COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Mangement Plans - Member State: Hungary Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framewrok Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) Second River Basin Management Plans First Flood Risk Management Plans
Date: 2019-02-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: Hungary, adaptation to climate change, application of EU law, disaster area, environmental risk prevention, flood, risk management, water, water management, watercourse

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 26.2.2019  SWD(2019) 71 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Mangement Plans - Member State: Hungary Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framewrok Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) Second River Basin Management Plans First Flood Risk Management Plans {COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 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 ..................................................................................................................................... 4 

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

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

Overview of the assessment ..................................................................................................... 7 

Good Practices........................................................................................................................ 10 

Areas for further development ............................................................................................... 11 

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

1. 

 Scope of the assessment and sources of information for the assessment .......................... 15 

1.1  Reporting of the FRMPs .............................................................................................. 15 

1.2  Assessment of the FRMPs ........................................................................................... 15 

2. 

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

2.1  Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment ................................. 16 

2.2 

Presentation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) in the FRMPs...................... 18 

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

2.4  Areas  for further development  in  the earlier assessment of the flood hazard and risk 
maps   ..................................................................................................................................... 19 

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

3. 

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

3.1 

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

3.2 

Specific and measurable objectives ............................................................................. 21 

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

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

3.5 

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

3.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting objectives ......... 22 

4.  Planned measures for the achievement of objectives ......................................................... 23 

4.1  Cost of measures .......................................................................................................... 23 

4.2 

Funding of measures .................................................................................................... 24 

4.3  Measurable and specific (including location) measures .............................................. 24 

4.4  Measures and objectives .............................................................................................. 25 

1 

 
 
 
4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures ...................................................................... 25 

4.6 

Prioritisation of measures ............................................................................................ 25 

4.7  Authorities responsible for implementation of measures ............................................ 25 

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures ..................................................................... 25 

4.9  Measures taken under other Community Acts ............................................................. 26 

4.10  Specific groups of measures ........................................................................................ 26 

4.11  Recovery from and resilience to flooding ................................................................... 28 

4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP ........................................................ 28 

4.13  Coordination with the Water Framework Directive .................................................... 28 

4.14  Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures ............... 30 

5. 

 Consideration of climate change ....................................................................................... 31 

5.1 

Specific types of measures planned to address climate change ................................... 31 

5.2  Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate change .......... 32 

6. 

 Cost-benefit analysis.......................................................................................................... 33 

6.1  Good practices and areas for further development ...................................................... 33 

7. 

 Governance including administrative arrangements, public information and consultation .. 
 ............................................................................................................................................ 34 

7.1  Competent authorities .................................................................................................. 34 

7.2 

Public information and consultation ............................................................................ 34 

7.3  Active involvement of Stakeholders ............................................................................ 35 

7.4  Effects of consultation ................................................................................................. 37 

7.5 

Strategic Environmental Assessment .......................................................................... 37 

7.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding Governance ................. 37 

Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures .......................................................... 38 

Background & method ........................................................................................................... 38 

Types of measures used in reporting ...................................................................................... 39 

List of Annex A tables & figures ........................................................................................... 40 

Measures overview ................................................................................................................. 41 

Measure details: cost .............................................................................................................. 42 

Measure details: name & location .......................................................................................... 43 

Measure details: objectives .................................................................................................... 43 

2 

 
 
 
Measure details: authorities .................................................................................................... 45 

Measure details: progress ....................................................................................................... 45 

Measure details: other ............................................................................................................ 48 

Annex B: Definitions of measure types ..................................................................................... 49 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM) .................................................. 50 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
Acronyms 

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

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

4 

 
 
 
 
Introduction 

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

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

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

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

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

This  report  assesses  the  FRMP  for  Hungary1.  Its  structure  follows  a  common  assessment 
template used for all Member States. The report draws on two main sources:   

  Member  State  reporting  to  the  European  Commission  on  the  FRMP2:  as  per  Articles  7 
and  15  of  the  FD  this  reporting  provides  an  overview  of  the  plans  and  details  on  their 
measures 

  One  FRMP  (Hungary  reported  one  plan,  for  its  single  Unit  of  Management  (UoM), 

HU1000). 

2 

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

5 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Overview 

Figure 1 

Map of Units of Management/River Basin Districts 

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

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)  

Hungary produced one FRMP – Magyarország árvízi országos kockázatkezelési terve (January 

2016) – which covers the entire country. Hungary has designated a single unit of management 
(UoM)  for  the  entire  country,  HU1000:  its  area  is  identical  with  that  of  the  HU1000  River 
Basin  District  (RBD)  under  the  Water  Framework  Directive  (WFD),  for  which  Hungary  has 

reported one River Basin Management Plan (RBMP). 

The  Hungarian  FRMP  was  adopted  on  25  March  2016  via  Governmental  Decree  1146/2016 
(III. 25.) on the National Floods Risk Management Plan of Hungary.  

6 

HURO1000SK40000AT1000CZ_1000CZ_6000PL2000SK30000PL1000PL6000PL9000UACZ_5000UAHRCRSBAHU1000SI_RBD_1050100km 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The table below gives an overview of the information reported by Hungary, including the UoM 
code,  the  name,  and  the  number  of  APSFRs  reported.  It  shows  that  Hungary  reported  all 
documents  required  to  the  European  Environment  Agency’s  (EEA)  WISE  3:  the  FRMP  as  a 
PDF  and  the  reporting  sheet  as  an  XML.  The  table  does  not  show  if  hyperlinks  to  national 

websites were reported, even if these national websites contain the FRMP. 

Table 1 

Overview of UoM in Hungary 

UoM 

HU1000 

TOTAL 

Name 

Danube 

Number of APSFRs 

XML Reported 

PDF Reported 

2 

2 

Yes 

Yes 

The FRMP can be downloaded from the following web site: 

  http://www.vizugy.hu/index.php?module=vizstrat&programelemid=145  

Overview of the assessment 

The  table  below  gives  an  overview  of  the  evidence  found  in  the  assessment  of  Hungary’s 

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

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

not met; 

  No evidence: No information found to indicate that the criterion was met; 
  Some evidence: Reference to the criterion is brief and vague, without a clear indication 
of  the  approach  used  for  the  criterion.  Depending  on  the  comment  in  the  adjacent 
column, “some evidence” could also be construed as “weak evidence”; 

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

FRMP to address the criterion. 

Table 2 

Overview of the evidence found during the assessment of the FRMP 

Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

FRM objectives have been 
established  

FRM objectives relate to...  

...the reduction of potential 
adverse consequences  

Strong evidence 

Objectives have been established at 
national level. 

Strong evidence  

The objectives were established at 
national level and related measures 
identified. The main focus and priority 

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

o=2&d-4014547-s=3  

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...to the reduction of the 
likelihood of flooding  

Strong evidence  

...to non-structural initiatives  

Some evidence  

in setting objectives and planning 
measures is the protection of human 
life and health. Additional areas of 
focus are the minimisation of negative 
environmental consequences and 
harmonisation of flood risk 
management measures with WFD 
requirements. 

A further key objective of the FRMP is 
to reduce flood risks.  

FRMP objectives consider non-
structural initiatives, calling for 
strengthening the self-protection 
capability of the society. 

FRM objectives consider relevant potential adverse consequences to... 

...human health  

Strong evidence  

...economic activity  

Some evidence  

...environment  

Some evidence  

...cultural heritage  

Some evidence  

Measures have been...  

...identified  

Strong evidence  

...prioritised  

Strong evidence  

The main focus and priority in setting 
objectives and planning measures is 
the protection of human life and 
health.   

While not directly stated as an 
objective, the reporting sheet indicates 
that risk levels were identified for 
industrial properties. 

The minimisation of negative 
environmental consequences is an 
additional focus for the objectives.  

While not directly stated as an 
objective, the reporting sheet indicates 
that risk levels were identified for 
cultural heritage. 

The FRMP sets out 46 aggregated 
measures. 

A cost-benefit analysis (CBA) method 
was elaborated and applied to the 
identified measures. 

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

8 

 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...costs & benefits  

Strong evidence  

...flood extent  

Strong evidence  

...flood conveyance  

Strong evidence  

...water retention  

Strong evidence  

Hungary carried out cost/benefit 
analysis for structural measures. 

Measures are focused on the main 
flood areas. 

Actions to increase river channel 
capacity to convey water for flood 
alleviation are included in the 
measures. 

The FRMP includes six measures with 
NWRM elements, though specific 
details on the measures are not 
provided.  

...environmental objectives of 
the WFD  

Strong evidence  

Coordination with the RBMP included 
the WFD’s environmental objectives 

...spatial planning/land use  

Strong evidence  

...nature conservation  

Some evidence  

...navigation/port infrastructure   Strong evidence  

...likely impact of climate 
change  

Some evidence  

The FRMP includes measures that 
address spatial planning 

Potential impacts on Natura 2000 have 
been assessed, but nature conservation 
actions are not incorporated in the 
measures 

One measure addresses navigation 
issues 

Hungary’s reporting provides a brief 
review of climate change impacts – 
however, these are not directly 
addressed in the measures4 

4  Hungary  subsequently  informed  that  the  potential  consequences  of  climate  change  effects  have  been 
considered in the extreme flooding scenarios (Fluvial-1000 and Pluvial-100). The measures in the FRMP thus 
consider the impacts of the climate change. According to Hungary, structural measures are intended to handle 
the increased flood risk mostly via the reduction of the inundation hazard. The non-structural measures target 
climate change impacts. 

  Key  measures  include  LOKTERV,  a  planning  activity  to  prepare  for  the  risk  of  dyke  breaches.  Protected 
floodplain areas are investigated with detailed 2D modelling, calculated by the Hungarian ÁKIR software and 
ÁKK  methodology  where  the  effects  of  climate  change  are  incorporated.  The  MASZ  measure  in  2014  was 
dedicated to address the effects of climate  change. It recalculated 2300 km of river sections to define Q100 
water levels as the new characteristic design parameters. In the statistical analysis, climate change effects were 
incorporated.  The  overall  result  of  the  recalculation  was  that  almost  in  all  rivers  the  design  flood  levels 
(MÁSZ)  increased  by  1  to  1.5  meters  in  the  last  two  decades,  which  is  partly  a  result  of  climate  change 
impacts. 

  The  NMKT  planning  activity  considered  the  new  MÁSZ  surfaces  and  for  embanked  floodplains,  2D 
modelling was carried out to define conveyance zones. In regional plans, measures were defined to decrease or 
avoid  further  emerging  the  MÁSZ  levels,  thus  having  the  explicit  purpose  to  mitigate  the  climate  change 
impacts. 

9 

 
 
                                                 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

Coordination with other 
countries ensured in the 
RBD/UoM  

Some evidence  

Coordination ensured with 
WFD  

Strong evidence  

Active involvement of 
interested parties  

Strong evidence  

According to information in the 
reporting sheets, coordination took 
place within the ICPDR Flood 
Protection Expert Group, but no details 
are provided on the elements of 
coordination. 

The following level of coordination is 
mentioned in the FRMP: i) 
Coordination of FRMP and RBMP at 
national level, ii) Joint consultation of 
draft FRMP and RBMP, iii) 
Coordination between authorities 
responsible for developing FRMP and 
RBMP, iv) Coordination of objectives, 
v) Planning of win-win and no-regret 
measures in FRMP and RBMP, vi) 
Permits or permissions for flood risk 
activities (e.g. dredging, flood defence 
maintenance or construction) that 
requires prior consideration of WFD 
objectives. 

Opportunities for active involvement 
were provided in particular via 
national information forums, held in 
12 locations in July-August 2015. 
Additionally, two other events were 
held primarily for informing the broad 
public. 

Good Practices 

The assessment identified the following good practices in the Hungarian FRMP assessed. 

Table 3 

Good practices in the Hungarian FRMP 

Topic area 

Good practices identified 

Integration of previously 

Efforts were undertaken for the development of a new method for 

  The TELVIZKAR planning activity considered the new MÁSZ surfaces and the changed regime of the rivers 
in places where no primary dikes exist. For more than 160 settlements, preparatory plans have been made for 
operative  measures  to  address  high  flood  scenarios  and  their  consequences  (potential  inundations).  The 
changes in river regime were partly due to land use change and also meteorological and hydrological changes 
in the catchments, and they are related to the effects of climate change. 

10 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                          
Topic area 

reported information in the 
FRMPs. 

Consideration of climate 
change in the FRMPs assessed.  

Use of CBA in the FRMPs 
assessed.  

Public participation.  

Flood risk governance.  

Good practices identified 
risk  and  hazard  mapping,  by  means  of  2D  modelling.  The 
application  of  this  method  resulted  in  a  new,  more  precise 
delineation of the areas of flood risk. 

In 2014, HU revised the 1 % probability design flood levels for 
all relevant river sections, based partially on the climate change 
scenarios described in the Second National Climate Change 
Strategy 2014-2025 with lookout to 2050. These new figures 
were considered in the 2D modelling, which assisted the 
determination of flood risk levels. 

Hungary’s  FRMP  includes  non-structural  measures  for  planning 
that address climate change impacts. 

Hungary carried out CBA for structural measures. 

Within  the  framework  of  a  multiphase  evaluation  of  design 
alternatives  for  structural  measures,  a  benefit-cost  analysis  was 
carried out in order to reliably estimate the economic aspects of 
the  measures,  either  alone  or  in  the  form  of  a  package  of 
measures. In determining the benefit-cost ratio, the assessed risk 
timeframe  was 
level  reduction  over 
considered as a benefit. Costs included investment and operating 
costs, calculated for the planning time horizon.  

the  planned  30-year 

Twelve information forums were held across the country, with 
sessions enabling participants to express their opinions. In 
addition, two other events were organised to inform the broad 
public.  

Annex 1 of the FRMP provides an extensive list with the written 
comments and recommendations received from stakeholders, as 
well as the comments made in discussion forums, and moreover 
indicates how they were taken into account in the finalization of 
the FRMP. 

Coordination between the RBMP planning and FRMP planning 
was ensured. The same organisation was responsible for both 
planning activities at national level. 

Areas for further development 

The assessment identified the following areas for further development in the Hungarian FRMP 
assessed. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 4 

Areas for further development in the Hungarian FRMP 

Topic area 

Areas identified for further development 

Integration of previously 
reported information in the 
FRMPs. 

Setting of objectives for the 
management of flood risk.  

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

interpretation  of 

the  APSFRs  (Areas  of  Potentially 
The 
Significant Flood Risk) in Hungary’s FRMP is not clear, and it is 
not  clear  how  many  APSFRs  have  been  identified  and  used  for 
the plan. Earlier reporting stated that HU has two APSFRs, while 
the FRMP for HU states “that in the preparation of the FRMP, 8 
planning  units  were  created  and  the  results  aggregated  and 
presented at this level, though the investigations and calculations 
were carried out at flood basin level (APSFR)”. It is unclear from 
the FRMP how the eight planning units relate to the two APSFRs 
and the number of flood basins modelled (120 in total).5 
The FRMP discusses risk management objectives in Chapter 56. 
The objectives do not have defined targets and it is not clear how 
and when they will be achieved. 

Other than the use of CBA, it is unclear how the measures have 
been prioritized. Hungary does not appear to have prioritised its 
measures since all measures are reported as having “moderate” 
priority7. 
Costs are identified for 26 out of 46 measures. It is unclear in the 
FRMP why costs for the remaining measures have not been 

5  Hungary  subsequently  clarified  that  the  aim  of  the  PFRA  was  the  delineation  of  the  areas  designated  for 
detailed examination. Along the river sections that are protected by dams, the endangered areas were defined 
in 1977 using then available methodologies. The areas were allocated for the 1 % and the 0.1 % exceedance 
probability. 

  The  online  maps  show  the  APSFRs.  They  are  not  hazard  maps,  as  they  only  show  the  areas  exposed  to 
flooding, do not give information about probability or water depth. Maps known as "blue maps" represent the 
extent of flood basins that can be flooded by floods of 1 % and 0.1 % probability. 
Further,  in  Hungary  the  basic  units  of  the  FRMPs  are  embanked  floodplains,  which  are  disconnected  from 
flood dynamics by dykes and delineate an area that has a certain statistical probability of flooding. Floodplains 
are separated from each other by natural terrain or artificial infrastructures, so that a flood cannot pass from 
one basin to another. 

  There  are  120  modelled  flood  basins.  They  overlap  with  municipality  and  county  borders,  institutional 
operational borders, and in some cases the national border, but each is managed by only one regional Water 
Directorate.  The  Water  Directorates  are  responsible  for  preparing  plans  and  coordinating  local  and  regional 
discussions with contributing parties and the wider audience. For each of the 120 modelled flood basins, flood 
extent, water depths or water level is modelled for each scenario. 

  The  locations  of  the  proposed  interventions  were  linked  to  the  sub-units  defined  by  Hungary’s  RBMP.  The 

FHRMs and FRMP have been prepared on the basis of eight planning units. 

6   This chapter is full of technical details related to limit or threshold values of different categories, but vague in 
providing  a  clear  picture  on  measurable  and  specific  objectives  across  the  categories  that  are  defined  in  the 
Floods Directive (FD). 

7   Hungary subsequently noted that it was planned to carry out the 46 measures listed in the FRMP by 2021 with 

no specific prioritisation among them: therefore, they were all considered as having moderate priority. 

12 

 
 
                                                 
 
Topic area 

Areas identified for further development 

Consideration of climate 
change in the FRMPs assessed.  

International issues in flood 
risk management.  

provided. 

Hungary’s reporting sheets refer to a preliminary identification of 
400 measures, and it is not clearly indicated how these are related 
to the 46 measures reported for the FRMP8. 

The climate change aspect of flood risk is mentioned in the 
FRMP, but the text is vague on how actually climate change was 
considered. There is no reference in the FRMP to the national 
climate change adaptation strategy. 

Whereas international coordination took place within the ICPDR 
Flood Protection Expert Group, no details are provided in the 
FRMP or in Hungary’s reporting sheet on the elements of 
coordination (ICPDR’s international FRMP for the Danube 
River9 contains information on Hungary’s international 
coordination)10. 

Recommendations 

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

  The  interpretation  of  the  Areas  of  Potentially  Significant  Flood  Risk  (APSFRs)  in  the 
FRMP  is  not  clear.  It  is  assumed  –  based  on  Hungary’s  reporting  –  that  there  are  two 
APSFRs, however there are references to planning units and flood basins. The number of 

APSFRs should be clarified, along with their relationship to the planning units and flood 
basins. 

  To  be  able  to  assess  progress  in  achieving  the  objectives,  the  FRMP  should  develop 
objectives  that  are  more  specific  in  terms  of  quantitative  targets,  locations  and  the 

timeframes for achievement. 

  Provide more clarity on the number of measures, the relationship  between the FRMP’s 

measures and measures described as preliminary. 

8  Hungary subsequently informed that the 400 measures are for 2030. Out of the 46 measures (in the FRMP), 42 
measures  were  listed  in  Government  Decision  no.  1084/2016.  (II.  29),  and  4  are  non-structural  measures 
(MASZ,  Recalculation  of  the  design/regulatory  flood  levels;  NMKT,  Flood  plain  Management  Plans; 
LOKTERV,  Rescue  and  Evacuation  Plans;  and  TELVIZKAR,  Municipality  defence  plans  for  water-related 
damages). These measures should be implemented by 2021. 

9  Available at: https://www.icpdr.org/main/activities-projects/flood-risk-management   
10  Hungary subsequently noted that, in addition to chairing of the ICPDR’s Food Protection Expert Group, there 
are  border  commissions  with  all  five  neighbouring  EU  Member  States  and  two  non-EU  countries:  for  all, 
water management issues are high on the agenda. Information exchange and coordination with neighbouring 
Member  States  and  countries  took  place  at  all  stage  of  the  development  of  PFRA,  FHRMs  and  FRMP.  For 
instance,  with  Austria,  methodologies  were  analysed  mutually  in  depth  and  conclusions  for  the  next  cycles 
were  developed  and  presented  at  EU  level  (in  the  Working  Group  on  Floods).  In  the  context  of  the  EU 
Strategy  for  the  Danube  Region  and  the  Danube  Flood  Risk  Management  Plan,  Danube  countries  worked 
together and shared information.  

13 

 
 
                                                 
  The next version of the FRMP should include an estimation of the cost of all measures. 
  The  prioritisation  approach  for  measures  should  be  explained  better  in  the  2nd  cycle 

FRMP. 

  The  FRMP  should  more  clearly  explain  how  climate  change  is  addressed  in  flood  risk 
management  and  coordination  between  the  FRMP  and  the  national  climate  change 

adaptation strategy reinforced.  

  The FRMP should better reflect international coordination issues. 

14 

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

assessment 

1.1 

Reporting of the FRMPs 

Hungary produced one FRMP, which covers the entire country, thus the UoM is identical with 
the HU1000 area of the WFD RBMP as well11. 

1.2 

Assessment of the FRMPs 

Hungary reported one FRMP (UoM Code: HU1000, UoM Name: Danube), which is assessed. 

Table 5 

UoM assessed in Hungary 

UoM code 

HU1000 

UoM Name 

Danube 

11  While Hungary produced and reported one national FRMP, Hungary also prepared flood plans for eight sub-

national water management planning units. These sub-national plans have not been assessed here.  

15 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.   Integration of previously reported information 

2.1 

Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment 

The conclusions of the PFRA are presented in the FRMP. According to the FRMP, the flood 

risk  modelling  that  was  used  for  the  PFRA  has  been  updated,  mainly  as  a  consequence  of 
floodplain  developments:  new  infrastructures  that  influence  water  flow  were  included  in  the 

model (examples include roads, railways and hydro-engineering structures). The update of the 
model led to an update of the calculation of the potential extent of flooding. 

A  link  is  given  in  the  FRMP  to  the  maps12.  The  FRMP’s  Chapter  3.2  on  Preliminary 
assessment of risks provides short, textual information on the PFRA work. The FRMP states 
that it uses the same APSFRs which were identified in the PFRA (according to Chapter 1.6). 

One issue is that it is unclear how many APSFRs have been identified and used for flood risk 

management in Hungary. Earlier reporting stated that HU has two APSFRs, while the FRMP 
states that “in  the preparation of the FRMP eight  planning units were created and the results 

aggregated and presented at this level, though the investigations and calculations were carried 
out at flood basin level (APSFR)”. It is unclear how the eight planning units relate to the two 

APSFRs;  moreover,  Hungary’s  FRMP  refers  to  so-called  “flood  basins”,  which  are  areas  of 
flood risk: 120 flood basins were modelled13. 

2.1.1  Coordination with neighbouring Member States on shared RBDs/UoMs 

According  to  Hungary’s  reporting  sheets14,  coordination  with  neighbouring  Member  States 
was limited to information on the development status of the FRMP; however, the national plan 

12  http://www.vizugy.hu/index.php?module=vizstrat&programelemid=145  
13  Hungary  subsequently  clarified  that  the  aim  of  the  PFRA  was  the  delineation  of  the  areas  designated  for 
detailed examination. Along the river sections that are protected by dams, the endangered areas were defined 
in 1977 using then available methodologies. The areas were allocated for the 1 % and the 0.1 % exceedance 
probability. 

  The  online  maps  show  the  APSFRs.  They  are  not  hazard  maps,  as  they  only  show  the  areas  exposed  to 
flooding, do not give information about probability or water depth. Maps known as "blue maps" represent the 
extent of flood basins that can be flooded by floods of 1 % and 0.1 % probability. 
Further,  in  Hungary  the  basic  units  of  the  FRMPs  are  embanked  floodplains,  which  are  disconnected  from 
flood dynamics by dykes and delineate an area that has a certain statistical probability of flooding. Floodplains 
are separated from each other by natural terrain or artificial infrastructures, so that a flood cannot pass from 
one basin to another. 

  There  are  120  modelled  flood  basins.  They  overlap  with  municipality  and  county  borders,  institutional 
operational borders, and in some cases the national border, but each is managed by only one regional Water 
Directorate.  The  Water  Directorates  are  responsible  for  preparing  plans  and  coordinating  local  and  regional 
discussions with contributing parties and the wider audience. For each of the 120 modelled flood basins, flood 
extent, water depths or water level is modelled for each scenario. 

  The  locations  of  the  proposed  interventions  were  linked  to  the  sub-units  defined  by  Hungary’s  RBMP.  The 

FHRMs and FRMP have been prepared on the basis of eight planning units. 

14  FRMP  for  HU  (EU  UoMCode:  HU1000)  –  WISE  Electronic  Report  –  22.  03.  2016  in  Summary  of 

Coordination paragraph 

16 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
was  not  coordinated  with  neighbouring  Member  States.  There  was  no  coordination  in  cases 
where RBDs/UoMs are shared – rather, it is stated that at a later stage, Hungary will coordinate 

flood risk areas with neighbouring Member States. 

The  international  Danube  FRMP,  which  is  coordinated  by  the  International  Commission  for 
the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR), provides a “roof level” plan dealing with issues 

relevant  to  the  entire  basin.  It  was  endorsed  by  all  ICPDR  member  countries,  consequently 
providing a level of coordination. The Danube “roof” FRMP differs from national plans, which 

were  elaborated  for  more  detailed  issues,  and  some  of  which  may  have  transboundary 
implications.  The  international  Danube  FRMP  provides  further  information  on  Hungary’s 
international coordination15.  

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

As noted above, the flood risk modelling that was used for the PFRA has been updated, mainly 
as  a  consequence  of  floodplain  developments.  A  2D  numerical  modelling  technique16  was 
introduced and applied to calculate the potential flooding, and this work required updating of 
the  information  based  on  the  flood  basins,  which  resulted  in  the  above-mentioned 

modifications.  

For the flood hazard and flood risk maps, Hungary revised the design flood protection levels 
on all rivers that were the subject of mapping: the new levels draw upon the modification of 

the  findings  of  the  PFRA.  Design  flood  level  is  the  water  level  for  the  base  flood  used  in 
planning  –  for  Hungary’s  FRMP,  this  refers  to  the  water  level  for  a  1  %  probability  flood 
(based on river flow rate at a given section for the 1 % probability flood)17. 

15  Hungary  subsequently  noted that, in addition to chairing the  ICPDR’s Flood Protection Expert Group, there 
are  border  commissions  with  all  five  neighbouring  EU  Member  States  and  two  non-EU  countries:  for  all, 
water  management  issues  are  high  on  agenda.  Information  exchange  and  coordination  with  neighbouring 
Member  States  and  countries  took  place  at  all  stage  of  the  development  of  PFRA,  FHRMs  and  FRMP.  For 
instance,  with  Austria,  methodologies  were  analysed  mutually  in  depth  and  conclusions  for  the  next  cycles 
were  developed  and  presented  at  EU  level  (in  the  Working  Group  on  Floods).  In  the  context  of  the  EU 
Strategy  for  the  Danube  Region  and  the  Danube  Flood  Risk  Management  Plan,  Danube  countries  worked 
together and shared information.  

16  A 2D numerical model was applied as, according to the FRMP, this is the only technique with which interim 
changes  could  be  tracked  effectively  and  the  calculations  could  be  run  taking  into  account  the  new 
circumstances. 

17  This information was found in Chapters 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 of the FRMP. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.2 

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

The FRMP provides a link to www.vizugy.hu18: this is the home page of the Hungarian Water 
Management Directorate, while the specific page where the maps can be found is: 
http://www.vizugy.hu/index.php?module=vizstrat&programelemid=145.  

Floods  from  pluvial,  fluvial,  groundwater  and  artificial  water  bearing  infrastructure  sources 

have  been  identified  in  the  FRMP.  Floods  from  other  identified  sources  and  from  combined 
sources have not been taken into account in the FRMP19. 

2.2.1  Maps for shared flood risk areas 

Flood hazard and flood risk maps have not been prepared for flood risk areas shared with other 
Member  States.  Hungary  has  seven  neighbouring  countries  of  which  five  are  EU  Member 

States  (Austria,  Croatia,  Romania,  Slovakia  and  Slovenia)  and  two,  Ukraine  and  Serbia,  are 
neighbourhood  and  candidate  countries  respectively.  About  95  %  of  the  discharge  in 

Hungarian  rivers  originate  from  upstream  countries  (six  out  seven  neighbouring  countries, 
except Serbia) and, consequently, share flood basins with all of them. 

By the time of the finalisation of the FRMPs, 120 flood basins (i.e. areas of flood risk) were 

identified within HU, including some which have a transboundary character, but according to 
the FRMP, only information about the development status of the FRMPs was exchanged with 

other Member States. No information on transboundary measures were reported by Hungary. 

2.2.2  Conclusions drawn from the flood hazard and flood risk maps 

In the Hungarian FRMP, FHRMs have been used to develop the FRMP. Based on the reporting 

sheets and the FRMP: 

  FHRMs were used to set priorities for flood risk management (e.g. locations, economic 

activities, assets); 

  FHRMs were used as a tool in the public participation process; 

  Specific objectives on flood risk reduction were defined based on the FHRM; 

  Measures were defined based on the FHRM.  

Due to developments in the floodplain, since the FHRMs were first published, the 2D model 
has been updated. This resulted in a change of the calculated flood risk and flood extent. The 

18  Chapter 1.6 of the FRMP. 
19  Nor have seawater floods, which are not relevant for Hungary. 

18 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
modelling results, and the FHRM itself, were used to define specific objectives on flood risk 
reduction and also as a tool in public participation process20. 

2.3 

Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas 

Any changes in the identification of APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas since December 2011 

should be reflected in the FRMP. As noted above, Hungary carried out a significant update of 
the  model  used  for  the  calculation  and  mapping  of  the  flood  risk:  there  were  significant 

modifications  both  in  the  number  of  flood  basins  investigated  and  the  extent  of  them.  This 
resulted in a change of the potential flood risk, the potential flood risk extent and the desired 
flood protection levels21 22.  

2.4 

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

The  following  areas  for  further  development  were  identified  in  the  assessment  of  Hungary’s 
FHRMs23: 

  No  modelling  technique  was  used  to  identify  the  extent  of  potential  flooding  and  old 

design flood levels were applied; 

  With regard to adverse consequences, Hungary did not report the number of inhabitants 
affected  for  the  medium  probability  scenario  (as  required  in  the  Floods  Directive  (FD) 
Art.6(5)(a)); 

  No information about fluvial floods was reported;  

 

It  was  also  not  clear  how  pluvial  floods  risk  were  considered  in  the  elaboration  of 

FHRMs; 

  Links to national FHRMs were not available for all UoMs; 

  Hungary  reported  that  new  maps,  based  on  new  numerical  modelling  and  further 

improvements, will be published, but the publication date was not indicated; 

  Hungary  seems  to  have  defined  flash  floods  in  small  rivers  as  pluvial  floods  for  the 
PFRA. Pluvial (flash flood) hazard maps were not prepared by 2014 because the required 
detailed survey of the significant creeks had not been finalised. It was unclear when the 

maps would be finalised. 

20  FRMP Chapter 5. 
21  Chapters 1 and 3 of the FRMP Hungary’s reporting sheet. 
22  Hungary  subsequently  informed  that  new  FHRMs  were  reported  in  2016  (these,  or  any  updates,  will  be 

assessed by the European Commission at a later stage).  

23  European  Commission,  Assessment  of  Flood  Hazard  and  Flood  Risk  Maps  –  Member  State  Report:  HU  – 

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

19 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Areas for further development identified earlier in FHRM reporting have been addressed. As 
mentioned  above,  Hungary  carried  out  significant  modifications  both  in  the  number  of  flood 

basins investigated and their extents when 2D numerical  modelling technique was applied to 
calculate  potential  flooding.  In  connection  to  the  preparation  of  flood  hazard  and  flood  risk 

mapping,  Hungary  revised  the  design  flood  stage  levels  of  all  rivers  that  were  subject  of 
mapping24. As a result: 

  Modelling techniques were applied; 

  The  FRMP  includes  the  number  of  inhabitants  exposed  to  flood  risks,  including 

inhabitants in small river catchments; 

  The  FRMP  addresses  both  fluvial  and  pluvial  flood  risks  (along  with  those  related  to 

artificial water bearing infrastructure); 

  Links to national FHRMs are now available25. 

2.5  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  in  the  FRMPs 

regarding integration of previously reported information 

The following good practice was identified: 

  Efforts  were  undertaken  for  the  development  of  a  new  method  for  risk  and  hazard 
mapping, by means of 2D modelling. The application of this method resulted in a new, 
more precise delineation of the areas of flood risk. 

The following area for further development was identified: 

  The  interpretation  of  the  APSFRs  (Areas  of  Potentially  Significant  Flood  Risk)  in 
Hungary’s FRMP is not clear, and it is not clear how many APSFRs have been identified 

and used for the FRMP.  

24  Chapters 1 and 3 of the FRMP and the reporting sheet. 
25  The link, provided earlier in this section, is: 

http://www.vizugy.hu/index.php?module=vizstrat&programelemid=145  

20 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
3.   Setting of Objectives 

3.1 

Focus of objectives 

The FRMP discusses the objectives of flood risk management and states that the first priority is 

given to human health and its protection, with the minimisation of the environmental damages 
caused  by  flooding  as  second  priority.  The  reduction  of  flood  risks  is  a  further  objective; 

harmonisation of flood risk management measures with WFD requirements is also indicated as 
an  objective.  The  FRMP  moreover  calls  for  strengthening  the  self-protection  capability  of 

society (Chapter 5.1). 

While not directly referring to objectives, the FRMP discusses the technical characteristics of 
the  protection  measures  and  alternatives,  and  in  the  reporting  sheets,  numerical  values  are 

given  on  how  the  different  risk  levels  were  determined  for  properties,  protection  of  human 
health,  cultural  heritage,  industrial  properties,  natural  protection  areas,  and  groundwater 

resources. However, these values are not associated with the objectives, rather with indicators 
of risks26. 

Based on the information found in the FRMP27: 

  The objectives aim to reduce the adverse consequences of floods;  
  The objectives aim to reduce the likelihood of flooding28;  
  The objectives refer to measures that will be implemented;  
  The objectives refer to non-structural measures29;  
  The objectives aim to  coordinate flood risk with  neighbouring  countries (e.g. to  ensure 

that measures taken do not increase flood risk in neighbouring countries). 

3.2 

Specific and measurable objectives 

No  specific  information  can  be  found  in  Chapter  5,  where  the  objectives  of  the  plan  are 

discussed,  to  indicate  that  objectives  are  specific  or  measurable:  The  objectives  are  not 

26  Examples of the indicators include: 

  Properties – the values (in HUF) of the properties which are exposed to floods; 
  Human health – the indicators are grouped in five classes: Class 1 (low risk) when the inundation is 0 – 
0.8  m;  Class  2  (low  medium)  with  inundation  0.8  –  1.5  m;  Class  3  (medium)  1.5  -    2.0  m;  Class  4 
(medium high) 2.0 – 3.0 m; Class 5 (high) above 3.0 m inundation. 

  Cultural  heritage:  the  indicator  of  risk  is  proportional  of  the  surface  area  of  the  basin  where  cultural 

heritage can be found. 

27  These categories are included in Art. 7 of the Floods Directive. 
28  The assessment adopts the generally accepted definition of risk as a product of consequence times likelihood, 

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

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

as land use planning, economic instruments and insurance 

21 

 
 
                                                 
quantitative  and  are  not  time-bound;  though  it  is  mentioned  in  which  APSFR  the  objectives 
will  be  achieved,  Hungary  only  has  identified  two  APSFRs,  and  more  detailed  location 

information (such as which planning unit or “flood basin” is concerned) is not provided. More 
specific and measurable targets are instead provided on the measures.30 

3.3  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods 

In  the  FRMP  assessed,  objectives  address  adverse  consequences  to  human  health  first  of  all 

and to environment and economic activity secondly. 

3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding 

The  objectives  aim  to  reduce  the  vulnerability  and  risk  due  to  flooding;  however,  without 
further specification. 

3.5 

Process for setting the objectives  

The following elements were considered in setting the objectives: 

  Objectives  have  been  coordinated  between  regions  (i.e.  twelve  regional  water 

management directorates) sharing flood risk areas within the national UoM. 

  The  objectives  have  been  coordinated  between  countries  sharing  flood  risk  areas  in 
transboundary  RBDs/UoMs  in  the  context  of  the  ICPDR’s  preparation  of  a  roof  report 
for the river Danube. 

  The objectives were discussed with stakeholder/s before their establishment (see section 

7 below). 

3.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting 

objectives 

The following area for further development was identified: 

  The  objectives  do  not  have  targets  defined  and  it  is  not  clear  how  and  when  the 

objectives will be achieved.  

30  Hungary subsequently noted that a key target is to implement the 46 measures by the end of the first FRMP 

cycle (2021).  

22 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.  Planned measures for the achievement of objectives 

Hungary  reported  no  individual  measures  and  46  aggregated31  measures32.  Out  of  the  46 
aggregated measures, two measures (4 %) deal with prevention and three measures (7 %) with 
preparedness,  while  the  great  majority  of  the  measures  (41  measures  or  89  %)  are  for 
protection33.  

The  responsibility  for  all  46  measures  is  at  national  level.  Implementation  of  three  measures 
has been completed (at the time of reporting); three are in on-going construction phase, while 

87 % (40) of the measures reported have not been started yet. 

In Hungary’s reporting sheet, however, the Summary of the Objectives states: “As an outcome, 
the ÁKK34 project formulated more than 400 measures over the country.” (The ÁKK was the 
project  that  elaborated  the  HU1000  FRMP).  It  is  not  clear  if  all  these  measures  were 
incorporated into the 46 aggregated measures reported for Hungary35, nor how measures were 
aggregated: a definition of aggregated measures was not found36. 

Please see Annex A for Supplementary tables and charts on measures for this and subsequent 

questions in this section. 

4.1 

Cost of measures 

Table 6 

Estimated overall budget for the measures in the assessed FRMP 

HU1000 (for 26 of 46 measures) 
Note: Budget information was reported for 26 out of the 46 measures. 

183 billion  

Estimated budget of 26 planned measures (2015-2021) in HUF  

31 The Reporting Guidance mentions “Measures can be reported as individual measures (recommended for major 
projects)  or  aggregated  measures,…”  and  also  notes  that  measures  may  be  comprised  of  “many  individual 
projects”. European Commission, Guidance for Reporting under the FD (2007/60/EC), 2013, pp. 54-58. 

32  The information reported to WISE was the starting point for the assessment in this section. The majority of the 
statistics  presented  are  based  on  processing  of  information  reported  to  WISE.  Assuming  that  the  Member 
States accurately transferred the information contained in their FRMPs to the reporting sheets (the sheets are 
the same for all Member States and are not customisable) and barring any undetected errors in the transfer of 
this information to WISE arising from the use of interfacing electronic tools, these statistics should reflect the 
content of the FRMPs. 

33  For details about all measure aspects and all measure types, see Annex 3. 
34  Árvízkockázat kezelés, or flood risk management. 
35  Hungary subsequently informed that the 400 measures are for 2030. Out of the 46 measures (in the FRMP), 42 
measures  were  listed  in  Government  Decision  no.  1084/2016.  (II. 29),  and  four  are  non-structural  measures 
(MASZ,  Recalculation  of  the  design/regulatory  flood  levels;  NMKT,  Flood  plain  Management  Plans; 
LOKTERV,  Rescue  and  Evacuation  Plans;  and  TELVIZKAR,  Municipality  defence  plans  for  water-related 
damages). These measures should be implemented by 2021. 

36  Hungary  subsequently  clarified  that  these  projects  can  best  be  viewed  as  aggregated  measures  since  they 

include all the processes including design, construction and maintenance. 

23 

 
 
 
                                                 
Hungary’s FRMP, in Table 27 of Chapter 5.2.3, gives individual preliminary cost estimates for 
26  measures  out  of  the  total  46  measures  for  the  period  2014-2020:  HUF  183  bn 
(approximately  €580  m)37.  It  is  stated  that  actual  project  costs  will  be  elaborated  during  the 
project preparation part of the implementation phase. 

4.2 

Funding of measures 

According to  the  Hungarian  FRMP, the measures will be funded using  a combination of the 

public budget at the national level and EU co-funded projects (Operational Programme under 
Cohesion Policy)38.  

Hungary’s reporting sheet mentions that the General Directorate of Water Management of the 

Ministry of Interior is the organisation that will coordinate nationwide the implementation of 
the  measures.  It  is  also  stated  that  projects  will  be  carried  out  via  public  procurement  using 

national and international funding sources.  

4.3  Measurable and specific (including location) measures 

The  measures  in  the  FRMP  are  specific  and  measurable.  Among  other  information,  the 
measures reported by Hungary are specified by measure type as well as measure location (see 

the table below). 

Table 7 

Location of measures  

International  

National  

RBD/UoM  

Sub-basin  

APSFR or other specific risk area  

Water body level  

More detailed than water body 

HU1000 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMP 

37  Hungary noted subsequently that three groups of floods were created for the examination of flood hazards:   

  Floods of river sections protected by dykes (fluvial floods);  
  Floods of river and stream sections not protected by dykes (flash floods or pluvial floods);  
 

Inland inundations (excess water). 

  These measures do not include the excess water related projects. The reason for this is that in the first cycle of 
the  FD,  Hungary  worked  out  the  Complex  Excess  Water  Hazard  Probability  to  evaluate  the  risk  of  excess 
water inundation, but hazard and risk reduction measures have not been made for the endangered areas. So, 
the  26  measures  are  floodplain  (fluvial)  and  pluvial  flood  risk  reduction  projects,  whereas  the  46  measures 
reported also include projects related to excess water.  

38  Hungary  subsequently  indicated  that  all  the  measures  will  be  co-funded  projects  under  the  relevant 

Operational Programme. 

24 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.4  Measures and objectives 

As explained in section 3, Hungary’s objectives are not specific or measurable. Consequently, 
it is not clear how measures will contribute to the achievement of objectives, nor clear by how 
much they will contribute39. It is also not clear whether the objectives will be achieved when 
all measures are completed.  

The  information  on  measures  provided  in  the  FRMP  as  well  as  in  Hungary’s  reporting  to 

WISE Electronic Report is minimal. 

4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures 

Hungary has reported two prevention measures and three preparedness measures: all of these 

measures are at national scale. Out of 41 protection measures, 22 are at local, 16 at sub-basin 
and three at national scale. 

No information is given about the geographic coverage of the expected effects for any of the 

46 listed measures in the FRMP for Hungary. 

4.6 

Prioritisation of measures 

According  to  the  FRMP,  CBA  was  carried  out  to  prioritize  structural  measures  (section  6 
below  describes  Hungary’s  approach  to  cost/benefit  analysis).  It  is  also  mentioned  in  the 

FRMP that actual costs will be determined once each project is designed.  

In  Hungary’s  reporting  of  measures,  however,  all  measures  are  listed  to  be  of  “moderate” 
priority (see Table A3 in Annex A) 40.  

4.7 

Authorities responsible for implementation of measures 

Hungary’s national Ministry of Interior is the responsible authority for  the implementation of 

all  measures,  according  to  the  reporting  sheets.  Consequently,  all  measures  reported  are 
implemented by a national authority.  

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures 

According  to  the  information  reported  by  Hungary,  implementation  of  three  of  the  measures 

has already been completed (7 % of all measures), three are in the on-going construction phase, 

39  Hungary  subsequently  informed  that  a  key  target  is  to  implement  the  46  measures  by  the  end  of  the  first 

FRMP cycle (2021).  

40  Hungary subsequently informed that it was planned to carry out the 46 measures listed in the FRMP by 2021 
with no specific prioritisation among them: therefore, they were all considered as having moderate priority. 

25 

 
 
                                                 
while  the  remaining  40  measures  listed  (87  %)  have  not  been  started  yet  (see  Table  A5  and 
Figure A5 in Annex A).  

The FRMP indicates that all 46 measures are to be implemented by the end of the cycle (2021).  

4.9  Measures taken under other Community Acts 

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

has been implemented. For Hungary’s FRMP, the following links are indicated: 

  WFD:  In  the  reporting  sheet,  the  section  on  “Summary  of  Development”  states  that 
during the preparation of flood risk management plans, the harmonization with the WFD 

has been monitored. This was ensured by the continuous coordination of the design work 
of the RBMP and the FRMP, as the planning of flood risk management and river basin 

management  planning  was  done  in  the  same  institutional  system:  the  regional  water 
directorates  managed  the  documents  under  the  overall  control  of  the  nationally 

responsible organisation, the General Directorate of Water Management (OVF). 

  EIA Directive: No reference found in the FRMP or WISE reporting41. 
  SEA Directive: The FRMP underwent an SEA procedure. The SEA report was published 

on the official website of the FRMP (www.vizugy.hu) on 3 December 2015. 

  Seveso Directive: no reference was found in the Hungarian FRMP or WISE reporting42. 
  Civil protection Mechanism: no reference was found in the Hungarian FRMP or WISE 

reporting43. 

  Other  Community  Acts:  while  the  FRMP  lists  relevant  EU  Acts  (and  national 

obligations), it does not specify how they are addressed in flood risk planning. 

4.10  Specific groups of measures 

With  regard  to  spatial  planning/land  use  measures,  the  following  types  of  measures  are 
included in the Hungarian FRMP44: 

41  Hungary  subsequently  indicated  that  the  planned  measures  in  the  FRMP  are  strategic  measures.  The 
implementation  of  these  measures  may  be  carried  out  after  detailed  planning,  environmental  checking,  and 
after an authorisation procedure. 

42  Hungary  subsequently  noted  that  the  fluvial  or  pluvial  flood  risks  of  affected  Seveso  sites  appear  in  the 

FHRMs.  

43  Hungary  subsequently  informed  that  since  2016  the  General  Directorate  of  Water  Management  (OVF)  has 
participated in the common implementation of a Disaster Risk Assessment System. The aim of the project is to 
build  a  GIS  based  system  for  disaster  risk  assessment.  The  project  primarily  involves  the  identification, 
analysis,  evaluation  and  mapping  of  hazards  which  are  reinforced  and  enhanced  by  the  effects  of  climate 
change.  The  OVF  supports  the  project  by  providing  the  results  of  FHRM  and  FRMP.  Further,  Hungarian 
officials have participated in expert courses on the EU Civil Protection Mechanism.  

44  According to information provided in Hungary’s WISE reporting. 

26 

 
 
                                                 
  Six M3145 type measures; 
 

 

one  measure  establishing  or  enhancing  flood  forecasting  or  early  warning  system 
(measure type M4146); and 
two  measures  establishing  or  enhancing  flood  event  institutional  emergency  response 
planning  (measure  type  M4247)  which  also  contain  elements  of  spatial  planning  /  land 
use (see below). 

It  is  stated  in  Chapter  5.2.1.4  of  the  FRMP  that  the  effects  of  land  use  regulations  were 
investigated  in  a  30-year  time  horizon,  which  should  imply  the  consideration  of  climate 

change. 

Chapter  5.4  on  Measures  to  manage  flood  beds  briefly  mentions  that  in  2014,  flood  bed48 
management plans were finalised, in which the possibility of FRMP-defined relevant measures 

were taken into account.   It  is  also  mentioned in  this  chapter that, based  on the findings and 
recommendations of these plans, a ministerial decree would be issued that will determine the 

concrete measures. 

Natural  water  retention  measures  (NWRMs)  have  been  planned.  Hungary  plans  six  M31 
type measures49, some of which contain natural water retention elements. 

Measures that specifically consider nature conservation. While the FRMP does not specify 
measures that incorporate nature conservation, it does address the potential risks of measures 

to natural areas. In the risk assessment part of the FRMP, Natura 2000 areas were considered. 
There  are  43  flood  basins  where  partial  or  full  inundation  of  a  Natura  2000  area  can  be 

expected. Ecological damages can be expected on 11 315 ha (see also below). 

One M32 type measure50 deals with navigation issues, namely reconstruction of a lock on the 
Tisza River. 

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

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

system. 

47  Preparedness, Emergency Event Response Planning / Contingency planning, Measure to establish or enhance 

flood event institutional emergency response planning. 

48  The flood bed refers to the area between two flood protection levees on either side of a river. 
49  Protection Natural flood management / runoff and catchment management, Measures to reduce the flow into 
natural  or  artificial  drainage  systems,  such  as  overland  flow  interceptors  and  /  or  storage,  enhancement  of 
infiltration, etc and including in-channel, floodplain works and the reforestation of banks, that restore natural 
systems to help slow flow and store water. 

50  Protection,  Water  flow  regulation,  Measures  involving  physical  interventions  to  regulate  flows,  such  as  the 
construction, modification or removal of water retaining structures (e.g., dams or other on-line storage areas or 

27 

 
 
                                                 
Dredging  to  increase  the  river  channel  capacity  and  its  ability  to  convey  water  for  flood 
alleviation purposes is planned within the Hungarian FRMP. The FRMP lists - in Table 30 on 

page  53  -  projects  that  have  already been  approved by the Government  for small river  flood 
risk reduction. Some of these projects contain elements of dredging work. There is, however, 

no  clear  information  about  the  exact  number  of  measures  related  to  dredging.  It  is  stated  in 
Table 31 that 26 WFD-related water bodies will be the subject to river bed regulation, which 

involves dredging. 

One  of  the  measures,  named  “KEOP  1.5.0  programme”,  will  support,  among  other  actions, 
river bed rehabilitation. 

4.11  Recovery from and resilience to flooding 

The  role  of  insurance  policies  is  not  discussed  in  the  Hungarian  FRMP,  nor  in  Hungary’s 
reporting51. 

Ecosystem  services  were  considered  in  risk  calculations  in  relation  to  Natura  2000  areas  as 
well as in  defining non-structural  measures.  It  was considered that  in  these areas, inundation 
with  less  than  50  cm  would  not  represent  risks  as  the  potential  benefit  for  the  ecosystem  is 

higher than the potential damage. 

4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP 

No information is provided either in the FRMP or in the reporting sheets to identify52: a) What 
is monitored; b) How the monitoring will be carried out; c) if any organisation, apart from the 

Competent  Authority,  is  foreseen  to  be  involved  in  monitoring  the  progress  of  the 
implementation of measures. No information is provided to indicate that a monitoring baseline 

has been established. 

4.13  Coordination with the Water Framework Directive 

The  table  below  shows  how  the  development  of  the  FRMP  has  been  coordinated  with  the 
development of the second River Basin Management Plan of the WFD.  

development  of  existing  flow  regulation  rules),  and  which  have  a  significant  impact  on  the  hydrological 
regime. 

51  Hungary subsequently  noted that  insurance policies  were discussed in the Flood Risk Management  Concept 
Paper  (which  identified  possible  measures  to  2030)  and  related  annex  as  possible  measures  for  risk 
management. 

52  Hungary  subsequently  remarked  that  the  General  Directorate  of  Water  Management  (OVF)  is  constantly 

monitoring the implementation of the projects. 

28 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                          
Table 8 

Coordination of the development of the FRMP with the development of the 
second River Basin Management Plans of the WFD  

HU1000 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Integration of FRMP and RBMP into a single plan 

Joint consultation of draft FRMP and RBMP  

Coordination between authorities responsible for developing FRMP and RBMP  

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

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

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

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

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

Natural water retention and green infrastructure measures have been included  

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

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

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

Not enough information was available from the reporting to assess all terms in the table above. 
The reporting sheet does not contain information in the field “WFD Measures”. However, the 

following levels of coordination have been mentioned in the FRMP:  

  Coordination of FRMP and RBMP at national level,  

  Joint consultation of draft FRMP and RBMP,  

  Coordination between authorities responsible for developing FRMP and RBMP,  

  Coordination of objectives,  

  Planning of win-win and no-regret measures in FRMP and RBMP,  

  Permits or permissions for flood risk activities (e.g. dredging, flood defence maintenance 
or  construction)  requiring  prior  consideration  of  WFD  objectives  and  RBMPs.  (From 
Chapter 6 of the FRMP)  

In  addition,  reporting  under  the  WFD  indicates  that  FD  objectives  were  considered  in  the 
preparation of Hungary’s RBMP, and its programme of measures includes win-win measures 

for the Floods Directive. 

29 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
4.14  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  with  regard  to 

measures 

The following good practice was identified: 

  Coordination between the RBMP planning and FRMP planning was ensured. The same 

organisation was responsible for both planning activities at national level. 

The following areas for further development were identified: 

  While  Hungary’s  FRMP  refers  to  the  use  of  CBA,  Hungary  did  not  indicate  priorities 
among  its  measures.  Indeed,  according  to  Hungary’s  reporting,  all  measures  are 
identified as having “moderate” priority53. 

  Costs are identified for 26 out of 46 measures. It is unclear in the FRMP why costs for 

the remaining measures have not been provided. 

53  Hungary subsequently noted that it was planned to carry out the 46 measures listed in the FRMP by 2021 with 

no specific prioritisation among them: therefore, they were all considered as having moderate priority. 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
5.   Consideration of climate change 

The Hungarian FRMP does not  refer to  the expected effects  of climate change. On the other 

hand, Hungary’s reporting sheet,  uploaded to  WISE, references the Second National  Climate 
Change  Strategy  2014-2025  with  outlook  to  2050  (Második  Nemzeti  Éghajlatváltozási 

Stratégia 2014-2025, kitekintéssel 2050-re). It indicates that the Strategy describes tendencies 
and expected changes that would influence the frequency of high floods. It is stated, however, 

that the Strategy does not provide numerical values about these events. 

The FRMP does not set definitive timeframe for climate change scenarios as it does not refer 
directly  to  such scenarios. There are indications  in  the FRMP and in  the  reporting sheet  that 

climate  change  will  lead  to  a  shift  in  the  occurrence  of  extreme  events  and  changes  in 
numerical  recurrence  times.  It  is  mentioned  that  a  national  database  was  developed  with  all 

hydrological  information,  and  this  was  used  for  the  recalculation  of  design  flood  levels  and 
discharges and the extrapolation to calculate extreme events probability. 

The reporting  sheet  gives a very brief summary  of climate  change aspects of the  FRMP. No 
information  is  provided  whether  the  main  sources  of  flooding  will  change  under  long-term 

climate change scenarios. 

5.1 

Specific types of measures planned to address climate change 

Hungary’s FRMP includes non-structural measures that address climate change impacts, such 
as the LOKTERV project, a planning activity to prepare for the risk of dyke breaches. These 

measures deal with a) the preparation of a Flood Management Plan for the entire country and 
b) recalculation of the design flood levels  (1 % probability). Both measures consider climate 
change aspects54. 

54  Hungary  subsequently  informed  that  the  potential  consequences  of  climate  change  effects  have  been 
considered in the extreme flooding scenarios (Fluvial-1000 and Pluvial-100). The measures in the FRMP thus 
consider the impacts of climate change. According to Hungary, structural measures are intended to handle the 
increased  flood  risk  mostly  via  the  reduction  of  the  inundation  hazard.  The  non-structural  measures  target 
climate change impacts. 

  Key  measures  include  LOKTERV,  a  planning  activity  to  prepare  for  the  risk  of  dyke  breaches.  Protected 
floodplain areas are investigated with detailed 2D modelling, calculated by the Hungarian ÁKIR software and 
ÁKK  methodology  where  the  effects  of  climate  change  are  incorporated.  The  MASZ  measure  in  2014  was 
dedicated to address the effects of climate  change. It recalculated 2300 km of river sections to define Q100 
water levels as the new characteristic design parameters. In the statistical analysis, climate change effects were 
incorporated.  The  overall  result  of  the  recalculation  was  that  almost  in  all  rivers  the  design  flood  levels 
(MÁSZ)  increased  by  1  to  1.5  meters  in  the  last  two  decades,  which  is  partly  a  result  of  climate  change 
impacts. 

  The  NMKT  planning  activity  considered  the  new  MÁSZ  surfaces  and  for  embanked  floodplains,  2D 
modelling was carried out to define conveyance zones. In regional plans, measures were defined to decrease or 
avoid  further  emerging  the  MÁSZ  levels,  thus  having  the  explicit  purpose  to  mitigate  the  climate  change 
impacts. 

31 

 
 
                                                 
5.2  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  concerning 

climate change 

The following good practices were identified: 

 

In  2014,  HU  revised  the  1  %  probability  design  flood  levels  for  all  relevant  river 

sections,  based  partially  on  the  climate  change  scenarios  described  in  the  Second 
National  Climate Change Strategy 2014-2025 with  lookout to 2050. These new figures 

were  considered  in  the  2D  modelling,  which  assisted  the  determination  of  flood  risk 
levels. 

  Hungary’s FRMP includes non-structural measures that address climate change impacts. 

The following area for further development was identified:  

  Although  Hungary’s  reporting  sheet  refers  to  the  Second  National  Climate  Change 
Strategy 2014-2025 with outlook to 2050 document, it is not clear how climate change is 

taken into consideration in the FRMP. 

  The TELVIZKAR planning activity considered the new MÁSZ surfaces and the changed regime of the rivers 
in places where no primary dikes exist. For more than 160 settlements, preparatory plans have been made for 
operative  measures  to  address  high  flood  scenarios  and  their  consequences  (potential  inundations).  The 
changes in river regime were partly due to land use change and also meteorological and hydrological changes 
in the catchments, and they are related to the effects of climate change. 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                          
6.   Cost-benefit analysis 

Within the framework of a multi-phase evaluation of design alternatives, a CBA was carried 

out  to  estimate the economic aspects  of structural  measures. The results of the analysis were 
provided in  terms  of the benefit-cost  ratios for the measures55.   In determining this ratio, the 
extent of reductions in risks to assets over the planning timeframe (30 years) was considered as 
a benefit.  

The  cost  was  considered  as  the  sum  of  investment  and  operating  costs  calculated  for  the 

planning timeframe. The present value (at 2015 price levels) for both the reduction of the risk 
and the costs was determined. The total cost was made up of three elements:  

1.  Capital  costs:  One-time  cost,  which  was  considered  to  be  paid  out  in  2027.  The  cost 

value was discounted to the level of 2015.  

2.  Depreciation  costs:  This  is  2  %  of  the  investment  costs  to  be  paid  in  2027  and  this 
amount  should  be  paid  annually  from  2028  till  2057.  For  comparison,  the  total 

depreciation costs to  be  paid  during the 30-year  period were discounted to the level  of 
2015.  

3.  Maintenance costs: The amount for the period of 30 years, discounted. 

Only  the  national  benefits  of  measures  have  been  included  in  the  CBA.  No  indication  was 
found in the FRMP or Hungary’s reporting sheets if transboundary, downstream benefits were 
considered56. Furthermore, Hungary did not report any transboundary measures. According to 
Hungary’s  reporting  sheet  (the  Summary  of  Cost/Benefit),  the  FRMP  considered  multi-

benefits, though details were not found in the plan itself.  

The  CBA  was  used  as  a  criterion  for  the  establishment  of  priorities  for  the  selection  of 

measures. Nonetheless, it was used only for structural measures.  

6.1  Good practices and areas for further development 

The following good practice was identified: 

  Hungary carried out cost/benefit analysis for structural measures. 

55  Information  for  this  section  is  taken  from  the  FRMP  and  from  Hungary’s  reporting  sheets  (specifically,  the 

Summary of Cost/Benefit) 

56  Hungary subsequently noted that its CBA methodology was among the most advanced among those in use in 
the  Danube  international  basin  and  also  noted  that  a  common  methodology  has  not  been  developed  for  the 
Danube basin. 

33 

 
 
 
                                                 
7.   Governance including administrative arrangements, public 

information and consultation 

7.1 

Competent authorities 

In the FRMP and its Reporting Sheets, Hungary did not indicate any updates to the Competent 
Authorities  and/or  the  Units  of  Management  previously  identified  for  the  Floods  Directive. 

However,  there  is  one  document  reported  to  the  European  Commission  on  the  matter,  dated 
2016.  

7.2 

Public information and consultation 

The  table  below  shows  how  the  public  and  interested  parties  were  informed  of  the  FRMP, 

concerning the draft FRMPs. Information on how the consultation was actually carried out and 
which stakeholders participated is presented in the rest of the section57: 

Table 9 

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

Media (papers, TV, radio)  

Internet  

Digital social networking  

Printed material  

Direct mailing  

Invitations to stakeholders  

Local Authorities  

Meetings  

HU1000 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMP 

According  to  the  regulations,  the  public  consultation  process  started  already  in  the  working 

phase between the preparation of the hazard and risk maps and risk management plans. 

Information  to  the public on internet  (www.vizugy.hu)  was made available in  July 2015.  On 
this  site,  before  the  national  information  forums  started,  the  hazard  and  risk  maps  and 

recommendations on risk management measures, grouped by type of measures, were released. 

National information forums (for all types of stakeholders) were held in 12 locations in July-

August 2015 with information sessions, enabling the participants to express their opinions and 

57  Information in this section taken from Hungary’s FRMP as well as the reporting sheets, specifically the sheet 

on Summary of the Consultation 

34 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
draft  proposals.  Additionally,  two  other  events  were  held  primarily  for  informing  the  civil 
population. 

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

Table 10 

Methods used for the actual consultation 

Via Internet  

Digital social networking  

Direct invitation  

Exhibitions  

Workshops, seminars or conferences  

Telephone surveys  

Direct involvement in drafting FRMP  

HU1000 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMP 

The  draft  version  of  the  FRMP  was  made  available  via  internet  in  a  downloadable  form  for 
written  comments.  In  addition,  the  consultation  forums  mentioned  above  provided  a 

mechanism for input. 

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

Table 11 

Methods used to provide the documents for the consultation 

HU1000 

✔ 

Downloadable  

Direct mailing (e-mail)  

Direct mailing (post)  

Paper copies distributed at exhibitions  

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

Source: FRMP 

7.3 

Active involvement of Stakeholders 

The  table  below  shows  the  groups  of  stakeholders  that  have  been  actively  involved  in  the 
development of the FRMPs assessed58: 

58  Information from the FRMP and the reporting sheets, in particular the Summary of the Consultation. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 12 

Groups of stakeholders  

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

Drainage Authorities  

Emergency services  

Water supply and sanitation  

Agriculture / farmers  

Energy / hydropower  

Navigation / ports  

Fisheries / aquaculture  

Private business (Industry, Commerce, Services) 

NGO's including nature protection, social issues (e.g. children, housing) 

Consumer Groups  

Local / Regional authorities  

Academia / Research Institutions  

General public (via online questionnaires) 

Source: FRMP 

HU1000 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

As noted above, Hungary organised 12 consultation forums in July and August 2015 with on 

average 40 stakeholder representatives at each meeting. The public and stakeholders could also 
comment on the FRMP in a written form, and these comments were taken into account for the 

finalisation of measures.  

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

Table 13 

Mechanisms used to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders 

Regular exhibitions  

Establishment of advisory groups  

Involvement in drafting  

Workshops and technical meetings 

Formation of alliances  

Information days 

HU1000 

✔ 

Source: FRMP 

The  consultation  forums,  described  above,  provided  the  main  mechanism  for  active 

involvement of stakeholders. 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7.4 

Effects of consultation 

Annex  I  of  the  FRMP  gives  details  of  written  comments  by  stakeholders  to  the  plan  and 

indicates  how  they  were  taken  into  account  in  the  final  plan.  This  Annex  also  specifies  the 
effects of comments made at the stakeholder meetings on the plans. 

7.5 

Strategic Environmental Assessment 

The FRMP underwent  an SEA procedure. The SEA was published on the official website of 
the FRMP (www.vizugy.hu) on 3 December 201559. 

7.6  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  regarding 

Governance 

The following good practices were identified: 

  Twelve  information  forums  were  held  across  the  country,  with  sessions  enabling 
participants  to  express  their  opinions.  In  addition,  two  other  events  were  organised  to 

inform the broad public.  

  Annex  1  of  the  FRMP  provides  information  about  the  written  comments  and 
recommendations of relevant stakeholders, as well as the comments made in discussion 
forums, and indicates how they were taken into account in the finalisation of the FRMP. 

59  FRMP chapter 1.1 Background and WISE electronic Report Summary of Consultation. 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures 

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

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

Background & method 

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

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

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

  Measures overview – Tabulates the number of measures for each UoM 
  Measure details: cost – Cost & Cost explanation 
  Measures details: name & location – Location & geographic coverage 
  Measure details: authorities – Name of responsible authority & level of responsibility 
  Measure details: objectives – Objectives, Category of priority & Timetable 
  Measure details: progress – Progress of implementation & Progress description 
  Measure details: other – Other Community Acts  

On the basis of the reporting guidance (which in turn is based on the Floods Directive)60, not 
all fields are mandatory, and, as such, not all Member States reported information for all fields.  

Some of the fields in the XMLs could be filled in using standardised answers  – for example, 

progress  is  measured  via  the  categories  set  out  in  the  Reporting  Guidance.  This  means  that 
producing comprehensive tables and charts required little effort.  For many fields, however, a 

free  data  format  was  used.  For  some  Member  States,  this  resulted  in  thousands  of  different 
answers, or answers given in the national language.  

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

  A first filter is done to identify how many different answers were given. If a high number 
of  different  answers  are  given,  Member  State  assessors  were  asked  to  refer  to  the  raw 
data when conducting the assessment, and this Annex does not reflect these observations; 
If a manageable number of answers are given, obvious categories are identified, and raw 
data sorted; 

 

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

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

38 

 
 
                                                 
  Measures  where  obvious  categories  cannot  be  defined  based  on  other  available 
information  (as  the  example  above  on  the  name  of  the  Responsible  Authority),  are 
categorised as “no information”. 

Types of measures used in reporting  

The following is table61 used in the reporting on the types of measures. Each type of measures 
is coded as an M-number. Measures are grouped in an ‘aspect’. 

NO ACTION 

M11: No Action 

PREVENTION 

M21: Avoidance 

PREPAREDNESS 

M41: Flood Forecasting & Warning 

M42: Emergency response planning 

M43: Public Awareness 

M44: Other preparedness 

RECOVERY & REVIEW 

M51: Clean-up, restoration & personal recovery 

M22: Removal or relocation 

M52: Environmental recovery 

M23: Reduction 

M24: Other prevention 

PROTECTION 

M31: Natural flood management 

M32: Flow regulation 

M33: Coastal and floodplain works 

M34: Surface Water Management 

M35: other protection 

M53: Other recovery  

OTHER MEASURES 

M61: Other measures 

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

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

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
List of Annex A tables & figures 

Figure A1: Number of total measures by measure aspect ....................................................... 42 
Figure A2: Share of total measures by measure aspect ........................................................... 42 
Figure A3: Visualisation of Table A3: Category of priority by measure aspect ..................... 44 
Figure A4: Visualisation of Table A4: Category of priority by UoM ..................................... 45 
Figure A5: Visualisation of Table A5: Progress of implementation by measure aspect ......... 46 
Figure A6: Visualisation of Table A6: Progress of implementation by UoM ......................... 47 

Table A1: Total number of measures ....................................................................................... 41 
Table A2: Total number of measures (aggregated and individual), per measure type and UoM
.................................................................................................................................................. 41 
Table A3: Category of priority by measure aspect .................................................................. 44 
Table A4: Category of priority by UoM .................................................................................. 44 
Table A5: Progress of implementation by measure aspect ...................................................... 46 
Table A6: Progress of implementation by UoM ...................................................................... 47 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Measures overview 

Table A1: Total number of measures 

Number of individual measures 

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

Number of aggregated measures  

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

Total number of measures 

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

Range of number of measures between UoMs (Min-Max) 

Average number of measures by UoM (including measures allocated to more than one measure type) 

Table A2: Total number of measures (aggregated and individual), per measure type and UoM  

0 

0 

46 

46 

46 

46 

n/a 

46 

Total 

Protection 

M31 

M32 

Total 

Preparedness 

M41 

M42 

Total 

Recovery & 
review 

Other 

Total 

Grand Total 

3 

3 

0 

0 

0 

46 

46 

Prevention 

M24 

2 

HU1000 

2 

6 

35 

41 

1 

2 

2 

Grand Total 
41 
Notes: The codes used are explained in the previous section.  
All measures are aggregated as Hungary did not report any individual measures. 

35 

1 

6 

2 

2 

41 

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

Figure A1: Number of total measures by measure aspect  

Note: All measures are aggregated as Hungary did not report any individual measures. 

Figure A2: Share of total measures by measure aspect  

Note: All measures are aggregated as Hungary did not report any individual measures. 

Measure details: cost 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Cost (optional field); 

  Cost explanation (optional field). 

Hungary did not provide information about the cost of the measures in the reporting sheets. 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 Measure details: name & location 

This section includes information on: 

  Location of implementation of measures (mandatory field); 
  Geographic coverage of the impact of measures (optional field). 

Location of measures 

In  the  reporting  sheets,  Hungary  provided  information  about  the  location  of  most  planned 
measures,  however,  this  was  an  open  question,  and  as  such,  the  level  of  detail  varies  and  a 

large  number  of  different  responses  were  given.  It  was  thus  not  practical  to  aggregate  the 
information. 

Geographic coverage 

Hungary did not report the geographic coverage of the measures in the reporting sheets. 

 Measure details: objectives 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

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

in the textual part of the XML);  

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

is required); 

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

required). 

Objectives 

Hungary  did  not  provide  information  about  the  objectives  of  the  measures  in  the  reporting 
sheets. 

Category of priority 

Information about the category of priority can be provided under the following categories: 

  Critical; 
  Very high; 
  High; 
  Moderate; 
  Low. 

Hungary reported the priority for all measures as ‘moderate’. 

43 

 
 
 
Table A3: Category of priority by measure aspect  

Moderate 

Grand Total 

Preparedness 

Prevention 

Protection 

Grand Total 

3 

2 

41 

46 

3 

2 

41 

46 

Figure A3: Visualisation of Table A3: Category of priority by measure aspect 

Table A4: Category of priority by UoM  

HU1000 

Grand Total 

Moderate 

Grand Total 

46 

46 

46 

46 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A4: Visualisation of Table A4: Category of priority by UoM  

Timetable 

Hungary did not report the timetable of the measures in the reporting sheets. 

Measure details: authorities 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Name of the responsible authority (option if ‘level of responsibility’ is reported); 
  Level of responsibility (option if ‘name of the responsible authority’ is reported).  

Hungary reported the same responsible authority for all measures i.e. the Ministry of Interior. 
Hungary did not report the level of responsible authority within Hungary’s governance system 
in the reporting sheets.  

Measure details: progress 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

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

whose responses are analysed below; 

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

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The progress of implementation was reported as62: 

  COM (completed); 
  OGC (ongoing construction); 
  POG (progress ongoing); 
  NS (not started). 

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

Table A5: Progress of implementation by measure aspect  

Completed 

Ongoing 
construction 

Not started 

Grand Total 

Preparedness 

Prevention 

Protection 

Grand Total 

2 

1 

3 

1 

2 

3 

1 

39 

40 

3 

2 

41 

46 

Figure A5: Visualisation of Table A5: Progress of implementation by measure aspect  

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

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

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Table A6: Progress of implementation by UoM  

HU1000 

Grand Total 

Completed 

3 

3 

Ongoing 
construction 
3 

3 

Not started 

Grand Total 

40 

40 

46 

46 

Figure A6: Visualisation of Table A6: Progress of implementation by UoM  

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

For  measures  involving  construction  or  building  works  (e.g.  a  waste  water  treatment 
plant, a fish pass, a river restoration project, etc.): 

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

starting the construction or building works have not started. 

  Progress on-going (POG) means that administrative procedures necessary for starting 
the  construction  or  building  works  have  started  but  are  not  finalised.  The  simple 
inclusion in the RBMPs is not considered planning in this context. 

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

but are not finalized. 

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

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

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

provided any advisory session yet. 

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

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable 
  Completed  (COM)  means  an  advisory  service  that  has  been  implemented  and  has 
been  finalised,  i.e.  is  no  longer  operational.  This  is  expected  only  for  advisory 
services that are relatively short term or one-off, and which duration is time limited 
in relation to the whole RBMP cycle. 

For measures involving research, investigation or studies: 

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

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

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

contracted or started and is being developed at the moment. 

  On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable 
  Completed  (COM)  means  the  research,  investigation  or  study  has  been  finalised 
and has been delivered, i.e. the results or deliverables are available (report, model, 
etc.). 

For  measures  involving  administrative  acts  (e.g.  licenses,  permits,  regulations, 
instructions, etc.): 

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

not been any administrative action as regards the measure. 

  Progress on-going (POG) means an administrative file has been opened and at least 
a  first  administrative  action  has  been  taken  (e.g.  requirement  to  an  operator  to 
provide  information  to  renew  the  licensing,  request  of  a  permit  by  an  operator, 
internal  consultation  of  draft regulations, etc.).  If the measure involves  more than 
one file, the opening of one would mean already “ongoing”. 

  On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable 
  Completed  (COM)  means  the  administrative  act  has  been  concluded  (e.g.  the 
license  or  permit  has  been  issued;  the  regulation  has  been  adopted,  etc.).  If  the 
measure involves  more than one administrative act,  “completed” is  achieved only 
when all of them have been concluded. 

Measure details: other 

Member States were requested to provide information on: 

  Other Community Acts associated to the measures reported (optional field); 
  Any other information reported (optional field). 

Hungary  did  not  provide  any  information  for  these  tabs  in  the  reporting  sheets.  However,  as 
noted in section 4 the FRMP has provided some information on this topic. 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex B: Definitions of measure types 

Table B1 

Types of flood risk management measures63 

M11 

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

No Action 

Prevention 

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

areas, such as land use planning policies or regulation 

M22 

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

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

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

M24 

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

Protection 

M31 

M32 

M33 

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

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

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

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

M35 

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

Preparedness 

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

warning system 

M42 

M43 

M44 

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

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

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

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

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

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Recovery & Review 

M51 

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

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

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

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

M61 

policies 

Other 

Other 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM)  

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

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

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

To ease access to measures, the catalogue of measures hereunder is sorted by the primary land 

use in which it was implemented: Agriculture; Forest; Hydromorphology; Urban. Most of the 
measures however can be applied to more than one land use type. 

Table B2 

List of NWRMs 

Agriculture 

A01 Meadows and 
pastures 

Forest 

Hydro Morphology 

Urban 

F01 Forest riparian 
buffers 

N01 Basins and ponds 

U01 Green Roofs 

A02 Buffer strips and 
hedges 

F02 Maintenance of forest 
cover in headwater areas 

N02 Wetland restoration 
and management 

U02 Rainwater 
Harvesting 

A03 Crop rotation 

F03 Afforestation of 
reservoir catchments 

N03 Floodplain 
restoration and 
management 

U03 Permeable 
surfaces 

A04 Strip cropping 
along contours 

F04 Targeted planting for 
'catching' precipitation 

N04 Re-meandering 

U04 Swales 

A05 Intercropping 

F05 Land use conversion 

A06 No till agriculture 

F06 Continuous cover 
forestry 

N05 Stream bed re-
naturalization 

N06 Restoration and 
reconnection of seasonal 
streams 

U05 Channels and rills 

U06 Filter Strips 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
Agriculture 

Forest 

Hydro Morphology 

Urban 

A07 Low till agriculture 

F07 'Water sensitive' 
driving 

A08 Green cover 

F08 Appropriate design of 
roads and stream 
crossings 

A09 Early sowing 

F09 Sediment capture 
ponds 

A10 Traditional 
terracing 

A11 Controlled traffic 
farming 

A12 Reduced stocking 
density 

F10 Coarse woody debris 

F11 Urban forest parks 

N07 Reconnection of 
oxbow lakes and similar 
features 

U07 Soakaways 

N08 Riverbed material 
renaturalisation 

U08 Infiltration 
Trenches 

N09 Removal of dams 
and other longitudinal 
barriers 

N10 Natural bank 
stabilisation 

N11 Elimination of 
riverbank protection 

U09 Rain Gardens 

U10 Detention Basins 

U11 Retention Ponds 

F12 Trees in Urban areas 

N12 Lake restoration 

U12 Infiltration basins 

A13 Mulching 

F13 Peak flow control 
structures 

N13 Restoration of 
natural infiltration to 
groundwater 

F14 Overland flow areas 
in peatland forests 

N14 Re-naturalisation of 
polder areas 

Source: www.nwrm.eu 

51