Alpine aquatic ecosystem conservation policy in a changing climate

Abstract

Freshwater ecosystems are often of high conservation value, yet many have been degraded significantly by direct anthropogenic impacts and are further threatened by global environmental change. Traditionally, conservation science and policy has promoted principles based on preservation and restoration paradigms, which are linked to assumptions of stationarity and uniformitarianism. Adaptation requires new approaches based on flexibility, iterativity, non-linearity, and redundancy. Many high alpine river networks represent near natural, pristine river systems and important biodiversity 'hotspots' of European freshwater fauna. However, there remains a lack of guidance on alpine river conservation strategies under a changing climate at EU, regional and local levels. A critical evaluation of current conservation and adaptation principles and governance frameworks was undertaken with relation to predicted climate change impacts on freshwater ecosystems. Case studies are presented from two alpine zones in mainland Europe (the Pyrénées and the Swiss Alps). The complexity of climate change impacts on hydrological regimes, habitat and biota from both case study regions suggests that current legislative and policy mechanisms, which frame conservation approaches, need to be realigned. In particular, a shift in focus from species-centric approaches to more holistic ecosystem functioning conservation is proposed.A methodological approach is set out that may help conservationists and resource managers to both prioritise their efforts, and better predict future habitat and biotic responses to set ecological baseline conditions. Due to the complexity and limited potential for preventative intervention in these systems, conservation strategies should focus on: (i) the maintenance and enhancement of connectivity within and between alpine river basins and (ii) the control and reduction of additional anthropogenic stressors.

HESS Opinions: A conceptual framework for assessing socio-hydrological resilience under change

“…The importance of using resilience in the coupled humanwater context is increasingly evident in both academic and public policy fields, ranging from aquatic ecosystem conservation (Khamis et al, 2013;Sala et al, 2000) to hydrological risk management (Adger et al, 2005;Hallegatte et al, 2013) and sustainable water use and development (Pahl-Wostl et al, 2013;Vorosmarty et al, 2000). For the reasons explained already, it is critical to clarify the character of resilience in socio-hydrological contexts which in turn is determined by the human-water coupling type.…”

“…For example, hydrological adaptive capacity depends on various intrinsic factors such as biomass, biodiversity, and the ecological traits of species (Dawson et al, 2011;van Vliet et al, 2013). In an abiotic context, adaptive capacity can also be determined by features such as high river connectivity (Khamis et al, 2013), stable hydrological cycles (Thomas, 2016), and heterogeneous landscape (Czucz et al, 2011). A second approach is to raise social and institutional capabilities, such as accessibility to information and resources (Milman and Short, 2008), responsiveness to environmental change (Malhotra et al, 2007), enhanced institutional structure and governance processes da Silveira and Richards, 2013), boosted stakeholder participation (Few et al, 2007), and encouragement of learning and knowledge dissemination and exchange (Pahl-Wostl, 2009).…”

“…Susceptible socio-hydrological systems can be strengthened by increasing absorptive capacity and by making hydrological ecosystem services supply more robust and sustainable under current hazard regimes. For example, water pollution may decrease potable water availability, while introducing vegetated buffer zones can protect water quality (Hickey and Doran, 2004;Khamis et al, 2013); aquatic ecosystem degradation may shrink fish populations and food yield from aquatic products, and diversifying abiotic characteristics such as habitat supports the resilience of faunal populations (Bisson et al, 2009;Khamis et al, 2013). Hydrological disasters also deplete human benefits derived from water systems, and setting up early-warning systems can substantially increase the capabilities to deal with disasters (Adger et al, 2005).…”

“…It implies that socio-hydrological systems should not only be kept within predetermined operating limits but also be the focus of bespoke resilient strategies. Khamis et al (2013) compare the network sensitivity and conservation capacity of two catchments -the Taillon-Gabiétous catchment in the French Pyrénées and the Rhône catchment in the Swiss Alps -by assessing nine variables. It was found that the Rhône catchment has relatively higher absorptive capacity because of its lower network sensitivity, lower potential for alien-species invasion, and higher cryosphere-flow buffering, while the Taillon-Gabiétous catchment has higher adaptive capacity due to its larger proportion of conservation area and higher naturalness of river flow.…”

Interdisciplinary approaches for analysing governance challenges across the Rhône basin

“…These pressures will only be further exacerbated by future intensifying climate change impacts, which are likely to affect both the timing and seasonality of hydrological regimes, affecting sectors such as hydroelectricity and agriculture . Furthermore augmented water temperatures and associated quality changes are likely to have significant repercussions for aquatic and riparian ecosystems as well as for the man-made infrastructure such as hydropower systems and the cooling systems of nuclear power stations in the French section of the basin Khamis et al 2014;Pellicciotti et al 2014).…”