Understanding implementation of nature-based solutions through

readiness levels

Nora Van Cauwenbergh

Senior lecturer, Land & Water Management Department, IHE Delft

MOTA webinar series, 18 November 2020

Funding acknowledgment: this research was conducted under the NAIAD project, receiving funding from the

European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 730497.

The challenge - assess and demonstrate theassurance value of ecosystems

• Assumption: Ecosystems can contribute to mitigate extreme water risks & increase resilience of society in a context of climate change

Assurance Value of Ecosystems:Potential of the NBS to reduce damage costs related to floods and droughts and

to provide associated co-benefits as part of natural assurance schemes (NAS)

NOW FUTURE- A MORE RESILIENT PORTFOLIO OF SOLUTIONS

InsuranceFull Natural Assurance

Scheme + InsuranceHybrid Assurance

Scheme + Insurance

LA BRAGUE BASINFloods (torrential floods)

Peri-Urban area

MEDINA AQUIFERGW pollution, aquatic ecosystems

degradation, floods, droughtsRural area

LEZ BASIN Severe droughts

Urban area

GLINSCICA CATCHMENTFlooding, biodiversity loss, poor water quality, GW depletionRural and Urban areas

CITY OF ROTTERDAMCloudbursts, floods, droughts

Urban Area

CITY OF LODZWater shortages, heat weaves, pluvial flooding, poor water qualityRural and Urban areas

THAMES BASINStorm surges, urban drainage

flooding, fluvial floodingPeri-urban Area

CITY OF COPENHAGENPluvial floods, sea level rise, rising water tablesUrban Area

LOWER DANUBEFloods, desertification, riverbed erosion and silting, poor water qualityRural and Urban areas

NAIAD DEMOs≠ Levels of

DEVELOPMENTSimulation ex ante

ex post analysisDeploymentReplication

≠ENVIRONMENTUrban

Peri-urbanRural

≠ HAZARDSFlood

DroughtWater quality

Land subsidence

≠ SCALESMicro (0.5ha)

MesoLarge (250km)

How we aimed to move from NBS assessment to implementation

• The end in mind: mainstreaming of NBS and NAS• Across different scales, types, contexts, disciplines

• Different TRL (Technology readiness)

• Different socio-economic and political context

• Roadmap to• Evidence-based discussion of (co-)benefits

• (Action) plan to implement NBS

• Implemented NBS

• Strategies to overcome implementation barriers

Toward a NAIAD approach to NBS/NAS planning and implementation

Where we want to go

NBS

Ex-ante approach (strategic planning)

Natural hazards

Mitigation and adaptation

Main benefitRisk reduction

Co-benefitsSocio-economic welfare

Implementation?

Local, municipal, regional

Multiple objectives?Institutional / regulatory barriers

Knowledge and acceptancebarriers (evidence)

Funding / financing barriers(investment security)

Source: Dourojeanni, 2019

Absence of clear evaluation of NBS performance

Implementing NBS

= overcoming barriers and managing uncertainties to move to higher readiness levels

= engaging in an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary dialogue

Participatory planning framework: why?

Process to manage uncertainties and overcome barriers in an inter+transdisciplinary way

Planning - shift focus from ex-post response to ex-ante mitigation/adaptation

Adaptive – flexible approach to handle uncertainties inherent to NBS, managing uncertainties more important than reducing them ( e.g. Walker et al. 2001, 2013, Garmestani & Benson, 2013)

Participatory – stakeholder engagement from vision to implementation(e.g. Van Cauwenbergh et al., 2018, Giordano et al., 2019, Mayor et al., 2019 etc)

Integrate NBS into participatory adaptation planning+

Framework participatory adaptive planning

(based on Loucks and Van Beek, 2017 and Haasnoot et al., 2013 )

Situation analysis

SES analysisProblem descriptionPotential solutions

Strategy building

Integrated assessment

DM preferred strategy

Action planning

Finance/fundingGovernance mode

Contracting

Implementation

Project deliveryMonitoringEvaluation

Inception

Set up stakeholder process

Objectives and criteria

Stakeholder engagement

What we learned from the DEMO sitesLooking at the implementation path through the PAP lens

Ex-post analysis of implementation - storyline

InceptionSituationanalysis

Strategybuilding

Actionplanning

Implementation

Inception Pilot Implementation(Ambition)

INCEPTIONNatuurlijk Spangen Green spaceTKI Consortium Urban WaterbufferWater Sensitive Rotterdam Urban Resilience

Project scope & objectives

+

Analysis method

• Analysis of barriers/uncertaintiesTimeline, highlighting• How planning approach was used

• Barriers encountered

• Key success factors

• How information (indicators/tools) was used and by whom

• How elements of implementationplan and business models are already prepared in early stages of planning

• Natuurlijk Spangen (Citizens) - Seeking "greening“• Consortium exploring potential of UWB

Objectives and criteria 2015

Water Sensitive Rotterdam (led by J.Jacobs & A.Rodenburg) within the municipality as a catalysator of innovations and initiatives on water resilience.

2015 2016 2017

Objectives and criteria prior to 2015

Consortium building TKI

Alignment of citizens, policy makers and market parties

Involvement of end-user (Sparta via Natuurlijk Spangen)

2018 2019

• Quality of public space in Spangen is poor - no green spaces.• "Broken" water balance• Climatic Scenario Analysis performed to determine required retention capacity

Demand of local community for green

Thinking whole LC Departments within municipality had to be convinced to deviate from BAU

Resilient Rotterdam - objectives led to pursuing this NBS innovation

Different problems/interests from stakeholders

Definition of criteria (scale)

No economic scenarios analyzed

UWB Spangen operational

Barriers / challenges

Enabling activity / Agent of changeKey success factor

Driver / Strategy

KEY

• Municipal Water Plan (2011)• Municipal Water Plan Revised (2012)• Rotterdamse Adaptatiestrategie (2013) Project kick-off meeting

Negotiation of interests among stakeholders

“Pilot project”

Internal alignment within the municipality

Commitment of key stakeholders throughout entire process

A. Rodenburg - Resilient Rotterdam & Water Sensitive program

Uncertainty of innovative solution

Involvement of Cruyff Court - Helped funding and implementation Co – benefits identified

Workshop 1

Acknowledging importance of co –benefits for future uptake

Multisector window for investment planning opens a window for new type of multifunctional solutions, leading to a wider menu of strategies possible – and a different “preferred strategy” being selected that includes NBS

Towards upscaling, various strategies at neighborhood level are assessed in follow-up studies that use the UWB Pilot results as input on the performance of specific solutions in those strategies.

Clear owner (through whole LC, eg. End user of water source became part of the project at an early stage )

Budget in silos

Unknown process – innovative planning process

TKI FundPPP

Exploring financial arrangements in non-pilot setting

• Institutional format + exploitation plan• Hierarchy of criteria

Responsibilities per function (exploitation, monitoring, maintenance).Upscaling strategies

Clear allocation of responsibilities (per function)

Funding (Planning, design and operation and management)

Value chain

Different demos – TRL and stages of planning– experiences with stakeholders

Readiness as a combination of evidence, governance and business

Adapted from Webster & Gardner, 2019Adapted from Fellnhofer, 2016

TECHNOLOGY READINESS INVESTMENT READINESS INSTITUTIONAL READINESS

Demand for NBS

Strategic focus

(E)Valuation processes in

place

Enacted through enablers

Evaluation processes in

place

Relative need & benefit NBS

Participatory adaptive planning fostering readiness

Reflections on MOTA and readiness levels

• Importance of the process – PAP as analytical framework

• Science Policy Interface – need for concepts that speak to different audiences

• Understanding advances in readiness – self check and portfolio of methods to increase readiness

• Useful to prioritize resources (away from TRL, toward InvRL and IRL)

Van Cauwenbergh N., Dourojeanni P., Basco-Carrera L., et al., 2020. DELIVERABLE 5.7. Guidelines for the definition of implementation and investment plans for adaptation. EU Horizon 2020 NAIAD Project, Grant Agreement N°730497.

Lopez-Gunn, E., van der Keur, P., Van Cauwenbergh, N. Le Coent, P., Giordano, R. Greening Water Risks: Natural Assurance Schemes. Series Water Security in a New World – Springer. Forthcoming 2021

n.vancauwenbergh@un-ihe.org

Further reading

Funding acknowledgment: this research was conducted under the NAIAD project, receiving funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme

under grant agreement No 730497.

References

• Dourojeanni, P. (2019). Understanding the role of uncertainty in the mainstreaming of Nature-Based Solutions for adaptation to climate change (Master’s thesis). In Water Management: Vol. MSc.IHE Delft.

• Haasnoot, Marjolijn, Kwakkel, J. H., Walker, W. E., & ter Maat, J. (2013). Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: A method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world. Global Environmental Change. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.12.006

• Garmestani, A. S., & Benson, M. H. (2013). A framework for resilience-based governance of socialecological systems. Ecology and Society. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05180-180109

• Loucks, Daniel P., & van Beek, E. (2017). Water resource systems planning and management: An introduction to methods, models, and applications. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44234-1

• Mayor, B. et al. (2017). Guidelines for the application of the NAS canvas to NBS strategies. EU Horizon 2020 NAIAD Project, Grant Agreement N°730497.

• Van Cauwenbergh, N., Ballester Ciuró, A., & Ahlers, R. (2018). Participatory processes and support tools for planning in complex dynamic environments: A case study on web-GIS based participatory water resources planning in Almeria, Spain. Ecology and Society, 23(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09987-230202

• Walker, W. E., Haasnoot, M., & Kwakkel, J. H. (2013). Adapt or perish: A review of planning approaches for adaptation under deep uncertainty. Sustainability (Switzerland). https://doi.org/10.3390/su5030955

• Walker, W. E., Rahman, S. A., & Cave, J. (2001). Adaptive policies, policy analysis, and policy-making. European Journal of Operational Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00071-0