EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.2.2019 SWD(2019) 53 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans – Member State: Poland







Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC)

Second River Basin Management Plans

First Flood Risk Management Plans

{COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - {SWD(2019) 81 final} - {SWD(2019) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 83 final} - {SWD(2019) 84 final}



Table of Contents Acronyms and definitions Foreword General Information Status of second river basin management plan reporting Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plans Recommendations Topic 1 Governance and public participation 1.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMPs 1.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMPs 1.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 2 Characterisation of the River Basin District 2.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second cycle 2.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle 2.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 3 Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water bodies 3.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMPs 3.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMPs 3.3 Progress with Commission recommendations

Topic 4 Topic Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies 4.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMPs 4.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMPs 4.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 5 Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 5.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second RBMPs 5.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since first RBMPs 5.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 6 Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies 6.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second RBMPs 6.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since first RBMPs 6.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 7 Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential 7.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second RBMPs for designation 7.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since first RBMPs 7.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 8 Environmental objectives and exemptions 8.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMPs 8.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMPs 8.3 Progress with Commission recommendations

Topic 9 Programme of measures 9.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMPs 9.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMPs 9.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 10 Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity 10.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second RBMPs 10.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since first RBMPs 10.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 11 Measures related to pollution from agriculture 11.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second RBMPs 11.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since first RBMPs 11.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 12 Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture 12.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMPs 12.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMPs 12.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 13 Measures related to hydromorphology 13.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMPs 13.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMPs 13.3 Progress with Commission recommendations

Topic 14 Economic analysis and water pricing policies 14.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMPs 14.2 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 15 Considerations specific to Protected Areas 15.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMPs 15.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since first RBMPs 15.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 16 Adaptation to drought and climate change 16.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMPs 16.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMPs 16.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Acronyms and definitions EQS Directive Environmental Quality Standards Directive FD Floods Directive Km Kilometre km2 Kilometre squared KTM Key Type of Measure PoM Programme of Measures RBD River Basin District RBMP River Basin Management Plan WFD Water Framework Directive WISE Annex 0 Water Information System for Europe Member States reported the structured information on the second RBMPs to WISE ( Water Information System for Europe ). Due to the late availability of the reporting guidance, Member States could include in the reporting an Annex 0, consisting of a short explanatory note identifying what information they were unable to report and the reasons why. This Annex was produced using a template included in the reporting guidance. If Member States reported all the required information, this explanatory note was not necessary.



Foreword The Water Framework Directive (WFD) (2000/60/EC) requires in its Article 18 that each Member State reports its River Basin Management Plan(s) (RBMPs) to the European Commission. The second RBMPs were due to be adopted by the Member States in December 2015 and reported to the European Commission in March 2016. This Member State Assessment report was drafted on the basis of information that was reported by Member States through the Water Information System for Europe (WISE) electronic reporting. The Member State Reports reflect the situation as reported by each Member State to the European Commission in 2016 or 2017 and with reference to RBMP prepared earlier. The situation in the Member States may have changed since then.





General Information Map A Map of River Basin Districts Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) International RBDs (within European Union) International RBDs (outside European Union) National RBDs (within European Union) Countries (outside European Union) Coastal Waters Poland joined the European Union in 2004. Poland has a population of 38.1 million and a total land area of 312 679 km². Its territory stretches from the Baltic Sea in the north to the Carpathian Mountains in the south. The northern part of the country is mainly lowlands with lake districts, whilst the southern part is mountainous. The lowest point in Poland is at 1.8 metres below sea level at Raczki Elblaskie in the Vistula delta. The highest part of the Carpathians is the Tatra Mountains with the highest peak Rysy at 2 499 metres above sea level. Poland shares its borders with Germany (west), the Czech Republic and Slovak Republic (south), Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania (east) and the Baltic Sea and the Russian region of Kaliningrad Oblast (north). Poland has 10 RBDs (Table A). They are all international. The longest Polish rivers are the Vistula and Oder and their RBDs cover almost 97% of the country. Both rivers flow into the Baltic Sea. Information on areas of the international RBDs, including sharing countries, is provided in Table A. Poland’s percentage share of each international RBD is shown in Table B. Table A Overview of Poland’s RBDs RBD RBD Name Size (km2) (% of RBD in Poland) Countries sharing RBD PL1000 Danube 385 (less than 1%) DE, SK, UA, AT, BG, CZ, HR, HU, RO, IT, MD, ME, RS, SI, BA, AL, CH, MK PL2000 Vistula 183 492 (app. 59%) BY, RU, UA, SK PL3000 Swieza 161 (less than 1%) RU PL4000 Jarft 210 (less than 1%) RU PL5000 Elbe 238 (less than 1%) CZ, DE, AT PL6000 Oder 118 365 (app. 38%) CZ, DE PL 6700 Ucker 134 (less than 1%) DE PL7000 Pregolya 7 522 (app. 2.5%) RU PL8000 Nemunas 2 515 (less than 1%) BY, LT (RU) PL9000 Dniester 233 (less than 1%) UA (MD) Source: RBMPs reported to WISE



Table B Transboundary river basins by category and % share in Poland

Name international river basin National RBD Countries sharing RBD Co-ordination category 1 2 3 km² % km² % km² % Danube PL1000 DE, SK, UA, AT, BG, CZ, HR, HU, RO, IT, MD, ME, RS, SI, BA, AL, CH, MK 385 <0.1 Elbe PL5000 CZ, DE, AT 238 0.2 Oder PL6000 CZ, DE 118 365 86.4 Dniester / Dnistr/ Nistru PL9000 UA (MD) 233 0.3 Nemunas/ Nieman/ Neman/ Nyoman PL8000 BY, LT (RU) 2515 2.1 Vistula PL2000 BY, RU, UA, SK 183 492 86.8 Bug (Sub--basin Vistula) 19284 48.9 Source: WISE electronic reports Category 1: International agreement, permanent co-operation body and international RBMP in place. Category 2: International agreement and permanent co-operation body in place. Category 3: International agreement in place. Category 4: No co-operation formalised.



Status of second river basin management plan reporting A total of 10 Polish RBMPs (Danube, Vistula, Swieza, Jarft, Elbe, Oder, Ucker, Pregolya, Nemunas, Dniester) were published between 8 November 2016 and 6 December 2016. Documents are available from the European Environment Agency EIONET Central Data Repository https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/ .



Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plans The main strengths and shortcomings of the second RBMPs of Poland are as follows: ·Governance and public consultation Poland has coordinated WFD implementation with neighbouring Member States, both through international river basin committees and via bilateral agreements. Moreover, Poland has carried out bilateral cooperation with two of its third country neighbours, Belarus and Ukraine. As to cooperation between Poland and Russia, it appears that it has been inactive. A broad range of stakeholder groups were actively involved in the preparation of Poland’s RBMPs, including via the establishment of advisory groups. Joint consultation of Poland’s RBMPs and FRMPs included common meetings, regional conferences and a national forum. Poland did not adopt and publish the RBMPs in accordance with the timetable in the Water Framework Directive. ·Characterisation of the RBDs Not all of the water body types in all water categories had an equivalent intercalibration type . In the second cycle Poland reported that reference conditions had been established for all water body types in each category for all biological, hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements.

Further characterisation work has been undertaken since the first RBMPs for characterising groundwaters. Poland also included an assessment of linkages with surface water bodies and terrestrial ecosystems. The significance of pressures was defined in terms of thresholds for the most part and linked to the potential failure of objectives. However, there were still many pressure types where expert judgment was used to define the significance of pressures rather than more numerical methods such as modelling . 27 pressures were reported not to have been assessed for surface waters. This included abstraction pressures that were not assessed in surface waters even though they were identified as a pressure in the first RBMPs . Unknown anthropogenic pressures were also reported to be significant in the second cycle and “Unknown impact” type was reported to affect the largest proportion (36%) of surface water bodies in Poland: this implies that the tools used to identify and assess significant pressures and impacts were inadequate . Poland reported the gaps to be filled for all significant pressures reported at the groundwater and surface water body level. All 10 RBDs in Poland reported inventories of emissions, discharges and losses for all Priority Substances except some of the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Tier 1 of the methodology was implemented for all substances included in the inventories (while the Guidance Document recommends to implement at least Tier 1 + 2 for substances relevant at RBD level). The data quality was assessed as medium. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status The number of monitoring sites has decreased substantially since the first RBMPs for both operational and surveillance monitoring in all the water categories. Poland subsequently explained that this reduction is due to a better targeting of the monitoring efforts. The number of quality elements monitored in lakes increased, with the inclusion of phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates. Monitoring of 24 River Basin Specific Pollutants (mainly metals) was carried out in all surface water categories, at least at the minimum recommended frequency. Most of the monitoring results were used for classification of status. The large majority of lakes, however, were classified based on expert judgement and the large majority of rivers were classified based on grouping. In general, more water bodies were reported to be classified based on monitoring than those that were directly monitored. Classification methods have been developed for all the biological quality elements for all types and water categories, including definition of reference conditions. However, macroalgae and angiosperms were not classified in transitional and coastal waters. Fish were not classified in transitional waters. Most of the classification methods for the biological quality elements had been intercalibrated by 2013 and most of the remaining ones were intercalibrated by 2018, after the adoption of the second RBMPs. Some biological methods have not yet been intercalibrated: benthic invertebrates in lakes and fish and benthic invertebrates in transitional waters. The classification methods for hydromorphological quality elements were not linked to sensitive biological quality elements. Classification methods have been developed for all physicochemical quality elements and were reported to be linked to sensitive biological quality elements. However, the upper part of the ranges for both phosphorus and nitrogen are too high to support the nutrient sensitive biological quality elements and the use of the same ranges of nutrient standards for lakes and rivers raises concerns that these may still represent the old classification system before the WFD. Poland subsequently stated that the classification system for the general physicochemical quality elements changed in 2016, to relate to biological elements classification (macrophytes and phytobenthos). River Basin Specific Pollutants were selected based on occurrence in water bodies at risk of failing their objectives due to emissions from wastewater, industry and agriculture. Environmental Quality Standards were set for 25 substances, only for water, and none of them were derived in accordance with Technical Guidance n. 27. All the analytical methods used meet the minimum performance criteria laid down in Article 4.1 of the Quality Assurance / Quality Control Directive (2009/90/EC) for the strictest standards applied. Ecological status was classified for all water bodies, up from 20% in the first RBMPs. 70% of all the water bodies were reported in less than good ecological status in the second RBMPs and the level of confidence of the classification was low for most water bodies. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies Between the two RBMPs there was a very significant decrease in the proportion of water bodies in unknown status, from 92% to 15%. This resulted in an increase in the proportion of water bodies in good status from 3% up to 59% and an increase in proportion of water bodies failing to achieve good status, from 5% to 26%.

30% of water bodies are monitored, and grouping and expert judgment are used to classify the status of a significant proportion of non-monitored water bodies. There seem to be some limitations in the assessment of pressures on which the expert judgment is based (in particular, most of the water bodies failing to achieve good status are subject to unknown pressures). Territorial waters were neither monitored nor classified. Almost all lake, transitional and coastal water bodies failing to achieve good status were covered by operational monitoring. Rivers failing to achieve good chemical status were less well monitored, ranging from between 14% and 40% across RBDs (the exception being the Elbe RBD, where the only river water body failing was also monitored). No surface water body exists in the Ucker RBD, so no monitoring was reported for this RBD. For the nine other RBDs, all priority substances were taken into account in the assessment of status. All substances (including those discharged) were monitored in seven RBD. Two RBDs did not identify any discharged substance and did not monitor any substance, however seems that diffuse pressures were not considered when assessing whether substances were discharged. The monitoring frequencies are sometimes below the recommended minimum frequency, which leads to a low level of confidence for a significant proportion of the water bodies classified. No monitoring in biota was performed for status assessment for the second RBMP. No trend monitoring was reported to WISE, however it seems that some monitoring in sediment took place. It is however unclear whether all relevant substances were monitored, and what the spatial coverage and temporal resolution were. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies Not all groundwater bodies are subject to groundwater quantitative monitoring. The groundwater quantitative status has improved. The percentage of the groundwater body area failing good quantitative status decreased (from 13% in the first RBMPs to 4% of the total groundwater body area in the second RBMPs). The level of confidence in status results was reported to be high. Groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems were considered in status assessment. There was no consideration of groundwater associated surface waters in two river basin districts, although they were associated with a risk to groundwater status. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies The coverage of groundwater bodies by surveillance monitoring is not complete. The reported data indicate that there is no operational monitoring, although 14 groundwater bodies are at risk. Poland subsequently clarified that operational monitoring is continued in the second RBMP covering 39 groundwater bodies at risk. According to the information provided by Poland, all WFD core parameters are monitored, including ammonium, but have not been reported. The status situation has deteriorated. The groundwater body area failing good status increased from 3.7% to 7.8% (from 11 to 14 groundwater bodies) of the total groundwater body area. According to the information provided by Poland, there is a methodology for trend assessment available, but not yet for the trend reversal assessment. Groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems and associated surface waters were related to risk and considered in status assessment and threshold value establishment. ·Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential For lakes, transitional and coastal water bodies, new methodologies have been developed for the designation of heavily modified water bodies in the second RBMPs. The methodology for designating river heavily modified water bodies has not changed since the first RBMPs, although the information on hydromorphology had been updated. An information gap is that for the majority of river heavily modified water bodies the use for which they were designated is reported as unknown. The methodologies for heavily modified water bodies designation include details on the criteria for the identification of substantial changes in character as well as general guidance (on national level) on the assessment of other means to achieve the benefits of the modifications and significant adverse effects of measures on the use and the wider environment. However, information was not reported on the details of the outcome of the designation tests of significant adverse effects on the use and better environmental options (other means) for individual water bodies.

For the definition of good ecological potential, new methodological developments are noted for lakes and coastal/transitional water bodies. Good ecological potential is reported as defined in terms of biology, following a regulation on classification. Concerning mitigation measures, fish ladders are the only measure reported so far for defining good ecological potential, while no description was found of the ecological changes that these mitigation measures are designed to achieve. ·Environmental objectives and exemptions Environmental objectives for ecological and chemical status of surface water bodies and chemical and quantitative status of groundwater were reported in all RBDs. Drivers, pressures and pollutants leading to exemptions were reported. Relevant information was lacking in the RBMPs and reported background documents to determine whether exemptions related to disproportional costs and natural conditions could be justified in terms of meeting WFD requirements. A significant number of projects was reported by Poland to meet the requirements under Article 4(7). Further information is required to fully assess whether this is sufficient. ·Programme of Measures Significant progress has been made, particularly in identifying the gap to good status at a water body level, and the level of implementation of measures required to achieve good status by 2027. Clear information on how measures have been prioritised was not available. Poland clarified that the selection was based on efficiency of measures and feasibility of implementation, with details provided in the background document on update of the Programme of Measures (PoM). The costs of measures have been identified, and financing was reported as being in place. Significant EU funds have been secured for some RBDs. The reported significant pressures were well covered with operational KTMs in place to reduce the pressures in surface waters in all RBDs and for groundwater in the Oder and Vistula. Poland mapped a total of 1 410 national basic measures against 15 predefined KTMs and nine nationally derived KTMs. 139 national supplementary measures were mapped against nine predefined KTMs and 17 nationally derived KTMs For River Basin Specific Pollutants, information was only reported for two RBDs. For these RBDs no information was provided on the number of surface water bodies failing to be of good status, although information on KTMs was given. Information for groundwater bodies was provided for these RBDs. Information was provided on the number of surface waters failing good status due to Priority Substances for seven RBDs, but KTMs to address them were only reported for four RBDs. KTMs were not reported for all the Priority Substances causing failures, but these seem to be covered by other measures tackling pollution. Poland provided indicators of the gaps to be filled by the KTMs and indicators for the scale and progress of the implementation of the measures up to 2027.



·Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity Water abstraction pressures were not reported to be relevant although a small number of groundwater bodies may be at risk of failing good quantitative status. The Water Exploitation Index + has not been calculated, and no water quantity data were reported to support the European State of the Environment Report in relation to Water Quantity. The RBMPs do not include a water resource allocation and management plan. There is a concession, authorisation and/or permitting regime to control surface and groundwater and a register of surface and groundwater use. Measures on Article 11(3)(c) for sustainable and efficient water are being implemented.

·Measures related to pollution from agriculture There is a clear link between agricultural pressures and agricultural measures. A gap assessment for agricultural measures has not been undertaken in all RBDs and management objectives for nutrient pollution have not been set. Safeguard zones have been established for abstractions. Implementation of basic measures under Article 11(3)(h) for the control of diffuse pollution from agriculture at source has been ensured in all RBDs. In the Vistula and Oder RBDs, the rules were applied only in Nitrate Vulnerable Zones. In all other RBDs, the same rules were applied across the whole RBD. Supplementary measures for reducing pollution from agriculture were reported as well as measures to reduce sedimentation from soil erosion and surface runoff. The level of ambition is unclear, as the area covered by measures to achieve environmental objectives was not reported. In general, it is difficult to identify progress with the recommendations that were made .



·Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture Poland has made progress on reducing emissions of non-agricultural pollutants by improving urban waste water treatment. As noted above, KTMs were not reported for all individual Priority Substances causing failure, nor for all RBDs, but KTM 15 has been mapped against national measures and is reported to be tackling significant pressures in all RBDs. For the Vistula RBMP, no measures were reported for two priority substances. Only general measures were reported for pollutants causing failure of good chemical status of groundwater (these include an in-depth analysis of the environmental pressures in order to determine the causes of failure to achieve good status, linked to KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty) ·Measures related to hydromorphology The links between hydromorphological pressures and measures have improved due to the improved reporting on pressures and related KTM in WISE. However, for significant physical alterations and for dams, barriers and locks, the relevant sector or water use was indicated as unknown or obsolete. The significant hydrological and hydromorphological alterations were not assigned to any of the specified sectors according to WISE either (instead the sector was reported as “other’). Ecological flows were derived and partly implemented, i.e. for some relevant water bodies, in eight RBDs, but the work is still on-going. The methodological background should be finished within 2018 and legislative changes are expected in the next few years. A programme of flow retention in forests was reported (also reported in the first RBMPs but set to continue until 2020) aimed at flow retention and maintenance of streams and related infrastructure in good condition. Poland also informed that measures related to increasing natural retention are an integral part of the Flood Risk Management Plans. ·Economic analysis and water pricing policies The definition of water services was not clear with inconsistent information presented. Environmental and resource costs have been calculated although not comprehensively applied to all water services. It is not clear whether pricing policies have provided ‘adequate incentives’ to use water efficiently.

·Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) Objectives have been set for most relevant types of Protected Areas. However, for nature areas, no information has been provided as to whether the objectives have been met, which implies that the monitoring programme may not provide the necessary data for assessing the status of the Protected Area. The Polish ecological monitoring programme for surface water Protected Areas is fairly comprehensive and includes monitoring sites in relation to the relevant Directives. However, for groundwater Protected Areas, no specific monitoring programme has been reported, although monitoring schemes have been developed in the framework of the national programme for environmental monitoring. ·Adaptation to drought and climate change Climate change was considered in all river basin districts and the Common Implementation Strategy guidance document on how to adapt to climate change was used. A climate change check of the PoM has been carried out in the second river basin management plans. Adaptation measures (KTM24) were not reported as operational to address any of the significant pressures. Drought management plans were not reported for Poland. According to the information provided by Poland, plans for action against effects of drought have been prepared by different regional water management boards



Recommendations ·Poland needs to ensure that the preparation of the next cycle of RBMPs is carried out in accordance with the WFD timetable, to ensure the third RBMPs are adopted on time. ·Clear information should be included in national RBMPs on international coordination efforts. ·Poland should continue to improve international cooperation, including coordinated assessments of the technical aspects of the WFD such as ensuring a harmonized approach for status assessment and a coordinated PoM in order to ensure the timely achievement of the WFD objectives. ·Poland has made significant progress in the characterisation of water bodies. However, further work is still needed on the significance of pressures and on clarifying impacts which are currently reported as unknown. ·Further work is required to make the monitoring, assessment and classification of groundwater status fully compliant with the requirements of the Groundwater Directive. The work on aligning national types with those intercalibrated at the EU level should be completed. ·Poland should strengthen monitoring of surface waters by covering all relevant quality elements in all water categories ·An increased level of monitoring should lead to a lower dependence on expert judgment and on grouping for the classification of ecological status/potential, and consequently to an increased confidence in the assessment of ecological status. ·Poland should make sure that the method used for the derivation of Environmental Quality Standards meets the minimum requirements for the protection of freshwater and marine ecosystems from possible adverse effects, as well as of human health. ·Poland should provide a complete assessment of ecological status for all categories of water, including assessments of all relevant quality elements. The methods developed for classification of ecological status for hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements should be WFD compliant, in particular concerning their links to good status for the relevant biological quality elements.

·Poland should continue to progress in the transfer of the results of intercalibration into all national types, and provide clear information on the class boundaries that are used for the status classification of different national types. ·Confidence in the assessment of status for all water categories should continue to be improved (including territorial waters, whose status should be assessed), and the proportion of unknown status further reduced. In particular, monitoring should be performed in a way that provides sufficient temporal resolution and spatial coverage to classify all water bodies (in combination, if necessary, with robust grouping/extrapolation methods), in the relevant matrix. If a different matrix or reduced frequencies are used, the corresponding explanations should be provided, as required by the Directive. ·Poland should further improve trend monitoring to ensure that all the relevant substances specified in Directive 2008/105/EC are monitored in a way that provides sufficient spatial coverage and temporal resolution. ·On groundwater, a methodology for trend reversal should be in place. ·Further efforts are needed to develop a consistent methodology for the designation of heavily modified water bodies for all relevant water categories based on WFD compliant monitoring. The assessment of significant adverse effects of a comprehensive set of mitigation measures on their use or the wider environment and the lack of significantly better environmental options at water body level needs to be specifically mentioned in the RBMPs. This will ensure the transparency of the designation process. Further efforts are needed to define ecological potential in terms of relevant biological quality elements for all water categories. ·Poland should continue to further improve the methodology and justifications for the assessment and application of Article 4(4) and 4(5) exemptions. The approach for the application of these exemptions needs to be described in more detail and made transparent in the RBMPs. Criteria for the application of Article 4(4) need to be clearly distinguished from the criteria applied for Article 4(5) in relation to technical feasibility and disproportionate costs. ·A significant number of projects was reported to meet all the requirements as outlined in WFD Article 4(7). Poland needs to ensure that the use of exemptions under Article 4(7) is based on a thorough assessment of all the steps as required by the WFD, in particular an assessment of whether the project is of overriding public interest and whether the benefits to society outweigh the environmental degradation, and the absence of real alternatives that would be a better environmental option. Furthermore, these projects may only be carried out when all practicable measures are taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status/potential of the water bodies. ·Poland should ensure that KTMs are reported to address identified Priority Substances causing failure of objectives. ·Poland should consider how supplementary measures (designed to be implemented in addition to basic measures) can contribute more effectively to achieving the WFD objectives and quantify the total area to be covered by each measure. ·Poland should complete a comprehensive gap assessment for diffuse pollutant loads from agriculture (nutrients, agri-chemicals, sediment, organic matter) across all waters in all RBDs and link it directly to mitigation measures in the third RBMPs (as per WFD Article 11(3)(h)), to facilitate the achievement of WFD objectives. ·Poland should complete the designation of a sufficient number of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones in the third RBMP cycle and adopt measures to effectively combat nitrate pollution in these zones as required by the Nitrates Directive and Article 11.(3)(a) of the WFD. ·Poland should complete the adoption of measures to improve manure handling and recycling on farms, decrease nutrient discharges (fertiliser and pesticide applications), perform more controls and monitoring, etc, and identify financing sources to fund these measures. ·Poland should continue to review and develop the strategy for the delivery of WFD objectives, in cooperation with the farming community and the authorities in charge of CAP in Poland to ensure the third RBMP is technically feasible and that all relevant policies and instruments (e.g. RDP, CAP Pillar 1, ND, etc.) contribute significantly to RBMPs. ·Poland should provide more information on how it has selected measures, including in relation to combatting pollution by Priority Substances and other chemical pollutants. More consideration should be given to pollutants arriving via the atmosphere, which could be relevant in all RBDs, and to identifying measures specific to individual Groundwater pollutants. ·Poland should implement and report specific measures to address the hydromorphological impacts from agriculture, in line with the requirement of Article 11(3) WFD. ·Ecological flows also need to be derived and implemented during the second cycle. ·Poland should continue prioritising the use of green infrastructure and/or natural water retention measures that provide a range of environmental (improvements in water quality, flood protection, habitat conservation etc.), social and economic benefits which can be in many cases more cost-effective than grey infrastructure. ·Poland should apply cost recovery for water use activities having a significant impact on water bodies or justify any exemptions using Article 9(4). Poland should continue to transparently present how financial, environmental and resource costs have been calculated and how the contribution of the different users is ensured. It should also continue to transparently present the water-pricing policy and provide a transparent overview of estimated investments and investment needs. ·Poland has reported additional objectives only for surface waters Protected Areas related to Birds and Habitats Directives. Therefore, Poland should work on the additional objectives for groundwater related Protected Areas. Finally, Poland should also ensure that all relevant Protected Areas are properly monitored during the second RBMPs. ·Poland should consider ensuring that all its areas susceptible to drought are covered with appropriate drought management plans and measures.





Topic 1Governance and public participation 1.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMPs 1.1.1Administrative arrangements – RBDs Poland has 10 RBDs, and all are international. The longest Polish rivers are the Vistula and Oder; their RBDs cover almost 97% of the country. 1.1.2Administrative arrangements – competent authorities Poland has reported a broad range of Competent Authorities, a number of which have roles in enforcement of regulations and implementation of measures. The following national ministries are identified : ·The Ministry of Environment has main roles in enforcement of regulations, implementation of measures and coordination of implementation; ·The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Ministry of Maritime Economy and Inland Navigation have main roles in enforcement of regulations and implementation of measures; ·The Ministry of Development has a main role in the enforcement of regulations. National environmental and health authorities are identified as Competent Authorities: ·The General Director for Environmental Protection has main roles in enforcement of regulations and the implementation of measures. ·The Chief Inspector of Environmental Protection has main roles in monitoring and assessment of status of groundwater and surface water, along with the enforcement of regulations and the implementation of measures. ·The Chief Sanitary Inspectorate has main roles in enforcement of regulations and the implementation of measures. Authorities for water management and maritime issues are identified: ·The National Water Management Authority has main roles in enforcement of regulations, pressure and impact analysis, economic analysis, preparation of the RBMPs and PoM, public participation, implementation of measures, coordination of implementation and reporting to the European Commission. ·The Directors of the Regional Water Management Boards (seven are listed) each have main roles in enforcement of regulations, pressure and impact analysis, economic analysis, public participation and implementation of measures. ·The Directors of Amelioration and Water Structures Authorities (formerly, Directors of the Authorities for Land Improvement and Water Facilities) have main roles in enforcement of regulations and implementation of measures. ·The Directors of Inland Waters Navigation Offices (eight are listed) have main roles in enforcement of regulations.

·The Directors of Maritime Offices (three are listed) have main roles in enforcement of regulations and in implementation of measures (except for the Director of the Maritime Office in Slupsk, who does not have a main role in the enforcement of regulations). Competent Authorities at regional level are identified: ·The Marshals of the Voivodships, the Voivodes and the Governors of the districts all have main roles in enforcement of regulations and implementation of measures. ·The Voivodship Inspectorates for Environment Protection and Voivodship Sanitary Inspectorates have main roles in enforcement of regulations and the implementation of measures. Finally, the the municipalities also have main roles in the implementation of measures. 1.1.3RBMPs – structure and Strategic Environmental Assessment Poland's RBMPs do not have sub-plans. Poland carried out Strategic Environmental Assessments for all of its RBMPs. 1.1.4Public consultation Public consultation was carried out via direct invitation, telephone surveys and the Internet. For all 10 RBMPs, consultation documents were available for the required six months ; documents were available for download, paper copies were available in municipal buildings and paper copies were distributed at exhibitions. For all 10 RBDs, the following stakeholder groups were actively involved in the development of the RBMPs: agriculture/farmers, consumer groups, energy/hydropower, fisheries/aquaculture, industry, local/regional authorities, navigation/ports, NGOs/nature protection and water supply and sanitation. Active involvement took place via the establishment of advisory groups and their involvement in drafting the RBMPs. For all 10 RBDs, consultation resulted in the following impacts: addition of new information, adjustment of specific measures, commitment to action in the next RBMPs and commitment to further research. 1.1.5Integration with the Floods Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive Poland carried out joint consultations with the Flood Risk Management Plans under the Floods Directive ; joint consultations were not carried out for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive . Poland informed that in the joint consultation of RBMPs and FRMPs, there were common communication and consultation mechanisms dedicated to both types of plans, including: consultation meetings, regional conferences and a National Water Forum. A common slogan, ‘Niezawodne plany’ (‘Reliable Plans’), and logo were used. The websites for the RBMPs and FRMPs were linked and in public surveys, questions on both plans were asked. 1.1.6International coordination All 10 of Poland's RBDs are part of international RBDs. This includes Poland's sections of the Danube, Elbe and Oder RBDs: for these three international RBDs, an international agreement, permanent cooperation body and international RBMP are in place (designated as category one cooperation). Poland also reports that explicit links have been made with national RBMPs within the international RBMPs for the Elbe and Oder and has explicitly informed the Commission that an international RBMP and PoM were prepared commonly with Germany and the Czech republic for the Oder RBD. Poland has informed the Commission that there has not been an international RBMP and PoM prepared for the Vistula RBD due to the characterisation and location of this RBD. Poland has in this context informed that nearly 90% of the RBD is located on Poland’s territory and that the RBD is shared with Slovakia. Under the framework of the bilateral commission with Slovakia (see below), working groups have shared information on the characteristics of water bodies (e.g. typology, status assessment, identification of HMWBs). Joint monitoring is carried out and there is coordination of measures (Poland’s Vistula RBMP notes that recently agreed transboundary cooperation between Slovakia and Poland includes joint monitoring, data harmonisation, data exchange and joint projects). In addition, Poland has signed a range of bilateral agreements with neighbouring Member States and third countries. These include the following : ·Poland-Belarus: Agreement on Cooperation between the Hydrometeorology Department of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of the Republic of Belarus and the Institute of Hydrometeorology and Water Resources of Poland, 2003; ·Poland-Belarus: Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Poland the Government of the Republic of Belarus on cooperation in the field of environmental protection, 2009;

·Poland-Russia: Agreement on cooperation in the north-eastern provinces of the Republic of Poland and Kaliningrad oblast (region) of the Russian federation (only relating to environmental protection and monitoring of transboundary coastal waters), 1992; ·Poland-Slovakia: Agreement between the Government of Slovakia and the Government of Poland on the Management of Transboundary Waters, 1997 (implemented through the Polish-Slovakian Transboundary Waters Commission); ·Poland-Ukraine: Agreement between the Government of Ukraine and the Government of Poland on Cooperation in the Field of Water Management in Frontier Waters, 1996 (a Ukrainian-Polish Commission works under this Agreement); ·Poland-Ukraine: Agreement on Cooperation between the State Department of Ecology and Natural Resources in the Lviv region, Ukraine, and the Podkarpatskiy Provincial Water Inspectorate for Environmental Protection, 2004; ·Poland-Ukraine: Agreement on Cooperation between the Bug Basin Water Resources Management Authority of Ukraine and the Regional Water Management Authority of Warsaw in Poland, 2006, and; ·Poland-Former USSR: Agreement between the Government of the Polish People’s Republic and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Concerning the Use of Water Resources in Frontier Waters, 1964. Working groups were set up as part of the Polish-Slovak Commission for Border Waters covering: ·flood control, regulation of border watercourses, water supply, land rehabilitation, planning and hydrogeology; ·hydrology and flood protection in border waters; ·protection of border waters against pollution, and; ·implementation of tasks under the WFD. Recently agreed transboundary actions between Slovakia and Poland include joint monitoring, data harmonisation, data exchange and experience exchange, and joint projects. Poland and Ukraine have set up the following working groups covering: ·planning on transboundary waters; ·protection of border waters against pollution; ·flood control regulation and drainage; combating extraordinary pollution, and; ·hydrometeorology and hydrogeology. Poland and Ukraine have established a coordinated monitoring programme. Coordination takes place with regard to bilaterally agreed indicators and information exchange as a part of the meetings of the Polish-Ukrainian transboundary water commission. The RBMP notes that cooperation with Belarus on border waters is carried out via the Polish-Belarusian Subcommittee on Cross-Border Co-operation, under the Polish-Belarusian Intergovernmental Coordination Committee for in Cross-Border Cooperation. Cooperation with the Russian Federation on water management is carried out under the 1964 agreement between Poland the USSR; however, it appears that joint activities have currently been suspended.

Further information is included in the reports on international coordination on the Water Framework Directive. 1.2Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMPs 1.3Progress with Commission recommendations There were no recommendations on this topic.

Topic 2Characterisation of the River Basin District 2.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in second cycle 2.1.1Delineation of water bodies and designation of heavily modified and artificial water bodies There was only a change in the number of lake water bodies between the two cycles in Poland as a whole - an increase of six from 1,038 in the first RBMP to 1,044 in the second RBMP ( Table 2.1 ). Three of these were in the Vistula RBD, (with an area exceeding 50 hectares), which were not included in the first RBMPs (PLLW 20061 Likieckie, PLLW 20624 Kuchnia, PLLW 20775 Motława Wielka) . The same number of coastal, river and transitional water bodies were reported for both cycles of RBMPs. The reasons and consequences of the re-delineation were not directly described in the RBMPs. There was an apparent increase in the number of groundwater bodies in Poland from 161 in the first RBMPs to 178 (172) in the second RBMPs ( Table 2.2 ). There was a 25% reduction in the number of heavily modified water bodies in Poland for the second RBMPs compared to the first ( Figure 2.1 ). The largest decrease was in heavily modified river water bodies in two RBDs: in the first cycle there were 904 in the Vistula RBD and 594 in the Oder RBD which were reduced to 491 and 559, respectively, in the second cycle. This was accompanied by an almost equivalent number of identified natural river bodies between the two RBMPs . In contrast there was an increase in the number of heavily modified lake water bodies between the two RBMPs from 75 in the first cycle to 123 in the second cycle . Table 2.3 shows the differences in size distribution of surface water bodies in Poland between the second and first RBMPs. There were no significant changes. The minimum size criteria reported were 10 km2 catchment area for rivers and 0.5 km2 surface area for lakes, which is system B in Annex II of the WFD. Table 2.4 summarises the information provided by Poland on how water bodies have evolved between the two RBMPs. The changes noted above do not appear to be identified which may be an error in the reporting. Table 2.1Number and area/length of delineated surface water bodies in Poland for the secondand first RBMPs Year RBD Lakes Rivers Transitional waters Coastal waters Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies Number of water bodies Total length of water body (km) Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies 2016 PL1000 11 226 2016 PL2000 484 1 153 2 660 65 485 5 1 475 6 316 2016 PL3000 1 1 4 65 2016 PL4000 6 107 2016 PL5000 8 147 2016 PL6000 422 793 1 735 41 577 4 462 4 350 2016 PL7000 101 281 120 2 940 2016 PL8000 36 70 39 833 2016 PL9000 3 130 2016 Total 1 044 2 297 4 586 111 510 9 1 937 10 666 2010 PL1000 11 226 2010 PL2000 481 1 150 2 660 65 473 5 1 473 6 316 2010 PL3000 1 1 4 65 2010 PL4000 6 107 2010 PL5000 8 147 2010 PL6000 420 792 1 735 41 565 4 462 4 350 2010 PL7000 101 281 120 2 938 2010 PL8000 35 70 39 834 2010 PL9000 3 130 2010 Total 1 038 2 293 4 586 111 483 9 1 936 10 666 Source: WISE electronic reports. Table 2.2 Number and area of delineated groundwater bodies in Poland for the secondand first RBMPs Year RBD Number Area (km2) Minimum Maximum Average 2016 PL1000 3 0.71 360.16 128.49 2016 PL2000 94 31.36 9 396.67 1 946.72 2016 PL3000 1 161.6 161.6 161.6 2016 PL4000 1 210.34 210.34 210.34 2016 PL5000 7 0.29 92.76 34.05 2016 PL6000 66 23.67 4 947.88 1 783.34 2016 PL6700 1 14.69 14.69 14.69 2016 PL7000 2 1 804.53 5 723.66 3 764.09 2016 PL8000 2 504.8 2,008.85 1,256.82 2016 PL9000 1 232.98 232.98 232.98 2016 Total 178 (172 2010 PL1000 2 24.59 359.66 192.12 2010 PL2000 89 31.02 8 933.04 2 049.42 2010 PL3000 2010 PL4000 2010 PL5000 1 214.15 214.15 214.15 2010 PL6000 63 42.24 5 271.97 1 873.88 2010 PL6700 3 1 152.23 6 089.30 2 805.93 2010 PL7000 2 505.61 1 965.23 1 235.42 2010 PL8000 1 233.06 233.06 233.06 2010 Total 161 24.59 8 933.04 1 938.96 Source: WISE electronic reports. Values in brackets provided by Poland as value from WISE is number of subunits.

Table 2.3 Size distribution of surface water bodies in Poland in the second and first RBMPs Year RBD Lake area (km2) River length (km) Transitional (km2) Coastal (km2) Min Max Average Min Max Average Min Max Average Min Max Average 2016 PL1000 1.29 47.32 20.58 2016 PL2000 0.31 102.43 2.38 0.15 234.41 24.62 64.33 711.21 295.06 0.12 141.17 52.74 2016 PL3000 0.81 0.81 0.81 3.23 40.31 16.2 2016 PL4000 2.65 65.27 17.78 2016 PL5000 5.19 34.33 18.32 2016 PL6000 0.35 54.18 1.88 0.43 256.05 23.96 2.39 406.95 115.46 38.81 153.67 87.48 2016 PL6700 2016 PL7000 0.34 29.04 2.78 1.24 174.58 24.5 2016 PL8000 0.49 21.69 1.95 0.21 81.82 21.37 2016 PL9000 11.71 93.79 43.23 2010 PL1000 1.29 47.29 20.57 2010 PL2000 0.31 102.36 2.39 0.15 234.24 24.61 64.24 710.28 294.66 0.12 141 52.68 2010 PL3000 0.81 0.81 0.81 3.23 40.28 16.19 2010 PL4000 2.65 65.22 17.77 2010 PL5000 5.19 34.32 18.32 2010 PL6000 0.35 54.22 1.88 0.43 255.98 23.96 2.39 407.28 115.55 38.78 153.67 87.47 2010 PL6700 0.34 29.02 2.78 1.24 174.55 24.48 2010 PL7000 0.49 21.7 1.99 0.21 81.8 21.37 2010 PL8000 11.72 93.83 43.24 Source: WISE electronic reports Figure 2.1 Proportion of surface water bodies in Poland designated as artificial, heavily modified or natural for the second and first RBMPs. Note that the numbers in parenthesis are the numbers of water bodies in each water category Source: WISE electronic reports. Table 2.4 Type of change in delineation of groundwater and surface water bodies in Poland between the second and first RBMPs Type of water body change for second RBMPs Groundwater Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal Aggregation Splitting Aggregation and splitting Extended area Creation 178 (172) 1 6 Deletion 161 1 Change in code No change 4585 1038 9 10 Total water bodies before deletion 339 4587 1044 9 10 Delineated for second RBMPs (after deletion from first RBMPs) 178 (172) 4586 1044 9 10 Source: WISE electronic reports. Values in brackets were provided by Poland as explained above. Poland reported 147 transboundary surface water bodies in eight of the ten RBDs; the most (67) were in the Oder RBD . Transboundary coastal lake and transitional water bodies were also reported. No transboundary groundwater bodies were reported. 2.1.2Typology of surface water bodies Table 2.5 shows the number of surface water body types at RBD level in Poland for the first and second RBMPs. 25 river types were reported for Poland in the second cycle; one type was common to six RBDs and five types to four RBDs. Three coastal, four transitional and thirteen lake types were reported. There were only small changes in the number of types reported for each water category in each RBD between the two RBMPs. All differences were for lakes, where there was a decrease of two types in the Oder RBD, a decrease of one in the Pregolya RBD and an increase of one in the Nemunas RBD. Table 2.5 Number of surface water body types at RBD level in Poland for the first and second RBMPs RBD Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 2010 2016 PL1000 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 PL2000 24 24 13 13 4 4 3 3 PL3000 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 PL4000 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 PL5000 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 PL6000 21 21 9 7 2 2 2 2 PL6700 0 0 0 0 PL7000 5 5 5 4 0 0 0 0 PL8000 6 6 3 4 0 0 0 0 PL9000 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 25 25 13 13 4 4 3 3 Source: WISE electronic reports

Note that the total is not the sum of the types in each RBD as some types are shared by RBDs It was stated in the RBMP that in Poland, surface water types were determined based on system A supplemented with selected parameters of system B. It was stated in the RBMP for Vistula that reference conditions for benthic invertebrates were under development. Other biological parameters were reported against other types of water bodies. However, it appears that not every biological parameter was considered for each water type e.g. fish were not considered for type 26 for rivers, macrophytes were only considered for types: 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 17, 18, 24; phytobenthos for types 4, 5, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25 etc. In terms of lake water bodies, transitional water bodies and coastal water bodies there was no detailed information regarding the types and biological parameters considered but all required biological parameters were listed.

All national lake types were intercalibrated against three common intercalibration types. 10 lake types also had two equivalent intercalibration types. This seems to be a reporting error. 14 national river types were intercalibrated against four common intercalibration types. However, four river types were reported to have two different intercalibration types. The other national river types did not have equivalent common intercalibration types: this equates to 37% of river water bodies without an equivalent intercalibration type . The translation of intercalibration types to non-calibrated national types is therefore an important aspect for consideration. Only one of the four transitional water types had equivalent intercalibration types equating to three out of the total nine transitional water bodies. All coastal water body types had equivalent intercalibration types though one type had two equivalent intercalibration types: this could again be a reporting error. No information was found in the RBMPs on whether the typology was coordinated with Member States . A typology background document was provided which was dated 2004. However, it was indicated in the background documents (there are three reports published, each for a separate phase) that the typology of member state sharing borders was considered and researched as there is a short section written about some of the Member States. There was more information on Germany (sharing Oder RBD) and its similarities to the Polish system (ecoregions considered, similar to Poland, system A used with some aspects of system B). 2.1.3Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies Table 2.6 shows the percentage of surface water body types in Poland with reference conditions established for the first and second RBMPs. In the second cycle Poland reported that reference conditions had been established for all water body types in each category for all biological, hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements. In the first cycle, by comparison, only 8 out of 26 river types had a reference condition established, and only preliminary reference conditions were determined for the remainder. Therefore there was a significant improvement in the establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies between the two RBMPs. Table 2.6 Percentage of surface water body types in Poland with reference conditions established for all, some and none of the biological, hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements. Numbers in parenthesis are the number of types in each category Water category Water types Biological quality elements Hydromorphological quality elements Physicochemical quality elements Lakes (13) All 100% 100% 100% Some None Rivers (25) All 100% 100% 100% Some None Transitional (4) All 100% 100% 100% Some None Coastal (3) All 100% 100% 100% Some None Source: WISE electronic reports No information was found in the RBMPs in terms of coordination of the identification of type-specific reference conditions with other Member States or non-European Union countries. A typology background document was provided which was dated 2004. No new information has been reported. 2.1.4Characteristics of groundwater bodies All RBDs with surface water bodies (9) had reported links with groundwater bodies, and all 10 RBDs had groundwater bodies with links to terrestrial ecosystems. The characteristics of the geological formation and layering of groundwater bodies were also reported. 2.1.5Significant pressures on water bodies In the second cycle Poland identified 13 defined significant pressures on surface waters and also unknown and historical pressures and pressures from tourism and recreation. No abstraction pressures were reported . Diffuse pollution from discharges not connected to sewerage network were reported in six RBDs, diffuse agricultural and atmospheric deposition pressures in five RBDs and point source pressures from urban waste water in four RBDs. ‘Hydromorphological alteration - Other’ was the most reported significant pressure on coastal and transitional waters in Poland in the second cycle: significant diffuse agricultural pressures were also reported for coastal waters but not for transitional waters ( Figure 2.2 ). Diffuse agricultural pressures affected the largest proportion of lakes (62%) in Poland but affected only 8% of river water bodies. The most significant pressure on rivers (50% of river water bodies) was unknown anthropogenic pressures. The comparison of pressures between the two RBMPs may have been confounded by changes in delineation of water bodies and also changes in definition of pressures. There were only minor changes in the delineation of surface water bodies in Poland between the two RBMPs. There were, however, some noticeable differences between the pressure types and extent of pressures between the two RBMPs ( Figure 2.3 ). The proportion of water bodies affected by diffuse agriculture also increased for the second RBMPs: 2% of lakes in the first cycle, 62% in the second cycle ; 3% of rivers in in the first cycle, 8% in the second cycle. Abstraction pressures were reported to affect 12% of surface water bodies in 2010 but were not reported at all in the second cycle. Unknown anthropogenic pressures were also reported to be significant in the second cycle . 27 pressures were reported to not have been included for surface waters in the second cycle including abstractions and industrial point sources . No information was reported in the RBMP on why the pressures reported to WISE were not considered at the risk assessment stage. 7 different pressures types were reported to be significant for groundwater in the second cycle. The most significant in terms of affected water bodies was diffuse pollution from mining (8% of groundwater bodies) followed by alteration of groundwater level (7%) ( Figure 2.3 ). There was a significant increase in the number of delineated groundwater bodies between the two RBMPs (from 161 to 172). This increase in numbers of water bodies does not explain the large differences between the type and extent of pressures reported for groundwater for the two RBMPs. In 2010, abstractions for public water supply were affecting 92% of groundwater bodies; in the second cycle none were reported to be affected . Diffuse mining pressures were reported to be most significant in the second cycle but had not been in 2010.



Figure 2.2 The most significant pressures on surface water bodies and groundwater bodies in Poland for the second RBMPs Source: WISE electronic reports Figure 2.3 Comparison of pressures on surface water bodies in Poland in the first and second RBMPs. Pressures presented at the aggregated level. Source: WISE electronic reports. Not all pressures are shown. 2.1.6Definition and assessment of significant pressures on surface and groundwater The only pressure on surface waters where potentially quantitative numerical tools were used to assess significance in the second cycle was for point source pressures where they were used in combination with expert judgement. Expert judgment was reported to be used to assess the significance of diffuse source pressures and pressure arising from water flow modifications . Water abstraction pressures were not assessed . For the first RBMPs numerical methods were mainly used to assess the significance of the identified pressures arising from point source, diffuse source and abstraction pressures on surface waters. In the first RBMPs, numerical tools were used to assess the significance, which also appears to have been the case for the second RBMPs. The RBMPs describe how point, diffuse and hydromorphological significant pressures were assessed separately and then how the cumulative effects of these pressures were considered. It was stated in Vistula RBMP that exceedances of physicochemical indicators (including biogenic substances) based on 2010-2013 monitoring and significant municipal sewage discharges were identified. In the RBMP, thresholds of significant pressure were mentioned in relation to nitrogen and phosphorus loads in the catchment and in a 1 000 m wide strip around each lake, taking into account the adopted abiotic types of lakes. The thresholds of significant pressure were determined based on the analysis of the relationship between the condition of monitored lakes and the intensification of pressure affecting those lakes. Identification of this relationship made it possible to determine the risk of not reaching the environmental objective by lakes for which monitoring was not carried out and data on the status of their waters was not available, while data on the pressure affecting them were available. Those unmonitored lakes were indicated to be at risk if the threshold values were exceeded for both parameters (phosphorus and nitrogen loads) or one of them. The threshold values were also given for point sources in a table in the RBMP which were limit concentration values used to calculate the permissible load of different parameters such as biological oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand, nitrogen, phosphorus and nickel. This implies that some threshold values were used for both point and diffuse source pressures, and it was reported that significance was not defined in terms of thresholds in the WISE data but that they were linked to the failure of objectives. It was reported to WISE that no numerical threshold values were provided for hydromorphological pressures . The identification of hydromorphological pressures was carried out on the basis of data from the survey of water administrators and information on the current flood protection system and studies carried out in the field of verification of the determination of heavily modified water bodies. Maps of different significant pressures were also presented in the RBMP. The hydromorphological pressure was considered significant, based on monitoring data from 2010-2013, where only biological indicators were exceeded, and at the state of preliminary determination of surface water bodies were designated as heavily modified water bodies. Such surface water bodies were also considered to be at risk of failing to achieve environmental objectives due to hydromorphological pressure affecting the state of biological elements. Hydromorphological pressure was identified and reported also for particularly important or important rivers where transverse buildings with need of patency restoration existed. The tools used to assess the significance of pressures on groundwater were all based on a combination of numerical tools and expert judgment in all RBDs and for all assessed pressures. Significance was defined in terms of thresholds and linked to the potential failure of objectives. 2.1.7Significant impacts on water bodies “Unknown impact’ type was reported to affect the largest proportion (36%) of surface water bodies in Poland, followed by nutrient pollution (22%) and altered habitats due to morphological changes (8%) ( Figure 2.4 ). Figure 2.4 Significant impacts on surface water and groundwater bodies in Poland for the second RBMPs. Percentages of numbers of water bodies Source: WISE electronic reports

The three most significant reported impacts on groundwater bodies in Poland ( Figure 2.4 ) were: ·abstraction exceeding available groundwater resource (lowering water table) (7% of groundwater bodies); ·diminution of quality of associated surface waters for chemical or quantitative reasons (7%), and; ·damage to groundwater-dependent terrestrial ecosystems for chemical or quantitative reasons (4.5%). 2.1.8Groundwater bodies at risk of not meeting good status Two RBDs reported that groundwater bodies were at risk of not achieving good chemical status: around 8% of groundwater bodies were at risk in Poland as a whole. 13 groundwater pollutants were reported as causing a risk to the achievement of good chemical status in groundwater bodies in two of the ten RBDs in Poland. Nitrate affected the most groundwater bodies (six) in the two RBDs. 7% of groundwater bodies in Poland were reported to be at risk of not achieving good quantitative status with saline or other intrusion and effects on water balance to be the cause of the risk. The groundwater bodies at risk of not achieving good quantitative status were only in the Vistula and Oder RBDs. 2.1.9Quantification of the gap and apportionment of pressures Poland reported the gaps to be filled for all significant pressures reported at the groundwater and surface water body level. 36 different chemical substances causing failure of objectives were reported by Poland: 12 chemical substances in groundwater and 25 chemical substances in surface water. The chemical substances include Priority Substances and polluting substances in groundwater. Gaps were reported for each in terms of the number of water bodies where chemical pressures were preventing the achievement of objectives and the number of water bodies where diffuse atmospheric deposition pressures were preventing the achievement of objectives. 2.1.10Inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances Article 5 of the Environmental Quality Standards Directive (EQS Directive) requires Member States to establish an inventory of emissions, discharges and losses of all Priority Substances and the eight other pollutants listed in Part A of Annex I EQS Directive for each RBD, or part thereof, lying within their territory. This inventory should allow Member States to further target measures to tackle pollution from priority substances. It should also inform the review of the monitoring networks, and allow the assessment of progress made in reducing (resp. suppressing) emissions, discharges and losses for priority substances (resp. priority hazardous substances). All 10 RBDs in Poland reported inventories of emissions, discharges and losses and all Priority Substances and groups of Priority Substances are included, apart from benzo(g,h,i)perylene and indeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene (these belong to the group of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons). The two step approach from the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document n°28 has not been followed for any of substances included in the inventories. Tier 1 of the methodology was implemented for all substances included in the inventories (while the Guidance Document recommends to implement at least Tier 1 + 2 for substances relevant at RBD level). The data quality was assessed as medium. 2.2Main changes in implementation and compliance since first cycle There was a 25% reduction in the number of heavily modified water bodies in Poland for the second RBMPs compared to the first. The largest decrease was in heavily modified river water bodies in two RBDs: the Vistula and the Oder. This was accompanied by an almost equivalent number of identified natural river bodies between the two RBMPs. In contrast there was an increase in the number of heavily modified lake water bodies between the two RBMPs from 75 in the first RBMP to 123 in the second cycle. There were only small changes in the number of types reported for each water category in each RBD between the two RBMPs, with all differences being for lakes. There were, however, some noticeable differences between the pressure types and extent of pressures between the two RBMPs. Abstraction pressures were reported to affect 12% of surface water bodies in the first cycle but were not assessed in the second cycle . The proportion of water bodies affected by diffuse agriculture also increased for the second RBMPs: 2% of lakes in the first cycle, 62% in the second cycle; 3% of rivers in the first cycle, and 8% in the second cycle. This appears to have been from improved methodology that used loading data as well as expert judgement. Unknown anthropogenic pressures were also reported to be significant in the second cycle: this pressure type was not used in the first cycle reports. There was a significant increase in the number of delineated groundwater bodies between the two RBMPs (from 161 to 172). This increase in numbers of water bodies does not explain the large differences between the type and extent of pressures reported for groundwater for the two RBMPs. In 2010, abstractions for public water supply affected 92% of groundwater bodies, in the second cycle none were reported to be affected. Groundwater abstractions were assessed using a combination of numerical tools and expert judgement and no changes in methodology were identified so the reasons for this change are unclear. Diffuse mining pressures were reported to be most significant in the second cycle but had not been in the first cycle. 2.3Progress with Commission recommendations The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMPs and first PoM requested action on the following: ·Recommendation: Where there are currently high uncertainties in the characterisation of the RBDs, identification of pressures, and assessment of status, these need to be addressed in the current RBMPs, to ensure that adequate measures can be put in place before the next RBMPs.

Assessment: In the second cycle Poland reported that reference conditions have been established for all water body types in each category for all biological, hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements which is a significant improvement since the first RBMPs. Pressures have been assessed using a combination of expert judgement and quantitative analysis. There was significant reporting of “unknown impacts’ which could imply that methods were not discriminative enough for use for WFD purposes . Overall there has been progress and this recommendation has been partially fulfilled.

Topic 3Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water bodies 3.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMPs 3.1.1Monitoring of ecological status/potential Monitoring programmes Article 8.1 of the WFD requires Member States to establish monitoring programmes for the assessment of the status of surface water and of groundwater in order to provide a coherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each RBD. Territorial waters are not a water body category under WFD. However, it should be noted that under Article 2(1) of the WFD, territorial waters are included for the assessment and reporting of chemical status. There were several gaps in the reported monitoring programmes in relation to water categories identified in Poland. There were no programmes for the surveillance monitoring of rivers in the Danube, Jarft, Elbe or Dniester RBDs. There was no WFD surveillance monitoring programme for coastal waters and transitional waters in the Vistula or Oder RBDs. There was no lake monitoring programme in the Swieza RBD, although there is one lake water body. In addition, no monitoring programme was reported for territorial waters even though two RBDs have delineated coastal water bodies. Poland subsequently stated that a surveillance monitoring programme was implemented for river basins Jarf, Dniester, Danube and Łaba as well as in all transitional and coastal areas in the period 2010-2012. The non-reporting of these programmes was probably an error. Monitoring sites and monitored water bodies used for surveillance and operational monitoring Table 3.1 compares the number of monitoring sites used for surveillance and operational purposes between the two RBMPs, and Table 3.2 gives the number of sites used for different purposes for the second RBMPs. Note that no information has been provided for the Ucker RBD as no surface water body was delineated in this RBD. For rivers, there were five times more monitoring sites used for operational purposes than for surveillance monitoring in the second RBMPs, while for lakes there were almost equal numbers of monitoring sites for operational and for surveillance monitoring. There was a significant reduction in the number of operational monitoring sites from the first to the second RBMPs in all four water categories. Proportionally the largest decrease was in transitional waters (71%), followed by lakes (46%), coastal waters (33%) and rivers (14%). Table 3.1 Number of sites used for surveillance and operational monitoring in Poland for the second and first RBMPs. Note that for reasons of comparability with data reported in the first RBMPs, the data for the second RBMPs does not take into account whether sites are used for ecological and/or chemical monitoring Rivers Lakes Transitional Coastal Surv. Op Surv. Op Surv. Op Surv. Op second RBMP PL_1000 0 5 0 0 PL_2000 192 1031 151 169 5 6 PL_3000 1 1 0 0 PL_4000 0 1 0 0 PL_5000 0 3 0 0 PL_6000 133 734 133 166 4 4 PL_7000 8 31 30 30 PL_8000 4 6 8 8 PL_9000 0 1 0 0 Total by type of site 338 (494) 1813 322 373 0 9 0 10 Total number of monitoring sites 1879 451 9 10 first RBMP PL_1000 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 PL_2000 304 1134 303 315 8 19 8 9 PL_3000 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 PL_4000 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 PL_5000 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 PL_6000 193 913 229 324 8 12 6 6 PL_7000 5 41 32 32 0 0 0 0 PL_8000 15 14 17 18 0 0 0 0 PL_9000 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total by type of site 523 2115 581 689 16 31 14 15 Total number of monitoring sites 2194 707 31 15 Sources: Member States electronic reports to WISE. The number in parentheses was subsequently provided by Poland, to correct what seems to have been a reporting error



Subsequently Poland indicated that the seeming reduction of representative monitoring sites from the first to the second RBMPs was the result of redefinition of the role of monitoring sites. Changes in the legal acts concerning monitoring improved the management of monitoring data, making the assessment of water bodies more representative and facilitated the quality of the analysis of the status of waterbodies. Monitoring sites are designed for the representative assessment of a whole water body, and are composed of many subsites. In surveillance monitoring there are up to eight different functional types of monitoring subsites. Poland also indicated that some of reported changes from the first to the second RBMPs may be due to how the information has been reported to WISE - there have been unintended reporting errors. Table 3.2 Number of monitoring sites in relevant water categories used for different purposes for the second RBMP in Poland. Note that no differentiation is made between sites used for ecological monitoring and/or chemical monitoring

Monitoring Purpose Lakes Rivers Transitional Coastal BWD - Recreational or bathing water - WFD Annex IV.1.iii 52 47 7 9 DWD - Drinking water - WFD Annex IV.1.i 1 121 ECO - Ecological status 22 12 HAB - Protection of habitats or species depending on water - WFD Annex IV.1.v 193 582 6 8 INV - Investigative monitoring 10 94 9 10 NID - Nutrient sensitive area under the Nitrates Directive - WFD Annex IV.1.iv 7 167 OPE - Operational monitoring 373 1813 9 10 SUR - Surveillance monitoring 322 338 UWW - Nutrient sensitive area under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive - WFD Annex IV.1.iv 159 1460 9 10 Total sites irrespective of purpose 464 2108 9 10 Source: WISE electronic reporting There were also significant reductions in the number of surveillance monitoring sites from the first to the second RBMPs, with no sites in coastal and transitional waters in the second RBMPs. There were reductions in lake and river surveillance sites, respectively, from the first to the second RBMPs corresponding to 45% for lakes (from 581 to 322 sites) and 35% for rivers (from 523 to 338 sites), Table 3.2 gives the number of sites reported to be used for different purposes for the second RBMP. Differences between the numbers of sites reported to be used for “ecological status” and for surveillance/operational monitoring probably indicate some uncertainty on what was expected to be reported by Member States for these elements leading to some unintended reporting errors. Figure 3.1 shows the percentage of water bodies included in surveillance and operational monitoring for the second plans (no data at water body level was provided for the first plans). Around a third of lake water bodies were monitored for both operational purposes and surveillance purposes in the second RBMPs with around a third of river water bodies being monitored for operational purposes and only 7% being monitored for surveillance purposes. No transitional and coastal water bodies were monitored for surveillance purposes but all were monitored for operational purposes. Figure 3.1 Percentage of water bodies included in surveillance and operational monitoring in Poland for second RBMPs (2016). Note no differentiation is made between water bodies included in ecological and/or chemical monitoring Source: WISE electronic reporting Monitoring sites and monitored water bodies used for ecological status/potential Figure 3.2 shows the proportion of water bodies in each ecological status/potential class that are included in surveillance monitoring in Poland. As stated above, there is no longer any surveillance monitoring of transitional and coastal waters reported for Poland . Figure 3.2 Proportion of water bodies in each ecological status/potential class that are included in surveillance monitoring in Poland Source: WISE electronic reports Transboundary surface water body monitoring Poland reported transboundary river water bodies in eight of its 10 RBDs. Most were in the Oder (67) and Vistula (49) RBDs. Transboundary coastal, lake and transitional water bodies were also reported. No monitoring sites were reported to be part of international monitoring networks. Poland subsequently clarified that the monitoring of transboundary waterbodies was continued during the 2010-2015 monitoring cycle. All of the waterbodies subject to international cooperation were covered by investigational monitoring according to these agreements. The transboundary waterbodies that are most important to water management were additionally covered by surveillance monitoring and, if the pressure and impact assessment indicate it necessary, by operational monitoring. The gaps in the electronic reports to WISE are probably due to reporting errors. Quality elements monitored (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants) Table 3.3 illustrates the quality elements used for the monitoring of lakes and rivers for the second RBMPs: no differentiation is made between the purposes of monitoring. Table 3.3 Quality elements monitored for the second RBMPs in Poland (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants). Note: quality element may be used for surveillance and/or operational monitoring. “Other aquatic flora” may be reported separately for its component sub-quality elements, for example, macrophytes and phytobenthos in rivers, by some Member States.

Biological quality elements Hydromorphological quality elements Phytoplankton Macrophytes Phytobenthos Benthic invertebrates Fish Angiosperms Macroalgae Other aquatic flora Other species Hydrological or tidal regime Continuity conditions Morphological conditions Rivers Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No No Lakes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No No Transitional Yes No No No No No Yes No No No Coastal Yes No No No No Yes No No No General physicochemical quality elements Transparency conditions Thermal conditions Oxygenation conditions Salinity conditions Acidification status Nitrogen conditions Phosphorus Conditions Silicate Other determinand for nutrient conditions Rivers Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Lakes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Transitional Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Coastal Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Source: WISE electronic reporting There were major gaps in the quality elements monitored in Poland. Fish were not monitored in rivers, lakes and transitional waters; the only biological quality element monitored in coastal and transitional waters was phytoplankton (though chlorophyll a was reported as an ‘other’ quality element); macrophytes and phytobenthos are not monitored in rivers in two RBDs (Swieza and Jarft); hydromorphological quality elements are not monitored in any water category. There was no detail on what specific quality elements were monitored in the first RBMPs, though an alternative source indicated that some quality elements were monitored in rivers and coastal waters. Comparison with this alternative source shows that there has been some progress in that phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates are now monitored in lakes, but most of the shortcomings in the first RBMPs were still present in the second. In coastal and transitional waters there was no biological quality elements monitored other than phytoplankton chlorophyll. The emphasis in Polish monitoring therefore remained on the general physicochemical quality elements. None of the water bodies included in surveillance monitoring in Poland was reported as being monitored for all the required biological and hydromorphological quality elements. However, Poland subsequently clarified that all the required biological and hydromorphological quality elements were monitored in many water bodies. Concerning the general physicochemical quality elements, all the required elements were monitored in every water body included in surveillance monitoring.. Three of the required biological quality elements were reported to be used in the operational monitoring of rivers. The predominant element was phytobenthos (25% of water bodies in operational monitoring), followed by benthic invertebrates (18%) and macrophytes (17%). Fish were not monitored in rivers, lakes and transitional waters, but were nevertheless reported to be classified based on monitoring for a small proportion of river and lake water bodies. River Basin Specific Pollutants and matrices monitored Poland reported that 30 substances that are not Priority Substances were being monitored. According to the Reporting Guidance for the second RBMPs it was expected that these would be River Basin Specific Pollutants. However, Poland subsequently clarified that the register of River Basin Specific Pollutants includes 24 synthetic and non-synthetic river basin specific pollutants. Among the substances for which an Environmental Quality Standard was reported (which are assumed to be the substances identified as the 24 River Basin Specific Pollutants), copper was monitored at the largest number of sites (1 688 within seven RBDs). Phenol was reported to be monitored in nine of the 10 RBDs at 1 031 sites. The WFD indicates that, for the surveillance and operational monitoring of River Basin Specific Pollutants, the frequency of monitoring should be at least once every three months for one year during the RBMP cycle and at least once every three months every year, respectively (this frequency is to be understood for monitoring in water). Greater intervals can be applied provided they are justified on the basis of expert judgment or technical knowledge. Overall in Poland, River Basin Specific Pollutants were monitored at a frequency equal to or above the intra-annual minimum frequency (4 times per year) at most of sites. No explanation could be found for the reduced frequencies implemented at some of the sites. It was reported that River Basin Specific Pollutants were only monitored in water. Table 3.4 indicates that the 30 substances reported in WISE as being monitored were monitored at 391 lake sites and 1 348 river sites. Despite some minor inconsistencies in the number of monitoring sites between different sources of information, and despite the inconsistencies between the number of substances reported to be monitored as River Basin Specific Pollutants in WISE and the River Basin Specific Pollutants actually identified by Poland, it is clear that the monitoring of River Basin Specific Pollutants was a major improvement compared to the first RBMPs, where these pollutants were not reported to be monitored. Table 3.4 Number of sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants for the second RBMPs and non-priority Specific Pollutants and/or other national pollutants in the first RBMPs in Poland. Note the data from the first and second RBMPs may not be fully comparable as different definitions were used and also not all Member States reported information at the site level meaning that there were no equivalent data for the first RBMPs. RBMP Lakes Rivers Transitional Coastal Second Sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants 391 1348 9 3 First Sites used to monitor non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national pollutants 0 0 0 0 Sources: WISE electronic reports Use of monitoring results for classification There were a number of mismatches between the water bodies classified based on monitoring and those directly monitored for most biological quality elements and supporting physico-chemical quality elements. Fish were not reported to be monitored in any water category. However, fish were also reported to be used to classify some lake and river water bodies using monitoring results: this is again not consistent with the reported monitoring data. The hydromorphological quality elements were not directly monitored, but were still claimed to be classified partly based on monitoring in coastal, rivers and transitional waters. In lakes, expert judgement was solely used to classify the hydromorphological quality elements. Expert judgment was used to classify proportionally more lake water bodies in terms of each quality element than by using monitoring results: grouping was not used at all. The classification of all quality elements in transitional waters was solely based on monitoring data. In rivers grouping was used to classify proportionally more water bodies than monitoring results for all classified quality elements: expert judgement was not used at all. There were also inconsistencies between classified and monitored biological quality elements in coastal and transitional waters. The only reported monitored biological quality element in both was phytoplankton, but benthic invertebrates were used in the classification of transitional waters and macroalgae and benthic invertebrates in coastal waters. For benthic invertebrates in the two saline water categories, the classification was reported to be based on monitoring results, although no monitoring was reported for this biological quality element.

For the River Basin Specific Pollutants, the proportion of classified water bodies based on monitoring varied considerably between RBDs and water categories, with a large majority of water bodies classified based on grouping for rivers and on expert judgement for lakes. 3.1.2Ecological Status/potential of surface water The ecological status/potential of surface water bodies in Poland for the second RBMPs is illustrated in Map 3.1 . This is based on the most recent assessment of status. Map 3.1Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Poland based on the most recently assessed status/potential of the surface water bodies Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i). Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) High Good Moderate Poor Bad Unknown RBDs Countries outside the European Union All but two water bodies were classified. The proportion of unknowns decreased from 80% in the first RBMPs to less than 1% in the second, which is a major improvement. However, the proportion of water bodies in less than good ecological status was 70%. Most of these were at moderate status. Figure 3.3 shows the confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential. The majority (60%) of river and lake water bodies were classified with low confidence, while all the coastal and transitional water bodies were classified with high confidence (which is difficult to reconcile, given the fact that very few biological quality elements were used for classifying the two saline water categories). The remaining river and lake water bodies were classified with high confidence. Poland subsequently explained that all transitional and coastal waters were assessed based on data of all biological quality elements required for these water body categories under WFD. This information was not in the electronic report to WISE because of reporting errors. Phytoplankton (chlorophyll-a), macroalgae, angiosperms and benthic invertebrates were assessed in coastal water bodies, and also fish in transitional waters; hence the confidence level of the assessment is high for these water body categories. Furthermore, river and lake water bodies that were assessed based on ‘expert judgement’ with low confidence due to the fact that were not assessed based on the monitoring data. Figure 3.3 Confidence in the classification of ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Poland based on the most recently assessed status/potential Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 3.4 compares the ecological status of surface water bodies in Poland for the first RBMPs with that for the second (based on the most recent assessment of status/potential) and that expected by 2015). The results mainly show the huge reduction in the proportion of unknowns since the first RBMPs, but that the proportion at good status/potential was less than good for 70% of all the water bodies. The expectation for 2015 was that 64% of all water bodies would be in less than good ecological status. Figure 3.4 Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Poland for the second RBMPs, for the first RBMPs and expected in 2015. The number in the parenthesis is the number of surface water bodies for each cycle. Note the period of the assessment of status for the second RBMPs was 2007 to 2012. The year of the assessment of status for first RBMPs is not known Source: WISE electronic reporting Member States were asked to report the expected date for the achievement of good ecological status/potential. The information for Poland is shown in Figure 3.5 . 37% of river water bodies are expected to achieve their objectives by 2015, which is consistent with the information given in Figure 3.4 , in which 36% of all surface water bodies are expected to be in good ecological status by 2015 (and rivers are the water category with most of the total number of water bodies in Poland).

For lakes, 1/3 was expected to achieve the objectives by 2015, approximately another 50% by 2016-2021, and the rest by 2022-2027. For coastal waters, the majority was expected to achieve the objectives in the second RBMPs (2016-2021), while the more than 80% of the transitional waters were only expected to achieve their objectives during the period 2022-2027. No water bodies were reported to have already achieved less stringent objectives. Figure 3.5 Expected date of achievement of good ecological status/potential of surface water bodies in Poland. The number in the parenthesis is the number of water bodies in each category Source: WISE electronic reporting Classification of ecological status in terms of each classified quality element Figure 3.6 shows that the proportion of water bodies in good or high ecological status was much higher for the single biological quality elements than for total ecological status for rivers (compare Figure 3.6 with Map 3.1 , which is dominated by river water bodies). For rivers, most of the biological quality elements were classified in almost 80% of water bodies, and the proportion at good or better status was 40-50%, while for lakes, the proportion of water bodies classified was almost 90% for phytoplankton, phytobenthos and macrophytes, while benthic invertebrates and fish were classified for 60-70%. The proportion of classified water lakes at good or better status was 20-40%, which was less than for rivers. Transitional and coastal water bodies were classified with only phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates, except for a few coastal water bodies where macroalgae was classified (10% of all water bodies, which means one water body only). The ecological status was less than good in 80% or more of the total coastal or transitional water bodies. A large proportion of the water bodies were classified based on expert judgement or grouping. For fish, no direct monitoring was reported, but a small proportion was reported to be based on monitoring . Figure 3.6 Ecological status/potential of the biological quality elements used in the classification of surface waters in Poland. Note that water bodies with unknown status/potential at the quality element level and those that are monitored but not classified or not applicable, are not presented. Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 3.7 compares the classification of biological quality elements in terms of ecological status/potential for the first and second RBMPs. It should be noted that this comparison should be treated with some caution as there are differences between the numbers of surface water bodies classified for individual elements from the first to the second RBMPs. Changes in the ecological status of the biological quality elements cannot be assessed due to the very different proportion of unknowns in the first and second RBMPs (80% unknowns in the first RBMPs and no unknowns in the second). Figure 3.7 Comparison of ecological status/potential in Poland according to classified biological quality elements in surface water bodies between the first and second RBMPs. The numbers in parenthesis show the number of water bodies with a classification for that element Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 3.8 and Figure 3.9 illustrate the basis of the classification of ecological status/potential of rivers and lakes in Poland for the second RBMPs. The figures show that all the four groups (types) of quality elements were used to classify the large majority (80%) of the river water bodies, while 20% were classified using three groups of quality elements. For lakes, the proportion of water bodies classified with all the four groups of quality elements was only 61%, while 24% were classified with three types of quality elements and 14% using only two types. For coastal and transitional waters, 90% and 100% respectively were classified using all the four groups of quality elements. However, the majority of water bodies were classified using grouping or expert judgement, especially for hydromorphological quality elements, which have not been directly monitored in the second RBMPs. Figure 3.8 The classification of the ecological status or potential of rivers and lakes in Poland using 1, 2, 3 or 4 types of quality element Note: The four types are: biological; hydromorphological, general physicoc