RIVER CONSERVATION, RIVER RESTORATION AND THE IUCN WORLD CONSERVATION CONGRESS

River conservation vs river restoration

This is often the way that I've seen these terms used, suggesting they're mutually exclusive; they're different activities; it's either one or the other. Of course, in many ways that's right – they are. Just before I started writing this article I thought it might be interesting to seek the wisdom of Artificial Intelligence, so I asked ChatGPT a simple question, "What is the difference between river conservation and river restoration?" It said (among many things) that the 'main goal' of conservation is "to preserve the river’s current condition and prevent further damage", whereas the main goal of restoration is "to repair or rehabilitate damaged rivers and bring back natural functions". As a broad statement that might just about be acceptable, although it fails to say under what 'current condition' you might wish to 'preserve' a river, or how we should decide when a river is 'damaged'.

I touched on the relationship between river conservation and river restoration in one of the keynote presentations at RRC's annual conference in 2023 and put up the diagram below. 

This was first published in a book on river conservation more than 30 years ago (Boon et al., 1992), where I suggested that river restoration is part of a river conservation spectrum. This proposes that as the conservation value of a river declines, the management response needs to change too. (The way that conservation 'value' is assessed is a separate topic in its own right and won't be discussed here.) At the high quality end, the aim should be preservation and protection. Where catchment activities may risk damaging the river, the emphasis needs to be on damage limitation. When damage is already occurring, the response is one of mitigation. Beyond that, if the circumstances allow, is where restoration takes place. The far end of the spectrum marks the end of the road for river conservation: damage is either so intractable or the constraints on restoring the river are so severe or would cost so much that it may simply not be feasible to undertake restoration. The only option here is dereliction, in the sense of 'intentional abandonment'. 

One of the advantages in thinking of restoration and conservation in this way is that it can help focus more attention on the majority of rivers (at least in the UK and much of Europe) that do not exist at either end of the spectrum but lie somewhere between, where applying the appropriate management has a chance to move them further to the left. One of the dilemmas I referred to in my conference presentation in 2023 is how should limited resources be directed towards rivers in need of restoration compared with those that are still near-natural and need conservation management to keep them that way, such as the spectacular gravel-bed rivers I saw on a visit to New Zealand in November 2024?

Having made the case for seeing river restoration as part of the wider realm of conservation, how are river habitats and species covered by the global conservation movement, and in particular by IUCN?

The global conservation body – the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

IUCN was formed in 1948 and now comprises more than 1,400 member organizations in 160 countries, and more than 19,000 experts in the seven IUCN 'Commissions' across a wide range of disciplines who volunteer their expertise.

The principal aim of IUCN is to "Influence, encourage and assist societies to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable" (https://iucn.org/about-iucn). IUCN is funded from a wide range of sources, including government agencies, multi-lateral agencies such as the European Union and the Global Environment Facility, philanthropic foundations and the private sector. IUCN is perhaps best known for its Red List of Threatened Species. This was established in 1964 and now contains data on the status of more than 48,600 species threatened with extinction, as well as information on range, population size, habitat, ecology, threats, and conservation actions. 

But IUCN does far more than its work on the Red List, such as by implementing a large and diverse portfolio of conservation projects worldwide, combining science with the traditional knowledge of local communities (https://iucn.org/). My involvement with IUCN has been through membership of the Freshwater Conservation Committee (part of the Species Survival Commission), which I joined eight years ago.

The World Conservation Congress

Every four years IUCN holds the World Conservation Congress (WCC), designed to bring together "leaders and decision-makers from government, civil society, indigenous peoples, business, and academia, with the goal of conserving the environment and harnessing the solutions nature offers to global challenges" (https://iucn.org/our-union/iucn-world-conservation-congress). The latest meeting (which I was unable to attend) was held in Abu Dhabi from 9-15 October 2025, attracting an audience of more than 10,000 participants and 1,400 member organizations. 

The first four days of the Congress constituted the 'Forum', described as "the largest knowledge marketplace for conservation and sustainable development science, practice and innovation". The last three days were devoted to the 'Members' Assembly', which is IUCN's highest decision-making body. During the Assembly, IUCN's Member organizations vote on conservation and sustainable development issues, with the decisions aimed at influencing global policy and setting the future conservation agenda (https://iucn.org/about-iucn).

'Motions', 'Resolutions' and 'Recommendations'

A motion is a written draft of any decision that the World Congress is requested to make. Motions are put forward by IUCN Members in advance of the Congress and those selected are voted on. Once adopted, a motion either becomes a 'Resolution' or a 'Recommendation'. Resolutions are directed at IUCN itself and used to guide the policy and programme of IUCN, whereas Recommendations aim to influence third parties, such as governments, international and national organizations

(https://engage.iucn.org/sites/default/files/2024-07/IUCN%20Guidance%20note%20-%20Introduction%20to%20the%20motions%27%20process.pdf).

It is not always easy to distinguish between the two, so the rest of this article will refer to them all as Resolutions. Two hundred motions were submitted for the 2025 Congress. Of these, 148 were adopted - 97 by online voting several months in advance, and the rest voted on at the Members' Assembly in Abu Dhabi.

Some adopted resolutions at WCC 2025 relevant to rivers

Four resolutions adopted at WCC 2025 apply specifically to rivers, streams and wetlands:

Motion 016: 'Springs under threat: mobilising urgent action for neglected freshwater systems'

Motion 018: 'Advancing and tracking global river conservation to meet biodiversity and climate goals'

Motion 023: 'Prioritising wetlands conservation and restoration to tackle the dual climate and biodiversity crises'

Motion 067: 'Living in harmony with rivers through the rights of nature and ecocentric law'

Many of the other resolutions adopted cover broader subjects that apply equally to freshwater ecosystems as they do to other ecosystem types. The full list of motions, together with their content, is available at https://iucncongress2025.org/assembly/motions/list

Each motion has one main sponsor organization, together with a variable number of co-sponsors. (If you're interested to find out which organizations sponsored and co-sponsored a particular motion, click on 'More information' on the motion's webpage.) Each motion has a preamble, similar to those found introducing European directives, comprising short statements beginning with words such as 'Whereas', 'Considering', 'Aware' and 'Concerned'. To illustrate this, I've put the full wording of one of the four resolutions about rivers (Motion 067) as an Appendix at the end. (It's also a motion that reflects the growing interest in the idea of rivers having 'rights'.)

There's one other motion I'd like to refer to. It's not specifically about freshwater habitats or species, but about the relationship between those of us whose work is focused on the environment, and journalists who from time to time write about these things on TV and radio and in newspaper articles or using social media. I'm mentioning this because RRC is working on a new 'engagement strategy' so it's interesting to see how IUCN views the subject. Here are some of the recommendations in Motion 090 entitled 'Developing knowledge of biodiversity issues among the media and general journalists':

The IUCN World Conservation Congress 2025, at its session in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates:

* URGES the media to fulfil their role of raising public awareness about major current and future environmental issues such as the biodiversity crisis and climate change 

* ASKS scientists to partner with interested journalists to jointly develop guidelines on how to cover biodiversity and climate crises 

* ASKS scientific institutes and other relevant organisations to promote training for journalists, and governments to provide the necessary resources 

* INVITES journalists to rely on documents produced by specialised international platforms (IUCN, IPBES, etc.)

* INVITES journalists to learn about nature issues (biodiversity, geodiversity, climate, etc.) from scientists

Irrespective of our views about the content of these, they are written (to a greater or lesser extent) from a proactive standpoint. Is there a lesson here for environmental organizations (like RRC)? Should we be actively looking for ways to interact with journalists without waiting for them to come and ask us for information or to seek our opinion on a particular issue?

Can IUCN Resolutions make a difference?

Maybe for an organization that has existed for 75 years, the question should be "Have IUCN resolutions made a difference?" Have words been turned into actions, and have those actions been successful? Since IUCN was formed in 1948 and prior to the 2025 Congress, it had adopted 1,466 Resolutions (https://iucn.org/story/202411/collaborating-nature). Many of these refer to specific countries, habitats, species, or environmental threats, so to make an arbitrary selection of one or two here would not be especially helpful. An IUCN report entitled The impact of IUCN Resolutions on international conservation efforts (https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2018-011-En.pdf) 

published after the WCC in 2016, provides a useful summary of some of the main impacts that IUCN Resolutions have had, under headings such as:

* Setting the global conservation agenda

* Supporting the development of international conservation law

* Identifying emerging issues in conservation

* Mobilising specific conservation actions – e.g. for species, protected areas, water, climate change

Although IUCN cannot oblige governments, statutory agencies, or others to act on its Resolutions, IUCN has played a significant role in helping to shape conservation policy globally. In some cases it has drawn attention to environmental management needs early on before becoming more widely recognized. For example, 73 years ago at the General Assembly of what was then called the International Union for the Protection of Nature (later becoming IUCN) held in Venezuela in 1952, Resolution 23 encouraged attention to 'natural areas' (including small catchments) as the 'basic unit for conservation' (https://iucn.org/sites/default/files/2022-05/ga-3th-002.pdf). Catchment management in the UK only began to be addressed seriously in the 1980s and 1990s, and in the European Union it was not until the adoption of the Water Framework Directive in 2000 that catchment management became a statutory requirement. As well as policy development, many of IUCN's outputs are now widely used by those carrying out specific, practical conservation actions. IUCN's Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations (https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/2013-009.pdf) fall into this category and often form a critical part of project planning for a reintroduction takes place.

Back to the beginning…..

I started writing this by proposing that river restoration (RRC's raison d'être) should be considered part of the wider river conservation spectrum. It is clear that the International Union for the Conservation of Nature takes a similar view. For example, IUCN is unambiguous in its support of the UN Decade of Restoration (2021-2030) (https://iucn.org/our-work/topic/ecosystem-restoration), but there's an even better example closer to home. In 2015, IUCN UK funded the first phase of a project on 'River Restoration and Biodiversity'. This was led by Scottish Natural Heritage (now NatureScot) with a steering group comprising the conservation and environment agencies in the UK, together with the River Restoration Centre. The project is now in its third phase, and continues to be supported by RRC.

In 2016, IUCN, together with Scotland’s Centre of Expertise for Waters (CREW) published a report derived from the project, reviewing the importance of rivers for biodiversity, the benefits of river restoration, and some of the main techniques used to restore natural processes (https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2016-064.pdf). 

Throughout the report there are numerous references to using river restoration as a tool for river conservation. This is well illustrated by one of the 20 recommendations for policy makers and practitioners, and makes a fitting conclusion to this article: "Promote river restoration as an activity that overlaps with other conservation, landscape restoration and policy drivers to reinforce its added value."

Appendix: Motion 067 Living in harmony with rivers through the rights of nature and ecocentric law

REVERING the essential role that rivers play in sustaining life, as the lifeblood of the planet;

DISTRESSED by severe harms that can be caused to rivers from unsustainable construction of dams and water diversion, and from excessive groundwater withdrawals, climate change, pollution and habitat loss;

ALARMED by the 85% decline in freshwater wildlife populations since 1970, revealed by the Living Planet Report 2024;

ACKNOWLEDGING the need to shift from viewing rivers only as resources and property to living in harmony with them as integral members of a shared community of life;

FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGING the intrinsic value of rivers, their basins and the biodiversity they sustain;

NOTING that river degradation harms human environmental rights and the rights and values of those to whom rivers are living entities, relatives, sacred or integral to their way of life;

ACKNOWLEDGING the growing number of governments and laws, and the quantity of jurisprudence recognising the Rights of Nature, rights of rivers and other ecocentric law approaches;

FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGING legal concepts advanced through civil-society-led declarations, including the Universal Declarations on the Rights of Mother Earth, Rivers, Wetlands and the Ocean;

RECOGNISING that the rights of rivers have been a focal point and catalyst of the larger Rights of Nature movement;

INSPIRED by the development of legal guardianship bodies for waters, giving them legal standing and personality;

ALSO INSPIRED by the critical role of nature’s traditional guardians, including Indigenous stewards, whose relationships with and responsibilities to sacred waters have long safeguarded them;

WELCOMING the recognition in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) of diverse value systems and concepts, including, for those countries that recognise them, rights of nature and rights of Mother Earth, as being an integral part of its successful implementation, and including the mention in Target 19(f) of ‘Mother Earth centric actions’;

RECALLING Resolution 5.100 Incorporation of the Rights of Nature as the organisational focal point in IUCN’s decision making (Jeju, 2012); and

HIGHLIGHTING IUCN’s role in advancing environmental and water law, as well as legal concepts to protect and restore Nature to health;

The IUCN World Conservation Congress 2025, at its session in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates:

1. RECOMMENDS that IUCN Members and Commissions promote the protection and restoration of rivers and wetlands through:

a. supporting the work of the World Commission on Environmental Law (WCEL) on rights of nature, and related initiatives;

b. promoting cross-border cooperation and facilitating collaboration and knowledge-sharing;

c. harmonising the protection and restoration of rivers with other rights-based campaigns for nature; and

d. ensuring that Indigenous peoples and Local communities, including those represented by IUCN Indigenous Peoples’ Organisations, as well as youth and women, play a central role; 

2. FURTHER RECOMMENDS that WCEL work with proponents of the Declarations on Rights of Rivers and Rights of Wetlands to develop guidelines on their complementarity;

3. ENCOURAGES IUCN Members to thoroughly analyse and research the rights of rivers and wetlands, and other ecocentric approaches, including relationship-based frameworks, to provide technical, financial and policy support for freshwater ecosystem protection and restoration and land-based conservation; 

4. INVITES States to implement legal frameworks, such as international commissions bringing together rivers’ riparian countries, that enable the protection and restoration of rivers, and to consider developing mechanisms to give them a formal voice; and 

5. ENCOURAGES States and financial contributors, including public and private entities, according to KMGBF Target 19(f), to provide financial support from other 'Mother Earth centric actions’, including ecocentric and rights-based approaches for rivers.