WCPA Protected Areas Freshwater Guidelines
Freshwater ecosystems and biota require distinct attention if adequate and representative areas of each
freshwater habitat are to be conserved through PAs. Freshwater ecosystems occupy only a small area of
the planet but have the greatest species diversity per unit area and are also the most heavily impacted
and threatened by human activities. Governments and the conservation community have made
commitments to conserve freshwater species and habitats equal to those for the marine and terrestrial
realms. This section summaries key commitments, challenges and solutions for using protected areas
(PAs), and applying PA categories specifically, to advance the conservation of the freshwater ecosystems
and species.
The following guidelines address a series of issues related to PAs and freshwater conservation, including:






International freshwater PA goals/targets/resolutions
Links with the Ramsar Convention
Complexities of freshwater protection
Applying the new PA definition
Applying PA categories
Integrated freshwater-terrestrial protection
Definitions: Inland waters, freshwater systems, and wetlands
The terms inland waters, freshwater systems, and wetlands are often used interchangeably. Inland waters refers
to all non-marine aquatic systems. Freshwater is technically defined as ‘of, relating to, living in, or consisting of
water that is not saline.’ In practice, the term is often used as shorthand for inland waters, which is how it is used
here. The Ramsar Convention defines wetlands as ‘areas of marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether natural or
artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of
marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six metres.’
International freshwater PA goals/targets/resolutions
The world’s governments have made numerous commitments to protect freshwater biodiversity and
ecosystems in representative protected area systems:
-
-
-
Designation of a representative area of each wetland habitat type, and other wetlands meeting one or
more of nine different criteria, as Wetlands of Interational importance – Ramsar sites – under the
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. The Strategic Framework for the List of Wetlands of International
Importance has as its first objective to “fully represent the diversity of wetlands and their key
ecological and hydrological functions” and adopts as the target for the Ramsar List in 2010: “To
ensure that the List of Wetlands of International Importance contains at least 2,500 sites covering 250
million hectares by 2010.”
The Food and Agriculture Organisation’s 1995 “Code of conduct for responsible fisheries,” that was
adopted by 170 nations, requires protection of critical habitats. Section 6.8 (FAO 1995) states “All
critical fisheries habitats in marine and fresh water ecosystems, such as wetlands, mangroves, reefs,
lagoons, nursery and spawning areas, should be protected and rehabilitated as far as possible and
where necessary….”
In 2006, Parties to the CBD adopted targets for achievement of the CBD Programs of Work, including
inland waters biodiversity targets (CBD 2006: Annex IV) for:
o
At least 10% of known inland water ecosystem area effectively conserved and under
integrated river or lake basin management; and
o
275 million hectares of wetlands of particular importance to biodiversity protected, including
representation and equitable distribution of areas of different wetland types across the range
of biogeographic zones.
A solid Plan of Work for Inland Waters (CBD 2004b) with a strong set of goals and activities has also
been agreed. Integrated river basin management was adopted as a primary tool for implementing the
Plan, along with a provision calling on Parties to facilitate minimum water allocations to maintain
function and integrity of freshwater ecosystems.
Links with the Ramsar Convention
The 158 Contracting Parties (nations) to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar 2008) have
committed themselves to the ‘wise use’ of all wetlands on their territory (including rivers), conservation of
“wetlands of international importance” (Ramsar sites), and international cooperation. Ramsar Convention
Contracting Parties each commit to undertaking an inventory of their wetlands and preparing a ‘strategic
framework for the Ramsar list’ for the systematic and representative national designation and
management of wetland habitat types.
The Convention has many benefits for wetlands conservation since it creates moral pressure for member
governments to establish and manage wetland protected areas; sets standards, provides guidance, and
facilitates collaboration on best practice; has a triennial global reporting and monitoring system; and
encourages participation of non-government organizations, local communities, and indigenous peoples.
While Ramsar sites may fall into any one or more of the IUCN categories of protected areas, and many
Ramsar sites are not IUCN categories I-IV, all Ramsar sites are protected areas and are included in the
World Database of Protected Areas.
Complexities of freshwater protection
The relationship between protected areas and freshwater conservation is perplexing and has not been
resolved well. There are many real and perceived incompatibilities that arise when considering this
relationship, including:



1
Landscape relationship and role. Freshwater systems are embedded in the terrestrial landscape and
linked to their upstream catchments1 through a variety of above- and below-ground water-related
processes. Integrated catchment management (also called integrated river basin management or
watershed management), a form of ecosystem management, is the prevailing model for holistic
freshwater conservation. The prospect of ‘fencing off’ freshwater systems can appear contrary to
principles of integrated catchment management, and in most cases it is also technically infeasible, for
the reasons described below.
Hydrologic processes. To state the obvious, water is central to freshwater systems. The ‘key driver’
in running-water (lotic) freshwater systems is the flow2 regime: the magnitude, frequency, timing,
duration, and rate of change of water flows. In standing-water (lentic) freshwater systems, the master
variable is typically the hydroperiod: the seasonal and cyclical pattern of water. For nearly all
freshwater systems, water is generated “outside” the systems themselves and enters via overland
and sub-surface pathways and tributary inflows. Protecting flow regimes and hydroperiods requires
management that extends upstream and upslope and often even into groundwatersheds3. In the
case of most existing PAs, this translates to managing outside PA boundaries, often restoring altered
flows as well as protecting intact ones.
Longitudinal connectivity. Streams and stream networks have a linear, or longitudinal, dimension
along with lateral, vertical, and temporal dimensions. Protecting longitudinal connectivity – the
linkages of habitats, species, communities, and ecological processes between upstream and
A catchment is defined here as all lands enclosed by a continuous hydrologic-surface drainage divide and lying
upslope from a specified point on a stream; or, in the case of closed-basin systems, all lands draining to a lake.
2
Flow is defined here as the volume of water passing a given point per unit of time.
3
The underground equivalent of a watershed, or surface water catchment



downstream portions of a stream corridor or network – is often an essential goal of freshwater
conservation and involves preventing or removing physical and chemical barriers. Traditional PAs
are often envisioned as polygons rather than linear features and rarely are designed around
protection and management of the aquatic portions of stream channels. Ironically, artificial
connectivity (such as inter-basin transfers of biota) can also jeopardize freshwater systems.
Groundwater-surface water interactions. Protecting above-ground freshwater species and habitats
can require looking beyond surface hydrology. Groundwater-fed systems are common in many
geographies, requiring protection of groundwater flows as well as surface waters. Groundwatersheds
and surface water catchments may not spatially coincide, adding an additional layer of complexity to
protecting inflows.
Exogenous threats. Freshwater systems sit at the lowest point on the landscape and consequently
integrate disturbances that are propagated downhill across catchments. While all PAs in principle
must contend with threats originating outside their boundaries, PAs with a goal of conserving
freshwater systems must explicitly address upslope, upstream, and in some cases even downstream
threats that could impinge on internal conservation targets.
Exclusion from freshwater resources. For millennia human communities have settled in proximity to
freshwater systems, which provide a wide array of essential ecosystem services. The fundamental
right to access to fresh water can seem in conflict with the aims of some PA categories that limit
human resource use.
Despite these challenges PAs are can significantly contribute to freshwater conservation. Ideally, PAs
established to conserve freshwater ecosystems will encompass entire catchments, although this is rarely
possible. More typically, innovative combinations of PAs and other place-based solutions need to be
applied within a framework of integrated catchment management. The following pages deal with how
PAs can assist freshwater conservation.
Applying the new PA definition
The new PA definition -- A clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed to
achieve the long-term conservation of nature, associated ecosystem services and cultural values – is
more inclusive of fresh waters than the previously adopted definition through its replacement of ‘area of
land and/or sea’ with ‘a clearly defined geographic space.’ Protected areas that may be defined primarily
to conserve freshwater features such as river corridors or lakes are now clearly covered by the definition.
Other details of the new PA definition could exclude some common place-based freshwater conservation
strategies if they were implemented alone. Some examples are provided in the table below.
Definition
Phrase
Clearly defined
Clearly defined
geographical
space
Long term
Explanation
…the area has been set aside explicitly
as a protected area with conservation
of nature as the or a primary
objective…
Often implies a spatially defined area
with agreed and demarcated borders…
… managed in perpetuity and not as a
temporary management strategy
Potentially excluded freshwater
strategies
Freshwater fishery/harvest reserves
without biodiversity conservation
objectives
Riparian buffers legislated broadly
across entire jurisdictions
Many temporally-shifting no-fishing
zones
Some types of PAs are unique to freshwater ecosystems. River parks, such as Wild & Scenic Rivers in
the USA or Heritage Rivers in the Australian state of Victoria are one example. Water catchment
reserves are another.
A wide range of other freshwater conservation strategies targeted at protecting water quality and quantity,
such as managing for environmental flows 4 and applying best management practices to land use,
normally fall outside the PA definition. They are mentioned here because effective conservation of
freshwater systems within PAs will in most cases only be achieved through coordinated use of such
strategies outside PAs. PAs may play important advocacy roles for such external strategies.
Applying PA categories
As with forest or marine PAs, any of the PA categories can in principle apply to areas with explicit
freshwater conservation objectives. Some examples:
IUCN
Category
Ia
Ib
II
III
IV
V
VI
Example
Macquarie Marshes Nature
Reserve (Australia)
Western River Wilderness
Protection Area (Australia)
Pantanal National Park (Brasil)
Ganga Lake (Mongolia)
Chongchon River Protected Area
(Democratic People's Republic of
Korea)
Lake Clark National Preserve
(USA)
Lake Sebu Watershed Forest
Reserve (Philippines)
Description
IUCN categories apply to PAs with significant and explicit freshwater objectives as much as they do
generally. As with PA’s generally, freshwater-associated PAs may benefit from mixed zoning to permit
different levels of use. For example, in Lake Malawi National Park (Malawi), traditional fishing methods
aimed at catching migratory fish are permitted in limited areas, while in most of the park the resident fish
are completely protected.
Whether and how PA categories are assigned to place-based protections is case-specific. The following
table lists a number of place-based strategies and identifies when they are particularly compatible, not
incompatible, or incompatible with IUCN PA categories. These assignments are generalities, and
exceptions will exist. World Heritage Sites, Ramsar Sites, and Biosphere Reserves are included because
they have been used widely to protect freshwater features and because they have each made use of
mixed zoning. Place-based protection mechanisms both specific to freshwater systems and not are listed
to emphasize the variety of strategies in a freshwater protection toolbox. The schematic following the
table illustrates how these different tools can be used across a catchment to achieve different
conservation objectives and contribute to integrated catchment management.
Currently, many PAs designated in whole or part to protect freshwaters, including most Ramsar sites, do
not yet have PA category assignments. As well, many PAs encompassing freshwater ecosystem
conservation have no Ramsar status. Consequently, it is presently not possible to assess globally which
existing PAs have freshwater objectives, or how IUCN categories have been applied to them.
4
The quality, quantity, and timing of water flows required to maintain the components, functions, processes, and
resilience of aquatic ecosystems which provide goods and services to people
Place-based freshwater protection strategies and compatibility with protected area categories
Type of protected area
Compatibility with protected area category
Ia
Ib
Designation/recognition under an
international convention or program
World Heritage Site
Ramsar Site
Biosphere Reserve
Freshwater place-based protection
mechanisms
Free-flowing river
Riparian reserve/buffer
Protected water supply catchment
Wetland protection/land use zone
Aquifer recharge area
Fishery/harvest reserve
Wetland game\hunting reserve
Transboundary watercourse agreement
Other place-based mechanisms with
potential freshwater benefits
Marine reserve/coastal management zone
Forest reserve
Private protected area
Community conserved area
Certified forest area
Seasonally closed fisheries area
Wetland\aquatic habitat management plan
Others??
Particularly compatible with the protected area category
Not incompatible with the protected area category
Not particularly or never suitable for the protected area category
II
III
IV
V
Examples
VI
Kakadu National Park (Australia)
Upper Navua Conservation Area (Fiji)
Dalai Lake (China)
Stewart River Catchment (Australia)
San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area (USA)
Adirondack National Park (USA)
Types of protected areas,
international designations
and other place-based
approaches to conserving
freshwater ecosystems
1. National
Park
2. Nature
Reserve
3. Wilderness
Area
4. World Heritage
Site
5. Ramsar
Wetland
6. Biosphere
Reserve
7. Fisheries \ Harvest
Reserve
8. Wetland protection
zone
9. Free-flowing
river
10. Community Conserved
Area
11. Private Protected
Area
12. Marine \ Coastal
Reserve
13. Aquifer Recharge
Area
14. Protected Water Supply
Catchment
15. Certified Forest
Area
16. Forest
Reserve
17. Wetland game \ hunting
reserve
18. Riparian Reserve \
buffer
6
1
6
17
8
1
5
1
4
5
1
3
1
1
7
1
2
1
1
8
2
9
1
0
4
3
Different types of freshwater systems, with different degrees of intactness, may lend themselves more to some PA
categories than others. The variety of options and examples suggests that, contrary to conventional wisdom, PAs
and freshwater protection can be compatible.
Appropriate protected area categories for different types of freshwater ecosystems
Freshwater
ecosystem type
Ecosystem condition
Most appropriate protected
area categories
Ia Ib II
III IV V
VI
Examples
River systems
River/stream corridor
& entire catchment
Largely intact
Free-flowing with channel &
Entire river/stream or riparian zone in natural or largely
substantial river
natural condition. Can also include
reach
catchment
Largely natural condition, but
Middle and lower
areas outside proposed PA partly
reaches
or largely degraded
Predominantly in natural land
Headwaters
cover
Riparian zones
Section of river
channel (e.g. pools,
islands)
Kakadu National Park
(Australia)
Fraser Heritage River
(Canada)
Donana National Park
(Spain)
Catskill State Park
(USA)
Douglas River \ Daly
River Esplanade
Conservation Area
(Australia)
Hippo Pool National
Monument (Zambia)
Fish River Canyon
Conservation Area
(Namibia)
Iguacu National Park
(Argentina\Brasil)
Gorges
Waterfalls
Wetlands and lakes
Floodplain wetlands
Land cover and natural
connections with river channel
relatively intact or retored
Mamiraua Sustainable
Development Reserve
(Brasil)
Inland deltas
Natural ecosysem processes
relatively intact; upstream/upland
modifications possible
Okavango Delta Wildlife
Management Area
(Botswana)
Coastal deltas
Natural ecosysem processes
relatively intact; upstream/upland
modifications possible
Coastal wetlands
Mound springs,
artesian springs
Lakes
Aquifers, karst/
caves, hyporheic
zones
Danube Delta Biosphere
Reserve (Romania)
Donana National Park
(Spain)
Wabma Kadarbu Mound
Springs Conservation
Park (Australia)
Lake Baikal Biosphere
Reserve (Russia)
Mira Minde Polje and
related Springs
(Portugal)
Integrated freshwater-terrestrial protection
This paper intentionally avoids use of the term ‘freshwater PA’ per se because defining and applying it is
problematic. Marine PAs are easily identified by their location in the marine realm. Freshwater systems, however,
span the terrestrial landscape and occur in virtually all non-marine PAs. Certain PAs, such as free-flowing rivers
and many Ramsar sites, might clearly qualify as ‘freshwater PAs.’ But the designation of other PAs is ambiguous.
Some PAs have included both terrestrial and freshwater management goals from the outset, whereas others
originally designated to protect terrestrial features has grown to incorporate freshwater objectives over time. South
Africa’s Kruger National Park is one example: designated to protect its large mammalian fauna, the park’s
management now includes an estimated 30% freshwater management focus. Ultimately, whether a PA is considered
‘freshwater’ may have as much to do with its management objectives as with its component habitats.
The fact that freshwater, terrestrial, and even coastal marine systems are integrally linked strongly argues for the
integration of freshwater considerations into the management of all relevant PAs. Within-PA management for
freshwater conservation could include:
- protecting or restoring longitudinal and lateral connectivity of stream corridors (e.g. removing barriers,
reconnecting rivers with floodplains)
- protecting native faunas (e.g. prohibiting fish stocking or fishing)
- limiting recreational activities (e.g. restricting motorized watercraft)
- aggressively protecting water quality (e.g. careful management of point-source discharges from park
facilities)
- protecting headwater flows so that downstream users can enjoy the benefits of ecosystem services
Whether or not PAs are classified as ‘freshwater,’ recording and accounting of freshwater protections for the
purposes of databases like the WDPA remains a challenge. Not only can measuring and interpreting the size of
many wetlands be difficult, but currently the WDPA has no provision for length measurements. Further, data on the
global extent of freshwaters remain insufficient, hampering a reliable calculation of the proportion of freshwater
systems occurring in PAs worldwide. For instance, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment provides a figure of
12% protection for inland waters, a value generated by overlaying protected area polygons with inland waters
categories of the Digital Chart of the World (DCW). About 12% of the earth’s non-marine surface occurs within
protected areas, suggesting only that inland waters have not been intentionally excluded from such
areas.
While there is evidence that some PAs benefit the freshwater systems within them irrespective of whether explicit
freshwater management is applied, there are numerous other examples of PAs failing to protect their component
freshwater systems. In many instances, freshwater ecosystems within PAs have been deliberately altered to supply
water and hydroelectricity, and even, unfortunately, to facilitate wildlife viewing and other forms of recreation.
Until freshwater conservation is incorporated into PA management plans, and those management plans acknowledge
processes and threats external to PA boundaries, knowing the geographic extent of freshwater systems within PAs
tells us more about conservation potential than conservation reality.