
st
re
fo
re
st
at
io
n;
84
0
of
fo
re
st
co
ns
er
va
ti
on
;
2
–
O
ás
is
-S
ão
Pa
ul
o
(2
00
6)
–
14
up
to
11
2
74
8
(f
or
es
t
co
ns
er
va
ti
on
)
3
–
Pr
od
ut
or
de
Á
gu
a/
C
om
it
ê
La
go
s
Sã
o
Jo
ão
(2
00
7)
18
–
–
–
4
–
O
ás
is
-A
pu
ca
ra
na
(2
00
9)
–
13
3
28
0–
20
98
pe
r
pr
op
er
ty
/y
ea
r
(n
ot
pe
r
ha
)
31
99
(8
00
of
fo
re
st
co
ns
er
va
ti
on
an
d
23
99
w
it
h
ot
he
r
pr
ac
ti
ce
s)
5
–
Bo
ls
a
V
er
de
(2
00
8)
16
90
98
0
61
32
,3
38
6
–
Pr
od
ut
or
de
Á
gu
a/
PC
J
(2
00
9)
77
0
(5
0
fo
r
PE
S
an
d
72
0
fo
r
di
ag
no
si
s,
ex
ec
ut
io
n
of
el
ig
ib
le
ac
ti
on
s
an
d
di
vu
lg
at
io
n)
41
8–
38
48
9
(9
9
of
so
il
co
ns
er
va
ti
on
,
68
of
fo
re
st
re
st
or
at
io
n
an
d
39
1
of
fo
re
st
co
ns
er
va
ti
on
)
7
–
Pr
od
ut
or
es
de
Á
gu
a
e
Fl
or
es
ta
(2
00
9)
14
00
(o
nl
y
fo
r
PE
S)
62
18
–3
0
35
87
(3
09
5
of
fo
re
st
co
ns
er
va
ti
on
an
d
49
2
of
fo
re
st
re
st
or
at
io
n)
8–
9
–
Pr
og
ra
m
a
R
efl
or
es
ta
r
(2
00
9
–
Fl
or
es
ta
s
pa
ra
vi
da
an
d
Pr
od
ut
or
ES
de
Á
gu
a)
–
45
9
34
0–
40
2
43
17
(3
60
of
fo
re
st
re
st
or
at
io
n
an
d
39
57
of
fo
re
st
co
ns
er
va
ti
on
)
10
–
C
am
bo
ri
ú
(2
00
9)
Im
pl
em
en
ta
ti
on
co
st
:2
67
;M
ai
nt
en
an
ce
co
st
s
pe
r
ye
ar
:
at
le
as
t
88
12
97
36
0
(3
20
of
fo
re
st
co
ns
er
va
ti
on
an
d
40
of
fo
re
st
re
st
or
at
io
n)
11
–
M
in
a
d’
Á
gu
a
(2
01
0)
10
60
fo
r
5
ye
ar
s
of
pr
oj
ec
t
–
22
–9
1
pe
r
he
ad
w
at
er
/y
ea
r
U
p
to
15
0
he
ad
w
at
er
s
pe
r
ci
ty
12
–
C
or
re
do
re
s
do
V
al
e
(2
01
0)
3.
8
–
–
–
13
–
Pr
od
ut
or
de
Á
gu
a
–
G
ua
ra
ti
ng
ue
tá
(2
01
1)
37
2
(3
.3
%
fo
r
PE
S
an
d
96
.7
%
fo
r
di
ag
no
si
s,
ex
ec
ut
io
n
of
el
ig
ib
le
ac
ti
on
s
an
d
di
vu
lg
at
io
n)
50
co
nt
ra
ct
s
up
to
20
13
64
–1
29
10
52
8
14
–
Pr
od
ut
or
de
Á
gu
a
do
R
io
V
er
m
el
ho
(2
01
1)
–
18
up
to
13
8
–
15
–
V
in
he
do
(2
01
2)
–
–
up
to
89
1
–
16
–
Pr
od
ut
or
de
Á
gu
a
–
Sã
o
Fr
an
ci
sc
o
X
av
ie
r
(2
01
4)
U
p
to
39
4
–
49
–1
01
–
a
1
U
S$
=
R
$
3.
3
in
Ju
ly
20
16
.
D. Taffarello et al. Climate Services 8 (2017) 1–16
6
Ta
bl
e
3
Ec
oh
yd
ro
lo
gi
ca
l
an
d
Ec
os
ys
te
m
-b
as
ed
ad
ap
ta
ti
on
co
ns
id
er
at
io
ns
in
W
at
er
-P
ES
in
it
ia
ti
ve
s
in
th
e
A
tl
an
ti
c
Fo
re
st
,B
ra
zi
l.
So
ur
ce
s
of
in
fo
rm
at
io
n
ar
e
de
sc
ri
be
d
in
Ta
bl
e
1.
In
it
ia
ti
ve
na
m
e
Pr
oj
ec
t
ar
ea
an
d
m
an
ag
em
en
t
la
nd
s
se
le
ct
ed
ba
se
d
on
hy
dr
ol
og
ic
al
se
rv
ic
es
H
yd
ro
lo
gi
ca
l
se
rv
ic
es
in
th
e
ob
je
ct
iv
es
PE
S
va
lu
es
va
ry
ac
co
rd
in
g
to
po
te
nt
ia
l
of
hy
dr
ol
og
ic
al
se
rv
ic
es
pr
ov
id
ed
Ex
is
te
nc
e
of
hy
dr
ol
og
ic
al
se
rv
ic
es
m
on
it
or
in
g
PE
S
lin
ke
d
to
m
ea
su
re
s
of
hy
dr
ol
og
ic
al
se
rv
ic
es
C
on
si
de
rs
ad
ap
ti
ve
m
ea
su
re
s
fo
r
lo
ng
-t
er
m
ch
an
ge
s?
1
–
C
on
se
rv
ad
or
da
s
Á
gu
as
(2
00
5)
Y
es
.
Th
e
tw
o
se
le
ct
ed
w
at
er
sh
ed
s
ar
e
w
it
hi
n
C
an
ta
re
ir
a
w
at
er
su
pp
ly
sy
st
em
an
d
fo
re
st
re
st
or
at
io
n
is
fo
cu
se
d
on
ri
pa
ri
an
ar
ea
s.
R
ed
uc
e
er
os
io
n
an
d
se
di
m
en
ta
ti
on
,
N
o
Y
es
.Q
ua
lit
y
an
d
qu
an
ti
ty
of
w
at
er
,
w
it
h
pa
rt
ne
rs
(A
N
A
,C
PR
M
EE
SC
/U
SP
,
IA
G
/U
SP
,E
sa
lq
/U
SP
,L
av
ra
s
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y)
.
N
o
Y
es
,t
hr
ou
gh
hy
dr
ol
og
ic
al
m
on
it
or
in
g.
2
–
O
ás
is
-S
ão
Pa
ul
o
(2
00
6)
Y
es
.
W
at
er
sh
ed
s
w
er
e
se
le
ct
ed
ba
se
d
on
re
le
va
nc
e
fo
r
w
at
er
pr
od
uc
ti
on
an
d
co
nt
ri
bu
ti
on
to
G
ua
ra
pi
ra
ng
a
an
d
Bi
lli
ng
s
re
se
rv
oi
rs
,
w
hi
ch
su
pp
ly
w
at
er
to
Sã
o
Paul
o
m
et
ro
po
lit
an
ar
ea
.
In
cr
ea
se
w
at
er
st
or
ag
e,
Er
os
io
n
co
nt
ro
l,
im
pr
ov
em
en
t
of
w
at
er
qu
al
it
y
Y
es
–
m
ul
ti
pl
e
fa
ct
or
s
co
ns
id
er
ed
N
o.
O
nl
y
ve
ge
ta
ti
on
an
d
pr
op
er
ty
m
on
it
or
in
g
N
o
N
o
3
–
Pr
od
ut
or
de
Á
gu
a/
C
om
it
ê
La
go
s
Sã
o
Jo
ão
(2
00
7)
N
o
N
o
N
o
N
o
N
o
N
o
4
–
O
ás
is
-A
pu
ca
ra
na
(2
00
9)
Y
es
.T
he
pr
oj
ec
te
d
st
ar
te
d
by
th
e
m
os
ti
m
po
rt
an
t
w
at
er
sh
ed
fo
r
w
at
er
su
pp
ly
in
th
e
re
gi
on
.
In
cr
ea
se
w
at
er
qu
al
it
y
an
d
qu
an
ti
ty
Y
es
–
m
ul
ti
pl
e
fa
ct
or
s
co
ns
id
er
ed
N
o.
O
nl
y
ve
ge
ta
ti
on
an
d
pr
op
er
ty
m
on
it
or
in
g
N
o
N
o
5
–
Bo
ls
a
V
er
de
(2
00
8)
N
o
R
eg
ul
at
io
n
se
rv
ic
es
in
ge
ne
ra
l.
N
o
cl
ea
r
hy
dr
ol
og
ic
al
se
rv
ic
es
in
th
e
ob
je
ct
iv
e.
N
o
N
o
N
o
N
o
6
–
Pr
od
ut
or
de
Á
gu
a
–
PC
J
(2
00
9)
Y
es
.
Th
e
tw
o
se
le
ct
ed
w
at
er
sh
ed
s
ar
e
w
it
hi
n
C
an
ta
re
ir
a
w
at
er
su
pp
ly
sy
st
em
an
d
fo
re
st
re
st
or
at
io
n
is
fo
cu
se
d
on
ri
pa
ri
an
ar
ea
s
R
ed
uc
e
er
os
io
n
an
d
se
di
m
en
ta
ti
on
,i
nc
re
as
e
w
at
er
fl
ow
Y
es
Y
es
.S
ee
Ta
ff
ar
el
lo
et
al
.,
20
16
N
o
Y
es
7
–
Pr
od
ut
or
es
de
Á
gu
a
e
Fl
or
es
ta
(2
00
9)
Y
es
.
Pr
oj
ec
t
is
w
it
hi
n
G
ua
nd
u
w
at
er
su
pp
ly
sy
st
em
an
d
fo
re
st
re
st
or
at
io
n
is
fo
cu
se
d
on
ri
pa
ri
an
ar
ea
s
W
at
er
fl
ow
;
se
di
m
en
t
re
te
nt
io
n;
w
at
er
qu
al
it
y
(m
ul
ti
pl
e
pa
ra
m
et
er
s)
Y
es
Y
es
N
o
Y
es
8–
9
–
Pr
og
ra
m
a
R
efl
or
es
ta
r
(2
00
9
–
Fl
or
es
ta
s
pa
ra
vi
da
an
d
Pr
od
ut
or
ES
de
Á
gu
a)
N
o
N
o.
Th
e
m
ai
n
ob
je
ct
iv
e
is
to
ga
in
fo
re
st
co
ve
r.
N
o
N
o
N
o
N
o
10
–
C
am
bo
ri
ú
(2
00
9)
Y
es
.
In
ar
ea
fo
r
ur
ba
n
w
at
er
su
pp
ly
an
d
w
it
h
pr
io
ri
ti
za
ti
on
of
m
an
ag
em
en
t
of
ri
pa
ri
an
ar
ea
s
Se
di
m
en
t
re
du
ct
io
n,
Fl
ow
re
gu
la
ti
on
;
Y
es
Y
es
.H
yd
ro
lo
gi
ca
l
m
on
it
or
in
g
an
d
ge
om
or
ph
ol
og
ic
an
al
ys
es
of
th
e
w
at
er
bo
di
es
N
o
Y
es
.S
ee
K
le
m
z
et
al
.
(2
01
6)
11
–
M
in
a
d’
Á
gu
a
(2
01
0)
Y
es
Y
es
Y
es
–
m
ul
ti
pl
e
fa
ct
or
s
co
ns
id
er
ed
Pa
rt
ia
lly
.M
in
a
d’
Á
gu
a:
m
on
it
or
in
g
pl
an
w
as
el
ab
or
at
ed
w
it
h
su
pp
or
t
of
th
e
W
or
ld
Ba
nk
.
N
o
N
o
12
–
C
or
re
do
re
s
do
V
al
e
(2
01
0)
–
–
–
–
N
o
–
13
–
Pr
od
ut
or
de
Á
gu
a
–
G
ua
ra
ti
ng
ue
tá
(2
01
1)
–
–
Y
es
–
N
o
–
14
–
Pr
od
ut
or
de
Á
gu
a
do
R
io
V
er
m
el
ho
(2
01
1)
Y
es
.
Th
e
pr
oj
ec
te
d
is
al
on
g
th
e
ri
ve
r
w
hi
ch
su
pp
ly
w
at
er
to
th
e
ci
ty
an
d
fo
cu
s
on
re
st
or
at
io
n
of
ri
pa
ri
an
ar
ea
s
In
cr
ea
se
w
at
er
qu
al
it
y
an
d
qu
an
ti
ty
Y
es
–
m
ul
ti
pl
e
fa
ct
or
s
co
ns
id
er
ed
N
o
N
o
N
o
14
–
V
in
he
do
(2
01
2)
Y
es
.I
m
pl
em
en
te
d
pe
r
su
b-
ba
si
n
(fi
rs
ti
n
C
ap
iv
ar
i
su
b-
ba
si
n)
in
th
e
pr
io
ri
ty
ar
ea
s
fo
r
pu
bl
ic
su
pp
ly
.
N
o
N
o
N
o
N
o
N
o
15
–
Pr
od
ut
or
de
Á
gu
a
–
Sã
o
Fr
an
ci
sc
o
X
av
ie
r
(2
01
4)
Y
es
,
Im
pl
em
en
te
d
in
R
ib
ei
rã
o
da
s
C
ou
ve
s
an
d
Pe
ix
e
w
at
er
sh
ed
s,
he
ad
w
at
er
s
of
Ja
gu
ar
i
re
se
rv
oi
r,
Pa
ra
íb
a
do
Su
l
ri
ve
r
ba
si
n,
i.e
.,
in
th
e
pr
io
ri
ty
ar
ea
s
fo
r
pu
bl
ic
su
pp
ly
.
–
–
N
o
N
o
N
o
D. Taffarello et al. Climate Services 8 (2017) 1–16
7
institutional arrangement and the amount of resources invested for
implementing and maintaining projects (Table 2).
In summary, more than 1900 landowners have already signed
contracts in the Atlantic Forest, resulting in more than 48,000 ha of
land managed for water resources conservation (Table 2). By far, the
most common land management originating Water-PES is conservation
of the remaining forest patches (Table 2). Atlantic Forest remnants are
protected by a specific law (“Lei da Mata Atlântica”) and their legal
suppression for other land uses is very restricted. Thus, PES for forest
conservation is more acceptable by landowners than actions that di-
rectly affect their agricultural land (Viani and Bracale, 2015). Payment
values for landowners vary from US$8 to US$891 per hectare per year
(Table 2), reflecting differences related to (1) opportunity costs, (2)
resource available for the project, and (3) ecosystem service valuation
methods.
Most of the Atlantic Forest Water-PES projects have clear objectives
concerning hydrological services and have defined their area of oc-
currence based on their relevance to hydrological service generation
and conservation (Table 3). In addition, especially for forest restoration,
they prioritize actions for riparian areas and critical areas for hydro-
logical services. However, not all the projects have payment values
which vary according to the amount and/or quality of the generated
hydrological services. Only a few of them have already established
hydrological monitoring and none of the initiatives condition the pay-
ments to direct measures of the hydrological services (Table 3).
In fact, in all of the projects, payments to landowners are made
assuming that implementation of eligible actions (forest restoration and
conservation, soil conservation, etc.) benefit the existence of the hy-
drological services. Thus, advances for hydrological services monitoring
and valuation in Atlantic Forest initiatives are urgently needed.
4. Ecohydrology as a tool to assess hydrological services
The persistent human impact on Earth seems to be reflected in a
new epoch in the geological time scale: the so-called Anthropocene
(Crutzen, 2002). Waters et al. (2016) summarized the key markers of
anthropogenic changes which are indicative of the Anthropocene. For
example, the biotic change, which comprises species invasions and
accelerating extinction. Furthermore, human-induced stressors are re-
shaping marine, freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems in unprecedented
ways (Magurran, 2016).
River flow dynamics and the interaction of flow with landscape
provide a large number of ecosystem services that can (i) improve water
quality, (ii) create positive socioeconomic effects and (iii) regulate land
use and water use (Fig. 2). However, the conversion of natural land
cover to human uses, henceforth called land-use/land-cover (LULC)
change, influences river flows mainly by changing solid flows (sedi-
ments) and filtering pollutants. Linking ecohydrological processes and
human well-being is crucial in ecosystem service frameworks (Fig. 2)
(Brauman, 2015; Brauman et al., 2007; MEA, 2005). To achieve better
water quality, some ecohydrological categories can be used (Bunn and
Arthington, 2002, Hannah et al., 2011, Zalewski, 2015, Mendiondo,
2008).
Not only land-use change, but also climate change, which has an
impact on water cycles can alter hydrological services. On the one
hand, changes in precipitation, air temperature and wind regimes
caused by climate change are the main abiotic factors that affect hy-
drological services (Pedrono et al., 2016, Ehret et al., 2014, Nelson
et al., 2013, Nickus et al., 2010). A recent example is the dry spell in
Southeast Brazil, where due to a drought during 2013–15 the main
reservoirs reached storage levels below 5%, leading to a severe water
crisis for freshwater ecosystems and, consequently, 85 million people. It
was aggravated by a combination of lack of rainfall, higher tempera-
tures, increasing water demand and non-integrated risk aversion po-
licies (Nobre et al., 2016; Escobar, 2015; Zuffo, 2015). On the other
hand, ecosystem services flows may be altered due to changes in the
water cycle, mass balance, river and groundwater regimes, as well as
other factors. To quantify and integrate these hydrological and ecolo-
gical processes, we introduce a conceptual layout to address ecohy-
drological variables for assessing ecosystem services in the Brazilian
Atlantic Forest, explained as follows(see Fig. 3).
For ecosystem-based adaptation assessment, this conceptual layout
shows a typical river basin scheme, with a cross section of a river
channel with the floodplain (Fig. 3A). A healthy river promotes re-
sponses to changes in the land uses and climate. The natural sinuosity of
the main channel across the floodplain produces flow characteristics
and load discharges at the cross section. Some ecohydrological vari-
ables can be used to measure ecosystem processes between land and
aquatic interfaces. The ecohydrological processes interact in a non-
linear way (Kobiyama et al., 1998; Zalewski, 2015; 2014; Mendiondo,
2008). Such processes define the river regime and the flow of hydro-
logical services, generated as a consequence of soil conservation and the
(non)protection of water resources and biodiversity.
Thus, the main river channel is defined up to the bankfull condition
with a characteristic water level h∗, which means where the river cross
section is full and starts over-spilling at floodplains. Flooding events
above h∗ occupy the floodplain and define high flow regimes (h > h∗)
in the flow duration curves (Fig. 3G). Both ecohydrological variables X3
and X10 influence how pollutant loads are affected by the interaction
between the river main channel and its floodplain. For instance, higher
values of X3 and X10 will mean higher mass exchange (pollutant loads)
between the main channel and floodplain during high water levels.
Each flood pulse over time (Fig. 3B) can be characterized by fre-
quency, intensity, amplitude and seasonality (Neiff et al., 2008, Richter
et al., 1997). As a result, categories of continuity, diversity, dynamics,
resilience and vulnerability are assessed by ecohydrological variables,
thereby expressing conditions of river ecosystems (Mendiondo, 2008;
Neiff et al., 2008). For example, the ecohydrological variable X3 of
Fig. 3B determines the number of flood pulses per time period. Other-
wise, for a specific flood pulse (Fig. 3C), the ecohydrological variable
X10 defines the ratio between the time duration above flood level
(h > h∗) and time duration of total flood pulse. Furthermore, X10 re-
presents the ratio between the flood duration above the bankfull water
level (h > h∗) and the total flood pulse. The higher the value of X10, the
stronger the river’s biodiversity and dynamics. The relationship be-
tween X10 and river biodiversity is explained because higher ratios of
flood duration above the bankfull water level. The total flood pulse
enhances food and trophic web, promotes new habitat patterns, influ-
ences the nutrient cycling (Carpenter, 2005; Fisher et al., 2016) and
alters the composition of aquatic communities (Neiff et al., 2008).
Those species are favored that have adopted strategies to exist within
these specified range of environmental conditions (Poff and Ward,
1991; Smith et al., 2003). Besides, climate events and their consequent
variations in river regime also affect fish species whose life cycles de-
pend on seasonal changes in the water level.
Both ecohydrological variables X3 and X10 influence how pollutant
loads can be lower or higher than those pollutant loads observed at high
water levels. Because water levels are related to river discharges,
through non-linear relationships of rating curves (Fig. 3D), time series
of water levels h(t) can be converted into flow discharges Q(t) at the
same cross sections (Fig. 3E). Similarly, situations of Q(t) > Q∗ re-
present flood pulses. Thus, the new ecohydrological variable X12 (=
ΔQ÷Δh in Fig. 3D) expresses the rate of how the flood discharge
changes with incremental water levels at a river cross section, thereby
influencing coupled pollutant loads, nutrient cycling and food and en-
ergy webs under climate-water extremes and ecosystem services (Neiff
et al., 2000, Tundisi and Matsumara-Tundisi, 2011; Mendiondo, 2008).
From the above discussion, climate change can alter normal flow
regimes (Fig. 3F), intensifying flow extremes with higher floods or se-
vere droughts. Flow duration curves, represented by the frequency of
time permanency of flows, usually depicts a monotonically downward
flow curve for all curves measured at the river cross-section. Another
D. Taffarello et al. Climate Services 8 (2017) 1–16
8
ecohydrological variable X16 (changes of permanency flows of Q5% and
Q95%, from anthropogenic impacts [m3/s]) of changing reference
flows, i.e., at 5% (ΔQ5%) and 95% (ΔQ95%) could be assessed for non-
stationary conditions of flow duration curves (Chow et al., (1988),
Collischonn and Dornelles (2013), Viessman Jr and Lewis (2003), Mays
(2001, p.397).).
In short, these new ecohydrological variables can help quantify
ecosystem ser-vices in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. In other words,
these variables may be used to assess how the interaction between
landscape and wet area influences the amount of hydrological services.
From this interaction, the “water+ climate” composition is the main
sustainability element (Moss et al., 2010, Tucci and Mendes, 2006),
which directly influences biodiversity. Since the potential of hydro-
logical services depends on (1) the equilibrium of the water balance and
(2) the functional distribution of the ecosystems on the watersheds, we
propose a new ecohydrological method to improve the monitoring of
hydrological services in ecosystem-based adaptation practices.
5. Impacts and vulnerability linked to ecosystem-based
adaptation
Water security means the capacity of a population to safeguard
access to suitable quantities of water of acceptable quality for sus-
taining human and ecosystem health on a watershed scale, and to
guarantee efficient protection of life and property against water related
hazards, floods, landslides and droughts (UNESCO, 2012). Achieving
water security is a challenge faced by humans on both global and local
scales. This is essential for socioeconomic development, as well as en-
vironment sustainability. Recent international agreements (the Sus-
tainable Development Goals, the Paris Agreement and the Sendai Fra-
mework for Disaster Risk Reduction) have reported the impacts of
climate change on water security. In this context, some countries have
made efforts to adapt, for example, through the conservation of key
ecosystems, compensation for ecosystem service losses and using early-
warning systems and climate forecasts. However, global change is a
strong stressor that threatens human water security and biodiversity
(Vörösmarty et al., 2010).
Here we outline how an EbA option contributes to reducing risks in
three steps. First, we briefly introduce the impact-vulnerability-adap-
tation rationale. Second, we show the conditions for filling the gap
between PES practices and hands-on opportunities to gain knowledge
about adaptation methods. Finally, we provide insights into expanding
the classification of Water-PES projects considering an EbA strategy.
The vulnerability of an ecosystem can be observed by the changes in
ecohydrological variables (Fig. 3). Flood pulses across river cross-sec-
tions, floodplains and regime duration are seen in the quantitative
percentile flows (or flow duration curves). Climatic extremes events are
assumed to (i) increase magnitudes in high water levels and floods,
located at low percentiles, i.e. 5%, of the flow duration curve, and (ii)
decrease magnitudes in low flows, located at bigger percentiles, i.e.
95%, of the flow duration curve.
5.1. Risk assessment and adaptation
Some types of admissible risks to ecosystem services are manageable
at the river basin scale. At least one previous study has emphasized the
need for research incentives in risk and adaptive management (AR-5
IPCC, 2014). Naeem et al. (2015) found that out of 118 PES projects in
the United States, most do not ensure scientific integrity in their in-
terventions. Among other factors, this is because there are no metrics to
assess the risks, for instance climate change. Aiming to fill part of this
gap, we recommend that risks to the qualityand quantity of water re-
sources from PES projects should be categorized in terms of impacts,
vulnerability and adaptation strategies.
First, risk assessment is related to a specific combination of factors
such as hazards, exposure and vulnerability, which can evolve into a
Fig. 2. Ecohydrological flows and ecosystem services into a catchment. Left side: Conceptual diagram highlighting three main flows (precipitation, evapotranspiration and surface runoff)
in the hydrological cycle. Right side: hydrologic services framework showing how ecohydrologic flows impact the ways people can use water at the catchment scale. .
Adapted from Brauman (2015), Ellison et al. (2012), Gordon, Peterson and Bennett (2008), Zalewski and Robarts (2003)
D. Taffarello et al. Climate Services 8 (2017) 1–16
9
disaster condition. Second, hazards are closely related to ecosystem
variables across spatiotemporal scales where ecosystems develop their
functions. However, the susceptibility of ecosystems to water hazards
encompass their characteristics with regard to vulnerability conditions,
especially considering hydrological prediction in ungauged or poorly
gauged basins.
Third, impacts are addressed in terms of comparing vulnerability
characteristics with the support capacity of the environment to coun-
terpart hazards (Montanari and Koutsoyiannis, 2014). The adaptation
options are the types of non-structural or structural measures to help
the ecosystem recover from the equilibrium without the effects of risks
(Palmer et al., 2009). This recovering capacity, included in the resi-
lience concept (Baggio et al., 2015, Russell et al., 2012, Tanner et al.,
2015), is scale-dependent and dependent on the type of risk condition
(Mendiondo, 2010; Guzmán et al., 2017). It could be incorporated into
the Water-PES projects in the long term (Naeem et al., 2015, van de
Sand, 2012, Wunder, 2006).
5.2. Water-PES initiatives and ecohydrology
The delivery of hydrological services is measured (flow measure-
ment, water quality variables or sediment levels) and simulated in
ecohydrological models, such as Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT)
(Bressiani et al., 2015; Francesconi et al., 2016), Integrated Valuation of
Ecosystem Services and Trade-offs (InVEST) (Bremer et al., 2016a,
Guimarães, 2013, Tallis et al., 2012) or Resource Investment Optimi-
zation System (RIOS) (Vogl et al., 2016). Moreover, indirect methods to
find the delivery of ecosystem services can be for example quantifying
water treatment costs to end-users (Rodríguez Osuna et al., 2014;
Cunha et al., 2016) or investigating the value of a protected park’s
water contribution to end-users (Strobel et al., 2007). In any of these
methodologies, hydrological service assessments through their quanti-
fication are urgently needed. In this context, Water-PES projects would
have to benefit from ecohydrology as a promising tool to include me-
trics in interventions.
It is crucial to link monitoring data to Water-PES project outcomes,
showing the quality and frequency of available data where benefits for
ecosystem and landowners can be gained. However, it should be
mentioned that this is scarce in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest’s Water-
PES projects. If baseline and freshwater monitoring exist, it is easier to
evaluate the project performance based on the delivery of ES. In turn, it
ensures reliability for ES buyers and comparisons can be made among
Water-PES projects. However, Table 3 shows that, with the exception of
one initiative (Camboriu, see Bremer et al., 2016b), there have not been
any ecohydrological monitorings since the start of the interventions (to
create the baseline). It is a challenge to build integrated monitoring
guidelines which encompass actions before, during (to assess project
performance and provide feedbacks) and after the end of Water-PES
project actions.
Following these guidelines, at least four ecohydrological categories
are useful to monitor Water-PES projects in the Brazilian Atlantic
Forest, such as continuity, diversity, resilience and vulnerability (see
Mendiondo, 2008, Table 5). By integrating hydrology and limnology in
a holistic problem-solving strategy, ecohydrological tools highlight
water quality for freshwater ecosystems and makes watershed restora-
tion easier (Zalewski and Robarts, 2003) in a broader adaptation
Fig. 3. Conceptual terms used in this manuscript. (A) River cross-section. (B) Time series of water level. (C) A flood pulse during time. (D) Rating curve between water levels and
discharges. (E) Time series of flow discharges. (F) Changes in time series of present and future flow regimes. (G) Changes in flow duration curves between present and future flow regimes.
D. Taffarello et al. Climate Services 8 (2017) 1–16
10
strategy. Thus, a checklist of ecohydrological indicators, water quality
variables and river morphology characteristics would help to delineate
and classify hydrological PES projects. This is shown in Table 4.
Despite the increasing number of PES projects in the Brazilian
Atlantic Forest, they have not fully implemented hydrological mon-
itoring (Table 3). Besides, there are inconsistencies or a lack of stan-
dards, definitions and methodologies. Nested Catchment Experiments
(NCEs), comparing freshwater monitoring from headwaters to down-
stream rivers (Mendiondo et al., 2007; Zaffani et al., 2015) are suitable
to study Water-PES under the flood pulse approach (Fig. 3A–C). NCEs
are flexible in terms of river characterization (Rosgen, 1994), geo-
morphologic river networks (Rodrigues-Iturbe, 2000) and “the active
river area” framework (Smith et al., 2008). Pollution loads across
nested scales show how ecosystem diversity is affected by human-
driven occupation of the basin, and also nested scales can show the
further effects of river restoration through PES.
Another solution could be to implement integrated load and flow
duration curves (Cunha et al., 2012) for hydrological ecosystem service
assessment. The ecohydrological monitoring is essential to test the PES
benefit assumptions. This can improve scientific frameworks including
tools, metrics and methods for Water-PES project selection when there
is funding available.
The methodological diagram outlined in Fig. 4 summarizes this
section, showing that ecohydrology is essential for integrating, on the
one hand, risk analysis methods, water footprint and EbA. The linkages
among these three methods can be achieved through continuous loops
and feedbacks across spatiotemporal scales and with different stake-
holders (see the loops in Fig. 4). On the other hand, this figure shows
that EbA should comprise three consecutive steps, namely: ecosystem
assessment, ecosystem sustainability and ecosystem resilience. To
achieve more effectiveness in the Water-PES projects, LULC evaluation,
climate change assessments, institutional governance, ecohydrological
monitoring and ecohydrological modelling must be integrated into the
scope of the EbA practices.
Concerning ecohydrological modelling, monthly quality data are
limited, and planning and carrying out field campaigns are costly and
time consuming in Brazil. Regarding available data for adopting eco-
hydrological models in Brazil, in a review on SWAT model applications,
Bressiani et al. (2015) list an array of Brazilian data sources. Recently,
SWAT has been used as a methodological framework for quantifying
ecosystem services to support decision-making (see review by
Francesconi et al. (2016)). Furthermore, other agricultural watershed
models can help face this challenge (Alvarenga et al., 2016, Cuartas
et al., 2012, De Mello et al., 2016).
Regarding to ecohydrological monitoring, using quality and quan-
tity data for the same period of time, collected preferably at the same
sites (or selecting the nearest stations) enables ecosystem function
evaluation by applying quali-quantitative permanence curves. Thus,
future scenarios of climate and land-use changes can be evaluated, as
shown schematically (Fig. 4).
Moreover,by using the grey water footprint, the amount of fresh-
water required to assimilate pollutants (Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2008,
Hoekstra et al., 2011, Mekonnen et al., 2015), qualitative and quanti-
tative permanence curves could be used to quantify the ecosystem
services, through the water required for the self-depuration capacity of
rivers (Zhang et al., 2010). Concerning the urgency for adaptation ac-
tions, Fig. 4 shows: (1) evaluating the grey water footprint for pollu-
tants and promoting Water-PES projects to compensate it, and/or (2)
water quality improvement and stormwater runoff control through
Water-PES and river restoration projects. Using these methods, both
point and diffuse pollutants can be investigated with ecohydrological
models.
Based on Naeem et al. (2015), we propose that Water-PES projects
should use ecohydrological variables (Fig. 3) for delineation, mon-
itoring and comparison of Water-PES projects. This facilitates the access
to public and private investments, which in turn will strengthen and
enhance EbA in Brazil.
In essence, the full efficiency of an EbA mechanism could be mea-
sured across the basin and compared to other initiatives in the same
basin. Ultimately, Water-PES tradeoffs could be relatively different
depending on the scale used to analyze and the variables incorporated
into the assessment and valuation of hydrological services. This com-
parison, using hierarchy metrics and analyzing the selected ecohy-
drological categories, enables us to reflect on how EbA methods, spe-
cifically Water-PES projects, can minimize the vulnerability of impacts
on climate and land-use changes.
Table 4
Recommendations of the ecohydrological variables that should be measured and used to standardize, compare and select areas for new Water-PES projects.
Level of Applicability Variables References
Identification of the Project (Phase of Articulation) Biomatic features:
Annual precipitation
Evapotranspiration
Slope
Temperature
Order of the watershed
Area of the watershed
Class of soil uses
Horton (1945)
Sanchez-canales et al. (2012)
Koschke et al. (2014)
Comparison & Selection of PES Projects (Phase of
Development)
River Morphology:
Substrate of the river bed
Longitudinal Slope
Sinuosity
Width/Depth-Relation of the river
Floodplain Area/River Width-Relation
Vannote et al. (1980)
Rosgen (1994)
Smith et al. (2008)
Wildhaber et al. (2014)
River Water Quality:Polluting Load
(COD, BOD5,20), nitrate, total phosphorous,
Residence Curve
Thermotolerant coliforms
Zalewski and robarts (2003)
Mendiondo (2008)
Cunha et al. (2012)
Cunha et al. (2011, 2016)
Machado et al. (2016)
Ecohydrological indicators related to flood pulses and monitoring:
Frequency: see X3 (Fig. 2B);
Inundation time: see X10 (Fig. 2C)
Rating Curves: see X12 (Fig. 2D),
Changes in reference flows due to LULC or climate changes: see X16 (Fig. 2F
and Fig. 2G; i.e., ΔQ5% and ΔQ95%)
Adapted from: Mendiondo (2008)
Singer et al. (2016), Bruder et al.
(2016)
Beniston and stoffel (2013)
D. Taffarello et al. Climate Services 8 (2017) 1–16
11
6. Water-PES as ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change
Concerning the multiple uses of water, the balance for maintaining
the services that watersheds provide is only achieved through equitable
water governance and ecosystem service protection. It should be
mentioned that any adaptive management cannot be achieved without
ecohydrological monitoring. Thus, integrated assessment of ecosystem
services should use ecohydrological variables as promising tools.
Considering an EbA method, Water-PES should be spatially im-
plemented at river basin scales, preferably in heterogeneous landscapes,
and with efficient technical support for farmers. Studies show that
carefully implementing these programs can bring significant water
quality (Keeler et al., 2012), biodiversity and social benefits
(Whittingham, 2011). However, the potential of Water-PES in climate
change adaptation has not been completely fulfilled (van de Sand et al.,
2014).
Since the resilience of ecosystems to impacts on climate change is
increased by conservation practices of PES programs, Water–PES should
be strengthened. Major risks and uncertainties surround the extent to
which climate change could modify the water cycle in eligible areas to
implement PES projects such as an EbA method. For example, changing
rainfall and ice melt patterns could affect how water transfers through
soils and ecosystems, and hence river flows and groundwater recharge.
These changes present potential risks and benefits to society. Increased
water security for developing countries occurs in integrated systems for
ecosystem sustainability under climate change (Ambrizzi et al., 2007,
Liu et al., 2015, Marengo et al., 2012). This means it is vital to ensure
sufficient quality, quantity and timing of water for productive use,
ecosystems, through environmental flows (Arthington et al., 2006,
2010, Arthington, 2015) and to minimize water-related risks to people,
environment and economies.
While there are many Water-PES programs in the Brazilian Atlantic
Forest (Fig. 1, Table 1), it is still hard to draw knowledge on how to
better link EbA (on a global scale) to Water-PES (on a local or regional
scale). Some lessons learnt from the initiatives analyzed here show that
financial resources, adequate technical support and technologies (for
ecohydrological monitoring, forest restoration and soil conservation)
and partnership in cooperation are essential for high performance of a
Water-PES project. This could be the hypotheses to explain why the
“Water Producer Program” is expanding.
For most other Brazilian initiatives, some steps still are needed.
First, to enhance the baseline data in which EbA measures are proposed
and perform ecohydrological monitoring in the long term. Second, in
the context of climate change, adding metrics to the water PES projects
and making the environmental and socio-economic benefits clearer can
lead to smoother decision making. Third, to integrate Water-PES as an
EbA option with other conservation plans, policies and environmental
assessments.
Key issues should still be addressed to achieve sustainability of
ecosystem services. For example, should the states where the Brazilian
Atlantic Forest and savannah can be found pay the Amazonian states
because the rain that falls on their fertile lands comes from the Amazon
region?; How much does one cubic meter of water cost? And how much
water moves from Amazonia to central-southern Brazil? One thing we
know is that changes in forest coverage and the services associated may
affect the moisture provision from Amazonia to central-southern Brazil.
Providing these services may be a determinant for vulnerability, which
is enhanced by climate change. Failure to reduce the magnitude of
climate change will lead to changes in the value of ecosystem services
provided.
7. Conclusions
Complexities inherent in EbA have implications for water manage-
ment and policy at all scales. The manuscript addresses an overview of
hydrological services in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest using ecohy-
drological concepts. We review the base for addressing the use of
ecohydrological variables to improve EbA practices such as Water-PES.
For that purpose, we present a conceptual method for providing in-
sights on how EbA may contribute to facing the changing conditions.
Thus, the number of Water-PES initiatives in Brazil have rapidly ex-
panded at catchments in the Atlantic Forest biome. However, we
showed that most Brazilian Water-PES still lack ecohydrological mon-
itoring strategies, which would provide the baseline to compare pro-
jects. Qualitative and quantitative freshwater monitoring should be
performed in an integrated manner. From this perspective, we
Fig. 4. Illustrative interlinkages among methodologies of Ecosystem-based Adaptation, Risk-based Analysis, and Water Footprint. Legends (1): drivers of change: i.e. population growth,
land-use and land-use change (LULC), climate change, consumptionhabits, institutional governance evolution, (2): ecohydrological monitoring, (3) field investigation and data mining,
(4) modeling, calibration, validation and uncertainty analysis.
D. Taffarello et al. Climate Services 8 (2017) 1–16
12
recommend planning and carrying out freshwater monitoring in the
long term. We argue that this is essential to validate implemented land
management actions as generators of hydrological services and, con-
sequently, to prove effectiveness of Water-PES projects in providing
these services. Moreover, this approach could in turn increase public
and private awareness and investments in Water-PES initiatives.
Future work remains to be done to represent the hydrological ser-
vices in dynamic and ecohydrological models to better understand how
the complex processes of climate and land-use changes affect the en-
vironment.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to Dr. Stefano Pagiola for his helpful suggestions
and to Prof. Fazal Chaudhry for his help. We are also grateful to Prof.
Walter K. Dodds, Hendrik Mansur and Carlos Eduardo S. Diniz for the
shared knowledge and data. Furthermore, we would like to thank
Victor Carlotti Rosário and Bruna Carvalho Pinto for the help with the
map. Finally, we would like to thank more than 400 participants in the
Workshop on Brazilian PES, carried out at CETESB for the information
and key questions that instigated our research.
Funding
This study was supported by the São Paulo Research Foundation
(FAPESP) [grants 2012/22013-4 and 2008/58161-1, a Thematic
FAPESP Project], by the INCLINE-INterdisciplinary CLimate
INvEstigation Center (NapMC/IAG, USP-SP) and by the National
Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) [grant
07637/2012-3], CAPES 88887.091743/2014-01 (ProAlertas CEPED/
USP), CNPq 465501/2014-1 & FAPESP 2014/50848-9 INCT-II (Climate
Change, Water Security), CNPq PQ 312056/2016-8 (EESC-
USPCEMADEN/MCTIC) & CAPES PROEX (PPG-SHS, EESC, USP).
Author’s statements of authorship, originality and conflicts of in-
terest: all authors of this paper declare: (1) no conflict of interests, (2)
contributed equally to this work, and (3) have previously screened for
originality and ethics.
References
Ab’Sáber, A.N., 2003. Os domínios de natureza no Brasil: potencialidades paisagísticas
[The domains of nature in Brazil: landscape potential]. Atelie Editorial, São Paulo,
pp. 159.
Agueda, W.L., Martinelli, M., Soares, P.V., Cruz, L.A., 2013. Produtor de Água de
Guaratinguetá [Water Producer in Guaratinguetá]. In: Pagiola, S., von Glehn, H.C.Q.,
Taffarello, D. (Eds.), Experiências de Pagamentos por Serviços Ambientais no Brasil
[Experiences of Payments for Environmental Services in Brazil]. Secretariat for the
Environment/World Bank, São Paulo, pp. 153–164.
Alvarenga, L.A., De Mello, C.R., Colombo, A., Cuartas, A.L., Bowling, L.C., 2016.
Assessment of land cover change on the hydrology of a Brazilian headwater wa-
tershed using the Distributed Hydrology-Soil-Vegetation Model, CATENA, 143, 2016,
7–17, ISSN 0341-8162, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2016.04.001.
Ambrizzi, T., Rocha, R., Marengo, J.A., Pisnitchenko, I., Alves, L., 2007. Cenários
Regionalizados de Clima no Brasil para o século XXI: Projeções de Clima Usando Três
Modelos Regionais, Relatório 3, Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Secretaria de
Biodiversidade e Florestas, Diretoria de Conservação da Biodiversidade – DCBio
Mudanças Climáticas Globais e Efeitos sobre a Biodiversidade. Brasília. [Regional
Climate Scenarios in Brazil for the 21st Century: Climate Projections Using Three
Regional Models, Report 3, Ministry of the Environment, Secretariat of Biodiversity
and Forests, Directorate of Biodiversity Conservation – DCBio Global Climate Change
and Effects on Biodiversity, Brasília.]
ANA – Agência Nacional de Águas, 2012. Manual Operativo do Programa Produtor de
Água [National Water Agency, 2012. Operational Manual of the Water Producer
Program], second ed., ANA, Brasília.
Arthington, A.H., 2015. Environmental flows: a scientific resource and policy framework
for river conservation and restoration. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 25,
155–161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2560.
Arthington, A.H., Naiman, R.J., Mcclain, M.E., Nilsson, C., 2010. Preserving the biodi-
versity and ecological services of rivers: new challenges and research opportunities.
Freshwater Biol. 55, 1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02340.x.
Arthington, A.H., Bunn, S.E., Poff, N.L., Naiman, R.J., 2006. The challenge of providing
environmental flow rules to sustain river ecosystems. Ecol. Appl. 16, 1311–1318.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2006) 016[1311:TCOPEF]2.0.CO;2.
Baggio, J.A., Brown, K., Hellebrandt, D., 2015. Boundary object or bridging concept? A
citation network analysis of resilience. Ecol. Soc. 20, 2. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/
ES-07484-200202.
Balvanera, P., Uriarte, M., Almeida-Leñero, L., Altesor, A., DeClerck, F., Gardner, T., Hall,
J., Lara, A., Laterra, P., Peña-Claros, M., Silva Matos, D.M., Vogl, A.L., Romero-
Duque, L.P., Arreola, L.F., Caro-Borrero, Á.P., Gallego, F., Jain, M., Little, C., de
Oliveira Xavier, R., Paruelo, J.M., Peinado, J.E., Poorter, L., Ascarrunz, N., Correa, F.,
Cunha-Santino, M.B., Hernández-Sánchez, A.P., Vallejos, M., 2012. Ecosystem ser-
vices research in Latin America: The state of the art. Ecosyst. Serv. 2, 56–70. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.09.006.
Banks-Leite, C., Pardini, R., Tambosi, L.R., Pearse, W.D., Bueno, A.A., Bruscagin, R.T.,
Condez, T.H., Dixo, M., Igari, A.T., Martensen, A.C., Metzger, J.P., 2014. Conserving
Brazil’s Atlantic forests – Response. Science 346, 1193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/
science.346.6214.1193-b.
Brauman, K.A., 2015. Hydrologic ecosystem services: linking ecohydrologic processes to
human well-being in water research and watershed management. Wires Water 2,
345–358.
Beniston, M., Stoffel, M., 2013. Assessing the impacts of climatic change on mountain
water resources. Sci. Total Environ. 493, 1129–1137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2013.11.122.
BFN/GIS – Federal Agency for Nature Conservation/Deutsche Gesellschaft Für
Internationale Zusammenarbeit (Giz) Gmbh, 2013. Natural solutions to climate
change: The ABC of ecosystem-based-adaptation. Summary and Conclusions from an
International Expert Workshop held 4-9 August 2013 on the Isle of Vilm, Germany.
http://www.bfn.de/0610_vortraege+M52087573ab0.html, (accessed 15.03.30).
Brazil, 2015. Ministério do Meio Ambiente. Biomas Mata Atlântica [Ministry of the
Environment. Atlantic Forest Biomes], Available at: http://www.mma.gov.br/
biomas/mata-atlantica, accessed on 2017-09-25.
Brauman, K.A., Daily, G.C., Duarte, T.K., Mooney, H.A., 2007. The Nature and Value of
Ecosystem Services: An Overview Highlighting Hydrologic Services. Annu. Rev.
Environ. Resour. 32, 6.1–6.32.
Bremer, L., Auerbach, D.A., Goldstein, J.H., Vogl, A.L., Shemie, D., Kroeger, T., Nelson,
J.L., Benítez, S.P., Calvache, A., Guimarães, J., Herron, C., Higgins, J., Klemz, C.,
León, J., Sebastián, J., Moreno, P.H., Nuñez, F., Veiga, F., Tiepolo, G., 2016a. One
size does not fit all: Natural infrastructure investments within the Latin American
Water Funds Partnership. Ecosyst. Serv. 17, 217–236.
Bremer, L., Vogl, A.L., de Bièvre, B., Petry, P., 2016b. Bridging theory and practice for
hydrological monitoring in Water Funds. 98p.
Bressiani, D.D.A., Gassman, P.W., Fernandes, J.G., Hamilton, L., Garbossa, P., Srinivasan,
R., Bonumá, N.B., Mendiondo, E.M., 2015. Review of Soil and Water Assessment Tool
(SWAT) applications in Brazil: Challenges and prospects. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 8,
9–35.
Bruder, A., Tonolla, D., Schweizer,S.P., Vollenweider, S., Langhans, S.D., Wüest, A., 2016.
A conceptual framework for hydropeaking mitigation. Science of The Total
Environment, Available online 4 June 2016, ISSN 0048-9697, doi: 10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2016.05.032.
Buckley, R., Pegas, F.V., 2014. Conserving Brazil’s Atlantic forests. Science 346, 6214.
Bunn,S., Arthington, A.H., 2002. Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered
flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environ. Manage. 30, 492–507.
Carpenter, S.R., 2005. Eutrophication of aquatic ecosystems: bistability and soil phos-
phorus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102 (29), 10002–10005.
CBD – Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010. X/33 Biodiversity and climate change,
Decision Adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological
Diversity at its Tenth Meeting; UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/x/33; 29 October 2010.
Secretariat of Convention on Biological Diversity, Nagoya.
Chow, V.T., Maidment, D.R., Mays, L.W., 1988. Applied Hydrology. McGraw-Hill, New
York, pp. 584p.
Collischonn, W., Dornelles, F., 2013. Hidrologia para engenharia e ciências ambientais.
Porto Alegre, Associação Brasileira de Recursos Hídricos (ABRH).
Crutzen, P.J., 2002. Geology of mankind. Nature 415, 23.
Cuartas, L.A., Tomasella, J., Nobre, A.D., Nobre, C.A., Hodnett, M.G., Waterloo, M.J., de
Oliveira, S.M., von Randow, R.C., Trancoso, R., Ferreira, M., 2012. Distributed hy-
drological modeling of a micro-scale rainforest watershed in Amazonia: model eva-
luation and advances in calibration using the new HAND terrain model. J. Hydrol.
462 (10), 15–27 2012.
Cunha, D.G.F., Dodds, W.K., Calijuri, M.C., 2011. Defining nutrient and biochemical
oxygen demand baselines for tropical rivers and streams in são paulo state (Brazil): a
comparison between reference and impacted sites. Environ. Manage. 48, 945–956.
Cunha, D.G.F., Calijuri, M.C., Mendiondo, E.M., 2012. Integração entre curvas de
permanência de quantidade e qualidade da água como uma ferramenta para a gestão
eficiente dos recursos hídricos [Integration between water quantity and water quality
curves as a tool for the efficient management of water resources]. Rev Eng. Sanit.
Ambient. 17, 369–376.
Cunha, D.G.F., Sabogal-Paz, L.P., Dodds, W.K., 2016. Land use influence on raw surface
water quality and treatment costs for drinking supply in São Paulo State (Brazil).
Ecol. Eng. 94, 516–524.
De Mello, C.R., Norton, L.D., Pinto, L.C., Beskow, S., Curi, N., 2016. Agricultural wa-
tershed modeling: a review for hydrology and soil erosion processes. Ciência E
Agrotecnologia 40, 7–25.
Echavarria, M., 2002. Water User Associations in the Cauca Valley, Colombia: A volun-
tary mechanism to promote upstream-downstream cooperation in the protection of
rural watersheds. Land-Water Linkages in Rural Watersheds Case Study Series. Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Rome, Italy.
Ehret, U., Gupta, H.V., Sivapalan, M., Weijs, S.V., Schymanski, S.J., Blöschl, G., Gelfan,
A.N., Harman, C., Kleidon, A., Bogaard, T.A., Wang, D., Wagener, T., Scherer, U.,
Zehe, E., Bierkens, M.F.P., Di Baldassarre, G., Parajka, J., Van Beek, L.P.H., Van
D. Taffarello et al. Climate Services 8 (2017) 1–16
13
Griensven, A., Westhoff, M.C., Winsemius, H.C., 2014. Advancing catchment hy-
drology to deal with predictions under change. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 18, 649–671.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-649-2014.
Ellison, D., Futter, M.N., Bishop, K., 2012. On the forest cover-water yield debate: from
demand- to supply-side thinking. Global Change Biol. 18, 806–820. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.201102589.x.
EMASA, 2016. Water and Sanitation Municipal Company of Balneário Camboriú
[Empresa Municipal de Água e Saneamento de Balneário Camboriú] website.
Available at: http://www.emasa.com.br/produtordeagua/. Accessed on July, 2016.
Escobar, H., 2015. Drought triggers alarms in Brazil’s biggest metropolis. Science 347,
812.
Fearnside, P.M., 1997. Ecosystem services as a strategy for sustainable development in
rural Amazonia. Ecol. Econ. 20, 53–70.
Fischer, P., Pöthig, R., Gücker, B., Venohr, M., 2016. Estimation of the degree of soil P
saturation from Brazilian Mehlich-1 P data and field investigations on P losses from
agricultural sites in Minas Gerais. Water Sci. Technol. 74 (3), 691–697.
Francesconi, W., Srinivasan, R., Pérez-miñana, E., Willcock, S.P., Quintero, M., 2016.
Using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) to model ecosystem services: A
systematic review. J. Hydrol. 535, 625–636.
Goldman-Benner, R.L., Benitez, S., Boucher, T., Calvache, A., Daily, G., Kareiva, P.,
Kroeger, T., Ramos, A., 2012. Water funds and payments for ecosystem services:
practice learns from theory and theory can learn from practice. Oryx 46, 55–63.
Gordon, L.J., Peterson, G.D. & Bennett, E.M., 2008. Trends Ecol. Evol., 23 (4): 211 – 219
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.11.011.
Guedes, F.B., Seehusen, S.E., 2011. Pagamentos por Serviços Ambientais na Mata
Atlântica: Lições Aprendidas e Desafios [Payments for Environmental Services in the
Atlantic Forest: Lessons Learned and Challenges]. MMA, Brasília.
Guimarães, J., 2013. Application of Invest’s Sedimentation Retention model for restora-
tion benefits forecast at Cantareira Water Supply System. InVEST Datasets. NatCap
Publications. Available at: http://data.naturalcapitalproject.org/natcap/NatCap
%20Publications/Invest_Sediment_Retention_Cantareira.pdf. Accessed on August,
2015.
Guzmán, D.A.A., Mohor, G.S., Taffarello, D., Mendiondo, E.M., 2017. Economic impacts
of drought risks for water utilities through Severity-Duration-Frequency framework
under climate change scenarios. Hydrol. Earth Syst.Sc Submitted manuscript for,
hess-2017-615.
Hannah, D.M., Demuth, S., Van Lanen, H.A.J., Looser, U., Prudhomme, C., Rees, G., Stahl,
K., Tallaksen, L.M., 2011. Large-scale river flow archives: importance, current status
and future needs. Hydrol. Process. 25, 1191–1200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.
7794.
Henrique, C.S., 2009. Master’s Dissertation in Hydraulics and Sanitation. University of
Sao Paulo, São Carlos School of Engineering.
Hoekstra, A.Y., Chapagain, A.K., Aldaya, M.M., Mekonnen, M.M., 2011. The Water
Footprint Assessment Manual: Setting the Global Standard. Earthscan, London.
Hoekstra, A.Y., Chapagain, A.K., 2008. Globalization of Water: Sharing the Planet’s
Freshwater Resources. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
Horton, R.E., 1945. Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins:
Hydrophysical approach to quantitative morphology. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 56,
275–370.
IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014. Climate Change 2014:
Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of
Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Joly, C.A., Metzger, J.P., Tabarelli, M., 2014. Experiences from the Brazilian Atlantic
Forest: ecological findings and conservation initiatives. New Phytol. 204, 459–473.
Keeler, B.L., Polasky, S., Brauman, K.A., Johnson, K.A., Finlay, J.C., Oinlay, A., Kovacs, K.,
Dalzell, B., 2012. Linking water quality and well-being for improved assessment and
valuation of ecosystem services. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109, 18619l.
Klemz, C., Dacol, K.C., Zimerman, P., Nayara, J., Veiga, F., Diederichsen, A., 2013.
Produtor de Água do Rio Camboriú. In: Pagiola, S., von Glehn, H.C.Q., Taffarello, D.
(Eds.), Experiências de Pagamentos por Serviços Ambientais no Brasil [Experiences of
Payments for Environmental Services in Brazil]. Secretariat for the Environment/
World Bank, São Paulo, pp. 115–130.
Klemz, C., Petry, P., Kroeger, T., Acosta, E., Blainski, E., Garbossa, L.H.P., Cavassani, A.T.,
Dacol, K.C., Comparim, R., Bremer, L., 2016. In: Bremer, L., Vogl, A.L., De Bievre, B.,
Petry, P. (Eds.), Case Study Camboriú, BrazilBridging Theory and Practice for
Hydrological Monitoring in Water Funds. Nature Conservancy, FEMSA Foundation,
Inter-American Development Bank, Global Environmental Fund, CONDESAN, and
Natural Capital Project, pp. 47–56.
Kobiyama, M., Genz, F., Mendiondo, E.M., 1998. Geo-Bio-Hidrologia – Forum de
Geobiohidrologia [Geo-Bio-Hydrology – Geobiohydrology Forum], Ed UFPR,
Curitiba.
Koschke, T., Carsten, L., Furst, C., Lehmann, T., Makeschin, F.,