Upstream demand for water use by new tree plantations imposes externalities on downstream irrigated agriculture and wetlands

Large‐scale tree plantations in high rainfall upstream areas can reduce fresh water inflows to river systems, thereby imposing external costs on downstream irrigation, stock and domestic water users and wetland interests. We take the novel approach of expressing all benefits and costs of establishin...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Australian journal of agricultural and resource economics 2012-10, Vol.56 (4), p.455-474
Hauptverfasser: Nordblom, Thomas L, Finlayson, John D, Hume, Iain H
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 474
container_issue 4
container_start_page 455
container_title The Australian journal of agricultural and resource economics
container_volume 56
creator Nordblom, Thomas L
Finlayson, John D
Hume, Iain H
description Large‐scale tree plantations in high rainfall upstream areas can reduce fresh water inflows to river systems, thereby imposing external costs on downstream irrigation, stock and domestic water users and wetland interests. We take the novel approach of expressing all benefits and costs of establishing plantations in terms of $ per gigalitre (GL) of water removed annually from river flows, setting upstream demands on the same basis as downstream demands. For the Macquarie Valley, a New South Wales sub‐catchment of Australia’s Murray‐Darling Basin, we project changes in land and water use and changes in economic surpluses under two policy settings: without and with a policy requiring permanent water entitlements to be purchased from downstream parties, before plantation establishment. Without the policy, and given a high stumpage value for trees ($70/m3), upstream gains in economic surplus projected from expanding plantations are $639 million; balanced against $233 million in economic losses by downstream irrigators and stock and domestic water users for a net gain of $406 million, but 345 GL lower mean annual environmental flows. With the policy, smaller gains in upstream economic surplus from trees ($192 million), added to net downstream gains ($138 million) from sale of water, result in gains of $330 million with no reduction in environmental flows. Sustaining the 345 GL flow for a $76 million (406–330) reduction in gains to economic surplus may be seen to cost only $0.22 million/GL; but this is much lower than the market value of the first units of that water to agriculture and forestry.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/j.1467-8489.2012.00593.x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_fao_a</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1114289100</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><informt_id>10.3316/ielapa.201211792</informt_id><sourcerecordid>2759135461</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c6083-bdbae6efbf15f53fc6c4bf8374361a00fe6de2e56205b03d26be67aabe09fe9b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkk2L1TAUhosoOI7-BgNu3NyajzZtFi4ug-MHA4J6wV1I25NrLm1Tk5TeC_54T6eDC1fTTVLO8z4NeZtlhNGc4fPulLNCVru6qFXOKeM5paUS-flJdvVv8BT3QhY7VZc_n2cvYjxRSnkh-VX25zDFFMAMpIPBjB2xPpDFJAhkjkCaCxlhIUgAmXozJpOcHyNxw-QjRAJnJEfTu-TwzY-k88v4IHQhuCOaOmKOwbVzn-YAZP3GAgldXXyZPbOmj_DqYb3ODrcfftx82t19_fj5Zn-3ayWtxa7pGgMSbGNZaUthW9kWja1FVQjJDKUWZAccSslp2VDRcdmArIxpgCoLqhHX2dvNOwX_e4aY9OBiCz0eAvwcNd5jwWvFKH0MKrhQVS0RffMfevLzehlIUaGYKgVnSNUb1QYfYwCrp-AGEy4IrTamT3otSq9F6bVBfd-gPmP0_RZdXA-XR-f0_sv-G-4wf7vlw-CSNpOxSf9KaYq6M8loN2LX68SHo-68W8VCMKkd9AjfOxmrFEfR601kjddrmVEfvuO4wN-oqGtFxV9ZvsbP</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1039195321</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Upstream demand for water use by new tree plantations imposes externalities on downstream irrigated agriculture and wetlands</title><source>Wiley Free Content</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Business Source Complete</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Nordblom, Thomas L ; Finlayson, John D ; Hume, Iain H</creator><creatorcontrib>Nordblom, Thomas L ; Finlayson, John D ; Hume, Iain H</creatorcontrib><description>Large‐scale tree plantations in high rainfall upstream areas can reduce fresh water inflows to river systems, thereby imposing external costs on downstream irrigation, stock and domestic water users and wetland interests. We take the novel approach of expressing all benefits and costs of establishing plantations in terms of $ per gigalitre (GL) of water removed annually from river flows, setting upstream demands on the same basis as downstream demands. For the Macquarie Valley, a New South Wales sub‐catchment of Australia’s Murray‐Darling Basin, we project changes in land and water use and changes in economic surpluses under two policy settings: without and with a policy requiring permanent water entitlements to be purchased from downstream parties, before plantation establishment. Without the policy, and given a high stumpage value for trees ($70/m3), upstream gains in economic surplus projected from expanding plantations are $639 million; balanced against $233 million in economic losses by downstream irrigators and stock and domestic water users for a net gain of $406 million, but 345 GL lower mean annual environmental flows. With the policy, smaller gains in upstream economic surplus from trees ($192 million), added to net downstream gains ($138 million) from sale of water, result in gains of $330 million with no reduction in environmental flows. Sustaining the 345 GL flow for a $76 million (406–330) reduction in gains to economic surplus may be seen to cost only $0.22 million/GL; but this is much lower than the market value of the first units of that water to agriculture and forestry.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1364-985X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1467-8489</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8489.2012.00593.x</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Agricultural economics ; Agriculture ; Australia. Water Act 2007 ; catchment ; demand ; downstream externality ; Economic theory ; entitlement ; Environmental services ; Evapotranspiration ; forest ; Forestry ; Forests ; freshwater ; interception ; irrigated farming ; Irrigation ; issues and policy ; market ; market value ; markets ; Murray-Darling River system ; Murray‐Darling Basin ; Plantations ; Precipitation ; Productivity ; rain ; River basins ; rivers ; Studies ; stumpage ; supply ; surpluses ; Sustainable development ; Trees ; urban water ; Water ; Water resources management ; Water supply ; Watershed ; Wetlands</subject><ispartof>The Australian journal of agricultural and resource economics, 2012-10, Vol.56 (4), p.455-474</ispartof><rights>2012 The Authors. AJARE © 2012 Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society Inc. and Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c6083-bdbae6efbf15f53fc6c4bf8374361a00fe6de2e56205b03d26be67aabe09fe9b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c6083-bdbae6efbf15f53fc6c4bf8374361a00fe6de2e56205b03d26be67aabe09fe9b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1467-8489.2012.00593.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1467-8489.2012.00593.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,1427,27901,27902,45550,45551,46384,46808</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Nordblom, Thomas L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Finlayson, John D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hume, Iain H</creatorcontrib><title>Upstream demand for water use by new tree plantations imposes externalities on downstream irrigated agriculture and wetlands</title><title>The Australian journal of agricultural and resource economics</title><description>Large‐scale tree plantations in high rainfall upstream areas can reduce fresh water inflows to river systems, thereby imposing external costs on downstream irrigation, stock and domestic water users and wetland interests. We take the novel approach of expressing all benefits and costs of establishing plantations in terms of $ per gigalitre (GL) of water removed annually from river flows, setting upstream demands on the same basis as downstream demands. For the Macquarie Valley, a New South Wales sub‐catchment of Australia’s Murray‐Darling Basin, we project changes in land and water use and changes in economic surpluses under two policy settings: without and with a policy requiring permanent water entitlements to be purchased from downstream parties, before plantation establishment. Without the policy, and given a high stumpage value for trees ($70/m3), upstream gains in economic surplus projected from expanding plantations are $639 million; balanced against $233 million in economic losses by downstream irrigators and stock and domestic water users for a net gain of $406 million, but 345 GL lower mean annual environmental flows. With the policy, smaller gains in upstream economic surplus from trees ($192 million), added to net downstream gains ($138 million) from sale of water, result in gains of $330 million with no reduction in environmental flows. Sustaining the 345 GL flow for a $76 million (406–330) reduction in gains to economic surplus may be seen to cost only $0.22 million/GL; but this is much lower than the market value of the first units of that water to agriculture and forestry.</description><subject>Agricultural economics</subject><subject>Agriculture</subject><subject>Australia. Water Act 2007</subject><subject>catchment</subject><subject>demand</subject><subject>downstream externality</subject><subject>Economic theory</subject><subject>entitlement</subject><subject>Environmental services</subject><subject>Evapotranspiration</subject><subject>forest</subject><subject>Forestry</subject><subject>Forests</subject><subject>freshwater</subject><subject>interception</subject><subject>irrigated farming</subject><subject>Irrigation</subject><subject>issues and policy</subject><subject>market</subject><subject>market value</subject><subject>markets</subject><subject>Murray-Darling River system</subject><subject>Murray‐Darling Basin</subject><subject>Plantations</subject><subject>Precipitation</subject><subject>Productivity</subject><subject>rain</subject><subject>River basins</subject><subject>rivers</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>stumpage</subject><subject>supply</subject><subject>surpluses</subject><subject>Sustainable development</subject><subject>Trees</subject><subject>urban water</subject><subject>Water</subject><subject>Water resources management</subject><subject>Water supply</subject><subject>Watershed</subject><subject>Wetlands</subject><issn>1364-985X</issn><issn>1467-8489</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkk2L1TAUhosoOI7-BgNu3NyajzZtFi4ug-MHA4J6wV1I25NrLm1Tk5TeC_54T6eDC1fTTVLO8z4NeZtlhNGc4fPulLNCVru6qFXOKeM5paUS-flJdvVv8BT3QhY7VZc_n2cvYjxRSnkh-VX25zDFFMAMpIPBjB2xPpDFJAhkjkCaCxlhIUgAmXozJpOcHyNxw-QjRAJnJEfTu-TwzY-k88v4IHQhuCOaOmKOwbVzn-YAZP3GAgldXXyZPbOmj_DqYb3ODrcfftx82t19_fj5Zn-3ayWtxa7pGgMSbGNZaUthW9kWja1FVQjJDKUWZAccSslp2VDRcdmArIxpgCoLqhHX2dvNOwX_e4aY9OBiCz0eAvwcNd5jwWvFKH0MKrhQVS0RffMfevLzehlIUaGYKgVnSNUb1QYfYwCrp-AGEy4IrTamT3otSq9F6bVBfd-gPmP0_RZdXA-XR-f0_sv-G-4wf7vlw-CSNpOxSf9KaYq6M8loN2LX68SHo-68W8VCMKkd9AjfOxmrFEfR601kjddrmVEfvuO4wN-oqGtFxV9ZvsbP</recordid><startdate>201210</startdate><enddate>201210</enddate><creator>Nordblom, Thomas L</creator><creator>Finlayson, John D</creator><creator>Hume, Iain H</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7U1</scope><scope>7U2</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H97</scope><scope>L.G</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201210</creationdate><title>Upstream demand for water use by new tree plantations imposes externalities on downstream irrigated agriculture and wetlands</title><author>Nordblom, Thomas L ; Finlayson, John D ; Hume, Iain H</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c6083-bdbae6efbf15f53fc6c4bf8374361a00fe6de2e56205b03d26be67aabe09fe9b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Agricultural economics</topic><topic>Agriculture</topic><topic>Australia. Water Act 2007</topic><topic>catchment</topic><topic>demand</topic><topic>downstream externality</topic><topic>Economic theory</topic><topic>entitlement</topic><topic>Environmental services</topic><topic>Evapotranspiration</topic><topic>forest</topic><topic>Forestry</topic><topic>Forests</topic><topic>freshwater</topic><topic>interception</topic><topic>irrigated farming</topic><topic>Irrigation</topic><topic>issues and policy</topic><topic>market</topic><topic>market value</topic><topic>markets</topic><topic>Murray-Darling River system</topic><topic>Murray‐Darling Basin</topic><topic>Plantations</topic><topic>Precipitation</topic><topic>Productivity</topic><topic>rain</topic><topic>River basins</topic><topic>rivers</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>stumpage</topic><topic>supply</topic><topic>surpluses</topic><topic>Sustainable development</topic><topic>Trees</topic><topic>urban water</topic><topic>Water</topic><topic>Water resources management</topic><topic>Water supply</topic><topic>Watershed</topic><topic>Wetlands</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Nordblom, Thomas L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Finlayson, John D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hume, Iain H</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Risk Abstracts</collection><collection>Safety Science and Risk</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 3: Aquatic Pollution &amp; Environmental Quality</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><jtitle>The Australian journal of agricultural and resource economics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Nordblom, Thomas L</au><au>Finlayson, John D</au><au>Hume, Iain H</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Upstream demand for water use by new tree plantations imposes externalities on downstream irrigated agriculture and wetlands</atitle><jtitle>The Australian journal of agricultural and resource economics</jtitle><date>2012-10</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>56</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>455</spage><epage>474</epage><pages>455-474</pages><issn>1364-985X</issn><eissn>1467-8489</eissn><abstract>Large‐scale tree plantations in high rainfall upstream areas can reduce fresh water inflows to river systems, thereby imposing external costs on downstream irrigation, stock and domestic water users and wetland interests. We take the novel approach of expressing all benefits and costs of establishing plantations in terms of $ per gigalitre (GL) of water removed annually from river flows, setting upstream demands on the same basis as downstream demands. For the Macquarie Valley, a New South Wales sub‐catchment of Australia’s Murray‐Darling Basin, we project changes in land and water use and changes in economic surpluses under two policy settings: without and with a policy requiring permanent water entitlements to be purchased from downstream parties, before plantation establishment. Without the policy, and given a high stumpage value for trees ($70/m3), upstream gains in economic surplus projected from expanding plantations are $639 million; balanced against $233 million in economic losses by downstream irrigators and stock and domestic water users for a net gain of $406 million, but 345 GL lower mean annual environmental flows. With the policy, smaller gains in upstream economic surplus from trees ($192 million), added to net downstream gains ($138 million) from sale of water, result in gains of $330 million with no reduction in environmental flows. Sustaining the 345 GL flow for a $76 million (406–330) reduction in gains to economic surplus may be seen to cost only $0.22 million/GL; but this is much lower than the market value of the first units of that water to agriculture and forestry.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/j.1467-8489.2012.00593.x</doi><tpages>20</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1364-985X
ispartof The Australian journal of agricultural and resource economics, 2012-10, Vol.56 (4), p.455-474
issn 1364-985X
1467-8489
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1114289100
source Wiley Free Content; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Business Source Complete; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Agricultural economics
Agriculture
Australia. Water Act 2007
catchment
demand
downstream externality
Economic theory
entitlement
Environmental services
Evapotranspiration
forest
Forestry
Forests
freshwater
interception
irrigated farming
Irrigation
issues and policy
market
market value
markets
Murray-Darling River system
Murray‐Darling Basin
Plantations
Precipitation
Productivity
rain
River basins
rivers
Studies
stumpage
supply
surpluses
Sustainable development
Trees
urban water
Water
Water resources management
Water supply
Watershed
Wetlands
title Upstream demand for water use by new tree plantations imposes externalities on downstream irrigated agriculture and wetlands
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T20%3A18%3A53IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_fao_a&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Upstream%20demand%20for%20water%20use%20by%20new%20tree%20plantations%20imposes%20externalities%20on%20downstream%20irrigated%20agriculture%20and%20wetlands&rft.jtitle=The%20Australian%20journal%20of%20agricultural%20and%20resource%20economics&rft.au=Nordblom,%20Thomas%20L&rft.date=2012-10&rft.volume=56&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=455&rft.epage=474&rft.pages=455-474&rft.issn=1364-985X&rft.eissn=1467-8489&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1467-8489.2012.00593.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_fao_a%3E2759135461%3C/proquest_fao_a%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1039195321&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_informt_id=10.3316/ielapa.201211792&rfr_iscdi=true