Discussion of results

The table below shows the results from the CBA. The results are indicative due to the assumptions being made, but some conclusions can be drawn from them. Firstly, from the perspective of a single site, NbS2 does not seem economically viable, as the net present value (NPV) is negative, and the benefit-cost ratio (BCR) is below 1.0. However, on the basin scale, it is a very viable intervention. These results are mainly dependent on the assumption made for the value of the benefits for fisheries. As mentioned above, at the site level the benefits from fisheries are likely underestimated as not all communes are included. If the change in revenue from fisheries would be about 3 times as large as currently estimated, the project would break even. The change in revenue from fisheries at the basin level is a guestimate, however, even if the project would only increase the revenue from fisheries by 0.25% the project would already be able to break even.

Secondly, the price of carbon credits is volatile and in the analysis USD 5 per tCO₂ is being used. This price cannot cover the costs of planting flooded forests on cleared land (see also financial analysis below). The price of carbon would need to increase to at least USD 31 per tCO₂ to cover the costs of planting alone at the project level, which is excluding the costs of land, over 50 years (assuming this is the period over which the newly planted forest would sequester on average 5.5 tCO₂ ha⁻¹yr⁻¹ – this period may be shorter). Thirdly, the non-use values have not been quantified, and there might be additional benefits that have not been identified, such as benefits related to restoring the floodplain hydrology. Taking into account that not all benefits are included, while most of the costs are, the results in Table below are expected to be conservative

_{Table. Results of the CBA for restoration of the flooded forest, Present USD values at 6% discount rate over a 50 year project lifetime.}