http://www.nwrm.eu

Background note Summary of linkages between NWRM and CAP post 2014

Benoît Fribourg-Blanc (OIEau), Dennis Collentine (SLU), Alistair McVittie (SRUC), Pierre Strosser

(ACTeon)

March 3, 2014, Version for WG Floods

Background

Attention has been given in recent years to the role so-called Natural Water Retention Measures

(NWRM) could play in supporting the achievements of different European Union (EU) Directives, and

in particular the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Floods Directive (FD). In particular, the

“Blueprint to Safeguard Europe’s Water Resources” recommends the implementation of these

measures. In addition to being considered as measures under the WFD River Basin Management

Plans (RBMP), the Blueprint suggests that NWRM should become a priority for financing under the

Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) (as well as under the European Structural and Investment Funds

(ESIF))

The present note aims at initiating discussions within the Floods Working Group (WG) on the

potential role of NWRM in flood risk management. The note includes:

1. An overview of what NWRM are.

2. A briefing on the conclusions from the Regional Workshops conducted by the project and main

project findings so far in relation to measures that relate to flood risk management (practices

or land use).

3. The potential for financing NWRM through European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF)

and the CAP which includes a review of the proposals for the CAP post 2014 that identifies

potential mechanisms which could promote Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRMs).

This review was undertaken through a comparison of the articles of Regulations 1305/2013

(support for rural development, i.e. Pillar II) and 1307/2013 (rules about direct payments, Pillar

I). A draft list of measures under annex 1 of the Rural Development Fund was also reviewed to

identify specific measures of relevance to NWRMs.

4. A series of key questions relevant to the NWRM-flood risk management policy links for

steering discussions within WG Floods. The feedbacks and answers to these questions will help

guide the NWRM project in building a knowledge base that can effectively support future

design and implementation of NWRM in Europe.

Background note for WG Floods

-2-

5. Appendices with summaries of regional case studies for NWRM and tables presenting the links

between NWRM measures and CAP Regulation Articles.

1. NWRM: what are they1?

A working definition of NWRM specifies that Natural Water Retention Measures aim at restoring and

maintaining water related ecosystems by natural means. They are Green Infrastructures intended to

maintain and restore landscape, soils and aquifers in order to improve their natural properties, the

environmental services they provide, and to favour climate change adaptation and reduced

vulnerability to floods and droughts.2

NWRM include a wide range of measures that combine (1) direct interventions in water-

related ecosystems (e.g. restoration/creation of floodplains or the development of

basins/ponds to store runoff) and (2) adaptation or change in land-use practices (e.g. the

development of green roof, afforestation or soil conservation crop practices) so functions of

modified ecosystems are (partially) recovered.

NWRMs use or enhance natural processes, i.e. functions commonly performed by nature

such as slowing down water flows, increasing infiltration rates, controlling storm flows,

storing water, storing and degrading polluting substances, etc.

NWRM are multi-purpose measures: by enhancing the capacity of soils and water-

dependant ecosystems to retain water, nutrients and sediments, they can contribute to the

achievement of different EU environmental Directives and initiatives, i.e. the WFD and the

FD as indicated above, but also the Habitats Directive, the EU Biodiversity Strategy, climate

change adaptation or Water Scarcity and Drought.

Box 1. NWRM: a wide umbrella for many existing measures?

The measures classified as NWRM are not new to operators in the field of nature conservation, agriculture, forestry or

urban development. Depending on your country and/or sector, you might be more familiar with:

Natural flood management, Sustainable Flood Management, Runoff attenuation features, Sustainable Drainage Systems

(either rural or urban or both), Green Infrastructures, Bioengineering, Ecologic Engineering applied to water, Catchment

System Engineering, Soil & Water conservation practices, Decentralised water management measures, No-regret

measures....

... and probably many more! However, more important than the term used, is the focus on maintaining or restoring

natural processes to support the delivery of (ecosystem) services that can respond to a wide range of purposes and EU

policy objectives.

NWRM which restore and enhance water retention can have an effect on both water quality, water

quantity and soil erosion. Measures in rural (in agriculture and forested areas) and urban

environments can provide seasonal storage capacity and reduce the risk for water scarcity, reduce

1 Fore more information on NWRM, consult the concept note written by NWRM partners :

http://nwrm.eu/ressource/concept-note-natural-water-retention-measures 2 Also see http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/adaptation/ecosystemstorage.htm ; a final definition will

be agreed in WG PoM.

Background note for WG Floods

-3-

nutrient losses and support increased recreation and biodiversity. Investment in retention by

providing temporary storage in the landscape can also reduce the impact of extreme events (floods

and droughts).

2. Findings from regional workshops3

In January 2014 workshops were held in each of the four regions delineated by the NWRM project

(Baltic, Danube, Mediterranean and Western) which brought together members of the project team

with a range of regional experts including academics, environmental agencies and regional and

national governments. The four regional workshops reached some common conclusions on the

application of NWRMs. Most recognised the interlinkages between different Directives (WFD, FD,

Habitats, Birds) that are driving use of NWRMs (or potential NWRM type measures). However this

recognition is often not incorporated into applications, and it was felt that NWRM would achieve the

greatest benefits where multiple outcomes were targeted. The restrictive focus of some Directives

(e.g. WFD and ‘water bodies’) was seen as a potential hindrance and a catchment level approach

was felt to be necessary. Likewise, sectoral boundaries (agriculture, forestry, urban, natural) may not

be helpful for effective implementation. The use ecosystem services as a framework and

identification of positive economic and other benefits of NWRM was seen as key to successful

implementation. The organisation of the project across different regions allows for taking into

account the particular contexts and issues within those regions and how those influence water

management priorities and thus the requirements for NWRMs. Summaries of some of the case

studies presented at the regional workshops are provided in Annex 1.

Discussions in the Baltic region workshop emphasised that agricultural NWRM are often put in place

for reasons other than water retention, for example water quality (specifically nutrient loads) in the

case of catch crops, buffer strips and wetlands; or for climate change mitigation in the case of

peatland restoration. These then have the secondary benefit of increasing water storage within the

landscape. One presenter pointed out the important role that the role of extensive forest cover in

Europe plays by providing hydrological and water quality regulating services. It was also pointed out

that since forests are often upstream of agricultural, urban and flood risk areas there is also a role

for using NWRM in these areas to reduce hydrological pressures downstream. The issue of flooding

in some of the Baltic region countries was more concerned with meltwater from snow rather than

rainfall, with the consequence that the periods of highest flood risk are often concentrated. In

Estonia a case where there are problems with stormwater and snow melt leading to flooded urban

areas and beach erosion. To mitigate these problems Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS)

that are NWRMs such as rain gardens, open vegetated drains, dry infiltration basin and system of

ditches and a cobblestone stripe have been introduced. Both agriculture and forestry were

recognised to have contributed to significantly reducing the amount of water retention in the

landscape through drainage.

The Baltic experience contrasts with that of the Western region where much of the understanding

and experience of NWRMs centred around ‘natural flood management’. The region is characterised

3 For more information on regional Workshops see: http://nwrm.eu/first-baltic-region-workshop

http://nwrm.eu/first-danube-region-workshop; http://nwrm.eu/first-mediterranean-region-workshop; http://www.nwrm.eu/first-western-region-workshop

Background note for WG Floods

-4-

on the whole by a relatively wet and mild climate. However problems with water scarcity are also

present, and this may become increasingly prevalent with climate change. Therefore NWRM could

have an increasingly important role to play in helping to regulate the hydrological cycle, in terms of

managing both flood peaks and dry periods. NWRM implementation was also of interest to

workshop participants in relation to river restoration, biodiversity improvements (habitat

restoration) and water quality improvements (sediment management and other aspects of diffuse

pollution control).

Insightful presentations were given workshop participants of their own experiences with NWRM

implementation. This understanding and experience was very focussed on Natural Flood

Management (NFM): while wider benefits of NWRM were well recognised, they were generally not

the main aim or purpose of existing cases of practical implementation.

Catchment-scale implementation of measures was of interest, with selection and placement of

multiple measures in the catchment likely to be important for their overall effectiveness. The case

study presentations (Appendix 1) were mostly based at the catchment-scale and looked at

cumulative benefits from multiple measures. Intensive monitoring networks such as in the

Eddleston Water and Belford catchment examples allowed the cumulative effects to be monitored

throughout the catchment. The placement of measures in the catchment could make a difference to

their effectiveness

One difficulty recognised with cost-benefit assessment of these types of measures is that those who

receive the benefits are not necessarily the same as those who incur the costs: in many cases, it may

be ‘private cost for public benefit’. While multiple benefits were seen as being key to the definition

of NWRM, the wide spread of benefits may make it challenging to identify and incentivise key

parties sitting within a single sector or policy area. There is a risk of NWRM being seen as a burden

rather than an opportunity for those with key roles in implementing them. Partnership working to

see benefits cumulatively and collaboratively was seen as being very important for successful

implementation on NWRM. The need to develop partnerships and get funding in place contributes

to relatively long planning timescales.

The necessity for clarifying links to WFD, which are often less evident than the links to the Floods

Directive, was recognised during discussions throughout the workshop. In the Water Framework

Directive context it was felt that the outputs from the NWRM pilot project, and these types of

measures, were likely to be more relevant for third cycle river basin plans, with not enough time

before the second cycle plans.

The spatiotemporal rainfall and runoff variability shapes the particularities of the Mediterranean

region in terms of water resources availability and distribution. Mediterranean rivers have large

periodic floods, transporting significant amounts of sediments, shaping braided channels, while

many streams are intermittent or ephemeral. These rainfall and runoff patterns concur with the

intensive use of water resources, mostly in agriculture, in some cases due to a quite complex system

of dams and reservoirs, part of which have induced significant hydromorphological alterations.

Downstream reaches are commonly deprived of high flows, which carry sediments, modify channel

morphology, and maintain habitat complexity. The fact that drought events are becoming more

frequent in the Mediterranean basins, where the average annual demand of water is already higher

Background note for WG Floods

-5-

than the long-term renewable resources (i.e. availability), has led to an increased uncertainty about

the reliability of water supply exacerbated by climate change. However, not everything is about

scarcity and droughts in the Mediterranean. Torrential rains are common in Mediterranean

catchments, which lead to hazards of flash floods, stream flooding, and landslides.

River and floodplain restoration contribute to natural water retention in different ways: improving

(3D) eco-hydrological connectivity, increasing the heterogeneity of river environments, enhancing

the role of natural habitats as traps for water and sediments, improving the functionality of the flow

regime to contribute to good status of rivers and floodplains, and supporting public awareness about

the vital role of natural water retention for people. For urban areas, floodplain restoration, wetland

preservation or creation, or urban channel restoration can be seen as likely practices

In urban areas wetland systems for Combined Sewer Overflow on-site treatment, as well as other

SUDS for stormwater management have been used in Italy. Mixed sewers represent the most

adopted solution for the collection of untreated wastewater: the high flux of water eases the

transport of solids and the washout of sediments at every rain event. The relevance of green

infrastructures was pointed out for stormwater management, to increase the water quality in the

receiving water bodies, to take account of public health concerns, and to mitigate flooding risk.

In the Danube region there was recognition of the role of NWRMs with respect to both the WFD and

FD. An important question brought up at the workshop was where to retain water in the system;

upstream areas were generally more rural while urban areas are often downstream. In mountainous

areas NWRM can be important to hold and slow down the movement of water to downstream

urban areas. Upstream river restoration, wetlands and urban measures were all pointed out as

NWRM. In addition, the extensive Danube river system the potential for floodplain restoration was

discussed as an important measure to mitigate flooding in urban areas. There was also explicit

mention of the importance of navigation which was not represented in the workshop agenda.

3. How can ESIF financing and the future CAP support the implementation of NWRM?

Two of the opportunities for financing RBMP measures are through ESIF (partnership agreements)

and the proposed CAP post 2014. EU investment through ESI funds is targeted on long-term goals for

growth and jobs and sustainable development. In the CAP measures may be supported through

Pillar I greening measures and through Pillar II national rural development programs.

ESI funds include the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the Cohesion Fund (CF), the

European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), the European Social Fund (ESF) and the

European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). Two of the eleven ESIF thematic objectives related to

sustainable growth are applicable for NWRM;

promoting climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management

and protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency.

The first of these makes it possible to support measures that promote dedicated investment for

adaptation to climate change and include preserving natural areas, biodiversity, ecosystem services,

water quality and quantity. In addition investments that address ensuring disaster resilience also

have a high priority. Under the second theme above it is also possible to support implementation of

Background note for WG Floods

-6-

RBMPs and FRMPs through investment in green infrastructure including among others floodplains,

river-restoration and wetlands.

The articles contained in the Regulations make either explicit mention of measures that have been

categorised as NWRMs or the link may be implied in the objectives of the articles. However, their

effectiveness as NWRMs is likely to be dependent on the priorities of Member States. As measures

may provide multiple benefits (e.g. nature conservation, nutrient management, climate mitigation)

their implementation may vary depending on the emphasis placed on different rural development

objectives.

Tables 1 and 2 below present alternative matrices showing the links made between NWRMs and the

Articles of Regulations 1305/2013 and 1307/2013.

2.1 Articles related to Pillar I

Regulation 1307/2013 is primarily concerned with the rules covering direct payments to farmers;

consequently there is limited scope for direct links with NWRMs. However, the new CAP includes

new payments for agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment (i.e.

‘greening’ measures); these measures involve a proportion of Pillar I funding and go beyond existing

cross-compliance conditions4. Uptake of these measures will be necessary for farmers to maximise

their payments under Pillar I.

The ‘greening’ measures include crop diversification, permanent pasture and ecological focus areas,

with last two of these being potentially relevant for NWRMs (see following paragraphs). Article 43

sets out general rules for these measures including reference to Annex IX of Regulation 1307/2013

which outlines equivalent practices which may provide an equivalent or higher level of environment

benefit. Article 44 on crop diversification makes no direct or indirect link to NWRMs; however,

relevant equivalent practices (e.g. winter cover and catch crops, which are analogous to the NWRM

‘green cover’) are referred to in paragraphs 3 and 12 of Article 43.

Article 45 covers permanent pasture, specifically the requirement that its extent in each member

state or region should not decrease by more than 5%. Together with equivalent practices on the

management of permanent pastures, this article directly relates to the NWRM ‘Restoring and

maintaining meadows and pastures’. It also links to several forestry NWRMs as the 5% threshold

does not apply where the reduction in permanent pasture is the result of afforestation as indicated

in tables 1 and 2.

Article 46 covers ecological focus areas, which should form at least 5% of the arable area of any

holding. Features listed under this article and the equivalent measures are directly related to a

number of NWRMs including ‘buffer strips’, ‘field margins’, ‘green cover’, ‘traditional terracing’ and

‘beetle banks’ A broader range of rural SuDS measures could be also be included as ecological focus

areas whether as specific measures or in terms of the design of equivalent measures, however these

are not currently addressed in the guidelines.

4 Cross-compliance via good agricultural and environmental condition (GAEC) requirements may indirectly involve NWRMs

for example through soil protection requirements.

Background note for WG Floods

-7-

2.2 Articles and measures related to Pillar II

Article 5 of Regulation 1305/2013 sets out the priorities for rural development and as such makes

implicit reference to the use of NWRM. Paragraph 4 is directly relevant and concerns ‘restoring,

preserving and enhancing ecosystems related to agriculture and forestry’ with a focus on a)

restoring, preserving and enhancing biodiversity; b) improving water management; and c)

preventing soil erosion and improving soil management. NWRMs can deliver these objectives either

as primary or secondary aims. Paragraph 5 indirectly relates to NWRMs through ‘promoting resource

efficiency and supporting the shift towards a low carbon and climate resilient economy in

agriculture, food and forestry sectors’. In this case actions aimed at carbon sequestration or storage

may provide also water retention benefits.

There are a number of key articles that relate to rural development support measures that are of

direct relevance to NWRMs. Agri-environment support is covered by Article 28 ‘Agri-environment-

climate’ which relates to ….. Forestry NWRMs are covered by several articles relating to afforestation

and the establishment of agro-forestry (Articles 21, 22 and 23), the resilience of the environmental

value of forest ecosystems (Article 25) and support for environment-climate commitments (Article

34). Forests are also mentioned with respect to Articles 17 and ‘Investments in physical assets’ and

Article 20. ‘Basic services and village renewal in rural areas’. These articles also have potential links

to ‘Nature’ NWRMs, as does Article 30 ‘Natura 2000 and WFD payments’, as they allow for non-

productive investments and actions for environmental objectives such as biodiversity and habitat

conservation that might include elements of NWRMs.

There are a number of articles that can be indirectly linked to NWRM as supporting actions. These

are important in the ensuring the delivery of NWRM objectives but do not relate to specific

measures. These include Article 35 on co-operation that might be necessary to encourage joint

implementation across farm holdings within a catchment. Articles 36 to 39 on risk management,

crop and animal insurance, mutual funds and income stabilisation, these might be relevant where

NWRMs involve the potential flooding of farmland (e.g. floodplain restoration and reconnection) in

order to encourage implementation of such measures.

Training, advice and dissemination of good practice will be important for successful implementation

and uptake of NWRMs. These are addressed across a number of scales by several articles. Local level

action can be supported by LEADER funding (Articles 42, 43 and 44). National or regional support

networks are covered by Articles 51 and 54. EU level networks and partnerships are covered by

Articles 51, 52 and 53; the last of these covers the establishment of a European Innovation

Partnerships (EIP), the aims, operation and tasks of EIPs are covered by Articles 55, 56 and 57.

Background note for WG Floods

-8-

4. Key issues and questions for WG Floods

Initial suggestions

What are the key issues and challenges faced when implementing flood risk management

NWRM?

Which opportunities are available for financing the implementation of NWRM, for example

under the new CAP?

Which additional measures could be included as NWRM measures? From a flood risk

management point of view, which main features do all these measures share?

What type of knowledge should be produced by the NWRM project for supporting the

design and implementation of flood risk related NWRM in different MS? And which issues

should receive specific attention in the practical guide5 that will be developed under the

project?

What is the best way to mobilise stakeholders in the networks and workshops organised in

different regions (Baltic, Danube, Mediterranean, Western Europe)? What specific initiatives

should the NWRM project establish synergies with for the development of sound knowledge

on flood risk management measures and effective dissemination of the project results?

5 The practical guide aims at supporting the design and implementation of NWRM. Its target audience includes staff from

relevant authorities, experts and stakeholders directly involved in the planning and implementation of NWRM in the context of the implementation of the WFD, of the Floods Directive, and of strategies for climate change adaptation, sustainable agriculture and forestry, or sustainable urban development. The guide will facilitate the access to, and use of, the knowledge available in the NWRM database/collaborative knowledge system. It will be developed in English, and then translated (main text) in all EU languages. The practical guide will be developed in both paper and electronic formats, the electronic version being fully integrated into the knowledge platform developed under the project.

http://www.nwrm.eu

Appendix 1 Table 1 Case study presentations from the first NWRM Pilot Project Western region workshop (Jan 2014)

Natural Flood Management in Scotland

Roy Richardson, SEPA (UK)

Summary of case study: This presentation described the approach

being taken in Scotland to Floods Directive implementation. A full

review of flood risk management was undertaken, and an

integrated catchment-based approach, based on Natural Flood

Management (NFM), is being taken. National ‘opportunity maps’

have been produced, showing areas with potential for runoff

reduction, floodplain storage and sediment management. Four

NFM pilot catchments have been established (see Eddleston

Water presentation below). An NFM handbook will be produced

later this year.

Main driver: Floods Directive

Sustainable Drainage Systems in Northern

Ireland

Peter Close, NIEA (UK)

Summary of case study: Described a pilot study for the

implementation of sustainable stormwater management in the

town of Ballyclare, Northern Ireland, as well as aspirations for a

similar approach in the city of Belfast. The aim of the studies is to

re-direct stormwater out of the sewerage network and waste

water treatment plant, to reduce flooding and help improve water

quality. Retrofit solutions are proposed, as well as stringent

requirements for runoff management for all new developments.

Main driver: flood risk management

Dyke relocation on the River Elbe, Germany

Thomas Borchers, BMU (Germany)

Summary of case study: The main aim of this project was to

restore the floodplain habitats, which was brought together with a

more comprehensive plan incorporating flood benefits. The dykes

containing the River Elbe were to be relocated to allow flooding of

the floodplain. An extensive land consolidation process was

required. The original dykes were breached but not removed,

allowing a dynamic system to evolve over time. Modelling has

shown benefits to flood heights both upstream and downstream.

Main driver: Biodiversity and flood risk management

Background note for WG Floods

-10-

Natural Flood Management in Belford

catchment, England

Mark Wilkinson, James Hutton Institute (UK)

Summary of case study: natural flood management

scheme implemented as a more cost-effective

solution for addressing flooding problems in a small

town downstream. A network of runoff attenuation

features was developed in the upstream catchment,

in a predominantly agricultural area (pasture and

arable). Nested monitoring network allowed the

effectiveness of the measures to be assessed,

showing increased benefits from increased numbers

of measures, and the effects of different sizes of

rainfall events. Benefits to water quality were also

considered, with improved sediment management.

Working with stakeholders and taking time to

develop and implement a sustainable solution have

been important.

Main driver: flood risk management

Flood Mitigation by Forestry, Germany

Gebhard Schueler, Research Institute for

Forest Ecology and Forestry, Rheinland-Pfalz

(Germany)

Summary of case study: Test catchment used to

investigate effectiveness of forestry measures for

controlling runoff. Identification and control of

runoff generation in a forested headwater

catchment. Used a GIS-based system to identify

hotspots for runoff generation, and an inventory of

linear structures (that could accelerate runoff).

These allow prioritisation of appropriate locations

and types of measures. Runoff management

measures considered include a range of silvicultural

practices; road network design and management;

restoration of retention areas (e.g. wetland areas)

Main driver: flood risk management; climate change

Background note for WG Floods

-11-

Appendix 2

Table 2 Matrix of links between NWRM measures (rows) and CAP Regulation Articles (columns)

Pillar I Pillar II a

Art

43

: Gen

eral

ru

les

Art

45

: Per

man

ent

pas

ture

Art

46

: Eco

logi

cal f

ocu

s ar

eas

Art

5: U

nio

n P

rio

riti

es f

or

Ru

ral

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Art

17

: In

vest

men

ts in

ph

ysic

al

asse

ts

Art

18

: Res

tori

ng

agri

cult

ura

l p

rod

uct

ion

po

ten

tial

dam

age

d b

y …

ca

tast

rop

hic

eve

nts

an

d

pre

ven

tati

ve a

ctio

ns

Art

20

: Bas

ic s

ervi

ces

and

vill

age

ren

ewal

in r

ura

l are

as

Art

21

: In

vest

men

ts in

fo

rest

are

a d

evel

op

men

t

Art

22

: Aff

ore

stat

ion

an

d c

reat

ion

of

wo

od

lan

d

Art

23

: Est

ablis

hm

ent

of

agro

fore

stry

sys

tem

s A

rt 2

4: P

reve

nti

on

an

d r

est

ora

tio

n

of

dam

age

to

fo

rest

s fo

rm f

ore

st f

irs

and

nat

ura

l dis

aste

rs a

nd

ca

tast

rop

hic

eve

nts

A

rt2

5:

Inve

stm

ents

imp

rovi

ng

the

resi

lien

ce a

nd

en

viro

nm

enta

l val

ue

of

fore

st e

cosy

stem

s A

rt 2

6: I

nve

stm

ents

in f

ore

stry

te

chn

olo

gies

an

d in

pro

cess

ing,

in

mo

bili

sin

g an

d in

th

e m

arke

tin

g o

f

fore

st p

rod

uct

s

Art

28

: Agr

i-en

viro

nm

ent-

clim

ate

Art

29

: Org

anic

far

min

g

Art

30

: Nat

ura

20

00

an

d W

FD

pay

men

ts

Art

s 3

1 &

32

: A

reas

fac

ing

nat

ura

l or

oth

er s

pec

ific

co

nst

rain

ts

Art

34

: Fo

rest

-en

viro

nm

ent

and

cl

imat

e se

rvic

es a

nd

fo

rest

co

nse

rvat

ion

Art

35

: Co

-op

erat

ion

Art

36

: Ris

k m

anag

em

ent

Art

37

: Cro

p, a

nim

al a

nd

pla

nt

insu

ran

ce

Art

38

: Mu

tual

fu

nd

s fo

r ad

vers

e cl

imat

ic e

ven

ts,…

an

d

envi

ron

men

tal i

nci

den

ts

Art

39

: In

com

e st

abili

sati

on

to

ol

Art

s 42

, 43

& 4

4: L

EAD

ER

Art

51

: Fu

nd

ing

tech

nic

al a

ssis

tan

ce

Art

52

: Eu

rop

ean

net

wo

rk f

or

rura

l d

evel

op

men

t

Art

53

: Eu

rop

ean

Inn

ova

tio

n

Par

tner

ship

net

wo

rk

Art

54

: Nat

ion

al r

ura

l net

wo

rk

Art

s 55

, 56

& 5

7:

EIP

fo

r ag

ricu

ltu

ral

pro

du

ctiv

ity

and

su

stai

nab

ility

Agr

icu

ltu

re

Restoring and maintaining meadows and pastures

Buffer strips

Field margins and headlands

Soil conservation crop practices: crop rotation

Soil conservation crop practices: strip cropping

Soil conservation crop practices: intercropping

No tillage

Reduced/conservation tillage

Green cover

Early sowing

Traditional terracing

Beetle banks

Hedgerows

Controlled traffic farming

Fore

stry

Afforestation of riparian areas

Afforestation of montane areas

Afforestation of reservoir catchments

Targeted planting in Mediterranean areas for “catching” precipitation

Forests as large-scale water pumps

Land use conversion for water quality improvement

Continuous Cover forestry

“Water sensitive” driving

Maintenance of riparian buffers

Appropriate design of roads and stream crossings

Sediment capture ponds

Coarse woody debris

Re-meandering of forestry-affected rivers

Urban forests

Riparian trees in agricultural landscape

Nat

ure

Basins and ponds

Wetland restoration and creation

Floodplain reconnection and restoration

Re-meandering

Revitalisation of flowing waters

Restoration of the flows of temporary tributaries

Reconnection of hydraulic annexes

Restoration of the riverbed (alluvial mattress)

Levelling of dams/ longitudinal barriers

Natural bank stabilisation

Elimination of riverbank protection

Restoration of lakes

Artificial groundwater recharge (AGR)

a Rural SuDS are currenlty omitted from the lists of Pillar II measures but will be added in subsequent revisions

Background note for WG Floods

-12-

Table 2 Matrix of links between NWRM measures (columns) and CAP Regulation Articles (rows)

Agriculture Forestry Nature

Re

sto

rin

g an

d

mai

nta

inin

g m

ead

ow

s an

d

pas

ture

s B

uff

er

stri

ps

Fie

ld m

argi

ns

and

h

ead

lan

ds

Soil

con

serv

atio

n

cro

p p

ract

ices

: cro

p

rota

tio

n

Soil

con

serv

atio

n

cro

p p

ract

ices

: str

ip

cro

pp

ing

Soil

con

serv

atio

n

cro

p p

ract

ices

: in

terc

rop

pin

g

No

till

age

Re

du

ced

/co

nse

rvat

io

n t

illag

e

Gre

en c

ove

r

Earl

y so

win

g

Trad

itio

nal

te

rrac

ing

Be

etl

e b

anks

He

dge

row

s

Co

ntr

olle

d t

raff

ic

farm

ing

Aff

ore

stat

ion

of

rip

aria

n a

reas

Aff

ore

stat

ion

of

mo

nta

ne

area

s

Aff

ore

stat

ion

of

rese

rvo

ir c

atch

men

ts

Targ

ete

d p

lan

tin

g in

M

ed

ite

rran

ean

are

as

for

“cat

chin

g”

pre

cip

itat

ion

Fo

rest

s as

larg

e-

scal

e w

ate

r p

um

ps

Lan

d u

se c

on

vers

ion

for

wat

er

qu

alit

y im

pro

vem

en

t C

on

tin

uo

us

Co

ver

fore

stry

“Wat

er

sen

siti

ve”

dri

vin

g

Mai

nte

nan

ce o

f ri

par

ian

bu

ffe

rs

Ap

pro

pri

ate

de

sign

o

f ro

ads

and

str

eam

cr

oss

ings

Se

dim

en

t ca

ptu

re

po

nd

s

Co

arse

wo

od

y d

ebri

s

Re-

me

and

eri

ng

of

fore

stry

-aff

ect

ed

rive

rs

Urb

an f

ore

sts

Rip

aria

n t

rees

in

agri

cult

ura

l la

nd

scap

e

Bas

ins

and

po

nd

s

Wet

lan

d r

est

ora

tio

n

and

cre

atio

n

Flo

od

pla

in

reco

nn

ect

ion

an

d

rest

ora

tio

n

Re-

me

and

eri

ng

Re

vita

lisat

ion

of

flo

win

g w

ater

s R

est

ora

tio

n o

f th

e

flo

ws

of

tem

po

rary

tr

ibu

tari

es

Re

con

nec

tio

n o

f

hyd

rau

lic a

nn

exe

s R

est

ora

tio

n o

f th

e ri

verb

ed (

allu

vial

m

attr

ess

) Le

velli

ng

of

dam

s/

lon

gitu

din

al b

arri

ers

Nat

ura

l ban

k st

abili

sati

on

Elim

inat

ion

of

rive

rban

k p

rote

ctio

n

Re

sto

rati

on

of

lake

s

Art

ific

ial

gro

un

dw

ate

r

rech

arge

(A

GR

)

Pil

lar

I

Art 43: General rules

Art 45: Permanent pasture

Art 46: Ecological focus areas

Pil

lar

II a

Art 5: Union Priorities for Rural Development

Art 17: Investments in physical assets

Art 18: Restoring agricultural production potential

Art 20: Basic services and village renewal in rural areas

Art 21: Investments in forest area development

Art 22: Afforestation and creation of woodland

Art 23: Establishment of agroforestry systems

Art 24: Prevention and restoration of damage to forests

Art25: Investments improving the resilience and environmental value of forest ecosystems

Art 26: Investments in forestry technologies

Art 28: Agri-environment-climate

Art 29: Organic farming

Art 30: Natura 2000 and WFD payments

Arts 31 & 32 : Areas facing natural or other specific constraints

Art 34: Forest-environment and climate services and forest conservation

Art 35: Co-operation

Art 36: Risk management

Art 37: Crop, animal and plant insurance

Art 38: Mutual funds for adverse climatic events,… and environmental incidents

Art 39: Income stabilisation tool

Arts 42, 43 & 44: LEADER

Art 51: Funding technical assistance

Art 52: European network for rural development

Art 53: European Innovation Partnership network

Art 54: National rural network

Arts 55, 56 & 57: EIP for agricultural productivity and sustainability

a Rural SuDS are currently omitted from the lists of Pillar II measures but will be added in subsequent revisions