This book includes a plain text version that is designed for high accessibility. To use this version please follow this link.
MARKET S EGMENTS


Case study:


SUPPLYING NEW YORK CITY


New York City authorities are responsible for providing more than 9 million people in the city and surrounding counties with 5 billion litres of freshwater each day, most of it sourced from a 5 200 square-kilometre watershed area in New York State.


In the 1980s the city was faced with the need for new legislation on water management as water quality showed signs of deterio- rating. Rather than investing in new filtration plants, officials de- cided to adopt a more progressive approach which would protect the water at source, by acquiring some upstate watershed land and protecting the surrounding forest.


While development rights in some sensitive watershed areas were purchased over the years, the main part of New York City’s pro- gramme – an early type of PES – has been a series of agreements with landowners who control more than 70 per cent of land in the catchment area. Tese agreements – oſten involving long and complex negotiations – include compensation to farmers and others for keeping lands in their natural state and for undertak- ing environmentally beneficial land and stream management measures.


Farmers also receive payments for implementing pollution pre- vention measures and for the cost of additional labour involved. Forest landowners who adopt good forest management practices such as low impact logging can benefit by receiving additional logging permits in other areas. Certain forest landowners are also entitled to an 80 per cent reduction in local property taxes.


A 9 per cent increase in New York City water bills funded much of the US$1.5 billion decade-long expenditure programme in the watershed area. Building the filtration facility, however, would have cost between US$4 and US$8 billion, plus annual operating costs of another US$250 to US$500 million. Te benefits of New York’s watershed protection measures are not only financial; the programme is considered to be a successful experiment in taking shared responsibility for watershed protection and, according to officials, it continues to deliver safe and healthy water.


Source: Appleton 2002; Perrot-Maître and Davis 2001; Stanton et al 2010


46 VITAL GRAPHICS ON PAYMENT FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76