Plans are currently being drafted for the next decade of action on biodiversity—both the post‐2020 Global Biodiversity Framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and Biodiversity Strategy of the European Union (EU). Freshwater biodiversity is disproportionately threatened and underprioritized relative to the marine and terrestrial biota, despite supporting a richness of species and ecosystems with their own intrinsic value and providing multiple essential ecosystem services. Future policies and strategies must have a greater focus on the unique ecology of freshwater life and its multiple threats, and now is a critical time to reflect on how this may be achieved. We identify priority topics including environmental flows, water quality, invasive species, integrated water resources management, strategic conservation planning, and emerging technologies for freshwater ecosystem monitoring. We synthesize these topics with decades of first‐hand experience and recent literature into 14 special recommendations for global freshwater biodiversity conservation based on the successes and setbacks of European policy, management, and research. Applying and following these recommendations will inform and enhance the ability of global and European post‐2020 biodiversity agreements to halt and reverse the rapid global decline of freshwater biodiversity.

Enthusiasm for and investments in nature-based solutions (NBS) as sustainable strategies for climate adaptation and infrastructure development is building among governments, the scientific community, and engineering practitioners. This is particularly true for water security and water-related risks. In a freshwater context, NBS may provide much-needed “win-wins” for society and the environment that could benefit imperiled freshwater biodiversity. Such conservation benefits are urgently needed given the ongoing freshwater biodiversity crisis, with declines in freshwater species and their habitats occurring at more than twice the rate of marine or terrestrial systems. However, for NBS to make meaningful contributions to safeguarding freshwater biodiversity, clear links must be established between NBS applications and priorities for conservation. In this paper, we link common water-related NBS to six priority actions for freshwater life established by the conservation science n community, and highlight priority research and knowledge that will be necessary to bring NBS to bear on the freshwater biodiversity crisis. In particular, we illustrate how NBS can play a direct role in restoring degraded aquatic and floodplain ecosystems, enhancing in-stream water quality, and improving hydrological connectivity among freshwater ecosystems. System-level monitoring is needed to ensure that freshwater NBS deliver on their promised benefits for ecosystems and species.

Civil infrastructure will be essential to face the interlinked existential threats of climate change and rising resource demands while ensuring a livable Anthropocene for all. However, conventional infrastructure planning largely neglects the contributions and maintenance of Earth’s ecological life support systems, which provide irreplaceable services supporting human well-being. The stability and performance of these services depend on biodiversity, but conventional infrastructure practices, narrowly focused on controlling natural capital, have inadvertently degraded biodiversity while perpetuating social inequities. Here, we envision a new infrastructure paradigm wherein biodiversity and ecosystem services are a central objective of civil engineering. In particular, we reimagine infrastructure practice such that 1) ecosystem integrity and species conservation are explicit objectives from the outset of project planning; 2) infrastructure practices integrate biodiversity into diverse project portfolios along a spectrum from conventional to nature-based solutions and natural habitats; 3) ecosystem functions reinforce and enhance the performance and lifespan of infrastructure assets; and 4) civil engineering promotes environmental justice by counteracting legacies of social inequity in infrastructure development and nature conservation. This vision calls for a fundamental rethinking of the standards, practices, and mission of infrastructure development agencies and a broadening of scope for conservation science. We critically examine the legal and professional precedents for this paradigm shift, as well as the moral and economic imperatives for manifesting equitable infrastructure planning that mainstreams biodiversity and nature’s benefits to people. Finally, we set an applied research agenda for supporting this vision and highlight financial, professional, and policy pathways for achieving it.

Nature‐based solutions (NbS, and related concepts like natural infrastructure, Ecosystem‐based Adaptation, and green infrastructure) are increasingly recognized as multi‐benefit strategies for addressing the critical sustainability challenges of the Anthropocene, including the climate emergency and biodiversity crisis. Mainstreaming NbS in professional practice requires strategic, landscape‐level planning integrating multiple sources of benefits and their synergies and trade‐offs. Levee setbacks (LS) are among the best‐studied riverine NbS with recognized benefits for flood risk management, drought resilience, water quality management, recreational opportunities, and ecological restoration for biodiversity. Although awareness of the multifarious benefits of LS as forms of Natural Capital is growing, implementation remains ad‐hoc and opportunistic. To address this critical implementation gap for one major example of NbS, we review and synthesize literature across diverse disciplines to provide an overview of the primary social, economic, and ecological mechanisms that affect the co‐benefit delivery of LS projects. Next, to make this information relevant to NbS practitioners, we link these mechanisms to spatial metrics that can be used to approximate the relative magnitude of project benefits and costs across these mechanisms. Finally, we highlight examples of key synergies and trade‐offs among benefits that should be considered for LS planning. This synthetic approach is intended to familiarize readers with the diverse potential benefits of LS, and provide an understanding of how to select and prioritize potential sites for further study and implementation. Synergies and trade‐offs among important benefit drivers abound, and social equity concerns will be paramount in ensuring the successful implementation of LS and other NbS in the future.This article is categorized under: Engineering Water > Sustainable Engineering of Water Engineering Water > Planning Water Water and Life > Nature of Freshwater Ecosystems