Integrated Water Resources Management for Implementing Sustainable Energy Development—Challenges and Perspectives in Poland

Abstract

Climate change causes a problem for the energy system in Poland, which is based on the availability of water resources throughout the year. In situations of water scarcity resulting from increased demand or due to water deficits caused by the phenomenon of drought, it is necessary to develop efficient management methods that take into account the needs of all stakeholders and obtaining approval for new investments. The principles of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) enable this efficiency to be achieved. The research used 51 questions in 3 surveys to assess the potential for IWRM implementation in 3 catchments located in an area of southern and south-western Poland with different topography, regional and socio-economic characteristics, i.e., the Białka (tourism domination), the Nysa Kłodzka (potential for hydropower) and the Widawa (lowland character). In order to interpret the results, the author’s method of grouping survey questions from different sources was applied. The results of the study showed that there is considerable social potential and willingness to develop cooperation between different stakeholder groups but there are barriers related to the state of knowledge and its transfer between stakeholders. It is important not to ignore the stakeholders whose resistance can effectively delay investment processes.

1. Introduction

The development of resilient energy systems is a guarantee for the sustainability of the economy and society. Inherent in the production of electricity is the consumption of water at various stages of production; depending on the source, it is the extraction of the raw material, its processing, the production of the target fuel, and the transformation into electricity [1]. Steam turbine-based power plant processes, used in both conventional and nuclear power plants, can consume around 0.75 m³/GJ⁻¹ [1]. As a result, one of the key criteria for selecting the location of a power plant is the proximity to a stable and efficient water source [2]. Water is also a renewable energy source used in hydroelectric power plants. The construction of a hydroelectric power plant represents the most intrusive type of interference with aquatic environments, landscape, land use and significantly affects the management of water in a catchment area, e.g., by changing the flow regime and retention capacity of the catchment [3]. At the same time, as Juraku et al. [4] and Chavez & Bernal [5] point out, stakeholders representing local communities play an essential role in power plant planning, construction, and operation. In the case of water resources, local interest groups (residents, entrepreneurs, NGOs) may be under pressure from water deficits, environmental degradation, or increased flood risk associated with power plant operations. On the other hand, energy is the sector that consumes the most water compared to other industries [6].

Water enters the energy sector either directly or as a production chain for goods and services used in the energy sector. This poses a serious environmental problem of a qualitative and quantitative nature [7]. Qualitative because heating water in open water circuits results in thermal pollution that affects biological life in rivers, lakes and reservoirs. Quantitative because the increasingly frequent low water levels and flows as a result of climate change, interfere with the normal operation of a power or CHP plants and are sometimes even dangerous for the technological equipment. In addition, it is necessary to maintain flows in rivers that are necessary for biological life in relation to environmental objectives [8]. This also applies to hydroelectric power plants, where the energy effect is achieved through inheritance by capturing water in deriving channels. The many barriers to energy development require the inclusion of local communities in the planning and management process. This allows for knowledge transfer between experts and the public, which in practice can allow for more effective management of water resources.

The growing role of stakeholders and, above all, the public has posed many challenges to both the energy industry and water resource management. To respond to the growing challenges in water management, the Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) approach was developed. IWRM involves the integration of all sectors of the economy and society in the water management process due to the fact that water resources play a key role in all areas of life. IWRM is a process that promotes the coordinated management and development of water and related resources to balance socio-economic outcomes with the health of water resources and the condition of key ecosystems that depend on them [9]. The implementation of IWRM primarily requires the participation of users, industry institutions and the public in the water resources management process. This is also relevant in any development of different forms of energy based on water resources. In addition, the increasing importance of the environment as a user of water resources, changing attitudes to natural hazards indicate the need for climate change adaptation measures based on social instruments appealing to people’s awareness and aimed at raising the level of acceptance of proposed solutions.

Climate change may affect the organisation of the planning process due to human-independent impacts on the area of possible development solutions, the need to consider a long-time horizon, and greater uncertainty regarding water resources [10]. Water deficits can effectively reduce the efficiency of energy systems. Examples include catastrophic droughts in Brazil which contribute to numerous power outages [11] Dugan et al. 2024. In the case of Poland, power outages in August 2015 resulted from severe heat waves and drought [12]. An adaptive action approach will also allow for conflict resolution using the common goal method of using a common task for conflicting parties as a driver for agreement. This requires interaction, mutual communication and maintaining contact [9]. A challenge in the current energy system is the ongoing climate change, which affects the availability of water resources throughout the year [13]. As a result, stakeholder groups need to develop methods to cooperate and share water resources within river basin boundaries.

In situations of water scarcity resulting from increased demand or due to water deficits caused by drought, effective management methods can be developed based on IWRM. At the same time, the implementation of IWRM is highly dependent on the social, legal, and administrative potential of the catchment area concerned. Poland’s accession to the European Union necessitated the launch of a multi-year energy transition resulting in a gradual shift from conventional coal-fired power generation to low-carbon energy sources [14]. Poland is currently dominated by conventional coal-fired power plants. Approximately 7 km³ of water per year is used in cooling power plant installations [15]. Thermal power is still based on coal. This is the largest water consumption among other sectors of the country’s economy, accounting for 60% of total consumption [15] Statistics Poland (GUS)]. In Poland, there are cases where, due to low water levels in rivers and simultaneous high energy demand, there are limitations in the supply of energy to specific sectors of the economy [16]. From a technological point of view, it is advisable to duplicate cooling systems by building closed circuits in the form of cooling towers. However, these systems also require water replenishment (up to 50%) due to intensive evaporation, but thanks to the cooperation of both systems, a greater guarantee of normal operation is provided. Thermal energy affects water in rivers by changing their hydrological regime. This causes in Poland conflicts with ecological organizations, the anglers community and organizations involved in water tourism. Poland’s hydropower resources and the capacity of hydroelectric power plants are small in relation to the demand of the economy and society for electricity and heat.

Hydropower plays a much smaller role [16]. The theoretical energy potential of our rivers is about 23 TWh, but for technical reasons it can be used only in about 50%. More than 760 small hydropower plants are located in Poland, with a total capacity of more than 930 MW. In contrast, the capacity of pumped storage power plants exceeds 1430 MW. Hydropower has a small share of about 1.5% of the country’s energy balance, and Poland ranks far ahead in Europe in this respect. Hydropower in Poland produces less than 2% of all electricity, while e.g., in Norway it is 97% and in Sweden 38% [17]. The location of new hydropower facilities also raises controversy among stakeholders. Poland has an ‘Energy Policy of Poland until 2040’ (EPP2040) adopted in 2021 [18]. After 12 years since the previous policy was established, a new strategic document was adopted, setting the directions for the development of the sector. EPP2040 provides a vision for Poland’s energy transition strategy, creating an axis for the programming of EU funds related to the energy sector as well as the realisation of economic needs. Among the main directions of energy sector development are listed the increase of the share of renewable energy solutions (RES), including hydropower in Poland’s energy structure (up to 50%) and the implementation of nuclear energy based on both large-scale reactors and small modular reactor (SMR), which have not been used in Poland so far. This policy poses many challenges for government agencies and investors regarding site selection, of potential new energy facilities, especially in terms of the availability of water resources.

Water management in Poland, as in other European Union countries, is based on the concept of Integrated Water Resources Management [19]. In this approach, it seems that the best solution is one in which spatial planning and water management should be carried out in a coordinated way that takes into account the sovereignty of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) plan. This is also confirmed to some extent by the name of these planning documents—the River Basin Management Plan—and the procedure for setting environmental objectives and possible exemptions from them, as specified in Article 4 of the WFD. The rationale for this integration is that land use has an impact on both water quality and quantity. The sealing of a catchment area or the location of high-impact facilities such as hydroelectric or nuclear power plants can significantly alter hydrological characteristics as well as water quality. It is consequently important to consider these aspects in planning and to use public consultation techniques in parallel. At the same time, the successful implementation of IWRM-based activities, such as social learning, public consultation, or participation in the management process, requires the recognition of the social potential of the areas that may become the site of future power plant construction.

Stakeholder engagement is a key issue in water management and should be based on cooperation between various entities—representatives of the state administration, entrepreneurs, residents, associations dealing with nature conservation and other social groups that want to get involved in the water management process. This cooperation is a multi-stage process, starting from public consultations and meetings, implementing the established plans and ending with their evaluation. Unfortunately, the changes introduced in Poland by the new Water Law Act in 2017 [20] do not facilitate the inclusion of stakeholders in consultation and decision-making processes. The elimination of water region councils practically eliminates stakeholders from dialogue at the catchment or water region level. In this respect, it is a step back in relation to the law of 2001 [21], which sanctioned the existence of water region councils consisting of 30 members nominated by, among others, local government bodies, economic, agricultural, fishing and social organizations related to water management, as well as by plants using water.

The aim of the presented research is to assess the social potential for the implementation of IWRM assumptions on the example of the Białka, Widawa, and Nysa Kłodzka river basins, in the context of the potential for the development of climate-resilient energy systems based on water resources. The results of the survey are presented to assess the preparedness of stakeholders to participate in the water management process in the context of energy systems planning. The study covered catchment areas in Poland, differing in topography and economy. Taking into account the multi-faceted and qualitative rather than quantitative nature of the IWRM principles, the authors assumed that due to the specificity of the analyses conducted, a survey based on the author’s own and dedicated questionnaires would be an appropriate method for assessing stakeholder preparedness. The answer to the research goal was carried out by verifying two research hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1. 

Public participation in the water resources management process is an important factor in the effective energy transformation.

Hypothesis 2. 

The analysis of the results of three different studies allows consistent conclusions to be drawn if it is carried out for a common theme (e.g., public participation).

2. Material and Methods

The study was carried out in three catchments (Figure 1). In the Białka, Nysa Kłodzka and Widawa catchments. These catchments are located in an area of southern and south-western Poland. The stakeholders operating and residing in the selected research catchments are influenced by the nature of the economy, water needs and threats. From the IWRM perspective, this has an impact on management problems and the nature of stakeholder participation and representation. The selected catchments are diverse in terms of land use, catchment size, hydrological and socio-economic conditions. In terms of land use, the Białka river basin is dominated by forests, and the Nysa Kłodzka and Widawa river basins by agricultural areas (

Table 1. Land cover in the studied basins.

	Białka River Basin Area		Widawa River Basin Area		Nysa Kłodzka River Basin Area
Unit	[km2]	[%]	[km2]	[%]	[km2]	[%]
Artificial surfaces	5.9	2.6	159.4	9.2	274.3	6.0
Agricultural areas	54.1	24.0	1163.8	66.8	2629.4	57.7
Meadows	6.5	2.9
Forests	131.0	58.1	413.1	23.7	1595.9	35.0
Bare rocks	24.8	11.0			0.2	0.005
Wetlands					3.6	0.1
Water bodies	3.1	1.4	5.1	0.3	50.1	1.1
TOTAL	225	100	1741	100	4553	100

Data from Corine Land Cover 2018, ver. 2020 [22].

). In terms of hydrology, the Nysa Kłodzka is characterised by the largest water resources and the Widawa basin by the smallest (

Table 2. Hydrological characteristics of the main rivers in the studied basins. Min—minimum value; P10%, P90%—percentile; Mdn—median; M—mean; Max—maximum value; σ—standard deviation; cv—coefficient of variation.

River	Period	Min	P10%	Mdn	M	P90%	Max	σ	cv
		m3/s
Nysa Kłodzka	1991–2023	3.9	10.8	24.8	31.9	55.8	1180.0	35.41	111%
Białka	1995–2023	0.9	2.0	4.9	7.6	14.8	216.0	9.86	130%
Widawa	1997–2023	0.1	1.1	4.0	5.4	11.3	53.1	4.99	92%

Data from Institute of Meteorology and Water Management National Research Institute database [23].

).

The Białka and Nysa Kłodzka are transboundary rivers whose drainage basins are partly located in Slovakia and the Czech Republic. The Białka drains the eastern part of the Tatra Range and the southern Orava-Podhale Basin. The Nysa Kłodzka drains parts of the Eastern and Central Sudety Mts, the Sudety Foreland and the south-eastern parts of the Silesia Lowland. The Widawa, on the other hand, is located entirely within Poland and drains the northern part of the Silesia Lowland (Oleśnica Plain). The topography of the area influences land use. The catchment area of the Białka River, due to its unique natural and landscape values (the braided character of the riverbed), is to a large extent subject to nature protection through the Tatra National Park, Natura 2000 Special Protection Areas, park buffer zones and reserves [24]. At the same time, the Białka catchment is under constant anthropopressure from the development of tourism, especially skiing [25]. The tourism industry impacts water resources through intensive water abstraction for municipal purposes and snowmaking on the slopes, while at the same time significant amounts of untreated wastewater migrate into surface and groundwater. The Białka River flows into the Czorsztyńskie Reservoir, which is part of the Niedzica PLC Power Plant Group. The established NATURA 2000 areas and the unique nature of the river, which has an alpine character in its upper reaches, affect the limitations in the development of its vicinity, and its anastomosing nature causes a large number of stakeholders to draw attention to flooding and the need to regulate the river. This area has geothermal energy potential and the possibilities for locating small hydroelectric power plants are limited due to nature conservation. On the other hand, the current restrictions, especially in the aspect of hydropower and energy, may lead to public discussions on new hydropower and energy investments. This situation may become a Gordian knot of stakeholder-public-administration relations.

Similarly, in the Nysa Kłodzka catchment area, the mountainous parts of the catchment are protected through the Stołowe Mountains National Park, Śnieżnicki Landscape Park, Natura 2000 Special Protection Areas, park buffer zones and reserves, while in the depressions (Kotlina Kłodzka) and in the north-eastern part of the catchment area agriculture dominates (Table 1). The Kotlina Kłodzka, due to its natural conditions and the presence of mineral waters and mud, is an area for the development of health resort tourism [26]. Health resorts such as Polanica-Zdrój, Lądek-Zdrój, Kudowa-Zdrój, and Duszniki-Zdrój are located in the catchment area. In the Nysa Kłodzka River catchment, which has hydropower potential and where tourist traffic is also significant, the management problem among stakeholders is dominated by flood protection and the implementation of investment tasks, including retention reservoirs and polders, which may be accompanied by hydropower plants. The geomorphological conditions of the catchment create the potential for hydropower; hence, the construction of the ‘Młoty’ pumped-storage power plant is planned in the catchment [27], while in the lower reaches of the Nysa Kłodzka there is the Nysa Kłodzka Cascade consisting of a system of 4 reservoirs and hydropower plants (Nysa, Otmuchów, Kozielno and Topola). Due to its lowland character, the Widawa catchment area is protected through Special Areas of Conservation Natura 2000 and reserves. The orography of the catchment is not conducive to the construction of damming facilities and only the Michalice Small Hydroelectric Plant on the Widawa River is present in the catchment. Importantly, the Widawa catchment area is an area with relatively little nature conservation. From the point of view of investors, this may be important for obtaining planning permission for power plants such as small modular nuclear reactors. Stakeholders previously focused on water distribution for agricultural purposes may be forced to share water with external stakeholders.

The selected catchments are therefore characterized by varying degrees of location potential for the development of energy facilities. In addition, the diverse nature of the catchments means that stakeholders from each of them struggle with different problems in the field of water management. The problems and the reaction of society to them constitute greater or lesser barriers to energy sector transformation. Water is a key resource for the development of energy, while the quantitative and qualitative state of water resources is largely dependent on effective management and a rational approach to their use. Such an approach requires social involvement and mutual cooperation of stakeholder groups in solving problems.

The following research methods were used to assess the social potential for the implementation of IWRM assumptions in the context of energy system development:

• Analysis of the environment of the water management system based on available legal acts, planning documents, and media reports on the course of consultation processes of water management issues in the context of energy development.
• A questionnaire survey of three independent catchments located in different regions of Poland: the Białka River, the Widawa River, and the Nysa Kłodzka River.

In relation to point 1 mentioned abovein order to get to know the background of the water management system in Poland, an analysis was made of legal acts, planning documents, and the course of the consultation processes on water management issues in the context of energy development. The current edition of the Polish Water Law (

Table 3. Sources used to characterize the background of the water management system in Poland.

Issue Area	Sources
Drought Threat	[28]
Energy Development	[14,18,29,30]
Stakeholder Role	[22,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46]
Integrated Water Resources Management	[20,47,48,49]

), the SDG 6.5 report of 2023, the Drought Effects Counteracting Plan (DECP), and the Energy Policy of Poland until 2040 were used. Media reports were also used for the analysis in terms of public discussion regarding the construction of the planned Młoty hydroelectric power plant, the existing Niedzica power plant, and the development of nuclear power including the construction of small modular reactors (SMR) in Poland.

In reference to point 2, the ongoing energy transition in Poland requires analyses related to the social potential of catchment areas that may become areas for new energy investments. The role of the public in the planning process is increasing. Public consultations are now a required part of the investment process. At the same time, they require knowledge of how to conduct them, which can be shaped by the exchange of experiences emerging from research. To date, there has not been extensive research on the relationship between water and energy systems in the context of the role of the public in the water management process. The research work originally envisaged the use of one joint survey, which was conducted in the Widawa catchment and then in the Białka catchment. The survey in the Białka catchment was unsuccessful—no responses were received. It was, therefore, decided to change the method of analysing the results to allow the different surveys to be brought into a common interpretation. The paper, thus, uses 3 independent sources of survey research focused on water management (

Table 4. Survey research—basic information (own elaboration).

	Survey Study in the Białka River Basin Area	Survey Study in the Widawa River Basin Area	Survey Study in the Nysa Kłodzka River Basin Area
Year of conducting the survey	2021	2023	2022
The number of questions considered in the analysis	15	24	12
Information about stakeholders	Residents of the catchment area, people running business activities and working in the catchment area, employees of non-governmental organizations, public administration employees	Residents of the catchment area, representatives of government administration, entrepreneurs, employees of nongovernmental organizations	Officials of local government units in the catchment area
Main issues covered by the questions	Flood, decrease in water quality in the river, changes in water quantity	Barriers to the water management system in an agricultural basin	Water management efficiency, drought

). The surveys assessed different aspects of water management efficiency depending on the specifics of the area and the water management problems that occur there. In the Nysa Kłodzka catchment area, the focus was on water management efficiency with particular reference to water deficits caused by droughts. In the Bialka catchment, a survey carried out in 2021 was used, where the emphasis was on the risks associated with flooding and declining water quality in the river [49]. In the Widawa catchment, due to the highly agricultural nature of the area and the extended group of water users (increased water needs), the survey focused on the barriers of the water management system related to the structure of the system. The survey carried out in the Białka and Widawa was an online survey distributed via email and social media and targeted residents and local government administration (CAWI type survey). The survey in the Nysa Kłodzka catchment area was conducted by sending forms to respondents (PAPItype survey) via e-mail to the general address of the secretariats, each of the 30 municipal offices. The questionnaires were addressed to officials of local government units in the catchment area whose competences included the areas covered by the questionnaire—usually to employees of environmental protection departments, including crisis management and civil protection or agricultural departments. The application of the above made it possible—within the catchments of the Widawa and Nysa Kłodzka rivers—to obtain feedback that was, on the one hand, specific to each of the studied catchments (within the survey questions), and, on the other hand, not available within the public domain.

For the purposes of this study, questions from individual surveys were numbered according to the following principle: the first letter of the name of the catchment, then the question number (for example, N1 means the first question from the survey for Nysa Kłodzka, W1 is the first question from the survey for Widawa, etc.)

These data, although heterogeneous, are a valuable source of information about the social potential for the implementation of IWRM assumptions. The diversity of stakeholder groups, the forms of questions in the surveys, and the different nature of the studied catchments generated the need to develop a method for analyzing results from different sources.

In order to interpret the results, the author’s method of grouping survey questions from different sources was applied. Five groups of questions were distinguished in terms of assessing the social potential for the implementation of IWRM assumptions (Figure 2):

• Activities of the administration—this group includes survey questions to obtain information on the activities undertaken by the state administration in terms of IWRM implementation. This group of questions provided information on whether and to what extent government authorities are taking IWRM-related actions, including actions to counteract adverse natural and social phenomena. The uptake of IWRM-related initiatives or the lack of such activities provides information on the willingness and capacity of both government and local authorities to act.
• Transfer of knowledge among stakeholders—a group of questions allowing the identification of activities related to enhancing the knowledge of stakeholders of stakeholders. As a result of this series of questions, it was possible to obtain information about relations between stakeholders, both within groups and between them. Transfer of knowledge between stakeholders is the foundation of cooperation and therefore participatory management of water resources.
• Knowledge assessment—questions in this group concern the assessment of the respondents’ knowledge of water management. The group focuses on questions providing data on available information campaigns, training and their results, but also on ensuring constant access to knowledge about the state of water resources. The way in which respondents perceive their own state of knowledge, as well as the state of knowledge of other stakeholders, is important for the willingness to learn, and therefore is crucial for assessing the potential for participation.
• Social potential—questions representing potential willingness to engage in the process of planning and implementation of water management activities. A group that referred to the willingness of stakeholders to cooperate and participate in the water management process, as well as their interest in the subject of water protection. Some of the questions concerned the willingness of stakeholders to work out compromises or the ability to bear the costs resulting from the use and management of water resources. The knowledge acquired makes it possible to assess the current status and potential for the implementation of IWRM principles.
• Assessment of the administration’s actions—a group of questions to identify the public’s perception of the administration’s actions. A group of questions allowing to determine whether the level of activity of the state administration in the implementation of IWRM is sufficient according to the society and public administration employees themselves.

Each of the 3 surveys provided direct information on the subject under study, but it is not possible to interpret all surveys as a uniform, common survey, primarily due to differences in the methodology of the studies themselves. In order to obtain consistent information, the authors decided to focus the interpretation of the results on aspects related to the implementation of IWRM. In the first stage, key areas from the point of view of IWRM implementation were defined. Then, questions providing information on a given scope were assigned to these areas. This approach allows for the interpretation of the answers through the prism of the plane to which the questions were classified, which allows for limiting the interpretation barriers related to differences in the structure of the surveys.

Figure 2. Diagram of the survey question grouping method (own elaboration).

Figure 2. Diagram of the survey question grouping method (own elaboration).

3. Results

3.1. The Environment of the Water Management System

3.1.1. Drought Risk in the Nysa Kłodzka, Białka and Widawa Basins

Drought in Poland is a phenomenon that has increasingly serious consequences, both for the environment and the economy. Recent decades have brought pronounced climatic changes that have increased the frequency and intensity of droughts. Due to the complexity of the phenomenon (phases), drought is determined on the basis of specific, standardised indices, e.g., SPI—standardised precipitation index (in the case of atmospheric drought) or CBW—climatic water balance (in the case of agricultural drought)—extended information on the methodology of determining drought is available in the Drought Effects Counteracting Plan (DECP) [28]. At the same time, it should be emphasised that Poland as a country is characterised by relatively small water resources estimated at about 1600 m³/year (with the European average more than 3 times higher).

The current policy of counteracting the effects of droughts in Poland understood as a sequence of decisions followed by actions (or lack thereof), is based on the main objectives resulting from the current Drought Effects Counteracting Plan (DECP), whose main aim is already contained in the very name of the Plan, as counteracting the effects of drought. The other 4 specific objectives are [28]:

• effective management of water resources to increase available water resources,
• increasing water retention (storage),
• drought education and coordination of drought related activities,
• creation of mechanisms for the implementation and financing of drought-related activities.

The threat of atmospheric and agricultural drought in Poland estimated on the basis of the SPEI3 and SPEI12 (Standardised Climatic Water Balance Index) increases in both RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 scenarios, which translates into an increase in the threat of hydrological and hydrogeological drought [28]. Analysis of the current DECP maps showed that the study catchments are not threatened by agricultural drought. At the same time, the mountainous catchments of the Białka and Nysa Kłodzka rivers are threatened by hydrological drought, which affects the availability of water resources for energy purposes, especially in energy systems (

Table 5. Drought threat in the studied basins.

	Hydrological Drought Risk Level	Agricultural Drought Risk Level (in Agricultural and Forest Areas)	Hydrogeological Drought Risk Level	Drought Risk Assessment According to DECP
Białka River basin area	extreme/strong	weak	moderate	strong/moderate
Widawa River basin area	weak	weak	extreme	strong/extreme
Nysa Kłodzka River basin area	strong	weak	moderate/strong	moderate

Data from the Drought Effects Counteracting Plan (Own elaboration; [28]).

).

In the context of the implementation of IWRM [19] at the local level, it is important to maintain the coherence of policies to address drought and water scarcity. These include non-technical measures consisting of appropriate planning and management of water resources and counteracting the effects of drought, education or the introduction of economic instruments. The available technical solutions are concentrated within the so-called investment tasks implemented in Poland by the State Water Holding Polish Waters (SWH PW) within the programme of planned investments [28].

3.1.2. Development of the Energy System in Poland

Poland’s current energy policy assumes a change in the structure of energy sources [16]. This means reducing the share of conventional coal-based power generation in favour of other sources, including renewable energy. In 2022, after the outbreak of war in Ukraine, assumptions were developed for the EPP2040 update taking into account economic sanctions covering energy resource suppliers [29]. The update emphasises an increase in the share of RES in Poland’s energy market to 50%, including hydropower. At the same time, it assumes the continued operation of coal-fired power plants, the implementation of nuclear power based on large reactors (above 1000 MW), and the implementation of SMR, whose network is currently in the planning phase. The update also assumes the development of energy storage, including pumped storage power plants. According to observations by the Polish think tank Forum Energii [30], hydropower played a significant role in the energy storage market (both run-of-river and pumped storage power plants) in 8 energy market auctions in Poland. Domestic energy contracts for hydropower plants covered 1158 MW, which accounted for 8% of the capacity auctioned. The increasing role of pumped storage power plants as energy storage facilities is linked to the rapid development of RES in Poland, including primarily wind energy and photovoltaics. The efficiency of energy storage in pumped storage power plants was 71.6% in 2023 [50]. The current structure of energy production from hydropower represents a small share of the market, and nuclear power is absent from domestic energy production. In the overall balance of energy production in 2023, the share of hydroelectric power plants was 0.14%, and among production from RES, 5.3% [50]. At the same time, relative to 2022, energy production from these sources increased by 42%. Although the use of hydroelectric power plants is marginal in the current energy mix, the implementation of the so-called Fit for 55 climate package forces adaptation measures in the Polish energy system [14]. Fit for 55 is a set of EU climate regulations with the main objectives of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Europe by as much as 55% by 2030 (relative to 1990 levels) and achieving climate neutrality by 2050. The literature of the subject argues that Europe is the first continent to undergo energy transformation.

3.1.3. The Role of Stakeholders in the Development of Energy Investments in Poland—Hydropower and Nuclear Energy

The horizon for changes in Poland’s energy system will lead to an increased role for energy in water management. One of the first planned large-scale investments is the construction of the ‘Młoty’ power plant in the Nysa Kłodzka basin, on the Bystrzyca River [27]. In its communications with consumers, PGE (Polska Grupa Energetyczna) presents the investment primarily as an energy storage facility (the power plant will have a capacity of 1050 MW). Due to the exceptional value of the area in terms of hydrology, nature, and landscape, the plans to build the power plant arouse public opposition, presented during protests organised by local stakeholder groups [31,32]. Stakeholders express concern about water deficits (there is a water intake for the municipality in the catchment area), degradation of the environment and water resources, and the long waiting time for the investment (the current power plant will be built on the site of an unfinished power plant from the 1970s).

The construction of damming facilities that also serve the hydropower industry is highly controversial, and stakeholders can effectively delay the start of the investment, an example of which is Zespół Elektrowni Wodnych Niedzica Sp. z o.o. The construction of the facility took 20 years (1976–1996) and provoked huge resistance from both local and expert communities [33,34,35,36,37,38]. The ongoing public consultations were initiated by groups in opposition to construction. Stakeholders did not feel they were part of the process of building the power plant—protests, roadblocks, and clashes with the police were the last resort.

Among stakeholders, the construction of nuclear power plants has also raised numerous concerns. According to the Orlen Group’s strategy, an SMR network is being designed, currently covering 7 locations across Poland [39,40]. At the same time, these are potential locations that may be reviewed and changed in the future. SMR construction projects create a completely new scale of impact on water resources and catchment areas due to the dispersion of facilities. In place of one large nuclear power plant, many smaller ones are being developed, requiring adjustments to water management in many areas, including the discharge of heated water into watercourses. Local authorities and potential investors in these areas expect considerable public resistance to the investment process due to the associated risk of degradation of various environmental components [41]. Design work is also currently underway for the planned Lubiatowo-Kopalino power plant [51], the construction of which will begin in 2028. The construction of this facility is generating strong public opposition from residents of the area, who fear environmental degradation [43,44]. These concerns are also echoed by the scientific community, which expects the degradation of coastal waters by discharging heated water from the power plant’s cooling system [45,46].

3.1.4. Integrated Water Resources Management

The dynamic changes in the energy sector are inextricably linked to the water management system. According to the Water Law enacted in 2017, the management of water resources should, among other things, be conducted in the public interest, not allowing for the deterioration of the ecological functions of water and the deterioration of water-dependent terrestrial ecosystems [20]. In practice, this translates into the security of water supply for households, agriculture, industry, and other users and the protection of water in terms of both quantity and quality. The Water Law does not directly introduce the concept of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM); however, Poland, like other UN countries, declares the degree of implementation of IWRM as part of its Sustainable Development Indicators (SDG) reporting [47]. The results of indicator report 6.5.1 for 2023 indicate a very high level of IWRM implementation in terms of public participation, private sector involvement in water management, and communication between different sectors of the economy. The very high value of indicator 2.1.c. was justified by the centralisation of water management, which, according to the authors of the report, improves communication between authorities and consultation on planning documents related to flood risk and water deficits, as well as water and wastewater management. The results of the UN survey indicate a high level of IWRM implementation in Poland.

3.2. Survey Results

3.2.1. Group 1

Group 1 included 8 questions on the activities of the state administration bodies concerning water resources protection and management in the broadest sense. These questions concerned the activities undertaken and the scope of the activities implemented without any evaluation of these activities by the respondent. As a result of this series of questions, it was possible to obtain information on the approach of officials to the issues in the questionnaire, legal possibilities in the implementation of undertakings and, consequently, the participatory potential of such stakeholders. The questions varied in form and concerned different methods of counteracting unfavourable phenomena as well as inefficient management of the catchment’s water resources. In the catchment area of the Nysa Kłodzka River, only 13% of the municipalities that responded to the questionnaire did not take measures to counteract the effects of drought between 2017 and 2021 (N1) (Figure 3). The remaining respondents, as the most frequent forms of counteraction, indicated technical measures to support small-scale retention (33%) and education and the creation of awareness of the inhabitants regarding drought and ways to counteract its effects (17%). When asked about commissioning activities to counteract the effects of drought to NGOs (N2), 60% of the municipalities surveyed responded. All answers were negative—municipalities do not cooperate with NGOs in this area. At the same time, only 7% of municipalities participating in the survey of the Nysa Kłodzka catchment area did not provide a budget reserve for counteracting the effects of drought (N3); the remaining 93% answered in the affirmative. As for the support provided to residents in terms of insuring them against the effects of drought, this took the form of compensation payments (N4), which were declared by 13% of respondents, in the Nysa Kłodzka catchment area (80% of municipalities responded that they did not support residents in this regard, 7% did not answer the question). On the other hand, when asked in the questionnaire for the Widawa catchment area about the implementation of joint undertakings with the State Water Holding Polish Waters (SWH PW) by the administrative bodies of municipalities (W1), 14% of respondents answered that they are implemented to a large or very large extent, 49% assessed that such cooperation is implemented to a small or very small extent. The answer that there are no such projects was given by 13% of respondents. The municipalities in the Widawa catchment area were also asked about the municipality’s strategy for solving water management problems based on a phased approach, i.e., from easily solvable issues to more complex and complicated ones (W2). Approximately 44% of the respondents considered that such strategies had been developed to a small or very small extent, 18% of the respondents claimed that no strategy had been developed. In contrast, 32% responded that a strategy had been developed to a limited extent. Regarding the design of alternative solutions to meet water needs (W3), the majority of respondents (57%) in the Widawa catchment felt that their municipality had such solutions to a limited and very limited extent, 14% felt that their municipality did not have such solutions. Less than a third (29%) responded that draft solutions exist to a limited or large extent). The majority of respondents (57%) felt that in the Widawa catchment area, local forms of planning in water management with water users initiated by the municipality or association of municipalities function to a small and very small extent (W4). 23% have no information about such programmes. Only 3% considered that such forms function to a great extent.

3.2.2. Group 2

Group 2 contains 10 questions relating to knowledge transfer between and within stakeholder groups. This group included questions that provided data on available information campaigns, training, and their results, as well as on the provision of continuous access to knowledge about the state of water resources. The questionnaire used to survey the Nysa Kłodzka catchment area included a question about organisations operating in 2017–2021 in the study area that addressed the topic of drought in their activities (N5) (Figure 4). As many as 73% of respondents claimed that no such organisations were operating in their municipalities, 20% admitted that they had no knowledge of the subject. Only 7% confirmed the activities of such organisations in their municipality; these respondents claimed that the organisations receive accommodation and financial support from the municipality (N6). According to the majority of respondents (67%), there were no activities carried out in their municipalities to increase the level of awareness of municipal residents about the drought threat (N7). The remaining 33% responded that their municipalities use information posted on (N8) the municipality’s website, notice boards, and poles as tools to increase awareness of the drought threat. Regarding the administrative staff training on drought mitigation (N9), 27% of respondents answered that their municipality’s staff had participated in training, seminars to improve their professional skills on this topic between 2017 and 2021 (67% did not participate and 7% did not answer). In the catchment area of the Widawa River, when asked about funding for staff training (W5), respondents mostly considered that it was available to a moderate (37%) and small (33%) extent (11% each answered that funding was available to a very large and very small extent and 4% each answered that it was available to a full extent or not at all). At the same time, only 24% of respondents answered that training programs in the field of water management for administration employees in the commune are organized to a large, very large or full extent. (W6) When assessing the public’s access to systems for disseminating knowledge about water management in the Widawa catchment (W7), the majority of respondents (63%) considered this access low or very low, with 12% responding that it did not exist. At the same time, the majority of respondents considered that continuous information on the quantitative and qualitative status of water resources in the municipality (W8) is provided to a large (44%) or moderate (32%) extent. Among the survey questions for the Białka River catchment area, there was a question on sources of knowledge (B1). Respondents indicated websites as the main source (81%); at the same time, only 12% of respondents indicated workshops as a source of knowledge.

3.2.3. Group 3

Group 3 was assigned 11 questions focusing on respondents’ assessment of the knowledge of particular stakeholder groups or their own knowledge. Questions with which the interviewers checked the respondents’ level of knowledge were also classified in this group. This group of questions makes it possible to assess how current activities related to the implementation of IWRM translate into participatory potential. Participatory and participatory management requires that each stakeholder group possesses the knowledge that is a basis for potential cooperation. In the Nysa Kłodzka catchment area, 1/3 of respondents answered that their municipality had no knowledge about the implementation of the Drought Protection Plan (N10) (Figure 5). Resident s of the Widawa catchment area, when asked if they knew the water management goals and environmental objectives included in the river basin management plans for the river basin districts developed by SWH PW (W9) most often assessed their knowledge in this respect as moderate (29%), high (23%), or low (22%). More than 1/3 of the respondents in the survey for the Widawa catchment area (W10) (38%) considered that the water management and environmental objectives included in the management plans for the river basin districts should also be implemented in the catchment area in which they live or operate. Some 28% responded that these objectives should be implemented to a moderate degree. When asked about their familiarity with the concept of best practice in water resources management, almost a third of respondents from the Widawa catchment (W11) responded that they had very high or high knowledge of this topic. Nearly half (47%) considered their knowledge to be zero, very little or little. Almost ¾ of the respondents (73%) (W12) to this survey (Widawa) felt that there were no or very little or little, research programes related to water management in the catchment. Respondents associated with the Białka River catchment, when answering the question of what they thought water management consisted of (B2), mostly (59%) answered that it was based on the principles of preserving the rational and holistic treatment of surface and groundwater resources, taking into account their quantity and quality and protecting the environment associated with them, but 1/5 answered that it consisted of regulation of rivers and streams. The majority (64%) of respondents from the Białka catchment have no knowledge of planning documents related to water management (B3). Those who declared such knowledge most often indicated flood risk management plans (26%) and river basin management plans (20%). 68% of respondents considered SHW PW as the most significant institution in water management (B4). The most frequently mentioned nature conservation solutions in the Białka catchment area (B5) were Natura 2000 sites (74%) and nature reserves (49%). As many as 94% of respondents declared that they notice the variability of water flow in the Białka catchment throughout the year (B6). At the same time, almost ¾ of stakeholders considered that the quantitative status of the catchment’s surface water has deteriorated in recent years (B7).

3.2.4. Group 4

Group 4 is the most numerous group regarding the number of questions. 16 questions classified in this group related to involvement in water conservation issues and cooperation between stakeholders in this regard. Some of the questions concerned participation and the involvement of particular stakeholder groups in the water management process. Respondents from the Nysa Kłodzka catchment area, when asked whether their municipality cooperated with governmental and self-governmental entities and research units on issues related to drought (N11) (Figure 6), more than half (53%) answered that their municipality did not undertake such cooperation (40% cooperated, 7% did not answer). Only 13% of the respondents declared that they had noticed an increase in the interest of the inhabitants of their municipality in recent years in the subject of drought and how to counteract it (N12). The majority (53%) of respondents were unable to give a clear answer (‘hard to say’). In the Widawa catchment, more than ¾ of respondents (76%) claimed that local initiatives (initiated by individuals and businesses) to support the water management process (W13) either do not exist or function to a very small and insignificant extent. Respondents (still Widawa) considered that residents/businesses in the Widawa catchment are not involved in the water management process (W14) (80% answered that involvement is zero, very low, or low). Approximately 66% of the respondents believe that cooperation of the municipal administration with the environment, including residents and entrepreneurs in solving water management problems does not exist or exists to a very small or small extent (W15). On the other hand, 33% believe that such cooperation functions to a moderate degree. Only 20% of the participants in the survey used programmes to support the use of rainwater in the household (W16) to a very large or large extent. As many as 27% do not use such programmes, and 39% participate to a very low or low degree. One in all, 58% of respondents from the Widawa catchment answered ‘to a large extent’ and ‘to a moderate extent’ when asked whether there are guidelines, instructions or other arrangements that indicate how residents and businesses can participate in the water management process in the catchment (surveys, meetings, submitting proposals, giving opinions on documents, etc.)(W17). Approximately 66% of the respondents assessed that the activity and willingness to take initiatives of residents and businesses regarding water management problems and issues in the municipality (W18) does not exist, or its extent is very low or low. Only 29% rated the extent of activity and willingness of residents to take initiatives as moderate. In the Białka catchment area, more than a third of the people surveyed (36%) expressed the view that the catchment community is largely interested in taking care of the quality and quantity of the Białka waters (B8). Another (36%) responded that they felt this interest was moderate or low. As many as 17% felt that the local community was not interested in caring for the quantitative and qualitative state of the water resources. Respondents felt that representatives of local residents should be primarily involved in managing the waters of the Białka catchment (B9) (88%). Half of the respondents claimed that representatives of nature conservation organisations and associations should be involved in the process, and slightly less than half (48%) indicated entrepreneurs operating in the Białka River catchment area as potential participants in the water management process. At the same time, only 53% of respondents expressed an unequivocal interest in cooperation in water management (B10), and as many as 30% had no opinion. Respondents who expressed interest in such cooperation most often indicated (53%) that it would involve stakeholder participation in identifying sites that pose a threat to water quality (B11). Of the respondents from the Białka catchment, 69% thought that to manage water responsibly, appropriate regulations should be established in the Local Development Plan (e.g., limiting the number of sites available for certain types of economic activities) (B12). Another question in the survey for the Białka catchment area was addressed to potential water users (entrepreneurs-residents) and concerned the willingness of respondents to bear the costs of measuring infrastructure related to obtaining environmental information if it would support their business activities (B13). The question was answered by 30% of survey participants (the remainder indicated that the question did not apply to them). Half of the respondents to the question were willing to bear such costs, 21% were not willing to bear the financial responsibility. At the same time, as many as 87% responded that they would not incur such costs (B14). Of the potential water users, 41% would agree that a hierarchy of users regarding water abstraction should be introduced during periods of increased water use in the Białka River catchment (B15) (36% refused, 23% had no opinion).

3.2.5. Group 5

The questions in Group 5 concerned the evaluation of the activities of the administrative units by other stakeholder groups and the administrative staff themselves. Respondents answering the questionnaire for the Widawa River catchment were asked to assess the actions taken by SWH PW to plan and solve problems in water management in the catchment (W19) (Figure 7). More than half of them (59%) answered that these activities are not undertaken or are implemented to a very small or small extent. Only 22% considered the extent of their implementation to be moderate. According to the majority of respondents, the local administration does not set priorities correctly in solving problems in water management (W20)—66% of them answered that these priorities are set correctly to a small or very small extent, or not at all. Similarly, for the question of whether the local administration provides security for water needs (W21)- 64% of respondents felt that it provides it to a small degree, very small degree, or not at all. Almost 1/3 of the respondents (31%) felt that the local administration to a large or very large extent has well-trained staff who take an interdisciplinary approach to solving problems in water management (W22). More than a third (35%) felt that the administration had moderately trained staff, and the remaining 34% felt that they had very little, little, or no training. When asked to assess the cooperation of the local administration with SWH PW in the implementation of water management projects in the Widawa River catchment, more than ¾ of the respondents (76%) stated that these projects are effective to a small, very small, or zero degree (W23). The majority (66%) of respondents considered that cooperation between water users in the catchment (residents and businesses) and SWH PW (Regional Water Management Board) (joint meetings, consultations, analyses, assessments, opinions, plans) (W24) does not exist, or exists to a small or very small extent (29% indicated that it exists to a moderate extent).

4. Discussion

The subject of this paper were three catchments with different economic, social, and geographical characteristics. Through the use of the question grouping method, it was possible to diagnose the effectiveness of the implementation of the IWRM concept in the context of public participation, which is one of the key elements of this type of water resources management [9]. The public plays an important role not only in water management, but also in energy. Despite the crucial role of energy investments for future economic development, the construction of new power plants can generate a time-consuming public debate in which neither side benefits. At the same time, energy development is inextricably linked to the demand for water—whether in hydro, nuclear or conventional power plants. Effective implementation of IWRM at the catchment level can assist in building the right relationship between the public, public administration, and energy investors.

The catchments selected for analysis are characterised by varying degrees of linkage to energy, but the problems diagnosed are independent of the area. When planning investments such as the SMR, many local water resources will need to be shared with power plants. Hence a rapid assessment of the social potential in this area is essential. The combination of energy development and IWRM principles can foster the development of a stable energy system and responsible water resource management. As indicated by Cvijovi’c et al. [52] stakeholders at the lowest level, who generally represent catchment residents, can significantly influence energy investments. Lack of adequate communication can lead to open conflicts that result in huge costs and increased instability in the energy system. Poland’s energy transition will require the construction of power plants (nuclear and hydroelectric) in areas where so far stakeholders have not considered sharing water resources with power plants. At the same time, the negative experience to date with investment processes for the Niedzica and ‘Młoty’ hydroelectric power plants or the planned nuclear power plant indicates significant gaps in the implementation of IWRM in the context of public participation. This conclusion raises the question of how the administration will deal with the prioritisation of water users in agricultural catchments such as the Widawa, where water demand is currently high and the periodic decline in water resources associated with droughts causes significant water stress. It is possible that in catchments such as the Widawa River it will be necessary to implement water resource management in which local stakeholders will play a key role. In Tasmania [53], a solution has been used where stakeholders self-create water-sharing rules, which has significantly improved water distribution for agricultural purposes and reduced the negative impacts of drought. At the same time, it is important to note that the power plant introduces an external stakeholder, unrelated to the local community, into the catchment, which in practice may translate into a prolonged rule-making process or the creation of unresolvable conflict. Nonetheless, in a catchment approach, rapidly changing water management systems require an integrated approach geared towards adaptation not only in terms of climate change, but also changing water user patterns [54]. This approach allows trade-offs to be developed at critical points in system operation such as when a hydropower, nuclear or conventional power plant is introduced into a catchment area. The energy transition of Poland will affect the sustainability of water management systems, and will require an adaptive, integrated approach to problem solving.

4.1. Local Government as Coordinator of the Lowest Level of Water Resources Management—Role in the Process of Building a Resilient Energy System

The first group of survey questions provided insight into the role of the municipality in the process of creating public awareness of water management. The municipality is the smallest fully formalised unit of local self-government in Poland, which in its own tasks deals with matters of water supply for the population, environmental protection, nature conservation and water management [49]. Its role is also to create the conditions for auxiliary units to operate and implement programmes to stimulate civic activity. In practice, this means that, apart from the administration directly related to water management (e.g., the Water Supervision of The State Water Holding Polish Waters), the municipality plays the most significant role as the stakeholder closest to the local community. In both study catchments, municipalities declare limited activities in terms of involving local communities in water management. t. According to Watson [55], even the best central policy and adequate funding will not contribute to the effective implementation of IWRM under conditions of weak inter-institutional links and cooperation with local stakeholders. Importantly, in the process of planning energy investments or developing IWRM plans in Poland, government agencies or investors take the main role in public consultation. The role of the municipality is very often marginalised and, after the abolition of the Water Regions Councils, the implementation of water management with strong public participation is hampered. According to Fritsh [56], discussions at the central level are difficult for non-experts in water management. When organised representation of local communities in consultation processes is limited, stakeholders at the lowest level may feel left out and uninformed, ultimately leading them to postulate their own reasons, as in the case of the Młoty and Niedzica hydropower plants, or nuclear power plants. At the same time, as Bielsa and Cazcarro [57] point out, in critical situations, such as recurrent water deficits caused by drought phenomena, cooperation between local stakeholder groups, especially in small catchments, is inevitable. The identified low activity of the municipality in the field of local stakeholder cooperation can make the community feel that its interests are not being taken care of. According to Howell et al. [58], collaboration between stakeholders is the basis for efficient communication and mutual learning, hence the municipality’s activism is crucial in terms of implementing IWRM and having an efficient public debate on new energy investments. There are many good examples such as the cooperative management of water distribution in the Ringarooma community [53], it is, however, as Eaton et al. [59] points out, the involvement of stakeholders in the water management process must be done by co-operating with the local administration in order to maintain the principles of IWRM. The current involvement of municipalities may undermine the implementation of IWRM and hinder the dynamic development of the energy transition envisaged by [18,29]. According to the authors, in the current structure of water resources management in Poland, the municipality is marginalised as a stakeholder. The role of the municipality is reduced to that of a public organisation that, among other things, distributes funds to water management areas, supplies water and co-manages investments, but feels less responsibility for creating cooperation with the local community.

4.2. Knowledge Transfer

The basis for communication between different stakeholder groups is the effective transfer of knowledge about environmental phenomena and processes, both by experts and the inhabitants of the area [9,47]. The municipality’s inactivity in educational programmes on water management, as in the case of the Nysa Kłodzka catchment area on drought, hinders the transfer of knowledge between local communities and managers. Research aimed at knowledge transfer to the local community conducted in Ukraine and Mongolia by Sigel et al. [60] indicates that knowledge transfer activities allow for mutual learning between different stakeholder groups and the intermingling of expert and non-expert knowledge. At the same time, knowledge transfer allows for dialogue and provides a basis for the development of public participation in the watershed management process. The lack of adequate education and self-education programmes for employees, as indicated by the results of the survey carried out for the Widawa catchment, may on the one hand delay the IWRM implementation process and on the other hand undermine the introduction of investments with significant impacts on water resources into the catchment. As Haigh et al. [61] point out, in order for the administration to be able to carry out effective IWRM implementation activities, an adequate level of knowledge is required, a lack of staff familiar with water management issues is a lack of proper communication and management. A weak link in the form of low activity of the local government can adversely affect the sentiments of the local community. Self-acquisition of knowledge by the community, as in the case of the Białka catchment, can lead to a distorted perception of the correct water management process according to IWRM principles. This problem also affects the administration, which, acting without taking into account local social and environmental sensitivities, makes decisions that may appear controversial. According to Buchecker et al. [62] social learning leads to the development of compromise even in the case of mutually exclusive interest groups, at the same time, when knowledge and its transfer is acquired in an uncoordinated manner divisions between stakeholders may deepen. As a result, investment activities related to the increase of water abstractions, e.g., for power plants, may encounter resistance due to the spontaneous development of opposition communities. Insufficient knowledge transfer creates a sense of exclusion in local stakeholder groups regarding information on water management (as in the case of the Widawa catchment. In practice, as Lukat et al. [63] point out, the exclusion of local information sharing communities leads to a loss of knowledge about the catchment environment and also limits knowledge about the social potential in the implementation of both small and large-scale water management investments. These studies indicate that, despite geographic diversity, increased collaboration and knowledge transfer between stakeholders is needed in all catchments.

4.3. Level of Knowledge

Problems resulting from insufficient information transfer translate into the state of knowledge of respondents both on the part of municipalities and local communities. Low levels of knowledge about water management can have a significant impact on the development of industries closely linked to water. In a study on barriers to IWRM implementation in the Caribbean by Huang et al. [64] showed that low levels of knowledge resulting from a lack of public information about water resources, insufficient training and educational meetings lead to a significant barrier to responsible water management. From the perspective of the energy industry, one of the most threatening types of investment is the construction of hydroelectric power plants, which are highly controversial among both the scientific community and the public. Hydroelectric dams, on the one hand, become a reservoir of water and energy and, on the other hand, contribute to environmental degradation, changes in the regime of rivers and permanent transformation of the society and landscape of the catchment [65]. An example where a lack of cooperation with local community stakeholders has led to an energy crisis is hydropower development in Nepal [66]. Low levels of knowledge and information flow between stakeholders have led to social uncertainty about water availability, environmental degradation and destruction of private property without compensation. As a result, despite significant demand, the growth of hydroelectricity is insufficient and the energy system is unstable. The Polish energy system must abandon conventional power plants in the near future. Furthermore, due to climate change and the increased frequency of droughts and uneven distribution of resources over time, there is a real threat of periodic water shortages [67]. Although Poland’s energy system is currently meeting user demand, its future is uncertain due to upcoming changes. The low level of knowledge diagnosed in the study translates into difficulties in implementing IWRM principles. Consequently, barriers to water resources management will combine with barriers to energy development.

Lack of knowledge is a significant barrier limiting effective IWRM implementation, as it limits capacity building at all levels of governance [68]. It seems that in the case of investments such as the Młoty hydroelectric power plant, it is essential for the government to develop a multi-stage process of cooperation with stakeholders. It is necessary to initiate a dialogue directed at identifying stakeholder needs, education dedicated to changing stereotypes about water management, pointing out the benefits of implementing IWRM-based management, and shaping critical thinking about the short-sighted perspective directed towards the benefit of the individual in water management.

4.4. Social Potential—Public Participation

Water management based on IWRM assumptions requires the participation of different stakeholder groups at different stages of management [47]. In order for this cooperation to take place effectively in the catchment, participatory capacities must exist. These are people who will be willing to participate in the processes of knowledge transfer, planning, identification of problems in the catchment or implementation of water management tasks. In all of the study catchments, participatory potential exists although it is limited. This is due to the already diagnosed problems resulting from the new Water Law [48], and the issues identified in the survey with knowledge and its transfer between different stakeholder groups. At the same time, the lack of communication between different stakeholder groups, joint projects and involvement of local communities in solving problems in water management is indicated as a barrier. Public participation is recognised as a cornerstone of IWRM [69]. It is key to solving critical problems particularly related to water deficits [70], which could be crucial in the development of the energy system and the construction of new power plants or energy storage in the form of pumped storage. At the same time, in the Białka catchment, a significant proportion of respondents are interested in cooperation in water resources management. As Islam et al. [71] point out, to achieve sustainable water resources management, cooperation between government agencies and local communities is necessary, as this creates a shared responsibility for the system in which stakeholders in a catchment operate. This is a necessary activity to develop the trade-offs needed to share water resources. The lack of such cooperation translates into a weakened governance process, as demonstrated in the work of Shunglu et al. [72]. In the study areas of Turkey, India and Sri Lanka, the authors identified numerous conflicts of a political-socio-economic nature resulting from the omission of local stakeholder groups in water management. The social potential depends on many factors. Very often the reason for the need to get involved in the water management process, is the negative consequences of hydrological and meteorological phenomena or environmental contamination that directly affects people’s lives. Ross and Baldwin [54] noted that during elections in Australia, voters cast more votes for candidates who present pro-environmental demands when there are significant environmental problems (floods, droughts, fires). Thus, the high participatory potential in the Białka River catchment, may be a result of the regular flooding that occurs in the area due to the high mountainous southern part of the catchment. It is possible that the participatory potential will increase in Poland due to the recent catastrophic flooding in the Oder river basin [73] and longer periods of drought. When the effects of the phenomena affect users, they will be interested in co-management according to their own interests. It is worth noting that in many aspects of water management, there is a ‘tragedy of the commons’ as the public does not feel responsible for water resources. These conditions, and the increasing demand for water, may encourage the development of solutions based on collaborative planning and rule-setting as in the Ringrarooma community in Tasmania [53]. In the case of energy and water resource investment planning in Poland, a bottom-up willingness to engage stakeholders can be employed from the beginning of the investment process. According to Zaman et al. [74] close cooperation with stakeholders, knowledge exchange during meetings, and educational activities foster better solutions for society, the environment and investors.

4.5. Evaluation of the Authorities’ Activity

While participatory capacity is crucial for the development of IWRM, trust in the entities responsible for managing water resources in the catchment (municipalities and government agencies) is no less important. The negative assessment of activities and the low level of trust in local authorities indicate serious problems in water resources management based on IWRM principles. As the experience of Delozier and Burbach [75] from Nebraska indicates, negative relationships between stakeholders adversely affect the water management process. They very often prevent dialogue, as the lack of trust forces caution in actions and the lack of faith in joint problem solving. According to Al-Saidi [76], IWRM requires the equal support of government agencies and the cooperation of all stakeholder groups at all stages of management. This ranges from policy making, funding, education or implementing transparent and equitable conflict resolution in both small projects and large investments. In the context of the surveys conducted, an additional gap is the optimism of government agencies to implement public participation in water management based on IWRM principles. The surveys conducted clearly suggest that at the local level, communication, mutual learning and participation are not progressing in line with the concept. In contrast, according to the 2023 SDG 6.5.1 report [47], public participation achieved the highest value of all indicators. According to Shams & Muhammad [77], who analysed current water management in Afghanistan, the lack of systemic solutions leads to inefficient use of water resources, which in practice translates into deficits in other sectors. For example, despite Afghanistan’s large water resources, hydropower, which does not fulfil its potential, does not make a significant contribution to the country’s energy market. On the other hand, a multi-phase water management plan for the Brantas River Basin in Indonesia, based on IWRM principles, has allowed the construction of a set of hydroelectric power plants that meet the energy needs of users and serve an additional role as water sources, as well as a flood control function [78]. Referring to Poland’s current energy transition challenges, water-related decision-makers will have to make decisions that will lead to a stable energy system. At the same time, the threat of failure due to barriers in water resources management may negatively affect the development of the Polish economy as energy is its key part. From the authors’ point of view, the first step to establish communication with stakeholders is necessary to modify the current Water Law and reinstate the Regional Water Management Councils. This organisation consisted of stakeholder representatives who were involved in consulting on catchment planning processes.

5. Conclusions

5.1. Main Findings

The presented article assesses the social potential for the implementation of IWRM assumptions on the example of the Białka, Nysa Kłodzka and Widawa river catchments. The analyses carried out showed that in areas related to stakeholder involvement in the water management process, there are still gaps that need to be filled. At the lowest level, there are barriers related to the state of knowledge and its transfer between stakeholder groups. In addition, local communities show low trust in the administration and government agencies responsible for water management. At the same time, in line with the requirements of the Green Deal, Poland is currently undergoing an energy transition, of which nuclear energy and the construction of energy storage in the form of pumped storage plants are essential elements. Both types of facilities affect the water resources of the catchment area and may pose a risk to the environment. In the smaller and larger investments currently planned, it is not possible to ignore the stakeholders whose resistance can effectively delay investment processes and expose the energy system to instability. Given the strategic role of energy in the economy, government, local administrations, investors, and stakeholders face a considerable challenge requiring cooperation in an imperfect governance system.

The conducted research confirms the assumptions of Hypothesis 1. Energy development in Poland is inextricably linked to the process of water resources management. The effectiveness of such a process has a significant impact on the resources, but also on the attitudes of different stakeholder groups that may have different roles in it. The exclusion of parts of society in the water management debate can generate distrust of other groups and a focus on their own needs, which is not conducive to compromise. In order for water management to maintain good quantity and quality of water resources and to meet the needs of all water users (including power plant users), the public must be involved in decision-making. This will generate new opportunities for cooperation, knowledge transfer and a better understanding of the needs of other users. Participatory management of water resources is a key factor in Poland’s effective energy transition, as it will enable the development of solutions that are beneficial to all users and increase social acceptability of the use of water resources in the energy sector.

The results of the study confirm the assumptions of Hypothesis 2. The data from the three different surveys were analysed and interpreted in a way that allows conclusions to be drawn for all the surveys. The method of grouping questions by themes related to the implementation of IWRM principles, allowed for the analysis of five areas relevant to participatory water governance, thus avoiding the need for a comparative analysis of methodologically diverse surveys.

5.2. Future Recommendations

From the authors’ perspective, the key factors relating to the participation of stakeholders in water resources management are:

-

Ensuring stakeholder diversity: Stakeholders can include diverse groups, such as local communities, businesses, farmers, non-governmental organizations, government institutions, scientists and others. All these groups have different perspectives and needs related to water resources.

-

Maintaining constant consultation and dialogue: The essence of stakeholder participation is open dialogue and consultation between different groups. This allows for the exchange of information, understanding different points of view and joint search for solutions.

-

Engagement in participatory decision-making processes: Stakeholders can be involved in all stages of the water management process, from problem identification, through planning, to assessment of the effects of actions. This participation can be organized in the form of public meetings, online consultations, workshops or discussion panels.

-

Education and Information: Stakeholder participation is also a process of educating and informing the public about water management issues. This helps to increase awareness and understanding, which in turn influences social participation in this area.

-

Stakeholder participation in water management is an essential element of sustainable development practices that allows for the consideration of the diverse perspectives and needs of communities related to water. The introduction of this approach can contribute to better and more acceptable decisions regarding water management. It also concerns the sensitive area of the relationship between energy and water management.

The above elements should be used in creating policies and strategies as well as legal solutions for water and energy management. Government agencies responsible for energy and water management should play an inspiring role in creating an organizational framework for cooperation with stakeholders.

Further research is needed on stakeholder participation in IWRM. Research should seek best practices in cooperation with stakeholders. This research should take into account the specifics of the catchment, its economy, cross-section of society, regional, historical, economic and cultural conditions. The survey results indicate that there is a promising potential among stakeholders regarding the willingness to engage in the water resources management process. The research results emphasize the need to take into account the specificity of the catchment area, which gives rise to major management problems such as water for energy, agriculture, or water reuse in the event of deficits. The specificity of the catchment area requires ensuring stakeholder representation adequate to the problems at hand. Their preparation for co-decision requires maintaining a stable information policy that meets the needs and preparing cooperation models and tools appropriate to the specificity of the analyzed problem. Further surveys relating to the main management problems should serve this purpose.