You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
SustainabilitySustainability
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

4 June 2021

Legal Protection Schemes for Free-Flowing Rivers in Europe: An Overview

Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (IGB), 12587 Berlin, Germany
†
Present address: WWF Germany, 10117 Berlin, Germany.
Sustainability2021, 13(11), 6423;https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116423
This article belongs to the Special Issue Durable Protections for Free-Flowing Rivers
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

Most of Europe’s rivers are highly fragmented by barriers. This study examines legal protection schemes, that specifically aim at preserving the free-flowing character of rivers. Based on national legislation, such schemes are found in seven European countries: Slovenia, Finland, Sweden, France and Spain as well as Norway and Iceland. The study provides an overview of the individual schemes and their respective scope, compares their protection mechanisms and assesses their effectiveness. As Europe’s the remaining free-flowing rivers are threatened by hydropower and other development, the need for effective legal protection, comparable to the designation of Wild and Scenic Rivers in the United States, is urgent. Similarly, any ambitious strategy for the restoration of free-flowing rivers should be complemented with a mechanism for their permanent protection once dams and other barriers are removed. The investigated legal protection schemes constitute a starting point for envisioning a more cohesive European network of strictly protected free-flowing rivers.

1. Introduction

Europe’s last wild rivers and dynamic river landscapes deserve better protection. This study examines existing legal protection mechanisms for free-flowing rivers in Europe in order to draw conclusions for more cohesive European policies for river protection. Over the last fifty years, seven countries have put individual river protection schemes in place through national legislation: Slovenia, Finland, Sweden, France and Spain, as well as in Norway and Iceland.
The last remaining free-flowing rivers are under pressure from various sides, in particular hydropower development. After a relatively calm period, the global boom of hydropower and dam projects is also taking hold in Europe: 8500 new hydropower plants are planned across Europe [1]. It is fair to speak of a “gold rush,” affecting both EU member states and accession countries. This push for hydropower development threatens the last wild rivers from the Balkans to Portugal, Austria, Romania and other countries. Already, Europe’s rivers are fragmented by more than a million barriers that entail widespread ecological consequences [2]. The most fundamental among these effects is the disruption of the free flow of water and sediment, resulting in changes in morphodynamics and loss of connectivity, as well as creating physical barriers to the migration of fish and other organisms. The environmental effects of barriers in watercourses are one of the main reasons why the environmental objectives of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) were largely not met by 2018, with only 40% of the EU’s surface waterbodies reaching “good ecological status” or “good ecological potential” [3].
River fragmentation and flow regulation for hydropower are major drivers of the freshwater biodiversity crisis. Of the countries examined in this study, according to the River Fragmentation Index, most river basins in northern Finland, northern Sweden, most of Norway and Spain as well as the alpine region of France fall into the category “severe,” while river fragmentation in Slovenia is classified “moderate” or “heavy” and in Iceland “moderate” [4]. The impacts of storage on flow regimes are, according to the River Regulation Index classified “high” in some basins of northern Finland, most of northern Sweden, most of Norway and some of Slovenia; regulation impacts in most Spanish basins fall into the categories “high” or “severe”, while Iceland falls into the category “weak” [4].
According to the European Red List of Threatened Species, 37% of European freshwater fish species are considered threatened [5], as well as 44% of freshwater mollusks, making them by far the most threatened group assessed to date in Europe [6]. WWF’s Living Planet Index 2020 clearly shows that Europe does not represent an exception from the global decline of freshwater biodiversity, estimating the average decline of migratory freshwater fish in Europe to be 93% since 1973 [7]. A report on threatened freshwater fish in the Mediterranean Basin highlights the dramatic impact of hydropower, providing alarming estimates for the increased extinction risk for endangered species, in particular by the proliferation of small hydropower projects [8]. In fact, some 2000 hydropower projects are proposed within the boundaries of National Parks, Biosphere Reserves and other protected areas in the Mediterranean Region alone. The report concludes: “There is an urgent need to mitigate the escalating ecological damage triggered by the hydropower binge through preservation and restoration of free-flowing rivers” [8].
Apart from hydropower, serious threats to free-flowing rivers are imposed by large-scale river engineering projects for inland waterways that entail canalization along with the construction of dams and sluices, for example on the Danube and Oder rivers [9]. Highly controversial, the E40 International Waterway project aims to establish a 2000 km inland waterway connection from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea [10]. If created, it would have potentially dramatic effects on the Prypjat and its vast and largely pristine floodplains in the Polesia region of Belarus, where Prypjat National Park was established in 1996.
The EU’s existing water and nature conservation legislation offers potentially effective mechanisms to protect free-flowing rivers. The Water Framework Directive (WFD), with its non-deterioration obligation, along with the requirement to reach good ecological status, could be implemented for this purpose. The WFD also establishes a nexus to the Nature Directives, linking environmental objectives for waterbodies in protected areas to the achievement of the conservation objectives for these areas. The EU’s Nature Directives also include an obligation to prevent deterioration of the designated sites within the Natura 2000 network. Besides the designation of rivers as protected areas, other provisions command river protection, e.g., protections of migratory fishes among the Species of Community Interest. However, implementation of these legal provisions in the EU member states has been insufficient and, in many cases, not able to prevent further degradation of free-flowing rivers, their natural properties and biodiversity. In part, this reflects a well-known shortcoming of the WFD, namely the fact that the hydromorphological quality elements of rivers and streams, such as hydrological regime and river continuity, are only indirectly regarded, i.e., “supporting the biological elements”, when the ecological status of waterbodies is classified, or environmental impacts are assessed. Water bodies assigned to the high ecological status class are an important exception from this rule, as here, the values of hydromorphological quality elements are a part of their classification according to Annex V WFD and must be taken into account when a water body is downgraded. WFD provisions do not fully rule out hydropower development and barrier construction but allow exemptions under Art. 4.7 WFD, even in rivers of high ecological value. A precedent in this regard was set by the ruling of the European Court of Justice on the case of the Schwarze Sulm river in Austria in 2016. The construction of a hydropower plant in a river in high ecological status, although resulting in deterioration, was allowed on the basis of overriding public interest [11]. Overall, barriers are highly relevant to the implementation of two mechanisms in River Basin Management Planning that reduce the environmental ambition for a large share of waterbodies: For the designation of Heavily Modified Water Bodies, the objective for which is not “good ecological status,” but rather “good ecological potential,” and weirs, dams and reservoirs were the most frequent reasons. Secondly, hydropower plants range third among the single reasons for exemptions under article 4.7 WFD [12].
The enormous development pressure on rivers and streams, even in protected areas, was highlighted by the controversial struggle over a guidance document on hydropower and Natura 2000 that was drafted by the EU Commission in 2016. While welcomed by hydropower associations, the document was harshly criticized by a large coalition of environmental organizations such as the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), Friends of the Earth Europe, Rewilding Europe, Euronatur Foundation and Riverwatch, as well as the European Anglers Alliance: “There is very little scope for new hydropower in any of the EU’s water courses and in particular no room for new hydropower plants in Natura 2000 sites or in rivers containing Natura 2000 sites or EU protected species. These sites should rather be the nucleus for a network of free-flowing rivers and streams with high ecological value that should be expanded through the decommissioning and removal of ecologically harmful infrastructure” [13]. It is safe to assume, they argue, that within the Natura 2000 network, the protection of rivers and streams generally may be regarded as the “better environmental option” (Article 4.7 WFD) in comparison to the generation of hydroelectric power.
Finally, as can be concluded from the results of the first and second cycle of River Basin Management under the WFD, European countries and the EU as a community have generally been too timid in applying existing planning tools strategically for the benefit of river landscapes and their ecological restoration. This is particularly true for the removal of dams and other barriers, as well as the urgently needed revitalization of rivers in a regional context with strategic conservation aims. Europe is risking losing outstanding natural heritage and missing great opportunities to regain natural river landscapes. Recent developments, in particular the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2030, address these challenges and provide promising prospects for restoring free-flowing rivers, for which there is an enormous potential through barrier removal. Here, valuable experience might be drawn from countries that already have legal protection schemes for free-flowing rivers in place.
Despite the protection mechanisms for freshwater ecosystems provided by EU legislation, Europe is lacking a cohesive policy for protecting free-flowing rivers, such as the United States Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 that designates selected rivers to be “preserved in a free-flowing condition” [14], while also protecting their “Outstandingly Remarkable Values” that relate to vital ecosystem services of regional and national significance [15]. Without such a policy in place on the EU level, it is important to understand what kinds of national protection schemes for free-flowing river protections do exist in Europe and how they vary across countries, so that they can be considered in the creation of future conservation policies. Notably, a comparative study of European river protection schemes has, until this study, not existed. This study provides an analysis of seven legal protection schemes for free-flowing rivers in Europe, including five European Union (EU) and two non-EU countries (cf. Figure 1), to understand how these policies function, their histories, and their effectiveness. All schemes included here are based on national legislation. These approaches offer many lessons learned and constitute a starting point for envisioning a European policy that would establish a more cohesive system of strictly protected free-flowing rivers.
Figure 1. European countries with legal protection schemes for free-flowing rivers (EU countries dark blue, non-EU countries light blue).

2. Methods

Legal protection for rivers specifically aiming to maintain their free-flowing character was identified in the seven above-mentioned countries. In several other countries, new protection schemes are being proposed or emerging, e.g., in Portugal, Montenegro and North Macedonia [16]. Most European countries do not provide specific legal protection schemes for free-flowing rivers.
The research for this study consisted of a review of scientific literature, relevant legal texts, policy documents, gray literature, reports and internet resources. To guide the research, help identify relevant documents and support the evaluation of the protection schemes, semi-structured interviews with river conservation experts were conducted in 2019 and 2020. The interview partners were identified following recommendations from environmental organizations and state authorities in the respective EU countries; for the two non-EU countries, Norway and Iceland, no expert interviews were carried out. To structure the interviews, a questionnaire was developed. The experts later kindly supported the research with follow-up email communication. The interview partners represented the following entities.
-
Slovenia: Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for Nature Conservation (Zavod Republika Slovenija za varstvo narave—ZRSVN), Nova Gorica Office
-
Finland: Finnish Association for Nature Conservation (Suomen luonnonsuojeluliitto—SLL)
-
Sweden: River Savers Association (Älvräddarna Samorganisation)
-
Spain: New Water Culture Foundation (Fondación Nueva Cultura del’Agua)
-
France: Ministry of Ecological Transition, Water & Biodiversity Directorate (Ministère de la transition écologique), DGALN/DEB
Research on the case studies as well as the expert interviews followed a set of guiding questions:
-
What is the legal basis of the protection scheme, and when did it enter into force?
-
What are the protection mechanisms?
-
How many rivers are protected under the scheme, and were rivers added or excluded later?
-
Was the protection scheme effective, i.e., were the respective rivers protected against hydropower development, dams and other barriers?
-
In which context did the protection scheme emerge, e.g., were immediate threats to rivers averted?
-
What is the relation of the protection scheme to the implementation of the Water Framework Directive in the respective country, and does it contribute to achieving the WFD environmental objectives?
Key results are presented in tables for each country examined. Synopses and summaries for existing protection schemes in the seven examined European countries are arranged in chronological order, i.e., according to the year in which strict legal protection for at least one river in these countries first entered into force. However, the two non-EU countries, Norway and Iceland, use very similar approaches to river protection, are therefore grouped together. Key quotes from legal texts are provided in English translation. The numbers of rivers protected under the respective schemes were identified for most countries as far as available.
Limitations for the research resulted from the fact that many sources, especially gray literature, were only available in the respective national languages. Documents in Swedish (also the second official language in Finland) and French were accessible to the author; for other documents, web-based translation tools allowed an approximation. Quotes from legal texts originate from governmental websites, providing translations of the respective laws that serve for informational use only. Detailed information on the respective administrative setup of authorities and agencies in charge of River Basin Management and hydropower permitting was not collected as the mechanisms of the protection schemes can already be understood on the grounds of more basic information. Available geographical information on protected rivers did not allow to provide a European map. The scope of the study is limited to seven legal protection schemes that were in place in European countries in 2019. More recent developments towards river protection schemes on the national level that can be observed in several countries are not included in this review.

4. Discussion

A compilation of seven national legal protection schemes for free-flowing rivers in Europe was provided in Chapter 3. It allows, as a first such overview, a comparison of these protection schemes and an evaluation. This chapter examines three aspects that reflect the leading questions introduced in the methods section: How do the various elements of the protection schemes relate to each other? What can be said about their effectiveness? How do the protection schemes relate to the implementation of the Water Framework Directive? Lastly, future research needs are identified. The evaluation and findings provided underlie the same limitations outlined in the methods section.

4.1. Legal Basis and Mechanisms of the Examined River Protection Schemes

The seven case studies, along with the synopsis in Table 8, outline all core elements that are relevant to understand the functioning of the examined river protection schemes. In all cases, the legally binding character of the protection schemes results from legal provisions on the national level. Additional executive or parliamentary decisions are needed in France, Spain and Iceland, determining that rivers identified in a prior planning process are included in the respective protection scheme. In the case of France, this process involves regional executive competence on the prefectural level. Spain’s Autonomous Communities, i.e., regional authorities, designate river reserves in certain cases, namely if the respective river basin lies entirely in one such region. Municipal decrees play a special role only in the case of the Soča river in Slovenia, complementing a national law and adding components to the protection scheme.
Table 8. Legal basis and mechanisms of protection schemes for free-flowing rivers in seven European countries in overview.
Objectives of environmental policies are often implemented and enforced through a combination of mechanisms or a mix of instruments. In the case of the examined schemes, such elements include, on the basis of legal provisions, the establishment of protected areas in order to protect river integrity, the prohibition of hydropower permitting, compensation payments to owners of water rights, as well as the use of planning instruments. While the schemes in Finland and Sweden are focused on the prohibition of hydropower permitting, the wider concept of river integrity protection as provided by protected areas in Slovenia and Spain should effectuate such prohibitions. In Iceland, the designation of rivers precludes hydropower permitting and, in addition, mandates the establishment of protected areas for the respective rivers. Only the Finnish scheme includes compensation payments to owners of water rights, based on the economic benefits forgone. The preclusion of hydropower development is thus safeguarded, not only because permitting is prohibited, but also because by being compensated, the owners give up their claims. Similar to a Strategic Environmental Assessment, Norway and Iceland identify candidate rivers for strict protection while carrying out master planning for new hydropower development. Spain and France integrate the identification of candidates into River Basin Management Planning (cf. Section 4.3).
As a matter of principle, the scope of environmental protection schemes is, to a large degree, also determined by the exemptions they include, i.e., to which aspects of the protection scheme exemptions apply and to what extent. With the exception of Finland, all schemes do include exemptions to varying degrees. While it is beyond this study to evaluate all exemptions, it is, however, noteworthy that in the Slovenian case, the municipal decree reduces the range of exemptions by defining stricter preconditions than the national law. In Sweden, exemptions in the designated rivers apply only to preexisting hydropower facilities and their renewal. In France, barriers lower than 50 cm may be newly erected in designated rivers after an exemption was introduced by governmental decree. On the range of exemptions in the Norwegian scheme, further investigation is needed.

4.2. Effectiveness and Geographical Scope of the Examined River Protection Schemes

Whether the designated rivers were spared from hydropower development and their free-flowing character kept intact serves as a core criterion for an evaluation of the protection schemes. The assessment is based mainly on expert interviews. Altogether, the examined schemes are remarkably successful in safeguarding these protection aims. In regards to Slovenia, Finland and Sweden, it is important to note that the legal protection schemes in these three countries were established between 1976 and 1987 in reaction to highly controversial hydropower development policies in these countries in the second half of the 20th century. As detailed in the individual case studies, these conflicts are rooted in long controversies over the industrial exploitation of rivers for large-scale hydropower use. In the case of Finland and Sweden, where they included environmental, social, cultural conflicts as well as the rights of indigenous Sámi in Fennoscandia, these conflicts went on for seventy years and culminated over the last remaining free-flowing rivers. In the case of Slovenia, the most iconic rivers of the country were threatened. Notably, the river protection schemes in Slovenia, Finland, Sweden helped avert imminent threats of hydropower development and dam building. In the following decades, they effectively prevented deterioration of the free-flowing character of all designated rivers. The success of the schemes in this regard is underlined by the fact that no evidence was found of designated rivers later being excluded from the protection scheme. For Spain, no information on cases of deterioration was reported. In France, it is still too early to judge the effectiveness of the protection scheme, which, however, is known to have been challenged in a number of cases. For Norway and Iceland, an evaluation of the effectiveness proves difficult. In part, this is due to the fact that no experts from these countries were interviewed. The Norwegian scheme includes apparently far-reaching exemptions with regard to hydropower permitting. Further research is therefore needed to better understand the effectiveness of this approach. An evaluation of the schemes in Norway and Iceland should also include a comparison of rivers protected versus rivers opened up for development with their respective river lengths. Such data were not available for Norway and Iceland.
The number of rivers protected under individual schemes can be found for most countries. However, these figures do not allow for a reasonable quantitative comparison. Rather, they provide only a rather rough orientation. This is due to the fact that some protection schemes apply to individual stretches of rivers and might include only short reaches (for example many of the river reserves in Spain), whereas others might apply to an entire large river system, including headwaters and source streams (e.g., Torneälv river in Sweden). It is, therefore, not meaningful to add the numbers of protected rivers identified in this study to a total number. One prominent conclusion from the study is that, apparently, only two larger rivers in Europe are fully protected from their headwaters to the sea: the Kalixälv in Sweden and the Torneälv in Sweden and Finland.

4.3. Relation to River Basin Management and Environmental Objectives under the WFD

The examined river protection schemes provide effective mechanisms that, to various extents, bridge a gap where WFD provisions do not suffice to protect the free-flowing character of rivers. While all countries examined are implementing the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD), including the two non-EU countries, Norway and Iceland, only two of the examined protection schemes establish a direct link to the WFD’s provisions. Three groups can be distinguished in this regard.
(1) In Slovenia, Finland and Sweden, river protection schemes were established well before the WFD entered into force in the year 2000. The legal provisions predated the WFD and were not adapted later. While the schemes successfully prevent deterioration of the designated rivers and thus fulfill a key objective of the WFD, there is no apparent formal link to the WFD.
(2) Spain and France are the only two EU countries in which a direct interlinkage of strict river protection and WFD implementation was established. Both countries introduced provisions that require the respective River Basin Management authorities to identify rivers to be strictly protected from deterioration. While the mechanisms are different, but both lead to legally binding protections: In the case of Spain, a growing number of rivers is designated as River Nature Reserves, and in the case of France, an impressively large list of rivers (“list 1”) is protected by prefectural decree on the basin scale. By defining priority rivers based on environmental criteria (fish migration, sediment transport), France does, however, not, in turn, open other rivers for exploitation and hydropower development, as these still remain under the general non-deterioration obligation of the WFD. Neither does Spain. Since both examples were introduced relatively recently, the French and Spanish approaches should be further studied in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the schemes to protect the respective rivers against development pressures. It would also be desirable to make information on these approaches and experiences more widely accessible in other EU countries. Complementing strict protection of rivers that are still free-flowing, the French example also requires river management authorities to identify restoration priorities to restore continuity. It will be very interesting to investigate how such rivers, once barrier removal has restored their free-flowing character, will be integrated into a strict protection scheme. This is of great relevance in the context of restoration objectives in the upcoming 3rd River Basin Management Plans and particularly for restoration initiatives across the EU, as proposed by the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2030 (cf. Chapter 5).
(3) Norway and Iceland, with their approaches to strict protection of selected rivers, constitute a rather separate group. In both countries, strategic planning for river protection is intrinsically linked to strategic planning for large-scale hydropower development in other rivers. While both countries are non-EU, they have nonetheless enacted the WFD into national law. Surprisingly, no mentioning of the WFD or River Basin Management Planning was found in the documents reviewed for this study. However, this might be due to the above-mentioned limitations of the study design. From the data available, it remains unclear how the WFD’s non-deterioration obligation and derogations under Art. 4.7 WFD are implemented.

4.4. Future Research Needs

An analysis and comparison of existing national river protection schemes offer room for a conclusion on how these schemes might be improved, serve as role models for other national solutions, contribute to better implementation of EU provisions, including the WFD’s non-deterioration obligation and, finally, how they might inspire a supranational approach to strict river protection on the EU-level. Further research should address the following questions:
  • What potential exists for the expansion of the protection schemes, especially when barriers are removed from fragmented rivers?
  • What are the geographical parameters of the protected areas and designated rivers, e.g., river lengths, lateral extension, the inclusion of floodplains/riparian zones and headwaters?
  • To what extent can the examined schemes count towards the EU Biodiversity Strategy’s goal of strict protection for 10% of EU land?
  • How effective are the schemes in achieving comprehensive river conservation aims and in the sense of freshwater protected areas, i.e., beyond the rivers’ free-flowing character?
  • What is the relation to other conservation values (geologic, archeologic, cultural, historic, etc.) and recreational use?
  • Where in Europe have new legal protection schemes for free-flowing rivers been established?

5. Outlook: Envisioning a Network of Protected Free-Flowing Rivers for Europe

European countries and the EU as a community can do better in protecting the last free-flowing rivers as well as those where dams are taken down. As this review shows, strict and permanent legal protection of rivers is feasible. The examined examples prove that such efforts are plausible and can achieve remarkable successes for the conservation and restoration of natural river landscapes. Based on the legal protection schemes in seven countries, Europe already has a rudimentary system of strictly protected rivers that are preserved in their free-flowing condition. However, these schemes do not address the topic beyond the national level. Hence, they appear disconnected, if not overlooked, outside their countries. It is surprising that such protections have not been conceived as a European network, given the opportunities this would present. Nonetheless, the various national models and experiences can, along with other emerging protection schemes and initiatives, be regarded as a starting point for the establishment of a European policy to permanently protect free-flowing rivers. A policy to create a network of protected rivers would have to combine two essential elements:
(1) an overarching strategic planning approach that identifies the need for strict river protection and restoration action across the EU,
(2) a clear, EU-wide legal approach that strictly protects wild and free rivers from dams and other damage and aims at enhancing the vitality and ecological value of these rivers in order to keep them healthy, dynamic and free-flowing for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations [56].
A call for a network of protected rivers is not new. In 1994, a study on rivers in the Northern hemisphere pointed out that of the large rivers in Europe, only the Pechora, Mezen and Onega rivers in Russia, as well as the Torneälv and Kalixälv in Finland and Sweden, are still free-flowing. It concluded that the remaining free-flowing large river systems were relatively small and nearly all situated in the far north: “These conditions indicate that many types of river ecosystems have been lost and that the populations of many riverine species have become highly fragmented. To improve the conservation of biodiversity and the sustainable use of biological resources, immediate action is called for to create an international preservation network of free-flowing river systems and to rehabilitate exploited rivers in areas that lack unaffected watercourses” [57]. The need for a networked scheme of protections is all the more relevant for transboundary river basins, in particular those with very high species extinction risk, such as the Danube, or with high risk regarding the legal framework [58]. Finally, a strict protection approach is a necessary complement to any ambitious strategy for the restoration of free-flowing rivers through the removal of dams and other barriers.
In addition to experiences from countries examined in this study, Europe can also take lessons learned from the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) of 1968 in the United States. Its forward-looking aim to protect rivers, their ecosystem services and cultural values and keep them wild and scenic “for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations” is a true source of inspiration—similar to the National Park idea that still motivates a worldwide movement [59]. Quite surprisingly, however, the Wild and Scenic approach has not been discussed as an inspiration for EU water or biodiversity policies until recently. The discussion on adapting the principles of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to European rivers began in 2015 at a river management seminar in Berlin and the Balkan Rivers Days in Belgrade [60]. A milestone in sharing confidence in the power of the idea and an important building block in shaping this joint effort was a US study tour on Wild and Scenic Rivers hosted by The Nature Conservancy, WWF and American Rivers in the fall of 2018. The First European River Summit held in Sarajevo in September 2018 raised interest among a wider range of activists and organizations for Wild and Scenic Rivers as a model [16], as did a conference on the EU level hosted by The Nature Conservancy and Wetlands International in October 2020 [40]. The concept of the strict legal protection of free-flowing rivers as provided by Wild and Scenic has been the key topic of the event series “River Film Fest” (in German: Flussfilmfest). Combining film screenings with expert discussions, since 2016, it has presented the topic to audiences in Berlin, several other European cities, and at the EU Green Week 2020 [61].
The so-called partnership rivers under the Wild and Scenic Rivers System in the US might, in particular, might serve as a model for a European strategy to protect free-flowing rivers, additionally in regards to promoting and communicating the aims of river conservation and building partnership across various groups and stakeholders. Not least, the successful “5000 Miles of Wild” campaign initiated by American Rivers and partner organizations made the Wild and Scenic approach more visible outside the United States. Aiming to designate 5000 miles of candidate rivers and collecting 5000 river stories, it illustrates the great potential of this legal tool for river conservation today. The campaign highlights the role that rivers play in providing clean water and wildlife habitat, the economic importance of river-related recreation and tourism as well as their role as “pathways to adventure.” Moreover, it emphasizes that “rivers tell the story of our nation’s history and they run through our culture—our music, literature and art” [62]. In this sense, the campaign to enlarge the Wild and Scenic Rivers System by 5000 miles aligns with key elements of the conceptual approach of Nature’s Contribution to People (NCP) brought forward by IPBES, which likewise “recognizes the central and pervasive role that culture plays in defining all links between people and nature” [63].
If Europe were to elaborate a system of protected free-flowing rivers drawing on experiences from individual European countries as well as the Wild and Scenic approach in the US, a pragmatic approach for identifying candidate rivers might be based on these essential elements:
  • Key component: Free-flowing and dynamic (cf. Wild and Scenic Rivers)
  • Outstanding values: At least one outstanding value in terms of biodiversity, geology, scenery, culture or history (cf. Wild and Scenic Rivers)
  • Environmental condition: At least in good status according to WFD, i.e., ecological status and chemical status (cf. River Nature Reserves in Spain), possibly with exceptions, e.g., for rivers in urban settings.
On this basis, a set of criteria could be applied to further qualify the river towards one of three types, similar to the Wild and Scenic Rivers approach. These criteria should relate to hydrology, hydromorphology, condition of adjacent lands and floodplains, as well as threats, management and governance (cf. River Nature Reserves in Spain or “list 1” and “list 2” rivers in France). The following three types of protected rivers are proposed:
  • free-flowing and wild/pristine
  • free-flowing and near-natural
  • free-flowing and restored.
Identification of candidate rivers would ideally occur in the context of River Basin Management Planning (cf. Spain, France). Strict protection of the free-flowing character of the designated rivers would essentially require a mechanism building on, and strengthening, the non-deterioration obligation of the WFD.
New prospects for better protection of free-flowing rivers have emerged from the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2030 that was introduced as part of the EU Commission’s Green Deal and formally endorsed in 2020. The Strategy defines the restoration of 25,000 km of free-flowing rivers in the EU by 2030 as a target. It also sets objectives for strict protection schemes that could benefit free-flowing rivers. Environmental NGOs have welcomed the Strategy. Underlining the importance of free-flowing rivers, more than 100 organizations signed on to a “Hydropower Manifesto” that essentially calls for no new hydropower development in Europe [64]. Estimates for the enormous potential that barrier removal in Europe offers for the revitalization of fragmented rivers are provided in a WWF report [65]. In another process initiated through the Green Deal, the EU Commission has started consultations on a nature restoration law for the EU. These processes offer an unprecedented opportunity to introduce a strict protection scheme for unimpacted rivers as well as restored rivers once their free-flowing character is re-established.
An EU-wide approach for protecting free-flowing rivers would allow permanent river protection in a more coherent way across all European freshwater ecoregions and the basins within them [66]. It also seems feasible when based on the high-quality data on rivers and protected areas available today, in particular data that have been compiled in the course of monitoring programs according to the Water Framework and Nature Directives. This approach can be united with other emerging tools and information on freshwater protections. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has been developing a specific methodology for identifying freshwater key biodiversity areas (KBAs). This process has already been applied to parts of Europe [67]. These Freshwater KBAs are delineated primarily using catchment boundaries to encourage their adoption into a truly integrated approach such as River Basin Management Planning under the Water Framework Directive. In this way, the freshwater KBAs identify priority areas for conservation policy and management. Next to an Emergency Recovery Plan to bend the curve of global freshwater biodiversity loss [68], priority topics and recommendations for freshwater biodiversity conservation have been assembled from European experience [69]. The growing body of work on conservation connectivity [70] and other effective area-based conservation measures [71] provides additional sources of information to guide policy decisions on integrated networks of protections for freshwater ecosystems. These conceptual frameworks and data provide an excellent base for making the case for the legal protection of individual rivers. They also provide the base for envisioning an overarching strategy across various ecoregions for permanent legal protection of Europe’s most precious rivers—wild and scenic, healthy, dynamic and free-flowing.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

This article is based on an overview report prepared for The Nature Conservancy by Living Rivers Foundation in 2019 [72]. This article benefitted from the discussion within the Alliance for Freshwater Life (AFL). The author would like to thank Tapani Veistola, Christer Borg, Julia Martínez, Daniel Rojšek and all other interview partners as well as Denielle Perry, Ian Harrison, John Zablocki, Andras Krolopp, Henrik Österblad, Uwe Koenzen, David Moryc, Manya Weintraub, Espin Bowder, Ruben van Treeck, Rudolf Schäfer, Theresa Schiller and Evelyn Burkhardt for their support.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Belletti, B.; De Leaniz, C.G.; Jones, J.; Bizzi, S.; Börger, L.; Segura, G.; Castelletti, A.; Van De Bund, W.; Aarestrup, K.; Barry, J.; et al. More than one million barriers fragment Europe’s rivers. Nat. Cell Biol. 2020, 588, 436–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Schwarz, U. Hydropower Pressure on European Rivers: The Story in Numbers; FLUVIUS, WWF, RiverWatch, EuroNatur, GEOTA: 2019. Available online: https://wwfeu.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/hydropower_pressure_on_european_rivers_the_story_in_numbers_web.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2021).
  3. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC), Second River Basin Management Plans, First Flood Risk Management Plans; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2019.
  4. Grill, G.; Lehner, B.; Lumsdon, A.E.; MacDonald, G.K.; Zarfl, C.; Liermann, C.R. An Index-Based Framework for Assessing Patterns and Trends in River Fragmentation and Flow Regulation by Global Dams at Multiple Scales. Environ. Res. Lett. 2015, 10, 015001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Freyhof, J.; Brooks, E. European Red List of Freshwater Fishes; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  6. Cuttelod, A.; Seddon, M.; Neubert, E. European Red List of Non-Marine Molluscs; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  7. Almond, R.E.A.; Grooten, M.; Petersen, T. (Eds.) Living Planet Report 2020. Bending the Curve of Biodiversity Loss: A Deep Dive into Freshwater; WWF: Gland, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  8. Freyhof, J.; Bergner, L.; Ford, M. Threatened Freshwater Fishes of the Mediterranean Basin Biodiversity Hotspot: Distribution, Extinction Risk and the Impact of Hydropower; Euronatur, Riverwatch, Museum für Naturkunde Berlin—Leibniz Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity Science: Berlin, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. IGB. Ausbaupläne an der Oder—Gefahren für Natur und Nachhaltige Nutzung. IGB Policy Brief; Leibniz-Institut für Gewässerökologie und Binnenfischerei: Berlin, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. E40 Waterway Would Lead to Droughts, and Destroy Rivers and Wildlife in Poland; Frankfurt Zoological Society, National Ecological Centre of Ukraine, Polish Society for the Protection of Birds, Ukrainian Society for the Protection of Birds: Frankfurt a.M., Germany, 2020. Available online: https://savepolesia.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/SavePolesia_Factsheet_Impacts-of-E40-in-Poland.pdf (accessed on 21 April 2021).
  11. European Commission. European Overview—River Basin Management Plans; Commission Staff Working Document SWD 30 Final: Brussels, Belgium, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  12. Faßbender, K. Die wasserrechtliche Ausnahmeprüfung nach dem EuGH-Urteil zur Schwarzen Sulm. Nat. Recht 2017, 39, 433–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Joint NGO Response on the Draft Guidance Document “Hydropower and Natura 2000”; Brussels, Belgium, 2017. Available online: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e1f3cd70752b7536599d894/t/5ecc350572e6a72aac31e1f9/1590441222709/NGO_Joint_position_Hydropower_and_Natura_2000_guidance_20170123.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2021).
  14. About the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Available online: https://www.rivers.gov/wsr-act.php (accessed on 31 October 2020).
  15. Perry, D. Reframing the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Int. J. Wilderness 2017, 23, 41–48. [Google Scholar]
  16. Riverwatch. 1st European River Summit. Available online: https://riverwatch.eu/en/content/river-summit (accessed on 20 December 2020).
  17. Zakon o določitvi zavarovalnega območja za reko Sočo s pritoki (ZDZORS). Available online: http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO120&d-16544-s=1&d-16544-o=1&d-16544-p=1&d-49681-o=2&d-49681-p=1&d-49681-s=3 (accessed on 20 May 2021).
  18. Creţan, R.; Vesalon, L. The Political Economy of Hydropower in the Communist Space: Iron Gates Revisited. Tijdschr. Voor Econ. En Soc. Geogr. 2017, 108, 688–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. TV Obzornik / TV Review: Jezero v Soški Dolini / Lake in Soča. TV SLO: Slovenia, 18 May 1964. Available online: https://euscreen.eu/item.html?id=EUS_D28E065E73A6AC90455D70DC67C1C2AF (accessed on 29 January 2021).
  20. Rojšek, D.; (Zavod Republike Slovenije za varstvo narave—Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for Nature Conservation, Nova Gorica, Slovenia). Personal communication, 2019.
  21. Oset, Ž. Environmental Activism During Communist Era in Slovenia. Rev. Croat. Hist. 2019, 15, 63–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Koskiensuojelulaki. Ministry of Environment: Helsinki, Finland. 1987. Available online: https://finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1987/19870035 (accessed on 29 January 2021).
  23. Häkkinen, K.; Karmala, P.; Paronen, M.O.j.R. 2005 Compensation processes according to the Act on the Protection of Rapids and the Acts on the Special Protection of the Rivers Ounasjoki and Kyrönjoki. Finnish Environment Institute: The Finnish Environment (Sumen ympäristo) 772. Helsinki, Finland. Available online: https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/40618/SY_772.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2020).
  24. Vuorisalo, T.; Laihonen, P. Biodiversity Conservation in the North: History of Habitat and Species Protection in Finland. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 2000, 37, 281–297. [Google Scholar]
  25. Erkinaro, J.; Laine, A.; Mäki-Petäys, A.; Karjalainen, T.P.; Laajala, E.; Hirvonen, A.; Orell, P.; Yrjänä, T. Restoring Migratory Salmonid Populations in Regulated Rivers in the Northernmost Baltic Sea Area, Northern Finland—Biological, Technical and Social Challenges. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 2011, 27, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Veistola, T.; (Suomen luonnonsuojeluliitto—Finnish Association for Nature Conservation, Helsinki, Finland). Personal communication, 2019.
  27. Koskien Suojelutoimikunnan Mietintö/Betänkande Avgivet av Forskommissionen. Komiteanmietintö/Kommittébetänkande; Maa-Ja Metsätalousministeriö: Helsinki, Finland, 1982.
  28. Miljöbalk 1998:808. Miljödepartementet: Sweden, 1998. Available online: https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/miljobalk-1998808_sfs-1998-808 (accessed on 29 January 2021).
  29. Borg, C.; (Älvräddarna Samorganisation—River Savers Federation, Näsåker, Sweden). Personal communication, 2018.
  30. Älvräddarna Samorganisation. Om Vattenkraft. Available online: https://alvraddarna.se/fakta/om-vattenkraft (accessed on 31 October 2020).
  31. Jakobsson, E. Industrialization of Rivers: A Water System Approach to Hydropower Development. Knowl. Technol. Policy 2002, 14, 41–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Swedish Energy Agency. Energy in Sweden. An Overview; Swedish Energy Agency: Eskilstuna, Sweden, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  33. Tornlund, E.; Ostlund, L. Floating Timber in Northern Sweden: The Construction of Floatways and Transformation of Rivers. Environ. Hist. 2002, 8, 85–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Renöfält, B.M.; Jansson, R.; Nilsson, C. Effects of Hydropower Generation and Opportunities for Environmental Flow Management in Swedish Riverine Ecosystems. Freshw. Biol. 2010, 55, 49–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lövgren, L. Moratorium in Sweden: An Account of the Dams Debate. In Dams as Aid. Routledge Studies in Development and Society 3; Usher, A.D., Ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 1997; pp. 21–30. [Google Scholar]
  36. Johansson, P.-O.; Kriström, B. Omreglering så att (nästan) alla blir vinnare—Exemplet vattenkraft. Ekon. Debatt 2012, 40, 49–60. [Google Scholar]
  37. Össbo, Å.; Lantto, P. Colonial Tutelage and Industrial Colonialism: Reindeer Husbandry and Early 20th-Century Hydroelectric Development in Sweden. Scand. J. Hist. 2011, 36, 324–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Vedung, E. Vattenkraft: För och mot. In Vattenkraftens Roll i Ett Hållbartenergisystem: Slutrapport Från Vattenkraftutredningen. Bilaga 2; Korsfeldt, T., Linton, S., Eds.; Svensk Energi: Stockholm, Sweden, 2011; pp. 1–36. [Google Scholar]
  39. Lagrådsremiss Vattenmiljö Och Vattenkraft. Swedish Government: Stockholm, Sweden, 8 March 2012. Available online: https://www.regeringen.se/493c40/contentassets/ab0eb177b0bd4d57973bd09933cade92/vattenmiljo-och-vattenkraft-dnr-m201800754r (accessed on 29 January 2021).
  40. The Nature Conservancy; Wetlands International. Rivers as Lifelines for Nature and People. Full Report from Online Conference on 15 October 2020. Available online: https://europe.wetlands.org/download/4382/ (accessed on 20 December 2020).
  41. Larsen, R.K.; Inga, K. Sámi Lands and Hydroelectric Power in Sweden: What’s the Potential to Redress Harm and Injustice? SEI: Stockholm, Sweden, 2020. Available online: https://www.sei.org/perspectives/sami-lands-and-hydroelectric-power-in-sweden-opportunities-to-redress-injustice (accessed on 20 December 2020).
  42. Ley 11/2005, de 22 de Junio, por la que se Modifica la Ley 10/2001, de 5 de Julio, del Plan Hidrológico Nacional; Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado: Madrid, Spain, 2005.
  43. Martínez–Fernández, J.; (Fondacion Nueva Cultura del’Agua—New Water Culture Foundation, Murcia, Spain). Personal communication, 2019.
  44. Urquiaga Cela, R.; Martín Barajas, S. Reservas Naturales Fluviales en las Demarcaciones Hidrográficas Intercomunitarias e Intracomunitarias. Situación Actual y Propuestas Para 2017; Ministerio di Agricultura y Pesca, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente: Madrid, Spain, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  45. Cañedo–Argüelles, M.; Fortuño, P.; Hermoso, V.; Prat, N.; Bonada, N. Protocolo Para el diseño de Reservas Naturales Fluviales: Planificación Sistemática y Participación Pública; Fundacion BBVA: Bilbao, Spain, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  46. Loi n° 2006-1772 du 30 Décembre 2006 sur l’eau et les Milieux Aquatiques. France. 2006. Available online: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/JORFTEXT000000649171/2021-01-31/ (accessed on 29 January 2021).
  47. Baudoin, J.-M.; Burgun, V.; Chanseau, M.; Larinier, M.; Ovidio, M.; Sremski, W.; Steinbach, P.; Voegtle, B. Assessing the Passage of Obstacles by Fish. Concepts, Design and Application; Onema: Paris, France, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  48. Charrais, J.; Da Costa, P.; Malavoi, J.; Detry, P.; Andriamahefa, H. Le label «Rivières sauvages». Un nouvel outil de conservation des cours d’eau d’exception. In Naturalité des Eaux et des Forêts; Vallauri, D., Chauvin, C., Brun, J.-J., Fuhr, M., Sardat, N., André, J., Eynard-Machet, R., Rossi, M., De-Palma, J.-P., Eds.; Lavoisier: Paris, France, 2016; pp. 132–144. [Google Scholar]
  49. Environment and Water Resources Management the Norwegian Way; Norwegian Ministry of the Environment: Oslo, Norway, 2002. Available online: https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/kilde/md/bro/2002/0002/ddd/pdfv/159960-t-1411.pdf (accessed on 31 October 2020).
  50. Moir, K.; Thieme, M.; Opperman, J. Securing a Future that Flows: Case Studies of Protection Mechanisms for Rivers; WWF, The Nature Conservancy: Washington, DC, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  51. Act No. 82 of 24 November 2000 Relating to River Systems and Groundwater (Water Resources Act). Unofficial Translation; Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy: Oslo, Norway, 2000.
  52. Paine, R. Dam a River, Damn a People? Saami (Lapp) Livelihood and the Alta/Kautokeino Hydro-Electric Project and the Norwegian Parliament; IWGIA Document 45: Copenhagen, Denmark, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  53. The Master Plan for Nature Protection and Energy Utilization. Available online: https://www.ramma.is/english (accessed on 24 February 2021).
  54. Thórhallsdóttir, T.E. Environment and Energy in Iceland: A Comparative Analysis of Values and Impacts. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2007, 27, 522–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. OECD. OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Iceland 2014; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Schäfer, T. Free Rivers for Europe—Can Success Stories from the Baltic Sea Region Spark Better River Protection in the EU? And What’s Your River Story? Presented at the Ratujmy Rzeki and CCB Conference All Rivers Flow to the Baltic Sea in Gdańsk, Poland, 17 March 2020. Available online: http://www.ratujmyrzeki.pl/dokumenty/Tobias_Schaefer_Free_Rivers_for_Europe_Gdansk_KRR_CCB_conference_TS_20190416_for_publication.pdf (accessed on 31 October 2020).
  57. Dynesius, M.; Nilsson, C. Fragmentation and Flow Regulation of River Systems in the Northern Third of the World. Science 1994, 266, 753–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. UNEP–DHI; UNEP. Transboundary River Basins: Status and Trends; United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP): Nairobi, Kenya, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  59. Perry, D.M. Legible Rivers, Resilient Rivers: Lessons for Climate Adaptation Policy from the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. In Nature-Based Solutions and Water Security: An Agenda for the 21st Century; Cassin, J., Dalton, J., Lopez Gunn, E., Matthews, J., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  60. Schäfer, T. Perspektiven für das Flussgebietsmanagement 2.0: Anregungen von einer Studienreise als McCloy Fellow in den Pazifischen Nordwesten der USA im Frühling 2015. Study Tour Report Presented at Green League WFD-Seminar 48, Berlin, Germany, 27 May 2015. Available online: http://wrrl-info.de/docs/vortrag_sem46_schaefer.pdf (accessed on 31 October 2020).
  61. Schäfer, T.; Bender, M. Free-Flowing Rivers for Europe. Online River Film Sessions at the EU Green Week 2020. Conclusions. EU Green Week 2020, Brussels, 21 October 2020. Available online: https://www.riverfilmfest.eu/mission (accessed on 20 December 2020).
  62. American Rivers. What is the 5000 Miles of Wild Campaign? Available online: https://www.americanrivers.org/threats-solutions/protecting-rivers/5000-miles-of-wild/ (accessed on 20 December 2020).
  63. Díaz, S.; Demissew, S.; Carabias, J.; Joly, C.; Lonsdale, M.; Ash, N.; Larigauderie, A.; Adhikari, J.R.; Arico, S.; Báldi, A.; et al. The IPBES Conceptual Framework—Connecting Nature and People. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015, 14, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. No More New Hydropower in Europe: A Manifesto. 2020. Available online: https://wwfeu.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/stop_new_hydropower_in_europe_1_1_1.pdf (accessed on 17 April 2021).
  65. Schwarz, U. The Potential of Barrier Removal to Reconnect Europe’s Rivers; WWF European Policy Office: Vienna, Austria, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  66. Abell, R.; Thieme, M.L.; Revenga, C.; Bryer, M.; Kottelat, M.; Bogutskaya, N.; Coad, B.; Mandrak, N.; Balderas, S.C.; Bussing, W.; et al. Freshwater Ecoregions of the World: A New Map of Biogeographic Units for Freshwater Biodiversity Conservation. BioScience 2008, 58, 403–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Darwall, W.; Carrizo, S.; Numa, C.; Barrios, V.; Freyhof, J.; Smith, K. Freshwater Key Biodiversity Areas in the Mediterranean Basin Hotspot: Informing Species Conservation and Development Planning in Freshwater Ecosystems; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Tickner, D.; Opperman, J.J.; Abell, R.; Acreman, M.; Arthington, A.H.; Bunn, S.E.; Cooke, S.J.; Dalton, J.; Darwall, W.; Edwards, G. Bending the Curve of Global Freshwater Biodiversity Loss: An Emergency Recovery Plan. BioScience 2020, 70, 330–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. van Rees, C.B.; Waylen, K.A.; Schmidt-Kloiber, A.; Thackeray, S.J.; Kalinkat, G.; Martens, K.; Domisch, S.; Lillebø, A.I.; Hermoso, V.; Grossart, H.P.; et al. Safeguarding Freshwater Life Beyond 2020: Recommendations for the New Global Biodiversity Framework from the European Experience. Conserv. Lett. 2020, e12771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Hilty, J.; Worboys, G.L.; Keeley, A.; Woodley, S.; Lausche, B.; Locke, H.; Carr, M.; Pulsford, I.; Pittock, J.; White, J.W.; et al. Guidelines for Conserving Connectivity through Ecological Networks and Corridors; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Jonas, H.D.; Barbuto, V.; Jonas, H.C.; Kothari, A.; Nelson, F. New Steps of Change: Looking beyond Protected Areas to Consider Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures. Parks 2014, 20, 111–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Schäfer, T. The Nature Conservancy: Legal Protection Schemes for Free-Flowing Rivers in Europe. An Overview Report. Brussels, Belgium. 2019. Available online: https://www.nature.org/content/dam/tnc/nature/en/documents/Legal_Protection_Schemes_for_Free-Flowing_Rivers_in_Europe_FINAL_21FEB.pdf (accessed on 31 October 2020).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
Can Digital Inclusive Finance Narrow the Chinese Urban–Rural Income Gap? The Perspective of the Regional Urban–Rural Income Structure
Previous
Empirical Evidence of Risks of Public-Loan Finance: Comparison between Self-Employers and SMEs
Next