The start of the last senctence 'As most restoration projects involve using land differently...' should be a little bit more precise. For me, it is not clear what it means.
Include message about increased and more varied ecosystemn service provision from restored and functioning floodplains compared to disconnected systems
1st bullet: Key message should make clear from start, we are talking about Europe here, e.g. "In Europe, they are largely in poor condition...".
Use of term restoration should be more precisely used, i.e. we talk about "floodplain restoration" (see 6th and 8th bullets).
HU
The first sentence of the first bullet needs clarification, we recommend the following: Floodplains are areas associated with water courses, ie. not part of the riverbed: floodplains are important adjacent parts/valley floors of rivers.
We could not agree with the second sentence either, because it is not for the purposes of the Directives that necessary to improve the status of the floodplains. Instead, we recommend the following wording: among other things, as set out in the "1-2-3..." policies. Maybe not ’for’ is the perfect word here but something like ’as it is recognised inter alia by the…. Directives’...
HU
The following note we would like to be added to the second bullet:
In the WFD, under hydromorphological assessment floodplain is/should be assessed as river bed, banks and floodplain is part of the analyses, but there is no separate ecological status assessment for it.
In the key message about NWRMs I would add '...retention measures and Green Infrastructures'.
Then I would add some text on the issue that (as stated in this report at page 5) that EU promotes the increased use of NWRMs as part of its EU GI Strategy and has cofinanced restoration projects through the LIFE programme.
I think is important.
Regarding the report's title: Both "indispensable" and "extenuators" seem to be 'highbrow', scholary terms that might repel potential audience.