Integrating management of freshwater ecosystems and climate change

Sustaining freshwater ecosystems and responding to climate change are two of the greatest challenges facing humanity. Climate change and water are intimately linked: changes in climate affect hydrology, and societal responses to climate change (e.g. through mitigation and adaptation measures) affect water use. Thus, the management of climate change and water needs to be integrated to maximise benefits for people and nature conservation. This research asked 'What institutions and other tools can governments and societies most successfully apply, to integrate management of freshwater ecosystems?' To answer this question, the research examined management of freshwater ecosystems and climate change through different lenses, from the global to the local scales. At the international scale, the issue was explored from a 'new institutionalism' perspective, by systematically examining the key multilateral environment agreements adopted to manage climate change, biodiversity and water - the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. Documentary records from these regimes were examined for evidence of conflicts and positive synergies in policy integration, and the deployment of mechanisms for such integration. Each of these conventions requires national governments to integrate measures to achieve the objectives of the conventions into all appropriate sectoral institutions. This research showed that horizontal (at the same scale) and vertical (from global to local scale) integration mechanisms are missing, or poorly used. As a result, international climate change policies are having perverse impacts on freshwater ecosystems, and opportunities are being missed for positive, synergistic implementation of the three conventions. The papers presented here recommend responses that can improve such integration. At a national level, the research assessed national priorities and the state of integration of climate, energy, water and biodiversity policies from Australia, Brazil, China, the European Union, India, Mexico, South Africa, Tanzania and the United Kingdom. The sectoral silos identified were similar to those at the international scale. A framework for policy integration was used to assess legislation, coordination, leadership, and mechanisms for consultation and review. Numerous examples of negative impacts of climate change mitigation policies on freshwater ecosystems were identified, and few positive, synergistic measures were found. Developing countries had more holistic policies linking climate change adaptation and mitigation, whereas developed jurisdictions had conflated climate and energy policies. Little evidence was found of national governments either deploying tools that would aid conservation of freshwater ecosystems, or adopting measures to better enable subnational institutions to adapt to climate change. The research presented here recommends more systematic adoption of the better policy integration practices identified at the national scale. A number of long-standing measures for management of freshwater ecosystems were examined to see whether they continue to provide benefits for conservation as hydrology changes with the climate. The tools assessed were freshwater protected areas, environmental water allocations and periodic relicensing of water infrastructure. It was found that these measures have considerable benefits for freshwater conservation under climate change, can be applied now, and can be even more effective if modified to better account for the impacts of climate change. Empirical research undertaken at the local to basin scale assessed lessons from autonomous adaptation in river-basin management for more effective climate change adaptation. Six programs were assessed, from Brazil, China, India, Mexico, Tanzania and four eastern European countries along the lower Danube River. Eight main lessons were identified for more effective adaptation: providing multiple benefits; communicating opportunities for adaptation; promoting local ownership; providing immediate benefits; undertaking adaptive management; linking local, national and global institutions; providing consistent funding for adaptation; and seizing policy reform windows. The research found that national governments need to focus on facilitating adaptation through existing local institutions, especially through enabling laws, information and financing mechanisms. This work was supplemented with research on climate change adaption responses by governments in Australia's Murray-Darling basin. A number of responses to drought were identified as maladaption (both physically and as opportunity costs), because they were not sufficiently far-reaching for effective adaptation to climate change. At each scale, a framework of appropriate measures in legislation, leadership, horizontal integration, vertical integration, review and advisory mechanisms proved to be a robust framework for better management of freshwater ecosystems and climate change. While there are good-practice examples at all geopolitical scales, they are not often applied. Thus, at each scale, there are many opportunity for better integration and more positive, synergistic outcomes. It is clear that the large epistemological community and 'high politics' that has developed around climate change has a downside; that is, a limited engagement with other sectors. Hence, freshwater ecosystems and resources may be adversely affected by climate change both directly, as hydrology changes, and indirectly, through perverse impacts of mitigation and adaptation policies. Further research is needed to examine why international and national institutions have not better integrated their policies for management of freshwater ecosystems and climate change, to implement more sustainable solutions