1. Natural Water Retention Measures
Contributing towards WFD and FD objectives
Lucía Bernal Saukkonen
ENV C1

2. Follow up to the Blueprint
The new CIS work program took into account the Blueprint proposals: deliverable on NWRM by WG PoM and
NWRM Policy document adopted at WD meeting
COM launched Pilot Project:'' Integration of Natural Water Retention Measures in river basin management'' ,
Commission draws attention to the inclusion of Green Infrastructure in the Partnership Agreements negotiated with Member States and other financing instruments
Encourage synergies with other EU policies to be exploited
NWRM to be included in 2nd RBMPs and 1st FRMPs.

3. Pilot project organisation
29/07/2019
Pilot project organisation
Gather and structure the knowledge to allow identify key elements, exchange good practices, identification of experts…
hhhhhhhh

4. Some conclusions on NWRM
NWRM offer a variety of measures that are relevant EU wide. But:
Their design needs to be tailored for each eco-region
Benefit depends on type, location, implementation design and combination with other measures.
NWRM are far from being applied in all cases in which they would be an option/the best option. There is a need for a change of thinking to ensure NWRM are duly considered in planning processes.
Enhanced knowledge is required for supporting the optimisation of NWRM and their combination with other measures, for quantifying their impacts at large scale, and for estimating all their benefits.
Research and demonstration in pilot activities is to be promoted to gather further evidence on the (real) effects of NWRM on flood mitigation at the catchment scale.

5. NWRM can help achieving the objectives of different EU and national policies. However, their contributions to different objectives are rarely assessed because of the absence of multiple impact monitoring.
The multifunctional and multi-sector character of NWRM requires enhanced collaboration between stakeholders representing different sectors.
Enhanced coordination between planning processes across different policy areas (e.g. River Basin and Flood Risk Management, but also nature protection, rural development and land use/spatial planning) will provide more opportunities for NWRM and for their multiple benefits to be considered.
NWRM offer multiple benefits and opportunities for achieving WFD and FDs objectives and as such should be included in the RBMPs and FRMPs. NWRM often represent a "better environmental option".

6. There is no integrated framework to assess the net benefits and the cost-effectiveness of strategies for achieving multiple policy goals.
Funding sources are available at the European and at other levels. But the utilisation of available financial resources for financing NWRM remains limited.
Smart financial engineering is essential to the implementation of NWRM – searching for synergies between different funding instruments including innovative financing instruments.
Raising awareness on the potential role of NWRM remains essential – including with local communities

7. Identified next steps Awareness raising of pilot project results
Assessment of the extent NWRM have been considered in the 2nd RBMPs and 1st FRMPs.
MS and stakeholders to make best use of available information, implement NWRM and if needed use EU funding available
H2020 launched call for ideas for Climate action, environment, resource efficiency and raw materials. Next steps: Commission will examine all ideas received including on what “demonstration sites” might be, which will represent an input for
the 2016 – 2017 programming and possibly the calls for proposals,
defining and implementing a supportive EU research and innovation policy framework (also beyond technology)
LIFE Integrated projects which include NWRM
Continue opening funding opportunities:
EFSI, NCFF.
Cooperation with WG GIIR

8. Questions for discussion
What do you see as next steps…?
Does the WG envisage further work within the CIS? ( further exchange of experiences, etc.?)
We have built a complete knowledge data base, is there a need for more evidence – and if yes, on which issues and knowledge? (e.g. benefits, successful projects…)
How can we achieve that NWRM are not the exception but systematically considered in the planning process?
What are your experiences on the use of ESIF ?
Has the modelling performed by the JRC (started in 2012) proved useful for evaluating the effectiveness of measures? Should it be further developed?
…..

9. Thank you for your attention