17
Nevertheless,
do give NWRM their chance
to
contribute to the cost-effective achievement ofmultiple
policy objectives !
More
information
on
the
potential
impacts
of
different
NWRM
is
summarized
in
and is
addressed in thesynthesisdocuments
SD n°1: (Biophysical impacts and
effectiveness of NWRM)
and
SD
n°2: (How effective are NWRM in
contributing to the achievement of
policy
objectives?)
)
Mythand realitywithNWRM
TherearemythsaboutwhatNWRMcanorcannotdeliver.AdvocatesofNWRMwillstressthat
theyaremore cost-effective solutions thangrey infrastructure.However, cost-effectiveness is
not a permanent feature ofNWRM as it is context,measure andpolicy specific. AndNWRM
arenot always cheaper than grey infrastructure.When land prices arehigh, NWRM can be,
or at least appear to be, expensive options! Furthermore, NWRM cannot address all policy
challenges: for example, they are likely to have only a marginal role in addressing extreme
flood events in large densely populated catchmentswith lots of existing development on the
floodplain.
However,mythsexist alsoaboutwhat grey infrastructureand traditional approaches towater
management can deliver! People favouring grey infrastructurewill stress their effectiveness
in contributing to set policy objectives. However, there is a risk that their negative direct and
indirect environmental impactsarehidden , and that theopportunities lostdue to themultiple
benefits of NWRM not being delivered are not considered. In addition, grey infrastructure
implementation costs can be significantly higher than costs estimated in ex-ante appraisals,
with potentially significant impacts on public budgets and reduced cost-effectiveness when
compared to thecostsanticipatedat thedesign stage.
Box3
Reasonsforselectingand implementingNWRM
