Final Version

March 25th, 2013

Master Thesis
Earth System Science
Climate Studies

Assessing the impacts of

land use change and
climate change on
potential hydropower production
in the Amazon

Name: Pieter van Hout

Reg. Number: 880406367100
Course code: ESS-80436

Supervisor: dr. Bart Kruijt

Mentor: dr. Hester Biemans
 Table of Contents
1 Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 4
2 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Hydropower............................................................................................................................. 6
2.1.1 Run-of-River installations ................................................................................................ 6
2.1.2 Conventional Reservoir Installations ............................................................................... 7
2.1.3 Pumped-Storage Reservoir.............................................................................................. 7
2.1.4 From Water to Watt ........................................................................................................ 7
2.2 Energy Sector......................................................................................................................... 10
2.3 Problem definition................................................................................................................. 12
2.4 Aim of the research ............................................................................................................... 12
2.5 Outline of the research.......................................................................................................... 13
3 Scientific Background .................................................................................................................... 13
3.1 Drivers of change................................................................................................................... 14
3.2 Land Use Change ................................................................................................................... 15
3.3 Climate Change...................................................................................................................... 16
3.4 Land Use Change and Climate Change Interactions.............................................................. 17
4 Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 18
4.1 Models and Data ................................................................................................................... 18
4.1.1 LPJ-mL-model ................................................................................................................ 19
4.1.2 Scenarios B1 and A2 ...................................................................................................... 20
4.1.3 CLUE-model ................................................................................................................... 21
4.2 Experiments ........................................................................................................................... 23
4.3 Methods ................................................................................................................................ 24
4.3.1 Site Selection ................................................................................................................. 25
5 Results ........................................................................................................................................... 27
5.1 Climate Models Comparison ................................................................................................. 27
5.2 Spatial analysis ...................................................................................................................... 28
5.3 Site Specific Analysis.............................................................................................................. 31
5.3.1 Belo Monte .................................................................................................................... 31
5.3.2 São Luiz do Tapajós ....................................................................................................... 33
5.3.3 Santo Antônio ................................................................................................................ 35
6 Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 39
7 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 41
8 Recommendations......................................................................................................................... 42
9 Evaluation ...................................................................................................................................... 43
10 References ..................................................................................................................................... 44
11 Annex I – Model Comparison ........................................................................................................ 51
11.1 B1 scenario ............................................................................................................................ 51
11.2 A2 scenario ............................................................................................................................ 53
12 Annex II – Changes in Explored Hydropower ................................................................................ 55
13 Annex III – Belo Monte .................................................................................................................. 56
14 Annex IV – São Luiz do Tapajós ..................................................................................................... 59
15 Annex V – Santo Antônio ............................................................................................................... 62
1 Abstract
The entire Amazon Basin, and in particular Brazil, highly depend on hydropower as their main source
for energy. The potential production which can be produced in any hydropower installation is mostly
dependent on hydrological circumstances. Consequently, these circumstances are determined by
climate and land use, as these two features determine the amount of runoff and eventually discharge.
Both land use and climate are projected to change in the future due to global drivers. Accordingly, this
causes alterations of the hydrological regime. It is found that relative changes in Gross Hydropower
Potential show a large spatial variety for both land use and climate change. This study shows that both
the B1 and A2 scenario generally have a positive effect on Gross Hydropower Potential for the entire
Amazon, respectively; 20% and 28,3%. In contrary, land use change does only show a small increase in
GHP of 1,5% on a large scale. However, the summed effects on Brazilian hydropower plants which are
in use, under construction, planned or inventoried are positive as well. Furthermore; the analysis of
specific sites confirms that climate change will have a substantial larger impact on hydroelectric
generation than land use change. Besides, it reveals that a combination of these two parameters shows
an enhancing effect on the potential production of hydropower. Finally, this research argues that; if
hydropower installations can cope with increasing and more annual, inter-annual and inter-decadal
variability in inflow, more energy can be generated by hydropower in the future. This study, therefore,
also stresses that future discharge projections should be included in a hydropower plants’ feasibility
study as this will influence the decisions on the right size and type of an installation.
2 Introduction
The Amazonian basin is located in the middle and northern part of South-America, as shown in figure
1 (A). Because it is divided by the Equator it is influenced by a tropical climate. The climate has a dry
and a wet season with quite a substantial annual and inter-annual variability in rainfall (Garreaud et al,
2009). The basin is mainly covered with rainforest, and in all forested regions it surpasses on average
2000 mm of total annual rainfall. Additionally, the mean annual precipitation for the whole Amazon is
approximately 2400 mm (Malhi et al, 2008). However, there is some variability in regional precipitation
patterns, visible in figure 1 (C). In the range of more than 3000 mm in north-west Amazonia to less
than 1500 mm; where the forest-savanna transition zone is found (Malhi & Wright, 2004). In some
regions the average total precipitation can even be up to 10.000 mm (Matos, 2011).

Figure 1: Map of the Amazon (A) and mean annual temperature (B) and precipitation (C) for South America.
Source (A): Digital Maps of the World.
Source (B+C): Sagredo & Lowell (2012).

During the rainy season the inundated area of the Amazonian rainforest can cover an area of circa
700.000 km2 (Malhi & Wright, 2004). Furthermore, the average temperature for the entire Amazon is
about 26°C and very little spatial variability in temperature is found in the region (figure 1 (B)).

The Amazon basin covers a total of nine countries, namely: Colombia, Brazil, Guyana, Bolivia, Peru,
Republic of Suriname, French Guyana, Venezuela and Ecuador. The largest part of the Amazon is found
within the Brazilian borders and covers almost 42% of the total territory, which is equal to an area of
3581 km2 (Matos et al, 2011). In addition, multiple large rivers drain the Amazon with the Amazonas
as the main river. More than 1000 tributaries are connected to this river and it has at its mouth an
mean annual flow of 190.000 m3/s-1. The Brazilian catchments, which cover most of the tributaries,
are: Pará, Rondônia, Tocantins, Roraima, Amapá, Acre, Amazonas, Mato Grosso and west of
Maranhaõ. Furthermore, at present; around 5 million people live in the Amazon. The largest part of
the inhabitants are indigenous people.

The Amazonian rainforest is under a lot of pressure, caused on different scales and by a variety of
sources, as explained later. In 1997, Whitmore already stated that nowhere in the world the (absolute)
destruction of forest is greater than in the Amazon. Moreover, in the Brazilian part of the rainforest
alone, the deforestation rates in the period of 1988 to 2003 was on average 1.78 * 10 4 km2 per year
(INPE, 2004). The rate of deforestation, however, has shown a significant slowdown in a recent five
year period; 2004-2010. Although, figures are on the rise again (Malingreau et al, 2012).

Besides the loss of forest and overall land degradation, climate change can influence vegetation cover
as well. Indeed, more consecutive dry spells and increases in temperature can trigger a positive
feedback mechanism among land use change, climate change and the risk of forest fires (Cochrane &
Laurance, 2008; Nepstad, 2008; Malhi, 2008). Within this mechanism, deforestation can reduce the
recycling rate of rainfall and thus increases the chance on droughts. Moreover, cutting down trees
increases the litter input and this is a source for the ignition of forest fires (Cochrane & Laurence, 2008).
These fires on their turn are a source of carbon into the air, whereas litter and wood are burned. When
this happens on a larger scale the forest turns into a source of carbon instead of a sink, and this can
alter the climate. Moreover, by cutting down forest the litter input increases significantly and de
degradation of this litter is seen as an important CO2 flux into the atmosphere (Van der Werf et al,
2009).

As the Amazon has a great range of ecosystem services on which millions of people depend, its fate
has to be explored. The Amazonian countries all rely on hydropower as one of the most important
providing ecosystem services. How energy is generated from stream flow is explained in the next
paragraph.

2.1 Hydropower
Water as a source for power has been used for a very long time already. The ancient Greeks, for
instance, used the power of falling water to run mills to turn wheat into flour. The first hydro station
which produced electricity was constructed in Cragside, England in 1870. Since the construction of this
power plant the technology has improved significantly, and more countries made use of water as a
source for their electricity supply. At the Grand Rapids in Michigan the first commercial hydropower
plant was constructed and in use to produce energy for the lighting of small franchises. In the beginning
there were only small hydropower stations which produced just enough energy for a couple of
households (IRENA, 2012).

At present, the range of hydropower plants is rather wide. Most commonly, hydropower plants are
divided and classified according to their size, or installed capacity. This is the maximum amount of
energy which a hydropower installation can generate according to the hydraulic head and the
availability of water, as explained further later. The installations are found in a range from pico (less
than 5 kW), micro (5 - 100 kW), small (100 kW - 1 MW), medium (1 - 10 MW) to large (10 MW or more)
installations (IRENA, 2012). The difference between the smaller and larger hydropower installations is
the amount and size of their turbines. The larger the discharge of a river is, the higher the capacity of
a turbine has to be. Furthermore, hydropower plants can also be classified by type, which is bound to
its purpose and functionality. The combination of the type and size gives an indication on the
production possibilities of the power plant. In fact, there are three types of hydropower generating
systems, namely: run-of-river hydropower plants (ROR), conventional reservoir hydropower plants and
pumped-storage hydropower plants.

2.1.1 Run-of-River installations

These stations do not have a reservoir at all, or the reservoir is very little and cannot cope with seasonal
variability. If the station is provided with a small reservoir, this storage is usually called a 'pondage'.
This small storage capacity can often only cope with daily discharge variability and is mainly used to
create a static hydraulic head. Therefore, the energy production of this installation is closely correlated
to the river discharge.

As the ROR system is highly dependent on the discharge and variability of a river they are less ideal for
cities or high energy demanding industries. Another negative feature of this system is that when inflow
is too high for the turbine capacity, water has to be spilled and production has to be lowered or ceased
completely to prevent damage to the turbines and flooding. In dry periods, the possibility can occur
that water inflow is too low for any electricity production to take place. However, the major advantage
of such a system is that it is easily constructed at low costs. Furthermore, both the environmental
impacts and the socio-economic impacts are low, as a ROR system does not inundate a large area and
does not block any fish migrating routes.

2.1.2 Conventional Reservoir Installations

These power plants consist of a dam which makes it possible to store potential energy. Water can be
stored in a lake when inflow is high and demand for energy is low. The stored water can be used later
in the year when the inflow can be low and the demand for energy is higher.

In contrary to the ROR system, the timing of energy production can be decoupled from the timing of
the wet season or glacial melt. This major advantage makes it possible to have a fairly constant
production of electricity throughout the year. For example, during the wet season in the Amazon, river
discharge is huge and there is high inflow into the reservoir lakes. However in the dry season the
availability of water is significantly lower, whereas in this period the demand for energy is high due to
the frequent use of air-conditioning. Therefore, to ensure sufficient energy and electricity supply, the
large rivers in the Amazon Basin are regulated so that the winter high flows can be used in summer
high demands.

2.1.3 Pumped-Storage Reservoir

The same as for the regulating reservoir systems, these hydropower plants make use of a dam and
therefore store potential energy for future demand. The difference, however, is that these stations are
situated to ensure stability on the energy grid and to deliver energy during, unforeseen, high peak
demands. The main advantage of such a system is that it is high in flexibility, energy can immediately
be generated when needed and stored when demand is low. In contrary to the conventional
hydropower plants, these systems consist of two reservoirs. The lower reservoir stores water that
during low demand periods, e.g. night-time, is pumped to the reservoir which lays further upstream.
During peak demands the higher reservoir will release water to increase supply of energy. A part of
the energy that is generated by both the lower and higher reservoir is used to pump water from the
lower reservoir back into the higher reservoir. Furthermore, this system is often used in combination
with other renewable energy resources. Solar and wind power can be used to generate energy to pump
water from the lower to the higher reservoir and when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing
the water stored in the higher reservoir can be used to generate energy to cope with unforeseen peak
demands in low supply periods of the other renewables.

2.1.4 From Water to Watt

Figure 2 shows a schematic overview of a conventional hydropower station. It consist of a dam and
uses a reservoir. The advantage is that downstream inundation events can be prevented and that
energy can be generated when demand is highest.
Figure 2: Schematic overview of a conventional hydropower station
Source: IRENA, 2012

The dam can have multiple intake gates which draw water into a penstock when opened. Due to
gravitational acceleration the water is sucked into these pipes and is forced towards a surge chamber.
This chamber reduces the risk of surges which could damage the turbine. The water eventually will
reach the blades of the turbine, and will force the turbine to spin. The head together with the flow
rate, or hydrological circumstances, determine the choice for a certain turbine. The turbine which is
most often used is the Francis Turbine, it is high in efficiency and can be used on a wide range of flow
rates and head (IRENA, 2012). Another turbine which is most common is the Kaplan Turbine. Which
turbine is chosen depends on the amount of discharge and the hydraulic head. Figure 3 shows which
turbine is the most suitable for each situation.

Figure 3: Graph to choose the best suitable turbine type.

Source: IRENA, 2012
The turbine is fixed to a generator by a shaft and this is where the actual electricity is created. A
hydropower generator works generally the same as a conventional bicycle dynamo: electric currents
are generated as magnets rotate around a copper center.

In the next step in this process, the created current is converted to a higher voltage by the transformer
which is located in the powerhouse. This is done to make long distance energy transmission possible.
Via transmission lines the energy is transported to towns and cities, where the electricity is converted
back to a lower voltage to make household use possible. The creation of new transmission lines and a
new grid can be a planning hurdle and is reasonably expensive. Moreover, the transmission of energy
is a substantial contributor to energy loss as well. Therefore, the location of a hydropower complex is
of great importance.

The final step in this process is the water leaving the hydropower plant. The outflow leaves the plant
through tailraces and the water goes back into the river and continues its way downstream. Most
hydropower stations also consist of a spillway. This emergency drainage canal is necessary in
hydrological systems which have high unpredictable peaks in inflow. In other words, the amount of
water is too great for the installed capacity of the hydropower plant. Therefore it has to be spilled
without passing through the turbines. As a result, damage to the turbines is prevented (IRENA, 2012).

The advantage of hydropower plant systems is that they usually have a long lifetime. It depends on the
component within the complex on what the lifetime exactly is, however it ranges from 30 to 80 years.
Another advantage is that an installation can be improved and expanded, for instance; new turbines
can be integrated to increase efficiency. Additionally, efficiency can also be increased by improving the
total hydrologic system regulation. An example is found in Brazil, where Eletrobrás did a research on 5
major hydropower stations which are planned to regulate the Tapajós river in such a way that the
river's flow will be as constant as possible and that, as a consequence, the electricity output is stable
as well. Through such a regulation system it is possible to plan run-of-river hydropower plants
downstream which will have a more constant power production due to upstream discharge
regulations.

All in all, hydropower is a straight forward way of producing energy by the use of water. The potential
energy production of a hydropower plant is proportional to the vertical drop of water, i.e. the hydraulic
head, and the amount of water mass or discharge of a river. The hydraulic head depends on the
difference in elevation between the point of intake and the point of outlet. For the ROR-system, the
hydraulic head is usually created by a small pondage, with no storage capacity. The water goes always
into a penstock at the same height. As a result, the hydraulic head is a constant and the energy
production is directly related to the flow of water. The pumped-storage and reservoir installations do
both make use of a dam to store potential energy. The construction of a dam increases the hydraulic
head and therefore the energy production potential of an installation. The different types of
hydropower systems have their own advantages and disadvantages. However, each type uses the
same conventional technique to produce electricity. The hydraulic head usually is static, therefore; the
energy production is strongly related to the inflow and availability of water. The common equation [1]
to calculate the amount of energy which can be generated by hydropower, is:

𝑃 =𝑄×𝐻 × 𝑔×𝜂 [1]

where, P is the energy production in Mega Watts, Q is the discharge of a river in m3/s-1, H is the
hydraulic head in meters and g the gravitational acceleration (constant of 9.81 m/s2). 𝜂 is the efficiency
of the turbine, which is set to 90% for low head hydropower plants and 95% for high head hydropower
plants (USDI, 2005). Therefore, relative changes in energy production are equal to relative changes in
runoff and river discharge.

There is a difference in the actual generated power and the potential energy which can be generated
by the exiting power plants. The potential energy which can be generated by existing hydropower
plants is equal to the installed capacity. The installed capacity will almost never be met, as this is the
maximum possible production of energy. This happens only when conditions are ideal, i.e.; the inflow
of water is continuously at its maximum, the generators all function appropriately and at full capacity,
the outflow can be maximized as well, etc. Note, that the maximum inflow, or Q, in this calculation is
the annual discharge divided by the number of days in a year. In other words; the installed capacity is
equal to the daily mean discharge of a river times the hydraulic head, gravitational acceleration and
the efficiency factor of an installation.

2.2 Energy Sector

The total net energy consumption in South-America has increased by almost 40% in ten years, from
about 623 TWh to 870 TWh in the period of 1999 to 2009 (EIA, 2009). The average share of the larger
Amazonian countries, i.e. Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, Peru and Venezuela, in the total South American
energy consumption is nearly 67% for the same period. This makes the Amazon region the major
consumer within South America. Rising demand for energy often leads to an increase in supply as well.
Extracting energy gets economically and technically more attractive and feasible when demands are
high (Rogner, 2012). As these countries do not own vast amounts of fossil fuel deposits, which are
accessible and extractable at present conditions, they are forced to look for other resources to
generate energy.

A resource which is abundant in this region is water. Historically seen, hydropower is the largest
contributor in the provision of energy. Even now, hydropower is the major source for electricity in
South-America (EIA, 2009). The share of hydropower in the total energy generation for 2009 was 80%
for the Amazonian countries. The increase of energy generation by hydropower for the last 20 years is
over 98%, of which 50% increase has been established in the first ten year period (1989-1999) and an
increase of 33% in the second ten year period (1999-2009)(EIA, 2009). The total energy generated by
hydropower plants in South-America was approximately 684 TWh in 2009 of which circa 535 TWh has
been generated in the Amazon Basin only (EIA, 2009).

In 2009 the installed capacity of all hydropower plants in the Amazon basin was almost 935 TWh (EIA,
2009). The net generated energy was somewhat over 57% of the installed capacity, which is fairly high
for hydropower plants (IRENA, 2012). Furthermore, the mean capacity factor1 for the Amazon in the
25 year period of 1984-2009 was 52,7%. This factor can be linked to reasonably constant conditions in
Amazonian hydrology. The figures that are found for the trends in energy use, supply and the role of
hydropower are shown in table 1.

1
The factor of the actual output of a power plant to the potential output of that specific power plant. A power
plant can be designed to have a large installed capacity, but a small capacity factor. In this way it can cope with
peak demands if needed (IRENA, 2012).
Table 1: Figures on Energy for the Amazon
Increased Net Consumed Energy (1984-2009) 146,7 %
Increased Net Generated Energy (1984-2009) 154,5 %
Hydropower share of total generation (25 year avg.) 83,1 %
Increased Hydropower Net Generated Energy (1984-2009) 150,4 %
Increased Installed Capacity (1984-2009) 129,9 %
Capacity Factor (1984-2009 avg.) 52,7 %
Hydropower [Amazonas % of Total SA] (1984-2009 avg.) 77,1 %
Hydropower % of total consumption for Brazil (1984-2009 avg.) 94,4 %
Energy Consumption Brazil in 2009 418 TWh
Hydroelectricity production Brazil in 2009 387 TWh
Source: EIA (2009)

As found in table 1, the importance of hydropower for Brazil is obvious. Historically seen, Brazil
depends on this renewable resource, and for future energy security they will as well. To exemplify,
about 89 feasibility studies for new hydropower installations are found. Most of these studies are
environmental impact assessments and are usually conducted by energy companies (Hurwitz et al,
2013). Of these 89 studies; 12 are under construction, 58 are planned for construction and 19 are
inventoried (Hurwitz et al, 2013).

The construction of new hydropower plants both has positive and negative impacts. The increase of
energy production and energy security are necessary for the Amazonian countries. This is mainly
caused by the combination of population increase and economic growth (Bellevrat, 2012). The largest
shareholder in energy demand remains the transport sector (50%), followed by the industry sector
(40%). Due to high urbanization rates the demand for energy is projected to increase even further
(Bellevrat, 2012). This causes the Brazilian government to explore more possible locations for
hydropower. The downside, however, is that the construction of a new plant has large socio-economic
and environmental consequences (Carvalho, 2006; Sperling, 2012). A good overview and comparison
of the environmental impacts of different ways of power generation is found in a report of the IEA
(2000).

The impact of the construction itself depends on the location. First of all, forest has to be removed to
provide space for the hydropower complex. There is a large difference in building a hydropower
complex in the heart of the Amazon or near a city. The removal of primeval rainforest will cause more
biodiversity loss than the removal of shrubs or mixed vegetation. Another reason for this, is that
supplies need to be transported to the hydropower plant. This causes the construction of roads;
another driver of logging. These roads can make it easier for farmers to move into the forest (Betts et
al, 2008). This is an indirect environmental impact of the installation’s construction. Furthermore,
when a hydropower complex consists of a reservoir, the environmental impacts are substantially
larger. Not only will it influence fish migration, as the effect of fish ladders is not proven, but the
construction of a dam also causes an upstream inundation effect (Pelicici & Agostinho, 2012). Usually,
large forest areas are flooded to create a storage reservoir to cope with stream flow variability.
Consequently to this flooding is a high release of methane (CH4) from degrading inundated vegetation.
This has led to several discussions and studies on how green this way of energy generation actually is
(Aurelio dos Santos et al, 2006; Giles, 2006; DelSontro et al, 2010; Steinhurts et al, 2012). Moreover,
in these flooded areas normally also live native tribes and other indigenous people. They are forced to
leave the area in which they have been living for decades, centuries or more. These grounds usually
are sacred to them, as their forefathers lay buried here. Even though the indigenous people are
compensated for their relocation, they do not have an education or an idea how to function in a
modern society, which can have social consequences when they move into a city.

2.3 Problem definition

Hydropower is and will remain the main source of energy for the Amazon, and especially for Brazil. As
energy demand is expected to increase in the coming decades, many new hydropower dams are
planned or already under construction. The construction of these new dams requires huge
investments. Small hydropower installations investments costs range typically between 1.300 – 8.000
USD/kW. Whereas with large hydropower plants the investments costs range from 1.050 up to 7.650
USD/kW. Moreover, the maintenance costs are a percentage of the investments cost per kW. These
percentages range for large and small hydropower plants from 2-2,5% and 1-6%, respectively (IRENA,
2012).

Obviously, potential hydropower production strongly relates to hydrological circumstances. Although,

there is research done on the effects of land use change and climate change on hydrology for this
region (Bruinzeel, 1990; Hernandez, 2000; Costa et al, 2003; Malhi & Wright, 2004; D'Almeida et al,
2007; IPCC, 2007; Li et al, 2008; Nuñez et al, 2008; Marengo et al, 2008; Malhi et al, 2008; Marengo et
al, 2010a; Marengo et al, 2010b; Rodriguez, 2010; Neill, 2011; Langerwisch et al, 2012), there is a lack
of studies which compare the relative importance of both processes for the impacts on hydropower
potential. This research presents a sensitivity analysis on the contribution of land use change and
climate change to changes in runoff, translated to changes in gross hydropower potential.

In addition, construction companies who develop plans for new hydropower installations are dealing
with a lot of criticism and protests due to substantial environmental, social and economic impacts.
Although conducted feasibility studies consist of an analysis of historical discharge data (THEMAG,
2004), it usually does not include a range of possible future discharge projections for the upcoming
century. As the hydrological circumstances can change, it is of importance for these companies to
explore the range of possible future discharge.

2.4 Aim of the research

The main objective of this research is to provide a spatial and temporal analysis of the relative
contributions of land use change and climate change to changes in hydropower production potential
in the Amazon basin. This objective is met in two phases. First, to get a general idea of the trends that
these changes cause; the focus is on changes in Gross Hydropower Potential (GHP) for the entire
Amazon. GHP is defined as the potential energy which can be produced when all available runoff in a
certain area is harnessed for energy.

The main research question which arises from this phase is:

 "What is the relative importance of individual contributions of land use change and climate
change on the hydrological regime of the Amazonian rainforest and what will the consequences
be for Gross Hydropower Potential?"

Next, in the second phase of the research the focus lies on three selected locations. At these locations
hydropower plants are already constructed or planned for construction. The focus is on these locations
as this study aims to evaluate the importance to include future discharge projections in a feasibility
study.

The available data in combination with the importance of hydropower for the different Amazonian
countries leads to a focus on Brazil. The analyses which are done on a smaller scale focus on
Hydropower Production Potential (HPP). HPP is defined as the possible installed capacity. This allows
a comparison between historic installed capacity and future installed capacity.

To answer the main question, it is divided into the following sub questions:

 “What is effect of 20% and 100% deforestation on the mean daily discharge, and what is the
influence on the seasonality of stream flow?”

 “What is the range of the effects of climate change following the B1- and A2-scenario on the
mean daily discharge, and what is the influence on the variability of seasonality?”

 “What is the effect of the combination of 20% deforestation and climate change following the
A2-scenario on the mean daily discharge, and what is the influence on the variability of
seasonality?”

Finally, there will be a comparison between an estimation of historic and future production potential
of these selected locations. The last question that is answered is:

 “What is the theoretical consequence of the combination of 20% deforestation and climate
change following the A2-scenario for hydropower production potential?”

2.5 Outline of the research

This research is done in several steps. An overview of existing literature is presented in chapter 3. In
this chapter a conceptual model is sketched to visualize the steps which are taken to conduct this
research. In chapter four the methodology is described. In this chapter the models, data and
experiments are explained. Results are presented in chapter 5, followed by a discussion and the
conclusions of the research.

3 Scientific Background
The conceptual framework which is followed in this research is shown in figure 4. The drivers trigger
an increase in production of goods and energy, which causes land use and climate to change. As a
consequence, these changes affect runoff response and alterations in terrestrial water input. On their
turn, the new circumstances become the input into the LPJ-ml model, which is explained later, and this
model calculates the amount and timing of runoff and discharge. Eventually, this data can be
interpreted and processed to allow an analysis of their impact on Gross Hydropower Potential (GHP)
and Hydropower Production Potential (HPP).
Figure 4: The Conceptual Framework

As explained later, both land use change and climate change will impact runoff patterns and the
amount and timing of discharge. In the next paragraphs, each box of the conceptual framework is
described and research which is conducted on the specific topics is reviewed.

3.1 Drivers of change

Ever since people moved into the Amazon rainforest they have been part of the forest river system.
However, the intensification of agriculture and the vast expansion of arable land made humans a factor
in the changing hydrological circumstances.

As the continent of South America mostly consists of countries with an economy in transition, the
pressure on ecosystems is increasing. Driven by a strengthening economy, consumption will increase
and demand for food and energy will result in even more deforestation (IPCC, 2007; IUFRO, 2009).
Mainly due to logging, the Amazonian rainforest has declined to about 80% of its original size already
(WHRC, 2012). The most recent pressure on the ecosystems and its services are especially caused by
expansion of arable areas and cities, and changes in climatic circumstances (Camill, 2010). Both a
change in diet and an increase in population lead to more consumption and demand and therefore
more food and energy will have to be produced (Coe et al, 2009). Feed and fodder are important
drivers for land use change and therefore land cover conversion. Farmers tend to move further into
the Amazonian rainforest and replace the forest for agricultural land, influencing the hydrological
circumstances in the process. The possibility for farmers to move into the former forested areas is
provided and triggered by the construction and expansion of planned roads (Betts et al, 2008).

Similarly, the drivers for land use change lead to climate change as well. However, these drivers are
not as local as with land use change. Global increase in energy demand and food demand cause more
emissions of greenhouse gasses (GHG) and lead to a global warming of our planet, as to changes in
regional climatic circumstances (IPCC, 2007).

Summarizing, it is clear that the Amazonian rainforest is under a lot of pressure by expanding
agriculture, logging and climate change (Costa & Foley, 1999; Costa et al, 2003; D'Almeida et al, 2007;
Nepstad et al, 2008; Malhi et al, 2008; Coe et al, 2009; Da Silva Soito & Vasconcelos Freitas, 2011;
Marengo et al, 2011; Davidson et al, 2012). The main drivers for these trends are population growth
and strengthening economies. A larger population results in more mouths to feed and more energy
that will be consumed. In addition, the strengthening of economies result in a change in diet and
energy demand and will increase the pressure on the environment even more (McAlpine, 2009; Msangi
and Rosegrant, 2011).

3.2 Land Use Change

As a result of increased demand for food and energy, arable land is required. For Brazil this will mainly
trigger land use changes within their own borders. Forests are converted to pasture for grazing, or crop
fields for biofuel, or fodder and food production. These changes in land use will influence the land
cover and this will have impacts on hydrological circumstances, e.g. runoff and discharge.

In general, the amount of runoff of a specific area is the result of the balance between the precipitation
and the evaporation of this area. The type of land cover, i.e. vegetation type, which is found in a certain
area determines the amount of evaporation, and therefore influences the total runoff (Jackson et al,
2005; Piao et al, 2007; Nourein, 2012). As an example, the change in runoff due to forest conversion
to grassland is caused by a lower leaf are index, shallower rooting depths, higher surface albedo and a
lower surface aerodynamic roughness (Costa et al, 2003). As a result, the vegetation evaporates less,
so more water will end up as surface or groundwater runoff (Germer et al, 2010). Furthermore, the
holding capacity of the soil will also decrease due to the conversion of tropical rainforest into grassland.
The fact that the leaf area is decreased has as a consequence that the litter input is also lower. A
thinner litter layer results in less infiltration and for that reason an increase in surface runoff to rivers
(Zhang et al, 2001; Costa et al, 2003).

In studies which focus on small scale land cover conversion (< 1km2), the relationship between
deforestation and runoff tends to be positive, meaning; more runoff with high deforestation rates
(Hernandez, 2000; D'Almeida et al, 2007; Neill, 2011). However, on a larger scale (< 100km 2), such
relationships are usually not found (Bruinzeel, 1990; Costa et al, 2003; Rodriguez, 2010). This is mainly
caused by compensating effects in a complex catchment, where multiple different land use changes
are found, e.g. deforestation and afforestation (Fohrer et al, 2001).

In a research done on the entire Amazon basin by Costa and Foley (1997), a projected increase in mean
annual discharge of 16%, due to complete forest and cerrado conversion to pasture, was found. In
addition, not only a change in mean annual discharge can be expected when land cover is altered, but
a change in extremes as well. In extreme rainfall events, the lowered infiltration rate and water holding
capacity of the soil will enhance the high peaks in river discharge by replacing sub-surface runoff by
surface runoff. The lowered infiltration rate and holding capacity also induces the removal of a time
lag, which is normally caused by the recharging of groundwater aquifers. Hence, providing a natural
prevention of inundation threats. In contrary, stream flows in the dry season decrease for the reason
that the groundwater aquifers are not recharged (Costa et al, 2003).
Additionally, Costa et al (2003) found that a significant part of the changes in discharge could not be
related to changes in precipitation, and therefore could be explained by changes in evapotranspiration,
i.e. changes in vegetation cover. Furthermore, Costa et al (2003) found that the interaction between
land cover change and climate variability is also a source for discharge variations. This implements that
land use change in combination with changes in precipitation can amplify changes in runoff. Other
more recent studies, agree with Costa et al (2003) that a relationship is found between changes in the
hydrological system and changes in land cover type (Hernandez, 2000; Farley et al, 2005; D'Almeida et
al, 2007; Piao et al, 2007; Coe et al, 2009; Mueller, 2009; Neill, 2011).

3.3 Climate Change

As a consequence of more production of goods and energy; more greenhouse gasses (GHGs), mainly
CO2, CH4 and N2O, are pumped into the atmosphere by fossil fuel combustion and land use change.
The concentration of, for example, CO2 has increased from 280 parts per million in the preindustrial
period to 379 parts per million in 2005 (Rogner et al, 2007). As a consequence, the average
temperature on Earth has increased by 0.74°C ± 0.18°C in the last 150 years (IPCC, 2007). Similarly to
global changes, it is projected by several researchers that the climate which is found in tropical
Amazonia today will be altered as well. As a result, the annual mean temperature will increase and
both the amount and patterns of precipitation are projected to change (Malhi & Wright, 2004; IPCC,
2007; Li et al, 2008; Nuñez et al, 2008; Marengo et al, 2008; Malhi et al, 2008; Marengo et al, 2010a;
Marengo et al, 2010b; Langerwisch et al, 2012). Accordingly, hydropower is principally vulnerable to
changes in precipitation (Markoff & Cullen, 2008).

The amount of precipitation and eventually discharge of the Amazonian rainforest shows inter-
decadal, inter-annual, annual and seasonal variability; mainly driven by the variation in sea surface
temperatures in the tropical oceans (Ronchail et al, 2002; Marengo et al, 2011). The warming of the
East-Pacific seawater is triggered by El Niño events, causing the Walker Circulation to fail. This
circulation is connected with Northern Hemisphere circulations in the extra-tropics which normally
causes the flow of moisture into the Amazon. Due to the change of these events, droughts can be
caused in the Amazon as they did in 1962, 1963, 1998, 2005 and 2010 (Lewis et al, 2011; Marengo et
al, 2011). Besides extreme events, the Amazonian rainforest has a rather stable climate. Historic data
analysis shows that precipitation follows a clear seasonality in a wet and a dry season. In contrary, for
temperature no seasonality is found, as it remains quite constant around the year. In addition to the
seasonal and annual variability in the Amazon, the decadal variability is also important. The two most
important studies found are from Li et al (2008) and Marengo (2004, 2009). Both studies look at
historical data and focus on what trend in precipitation changes can be found in the Amazon. Li et al
(2008) found that there is a downward trend in annual rainfall looking at a shorter time period (1970-
1999) than Marengo (2004). For the latter analysis Marengo (2004) looked at a period of 1929-1998.
This is the main difference between the studies, as it became clear in the research of Marengo (2009)
that there is an inter-decadal variability found in the amount of precipitation of the Amazonian
rainforest. The difference in time scale showed no agreement of a negative or positive trend for the
entire Amazon, only a slight downward and larger upward trend in the northern and southern Amazon,
respectively. However, in both studies a downward trend was found in inter-decadal variability during
the period of 1970-1999 for the southern Amazon (Li et al, 2008) and mid-1970s-1998 for the northern
Amazon (Marengo, 2004).
Furthermore, there are also studies looking at projected rainfall data for the Amazon. Projected
precipitation in this region is particularly a challenge for GCMs. No agreement on a straight forward
trend is found in other studies, so no consensus is found on changes in total precipitation. However
the IPCC (2007), for instance, shows a decline in rainfall in the eastern Amazon, as do other researchers
as well (Malhi et al, 2008; Marengo et al, 2009). In contrary to eastern Amazon, researchers disagree
upon other regions within the Amazon. Despite there is no consensus on the total yearly precipitation
changes which are projected, there is more agreement on the changes in seasonality and seasonal
variability. More researchers do agree upon an increase in variability between seasons; especially drier
periods in the dry season and more consecutive dry days. Moreover, the rainy season tends to get
wetter, but on the other hand the amount of precipitation will decline at the end of the rainy season
(Meehl et al, 2007; Malhi, 2008; Marengo, 2009).

As a result of the increases in temperature, changes in precipitation and the changes in

evapotranspiration the amount of runoff is also influenced. As runoff is the result of the balance
between precipitation and evapotranspiration, and both these features consist of uncertainty there is
a wide range of projections for actual changes in runoff. Nonetheless, the relationship between the
amount of precipitation and runoff is straight forward. For instance, a decline in precipitation,
neglecting any land use and temperature changes, results in a decline in runoff as will an increase in
rainfall relate to an increase in runoff. In contrary, when evapotranspiration increases, then runoff
decreases, disregarding changes in precipitation.

3.4 Land Use Change and Climate Change Interactions

The interactions of land use and climate change take place on different scales and levels. It is known
that climate change can have an effect on global vegetation distribution (Marengo et al, 2011). Each
vegetation type needs certain climatic features to survive. Logically, changes in these features can
cause vegetation to degrade or change. Therefore, it is also important to monitor the regional climate
changes all around the world as the changes can have negative, or positive, effects on crop growth.
Besides the effects on crops, also natural vegetation is influenced by climate change. Longer and more
frequent dry or wet periods can increase the pressure on natural ecosystems. The most important
influential features in this are the strength and timing of these changes. For example, a forest can cope
with a dry spell or a year with significantly less precipitation. However, when such events occur in
multiple sequential years or when the durance of a dry season has increased for a too large extent,
forest die-back can occur (Aragão, 2008; Cochrane, 2008; Malhi, 2008).

Possibly a less obvious interaction is that changes in land cover can have a direct effect on regional and
eventually global climate as well. For instance, a small contributor is the slash and burn technique,
which is often executed in rainforests. This way of clearing forests is a direct source of carbon into the
atmosphere. In contrary, a large contributor is large scale deforestation and logging. This has led to an
additional 1.2 pg C/year into the atmosphere for the period of 1997 to 2006 (Van der Werf et al, 2009).
This amount was about 12% of the annual increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Half
of the CO2 emissions caused by deforestation come from forest fires, the remainder can be attributed
to respiration of leftover materials (Van der Werf et al, 2009).

Furthermore, changing the land use type natural vegetation -in this case tropical rainforest- into
pasture or arable land changes the albedo, evapotranspiration and both sensible and latent heat
fluxes. Therefore, after land conversion the influence of the new land cover on mostly, regional climatic
circumstances is still noticeable (Malhi et al, 2008; Coe et al, 2009). Especially in the tropical rainforest
this is the case, as the range of the recycling rate of moisture lies within 20-35% (Brubacker et al, 1993;
Eltahir & Bras, 1994; Costa & Foley, 1999; Trenberth, 1999). Coe et al (2009) also argue that the
deforestation caused in the Amazon will affect the climatic patterns for the entire Amazon, depending
on the scale and the location of forest removal. In their literature review and their own research,
D'Almeida et al (2007) agree that changes in discharge are determined by the amount and the
distribution of deforestation. Figure 5 shows the schematics of their analysis and the climate and land
use interactions, together with results in runoff. However, there is no consensus on the effects of
deforestation on regional climate yet.

Figure 5: Interactions among land use change, climate change and runoff.
Source: D'Almeida et al (2007)

Despite the importance and the strength of the mentioned feedbacks, the influence of the changes in
vegetation on climate are beyond the scope of this research. This interaction is neglected in this study
as the separate strength of the contribution of the two to the change in river discharge is compared.
However, note that the estimation of hydropower production can be an over or under estimation of
the actual future changes. Alternatively, the trend which is shown for the decoupled parameters is of
importance to select the right size and type of hydropower installation.

4 Methodology

4.1 Models and Data

For land use change, the Conversion of Land Use and its Effects (CLUE) model is used to simulate the
effects of a changing world on land use in the Amazon (Verburg & Overmars, 2009; Verburg, 2010).
The run that is done with CLUE is comparable to the A1 scenario described in the 4AR of the IPCC
(2007). For climate change, this study uses two different scenarios: the SRES B1 and the A2 scenarios
as realized by three Global Circulation Models (GCMs); ECHAM, IPCM4 and CNCM3 The outcome of
climatic circumstances, together with the CLUE output, serve as input for a dynamic global vegetation
and hydrology model: the Lund–Potsdam–Jena managed Land, LPJ-mL model (Gerten et al, 2004; Rost
et al, 2008; Biemans et al, 2011). This model allows to quantify both the combined and the separate
contribution of land use and climate change to the changes in terrestrial runoff and discharge of rivers.
Figure 6 shows the methodological framework.
Figure 6: Methodological Framework

4.1.1 LPJ-mL-model
The output of three climate models and the CLUE run serve as input for a dynamic global vegetation
and hydrology model: the Lund–Potsdam–Jena managed Land, LPJ-mL model (Bondeau et al, 2007;
Gerten et al, 2008; Rost et al, 2008; Biemans et al, 2011). This model is designed to simulate the global
water and carbon balances, including the dynamics of both natural and agricultural vegetation. The
model runs on a spatial resolution of 0.5° by 0.5° and is validated against 300 basins´ discharge
observations by Biemans et al (2009). The calculation of the water balance includes snowmelt, soil
evaporation, precipitation, transpiration, interception loss, percolation, runoff and discharge. To
calculate the carbon balance, ecosystem processes as net primary production, litter and soil organic
matter turnover, disturbances, mortality, resource competition, carbon allocation and vegetation
(re)growth are simulated.

The managed land part of the dynamic model for vegetation is based on the growing season per crop
type, which regards a sowing and harvesting date. These dates are yearly determined by both crop and
climate specific thresholds, regarding temperature and/or precipitation. The managed land module is
added later to LPJ. This allows to run the model with actual or projected land use.

The framework consists of a number of modules or sub-models which contain formulations of different
ecosystem processes with distinct temporal and spatial characteristics. The climatic input that LPJ-mL
uses contains information on: global atmospheric CO2 concentration, daily mean temperature, daily
precipitation, daily radiative forcing. and soil physical properties (Sitch et al, 2003). In order to use LPJ-
mL, it first runs for a 1000 years spin-up. The simulation starts off with bare ground and uses historical
climate data. This climate data should cover a couple of years with some inter-annual variability and
without any clear trends. As a consequence, after the spin-up time LPJ-mL moves towards an
equilibrium state for both the carbon cycle and the water cycle. Then, in the next phase; observed
climate data can be used as input. In the last phase, future values of climatic input are used to simulate
future vegetation cover. A more detailed description of the LPJ-mL model is found in the study of Sitch
et al (2003). A schematic representation of how the water balance is computed per grid cell is shown
in figure 7. The amount of runoff and eventually the amount of discharge per grid cell is the result of
the balance of precipitation and evapotranspiration. The schematics in figure 7 explain how LPJ-mL
calculates the changes in discharge if a variable within this calculation procedure changes.
Figure 7: Schematic representation of the water balance computed for each grid cell.
Source: Gerten et al, 2004.

In 2008, LPJ-mL was extended with a routing module by Rost et al (2008). This module computed the
daily transitional discharge volume for each 0.5° grid cell. To simulate the transport directions within
LPJ-mL, Rost et al (2008) make use of a drainage direction map called DDM30, derived from (Döll &
Lehner, 2002). This network topology assumes that each grid cell can drains into one of the eight
neighboring cells. The routing added by Rost et al (2008) implies that each grid cell is considered to
have a surface water storage pool which changes over time and provides the user of LPJ-mL with daily
numbers.

Recently, LPJ-ml is further extended with a reservoir module by Biemans et al (2011). For their study,
they added a reservoir and an irrigation module, which both affected the seasonal timing of discharge
and the amount of water that was locally available (Biemans et al, 2011). The reservoir module is based
on the operational function of each specific reservoir. An optimization algorithm was used to optimize
reservoir outflow. This algorithm makes use of information on inflow, the demand of downstream
water users and reservoir evaporation. Because the functionality of each reservoir is known, this
scheme can be used for all reservoirs with a specific purposes; irrigation, flood protection, hydropower,
water supply and navigation. It is even possible to include multiple purpose reservoirs in this module.
Moreover, it not only simulates the outflow of each reservoir, but it also simulates extractions from
the reservoir itself. The module considers the year that a reservoir is built, therefore it is possible to
use this module to study the impacts of reservoir dams over time.

4.1.2 Scenarios B1 and A2

The climate change projections are based on two different SRES scenarios used for AR4 of the IPCC
(2007). These two scenarios are chosen, because the difference in global development between the
two is the most extreme. As a result, this allows an analysis of the range of possible impacts of climate
change on the hydrology of the Amazon and therefore on the hydropower production potential.

B1 The B1 scenario describes a converging world with a population growth that will reach its peak
around 2050. This scenario sees a quick change in economic structures, as the economy will be
knowledge intensive and based on services. Technical changes will result in high energy efficiency with
a focus on clean renewable energy. There will be a decrease of materialism and the use of materials
will be less as well. The overall focus of this scenario lays on social, economic and environmental
sustainability. Emission wise, this results in a low concentration of CO₂ and therefore a small alteration
of the global climate.

A2 In contrary, this scenario describes a world which will become very heterogeneous. The
difference in economic strength of regions throughout the world will increase and the gap between
the center and periphery will increase as well. Due to the increasing differences, the cultural and social
interactions among regions will be low. Independency and local identity are two important features in
this future sketch. The population will remain to increase in the A2 scenario as the compared birth
rates of regions will know a slow conversion. The economy of rich countries will strengthen further
and the poor countries will remain to produce for the rich countries. As a result of an economy that
focuses on more production and quick growth, the emissions will rise. Therefore, climatic changes and
impacts will be high.

4.1.3 CLUE-model
The CLUE-model simulates land use change based on empirically quantified relationships between
driving factors and land use types in combination with the dynamic modeling of the competition for
certain land use types (Verburg, 2010). The model consists of two distinct modules, a non-spatial and
a spatial module. The first module calculates the demand for a certain land use type by looking at
changes in food and energy demand. The changes in food and energy demand are based on models
which range from simple extrapolations to complex economic models. Second; the allocation module
calculates were the changes in land use are most likely to occur. The allocation procedure includes
both spatial and empirical analysis in a dynamic modeling framework, shown in figure 8.

Figure 8: Modeling Procedure of the CLUE-model

Source: Verburg & Overmars, 2009.

The results of the CLUE-model are visualized in maps that can be analyzed in a GIS-environment.
However, CLUE uses different land use types than LPJ-ml does. Hence, the output which is retrieved
from the CLUE-model needs to be converted to allow it to be used as input for the LPJ-mL model. The
following five variables, table 2, were the result of the CLUE run and are converted to the third column
which displays the land use types that LPJ-mL uses:

Table 2: Converted Variables

CLUE: LPJ-mL:
1. Forest no need to convert
2. Pasture convert to Grassland
3. Soya convert to Soybean (not irrigated)
4. Sugarcane convert to Sugarcane
5. Cerrado no need to convert
6. Degraded convert to Grassland

The changes in land use are found in figure 9, which shows clear marks of deforestation. Most of the
forested areas that are changed, are converted to grassland. The grassland areas are expanding mostly
from the east of the Amazon to the west. Furthermore, it is clear that the pattern shows some sort of
an oil stain spreading effect. The areas which are covered by grassland expand further. Especially in
the south and around the city of Manaus and Santarem, the agricultural areas are projected to cover
an extended area. The pink (soya) and purple (sugarcane) show a clear increase in the amount of land
cover, as well. Both grassland and forest make way for the expansion of arable land. Moreover, land
use change is projected to occur close to the Madeira and Tapajós rivers.

Figure 9: Land use change; upper right 2005 and lower right 2030. Grey area shows the coverage of
climate change data.
4.2 Experiments
Multiple runs, shown in table 3, are conducted to answer the research questions. These runs are based
on experiments which allow to assess the impacts of climate and land use change. In total, four runs
are done with LPJ-mL:

1. B1 climate change, no land use change

2. A2 climate change, no land use change

3. A2 climate change, 20% deforestation

4. A2 climate change, 100% deforestation

All four runs are conducted for 141 years, running for the period of 1960 to 2100. The 30 year period
of 1971-2000 of the first 2 runs is used as the reference run. In this period the climate for both scenarios
is the same and land use is based on 2005 data. The different runs provide daily and monthly data on
runoff per grid cell for the spatial analysis. The effects of land use change are tested by comparing the
mean daily discharge of the 1971-2000 period of the reference run with the 1971-2000 period of the
20% and 100% deforestations scenarios. As the climate remains the same in the historical period for
all runs, the changes in runoff are solely determined by changes in land use. The relative changes are
expressed as changes in Gross Hydropower Potential (GHP), the reason for this is explained later. The
expected result is that the GHP will increase somewhat as the hydrological response of certain areas
is altered. Especially areas with high percentages of deforestation are expected to show positive trends
in discharge. Similarly for the 100% deforestation scenario it is expected that the runoff will increase
even more.

For the climate runs the comparison is done between the historical 30 year period (1971-2000) and
the last 30 year period (2071-2100). For this comparison the land use does not change, so that the
changes in runoff and thus in GHP can be fully attributed to climate change. Two different scenarios
are used to compare the strength of climate change to the changes in discharge and hydropower
production. The expected result is that there is an increase in GHP due to increases in precipitation.
Moreover, regional differences are expected as well, as the Amazon shows spatial variations in climate
and especially in amount and timing of rainfall.

In addition, there are also runs conducted which are influenced by both changes in land use and
climate. This is done to see what the effects are if the changes are combined. The expectancy is that
the outcome will follow the enhancing effect which is found in literature (Costa et al, 2003). This
implies that the parameters enhance each other, as water input increases due to more precipitation
and the runoff response is altered as well. Furthermore, the third run is a plausible future with extreme
deforestation and extreme changes in climate. Therefore, the effects that the combined changes can
have on discharge are analyzed for the reason that this research tries to stress the importance of
integrating future discharge projections in a hydropower plant’s feasibility study.
Table 3: Conducted Experiments
CC 1971-2000 B1: 2071-2100 A2: 2071-2100
LUC AVG AVG AVG
Land Use in 2005 Reference Run Sensitivity to Climate Sensitivity to Climate
Change Change
20% Deforestation Sensitivity to LUC Combined Combined
100% Deforestation Sensitivity to LUC Combined Combined

For the B1 scenario in combination with land use changes there is no spatial analysis as this is tested
by the more extreme scenarios. However, this experiment is included in the site specific analysis. As a
consequence, this provides the possibility to compare if the combination of land use and climate
changes show an enhancement of the trends. Eventually, LPJ-mL provides daily and monthly discharge
data for specific sites, which are described later. The contribution of the parameters to changes in the
discharge are clarified even more when analyzing the site specific data.

4.3 Methods
The final step in the methodological framework is the calculation of changes in Gross Hydropower
Potential (GHP) and Hydropower Production Potential (HPP). Multiple studies which estimate the
impact of changes in discharge to changes in hydropower production were found (Muñoz & Sailor,
1998; Lehner et al, 2005; Baltas & Karaliolidou, 2010; Koch et al, 2011; Andrade et al, 2012). Some of
these studies look at the vulnerability of hydropower to climatic variability and changes, and analyze
these impacts through hydrographical output of GCMs forced by certain scenarios (Fekete et al, 2010;
Raje & Mujumdar, 2010; McPhee et al, 2010). In contrary, the effects of land use change on the
vulnerability of hydropower production is less researched. Furthermore, most of these studies differ
on how they link changes in discharge patterns to changes in actual potential production. Some studies
find a relationship in historical data by correlating discharge data to energy production (Muñoz &
Sailor, 1998; McPhee, 2010; Andrade et al, 2012). In their study, McPhee et al (2010) use the equation
retrieved from this relationship for the estimation of the effects of changes in future flow regimes on
future hydropower production (McPhee et al, 2010). They concluded that the annual mean discharge
data showed better correlation than the monthly, this was caused mainly by correcting for extreme
values with the use of annual data. Besides, other researchers, Raje & Mujumdar (2010), explored
reservoir performance under climate change conditions. They used performance parameters related
to the reliability and vulnerability of a storage reservoir to changes.

Despite the fact that some small scaled studies provide reasonable accurate estimates on changes in
energy production, all researches do agree upon the difficulty of relating changes in discharge to
changes in potential energy production (personal contact: prof. dr. Weingartner, mr. Hänggi PhD, dr.
Schaedler, dr. Kao, mr. Hurwitz). Regardless, the estimations of the changes in trends on energy
production is often sufficient enough to use for impact assessments. Fekete et al (2010), for instance,
use the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment scenario drivers as their starting point. While using multiple
equations and assumptions they assess potential locations for new hydropower installations. From
their equations and analysis of existing reservoirs they obtained an empirical relationship between
reservoir inflow and outflow based on a long term mean inflow. In other words, mean long term annual
inflow is outflow and via the known equation [1] they estimate changes in HPP. This research uses this
relationship as well for the selected reservoir hydropower plants.
Other research; Baltas & Karaliolidou (2010) and Koch et al (2011), analyze climate change impacts on
hydropower on a small basin scale, the Ilarion reservoir in northern Greece and the Upper Danube
Basin, respectively. They both make use of a reservoir model to project the most efficient outflow
regime for the most stable hydropower production throughout the year and compare historical and
future energy production data. They agree with Fekete et al (2010) that mean annual outflow can be
related to long term mean annual inflow, however they include a minimum and maximum threshold
to cope with extremes. It is assumed in this study that the reservoirs can cope with the extremes,
therefore no thresholds are used.

Moreover, Lehner et al (2005), did a more general study on the impacts of global changes on
hydropower potential in Europe. The methods for the spatial analysis in this research are derived from
the methods explained by Lehner et al (2005). In short, hydropower potential can be divided in several
terms. First, the gross hydropower potential; defined as the potential energy which can be produced
when all available runoff in a certain area is harnessed. Second, the technical hydropower potential;
the energy that could be generated under current technical knowledge and conditions. Third, the
economic hydropower potential, which includes the costs of other competitive ways of energy
production. Last, the exploitable hydropower production which also integrates the environment and
other restrictions. The technical, economic and exploitable hydropower analysis are out of the scope
of this research, as these analyses need site specific environmental impact assessments and cost
benefit analysis.

For each step in the terminology of Lehner et al (2005), the potential production will decline as more
restraints are added to the equation. An assumption in this research is made that the trends found in
the changes in hydrological circumstances are the same for each step in the terminology of Lehner et
al (2005). Therefore, the spatial analysis is on the Gross Hydropower Potential as this parameter gives
an idea of the impacts of global changes on hydropower production. Another important assumption is
made that changes in energy production are the same as the relative changes in runoff. For instance,
a 10% reduction in runoff is associated with a 10% reduction of energy production, which is also
derived from the research of Lehner et al (2005).

The change in GHP gives an idea of the influence that land use change and climate change can have on
potential future energy production. It creates the possibility to compare the separate contribution of
the two parameters. However, it only says something on the gross potential. This method also includes
sites where no hydropower is or will ever be situated. Therefore, within the spatial analysis there is a
focus on hydropower plants which are in use, under construction, planned for construction or
inventoried. In addition, a selection of three locations is made to provide information on the actual
impacts of the changing parameters on developed hydropower. This strengthens the evaluation of the
contribution of land use and climate change.

4.3.1 Site Selection

Two criteria are formulated to find the right locations to analyze. First and foremost, on the location
the construction of a power plant has already started or the construction is planned in the near future.
All in all, at least a feasibility study is conducted for the specific sites; mainly done by the government
or energy companies (e.g. MME, 2011; Eletrobrás). The second criterion is that the hydropower plant
is of importance to a large region or city, in other words; its production capacity should be higher than
3000 Mw. The three locations that were selected are: Belo Monte, São Luiz do Tapajós and Santo
Antônio (figure 10). The upstream drainage area per installation is marked in the same color as the
hydropower plant to understand the importance of these rivers. All three sub-basins are located in the
south of the Brazilian Amazon, however, all are influenced by different amounts of land use change
and are also influence by regional differences in climate change.

Figure 10: Selected Sites

The Belo Monte dam will become the largest hydropower installation in Brazil. It has an installed
capacity of 11,233 Mw and is planned to be operational in January 2015 (MME, 2011). The complex
will consists of three dams in total. All three dams create reservoirs to regulate downstream river flow
to both prevent inundation events and to allow a constant hydropower production. The minimum
outflow of the Belo Monte is set to 700 m3/s-1, to ensure a minimum impact on downstream water
users (MME, 2011). This set threshold exceeds the previous 80 years recorded minimum inflow of 400
m3/s-1 (MME, 2011). The environmental impacts for the construction of the Belo Monte complex are
quite substantial, as an area of 400 km2 will be flooded (MME, 2011). Furthermore, around 5100 people
will have to move elsewhere due to the realization of this project (MME, 2011).

The installed capacity of the Tapajós complex will be 6133,4 Mw and will consist of 33 Kaplan turbines.
In the future it can be expanded to 7880 Mw. For now, it is projected that the annual production will
be around 29.500 Gw (Eletrobrás). It is a reservoir installation which will be part of a large network of
multiple hydropower plants of which Tapajós is the first one to be operational in 2016 (Eletrobrás).
The inundated area is projected to be over 780 km2. The drainage area of the Tapajós is quite
substantial and is projected to be influenced by a range of land use changes and climate changes.

In contrary to the Belo Monte and Tapajós complex, the Santo Antônio installation does not consist of
a dam or a reservoir. This complex is a run-of-river hydropower plant and will have a small pondage,
however the storage capacity is negligible. A part of the upstream river system finds its origin in Bolivia.
Due to the fact that only the land use data of Brazil is available, the changes in runoff response are
somewhat skewed. Therefore, the changes which are found for this complex are mainly caused by
climate change. The Madeira river, on which this complex is built, drains 35% of the Andes which
results in a high hydropower potential. In total, this drainage area covers 988,87 km2. The installed
capacity is 3150 Mw and it is already partly constructed and operational (Santo Antônio Energia, 2009).

Despite the differences between the hydropower plants the analyses that are conducted remain
mostly the same. First of all, the standard statistics are compared. Such as; mean discharge, standard
deviation, minimum, median, maximum, skewness and coefficient of variation (CV). This gives an idea
if the hydrograph for the sites changes. This can be of importance for reservoir regulation. Second, a
trend analysis is done on annual, inter-annual and inter-decadal variability in Hydropower Production
Potential (HPP). This analysis is especially important for both the Belo Monte and the Tapajós complex,
as it affects reservoir regulation management. The reservoirs are created to cope with seasonal and
annual variability in stream flows, however research shows that the Amazon region is also influenced
by inter-decadal variability in precipitation and thus in runoff (Marengo, 2004; Li et al, 2008). High
variability can implement both longer periods with low reservoir levels and longer periods with
spillage, as these reservoirs probably cannot cope with large inter-decadal variability. This indicates
variation in energy generation as well, which makes an installation less reliable.

The HPP is calculated by using the mean daily discharge for each year as the Q in equation [1]. Changes
in mean daily discharge, therefore, result in changes in HPP. A running mean of 10 years is included to
analyze the variability. Thirdly, the mean monthly figures for the different experiments are compared
as well. The purpose of this analysis is to compare the results of this study with other studies as well
as to compare the contribution of land use change and climate change (Nóbrega et al, 2011). Last of
all, an analysis is done on the changes in the Flow Duration Curve (FDC) for Santo Antônio. Hydropower
potential for ROR-systems is usually calculated by the FDC (Vogel & Fennessey, 1995; Akıntuğ 2012;
Basso & Botter, 2012). Using high and low flow thresholds, it is possible to compare historical
hydropower production potential with future hydropower production potential. Obviously, this is only
done for the Santo Antônio site. For this analysis the method which is used is derived from (Lehner et
al, 2005). The maximum threshold is set to the second highest mean monthly discharge value of the
reference run average (Lehner et al, 2005). The minimum threshold is set to the 5th percentile of daily
discharge of the historical 30 year period. It is assumed that the 5th percentile is enough to cope with
the needs of downstream water users.

5 Results
5.1 Climate Models Comparison
The climate models provide LPJ-mL with climatic circumstances which result in a range of discharge
values for both daily and monthly time steps. The output of the three models is summed and the
average of this outcome is used for analysis. In annex I the graphs showing the model comparison are
grouped for the B1 and A2 scenario. The three models show different variability for the three specific
sites. However, the general trend is that the IPCM4 models shows higher extremes in both high and
low peak inflow. This is the case for both the B1 and A2 scenario. In addition, the CNCM3 scenario
generally results in an overestimation of discharge in context of the model’s averages. Whereas the
ECHAM model mostly underestimates in context of the model’s average. Besides, the models all show
higher variability in estimation for the A2 scenario; the range of both high and low peaks is more
extreme.
5.2 Spatial analysis
Figure 11 an 12 show the relative changes in Gross Hydropower Potential (GHP) caused by climate
change and land use change, respectively. The figures each consist of two maps. Figure 11 shows the
B1 scenario (upper) and the A2 scenario (below). Figure 12 displays the 20% deforestation land use
change scenario (upper) and the 100% deforestation land use change scenario (below).

The changes in GHP for the B1 scenario, show high variability throughout the Amazon. The western
part of the Amazon shows large increases of at least 40% up to 80%. The green area which shows the
increase is mainly influenced by the Andes. In contrary, the heart of the Amazon shows a relative
decline in GHP. Here, the largest decrease in GHP that is found is up to 20%. Two other areas that show
decreasing trends are the south-west and the middle-southern part of the Amazon. Between these
lighter parts, however, an increase is projected. The map shows that the rivers which drain the Andes
show an increase in discharge and therefore GHP, as they are influenced by the dark green area. The
Amazon river, from west to east, first shows an increase. As the river flows further east, the increase
is partly corrected by the decreasing reddish area in the heart of the Amazon. When more tributaries
end up in the Amazon, less relative changes are found.

Moreover, there are also areas showing almost no relative changes between historical and projected
GHP. This trend is especially visible in the south-east of the region. Furthermore, the middle-eastern
part of the Amazon, close to the mouth, shows an increase. All in all, the GHP is projected to increase
by 20% for the B1 climate change pathway.

Figure 11: Relative changes in Gross Hydropower Potential for the two climate change scenarios
compared to the reference run.

The second map in figure 11 shows the changes in percentage of GHP following the A2 scenario relative
to the reference run. The regional differences are even more visible in for this projection. The range of
change is very wide, as the eastern part of the Amazon shows relative increases in GHP to the reference
run up to 160%, while the heart of the Amazon shows an decrease of up to 20%. The western part,
near the Andes, spreads out further into the Amazon. It covers quite a large area, which also shows in
the increasing trend which is found on the Amazon river. Between the dark green area in the west and
the reddish area in the center, a relative increase of around 40% is projected. The decrease in the heart
of the Amazon spreads all the way up to the south-eastern part, east of the dark green area situated
in the south. The latter mentioned area also shows a large increase in GHP, with percentages up to
160%. The GHP for the entire Amazon is projected to increase by 28,3%, although there are some areas
showing a decrease. The strength of the increasing trends is higher than the decreasing values.

The influence of land use change on runoff is concentrated especially in the south-east of the region.
The upper map in figure 12 reveals the effects of 20% deforestation on the hydrologic response. The
pattern of deforestation found in figure 9 is also apparent in this map. The entire area close to the
Andes is not considered in this analysis, as no simulation of land use change is available for this area.
The conversion of vegetation in the south-western tip of the Amazon shows a decrease of runoff. A
decrease can also be found further due west where decreasing trends by up to 10% are projected. This
is caused by the conversion of grassland to arable land, for the reason that arable land probably uses
more water than pasture. Additionally, a relative increase in GHP is found somewhat west of the
Tapajós river. A horizontal stroke passing through the Madeira river shows an increase in runoff of
approximately 20%. Furthermore, an increase in runoff is found near the mouth of the Amazon river.
At the point where the Tapajós mouths into the Amazon an increase of around 10% is projected due
to land use changes.

Figure 12: Relative changes in Gross Hydropower Potential for the two land use change scenarios
relative to the reference run.

The range of change for the 100% deforestation scenario is somewhat less. Most areas where land use
change is expected show an increase in surface runoff by up to 10%. The only decrease in GHP found
for this scenario is found in the south-east of the Amazon region. Between the two largest tributaries
of the Tapajós river, an area which shows a decreasing trend of 5% is visible. Overall, complete
deforestation, where forest is converted to grassland, will have a positive effect on GHP. However, this
is a theoretical relationship, which disregards numerous side effects, feedbacks and consequences of
complete deforestation.

Additionally, figure 13 shows the combined effect of climate change and land use change. This map
visualizes the relative changes between the A2 scenario climate change run and the A2 scenario
climate change run with 20% deforestation. Figure 13, therefore shows the relationship between
climate change and land use change when compared to the map in figure 12 (upper). Other areas show
increasing trends than found in the 20% land use change run. Whereas, the areas which show an actual
increase are more widely spread and cover a larger area. Especially to the west and south-east of Porto
Velho, an increase is found. In contrary, the south-eastern edges of the map show larger areas with
decreasing trends in GHP. The changes found in this figure can be added to the climate change run
following the A2 scenario and gives an idea of a plausible future. The combination of the two changing
features results in an increase of GHP for the entire Amazon region. The decline of GHP in some parts
of the region are corrected by larger increasing trends in other parts, resulting in an average increase.

Figure 13: The relative changes in Gross Hydropower Potential between the A2 scenario with no LUC
and the A2 scenario with 20% deforestation (2030 relative to 2005).

Figure 11, 12 and 13 also provide a projected situation for hydropower plants which are in use, under
construction, planned and inventoried (further referred to as explored hydropower). The color of the
circles are related to the status of the hydropower installation. Whereas the size of the circles coincides
with the capacity of each plant.
The changes in GHP gives an idea on how the changing features influence the hydropower production
in the Amazon. However, no explored hydropower is found in the areas showing large changes in GHP.
The concentration of explored hydropower is situated in the south-east of the Amazon region. For each
hydropower station the relative changes in mean annual discharge for all runs is found in Annex II. The
hydropower stations which show the largest increase and decrease in hydropower potential are shown
in table 4. Table 4 also shows the average changes for all explored hydropower for all runs.

Table 4: Largest and average relative changes of all runs to the reference run for hydropower stations
which are in use, under construction, planned or inventoried (in table: explored).
Run Trend Hydropower Plant Coordinates Capacity Change
Latitude, (in Mw) (in %)
longitude
1 B1 Decrease Cotingo 4, -60.5 136 -8,1
Average Explored Hydropower -- 764,6 15,7
Increase Curua-Una -2.75, -54,5 30 40,7
Foz do Aru -2.75, -54,5 40 40,7
2 A2 Decrease Cotingo 4, -60.5 136 -12,4
Average Explored Hydropower -- 764,6 18,2
Increase Curua-Una -2.75, -54,5 30 46,3
Foz do Aru -2.75, -54,5 40 46,3
3 20 % Decrease Garganta da Jararaca -3.25, -13.5 29 -2,6
Deforestation Average Explored Hydropower -- 764,6 1,5
Increase Carua-Una -2.75, -54,5 30 9,3
Foz do Aru -2.75, -54,5 40 9,3
4 100% Decrease Garganta da Jararaca -3.25, -13.5 29 -2,8
Deforestation Average Explored Hydropower -- 764,6 1,5
Increase Apertadinho -12.5, -60.5 30 4,4
5 Combined Decrease Cotingo 4, -60.5 136 -13,3
A2 +20% Average Explored Hydropower -- 764,6 20,1
Deforestation Increase Carua-Una -2.75, -54,5 30 57,5
Foz do Aru -2.75, -54,5 40 57,5

Table 4 shows that the most important contributor to changes in GHP and explored hydropower is
climate change. The relative changes for all runs for both decreasing, increasing and the average trends
are the most extreme for the climate change scenario. However, the combined changes show an even
larger relative change in GHP and explored hydropower. Besides, the explored hydropower stations
with the highest installed capacity (>3000 Mw with an average of 5129,2 Mw) show increasing trends
of 16%, 19,7%, 0,7%, 0,9% and 20,5%, for runs 1-5 of table 4, respectively.

5.3 Site Specific Analysis

5.3.1 Belo Monte
The general statistics, displayed in table 5, show a general increase in discharge for the Belo Monte
hydropower complex. The values show a comparison between a historic (1971-2000) and a future
(2071-2100) 30 year period for daily discharge. The indicators min, mean and max show an increase
when the reference and future run are compared.

The data for both periods shows a wide range of discharge values. The minimum and maximum inflows
differ substantially. Whereas the median for both periods lays more on the left side of the normal
distribution curve. Comparing the median with the mean reveals that the data contains more values
of lower inflow, this is also confirmed by the positive skewness of 0,4 for both periods. This implies
that there are fewer high than low values. However, these high values correct the high amount of low
values in such a way that the mean daily discharge still increases by 24,6%. The distribution of the data
does not change at all, as the skewness and the coefficient of variance remain fairly the same. The
standard deviation in context of the mean is for both periods near to 100%, which indicates that almost
all discharge values lay within the two times standard deviation measurement.

Table 5: General Statistics Belo Monte, historic and future period.

Statistics Reference (1971-2000) A2 + 20% Deforestation (2071-2100)
Min 3
145,02 m /s -1
310,72 m3/s-1
Median 10.794,98 m3/s-1 10.945,35 m3/s-1
Max 39.855,20 m3/s-1 50.872,37 m3/s-1
Std. Dev. 13.974,59 m3/s-1 17.679,23 m3/s-1
Mean 14.678,69 m3/s-1 18.294,76 m3/s-1
Skewness 0,40 0,40
CV 95,2% 96,6%

The long term mean daily discharge is coupled to the production of energy in figure 14. The variation
in discharge which is found for the historic period is also projected to occur in the future. The inter-
annual variability of wet and dry years does not show a clear trend. Figure 14 also shows the difference
between the average Hydropower Production Potential (HPP) for the two periods. Both averages lay
well above the installed capacity of the Belo Monte dam. Whether the reservoir of this complex is able
to cope with such a surplus and variability in inflow is not clear. Note that the dashed red line displays
the 10 year running mean. This line indicates the inter-decadal variability which is projected to increase
as well. A large increase for a period of 30 years is seen between 2005-2035 and a drop in discharge
occurs after that. Then the running mean shows an increase again with no real downward trends. The
running mean shows that the inter-decadal variability is projected to increase.

21500

19500

17500

15500
P (in Mw)

13500

11500

9500

7500
1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100

Energy Production Average (1971-2000) Average (2071-2100)

Installed Capacity Running Mean (10 yr.)

Figure 14: Inter-annual and inter-decadal variability of Hydropower Production Potential (HPP) for the
A2 scenario with 20% deforestation (2030 relative to 2005). The dashed red line shows the increase in
inter-decadal variability for the Belo Monte hydropower plant. The HPP is projected to far exceed
designed installed capacity in the future.

For the Belo Monte complex, the contribution of land use to changes in future hydropower production
is negligible. Figure III-1 in annex-III shows that only climate change is projected to have an influence
in the total annual discharge. For the Belo Monte dam it is estimated by the three GCMs, that the
increases in discharge for the B1 scenario will be higher than the increases for the A2 scenario.
Moreover, a comparison of monthly data shows that the 100% deforestation scenario does have some
effect on river discharge and energy generation. The combination of the A2 climate change pathway
with 100% deforestation shows an enhancement of the projected increases. The strengthening is well
visible in figure III-6 in annex III.

Assuming that the reservoir of the Belo Monte can cope with the increases in mean daily discharge,
the energy production will follow this trend. Table 6 shows the possible increases in both discharge
and in potential future installed capacity, or HPP. At full work load the Belo Monte is projected to
generate 133,38 Tw/h per year, which is an increase of 24,6% compared to the 1971-2000 reference
period.

Table 6: Projected changes in Hydropower Production Potential for the Belo Monte hydropower plant.
Belo Monte g H Ƞ Qmean P Change Change
(in m/s2) (in m) (in %) (in m3/s-1) (in Mw) (in Mw) (in %)
Reference 9,81 89,3 95 14.678,69 12.216,07
Run 3.009,40 24,6
A2 + 20% 9,81 89,3 95 18.294,76 15.225,47
Deforestation
Source hydraulic head: MME, 2011

5.3.2 São Luiz do Tapajós

The amount of discharge is projected to increase for the Tapajós river and therefore for the São Luiz
do Tapajós hydropower complex. The general statistics, summarized in table 7, show an increase in
minimum, mean and maximum discharge values. The minimum annual discharge value only increases
with a negligible amount, which can be disregarded while comparing it to the mean annual discharge
found for Tapajós. The latter, however, increases by 3001,58 m3/s-1, which is 19,3% of the historical
mean daily historical discharge. In energy production terms, this is a large increase that is found for
the Tapajós hydropower plant.

Besides, the median increases as well. As a consequence, the skewness of the distribution of the
projected data shows a decline in comparison with the skewness of the reference run. The distribution
is still skewed to the right, which implies fewer and a wider range of high values and a smaller range
and abundance of lower values. Furthermore, both the mean value and the standard deviation
increase approximately by the same magnitude. For this reason, the coefficient of variation does not
change much.
Table 7: General Statistics São Luiz do Tapajós, historic and future period.
Statistics Reference Run (1971-2000) A2 + 20% Deforestation (2071-2100)
3 -1
Min 136,80 m /s 212,29 m3/s-1
3 -1
Median 10.788,52 m /s 11.242,16 m3/s-1
Max 41.730,94 m3/s-1 46.612,51 m3/s-1
3 -1
Std. Dev. 14.700,63 m /s 17.449,52 m3/s-1
Mean 15.543,20 m3/s-1 18.544,78 m3/s-1
Skewness 0,42 0,33
CV 94,6% 94,1%

Figure 15 shows that climate change in combination with land use change is projected to increase the
inflow of the Tapajós river. However, the graph also shows that the inter-annual variability is projected
to increase. The differences between high and low peaks become larger, especially in the periods of
2001-2030 and 2050-2065.

The difference between the historical average and the installed capacity is quite large. This may imply
that the variability of the Tapajós river is harder to handle due to the smaller storage capacity of the
reservoir. Therefore, reservoir management can pose more of challenge. The variation in discharge is
also seen in the 10 year running mean. The dashed red line in figure 15 shows that the inter-decadal
variability is both apparent in the historical data and in the future data. A difference in hydropower
production of approximately 600 Mw is found between 1974 and 1982. After this period the
hydropower production shows quite a steady increasing trend. However, around 2030 a large decline
is projected. This decrease in energy production is also projected to occur at the Belo Monte dam and
probably has to do with an El Niño event (Marengo et al, 2011). Eventually, the energy production is
projected to surpass the installed capacity in around 2090. The average energy production for the last
30 year period is also projected to be higher than the installed capacity found for the Tapajós complex.

8500

8000

7500

7000
P (in Mw)

6500

6000

5500

5000

4500

4000
2100
1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

Energy Production Average (1971-2000) Average (2071-2100)

Installed Capacity Running Mean (10 yr.)

Figure 15: Inter-annual and inter-decadal variability of Hydropower Production Potential (HPP) for the
A2 scenario with 20% deforestation (2030 relative to 2005). The inter-decadal variability is projected
to increase, made visual by the dashed red line. The average HPP is projected to surpass the designed
installed capacity in the future.
The contribution of land use change can be disregarded while looking at the historical period. The
effects, visible in figure IV-1 in annex IV, show a minimal influence on annual discharge. The
contribution of land use change, especially 20% deforestation, is somewhat more apparent for the
future period. Climate change is clearly the larger contributor to changes in hydropower production.
However, no difference is found between the A2 and B1 scenarios. The B1 scenario even shows a larger
increase in discharge in the months of March and April than the A2 scenario does. Figure IV-2 in annex
IV shows that the wet season in this part of the Amazon is projected to get wetter. For the dry season
no real trend is found. In addition, the contribution of land use change becomes clear when it is
combined with the A2 scenario. The extreme land use change, 100% deforestation, scenario shows a
large effect on discharge in figure IV-6 in annex IV.

In figure 15 it already shows that the energy production for the Tapajós complex is projected to
increase caused by the future changes. A comparison between the reference run and the climate and
land use change run, shows that the energy production may increase by 19,3%. The total energy
production would increase up to 6.204,53 Mw or 54,35 Tw/h per year at full workload, as shown in
table 8.

Table 8: Projected changes in HPP for the São Luiz do Tapajós hydropower plant.
São Luiz do Tapajós g H η Qmean P Change Change
(in m/s2) (in m) (in %) 3 -1
(in m /s ) (in Mw) (in Mw) (in %)

Reference Run 9,81 35,9 95 15.543,20 5.200,29

A2 + 20% Deforestation 9,81 35,9 95 18.544,78 6.204,53 1.004,24 19,31
Source hydraulic head: Eletrobrás

5.3.3 Santo Antônio

The distribution of projected discharge values for the Santo Antônio complex shows a range of
changes. The minimum inflow of the 30 year average daily discharge is projected to decrease, in
contrary to the other selected sites. However, the maximum inflow value shows a large increase which
results in a large increase in mean daily discharge as well. The median for the reference run and the
future run remain fairly the same, while the mean increases. As a consequence, the skewness therefore
also increases. However, as both the mean and the standard deviation increase by the same
magnitude, the future discharge data remains a normal distribution. The last two indicators in table 9
show the minimum and maximum thresholds for the Santo Antônio hydropower complex. As this dam
is a run-of-river installation it cannot cope with extreme high and low flows.

Table 9: General Statistics Santo Antônio, historic and future period.

Statistics Reference Run (1971-2000) A2 + 20% Deforestation (2071-2100)
3 -1
Min 1.471,79 m /s 1.379,63 m3/s-1
3 -1
Median 21.293,30 m /s 21.580,63 m3/s-1
Max 68.259,80 m3/s-1 82.415,80 m3/s-1
3 -1
Std. Dev. 21.092,23 m /s 26.146,89 m3/s-1
Mean 26.202,44 m3/s-1 31.674,53 m3/s-1
Skewness 0,48 0,54
CV 80,5% 82,6%
FDC thresholds (Min-Max) 2.981,78 m3/s-1 61.757,33 m3/s-1

The Santo Antônio complex cannot deal with the inter-annual and inter-decadal variations. However,
the general increase in mean daily discharge is projected to increase over time which will have an
influence on energy production management, as seen in figure 16. The average of the 30 year historical
period coincides with the installed capacity, while the 30 years future average mean daily discharge is
projected to exceed the installed capacity by 658,15 Mw. Moreover, the peaks in inflow will get higher.
The projected years with relative low annual discharge will even exceed the installed capacity around
2080 and beyond.

5500

4500
P (in Mw)

3500

2500
2060
1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2070

2080

2090

2100
Energy Production Average Reference (1971-2000)
Average (2071-2100) Installed Capacity
Running Mean (10 yr.)

Figure 16: Inter-annual and inter-decadal variability of Hydropower Production Potential (HPP) for the
A2 scenario with 20% deforestation (2030 relative to 2005). The projected HPP far exceeds the
designed installed capacity for the Santo Antônio hydropower plant.

The production of energy for the Santo Antônio complex is directly related to the amount of discharge
at a certain moment. Figure 17 shows the changes in monthly discharge for the Madeira river. The
production of energy is projected to increase in the rainy season, especially for the period from January
to April. The increase of discharge at the end of the wet season is substantial. Moreover, figure 17
displays that climate change has a bigger impact on the changes in discharge than that land use is
projected to have. This is also determined by the fact that the drainage area of the Madeira river is out
of the land use change data, and therefore remains unmanaged.
 7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0

Reference Run LUC 20% Deforestation 1980s

LUC 100% Deforestation 1980s B1 Scenario 2080s No LUC
A2 Scenario 2080s No LUC A2 Scenario (2080s) with 20% Deforestation
A2 Scenario (2080s) with 100% Deforestation

Figure 17: Changes in monthly discharge for the Santo Antônio hydropower plant.

The production of energy for Santo Antônio will decrease with 6,5%. This is calculated by the flow
duration curve in figure 18. The amount of high flows increases in the future, whereas the median
remains the same. In the future, almost 20% of the time water has to be spilled to avert damage to the
hydropower plants’ turbines, as the maximum threshold is exceeded more often. In addition, also the
minimum threshold is not being met as often as for the reference run. This also has negative
consequences for energy production, as no energy can be produced at such low flows.

90000
80000
70000
Discharge (m3/s-1

60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Reference Run
2080s
A2 + 20% Deforestation
Reference 2080s Reference
Min

Figure 18: Flow Duration Curves Santo Antonio: Reference Run vs. A2 + 20% Deforestation (2030
relative to 2005). The utilizable discharge for energy production is projected to decrease as the
amount of discharge will surpass the maximum threshold more often.

The changes in extremes and in mean daily discharge lead to a decrease in energy production. The
calculations for the changes in future hydropower production are shown in table 10. The number of
days with utilizable discharge are projected to decrease in the future. This implies that there are less
days on which energy is generated, and thus also more days at which no energy will be provided by
the Santo Antônio hydropower plant. This means a reduction 61 days, where energy generation is
possible and this can increase pressure on the electoral grid.

Table 10: Projected changes in HPP for the Santo Antônio hydropower plant.
g H η QUtilizable P
2 3 -1
Santo Antônio (in m/s ) (in m) (in %) (in m /s ) (in Mw) Change
Reference Run 9,81 13,5 90 27.506,01 2.955,42 -190,86
323 days Mw
A2+20% 9,81 13,5 90 27.431,76 2.764,57 -6,5%
Deforestation 262 days
6 Discussion
The results of the spatial and site specific analyses, show a clear difference in the range of changes that
land use change and climate change can have on the hydrology of the Amazonian rainforest. The trends
found for climate change in other research do not fully agree with the trends found in this study.
Therefore it is hard to compare the results of the climate change runs to other conducted research.
However, this study agrees with the general conclusions of other researchers that the pattern in the
Amazon and the distribution of rainfall, resulting in runoff, is altered (Malhi & Wright, 2004; IPCC, 2007;
Li et al, 2008; Nuñez et al, 2008; Marengo et al, 2008; Malhi et al, 2008; Marengo et al, 2010a; Marengo
et al, 2010b; Langerwisch et al, 2012). The downward trend found in historic observations by Li et al
(2008) and Marengo (2004, 2009) for the northern and southern part of the Amazon is also projected
to happen in the future. Furthermore, this research agrees with the IPCC (2007), Malhi et al (2008) and
Marengo et al (2009), that the western Amazon is projected to receive more rainfall. Whereas the
south-east will be drier at the end of the 21st century. Additionally, the changes in future seasonality
and seasonal variability does show more of an agreement with other climate research. The variability
and differences between the amount of rainfall for the wet and dry season are projected to increase
in this study, which coincides with other findings. However, a decrease in runoff at the end of the wet
season is not found in this study, as it is in others (Meehl et al, 2007; Malhi, 2008; Marengo, 2009).

The differences in the projected changes for climate change can be explained by the uncertainties
related to the GCMs. In climate research the Amazon shows a large range in possible future rainfall
patterns. Besides, this research uses three different models to project future rainfall patterns and the
runoff response of the changes in climatic circumstances. If more input models were included in the
research, the trends and patterns would be somewhat different.

The effects of land use change which are found in this analysis agree with the trends that are found on
a smaller scale (Hernandez, 2000; D'Almeida et al, 2007; Neill, 2011). If the changes are scaled up to a
larger area the results do not show a substantial increase or decrease in runoff. This also agrees with
research conducted on larger scales (Bruinzeel, 1990; Costa et al, 2003; Rodriguez, 2010). The
relationship between land use change and runoff on different spatial scales can be explained by the
relationship between runoff response and land cover conversion. This study shows that the water
uptake relationship between rainforest, grassland and arable land ranks as follows: arable land > forest
> grassland. Therefore, in areas where forest is converted to grassland and where grassland is
converted to arable land; no clear trend between land use change and runoff response will be found
as the two conversions cancel each other out. If a research is done on local impacts of land use change,
trends are probably more obvious and easier to interpreted.

The land use change analysis gives only an idea of what the most important land conversion activities
would imply for the Brazilian Amazon. Only for this part of the Amazon data was available. Moreover,
the conversion to arable land was only divided in sugarcane and soya and not in other crops. This can
influence the runoff response of some areas, however; these two crops are seen as the most important
crops which are found for agricultural expansion.

Although there is a lot of spatial variability and this is strengthened by a more extreme scenario,
climate change will have a positive effect on Gross Hydropower Potential (GHP). Both the B1 and the
A2 scenario show mostly areas where the GHP is projected to increase. Possible locations for the
construction of hydropower plants are found in the mountainous areas in the west of the Amazon. The
Andes are known to have large differences in natural elevation and this in combination with an increase
in runoff, increases the Gross Hydropower Potential of the region. The GHP for the entire Amazon is
projected to increase by 20% and 28,3% for the B1 and A2 scenario, respectively. The explored
hydropower will also increase due to climate change. The increases in runoff in the areas where
hydropower is already found or where hydropower is constructed or planned for the near future can
increase energy generation. The positive impact on explored hydropower production is somewhat less
than the GHP, this is caused by a decrease in the south and south-east of the Amazon. The explored
hydropower will increase by 15,7% and 18,2% or 43,81 and 50,85 Tw/h per year at full workload for
the B1 and A2 scenario, respectively.

Land use change will have less of an influence on GHP. In general, forest conversion to grassland will
have a positive impact on GHP and explored hydropower production. Complete forest removal will
increase the GHP by on average 10%. The effect of 20% deforestation has somewhat less of an
influence. These impacts are more local and only found on smaller scale. On larger scale, the impact
of 20% deforestation is negligible. This is due to the relationship of water use of arable land, forest and
grassland. The relationship between forest conversion to grassland is positive, while forest or grassland
conversion to arable land (sugarcane and soya) is negative. On a larger scale the positive and negative
trends cancel each other out.

The combination of climate and land use changes shows an enhancement of the trends found by their
separate impacts. The areas which show an increase in GHP for the climate change scenarios show
even an even higher increase when land use change is also apparent. This also accounts for the areas
where a negative trend is found, as these areas show a higher decrease in GHP. The plausible run; the
combination between the A2 scenario and 20% deforestation, shows a general increase in both GHP
and explored hydropower. Only a few hydropower plants are projected to become negatively
influenced by the future changing features.

In addition, the site specific analysis shows a large increase in energy generation for the Belo Monte
and the São Luiz do Tapajós hydropower plants. However, the projected increase can only be realized
when reservoir planning is optimal and the reservoirs can cope with the vast increases in inflow.
Moreover, the future Hydropower Production Potential of the Belo Monte dam far exceeds the
planned installed capacity. This implies that a lot of discharge has to be spilled in order to prevent
damage to the turbines. It is seen as doubtful that the Belo Monte reservoir can cope with such
increases. The São Luiz do Tapajós installed capacity is eventually met in the future. Therefore, the
effects of the changes will be positive. For both the reservoir hydropower plants the inter-decadal
variation is also quite large. The differences in future energy production within 20 years can be of such
magnitude that regulation on such a time scale can be impossible.

In contrary, the Santo Antônio complex cannot cope with any inter-annual or inter-decadal variability.
The changes in discharge directly relate to changes in energy generation. As future HPP surpasses the
installed capacity, this hydropower installation will have to spill more water in the future. The number
of days with utilizable discharge will decrease by 59-61 days. This implies that supply from this
installation is not stable and certain anymore. Moreover, the possible future energy production for the
last 20 years of the 21st century is projected to be higher than the installed capacity for every year.
7 Conclusion
Concluding, the contribution of climate change to changes in Gross Hydropower Potential (GHP) and
Hydropower Production Potential (HPP) will be substantially higher than that of land use changes. Even
for the 100% deforestation run the effects are far more less than the impacts of a change in climatic
circumstances. The combination of the two changing features, however, does show a larger increase
in GHP and explored hydropower than when the parameters are separated. Generally seen, both
climate and land use change will have a positive effect on GHP. Also for the explored hydropower the
trend which is projected is positive. More important is if the specific hydropower plants can actually
cope with the projected increases in available water. If capacity expansion for these power plants is
possible, than energy generation can follow the increases which are found in the discharge values.
However, if not, than more water will have to be spilled in the future. This implies loss of potential
energy as the spilled water will not pass through the turbines. Furthermore, reservoir management is
expected to be a lot more difficult, because of the increasing of inter-annual and inter-decadal
variability. The differences within several years can be too large for a reservoir to cope with.
8 Recommendations
First of all, it will become easier to interpreted the outcomes of the changes in runoff and discharge
and the effects on hydropower production when a reservoir model is included. It is important to
simulate if a reservoir can cope with changes in the amount and timing of available water. Whereas
the conclusions will be easier to implement. Even so, this study stresses that a range of future
projections for possible changes in discharge should be included in a feasibility study. When
projections are included, other decisions would be made on the size and type of a hydropower
complex. Moreover, for feasibility studies it is better to use models which include land use and climate
change interactions. This provides a more usable range of results on what hydropower installations
have to deal with in the future. In addition, the spatial analysis gives a good overview of possible
suitable locations for hydropower plant construction. However, analyses should be done on the scale
of each site specific drainage area. The contribution for each land use type will become more apparent
and the difference in contribution as well. Moreover, as the contribution of climate change is of high
importance, such a study should also focus on regional climate changes. A focus on a smaller scale
should have the preference for feasibility and exploration studies.
9 Evaluation
The starting point for writing this thesis was somewhat chaotic and unstructured. The reason for this
was that the goals and objectives of the study remained unclear for some time. The struggling began
with how the research should be conducted; which datasets would be used, what models would be
ran etc. The origin of my educational background lays within the social sciences, this complicated
things even more. The communication with the supervisors taught me how different the ways of doing
research actually are. Discussing and planning became more easy while the understanding of the goals
and expectancies grew.

After two months of literature research it was still hard to structure the last part of this thesis. The link
from changes in discharge to changes in hydropower production were to theoretical for my taste.
However, it became clear to me that it was impossible to come up with hard numbers on changes in
hydropower production without a reservoir model. The acceptance of this set back took quite a while
as the search for possibilities continued. This changed after I contacted several scientists of whom I
had had read articles. In the end, I decided that the research was aiming at an exploration of the
possible contributions of the parameters to changes in runoff and not a focus on accurate changes in
energy generation.

Other problems relate to the gathering of data. It took a while to succeed in the conversion of the CLUE
output in order for it to be compatible with LPJ-mL. Afterwards, it became clear that the land use
change data and climate change data did not overlap completely. The land use change data was only
available for Brazil as the climate change data covered the entire Amazon. Eventually, this lead to the
selection of hydropower plants in Brazil. The exact locations, however, opposed more problems. First,
wrong hydropower stations were selected, the first ones were not covered by one or both of the two
changing parameters. Then, the precise coordinates were not accurate. The analyses done on this data
were therefore more of a practice than useful for the research itself. Lastly, the data analyses was quite
new to me. It took quite some time to figure out what analyses had to be done and how.

To conclude, I think that I started off with no understanding, whatsoever, of any model which I have
used. I am still a bit trapped in between these models. However, my understanding has grown
substantially and especially this way of doing research also allows me to be more critical towards other
researches. I think that I have completed the goals which I had set before writing the thesis. I wanted
to combine my social-economic background of my Bachelor with the skills and interest I gained during
met Master.

Pieter van Hout

10 References
Akıntuğ, B (2012). Lecture on Hydroelectric Power. Sustainable Water Resources. Civil Engineering
Program. Middle East Technical University. Northern Cyprus Campus. SEES 503.

Andrade, E.M., Cosenza, J.P., Pinguelli Rosa, L., Lacerda, G. & L. da Costa Laurence (2012). Sensitivity
of hydropower performance to climate change: A case study of a Brazilian Company. African Journal
of Business Management, Volume 6, Issue 32, p. 9250-9259, doi: 10.5897/AJBM11.2695 .

Aurelio dos Santos, M., Pinguelli Rosa, L., Sikar, B., Sikar, E. & E. Oliveira dos Santos (2006). Gross
greenhouse gas fluxes from hydro-power reservoir compared to thermo-power plants. Energy Policy,
Volume 34, Issue 4, p. 481-488. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2004.06.015.

Aragão, L.E.O.C., Malhi, Y. Barbier, N., Lima, A. Shimabukuro, Y., Anderson, L. & S. Saatschi (2008).
Interactions between rainfall, deforestation and fires during recent years in the Brazilian Amazonia.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, Volume 363, p. 1779-1785.
doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.0026.

Baltas, E.A. & M.C. Karaliolidou (2010). Land Use and Climate Change Impacts on the Reliability of
Hydroelectric Energy Production. Strategic Planning for Energy and the Environment, Volume 29, Issue
4, p. 56-73. doi: 10.1080/10485231009709883.

Basso, S. & G. Botter (2012). Streamflow variability and optimal capacity of run-of-river hydropower
plants, Water Resources Research. doi:10.1029/2012WR012017, in press.

Bellevrat, E. (2012). Climate policies in China, India and Brazil: current issues and future challenges.
IDDRI, Working Papers, Number 16/12, p. 18, Paris, France.

Biemans, H., Haddeland, I., Kabat, P., Ludwig, F., Hutjes, R.W.A., Heinke, J., Von Bloh, W. & D. Gerten
(2011). Impact of reservoirs on river discharge and irrigation water supply during the 20th century.
Water Resources Research, Volume 47, W03509. doi:10.1029/2009WR008929.

Betts, R.A., Malhi, Y. & J. Timmons Roberts (2008). The future of the Amazon: new perspectives from
climate, ecosystem and social sciences. Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society. doi:
10.1098/rstb.2008.0011.

Bondeau, A., Smith, P.C., Zaehle, S., Schaphoff, S., Lucht, W., Cramer, W., Gerten, D., Lotze-Campen,
H., Müller, C., Reichstein, M. & B. Smith (2007). Modelling the role of agriculture for the 20th century
global terrestrial carbon balance. Global Change Biology, Volume 13, p. 679–706. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2486.2006.01305.x.

Brubacker, K.L., Entekhabi, D. & P.S. Eagleson (1993). Estimation of continental precipitation recycling,
Journal of Climate, Volume 6, p. 1077-1089.

Bruinzeel, L.A. (1990). Hydrology of Moist Forests and the Effects of Conversion: A State of Knowledge
Review, Free University of Amsterdam, p.224.

Camill, P. (2010) Global Change. Nature Education Knowledge, Volume 3(10), p. 49.

Carvalho, G.O. (2006). Environmental Resistance and the Politics of Energy Development in the
Brazilian Amazon. The Journal of Environment Development, Volume 15, number 3, p. 245-268. doi:
10.1177/1070496506291575.
Cochrane, M.A. & W.F. Laurance (2008). Synergisms among Fire, Land Use, and Climate Change in the
Amazon. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, Volume 37(7), p. 522-527. Royal Swedish
Academy of Sciences. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-37.7.522.

Coe, M.T., Costa, M.H. & B.S. Soares-Filho (2009). The influence of historical and potential future
deforestation on the stream flow of the Amazon River - Land surface processes and atmospheric
feedbacks. Journal of Hydrology, Volume 368, p. 165-174.

Costa, M.H., Botta, A. & J.A. Cardille (2003). Effects of large-scale changes in land cover on the
discharge of the Tocantins River, Southeastern Amazonia. Journal of Hydrology 283; p. 206-217.

Costa, M.H. & J.A. Foley (1997). The water balance of the Amazon basin: dependence on vegetation
cover and canopy conductance. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, Volume 102, p. 23973-
23989.

Costa, M.H. & J.A. Foley (1999). Trends in the hydrologic cycle of the Amazon Basin. Journal of
Geophysics, Volume 104, p. 14189-14298.

CRU (2003). Climate data on 0.5x0.5 grid cells. Obtained from the Climatic Research Unit, University of
East Anglia.

Davidson, E.A., De Araujo, Artaxo, P., Balch, J.K., Brown, I.F., Bustamante, M.M.C., Coe, M.T., DeFries,
R.S., Keller, M., Longo, M., Munger, J.W., Schroeder, W., Soares-Filho, B.S., Souze Jr., C.M. & S.C. Wofsy
(2012). The Amazon basin in transition. Nature, Volume 481, p. 321-328. doi:10.1038/nature10717.

D'Almeida, C., Vörösmarty, C.J., Hurtt, G.C., Marengo, J.A., Lawrence Dingman, S. & B.D. Keim (2007).
Review: The effects of deforestation on the hydrological cycle in Amazonia: a review on scale and
resolution. International Journal of Climatology, Volume 27, p. 633-647. doi:10.1002/joc.1475.

DelSontro, T., McGinnis, D.F., Sobek, S., Ostrovsky, I. & B. Webrli (2010). Extreme Methane Emissions
from a Swiss Hydropower Reservoir: Contribution from Bubbling Sediments. Environmental Science
Technology, Volume 44, Issue 7. P. 2419-2425. Doi: 10.1021/es9031369.

Digital Maps of the World (undated). [website]: http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-maps/digital-

maps.html.

EIA (2009). Total Electricity Installed Capacity (Million Kilowatts). U.S. Energy Information
Administration. Independent Statistics & Analysis.

EIA (2009). Total Electricity Net Consumption (Billion Kilowatthours). U.S. Energy Information
Administration. Independent Statistics & Analysis.

EIA (2009). Total Electricity Net Generation (Billion Kilowatthours). U.S. Energy Information
Administration. Independent Statistics & Analysis.

EIA (2009). Total Renewable Electricity Net Consumption (Billion Kilowatthours). U.S. Energy
Information Administration. Independent Statistics & Analysis.

EIA (2009). Total Renewable Electricity Net Generation (Billion Kilowatthours). U.S. Energy Information
Administration. Independent Statistics & Analysis.
Eletrobrás (undated). Um novo conceito em hidrelétricas: Como o Sistema Eletrobrás usou o modelo
de exploração de petróleo em alto-mar para planejar as usinas do Tapajós. Ministério de Minas e
Energia, Brasil.

Eltahir, E.A. & R.L. Bras (1994). Precipitation recycling in the Amazon Basin. Quarterly Journal of the
Royal Meteorological Society. Volume 120, p. 861-880.

Farley, K.A., E.G. Jobbagy & R.B. Jackson (2005). Effects of afforestation on water yield: a global
synthesis with implication for policy. Global Change Biology, Volume 11, p. 1565-1576.

Fekete, B.M., Wisser, D., Kroeze, C., Mayorga, E., Bouwman, L., Wollheid, W.M. & C. Vörösmarty
(2010). Millenium Ecosystem Assessment in scenario drivers (1970-2050): Climate and hydrological
alterations. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, Volume 24, Issue 4. doi: 10.1029/2009GB003593.

Fohrer, N., Haverkamp, S., Eckhardt, K. & H.-G. Frede (2001). Hydrologic Response to land use changes
on the catchment scale. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Part B: Hydrology, Oceans and
Atmosphere. Volume 26, Issues 7-8, p. 577-582. doi: 10.1016/S1464-1909(01)00052-1.

Garreaud, R.D., Vuille, M., Compagnucci, R. & J. Marengo (2009). Present-day South American climate.
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, Volume 281, Issues 3–4, p. 180–195. doi:
10.1016/j.palaeao.2007.10.032.

Germer, S., Neill, C., Krushe, A.V. & H. Elsenbeer (2010). Influence of land-use change on near-surface
hydrological processes: Undisturbed forest to pasture. Journal of Hydrology, Volume 380, Issues 3-4,
p. 473-480. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.11.022.

Gerten, D., Rost, S., Von Bloh, W. & W. Lucht (2008). Causes of change in the 20th century global river
discharge. Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 35, L20405, doi: 10.1029/2008GL035258.

Gerten, D., Schaphoff, S., Haberlandt, U., Lucht, W. & S. Sitch (2004). Terrestrial vegetation and water
balance - hydrological evaluation of a dynamic global vegetation model. Journal of Hydrology, Volume
286, p. 252. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2003.09.029.

Giles, J. (2006). Methane quashes green credentials of hydropower. Nature, Volume 444, p. 524-525.
doi: 10.1038/444524a.

Hernandez, M. Miller, S.N., Goodrich, D.C., Goff, B.F., Kepner, W.G., Edmonds, C.M. & K.B. Jones
(2000). Modeling Runoff Response to Land Cover and Rainfall Spatial Variability in Semi-Arid
Watersheds. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Volume 64, p. 285–298. Kluwer Academic
Publishers.

Hurwitz, Z., Brizzio, F.G. & S.C. Santana (2013). Dams in Amazonia, Cooperation between International
Rivers, Fundación PROTEGER, ECOA. [online]: http://www.dams-info.org/en.

IEA (2000). Implementing Agreement for Hydropower Technologies and Programmes. Annex III.
Hydropower and the Environment: Present Context and Guidelines for Future Action. International
Energy Agency, Subtask 5, Volume II, p. 51-83.

IPCC (2007), Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M.
Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, p. 996 .
IRENA (2012). Renewable Energy Technologies: Cost Analysis Series. International Renewable Energy
Agency. Hydropower, Volume 1: Power Sector Issue 3/5. June 2012.

IUFRO (2009). Adaptation of Forests and People to Climate Change– A Global Assessment Report.
International Union of Forest Research Organizations; Union Internationale des Instituts de Recherches
Forestières; Internationaler Verband Forstlicher Forschungsanstalten; Unión Internacional de
Organizaciones de Investigación Forestal, Volume 22, p. 33.

Jackson, R.B., Jobbagy E.G., Avissar, R., Roy, S.B., Barrett, D.J., Cook, C.W., Farley, K.A., le Maitre, D.C.,
McCarl, B.A. & B.C. Murray (2005). Trading water for carbon with biological sequestration. Science,
Volume 310, p. 1944-1947.

Koch, F., Prasch, M., Bach, H., Mauser, W., Appel, F. & M. Weber (2011). How Will Hydroelectric Power
Generation Develop under Climate Change Scenarios? A Case Study in the Upper Danube Basin.
Energies, Volume 4, p. 1508-1541. doi: 10.3390/en4101508.

Langerwisch, F. Rost, S., Gerten, D., Poulter, B., Rammig, A. & W. Cramer (2012). Potential effects of
climate change on inundation patterns in the Amazon Basin. Hydrological Earth System Science
Discussion, Volume 9, p. 261–300. doi:10.5194/hessd-9-261-2012.

Lehner, B., Czisch, G. & S. Vassolo (2005). The impact of global change on the hydropower potential of
Europe: a model-based analysis. Energy Policy, Volume 33, p. 839-855. doi:
10.1016/j.enpol/2003.10.018.

Lewis, L.L., Brando, P.M., Phillips, O.L., Van der Heijden, G.M.F. & D. Nepstad (2011). The 2010 Amazon
Drought. Science, Volume 311, no. 6017, p. 554. doi: 10.11.26/science.1200807.

Li, W., Fu, R., Negrón Juárez, R.I. & K. Fernandes (2008). Observed change of the standardized
precipitation index, its potential cause and implications to future climate change in the Amazon region.
The Royal Society; 2008 363, p. 1767-1772. doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.0022.

Malhi, Y. & J. Wright (2004). Spatial patterns and recent trends in the climate of tropical rainforest
regions, Philos. T. Roy. Soc. B, 359, p. 311–329. doi:10.1098/rstb.2003.1433.

Malhi, Y., Aragãoa, L.E.O.C., Galbraithb, D., Huntingfordc, C., Fisherd, R., Zelazowskia, P., Sitche, S.,
McSweeneya, C., & P. Meirb (2008). Exploring the likelihood and mechanism of a climate-change-
induced dieback of the Amazon rainforest. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America (PNAS).

Malingreau, J.P., Eva, H.D. & E.E. de Miranda (2012). Brazilian Amazon: A Significant Five Year Drop in
Deforestation Rates but Figures are on the Rise Again. Ambio, Volume 41, Issue 3, p. 309-314.

Marengo, J. A. (2009). Long-term trends and cycles in the hydrometeorology of the Amazon Basin since
the late 1920s. Hydrological Processes, 23, p. 3236–3244.

Marengo, J.A., Ambrizzi, T., Da Rocha, R.P., Alves, L.M., Cuadra, S.V., Valverde, M.C., Rodrigues Torres,
R., Santos, D.C. & S.E.T. Ferraz (2010a). Future change of climate in South America in the late twenty-
first century: intercomparison of scenarios from three regional climate models. Climate Dynamics,
Volume 35, p. 1073–1097. doi:10.1007/s00382-009-0721-6.
Marengo, J.A., Jones, R., Alves, M.L. & M.C. Valverde (2008). Future change of temperature and
precipitation extremes in South America as derived from the PRECIS regional climate modeling system.
International Journal of Climatology.

Marengo, J.A., Nobre, C., & L. Salazar (2010b). Regional Climate Change Scenarios in South America in
the Late XXI Century: Projections and expected impacts. Nova Acta Leopoldina, NF 112, 384, p. 251-
265.

Marengo, J.A., Chan Chou, S., Kay, G., Alves, L.M., Pesquero, J.F., Soares, W.R., Santos, D.C., Lyra, A.A.,
Sueiro, G., Betts, R., Chagas, D.J., Gomes, J.L., Bustamante, J.F. & P. Tavares (2011). Development of
regional future climate change scenarios in South America using the Eta CPTEC/HadCM3 climate
change projections: climatology and regional analyses for the Amazon, São Francisco and the Paraná
River basins. Climate Dynamics, Volume 38, p. 1829–1848. doi: 10.1007/s00382-011-1155-5.

Markhoff, M.S. & A.C. Cullen (2008). Impact of climate change on Pacific Northwest hydropower.
Climate Change, Volume 87, p. 451-459.

Matos, F.B., Camacho, J.R., Rodrigues, P. & S.C. Guimarães Jr. (2011). A research on the use of energy
resources in the Amazon. Elsevier, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 15, p. 3196-
3206. doi:10.1016/jrser.2011.04.2012.

McAlpine, C.A., Etter, A., Fearnside, P.M., Seabrook, L. & W.F. Laurance (2009). Increasing world
consumption of beef as a driver of regional and global change: A call for policy action based on
evidence from Queensland (Australia), Colombia and Brazil. Global Environmental Change, Volume 19,
p. 21-33. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.008.

McPhee, J., Rubio-Alvarez, E., Meza, R., Ayala, A., Vargas, X., & S. Vicuna (2010). An Approach to
Estimating Hydropower Impacts of Climate Change from a Regional Perspective. Watershed
Management. p. 13-24. doi: 10.1061/41143(394)2.

Meehl, G. A., Stocker, T. F., Collins, W. D., Friedlingstein, P., Gaye, A. T., Gregory, J. M., Kitoh, A., Knutti,
R., Murphy, J. M. & A. Noda (2007). Global climate projections. In: S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z.
Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H. L. Miller (Eds.) Climate Change 2007: The Physical
Science Basis (Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

MME (2011). Belo Monte Dam Project – Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). Ministry of Mines and
Energy, and Empresa de Pesquisa de Energetica. Governo Federal Brasil.

Msangi, S. & M.W. Rosegrant (2011). Feeding the Future’s Changing Diets Implications for Agriculture
Markets. Nutrition and Policy, 2020 Conference: Leveraging Agriculture for Improving Nutrition and
Health. February 10-12, 2011; New Delhi, India.

Mueller, E.N., Francke, T., Batalla, R.J. & A. Bronstert (2009). Modelling the effects of land-use change
on runoff and sediment yield for a meso-scale catchment in the Southern Pyrenees. Catena, Volume
79, Issue 3, p. 288–296.

Muñoz, J.R. & D.J. Sailor (1998). A Modelling Methodology for Assessing the Impact of Climate
Variability and Climatic Change on Hydroelectric Generation, Energy Conversion and Management,
Volume 39, p. 1459-1469.
Neill, C., Chaves, J.E., Biggs, T., Deegan, L.A., Elsenbeer, H., Figueiredo, R.O., Germer, S., Johnson, M.S.,
Lehmann, J., Markewitz, D. & M.C. Piccolo (2011). Runoff sources and land cover change in the
Amazon: an end-member mixing analysis from small watersheds. Springer Science Business Media.
Biogeochemistry, Volume 105, p. 7–18. doi:10.1007/s10533-011-9597-8.

Nepstad, D.C., Stickler, C.M., Soares-Filho, B. & F. Merry (2008). Interactions among Amazon land use,
forests and climate: prospects for a near-term tipping point. Philosophical transactions of The Royal
Society B, Volume 363, p. 1737-1746. doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.0036.

Nourein, M.I. (2012). Relationships between Runoff, Land Cover and Climate in the Semi-Arid
Intermountain Region of the Western U.S.A. All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. Paper 1158.
[online]: http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/1158.

Nuñez, M.N., Solman, S.A. & M. Fernanda Cabré (2008). Regional climate change experiments over
southern South America. II: Climate change scenarios in the late twenty-first century. Climate
Dynamics, 04/2012; 32(7):1081-1095. doi:10.1007/s00382-008-0449-8.

Piao, S., Friedlingstein, P., Ciais, P., de Noblet-Ducoudré, N., Labat, D. & S. Zaehle (2007). Changes in
climate and land use have a larger direct impact than rising CO2 on global river runoff trends.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS).

Pelicici, F.M. & C.S. Agostinho (2012). Deficient downstream passage through fish ladders: the case of
Peixe Angical Dam, Tocantins River, Brazil. Sociedade Brasileira de Ictiologia. Neotropical Ichthyology,
Volume 10, Issue 4, p. 705-713.

Rodriguez, D.A., Tomasella, J. & C. Linhares (2010). Is the forest conversion to pasture affecting the
hydrological response of Amazonian catchments? Signals in the Ji-Paraná Basin, Wiley InterScience,
Hydrological Processes, Volume 24, p. 1254-1269. doi:10.1002/hyp.7586.

Rogner, H.-H (2012). Energy for Development: Resources, Technologies, Environment. Environment &
Policy, Volume 54, Part 3, p. 149-160. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4162-1_1.

Rogner, H.-H., Zhou, D., Bradley, R., Crabbé, P., Edenhofer, O., Hare, B., Kuijpers, L. & M. Yamaguchi
(2007). Introduction. In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson,
P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and
New York, NY, USA.

Ronchail, J., Cochonneau, G., Molinier, M., Guyot, J.L., Gorreti, A., Guimarães, V., & E. de Oliveira
(2002). Interannual rainfall variability in the Amazon Basin and sea surface temperatures in the
equatorial Pacific and the tropical Atlantic Oceans. International Journal of Climatology, Volume 22, p.
1663–1686.

Rost, S., Gerten, D., Bondeau, A., Lucht, W., Rohwer, J. & S. Schaphoff (2008). Agricultural green and
blue water consumption and its influence on the global water system. Water Resources Research,
Volume 44, W09405, doi:10.1029/2007WR006331.

Trenberth, K.E. (1999). Atmospheric moisture recycling: role of advection and local evaporation.
Journal of Climate. Volume 12, p. 1368-1381.
Sagredo, E.A. & T.V. Lowell (2012). Climatology of Andean glaciers: A framework to understand glacier
response to climate change. Global and Planetary Change, Volumes 86-87, p. 101-109.
doi:10.1016/jgloplacha.2012.02.010.

Santo Antônio Energia (2009). [website]:

http://www.santoantonioenergia.com.br/site/portal_mesa/en/home/home.aspx

Sitch, S., Smith, B., Prentice, I.C., Arneth, A., Bondeau, A., Cramer, W., Kaplan, J., Levis, S., Lucht, W.,
Sykes, M., Thonicke, K. & S. Venevsky (2003). Evaluation of ecosystem dynamics, plant geography and
terrestrial carbon cycling in the LPJ Dynamic Global Vegetation Model. Global Change Biology, Volume
9, p. 161-185.

Steinhurst, W., Knight, P. & M. Schults (2012). Hydropower Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Synapse. State
of the Research. Energy Economics, Inc.

Von Sperling, E. (2012). Hydropower in Brazil: overview of positive and negative environmental
aspects. The Green Society. Energy Procedia, Volume 18, p. 110 – 118. doi:
10.1016/j.egypro.2012.05.023.

THEMAG (2004). Usinas Hidroelétricas, Engenharia.

USDI (2005) United States Department of the Interior. Bureau of Reclamation, Power Resources Office.
Managing Water in the West; Hydroelectric Power.

Van der Werf, G.R., Morton, D.C., DeFries, R.S., Olivier, J.G.J., Kasibhatla, P.S., Jackson, R.B., Collatz,
G.J. & J.T. Randerson (2009). CO2 emissions from forest loss. Nature Geoscience, Volume 2, p. 737-738.
www.nature.com/naturegeoscience

Verburg, P. (2010). The CLUE-model, hands-on exercises. Course material. Institute of Environmental
Studies. University of Amsterdam.

Verburg, P.H. & K.P. Overmars (2009). Combining top-down and bottom-up dynamics in land use
modeling: exploring the future of abandoned farmlands in Europe with the Dyna-CLUE model.
Landscape Ecology, Volume 24, p. 1167–1181. doi:10.1007/s10980-009-9355-7.

Vogel, R.M. & N.M. Fennessey (1995). Flow Duration Curves II: A Review of Applications in Water
Resources Planning. Water Resources Bulletin. American Water Resources Association. Volume 31,
number 6.

Whitmore, T.C. (1997). Tropical forest disturbance, disappearance, and species loss, tropical Forest
Remnants: Ecology, Management, and Conservation of Fragmented Communities. [Laurance, W.F.
and R.O. Bierregaard Jr, eds]. p. 3-12. The University of Chicago Press.

WHRC (2012). The Woods Hole Research Center, 149 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, Massachusetts
02540-1644, United States of America.

Zhang, L., Dawes, W.R. & G.R. Walker (2001). Response of mean annual evapotranspiration to
vegetation changes at catchment scale. Water Resources Research, Volume 37, p. 701-708.
11 Annex I – Model Comparison

11.1 B1 scenario
45000

40000

35000

30000
Dicharge in m3/s-1

25000 CNCM3
Echam
20000
IPCM4
AVG
15000

10000

5000

0
2000
1960

1970

1980

1990

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100
Figure I-2.1: Model comparison for the B1 scenario for the Belo Monte location.

40000

35000

30000
Dicharge in m3/s-1

25000
CNCM3
20000 Echam
IPCM4
15000
AVG

10000

5000

0
2000
1960

1970

1980

1990

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100

Figure I-2.2: Model comparison for the B1 scenario for the São Luiz do Tapajós location.
 60000

50000

40000
Dicharge in m3/s-1

CNCM3
30000
Echam
IPCM4
20000 AVG

10000

0
2040
1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100
Figure I-2.3: Model comparison for the B1 scenario for the Santo Antônio location.
11.2 A2 scenario
35000

30000

25000
Dicharge in m3/s-1

20000 CNCM3
Echam
15000 IPCM4
AVG
10000

5000

0
1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100
Figure I-1.1: Model comparison for the A2 scenario for the Belo Monte location.

35000

30000

25000
Dicharge in m3/s-1

20000 CNCM3
Echam
15000 IPCM4
AVG
10000

5000

0
2000
1960

1970

1980

1990

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100

Figure I-1.2: Model comparison for the A2 scenario for the São Luiz do Tapajós location.
 70000

60000

50000
Dicharge in m3/s-1

40000 CNCM3
Echam
30000
IPCM4
AVG
20000

10000

0
2030
1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100
Figure I-1.3: Model comparison for the A2 scenario for the Santo Antônio location.
12 Annex II – Changes in Explored Hydropower

Table II-1: Change in explored hydropower for each run, the changes are given in percentage relative
to the reference run. The installed capacity of each hydropower plant is given in Mega Watt.
13 Annex III – Belo Monte
20000
Reference Run
18000

16000 LUC 20% Deforestation 1980s

Dicharge in m3/s-1

14000
LUC 100% Deforestation 1980s

12000
B1 Scenario 2080s No LUC
10000

8000 A2 Scenario 2080s No LUC

6000
A2 Scenario (2080s) with 20%
Deforestation
4000
A2 Scenario (2080s) with 100%
2000 Deforestation

0
Total Annual Discharge

Figure III-1: Total annual discharge for each run for the Belo Monte location.

4500

4000

3500
Dicharge in m3/s-1

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

Reference Run LUC 20% Deforestation 1980s

LUC 100% Deforestation 1980s B1 Scenario 2080s No LUC
A2 Scenario 2080s No LUC A2 Scenario (2080s) with 20% Deforestation
A2 Scenario (2080s) with 100% Deforestation

Figure III-2: Monthly mean discharge for each run for the Belo Monte location.
 700 4

600 3,5
3
Dicharge in m3/s-1

500
2,5
400
2 Absolute Change
300
1,5
200
1 Percentage Change
100 0,5
0 0
Abs Change Abs Change Abs Change Abs Change
1980s (20% 1980s (100% 2080s (20% 2080s (100%
Defor) Defor) Defor) Defor)

Figure III-3: Percentage & Absolute Changes for the land use change runs relative to the reference
run for the Belo Monte location.

160

140

120

100
Abs Change 1980s (20% Defor)
Dicharge in m3/s-1

80
Abs Change 2080s (20% Defor)
60
Abs Change 1980s (100% Defor)
40
Abs Change 2080s (100% Defor)
20

0
July

October
August

September

November
April

May
January

June
March
February

December

-20

-40

Figure III-4: Absolute Changes for the land use change scenarios relative to the reference run for
the Belo Monte location.
 60

50

40
% Change 1980s (20% defor)
Percentage

30
% Change 2080s (20% defor)

20
% Change 1980s (100% defor)

10 % Change 2080s (100% defor)

0 July

August

October

November
January

April

May

September

Yearly
June
February

December
March

-10

Figure III-5: Percentage change in discharge for the land use change scenarios relative to the
reference run for the Belo Monte location.

1000

900

800

700
DIFF Ref with 20% B1
Dicharge in m3/s-1

600
DIFF Ref with 20% A2
500
DiFF Ref with 100% B1
400

DiFF Ref with 100% A2

300

200

100

0
1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

Figure III-6: Absolute difference in annual discharge due to land use change for the Belo Monte
location.
14 Annex IV – São Luiz do Tapajós
20000
Reference Run
18000

16000 LUC 20% Deforestation 1980s

14000 LUC 100% Deforestation 1980s

Dicharge in m3/s-1

12000
B1 Scenario 2080s No LUC
10000

A2 Scenario 2080s No LUC

8000

6000 A2 Scenario (2080s) with 20%

Deforestation
4000
A2 Scenario (2080s) with 100%
2000 Deforestation

Figure IV-1: Total annual discharge for all runs for the São Luiz do Tapajós location.

4000

3500

3000
Dicharge in m3/s-1

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

Reference Run LUC 20% Deforestation 1980s

LUC 100% Deforestation 1980s B1 Scenario 2080s No LUC
A2 Scenario 2080s No LUC A2 Scenario (2080s) with 20% Deforestation
A2 Scenario (2080s) with 100% Deforestation

Figure IV-2: Monthly mean discharge for all runs for the São Luiz do Tapajós location.
 800 4

700 3,5

600 3
Dicharge in m3/s-1

500 2,5

400 2
Absolute Change
300 1,5 Percentage Change

200 1

100 0,5

0 0
Abs Change Abs Change Abs Change Abs Change
1980s (20% 1980s (100% 2080s (20% 2080s (100%
Defor) Defor) Defor) Defor)

Figure IV-3: Percentage & absolute changes for the land use scenarios relative to the reference run
for the São Luiz do Tapajós location.

160

140

120

100
Dicharge in m3/s-1

80 Abs Change 1980s (20% Defor)

Abs Change 2080s (20% Defor)
60
Abs Change 1980s (100% Defor)
40 Abs Change 2080s (100% Defor)

20

-20

-40

Figure IV-4: Absolute changes caused by the land use change scenarios for the São Luiz do Tapajós
location.
 60

50

40
Percentage

30 % Change 1980s (20% defor)

% Change 2080s (20% defor)

20 % Change 1980s (100% defor)

% Change 2080s (100% defor)

10

-10

Figure IV-5: Percentage change due to land use change scenarios relative to the reference run for
the São Luiz do Tapajós location.

900

800

700

600
Dicharge in m3/s-1

500 DIFF Ref with 20% B1

DIFF Ref with 20% A2

400 DiFF Ref with 100% B1

DiFF Ref with 100% A2
300

200

100

0
1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

Figure IV-6: Differences in annual discharge due to land use change for the São Luiz do Tapajós
location.
15 Annex V – Santo Antônio
35000

Reference Run
30000
LUC 20% Deforestation 1980s

25000
LUC 100% Deforestation
Dicharge in m3/s-1

1980s
20000
B1 Scenario 2080s No LUC

15000
A2 Scenario 2080s No LUC

10000
A2 Scenario (2080s) with 20%
Deforestation

5000 A2 Scenario (2080s) with

100% Deforestation

0
Total Yearly Discharge

Figure V-1: Total annual discharge for all runs for the Santo Antônio location.

300 0,9
0,8
250
0,7
Dicharge in m3/s-1

200 0,6
Absolute Change
0,5
150
0,4 Percentage Change

100 0,3
0,2
50
0,1
0 0
LUC 20% LUC 100% A2 Scenario A2 Scenario
Deforestation Deforestation (2080s) with (2080s) with
1980s 1980s 20% 100%
Deforestation Deforestation

Figure IV-2: Absolute & percentage change due to the land use change scenarios relative to the
reference run for the Santo Antônio location.
 60

50

Abs Change 1980s (20% Defor)

Dicharge in m3/s-1

40

Abs Change 2080s (20% Defor)

30

Abs Change 1980s (100%

20 Defor)
Abs Change 2080s (100%
10 Defor)

Figure IV-3: Absolute changes due to land use change scenarios relative to the reference run for the
Santo Antônio location.

2,5

2 % Change 1980s (20% defor)

Percentage

% Change 2080s (20% defor)

1,5
% Change 1980s (100% defor)
1
% Change 2080s (100% defor)

0,5

Figure IV-4: Percentage change for the land use change scenarios relative to the reference run for
the Santo Antônio location.
 350

300

250
Dicharge in m3/s-1

DIFF Ref with 20% B1

200
DIFF Ref with 20% A2

150 DiFF Ref with 100% B1

DiFF Ref with 100% A2

100

50

0
1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

Figure IV-5: Differences in annual discharge due to land use change for the Santo Antônio location.