Revisiting the Case for River Conservation - River Conservation and Management - page 8

this topic in many countries, of which the following
are merely examples: North America (Wright et al .,
2005), Australia (Boulton et al ., 2007), France
(Nogaro et al ., 2010), Austria (Danielopol and
Pospisil 2001), and the UK (Wood et al ., this
volume). Despite growing interest in the vertical
connectivity within rivers and the significance of
hyporheic zones in river functioning, they form no
part in ecological status assessment under the WFD
(Wood et al ., this volume).
Thus, while significant progress has been made
since 1990 in understanding the importance of
scale and connectivity in river processes, translating
science into policy and practice still has some way
to go.

is an essential prerequisite and any reduction
in basic research in this area will ultimately
impoverish the 'evidence base' that government
bodies and others claim is so important in
environmental management. Even simply trying
to implement the requirements of the WFD has
encountered problems through an insufficient
understanding of ecological processes. For example,
environmental regulators need to know how
activities such as river engineering are likely
to affect aquatic organisms, but understanding
the relationship between physical habitat and
biological communities still has a long way to go
(Vaughan et al ., 2009).

There is more to conservation than
ecosystem services
The concept of 'ecosystem goods and services' is
not new, neither is the term itself which was
coined in the 1960s, yet in 1990 the services
provided by rivers to human society ('supporting',
'provisioning', 'regulating' and 'cultural' - Plate
4) were rarely discussed in quite that way.
The Convention on Biological Diversity (United
Nations, 1992) rightly emphasized the inextricable
links between human societies and the ecosystems
of which they are part and on which they depend
(Bridgewater et al ., this volume; Everard, this
volume). Now, since publication of the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment (2005) the justification for
nature conservation often seems to be based mainly
on ecosystem services. Sadly, the philosophical
principle that habitats and species have a right
to exist, irrespective of the value they represent
for human beings, no longer seems to command
much respect. A more 'traditional' approach to
conservation lies at the heart of the EC Habitats
Directive, and discussions continue on whether
a focus on ecosystem services can meet the
needs of nature conservation (Palmer et al ., 2004;
McCauley, 2006; Reid, 2006). There will, of
course, be real differences in approach to nature
conservation in general, and river conservation
in particular, between developed countries and
those in developing parts of the world where
addressing the problems of water scarcity and
the alleviation of poverty are critically important.

Strengthening the case - 20 years
further on
At the York conference in 1990, Boon (1992)
suggested 10 ways in which the case for river
conservation could be made more effectively:
the application of theoretical ecology to
river conservation; increased research effort;
studies on habitat requirements of river biota;
taxonomic work; scientific publication; national
and international co-ordination; improved
procedures for Environmental Assessment;
adaptive management in river modification
schemes; long-term monitoring; and public
education and participation. Looking ahead to
the next 20 years, where do we go from here?
What are some of the issues needing attention in
furthering the cause of river conservation in the
first half of the 21st century?

The need for basic research
The decline in freshwater research in the UK
has been accompanied by a change in direction
of research priorities as universities and research
institutes seek external funding to boost shrinking
budgets (Battarbee et al ., 2005; Raven 2006). In
particular, the last 10 years have seen significant
sums of money spent on developing new methods
for assessing ecological status under the WFD.
Although EC directives are important, effective
river conservation and management needs much
more than this. A solid foundation of river science