Freshwater biodiversity is under great threat across the globe as evidenced by more severe declines relative to other types of ecosystems. Some of the main stressors responsible for these concerning trends is habitat fragmentation, degradation, and loss stemming from anthropogenic activities, including energy production, urbanization, agriculture, and resource extraction. Habitat protection and restoration both play an integral role in efforts to save freshwater biodiversity and associated ecosystem services from further decline. In this paper, we summarize the sources of threats associated with habitat fragmentation, degradation, and loss and then outline response options to protect and restore freshwater habitats. Specific response options are to legislate the protection of healthy and productive freshwater ecosystems, prioritize habitats for protection and restoration, enact durable protections, conserve habitat in a coordinated and integrated manner, engage in evidence-based restoration using an adaptive management approach, ensure that potential freshwater habitat alterations are mitigated or off-set, and future-proof protection and restoration actions. Such work should be done through a lens that engages and involves local community members. We identify three broad categories of obstacles that could arise during the implementation of the response options outlined: (a) scientific (e.g., inaccessible data or uncertainties), (b) institutional and management (e.g., capacity issues or differing goals across agencies), and (c) social and political (e.g., prioritizing economic development over conservation initiatives). The protection and restoration of habitats is key to Bend the Curve for freshwater biodiversity, with a comprehensive, connected, and coordinated effort of response options needed to protect intact habitats and restore fragmented, degraded, and lost habitats and the biodiversity and ecosystem services that they support.

Freshwater ecosystems are poorly represented in global networks of protected areas. This situation underscores an urgent need for the creation, application, and expansion of durable (long-term and enforceable) protection mechanisms for free-flowing rivers that go beyond conventional protected area planning. To address this need, we must first understand where and what types of protections exist that explicitly maintain the free-flowing integrity of rivers, as well as the efficacy of such policy types. Through policy analysis and an in-depth literature review, our study identifies three main policy mechanisms used for such protections: (1) River Conservation Systems; (2) Executive Decrees and Laws; and (3) Rights of Rivers. We found that globally only eight counties have national river conservation systems while seven countries have used executive decrees and similar policies to halt dam construction, and Rights of Rivers movements are quickly growing in importance, relative to other protection types. Despite the current extent of protection policies being insufficient to tackle the freshwater and biodiversity crises facing the world’s rivers, they do provide useful frameworks to guide the creation and expansion of protections. Ultimately, as countries act on global calls for protections, policy mechanisms must be tailored to their individual social and ecological geographies.

The United Nations' Convention on Biological Diversity set forth the 30 × 30 target, an agenda for countries to protect at least 30% of their terrestrial, inland water, and coastal and marine areas by 2030. With <6 years to reach that goal, riverine conservation professionals are faced with the difficult decision of prioritizing which rivers or river segments should be conserved (protected and/or restored). While incorporating resilience into conservation planning is essential for enhancing, restoring, and maintaining the vital riverine ecosystem services (ES) most threatened by climate change and other environmental and human stresses, this paradigm is at odds with traditional conservation approaches that are either opportunistic or reactionary, where only unique and highly visible ecosystems have been prioritized. Barriers to implementing resilience‐based riverine conservation planning include: (1) difficulties in conceptualizing and quantifying resilience; (2) insufficient consideration of the social components of riverine systems; (3) the inapplicability of terrestrial‐only conservation models to aquatic systems; and (4) the traditional ad hoc and opportunistic approach to conservation. To overcome these barriers, we propose a resilience‐based riverine conservation framework that includes: (1) assessing riverine resilience using indicator frameworks; (2) considering rivers as dynamically coupled social–ecological systems; (3) explicitly incorporating terrestrial–aquatic network connectivity into conservation decision‐making; and (4) strategic systems planning using a novel resilience–conservation matrix as a tool. This framework has the potential to transform conservation practices around the globe to more effectively protect river systems and enhance their resilience to climate change and human development.This article is categorized under: Water and Life > Conservation, Management, and Awareness Science of Water > Water and Environmental Change Human Water > Water Governance