EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 26.2.2019 SWD(2019) 45 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans - Member State: Hungary Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2207/60/EC)

Second River Basin Management Plans

First Flood Risk Management Plans {COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - {SWD(2019) 81 final} - {SWD(2019) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 83 final} - {SWD(2019) 84 final}



Table of contents Acronyms and definitions Foreword General Information Status of second river basin management plan reporting Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plan(s) Recommendations Topic 1 Governance and public participation 1.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 1.2 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 2 Characterisation of the River Basin District 2.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 2.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 2.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 3 Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water bodies 3.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMP 3.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP 3.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 4 Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies

4.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 4.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 4.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 5 Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 5.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 5.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 5.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 6 Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies 6.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 6.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 6.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 7 Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential 7.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle for designation 7.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 7.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 8 Environmental objectives and exemptions 8.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 8.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 8.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 9 Programme of measures

9.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 9.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 9.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 10 Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity 10.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 10.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 11 Measures related to pollution from agriculture 11.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 11.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 11.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 12 Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture 12.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 12.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 12.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 13 Measures related to hydromorphology 13.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 13.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 13.3 Progress with Commission recommendations Topic 14 Economic analysis and water pricing policies 14.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle

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



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





General Information Map A Map of RBD Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) International RBDs (within European Union) International RBDs (outside European Union) National RBDs (within European Union) Countries (outside European Union) Coastal Waters Information on the area of the national RBD including countries sharing borders is provided in Table A. Table A Overview of Hungary‘s RBD RBD Name Size (km2) Countries sharing borders HU1000 Hungarian part of the Danube RBD 93 011 Slovak Republic, Austria, Slovenia, Romania, Croatia, Serbia, Ukraine Source: RBMP reported to WISE Hungary has an 11.5 % share in the international Danube RBD (Table B). Table B Transboundary river basins by category and % share in Hungary Name international river basin Countries sharing borders Co-ordination category 1 km² % Danube Slovak Republic, Austria, Slovenia, Romania, Croatia, Serbia, Ukraine 93 011 11.5 Source: WISE electronic reporting Category 1: International agreement, permanent co-operation body and international RBMP in place. Category 2: International agreement and permanent co-operation body in place. Category 3: International agreement in place. Category 4: No co-operation formalised.





Status of second river basin management plan reporting The RBMP for Hungary (Danube RBD) was published on 7 April 2016. Documents are available from the European Environment Agency EIONET Central Data Repository https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/



Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plan(s) The main strengths and shortcomings of the second RBMP of Hungary are as follows: ·Governance and public consultation A broad range of stakeholders was actively involved in the preparation of the RBMP, including via Water Management Advisory Committees. Hungary did not adopt and publish the RBMP in accordance with the timetable in the Water Framework Directive. ·Characterisation of the RBD Since the first RBMP all surface water types have been made biologically relevant and reference conditions have been established for all lake and river types for all biological, hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements. For surface waters, the significance of pressures was defined in terms of a threshold and was linked to the risk of failure of objectives. Unknown anthropogenic pressures were the most significant pressures on lakes in the second RBMP, affecting 30 % of water bodies: this may indicate some inadequacies in the methodologies used to assess pressures and impacts in Hungary. Hungary reported gaps for most significant pressures reported at the surface water and groundwater body level. Inventories have been established in all four sub-units, but 29 Priority Substances are not included in any of these inventories. Tier 1 of the methodology was applied for several of the substances, even when they are relevant at sub-unit level, which is not in accordance with the CIS Guidance Document nº 28. The data quality was assessed as very uncertain to medium. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status The monitoring programmes have improved since the first RBMP and there are now more operational monitoring sites. 54 % of surface water bodies were directly monitored for four River Basin Specific Pollutants, in water only. Sampling was undertaken at least at the recommended minimum frequency at all monitoring sites. Assessment methods are fully developed and classification is done for all the biological quality elements in most river water bodies and for all except fish in lakes.

Assessment methods are developed for all the relevant physicochemical quality elements, and standard values were reported. The nutrient standards seem too high to be supporting good status for nutrient sensitive biological quality elements, although they are reported to be linked to the biology. Hungary participates in ongoing work at EU level to validate nutrient standards. All biological quality elements have been intercalibrated, except fish in rivers and lakes. Most of the lakes types are not linked to any intercalibration type. All the biological and general physicochemical quality elements are classified based on monitoring, except fish in lakes, even though this quality element is monitored. The proportion of river water bodies which are classified based on monitoring for most of the biological and general physicochemical quality elements increased since the first RBMP. Hydromorphological quality elements are mainly classified using expert judgement, indicating weaknesses in the current methodology. All rivers are classified using most of the hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements and 87 % are classified with one or more biological quality elements. Classification of river continuity is lacking for the majority of the river water bodies. For lakes, as many as 37 % are classified without biology quality elements, 19 % without hydromorphology and 40 % without physicochemical quality elements. A high percentage of water bodies (45 % of rivers and 60 % of lakes) were not classified for River Basin Specific Pollutants. Environmental Quality Standards were set for the four River Basin Specific Pollutants which have been monitored, which were all metals and therefore did not include any organic substances. The Environmental Quality Standards were set according to Technical Guidance n° 27. The analytical methods follow best available technology for three of the substances and are in line with Article 4(1) of the Commission Directive 2009/90/EC for zinc. Ecological status/potential has been classified for almost 90 % of all water bodies, compared to 60 % in the first RBMP. However, it is still unknown for a large proportion of lakes. The ecological status/potential is still less than good for more than 90 % of all water bodies, with no improvement since the first RBMP. Achievement of good status/potential is foreseen after 2027 for a large proportion of water bodies. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies Between the two RBMPs there was a large increase in the proportion of surface water bodies with good chemical status, from 3 to 46 %, and a significant decrease in the proportion with unknown status, from 94 to 46 %. The proportion with poor status increased slightly, from 3 to 8 %. The significant reduction in the proportion of water bodies in unknown status results from the increase in the number of monitoring sites, in the number of monitored water bodies (about 50 % of waterbodies are monitored in the second RBMP) and in the number of Priority Substances monitored. The number of years of monitoring data available for the assessment also increased between the two RBMPs. A significant proportion of water bodies are classified with high or medium confidence, but slightly less than one third of the classified water bodies are still associated with a low confidence. 38 of the 41 Priority Substances were used in the assessment of chemical status. These substances were all monitored in water and included all substances identified as discharged (however, the three substances that were not monitored did not appear in any of the inventories, so it is unclear whether these are discharged). No appropriate analytical methods were available for tributyltin, chloroalkanes C10-13 and brominated diphenylethers. The monitoring frequencies met the recommended minimum frequency for surveillance monitoring at some sites, and for operational monitoring at other sites. Hungary did not monitor mercury, hexachlorobenzene or hexachlorobutadiene in biota for status assessment. Hungary did not perform monitoring for long-term trend assessment. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies The quantitative status of groundwater bodies deteriorated, with 10 more groundwater bodies failing good status. The total groundwater body area failing good status increased from 23.3 % to 25.5 %. ·Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies Six groundwater bodies are no longer subject to surveillance monitoring and grouping was not reported to be applied. The total groundwater body area failing good chemical status increased from 16.6 % to 17.2 % since the first cycle. ·Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential

The RBMP describes how the significant adverse effects of restoration measures on the use and the wider environment have been defined and an annex to the RBMP contains an explanation of the designation per water body. A background document to the RBMP gives details of the methodology of designation of heavily modified water bodies, which contains specific criteria / thresholds for assessing the significant adverse effects on specific uses and the wider environment and gives general guidance on the need to investigate different alternative options and their implications. However, according to information subsequently provided by Hungary, only the hydropeaking of the Dubrava Hydropower Plant was assessed in a more detailed way in terms of alternative options, because for all the other modifications no other real solutions could be found. Furthermore, no direct information was found in the RBMP on whether results from monitoring were used to improve the data and reduce uncertainty in the designation process. Good ecological potential was reported in WISE as not defined in terms of biology. Furthermore, a comparison between good ecological potential and good ecological status has not been finished yet. According to information in the RBMP, actual values for biological quality elements in artificial and heavily modified water bodies (rivers and lakes) are estimated with the same methodology as for natural water bodies. ·Environmental objectives and exemptions Environmental objectives for ecological and chemical status of surface water bodies have been reported. A significant number of surface water bodies is expected to achieve good status only after 2027. Drivers, pressures and pollutants leading to exemptions are reported. Article 4(6) has been applied because of accidental pollution, but since the pollution was rapidly remediated the exemption was not applied beyond 2015. ·Programme of Measures A financial commitment for the implementation of measures has been secured, which was not in place for the first RBMP. Indicators of the gaps to be filled by KTMs, and indicators of the scale and progress with implementation of measures until 2027, have been developed. Little progress is expected for most measures. Coordination with the Floods Directive: a joint consultation was carried out, and the plans have been co-ordinated. Financial commitment has been secured for the implementation of the Programme of Measures in the floods management sector. Integration has not been achieved and Article 9(4) has not been applied to impoundments for flood protection. ·Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity Water abstraction pressures have been reported as relevant for Hungary. The calculated Water Exploitation Index + presents low values. Yet, 20 % of groundwater bodies fail achieving good quantitative status. Consumption calculations for the main uses for water have been based on measurements and monitoring. However, significant non-authorised abstractions are apparent. With respect to measures, improved regulation for water rights registration and control, measures to control illegal water abstractions and a water rights review (every five years) have been implemented. However, no water resource allocation and management plans have been developed systematically. ·Measures related to pollution from agriculture There is a clear link between agricultural pressures and agricultural measures. A gap assessment for nitrogen and phosphorus was performed and was reported in WISE. Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment of safeguard zones, buffer zones etc.) are applied as a basic and a supplementary measure. Financing of measures is secured. The level of ambition is unclear as there are uncertainties about the level at which voluntary measures will be taken on by farmers.

·Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture Information reported to WISE shows that KTMs have been reported for significant pressures from most of the individual Priority Substances that are reported to be causing non-compliance. Information appears to be lacking on how effective the measures will be at reaching the objectives. ·Measures related to hydromorphology In the second RBMP, there is more comprehensive information about the funding of the planned measures, including for measures related to hydromorphology. In addition, the gap to be closed for hydromorphological pressures is better specified for 2015 and 2021. Ecological flows have been derived and implemented for all relevant water bodies. Natural Water Retention Measures were reported as operational to tackle significant hydromorphological pressures, abstractions and diffuse pollution from urban run-off. Several specific measures are included in the context of these measures, and the RBMP states that Natural Water Retention Measures have high priority in Hungary. ·Economic analysis and water pricing policies The use of Article 9(4) of the WFD was reported for drinking water, irrigation, self-abstraction, wastewater and water storage. Hungary has not reported any explanation on how ‘adequate incentives’ are provided. From 2017 onwards, there will be some water pricing in agriculture, even if not leading to full cost recovery. ·Adaptation to drought and climate change KTM24 (climate change adaptation measures) has not been made operational to address several of the significant pressures related to climate change. There is no clear distinction in Hungary between droughts and water scarcity. No drought management plan has been adopted in Hungary yet.

Recommendations ·Hungary should continue to further improve international cooperation, including coordinated assessments of the technical aspects of the Water Framework Directive such as ensuring a harmonised approach for status assessment and a coordinated Programme of Measures, in order to ensure the timely achievement of the WFD objectives. ·Hungary needs to continue its work in order to quantify the significant pressures on surface water bodies. ·Work is still needed to address shortcomings in the methods for quantifying hydromorphological pressures. ·Hungary should complete the development of assessment methods for biological quality elements by developing a method for fish in lakes, and, more generally, methods for artificial or heavily modified lake water bodies.

·Hungary should also ensure that methods developed for relevant supporting quality elements are WFD compliant, in particular concerning their links to good status for the biology quality elements. The classification of hydromorphology should have less reliance on expert judgement. ·It should be ensured that the method used to select River Basin Specific Pollutants identifies all relevant pollutants. Furthermore, the number of water bodies classified in relation to River Basin Specific Pollutants should be increased. ·Hungary should continue improving the confidence in the assessment of status for all water categories, and further reduce the proportion in unknown status. In particular, monitoring should be performed in a way that provides sufficient spatial coverage to classify all water bodies (in combination, if necessary, with robust grouping /extrapolation methods). All Priority Substances should be considered in the assessment of status, in the relevant matrix. If a different matrix is used, the corresponding explanations should be provided in the RBMP, as required by the WFD. ·Trend monitoring should be performed in sediment and/or biota, to ensure that all the relevant substances specified in Directive 2008/105/EC are monitored in a way that provides sufficient temporal resolution and spatial coverage. ·Hungary should continue strengthening monitoring for chemical status of groundwater to reduce uncertainties and support the Programme of Measures. ·Uncertainty in the designation of heavily modified and artificial water bodies needs to be further tackled by WFD compliant monitoring, improved data on hydromorphological pressures and an improved understanding of the effects on the biological quality elements. The designation of HMWBs should comply with all the requirements of Article 4(3), including criteria to define substantial changes in character due to the physical modification, the assessment of significant adverse effects on their use or the wider environment and the lack of significantly better environmental options for different uses. This is needed to ensure transparency of the designation process. Ecological potential also needs to be defined in terms of biological quality elements. ·Hungary should continue to further reduce uncertainties with regard to the achievement of the WFD objectives. The significant number of Article 4(4) exemptions and the reported timeframe for the achievement of the objectives is an issue of concern. Justifications need to be reviewed and updated, in order to ensure that all possible measures are implemented for a timely achievement of the WFD objectives. ·Hungary should ensure that the Programme of Measures is designed and implemented to close the gaps, in order to achieve good status for water bodies. In particular, Hungary should try to increase its level of ambition as regards identifying and taking effective measures against chemical pollutants in surface and groundwaters. ·Hungary should ensure that abstractions are addressed through effective permits, metering and controls. ·Hungary should ensure that a clear distinction is made between water scarcity and drought in water policy and that a Drought Management Plan is adopted, particularly in light of the fact that abstraction is identified as the most significant pressure for groundwater bodies in the country. ·Hungary needs to consider the implementation of a set of basic measures (minimum requirements to be complied with) across the entire area of agricultural land in the third RBMP, rather than only in the Nitrate Vulnerable Zones. Hungary should also consider how supplementary measures (designed to be implemented in addition to basic measures) can contribute more effectively to achieving the WFD objectives. Sources of funding (e.g. CAP Pillar 1, RDP) need to be identified, as appropriate, to facilitate implementation of these measures. ·Hungary needs to further explain whether exclusion of water pricing in agriculture is justified. Hungary should elaborate on this issue in the third RBMP, prioritise clearly the measures foreseen in terms of cost-effectiveness and define whether measures are voluntary or obligatory. ·The review and development of the strategy for the delivery of WFD objectives, in cooperation with the farming community and Hungarian CAP delivery authorities, needs to be continued. Hungary should ensure that the third RBMP is technically feasible and all relevant policies and instruments (e.g. Rural Development Plans, CAP Pillar 1, Nitrates Directive, etc.) contribute significantly to the RBMP. ·Cost recovery for water use activities having a significant impact on water bodies should be applied. Otherwise, the use of any exemptions using Article 9(4) should be properly justified. Hungary should continue to present transparently how financial, environmental and resource costs have been calculated and how the adequate contribution of the different users is ensured. Hungary also needs to continue to transparently present the water-pricing policy and provide an overview of estimated investments and investment needs. ·Hungary should further work on the implementation of thorough monitoring programmes for relevant Protected Areas and set additional objectives and measures.



Topic 1Governance and public participation 1.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 1.1.1Administrative arrangements – RBDs

The entire territory of Hungary is located in the international Danube RBD. Hungary has designated one RBD, the Hungarian Danube RBD, for its part of this international RBD. 1.1.2Administrative arrangements – competent authorities Hungary has reported the following competent authorities for its RBMP: •The Ministry of Interior: monitoring of groundwater and surface water, economic analysis, preparation of the RBMP and Programme of Measures, implementation of measures, co-ordination of implementation and reporting to the European Commission. The Ministry has a support role for public participation. •The General Directorate of Water Management: assessment of the status of groundwater and surface water, pressure and impact analysis, preparation of the RBMP and Programme of Measures, public participation, and implementation of measures; the General Directorate has supporting roles for the monitoring of groundwater and surface water, economic analysis, co-ordination of implementation and reporting to the European Commission. •12 sub-national water directorates are also reported: they have main roles for the monitoring and assessment of status of groundwater and surface water, pressure and impact analysis, preparation of the RBMP, public participation and implementation of measures; and a secondary role for the preparation of the Programme of Measures. •11 Government Offices are listed at county level: they are responsible for the enforcement of regulations; in addition, seven of them are responsible for monitoring of groundwater and surface water. •12 Disaster Management Directorates at county level are listed: these are responsible for the assessment of status of groundwater and surface water, enforcement of regulations, pressure and impact analysis and implementation of measures. In addition, the national Directorate General for Disaster Management has main roles for the enforcement of regulations and implementation of measures, plus a supporting role for the coordination of implementation. •The Geological and Geophysical Institute of Hungary has a main role for the monitoring of groundwater, and a supporting role for the assessment of its status. •The National Inspectorate for Environment and Nature is responsible for the enforcement of regulations. •The Prime Minister's Office has main roles for the monitoring of groundwater and surface water and supporting roles for the implementation of measures and the co-ordination of measures. 1.1.3RBMP – Structure and Strategic Environmental Assessment Hungary has four sub-basin plans for the Duna River (Danube), Tisza River, Drava River and Lake Balaton, and for 42 sub-regional planning units. In addition, Hungary has an overarching National Water Strategy. Hungary does not have thematic sub-plans for its RBMP. A Strategic Environmental Assessment was carried out for Hungary's RBMP. 1.1.4Public participation and active involvement of stakeholders The public and interested parties were informed via internet, invitations to stakeholders, local authorities, media (papers, TV and radio), meetings and written consultation. The RBMP was available for download for the requisite six months. There was international co-ordination of public participation. The following stakeholder groups were actively involved in the development of the RBMP: agriculture/farmers, consumer groups, energy/hydropower, fisheries/aquaculture, industry, local/regional authorities, navigation/ports, NGOs/nature protection and water supply and sanitation. Active involvement comprised involvement in drafting and in Water Management Advisory Committees. Public consultation had the following impacts: addition of new information, adjustment to specific measures, changes to the selection of measures, changes to the methodology used, commitment to action in the next RBMP and commitment to further research. 1.1.5Integration with the Floods Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive Hungary carried out joint consultation of its RBMP and Floods Directive Flood Risk Management Plan. Moreover, a sub-section of the RBMP addresses links with the Flood Risk Management Plan, and an annex analyses the relationship of flood risk measures with the WFD. Further information on integration with respect to measures is provided in Chapter 9 of this report.

Hungary indicated that it did not take into consideration the Marine Strategy Framework Directive in its RBMP, although it has been addressed in connection with the implementation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. 1.1.6 International coordination and co-operation Hungary's RBD is part of the Danube international RBD, where there is an international agreement, permanent co-operation body and an international RBMP in place (designated as category 1 cooperation), and explicit links have been made with national RBMPs within the international RBMP (for further information see the reports on international coordination on the Water Framework Directive). 1.2Progress with Commission recommendations There were no Commission recommendations based on the first RBMP and Programme of Measures.

Topic 2Characterisation of the River Basin District 2.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle 2.1.1Delineation of water bodies and designation of heavily modified and artificial water bodies There were differences in the number of delineated surface water bodies reported in the two cycles ( Table 2.1 ). According to the data reported in WISE, there was a 46 % reduction in the number of lake water bodies and an 11% increase in the number of river water bodies. The reported information shows that the development of the water network records and maps over recent years, as well as the experience of the first cycle, resulted in a revision of the boundaries of surface water bodies. Table 2.4 summarises the information provided by Hungary on how water bodies have evolved between the two cycles. Table 2.1 Number and area/length of delineated surface water bodies in Hungary for the second and first cycles Year RBD Lakes Rivers Number of water bodies Total area (km2) of water bodies Number of water bodies Total length of water body (km) 2016 HU1000 115 (189) 1,017 (1,180) 963 (839) 18,897 (19,126) 2010 HU1000 213 1,267 869 18,802 Source: WISE electronic reporting. Hungary subsequently communicated that the correct numbers are the ones indicated in parentheses. Table 2.2 Size distribution of surface water bodies in Hungary in the second and first cycles Year RBD Lake area (km2) River length (km) Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average 2016 HU1000 0.41 (0.041) 594.33 8.85 (6.24) 1.36 186.29 21.26 2010 HU1000 0.27 594.28 5.95 0.95 281.14 21.64 Source: WISE electronic reporting. Hungary subsequently communicated that the correct numbers are the ones indicated in parentheses. Between the first and the second RBMP, the analysis of pressures and measures changed, there was a re-design and changes in monitoring programmes, and the status of surface water bodies has improved . There was a significant increase in the number of heavily modified lake water bodies (from 15 to 50) and of heavily modified river water bodies (from 350 to 468) between the two cycles, according to the reporting in WISE ( Figure 2.1 ). This was accompanied by a slight decrease in the numbers of natural lake and river water bodies, and an increase in the number of artificial lakes between the two cycles. Figure 2.1 Proportion of surface water bodies in Hungary designated as artificial, heavily modified and natural for the second and first cycles. Note that the numbers in parenthesis are the numbers of water bodies in each water category Source: WISE electronic reporting

Table 2. 2 shows the differences in size distribution of surface water bodies in Hungary between the first and second cycles. The minimum size of rivers increased whilst the maximum length decreased. The minimum size criteria reported were a 10 km2 catchment area for rivers and a 50 km2 surface area for lakes. It was reported that the minimum criteria can be reduced by 10 % in the case of rivers and also in the case of important lakes such as drinking water reservoirs. The minimum size reported for lakes in 2016 was 0.41 km2 surface area. There was no change in the number of groundwater bodies between the two cycles ( Table 2. 3). However, the delineation was changed by updating the boundaries using the latest monitoring results: 18 karstic, six porous thermal and four other types of groundwater bodies were re-delineated in total. Table 2.4 shows that 176 groundwater bodies changed since the first cycle, due to coordinate system changes and/or correct implementation of the national borders. Table 2.3 Number and area of delineated groundwater bodies in Hungary for the second and first cycles Year RBD Number Area (km2) Minimum Maximum Average 2016 HU1000 185 16.75 13,653.64 1,511.57 2010 HU1000 185 16.74 13,602.19 1,510.99 Source: WISE electronic reporting Table 2.4 Type of change in delineation of groundwater and surface water bodies in Hungary between the first and second cycles Type of water body change for second cycle Groundwater Rivers Lakes Change 176 191 3 Aggregation 16 2 Splitting 127 Aggregation and splitting 8 Extended area 35 Reduced area 51 3 Creation 49 20 Deletion 21 103 Change in code 12 No change 9 474 87 127 Total water bodies before deletion 185 984 218 Delineated for second cycle (after deletion from first cycle) 185 963 115 Source: WISE electronic reporting 2.1.2Identification of transboundary water bodies Hungary reported three transboundary lakes (2.6 % of total lake water bodies), 134 transboundary rivers (14 % of total river water bodies) and 95 groundwater bodies (51 % of total groundwater bodies). 2.1.3Typology of surface water bodies Table 2.5 shows the number of surface water body types at RBD level in Hungary for the first and second cycles. There was a decrease in the number of types for lakes and rivers between the two cycles. Table 2.5 Number of surface water body types at RBD level in Hungary for the first and second RBMPs RBD Rivers Lakes 1st 2nd 1st 2nd HU1000 25 15 16 8 Source: WISE electronic reporting. For the first RBMP it was reported that the typology of all surface water bodies had been tested against biological data, but that the process was not completed in the first cycle due to lack of data. The second RBMP reported that all the lake and river water types were biologically relevant. The typology of river and lake water bodies has been revised and some types were grouped together to reduce the overall number of types. The RBMP states that the typologies were significantly simplified as a result of biological validation. For example, there were 25 river types in the first cycle and this was reduced to 15 types of river water bodies which were isolated based on 10 biologically isolating types and five hydromorphology types. One national lake type covering artificial, heavily modified and natural water bodies has an equivalent intercalibration type. The other seven types do not have an equivalent intercalibration type: these types equate to 46 % of lake water bodies in Hungary . There are seven equivalent river intercalibration types reported covering the 15 national river types. One river type had an equivalent lake intercalibration type: these water bodies are reservoirs which were originally rivers, and have been intercalibrated against a lake type. One national river type was reported to have two equivalent intercalibration types . Three national river types were reported to have no equivalent intercalibration type: these types represent 5 % of river water bodies in Hungary . The RBMP states that Hungary participated in three EU ecological intercalibration processes (Phase I 2004-2008, Phase II. 2008-2012 and Phase III 2013-2016). 2.1.4Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies Table 2.6 shows the percentage of surface water body types in Hungary with reference conditions established for the first and second cycles. Reference conditions have been established for all lake and river types for all biological, hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements. Table 2.6 Percentage of surface water body types in Hungary with reference conditions established for all, some and none of the biological, hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements. Numbers in parenthesis are the number of types in each category

Water category Water types Biological quality elements Hydromorphological quality elements Physicochemical quality elements Rivers (15) All 100 % 100 % 100 % Some None Lakes (8) All 100 % 100 % 100 % Some None Source: WISE electronic reporting The national reference values and reference conditions were compared and coordinated. The RBMP reported that available national type-specific reference conditions were taken into account in the intercalibration process for physico-chemical and hydromorphological quality elements. 2.1.5Characteristics of groundwater bodies Further characterisation work has been undertaken since the first cycle, with Hungary reporting the main geological formation of the aquifer types and whether or not groundwater bodies were layered. 59 % of groundwater bodies were reported to be linked to surface water bodies and 62 % to terrestrial ecosystems. 2.1.6Significant pressures and impacts on water bodies There has been a significant change in the delineation of surface water bodies and in the definition of pressure types between the two cycles, which makes a comparison of pressures between cycles difficult. For example, diffuse pressures were reported to be significant for 24 % of surface water bodies in the first cycle and for 61 % in the second cycle ( Figure 2.2 ). For surface water bodies, the most significant pressures in the second cycle are physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore due to agriculture (41 % of surface water bodies) and agriculture diffuse pollution (36 % of surface water bodies) ( Figure 2.3 ). For lake water bodies, unknown anthropogenic pressures were the most significant pressures in the second cycle, affecting 30 % of water bodies. Up to eighteen different pressure types were reported to be significant for groundwater bodies in the second cycle. The most significant in terms of the proportion of affected water bodies was abstraction or flow diversion for public water supply (78 % of groundwater bodies), followed by diffuse - discharges not connected to sewerage network (61 %) and abstraction or flow diversion - other (45 %) ( Figure 2.3 ). Nine different pressure types were reported in the first cycle, with the most significant being diffuse - non-sewered population (19 %), abstraction for public water supply (15 %) and abstraction for other purposes (17 %). Though the same top three pressures were identified for both cycles and there was no change in the number of groundwater bodies, the numeric differences between the two cycles are likely to be unreliable and probably reflect changes/improvements in the risk assessments between the two cycles . Figure 2.2 Comparison of pressures on surface water bodies in Hungary in the first and second cycles. Pressures presented at the aggregated level. Note that there were 1078 identified surface water bodies for the second cycle and 1082 for the first cycle Source: WISE electronic reporting. Figure 2.3 The 10 most significant pressures on surface water bodies and groundwater bodies in Hungary for the second cycle Source: WISE electronic reporting 2.1.7Definition and assessment of significant pressures on surface and groundwater There is no information in the second RBMP about whether any major changes in the criteria for the identification of pressures had been applied since the first RBMP. Expert judgment was reported to be used to assess the significance of water abstraction and water flow pressures on surface waters , numerical tools for diffuse source pressures and a combination of both for point source pressures. The significance of these pressures was defined in terms of threshold and was linked to the risk of failure of objectives. A combination of both numerical tools and expert judgement was used to assess the significance of all pressure types on groundwater bodies. However, significance was not defined in terms of thresholds and was not linked to the risk of failure of objectives for groundwater bodies . 2.1.8Significant impacts on water bodies Altered habitats due to morphological changes were the most significant impacts on lakes (43 % of lake water bodies) and rivers (88 % of river water bodies) in Hungary in the second cycle ( Figure 2.4 ). Altered habitats were also the most significant impacts on lakes (39 %) and rivers (94 %) in the first cycle. Nutrients affected 45 % of river water bodies in the first cycle and 43 % of river water bodies in the second cycle.

Chemical pollution was the most significant (17 %) of the four impacts reported for groundwater bodies in the second cycle. Figure 2.4 Significant impacts on surface water and groundwater bodies in Hungary for the second cycle. Percentages of numbers of water bodies. Source: WISE electronic reporting 2.1.9Quantification and apportionment of pressures Gaps to achieving good status in groundwater were reported for fifteen pressures. There are also three pressures (point - mine waters, point - other and diffuse - other) reported as significant at the water body level for which gaps have not been reported, indicating that measures may not be implemented for these pressures (see Chapter 9 of this report for further information) . For surface waters, gaps were reported for 34 different pressure types. Gaps were not reported for two pressure types (diffuse atmospheric deposition and diffuse-other) which had been reported as significant at the water body level. Gaps to be filled for chemical substances causing failure of good status were reported for one groundwater pollutant (atrazine). In terms of surface water, gaps were reported for 12 Priority Substances (all causing failure of good chemical status) and four River Basin Specific Pollutants (all causing failure of good ecological status/potential). 2.1.10Groundwater bodies at risk of not meeting good status Around 9 % of groundwater bodies were reported to be at risk of failing to be in good chemical status. Four pollutants and electrical conductivity were reported to be causing the risk, with nitrate affecting the most groundwater bodies (11). 11 % of groundwater bodies were at risk of failing to achieve good quantitative status. The cause of the risk in all of the water bodies concerned was exceedance of available groundwater resource by longterm annual average rate of abstraction that may result in a decrease of groundwater levels. 2.1.11Inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances Article 5 of the Environmental Quality Standards Directive (EQS Directive) requires Member States to establish an inventory of emissions, discharges and losses of all Priority Substances and the eight other pollutants listed in Part A of Annex I of the EQS Directive for each RBD, or part thereof, lying within their territory. This inventory should allow Member States to further target measures to tackle pollution from Priority Substances. It should also inform the review of the monitoring networks, and allow the assessment of progress made in reducing (or suppressing) emissions, discharges and losses for Priority Substances (or Priority Hazardous Substances). Inventories have been established in all four sub-units in the Hungarian RBD. 29 Priority Substances are not included in any inventory. There were inventories for all four sub-units for lead, mercury, nickel and cadmium. The two-step approach from the Common Implementation Strategy Guidance Document n°28 has been followed for all substances in the inventories. Tier 1 or Tier 2 of the methodology was implemented for most of the substances (for others, the methodology applied was not reported). Tier 1 only was used for some substances relevant at subunit level, while the Guidance Document recommends implementing at least Tier 1 + 2 for the substances relevant at RBD level. The data quality was assessed as very uncertain to medium. 2.2Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle There were significant differences in the number of delineated surface water bodies between the two cycles. There was a reduction in the number of lake water bodies and an increase in the number of river water bodies. There was a significant increase in the number of heavily modified lake and river water bodies between the two cycles. This was accompanied by a decrease in the numbers of natural lake and river water bodies, and an increase in number of artificial lake water bodies between the two cycles. There was a decrease in the number of types for lakes and rivers between the two cycles. The RBMP reported that the typologies were significantly simplified as a result of biological validation and that all types were biologically relevant. There has been a significant change between the cycles in the delineation of surface water bodies and in the definition of pressure types, which makes comparison of pressures between cycles difficult. For example, diffuse pressures were reported to be significant for 30 % of river water bodies in the first cycle and 40 % in the second cycle. 2.3Progress with Commission recommendations The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMP and Programme of Measures requested action on the following: •Recommendation: Carry out a more detailed, quantitative pressures and impacts analysis using source apportionment in the second RBMPs. Applying this more detailed analysis, measures could be assigned to water bodies specifically more focused on agriculture, water abstraction and protected areas.

Assessment: Gaps to the achievement of objectives have been defined and reported in the second RBMP for most significant pressures, including the identification of the responsible sectors/activities. This indicates progress on this aspect. A combination of both numerical tools and expert judgement has been used to assess point source pressures, and numerical tools for diffuse source pressures on surface waters. Hungary subsequently clarified that modelling of water abstractions impacts on surface water bodies has been undertaken. Overall, therefore, the pressures and impacts analysis aspect of this recommendation has been fulfilled. •Recommendation: Hungary should also further analyse hydromorphological pressures and impacts in the second RBMPs and reconsider the necessary supplementary measures which should be implemented to reach targets. Assessment: Hydromorphological pressures were considered in the first RBMP. According to information provided for the bilateral meeting that followed the assessment of the first RBMP, an extended database for hydromorphological pressures was under development for the second RBMP. Hungary reported many types of hydromorphological pressures in the second RBMP and also identified gaps to be filled for these pressures. Overall, therefore, the analysis of pressures and impacts aspect of this recommendation has been fulfilled. •Recommendation: The testing of typology of surface water bodies against biological data has not been completed in the first RBMP cycle because of the lack of sufficient data. This should be remedied. Assessment: For the first RBMP, it was reported that the typology of all surface water bodies had been tested against biological data but the process was not completed due to lack of data. The second RBMP reported that all the lake and river water types were biologically relevant. The typology of river and lake water bodies has been revised and some types were grouped together to reduce the overall number of types. The RBMP reported that the typologies were significantly simplified as a result of biological validation. Therefore this recommendation has been fulfilled. Topic 3Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water bodies 3.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second RBMP 3.3.1Monitoring of ecological status/potential Monitoring programmes Article 8.1 of the WFD requires Member States to establish monitoring programmes for the assessment of the status of surface water and of groundwater, in order to provide a coherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each RBD. Hungary has eleven surface water monitoring programmes. These are divided into separate programmes for rivers and lakes and for different pressure types, e.g. “under nutrient and organic pressure”. Monitoring sites and monitored water bodies used for surveillance and operational monitoring Table 3.1 compares the number of monitoring sites used for surveillance and operational purposes between the first and second RBMPs, and Table 3.2 gives the number of sites used for different purposes for the second RBMP. Table 3.1Number of sites used for surveillance and operational monitoring in Hungary for the second and first RBMPs. Note that for reasons of comparability with data reported in 2010, the 2016 data does not take into account whether sites are used for ecological and/or chemical monitoring. Rivers Lakes Surv. Op. Surv. Op. 2nd RBMP HU_1000 118 1,078 27 102 Total number of monitoring sites 1 123 119 1st RBMP HU_1000 122 474 26 41 Total number of monitoring sites 596 67 Surv. = Surveillance monitoring, Op. = Operational Monitoring

Sources: Member States electronic reporting to WISE. Table 3.2Number of monitoring sites in relevant water categories used for different purposes in Hungary Monitoring Purpose Lakes Rivers Operational monitoring 102 1078 Surveillance monitoring 27 118 Total sites irrespective of purpose 119 1123 Source: WISE electronic reporting There was a doubling of monitoring sites for both rivers and lakes for operational monitoring from the first to the second RBMP. For surveillance monitoring, there were only very minor changes in the number of monitoring sites. The current operational monitoring programme has more than 1000 sites for rivers and more than 100 sites for lakes. However, it is not clear whether this monitoring is actually happening, as the RBMP states that there is no separate budget line in the national budget for the costs of operating the monitoring system. Significant improvement has been made in terms of instrument development, but further institutional development is needed to overcome the backlog. Figure 3.1 shows that operational monitoring now covers a very high proportion of water bodies, both for lakes (68 %) and rivers (79 %). Part of the increase for lakes is due to a 50 % decrease in the number of lake water bodies since the first RBMP, but the increase is still very significant. For surveillance monitoring, the increase for lakes, from 10 % to 19 %, probably represents no real change in the amount of monitoring but is a product of the 50 % decrease in the total number of lake water bodies. For rivers, there is little change in the proportion of water bodies included in the surveillance monitoring programme (12 % in the first RBMP and 10 % in the second) representing no substantive change in the amount of surveillance monitoring in the second RBMP. Figure 3.1Percentage of water bodies included in surveillance and operational monitoring in Hungary for the first RBMP (2010) and second RBMP (2016). Note that no differentiation is made between water bodies included in ecological and/or chemical monitoring. Source: WISE electronic reporting Monitoring sites and monitored water bodies used for ecological status/potential Annex V.1.3.1 of the WFD states that “Surveillance monitoring shall be carried out of sufficient surface water bodies to provide an assessment of the overall surface water status within each catchment or subcatchment within the river basin district”. Figure 3.2 shows that, for lakes, proportionally more water bodies in good status/potential are included in surveillance monitoring than the other status/potential classes: this may indicate that less-than-good status/potential water bodies are underrepresented in surveillance monitoring to provide an assessment of the overall surface water status. In addition, neither of the two lake water bodies in high status is included in surveillance monitoring which is significant in the context of the WFD non-deterioration objective and the assessment of long-term changes in natural conditions and long-term changes resulting from widespread anthropogenic activity. For rivers there is a more equitable proportional distribution of different status/potential water bodies included in surveillance monitoring, though the largest proportion is again for good status/potential water bodies. As is the case for lakes, none of the four high status river water bodies is included in surveillance monitoring. Figure 3.2Proportion of water bodies in each ecological status/potential class that is included in surveillance monitoring in Hungary Source: WISE electronic reporting Quality elements monitored (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants) Table 3.3 illustrates the quality elements used for the monitoring of lakes and rivers for the second RBMP: no differentiation is made between purposes of monitoring. Table 3.3Quality elements monitored for the second RBMP in Hungary (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants). Note that quality elements may be used for surveillance and/or operational monitoring Biological quality elements Hydromorphological quality elements Phytoplankton Macrophytes Phytobenthos Benthic invertebrates Fish Angiosperms Macroalgae Other aquatic flora Other species Hydrological or tidal regime Continuity conditions Morphological conditions Lakes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Rivers Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes





General physicochemical quality elements Transparency conditions Thermal conditions Oxygenation conditions Salinity conditions Acidification status Nitrogen conditions Phosphorus Conditions Silicate Other determinand for nutrient conditions Lakes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Rivers Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Source: WISE electronic reporting River Basin Specific Pollutants and matrices monitored River Basin Specific Pollutants are monitored in a fairly high number of monitoring sites, corresponding to 52 % of all surface water bodies and to 65 % of all lake monitoring sites and 59 % of all river monitoring sites (combining data in Tables 3.4 and 3.2 ). Hungary reported that eight chemical substances that are not Priority Substances were being monitored in lakes and rivers, and only in water, not in sediment or biota. These include the four metals for which Environmental Quality Standards have been set. The other four chemical substances may be considered to be isomers or components of Priority Substances and Certain Other Pollutants as defined in Directive 2013/39/EU. ·CAS_1806-26-4 – Octylphenol: (an isomer of Priority Substance CAS_140-66-9 - Octylphenol (4-(1,1',3,3'-tetramethylbutyl)-phenol)); ·CAS_789-02-6 - DDT, o,p': (a component of total DDT a Certain Other Pollutant); ·EEA_33-02-3 – Benzol: (a component of Priority Substance CAS_71-43-2 – Benzene); ·EEA_33-56-7 - Total PAHs (Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Benzo(g,h,i)perylene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene): (Polyaromatic hydrocarbons for which specific substances are given as Priority Substances in Directive 2013/39/EU). Annex V of the WFD provides guidance on the frequency of monitoring of the different quality elements: once every three months is recommended for “other pollutants”, which are taken here to equate to River Basin Specific Pollutants. Surveillance monitoring should be carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year during the six years covered by a RBMP. For River Basin Specific Pollutants this would mean four times for the surveillance year, and for operational monitoring four times a year for each year of the cycle. All four River Basin Specific Pollutants (metals) included in surveillance monitoring were monitored at least at the minimum WFD recommended frequency at all sites where they are monitored. Similarly the same four River Basin Specific Pollutants included in operational monitoring were monitored at least at the minimum WFD recommended frequency at all sites where they are monitored. Table 3.4Number of sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants reported in the second RBMP and non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national pollutants reported in the first RBMP in Hungary. Note that the data from both cycles may not be fully comparable as different definitions were used and not all Member State reported information at the site level, meaning that there were no equivalent data for the first RBMP. RBMP Lakes Rivers 2nd Sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants 77 650 1st Sites used to monitor non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national pollutants NR NR Source: Hungary did not report to WISE the number of sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants at the generic level. The values for the second RBMP were obtained from the reported monitored chemical substances that are not Priority Substances. NR = Not reported Use of monitoring results for classification In rivers, the classification of biological quality elements was solely based on monitoring results, though for fish many more water bodies were directly monitored (547) than were classified using monitoring results (446). Expert judgment was solely used to classify river continuity and morphological conditions in rivers. The classification of hydrological regime in rivers was based mainly on monitoring, but expert judgement was used for some water bodies. The classification of physicochemical quality elements in rivers was again solely based on monitoring results.

The classification of the quality elements for lakes followed a similar pattern to that for rivers. The classification of the biological and physicochemical quality elements was only based on the results of monitoring, whereas morphological conditions were classified by expert judgment only and hydrological regime by a combination of expert judgment and monitoring. Even though fish were monitored in lakes, none were subsequently classified using this element, perhaps indicating that the assessment method is not considered to be fit for classification of ecological status/potential. In addition, more lake water bodies were directly monitored for benthic invertebrates than were subsequently classified using this element, again perhaps indicating some weaknesses in the assessment method for this element. Grouping was reported not to be used for the classification of any element for lakes and rivers, and this was also the situation for the first RBMP. Transboundary surface water body monitoring Hungary reported 968 monitoring sites that were related to international monitoring networks, including 57 sites in transboundary river and lake water bodies.



3.3.2Ecological Status/potential of surface water The ecological status/potential of surface water bodies in Hungary for the second RBMP is illustrated in Map 3.1 . This is based on the most recent assessment of status. Map 3.1Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Hungary based on the most recently assessed status/potential of the surface water bodies Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i). High Good Moderate Poor Bad Unknown RBDs Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) A detailed breakdown of ecological status/potential in each RBD and water category can be viewed in https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-water. Only a small proportion (less than10 %) of Hungarian rivers and lakes are in good ecological status/potential, and only two lake and four river water bodies are in high status. Water bodies in moderate status constitute the largest proportion of all the water bodies, but more than one third of the water bodies were reported in poor or bad ecological status/potential. Many of the heavily modified and artificial water bodies are not classified, indicating a lack of an appropriate assessment method for these groups of water bodies. The proportion of water bodies with unknown ecological status/potential is now reported to constitute 13 % of all water bodies, which is a major improvement since the first RBMP, when the proportion of unknowns was 40 %. However, there is a big difference between the proportion of unknown lakes (up to 47 %) and rivers, of which only 9 % are unknown. Figure 3.3 shows the confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential. Most of the water bodies are classified with medium confidence, but there are also some that are classified with high (19 % of rivers and 10 % of lakes) or low confidence (25 % of rivers and 36 % of lakes). This indicates that the classification of rivers is done with better confidence than for lakes, pointing to possible weaknesses in the lakes assessment system. However, in the first RBMP, no water bodies were classified with high confidence, so the situation in the second RBMP represents an improvement. Figure 3.3Confidence in the classification of ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Hungary based on the most recently assessed status/potential Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 3.4 compares the ecological status of surface water bodies in Hungary for the first RBMP with that for the second RBMP (based on the most recent assessment of status/potential) and that expected by 2015. The results mainly show the reduction in the proportion of unknowns since the first RBMP, and that the proportion in good status/potential is still less than 10 % of all the water bodies.

The proportion expected to be in good or better status in 2015 is also less than 10 % of all water bodies. Figure 3.4Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Hungary for the second RBMP, for the first RBMP and expected in 2015. The number in parenthesis is the number of surface water bodies for each cycle. Note that the period of assessment of status for the second RBMP was 2006 to 2013. The year of assessment of status for the first RBMP is not known. Source: WISE electronic reporting Member States were asked to report the expected date for the achievement of good ecological status/potential. The information for Hungary is shown in Figure 3.5 . The time for achieving the objectives was reported to be beyond 2027 for 50 % of all the river and lake water bodies, while only a small minority (less than 10 %) is expected to achieve the objectives during the 2016-2021 period. Figure 3.5Expected date of achievement of good ecological status/potential of surface water bodies in Hungary. The number in the parenthesis is the number of water bodies in each category. Source: WISE electorinic reporting Classification of ecological status in terms of each classified quality element Figure 3.6 shows that the proportion of water bodies in good or high ecological status is much higher for the single biological quality elements than for total ecological status (compare with Map 3.1 and Figure 3.4 ). For rivers, most of the biological quality elements are classified in 50-60 % of the total number of classified water bodies, while for lakes, the proportion is 40-50 % for most of the biological quality elements. For lakes, fish has not been classified at all (but is monitored), indicating that the ecological assessment method for fish in lakes has not yet been completed.

Figure 3.6Ecological status/potential of the biological quality elements used in the classification of lakes and rivers in Hungary. Note that water bodies with unknown status/potential, and those that are monitored but not classified or not applicable, are not presented. Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 3.7 compares the classification of biological quality elements in terms of ecological status/potential for the first and second RBMPs. This comparison should be treated with some caution as there are differences between the numbers of surface water bodies classified for individual elements from the first to the second RBMP. Figure 3.7Comparison of ecological status/potential in Hungary according to classified biological quality elements in rivers and lakes from the first to the second RBMP Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 3.8 and Figure 3.9 illustrate the basis of the classification of ecological status/potential of rivers and lakes in Hungary for the second RBMP. The figures show that all the four groups of quality elements are used to classify the majority (52 %) of the river water bodies, while 28 % are classified using three groups of quality elements. For lakes, the proportion of water bodies classified with all four groups of quality elements is only 28 %, while as many as 39 % are classified with only one group of quality elements, indicating that the basis for classification is weaker for lakes than for rivers.

The weaker basis for classification of lakes compared to rivers is confirmed in Figure 3.9 showing that no rivers are classified without using the hydromorphological quality elements and only a few (13 %) are classified with no biological quality elements. However, it is worth noting that classification of river continuity is lacking for the majority of the river water bodies. For lakes, as many as 37 % are classified without biology, 19 % without hydromorphology and 40 % without physicochemical quality elements. For River Basin Specific Pollutants the proportion classified without them is high for both water categories (45 % of rivers and 60 % of lakes).

Figure 3.8The classification of ecological status or potential of rivers and lakes in Hungary using 1, 2, 3 or 4 types of quality element. Note: The 4 types are: biological; hydromorphological, general physicochemical and River Basin Specific Pollutants. Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 3.9The percentage of river and lake water bodies in Hungary where no biological quality element or no hydromorphological (HYMO) or no general physicochemical (PHYSCHEM) or no river basin specific pollutant (RBSP) has been used in the classification of ecological status or potential Source: WISE electronic reporting The basis for the classification of individual quality elements is illustrated in Figure 3.10 . All the classified biological and physicochemical quality elements in both water categories are based on monitoring, while the hydromorphological quality elements are classified based mostly on expert judgement. The latter may indicate weaknesses in the hydromorphological assessment methods. Grouping is not used for classification of any quality element. Figure 3.10Basis of the classification of ecological status/potential in Hungary. The percentages are in terms of all waterbodies in each category. Source: WISE electronic reporting Assessment methods and classification of biological quality elements Reference conditions have been defined for all the biological quality elements in both rivers and lakes in all types of surface waters (no gaps were reported). New pressure-specific indices have been developed since the first RBMP. However, there is no method for fish in lakes, as that is not used for classification, as explained above ( Figure 3.6 and Figure 3.10 ). Intercalibration of biological assessment methods and national classification systems Only one of the lake types is linked to a common intercalibration type. It is unclear how the class boundaries have been set for those national types which were not intercalibrated. Intercalibration has not been achieved for fish in lakes, nor for fish in rivers, according to the Intercalibration Official Decisions from 2013 and 2018. The other biological quality elements have been successfully intercalibrated. Assessment methods for hydromorphological quality elements Hydromorphological assessment methods have been developed for both water categories, according to the RBMP background document 6-4, “Hydromorphological status assessment system for surface water bodies”. However, the classification is mainly based on expert judgement ( Figure 3.10 ), raising some doubt about the quality of these assessment methods. Assessment methods for general physicochemical quality elements The Hungarian methods have been completed, and the standards are all reported to be linked to the good/moderate boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements. For the nutrients, however, the actual values reported for total phosphorus and orthophosphate are much higher than the nutrient saturation level for phytoplankton and phytobenthos (ca. 0.1 mg/l), and are also higher than reported in most other Member States. The basis for linking these standard values to the nutrient sensitive biological quality elements is unclear. This is a serious issue that may prevent the achievement of objectives.

Selection of River Basin Specific Pollutants and use of Environmental Quality Standards The River Basin Specific Pollutants have been selected based on measured concentrations from monitoring, but it is not clear how Hungary decided which pollutants to analyse in the monitoring. Hungary subsequently stated that four river basin specific pollutants have been identified in the context of the regulations of the International Commission on the Protection of Danube River: Arsenic, Chromium, Copper and Zinc. Environmental Quality Standards have been set for them. The Environmental Quality Standards have been set according to the Common Implementation Strategy Technical Guidance no. 27. The analytical methods follow best available technology for three of the substances and the analytical method prescribed in Article 4(1) of the Directive 2009/90/EC for zinc. Hungary reported that eight chemical substances that are not Priority Substances were being monitored. These include the four metals for which Environmental Quality Standards have been set. The other four chemical substances may be considered to be isomers of Priority Substances and certain other pollutants as defined in Directive 2013/39/EU. No Environmental Quality Standards have been set for any organic pollutant because no organic pollutants have been selected as River Basin Specific Pollutants. The RBMP indicates that Hungary has followed an internationally recommended and accepted methodology in the second Plan, thereby considerably improving the evaluation system since the first Plan. The results are not comparable between the two RBMPs due to changes in the Environmental Quality Standards. In the second RBMP, only one lake was reported to exceed the limit values for arsenic and copper, while between eleven and thirty river water bodies exceeded the limit values for the four metals; arsenic, chromium, copper and zinc. However, the majority of lakes and almost half of the river water bodies have not been classified for River Basin Specific Pollutants, so there is a risk that more of them could be exceeding the limit values. Overall classification of ecological status (one-out, all-out principle) The one-out-all-out principle is reported as having been used. 3.1Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP There was a 2-fold increase in the number of river monitoring sites and a similar increase in lake monitoring sites between the two RBMPs. Significantly more sites were used for operational than for surveillance monitoring in both cycles. There were increased numbers of surveillance and operational monitoring sites in lakes and rivers between the two RBMPs. The significant changes in the numbers of lake and river waterbodies make comparisons of monitored water bodies between the two RBMPs difficult. In both the first and second RBMPs more lake and river water bodies were included in operational monitoring than in surveillance monitoring. In terms of operational monitoring there were significant increases in the number and proportion of lake and river water bodies covered: e.g. 390 (45 %) of river water bodies in the first RBMP and 759 river water bodies (79 %) in the second RBMP. It is not clear whether this monitoring is actually happening, as the RBMP states that there is no separate budget line in the national budget for the costs of operating/running the monitoring system. Significant improvement has been made in terms of instrument development, but further institutional development is needed to overcome the backlog. For surveillance monitoring, there were only very minor changes in the number of monitoring sites between the two RBMPs. The second RBMP shows a significantly higher number of water bodies with ecological classifications compared to the first RBMP. The proportion of water bodies with unknown ecological status/potential is now reported to constitute 13 % of all water bodies, which is a major improvement since the first RBMP, when the proportion of unknowns was 40 %. However, there is a big difference between the proportion of unknown lakes (up to 47 % unknowns) and unknown rivers (9 % unknowns). The reason why so many lakes cannot be classified is unclear. Significant changes (in both directions) are obvious in the classifications using benthic invertebrates, phytoplankton, other aquatic flora, fish, oxygenation conditions and salinity conditions. This indicates that changes or developments have been made to the assessment methods. The confidence in classification has improved from medium to high for 19 % of the rivers and 10 % of the lakes. The assessment methods are much more developed than in the first RBMP, including pressure-specific indices for several biological quality elements. Most of the biological assessment methods have now been intercalibrated, except fish in rivers and fish in lakes. Work is planned to develop fish assessment methods for the 3rd RBMP. There are also methods developed for all relevant supporting quality elements, but there are some concerns about their links to good status for biology. The nutrient standards are above the saturation level for nutrient sensitive biological quality elements, which may prevent the achievement of objectives. For River Basin Specific Pollutants, the RBMP indicates that Hungary followed an internationally recommended and accepted methodology, thereby considerably improving the evaluation system since the first RBMP. The results are not comparable between the two RBMPs due to changes in the limit values. 3.2Progress with Commission recommendations The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMP and Programme of Measures requested action on the following:

•Recommendation: Ensure implementation of WFD compliant monitoring and of the Programme of Measures by allocating adequate human and financial resources, exploring the possibility of using European Union funds (e.g. Rural Development Programme funds, Structural and Investment Funds and LIFE Integrated Projects). Assessment: A much more ambitious monitoring programme has been planned, with a large increase in the number of monitoring sites for both rivers and lakes, including more biological and supporting quality elements. However, there is no budget line to ensure implementation of the programme in the national budget, thus raising concerns as to whether this monitoring is done in practice. Hungary has subsequently confirmed to the Commission that operational monitoring is in place. Significant improvements are achieved in terms of instrument development, but further institutional development is needed to overcome the backlog. The recommendation has been fulfilled. •Recommendation: As the methods were not completed for all biological quality elements, the reference values and class boundaries were not completed for all types. Methodologies for all biological quality elements should be established with reference values and class boundaries completed for all types. Assessment: This recommendation has been addressed for both rivers and lakes, except on intercalibration of fish, which is still a gap (although assessment methods for fish have been developed). Hungary now has a full set of biological assessment methods with reference conditions and class boundaries for all the required biological quality elements. These methods, however, do not allow for classification of all the artificial or heavily modified lake water bodies. The surveillance monitoring programme includes all these quality elements, but fish in lakes are not classified (which is also not intercalibrated). The recommendation has been partially fulfilled. •Recommendation: Due to significant lack of data, only 13 % of surface water bodies were classified for River Basin Specific Pollutants. The identification of River Basin Specific Pollutants needs to be more transparent, with clear information on how pollutants were selected, how and where they were monitored, where there are exceedances and how such exceedances have been taken into account in the assessment of ecological status. It is important that there is an ambitious approach to combatting chemical pollution and that adequate measures are put in place. Assessment: The RBMP provided information on how River Basin Specific Pollutants were selected and monitored. 52 % of surface water bodies were classified according to River Basin Specific Pollutants in the second RBMP. Four different River Basin Specific Pollutants were monitored only in water. 54 % of surface water bodies were directly monitored for River Basin Specific Pollutants. All were monitored at least at the minimum WFD recommended frequency at all monitoring sites. Compared to other Member States the number of selected River Basin Specific Pollutants is low possibly indicating a low level of ambition in identifying chemical pollution. Progress has therefore been made on this aspect of this recommendation and therefore it has been partially fulfilled. •Recommendation: Ensure in the second RBMPs that measures adopted in the Programme of Measures are based on a reliable status assessment of water bodies and are linked to the relevant pressures. •Assessment: The proportion of water bodies with unknown ecological status/potential is now reported to be 13 % of all water bodies, which is a major improvement since the first RBMP, when the proportion of unknowns was 40 %. However, there is a big difference between the proportion of unknown lakes (up to 47 % unknowns) and unknown rivers (9 % unknowns). The confidence in classification has improved from medium to high for 19 % of the rivers and 10 % of the lakes. The assessment methods are much more developed than in the first RBMP, including pressure-specific indices for several biological quality elements. Most of the biological assessment methods have now been intercalibrated, except fish in rivers and fish in lakes. There are also methods developed for all relevant supporting quality elements, but there are some concerns about their links to good status for the biology. The nutrient standards are above the saturation level for nutrient sensitive biological quality elements, which may prevent the achievement of objectives. For River Basin Specific Pollutants, the RBMP indicates that Hungary followed an internationally recommended and accepted methodology, thereby considerably improving the evaluation system since the first RBMP. The results are not comparable between the first and second RBMPs due to changes in the limit values. The classification of hydromorphological quality elements is largely based on expert judgement. This recommendation has been partially fulfilled. •Recommendation: Strengthen monitoring to reduce unknowns and uncertainties by implementing robust monitoring programmes to support the application of methods for the status assessment of water bodies and definition of reference conditions. An adequate WFD compliant assessment and monitoring framework is a necessary pre-requisite to design an effective Programme of Measures and ultimately to achieve the WFD objectives. Assessment: There has been substantial progress with this recommendation, due to more monitoring in terms of more sites and more quality elements, facilitating the development and intercalibration of more assessment methods including reference conditions. This has resulted in fewer unknowns (especially for rivers) and better confidence in status assessment for some rivers. However, there are some concerns related to the continuation of the monitoring due to insufficient financing. •Recommendation: Status assessments of surface water bodies are not sufficiently reliable, therefore an extremely high percentage of surface water bodies are indicated as being of unknown status in Hungary. Where there are currently high uncertainties in the characterisation of the RBDs, identification of pressures, and in the assessment of status, these need to be addressed in the current cycle, to ensure that adequate measures can be put in place before the next cycle. For example, status assessments of surface water bodies should be made reliable and monitoring should be intensified in order to reduce the high number of water bodies in unknown status. Assessment: The proportion of surface water bodies with unknown ecological status/potential decreased significantly from 40 % (out of 1082 water bodies) to 13 % (out of 1078 water bodies) between the two RBMPs. There was also an improvement in the confidence of the classification: 45 % of surface water bodies were classified with medium/high confidence for the first plan and 64 % for the second. This part of the recommendation has been fulfilled.

Topic 4Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies 4.1Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second cycle

4.1.1Monitoring of chemical status in surface waters Monitoring sites and monitored water bodies used for monitoring of chemical status Member States have to implement surveillance and operational monitoring programmes, in accordance with the requirements of the WFD and of the EQS Directive, for the assessment of ecological status/potential and chemical status. Surveillance monitoring programmes should allow Member States to supplement and validate the impact assessment procedure, to efficiently and effectively review the design of their monitoring programmes, and to assess the long-term changes in natural conditions and those resulting from widespread anthropogenic activity. For operational purposes, monitoring is required to establish the status of waterbodies identified as being at risk of failing to meet their environmental objectives, and to assess any changes in the status of such waterbodies resulting from the Programme of Measures. Section 3.1.1 of this report summarises the characteristics of the surveillance and operational monitoring programmes in Hungary for the second RBMP.

Figure 4.1 summarises the proportion of sites used for the monitoring of chemical status in lakes and rivers for the second RBD. No distinction is made between sites used for surveillance and/or operational purposes. More detailed information can be found on the website of the European Environment Agency. As shown in Figure 4.1 , over half of sites monitored are used for monitoring of chemical status (65 % of lake monitoring sites and 58 % of river monitoring sites). In comparison, all sites are used for monitoring of ecological status. Figure 4.1Proportion of sites used for monitoring of chemical status and, for comparison, ecological status, in Hungary. The number in parenthesis next to the category is the total number of monitoring sites irrespective of their purpose Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 4.2 summarises the proportion of water bodies monitored for chemical status in lakes and rivers for the second RBMP. In this figure, no distinction is made between sites used for surveillance and/or operational purposes. Also given is the proportion of water bodies monitored for any purpose and, for comparison, those for ecological status. Over 50 % of water bodies are monitored for chemical status (58 % of lake and 53 % of river water bodies). All water bodies failing to achieve good chemical status were reported to be monitored in Hungary as part of the operational monitoring programme. Figure 4.2Proportion of total water bodies in each category which are monitored, monitored for chemical status and monitored for ecological status, in Hungary. The number in parenthesis next to the category is the total number of water bodies in that category Source: WISE electronic reporting Long-term trend monitoring and monitoring of Priority Substances in water, sediment and biota for status assessment Monitoring for status assessment Requirements Article 8.1 of the WFD requires Member States to establish monitoring programmes in order to provide inter alia a coherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each RBD. The amount of monitoring undertaken in terms of priority substances, frequency and numbers of sites should be sufficient to obtain a reliable and robust assessment of status. According to the EQS Directive (version in force in 2009), mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene have to be monitored in biota for status assessment, unless Member States derived a standard for another matrix, which is at least as protective as the biota standard. Spatial Coverage In Hungary around half of the lake and river water bodies are not monitored for any Priority Substances but all the other lake and river water bodies are monitored for more than 10 Priority Substances.

According to the reporting in WISE, 37 Priority Substances are monitored in water. However, Hungary subsequently clarified that only tributyltin, chloroalkanes C10-C13 and brominated diphenylethers are not monitored. No information on the monitoring of Priority Substances in sediment and/or biota was reported. Hungary subsequently clarified that no Priority Substance was monitored in biota between 2008 and 2013, because they lacked the appropriate analytical methods. Research started in 2015 to address this gap. Frequencies The WFD indicates that, for the surveillance and operational monitoring of Priority Substances in water, the frequency of monitoring should be at least monthly for one year during the six-year cycle and at least monthly every year, respectively. Monitoring in biota for status assessment should take place at least once every year according to the EQS Directive. In all cases greater intervals can be applied by Member States if justified on the basis of technical knowledge and expert judgement. Monitoring frequencies in water were reported for 34 Priority Substances at site level and each substance is monitored 12 times per year, once per cycle in some sites (presumably for surveillance monitoring) and every year in the other sites (presumably for operational monitoring). Monitoring for long-term trend assessment Requirements Article 3.3 of the EQS Directive (version in force in 2009) requires Member States to monitor 14 priority substances that tend to accumulate in sediment and/or biota, for the purpose of long-term trend assessment. Monitoring should take place at least once every three years, unless technical knowledge and expert judgment justify another interval. Spatial coverage No information was provided on the analysis of long-term trends as measured in sediment and/or biota. The RBMP does not explicitly mention that transboundary surface water monitoring programmes are in place with European Union Member States and non-European Union countries for the monitoring of Priority Substances. However, Hungary operates an operational monitoring sub-programme of rivers at risk from Priority Substances (HUSWPO_1RWPS) as well as a surveillance monitoring programme for rivers and lakes. Hungary also participates in the Transnational Monitoring Network of the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River and operates some transboundary monitoring sites. 57 surface water monitoring sites are reported to belong to international networks and all these sites are reported as chemical monitoring sites for Priority Substances. Monitoring of Priority Substances that are discharged in each RBD Annex V of the WFD states, in Section 1.3.1 (Design of surveillance monitoring), that “Surveillance monitoring shall be carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year during the period covered by a river basin management plan for [inter alia]: priority list pollutants which are discharged into the river basin or sub-basin.” Section 1.3.2 (Design of operational monitoring) of the same Annex states that “In order to assess the magnitude of the pressure to which bodies of surface water are subject Member States shall monitor for those quality elements which are indicative of the pressures to which the body or bodies are subject. In order to assess the impact of these pressures, Member States shall monitor as relevant [inter alia]: all priority substances discharged, and other pollutants discharged in significant quantities.” Member States are therefore required to monitor all Priority Substances which are discharged into the river basin or sub-basin. Hungary reported that 12 Priority Substances were listed in at least one of the inventories and were discharged. All these substances were reported to be monitored. However, twenty nine substances were not included in any of the inventories in Hungary. In particular, tributyltin, chloroalkanes C10-13 and brominated diphenylethers did not appear in any of the inventories (so it is unclear whether these substances are discharged) and they were not monitored. Performances of analytical methods used For 30 Priority Substances, the analytical methods used were reported to meet the minimum performance criteria laid down in Article 4(1) of the Directive 2009/90/EC for the strictest standard applied. For the remaining eight substances, the analytical methods complied with the requirements laid down in Article 4(2) of the Directive 2009/90/EC for the strictest standard applied. For three Priority Substances (tributyltin, chloroalkanes C10-C13 and brominated diphenylethers), Hungary subsequently clarified that no analytical methods were available in the assessment period relevant for the second RBMP. The method of dealing with measurements of Priority Substances lower than the limit of quantification is as specified in Article 5 of Directive 2009/90/EC.

4.1.2Chemical Status of surface water bodies Member States are required to report the year on which the assessment of chemical status is based. This may be the year that the surface water body was monitored. In case of grouping this may be the year in which monitoring took place in the surface water bodies within a group that are used to extrapolate results to non-monitored surface water bodies within the same group. Overall the chemical assessments were carried over the period from 2008 to 2012. The chemical status of surface water bodies in Hungary for the second RBMP is illustrated in Map 4.1 . This is based on the most recent assessment of status. Overall between the two cycles there was a large increase in the proportion of surface water bodies with good chemical status, from 3 to 46 %, and a significant decrease in the proportion with unknown status from 94 to 47 %. However, the proportion failing to achieve good status increased from 3 to 8 %.

Map 4.1Chemical status of surface water bodies in Hungary based on the most recently assessed status of the surface water bodies Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3. Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) The chemical status of lakes and rivers for the first and second RBMPs is given in Table 4.1 . More information on the chemical status in each RBD and water category can be found on the website of the European Environment Agency.

Table 4.1Chemical status of surface water bodies in Hungary for the second and first RBMPs. Note: the number in parenthesis next to the water category is the number of water bodies in that category. Note: Chemical status assessment is based on the standards laid down in the EQS Directive (version in force on 13 January 2009). Some Member States did not implement the Directive in the first RBMP, as the transposition deadline was in July 2010, after the adoption of the first RBMP. Category Good Failing to achieve good Unknown Number % Number % Number % Second RBMP Lakes (115) 43 37 % 3 3 % 69 60 % Rivers (963) 450 47 % 81 8 % 432 45 % Total (1078) 493 46 % 84 8 % 501 46 % First RBMP Lakes (213) 7 3 % 206 97 % Rivers (869) 28 3 % 28 3 % 813 94 % Total (1082) 35 3 % 28 3 % 1019 94 % Figure 4.3 shows the confidence in the classification of chemical status for the second RBMP. Overall 11 % of surface water bodies were classified for chemical status with high confidence, 59 % with medium confidence and 30 % with low confidence. Confidence in the classification of chemical status for the first RBMP was not reported. The one-out-all-out principle is applied. Surface water bodies not monitored for chemical status were reported as unknown status.

Figure 4.3 Confidence in the classification of chemical status of surface water bodies in Hungary based on the most recently assessed status/potential

Source: WISE electronic reporting Figure 4.4 compares the chemical status of surface water bodies in Hungary for the first RBMP with that for the second RBMP (based on the most recent assessment of status) and that expected by 2015. It shows that 46 % of water bodies achieved good status and this was in line with the expectations expressed in the first RBMP. The assessment of chemical status for the second RBMP was expected to be based on the standards laid down in the EQS Directive (version in force on 13 January 2009). Some Member States did not implement the Directive in the first RBMP as the transposition deadline was in July 2010, after the adoption of the first RBMP. Directive 2013/39/EU amended the EQS Directive. In particular, it set more stringent Environmental Quality Standards for seven substances. Member States were required to indicate if the new standards caused the status of the surface water body to appear to deteriorate. This was the case for 7 % of surface water bodies in Hungary in terms of fluoranthene and 3 % for lead, nickel and total benzo(b)fluor-anthene + benzo(k)fluor-anthene. This situation was also reported for 2 % of surface water bodies for total benzo(g,h,i)-perylene + indeno(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene. Figure 4.4Chemical status of surface water bodies in Hungary for the second RBMP, for the first RBMP and expected in 2015. The number in parenthesis is the number of surface water bodies for each cycle. Note that the period of assessment of status for the second RBMP was 2007 to 2013. The year of assessment of status for first RBMP is not known. Source: WISE electronic reporting Good chemical status should be reached by 2021 in relation to the revised environmental quality standards, unless Member States apply exemptions under Article 4(4) of the WFD or less stringent objectives under Article 4(5). Member States were asked to report the expected date for the achievement of good chemical status. The information for Hungary is shown in Figure 4.5. Good chemical status of surface water bodies is expected to be achieved by the end of the third planning cycle. The basis for this prediction is unclear because a large proporti