Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
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