The Freshwater Blog

Prior to the EU strategic dialogue workshop on the science-policy interface being held this week, participants (including BioFresh) were asked to supply responses and proposals addressing key research needs identified by policy-makers. This will provide the focus for discussion as BioFresh and other participating organisations meet in Brussels for the workshop. Researchers and policy-makers will work together to identify ways to achieve better collaboration between EU-funded research projects and to direct research activities towards concrete policy needs, as well as helping communication at the science-policy interface. BioFresh is publishing its set of three policy briefs (Numbers 3, 4, and 5) on research and policy priorities for protecting freshwater ecosystems and biodiversity. These briefs present BioFresh’s contribution to the workshop and draw attention to the need for long-term, large-scale research into the full range of services that freshwater ecosystems provide. Freshwater ecosystems are under threat in the EU and freshwater biodiversity continues to decline, failing to meet the objectives of the Habitats and Water Framework Directives. This is in part because current policy focuses on provisioning services and basic, immediate human needs, such as energy production through hydropower, at the expense of freshwater habitats and species. Instead, the EU needs integrated policymaking with a long-term, holistic outlook to tackle the continuing loss of biodiversity and the conflict between resource development and biodiversity directives. The key points of the briefs are summarised below.

Issue No. 3: Is biodiversity being left behind? Freshwater ecosystems hold unparalleled species diversity, but are amongst the most threatened in Europe. Prioritizing short-term, often localized benefits in ecosystem provisioning services (such as hydropower) is degrading habitats and damaging cultural and regulatory services such as carbon storage, making it impossible for Europe to meet policy goals under the Habitats and Water Framework Directives. The brief calls for ‘biodiversity-conscious priority setting,’ considering the full range of services that freshwater ecosystems provide, as well as improving the knowledge of ecosystems’ status and threats, to use EU funding resources to the greatest advantage.

Issue No. 4: Alleviating stress on freshwater biodiversity. Freshwater ecosystems in Europe need stronger protection, having been neglected in recent conservation activity. Major stressors are the continuing modification of rivers for hydropower installations, as well as massive abstraction of water in the Mediterranean and the uncontrolled spread of invasive species, which to some extent result from misled or incoherent policy. Aligning policy on agriculture, water, energy, biodiversity, and other related issues can help ease the pressure on freshwater systems, and will require wider participation from regional and local stakeholders.

Issue No. 5: The water-food-energy security nexus: Where do freshwater ecosystems fit in? Water has a ‘hybrid identity’ as both a medium for all life and a resource for humanity. Policy-makers need to look beyond the current focus on providing basic human needs, such as food and security, to considering all human needs, including cultural, aesthetic and cognitive needs. This requires large-scale design experiments and research on water-dependent sectors as well as communication and engagement to reframe public perceptions of water.

Describing his newest subject, Canadian photographer Edward Burtynsky comes right to the point. “Water is not optional,” says Burtynsky on his website. “It is the ultimate thing that provides for life, and if humans don’t have it, they have to leave the area, it’s as simple as that.” A fairly self-evident statement, it seems. But the truth is, that we forget water’s presence almost completely, on a daily basis. Western infrastructure pushes water out of sight, to the background, below-ground – often so effectively we don’t even notice how it permeates our lives, never mind think about not having enough water for the asking.

Burtynsky’s five-year odyssey, the “Water Project,” aims to change that. Burtynsky takes as his subject not only water – in all its forms – but also its lack, inscribed on the physical landscape. “Water is intermittently introduced as a victim, a partner, a protagonist, a lure, a source, an end, a threat and a pleasure,” writes Russell Lord, curator at NOMA. “Water is also often completely absent from the pictures. Burtynsky instead focuses on the visual and physical effects of the lack of water, giving its absence an even more powerful presence.”

The project divorces us from our normal viewpoint – peering over a dam wall, gazing across a field – to sweep us up and deposit us in the skies, looking down sometimes thousands of feet to the world below. Whether this celestial perspective is godlike or humbling depends on the viewer, but it certainly allows us to appreciate the weird, unsettling beauty in our footprint as a species. Burtynsky’s austere geometry and very subtle use of color strips away any comforting insulation we might have, but equally makes no overt claims as we see the results of our handywork – pivot irrigation in the deserts of the Southwest United States or winter dryland farming in Spain, the fragile grid of abalone aquaculture or titanic dam projects in China,  the soft mosaic of oil on the waves in the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

Alongside the photography, the Water Project includes the film Watermark, and a book, Burtynsky – Water. The film, a feature documentary from Burtynsky, Jennifer Paichwal and Nick de Pencier, is their second collaboration after Manufactured Landscapes in 2006, and was selected for the Toronto Film Festival. To achieve the sweeping aerial shots that are the hallmark of his style, Burtynsky uses all the tools at his disposal, from a 50-foot pneumatic pole to fixed-wing planes and remote-controlled helicopters.

Some of his subjects celebrate beauty without apology – the impressionist swathe of a pristine Icelandic river, a kaleidoscope of colors as 30 million people gather in Allahabad to bathe during the Kumbh Mela. But there are turns where art blossoms in unexpected, unsettling subjects – such as “Stepwell #4” in Rajasthan, India, or the desert delta of the Colorado River, cut off from the sea. Burtynsky’s view from his perch is detached, austere – almost clinical. Yet there is an uncomfortable beauty here that raises equally uncomfortable questions. Does aesthetic appreciation of the almost extinct Colorado River make us newly complicit in its demise? Or does it merely draw attention to the fact that we have been complicit all along? Whatever the answer, the Water Project invites questions on a grand scale, revealing how our dance with our most fundamental resource sculpts the landscapes around us. The link between art and activism can be fraught, and Burtynsky states on his website that his goal is simply to provoke thought: “My hope is that these pictures will stimulate a process of thinking about something essential to our survival; something we often take for granted—until it’s gone.”

Burtynsky: Water is showing in London at the Flowers Gallery through November 23, as well as in Cologne at the Galerie Stefan Röpke. Watermark is not yet showing in Europe.

In the National Wildlife Federation’s recent report, “Swimming Upstream: Freshwater Fish in a Warming World,” the ecological, economic, and cultural costs of climate change go hand in hand. “For generations, Americans have taken their children and grandchildren to their local fishing hole, lake or stream for some low-cost, outdoor family fun,” the report begins. “But in recent decades, warming temperatures have begun to threaten our freshwater fish and the thousands of outdoor recreation jobs that depend on them.”

The report outlines the risks stacking up against freshwater fish with grim efficiency – suitable habitat for cold-water species may decline by 50 percent across the United States by the end of the century. Aside from warmer water, increased oxygen depletion and poorer mixing, more extreme weather and drought, and receding waters can all harm fish. In addition, climate change can exacerbate indirect threats – more frequent, intense wildfires increase the likelihood of erosion, while warmer temperatures can favor parasites like the sea lamprey and diseases such as Columnaris, which is becoming the “new normal” in hot years for some rivers. The report also draws attention to the southeastern United States’ value as a global aquatic hot spot (for example, the 290-mile long Duck River in Tennessee has more fish species than all of Europe) and shows how the range of brook trout may collapse under a business-as-usual emissions scenario in 2050.

This plays upon the biospheric area of what Israeli sociologist Shalom Schwartz terms “value clusters,” groups of individual values that describe people’s priorities. (For a more in-depth look at value clusters, see Common Cause’s summary here.) Value in the same cluster tend to be prioritized in similar ways, whereas values in widely distanced clusters are typically more likely to come into conflict. Traditionally, research suggests that environmental beliefs and actions are related to “self-transcendent values,” such as universalism, which encompasses social justice, as well as unity with nature. More recently, environmental psychologists have suggested that biospheric values, which stress the intrinsic worth of nature and the environment, as a separate cluster within self-transcendent values. In this report, NWF highlights such intrinsic value in American freshwater systems, by stressing its unique biodiversity as a freshwater hotspot and the fact that climate change will seriously harm fish and freshwater invertebrate species.

However, the report also stresses freshwater fishing as part of a national heritage – midwestern families holding on to a tradition of ice fishing, the brook trout’s emblematic status as the state fish of Virginia, and the cultural, economic, and religious importance of salmon for tribal communities in the Pacific Northwest, as well as the renowned angling opportunities in Yellowstone National Park (incidentally economically valued between $67.5 and $385 million annually). This speaks to a wide range of values, not all of them part of the self-transcendence clusters.  Preserving tradition is a more conservative cluster in Schwartz’s value typology, falling outside the self-transcendence values that traditionally go hand-in-hand with environmental beliefs. The issue of Yellowstone fisheries is also presented in relation to multiple values. While “high alpine backcountry adventures” ties excitement, challenge and independent action, part of what Shwartz terms “stimulation” and “self-direction” clusters – also not strongly aligned with environmentalism – the waters are also described as a place that shapes family heritage, and a resource that rural communities and up to 42 species depend on, bringing us back to both tradition and altruism.

Appealing to values that are all over the map – tradition and self-direction, altruism and stimulation – may serve to tie different constituencies together to achieve common goals. The report also brings in the economic case, citing a study that claims recreational freshwater fishing could face a loss of up to $6.4 billion annually by 2100, with thousands of fishing-dependent outdoor recreation jobs at stake. Certainly NWF isn’t the only organization to cite a range of reasons to tackle environmental issues, nor to add valuation to values by counting the possible economic costs. But it’s worth noting the values – and publics – that such documents address, as they make the case for particular policies. How effective is wedding such a range of values in promoting freshwater biodiversity? And what happens when values – preserving that family angling tradition versus protecting dwindling stocks, for example – come into conflict?

In this perspective, Nicolas Bailly, Biodiversity Informatics Scientist at WorldFish and BioFresh team member points to discussions of modern scientific concepts in an 1866 book on French fishes.  He asks readers of the BioFreshblog if they know of other old literature discussing similar topics.

Reading through some old literature on freshwater fishes, I found a book published in 1866 on the freshwater fishes of France by Émile Blanchard, a professor at the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris.

I must admit I had never encountered it before, but it was well worth a read. The first pages have an extraordinary and strangely modern flavor in the context of BioFresh – and the sad reality of freshwater ecosystems worldwide. In particular, Blanchard discusses three very current concepts.

1. The shifting baseline concept

“[…] old fishermen remember a time when their nets brought heavier loads, when fishing provided better livelihood.”

2. The ecological foot print of cities

“Finally, there was not [in the remote past] these large cities that attract people and consume much of what is produced afar.”

3. The lack of long-term monitoring and data series

“We cannot, in truth, judge with absolute certainty the degree of fish abundance in ancient Gaul.”

1. Shifting baseline

The “shifting baseline” concept was developed by Pauly (1995): when we try to reconstruct past biodiversity, to draw a baseline for measuring biodiversity losses, we always think about the biodiversity status when we were young, or at the most, as described by our (great-)grand-parents. But previous generations have done the same thing. So the baseline we try to set up is constantly being redefined by successive generations, because no one actually succeeds in restoring biodiversity to their baseline. The text of Blanchard written 150 years ago is a perfect illustration.

Now the question that comes immediately in mind is: if there were the same complaints 150 years ago, perhaps started well before (there are texts on regulation of continental water fisheries known from the 15^th century), how is it possible that there are still fish in our (European) rivers? Are scientists wrong when they foresee the loss of most of our biodiversity? Are their forecasts reliable?

The answer is not that simple, and requires hundreds of thousands if not millions of data (for example, the global fishery catch reconstruction performed by the Sea Around Us Project). It is the aim of the BioFresh portal to make these data available to scientists so they can improve their models, interpretations and predictions.

2. Ecological footprint

Developed by Rees (1992), this is a measure of society’s demand on natural resources and ecosystem services. While we can actually see the demand in the countryside where villages are closely surrounded by nature, it remains virtual for citizens in megacities. Almost all what is consumed is seen only in human-built artifacts (food in supermarkets, water in pipes, power in wires, etc.). BioFresh has not directly addressed ecosystem services, but all the work done in this area can be used to help in valuing freshwater ecosystems.

3. Lack of long-term data series

When a young biodiversity scientist starts to search for data to build or test hypotheses, it is always a shock to discover that 1) very little is available; and 2) very few long-term monitoring programmes exist. There are particularly few long-term data series available for freshwater (e.g., Allan et al 2005).

Past generations have not managed to set up long-term observatories of biodiversity (in part because it’s hard to automate, unlike physical oceanography or meteorology). My generation hasn’t either, and some good initiatives like LTER (Long-Term Ecological Research) are drops in the ocean…or rather, in freshwater lakes, from a BioFresh perspective!

One of the results of BioFresh data gap analysis is that to make clear that these data must be acquired under planned activities: gathering data from a lot of sources is not usually enough to constitute a proper dataset for models that need many records, close together in space and time.

I would propose the concept of “shifting responsibility” to describe the fact that no generation so far had the vision (and/or the courage) to set up such long-term biodiversity monitoring for the future. Or perhaps our generation could succeed with a proper organization of citizen science (science participative in French).

Are there other such concerns published in documents before the 20^th century?

Is this just one book – an idea of a single man in those times, or did it express the concerns of a community of scientists or other visionaries?

I would like to hear about other concerns expressed before the 20^th century in books, articles and reports, and from other countries. Please share and comment such references in the blog if you know about them (or send the reference to me by email). If there are enough, it could be worth opening a group in a reference management system such as Mendeley or Zotero. For my translation of the first section of Blanchard’s work, see the PDF file here.

References

Allan J.D., Abell R., Hogan Z., Revenga C., Taylor B.W., Welcomme R.L. and Winemiller K. 2005. Overfishing of Inland Waters. BioScience 55(2):1041-1051.
doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[1041:OOIW]2.0.CO;2

Blanchard, Émile, 1866. Les poissons des eaux douces de la France : anatomie, physiologie, description des espèces, mœurs, instincts, industrie, commerce, ressources alimentaires, pisciculture, législation concernant la pêche. Paris: J.B. Baillière & Fils.
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/26728#page/7/mode/1up

Pauly, D. 1995. Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 10(10):430.
http://download.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/pdf/PIIS0169534700891715.pdf

Rees, W.E. 1992. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanisation 4(2):121–130.
doi:10.1177/095624789200400212

 This September, the first IRF European Riverprize went to the River Rhine, during the 5th European River Restoration Conference (ERRC). The International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR), has worked with other stakeholders to radically improve the river’s health as well as that of its biodiversity, after 50 years of river degradation and the catastrophic Sandoz chemical spill in 1986.

The European Riverprize event was initiated by the International River Foundation (IRF), along with the International Commission for Protection of Danube Basin (ICPDR) and the European Centre for River Restoration (ECRR). The prize is worth €40,000 and is sponsored by Coca-Cola Europe.

The European experts who made up the judging panel chose the Rhine because of its leadership and sophistication as well as its integrated approach. ICPR and other stakeholders have worked to change wastewater management and improve water quality, and have also adopted integrated policies to restore large floodplains in the Rhine delta. “As someone who was heavily involved in the successful Thiess International Riverprize bid by the Thames in 2010, I have to say that I was mightily impressed by the achievements of the Rhine,” said Alastair Driver, National Conservation Manager at the England’s Environment Agency and one of the judges. “To have achieved such dramatic improvements in the ecological quality of such a huge river through multi-national co-operation in just a few decades is truly remarkable.”

For ICPR, this is a major waypoint along a path towards restoring the river to good ecological status. “Winning the prize underlines once more the vision of Rhine-Ministers in 1987, when they agreed upon the ambitious goal aimed at restoring the open sewer the Rhine was in the seventies into a living river where the salmon would return,” says Ben van de Wetering, ICPR’s General Secretary. “Indeed, this agreement marked for the ICPR the beginning of the development of an integrated river management for which we are now rewarded.” The prize, says van de Wetering, encourages his organisation to continue its work, as the river still has a way to go. One of the ICPR’s efforts is to restore upstream connectivity for a stable salmon population; it has helped restore upriver access to bypass about 480 obstacles since 2000. With its work programme Rhine 2020, the ICPR aims to put the Water Framework Directive requirements into concrete terms – such as making the river clean enough to swim in – as well as addressing other pan-European regulations such as the Flood directive.

By winning the prize, the Rhine will automatically be considered as a finalist for next year’s Thiess International Riverprize, which this year was awarded to the Mara River in Kenya, the first African river to win the prize in its 15-year history. The Rhine and the Mara now have the opportunity to participate in a “Twinning” program, to share their expertise with a peer river basin management organisation.

“Personally I think the IRF and its partners should be commended for creating this prize,” says Paul Jepson, who leads the communication work package of BioFresh. “In corporate and entertainment sectors, awards and prizes are part of professional sound practice. They showcase and reward best practice and create a culture of aspiration, pride and success that appeals to others. Faced with declines in freshwater biota, it is easy for scientists and river managers to convey a sense of doom and gloom. We need more such prizes to generate an outlook of positive environmentalism.”