Quantifying the benefits of different types of protection for freshwater biodiversity

1. Quantifying the benefits of different types of protection for freshwater biodiversity Eren Turak,Simon Ferrier, Michael Drielsma, Glenn Manion, Tom Barrett, Edwina Mesley Janet Stein,Gavin Doyle and Geoff Gordon

2. FPAs and the conservation of freshwater biodiversity • Will they make a difference? • How much? • How do FPAs compare with other interventions? • How will they be affected by change?

3. Scenario planning: Dealing with uncertainty and uncontrollability Adaptive management High Scenario planning Uncertainty Optimal control Hedging Low Controllable Uncontrollable Controllability Peterson G.D., Cumming G.S., Carpenter S.R. 2002. Scenario planning: a tool for conservation in an uncertain world. Conservation Biology, Pages 358-366.

4. Forecasting the persistence of freshwater biodiversity • Scenarios: alternative futures • Landscape/ riverscape scale evaluations • Best spatial data and knowledge • Trial in the Hunter region, SE Australia.

5. Current local disturbance Future local disturbance Future Present Scenarios Statistical model for predicting river biodiversity at any location Cumulative disturbance Future cumulative disturbance Future biodiversity Biodiversity (river sites) Ecological river type maps River type evaluation Outputs Species-area relationships River type similarity matrices Regional evaluation

7. 1.0 0.8 Observed 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Predicted Regression model Relating biodiversity measures (AUSRIVAS O/E values) to disturbance* Adjusted r2= 0.745 *Stein, J.L, Stein J.A., Nix, H.A. 2002 Spatial analysis of anthropogenic river disturbance at regional and continental scales: identifying the wild rivers of Australia Landscape and Urban Planning, 60, 1-25.

8. Predicted river condition Current AUSRIVAS O/E values as the proportion of the predicted pristine condition

9. Land use classes and weights given to them (aggragated from 172 classes)

10. Priority maps • Landuse, Infrastructure and settlement factors hypothetically changed • Catchment protection priority • Degraded condition simulated by changing all factors to 1. • Catchment restoration priority:Improvement in condition was simulated by changing factors as follows If factor value ≤ 0.2 then it was adjusted to 0. If factor value > 0.2 then 0.1 was subtracted from factor value • River section conservation priority: • Priority = BDI with river section-BDI without river section/ area of sub-catchment

11. Catchment protection priority

12. Catchment restoration priority

13. River section conservation priority

14. Spatial prioritisation of investment by Catchment Management Authorities: Alternative scenarios for selecting 25,000 ha of cleared land for revegetation Terrestrial: Based on priority map for terrestrial biodiversity. BAU: Business as usual (based on existing investment patterns). River: Based on priority map for terrestrial biodiversity

15. FPA paradigms • Protected area categories (IUCN) unsuitable for freshwaters. • Place based strategies proposed (Abell. et al 2007) • Freshwater focal areas • Critical management zones • Catchment management zones • Choice may be dictated by monetary and social cost. Abell, R., Allan, J. D. & Lehner, B. (2007) Unlocking the potential of protected areas for freshwaters. Biological Conservation,134, 48-63.

16. Biodiversity forecasting and place-based strategies • Freshwater focal areas • River section conservation priority • Endangered species, communities, ecosystems • HCVAE ‘s based on other criteria • Critical management zones • Catchment protection and restoration priority • Catchment management zones • Catchment protection and restoration priority

17. Conclusion • The potential effects on river biodiversity, of every type of management action or disturbance, at any location can be predicted. • Freshwater Protected Areas should be considered in the context of Integrated catchment management (ICM).