Restoring the natural connectivity of rivers – Article 9 of the NRL

On June 16–17, the Ministries of Climate and Environment and Infrastructure organized workshops titled Nature Restoration Law: Restoring the natural connectivity of rivers and the natural functions of associated floodplains. Cooperation between the two ministries is essential, as the implementation of the EU regulation on nature restoration—known by its abbreviation NRL (or more accurately, NRR for Nature Restoration Regulation)—is the responsibility of the Minister of the Environment, while Article 9 of the regulation falls under the authority of the Minister for Water Management.

Article 9 of the NRR – between ministries and between organizations

The scope of Article 9 is very broad, as reflected in its title: Restoring the natural connectivity of rivers and the natural functions of associated floodplains. In addition to staff from the Ministry of Climate and Environment and the Ministry of Infrastructure, the workshops also included representatives from the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, the General Directorate for Environmental Protection, the Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection, Polish Waters, research institutes, and NGOs.

The multifaceted nature of the topic was emphasized by discussions about the role of wetlands in national defense and the links between river continuity and spatial, forest, and agricultural planning. It was also noted that Article 9 cannot be considered in isolation from Article 4, which deals with the restoration of terrestrial ecosystems, including inland water bodies.

Rivers with free flow or freely flowing rivers?

Article 9 might seem secondary to Article 4, since river continuity and the natural character of floodplains fall within the broader framework of riverine and riparian ecosystem naturalness. However, there are certain differences—river continuity can be achieved even outside fully restored ecosystems. According to the connectivity assessment criteria, full continuity is not always necessary, especially in the context of longitudinal infrastructure. Article 9 states that structures disrupting river continuity but serving economic purposes—such as for energy, navigation, water abstraction, or flood protection—do not necessarily have to be removed, or at least not as a priority.

Piotr Parasiewicz from the Inland Fisheries Institute – NRI presented the criteria for designating freely flowing rivers. He is a co-author of the European Commission’s guidance document, early versions of which have already been circulated for expert consultation. One controversial idea is to acknowledge that freely flowing rivers can exist not only at a global scale, but also locally—this would allow the objective to be met in places where restoring river freedom is only partially feasible. A given river section may fulfill the criteria of Article 9 even if it does not meet those of Article 4.

The role of Polish Waters in implementing Article 9 of the NRR

The regulation has already come into force, meaning that Member States must begin actions to meet the 2030 targets. There is little time left before the Council of Ministers announces the National Nature Restoration Plan (KPO ZP).

The renaturation activities included in the second update of the river basin management plans currently lack secured funding. Therefore, a representative of Polish Waters presented projects that could support the implementation of the NRR using LIFE+ funds. Most of these are still at the application stage and thus would not be implemented before around 2030.

The involvement of Polish Waters in implementing Article 9 is crucial. The institution must identify barriers and indicate which ones should be removed. An official database of hydromorphological structures—HYMO—is being created. Contrary to expectations, there are no plans to verify or update it before the third update of the river basin management plans. Polish Waters does not have the resources to conduct field inventories of barriers. Problems were also noted with adapting other databases, such as from the Amber project, to the official state resources.

Key voices in the NRL debate

NGO members argue that the lack of funds for renaturation projects is an easier problem to solve than administrative resistance. Government officials emphasized their willingness to act, but noted that the number of projects receiving funding remains very low. What is considered a success or a failure largely depends on perspective.

Government administration is concerned about difficulties in agreeing on the KPO ZP at the Council of Ministers level, disruptions in cross-border cooperation, and with the European Commission. For research institutions, a major risk is the disregard of expert knowledge and marginalization of their opinions in decision-making. And for all participants, the worst-case scenario would be the complete ineffectiveness of the new law.

There is a risk that even if the NRR is not rejected and implementation begins, its outcomes will be insufficient to reverse the negative trend.