COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk 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
Date: 2019-02-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: Poland, adaptation to climate change, application of EU law, disaster area, environmental risk prevention, flood, risk management, water, water management, watercourse

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 26.2.2019  SWD(2019) 79 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk 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) 53 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) 80 final} - {SWD(2019) 81 final} - {SWD(2019) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 83 final} - {SWD(2019) 84 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

Acronyms .................................................................................................................................... 4 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 5 

Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 6 

Overview of the assessment ..................................................................................................... 8 

Good Practices........................................................................................................................ 11 

Areas for further development ............................................................................................... 12 

Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 13 

1. 

 Scope of the assessment and sources of information for the assessment ......................... 14 

1.1  Reporting of the FRMPs ............................................................................................. 14 

1.2  Assessment of the FRMPs .......................................................................................... 14 

2. 

 Integration of previously reported information ................................................................ 16 

2.1  Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment (PFRA) ................... 16 

2.2 

Presentation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) in the FRMPs ..................... 17 

2.3  Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas .................................................... 19 

2.4  Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the flood hazard and risk 
maps   ..................................................................................................................................... 20 

2.5  Good practices and areas for further development in the FRMPs regarding integration 
of previously reported information ........................................................................................ 20 

3. Setting of Objectives ............................................................................................................. 21 

3.1 

Focus of objectives ...................................................................................................... 21 

3.2 

Specific and measurable objectives ............................................................................. 22 

3.3  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods ............................................ 22 

3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding .............................. 22 

3.5 

Process for setting the objectives ................................................................................ 22 

3.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting objectives ........ 23 

4. Planned measures for the achievement of objectives ........................................................... 24 

4.1  Cost of measures ......................................................................................................... 25 

4.2 

Funding of measures ................................................................................................... 25 

4.3  Measurable and specific (including location) measures ............................................. 26 

1 

 
 
 
4.4  Measures and objectives.............................................................................................. 27 

4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures ..................................................................... 27 

4.6 

Prioritisation of measures ............................................................................................ 27 

4.7  Authorities responsible for implementation of measures ............................................ 28 

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures .................................................................... 29 

4.9  Measures taken under other Community Acts ............................................................ 29 

4.10  Specific groups of measures ........................................................................................ 30 

4.11  Recovery from and resilience to flooding ................................................................... 32 

4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP ....................................................... 32 

4.13  Coordination with the Water Framework Directive .................................................... 34 

4.14  Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures .............. 35 

5. Consideration of climate change ........................................................................................... 36 

5.1 

Specific measures to address expected effects of climate change .............................. 36 

5.2  Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate change .......... 37 

6. Cost-benefit analysis ............................................................................................................. 38 

6.1  Good practices and areas for further development ...................................................... 39 

7. 

 Governance including administrative arrangements, public information and consultation . 
 ........................................................................................................................................... 41 

7.1  Competent authorities ................................................................................................. 41 

7.2 

Public information and consultation ........................................................................... 41 

7.3  Active involvement of Stakeholders ........................................................................... 43 

7.4 

Effects of consultation ................................................................................................. 44 

7.5 

Strategic Environmental Assessment .......................................................................... 46 

7.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding Governance ................. 46 

Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures ......................................................... 47 

Background & method ........................................................................................................... 47 

Types of measures used in reporting ...................................................................................... 48 

List of Annex A tables & figures ........................................................................................... 49 

Measures overview ................................................................................................................. 50 

Measure details: cost .............................................................................................................. 52 

Measure details: name & location .......................................................................................... 53 

2 

 
 
 
Measure details: objectives .................................................................................................... 54 

Measure details: authorities .................................................................................................... 56 

Measure details: progress ....................................................................................................... 58 

Measure details: other ............................................................................................................ 61 

Annex B: Definitions of measure types .................................................................................... 63 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM) .................................................. 64 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
Acronyms 

APSFR 
CBA 
EEA 
FD 
FHRM 
FRMP 
NGO 
NWRM 
PFRA 
PoM 
RBD 
RBMP 
SEA 
UoM 
WFD 
WISE 

Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk 
Cost-Benefit Analysis 
European Environment Agency 
Floods Directive 
Flood Hazard and Risk Map 
Flood Risk Management Plan 
Non-Governmental Organisation 
Natural Water Retention Measures 
Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments 
Programme of Measures 
River Basin District 
River Basin Management Plan 
Strategic Environmental Assessment 
Unit of Management 
Water Framework Directive 
Water Information System for Europe 

4 

 
 
 
 
Introduction 

The  Floods  Directive  (FD)  (2007/60/EC)  requires  each  Member  State  (MS)  to  assess  its 

territory  for  significant  risk  from  flooding,  to  map  the  flood  extent,  identify  the  potential 
adverse  consequences  of  future  floods  for  human  health,  the  environment,  cultural  heritage 

and economic activity in these areas, and to take adequate and coordinated measures to reduce 
this  flood  risk.  By  the  end  of  2011,  Member  States  were  to  prepare  Preliminary  Flood  Risk 

Assessments (PFRAs) to identify the river basins and coastal areas at risk of flooding (Areas 
of  Potential  Significant  Flood  Risk  –  APSFRs).  By  the  end  of  2013,  Flood  Hazard  &  Risk 

Maps  (FHRMs)  were  to  be  drawn  up  for  such  areas.  On  this  basis,  Member  States  were  to 
prepare Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) by the end of 2015.  

This  report  assesses  the  FRMPs  for  Poland1.  Its  structure  follows  a  common  assessment 
template used for all Member States. The report draws on two main sources:   

  Member State reporting to the European Commission on the FRMPs2 as per Articles 7 
and 15 of the FD: this reporting provides an overview of the plans and details on their 
measures 

  The  review  covered  the  three  FRMPs  prepared  in  Poland,  for  the  three  Units  of 
Management  (UoMs)  where  APSFRs  have  been  identified:  Vistula  (Wisła  in  Polish, 
PL2000), Oder (Odra, PL6000) and Pregolya (Pregoła, PL7000). 

2 

1   The  present Member State assessment reports reflect  the  situation as reported by each  Member State to the 
Commission in  2016 or 2017 and  with reference to FRMPs prepared earlier. The situation in the MSs  may 
have altered since then. 
 Referred to as “Reporting Sheets” throughout this report. Data must be reported in a clear and consistent way 
by  all  Member  States.  The  format  for  reporting  was  jointly  elaborated  by  the  Member  States  and  the 
Commission as part of a collaborative process called the “Common Implementation Strategy”: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/objectives/implementation_en.htm  
Whereas  a  key  role  of  the  Commission  is  to  check  compliance  with  EU  legislation,  the  Commission  also 
seeks  information  to  allow  it  to  determine  whether  existing  policies  are  adequate.  It  also  requires  certain 
information to create a European-wide picture to inform the public. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Overview 

Figure 1 

 Map of Units of Management/River Basin Districts 

  International River Basin Districts (within European Union) 
  International River Basin Districts (outside European Union) 
  National River Basin Districts (within European Union) 
  Countries (outside European Union) 
  Coastal Waters 

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) as presented in the 2012 RBMP assessment reports 

Poland  has  designated  10  Units  of  Management  (UoMs)  under  the  Floods  Directive  (FD), 

which  are  equivalent  to  the  River  Basin  Districts  (RBDs)  designated  under  the  Water 
Framework Directive (WFD). Areas of potentially significant flood risk (APSFRs) have been 

identified  in  only  three  UoMs,  and  Poland  has  developed  three  FRMPs  for  these  UoMs: 
Vistula (Wisła,  PL2000), Oder (Odra, PL6000) and Pregolya (Pregoła, PL7000). According 

6 

0100200kmPL2000PL6000CZ_5000LT1100DE5000SK40000CZ_1000PL7000SE4CZ_6000DE6000DE9650PL8000SK30000DK3CZ_6000PL1000PL9000PL4000PL3000PL5000PL6700PLRUBYUABaltic Sea 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
to  the  information  in  FRMPs,  these  three  UoMs  cover  99.5  %  of  the  country.  All  FRMPs 
follow the same approach, often with the same wording across the FRMPs. 

The  FRMPs  were  adopted  via  a  decree  of  Council  of  Ministers  on  18  October  2016.  The 

FRMP for the Vistula was published on 15 November 2016, while the other two FRMPs were 
published on 7 November 2016 (Pregolya) and 1 December 2016 (Oder).  

The table below gives an overview of all UoMs in Poland, including the UoM code, the name, 

and the number of APSFRs reported. It also shows if documents were reported for each UoM 
to  European  Environment  Agency’s  (EEA)  WISE3  –  the  FRMP  as  a  PDF  and  the  reporting 
sheet as an XML.  

Table 1 

Overview of UoMs in Poland 

UoM 

Names 

PL1000 

PL2000 

PL3000 

PL4000 

PL5000 

PL6000 

PL6700 

PL7000 

PL8000 

PL9000 

Total 

DANUBE 

VISTULA 

SWIEZA 

JARFT 

ELBE 

ODER 

UCKER 

PREGOLYA 

NEMUNAS 

DNIESTER 

10 

Number of 
APSFRs 
- 

166 

- 

- 

- 

101 

- 

1 

- 

- 

268 

XML Reported 

PDF Reported 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

3 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

3 

The FRMPs can be downloaded from the following web pages: 

  The FRMP for the Vistula: http://www.dziennikustaw.gov.pl/du/2016/1841/1 

  The FRMP for the Oder: http://www.dziennikustaw.gov.pl/DU/2016/1938 

  The FRMP for the Pregolya: http://www.dziennikustaw.gov.pl/du/2016/1813/1 

3  http://rod.eionet.europa.eu/obligations/603/deliveries?id=603&tab=deliveries&d-4014547-p=1&d-4014547-

o=2&d-4014547-s=3  

7 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Overview of the assessment 

The  table  below  gives  an  overview  of  the  evidence  found  during  the  assessment  of  the 

FRMPs. The following categorisation was used for the column concerning evidence: 

  Evidence to the contrary: An explicit statement was found stating that the criterion was 

not met; 

  No evidence: No information found to indicate that the criterion was met; 

  Some evidence: Reference to the criterion is brief and vague, without a clear indication 
of  the  approach  used  for  the  criterion.  Depending  on  the  comment  in  the  adjacent 
column, “some evidence” could also be construed as “weak evidence”.  

  Strong  evidence:  Clear  information  provided,  describing  an  approach  followed  in  the 

FRMP to address the criterion. 

Table 2 

Overview of the evidence found during the assessment of the FRMPs 

Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

FRM objectives have been 
established  

Strong 
evidence 

FRM objectives relate to...  

...the reduction of potential 
adverse consequences  

Strong 
evidence 

All three of Poland’s FRMPs set three main groups of 
objectives (with more detailed objectives for each): 1. 
Halting any increase in the risk of flooding, 2. 
Reducing existing flood risk, 3. Improvement to the 
management system for floods (including awareness). 
The Vistula and Odra UoMs set out further objectives 
for areas at risk from seawater floods.  

The FRMPs state that the overall goal of Poland’s 
objectives and measures is to reduce the potential 
negative effects of flooding on human health, the 
environment, cultural heritage and economic activity 

...to the reduction of the 
likelihood of flooding  

Some evidence  The objectives call for reducing flood risk, which is 

understood to nominally at least include the likelihood 
of flooding. The objectives moreover aim, among 
others, to increase the retention capacity of catchments 
and address development in flood risk areas, initiatives 
that reduce the likelihood of flooding. 

The third main objective group refers specifically to 
non-structural initiatives, calling for improvement to 
the management system for floods (including 
awareness)  

...to non-structural initiatives  Strong 

evidence 

FRM objectives consider relevant potential adverse consequences to...   

8 

 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

Some evidence  

Some evidence  The FRMPs state that the overall goal of the objectives 
and measures is to reduce the potential negative effects 
of flooding on human health, the environment, cultural 
heritage and economic activity (Sections 3 and 4 of 
each FRMP).  

Some evidence  

Some evidence  

...human health  

...economic activity  

...environment  

...cultural heritage  

Measures have been...  

...identified  

Strong 
evidence  

Poland has reported 2 429 individual measures and no 
aggregated measures. The number of measures per 
UoM ranges from 47 (for the Pregolya UoM, PL7000) 
to 2 033 (for the Vistula UoM, PL2000). The measures 
cover all four measure aspects – prevention, 
protection, preparedness and recovery and review – 
though 87 % of all measures are for protection. 

The measures are linked to the objectives. 

In its reporting to WISE, Poland has indicated for each 
measure one of three levels of priority: critical, very 
high, high. About 80 % of measures are indicated as 
very high priority.  

The FRMPs instead list each measure as having high, 
moderate or low priority.  

...prioritised  

Strong 
evidence  

Relevant aspects of Article 7 have been taken into account such as...  

...costs & benefits  

...flood extent  

...flood conveyance  

...water retention  

Strong 
evidence  

Strong 
evidence  

Strong 
evidence  

Strong 
evidence  

The three FRMPs and Poland’s reporting sheets refer 
to cost benefit as a criterion for the establishment of 
priorities for the selection of measures. It appears that 
CBA was used to compare alternative “scenarios” of 
measures.  

The FRMPs state that the extent and conveyance of 
flood, as well as areas with potential flood water 
retention, were included in the FRMPs via a detailed 
analysis of the spatial distribution of flood hazard and 
risk and potential losses based on flood hazard maps 
and flood risk maps, using data on historical floods. 

As noted above, the flood conveyance was indicated in 
the FRMPs, addressed via the spatial analysis of 
floods.  

Increasing retention capacity is included among the 
specific objectives, and natural water retention 
measures are planned in all three FRMPs in Poland. 
Examples of measures include the development of a 

9 

 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...environmental objectives 
of the WFD  

Strong 
evidence  

...spatial planning/land use   Strong 

evidence  

list of potential locations for increasing natural 
retention in areas outside cities and within urban areas 
and measures to increase forest water retention. 
Poland’s reporting sheets, as mentioned above, 
indicate that an analysis of potential flood water 
retention was carried out for the FRMPs.  

The analysis of planning scenarios included the 
environmental acceptability of methods in the context 
of environmental requirements, inter alia Article 4.7 of 
the Water Framework Directive. 

Poland’s three FRMPs introduce a broad range of 
spatial planning and land use measures. Examples 
include: the elaboration of legal acts that introduce 
principles to govern development in flood risk areas; 
and analysis of the possibility of removal, change of 
use and modernization of facilities located in specific 
flood zones, along with the analysis of purchase 
options for land and buildings located in specific flood 
zones.  

...nature conservation  

...navigation/port 
infrastructure  

Strong 
evidence  

Measures considering nature conservation are planned 
in the three UoMs, in particular for the re-
naturalisation of river valleys and their wetlands. 

Some evidence  All three FRMPs assessed make a brief reference that 
they shall take into consideration navigation and port 
infrastructure, but specific details are not provided. 

...likely impact of climate 
change  

Strong 
evidence  

Climate change was considered in all three FRMPs, 
which provide information on potential climate 
impacts and on adaptation measures, including under 
Poland’s Climate Adaptation Strategy. 

Coordination with other 
countries ensured in the 
RBD/UoM  

Some evidence  The FRMPs indicate that coordination was carried out 
in particular via international river basin commissions. 
Bilateral water agreements are also mentioned, but 
details of bilateral coordination are not provided.4 

4  Poland subsequently informed that the countries in the Oder, Vistula and Pregolya river basins were informed 
about  the  progress  of  work  on  the  Polish  FRMPs  during  the  river  commission  meetings.  The  International 
Commission for the Protection of the Odra River against Pollution (http://www.mkoo.pl/index.php?lang=EN) 
developed the International Flood Risk Management Plan for Oder in 2015. The working group "Flood” (G2) 
was organised by this Commission to coordinate inter alia tasks related to implementation of the FD and to 
inform  on  the  implementation  of  strategically  significant  cross-border  activities  in  the  field  of  flood  risk 
management,  in  particular  the  actions  contained  in  the  International  Flood  Risk  Management  Plan  for  the 
Oder. 

10 

 
 
                                                 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

Coordination ensured with 
WFD  

Strong 
evidence  

Active involvement of 
interested parties  

Strong 
evidence  

Joint consultation of RBMPs and FRMPs was carried 
out, along with coordination between authorities 
responsible for developing FRMPs and RBMPs, 
coordination with the environmental objectives in Art. 
4 of the WFD. 

Stakeholders were actively involved via planning 
teams, planning groups at steering committees across 
different levels of governance, including catchment 
level, water regions and UoMs.   

Good Practices 

The assessment identified the following good practices in the Polish FRMPs assessed. 

Table 3 

Good practices in the Polish FRMPs 

Topic area 

Setting objectives 

Good practices identified 

The  process  for  setting  objectives 
stakeholders. 

included  discussions  with 

The  FRMPs  identify  indicators  to  monitor  the  achievement  of  the 
three objectives. 

Planning/implementing of 
measures and their 
prioritization for the 
achievement of objectives. 

Estimated costs are provided for all measures in the three UoMs and 
information is provided on potential sources of funding.  

All  three  FRMPs  include  measures  for  spatial  planning,  for  natural 
water retention and for nature protection. 

The  FRMPs  describe  an  articulated  system  for  monitoring  the 
implementation of measures. 

Consideration of climate 
change in the FRMPs 
assessed.  

The three FRMPs refer to Poland’s  Climate Adaptation Strategy and 
to measures developed under it (though details on these measures are 
not provided). 

The  three  FRMPs  provide  information  from  studies  and  models  to 
indicate the potential impacts of climate change on flooding. 

A detailed system of cost benefit analysis was used to assess the 
efficiency of individual planning scenarios. 

Use of cost-benefit 
analysis (CBA) in the 
FRMPs assessed.  

11 

 
 
 
Topic area 

Public participation.  

Good practices identified 

A  broad  consultation  process  was  carried  out,  and  several  various 
mechanisms  were  used  to  inform  the  public  and  interested  parties 
about the consultation, including print and internet advertising and a 
film trailer shown in cinemas. The consultation process was initiated 
from the first stage of FRMP development.  

A  dedicated  website  was  created  where  all  the  relevant  information 
was stored, including the results of the consultation.  

A broad range of mechanisms was used for the active involvement of 
stakeholders,  including  planning  groups  and  steering  committees  at 
different levels and a national stakeholder conference.  

The effects of consultations are summarised in the FRMPs.  

Areas for further development  

The  assessment  identified  the  following  areas  for  further  development  in  the  Polish  FRMPs 
assessed. 

Table 4 

Areas for further development in the Polish FRMPs 

Topic area 

Areas identified for further development 

Integration of previously 
reported information in the 
FRMPs. 

Planning/implementation 
of measures and their 
prioritization for the 
achievement of objectives.  

Consideration of climate 
change in the FRMPs 
assessed.  

Use of CBA in the FRMPs 
assessed.  

Flood hazard and risk mapping was still on going during the first 
cycle to cover the outstanding areas at risk. 

The process for the prioritisation of measures is not clearly presented 
in the FRMP. 

It is not clear to what extent the analysis of climate change was 
integrated into the objectives and measures of the FRMPs5.  

It is not explained whether the scenarios covered by CBA included all 
measures6.  
The FRMPs do not consider transboundary effects of measures7.  

5   Poland subsequently noted that climate change was taken into consideration in the analysis of social costs and 
benefits (social CBA) conducted  in the process of formulation and evaluation of planning variants and that 
detailed objectives take into account the impact of climate change, especially in relation to spatial planning 

and water retention. 

6  Poland  clarified  subsequently  that  the  scenarios  covered  by  CBA  included  all  the  proposed  measures.  An 
intermediate report (all background documents are on powodz.gov.pl) included a list of measures of strategic 
character  to  be  implemented  in  the  first  planning  cycle  with  the  assumptions  and  the  results  of  a  CBA  for 

12 

 
 
 
                                                 
Topic area 

Areas identified for further development 

International issues in 
flood risk management.  

The FRMPs provide little information on coordination, in particular at 
the bilateral level. 

Recommendations 

Based on the reported information and the FRMPs, the following recommendations are made 
to enhance flood risk management (not listed in any particular order): 

  Conclusions from the finalised flood  hazard and risk mapping of the first cycle should 

inform the second cycle PFRA, FHRM and FRMP steps. 

  CBA should consider possible transboundary effects of measures.  

  The process for prioritisation of measures should be clearly explained in the FRMP. 

  Climate  change  should  be  further  integrated  into  the  objectives  and  measures  of  the 

FRMPs. 

  The FRMPs should provide more information on international coordination.  

these  measures. In the same report a list of all the  measures envisaged in “hot-spots”  is  presented, together 
with the assumptions and the results of a CBA for these measures. 

7  Poland informed subsequently that as part of the FRMP, an analysis was made of planned projects taking into 
account the possibility of impact on the basins of neighbouring countries. In the area of the Odra, Vistula and 
Pregolya  river  basins,  no  measures  are  planned  in  the  first  cycle  that  could  have  a  cross-border  impact. 
However, according to the Environmental Impact Assessment of the Odra FRMP, the implementation of the 
measures could, potentially, have significant environmental effects in neighbouring countries. primarily in the 
Federal  Republic  of  Germany  on  the  Oder  border  section.  The  potential  impact  on  the  environment  in  the 
Czech Republic is assessed as not significant. Detailed analysis of projects, including the possibility of cross-
border impacts, will be done at the stage of granting environmental permits. Investments are also discussed 
within  the  framework  of  international  cooperation,  inter  alia  within  the  International  Commission  for  the 
Protection  of  the  Odra  River  against  Pollution  (http://www.mkoo.pl/index.php?mid=23&lang=EN).  The 
Commission  developed  a  FRMP  for  the  international  part  of  the  Odra  basin.  The  plan  is  available  on  the 
MKOOpZ website in three languages: 
http://www.mkoo.pl/show.php?fid=5798&lang=pl  
http://www.mkoo.pl/show.php?fid=5113&lang=DE  
http://www.mkoo.pl/show.php?fid=4828&lang=CZ  
In  the  case  of  the  Vistula  river  basin,  the  Bug  border  is  the  only  sensitive  area  where  the  possibility  of 
environmental  effects  outside  Poland  should  be  taken  into  account.  According  to  the  final  results  of  the 
FRMP  analysis,  in  the  current  planning  cycle  for  the  Bug  border  catchment,  only  the  implementation  of 
concepts and analysis is expected, which will not have negative effects on the environment. 
In the first planning period in the Pregolya River basin, due to the lack of technical measures, there will be no 
impacts  and  environmental  effects  in  relation  to  individual  strategic  environmental  protection  objectives. 
Cross-border impacts will therefore also not occur. 
http://www.kzgw.gov.pl/files/pzrp/PZRP_II_SOOS_Dorzecze_Odry.pdf  
http://www.kzgw.gov.pl/files/pzrp/PZRP_II_SOOS__prognoza_dla_dorzecza_Wisly.pdf  
http://www.kzgw.gov.pl/files/pzrp/PZRP_II_SOOS__prognoza_dla_dorzecza_Pregoly.pdf   

13 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.   Scope of the assessment and sources of information for the 

assessment 

1.1 

Reporting of the FRMPs 

Poland has prepared FRMPs at the level of its UoMs. Poland has reported three FRMPs for the 
three UoMs where APSFRs were designated: Vistula (PL2000), Oder (PL6000) and Pregolya 

(PL7000). There is one FRMP covering each entire UoM. These three UoMs cover about 99.5 
% of the country’s territory. 

Water management in Poland is also carried out at catchment level and water region level. The 

Vistula and Odra UoMs are each divided into four water regions, managed by Regional Water 
Management Boards. For the Vistula UoM, these regions are the Little Vistula, Upper Vistula, 

Central Vistula and Lower Vistula; for the Odra UoM, the regions are the Upper Oder, Central 
Oder, Warta Region and Lower Oder and West Borders Region. 

Poland did not make use of Article 13.3 of the Floods Directive, which allows Member States 
to make use of previous flood risk management plans (provided their content is equivalent to 

the requirements set out in the Directive). 

1.2 

Assessment of the FRMPs 

In Poland, river basin districts (RBDs)/UoMs are managed at a national level. These ten UoMs 
are: 

Table 5 

UoMs in Poland 

UoM 

PL1000 

PL2000 

PL3000 

PL4000 

PL5000 

PL6000 

PL6700 

PL7000 

PL8000 

PL9000 

Total 

Names 

DANUBE 

VISTULA 

SWIEZA 

JARFT 

ELBE 

ODER 

UCKER 

PREGOLYA 

NEMUNAS 

DNIESTER 

10 

Note: the UoMs for which the FRMPs have been developed are marked in bold 

14 

 
 
All  FRMPs  follow  the  same  approach,  using  the  same  methods  developed  at  national  level 
(and in some places with similar wording) across the three FRMPs. 

15 

 
 
 
2.   Integration of previously reported information 

2.1 

Conclusions  drawn  from  the  preliminary  flood  risk  assessment 
(PFRA) 

All three FRMPs provide the conclusions of the PFRA8, including a map of the UoM with the 
areas of potential significant flood risk (APSFRs). The APSFRs are described in the text and 
shown on the map9.  

Links to online maps of the APSFRs have been provided in all the FRMPs: specifically, a link 

to  the  national  floods  web  portal  (www.powodz.gov.pl)  that  provides  flood  hazard  and  risk 
maps (FHRMs)10.  

Conveyance routes  are mentioned the FRMPs11 among the information  to be reported to  the 
European  Commission.  No  further  details  are  found  in  the  FRMPs.  In  Poland’s  reporting 
sheets, it is stated that the extent and conveyance of flood as well as areas with potential flood 

water retention were included in the FRMP via a detailed analysis of the spatial distribution of 
flood  hazard  and  risk  and  potential  losses  based on  flood  hazard  maps  and  flood  risk  maps, 
using data on historical floods12. 

The  prior  assessment  of  Poland’s  APSFR  found  that  fluvial  and  seawater  flooding  was 
significant13 14. 

8  Section 1 of each FRMP 
9  Vistula  FRMP  -  ROZPORZĄDZENIE  RADY  MINISTRÓW  z  dnia  18  października  2016  r.  w  sprawie 

przyjęcia Planu zarządzania ryzykiem powodziowym dla obszaru dorzecza Wisły, p. 23.  

  Oder  FRMP  -  ROZPORZĄDZENIE  RADY  MINISTRÓW  z  dnia  18  października  2016  r.  w  sprawie 

przyjęcia Planu zarządzania ryzykiem powodziowym dla obszaru dorzecza Odry, p. 21.  
Pregola  FRMP  -  ROZPORZĄDZENIe  RADY  MINISTRÓW  z  dnia  18  października  2016  r.  w  sprawie 
przyjęcia Planu zarządzania ryzykiem powodziowym dla obszaru dorzecza Pregoły, p.13. 

10  This  portal  is  divided  into  two  planning  cycles  –  the  first  cycle  (2013)  and  the  cycle,  now  in  preparation 

(revised PFRA due in 2018 and revised FHRMs in 2019). 

11  Section 5 of each FRMP. 
12  Vistula FRMP; Oder FRMP; Pregolya FRMP; reporting sheets for Oder, Vistula and Pregolya. 
13  European Commission, Assessment of data and information reported by Member States on their Preliminary 
Flood  Risk  Assessments  and  identification  of  Areas  of  Potentially  Significant  Flood  Risk  under  the  Floods 
Directive: Member State Report: Poland. Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/pfra_reports/PFRA%20Report%20-%20PL.pdf  

14  Poland  subsequently  clarified  that  the  significance  of  other  types  of  floods  (including  those  from  pluvial, 
groundwater  and  artificial  water  bearing  infrastructure  sources)  is  associated  with  the  occurrence  of  flood 
risks from rivers or the sea. Therefore, they have not been identified as a separate type of significant flood, for 
which  separate  flood  hazard  maps  should  be  made.  In  the  second  planning  cycle,  maps  for  other  types  of 
floods indicated in the (updated in 2018) preliminary flood risk assessment will be created, if the significance 
of other types of floods is confirmed. 

16 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
2.1.1  Coordination with neighbouring Member States on shared RBDs/UoMs 

Section 8 of the FRMPs describes international coordination, noting that this is led in Poland 
by  the  National  Water  Management  Board.  The  working  groups  of  international  river  basin 

commissions  are listed together with  an overview of their  activities for  both  the FD  and the 
WFD. The Oder FRMP notes, for example, that Working Group G2 for the international Oder 

RBD/UoM  works  on  floods  and  had  an  input  to  the  draft  FRMP.  The  Vistula  and  Pregolya 
FRMPs also describe cooperation on transboundary river basins15. 

2.1.2  Information how the PFRA was used in the development of the FHR maps 

The FRMPs note that the flood hazard and flood risk maps were prepared for areas identified 

in  the  PFRA;  however,  they  do  not  provide  further  information  regarding  links  between  the 
FHRMs and the PFRA16 17. 

2.2 

Presentation  of  Flood  Hazard  and  Risk  Maps  (FHRMs)  in  the 
FRMPs 

All three FRMPs provide summary FHRMs as well as links to online flood hazard and flood 

risk maps (on the web portal cited above, www.powodz.gov.pl) 

The flood risk and hazard maps are presented in the appendices to the FRMPs for the whole 
UOM,  divided  into  smaller  regions  for  the  Vistula  and  Oder  UoMs  to  make  them  easier  to 

read. This web portal contains some maps for Poland as a whole, information related to maps 
and  flood  risk  and  hazard  areas.  The  portal  also  contains  a  link  to  a  separate  platform  with 

detailed maps, http://mapy.isok.gov.pl. Flood risk and hazard maps cover fluvial floods. The 
FHRMs  for  the  Oder  and  Vistula  UoMs  also  cover  seawater  floods.  The  FRMPs  refer  to 
pluvial floods, but these are not indicated on the summary FHRMs18.  

15  Section 8 of these two FRMPs. 
16  Section 2 of Vistula FRMP; Oder FRMP; Pregola FRMP. 
17  Poland  subsequently  clarified  that  this  information  is  found  in  separate  reports.  A  description  of  the 
relationship  between  PFRA  and  FHRMs  can  be  found  in  the  Report  on  the  implementation  of  FHRMs 
(http://www.isok.gov.pl/dane/web_articles_files/2783/raport-z-wykonania-map-zagrozenia-powodziowego-i-
map-ryzyka-powodziowego-v-1.01.pdf). The Report on the analysis and diagnosis of problems in flood risk 
management provides the basis for the development  of the FRMP chapters about FHRMs together with the 
source of detailed numerical data presented in the tables.  

18  As noted above, Poland subsequently clarified that the significance of other types of floods (including those 
from  pluvial,  groundwater  and  artificial  water  bearing  infrastructure  sources)  is  associated  with  the 
occurrence of flood risks from rivers or the sea. Therefore, they have not been identified as a separate type of 
significant flood, for which separate flood hazard maps should be made. 

17 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.2.1  Maps for shared flood risk areas 

Maps in the FRMPs for the Vistula UoM19 and the Oder UoM20 indicate APSFRs on Poland’s 
borders.  The  FRMPs  do  not,  however,  clearly  state  if  any  APSFRs  are  shared  with  other 

Member  States,  nor  whether  any  joint  FHRMs  were  prepared.  The  FRMPs  indicate  that 
international co-operation is based on international conventions and bilateral agreements21, 22.  

19  p.325  
20  p.160  
21  For the Vistula international RBD/UoM basin, key bilateral agreements are:  

  Agreement  between  the  Government  of  the  Republic  of  Poland  and  the  Government  of  the  Slovak 

Republic on water management in border waters (1997);  

  Agreement  between  the  Government  of  the  Republic  of  Poland  and  the  Government  of  Ukraine  on 

cooperation in the field of water management on border waters (1996); 

  Agreement between the Polish Ministry of the Environment and the Belarusian Committee on Ecology for 

cooperation in the field of environmental protection (1992);  

  Agreement between the Government of  the Republic of Poland and the Government of the  Republic of 

Lithuania on cooperation in the field of use and protection of border waters (2005).  
In the Pregolya RBD:  

  The 2005 agreement with Lithuania; 
  Agreements between the Government of the Polish People's Republic and the Government of the Union of 

Soviet Socialist Republics on water management in border waters (1964).  
In the Oder basin:  

  Agreement  between  Poland  and  Germany  on  cooperation  in  the  field  of  water  management  in  border 

waters (1992);  

  Agreement  between  the  Government  of  the  Republic  of  Poland  and  the  Government  of  the  Czech 

Republic on cooperation at border waters in the field of water management (2015). 

  Additionally,  the  International  Commission  for  the  Protection  of  the  Odra  River  against  Pollution 

coordinates activities within the Odra basin. 

22  Poland subsequently stated that information about border APSFRs and FHRMs is shared among others in the 
International River Basin District of the Oder, in accordance with Article 8 paragraph 2 in conjunction with 
Article 7 of the Floods Directive. 

  During  the  development  of  FRMP,  international  cooperation  was  carried  out,  inter  alia  within  the 
International  Commission 
Pollution 
(http://www.mkoo.pl/index.php?mid=23&lang=EN). The International Commission for the Protection of the 
Odra  River  against  Pollution  developed  a  flood  risk  management  plan  in  the  international  area  of  the  Odra 
basin (concerning  international coordination in accordance  with  Article 8, paragraph 2 in connection to the 
article 7 of Directive 2007/60/EC).  

the  Odra  River 

Protection 

against 

the 

for 

of 

  The results of Poland’s FRMP were also included in the FRMP developed for the International River Basin 
District of the Oder, in accordance with Article 8 paragraph 2 in conjunction with Article 7 of the Directive. 
Under  the  international  commission,  the  "Flood"  working  group  (G2)  was  created,  whose  task  was  and  is: 
Coordination of tasks related to the implementation the Floods Directive; ensuring the exchange of relevant 
information  between  Member  States  for  verification  and  possible  updating  of  the  preliminary  flood  risk 
assessment; coordination of verification and possible updating of specific areas with potential significant risk 
of flooding; ensuring the exchange of information during verification and possible updating of flood hazard 
and flood risk maps; information on the implementation of strategically significant, cross-border activities in 
the field of flood risk management, in particular measures included in the international flood risk management 
Plan  for  the  Oder  and  coordination  of  verification  and  possible  updating  of  the  international  flood  risk 
management Plan for the Oder. In addition, initiating the development of common models that can be used at 
the cross-border level to optimize flood protection measures and exchange of information with other working 
groups and institutions dealing with flood issues; cooperation with non-governmental organisations operating 
in the Oder basin. 

  The  FRMP  describes  conventions  and  agreements  according  to  which  international  cooperation  is 
implemented, describes the competences of the President of KZGW in this respect as at the end of 2015. The 
competences  of  individual  working  groups  in  the  field  of  international  cooperation  have  been  described  in 

18 

 
 
                                                 
 
 
2.2.2  Conclusions drawn from the flood hazard and flood risk maps 

The three FRMPs state that the analysis of FHRMs was used to plan measures23. The FHRMs 
were  also  available  in  the  public  participation  process  for  the  FRMPs  (via  the  portal, 

http://mapy.isok.gov.pl/imap/).  

2.3 

Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas 

The FRMP assessment looked for information on changes in the identification of APSFRs or 
since December 2011, or in the FHRMs since December 2013, indicated in the FRMP24. The 
three FRMPs do not indicate that Poland’s APSFRs have been updated since 2013, however, 
the  last  time  documents  were  submitted  to  the  European  Commission  on  the  topic  was  in 

2016.  

The FRMPs refer to changes in the identification of flood hazards and risks: a verification of 
the FHRMs was carried out in 2014 and the FRMPs were based on maps that were updated in 
2014 following this verification25. The FRMPs explain that the flood hazard maps published in 
December 2013 were prepared based on a terrain model validated for the years 2011-2013. In 

2014,  the  flood  hazard  maps  were  reviewed  in  connection  to  comments  made  by 
administrative authorities and other stakeholders, concerning inter alia, the fact that the maps 

did not include infrastructure and property investments completed later than the acquisition of 
the  digital  terrain  model.  In  the  period  from  22  December  2014  to  22  June  2015,  further 

comments  of  administrative  authorities  were  received  regarding  needs  to  include  flood  risk 
and  the  methodology  used  in  the  development  of  maps  (including  for  maps  for  seawater 

flooding in terms of wavelengths). To meet these expectations, a further scenario (called zero) 
was prepared26 for the FRMPs, containing updated ranges of flood risk areas in relation to the 
areas indicated in the FHRMs (these were forwarded to Poland’s administrative authorities in 
April 2015). 

detail,  in  particular  with  Ukraine,  Slovakia,  Germany,  the  Czech  Republic  and  Lithuania.  The  detailed 
activities of the working groups are adequately described in the minutes of the meetings. 
Information  on  international  cooperation  was  also  included  in  the  documentations  under  the  Strategic 
Environmental Impact Assessment procedure carried out for the FRMP. 

23  Section 2 of the FRMPs. 
24  Poland clarified that after 2013 there was no review of the maps; however, during the public consultation of 
the FRMPs there were comments and remarks sent to the KZGW which led to some minor corrections. The 
PFRA was not updated after 2013. 

25  Section 2 of the FRMPs. 
26  Section 2 of the Vistula FRMP; Oder FRMP; Pregolya FRMP. 

19 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
 
2.4 

Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the flood 
hazard and risk maps 

The  2015  FHRM  assessment27  identified  the  following  area  for  further  development  for 
Poland:  

  Maps for about 70 % of potentially significant flood risk areas in Poland still have to be 

produced. Maps seem to cover areas around major rivers.28   

  No  APSFRs  were  reported  in  PL1000,  PL3000,  PL4000  and  PL6700.  Poland  has 
subsequently  indicated  this  was  because  there  were  no  data  on  historical  flooding,  so 

they  were  not  considered  to  be  at  risk  of  future  flooding.  It  was  not  clear  if  possible 
climate change and future socio-economic scenarios were considered.  

None of these areas for further development have been explicitly addressed in the time period 
between the publication of the FHRMs and the assessment of the FRMPs29.  

2.5  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  in  the  FRMPs 

regarding integration of previously reported information 

The following area for further development was identified: 

  Flood hazard and risk mapping appeared to be on going during the first cycle to cover 
the remaining areas  at  risk.  Conclusions from the finalised mapping should inform  the 

second cycle PFRA, FHRM and FRMP steps.  

27  European  Commission,  Assessment  of  Flood  Hazard  and  Flood  Risk  Maps  –  Member  State  Report:  PL  – 

Poland, December 2014. Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/fhrm_reports/PL%20FHRM%20Report.pdf  

28  Poland  clarified  subsequently  that  due  to  the  specific  timing  stemming  from  the  FD,  it  was  not  possible  to 
cover the whole territory in the first cycle, nevertheless, prioritisation that took into account historical floods 
and  climate  change  took  place.  Any  remaining  areas  are  planned  to  be  addressed  in  the  2nd  cycle  of 
implementation of the FD. 

29   Poland  noted  subsequently  that  there  is  no  requirement  in  the  FD  to  update  e.g.  the  FHRMs  of  one  cycle 

within the timeframe of the very same cycle. 

20 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
3. Setting of Objectives 

3.1 

Focus of objectives 

For  all  three  UoMs,  Poland’s  reporting  sheets  and  the  FRMPs  themselves30  list  three  main 
groups of objectives, along with more detailed objectives for each group:  

1.  Halting any increase in the risk of flooding: a) maintaining and increasing the existing 
retention  capacity  of  the  catchment  in  the  water  region,  b)  eliminating  or  avoiding 

development growth in areas of significant flood hazard, c) defining the conditions for 
possible development of areas protected by embankments, d) avoiding the growth of and 

defining the conditions for development in areas with low (Q 0.2 %) probability of flood 
occurrence; 

2.  Reducing  existing  flood  risk:  a)  limiting  existing  flood  hazard,  b)  limiting  existing 

development, c) limiting the sensitivity of facilities and communities to flood risk; 

3.  Improving  the  management  system  for  floods  (including  public  awareness):  a) 
improvement  of  forecasting  and  warning  system  (meteorology/hydrology),  b) 

improvement  of  the  effectiveness  of  response  of  the  public,  companies  and  public 
institutions to the flood, c) improvement of the effectiveness of reconstruction and return 

to the state before a flood, d) implementation and improvement of the effectiveness of 
post-flood  analyses,  e)  building  legal  and  financial  instruments  that  encourage 

behaviours  that  increase  flood  safety,  f)  building  educational  programs  that  improve 
awareness and knowledge about flood risk and hazard. 

The reporting sheets and FRMPs for the Vistula and Odra UoMs set out further objectives for 
areas at risk from seawater floods: a) Determining the conditions for the possible development 

of areas protected from risk of flood from the sea; b) Sustaining natural forms of protection of 
the  shore;  c)  Sustaining  existing  technical  forms  of  protection  of  the  shore;  d)  Analysis  of 

existing forms of shore/coast protection in the context of dynamic changes  in the area of the 
coastal belt along the entire length of the Polish coast.  

In  the  reporting  sheets,  the  objectives  are  linked  to  measure  types  recommended  for  the 

implementation to help achieve the main three groups of objectives. 

These objectives apply to the three Polish FRMPs. Consequently, in the FRMPs assessed31: 

  The objectives aim to reduce the adverse consequences of floods  

30  Section 3 of FRMPs on objectives. 
31  These categories are included in Art. 7 of the Floods Directive. 

21 

 
 
                                                 
  The objectives aim to reduce the likelihood of flooding32  
  The objectives refer to measures that will be implemented  
  The objectives refer to non-structural measures33  

3.2 

Specific and measurable objectives 

In  supporting  documents  to  Polish  FRMPs,  information  is  provided  on  locations  where  the 

objectives will be achieved (e.g. which APSFR and sometimes which UoM), in what way and 
by when they will be achieved. It is not specified, however, if this information is provided for 

every APSFR. Specific objectives have measures assigned to them (see section 4 below).  

While  the  objectives  themselves  do  not  contain  targets,  the  FRMPs  provide  common 
indicators to monitor the achievement of the three objectives. For example, Objectives 1 and 2 

are  to  be  monitored  using  several  indicators.  These  include  the  reductions,  as  a  result  of 
measures, in: 

  average value of annual flood losses; 

  number of inhabitants in areas of particular flood risk; 

  number of culturally valuable sites in areas of special flood risk  

3.3  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods 

The  FRMPs  state  that  the  overall  goal  of  Poland’s  objectives  and  measures  is  to  reduce  the 
potential negative effects of flooding on human health, the environment, cultural heritage and 

economic activity.  

3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding 

The  objectives  call  for  reducing  flood  risk,  which  is  understood,  by  definition  (but  not 

explicitly), to include the likelihood of flooding. The objectives moreover aim, among others, 
to increase the retention capacity of catchments and address development in flood risk areas, 

initiatives that both reduce the likelihood of flooding.  

3.5 

Process for setting the objectives  

The FRMPs indicate that the objectives were considered on the basis of the FHRMs as well as 
existing plans and programmes (such as the Master Plan for projects in the Vistula and Oder 

32  The assessment adopts the generally accepted definition of risk as a product of consequence times likelihood, 

thereby also in alignment with Art. 7(2) of the FD.  

33  Non-structural measures include measures such as flood forecasting and raising awareness of flooding as well 

as land use planning, economic instruments and insurance. 

22 

 
 
                                                 
basins, which includes flood protection projects) as well as Operational Programmes under EU 
Cohesion Policy. In addition, objectives were discussed with stakeholders. 

3.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting 

objectives 

The following good practices were identified: 

  The process for setting objectives included discussions with stakeholders.  

  The FRMPs identify indicators to monitor the achievement of the three objectives. 

23 

 
 
 
 
4. Planned measures for the achievement of objectives 

Poland has reported 2 429 individual measures and no aggregated34 measures35. As Poland has 
reported some measures under more than one aspect and type36, the total number of measures 
reported, including measures which have been allocated to more than one type, is 2 48437 (this 
implies double counting).  

The number of measures per UoM ranges from 47 (for the Pregolya UoM, PL7000) to 2 033 
(for  the  Vistula  UoM,  PL2000):  the  Vistula  UoM  thus  accounts  for  82  %  of  all  measures 

reported.  

The measures cover all four measure aspects: in total, 158 measures are for prevention (6 % of 

the total number of measures), 2 171 for protection (87 % of the total), 88 for preparedness (4 
%), and 67 for recovery and review (3 %). Thus, the great majority of all measures reported, 

87 %, are for protection.  

The shares vary among the three UoMs, however. Prevention measures make up 30 % of the 
total in the Pregolya UoM, while in the Oder and Vistula UoMs, the shares are significantly 

less (5 % and 6 %, respectively). The highest number of the protection measures is planned in 
the  Vistula  UoM  (91  %),  while  in  the  Oder  UoM  this  is  74  %  and  in  the  Pregolya,  30  %. 

Preparedness  measures  in  the  Vistula  UoM  constitute  1  %  of  the  total,  and  recovery  and 
review measures, 2 %. In the Oder UoM, 10 % of measures are for preparedness and 10 % for 

recovery and review. The share of the preparedness measures in the Pregolya UoM is 26 %, 
and recovery and review, 15 %. 

See Annex A for further details. 

34 The Reporting Guidance mentions “Measures can be reported as individual measures (recommended for major 
projects)  or  aggregated  measures,…”  and  also  notes  that  measures  may  be  comprised  of  “many  individual 
projects”. European Commission, Guidance for Reporting under the FD (2007/60/EC), 2013, pp. 54-58. 
35  The information reported to WISE was the starting point for the assessment in this section. The majority of 
the statistics presented are based on processing of information reported to WISE. Assuming that the Member 
States accurately transferred the information contained in their FRMPs to the reporting sheets (the sheets are 
the same for all Member States and are not customisable) and barring any undetected errors in the transfer of 
this information to WISE arising from the use of interfacing electronic tools, these statistics should reflect the 
content of the FRMPs. 

36  See Annex B for the list of measure aspects and types. 
37  This total implies double counting. 

24 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.1 

Cost of measures 

Table 6 

Estimated overall budget for the measures in the assessed FRMPs 

UoM code 

Estimated overall budget of planned measure/s (2015-2021) in PLN 

PL2000 

PL6000 

PL7000 

5 398.64 m  

6 245.15 m  

1.75 m  

Source: Reporting sheet and FRMPs 

Poland has reported the costs of its measures (see the table above). The total costs are about 
PLN  11  650  m    (approximately  EUR  2  800  m  ).  The  costs  of  single  measures  vary 

significantly: 79 % of measures will cost between PLN 50 000 (about EUR 11 700) and PLN 
500 000 (EUR 117 000) each; while 56 measures (2 %) are estimated to cost over PLN 100 m  

(EUR 24 m ) each.  

4.2 

Funding of measures 

The FRMPs summarise measures and their funding sources and in many cases are identified 
for specific projects. Funding sources include: the National and Regional Water Management 

Boards,  relevant  ministries,  local  authorities  and  water  and  sewerage  companies.  EU  and 
international  funds  are  also  mentioned;  however,  these  are  not  linked  to  specific  projects. 

Property owners are also specified as entities funding measures. The FRMPs also indicate that 
funds may be borrowed from development banks: they mention the World Bank, the Council 

of Europe Development Bank and the European Investment Bank; further information on the 
role of these banks is not provided, however.  

Table 7 

Funding of measures 

Distribution of costs among those groups affected by flooding  

PL2000 

PL6000 

PL7000 

Use of public budget (national level)  

Use of public budget (regional level)  

Use of public budget (local level)  

Private investment  

EU funds (generic)  

EU Structural funds  

EU Solidarity Fund  

EU Cohesion funds  

EU CAP funds  

International funds  

Other (development banks) * 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Note: * The FRMPs indicate that measures can also be funded using funds borrowed from 1) 
The World Bank; 2) the Council of Europe Development Bank; and 3) European Investment 

Bank. 

4.3  Measurable and specific (including location) measures 

The FRMPs assessed include a clear and explicit description of the measures with regard to:  

  What they are trying to achieve, 

  Where they are to be achieved, 

  How they are to be achieved, and 

  By when they are expected to be achieved. 

The location of measures is specified: for the Vistula and Oder FRMPs, measures are reported 
at the levels of the UoM, APSFR or other specific risk area or at the level of local authorities. 

Timescales  and  planning  cycles  for  implementation  are  given.  The  information  of  what  the 
project  covers,  costs,  who  is  responsible  including  the  locations  and  extent  (length).  The 

FRMPs summarise as well general types of measures applied in the UoM (e.g. technical, non-
technical).  Indicators  measuring  the  progress  of  the  implementation  of  measures  are  also 
provided38. While much of the information is  for  structural  measures, supporting documents 
summarise  non-technical  measures,  indicating  their  location  and  completion  times39. 
Information available for measures in the Pregolya UoM is, however, more limited.  

Table 8 

Location of measures  

International  

National  

RBD/UoM  

Sub-basin  

APSFR or other specific risk area  

Municipal level 

Water body level  

More detailed than water body 

Source: FRMPs 

PL2000 

PL6000 

PL7000 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

38  This information is provided in Section 4 and 5 of the FRMPs. 
39  For example, in Tables 13 to 16 of the supporting document for the Vistula FRMP. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.4  Measures and objectives 

The  FRMPs  link  measures  to  objectives  and  specific  objectives.  As  noted  in  section  3, 

however,  the  objectives  do  not  include  specific  targets  that  would  allow  an  indication  when 
measures implemented lead to the achievement of specific objectives. Nonetheless, details on 

the  measures  are  found  in  background  reports  available  on  the  national  flood  web  site 
(http://www.powodz.gov.pl/pl/biblio_view?id=2),  such  as  graphical  information  showing  the 

location of many specific projects and measures. There is also some explanation by how much 
many individual projects will contribute to  objectives:  for example, the expected increase in 

water retention on agricultural land. 

4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures 

In Poland’s reporting sheets, codes are provided for the location of all measures40. Poland did 
not report information for the geographical coverage of its measures. 

4.6 

Prioritisation of measures 

The FRMPs give the priority of groups of measures on a three-level scale, as: high, moderate 
and low priority41. The FRMPs indicate the methodology for prioritisation: this is linked to the 
achievement  of  objectives,  and  in  particular  on  identifying  and  addressing  sources  of 
excessive flood risk in given areas and reducing the risk of flooding. High priority measures 

should  be  carried  out  first  to  reduce  the  risk  of  flooding  as  quickly  as  possible;  moderate 
priority  measures  could  be  introduced  at  the  same  time  as  high  priorities  depending  on 

timeframes  and  available  funding;  low  priority  measures  are  those  difficult  to  implement  or 
less  effective.  The  measures  were  grouped  into  variants,  which  were  then  further  analysed 
including, inter alia, multicriteria and cost/benefit analysis42. 

40  Poland subsequently informed that the codes refer to water regions, measure type and unique number of the 
measure  (the  structure  of  the  codes  is  explained  in  a  supporting  document,  Opis  struktury  bazy  danych, 
Description of the database structure).  

41  Section 3 of the FRMPs.  
42  Poland  subsequently  explained  that  detailed  objectives  of  flood  risk  management  were  assigned  to  action 
groups, which were then given priority  - the so-called first selection of activities. This prioritization of action 
groups aimed to draw attention to the type of undertaking that will effectively reduce the risk of flooding. The 
hierarchy of action groups was made on the basis of analyses and diagnosis of flood risk management problems 
in  water  regions  and  river  basin  districts.  Both  the  FRMP  and  Poland’s  reporting  present  prioritized  action 
groups  on  a  3-level  scale  (high,  medium  and  low).  This  priority  refers  to  the  initial  classification  of  action 
groups  (out  of  71  groups  established  for  FRMP),  which,  due  to  the  nature  of  the  catchment  and  the  type  of 
prevailing  risk,  should  be  carried  out  in  the  first  place  to  reduce  the  risk  of  flooding  as  quickly  as  possible. 
Then, after detailed analyses (including MCA, CBA) of action variants (containing groups of specific projects) 
for the identified problem areas with the highest flood risk (hot-spots), the actions indicated for implementation 
were finally given priority on a 3-degree scale: very high, high and critical described in the Reporting Sheets 
from Poland. 

27 

 
 
                                                 
Poland’s  reporting  sheets  indicate  that  the  measures  were  then  given  priorities  on  the 
following  basis:  very  high  -  strategic  measures  located  in  problem  areas  (hot  spots)  and 

instruments  supporting  the  implementation  of  measures;  high  -  buffer  measures  in  problem 
areas; critical - buffer and strategic measures outside of the problem areas / not impacting to 
problem areas43. Across all of Poland’s measures: 

  The  great  majority  of  measures,  1  942  (78  %  of  the  total),  are  reported  as  very  high 
priority: 157 prevention, 1 631 protection, 87 preparedness and 67 recovery and review 

measures  

  440 measures, 18 % of the total, are listed as high priority (439 protection measures and 

one preparedness measure). 

  A  total  of  102  measures  are  reported  as  critical  priority  (one  prevention  and  101 

protection measures, 4 % of all measures reported)  

Poland  provided  information  about  the  timetable  of  all  measures  in  the  reporting  sheets. 

However, this was an open question and the reported time periods varied greatly, thus it was 
not  possible to  aggregate the information. However, it appears that  about  60 % of measures 

will be completed after the end of the first FRMP in 2021. 

4.7 

Authorities responsible for implementation of measures 

Poland  has  reported  information  on  the  authorities  responsible  for  the  implementation  of 

measures, indicating six levels of authorities. The breakdown varies by UoM.  

In the Vistula UoM, where the great majority of measures (2 033 out of 2 484) are planned)44: 

  provincial authorities are responsible for the majority of measures: 1 440 (71 %) 

 

regional authorities, 255 measures (13 %). 

  district authorities, 153 measures (8 %) 

  catchment authorities are responsible for 85 measures (4 %)  

  municipal authorities, 54 measures (3 %) 

  national authorities, 46 measures (2 %)  

For the Oder UoM:  

  catchment authorities are responsible for 319 of the 404 measures identified (79 %) 

  national authorities, 40 measures (10 %) 

43 Reporting sheets. Please note that “critical” priority, as reported, appears to be of lower than high priority. 
44  Please note that the totals do not all add to 100 % due to rounding. 

28 

 
 
                                                 
  provincial authorities, 22 measures (5 %) 

 

regional authorities, 10 measures (2 %) 

  municipal authorities are responsible for eight measures (2 %) 

  district authorities, five measures (1 %) 

For the Pregolya UoM:  

  national authorities are responsible for 38 of the 47 measures (81 %) 

  catchment authorities are responsible for five measures (11 %) 

 

regional authorities, two measures (4 %).  

  municipal and district authorities, one measure each (2 %) 

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures 

Poland has reported that the great majority of measures, 2 227 out of 2 484 (90 %) have not 
yet  started.  In  total,  15  measures  (less  than  1  %)  are  reported  to  be  completed:  these  are  all 

protection  measures.  Not  many  more,  20  measures  (less  than  1  %)  are  in  on-going 
construction and these are also protection measures. Finally, 222 measures (9 % of the total) 

are  reported  to  have  progress  on-going:  nearly  all  of  these  are  protection  measures  (210 
measures, 95 % of the 222 progress ongoing measures), though prevention, preparedness and 

recovery and review measures are also in the category of progress ongoing.  

Both completed and on-going construction measures are found in the Vistula and Oder UoMs. 
No measures were reported in these categories in Pregolya UoM.  

4.9  Measures taken under other Community Acts 

Member  States  have  been  asked  to  report  on  other  Community  Acts  under  which  each 

implemented.  Poland  reported 

measure  has  been 
the  Water  Framework  Directive 
(2000/60/EC)  under  ‘other  Community  acts’  for  a  total  of  106  measures  in  the  Vistula  and 
Oder UoMs (4 % of the total 2 429 measures). No reference was found, however, to measures 
taken under the Seveso Directive or the IPPC Directive, though all FRMPs include measures 

related to dangerous substances (e.g. an early warning system for dangerous substances in air 
and water – a measure in both the Oder and Vistula FRMPs). 

29 

 
 
4.10  Specific groups of measures 

With regard to spatial planning/land use measures, Poland’s three FRMPs introduce a broad 

range of measures. Across the three UoMs, there are 14 measures under measure type M21 on 
avoidance45, including the following: 

  Elaboration  of  legal  acts  that  introduce  principles  to  govern  development  in  flood  risk 

areas; 

  Development  of  technical  requirements  under  which  it  will  be  possible  to  locate  and 

build houses and facilities in areas at risk of damage to the embankments;  

  Development  of  guidelines  for  the  location  and  technical  aspects  of  development  in 

flood risk areas. 

Under measure type M22 on removal or relocation46, the FRMPs include measures such as:  

  Analysis  of  the  possibility  of  removal,  change  of  use  and  modernisation  of  facilities 
located in the specific flood zones, along with the analysis of purchase options for land 

and buildings located in the specific flood zones; 

  Analysis of conditions for relocation of buildings from areas of particular flood threat;  

  Plans for resettlement and purchase of properties located in specific areas;  

  Development  of  a  buy-out  and  resettlement  program  in  areas  particularly  exposed  to 

flooding;  

  Analysis  of  land  management  behind  flood  embankments  and  in  inter-embankment 

areas to prevent an increase of flood hazards.  

The  Vistula  and  Oder  FRMPs47  highlight  the  need  to  address  flooding  via  better  use  of 
floodplains,  minimise  investment  in  and  near  flood  risk  areas,  and  increase  retention  areas 
along  riverbanks  via  the  ‘protection  of  wetlands,  peat  bogs,  forests,  ponds  or  oxbow  lakes’. 

The  FRMPs  also  state  that  existing  developments  make  it  difficult  to  effectively  use  flood 
plains in the event of a flood. To address this, the FRMPs plan the purchase and resettlement 

of existing developments.  

45  Prevention, Avoidance, Measure to prevent the location of new or additional receptors in flood prone areas, 

such as land use planning policies or regulation. 

46  Prevention,  Removal  or  relocation,  Measure  to  remove  receptors  from  flood  prone  areas,  or  to  relocate 

receptors to areas of lower probability of flooding and/or of lower hazard. 

47  Section 3 of the FRMPs. 

30 

 
 
                                                 
Although the FRMPs include a large number of spatial planning and land use measures, they 
do not provide information how the framework for spatial planning has changed since 200048. 

Natural water retention measures (NWRMs) have been planned in all three FRMPs. Under 
measure type M31 (natural flood management)49, the FRMPs set out measures including the 
following: 

  Development  of  guidelines  on  non-technical  methods  of  flood  risk  management 
covering  principles  for  identifying  priority  areas  for  re-naturalization  in  river  valleys, 
with particular reference to wetlands; 

  Development  of  guidelines  on  non-technical  methods  of  flood  risk  management 

including principles of protection and increasing retention in forest areas; 

  Development  of  a  list  of  potential  locations  for  increasing  natural  retention  in  areas 

outside cities and in urban areas;  

  Development  of  guidelines  on  non-technical  methods  of  flood  risk  management, 

including principles of protection and increasing retention, in agricultural areas. 

There  are  a  number  of  measures  related  to  M32  (Flow  regulation)50  referring  to  creation  of 
polders, for example on the banks of the Vistula River: it is envisaged that these will reduce 

maximum flows during floods.  

All three FRMPs include measures that specifically consider nature conservation. Examples 

of such measures include the following:  

  Development  of  guidelines  on  non-technical  methods  of  flood  risk  management 
covering the principles of identifying priority areas for re-naturalization in river valleys, 

with particular reference to wetlands. 

All  three  FRMPs  assessed  make  a  brief  reference  that  they  shall  take  into  consideration 
navigation and port infrastructure, but specific details are not provided.  

48  Reporting sheets, CDR, FRMPs- PL2000, PL6000, PL7000. 
49   Protection Natural flood management / runoff and catchment management, Measures to reduce the flow into 
natural  or  artificial  drainage  systems,  such  as  overland  flow  interceptors  and  /  or  storage,  enhancement  of 
infiltration, etc and including in-channel, floodplain works and the reforestation of banks, that restore natural 
systems to help slow flow and store water. 

50  Protection,  Water  flow  regulation,  Measures  involving  physical  interventions  to  regulate  flows,  such  as  the 
construction, modification or removal of water retaining structures (e.g., dams or other on-line storage areas 
or development of existing  flow regulation rules), and  which  have a  significant impact  on the  hydrological 
regime. 

31 

 
 
                                                 
Dredging  measures  are  planned  in  the  Vistula  and  Oder  UoMs.  Some  examples  for  the 
Vistula UoM include the following:  

  Dredging of the mouth of the Bug river; 

  Dredging of the Łagowica riverbed for safe passage of flood waters  

Examples for the Oder UoM include: 

  Dredging  and  restoration  of  the  Czarny  Potok  in  Mirsk,  Czerniawa,  Wolimierz, 

Pobiedna;  

  Dredging  and  partial  reconstruction  of  the  Kwisa  River  in  the  city  of  Nowogrodziec  - 

Lubań  

4.11  Recovery from and resilience to flooding 

The role of insurance policies is not discussed in the three FRPMs. The FRMPs mention51 that 
measures  should  ensure  rational  management  of  flood  risk  to  include  implementation  of 

insurance instruments, in particular in areas where the degree of flood hazard does not justify 
the  implementation  of  technical  or  non-technical  methods  of  flood  protection.  However,  no 

further details are given. 

Flood risk insurance is available in all the UoMs but no information is given as to the type of 
insurance available or to be developed for potential flooding areas52.  

4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP 

The FRMPs provide information on the process for monitoring of progress53. It is stated that 
the  president  of  the  National  Water  Management  Board  (NWMB)  is  responsible  for 

coordination of the monitoring of progress. A large number of entities are responsible for the 
implementation of measures. Data on the implementation of measures for which national level 

bodies  are  responsible  is  transferred  directly  to  the  NWMB.  On  the  other  hand,  information 
about measures carried out by other responsible entities – such as. at regional and local levels 

– is collected by the directors of the Regional Water Management Boards (RWMB) and then 
forwarded to the NWMB.  

The information  to  be  collected includes the implementation  status  of measures,  any delays, 

and the effectiveness  of planned and completed  measures for the achievement of objectives. 

51  Section 4 of the FRMPs. 
52  Section 4 of the FRMPs. 
53  Section 5 of the FRMPs. 

32 

 
 
                                                 
The  FRMPs  set  out  indicators  and  information  on  frequency  of  monitoring  for  specific 
measures  and  who  is  responsible;  however,  these  indicators  are  not  explained  in  detail. 

Examples of the indicators include: number of analyses carried out as part of instruments for 
rational  management  of  flood  risk  areas;  number  of  trained  citizens;  number  of  operational 

flood  prevention  plans  prepared  in  the  reporting  period  (including  population  and  inventory 
evacuation  plans).  In  addition,  the  General  Directorate  for  Environmental  Protection,  which 

performs  tasks  in  the  field  of  nature  monitoring,  will  monitor  selected  habitats  and  species 
dependent  on  water  and  wetlands  environments:  the  results  of  this  monitoring  should  be 

included  in  the  next  planning  cycle  as  information  on  the  impacts  of  flood  protection 
investments  (both  positive  and  negative)  on  the  status  of  protected  species  and  natural 

habitats. 

In  terms  of  a  baseline  for  monitoring,  the  FRMPs  refer  to  a  “variant  0”  which  assumes  the 
discontinuation  of  measures  aimed  at  any  improvement  of  the  current  situation,  so  called 

status  quo.  This  is  referred  to  as  the  baseline  option,  to  which  the  effects  enhancing  the 
effectiveness of flood control measures, provided for in the subsequent analysed options, are 
referred to.54 55  

It  is  stated  in  Section  5  of  the  FRMPs  that  “monitoring  of  the  environmental  effects  of  the 

implementation  of  FRMP  serves  to  track  changes  in  the  environment  occurring  both  during 
and after the implementation of individual measures, so that in the next planning period it is 

possible  to  effectively  use  data  specific  to  the  FRMP”.  It  is  recommended  that  reports  on 
progress in the implementation of measures should be submitted by the bodies responsible for 

their implementation annually, while the indicators that require hydraulic modelling should be 
determined at least twice in the planning period.  

54  See e.g. Vistula FRMP, p. 259. 
55  Poland  subsequently  clarified  that,  as  a  baseline,  information  on  the  level  of  flood  protection  prior  to  the 
developing of the FRMPs (analysis of the current flood protection system, including technical conditions of 
flood control structures, forecasts and hydrological and meteorological warnings) was adopted. 

33 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.13  Coordination with the Water Framework Directive 

The  table  below  shows  how  the  development  of  the  FRMP  has  been  coordinated  with  the 

development of the second River Basin Management Plan of the WFD. 

Table 9 

Coordination of the development of the FRMPs with the development of the 

second River Basin Management Plans of the WFD  

All FRMPs 

Integration of FRMPs and RBMPs in a single document 

Joint consultation of draft FRMPs and RBMPs  

Coordination between authorities responsible for developing FRMPs and RBMPs  

Coordination with the environmental objectives in Art. 4 of the WFD  

The  objectives  of  the  Floods  Directive  were  considered  in  the  preparation  of  the 
RBMPs a 

Planning of win-win and no-regret measures in the FRMPs  

The  RBMP PoMs includes  win-win  measures in terms of  achieving the objectives of 
the WFD and Floods Directive, drought management and NWRMs a 

Permitting  or  consenting  of  flood  risk  activities  (e.g.  dredging,  flood  defence 
maintenance  or  construction)  requires  prior  consideration  of  WFD  objectives  and 
RBMPs  

Natural water retention and green infrastructure measures have been included  

Consistent  and  compliant  application  of  WFD  Art.  4(7)  and  designation  of  heavily 
modified  water  bodies  with  measures  taken  under  the  FD  e.g.  flood  defence 
infrastructure  

The  design  of  new  and  existing  structural  measures,  such  as  flood  defences,  storage 
dams  and  tidal  barriers,  have  been  adapted  to  take  into  account  WFD  Environmental 
Objectives a  

The  use  of  sustainable  drainage  systems,  such  as  the  construction  of  wetland  and 
porous  pavements,  have  been  considered  to  reduce  urban  flooding  and  also  to 
contribute to the achievement of WFD Environmental Objectives  
Note: a Based on reporting for the WFD. 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

The  FRMPs  summarise  the  coordination  with  the  WFD.  The  environmental  analysis  of 
projects  and  measures  to  be  carried  out  under  the  FRMPs  was  reflected  in  the  process  of 

planning  and  coordinating  of  the  development  of  updated  RBMPs.  Consultations  of  RBMP 
and  FRMP  were  coordinated.  The  initial  environmental  assessment  of  planning  scenarios 

considered  Art.  4(7) of the Water  Framework  Directive  and Art. 6 of the Habitats  Directive 
(92/43/EEC), as well as national nature protection requirements.  

The  FRMPs  state  that  biological  and  hydromorphological  elements  under  the  WFD  were 
considered in the analysis of the impacts of the FRMPs on WFD objectives. The FRMPs also 

indicate  that  fish  passages  for  flood  structures  have  been  determined.  Hydromorphological 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
elements  considered  include:  quantity  and  dynamics  of  water  flow,  connections  with 
groundwater bodies, river continuity, morphological conditions: river depths, width variation, 
structure and composition of river beds, coastal zone structure56.  

4.14  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  with  regard  to 

measures 

The following good practices were identified: 

  Estimated  costs  are  provided  for  all  measures  in  the  three  UoMs  and  information  is 

provided on potential sources of funding.  

  All  three  FRMPs  include  measures  for  spatial  planning,  for  natural  retention  and  for 

nature protection. 

  The  FRMPs  describe  an  articulated  system  for  monitoring  the  implementation  of 

measures.  

The following area for further development was identified:  

The process for prioritisation of measures should be clearly presented in the FRMP. 

56  The results are not presented in the FRMPs themselves but in a separate report available on the flood web site, 

http://www.powodz.gov.pl  

35 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
5. Consideration of climate change 

Climate Change was considered in all three FRMPs57 and all three FRMPs make reference to 
the national Climate Change Adaption Strategy, the Strategic adaptation plan for sectors and 
areas  sensitive  to  climate  change  by  2020  with  a  view  to  2030  (SPA  2020),  published  in 
201358.  The  FRMPs  also  cite  an  FP6  project,  ENSEMBLES59,  on  strategically  important 
information on the climate and its changes and their impact on society; and to the work of the 

International Panel on Climate Change. 

As part of the preparation of the FRMPs, a pilot study was carried out to project the impact of 
changes  of  predicted  precipitation  on  the  outflow  from  the  Nysa  Kłodzka  catchment  (in  the 

Oder  UoM)  to  the  water  gauge  in  Kłodzko,  using  the  results  of  regional  simulations  from 
global models. The projections were carried out for the periods 2011-2030 and 2050-2070. 

A shift in the occurrence of extreme events is mentioned in all three FRMPs. The results of 
analysis  show  that  flood  risks  due  to  the  occurrence  of  extreme  events  (such  as  very  high 

levels of precipitation) will be smaller, while flood risks caused by rainfall of lower intensity 
may  increase.  At  the  same  time,  the  scenarios  analysed  indicate  an  increased  likelihood  of 

flash floods caused by strong rainfall that could cause the flooding of areas where the spatial 
management  is  not  properly  implemented.  Forecasts  indicate  that  the  period  of  snow 

deposition will gradually decrease, and in the middle of the 21st century it may be on average 
28 days shorter than today. This can have a positive effect in terms of a lower probability of 

floods related to snowmelt. 

5.1 

Specific measures to address expected effects of climate change 

One  measure  in  the  Oder  FRMP  directly  addresses  climate  change:  a  measure  to  increase 
water  retention  in  forests  includes  the  analysis  of  water  retention  in  connection  with  the 

adaptation of forests and forestry to climate change. No measures were found in the Vistula or 
Pregolya UoMs.  

Poland’s  reporting  sheets  state  that  measures  to  promote  adaptation  in  natural  areas  are 

proposed  in  the  SPA  2020  plan,  and  these  will,  among  other  results,  reduce  the  negative 
effects of drought and flooding. When implementing the measures, particular attention will be 
given to areas at risk of floods (river valleys, mountain and foothill areas) as well as areas with 

increased water needs and those characterized by water shortages. No further details are given 
in the FRMPs.  

57  Section 4 of the FRMPs. 
58  Available at: https://klimada.mos.gov.pl/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Broszura-adaptacja-ANG.pdf  
59  See: http://ensembles-eu.metoffice.com/  

36 

 
 
                                                 
With regard to potentially increased pollution risk in flood prone zones due to climate change, 
it  is  mentioned  in  the  FRMPs  that  measures  are  proposed  in  SPA  2020,  however  further 
details are not provided in the FRMPs60. 

5.2  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  concerning 

climate change 

The following good practices were identified: 

  The three FRMPs refer to Poland’s Strategic adaptation plan and to measures developed 

under it (though details on these measures are not provided). 

  The three FRMPs provide information from studies and models to indicate the potential 

impacts of climate change on flooding.  

The following area for further development was identified: 

 

It  is  not  clear  to  what  extent  the  analysis  of  climate  change  was  integrated  into  the 
objectives and measures of the FRMPs.61  

60  FRMPs Section 2 - PL 2000, PL6000, PL7000 and CDR. 
61  Poland subsequently informed that as part of the analysis on areas with the highest flood risk, the analysis of 
the  effectiveness  of  alternatives  (containing  groups  of  activities),  under  multi-criteria  analysis  (MCA),  was 
conducted  using  the  criterion:  adaptation  to  climate  change.  A  number  of  non-technical  flood  protection 
measures were taken into account (related to spatial planning and retention), which have a significant impact 
on  the  reduction  of  vulnerability  of  areas.  This  approach  is  in  line  with  the  Strategic  adaptation  plan  for 
sectors and areas sensitive to climate change by 2020 with a perspective up to 2030. Examples of actions are: 
-  "Development  of  educational  programs  for  the  media  and  other  entities  whose  aim  will  be  to  change  the 
mentality of local communities towards limiting the expansion to threatened areas and changing the way of 
managing  inhabited  areas  of  threat,  under  the  framework  of  the  National  Program  for  Supporting  Pro-
ecological Attitudes in the Key Areas for Sustainable Development - Climate, Adaptation”; 

-  Protection  /  enhancement  of  forestry  retention  in  the  catchment;  development  of  a  detailed  analysis  and 
design  of  the  possibilities  of  increasing  forest  retention  in  connection  with  a  comprehensive  project  of 
adaptation  of  forests  and  forestry  to  climate  change  -  low  retention  and  counteracting  water  erosion  in 
lowland areas. 

In the  FRMPs, research and  development is proposed in the  following areas:  technological solutions in the 
field of flood protection and adaptation to climate change. 

37 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
6. Cost-benefit analysis 

The three FRMPs and Poland’s reporting sheets refer to cost benefit results as a criterion for 

the establishment of priorities for the selection of measures.  

The reporting sheets for Vistula and Oder state that CBA was carried out in all three UoMs to 
assess  the  effectiveness  of  planning  scenarios.  The  scenarios  sum  the  costs  and  benefits  of 

measures recommended for individual water regions (i.e. at sub-UoM level) as well as for the 
UoMs  themselves.  According  to  the  FRMPs,  five  scenarios  were  considered  for  each  water 

region  and  UoM:  zero  (no  new  measures),  maintenance,  non-technical  measures,  technical 
measures and a mixed scenario. The specific measures included in the different scenarios are 
not indicated, however62.  

Reporting sheets for Pregolya UoM reports only that in the first planning period, no technical 

measures were proposed in the Pregolya UoM, and in the information sheets under the CBA 
section it is stated that there was no need to consider cross-border impact under the procedure 

of strategic environmental assessment of FRMPs.  

Estimates  were  made  of  social  costs  and  benefits  based  on  the  difference  between  the 
projected average annual flood losses in the zero scenario and the lower average annual flood 

losses in other scenarios.  

The  CBA  was  based  on  an  analysis  of  investment  and  operational  costs,  together  with  an 

analysis  of  social  costs  and  benefits.  The  analysis  period  was  50  years,  2015  to  2064.  The 
following  social  benefits  were  included:  flood  losses  avoided  as  a  result  of  investments, 

avoided intangible losses approximated as 40 % of material losses, induced economic benefits. 
The  reduction  of  flood  losses  was  calculated  as  the  difference  between  the  losses  without 

investment  and  with  investment  (after  completion).  Based  on  the  hydrological  model,  the 
surface  of  floods  was  simulated  for  various  flow  values  with  a  defined  probability  of 

62  Poland subsequently informed that the scenarios covered by CBA included all the proposed measures. One of 
the intermediate reports was produced for the purposes of FRMP elaboration, titled “Report from measures”, 
encompasses all the details (including scenarios) of the  CBA. The scenarios taken into consideration in the 
CBA, have been presented in chapter 8 and in chapter 9 of the above-mentioned report, since there were two 
levels of the CBA – first the measures of a strategic character to be implemented in the first planning cycle 
have been analysed, secondly all the measures envisaged in the hot-spots have been analysed. In chapter 8 of 
the above-mentioned report a list of measures of a strategic character to be implemented in the first planning 
cycle  has  been  presented.  The  assumptions  and  the  results  of  a  CBA  of  these  measures  have  been  also 
described in chapter 8. In chapter 9 of this report a list of all the measures envisaged in hot-spots has been 
presented, together with the assumptions and the results of a CBA of these measures. Also in chapter 9, a list 
of measures to be implemented in order to avoid ice-jams has been presented as well as the assumptions and 
the results of a CBA of these measures. 

38 

 
 
                                                 
occurrence: 10 %, 1 % and 0.2 %. The values of flood losses were based on national scale63. 
These values were indexed for inflation (based on values appropriate for a given category of 

land use in previous years). The method calculated average annual flood losses (AAD). On the 
basis  of  the  CBA,  the  following  economic  performance  indicators  were  calculated  for  each 

scenario: economic net present value (ENPV), economic rate of return (ERR) and benefit-to-
cost ratio (B/C). 

Multi-benefits  were  not  considered.  Moreover,  the  analysis  did  not  cover  transboundary 

aspects: Poland indicated in the reporting sheets that no transnational measures are planned in 
Vistula, Oder or Pregolya UoMs; moreover, the analysis of the social costs and benefits for the 

basins of the Vistula, Oder and Pregolya was developed without evaluation of transboundary 
effects64. 

6.1  Good practices and areas for further development 

The following good practice was identified: 

  A detailed system of cost benefit analysis was used to assess the efficiency of planning 

scenarios. 

The following areas for further development were identified: 

63  Set  out  in  the  Regulation  of  the  Minister  of  the  Environment,  Minister  of  Transport,  Construction  and 
Maritime  Economy,  the  Minister  of  Administration  and  Digitization,  and  the  Minister  of  Internal  Affairs 
regarding the development of flood hazard maps and flood risk maps. 

64  Poland informed subsequently that as part of the FRMP, an analysis was made of planned projects taking into 
account the possibility of impact on the basins of neighbouring countries. In the area of the Odra, Vistula and 
Pregolya  river  basins,  no  measures  are  planned  in  the  first  cycle  that  could  have  a  cross-border  impact. 
However, according to the Environmental Impact Assessment of the Odra FRMP, the implementation of the 
measures could, potentially, have significant environmental effects in neighbouring countries. primarily in the 
Federal  Republic  of  Germany  on  the  Oder  border  section.  The  potential  impact  on  the  environment  in  the 
Czech Republic is assessed as not significant. Detailed analysis of projects, including the possibility of cross-
border impacts, will be done at the stage of granting environmental permits. Investments are also discussed 
within  the  framework  of  international  cooperation,  inter  alia  within  the  International  Commission  for  the 
Protection  of  the  Odra  River  against  Pollution  (http://www.mkoo.pl/index.php?mid=23&lang=EN).  The 
Commission  developed  a  FRMP  for  the  international  part  of  the  Odra  basin.  The  plan  is  available  on  the 
MKOOpZ website in three languages: 
http://www.mkoo.pl/show.php?fid=5798&lang=pl  
http://www.mkoo.pl/show.php?fid=5113&lang=DE  
http://www.mkoo.pl/show.php?fid=4828&lang=CZ  
In  the  case  of  the  Vistula  river  basin,  the  Bug  border  is  the  only  sensitive  area  where  the  possibility  of 
environmental  effects  outside  Poland  should  be  taken  into  account.  According  to  the  final  results  of  the 
FRMP  analysis,  in  the  current  planning  cycle  for  the  Bug  border  catchment,  only  the  implementation  of 
concepts and analysis is expected, which will not have negative effects on the environment. 
In the first planning period in the Pregolya River basin, due to the lack of technical measures, there will be no 
impacts  and  environmental  effects  in  relation  to  individual  strategic  environmental  protection  objectives. 
Cross-border impacts will therefore also not occur. 
http://www.kzgw.gov.pl/files/pzrp/PZRP_II_SOOS_Dorzecze_Odry.pdf   
http://www.kzgw.gov.pl/files/pzrp/PZRP_II_SOOS__prognoza_dla_dorzecza_Wisly.pdf   
http://www.kzgw.gov.pl/files/pzrp/PZRP_II_SOOS__prognoza_dla_dorzecza_Pregoly.pdf  

39 

 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

It is not explained whether the scenarios included all measures.  

  The FRMPs should consider transboundary effects of measures.  

40 

 
 
 
 
7.   Governance  including  administrative  arrangements,  public 

information and consultation 

7.1 

Competent authorities 

In 2016, Poland updated information on Competent Authorities reported to WISE.  

7.2 

Public information and consultation 

The  table  below  shows  how  the  public  and  interested  parties  were  informed  in  the  three 
UoMs assessed  concerning the draft  FRMPs.  Information how the consultation  was  actually 

carried out and which stakeholders participated is presented in the rest of the section: 

Table 10 

Methods used to inform the public and interested parties of the FRMPs 

Media (papers, TV, radio)  

Internet  

Digital social networking  

Printed material  

Direct mailing  

Invitations to stakeholders  

Local Authorities  
Meetings65  
Other * 

All FRMPs 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

Notes:  *  In  Poland,  “Other”  information  mechanisms  comprised  promotion  film  and  short 
videos,  dedicated  website,  conferences,  newsletters,  advertisements  in  internet  and  printed 

press 

The FRMP consultation process was carried out from 22 December 2014 to 22 June 2015.  

Parallel to the consultation process, an information and promotion campaign was conducted, 

addressed to entities directly and indirectly affected by FRMPs, including bodies responsible 
for  flood  protection  as  well  as  the  general  public.  As  part  of  the  campaign,  the  website 

dedicated to flood protection and to the plans under development was updated on an ongoing 
basis (www.powodz.gov.pl). The website address was included in promotional materials such 

as printed press and internet advertising. A promotional film and trailer (shown in commercial 

65  Poland informed subsequently that 21 consultation meetings were held, in which 859 people took part as well 
as  expert  meetings,  gathering  members  of  Steering  Committees  and  River  Basins  or  Catchments  Planning 
Groups. 

41 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
cinemas)  described  the  consultation  process.  A  booklet  and  newsletters  on  the  plans  were 
produced.  Direct  mailings  and  invitations  were  sent  to  stakeholders.  Local  authorities  were 

included  in  consultation  process  as  decision-taking  partners,  attending  Steering  Committees 
and River Basin/Catchment Planning Groups.  

The table below shows how the actual consultation was carried out: 

Table 11 

Methods used for the actual consultation 

Via Internet  

Digital social networking  

Direct invitation  

Exhibitions  

Workshops, seminars or conferences  

Telephone surveys  

Direct involvement in drafting FRMP  

Postal written comments 

Other * 

PL2000 

PL6000 

PL7000 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

Note: * In Poland, one other mechanisms for consultation was an internet survey. 

The reporting sheets and the FRMPs state that an extensive consultation process was carried 
out. The consultation process was initiated in the early stages of FRMP development through 

the preparation of stakeholder databases, on the basis of which planning teams were created, 
including at water region and UoM levels. Also, steering committees at water region and river 

basin  level  were  created.  Related  to  the  consultation,  an  internet  survey  on  citizens’ 
knowledge of flood risk was carried out: the survey focused on inhabitants of areas with 1 % 

flood probabilities; in total 1 300 inhabitants took part (Pregoyla FRMP).  

During  the  six-month  FRMP  consultation,  multiple  events  were  held  (see  also  below)  and 
written  comments  could  be  submitted  by  mail,  email  and  other  electronic  forms.  After  this 

period, further FRMP consultations were held, this time along with the SEA.  

The table below shows how the documents for the consultation were provided: 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 12 

Methods used to provide the documents for the consultation 

Downloadable  

Direct mailing (e-mail)  

Direct mailing (post)  

Paper copies distributed at exhibitions  

Paper copies available in municipal buildings (town hall, library etc.)  

Paper copies at the main office of the competent authority 

Source: FRMPs 

All FRMPs  

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

The  draft  FRMPs  were  made  available  for  consultation  by  a  wide  range  of  mechanisms, 

including  for  download  on  the  dedicated  website  (www.powodz.gov.pl),  at  conferences,  via 
direct mailing and at municipal buildings. 

7.3 

Active involvement of Stakeholders 

The  table  below  shows  the  groups  of  stakeholders  that  have  been  actively  involved  in  the 

development of the FRMP: 

Table 13 

Groups of stakeholders  

Civil Protection Authorities such as Government Departments responsible for emergency 
planning and coordination of response actions 
Flood Warning / Defence Authorities  

Drainage Authorities  

Emergency services  

Water supply and sanitation  

Agriculture / farmers  

Energy / hydropower  

Navigation / ports  

Fisheries / aquaculture  

Private business (Industry, Commerce, Services) 

NGOs including nature protection, social issues (e.g. children, housing) 

Consumer Groups  

Local / Regional authorities  

Academia / Research Institutions  

Others * 

Source: FRMPs 

All FRMPs 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Note:  *  In  Poland,  other  stakeholders  include  Culture  and  National  Heritage,  Forestry  and 

other institutions suggested by the National Water Management Board. 

43 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  table  below  shows  the  mechanisms  used  to  ensure  the  active  involvement  of 
stakeholders: 

Table 14 

Mechanisms used to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders 

Regular exhibitions  

Establishment of advisory groups  

Involvement in drafting  

Workshops and technical meetings 

Formation of alliances  

Other * 

All FRMPs 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

Note: * In Poland, other mechanisms for the active involvement of stakeholders were: Water 
Forum & conferences, expert meetings 

The  FRMPs  state  that  stakeholders  participated  in  planning  teams  at  the  catchment  level, 

planning groups and steering committees at the level of water regions, as well as a planning 
group and a steering committee at the level of the UoMs. The stakeholders identified (see the 

previous page) were actively involved, particularly in these committees. The planning teams 
took  an  active  part  in  the  process  of  preparing  flood  risk  management  plans.  Also,  focus 
groups  were  organised  as  well  as  a  Water  Forum  (a  two-day  conference  to  exchange 

information among stakeholder groups) and expert meetings at RBD and water region levels. 

7.4 

Effects of consultation 

The table below shows the effects of consultation: 

Table 15 

Effects of consultation 

Changes to selection of measures 

Adjustment to specific measures 

Addition of new information 

Changes to the methodology used 

Commitment to further research 

Commitment to action in the next FRMP  

Comments and results of the consultation "were considered in 
the formulation of the plan" 

Other * 

PL2000 

PL6000 

PL7000 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Note:  *  In  Poland,  “Other”  areas  where  consultation  affected  the  plans  were:  verification  of 
solutions/measures, increasing priority of measures, new measures proposed 

The three FRMPs state that during the whole process of public consultations, stakeholders and 

members  of  the  public  submitted  a  total  of  966  comments.  Many  comments  focused  on 
technical  measures  proposed  in  their  immediate  vicinity.  Many  respondents  indicated  that 

activities related to increasing water retention were important. Some respondents mentioned a 
lack of adequate knowledge, including on their own part, and proposed expanding educational 

activities (e.g. information on flood prevention in schools).  

The  FRMPs  state  that  expert  discussions  allowed  the  verification  of  certain  solutions  and 
measures proposed, though no details are given as to which measures.  

For the Oder FRMP, a total of 269 comments were submitted. An example of changes made to 
the plan include: clarification was added to the scope of certain investments, limiting them to 
hotspots  in  Warta  region.  There  were  some  changes  to  specific  projects  and  one  was 
dropped66.  

In the course of public consultations for the Vistula FRMP, compromise measures were found 

for  polders  to  satisfy  local  communities;  20  measures  proposed  in  one  water  region  were 
modified, and 18 new measures were added. In the Lower Vistula water region, information 

on  56  proposed  measures  were  improved  (e.g.  with  further  information  on  their  titles,  costs 
and  implementation  times)  and  five  new  measures  were  added  to  the  list  of  strategic  (i.e. 

priority) investments to reduce flood risk.  

After  analysis  of  the  comments  submitted  as  part  of  the  public  consultation  in  the  Pregolya 

FRMP,  changes  made  included  the  priority  of  a  measure:  the  re-naturalisation  of  river  beds 
and banks was changed from "not applicable" to low.  

Poland has published an overview analysis of comments submitted, as well as information on 

they  were  addressed 

how 
www.powodz.gov.pl. 

in 

the  final  FRMPs,  on 

the  national  floods  portal: 

66  "Flood protection of the Warta river valley in km 748 + 400-763 + 500 through the segment regulation of the 

river along with the embankment". 

45 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
7.5 

Strategic Environmental Assessment 

All three FRMPs underwent an SEA procedure.  

The SEA procedure received opinions from the General Director of Environmental Protection, 
the Chief Sanitary  Inspector and directors of Maritime Offices, as  well as public comments. 

During  the  consultation  on  the  SEA,  further  comments  were  submitted  on  the  FRMPs:  40 
comments for the Vistula UoM, 15 for the Oder UoM and four for the Pregolya UoM. 

7.6  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  regarding 

Governance 

The following good practices were identified: 

  A  broad  consultation  process  was  carried  out,  and  several  various  mechanisms  were 
used  to  inform  the  public  and  interested  parties  about  the  consultation,  including  print 

and  internet  advertising  and  a  film  trailer  shown  in  cinemas.  The  consultation  process 
was initiated from the first stage of FRMP development.  

  A  dedicated  website  was  created  where  all  the  relevant  information  was  stored, 

including the results of the consultation.  

  A  broad  range  of  mechanisms  was  used  for  the  active  involvement  of  stakeholders, 
including  planning  groups  and  steering  committees  at  different  levels  and  a  national 

stakeholder conference.  

  The effects of consultations are summarised in the FRMPs.  

46 

 
 
 
Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures 

This Annex gives an overview of the data on measures provided by Poland in the reporting 

sheets. These tables and charts were used for the preparation of section 4 on measures.   

Background & method 

This document was produced as part of the assessment of the Flood Risk Management Plans 
(FRMPs). The tables and charts below are a summary of the data reported on measures by the 

Member States and were used by the Member State assessor to complete the questions on the 
Flood  measures.  The  data  are  extracted  from  the  XMLs  (reporting  sheets)  reported  by 

Member States for each FRMP, and are split into the following sections: 

  Measures overview – Tabulates the number of measures for each UoM; 

  Measure details: cost – Cost & Cost explanation; 

  Measures details: name & location – Location & geographic coverage; 

  Measure  details:  authorities  –  Name  of  responsible  authority  & 

level  of 

responsibility; 

  Measure details: objectives – Objectives, Category of priority & Timetable; 

  Measure details: progress – Progress of implementation & Progress description; 

  Measure details: other – Other Community Acts.  

On the basis of the reporting guidance (which in turn is based on the Floods Directive)67, not 
all  fields  are  mandatory,  and,  as  such,  not  all  Member  States  reported  information  for  all 
fields.  

Some of the fields in the XMLs could be filled in using standardised answers – for example, 
progress  is  measured via the categories set  out  in the Reporting Guidance. This  means that 

producing comprehensive tables and charts required little effort. For many fields, however, a 
free data format  was used. For some Member States, this resulted in  thousands of different 
answers, or answers given in the national language.   

In such situations, tables and charts were developed using the following steps: 

  A  first  filter  is  applied  to  identify  how  many  different  answers  were  given.  If  a  high 
number of different answers are given, Member State assessors were asked  to refer to 

the  raw  data  when  conducting  the  assessment,  and  this  Annex  does  not  reflect  these 
observations. 

67  http://icm.eionet.europa.eu/schemas/dir200760ec/resources 

47 

 
 
                                                 
 

If  a  manageable  number  of  answers  are  given,  obvious  categories  are  identified,  and 

raw data sorted. 

  Measures  missing  information  may  be  assigned  categories  based  on  other  fields  (for 
example,  if  the  level  of  Responsibility  Authority  is  missing,  the  information  may  be 
obvious from the field “name of Responsible Authority”). 

  Measures  where  obvious  categories  cannot  be  defined  based  on  other  available 
information  (as in  the example above on the name of the Responsible Authority), are 

categorised as “no information”. 

Types of measures used in reporting  

The  following  table68  is  used  in  the  reporting  on  the  types  of  measures.  Each  type  of 
measures is coded as an M-number. Measures are grouped in an ‘aspect’. 

NO ACTION 
M11: No Action 

PREVENTION 
M21: Avoidance 

M22: Removal or relocation 
M23: Reduction 

M24: Other prevention 

PROTECTION 
M31: Natural flood management 
M32: Flow regulation 

M33: Coastal and floodplain works 

M34: Surface Water Management 
M35: other protection 

PREPAREDNESS 
M41: Flood Forecasting & Warning 
M42: Emergency response planning 

M43: Public Awareness 
M44: Other preparedness 

RECOVERY & REVIEW 
M51: Clean-up, restoration & personal recovery 

M52: Environmental recovery 
M53: Other recovery  

OTHER MEASURES 
M61: Other measures 

68  Guidance for Reporting under the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC): 

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/a3c92123-1013-47ff-b832-16e1caaafc9a  

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
List of Annex A tables & figures 

Figure A1: Number of total measures (individual and aggregated) by measure aspect .......... 51 
Figure A2: Share of total measures (aggregated and individual) by measure aspect .............. 51 
Figure A3: Visualisation of Table A3: Cost by measure aspect (PLN) ................................... 53 
Figure A4: Visualisation of Table A4: Cost by UoM (PLN)................................................... 53 
Figure A5: Visualisation of TableA 5: Category of priority by measure aspect ..................... 55 
Figure A6: Visualisation of Table A6: Category of priority by UoM ..................................... 56 
Figure A7: Visualisation of Table a7: Level of responsibility by measure aspect .................. 57 
Figure A8: Visualisation of Table A8: Level of responsibility by UoM ................................. 58 
Figure A9: Visualisation of Table A9: Progress of implementation by measure aspect ......... 59 
Figure A10: Visualisation of Table A10: Progress of implementation by UoM ..................... 60 

Table A1 - Total number of measures ..................................................................................... 50 
Table A2 - Number of individual measures per measure type and UoM ................................ 50 
Table A3: Cost by measure aspect (PLN)................................................................................ 52 
Table A4: Cost by UoM (PLN) ............................................................................................... 52 
Table A5: Category of priority by measure aspect  ................................................................. 55 
Table A6: Category of priority by UoM .................................................................................. 55 
Table A7 - Level of responsibility by measure aspect ............................................................. 57 
Table A8: Level of responsibility by UoM .............................................................................. 57 
Table A9: Progress of implementation by measure aspect ...................................................... 59 
Table A10: Progress of implementation by UoM .................................................................... 59 

49 

 
 
 
 
Measures overview 

Table A1 - Total number of measures 

Number of individual measures 

Number of individual measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 

Number of aggregated measures  

Number of aggregated measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 

Total number of measures  

Total number of measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 

Range of number of measures between UoMs including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type (Min-Max) 

Average number of measures across UoMs including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 

2 429 

2 484 

0 

0 

2 429 

2 484 

47 
2 033 
828 

Table A2 - Number of individual measures per measure type and UoM 

Prevention 

Total 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Total 

Total 

M21  M22  M23  M24 

M31  M32  M33  M34  M35 

M41  M43  M44 

Recovery & 
review 

M51  M53 

Total 

Othe
r 

Grand 
Total 

PL2000 

PL6000 

PL7000 

Grand 
Total 

Average 
per UoM 

9 

3 

2 

11 

102 

6 

4 

11 

7 

14 

21 

120 

5 

7 

40 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

123 

21 

14 

158 

43 

27 

8 

78 

151  1609 

46 

31 

230 

2 

2 

8 

10 

4 

1 857 

300 

14 

28 

26 

7 

5 

15 

4 

182  1841 

48 

22 

2 171 

61 

24 

53 

26 

61 

614 

16 

7 

724 

20 

8 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

34 

42 

12 

88 

29 

1 

2 

1 

4 

1 

18 

39 

6 

63 

19 

41 

7 

67 

2 033 

404 

47 

0 

2 484 

21 

22 

0 

828 

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. All measures are individual as Poland did not report any aggregated 

measures. 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The information in Table A2 is visualised in Figures A1 and A2 below: 

Figure A1: Number of total measures (individual and aggregated) by measure aspect  

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. All measures are 

individual  as  Poland  did  not  report  any  aggregated  measures.  Note  also  that  one  UoM 
reported considerably more measures than others, making some measures less visible. 

Figure A2: Share of total measures (aggregated and individual) by measure aspect  

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. All measures are 

individual  as  Poland  did  not  report  any  aggregated  measures.  Note  also  that  one  UoM 
reported considerably more measures than others, making some measures less visible. 

51 

 
 
 
 
Measure details: cost 

Member  States  were  requested  to  report  information  on:  1)  Cost  (optional  field);  2)  Cost 

explanation (optional field). 

Poland  provided  information  about  the  cost  and  cost  explanation  for  the  majority  of  the 

measures in the reporting sheets. The information provided for cost explanation was greatly 
diverse and it was not possible to aggregate the data. The provided cost estimates varied with 

the highest being PLN 3 bn and the lowest being PLN 14 760. The remaining figures were 
categorised and summarised in the following tables. 

Table A3: Cost by measure aspect (PLN) 

0-
100k 

100-
500k 

500k-
1M 

1-5M  5-10M 

Prevention 

Protection 

2 

73 

Preparedness 

Recovery & 
review 

11 

196 

9 

6 

86 

274 

17 

13 

841 

17 

24 

13 

10-
50M 

7 

4 

273 

369 

5 

6 

1 

1 

52 

2 

52 

1 

1 

Grand Total 
Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

884 

222 

401 

284 

381 

56 

53 

75 

32 

41 

33 

22 

158 

2171 

88 

67 

128 

2484 

50-
100M 

over 
100M 

No 
information 

Grand 
Total 

Table A4: Cost by UoM (PLN) 

0-
100k 

100-
500k 

500k-
1M 

1-
5M 

5-
10M 

10-
50M 

50-
100M 

over 
100M 

No 
information 

Grand 
Total 

PL2000 

PL6000 

PL7000 

74 

1 

199 

345 

792 

251 

16 

7 

54 

2 

92 

33 

273 

108 

29 

24 

19 

37 

Grand Total 

75 

222 

401 

884 

284 

381 

53 

56 

Average per UoM 
Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

134 

295 

127 

25 

19 

95 

74 

18 

51 

39 

38 

128 

43 

2 033 

404 

47 

2 484 

828 

The following figures present a visualisation of the cost data. 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A3: Visualisation of Table A3: Cost by measure aspect (PLN) 

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

Figure A4: Visualisation of Table A4: Cost by UoM (PLN) 

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

Measure details: name & location 

Member States were requested to report information on the following: 

  Location of implementation of measures (mandatory field); 

53 

 
 
 
 
  Geographic coverage of the impact of measures (optional field). 

Location of measures 

Poland  provided  information  about  the  location  of  all  measures  in  the  reporting  sheets, 
however,  this  was  an  open  question,  and  as  such,  the  level  of  detail  and  responses  varied 

greatly. It was thus not practical to aggregate the information 

Geographic coverage 

Poland did not provide information about the geographic coverage of the effects of any of the 
measures in the reporting sheets. 

Measure details: objectives 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Objectives linked to measures (optional field, complementary to the summary provided 

in the textual part of the XML); 

  Category  of  priority  (Conditional,  reporting  on  either  ‘category  of  priority’  or 

‘timetable’ is required); 

  Timetable  (Conditional,  reporting  on  either  ‘category  of  priority’  or  ‘timetable’  is 

required). 

Objectives 

Poland  provided  information  about  the  objectives  of  all  measures  in  the  reporting  sheets. 
However, this was an open question and the responses varied greatly, thus it was not possible 

to aggregate the information.   

Category of priority 

Poland provided information for the priority of the measures under the following categories: 

  Critical; 

  Very high; 

  High. 

No  measures  were  categorised  as  ‘moderate’  or  ‘low’  priority.  It  appears  from  Poland’s 
reporting  sheets,  that  “critical”  is  intended  as  a  lower  priority  than  “very  high”  or  “high” 

(please see section 4.6 for further information). 

54 

 
 
Table A5: Category of priority by measure aspect  

Critical 

Very high 

High 

Grand Total 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review 

1 

101 

Grand Total 

102 

157 

1 631 

87 

67 

1 942 

439 

1 

440 

158 

2 171 

88 

67 

2 484 

Notes:  The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type.  

Figure A5: Visualisation of TableA 5: Category of priority by measure aspect 

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type.  

Table A6: Category of priority by UoM  

Critical 

Very high 

PL2000 

PL6000 

PL7000 

Grand Total 

89 

13 

102 

1 668 

227 

47 

1 942 

High 

276 

164 

440 

Average per UoM 
Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type.  

34 

34 

34 

Grand Total 

2 033 

404 

47 

2 484 

828 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A6: Visualisation of Table A6: Category of priority by UoM  

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type.  

Timetable 

Poland  provided  information  about  the  timetable  of  all  measures  in  the  reporting  sheets. 

However, this was an open question and the reported time periods varied greatly, thus it was 
not possible to aggregate the information in a meaningful way.   

Measure details: authorities 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Name of the responsible authority (optional if ‘level of responsibility’ is reported);   

  Level of responsibility (optional if ‘name of the responsible authority’ is reported).  

Poland provided information about the name of the responsible authority for all measures in 
the  reporting  sheets.  However,  this  was  an  open  question  and  the  reported  names  varied 
greatly, thus it was not possible to aggregate the information in a meaningful way.  

The information about the level of responsibility of the responsible authorities provided in the 
reporting sheets was summarised in the following tables. 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
Table A7 - Level of responsibility by measure aspect 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & 
review 

Catchmen
t 
92 

272 

17 

28 

Grand Total 

409 

Communal  District  National  Provincial  Regional 

6 

51 

4 

2 

63 

140 

19 

35 

34 

34 

21 

3 

1 445 

8 

6 

159 

124 

1 462 

22 

229 

6 

10 

267 

Grand 
Total 
158 

2 171 

88 

67 

2 484 

Figure A7: Visualisation of Table a7: Level of responsibility by measure aspect  

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

Table A8: Level of responsibility by UoM 

Catchment  Municipal  District 

National  Provincial  Regional 

PL2000 

PL6000 

PL7000 

Grand Total 

Average per 
UoM 

85 

319 

5 

409 

136 

54 

8 

1 

63 

21 

153 

5 

1 

159 

53 

46 

40 

38 

124 

41 

1 440 

22 

1 462 

487 

255 

10 

2 

267 

89 

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

Grand 
Total 

2 033 

404 

47 

2 484 

828 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A8: Visualisation of Table A8: Level of responsibility by UoM  

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

Measure details: progress 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Progress  of  implementation  of  measures  (mandatory  field)  –  this  is  a  closed  question 

whose responses are analysed below; 

  Progress  description  of  the  implementation  of  measures  (optional  field)  –  this  is  an 
open text question for which not all Member States reported and whose answers are not 

analysed here. 

Poland  reported  information  about  the  progress  of  implementation  of  the  measures.  The 
Progress of implementation was reported as69:  

  COM (completed); 

  OGC (ongoing construction); 

  POG (progress ongoing); 

  NS (not started). 

A full definition of these terms can be found at the end of this section.  

69  Guidance for Reporting under the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC): 

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/a3c92123-1013-47ff-b832-16e1caaafc9a 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Table A9: Progress of implementation by measure aspect  

Completed 

Ongoing 
construction 

Progress 
ongoing 

Not started 

Grand Total 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review 

Grand Total 

15 

15 

20 

20 

3 

210 

6 

3 

222 

155 

1 926 

82 

64 

158 

2 171 

88 

67 

2 227 

2 484 

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

Figure A9: Visualisation of Table A9: Progress of implementation by measure aspect  

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

Table A10: Progress of implementation by UoM  

Completed 

Ongoing 
construction 

Progress 
ongoing 

Not started 

Grand Total 

PL2000 

PL6000 

PL7000 

Grand Total 

Average per UoM 

5 

10 

15 

5 

19 

1 

20 

7 

175 

37 

10 

222 

74 

1 834 

356 

37 

2 227 

742 

2 033 

404 

47 

2 484 

828 

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A10: Visualisation of Table A10: Progress of implementation by UoM  

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

The categories describing the progress of measures are defined in the EU Reporting Guidance 
Document on the Floods Directive: 

For  measures  involving  construction  or  building  works  (e.g.  a  waste  water  treatment 

plant, a fish pass, a river restoration project, etc.): 

  Not started (NS) means the technical and/or administrative procedures necessary for 

starting the construction or building works have not started. 

  Progress  on-going  (POG)  means  that  administrative  procedures  necessary  for 
starting  the  construction  or  building  works  have  started  but  are  not  finalised.  The 

simple inclusion in the RBMPs is not considered planning in this context. 

  On-going construction (OGC) means the construction or building works have started 

but are not finalized. 

  Completed  (COM)  means  the  works  have  been  finalised  and  the  facilities  are 
operational (maybe only in testing period in case e.g. a waste water treatment plant). 

For measures involving advisory services (e.g. training for farmers): 

  Not  started  (NS)  means  the  advisory  services  are  not  yet  operational  and  have  not 

provided any advisory session yet. 

  Progress on-going (POG) means the advisory services are operational and are being 
used.  This  is  expected  to  be  the  situation  for  all  multi-  annual  long/mid-term 
advisory  services  that  are  expected  to  be  operational  during  the  whole  or  most  of 

60 

 
 
 
RBMP cycle. 

  On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable 

  Completed  (COM)  means  an  advisory  service  that  has  been  implemented  and  has 
been  finalised,  i.e.  is  no  longer  operational.  This  is  expected  only  for  advisory 
services that are relatively short term or one-off, and which duration is time limited 

in relation to the whole RBMP cycle. 

For measures involving research, investigation or studies: 

  Not  started  (NS)  means  the  research,  investigation  or  study  has  not  started,  i.e. 

contract has not been signed or there has not been any progress. 

  Progress  on-going  (POG)  means  the  research,  investigation  or  study  has  been 

contracted or started and is being developed at the moment. 

  On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable 

  Completed (COM) means the research, investigation or study has been finalised and 
has been delivered, i.e. the results or deliverables are available (report, model, etc.). 

For  measures  involving  administrative  acts  (e.g.  licenses,  permits,  regulations, 

instructions, etc.): 

  Not started (NS) means the administrative file has not been opened and there has not 

been any administrative action as regards the measure. 

  Progress on-going (POG) means an administrative file has been opened and at least a 
first administrative action has been taken (e.g. requirement to an operator to provide 

information  to  renew  the  licensing,  request  of  a  permit  by  an  operator,  internal 
consultation  of  draft  regulations,  etc.).  If  the  measure  involves  more  than  one  file, 

the opening of one would mean already “ongoing”. 

  On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable 

  Completed (COM) means the administrative act has been concluded (e.g. the license 
or  permit  has  been  issued;  the  regulation  has  been  adopted,  etc.).  If  the  measure 

involves more than one administrative act, “completed” is achieved only when all of 
them have been concluded. 

Measure details: other 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Other Community Act associated to the measures reported (optional field); 

61 

 
 
  Any other information reported (optional field). 

In  the  reporting  sheets,  Poland  reported  Directive  2000/60/EC  under  the  section  ‘Other 
Community Acts’ for 106 of the measures. It also reported information for the section ‘any 

other information’ for the majority of the measures. However, the responses varied greatly, 
and it was not possible to aggregate the data.  

62 

 
 
 
Annex B: Definitions of measure types 

Table B1 

Types of flood risk management measures70 

M11 

No Action, No measure is proposed to reduce the flood risk in the APSFR or other defined area, 

No Action 

Prevention 

M21  Prevention, Avoidance, Measure to prevent the location of new or additional receptors in flood prone 

areas, such as land use planning policies or regulation 

M22 

Prevention, Removal or relocation, Measure to remove receptors from flood prone areas, or to 
relocate receptors to areas of lower probability of flooding and/or of lower hazard 

M23  Prevention, Reduction, Measure to adapt receptors to reduce the adverse consequences in the event of 

a flood actions on buildings, public networks, etc... 

M24 

Prevention, Other prevention, Other measure to enhance flood risk prevention (may include, flood 
risk modelling and assessment, flood vulnerability assessment, maintenance programmes or policies 
etc...) 

Protection 

M31 

M32 

M33 

Protection Natural flood management / runoff and catchment management, Measures to reduce the 
flow into natural or artificial drainage systems, such as overland flow interceptors and / or storage, 
enhancement of infiltration, etc and including in-channel , floodplain works and the reforestation of 
banks, that restore natural systems to help slow flow and store water. 

Protection, Water flow regulation, Measures involving physical interventions to regulate flows, such 
as the construction, modification or removal of water retaining structures (e.g., dams or other on-line 
storage areas or development of existing flow regulation rules), and which have a significant impact 
on the hydrological regime. 

Protection, Channel, Coastal and Floodplain Works, Measures involving physical interventions in 
freshwater channels, mountain streams, estuaries, coastal waters and flood-prone areas of land, such 
as the construction, modification or removal of structures or the alteration of channels, sediment 
dynamics management, dykes, etc. 

M34  Protection, Surface Water Management, Measures involving physical interventions to reduce surface 
water flooding, typically, but not exclusively, in an urban environment, such as enhancing artificial 
drainage capacities or though sustainable drainage systems (SuDS). 

M35 

Protection, Other Protection, Other measure to enhance protection against flooding, which may 
include flood defence asset maintenance programmes or policies 

Preparedness 

M41  Preparedness, Flood Forecasting and Warning, Measure to establish or enhance a flood forecasting or 

warning system 

M42 

M43 

M44 

Preparedness, Emergency Event Response Planning / Contingency planning, Measure to establish or 
enhance flood event institutional emergency response planning 

Preparedness, Public Awareness and Preparedness, Measure to establish or enhance the public 
awareness or preparedness for flood events 

Preparedness, Other preparedness, Other measure to establish or enhance preparedness for flood 
events to reduce adverse consequences 

70 Guidance for Reporting under the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC): 

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/a3c92123-1013-47ff-b832-16e1caaafc9a 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Recovery & Review 

M51 

Recovery and Review (Planning for the recovery and review phase is in principle part of 
preparedness), Individual and societal recovery, Clean-up and restoration activities (buildings, 
infrastructure, etc), Health and mental health supporting actions, incl. managing stress Disaster 
financial assistance (grants, tax), incl. disaster legal assistance, disaster unemployment assistance, 
Temporary or permanent relocation , Other 

M52  Recovery and Review, Environmental recovery, Clean-up and restoration activities (with several sub-

topics as mould protection, well-water safety and securing hazardous materials containers) 

M53  Recovery and Review, Other, Other recovery and review Lessons learnt from flood events Insurance 

M61 

policies 

Other 

Other 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM)  

NWRM cover a wide range of actions and land use types. Many different measures can act as 
NWRM,  by  encouraging  the  retention  of  water  within  a  catchment  and,  through  that, 

enhancing the natural functioning of the catchment. The catalogue developed in the NWRM 
project  represents  a  comprehensive  but  non  prescriptive  wide  range  of  measures;  other 

measures, or similar measures called by a different name, could also be classified as NWRM.  

To  ease  access  to  measures,  the  catalogue  of  measures  hereunder  is  sorted  by  the  primary 
land use in which it was implemented: Agriculture; Forest; Hydromorphology; Urban. Most 

of the measures however can be applied to more than one land use type. 

Table B2 

List of NWRMs 

Agriculture 

A01 Meadows and 
pastures 

A02 Buffer strips and 
hedges 

A03 Crop rotation 

Forest 

Hydro Morphology 

Urban 

F01 Forest riparian 
buffers 

F02 Maintenance of 
forest cover in headwater 
areas 

F03 Afforestation of 
reservoir catchments 

N01 Basins and ponds 

U01 Green Roofs 

N02 Wetland restoration 
and management 

U02 Rainwater 
Harvesting 

N03 Floodplain 
restoration and 
management 

U03 Permeable surfaces 

A04 Strip cropping 
along contours 

F04 Targeted planting for 
'catching' precipitation 

N04 Re-meandering 

U04 Swales 

A05 Intercropping 

F05 Land use conversion 

A06 No till agriculture 

F06 Continuous cover 
forestry 

N05 Stream bed re-
naturalization 

N06 Restoration and 
reconnection of seasonal 
streams 

U05 Channels and rills 

U06 Filter Strips 

64 

 
 
 
 
Agriculture 

Forest 

Hydro Morphology 

Urban 

A07 Low till agriculture 

A08 Green cover 

A09 Early sowing 

A10 Traditional 
terracing 

A11 Controlled traffic 
farming 

A12 Reduced stocking 
density 

F07 'Water sensitive' 
driving 

F08 Appropriate design 
of roads and stream 
crossings 

F09 Sediment capture 
ponds 

F10 Coarse woody debris 

F11 Urban forest parks 

N07 Reconnection of 
oxbow lakes and similar 
features 

U07 Soakaways 

N08 Riverbed material 
renaturalisation 

U08 Infiltration 
Trenches 

N09 Removal of dams 
and other longitudinal 
barriers 

N10 Natural bank 
stabilisation 

N11 Elimination of 
riverbank protection 

U09 Rain Gardens 

U10 Detention Basins 

U11 Retention Ponds 

F12 Trees in Urban areas 

N12 Lake restoration 

U12 Infiltration basins 

A13 Mulching 

F13 Peak flow control 
structures 

N13 Restoration of 
natural infiltration to 
groundwater 

F14 Overland flow areas 
in peatland forests 

N14 Re-naturalisation of 
polder areas 

Source: www.nwrm.eu 

65