PL
The drought effects counteracting plan adopted in 2021 and the update currently under preparation differ in more than just the scope of analysis or the currency of the data. Between the first and second planning cycles, the Water Law changed, and with it the function of the document itself: it shifted from outlining a catalogue of potential interventions toward more operational planning for their implementation.
The original wording of article 184, paragraph 2, point 4 of the Water Law Act stipulated that the drought effects counteraction plan (DECP) must contain a “catalogue of measures to counteract the effects of drought.” An amendment from September 2019 replaced this provision with a requirement to specify “measures to counteract the effects of drought”, with the new wording applying for the first time to the plan’s initial update. This means that the currently effective 2021 DECP was developed under the previous statutory requirements, whereas the updated DECP (uDECP) is the first document prepared under the new legal regime. The draft update itself emphasizes that this change is intended to strengthen the plan’s practical and operational dimension.
The difference, therefore, is not merely legislative. The previous list illustrated the types of measures that could serve to mitigate the effects of drought but did not explicitly determine which of them should be implemented within a specific municipality. From the perspective of local government, it could thus be perceived as a broad array of available options, lacking a clear translation of the diagnosis into the local level.
The update to the drought effects counteracting plan aims to significantly narrow the gap between planning and implementation. Consequently, it goes beyond merely identifying types of measures; instead, it assigns them to the municipal level, linking the assessment of risk and land-use characteristics to specific courses of action. In this way, the document is designed not only to outline available measures but also to indicate where their implementation is warranted and who is responsible for carrying them out.
We analyze drought at the catchment level and assign actions locally
Hydrological processes cannot be confined within administrative boundaries. Water moves within a catchment area; consequently, the catchment system serves as the basis for diagnosing drought risk and assessing needs. However, the actual implementation of measures takes place at the level where there is genuine authority, the right to manage the land, and the capacity to make specific investment, planning, or organizational decisions.
Therefore, uDECP combines two frameworks: the catchment-based approach – appropriate for analyzing hydrological processes – and the administrative approach – suited to the practical implementation of measures. Problem areas, dominant pressures, and needs are identified at the catchment level, while the types of measures that can be implemented locally are specified at the municipal level. The selection of these measures takes into account both land-use characteristics and the level of risk regarding agricultural, hydrological, and hydrogeological droughts. As a result, the plan goes beyond mere diagnosis, translating it into a more operational level of implementation.
First and foremost, leverage the potential of the landscape
One of the key directions of uDECP is enhancing landscape, soil, and ecosystem water retention while slowing the rate of water runoff from the catchment. This entails prioritizing measures that leverage natural water circulation and storage processes: protecting and restoring wetlands, renaturing watercourses and river valleys, improving infiltration, developing blue-green infrastructure, and – in agricultural areas – practices that increase soil water-holding capacity and minimize losses. The goal is to retain water within the landscape for as long as possible, and as close as possible to the point of precipitation, before it is rapidly drained from the catchment.
However, this does not imply the application of a single, uniform approach across the entire country. Catchments differ in terms of geological structure, hydrological conditions, the degree of anthropogenic alteration, and land use. A different set of measures is appropriate for a river valley where natural processes remain intact compared to intensively farmed agricultural land or densely built-up urban areas. Full renaturalization of a watercourse or wetland restoration is not feasible everywhere; in some areas, it is necessary to simultaneously maintain specific functions, such as public water supply or safe water management in highly urbanized zones. In such instances, nature-based solutions may be complemented by technical measures. However, the uDECP project clearly indicates that the construction or modification of hydro-engineering structures should be considered only when environmentally preferable solutions are not feasible, and that the selection of measures must take local hydrological and habitat conditions into account.
A single institution cannot do everything. Responsibility for drought is dispersed
By its very nature, mitigating the effects of drought cannot be the task of a single institution. The effectiveness of such measures depends on who controls the land, who makes spatial planning and investment decisions, and who holds the statutory authority for water management. Consequently, uDECP is based on a multi-stakeholder model. Local governments can influence land-use patterns, the limitation of surface sealing, urban water retention, and the development of blue-green infrastructure. Farmers and other landowners decide on practices that enhance soil and landscape water retention – ranging from cover cropping and mulching to small-scale retention measures and the restoration of local wetlands. Forest managers play a similar role in forest areas. Thus, the uDECP project deliberately assigns actions to the entities that have the genuine capacity to implement them.
The role of Polish Waters within this system is significant, yet strictly defined by regulations. Polish Waters participates in water management planning, conducts water-related administrative proceedings, and manages the waters and infrastructure falling within its remit; it may also implement renaturalization measures or projects involving the restoration of wetlands. The uDECP project explicitly identifies Polish Waters as one of the entities responsible for such activities.
However, this does not imply the authority to operate in any location. Merely identifying a project for implementation in the uDECP does not grant Polish Waters the right to use property owned by others. Undertaking many activities on private land requires the involvement or consent of the owner, and often the fulfillment of additional formal requirements. Instead, the role of the water administration is to create the formal framework for their implementation – by conducting appropriate procedures, making data available, outlining legal requirements, and cooperating with local governments, landowners, and other institutions.
This distribution of responsibility is crucial to understanding uDECP. Mitigating the effects of drought is not a matter of choosing between nature-based and technical solutions, nor of expecting a single entity to solve the problem for the entire catchment area. The starting point must be an assessment of local conditions, followed by the selection of a solution that best leverages the land’s natural retention potential – supplemented by technical measures where justified. Ultimately, however, success depends not only on the appropriateness of the measure itself but also on whether it has been assigned to an entity that genuinely possesses the competence and capacity to implement it.
