Integrating Hydrological Processes
into Conservation Planning at a Landscape Scale
Summary of Workshop Discussions
Fazenda Rio Negro
Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil
21-25 April 2006
1
Introduction
While networks of conservation areas are the most effective tactic for preventing species extinctions in
the near-term, the long-term persistence of both threatened species and sites also depends on the
maintenance of critical ecological processes at a sea/ landscape-scale. Complex hydrological processes
create the conditions for a range of habitats (e.g., floodplains, lakes, shorelines) that are of critical
importance to threatened species. Hydrological processes also generate important socioeconomic
benefits by supplying water for daily needs, agriculture, fisheries, hydroelectric energy and other industrial
uses, and by contributing to flood defense and supporting harvestable biodiversity resources (e.g., fish,
crabs). Disruptions to hydrological processes (e.g., due to unsustainable intervention from dam
development, deforestation, or pollution) have been identified as significant threats to both biodiversity
and sustainable economic development.
Integrating hydrological processes into conservation planning at the landscape scale is a technical
challenge that requires the close collaboration of both biodiversity conservation and hydrological
expertise. Conservation International is therefore leading a collaborative learning initiative to bring
together conservation partners and centers of freshwater expertise, including the African Wildlife
Foundation, The Nature Conservancy, the Wildlife Conservation Society, the World Wildlife Fund, the
IUCN Freshwater Program and Wetlands International. The initiative enables partners to share expertise
and lessons learned on the integration of hydrological processes into conservation planning at the
landscape scale to address key questions:
 How do changes in hydrological processes impact on globally threatened species and/ or KBAs
and the ecosystem services they provide?
 How do we map and quantify hydrological processes and patterns and identify clear targets or
thresholds for hydrological processes to ensure the persistence of globally threatened species,
KBAs, and the ecosystem services they provide?
 How do we value the biodiversity and ecological benefits of functioning hydrological processes to
the wider economy and society?
 How do we integrate hydrological information with biodiversity and socioeconomic data to support
the design of effective conservation strategies at the landscape scale and how do we integrate
these conservation strategies in sustainable development planning?
As a first step in this collaborative initiative, CI-Brazil hosted a workshop at the Fazenda Rio Negro in the
Pantanal, the world's largest contiguous wetland. This first workshop focused on the identification of
targets for maintaining hydrological processes and key threats to those processes, drawing upon
experiences gained through several case study analyses being conducted in the field and providing
lessons for the other case studies about to embark on similar analyses.
A second workshop will look at the process of defining threats and pressures on the system, engaging
with the relevant stakeholders, identifying the types of conservation interventions that might be most
effective given the local/ regional contexts, and identifying the types of analyses required to properly
implement those interventions. The case study teams will then integrate the various layers of biodiversity,
hydrological, threats and intervention analyses to develop a cohesive strategy for conservation.
Integrating Hydrological Processes into Conservation Planning at a Landscape Scale
1
Overview of Hydrological Processes and Wetlands
[Insert summary of Ward’s presentation here? and link to presentation]
Overview of Workshop Discussions
In preparation for the workshop, we developed a framework presentation that outlines the different
approaches to conservation planning of the main conservation organizations with particular reference to
hydrological processes [insert link to Charlotte’s framework presentation and text]. In this summary report,
we have synthesized and loosely grouped discussions during the course of the Pantanal workshop into
three sets of issues that roughly correlate with the main stages in conservation planning outlined in the
framework document:
i. linking and mapping biodiversity targets to hydrological processes;
ii. measuring and quantifying hydrological processes, and collecting and managing data;
iii. understanding and analyzing threats, pressures and livelihood dependence on hydrological systems,
and integrating of biodiversity and socio-economic concerns for conservation planning adnaction.
A number of recurring discussion points are worth emphasizing here:

The difference between restoration agendas in altered hydrological systems (e.g. Savannah, Chilika,
Loktak) and more pre-emptive conservationist agendas in wilderness areas (e.g. Pantanal, North
Rupununi, Milne Bay, Mamberamo). In some cases, both agendas are present within the same
landscape. For example, the Pantanal wilderness largely has a conservationist agenda, but at smaller
scales, such as the Cuiabá watershed, restoration may now be the priority.

The distinction between focusing on specific biodiversity targets (e.g. species or sites) and aiming to
restore a ‘natural flow regime’ for the benefit of entire communities or ecosystems.

The balance between a focus on flow as the master variable (especially in altered systems) and water
quality (especially in wilderness areas and for coastal biodiversity targets). TNC has focused on
restoration of altered systems with hydrological flows as the master variable [insert link to David
Harrison’s presentation], but acknowledges that restoring flows may not always be sufficient to
restore ecological integrity. The underlying assumption is that closer approximation to “natural” flows
will bring back biodiversity. However, in some cases, such as the Pantanal, current biodiversity
concerns center on water quality issues [insert link to Debora Calheiros presentation].

Differences of scale in conservation planning for biodiversity (often macro-watersheds and/ or
landscapes), analytical approaches (often defined by politico-administrative boundaries), and
implementation (often at a micro-watershed or more local administrative scale).

The contrast between the need to integrate freshwater, coastal and marine systems in conservation
planning and constraints imposed by the institutional structure and divisions in policy and governing
institutions.

Recognition that this work necessarily requires multidisciplinary knowledge and an integrative
approach – and thus requires a network of folks with the wide range of skills, but a common
conservation vision, to achieve the broad goals.

The case studies all have different starting points and agendas – and as such, there may be a need
to identify a suite of different approaches/ methodologies that are relevant to the different contexts.
Please see Annex I for the Workshop Agenda and Annex II for a List of Participants.
Integrating Hydrological Processes into Conservation Planning at a Landscape Scale
2
1. Mapping biodiversity targets to hydrological processes
The challenges of mapping biodiversity targets to hydrological processes - a component often missing in
terrestrial/ freshwater conservation planning - was a focal question for this workshop.
For species targets, WCS demonstrated how basic ecological research on species distribution and
habitat niches is a prerequisite for mapping biodiversity targets to hydrological processes. [insert link to
WCS case study]. CI-Brazil outlined their analysis on species distribution and hydrological requirements
in the Pantanal, and raised the question of the reliability of statistical analysis based on relatively few data
points (e.g. 30-50 data points). [insert link to Pantanal case study – both George Camargo’s and Ricardo
Machado’s presentations]. CSIRO demonstrated how well designed surveys can target data gaps [insert
link to Chris Margules’ presentation]. The North Rupununi team is exploring methodologies for
supplementing existing point locality data with inexpensive methods, such as monitoring by local
communities. [insert link to North Rupununi case study]. TNC also showed how seasonal patterns and
life-cycles of species can be linked to hydrological flows, by mapping critical stages to hydrographs.
[insert link to David Harrison’s presentation] Wetlands International showed how species information may
be linked to hydrological information by examining the relationship between biodiversity data and changes
in water quality or quantity data through regression analysis. [insert link to Loktak Lake case study]
IUCN’s Freshwater program identifies critical freshwater sites (at the scale of river basins or sub-basins)
based on data on globally or regionally threatened and restricted range species (including fish, mollusks,
odonates, crustaceans, plants). IUCN recognizes the need to take broader-scale hydrological processes
into account, and aims to ensure the inclusion of representative hydrological, geological and
topographical land forms within the selected sites [insert link to IUCN presentation]. CI follows a similar
approach, as outlined in the Mamberamo presentation. [insert link].
TNC has focused on restoring ‘natural flow regimes’ for the benefit of entire communities or ecosystems
rather than specific species or sites, and emphasizes the need to ensure adequate conditions for all
species enough of the time rather than trying to create optimal conditions for all species all of the time.
[insert links to both Karin Krchnak’s and David Harrison’s presentations]. This led to discussion about the
relative importance of flow regimes and water quality, especially in systems where flow regimes have
been less modified. For example, at the interface between freshwater and coastal systems, the salinity
gradient plays a critical role in maintaining biodiversity (as in the Sundarbans and Chilika). [insert links].
Conservation planning in these brackish systems needs to build on an understanding of salinity gradients
between low and high water seasons and the feedback relationships between freshwater and coastal
systems. Similarly, in Milne Bay, changes in water quality attributed to erosion, sedimentation, pollution
can have significant impact on the health and biodiversity of mangroves and coral reefs. [insert link]
Questions were also raised about what is considered ‘natural’ given dynamic changes in hydrological
processes and associated landscapes over time, as demonstrated by the natural variation in the Pantanal
[insert link to Carlos Padovani’s presentation]. TNC uses the concept of sustainability boundaries – the
boundary between acceptable and unacceptable changes in ecosystem health. This led to discussion
about the different challenges of analyzing and predicting the cumulative impacts of changes in
hydrological processes (e.g. construction of numerous small canals to divert water for village needs)
versus catastrophic changes (e.g. construction of a large dam):
 How do we monitor the cumulative impacts – “death by a thousand cuts” – and what do we know
about the tipping point for diversity between reversible and irreversible changes to the hydrological
system?
 It was suggested that North Rupununi would be a good case study for addressing cumulative effects.
North Rupununi is a wilderness area with a range of both small and large-scale threats looming, has
a good monitoring system in place, and is of a “manageable” scale. Hydrographic characteristics can
be used to identify threshold indicators and tipping points. [insert link to N Rupununi case study]
Finally, there was some discussion about using species that directly depend on the hydro-ecosystem
functions as indicators, for example, species that depend on freshwater food chains. (A proxy to
measuring hydro-ecosystem function is the carbon content in streams and its impact on aquatic food
Integrating Hydrological Processes into Conservation Planning at a Landscape Scale
3
chains.) Another suggestion was to use the relatively abundant data on more common species as a
means to understand species needs and to correlate these with hydrological processes.
2. Measurement and quantification of hydrological attributes
Hydrological data are usually available in various shapes and forms, and for different objectives (e.g. for
irrigation/ agriculture planning as with EMBRAPA in the Pantanal, and river flow/ dam management as in
Chilika Lake) [insert links to case studies] The first challenge lies in identifying the key hydrological
variables that are relevant for biodiversity targets (see discussion above on Mapping biodiversity targets
to hydrological processes), and then obtaining and interpreting relevant data.
Historical flow data are commonly used as the threshold or baseline in modeling and scenario-building
exercises (as is applied in the Chilika Lagoon, Loktak Lake and Savannah case studies) [insert links to
case studies]. However, it can be difficult to obtain consistent time-series stream/river flow information as
these are usually held by government institutions and private industry interests. (TNC’s success towards
restoring environmental flows in Savannah, Georgia is in large part due to their pivotal partnership with
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and access to flow data dating back to the 1880s. Having the right
partner is critical!)
Experiences from the group provided useful insights for addressing challenges of data (un)availability:
i.
WWF is currently developing a global hydrological database called HydroSHEDS, which will
enable scientists to create digital river and watershed maps at multiple scales for conservation
planning (http://www.worldwildlife.org/freshwater/hydrosheds.cfm).
ii.
Remote sensing data and GIS models provide relatively dependable data on the geophysical
aspects of the landscape, as demonstrated for the Pantanal. [insert link to Carlos Padovani’s
presentation]
iii. For primary data collection activities, understanding the critical data gaps (building on a
preliminary assessment of the relationship between biodiversity targets and hydrological
processes) will facilitate appropriate survey designs that target scientific gaps in an efficient and
effective manner within the large landscapes. This will also lend a stronger and more robust basis
when extrapolating the data in analytical procedures.
iv. There are important technical issues related to interpolation from scarce data points – the choice
of which analytical approach to use (e.g. statistical regressions, spatial modeling, economic
simulations) will define the nature and validity of results and should be considered carefully.
v.
Integrating local knowledge into the process. The North Rupununi Wetlands project has put in
place a data collection and monitoring program with the local communities around the wetlands
and has 2+ years worth of data waiting to be analyzed. The project is also in the process of
developing a software program called Ecocensus (with Open University, UK) that integrates
information gathered from participatory processes with a GIS interface, with the objective of using
the data to facilitate adaptive management. This approach has also raised additional questions
with regards to the process of engagement with local communities/ stakeholders, issues of
ownership and how to address capacity building needs. [insert link to North Rupununi case study]
vi. In regions where data is scarce, the USFS/ AWF’s rapid assessment exercise in the Zambezi
provided clues on what might be considered important basic data layers. These include:
 characteristics that impact physical water flow and storage regimes (terrain, geology, soils,
climatic cycles)
 vegetation cover
 land surfaces such as roads
 institutional information, such as dam management and planning
Integrating Hydrological Processes into Conservation Planning at a Landscape Scale
4
We did not deal explicitly with issues surrounding data collection and management, and this was raised
as an important component of the analytical process as data format/ structures will influence the scope for
analysis.
3. Threats, pressures, stakeholders – and conservation planning that integrates biodiversity and
socio-economic concerns
While the topics of identifying threats and pressures, engaging stakeholders and determining analyses to
support conservation interventions are to be addressed in greater depth during the next workshop, the
discussion was started here with recognition that a proper understanding of the local context (socioeconomic, demographic, policy, development, culture) is critically important for identifying points in the
landscape in time/space that provide opportunity for action.
There is also recognition that it is extremely difficult to examine biodiversity targets in isolation from
regional development and local livelihood needs. Local stakeholders should be involved in the planning
process from the start as there may be inherent synergies between biodiversity, hydrological processes
and community needs that should be capitalized upon for conservation planning (as was wonderfully
illustrated in the Chilika case study). Often, local communities use resources in a sustainable manner and
are dependent on ecological services to maintain livelihoods – this can offset the costs of other threats,
but more often not.



Where there is not this synergistic relationship and/or if the costs of other pressures are too high, the
question then moves to how we can create incentive systems to compensate for changed behavior at
both local use and regional policy levels.
How do we measure and quantify the trade-offs at the different scales? It is recognized that trade-offs
are not of equal measure (even though in same currency) especially in regions with very low
incomes.
The use of local knowledge to fill scientific gaps is another important consideration for early
engagement. For example, fishermen in India usually look to river dolphins as a signal of healthy fish
stocks and older fishermen in the Pantanal have contributed much information to EMRAPA’s water
quality study.
There was also some discussion on different approaches to engaging and communicating with
stakeholders. The latter is particularly important as the integrated models and analyses often produce
very sophisticated information that requires a certain skill in translating into a language easily understood
by local communities and policy-makers. As such, it is important to understand the local needs/ priorities
a priori to any analysis or scenario-building exercise. Additionally, the engagement process is important
for building a commonly agreed vision and to enable adaptable management as events (whether
geophysical or political) are dynamic and often unexpected. In particular, bringing local/ regional
institutions early into the process builds capacity for decision-making, and is recognized as a potential
mechanism to ensuring continuity beyond the funding cycle of NGOs.
In terms of threats and pressures on hydrological systems, those most often discussed/ addressed in the
case studies include: dams and other management structures (for water diversion, flood mitigation, etc.),
land use and land cover change (and its associated impacts of sedimentation, pollution, etc.), and climate
change. The following questions were then raised: What is the analytical process? How do we prioritize
threats? How do we integrate the threats and socio-economic information with the biodiversity and
hydrological targets?
The ability to project future land use/ cover change and its impacts on hydrological patterns, and
biodiversity, is critical to a proactive approach in dealing with pressures. It is argued that this forward
looking component be an integrative part of the conservation planning process, as opposed to being
tacked-on in an ad hoc manner, in order to enable planning for adaptability and resiliency over the longterm.
Integrating Hydrological Processes into Conservation Planning at a Landscape Scale
5
Similarly, building projections and scenarios of changes in flows and linking their impacts to both
biodiversity and livelihoods is very important to finding conservation solutions that do not make local
stakeholders worse off. In addition, the ability to translate those impacts into economic terms is a powerful
tool for influencing policy and management. Economics is often the common language for speaking with
government.




The use of economic valuation is useful as a policy tool in opening the door to discussions
with decision-makers for determining trade-offs between environmental and social capital.
Aside from valuation, an economic approach is also useful to finding possible alternatives in
meeting conservation and development needs in extreme cases, for example, drought and
food insecurity.
On the other hand, the usefulness of economic valuation of water and hydrological cycles are
not clear for wilderness areas where trade-offs (and competing land/ resource uses) are not
as prevalent or present as in fragmented systems. How then does one communicate or “sell”
broad-scale conservation to policy-makers?
What are the various types of conservation incentives for hydrological systems? However,
caution was raised – and rightfully so – with regards to the current dependence on markets
for solutions to conservation issues. Market solutions are typically very socially and
environmentally insensitive in many contexts, and have very limited or discrete applicability.
A suggestion was put forth for a compilation of case studies on the environmental and
ecological costs – including the corresponding distributional and equity issues – of dam
construction from different regions in the world. These costs can potentially be developed into
an “index” for adjusting the standard cost-benefit analyses of dam construction to its real
costs. This work is currently proposed under the Millenium Development Goals.
Conservation actions should capitalize on policy structures that already exist, such as National Water
Management Plans, Environmental Impact Statements for dam construction, etc.
Integrating Hydrological Processes into Conservation Planning at a Landscape Scale
6
Follow-up activities to the Workshop:
Various tools and products that were identified as useful (in no particular order of importance/ priority):
i.
Guidance for managing data – databases for organizing/ storing data from multiple sources, and
for making it available to share with others. EMBRAPA has some experience with this.
ii.
Training course – adaptation of Wetlands International’s course for wetland managers?
iii. “Idiot’s Guide to Hydrology” – two objectives were put forth for such a document: 1) to inform and
communicate the value of hydrological systems to stakeholders/ policymakers, and 2) nuts and
bolts of how to do basic hydrological research and monitoring techniques for ecological/
conservation objectives
iv. Document case studies of both successes and bad projects (for examples of how NOT to do
something)
v.
Identify various tools/ software on modeling hydro-ecological processes, and integrative models
that address biodiversity and socio-economic objectives spatially
vi. Economic valuation techniques for hydrological processes
vii. Develop collaborative demonstration sites/ projects
viii. Share the software/ manuals developed by the North Rupununi project on integrating traditional
knowledge into conservation planning and monitoring
ix. Use of “cartoons” for illustrating the hydro-biodiversity-socioeconomic linkages and for
communication – see for example those developed by TNC
x.
Development of a Hydrology Award – given annually to “best” project/ person/ analysis on
biodiversity-hydrology.
Integrating Hydrological Processes into Conservation Planning at a Landscape Scale
7
Annex I: Working Agenda
April 21st
9.00-9.15 Welcome (CI-Pantanal)
9.15-10.00 Overall framework – overview of how the different approaches of the partner organizations fit
together and the focal steps for this workshop. (CI-DC)
10.00-11.00 Overview of the science - review of the linkages between threatened species, sites, systems
and hydrological processes. (Wetlands International and IUCN Freshwater Programme)
11.30-1.30 A framework for setting targets for hydrological processes, assessing human dimensions, and
identifying actions:
- TNC’s Ecologically Sustainable Water Management framework applied to Savanna (GA) case
study. (TNC)
- Identifying issues, developing flow scenarios and securing benefits for nature and people for
Chilika Lagoon in India. (Wetlands International)
2.30-4.30 Pantanal case study presentation – each case study team provides of an overview of:
 introduction to region
 the conservation planning process so far,
 species, sites and other focal biodiversity targets, and their dependence on hydrological flows,
 key attributes of hydrological flows (e.g. wet and dry season base flows, normal high flows, extreme
drought and flood conditions, rates of flood rise and fall, internannual variability in these attributes
etc.) – including information already available on the current and desirable/ natural status of key
attributes, additional data available to define these key attributes, critical data gaps;
 main threats to hydrological processes and hence biodiversity;
 brief outline of human development objectives that are threatened by changes in hydrological
processes.
After each case study presentation, there will be detailed discussion of the key attributes of hydrological
flows, methods for defining current and desirable/ natural status of these attributes, and ways to deal with
data constraints.
April 22nd
9.00-11.00 Zambezi Case Study – as per Pantanal case study
11.30-1.30 Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna Case Study – as per Pantanal case study
2.30-3.30 Milne Bay Mini Case Study*
3.30-4.30 Mamberamo Mini Case Study*
4.45-5.45 North Rupununi Wetlands Case Study
*These programs are at fairly early stages of planning for integrating hydrological processes, so case
study presentations will be shorter and discussion will focus on broader strategic directions rather than
detailed data and analysis needs.
Integrating Hydrological Processes into Conservation Planning at a Landscape Scale
8
April 23rd
Field Trip
April 24th
Case study clinics: Each case study team will have a time-slot allocated in which they can ask invited
experts to provide input and guidance on their planning process for setting targets for hydrological
processes.
Feedback on next steps for setting targets for hydrological processes – each case study team will provide
a brief summary of what they have learned through the workshop and any new plans for moving forward.
General summary of what we have learnt at this workshop and identification of any additional learning
questions for the rest of this phase.
Discussion of the types of tools, guidance materials and other resources/ approaches that would support
ongoing lesson-learning (bearing in mind, resources etc. that already exist.)
April 25th
Tackling issues of identifying threats, engaging stakeholders and conducting analyses to integrate
biodiversity, hydrology and socio-economic information for defining a conservation strategy
9.00-10.15 Incorporating biodiversity/hydrology targets into resource use planning at the management
and policy levels (CSIRO)
10.15-11.00 Process of engagement, communication and planning for conservation action in North
Sumatra (CI)
11.15-12.00 Use of economics in conservation planning for Loktak Lake, India (Wetlands Intl)
Accounting for, and negotiation of, the varied institutional and economic demands on hydrological
resources for the development of management plans
Discussion on the range of analyses, methods and approaches for integrating socio-economic demands
and biodiversity information in large hydrological systems.
Planning for the next workshop (All)
Discussion on action plans with the individual case study teams (Pantanal, Milne Bay, Mamberamo,
Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna, North Rupununi)
Discussion with GCP partners on workplans and budgets for next workshop (CI, TNC, WWF, WCS, Ward,
IUCN)
Integrating Hydrological Processes into Conservation Planning at a Landscape Scale
9
Annex II: Participant List
Name
Institution
Curtis Bernard
Charlotte Boyd
Craig Busskohl
Débora Calheiros
George Camargo
Ward Hagemeijer
David Harrison
Nev Kemp
Karin Krchnak
Ritesh Kumar
Ricardo Machado
Chris Margules
Anna McIvor
David Mitchell
Henny Ohee
Carlos Padovani
Indranee Roopsind
Nikolai Sindorf
Brian Smith
Chaman Trisal
Grace Wong
Conservation InternationaI-Guyanas
Center for Applied Biodiversity Science, Conservation International
US Forest Service
EMBRAPA-Pantanal
Conservation International-Brazil
Wetlands International
The Nature Conservancy
Conservation International-Indonesia
The Nature Conservancy
Wetlands International
Conservation International-Brazil
CSIRO
IUCN Freshwater Programme
Conservation International-Melanesia
Conservation International-Indonesia
EMBRAPA-Pantanal
Iwokrama
World Wildlife Fund
Wildlife Conservation Society
Wetlands International
Conservation International
Integrating Hydrological Processes into Conservation Planning at a Landscape Scale
10
[Insert logos of all participating organizations here.]