Biodiversity in European rivers increased between 1968 and 2010 due to improved water quality following decades of environmental pollution, according to a new study. However, this trend of biodiversity recovery has stalled since 2010.
Writing in the journal Nature, an international team of researchers attribute this finding to the limited potential of existing measures to continue to drive water quality improvements. This is due to the growing impacts of complex stressors such as climate change, which need to be urgently tackled with ambitious new environmental restoration and policy strategies, the authors argue.
“Our data show that rivers can indeed recover if we as a society take the right measures,” said co-author Professor Sonja Jähnig from the Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (IGB). “However, we have hardly made any progress in the state of biodiversity since 2010, so additional efforts are needed today.”
The researchers examined invertebrate records to trace the history of freshwater biodiversity in European rivers. Invertebrates such as mayflies, stoneflies and caddisflies are crucial to healthy freshwater ecosystems, and have been extensively studied in water quality monitoring programmes. The research team analysed 1,816 studies of invertebrate communities collected across 22 European countries between 1968 and 2020.
“Invertebrates such as mayflies or caddisflies have long been a pillar for monitoring water quality, so we were able to draw on a very good database,” said lead author Professor Peter Haase from the Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum in Frankfurt. “These data also show that a stagnation set in after 2010, which indicates that the measures taken so far have been exhausted.”
Rivers across Europe were extensively polluted through industrial, agricultural and urban expansion through the 20th century. In response, governments began to take action to tackle the poor water quality of many rivers by adopting measures to reduce pollution and acidification from the 1970s onwards. These measures – including better wastewater treatment – drove slow but steady improvements in water quality across the continent, which were further supported by legislation such as the EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (1991) and Water Framework Directive (2000).
The new study suggests that biodiversity recovery in European rivers as a result of better water quality has plateaued in the last decade, and ambitious new measures are needed to continue ecological restoration in the face of complex and ever-changing environmental threats.
“The improvement of freshwater biodiversity in Europe is a great achievement, but we cannot afford to be complacent,” said co-author Professor Iwan Jones, Head of the River Communities Group at the School of Biological and Chemical Sciences at Queen Mary University of London. “Our research shows that we need to redouble our efforts to protect these vital ecosystems. We need to act now to further reduce pollution, prevent invasive species from spreading, and help our river systems to cope with climate change.”
Rivers in heavily urban or agricultural catchments – and those downstream of dams – showed the lowest improvements in biodiversity in the study period. Further, rivers already significantly affected by climate change had lower rates of biodiversity improvements – a trend that is likely to accelerate as temperatures increase and climate extremes become more common in the future.
“The fact that biodiversity recovers less in some rivers is due to the fact that downstream of urban areas, micropollutants and nutrients enter the watercourses, and cities are also often gateways for alien invasive species,” said co-author Dr Sami Domisch from IGB. “On the other hand, fine sediments, pesticides and fertilisers are more likely to be washed into the watercourses from farmland. And dams fragment water bodies and change the flow and temperature regimes.”
The study is published at a time of intense political negotiation over the future of Europe’s biodiversity. The European Union is currently preparing to launch its new Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, aiming to halt the loss of biodiversity and restore degraded ecosystems. And following months of debate, the EU Nature Restoration Law is nearing official finalisation.
Crucially, the study suggests that existing environmental legislation has not responded to emerging threats such as climate change, which has caused freshwater biodiversity recovery to stagnate. As a result, there is the pressing need to tailor ambitious new policies to the realities of the contemporary environment, and couple them with extensive restoration projects to help continue the recovery of Europe’s rivers in the future.
“It is no longer enough to improve water quality; we need to restore ecosystems on a large scale and fundamentally improve the connectivity of European watercourses,” said Prof Jähnig. “This would not only boost aquatic biodiversity, but would also support natural flood protection, water retention in the landscape and the self-purification capacity of water bodies.”
///
This article is supported by the MERLIN project.
Microplastic pollution in freshwater lakes can reach levels that exceed those in the infamous ‘floating garbage patch’ ocean gyres, according to a new study. Microplastics are found in lakes and reservoirs all over the world, the study found, even in remote and mountainous locations.
The study, led by Dr. Veronica Nava and published in Nature, assessed plastic pollution in 38 lakes and reservoirs across six continents, each subject to different environmental conditions. They found microplastics – small fragments of plastic from clothing, packaging and other products – at all study sites.
Two types of lakes were found to be particularly vulnerable to microplastic pollution. First, those in densely populated and urbanised areas where human activity is intensive. Second, those with large watersheds, shorelines and water inflows, where plastic pollution has numerous routes to reach a lake across a wide area, and where water is retained for a long period of time.
“Our results provide the first comprehensive picture of microplastic pollution in lakes,” said co-author Professor Hans-Peter Grossart from IGB. “They highlight the importance of including lakes and reservoirs in the fight against microplastic pollution for pollution management and continued provision of lake ecosystem services.”
Polyester, polypropylene and polyethylene were the most common microplastics found by researchers, but the plastic ‘signature’ of each lake differed. Microplastics were found at high concentrations in some of the most remote sites in the study, including Lake Tahoe in the Sierra Nevada.
“The mechanism of transport of these plastics is not clear, especially when we talk about very small fragments or textile fibres,” said Dr. Nava. “We are wearing a lot of synthetic clothes, the majority of which are made of polyester, and they end up in aquatic systems. Even from far away, there can be atmospheric circulation and patterns that can carry these plastics a long way.”
Forty-five percent of the lakes studied contained more than one plastic particle per cubic metre of water, whilst the most polluted lakes had more than ten particles per cubic metre. The researchers state that concentrations of microplastics in Lakes Lugano and Maggiore at the Swiss-Italian Border and Lake Tahoe in the USA exceed those in ‘floating garbage patch’ oceanic gyres where huge rafts of plastic waste accumulates.
The findings have important implications for drinking water provision. Some of the lakes found to have high plastic concentrations – including Lake Maggiore, Lake Tahoe and Lough Neagh in Northern Ireland – are valuable sources of drinking water.
However, these large lakes often have high water ‘residence times’, meaning that water stays in the system for long periods of time – in Lake Tahoe this can be as high as 650 years. This means that the lakes can act as sinks for plastic pollution which is not flushed out and so accumulates in the system.
This finding presents significant challenges to water managers seeking to provide safe, clean drinking water to communities. It also is a valuable insight for the growing network of freshwater restoration scientists seeking to use nature-based solutions to help improve drinking water quality for humans.
Widespread microplastic pollution also has implications for freshwater ecosystems and even climate change. “Plastic that accumulates on the surface of aquatic systems can promote the release of methane and other greenhouse gases,” explained Dr. Nava. “Plastics can reach beyond the hydrosphere and interact with the atmosphere, biosphere and lithosphere, potentially affecting biogeochemical cycles, including the circulation between the various compartments of the earth of chemical elements that pass from living matter to inorganic matter through chemical transformations and reactions, through mechanisms that have yet to be understood and require a holistic assessment of plastic pollution in lentic [freshwater] systems.”
Microplastic pollution has been emerging as an environmental issue in recent years, as global society produces around 400 million tonnes of plastic waste each year, and plastic fibres have been documented on both the highest mountain ranges and deepest ocean trenches. The study by Dr. Nava and colleagues is valuable in documenting the startling extent of microplastic pollution in lakes and reservoirs.
Moreover, the study – along with another by Dr. Hudson Pinheiro and colleagues about microplastic pollution on coral reefs in the same issue of Nature – contributes to ongoing discussions at the United Nations over a new treaty to eliminate plastic pollution. Talks over a new plastic treaty began in March 2022 and are due to conclude in 2024.
This fast-track timescale offers only a short window for scientists to make their voices heard in negotiations. These studies provide timely documents of the magnitude and extent of global plastic pollution, and reminders of the urgent need to tackle it, both for people and nature.
///
This article is supported by the MERLIN project.
The Tisza River flows nearly a thousand kilometres from its source in Ukraine through Hungary to meet the Danube in Serbia. In places, the Tisza supports rich and varied biodiversity, particularly bird species, mayflies and floodplain meadows. However, the Tisza’s course and floodplains have been altered for well over a century through dam construction, dredging and channel straightening.
The EU-funded MERLIN project is supporting the restoration of the Tisza river at two sites close to the village of Nagykörű in Hungary. Floodplains surrounding the river – which have been drained and cut off from the river to support intensive arable farming – are being ‘rewetted’. This process is intended to increase water retention in the floodplains, which will help buffer floodwaters and create valuable biodiversity habitat. In turn, the plan is for the rewetted Tisza floodplains to support more sustainable farming practices.
Last month, scientists from across Europe visited the restoration sites for a MERLIN field visit to learn about ongoing work on the Tisza. Over three days, the scientists visited the restoration areas to see progress, and to undertake wider discussions around the restoration projects supported by MERLIN on large river sites across the continent.
Reporting back on the meeting, project co-ordinator Dr. Sebastian Birk suggested this vision involves significant changes to how the Tisza floodplains are managed. “A major transformation in thinking is needed,” Dr. Birk explained. “This means the farmers living along the river changing their business model from cash crop cultivation – which needs to be protected from flooding – towards more sustainable farming practices which can work even when periodically flooded.”
Such a major shift in how the Tisza floodplains are managed and used requires close cooperation with local communities. “The restoration managers have this big idea and they are increasingly communicating their narrative of how the river and its floodplains will look in the future,” Dr. Birk outlined. “And they wanted us as MERLINers to meet the local people there and the stakeholders to learn about their perspectives. The level of understanding has massively increased through these meetings which is very nice to see.”
More broadly, Dr. Birk highlighted how large river restoration projects like those on the Tisza are often very complicated and time-consuming to carry out. “Large rivers are often more in the public perception, which can help a project because local communities and stakeholders are often aware of them and the issues they face,” he said. “On the other hand, restoring a large river involves focusing on certain stretches and areas. These are often the most modified or ecologically valuable areas, and are often only several kilometres in length at best. This means joining up the work of such restoration projects across a large river is a major challenge.
“And then there is the challenge of the integrating the different stages of these projects along a river. Some are well established and some are only just beginning. Think about Room for the River in the Netherlands – a long standing program that has already reached so many goals, especially around the main focus of flood protection. But this program has already started more than twenty-five years ago,” Dr. Birk said.
This means that for the restoration of large rivers such as the Tisza is invariably a slow process. “The original ideas for the Tisza restoration date back years, but this work is still only piloting,” Dr. Birk explained. “The temporal dimension is just huge for these kind of transformative actions. So never expect something to happen quickly especially when there is no top-down government initiatives supporting restoration.”
You can find out more about the Tisza River floodplain restoration in a factsheet and article. You can find out more about how MERLIN is supporting large river restoration across Europe in our podcast recorded last summer on the banks of the River Rhine.
+++
This article is supported by the MERLIN project.
Nature-based solutions are increasingly being adopted by environmental managers and policy makers seeking to address the growing ecological and climate emergencies, both in Europe and globally. Nature-based solutions – such as peatland and river restoration – aim to use natural processes to help tackle socio-environmental challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss and flooding.
One key element of nature-based solutions is that they are designed to offer clear economic and social rationales for the value of protecting and restoring natural environments. Advocates of nature-based solutions suggest that this helps strengthen arguments over the value of mainstreaming environmental restoration to benefit all our lives.
In this context, a newly-published open-access paper explores whether nature-based solutions can make meaningful contributions to tackling the freshwater biodiversity crisis. Writing in PLOS Water, Dr. Charles van Rees and colleagues highlight how nature-based solutions can offer ‘win-wins’ for nature and society, but emphasise that clear links must be made between their use and priorities for freshwater conservation.
We spoke to Dr. van Rees to find out more about the research.
///
Tell us about your paper: what are the key take-away points, and why do they matter?
I would highlight several take-home points from the paper. First, the notion which inspired the paper itself: everyone – from governments to NGO’s to private consultants – is getting really excited about nature-based solutions (or NBS). And that’s not a bad thing. But as we approach implementation of NBS on a massive scale, we have to make sure we’re doing these projects the right way. Part of the appeal of these projects is ostensibly their potential to benefit biodiversity. However, at the moment, this seems mostly unsubstantiated; people are happy to pay lip-service to what NBS could be doing for biodiversity but in our enthusiasm we have failed to take a critical stance toward these claims. The paper set out to test those claims for freshwater biodiversity, the most imperilled realm of biodiversity, since a great number of NBS address freshwater management issues.
The second take home point is regarding what we found when we started digging into the literature: very little! Although there is an increasing amount written on NBS, there has been very little biodiversity monitoring of NBS projects. Thus, most evidence is indirect, and we had to conduct our analyses largely in a qualitative manner. The major message here is that we need to start rounding up the available evidence on the biodiversity impacts of common NBS, and collecting new evidence as these projects become increasingly mainstream.
The last major take-home comes from our qualitative findings. Namely, that NBS can make big contributions to some, but not all, of the major priority actions for freshwater biodiversity conservation. In other words, they do show great promise, but will not be a panacea. For things like facilitating environmental flows, creating and restoring habitat, and improving water quality and ecological and hydrological connectivity, NBS seem like they could make a major impact, especially if implemented at scale. For other issues, the potential is more indirect and would be appropriate for a supporting role, but we would still need to find ways to specifically and directly address those conservation issues in other ways.
Why is it so important to critically examine the role of NBS in freshwater conservation and restoration right now?
In the US and elsewhere, interest, momentum, and funding for NBS projects are building rapidly. They are an urgently needed solution to many major problems of the anthropocene, particularly dealing with global climate change and water-related existential risks like drought and flooding. At the same time, freshwater biodiversity is in crisis. That makes coming decades, where huge amounts of money are invested into water-management infrastructure, a critical time for freshwater biodiversity. If NBS can be deployed at scale and in ways that support biodiversity conservation goals like those put forth by David Tickner and colleagues, then the benefits could be massive.
Based on your research, do you think NBS deliver on their potential for freshwater biodiversity conservation, whilst also benefiting society?
I think NBS can absolutely deliver on both of the major ‘promises’ that people are excitedly making right now. However, it will require interdisciplinary knowledge integrated across sectors and levels of management – for example, from scientific expertise to local, indigenous, and other traditional expertise – and rigorous monitoring to ensure that this is the case. We see great potential for NBS to contribute to freshwater conservation goals like increasing connectivity, improving water quality, and generating habitat, for example. Other major goals like reducing the impacts of invasive species may be less directly related to freshwater NBS.
In your paper, you link freshwater NBS with six priority actions for freshwater biodiversity conservation. Why was this important to do, and what potential does it offer environmental managers and policy makers?
David Ticker and colleagues’ priority actions, and the complementary, cross-cutting Special Recommendations by myself and colleagues both outline strategic priorities that need to be addressed to ‘bend the curve’ for freshwater biodiversity, that is, slow and perhaps even reverse ongoing declines. In critically examining the promise of NBS for freshwater biodiversity, we wanted to ground their potential contributions to biodiversity conservation issues in a-priori categories of conservation action.
We hope that linking to these important 21st-century freshwater conservation papers and their highlighted priorities will help guide biodiversity research on NBS to focus on topic areas with maximal potential positive impact. I think the major potential for environmental managers and policy makers is in making them aware of what specific contributions they can expect to be making toward conservation goals. In planning and negotiations for projects, it’s important that they know what NBS can and can’t do, and what types of benefits are within the realm of possibility.
Finally, what knowledge gaps and other challenges need to be addressed to better apply freshwater NBS in the future?
The knowledge gaps around NBS and biodiversity are frankly huge. This means that funding must be made available for rigorous scientific monitoring of biodiversity in restored, artificial, and protected ecosystems functioning as NBS. This has a lot in common with ongoing work on novel ecosystems, and papers like our recent framework for monitoring natural infrastructure will be necessary to ensure that we learn as we go, and don’t proceed blindly with burgeoning enthusiasm for NBS. Beyond that, since biodiversity is different everywhere, more regional knowledge is needed to enable successful implementation outside of the areas from which most of the current research is coming.
///
The future of the EU Nature Restoration Law (NRL) was cast in doubt last week as negotiations over its adoption stalled.
The NRL – proposed last year – is a key component of the European Green Deal, and includes legally binding targets to restore degraded ecosystems and the biodiversity and carbon stores they support. The NRL aims to cover at least 20% of the EU’s land and seas with nature restoration measures by 2030, and to address all ecosystems in need of restoration by 2050. It aims to scale up existing measures such as reforestation, river restoration, greening cities and reducing pollution to restore European ecosystems and the benefits they provide to society.
However, last week, the European People’s Party (EPP) walked out of negotiations, stating that the proposed NRL threatens the EU’s long-term food security. The NRL now enters a critical phase, as the Environment (ENVI) Committee of the European Parliament will vote on the compromise amendments this Thursday 15th June, and the Council will adopt its final position on the 20th June.
In response, environmental scientists, businesses, progressive agriculture communities and NGOs across Europe have mobilised in an attempt to save the NRL. The EPP’s attempts to stop the adoption of the NRL are based on the argument that it places an unfair burden on farmers, who would be required, for example, to reduce pesticide usage and set aside land for environmental restoration.
An open letter by scientists including MERLIN project coordinator Daniel Hering rebuffs these claims about the NRL, and the related Sustainable Use Regulation (SUR). They address six key points, providing evidence to show that the legislation is essential for protecting European food security and sovereignty, boosting fisheries, creating new employment opportunities, and providing a more sustainable model for nature-based economies.
“If successful, both regulations [the NRL and SUR] will be cornerstones of future food security, human health and biodiversity conservation,” said Prof. Hering in an OPPLA blog post. “For the first time, the Nature Restoration Law sets binding targets for the restoration of marine and urban ecosystems, drained peatlands, floodplains and forests. Unfortunately, the current debate is driven by misinformation that are likely to terminate both regulations.
“Our letter addresses the questions, if the regulations are likely to reduce agricultural production, to harm marine fisheries, to cut jobs, to be a burden to the society and if it will be too risky in times of war,” continued Prof. Hering. “Scientific evidence suggests that all these claims are incorrect.”
Another open letter has been published by 207 civil society organisations through the #RestoreNature campaign. This letter – which is signed by major NGOs including Greenpeace, Rewilding Europe and WWF – focuses on the need for a strong NRL as a means of urgently tackling twin biodiversity and climate crises.
The #RestoreNature campaign asks members of the public to sign a petition in support of the NRL ahead of the crucial vote on Thursday. Their letter highlights the pioneering restoration projects across Europe which are already helping restore biodiversity, providing natural flood protection and creating jobs, amongst other benefits.
Their letter states: “When given a chance, and with a helping hand, nature has a remarkable ability to bounce back. Restoring nature means restoring our greatest ally in tackling the climate and biodiversity crises, restoring our health and overall well-being, and restoring the resilience of our economies.”
The #RestoreNature campaign calls on national governments, Members of the European Parliament and the European Commission to adopt the NRL by the end of 2023, and to ensure that large-scale environmental restoration is happening across the continent by 2030. It asks that strong nature restoration targets are set to match the extent and urgency of the biodiversity and climate crises, and met by 2040 at the latest.
The proposed NRL represents a critical element of the European Green Deal, and offers an invaluable opportunity to take ambitious and effective action to restore Europe’s ecosystems, to ensure that nature can continue to support sustainably support our lives. More broadly, it is crucial for reaching the targets of the Global Biodiversity Framework of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, agreed last year. Under this agreement, the world’s nations (including the EU) to restore at least 30% of their degraded habitats by 2030.
You can sign the #RestoreNature petition in support of the EU Nature Restoration Law here.
///
This article is supported by the MERLIN project.
On World Peatlands Day 2023 we’re delighted to bring you the third episode of the MERLIN podcast.
Peatlands and wetlands are vital landscapes. They store carbon and so help mitigate the harmful effects of climate change, they help buffer floodwaters and naturally filter drinking water, and they are often rich habitats for biodiversity. But peatlands and wetlands have been widely drained, altered and lost across Europe as a result of human actions.
This episode explores how peatlands and wetlands across the continent are being restored through a series of ambitious projects supported by the MERLIN project. Podcast host Rob St John meets a range of restoration scientists and managers implementing so-called ‘nature-based solutions‘ at their sites across Europe. Their schemes include beaver reintroduction, peatland ‘rewetting’ and wet woodland restoration.
We also hear from MERLIN project coordinator Dr Sebastian Birk on the need for fresh thinking around how to finance restoration schemes. Dr Birk discusses the challenges of accounting for factors such as carbon storage when assessing the benefits that restoration can bring to society.
You can also listen and subscribe to the podcast on Spotify, Amazon, and Apple Podcasts. Stay tuned for the next episode soon!
///
This article is supported by the MERLIN project.
Sturgeons were once so highly prized in the UK that in 1324, King Edward II declared them a ‘royal fish’. However, decades of overfishing, habitat loss and blocked migration routes have caused sturgeons to almost completely disappear from UK rivers and coastlines.
This population decline is not an isolated trend: the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) considers sturgeons the most critically endangered group of species on Earth. Across Europe, conservationists are seeking to implement large-scale plans to bring back sturgeon populations from the brink along major rivers such as the Danube.
This week, a team of conservationists led by the Zoological Society of London have launched an ambitious plan to restore populations of Atlantic and European sturgeons to UK waters. The UK Sturgeon Conservation and Action Plan aims to help restore sturgeon habitat and migration passages whilst reducing accidental bycatch. It forms part of major Europe-wide restoration initiatives to help save critically endangered European sturgeons from the brink of extinction.
“Growing up to 5m in length, with long whisker-like barbels and diamond-shaped armoured plates along their backs, sturgeons look like they’ve swum straight out of a palaeontologist’s textbook,” said Hannah McCormick from ZSL. “These impressive and ancient animals were once common in UK rivers and along our coastline, so it’s hardly surprising that they were declared ‘royal fish’ by King Edward II back in the 14th Century.
“Fast-forward seven hundred years, and sturgeons have all but disappeared from our waters, after dam construction in rivers blocking their migration routes and overfishing caused numbers to plummet in the latter half of the 20th century,” McCormick explained.
Both species of sturgeon native to the UK – European and Atlantic – are migratory. They are born in rivers, before migrating downstream to the sea, where they live most of their lives – which can stretch more than 60 years – returning to freshwater every few years to reproduce. This means that restoration efforts need to take into account the wide range of habitats that they pass through, and the numerous people and organisations responsible for their management.
As a result, the new action plan has five key goals. First, to map essential sturgeon habitats and migration routes across UK marine, estuarine and freshwaters to identify areas for restoration and protection from threats. Second, to boost European sturgeon restoration projects – particularly the Pan-European Action Plan for Sturgeons – by supporting UK sturgeon population recovery. Third, to minimise accidental sturgeon bycatch by working with marine fishers.
Fourth, the action plan aims to engage political and public audiences to actively support sturgeon restoration efforts. It highlights the role of sturgeons as ‘flagship species’ which draw attention to wider aquatic conservation issues. Finally, it aims to close evidence gaps around sturgeon populations by supporting scientific research which helps underpin conservation decision-making.
The action plan was created by the UK Sturgeon Alliance – a group of research organisations and NGOs formed in 2020 which works to restore native sturgeon populations. The Alliance have set up a website – Save the Sturgeon – where the public can report sturgeon sightings to help researchers better understand their population dynamics.
“The development of this Action Plan has been an exciting first step that contributes to the European efforts of restoring sturgeons,” said Jenny Murray from the Blue Marine Foundation, a member of the UK Sturgeon Alliance. “This has been a truly collaborative approach that has highlighted the interest and need to see habitats in a good enough condition for their return. The public can support sturgeons return by raising awareness of this beautiful species and reporting any sightings to the Save the Sturgeon website.”
“We now have over 5,200 records of sturgeon in rivers, estuaries and coastal waters all around the UK, since at least 1700, added Steve Colclough from the Institute of Fisheries Management, another member of the member of the UK Sturgeon Alliance. “Our waters clearly formed part of the natural range of these great migrators. Until recently, the numbers visiting us have been so low that these were only recognised as occasional vagrants. In the 18th and 19th century many fish were captured in our rivers and in some cases where they were not offered to the crown, they were removed and destroyed as strange exotic sea monsters. Now we know better, we can help conserve these flagship species for future generations to see.”
///
This article is supported by the MERLIN project.
Turning the tide on the ‘triple’ global water crisis
Decades of neglect of the global hydrological cycle have led to a triple water crisis which needs to be urgently addressed, according to a major report published last month.
Human water needs are not being met across the world, whilst global environmental change is causing increasingly extreme droughts, floods, storms and wildfires. Human actions are beginning to alter the global hydrological cycle and threaten the source of freshwater – precipitation – in many areas, the report warns.
Published by the Global Commission on the Economics of Water, “Turning the Tide: A Call to Collective Action” argues that urgent attention is needed to tackle these issues. The report states that a global transformation of the economics and governance of water is required to help sustain humans and nature in a rapidly changing world.
The report places water at the heart of the ongoing climate and biodiversity crises. “Every view of climate change that excludes water is incomplete,” says Johan Rockström, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and co-chair of the Commission. “For the first time in human history, we can no longer count on the source of all freshwater, our precipitation.
“We are changing the entire global hydrological cycle,” continues Rockström. “Each 1°C of global warming adds about 7% moisture to the water cycle, supercharging and intensifying it, leading to more and more extreme weather events.”
The climatic and biodiversity impacts of the water crisis have significant impacts on human life. The report highlights the stark figures that more than two billion people still lack access to safely-managed water globally, whilst one child under five dies every 80 seconds from diseases caused by polluted water. The water crisis has pushed communities and regions across the Global South into acute food insecurity.
These impacts are not the consequences of freak events, population growth or economic development, the report argues. Instead, they are the product of decades of mismanagement of water – including pollution, over-abstraction and habitat destruction – which has pushed the global water cycle out of balance for the first time in human history. The report highlights the prospect of a 40% shortfall in freshwater supply by 2030, with acute shortages in water-stressed regions.
The Commission outlines the need to transform the economics and governance of water in ways which recognise and manage the water cycle as a global common good. This means bold collective action across political borders to restore and safeguard rivers, streams, lakes, groundwater and wetlands across catchments, countries and continents.
“We need new economic thinking to help move from reactively fixing to proactively shaping economies to become inclusive and sustainable,” says Mariana Mazzucato, Professor in the Economics of Innovation and Public Value at University College London and co-chair of the Commission. “Moving from sectoral to mission-oriented innovation policies with a common good approach can help us put equity and justice at the centre of water partnerships and bring multiple sectors together to tackle our biggest water challenges,” Mazzucato adds.
The report sets out seven points to structure a more sustainable and just water future. First, it stress that water is a global common good which connects communities and nations across borders. This means that collective action to protect the water cycle is highlighted as being in the interests of all. Second, there is the need to mobilise public and private bodies alongside local communities to apply and scale-up innovative new approaches to providing clean and safe water. The report emphasises the need to shape markets, direct investments and design policies towards positive water goals.
Third, the report argues that our economic systems underprice the value of water, which leads to unsustainable use of freshwater resources, and a lack of access to water for the poor and vulnerable in many areas. In other words, the multiple benefits that water provides must become visible on public and private balance sheets through better accounting of their natural resource values. This should be coupled with targeted subsidies to ensure low-income communities have access to clean water, the report states.
Fourth, there is the need to phase out government subsidies – which are estimate to total more than USD 700 billion annually – to the agriculture and water industries which encourage excessive water consumption and environmental damage. Fifth, Just Water Partnerships (similar to the Just Energy Transition Partnerships launched at COP26) which enable investments in water access, resilience and sustainability in low- and middle-income countries should be more widely established across the world.
Sixth, the report states that we are in a critical window of time to to shift the economics and governance of the global water systems to help tackle human, climate and biodiversity crises. The authors identify the need to upscale and mobilise finance towards innovative new technologies which can help store and recycle water, tackle inefficiencies in water infrastructure, and incentive water-friendly farming systems.
Finally, the report argues that there is a need for more joined-up and co-ordinated global governance of water. This process would require better dialogue and collective action across governments, to help strengthen existing environmental policies, make trade policies more sustainable, encourage better data collection to track water systems, and strengthen partnerships with global financial institutions. In the longer-term this could involve the establishment of a new Water Convention or Global Water pact which encourages greater collaboration across nations and communities.
“Solving the water challenge requires higher ambition, but it’s an ambition that is actually achievable if we work collectively and accelerate actions in the current decade,” says Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Senior Minister in Singapore and co-chair of the Commission.“We have the scientific expertise, we know what the basic policy reorientations should be, and there is no real lack of finance globally. The task is to organise these resources for a sustainable and globally-equitable future – that’s in every nation’s interest.”
///
This article is supported by the MERLIN project.
Nature-based solutions and economic sectors in freshwater restoration: four themes to strengthen collaboration
Protecting natural environments has long relied on co-operation between the different people and organisations who live and work in them. As such, it is widely recognised that biodiversity conservation and restoration are inherently social activities. Accordingly, they require careful consideration of the cultural, political and economic contexts of the landscapes in which they take place.
The nature-based solutions concept offers emerging opportunities to navigate these contexts to help strengthen freshwater restoration efforts. Nature-based solutions aim to use natural processes to help tackle socio-environmental challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss and flooding.
At the core of the nature-based solutions concept is a belief that ecological restoration can bring significant benefits to both society and biodiversity. The EU-funded MERLIN project explores how these benefits can act as a focus for collaborations between different economic sectors to help mainstream freshwater restoration.
MERLIN works with representatives from six economic sectors – agriculture, hydropower, insurance, navigation, peat extraction, and water supply and sanitation to mainstream nature-based solutions in their activities across Europe. Project partners recently released a briefing exploring how nature-based solutions are understood across these sectors in Europe, and – vitally – how they might help encourage collaborations which strengthen restoration efforts.
The team learnt four valuable lessons from talking to sectoral representatives which have wider implications for ecological restoration initiatives elsewhere.
Demonstrating the value of nature-based solutions
First, whilst sectoral representatives were largely aware of nature-based solutions in freshwater restoration, they were not always persuaded of the need for radical change or transformation. Crucially, representatives were not yet convinced that they could rely on nature-based solutions to deliver their sectoral objectives.
A key challenge is to illustrate how nature-based solutions can help sectors advance EU Green Deal goals. Adopted in 2019, the Green Deal has wide-ranging ambitions to support environmental protection, green economies, sustainable agriculture and technological innovation across Europe. The MERLIN briefing suggests that sectoral representatives were broadly supportive of its vision, and the task is to demonstrate how nature-based solutions can help achieve it.
Communicating and providing evidence
Second, whilst the language of nature-based solutions is not yet widely used across these sectors, there is an understanding of concepts of sustainability and ‘working with nature’. The MERLIN researchers suggest that this provides a strong basis to foreground the potential social and economic benefits offered by nature-based solutions in restoration.
Third, sectoral representatives seek clear evidence that nature-based solutions can bring tangible benefits to their own initiatives. In particular, this involves demonstrating how nature-based solutions can work effectively across entire catchments. Moreover, there is a need for clarity over how the ‘burden-sharing’ of restoring nature will be coordinated and governed.
Managing synergies and trade-offs
Finally, the MERLIN researchers identify strong synergies between the different sectors. However, these are balanced by potential trade-offs and challenges, for example over the location and scale of benefits generated. Through initiatives such as the MERLIN Academy, the project seeks to build new communities of practice around nature-based solutions to help communicate their potential for economic sectors, and manage these trade-offs and tensions.
Co-author and co-lead of research Kirsty Blackstock from the James Hutton Institute said, “It has been extremely instructive to talk to, and learn from, representatives from these economic sectors. Through this discussion, we’ve identified cooperation points where we can start our journey of transformation together. We don’t always agree – there are often difficult trade-offs to resolve – but through knowledge sharing, solutions can be found.”
Co-author and co-lead of research Anna Bérczi-Siket from WWF added, “Putting a focus on freshwater restoration and nature-based solutions in the six economic sectors’ actions requires a paradigm shift.
“Our first briefing introduces the starting point of our formulating community of practice which includes the six MERLIN sectors. Side by side with this community we will draw up a cross-sectoral route map to the change we want to achieve together.
“Our cooperation is a good example of how the integration principle of the environmental policy can be put into practice – which also requires that environmental and sustainability considerations become an integral part of the decision-making processes and actions of other sectors,” Bérczi-Siket said.
Overall, the briefing suggests that there is significant potential for nature-based solutions to help address social and biodiversity goals through strengthened collaborations across economic sectors. The challenge over the coming years is to provide clear evidence and recommendations to help sectors mainstream nature-based solutions in their everyday practices.
///
Read the MERLIN briefing: Mainstreaming aquatic restoration using Nature-based Solutions: Briefing on national / EU sector perceptions, workshops, and tailored briefings per sector
“A rapidly closing window”: the urgent need for meaningful climate action for people and nature
Climate change poses a significant threat to both human wellbeing and global ecosystems, but “there is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all,” according to the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, released this week.
The IPCC AR6 report emphasises that whilst the situation is increasingly serious, there are “multiple, feasible and effective options” available to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help societies adapt to human-caused climate changes.
“Mainstreaming effective and equitable climate action will not only reduce losses and damages for nature and people, it will also provide wider benefits,” said IPCC Chair Hoesung Lee. “This Synthesis Report underscores the urgency of taking more ambitious action and shows that, if we act now, we can still secure a liveable sustainable future for all.”
Five years ago, the 2018 IPCC report outlined the challenges of restricting global warming levels to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. However, continued increases in greenhouse gas emissions has already led to current global temperatures around 1.1°C higher than those around 1850–1900.
The new report stresses that every increment of warming escalates hazards such as heatwaves and heavier rainfall. As a result, increasingly extreme climate-related risks around drought, flooding and water security place increasing pressure on the health and livelihoods of global communities, particularly those in developing nations.
“Climate justice is crucial because those who have contributed least to climate change are being disproportionately affected,” said co-author Aditi Mukherji from the International Water Management Institute. “Almost half of the world’s population lives in regions that are highly vulnerable to climate change. In the last decade, deaths from floods, droughts and storms were fifteen times higher in highly vulnerable regions,“ she continued.
As we regularly highlight on this blog, freshwater ecosystems are significantly impacted by a changing climate. The IPCC report highlights the interdependencies of climate change and water. It outlines how increasingly extreme climatic events have left many global communities vulnerable to floods, droughts, reduced water and food security, and water-borne diseases. Moreover, it highlights the substantial, and increasingly irreversible, losses of plants and animals in freshwater ecosystems driven by heat extremes and changes in the water cycle.
The report also highlights the potential of freshwater nature-based solutions in helping mitigate the effects of climate change. Such measures include wetland restoration, reforesting river catchments and natural water management and storage in agricultural landscapes. These approaches can help buffer floods and droughts, and offer biodiversity habitat. The report states that 30–50% of global land, freshwater and ocean areas need to be effectively conserved in order to maintain their ecosystem resilience to climate change.
The report emphasises the need for governments to rapidly implement ‘climate resilient’ development strategies which shift our global reliance on fossil fuels towards clean energies and technologies. These include wind and solar power, energy efficiency schemes, ‘green’ low-carbon cities, transport and agriculture, alongside halting deforestation.
The report states that at the moment global governments are not doing enough to mitigate the impacts of current climate change, let alone to achieve the targets of the Paris Agreement on emissions. Indeed, IPCC models suggest that without a strengthening of global climate policies, global warming of 3.2°C is projected by 2100.
The message is clear, humanity is at a climate crossroads. “The choices and actions implemented in this decade will have impacts now and for thousands of years,” state the report authors.
The report argues that increasing finance to climate investments is a key step to achieve the rapid cuts in carbon emissions needed to slow down global warming. It calls on governments, investors and central banks to help scale up deep emissions cuts through ambitious policy and governance.
“Transformational changes are more likely to succeed where there is trust, where everyone works together to prioritise risk reduction, and where benefits and burdens are shared equitably,” Hoesung Lee said. “We live in a diverse world in which everyone has different responsibilities and different opportunities to bring about change. Some can do a lot while others will need support to help them manage the change.”
///
Read the Synthesis Report of the IPCC Sixth Assesment Report (AR6)
The Freshwater Blog 