COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans - Member State: Hungary Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2207/60/EC) Second River Basin Management Plans First Flood Risk Management Plans
Date: 2019-02-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: Hungary, adaptation to climate change, application of EU law, environmental risk prevention, flood, risk management, water, water management, water pollution, watercourse

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 26.2.2019  SWD(2019) 45 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Second River Basin Management Plans - Member State: Hungary Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2207/60/EC) Second River Basin Management Plans First Flood Risk Management Plans {COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - {SWD(2019) 81 final} - {SWD(2019) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 83 final} - {SWD(2019) 84 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 
Acronyms and definitions ............................................................................................................. 4 

Foreword...................................................................................................................................... 5 

General Information .................................................................................................................... 6 

Status of second river basin management plan reporting ........................................................... 8 

Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River Basin Management Plan(s) 9 

Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 16 

Topic 1

  Governance and public participation ....................................................................... 19 

1.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 19 

1.2  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 21 

Topic 2

  Characterisation of the River Basin District............................................................. 22 

2.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 22 

2.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 33 

2.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 33 

Topic 3
bodies 

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status in surface water 

 ................................................................................................................................... 36 

3.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
RBMP ..................................................................................................................................... 36 

3.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP ..................... 54 

3.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 56 

Topic 4

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies 
 ................................................................................................................................... 60 

4.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 60 

4.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 73 

4.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 74 

Topic 5
bodies 

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative status of groundwater 

 ................................................................................................................................... 77 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
5.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle  77 

5.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 83 

5.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 83 

Topic 6

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies 
 ................................................................................................................................... 85 

6.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 85 

6.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 91 

6.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 92 

Topic 7
  Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good 
Ecological Potential................................................................................................................... 93 

7.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle for designation ............................................................................................................... 93 

7.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ....................... 95 

7.3  Progress with Commission recommendations .............................................................. 96 

Topic 8

  Environmental objectives and exemptions ................................................................ 98 

8.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   ...................................................................................................................................... 98 

8.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ..................... 103 

8.3  Progress with Commission recommendations ............................................................ 103 

Topic 9

  Programme of measures.......................................................................................... 106 

9.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the second 
cycle   .................................................................................................................................... 106 

9.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle ..................... 114 

9.3  Progress with Commission recommendations ............................................................ 116 

Topic 10

  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity .......................................... 117 

10.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 119 

10.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 119 

Topic 11

  Measures related to pollution from agriculture................................................... 121 

2 

 
 
 
11.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 121 

11.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 122 

11.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 123 

Topic 12

  Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture ..................... 125 

12.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 125 

12.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 126 

12.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 127 

Topic 13

  Measures related to hydromorphology ................................................................ 128 

13.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 128 

13.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 130 

13.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 130 

Topic 14

Economic analysis and water pricing policies .................................................... 132 

14.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 132 

14.2 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 133 

  Considerations specific to Protected Areas (identification, monitoring, objectives 

Topic 15
and measures) .......................................................................................................................... 136 

15.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 136 

15.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 140 

15.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 140 

Topic 16

Adaptation to drought and climate change .......................................................... 141 

16.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements in the 
second cycle .......................................................................................................................... 141 

16.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle .................. 141 

16.3 

Progress with Commission recommendations ........................................................ 141 

3 

 
 
 
 
Acronyms and definitions 

EQS Directive 

Environmental Quality Standards Directive 

FD 

Km 

km2 

KTM 

PoM 

RBD 

RBMP 

WFD 

WISE 

Annex 0 

Floods Directive 

Kilometre 

Kilometre squared 

Key Type of Measure 

Programme of Measures 

River Basin District 

River Basin Management Plan 

Water Framework Directive 

Water Information System for Europe 

Member States reported the structured information on the 
second  RBMPs  to  WISE  (Water  Information  System  for 
Europe).  Due  to  the  late  availability  of  the  reporting 

guidance, Member States could include in the reporting an 
Annex 0, consisting of a short explanatory note identifying 

what  information  they  were  unable  to  report  and  the 
reasons  why.  This  Annex  was  produced  using  a template 

included  in  the  reporting  guidance.  If  Member  States 
reported all the required information, this explanatory note 

was not necessary. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Foreword 

The  Water  Framework  Directive  (WFD)  (2000/60/EC)  requires  in  its  Article  18  that  each 

Member  State  (MS)  reports  its  River  Basin  Management  Plan(s)  (RBMPs)  to  the  European 
Commission. The second RBMPs were due to be adopted by the Member States in December 

2015 and reported to the European Commission by March 2016. 

This  Member  State  Assessment  report  was  drafted  on  the  basis  of  information  that  was 

reported  by  Member  States  through  the  Water  Information  System  for  Europe  (WISE) 
electronic reporting.  

The  Member  State  Reports  reflect  the  situation  as  reported  by  each  Member  State  to  the 
European Commission in 2016 or 2017 and with reference to River Basin Management Plans 

(RBMP) prepared earlier. The situation in the Member States may have changed since then. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
General Information 

Map A  

 Map of RBD 

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

  International RBDs (within European Union) 
  International RBDs (outside European Union) 
  National RBDs (within European Union) 
  Countries (outside European Union) 
  Coastal Waters 

Information on the area of the national RBD including countries sharing borders is provided in 

Table A. 

6 

HURO1000SK40000AT1000CZ_1000CZ_6000PL2000SK30000PL1000PL6000PL9000UACZ_5000UAHRCRSBAHU1000SI_RBD_1050100km 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A 

Overview of Hungary‘s RBD  

RBD 

Name 

Size (km2) 

Countries sharing borders 

HU1000 

Hungarian part of the Danube RBD1  

93 011  

Slovak Republic, Austria, Slovenia, 
Romania, Croatia, Serbia, Ukraine 

Source: RBMP reported to WISE 

Hungary has an 11.5 % share in the international Danube RBD (Table B). 

Table B 

Transboundary river basins by category and % share in Hungary 

Name 
international 
river basin 

Countries sharing borders 

Danube 

Slovak Republic, Austria, Slovenia, Romania, Croatia, Serbia, 
Ukraine 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Co-ordination 
category 

1 

km² 

% 

 93 011 

11.5 

Category  1:  International  agreement,  permanent  co-operation  body  and  international 
RBMP in place.  
Category 2: International agreement and permanent co-operation body in place. 
Category 3: International agreement in place. 
Category 4: No co-operation formalised. 

1   The ‘Hungarian part of the Danube River Basin District RBD’ is referred to as ‘the Hungarian Danube RBD’ 

throughout this report. 

7 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Status of second river basin management plan reporting 

The  RBMP  for  Hungary  (Danube  RBD)  was  published  on  7  April  2016.  Documents  are 

available  from  the  European  Environment  Agency  EIONET  Central  Data  Repository 
https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/  

8 

 
 
 
 
Key strengths, improvements and weaknesses of the second River 
Basin Management Plan(s) 

The main strengths and shortcomings of the second RBMP of Hungary are as follows: 

 

Governance and public consultation 

 

A broad range of stakeholders was actively involved in the preparation of the RBMP, 

including via Water Management Advisory Committees.  

 

Hungary did not adopt and publish the RBMP in accordance with the timetable in the 

Water Framework Directive. 

 

Characterisation of the RBD 

 

Since the first RBMP all surface water types have been made biologically relevant and 

reference conditions have been established for all lake and river types for all biological, 
hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements. 

 

For surface waters, the significance of pressures was defined in terms of a threshold and 

was linked to the risk of failure of objectives.  

 

Unknown anthropogenic pressures were the most significant pressures on lakes in the 

second RBMP, affecting 30 % of water bodies: this may indicate some inadequacies in 
the methodologies used to assess pressures and impacts in Hungary. 

 

Hungary reported gaps for most significant pressures reported at the surface water and 
groundwater body level. 

 

Inventories have been established in  all four sub-units,  but  29 Priority Substances are 

not  included  in  any  of  these  inventories.  Tier  1  of  the  methodology  was  applied  for 
several of the substances, even when they are relevant at sub-unit level, which is not in 
accordance with the CIS Guidance Document nº 282. The data quality was assessed as 
very uncertain to medium.   

2   CIS Guidance N° 28 - Preparation of Priority Substances Emissions Inventory 
   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/facts_figures/guidance_docs_en.htm   

9 

 
 
 
                                                      
  Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological status  

 

The  monitoring  programmes  have  improved  since  the  first  RBMP  and  there  are  now 

more operational monitoring sites.  

 

54  %  of  surface  water  bodies  were  directly  monitored  for  four  River  Basin  Specific 

Pollutants,  in  water  only.  Sampling  was  undertaken  at  least  at  the  recommended 
minimum frequency at all monitoring sites.  

 

Assessment methods are fully developed and classification is done for all the biological 

quality elements in most river water bodies and for all except fish in lakes. 

 

Assessment  methods  are  developed  for  all  the  relevant  physicochemical  quality 

elements, and standard values were reported. The nutrient standards seem too high to be 
supporting good status for nutrient sensitive biological quality elements, although they 

are reported to  be linked to  the biology. Hungary participates in  ongoing  work at  EU 
level to validate nutrient standards. 

 

All  biological  quality  elements  have  been  intercalibrated,  except  fish  in  rivers  and 
lakes. Most of the lakes types are not linked to any intercalibration type.  

 

All the biological and general physicochemical quality elements are classified based on 

monitoring,  except  fish  in  lakes,  even  though  this  quality  element  is  monitored.  The 
proportion of river water bodies which are classified based on monitoring for most of 

the  biological  and  general  physicochemical  quality  elements  increased  since  the  first 
RBMP.  

 

Hydromorphological  quality  elements  are  mainly  classified  using  expert  judgement, 

indicating weaknesses in the current methodology. 

 

All  rivers  are  classified  using  most  of  the  hydromorphological  and  physicochemical 
quality elements and 87 % are classified with one or more biological quality elements. 

Classification of river continuity is  lacking for the majority  of the  river  water bodies. 
For  lakes,  as  many  as  37  %  are  classified  without  biology  quality  elements,  19  % 

without hydromorphology and 40 % without physicochemical quality elements. A high 
percentage of water bodies (45 % of rivers and 60 % of lakes) were not classified for 

River Basin Specific Pollutants. 

10 

 
 
 

Environmental Quality Standards were set for the four River Basin Specific Pollutants 

which  have  been  monitored,  which  were  all  metals  and  therefore  did  not  include  any 
organic  substances.    The  Environmental  Quality  Standards  were  set  according  to 

Technical Guidance n° 27. The analytical methods follow best available technology for 
three of the substances and are in  line with  Article 4(1) of the Commission  Directive 

2009/90/EC for zinc. 

 

Ecological  status/potential  has  been  classified  for  almost  90  %  of  all  water  bodies, 

compared  to  60  %  in  the  first  RBMP.  However,  it  is  still  unknown  for  a  large 
proportion of lakes. The ecological status/potential is still less than good for more than 

90 % of all water bodies, with no improvement since the first RBMP. Achievement of 
good status/potential is foreseen after 2027 for a large proportion of water bodies. 

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status in surface water bodies 

 

Between the two RBMPs there was a large increase in the proportion of surface water 

bodies  with  good  chemical  status,  from  3  to  46  %,  and  a  significant  decrease  in  the 
proportion  with  unknown  status,  from  94  to  46  %.  The  proportion  with  poor  status 

increased slightly, from 3 to 8 %.  

 

The  significant  reduction  in  the  proportion  of  water  bodies  in  unknown  status  results 

from the increase in the number of monitoring sites, in the number of monitored water 
bodies  (about  50  %  of  waterbodies  are  monitored  in  the  second  RBMP)  and  in  the 

number  of  Priority  Substances  monitored.  The  number  of  years  of  monitoring  data 
available for the assessment also increased between the two RBMPs.  

 

A significant proportion of water bodies are classified with high or medium confidence, 
but slightly less than one third of the classified water bodies are still associated with a 

low confidence.  

 

38 of the 41 Priority Substances were used in the assessment of chemical status. These 

substances  were  all  monitored  in  water  and  included  all  substances  identified  as 
discharged  (however,  the  three  substances  that  were  not  monitored  did  not  appear  in 

any  of  the  inventories,  so  it  is  unclear  whether  these  are  discharged).  No  appropriate 
analytical methods were available for tributyltin, chloroalkanes C10-13 and brominated 

diphenylethers. The monitoring frequencies met the recommended minimum frequency 
for surveillance monitoring at some sites, and for operational monitoring at other sites.  

11 

 
 
 

Hungary did not monitor mercury, hexachlorobenzene or hexachlorobutadiene in biota 

for status assessment. 

 

Hungary did not perform monitoring for long-term trend assessment.  

  Monitoring,  assessment  and  classification  of  quantitative  status  of  groundwater 

bodies 

 

The quantitative status of groundwater bodies deteriorated, with 10 more groundwater 

bodies  failing  good  status.  The  total  groundwater  body  area  failing  good  status 

increased from 23.3 % to 25.5 %. 

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies 

 

Six groundwater bodies are no longer subject to surveillance monitoring and  grouping 

was not reported to be applied. 

 

The total groundwater body area failing good chemical status increased from 16.6 % to 

17.2 % since the first cycle. 

 

Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies and definition of Good 

Ecological Potential 

 

The RBMP describes how the significant adverse effects of restoration measures on the 

use and the wider environment have been defined and an annex to the RBMP contains 
an explanation of the designation per water body.  

 

A background document to the RBMP gives details of the methodology of designation 
of  heavily  modified  water  bodies,  which  contains  specific  criteria  /  thresholds  for 

assessing the significant adverse effects on specific uses and the wider environment and 
gives general guidance on the need to investigate different alternative options and their 

implications.  However,  according  to  information  subsequently  provided  by  Hungary, 
only  the  hydropeaking  of  the  Dubrava  Hydropower  Plant  was  assessed  in  a  more 

detailed way in terms of alternative options, because for all the other modifications no 
other  real  solutions  could  be  found.  Furthermore,  no  direct  information  was  found  in 

the  RBMP  on  whether  results  from  monitoring  were  used  to  improve  the  data  and 
reduce uncertainty in the designation process.  

12 

 
 
 

Good  ecological  potential  was  reported  in  WISE  as  not  defined  in  terms  of  biology. 

Furthermore,  a  comparison  between  good  ecological  potential  and  good  ecological 
status has not been finished yet. According to information in the RBMP, actual values 

for  biological  quality  elements  in  artificial  and  heavily  modified  water  bodies  (rivers 
and lakes) are estimated with the same methodology as for natural water bodies. 

 

Environmental objectives and exemptions 

 

 

 

Environmental  objectives  for  ecological  and  chemical  status  of  surface  water  bodies 
have been reported. A significant number of surface water bodies is expected to achieve 

good status only after 2027. 

Drivers, pressures and pollutants leading to exemptions are reported. 

Article  4(6)  has  been  applied  because  of  accidental  pollution,  but  since  the  pollution 

was rapidly remediated the exemption was not applied beyond 2015. 

 

Programme of Measures 

 

A financial commitment for the implementation of measures has been secured, which 
was not in place for the first RBMP.   

 

Indicators  of  the  gaps  to  be  filled  by  KTMs,  and  indicators  of  the  scale  and  progress 

with  implementation  of  measures  until  2027,  have  been  developed.  Little  progress  is 

expected for most measures. 

 

Coordination  with  the  Floods  Directive:  a  joint  consultation  was  carried  out,  and  the 

plans  have  been  co-ordinated.  Financial  commitment  has  been  secured  for  the 
implementation  of  the  Programme  of  Measures  in  the  floods  management  sector. 

Integration  has  not  been  achieved  and  Article  9(4)  has  not  been  applied  to 
impoundments for flood protection. 

  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity 

  Water abstraction pressures have been reported as relevant for Hungary. The calculated 
Water Exploitation Index + presents low values. Yet, 20 % of groundwater bodies fail 

achieving good quantitative status.  

13 

 
 
 

Consumption  calculations  for  the  main  uses  for  water  have  been  based  on 

measurements  and  monitoring.  However,  significant  non-authorised  abstractions  are 
apparent. 

  With respect to measures, improved regulation for water rights registration and control, 
measures  to  control  illegal  water  abstractions  and  a  water  rights  review  (every  five 

years) have been implemented. However, no water resource allocation and management 
plans have been developed systematically. 

  Measures related to pollution from agriculture 

 

There  is  a  clear  link  between  agricultural  pressures  and  agricultural  measures.  A  gap 

assessment for nitrogen and phosphorus was performed and was reported in WISE. 

 

Drinking  water  protection  measures  (e.g.  establishment  of  safeguard  zones,  buffer 

zones etc.) are applied as a basic and a supplementary measure. 

 

 

Financing of measures is secured. 

The  level  of  ambition  is  unclear  as  there  are  uncertainties  about  the  level  at  which 

voluntary measures will be taken on by farmers. 

  Measures related to pollution from sectors other than agriculture 

 

Information  reported  to  WISE  shows  that  KTMs  have  been  reported  for  significant 

pressures  from  most  of  the  individual  Priority  Substances  that  are  reported  to  be 
causing non-compliance. 

 

Information appears to be lacking on how effective the measures will be at reaching the 
objectives. 

  Measures related to hydromorphology 

 

In the second RBMP, there is more comprehensive information about the funding of the 

planned measures, including for measures related to hydromorphology. In addition, the 
gap  to  be  closed  for  hydromorphological  pressures  is  better  specified  for  2015  and 
2021. 

 

Ecological flows have been derived and implemented for all relevant water bodies. 

14 

 
 
 
 

Natural  Water  Retention  Measures  were  reported  as  operational  to  tackle  significant 

hydromorphological  pressures,  abstractions  and  diffuse  pollution  from  urban  run-off. 
Several specific measures are included in the context of these measures, and the RBMP 

states that Natural Water Retention Measures have high priority in Hungary. 

 

Economic analysis and water pricing policies  

 

The  use  of  Article  9(4)  of  the  WFD  was  reported  for  drinking  water,  irrigation,  self-

abstraction, wastewater and water storage. 

 

 

Hungary has not reported any explanation on how ‘adequate incentives’ are provided. 

From 2017 onwards, there will be some water pricing in agriculture, even if not leading 

to full cost recovery.  

 

Adaptation to drought and climate change 

 

KTM24 (climate change adaptation measures) has not been made operational to address 

several of the significant pressures related to climate change. 

 

 

There is no clear distinction in Hungary between droughts and water scarcity. 

No drought management plan has been adopted in Hungary yet. 

15 

 
 
 
Recommendations  

 

Hungary  should  continue  to  further  improve  international  cooperation,  including 

coordinated assessments of the technical aspects of the Water Framework Directive such 

as ensuring a harmonised approach for status assessment and a coordinated Programme 
of Measures, in order to ensure the timely achievement of the WFD objectives. 

 

Hungary  needs  to  continue  its  work  in  order  to  quantify  the  significant  pressures  on 
surface water bodies. 

  Work  is  still  needed  to  address  shortcomings  in  the  methods  for  quantifying 

hydromorphological pressures. 

 

Hungary should complete the development of assessment methods for biological quality 

elements  by  developing  a  method  for  fish  in  lakes,  and,  more  generally,  methods  for 
artificial or heavily modified lake water bodies.  

 

 

Hungary  should  also  ensure  that  methods  developed  for  relevant  supporting  quality 
elements are WFD compliant, in particular concerning their links to good status for the 

biology  quality  elements.  The  classification  of  hydromorphology  should  have  less 
reliance on expert judgement. 

It  should  be  ensured  that  the  method  used  to  select  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants 
identifies  all  relevant  pollutants.  Furthermore,  the  number  of  water  bodies  classified  in 

relation to River Basin Specific Pollutants should be increased.  

 

Hungary  should  continue  improving  the  confidence  in  the  assessment  of  status  for  all 

water  categories,  and  further  reduce  the  proportion  in  unknown  status.  In  particular, 
monitoring  should  be  performed  in  a  way  that  provides  sufficient  spatial  coverage  to 

classify  all  water  bodies  (in  combination,  if  necessary,  with  robust  grouping 
/extrapolation methods). All Priority Substances should be considered in the assessment 

of  status,  in  the  relevant  matrix.  If  a  different  matrix  is  used,  the  corresponding 
explanations should be provided in the RBMP, as required by the WFD. 

 

Trend  monitoring  should  be  performed  in  sediment  and/or  biota,  to  ensure  that  all  the 

relevant  substances  specified  in  Directive  2008/105/EC  are  monitored  in  a  way  that 
provides sufficient temporal resolution and spatial coverage. 

16 

 
 
 

Hungary should continue strengthening monitoring for chemical status of groundwater to 

reduce uncertainties and support the Programme of Measures. 

 

Uncertainty in the designation of heavily modified and artificial water bodies needs to be 

further  tackled  by  WFD  compliant  monitoring,  improved  data  on  hydromorphological 
pressures  and  an  improved  understanding  of  the  effects  on  the  biological  quality 

elements.  The  designation  of  HMWBs  should  comply  with  all  the  requirements  of 
Article  4(3),  including  criteria  to  define  substantial  changes  in  character  due  to  the 

physical  modification,  the  assessment  of  significant  adverse  effects  on  their  use  or  the 
wider environment and the lack of significantly better environmental options for different 

uses.  This  is  needed  to  ensure  transparency  of  the  designation  process.  Ecological 
potential also needs to be defined in terms of biological quality elements. 

 

Hungary should continue to further reduce uncertainties with regard to the achievement 

of  the  WFD  objectives.  The  significant  number  of  Article  4(4)  exemptions  and  the 
reported  timeframe  for  the  achievement  of  the  objectives  is  an  issue  of  concern.  

Justifications  need  to  be  reviewed  and  updated,  in  order  to  ensure  that  all  possible 
measures are implemented for a timely achievement of the WFD objectives. 

 

Hungary should ensure that the Programme of Measures is designed and implemented to 

close the gaps,  in  order to  achieve good status  for water bodies.  In particular, Hungary 

should  try  to  increase  its  level  of  ambition  as  regards  identifying  and  taking  effective 
measures against chemical pollutants in surface and groundwaters. 

 

 

Hungary  should  ensure  that  abstractions  are  addressed  through  effective  permits, 
metering and controls. 

Hungary  should  ensure  that  a  clear  distinction  is  made  between  water  scarcity  and 
drought in water policy and that a Drought Management Plan is adopted, particularly in 

light  of  the  fact  that  abstraction  is  identified  as  the  most  significant  pressure  for 
groundwater bodies in the country. 

 

Hungary  needs  to  consider  the  implementation  of  a  set  of  basic  measures  (minimum 

requirements to be complied with) across the entire area of agricultural land in the third 
RBMP, rather than only in the Nitrate Vulnerable Zones. Hungary should also consider 

how  supplementary  measures  (designed  to  be  implemented  in  addition  to  basic 
measures) can contribute more effectively to achieving the WFD objectives. Sources of 

17 

 
 
funding  (e.g.  CAP  Pillar  1,  RDP)  need  to  be  identified,  as  appropriate,  to  facilitate 

implementation of these measures.  

 

Hungary  needs  to  further  explain  whether  exclusion  of  water  pricing  in  agriculture  is 

justified. Hungary should elaborate on this issue in the third RBMP, prioritise clearly the 
measures  foreseen  in  terms  of  cost-effectiveness  and  define  whether  measures  are 

voluntary or obligatory. 

 

The  review  and  development  of  the  strategy  for  the  delivery  of  WFD  objectives,  in 

cooperation with the farming community and Hungarian CAP delivery authorities, needs 
to be continued. Hungary should ensure that the third RBMP is technically feasible and 

all  relevant  policies  and  instruments  (e.g.  Rural  Development  Plans,  CAP  Pillar  1, 
Nitrates Directive, etc.) contribute significantly to the RBMP. 

 

Cost recovery for water use activities having a significant impact on water bodies should 

be applied. Otherwise, the use of any exemptions using Article 9(4) should be properly 
justified. Hungary should continue to present transparently how financial, environmental 

and  resource  costs  have  been  calculated  and  how  the  adequate  contribution  of  the 
different  users  is  ensured.  Hungary  also  needs  to  continue  to  transparently  present  the 
water-pricing policy  and provide an overview of estimated investments  and investment 

needs. 

 

Hungary should further work on the implementation of thorough monitoring programmes 

for relevant Protected Areas and set additional objectives and measures. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
Topic 1

  Governance and public participation 

1.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

1.1.1 Administrative arrangements – RBDs 

The  entire  territory  of  Hungary  is  located  in  the  international  Danube  RBD.  Hungary  has 

designated one RBD, the Hungarian Danube RBD, for its part of this international RBD. 

1.1.2 Administrative arrangements – competent authorities 

Hungary has reported the following competent authorities for its RBMP:  

•  The  Ministry  of  Interior:  monitoring  of  groundwater  and  surface  water,  economic 
analysis,  preparation  of  the  RBMP  and  Programme  of  Measures,  implementation  of 

measures, co-ordination of implementation and reporting to the European Commission. 
The Ministry has a support role for public participation.  

•  The  General  Directorate  of  Water  Management:  assessment  of  the  status  of 
groundwater and surface water, pressure and impact analysis, preparation of the RBMP 
and Programme of Measures, public participation, and implementation of measures; the 
General Directorate has supporting roles for the monitoring of groundwater and surface 

water,  economic  analysis,  co-ordination  of  implementation  and  reporting  to  the 
European Commission. 

•  12  sub-national  water  directorates  are  also  reported:  they  have  main  roles  for  the 
monitoring  and  assessment  of  status  of  groundwater  and  surface  water,  pressure  and 
impact analysis, preparation of the RBMP, public participation  and implementation of 

measures; and a secondary role for the preparation of the Programme of Measures.  

•  11  Government  Offices  are  listed  at  county  level:  they  are  responsible  for  the 
enforcement of regulations; in addition, seven of them are responsible for monitoring of 

groundwater and surface water.  

•  12  Disaster  Management  Directorates  at  county  level  are  listed:  these  are  responsible 
for  the  assessment  of  status  of  groundwater  and  surface  water,  enforcement  of 
regulations, pressure and impact analysis and implementation of measures. In addition, 

the  national  Directorate  General  for  Disaster  Management  has  main  roles  for  the 

19 

 
 
enforcement of regulations and implementation of measures, plus a supporting role for 

the coordination of implementation. 

•  The  Geological  and  Geophysical  Institute  of  Hungary  has  a  main  role  for  the 
monitoring of groundwater, and a supporting role for the assessment of its status.  

•  The  National  Inspectorate  for  Environment  and  Nature  is  responsible  for  the 

enforcement of regulations.  

•  The  Prime  Minister's  Office  has  main  roles  for  the  monitoring  of  groundwater  and 
surface  water  and  supporting  roles  for  the  implementation  of  measures  and  the  co-
ordination of measures. 

1.1.3 RBMP – Structure and Strategic Environmental Assessment   

Hungary has four sub-basin plans for the Duna River (Danube), Tisza River, Drava River and 
Lake Balaton, and for 42 sub-regional planning units. In addition, Hungary has an overarching 

National Water Strategy. Hungary does not have thematic sub-plans for its RBMP. 

A Strategic Environmental Assessment was carried out for Hungary's RBMP. 

1.1.4 Public participation and active involvement of stakeholders 

The public and interested parties were informed via internet, invitations to stakeholders, local 
authorities, media (papers, TV and radio), meetings and written consultation. The RBMP was 

available for download for the requisite six months. There was international  co-ordination  of 
public participation. 

The  following  stakeholder  groups  were  actively  involved  in  the  development  of  the  RBMP: 
agriculture/farmers,  consumer  groups,  energy/hydropower,  fisheries/aquaculture,  industry, 

local/regional  authorities,  navigation/ports,  NGOs/nature  protection  and  water  supply  and 
sanitation. Active involvement comprised involvement in drafting and in Water Management 

Advisory Committees. 

Public  consultation  had  the  following  impacts:  addition  of  new  information,  adjustment  to 

specific  measures,  changes  to  the  selection  of  measures,  changes  to  the  methodology  used, 
commitment to action in the next RBMP and commitment to further research. 

20 

 
 
1.1.5 Integration  with  the  Floods  Directive  and  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework 

Directive 

Hungary  carried  out  joint  consultation  of  its  RBMP  and  Floods  Directive3  Flood  Risk 
Management Plan. Moreover, a sub-section of the RBMP addresses links with the Flood Risk 
Management  Plan,  and  an  annex  analyses  the  relationship  of  flood  risk  measures  with  the 

WFD. Further information on integration with respect to measures is provided in Chapter 9 of 
this report. 

Hungary  indicated  that  it  did  not  take  into  consideration  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework 
Directive4 in its RBMP, although it has been addressed in connection with the implementation 
of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive5. 

1.1.6  International coordination and co-operation  

Hungary's  RBD  is  part  of  the  Danube  international  RBD,  where  there  is  an  international 

agreement,  permanent  co-operation  body  and  an  international  RBMP  in  place  (designated  as 
category  1  cooperation),  and  explicit  links  have  been  made  with  national  RBMPs  within  the 
international  RBMP  (for  further  information  see  the  reports  on  international  coordination  on 

the Water Framework Directive).  

1.2  Progress with Commission recommendations 

There  were  no  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMP  and  Programme  of 
Measures. 

3  Directive  2007/60/EC  on  the  assessment  and  management  of  flood  risks  entered  into  force  on  26  November 

2007 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32007L0060 

4 Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework 
for  community  action  in  the  field  of  marine  environmental  policy  (Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive) 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0056 

5  Council  Directive  91/271/EEC  of  21  May  1991  concerning  urban  waste-water  treatment,  https://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31991L0271  

21 

 
 
 
                                                      
Topic 2

  Characterisation of the River Basin District 

2.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle  

2.1.1 Delineation of water bodies and designation of heavily modified and artificial water 

bodies 

There were differences  in the number of delineated surface water bodies  reported in  the two 

cycles (Table 2.1). According to the data reported in WISE, there was a 46 % reduction in the 
number of lake water bodies and an 11% increase in  the number of river water bodies6. The 
reported information shows that the development of the water network records and maps over 
recent years, as well as the experience of the first cycle, resulted in a revision of the boundaries 

of surface water bodies.  Table 2.4 summarises the information provided by Hungary on how 
water bodies have evolved between the two cycles.  

Table 2.1 

Number  and  area/length  of  delineated  surface  water  bodies  in  Hungary  for 
the second and first cycles 

Lakes 

Rivers 

Year 

RBD 

2016 

2010 

HU1000 

HU1000 

Number of water 
bodies 

Total area (km2) 
of water bodies 

Number of water 
bodies 

Total length of 
water body (km) 

115 (189) 

1,017 (1,180) 

963 (839) 

18,897 (19,126) 

213 

1,267 

869 

18,802 

Source: WISE electronic reporting. Hungary subsequently communicated that the correct numbers are the ones 
indicated in parentheses. 

Table 2.2 

Size  distribution  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Hungary  in  the  second  and  first 
cycles 

Year 

RBD 

Lake area (km2) 

River length (km) 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Average 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Average 

2016 

2010 

HU1000 

0.41 (0.041) 

HU1000 

0.27 

594.33 

594.28 

8.85 (6.24) 

5.95 

1.36 

0.95 

186.29 

281.14 

21.26 

21.64 

Source: WISE electronic reporting. Hungary subsequently communicated that the correct numbers are the ones 
indicated in parentheses. 

6 Hungary subsequently stated that there was a misunderstanding in the reporting and the correct figures are 11 % 

for the reduction of lake water bodies and 2 % for the increase in river water bodies.  

22 

 
 
                                                      
Between the first and the second RBMP, the analysis of pressures and measures changed, there 

was a re-design and changes in monitoring programmes, and the status of surface water bodies 
has improved7.  

There was a significant increase in the number of heavily modified lake water bodies (from 15 
to 50) and of heavily modified river water bodies (from 350 to 468) between the two cycles, 
according to the reporting in WISE (Figure 2.1)8. This was accompanied by a slight decrease in 
the numbers of natural lake and river water bodies, and an increase in the number of artificial 

lakes between the two cycles. 

Figure 2.1 

Proportion  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Hungary  designated  as  artificial, 

heavily  modified  and  natural  for  the  second  and  first  cycles.  Note  that  the 
numbers  in  parenthesis  are  the  numbers  of  water  bodies  in  each  water 

category 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Table  2.2  shows  the  differences  in  size  distribution  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Hungary 
between  the  first  and  second  cycles.  The  minimum  size  of  rivers  increased  whilst  the 
maximum length decreased. The minimum size criteria reported were a 10 km2 catchment area 
for rivers and a 50 km2 surface area for lakes. It was reported that the minimum criteria can be 

7   Hungary  subsequently  stated  that  the  changes  of  status  of  water  bodies  are  not  the  consequence  of  the  re-
delineation of surface water bodies, which is evidenced by the fact that the ratios between the good and bad 
classes did not change significantly and only the unknown decreased. 

8   Hungary subsequently stated that the number of heavily modified lake water bodies increased from 15 to 124 

and the number of heavily modified river water bodies increased from 350 to 394. 

23 

 
 
 
                                                      
reduced by 10 % in the case of rivers and also in the case of important lakes such as drinking 
water reservoirs. The minimum size reported for lakes in 2016 was 0.41 km2 surface area9. 

There was no change in the number of groundwater bodies between the two cycles (Table 2.3). 

However, the delineation was changed by updating the boundaries using the latest monitoring 
results:  18  karstic,  six  porous  thermal  and  four  other  types  of  groundwater  bodies  were  re-

delineated in total. Table 2.4 shows that 176 groundwater bodies changed since the first cycle, 
due to coordinate system changes and/or correct implementation of the national borders. 

Table 2.3 

Number  and  area  of  delineated  groundwater  bodies  in  Hungary  for  the 
second and first cycles 

Year 

RBD 

Number 

Area (km2) 

Minimum  Maximum  Average 

2016 

2010 

HU1000 

HU1000 

185 

185 

16.75 

16.74 

13,653.64 

1,511.57 

13,602.19 

1,510.99 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Table 2.4 

Type  of  change  in  delineation  of  groundwater  and  surface  water  bodies  in 
Hungary between the first and second cycles 

Type of water body change for second cycle 

Groundwater  

Rivers 

Lakes 

Change 

Aggregation 

Splitting 

Aggregation and splitting 

Extended area 

Reduced area 

Creation 

Deletion 

Change in code 

No change 

Total water bodies before deletion 

Delineated for second cycle (after deletion from first cycle) 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

176 

9 

185 

185 

191 

16 

127 

8 

35 

51 

49 

21 

12 

474 

127 

984 

963 

3 

2 

3 

20 

103 

87 

218 

115 

9 Hungary subsequently stated that the minimum size for lakes in 2016 was 0.041 km². 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
2.1.2 Identification of transboundary water bodies  

Hungary  reported  three  transboundary  lakes  (2.6  %  of  total  lake  water  bodies),  134 

transboundary  rivers  (14 % of total  river water bodies) and 95  groundwater  bodies (51 % of 
total groundwater bodies). 

2.1.3 Typology of surface water bodies 

Table 2.5 shows the number of surface water body types at RBD level in Hungary for the first 
and second cycles. There was a decrease in the number of types for lakes and rivers between 

the two cycles.  

Table 2.5 

Number of surface water body types at RBD level in Hungary for the first and 

second RBMPs 

RBD 

HU1000 

Rivers 

Lakes 

1st  
25 

2nd  
15 

1st  
16 

2nd  
8 

Source: WISE electronic reporting.  

For the first RBMP it was reported that the typology of all surface water bodies had been tested 
against biological data, but that the process was not completed in the first cycle due to lack of 

data.  The  second  RBMP  reported  that  all  the  lake  and  river  water  types  were  biologically 
relevant.  The typology of river  and lake water bodies has been  revised and some types  were 

grouped together to reduce the overall number of types. The RBMP states that the typologies 
were  significantly  simplified  as  a  result  of  biological  validation.  For  example,  there  were  25 

river types in the first cycle and this was reduced to 15 types of river water bodies which were 
isolated based on 10 biologically isolating types and five hydromorphology types. 

One  national  lake  type  covering  artificial,  heavily  modified  and  natural  water  bodies  has  an 
equivalent  intercalibration  type.  The  other  seven  types  do  not  have  an  equivalent 
intercalibration type: these types equate to 46 % of lake water bodies in Hungary10. There are 
seven equivalent river intercalibration types reported covering the 15 national river types. One 

river type had an equivalent lake intercalibration type: these water bodies are reservoirs which 
were  originally  rivers,  and  have  been  intercalibrated  against  a  lake  type.  One  national  river 
type  was  reported  to  have  two  equivalent  intercalibration  types11.  Three  national  river  types 

10   Hungary subsequently clarified that lake intercalibration was done for all lake types, where it was possible in 

Hungarian lowland and ecoregion with similar characteristics.  

11   Hungary  subsequently  clarified  that  river  type  3S  is  a  new  type  in  the  second  RBMP,  created  by  grouping 
types 4 and 8 in the first RBMP, which were intercalibrated in R-EX6 and R-EX5 in river intercalibration in 

25 

 
 
                                                      
were  reported  to  have  no  equivalent  intercalibration  type:  these  types  represent  5  %  of  river 
water bodies in Hungary12. The RBMP states that Hungary participated in three EU ecological 
intercalibration processes (Phase I 2004-2008, Phase II. 2008-2012 and Phase III 2013-2016). 

2.1.4 Establishment of reference conditions for surface water bodies 

Table  2.6  shows  the  percentage  of  surface  water  body  types  in  Hungary  with  reference 
conditions  established  for  the  first  and  second  cycles.  Reference  conditions  have  been 

established  for  all  lake  and  river  types  for  all  biological,  hydromorphological  and 
physicochemical quality elements.  

Table 2.6 

Percentage of surface water body types in Hungary with reference conditions 
established for all, some and none of the biological, hydromorphological and 

physicochemical quality elements. Numbers in parenthesis are the number of 
types in each category 

Water category  Water types 

Rivers (15) 

Lakes (8) 

All 
Some 
None 
All 
Some 
None 

Biological quality 
elements 
100 % 

Hydromorphological 
quality elements 
100 % 

Physicochemical 
quality elements 
100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

100 % 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

The  national  reference  values  and  reference  conditions  were  compared  and  coordinated.  The 

RBMP  reported  that  available  national  type-specific  reference  conditions  were  taken  into 
account  in  the  intercalibration  process  for  physico-chemical  and  hydromorphological  quality 

elements.  

2.1.5 Characteristics of groundwater bodies 

Further characterisation work has been undertaken since the first cycle, with Hungary reporting 

the main geological formation of the aquifer types and whether or not groundwater bodies were 
layered. 59 % of groundwater bodies were reported to be linked to surface water bodies and 62 
% to terrestrial ecosystems. 

Phase II. This does not create a problem in defining the high/good and good/moderate boundaries of R-EX6 
and R-EX5 common types for intercalibrated biological methods. 

12   Hungary subsequently clarified that all national river types were intercalibrated and that only work concerning 

phytobenthos had to be finished in late 2018 and therefore after the adoption of the second RBMP. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                        
2.1.6 Significant pressures and impacts on water bodies 

There  has  been  a  significant  change  in  the  delineation  of  surface  water  bodies  and  in  the 

definition of pressure types between the two cycles, which makes a  comparison of pressures 
between cycles difficult. For example, diffuse pressures were reported to be significant for 24 

% of surface water bodies in the first cycle and for 61 % in the second cycle (Figure 2.2).  

For  surface  water  bodies,  the  most  significant  pressures  in  the  second  cycle  are  physical 

alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore due to agriculture (41 % of surface water bodies) 
and agriculture diffuse pollution (36 % of surface water bodies)  (Figure 2.3). For lake water 

bodies,  unknown  anthropogenic  pressures  were  the  most  significant  pressures  in  the  second 
cycle, affecting 30 % of water bodies.  

Up to eighteen different pressure types were reported to be significant for groundwater bodies 
in  the second  cycle. The most significant  in  terms  of the proportion of affected water bodies 

was  abstraction  or  flow  diversion  for  public  water  supply  (78  %  of  groundwater  bodies), 
followed by diffuse - discharges not connected to sewerage network (61 %) and abstraction or 
flow diversion - other (45 %) (Figure 2.3). Nine different pressure types were reported in the 

first  cycle,  with  the  most  significant  being  diffuse  -  non-sewered  population  (19  %), 
abstraction for public water supply (15 %) and abstraction for other purposes (17 %). Though 

the  same  top  three  pressures  were  identified  for  both  cycles  and  there  was  no  change  in  the 
number of groundwater bodies, the numeric differences between the two cycles are likely to be 

unreliable and probably reflect changes/improvements in the risk assessments between the two 
cycles13. 

13   Hungary  subsequently  clarified  that  the  differences  related  to  the  improvements  in  risk  assessment  and 
establishment of criteria values for significant pressure based on limit values in regulation for environmental 
impact assessment. 

27 

 
 
                                                      
Figure 2.2  Comparison of pressures on surface water bodies in Hungary in the first and 

second  cycles.  Pressures  presented  at  the  aggregated  level.  Note  that  there 
were  1078  identified  surface  water  bodies  for  the  second  cycle  and  1082  for 

the first cycle 

Source: WISE electronic reporting. 

28 

 
 
 
Figure 2.3 

The  10  most  significant  pressures  on  surface  water  bodies  and  groundwater 

bodies in Hungary for the second cycle 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

29 

 
 
 
2.1.7 Definition and assessment of significant pressures on surface and groundwater 

There is no information in the second RBMP about whether any major changes in the criteria 

for the identification of pressures had been applied since the first RBMP. Expert judgment was 
reported to be used to assess the significance of water abstraction and water flow pressures on 
surface  waters14,  numerical  tools  for  diffuse  source  pressures  and  a  combination  of  both  for 
point source pressures. The significance of these pressures was defined in terms of threshold 

and was linked to the risk of failure of objectives. 

A  combination  of  both  numerical  tools  and  expert  judgement  was  used  to  assess  the 

significance  of  all  pressure  types  on  groundwater  bodies.  However,  significance  was  not 
defined  in  terms  of  thresholds  and  was  not  linked  to  the  risk  of  failure  of  objectives  for 
groundwater bodies15. 

2.1.8 Significant impacts on water bodies 

Altered habitats due to morphological changes were the most significant impacts on lakes (43 

% of lake water bodies) and rivers (88 % of river water bodies) in Hungary in the second cycle 
(Figure 2.4). Altered habitats were also the most significant impacts on lakes (39 %) and rivers 
(94 %) in the first cycle. Nutrients affected 45 % of river water bodies in the first cycle and 43 

% of river water bodies in the second cycle. 

Chemical  pollution  was  the  most  significant  (17  %)  of  the  four  impacts  reported  for 

groundwater bodies in the second cycle.  

14   Hungary  highlighted  that  this  is  likely  a  reporting  error,  because  modelling  was  carried  out  and  therefore 
“Numerical  tools”  or  “Combination  of  both”  should  have  been  selected.  Hungary  also  stated  that  for  the 
significance of water abstraction and water flow the water balance was checked against E-flow criteria at each 
outlet point of the surface water bodies. 

15   Hungary subsequently clarified that threshold values according to Directive 2006/118/EC were used for each 
groundwater body in the case of water abstraction and the relevance was based on the type of water body or, 
for example, whether or not it is connected to groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems. 

30 

 
 
                                                      
Figure 2.4 

Significant impacts on surface water and groundwater bodies in Hungary for 

the second cycle. Percentages of numbers of water bodies. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1.9 Quantification and apportionment of pressures  

Gaps  to  achieving  good  status  in  groundwater  were  reported  for  fifteen  pressures.  There  are 

also  three  pressures  (point  -  mine  waters,  point  -  other  and  diffuse  -  other)  reported  as 
significant  at  the  water  body  level  for  which  gaps  have  not  been  reported,  indicating  that 

measures may not be implemented for these pressures (see Chapter 9 of this report for further 
information)16.  For  surface  waters,  gaps  were  reported  for  34  different  pressure  types.  Gaps 
were  not  reported  for  two  pressure  types  (diffuse  atmospheric  deposition  and  diffuse-other) 
which had been reported as significant at the water body level. 

Gaps to be filled for chemical substances causing failure of good status were reported for one 
groundwater pollutant (atrazine). In terms of surface water, gaps were reported for 12 Priority 

Substances  (all  causing  failure  of  good  chemical  status)  and  four  River  Basin  Specific 
Pollutants (all causing failure of good ecological status/potential). 

2.1.10  Groundwater bodies at risk of not meeting good status 

Around 9 % of groundwater bodies were reported to be at risk of failing to be in good chemical 
status.  Four  pollutants  and  electrical  conductivity  were  reported  to  be  causing  the  risk,  with 
nitrate affecting the most groundwater bodies (11).  

11  %  of  groundwater  bodies  were  at  risk  of  failing  to  achieve  good  quantitative  status.  The 
cause of the risk in all of the water bodies concerned was exceedance of available groundwater 

resource  by  long-term  annual  average  rate  of  abstraction  that  may  result  in  a  decrease  of 
groundwater levels. 

2.1.11  Inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of chemical substances 

Article  5  of  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards  Directive  (EQS  Directive)17  requires 
Member  States  to  establish  an  inventory  of  emissions,  discharges  and  losses  of  all  Priority 

Substances and the eight other pollutants listed in Part A of Annex I of the EQS Directive for 
each  RBD,  or  part  thereof,  lying  within  their  territory.  This  inventory  should  allow  Member 

States  to  further  target  measures  to  tackle  pollution  from  Priority  Substances.  It  should  also 
inform the review of the monitoring networks, and allow the assessment of progress made in 

16   Hungary  subsequently  clarified  that  pressures  reported  as  significant  at  the  water  body  level  but  for  which 
gaps have not been reported are those for which measures are not required to reduce them to a level and extent 
that enables the Environmental Objectives to be met. 

17   Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on environmental 
quality  standards  in  the  field  of  water  policy,  amending  and  subsequently  repealing  Council  Directives 
82/176/EEC, 83/513/EEC, 84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC, 86/280/EEC and amending Directive 2000/60/EC of the 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
European 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02008L0105-20130913 

Parliament 

Council 

and 

the 

of 

32 

 
 
                                                      
reducing (or suppressing) emissions, discharges and losses for Priority Substances (or Priority 

Hazardous Substances). 

Inventories  have  been  established  in  all  four  sub-units  in  the  Hungarian  RBD.  29  Priority 

Substances are not included in any inventory. There were inventories for all four sub-units for 
lead, mercury, nickel and cadmium. 

The  two-step  approach  from  the  Common  Implementation  Strategy  Guidance  Document 
n°2818  has  been  followed  for  all  substances  in  the  inventories.  Tier  1  or  Tier  2  of  the 
methodology was implemented for most of the substances (for others, the methodology applied 
was not reported). Tier 1 only was used for some substances relevant at subunit level, while the 

Guidance Document recommends implementing at least Tier 1 + 2 for the substances relevant 
at RBD level. The data quality was assessed as very uncertain to medium. 

2.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

There  were significant  differences in  the number of delineated surface water bodies between 

the two cycles. There was a reduction in the number of lake water bodies and an increase in the 
number  of  river  water  bodies.  There  was  a  significant  increase  in  the  number  of  heavily 

modified  lake  and  river  water  bodies  between  the  two  cycles.  This  was  accompanied  by  a 
decrease in the numbers of natural lake and river water bodies, and an increase in number of 

artificial lake water bodies between the two cycles. 

There was a decrease in the number of types for lakes and rivers between the two cycles. The 

RBMP  reported  that  the  typologies  were  significantly  simplified  as  a  result  of  biological 
validation and that all types were biologically relevant. 

There  has  been  a  significant  change  between  the  cycles  in  the  delineation  of  surface  water 
bodies and in the definition of pressure types, which makes comparison of pressures between 

cycles difficult. For example, diffuse pressures were reported to be significant for 30 % of river 
water bodies in the first cycle and 40 % in the second cycle. 

2.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMP  and  Programme  of  Measures 
requested action on the following: 

18   CIS Guidance N° 28 - Preparation of Priority Substances Emissions Inventory 
 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/facts_figures/guidance_docs_en.htm   

33 

 
 
                                                      
•  Recommendation:  Carry  out  a  more  detailed,  quantitative  pressures  and  impacts 
analysis using source apportionment in the second RBMPs. Applying this more detailed 
analysis,  measures  could  be  assigned  to  water  bodies  specifically  more  focused  on 

agriculture, water abstraction and protected areas. 

Assessment: Gaps to the achievement of objectives have been defined and reported in 

the  second  RBMP  for  most  significant  pressures,  including  the  identification  of  the 
responsible sectors/activities. This indicates progress on this aspect. 

A combination of both  numerical  tools and expert judgement has been used to  assess 
point  source  pressures,  and  numerical  tools  for  diffuse  source  pressures  on  surface 

waters. Hungary subsequently clarified that modelling of water abstractions impacts on 
surface water bodies has been undertaken.  

Overall,  therefore,  the  pressures  and  impacts  analysis  aspect  of  this  recommendation 
has been fulfilled.  

•  Recommendation: Hungary should also further analyse hydromorphological pressures 
and  impacts  in  the  second  RBMPs  and  reconsider  the  necessary  supplementary 

measures which should be implemented to reach targets. 

Assessment:  Hydromorphological  pressures  were  considered  in  the  first  RBMP. 
According  to  information  provided  for  the  bilateral  meeting  that  followed  the 

assessment of the first RBMP, an extended database for hydromorphological pressures 
was  under  development  for  the  second  RBMP.  Hungary  reported  many  types  of 

hydromorphological pressures in the second RBMP and also identified gaps to be filled 
for these pressures. 

Overall, therefore, the analysis of pressures and impacts aspect of this recommendation 
has been fulfilled. 

•  Recommendation:  The  testing  of  typology  of  surface  water  bodies  against  biological 
data has not been completed in the first RBMP cycle because of the lack of sufficient 

data. This should be remedied.  

Assessment: For the first RBMP, it was reported that the typology of all surface water 

bodies had been tested against biological data but the process was not completed due to 
lack  of  data.  The  second  RBMP  reported  that  all  the  lake  and  river  water  types  were 

biologically relevant. The typology of river and lake water bodies has been revised and 

34 

 
 
some types were grouped together to reduce the overall number of types. The RBMP 

reported  that  the  typologies  were  significantly  simplified  as  a  result  of  biological 
validation. 

Therefore this recommendation has been fulfilled. 

35 

 
 
Topic 3

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of ecological 

status in surface water bodies 

3.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 
in the second RBMP 

3.1.1 Monitoring of ecological status/potential 

Monitoring programmes 

Article  8.1  of  the  WFD  requires  Member  States  to  establish  monitoring  programmes  for  the 
assessment of the status  of surface water  and of  groundwater, in  order to provide  a coherent 

and comprehensive overview of water status within each RBD.  

Hungary  has  eleven  surface  water  monitoring  programmes.  These  are  divided  into  separate 

programmes  for  rivers  and  lakes  and  for  different  pressure  types,  e.g.  “under  nutrient  and 
organic pressure”. 

Monitoring  sites  and  monitored  water  bodies  used  for  surveillance  and  operational 
monitoring 

Table  3.1  compares  the  number  of  monitoring  sites  used  for  surveillance  and  operational 

purposes between the first and second RBMPs, and  Table 3.2 gives the number of sites used 
for different purposes for the second RBMP. 

Table 3.1 

Number of sites used for surveillance and operational monitoring in Hungary 
for the second and first RBMPs. Note that  for reasons of comparability with 

data reported in 2010, the 2016 data does not take into account whether sites 
are used for ecological and/or chemical monitoring. 

2nd RBMP  

HU_1000 

Total number of monitoring sites 
1st RBMP 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Surv. 

Op. 

Surv. 

Op. 

118 

1,078 

27 

102 

1 123 

119 

HU_1000 

122 

474 

26 

41 

Total number of monitoring sites 

596 

67 

        Surv. = Surveillance monitoring, Op. = Operational Monitoring 

Sources: Member States electronic reporting to WISE. 

36 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Table 3.2 

Number  of  monitoring  sites  in  relevant  water  categories  used  for  different 

purposes in Hungary 

Monitoring Purpose 

Operational monitoring 

Surveillance monitoring 

Total sites irrespective of purpose 

Lakes 

102 

27 

119 

Rivers 

1078 

118 

1123 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

There was a doubling of monitoring sites for both rivers and lakes for operational monitoring 

from  the first  to the second RBMP. For surveillance monitoring, there were only very minor 
changes in the number of monitoring sites. The current operational monitoring programme has 

more  than  1000  sites  for  rivers  and  more  than  100  sites  for  lakes.  However,  it  is  not  clear 
whether  this  monitoring  is  actually  happening,  as  the  RBMP  states  that  there  is  no  separate 
budget  line  in  the  national  budget  for  the  costs  of  operating  the  monitoring  system19. 
Significant  improvement  has  been  made  in  terms  of  instrument  development,  but  further 

institutional development is needed to overcome the backlog.  

Figure  3.1  shows  that  operational  monitoring  now  covers  a  very  high  proportion  of  water 

bodies, both for lakes (68 %) and rivers (79 %). Part of the increase for lakes is due to a 50 % 
decrease in the number of lake water bodies since the first RBMP, but the increase is still very 

significant. For surveillance monitoring, the increase for lakes, from 10 % to 19 %, probably 
represents no real change in the amount of monitoring but is a product of the 50 % decrease in 

the  total  number  of  lake  water  bodies.  For  rivers,  there  is  little  change  in  the  proportion  of 
water bodies included in the surveillance monitoring programme (12 % in the first RBMP and 
10  %  in  the  second)  representing  no  substantive  change  in  the  amount  of  surveillance 

monitoring in the second RBMP.  

19  Hungary  clarified  that  operational  monitoring  is  happening.  The  costs  are  in  the  budgets  of  the  seven 
government  offices  that  run  the  environmental  monitoring  systems  and  twelve  water  directorates  for 
monitoring of hydromorphology. 

37 

 
 
                                                      
Figure 3.1 

Percentage  of  water  bodies  included  in  surveillance  and  operational 

monitoring in Hungary for the first RBMP (2010) and second RBMP (2016). 
Note  that  no  differentiation  is  made  between  water  bodies  included  in 

ecological and/or chemical monitoring. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Monitoring sites and monitored water bodies used for ecological status/potential 

Annex  V.1.3.1  of  the  WFD  states  that  “Surveillance  monitoring  shall  be  carried  out  of 
sufficient  surface  water  bodies  to  provide  an  assessment  of  the  overall  surface  water  status 

within each catchment or subcatchment within the river basin district”. 

Figure 3.2 shows that, for lakes, proportionally more water bodies in good status/potential are 

included  in  surveillance  monitoring  than  the  other  status/potential  classes:  this  may  indicate 
that  less-than-good  status/potential  water  bodies  are  underrepresented  in  surveillance 

monitoring to provide an assessment of the overall surface water status. In addition, neither of 
the  two  lake  water  bodies  in  high  status  is  included  in  surveillance  monitoring  which  is 

significant in the context of the WFD non-deterioration objective and the assessment of long-
term  changes  in  natural  conditions  and  long-term  changes  resulting  from  widespread 

anthropogenic activity. 

For rivers there is a more equitable proportional distribution of different status/potential water 

bodies  included  in  surveillance  monitoring,  though  the  largest  proportion  is  again  for  good 
status/potential water bodies. As is the case for lakes, none of the four high status river water 
bodies is included in surveillance monitoring.  

38 

 
 
 
Figure 3.2 

Proportion  of  water  bodies  in  each  ecological  status/potential  class  that  is 

included in surveillance monitoring in Hungary 

 Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Quality elements monitored (excluding River Basin Specific Pollutants) 

Table  3.3  illustrates  the  quality  elements  used  for  the  monitoring  of  lakes  and  rivers  for  the 

second RBMP: no differentiation is made between purposes of monitoring.  

Table 3.3 

Quality  elements  monitored  for  the  second  RBMP  in  Hungary  (excluding 

River  Basin Specific Pollutants). Note that  quality elements may be used for 
surveillance and/or operational monitoring 

Biological quality elements 

Hydromorphological quality elements 

n
o
t
k
n
a
l
p
o
t
y
h
P

s
e
t
y
h
p
o
r
c
a
M

s
o
h
t
n
e
b
o
t
y
h
P

c
i
h
t
n
e
B

s
e
t
a
r
b
e
t
r
e
v
n
i

h
s
i
F

s

m
r
e
p
s
o
i
g
n
A

e
a
g
l
a
o
r
c
a
M

Lakes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes 

Rivers  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes 

s
e
i
c
e
p
s

r
e
h
t
O

c
i
t
a
u
q
a

r
e
h
t
O

a
r
o
l
f

No 

No 

r
o
l
a
c
i
g
o
l
o
r
d
y
H

e
m
i
g
e
r

l
a
d
i
t

Yes 

Yes 

y
t
i
u
n
i
t
n
o
C

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

l
a
c
i
g
o
l
o
h
p
r
o
M

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

39 

 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
General physicochemical quality elements 

y
c
n
e
r
a
p
s
n
a
r
T

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

l
a
m
r
e
h
T

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

n
o
i
t
a
n
e
g
y
x
O

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

y
t
i
n
i
l
a
S

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

n
o
i
t
a
c
i
f
i
d
i
c
A

s
u
t
a
t
s

Yes 

Yes 

n
e
g
o
r
t
i

N

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

Yes 

Yes 

 Source: WISE electronic reporting  

s
u
r
o
h
p
s
o
h
P

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
C

Yes 

Yes 

r
e
h
t
O

r
o
f
d
n
a
n
i
m
r
e
t
e
d

t
n
e
i
r
t
u
n

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

No 

No 

e
t
a
c
i
l
i
S

No 

No 

Lakes 

Rivers 

River Basin Specific Pollutants and matrices monitored 

River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  are  monitored  in  a  fairly  high  number  of  monitoring  sites, 
corresponding to 52 % of all surface water bodies and to 65 % of all lake monitoring sites and 

59 % of all river monitoring sites (combining data in Tables 3.4 and 3.2).  

Hungary  reported  that  eight  chemical  substances  that  are  not  Priority  Substances  were  being 

monitored in  lakes and rivers, and only in  water, not  in sediment  or biota. These include the 
four  metals  for  which  Environmental  Quality  Standards  have  been  set20.  The  other  four 
chemical  substances  may  be  considered  to  be  isomers  or  components  of  Priority  Substances 
and Certain Other Pollutants as defined in Directive 2013/39/EU.   

  CAS_1806-26-4  –  Octylphenol:  (an  isomer  of  Priority  Substance  CAS_140-66-9  - 

Octylphenol (4-(1,1',3,3'-tetramethylbutyl)-phenol)); 

  CAS_789-02-6 - DDT, o,p':  (a component of total DDT a Certain Other Pollutant); 

  EEA_33-02-3 – Benzol: (a component of Priority Substance CAS_71-43-2 – Benzene); 

  EEA_33-56-7 

- 

Total 

PAHs 

(Benzo(a)pyrene, 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene, 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene,  Benzo(g,h,i)perylene,  Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene):  (Polyaromatic 
hydrocarbons  for  which  specific  substances  are  given  as  Priority  Substances  in 

Directive 2013/39/EU). 

Annex  V  of  the  WFD  provides  guidance  on  the  frequency  of  monitoring  of  the  different 
quality  elements: once every three months is recommended for “other pollutants”, which  are 

taken  here  to  equate  to  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants.  Surveillance  monitoring  should  be 

20  Hungary  noted  that  there  are  four  RBSPs  defined  in  Hungary  (As,  Cr,  Cu  and  Zn),  according  to  the  ICPDR 
level agreement. In a comprehensive investigative monitoring programme (KEOP-7.9.0/12-2013-0007), more 
than a hundred organic compounds were also analysed (as investigative monitoring in 2015), and there were 
no widespread and general occurrences of compounds found which would justify new RBSPs.  

40 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year during the six years covered by a 

RBMP.  For  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  this  would  mean  four  times  for  the  surveillance 
year, and for operational monitoring four times a year for each year of the cycle. 

All  four  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  (metals)  included  in  surveillance  monitoring  were 
monitored at  least at  the minimum  WFD recommended frequency at all sites where they  are 

monitored.  Similarly  the  same  four  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  included  in  operational 
monitoring were monitored at least at the minimum WFD recommended frequency at all sites 
where they are monitored21. 

21   Note  that  some  sites  were  reported  with  more  than  one  frequency  and  cycle  for  the  same  substance  which 

leads to some uncertainty in the validity of this assessment. 

41 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Table 3.4 

Number  of  sites  used  to  monitor  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  reported  in 

the  second  RBMP  and non-priority  specific  pollutants  and/or  other  national 
pollutants  reported  in  the  first  RBMP  in  Hungary.  Note  that  the  data  from 

both cycles may not be fully comparable as different definitions were used and 
not all Member State reported information at the site level, meaning that there 

were no equivalent data for the first RBMP. 

RBMP 

2nd  

1st  

Sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants 

77 

Sites used to monitor non-priority specific pollutants and/or other national pollutants 

NR 

650 

NR 

Lakes  Rivers 

Source: Hungary did not report to WISE the number of sites used to monitor River Basin Specific Pollutants at the 
generic level. The values for the second RBMP were obtained from the reported monitored chemical substances 
that are not Priority Substances. 
NR = Not reported 

Use of monitoring results for classification 

In  rivers,  the  classification  of  biological  quality  elements  was  solely  based  on  monitoring 
results,  though  for  fish  many  more  water  bodies  were  directly  monitored  (547)  than  were 

classified  using  monitoring  results  (446).  Expert  judgment  was  solely  used  to  classify  river 
continuity and morphological conditions in rivers22. The classification of hydrological regime 
in  rivers  was  based  mainly  on  monitoring,  but  expert  judgement  was  used  for  some  water 

bodies. The classification of physicochemical quality elements in rivers was again solely based 
on monitoring results.  

The classification of the quality elements for lakes followed a similar pattern to that for rivers. 
The classification of the biological  and physicochemical  quality  elements was only based on 

the  results  of  monitoring,  whereas  morphological  conditions  were  classified  by  expert 
judgment only and hydrological regime by a combination of expert judgment and monitoring. 

Even  though  fish  were  monitored  in  lakes,  none  were  subsequently  classified  using  this 
element,  perhaps  indicating  that  the  assessment  method  is  not  considered  to  be  fit  for 
classification of ecological status/potential23. In addition, more lake water bodies were directly 

22  Hungary  subsequently  clarified  that  in  the  case  of  hydromorphology,  monitoring  is  twofold:  desk  study  and 
field  survey. Desk  study  was used  mainly  to  monitor  morphology and continuity (using aerial photography, 
databases  of  different  pressures,  etc.)  while  hydrology  was  monitored  in  the  field  (and  assessed  by  experts 
based on long term statistical evaluation of flow regime). The morphological pressure database was improved: 
this contains all information monitored in the field (e.g. pavement of riverbed) and/or gotten from registers of 
licences.  The  elaboration  of  hydromorphological  classification  was  based  on  the  two  CEN  standards 
(EN14614 and EN15843).  

23  Hungary  subsequently  indicated  that  it  has  naturally  sodic  lake  types  which  are  characterised  by  very  low 
species  richness  and  the  use  of  the  fish  in  ecological  status/potential  assessment  is  questionable  because  of 
limited discriminative power. One of sodic lake types is temporary, very shallow lakes, where no stable fish 
community appears. This  has been discussed in the context of intercalibration in the  CIS  working  group on 
Ecological Status. However, fish could be relevant for classification of ecological status in some natural lakes 

42 

 
 
 
                                                      
monitored for benthic invertebrates than were subsequently classified using this element, again 

perhaps indicating some weaknesses in the assessment method for this element. Grouping was 
reported not to be used for the classification of any element for lakes and rivers, and this was 

also the situation for the first RBMP. 

Transboundary surface water body monitoring 

Hungary reported 968 monitoring sites that were related to international monitoring networks, 

including 57 sites in transboundary river and lake water bodies. 

and for the third RBMP it is planned to collect data in natural lakes and develop a fish index for natural lake 
assessment. 

43 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                        
3.1.2 Ecological Status/potential of surface water 

The  ecological  status/potential  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Hungary  for  the  second  RBMP  is 

illustrated in Map 3.1. This is based on the most recent assessment of status. 

Map 3.1 

Ecological status or potential of surface water bodies in Hungary based on the 
most recently assessed status/potential of the surface water bodies24 

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.2(i).  

High 

Good 

Moderate 

Poor  

Bad 

Unknown 

RBDs 

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

24 0.6 % of surface water bodies are at high status but this cannot be seen clearly in Map 3.1. 

44 

 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
                                                      
A  detailed  breakdown  of  ecological  status/potential  in  each  RBD  and  water  category  can  be 

viewed in https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-water.  

Only a small proportion (less than10 %) of Hungarian rivers and lakes are in good ecological 

status/potential, and only two lake and four river water bodies are in high status. Water bodies 
in moderate status constitute the largest proportion of all the water bodies, but more than one 

third of the water bodies were reported in poor or bad ecological status/potential. Many of the 
heavily  modified  and  artificial  water  bodies  are  not  classified,  indicating  a  lack  of  an 

appropriate assessment method for these groups of water bodies.  

The  proportion  of  water  bodies  with  unknown  ecological  status/potential  is  now  reported  to 

constitute 13 % of all water bodies, which is a major improvement since the first RBMP, when 
the  proportion  of  unknowns  was  40  %.  However,  there  is  a  big  difference  between  the 

proportion of unknown lakes (up to 47 %) and rivers, of which only 9 % are unknown.  

Figure 3.3 shows the confidence in the classification of ecological status/potential. Most of the 

water bodies are classified with medium confidence, but there are also some that are classified 
with high (19 % of rivers and 10 % of lakes) or low confidence (25 % of rivers and 36 % of 
lakes).  This  indicates  that  the  classification  of  rivers  is  done  with  better  confidence  than  for 
lakes, pointing to possible weaknesses in the lakes assessment system25. However, in the first 
RBMP,  no  water  bodies  were  classified  with  high  confidence,  so  the  situation  in  the  second 

RBMP represents an improvement. 

25  Hungary  subsequently  indicated  that  the  water  body  delineation  and  designation  of  heavily  modified  water 
bodies  were  reviewed  in  the  2nd  RBMP.  Therefore  the  number  of  HMWB  and  AWB  in  lakes  significantly 
increased, and these  were not involved in monitoring for the 2009-2012 assessment period. Some biological 
monitoring data are excluded from the ecological status assessment process in lakes because of high natural 
variability  and  low  confidence  (spatial/temporal  representativity).  More  steps  will  be  planned  to  ensure  the 
improvement of confidence levels. 

45 

 
 
                                                      
Figure 3.3  Confidence  in  the  classification  of  ecological  status  or  potential  of  surface 

water bodies in Hungary based on the most recently assessed status/potential 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Figure  3.4  compares  the  ecological  status  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Hungary  for  the  first 
RBMP  with  that  for  the  second  RBMP  (based  on  the  most  recent  assessment  of 

status/potential)  and  that  expected  by  2015.  The  results  mainly  show  the  reduction  in  the 
proportion of unknowns since the first RBMP, and that the proportion in good status/potential 

is still less than 10 % of all the water bodies.  

The  proportion  expected  to  be  in  good  or  better  status  in  2015  is  also  less  than  10  %  of  all 

water bodies. 

46 

 
 
 
Figure 3.4  Ecological  status  or  potential  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Hungary  for  the 

second  RBMP,  for  the  first  RBMP  and  expected  in  2015.  The  number  in 
parenthesis is the number of surface water bodies for each cycle. Note that the 

period  of  assessment  of  status  for  the  second  RBMP  was  2006  to  2013.  The 
year of assessment of status for the first RBMP is not known. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Member States were asked to report the expected date for the achievement of good ecological 
status/potential. The information for Hungary is shown in Figure 3.5. The time for achieving 

the objectives was reported to be beyond 2027 for 50 % of all the river and lake water bodies, 
while only a small minority (less than 10 %) is expected to achieve the objectives during the 

2016-2021 period. 

47 

 
 
 
Figure 3.5  Expected  date  of  achievement  of  good  ecological  status/potential  of  surface 

water  bodies  in  Hungary.  The  number  in  the  parenthesis  is  the  number  of 
water bodies26 in each category. 

Rivers(545)

60 

Lakes  (533)

29 

Less stringent
objectives already
achieved

2015

2016--2021

2022--2027

Beyond 2027

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Source: WISE electorinic reporting 

Classification of ecological status in terms of each classified quality element 

Figure 3.6 shows that the proportion of water bodies in good or high ecological status is much 

higher for the single biological quality elements than for total ecological status (compare with 
Map 3.1 and  Figure 3.4). For rivers, most of the biological  quality elements  are classified in 

50-60 % of the total number of classified water bodies, while for lakes, the proportion is 40-50 
% for most of the biological quality elements. For lakes, fish has not been classified at all (but 

is  monitored),  indicating  that  the  ecological  assessment  method  for  fish  in  lakes  has  not  yet 
been completed27.  

26 Hungary subsequently clarified that there was a reporting error, and the correct numbers included in the RBMP 

were 889 for river water bodies and 189 for lake water bodies. 

27  Hungary  subsequently  clarified  that  some  lakes  are  used  for  fisheries.  There  is  no  clear  understanding  in  the 
framework  of  the  CIS  on  how  Member  States  should  deal  with  invasive  alien  species  in  ecological  status  / 
potential  classification.  The  main  pressures  on  lakes  are  nutrient  and  organic  pollution,  for  which 
phytoplankton and macrophytes are the primary indicator groups. Fish could be relevant for the classification 
of  ecological  status  in  some  natural  lakes  and  therefore  it  is  planned  to  collect  data  in  natural  lakes  and 
develop a fish index for the assessment of natural lakes for the third RBMP. 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 3.6  Ecological  status/potential  of  the  biological  quality  elements  used  in  the 

classification  of  lakes  and  rivers  in  Hungary.  Note  that  water  bodies  with 
unknown  status/potential,  and  those  that  are  monitored  but  not  classified  or 

not applicable, are not presented. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Figure  3.7  compares  the  classification  of  biological  quality  elements  in  terms  of  ecological 
status/potential for the first and second RBMPs. This comparison should be treated with some 
caution  as  there  are  differences  between  the  numbers  of  surface  water  bodies  classified  for 
individual elements from the first to the second RBMP.  

49 

 
 
 
Figure 3.7  Comparison of ecological status/potential in Hungary according to classified 

biological  quality  elements  in  rivers  and  lakes  from  the  first  to  the  second 
RBMP 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  
Figure 3.8 and Figure 3.9 illustrate the basis of the classification of ecological status/potential 
of rivers and lakes in Hungary for the second RBMP. The figures show that all the four groups 

of quality elements are used to classify the majority (52 %) of the river water bodies, while 28 
%  are  classified  using  three  groups  of  quality  elements.  For  lakes,  the  proportion  of  water 

bodies classified with all four groups of quality elements is only 28 %, while as many as 39 % 
are  classified  with  only  one  group  of  quality  elements,  indicating  that  the  basis  for 

classification is weaker for lakes than for rivers. 

The  weaker  basis  for  classification  of  lakes  compared  to  rivers  is  confirmed  in  Figure  3.9 

showing  that  no  rivers  are  classified  without  using  the  hydromorphological  quality  elements 
and only a few (13 %) are classified with no biological quality elements. However, it is worth 

noting  that  classification  of  river  continuity  is  lacking  for  the  majority  of  the  river  water 
bodies28.  For  lakes,  as  many  as  37  %  are  classified  without  biology,  19  %  without 
hydromorphology  and  40  %  without  physicochemical  quality  elements.  For  River  Basin 
Specific Pollutants the proportion classified without them is high for both water categories (45 

% of rivers and 60 % of lakes).  

28  Hungary  subsequently  stated  that  a  risk  assessment  on  continuity  was  undertaken  in  all  cases  but  in  the 
following two cases it was not taken as a significant pressure: for intermittent rivers (where no fish are living), 
mainly rivers with less than 100 km2 river basin size and for artificial water bodies (e.g. irrigation canals).     

50 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 3.8 

The  classification  of  ecological  status  or  potential  of  rivers  and  lakes  in 

Hungary  using  1,  2,  3  or  4  types  of  quality  element.  Note:  The  4  types  are: 
biological;  hydromorphological,  general  physicochemical  and  River  Basin 

Specific Pollutants. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Figure 3.9 

The percentage of river and lake water bodies in Hungary where no biological 

quality  element  or  no  hydromorphological  (HYMO)  or  no  general 
physicochemical  (PHYSCHEM)  or  no  river  basin  specific  pollutant  (RBSP) 

has been used in the classification of ecological status or potential 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

The basis for the classification of individual quality elements is illustrated in Figure 3.10. All 
the  classified  biological  and  physicochemical  quality  elements  in  both  water  categories  are 
based  on  monitoring,  while  the  hydromorphological  quality  elements  are  classified  based 

51 

 
 
 
 
mostly  on  expert  judgement.  The  latter  may  indicate  weaknesses  in  the  hydromorphological 

assessment methods. Grouping is not used for classification of any quality element. 

Figure 3.10  Basis  of  the  classification  of  ecological  status/potential  in  Hungary.  The 

percentages are in terms of all waterbodies in each category. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Assessment methods and classification of biological quality elements 

Reference  conditions  have  been  defined  for  all  the  biological  quality  elements  in  both  rivers 

and lakes in all types of surface waters (no gaps were reported). New pressure-specific indices 
have been developed since the first RBMP. However, there is no method for fish  in lakes, as 

that is not used for classification, as explained above (Figure 3.6 and Figure 3.10).  

52 

 
 
 
Intercalibration of biological assessment methods and national classification systems 

Only one of the lake types is linked to a common intercalibration type. It is unclear how the 

class  boundaries  have  been  set  for  those  national  types  which  were  not  intercalibrated. 
Intercalibration has not been achieved for fish in lakes, nor for fish in rivers, according to the 
Intercalibration  Official  Decisions  from  201329  and  201830.  The  other  biological  quality 
elements have been successfully intercalibrated31. 

Assessment methods for hydromorphological quality elements 

Hydromorphological  assessment  methods  have  been  developed  for  both  water  categories, 
according  to  the  RBMP  background  document  6-4,  “Hydromorphological  status  assessment 

system  for  surface  water  bodies”.  However,  the  classification  is  mainly  based  on  expert 
judgement (Figure 3.10), raising some doubt about the quality of these assessment methods. 

Assessment methods for general physicochemical quality elements 

The Hungarian methods have been completed, and the standards are all reported to be linked to 
the good/moderate boundaries for the sensitive biological quality elements. For the nutrients, 
however, the actual values reported for total phosphorus and orthophosphate are much higher 

than  the  nutrient  saturation  level  for  phytoplankton  and  phytobenthos  (ca.  0.1  mg/l),  and  are 
also  higher  than  reported  in  most  other  Member  States.  The  basis  for  linking  these  standard 

values  to  the  nutrient  sensitive  biological  quality  elements  is  unclear.  This  is  a  serious  issue 
that may prevent the achievement of objectives32.  

Selection of River Basin Specific Pollutants and use of Environmental Quality Standards 

The River Basin Specific Pollutants have been selected based on measured concentrations from 
monitoring,  but  it  is  not  clear  how  Hungary  decided  which  pollutants  to  analyse  in  the 

monitoring.  Hungary  subsequently  stated  that  four  river  basin  specific  pollutants  have  been 
identified in the context of the regulations of the International Commission on the Protection of 
Danube River: Arsenic, Chromium, Copper and Zinc33. Environmental Quality Standards have 

29   https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32013D0480  
30   https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32018D0229  
31   Work on intercalibration for fish in big rivers is still ongoing within the CIS. 
32   Hungary subsequently explained that the Hungarian lowland is at the bottom of the Carpathian basin, therefore 
it is a natural nutrient retention region that protects even the Black Sea. In this region, the high orthophosphate 
concentration  is  mainly  a  natural  phenomenon  and  only  in  part  the  consequence  of  human  activity.  Further 
work takes place in the context of the Nutrient Working Group under the CIS Working Group on ecological 
status and Hungary will validate its nutrient standards according to the Best Practice Guidance and toolkit to 
be developed. 

33   Hungary  subsequently  indicated  that  in  a  comprehensive  investigative  monitoring  programme  more  than  a 
hundred  organic  compounds  other  than  Priority  Substances  were  analysed,  and  no  widespread  and  general 
occurrences of substances were found that would justify classifying them as River Basin Specific Pollutants. 

53 

 
 
                                                      
been  set  for  them.  The  Environmental  Quality  Standards  have  been  set  according  to  the 
Common  Implementation  Strategy  Technical  Guidance  no.  27.34  The  analytical  methods 
follow  best  available  technology  for  three  of  the  substances  and  the  analytical  method 
prescribed in Article 4(1) of the Directive 2009/90/EC35 for zinc.  

Hungary  reported  that  eight  chemical  substances  that  are  not  Priority  Substances  were  being 

monitored.  These  include  the  four  metals  for  which  Environmental  Quality  Standards  have 
been  set.  The  other  four  chemical  substances  may  be  considered  to  be  isomers  of  Priority 

Substances and certain other pollutants as defined in Directive 2013/39/EU.   

No  Environmental  Quality  Standards  have  been  set  for  any  organic  pollutant  because  no 

organic pollutants have been selected as River Basin Specific Pollutants.  

The RBMP indicates that Hungary has followed an internationally recommended and accepted 

methodology in the second Plan, thereby considerably improving the evaluation system since 
the first Plan. The results are not comparable between the two RBMPs due to changes in the 

Environmental Quality Standards. In the second RBMP, only one lake was reported to exceed 
the  limit  values  for  arsenic  and  copper,  while  between  eleven  and  thirty  river  water  bodies 
exceeded the limit values for the four metals; arsenic, chromium, copper and zinc. However, 

the  majority  of  lakes  and  almost  half  of  the  river  water  bodies  have  not  been  classified  for 
River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants,  so  there  is  a  risk  that  more  of  them  could  be  exceeding  the 

limit values. 

Overall classification of ecological status (one-out, all-out principle) 

The one-out-all-out principle is reported as having been used.  

3.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first RBMP  

There was a 2-fold increase in the number of river monitoring sites and a similar increase in 

lake  monitoring  sites  between  the  two  RBMPs.  Significantly  more  sites  were  used  for 
operational than for surveillance monitoring in both cycles. There were increased numbers of 

surveillance and operational monitoring sites in lakes and rivers between the two RBMPs. 

The  significant  changes  in  the  numbers  of  lake  and  river  waterbodies  make  comparisons  of 
monitored water bodies between the two RBMPs difficult. In both the first and second RBMPs 

34   https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/0cc3581b-5f65-4b6f-91c6-433a1e947838/TGD-EQS%20CIS-

WFD%2027%20EC%202011.pdf  

35  Directive  2009/90/EC  of  31  July  2009  laying  down,  pursuant  to  Directive  2000/60/EC  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the  Council,  technical specifications  for chemical analysis and  monitoring of  water status 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1524565750309&uri=CELEX:32009L0090 

54 

 
 
                                                      
more lake and river water bodies were included in operational monitoring than in surveillance 

monitoring. In terms of operational monitoring there were significant increases in the number 
and proportion of lake and river water bodies covered: e.g. 390 (45 %) of river water bodies in 

the first RBMP and 759 river water bodies (79 %) in the second RBMP. 

It is not clear whether this monitoring is actually happening, as the RBMP states that there is 

no separate budget line in the national budget for the costs of operating/running the monitoring 
system36.  Significant  improvement  has  been  made  in  terms  of  instrument  development,  but 
further institutional development is needed to overcome the backlog.  

For surveillance monitoring, there were only very minor changes in the number of monitoring 

sites between the two RBMPs. 

The  second  RBMP  shows  a  significantly  higher  number  of  water  bodies  with  ecological 

classifications  compared  to  the  first  RBMP.  The  proportion  of  water  bodies  with  unknown 
ecological  status/potential  is  now  reported  to  constitute  13  %  of  all  water  bodies,  which  is  a 

major  improvement  since  the  first  RBMP,  when  the  proportion  of  unknowns  was  40  %. 
However,  there  is  a  big  difference  between  the  proportion  of  unknown  lakes  (up  to  47  % 
unknowns)  and  unknown  rivers  (9  %  unknowns).  The  reason  why  so  many  lakes  cannot  be 

classified is unclear. 

Significant  changes  (in  both  directions)  are  obvious  in  the  classifications  using  benthic 

invertebrates,  phytoplankton,  other  aquatic  flora,  fish,  oxygenation  conditions  and  salinity 
conditions.  This  indicates  that  changes  or  developments  have  been  made  to  the  assessment 

methods. 

The confidence in classification has improved from medium to high for 19 % of the rivers and 

10 % of the lakes.  

The assessment methods are much more developed than in the first RBMP, including pressure-

specific  indices  for  several  biological  quality  elements.  Most  of  the  biological  assessment 
methods have now been intercalibrated, except fish in rivers and fish in lakes. Work is planned 
to develop fish assessment methods for the 3rd RBMP.  

There  are  also  methods  developed  for  all  relevant  supporting  quality  elements,  but  there  are 

some  concerns  about  their  links to  good  status  for  biology.  The  nutrient  standards  are  above 

36 Hungary has subsequently confirmed to the Commission that operational monitoring is being carried out. 

55 

 
 
                                                      
the  saturation  level  for  nutrient  sensitive  biological  quality  elements,  which  may  prevent  the 
achievement of objectives37.  

For  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants,  the  RBMP  indicates  that  Hungary  followed  an 

internationally recommended and accepted methodology, thereby considerably improving the 
evaluation  system  since  the  first  RBMP.  The  results  are  not  comparable  between  the  two 

RBMPs due to changes in the limit values. 

3.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMP  and  Programme  of  Measures 

requested action on the following: 

•  Recommendation:  Ensure  implementation  of  WFD  compliant  monitoring  and  of  the 
Programme  of  Measures  by  allocating  adequate  human  and  financial  resources, 
exploring  the  possibility  of  using  European  Union  funds  (e.g.  Rural  Development 

Programme funds, Structural and Investment Funds and LIFE Integrated Projects). 

Assessment: A much more ambitious monitoring programme has been planned, with a 
large  increase  in  the  number  of  monitoring  sites  for  both  rivers  and  lakes,  including 
more  biological  and  supporting  quality  elements.  However,  there  is  no  budget  line  to 

ensure implementation of the programme in the national budget, thus raising concerns 
as to whether this monitoring is done in practice.  Hungary has subsequently confirmed 

to  the  Commission  that  operational  monitoring  is  in  place.  Significant  improvements 
are achieved in terms of instrument development, but further institutional development 

is needed to overcome the backlog. 

The recommendation has been fulfilled. 

•  Recommendation:  As  the  methods  were  not  completed  for  all  biological  quality 
elements, the reference values and class boundaries were not completed for all types. 
Methodologies for all biological quality elements should be established with reference 
values and class boundaries completed for all types. 

Assessment: This recommendation has been addressed for both rivers and lakes, except 

on  intercalibration  of  fish,  which  is  still  a  gap  (although  assessment  methods  for  fish 
have  been  developed).  Hungary  now  has  a  full  set  of  biological  assessment  methods 

37 Hungary subsequently stated that further work takes place in the context of the Nutrient Working Group under 
the CIS Working Group on ecological status and Hungary will validate its nutrient standards according to the 
Best Practice Guidance and toolkit to be developed. 

56 

 
 
                                                      
with  reference  conditions  and  class  boundaries  for  all  the  required  biological  quality 

elements. These methods, however, do not allow for classification of all the artificial or 
heavily modified lake water bodies. The surveillance monitoring programme includes 

all  these  quality  elements,  but  fish  in  lakes  are  not  classified  (which  is  also  not 
intercalibrated)38. 

The recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

•  Recommendation:  Due to significant  lack of  data,  only 13 % of  surface  water bodies 
were  classified  for  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants.  The  identification  of  River  Basin 
Specific  Pollutants  needs  to  be  more  transparent,  with  clear  information  on  how 

pollutants  were  selected,  how  and  where  they  were  monitored,  where  there  are 
exceedances and how such exceedances have been taken into account in the assessment 

of ecological status. It is important that there is an ambitious approach to combatting 
chemical pollution and that adequate measures are put in place. 

Assessment: The RBMP provided information on how River Basin Specific Pollutants 
were selected and monitored. 52 % of surface water bodies were classified according to 

River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  in  the  second  RBMP.  Four  different  River  Basin 
Specific Pollutants  were monitored only in water. 54 % of surface water bodies were 

directly  monitored  for River  Basin  Specific Pollutants. All  were monitored at  least  at 
the minimum WFD recommended frequency at all monitoring sites. Compared to other 

Member States the number of selected River Basin Specific Pollutants is low possibly 
indicating a low level of ambition in identifying chemical pollution. 

Progress has therefore been made on this aspect of this recommendation and therefore 
it has been partially fulfilled. 

•  Recommendation:  Ensure  in  the  second  RBMPs  that  measures  adopted  in  the 
Programme of Measures are based on a reliable status assessment of water bodies and 
are linked to the relevant pressures. 

•  Assessment: The proportion of water bodies with unknown ecological  status/potential 
is now reported to be 13 % of all water bodies, which is a major improvement since the 
first  RBMP,  when  the  proportion  of  unknowns  was  40  %.  However,  there  is  a  big 

difference  between  the  proportion  of  unknown  lakes  (up  to  47  %  unknowns)  and 
unknown rivers (9 % unknowns). The confidence in classification has improved from 

38   Hungary  stated  that  work  is  underway  to  develop  a  fish  assessment  method  for  natural  lakes  that  could  be 

intercalibrated in the future. 

57 

 
 
                                                      
medium to high for 19 % of the rivers and 10 % of the lakes. The assessment methods 

are much more developed than in  the first  RBMP, including pressure-specific indices 
for several biological quality elements. Most of the biological assessment methods have 

now been intercalibrated, except fish in rivers and fish in lakes. There are also methods 
developed  for  all  relevant  supporting  quality  elements,  but  there  are  some  concerns 

about  their  links  to  good  status  for  the  biology.  The  nutrient  standards  are  above  the 
saturation  level  for  nutrient  sensitive  biological  quality  elements,  which  may  prevent 

the achievement of objectives. For River Basin Specific Pollutants, the RBMP indicates 
that  Hungary  followed  an  internationally  recommended  and  accepted  methodology, 

thereby  considerably  improving  the  evaluation  system  since  the  first  RBMP.  The 
results are not comparable between the first and second RBMPs due to changes in the 

limit values. The classification of hydromorphological quality elements is largely based 
on expert judgement. 

This recommendation has been partially fulfilled.39   

•  Recommendation:  Strengthen  monitoring  to  reduce  unknowns  and  uncertainties  by 
implementing robust monitoring programmes to support the application of methods for 

the  status  assessment  of  water  bodies  and  definition  of  reference  conditions.  An 
adequate  WFD  compliant  assessment  and  monitoring  framework  is  a  necessary  pre-

requisite to design an effective Programme of Measures and ultimately to achieve the 
WFD objectives. 

Assessment:  There  has  been  substantial  progress  with  this  recommendation,  due  to 
more  monitoring  in  terms  of  more  sites  and  more  quality  elements,  facilitating  the 

development  and  intercalibration  of  more  assessment  methods  including  reference 
conditions.  This  has  resulted  in  fewer  unknowns  (especially  for  rivers)  and  better 

confidence  in  status  assessment  for  some  rivers.  However,  there  are  some  concerns 
related to the continuation of the monitoring due to insufficient financing40.   

•  Recommendation:  Status  assessments  of  surface  water  bodies  are  not  sufficiently 
reliable, therefore an extremely high percentage of surface water bodies are indicated 

as being of unknown status in Hungary. Where there are currently high uncertainties in 
the characterisation of the RBDs, identification of pressures, and in the assessment of 

status,  these  need  to  be  addressed  in  the  current  cycle,  to  ensure  that  adequate 

39  Please  refer  to  the  explanations  provided  by  Hungary  concerning  assessment  methods  for  fish,  nutrient 

standards and classification of hydromorphological quality elements, described earlier in this chapter. 

40 Hungary subsequently confirmed that monitoring would continue to be financed. 

58 

 
 
                                                      
measures can be put in place before the next cycle. For example, status assessments of 

surface water bodies should be made reliable and monitoring should be intensified in 
order to reduce the high number of water bodies in unknown status. 

Assessment:  The  proportion  of  surface  water  bodies  with  unknown  ecological 
status/potential decreased significantly from 40 % (out of 1082 water bodies) to 13 % 

(out of 1078 water bodies) between the two RBMPs. There was also an improvement in 
the confidence of the classification: 45 % of surface water bodies were classified with 

medium/high  confidence  for  the  first  plan  and  64  %  for  the  second.  This  part  of  the 
recommendation has been fulfilled. 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
Topic 4

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical 

status in surface water bodies  

4.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle  

4.1.1 Monitoring of chemical status in surface waters 

Monitoring sites and monitored water bodies used for monitoring of chemical status 

Member  States  have  to  implement  surveillance  and  operational  monitoring  programmes,  in 
accordance with the requirements of the WFD and of the EQS Directive, for the assessment of 

ecological status/potential and chemical status.  

Surveillance monitoring programmes should allow Member States to supplement and validate 

the  impact  assessment  procedure,  to  efficiently  and  effectively  review  the  design  of  their 
monitoring programmes, and to  assess the long-term  changes in  natural  conditions  and those 

resulting  from  widespread  anthropogenic  activity.  For  operational  purposes,  monitoring  is 
required to establish the status of waterbodies identified as being at risk of failing to meet their 
environmental objectives, and to assess any changes in the status of such waterbodies resulting 

from the Programme of Measures. 

Section 3.1.1 of this report summarises  the characteristics of the surveillance and operational 

monitoring programmes in Hungary for the second RBMP. 

60 

 
 
Figure  4.1  summarises  the  proportion  of  sites  used  for  the  monitoring  of  chemical  status  in 

lakes and rivers for the second RBD. No distinction is made between sites used for surveillance 
and/or  operational  purposes.  More  detailed  information  can  be  found  on  the  website  of  the 
European  Environment  Agency41.  As  shown  in  Figure  4.1,  over  half  of  sites  monitored  are 
used  for  monitoring  of  chemical  status  (65  %  of  lake  monitoring  sites  and  58  %  of  river 

monitoring sites). In comparison, all sites are used for monitoring of ecological status. 

Figure 4.1 

Proportion  of  sites  used  for  monitoring  of  chemical  status  and,  for 

comparison, ecological status, in Hungary. The number in parenthesis next to 
the  category  is  the  total  number  of  monitoring  sites  irrespective  of  their 

purpose 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Figure 4.2 summarises  the proportion of water bodies monitored for chemical  status  in  lakes 
and rivers for the second RBMP. In this figure, no distinction is made between sites used for 

surveillance  and/or  operational  purposes.  Also  given  is  the  proportion  of  water  bodies 
monitored for any purpose and, for comparison, those for ecological status. Over 50 % of water 

bodies are monitored for chemical status (58 % of lake and 53 % of river water bodies). 

All  water  bodies  failing  to  achieve  good  chemical  status  were  reported  to  be  monitored  in 

Hungary as part of the operational monitoring programme.  

41 https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-water 

61 

 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 4.2 

Proportion  of  total  water  bodies  in  each  category  which  are  monitored, 

monitored  for  chemical  status  and  monitored  for  ecological  status,  in 
Hungary. The number in parenthesis next to the category is the total number 

of water bodies in that category 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Long-term trend monitoring and monitoring of Priority Substances in  water, sediment and 
biota for status assessment 

Monitoring for status assessment 

Requirements 

Article 8.1 of the WFD requires Member States to establish monitoring programmes in order to 

provide  inter  alia  a  coherent  and  comprehensive  overview  of  water  status  within  each  RBD. 
The amount of monitoring undertaken in terms of priority substances, frequency and numbers 

of sites should be sufficient to obtain a reliable and robust assessment of status. According to 
in  2009),  mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and 
the  EQS  Directive 

(version 

force 

in 

hexachlorobutadiene  have  to  be  monitored  in  biota  for  status  assessment,  unless  Member 
States  derived  a  standard  for  another  matrix,  which  is  at  least  as  protective  as  the  biota 

standard.  

Spatial Coverage 

In Hungary around half of the lake and river water bodies are not monitored for any Priority 
Substances but all the other lake and river water bodies are monitored for more than 10 Priority 

Substances.  

62 

 
 
 
According to the reporting in WISE, 37 Priority Substances are monitored in water. However, 

Hungary  subsequently  clarified  that  only  tributyltin,  chloroalkanes  C10-C13  and  brominated 
diphenylethers are not monitored. 

No  information  on  the  monitoring  of  Priority  Substances  in  sediment  and/or  biota  was 
reported.  Hungary  subsequently  clarified  that  no  Priority  Substance  was  monitored  in  biota 

between  2008  and  2013,  because  they  lacked  the  appropriate  analytical  methods.  Research 
started in 2015 to address this gap. 

Frequencies  

The WFD indicates that, for the surveillance and operational monitoring of Priority Substances 

in water, the frequency of monitoring should be at least monthly for one year during the six-
year  cycle  and  at  least  monthly  every  year,  respectively.  Monitoring  in  biota  for  status 

assessment should take  place  at  least once every  year according to  the EQS  Directive.  In  all 
cases  greater intervals  can be  applied by Member States if justified on the basis of technical 

knowledge and expert judgement. 

Monitoring frequencies in water were reported for 34 Priority Substances at site level and each 
substance  is  monitored  12  times  per  year,  once  per  cycle  in  some  sites  (presumably  for 

surveillance  monitoring)  and  every  year  in  the  other  sites  (presumably  for  operational 
monitoring).  

Monitoring for long-term trend assessment 

Requirements 

Article 3.3 of the EQS Directive (version in force in 2009) requires Member States to monitor 
14  priority  substances42  that  tend  to  accumulate  in  sediment  and/or  biota,  for  the  purpose  of 
long-term  trend  assessment.  Monitoring  should  take  place  at  least  once  every  three  years, 
unless technical knowledge and expert judgment justify another interval.  

Spatial coverage 

No  information  was  provided  on  the  analysis  of  long-term  trends  as  measured  in  sediment 

and/or biota. 

42  Anthracene,  brominated  diphenylether, 

fluoranthene, 
hexachlorobenzene,  hexabutadiene,  hexachlorocyclohexane,  lead,  mercury,  pentachlorobenzene,  PAH, 
Tributyltin. 

chloroalkanes,  DEHP, 

cadmium,  C10-13 

63 

 
 
                                                      
The  RBMP  does  not  explicitly  mention  that  transboundary  surface  water  monitoring 

programmes  are  in  place  with  European  Union  Member  States  and  non-European  Union 
countries for the monitoring of Priority Substances. However, Hungary operates an operational 

monitoring sub-programme of rivers at risk from Priority Substances (HUSWPO_1RWPS) as 
well as a surveillance monitoring programme for rivers and lakes. Hungary also participates in 

the Transnational  Monitoring  Network of the  International  Commission  for the Protection of 
the  Danube  River  and  operates  some  transboundary  monitoring  sites.  57  surface  water 

monitoring sites are reported to belong to international networks and all these sites are reported 
as chemical monitoring sites for Priority Substances. 

Monitoring of Priority Substances that are discharged in each RBD  

Annex  V  of  the  WFD  states,  in  Section  1.3.1  (Design  of  surveillance  monitoring),  that 
“Surveillance monitoring shall be carried out for each monitoring site for a period of one year 

during  the  period  covered  by  a  river  basin  management  plan  for  [inter  alia]:  priority  list 
pollutants  which  are  discharged  into  the  river  basin  or  sub-basin.”  Section  1.3.2  (Design  of 
operational monitoring) of the same Annex states that “In order to assess the magnitude of the 

pressure to which bodies of surface water  are subject  Member States shall monitor for those 
quality elements which are indicative of the pressures to which the body or bodies are subject. 

In order to assess the impact of these pressures, Member States shall monitor as relevant [inter 
alia]:  all  priority  substances  discharged,  and  other  pollutants  discharged  in  significant 

quantities.” 

Member States are therefore required to monitor all Priority Substances which are discharged 

into the river basin or sub-basin.  

Hungary reported that 12 Priority Substances were listed in at least one of the inventories and 

were discharged. All these substances were reported to be monitored.  

However, twenty nine substances were not  included in  any of the inventories in  Hungary.  In 

particular, tributyltin, chloroalkanes C10-13 and brominated diphenylethers did not  appear in 
any of the inventories (so it is unclear whether these substances are discharged) and they were 

not monitored. 

Performances of analytical methods used  

For  30  Priority  Substances,  the  analytical  methods  used  were  reported  to  meet  the  minimum 
performance  criteria  laid  down  in  Article  4(1)  of  the  Directive  2009/90/EC  for  the  strictest 

64 

 
 
 
standard applied. For the remaining eight substances, the analytical methods complied with the 

requirements  laid down  in  Article 4(2) of the Directive 2009/90/EC  for the strictest  standard 
applied.  For  three  Priority  Substances  (tributyltin,  chloroalkanes  C10-C13  and  brominated 

diphenylethers),  Hungary  subsequently  clarified  that  no  analytical  methods  were  available  in 
the assessment period relevant for the second RBMP. 

The  method  of  dealing  with  measurements  of  Priority  Substances  lower  than  the  limit  of 
quantification is as specified in Article 5 of Directive 2009/90/EC. 

4.1.2 Chemical Status of surface water bodies 

Member States  are  required to  report the  year on which the  assessment of chemical  status  is 
based. This  may be the  year that the surface water body was monitored. In case of  grouping 

this may be the year in which monitoring took place in the surface water bodies within a group 
that  are  used  to  extrapolate  results  to  non-monitored  surface  water  bodies  within  the  same 

group. Overall the chemical assessments were carried over the period from 2008 to 2012. 

The chemical status of surface water bodies in Hungary for the second RBMP is illustrated in 
Map 4.1. This is based on the most recent assessment of status. Overall between the two cycles 

there was a large increase in the proportion of surface water bodies with good chemical status, 
from 3 to 46 %, and a significant decrease in the proportion with unknown status from 94 to 47 

%. However, the proportion failing to achieve good status increased from 3 to 8 %. 

65 

 
 
 
 
Map 4.1 

Chemical  status  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Hungary  based  on  the  most 

recently assessed status of the surface water bodies 

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 1.4.3. 

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

The chemical status of lakes and rivers for the first and second RBMPs is given in Table 4.1. 

More information on the chemical status in each RBD and water category can be found on the 
website of the European Environment Agency43. 

43 https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-water 

66 

GoodFailing to achieve to goodUnknownRiver Basin DistrictsCountries outside the EU 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Table 4.1 

Chemical status of surface water bodies in Hungary for the second and first 

RBMPs.  Note:  the  number  in  parenthesis  next  to  the  water  category  is  the 
number of water bodies in that category. Note: Chemical status assessment is 

based on the standards laid down in the EQS Directive (version in force on 13 
January  2009).  Some  Member  States  did  not  implement  the  Directive  in  the 

first RBMP, as the transposition deadline was in July 2010, after the adoption 
of the first RBMP. 

Category 

Second RBMP 

Lakes (115) 

Rivers (963) 

  Total (1078) 

First RBMP 

Lakes (213) 

Rivers (869) 

Total (1082) 

Good 

Failing to achieve good 

Unknown 

Number 

% 

Number 

% 

Number 

% 

43 

450 

493 

7 

28 

35 

37 % 

47 % 

46 % 

3 % 

3 % 

3 % 

3 

81 

84 

28 

28 

3 % 

8 % 

8 % 

3 % 

3 % 

69 

432 

501 

206 

813 

1019 

60 % 

45 % 

46 % 

97 % 

94 % 

94 % 

Figure 4.3 shows the confidence in the classification of chemical status for the second RBMP. 
Overall 11 % of surface water bodies were classified for chemical status with high confidence, 

59 % with medium confidence and 30 % with low confidence. Confidence in the classification 
of chemical status for the first RBMP was not reported. 

The  one-out-all-out  principle  is  applied.  Surface  water  bodies  not  monitored  for  chemical 
status were reported as unknown status. 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.3   Confidence in the classification of chemical status of surface water bodies in 

Hungary based on the most recently assessed status/potential 

i

s
e
d
o
b
r
e
t
a
w
e
c
a
f
r
u
s

f
o
e
g
a
t
n
e
c
r
e
P

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

No information

High

Medium

Low

Good

Failing to
achieve good

Chemical status 

Unknown

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Figure 4.4 compares the chemical status of surface water bodies in Hungary for the first RBMP 
with  that  for  the  second  RBMP  (based  on  the  most  recent  assessment  of  status)  and  that 

expected by 2015. It shows that 46 % of water bodies achieved good status and this was in line 
with the expectations expressed in the first RBMP. 

The  assessment  of  chemical  status  for  the  second  RBMP  was  expected  to  be  based  on  the 
standards  laid  down  in  the  EQS  Directive  (version  in  force  on  13  January  2009)44.  Some 
Member States did not implement the Directive in the first RBMP as the transposition deadline 
was in July 2010, after the adoption of the first RBMP. 

Directive  2013/39/EU  amended  the  EQS  Directive.  In  particular,  it  set  more  stringent 
Environmental  Quality  Standards  for  seven  substances45.  Member  States  were  required  to 
indicate  if  the  new  standards  caused  the  status  of  the  surface  water  body  to  appear  to 
deteriorate.  This  was  the  case  for  7  %  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Hungary  in  terms  of 

44  Please  note  that  Directive  2013/39/EU,  which  amended  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards  Directive, 
introduced a less stringent annual average Environmental Quality Standard for naphthalene in transitional  and 
coastal  waters.  This  less  stringent  Environmental  Quality  Standard  should  be  taken  into  account  for  the 
determination of surface water chemical status by the 2015 deadline laid down in Article 4 of the WFD.  

45  Anthracene,  Brominated  diphenylether,  Fluoranthene,  Lead  and  its  compounds,  Naphthalene,  Nickel  and  its 

compounds, Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
 
 
 
 
fluoranthene and 3 % for lead, nickel and total benzo(b)fluor-anthene + benzo(k)fluor-anthene. 

This situation was also reported for 2 % of surface water bodies for total benzo(g,h,i)-perylene 
+ indeno(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene. 

Figure 4.4  Chemical  status  of  surface  water  bodies  in  Hungary  for  the  second  RBMP, 
for  the  first  RBMP  and  expected  in  2015.  The  number  in  parenthesis  is  the 

number  of  surface  water  bodies  for  each  cycle.  Note  that  the  period  of 
assessment  of  status  for  the  second  RBMP  was  2007  to  2013.  The  year  of 

assessment of status for first RBMP is not known. 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Good  chemical  status  should  be  reached  by  2021  in  relation  to  the  revised  environmental 
quality standards, unless Member States apply exemptions under Article 4(4) of the WFD or 

less stringent objectives under Article 4(5). 

Member States were asked to report the expected date for the achievement of good chemical 

status. The information for Hungary is shown in Figure 4.5. Good chemical status of surface 
water bodies is expected to be achieved by the end of the third planning cycle. The basis for 

this  prediction  is  unclear  because  a  large  proportion  of  surface  water  bodies  are  yet  to  be 
monitored for Priority Substances and are classified in unknown status. 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.5  Expected date of achievement of good chemical status of surface water bodies 

in Hungary. The number in parenthesis is the number of water bodies in each 
category 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Priority substances causing failure of good chemical status 

Member  States  were  expected  to  report  exceedances  based  on  the  revised,  more  stringent, 

Environmental Quality Standards from Directive 2013/39/EU. 

The  Priority  Substances  reported  to  be  causing  failure  to  achieve  good  chemical  status  in 

surface water bodies are shown in Figure 4.6. This figure shows the “top-ten” in terms of the 
proportion  of  water  bodies  failing  due  to  the  exceedance  of  the  Environmental  Quality 

Standard for a substance. 

Overall  for  surface  water  bodies,  the  largest  proportion  of  exceedances  was  for  the  Annual 

Average  Environmental  Quality  Standard  for  fluoranthene.  Exceedances  of  Maximum 
Allowable Concentration Environmental Quality Standard were largest for total benzo(b)fluor-

anthene + benzo(k)fluor-anthene. In terms of exceedance of both types of standard, the largest 
proportion was for fluoranthene and lead. 

70 

 
 
 
 
Figure 4.6 

The  top-ten  Priority  Substances  causing  failure  to  achieve  good  chemical 

status in surface water bodies in Hungary 

 Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Ubiquitous, persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic Priority Substances 

According  to  Article  8(a)  of  the  EQS  Directive46,  eight  Priority  Substances  and  groups  of 
Priority  Substances  are  behaving  like  ubiquitous,  persistent,  bioaccumulative  and  toxic 
substances47.  These  substances  are  generally  expected  to  cause  widespread  exceedances,  and 
their emissions can be challenging to tackle (e.g. due to long-range atmospheric transport and 

deposition). In order to show the progress made in tackling other Priority Substances, Member 
States have the possibility to present the information related to chemical status separately for 

these substances.  

Of the three lake water bodies failing to  achieve good chemical  status,  it appears that all are 

affected  by  at  least  one  ubiquitous,  persistent,  bioaccumulative  and  toxic  Priority  Substance 
failing the associated Environmental Quality Standard: three water bodies due to mercury and 
one  due  to  total  benzo(b)fluor-anthene.  Of  the  81  river  water  bodies  failing  to  achieve  good 
chemical  status,  53  are  affected  by  at  least  one  ubiquitous,  persistent,  bioaccumulative  and 

toxic  Priority  Substance  failing  the  associated  Environmental  Quality  Standard,  21  due  to 
mercury,  32  due  to  total  benzo(b)fluor-anthene  and  16  due  to  total  benzo(g,h,i)-perylene. 

However,  for  these  water  bodies  failing  to  achieve  good  status,  the  failures  were  not  due  to 
ubiquitous,  persistent,  bioaccumulative  and  toxic  Priority  Substances  alone;  therefore  their 

46   Amended by Directive 2013/39/EU 
47   Brominated  diphenylether,  Mercury  and  its  compounds,  Polyaromatic  hydrocarbons  (PAH),  Tributyltin,  

PFOS, dioxins, hexabromocyclodecane and heptachlor 

71 

 
 
 
                                                      
influence in Hungary is limited.  It should be noted, however, that no monitoring of biota has 

been  undertaken  and  the  influence  of  these  substances  in  biota  has  been  significant  in  other 
Member States.  

This is illustrated in the 2018 State of Water report of the European Environment Agency48. 

Priority Substances used in the assessment of chemical status compared to those monitored 

Hungary clarified that reporting to WISE had some inaccuracies and clarified that all Priority 

Substances  are  monitored  and  used  in  the  assessment  of  status,  except  Tributyltin-cation, 
chloroalkanes C10-13 and brominated diphenylethers (congener numbers 28, 47, 99, 100, 153 

and 154) which were neither monitored nor used in the assessment of status.  

Application of alternative Environmental Quality Standards for water, biota and sediment  

According  to  the  EQS  Directive,  Member  States  may  opt  to  apply  Environmental  Quality 

Standards for another matrix than the one specified in the Directive for a given substance.  If 
they do so, they have to ensure that the Environmental Quality Standard they set in the other 

matrix (or matrices) offers at least the same level  of protection as the standard established in 
the Directive. 

Hungary reported that all of the Environmental Quality Standards from the Directive have been 

applied to assess chemical status with the exception of tributlytin cation, chloroalkanes C10-13 
and  brominated  diphenylethers  which  were  not  used  in  status  assessment.  Hungary 

subsequently  informed  that  these  substances  were  not  monitored  due  to  the  lack  of  an 
analytical method. 

Use of mixing zones  

Article 4 of the EQS Directive provides Member States with the option of designating mixing 
zones adjacent to points of discharge in surface waters. Concentrations of priority substances 

may exceed the relevant Environmental Quality Standard within such mixing zones if they do 
not  affect  the  compliance  of  the  rest  of  the  surface  water  body  with  that  standard.  Member 

States that designate mixing zones are required to include within their RBMPs a description of 
the  approaches  and  methodologies  applied  to  define  such  zones  and  a  description  of  the 

measures taken to reduce the extent of the mixing zones in the future. 

48  https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-water  (p40-41  of  the  report).  Also  available  in  a  more 

interactive format at :  
https://tableau.discomap.eea.europa.eu/t/Wateronline/views/WISE_SOW_SWB_Chemical_Status_Maps/SW
B_Failing_Good_Chemical_Status_RBD?iframeSizedToWindow=true&:embed=y&:showAppBanner=false&
:display_count=no&:showVizHome=no 

72 

 
 
                                                      
 
Mixing zones have not been designated under Article 4 of the EQS Directive for the Hungarian 

RBD. 

Background Concentrations and Bioavailability 

The  EQS  Directive  stipulates  that  Member  States  have  the  possibility,  when  assessing  the 

monitoring results against the Environmental Quality Standards, to take into account: 

(a) natural background concentrations for metals and their compounds, if they prevent 

compliance with the Environmental Quality Standards, and 

(b)  hardness,  pH  or  other  water  quality  parameters  that  affect  the  bioavailability  of 

metals. 

Natural  background  concentrations  for  metals  and 

their  compounds  are 

taken 

into 

consideration in  the Hungarian RBD where such  concentrations prevent  compliance with  the 
the 
relevant  Environmental  Quality  Standards.  Water  quality  parameters  affecting 

bioavailability  of  metals  have  also  been  taken  into  consideration  when  assessing  monitoring 
results against relevant Environmental Quality Standards. 

4.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The scale of monitoring for Priority Substances has increased in the second RBMP in terms of 
the number of monitoring sites (for lakes, an increase of 39 sites and 28 water bodies, and for 

rivers,  an  increase  of  630  sites  and  391  water  bodies),  the  number  of  Priority  Substances 
monitored  and  the  number  of  years  of  available  data  upon  which  to  base  chemical  status 

assessments  (the  first  RBMP  assessments  were  based  on  one  years’  data  while  the  second 
RBMP assessments draw on data collected from 2008 to 2012).  

Significant  progress  is  also  reported to  have been made in  the development  and operation of 
the monitoring network and the monitoring equipment deployed, although the need for further 

development  and  progress  is  identified.  For  the  second  RBMP,  monitoring  of  sediment  and 
biota has not been implemented. 

In terms of classification, there has been a significant decrease in the number of water bodies 
classified in unknown status (from >95 % to 39-51 % depending on the combination of water 
category  and  type  of  physical  modification  –  natural,  Heavily  Modified  or  Artificial  Water 

Body). This  reflects  the  number of water bodies  that were not  monitored for chemical  status 
(which are classified in unknown status). 

73 

 
 
Information on Priority Substances causing failure of good chemical status for the first RBMP 

was  not  systematically  reported,  making  comparison  with  the  second  RBMP  difficult. 
Furthermore, in the first cycle monitoring for Priority Substances was  limited.  Overall, there 

are  four  Priority  Substances  that  were  failing  Environmental  Quality  Standards  in  the  first 
RBMP  but  are  no  longer  failing  the  standards  in  the  second  RBMP,  resulting  in  the 

improvement of the water body from failing to achieve good status to good chemical status. In 
each  case,  a  single  river  water  body  showed  this  improvement  as  a  result  of  each  of  the 

following Priority Substances: endosulfan, octylphenol (4-(1,1',3,3'-tetramethylbutyl)-phenol), 
hexachlorocyclohexane and cadmium. 

For  the  second  cycle,  the  identification  of  significant  pressures  causing  failure  of  good 
chemical  status  has  improved,  especially  with  respect  to  river  water  bodies.  Many  of  the 

significant  pressures  reported  were  from  diffuse  sources.  For  lake  water  bodies,  “unknown 
anthropogenic  pressure”  was  reported  most  frequently.  No  investigative  monitoring  was 

reported in WISE. However, two large investigative monitoring campaigns were implemented 
and described in the second RBMP. 

4.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMP  and  Programme  of  Measures 
requested action on the following: 

•  Recommendation:  Status  assessments  of  surface  water  bodies  are  not  sufficiently 
reliable, therefore an extremely high percentage of surface water bodies are indicated 

as being of unknown status in Hungary. Where there are currently high uncertainties in 
the characterisation of the RBDs, identification of pressures, and in the assessment of 

status,  these  need  to  be  addressed  in  the  current  cycle,  to  ensure  that  adequate 
measures can be put in place before the next cycle. For example, status assessments of 

surface water bodies should be made reliable and monitoring should be intensified in 
order  to  reduce  the  high  number  of  water  bodies  in  unknown  status.  Uncertainty  in 

HMWB designation should be tackled. Improvements in data will be needed for a better 
designation process and to reduce the uncertainty. 

•  Assessment:  There  has  been  a  significant  decrease  in  the  number  of  surface  water 
bodies classified in unknown chemical status (from >95 % in the first RBMP to 46 % 

in the second RBMP). This derives from the very significant increase in the number of 
sites  and  water  bodies  monitored  (non-monitored  water  bodies  are  classified  in 
unknown status). There has also been an increase in the number of Priority Substances 
monitored,  and  in  the  number  of  monitoring  years  per  cycle,  leading  to  an  improved 

74 

 
 
reliability  of  status  assessment.  Where  water  bodies  are  monitored,  11  %  of  surface 

water bodies in Hungary were classified for chemical status with high confidence, 59 % 
with medium confidence and 30 % with low confidence. Monitoring frequencies were 

consistent  with  the  minimum  recommended  frequencies  for  surveillance  (but  not 
operational) monitoring. 

However,  three  Priority  Substances  were  neither  monitored  nor  used  in  status 
assessment  because  of  a  lack  of  analytical  method,  and  no  monitoring  in  biota  was 

reported for status assessment. No trend assessment was performed. 

Significant progress has been made, this recommendation is partially fulfilled. 

•  Recommendation:  Mercury,  hexachlorobenzene  and  hexachlorobutadiene  should  be 
monitored  in  biota  for  comparison  with  the  biota  standards  in  the  EQS  Directive, 

unless  water  environmental  quality  standards  providing  an  equivalent  level  of 
protection are derived. Trend monitoring in sediment or biota for several substances as 

specified in EQS Directive Article 3(3) will also need to be reflected in the next RBMP. 

Assessment:  Hungary  has  not  monitored  the  three  required  substances  in  biota  for 
status  assessment,  and  no  stricter  standard  was  set  for  water.  No  monitoring  was 
reported for long-term trend assessment49. 

Therefore, no progress has been made in addressing this recommendation. 

•  Recommendation:  Strengthen  monitoring  to  reduce  unknowns  and  uncertainties  by 
implementing robust monitoring programmes to support the application of methods for 

the  status  assessment  of  water  bodies  and  definition  of  reference  conditions.  An 
adequate  WFD  compliant  assessment  and  monitoring  framework  is  a  necessary  pre-

requisite  to  design  effective  Programme  of  Measures  and  ultimately  to  achieve  the 
WFD objectives. 

Assessment:  As  mentioned  above,  between  the  two  RBMPs,  there  has  been  a 
significant  increase  in  the  number  of  sites  and  water  bodies  monitored,  leading  to  a 

major reduction in the proportion of water bodies in unknown status (from more than 
95 % to 46 %, corresponding to non-monitored water bodies). The number of years of 

49  Hungary  subsequently  informed  that  monitoring  in  biota  was  not  undertaken  due  to  the  lack  of  appropriate 
analytical  methods in this  matrix in the period of assessment reported in the  2nd RBMP (2008 to 2013) but 
that research work had commenced in 2015 to address this gap. 

75 

 
 
                                                      
monitoring  data  available  increased,  as  well  as  the  number  of  Priority  Substances 

monitored.  

Hungary  reported  monitoring  of  all  Priority  Substances  included  in  their  inventories 

(which  includes  all  substances  identified  as  discharged).  Three  substances  are  not 
monitored; they are not included in the inventories either. Monitoring is undertaken at 

the  recommended  minimum  frequency  for  surveillance  (but  not  operational) 
monitoring. No explanation could be found for the reduced monitoring frequencies in 

operational monitoring sites. No monitoring was undertaken in sediment or biota.  

Where monitoring is undertaken, 30 % of surface water bodies are classified with low 

confidence and the remainder with medium or high confidence.  

Significant progress has therefore been made but further improvements are necessary to 

fully address this recommendation. 

76 

 
 
 
 
Topic 5

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of quantitative 

status of groundwater bodies 

5.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

5.1.1 Monitoring of quantitative status in groundwater 

The  total  number  of  groundwater  bodies  in  Hungary  is  185  (Table  2.3).  Five  groundwater 
bodies are not subject to monitoring for quantitative status (Table 5.1)50. This means that 3 % 
of  groundwater  bodies  are  not  monitored.  There  was  no  indication  in  the  RBMP  that  any 
grouping of  groundwater bodies for monitoring  was applied  but  for the  status  assessment 66 
groups  of  groundwater  bodies  had  been  formed51.  28  groundwater  bodies  were  re-delineated 
but  the  total  number  of  185  groundwater  bodies  remained  unchanged  since  the  first  RBMP. 

The number of monitored groundwater bodies increased from 179 in the first RBMP to 180 in 
the  second.  The  number  of  monitoring  sites  for  quantitative  status  is  listed  in  Table  5.3  and 

shows a slight increase from 1802 in the first RBMP to 1847 in the second. 

139 of 185 groundwater bodies are identified as Drinking Water Protected Areas. 

Table 5.1 

Number of water bodies in Hungary directly monitored and purpose of 

monitoring 

RBD 

Total ground-
water bodies 
directly monitored 

OPE - Operational 
monitoring 

Monitoring Purpose 

QUA - Quantitative status 

SUR – Surveillance 
monitoring 

HU1000 

182 

42 

180 

179 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Table 5.2 

Proportion of groundwater bodies in Hungary monitored for quantitative 
status 

RBD 

HU1000 

No of groundwater bodies 
with quantitative 
monitoring 

Total No. 
groundwater bodies 

 % of total groundwater bodies 
monitored for quantitative status 

180 

185 

97 % 

 Source: WISE electronic reporting 

50   Hungary subsequently clarified that risk assessment is done, but no additional details were provided.  
51   Hungary  subsequently  clarified  that  grouping  was  not  applied  for  monitoring  but  it  was  for  the  status 

assessment. 

77 

 
 
                                                      
Table 5.3 

Number of groundwater monitoring sites in Hungary and their purpose 

RBD 

Total groundwater 
monitoring sites 

OPE - Operational 
monitoring 

Monitoring Purpose 

QUA - Quantitative 
status 

SUR - Surveillance 
monitoring 

HU1000 

3500 

424 

1847 

2004 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

5.1.2 Assessment and classification of quantitative status for groundwater 

Map 5.1 shows the most recently assessed quantitative status of groundwater bodies. It shows 

that  148  of  185  groundwater  bodies  (80  %)  were  in  good  quantitative  status  and  37  (20  %) 
were failing good status (Figure 5.1). In terms of area, this means that about 26 % are failing 

good  quantitative  status.  Figure  5.2  shows  the  confidence  in  status  classification,  mostly 
medium confidence. All groundwater bodies had and still have a clear status, in the first and in 

the second RBMPs. 

Map 5.1 

Map of the most recently assessed quantitative status of groundwater bodies  

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.2.4. 

78 

 
 
 
Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

Figure 5.1  Quantitative status of groundwater bodies in Hungary for the second RBMP, 

for the first RBMP and expected in 2015. The number in parenthesis is the 
number of groundwater bodies for each cycle. Note that the period of 
assessment of status for the second RBMP was 2008 to 2014. The year of 
assessment of status for the first RBMP is not known52. 

 Source: WISE electronic reporting  

52   Dates  of  assessment  are  based  on  what  is  reported  to  the  WISE  electronic  reporting.  Hungary  subsequently 
clarified that the assessment of status for the 2nd RBMP was 2008-2013, and for the first RBMP was 2004-
2007.  

79 

GoodPoorUnknownRiver Basin DistrictsCountries outside the EU 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 5.2  Confidence in the classification of quantitative status of groundwater bodies 

in Hungary based on the most recent assessment of status  

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

The  total  number  of  groundwater  bodies  failing  good  quantitative  status  increased 

significantly, from 27 groundwater bodies in the first RBMP to 37 in the second (by more than 
9 % in terms of area). 

Water balance was assessed by a comparison of annual average groundwater abstraction with 
the ‘available groundwater resource’ for a subset of groundwater bodies. 

The  reasons  for  the  failure  of  good  quantitative  status  of  groundwater  bodies  are  shown  in 

Figure 5.3. 22 groundwater bodies are failing good status due to failing the water balance test, 
which  means  that  the  long-term  annual  average  rate  of  groundwater  abstraction  is  exceeding 

the  available  groundwater  resource,  and  18  groundwater  bodies  are  failing  due  to  damage  to 
groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems.  The  expected  date  of  achievement  of  good 
quantitative status in Hungary is shown in Figure 5.4. 

80 

 
 
 
Figure 5.3  Reasons for the failure of good quantitative status of groundwater in Hungary 

based on the most recent assessment  

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Notes: 
‘Water balance’ = long-term annual average rate of abstraction exceeds the available groundwater resource which 

may result in a decrease of groundwater levels. 
‘surface water’ = Failure to achieve environmental objectives (Article 4 WFD) for associated surface water bodies 

resulting  from  anthropogenic  water  level  alteration  or  change  in  flow  conditions;  significant  diminution  of  the 

status of surface waters resulting from anthropogenic water level alteration or change in flow conditions. 
‘Groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems’  =  Significant  damage  to  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial 

ecosystems resulting from an anthropogenic water level alteration. 
‘Saline  or  other  intrusion’  =  Regional  saline  or  other  intrusions  resulting  from  anthropogenically  induced 

sustained changes in flow direction. 

81 

 
 
 
 
Figure 5.4  Expected date of achievement of good quantitative status and good chemical 

status of groundwater bodies in Hungary. 185 groundwater bodies were 
delineated for second RBMP 

Source:  WISE electronic reporting 

The  criterion  of  ‘available  groundwater  resource’  has  been  fully  applied  in  accordance  with 
Article  2(27)  of  the  WFD.  All  environmental  objectives  have  been  considered  in  status 

assessment. 

In  total,  20  groundwater  bodies  (11  %)  are  at  risk  of  failing  good  quantitative  status  due  to 

harm to actual or potential legitimate uses or functions of groundwater (Figure 6.1). 

5.1.3 Consideration  of  groundwater  associated  surface  waters  and/or  groundwater 

dependent ecosystems 

Groundwater  associated  surface  waters  have  been  reported  and  there  is  no  related  failure  of 
good status of a groundwater body and no risk related to them. Groundwater associated surface 

waters have been considered in status assessment. 

Groundwater  bodies  are  linked  with  groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems.  18 

groundwater bodies are failing good status due to damage to such ecosystems, but no related 
risk was reported. Groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems have been considered and the 

needs of terrestrial ecosystems have been taken into account in status assessment. 

82 

 
 
  
5.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

In total, 28 groundwater bodies were re-delineated since the first RBMP and the total number 
of 185 groundwater bodies remained unchanged since the first RBMP.  

The  monitoring  situation  has  slightly  improved.  The  number  of  monitoring  sites  increased 
slightly  as  did  the  number  of  monitored  groundwater  bodies  (one  more  groundwater  body 

monitored). 

The  status  changes  show  drawbacks.  The  number  of  groundwater  bodies  failing  good  status 
increased by 37 %, from 27 to 37, associated with an increase of 9 % in the groundwater body 

area failing good status.  The reasons  given in the RBMP and background documents for this 
significant increase were significant changes of the pressure situation and the consideration of 

additional pressures in the status assessment. 

There is a comprehensive overall summary in the second RBMP, including a description of the 

changes in the status of groundwater bodies. Furthermore, the summary of each chapter in the 
RBMP  gives  details  about  the  changes  since  the  first  RBMP  was  issued.  The  assessment 

method  of  the  groundwater  bodies  changed,  by  considering  3D  hydraulic  models  instead  of 
conceptual models as was done in the first RBMP. Also the methodology for assessing damage 

to groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems was significantly improved. The recalculation 
of status caused that compared to seven groundwater bodies in the first RMBP, in the second 

RBMP  18  (shallow)  groundwater  bodies  are  failing  good  status  due  to  damage  of  such 
ecosystems. There is no evidence that the increased number of groundwater bodies with poor 

status is a consequence of actual deterioration. 

5.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMP  and  Programme  of  Measures 

requested action on the following: 

  Recommendation  “Strengthen  monitoring  to  reduce  unknowns  and  uncertainties  by 
implementing robust monitoring programmes to support the application of methods for 

the  status  assessment  of  water  bodies  and  definition  of  reference  conditions.  An 
adequate  WFD-compliant  assessment  and  monitoring  framework  is  a  necessary  pre-
requisite to design effective PoMs and ultimately to achieve the WFD objectives.” 

83 

 
 
Assessment:  this  recommendation  has  been  assessed  in  more  detail  in  other  chapters. 

Regarding  quantitative  monitoring,  it  is  broadly  used  and  monitoring  sites  have 
increased, thus in this sense the recommendation is considered as fulfilled.  

84 

 
 
 
 
Topic 6

  Monitoring, assessment and classification of chemical 

status of groundwater bodies 

6.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

6.1.1 Monitoring of chemical status in groundwater 

The  total  number  of  groundwater  bodies  in  Hungary  is  185  (Table  2.3).  In  total,  six 
groundwater  bodies  are  not  subject  to  surveillance  monitoring53  (Table  5.1)  and  all 
groundwater bodies at risk (9 % of the total) (Figure 6.1) are subject to operational monitoring 
(17 groundwater bodies are at risk and 42 are subject to operational monitoring). There was no 

indication in the RBMP that any grouping of groundwater bodies for monitoring was applied 
but for the status assessment 66 groups of groundwater bodies had been formed54. 

Hungary  had  28  groundwater  bodies  re-delineated  but  the  total  number  of  185  groundwater 
bodies remained unchanged since the first RBMP. 

Figure 6.1 

Percentage of groundwater bodies in Hungary at risk of failing good chemical 

status and good quantitative status for the second RBMP 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

53   Hungary subsequently clarified that the reason for this issue is mainly technical feasibility as there are no or 
very  few  wells  in  those  6  groundwater  bodies  without  monitoring.  There  is  a  fluctuation  in  operation  of 
monitoring wells. A risk assessment was done. 

54   Hungary subsequently clarified that grouping was not applied for monitoring but for the status assessment. 

85 

 
 
 
                                                      
The  number  of  groundwater  bodies  with  surveillance  monitoring  decreased  from  182 

groundwater bodies in the first cycle to 179 in the second RBMP. The number of surveillance 
monitoring sites is listed in Table 5.3 and shows a slight decrease from 2014 in the first cycle 

to  2004  sites  in  the  second  RBMP.  The  number  of  groundwater  bodies  with  operational 
monitoring increased from 40 in the first RBMP to 42 in the second RBMP; 17 groundwater 

bodies  are  at  risk  and  42  are  subject  to  operational  monitoring.  The  number  of  operational 
monitoring sites has slightly decreased since the first RBMP, from 427 to 424. 

All substances at risk of causing deterioration in chemical status are subject to surveillance and 
operational monitoring. Substances listed in Annex II of the Groundwater Directive,55 as well 
as substances for which long term trend assessments should be enabled, have been included in 
monitoring. All WFD core parameters (nitrate, ammonium, electrical conductivity, oxygen and 

pH) are monitored. 

6.1.2 Assessment and classification of chemical status in groundwater 

Map 6.1 and Figure 6.2 display the chemical status of groundwater bodies for the most recently 
assessed status. They show that 147 of 185 groundwater bodies (79 %) were in good chemical 

status, and the remaining 38 groundwater bodies (21 %) were failing good status. In terms of 
area,  this  means  that  about  17  %  were  failing  good  chemical  status.  Figure  6.3  shows  the 

confidence in status classification. All groundwater bodies had a clear status in the first RBMP 
and this remains the case in the second RBMP. 

The  total  number  of  groundwater  bodies  failing  good  status  remains  unchanged  since  the 
first RBMP,  but  individual  groundwater  bodies  failing  good  status  changed.  In  terms  of 

groundwater  body  area,  the  percentage  of  groundwater  bodies  in  poor  status  increased  from 
16.6 % in the first RBMP to 17.2 % in the second RBMP. The expected date of achievement of 

good chemical status in Hungary is shown in Figure 5.4. 

The reasons for the failure of good chemical status of groundwater bodies are shown in Figure 
6.4.  For  16  groundwater  bodies,  the  general  assessment  of  the  chemical  status  for  the 

groundwater  body  as  a  whole  was  failed.  This  assessment  considers  the  significant 
environmental risk from pollutants across a groundwater body and a significant impairment of 

the  ability  to  support  human  uses.  20  groundwater  bodies  are  failing  the  drinking  water  test, 
which  means  that  the  requirements  of  drinking  water  protected  areas  have  not  been  met.  13 

groundwater bodies are failing the groundwater associated surface water test, which means that 

55   Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

deterioration 

and 

groundwater 

of 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02006L0118-20140711 

pollution 

against 

86 

 
 
                                                      
there is a diminution of the status of groundwater associated surface waters. Figure 6.5 shows 

the main pollutants causing failure of status and Figure 6.6 those causing a sustained upward 
trend. 

Map 6.1 

Map of chemical status of groundwater bodies based on the most recently 
assessed status of the groundwater water bodies. 

Note: Standard colours based on WFD Annex V, Article 2.4.5. 

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) 

87 

GoodPoorUnknownRiver Basin DistrictsCountries outside the EU 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6.2  Chemical status of groundwater bodies in Hungary for the second RBMP, for 

the first RBMP and expected in 2015. The number in parenthesis is the 
number of groundwater bodies for each cycle. Note that the period of 

assessment of status for the second RBMP was 2008 to 2012. The year of the 
assessment of status for first RBMP was 2004 to 2007. 

 Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Figure 6.3  Confidence in the classification of chemical status of groundwater bodies in 

Hungary based on the most recent assessment of status 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

88 

 
 
 
 
Figure 6.4  Reasons for failing good chemical status in Hungary for the most recent 

assessment of status 

 Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Notes: 

‘surface water’ = Failure to achieve environmental objectives (Article 4 WFD) in associated surface water bodies 
or significant diminution of the ecological or chemical status of such surface water bodies. 

‘Groundwater  dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems’  =  Significant  damage  to  terrestrial  ecosystems  which  depend 
directly on the groundwater body. 

‘Saline  or  other  intrusion’  =  Regional  saline  or  other  intrusions  resulting  from  anthropogenically  induced 
sustained changes in flow direction. 

‘Drinking Water Protected Area’ = Deterioration in quality of waters for human consumption. 

‘General water quality assessment’ = Significant impairment of human uses; significant environmental risk from 
pollutants across the groundwater body. 

89 

 
 
 
 
Figure 6.5 

Top groundwater pollutants causing failure of good chemical status in 

Hungary 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

Figure 6.6 

 Top pollutants with upward trends in groundwater bodies in Hungary 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

The calculation of the extent of exceedance of a groundwater quality standard or a groundwater 
threshold value is based on the number of monitoring sites in the groundwater body. 

90 

 
 
 
 
Groundwater threshold values have been established for all pollutants or indicators of pollution 

causing  a  risk  of  failure  of  good  chemical  status  and  all  Groundwater  Directive  Annex  II 
substances.  Natural  background  levels  have  been  considered  in  the  groundwater  threshold 

value establishment. 

Trend  and  trend  reversal  assessment  methodologies  are  available  and  assessments  have  been 

performed. 

6.1.3 Consideration  of  groundwater  associated  surface  waters  and/  or  groundwater 

dependent ecosystems 

109 groundwater bodies with associated surface waters have been reported, and there is no risk 
related  to  them.  Groundwater  associated  surface  waters  have  been  considered  in  status 

assessment. 

115 groundwater bodies are linked with groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems, there is 
no related risk reported associated to them. Groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems have 

been  considered  in  status  assessment  and  18  groundwater  bodies  are  failing  good  chemical 
status due to damage to such ecosystems. 

Groundwater associated aquatic ecosystems and groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems 
have been both considered in the establishment of groundwater threshold values. 

6.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

28  groundwater  bodies  were  re-delineated  but  the  total  number  of  185  groundwater  bodies 
remained unchanged since the first RBMP. 

The  monitoring  situation  deteriorated  slightly.  Three  groundwater  bodies  were  not  subject  to 
surveillance monitoring in the first RBMP, increasing to six in the second RBMP. The number 

of  groundwater  bodies  under  operational  monitoring  increased  from  40  to  42  and  the  total 
number  of  operational  monitoring  sites  slightly  decreased,  but  operational  monitoring  still 

covers more groundwater bodies than those at risk of failing good status. 

The  status  situation  did  not  improve.  The  number  of  groundwater  bodies  failing  good  status 
remained  the  same  as  in  the  first  RBMP  and  the  total  groundwater  body  area  concerned 

increased slightly from 16.6 % to 17.2 %. 

91 

 
 
There is a comprehensive overall summary in the second RBMP describing the changes in the 

status  of  groundwater  bodies.  The  second  RBMP  also  states  that  the  operational  monitoring 
programme will be changed from 2016 onwards based on the results of the status assessment 

carried out during its preparation. 

6.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMP  and  Programme  of  Measures 
requested action on the following: 

  Recommendation:  Strengthen  monitoring  to  reduce  unknowns  and  uncertainties  by 
implementing robust monitoring programmes to support the application of methods for 
the  status  assessment  of  water  bodies  and  definition  of  reference  conditions.  An 

adequate  WFD  compliant  assessment  and  monitoring  framework  is  a  necessary  pre-
requisite  to  design  effective  Programme  of  Measures  and  ultimately  to  achieve  the 

WFD objectives. 

Assessment: There are still six groundwater bodies without surveillance monitoring.56 
The recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

  Recommendation:  Groundwater  trend  assessments  should  be  carried  out  more 

extensively in the second RBMP cycle. Trend reversals should be performed. 

Assessment:  A  trend  methodology  is  available  and  trend  assessment  has  been 

performed. There is also progress with trend reversal assessment which was reported in 
the second RBMP. The recommendation has been fulfilled. 

56   Hungary  subsequently  clarified,  that  the  reason  for  this  issue  is  mainly  technical  feasibility:  there  are  no  or 
very  few  wells  in  those  groundwater  bodies  without  monitoring.  There  is  a  fluctuation  in  operation  of 
monitoring wells. A risk assessment was done. 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Topic 7

  Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water 
Bodies and definition of Good Ecological Potential 

7.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle for designation  

7.1.1 Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies 

The WFD requires a review of designation every six years. The number of designated heavily 
modified water bodies has increased significantly since the first RBMP for rivers, from 350 (40 

% of river water bodies) to 468 Heavily Modified Water Bodies (49 % of river water bodies) 
(Figure 7.1). Also the number of designated lake heavily modified water bodies significantly 

increased,  from  15  (7  %  of  lake  waterbodies)  to  50  heavily  modified  water  bodies  (43  %  of 
lake water bodies)57.  

Figure 7.1 

Proportion of total water bodies in each category in Hungary that has been 
designated as heavily modified or artificial 

Source:  WISE electronic reporting  

There  were  no  major  changes  for  river  Artificial  Water  Bodies  but  there  was  a  significant 

decrease in the number of lake Artificial Water Bodies, from 129 (60 % of lake water bodies) 
to  32 (17 % of lake water bodies). The reason for this is that the embanked fish ponds were 

57  Hungary  subsequently  informed  the  Commission  that  there  were  errors  in  the  reported  information.  The 

corrected values are 394 for rivers and 124 for lakes. 

93 

 
 
 
                                                      
removed  from  the  delineated  water  bodies  because  they  are  not  integral  parts  of  the  water 

network. They are water users as they withdraw water and emit polluted water from/to water 
bodies. 

There  are  77  reservoirs,  which  were  originally  rivers  and  were  therefore  designated  as  river 
Heavily Modified Water Bodies. There is also one lake Heavily Modified Water Body which is 

also a reservoir but originally included chained rivers and lakes. 

The  most  common  reasons  for  designation  of  river  Heavily  Modified  Water  Bodies  in  the 
second  RBMP  were  the  use  of  storage  for  fisheries/aquaculture/fish  farms,  agriculture  (land 

drainage  and  irrigation)  and  uses  which  are  unknown.  The  main  water  uses  for  which  lake 
water bodies were designated as Heavily  Modified Water Bodies are tourism, recreation  and 

flood protection. 

The  main  physical  alterations  of 
weirs/dams/reservoirs  and  channelisation 

river  Heavily  Modified  Water  Bodies  were 
/  bank 

/  bed  stabilisation 

/  straightening 

reinforcement.  The  main  alterations  of  lake  Heavily  Modified  Water  Bodies  were  other 
alterations not specified in the reporting in WISE. 

The  RBMP  describes  how  the  significant  adverse  effects  of  restoration  measures  on  the  use 
and  the  wider  environment  (Article  4(3)(a))  have  been  defined  and  an  annex  to  the  second 

RBMP contains an explanation of the designation per water body. A background document to 
the RBMP gives details of the methodology of designation of Heavily Modified Water Bodies, 

which  contains  specific  criteria  /  thresholds  for  assessing  the  significant  adverse  effects  on 
specific uses and the wider environment. The background document to the RBMP also gives 

general guidance on the need to investigate different alternative options and their implications, 
involving  stakeholder-based  preparatory  work  on  the  consideration  of  alternatives.  However, 

Hungary  has  informed  the  Commission  that  only  the  hydropeaking  of  the  Dubrava 
Hydropower Plant was assessed in a more detailed way because for all the other modifications 
no other real solutions could be found. 

7.1.2 Definition  of  good  ecological  potential  for  Heavily  Modified  and  Artificial  Water 

Bodies 

Good  ecological  potential  was  reported  as  defined  at  water  body  level,  following  the  Prague 

approach  (based  on  the  identification  of  mitigation  measures).  A  method  for  defining  good 
ecological potential that addresses rivers and lakes was reported at national level. 

94 

 
 
Good  ecological  potential  was  reported  in  WISE  as  not  defined  in  terms  of  biology  and  a 

comparison between good ecological potential and good ecological status has not been finished 
yet.58 According to information in the RBMP, actual values for biological quality elements at 
Artificial and Heavily Modified Water Bodies are estimated with the same methodology as for 
natural  water  bodies,  namely  phytoplankton,  phytobenthos,  macrozoobenthos,  macrophytes 

and fish for rivers, and phytoplankton and phytobenthos for lakes.  

For rivers, methods for assessing fish, phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates were reported as 

sensitive to altered habitats due to both hydrological and morphological changes. One method 
for macrophytes is sensitive to morphological changes only and one method for phytoplankton 

is  sensitive  only  to  hydrological  changes.  For  lakes,  there  was  one  method  for  assessing 
macrophytes which is sensitive to altered habitats due to both hydrological and morphological 

changes.  One  method  for  phytoplankton  is  sensitive  only  to  hydrological  changes  (same 
method as for rivers).59 

Mitigation measures for defining good ecological potential have been reported for the RBD of 

Hungary.  In  the  Programme  of  Measures,  measures  by  water  are  described,  at  a  water  body 
level, as being implemented in order to achieve good ecological potential. 

7.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

As described above, there have been modifications in the extent of designation of water bodies 

as heavily modified or artificial since the first RBMP.  

The designation of Artificial Water Bodies has changed slightly compared to the first RBMP. 
In  the  case  of  standing  waters,  fishponds  with  bordering  dikes  have  been  removed  from  the 

water bodies, so that the number of standing waters that do not have previous history could be 
reduced to 32 (mining habitats and five water side reservoirs). In the case of watercourses, at 

least 50 % of them are artificially excavated, so  145 watercourses are designated as artificial 
(e.g. inland waterway, double-purpose or irrigation channel, artificial channel). 

58   Hungarian  authorities  have  informed  that  to  finish  the  definition  of  GEP,  more  information  is  needed  on 
hydromorphological pressures: hydromorphological data at the same meso-scale as biological data, impact on 
hydromorphological status and analysis of the impact on biological quality elements. This step by step process 
could give evidence to define ecological potential in a consistent way in case of biology for the selection of 
mitigation measures according to the Prague method. 

59   However, Hungarian authorities have informed that the biological assessment methods are not really sensitive 
to hydromorphological alterations. The process requires the intercalibration of biological assessment methods 
for ecological status that are sensitive to hydromorphological alterations. 

95 

 
 
                                                      
The designation of heavily modified water bodies has also been updated in relation to the first 

RBMP, mainly because in the meantime a number of European standards have been published 
which  were  used  in  the  revision  of  the  methodology  for  Heavily  Modified  Water  Body 

designation.  These  European  standards  concern  the  evaluation  of  hydromorphological 
characteristics of river waters, the determination of the extent of hydromorphological changes 

in the river, and surveys of the hydromorphological characteristics of lakes. 

In  the  first  RBMP,  the  following  water  uses  were  linked  to  the  designation  of  Heavily 

Modified  Water  Bodies:  navigation  including  port  facilities,  recreation,  storage  for  drinking 
water  supply,  storage  for  power  generation,  storage  for  irrigation,  water  regulation,  flood 

protection and land drainage. These seem to differ from those reported for the second RBMP, 
where the most common reasons for designation of river Heavily Modified Water Bodies were 

the use of storage for fisheries/aquaculture/fish farms, agriculture (land drainage and irrigation) 
and uses which are unknown. The main water uses for which lake water bodies are designated 

as  Heavily  Modified  Water  Bodies  in  the  second  RBMP  were  tourism,  recreation  and  flood 
protection. 

The approach used for good ecological potential definition was reported in the second RBMP 

to  be  the  Prague  approach,  whereas  in  the  first  RBMP  a  combination  of  a  reference  based 
approach and the Prague approach was  applied (based on setting of mitigation measures  and 

expert judgement on biology). The second RBMP mentions that the methodology for defining 
good  ecological  potential  has  been  updated  since  the  first  RBMP,  according  to  the 

requirements  of  new  European  standards  which  Hungary  adopted 
hydromorphological assessments (see above). 

in 

relation 

to 

7.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMP and first Programme of Measures 

requested action on the following: 

  Recommendation:  Uncertainty  in  heavily  modified  water  body  designation  should  be 
tackled. Improvements  in data  will  be needed for  a better designation  process  and to 

reduce the uncertainty. 

  Recommendation:  The    designation    of    HMWBs    should    comply    with    all    the  
requirements  of  Article 4(3). The assessment of significant adverse effects on their use 
or the environment and the lack of significantly better environmental options should be 

96 

 
 
specifically  mentioned  in  the  RBMPs.  This  is  needed  to  ensure  transparency  of  the 

designation process. 

  Recommendation: Develop an appropriate methodology for the designation of Heavily 

Modified Water Bodies.   

Assessment:  The  designation  of  Heavily  Modified  Water  Bodies  has  been  updated, 
mainly  because,  since  the  first  RBMP,  a  number  of  European  standards  have  been 

published  which  were  used  in  the  revision  of  the  methodology.  These  European 
standards concern the evaluation of hydromorphological characteristics of river waters, 

the determination of the extent of hydromorphological changes in the river, and surveys 
of the hydromorphological characteristics of lakes. However, no direct information was 

found in the RBMP that results from monitoring were used to improve the data in the 
designation  process  and  thus  reduce  the  uncertainty  related  to  lack  of  monitoring  of 

heavily modified and artificial water bodies. After the assessment of the first cycle, it 
was  also  concluded  that  uncertainty  in  the  designation  process  of  Heavily  Modified 

Water  Bodies  related  to  the  regulation  of  small  and  medium  water  courses,  as 
protection against flood and excess water can be solved by other means than dykes or 

modifications  of  the  cross-section.  Based  on  the  information  available,  it  cannot  be 
concluded  whether  there  is  progress  in  this  regard  in  the  process  of  revising 

designations. 

The uses and physical alterations of Heavily Modified Water Bodies were reported and 
the RBMP describes how the significant adverse effects of restoration measures on the 

use  and  the  wider  environment  (Article  4(3)(a))  have  been  defined  on  the  basis  of 
specific criteria / thresholds. An annex to the second RBMP contains an explanation of 

the  designation  per  water  body.  The  background  document  to  the  RBMP  also  gives 
general  guidance  on  the  need  to  investigate  different  alternative  options  and  their 

implications.  However,  Hungary  has  informed  the  Commission  that  only  the 
hydropeaking of the Dubrava Hydropower Plant was assessed in a more detailed way 

because for all the other modifications no other real solutions could be found.  

Therefore, on the basis of information found, the recommendations have been partially 

fulfilled. 

97 

 
 
 
Topic 8

  Environmental objectives and exemptions 

8.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

8.1.1 Environmental objectives 

The  environmental  objectives  are  defined  in  Article  4  of  the  WFD.  The  aim  is  long-term 

sustainable water management based on a high level of protection of the aquatic environment. 
Article 4(1) defines the WFD general objective to be achieved in all surface and groundwater 

bodies,  i.e.  good  status  by  2015.  Within  that  general  objective,  specific  environmental 
objectives are defined for Heavily Modified Water Bodies (good ecological potential and good 
chemical status by 201560), for groundwaters (good chemical and quantitative status by 2015) 
and  for  Protected  Areas  (achievement  of  the  objectives  of  the  associated  Directive  by  2015 

unless otherwise specified).  

Environmental  objectives  for  ecological  and  chemical  status  in  surface  waters  and  chemical 

and quantitative status in groundwaters have been reported. For surface water chemical status, 
all surface water bodies in lower than good chemical status (including unknown) are expected 

to achieve the objective by 2027. A significant number of surface water bodies is expected to 
achieve  good  ecological  status  only  after  2027.  For  groundwater  quantitative  and  chemical 

status,  a  small  proportion  of  groundwater  bodies  are  expected  to  achieve  good  status  after 
2027. 

Member States are also required to specify additional environmental objectives and standards 
in Protected Areas where these are required to ensure that the requirements of the associated 

Directive  are  met.  An  assessment  of  such  additional  objectives  for  Hungary  is  provided  in 
Chapter 15 of this report. 

Assessments of the current status of surface and groundwater bodies in Hungary are provided 
elsewhere in this report: for ecological status/potential of surface waters (Chapter 3); chemical 

status  of  surface  waters  (Chapter  4);  quantitative  status  of  groundwater  bodies  (Chapter  5); 
chemical status of groundwater bodies (Chapter 6); status of surface and groundwater bodies 
associated with Protected Areas (Chapter 15). 

60  For  Priority  Substances  newly  introduced  by  Directive  2013/39/EU,  good  status  should  be  reached  by  2027, 
while  for  the  2008  Priority  Substances  for  which  the  Environmental  Quality  Standards  were  revised  by 
Directive 2013/39/EU good status should be reached by 2021. 

98 

 
 
                                                      
For the second RBMP, Member States were required to report the date when they expect each 

surface  and  groundwater  body  to  meet  its  environmental  objective.  This  information  is 
summarised for Hungary elsewhere in this report, in the same chapters mentioned above.  

8.1.2 Exemptions 

Where environmental  objectives are not  yet achieved, exemptions  can be applied in  case the 
respective conditions are met and the required justifications are included in the RBMP. Figure 

8.1 summarises the percentage of water bodies expected to be at least in good status in 2015 
and  the  use  of  at  least  one  exemption  in  Hungary  for  the  four  main  sets  of  environmental 

objectives. 

Figure 8.1  Water  bodies  in  Hungary  expected  to  be  in  at  least  good  status  in  2015  and 

use  of  exemptions.  1  =  Surface  water  body  ecological  status/potential;  2  = 
Surface  water  body  chemical  status;  3  =  Groundwater  body  quantitative 

status; 4 = Groundwater body chemical status 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Article  4  of  the  WFD  allows  under  certain  conditions  for  different  exemptions  to  the 

objectives:  extension  of  deadlines  beyond  2015,  less  stringent  objectives,  a  temporary 
deterioration,  or  deterioration  /  non-achievement  of  good  status  /  potential  due  to  new 

modifications, provided a set of conditions are fulfilled. The exemptions under WFD Article 4 
include  the  provisions  in  Article  4(4)  -  extension  of  deadline,  4(5)  -  lower  objectives,  4(6)  - 

99 

 
 
 
  
temporary deterioration,  and 4(7)  - new modifications /  new sustainable  human development 

activities.  Article  4(4)  exemptions  may  be  justified  by:  disproportionate  cost,  technical 
feasibility  or  natural  conditions,  and  Article  4(5)  by  disproportionate  cost  or  technical 

feasibility. 

Figure 8.2 summarises the percentage of water bodies subject to each type of exemption (and 

reason) in relation to the four types of environmental objective in Hungary. 

Figure 8.2 

Type of exemptions applied to surface water and groundwater bodies for the 

second  RBMP  in  Hungary.  Note:  Ecological  status  and  groundwater 
quantitative status exemptions were reported at the water body level. Chemical 

exemptions  for  groundwater  were  reported  at  the  level  of  each  pollutant 
causing  failure  of  good  chemical  status,  and  for  surface  waters  for  each 

Priority Substance that is causing failure of good chemical status 

100 

 
 
 
Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Application of Article 4(4) 

The  number  of  exemptions  under  Article  4(4)  has  increased  for  surface  water  since  the  first 

RBMP.  For  groundwater,  the  figures  remain  more  or  less  stable.  In  the  first  RBMP,  the 
justification for surface water and groundwater in relation to Article 4(4) referred to technical 

feasibility,  disproportionate  costs  and  natural  conditions.  For  disproportionate  costs, 
affordability,  cost-benefit  analysis,  distribution  of  costs  and  social  and  sectoral  impacts  were 

taken into consideration by Hungary.  

The background document “Guidance document for exemption justification” provides further 

details  about  the  six  exemption  categories  that  Hungary  applied:  technical  (M1,  M2), 
disproportionate costs (G1, G2) and natural conditions (T1, T2):  

•  M1: Temporal exemption, since currently the condition of the water body is not known 
reliably  and  therefore  further  preparatory  work  (monitoring,  assessment,  testing)  is 

necessary to determine the measures. 

•  M2:  Temporal  exemption,  since  the  achievement  of  good  status  needs  coordinated 

actions with the neighbouring countries. 

•  G1: The action on a water body is not worth to be carried out taking into account the 
estimated  direct  and  indirect  positive  and  negative  impacts  and  benefits  and  related 

disproportionate costs (Article 4(5)). 

•  G2:  The  implementation  of  measures  till  2015  would  cause  disproportionately  high 
burden on the economy, society, certain actors, or the national economy (Article 4(4)). 

•  T1: Time extension, since ecological restoration is taking longer.  

•  T2: Time extension, since the restoration of groundwater is a slow process.  

The  main  pressures  to  surface  water  responsible  for  exemptions  stem  from  a  broad  range  of 

activities, 
industry,  forestry,  agriculture,  mining,  aquaculture, 
atmospheric deposition and activities causing changes in hydromorphology (those responsible 

including  urbanisation, 

for  Priority  Substances  failing  to  achieve  good  chemical  status  are  listed  in  Table  8.1).  The 
main drivers behind these pressures were urban development, transport, tourism and recreation, 

industry,  forestry,  flood  protection,  fisheries  and  aquaculture,  energy  and  agriculture.  For 

101 

 
 
groundwater, the main pressures responsible for exemptions are abstraction, point and diffuse 

pollution  pressures  from  agriculture,  industry,  tourism  and  urban  development  (those 
responsible for Priority Substances failing to achieve good chemical status are listed in  Table 

8.2).  

The  main  impacts  on  groundwater  leading  to  Article  4(4)  exemptions  were  diminution  of 

quality  of  associated  surface  waters  for  chemical  /  quantitative  reasons,  lowered  water  table, 
damage  to  groundwater-dependent  terrestrial  ecosystems  for  chemical  /  quantitative  reasons 

and  chemical  pollution.  For  surface  water,  the  main  impacts  were  saline  pollution/intrusion, 
organic, chemical and nutrient pollution, altered habitats and acidification.  

Table 8.1 

Pressures  responsible  for  Priority  Substances  in  Hungary  failing  to  achieve 
good chemical status and for which exemptions have been applied 

Significant pressure on surface water 
bodies 

1.1 - Point - Urban waste water 

1.3 - Point - IED plants 

1.4 - Point - Non IED plants 

1.7 - Point - Mine waters 

1.9 - Point - Other 

2.1 - Diffuse - Urban run-off 

2.10 - Diffuse - Other 

2.2 - Diffuse - Agricultural 

2.5 - Diffuse - Contaminated sites or 
abandoned industrial sites 
2.7 - Diffuse - Atmospheric deposition 

8 - Anthropogenic pressure - Unknown 

Failing Priority 
Substances 

Article 4(4) - Technical 
feasibility exemptions 

Article 4(5) - 
Disproportionate cost 
exemptions 

Number 

Number 

Number 

7 

4 

5 

1 

3 

9 

6 

3 

2 

9 

1 

17 

0 

0 

0 

5 

41 

6 

2 

8 

20 

0 

44 

5 

5 

1 

20 

134 

35 

5 

41 

68 

2 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

Table 8.2 

Pressure  responsible  for  pollutants  in  Hungary  failing  to  achieve  good 

chemical status in groundwater and for which exemptions have been applied 

Significant pressure on groundwater  Number of failing pollutants 

Number of exemptions 

Article4(4) - Natural conditions 

2.1 - Diffuse - Urban run-off 

2.10 - Diffuse - Other 

2.2 - Diffuse - Agricultural 

2 

1 

4 

4 

2 

44 

 Source: WISE electronic reporting 

102 

 
 
Application of Article 4(5) 

Article 4(5) is again applied to groundwater, justified by disproportionate costs61. The impact 
leading to exemptions under Article 4(5) to groundwater is lowered water tables. 

Application of Article 4(6) 

Article  4(6)  has  been  applied  because  of  accidental  pollution,  but  since  the  pollution  was 
rapidly remediated the exemption was not applied beyond 2015.  

Application of Article 4(7) 

No exemptions according to Article 4(7) have been applied. 

A national guidance on the application of Article 4(7) was published and included in Annex 7-
2 of the second RBMP.  This  guidance streamlined the analysis for the  application of Article 

4(7)  with  the  processes  under  the  Environmental  Impact  Assessment  and  Strategic 
Environmental Assessment.  

Application of Article 6(3) of the Groundwater Directive 

No exemptions according to Article 6(3) of the Groundwater Directive have been applied. 

8.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

Article 4(6) for surface waters was newly applied compared to the first RBMP, but for a short 
period (15 months) and not beyond 2015. Article 4(7) was again  not applied. The number of 

exemptions  under  Article  4(4)  has  increased  in  surface  waters.  For  groundwater  bodies,  the 
figures remain more or less stable. 

The  second  RBMP  makes  clear  that  the  approach  to  justification  criteria  on  exemptions  was 
similar to the approach and criteria used in the first RBMP.  

8.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMP  and  Programme  of  Measures 
reports requested action on the following: 

61   Hungary  subsequently  explained  that  the  disproportionate  cost  was  justified  with  economic  analyses 
performed under the first cycle and documented by the background document “The MERT's mining activities 
and the economic and social  justification of the less stringent objective”. In the second  cycle  this economic 
analysis was not repeated. No change in the application of Article 4(5) for groundwaters were performed since 
this exemption  was applied to a maximum of  four groundwater bodies. The reason is that the impact of the 
mining  water  abstraction  was  defined  more  correctly  by  a  3D  hydraulic  model.  The  model  showed  a  larger 
impacted area than it was estimated in first cycle when only monitoring was used to assess impacts. 

103 

 
 
                                                      
•  Recommendation: A large number of exemptions have been applied in this first cycle of 
RBMPs.  While  the  WFD  does  provide  for  exemptions,  there  are  specific  criteria  that 
must be fulfilled for their use to be justified. The application of exemptions needs to be 

more transparent and the reasons for the exemptions should be clearly justified in the 
plans. The high number of exemptions applied in the first RBMPs is a cause of concern. 

Hungary should take all necessary measures to bring down the number of exemptions 
for the next cycle, including the needed improvements in the characterisation process, 

monitoring networks and status assessment methods, as well as reducing significantly 
the degree of uncertainties. 

Assessment: The recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

The  application  of  exemptions  is  again  provided  at  the  water  body  level,  but  the 

number  of  exemptions,  especially  for  river  water  bodies,  is  still  significant.  More 
detailed information  on the justification of the  exemptions  is  provided in  the national 

guidance document and the RBMP.  

•  Recommendation: It is unclear whether there are new physical modifications planned 
in RBMPs. If this is the case, the use of exemptions under Article 4(7) should be based 
on  a  thorough  assessment  of  all  the  steps  as  requested  by  the  WFD,  in  particular  an 

assessment  of  whether  the  project  is  of  overriding  public  interest  and  whether  the 
benefits  to  society  outweigh  the  environmental  degradation,  and  the  absence  of 

alternatives that would be a better environmental option. Furthermore, these projects 
may only be carried out when all possible measures are taken to mitigate the adverse 

impact  on the status of the water. All  conditions for  the application of  Article 4(7) in 
individual projects must be included and justified in the RBMPs as early in the project 

planning as possible. 

Assessment:  Application  of  Article  4(7)  has  not  been  reported  in  the  second  RBMP. 
Hungary  did  publish  a  national  guidance  on  the  application  of  Article  4(7)  and  has 
streamlined  the  Article  4(7)  test  with  the  EIA  and  SEA  environmental  assessment 
processes. 

This recommendation has been partially fulfilled. Due to the lack of information about 

individual  uses  of  Article  4(7)  it  is  not  possible  to  conclude  on  whether  the  national 
guidance is leading to a correct implementation of these exemptions. 

•  Recommendation: Ensure that the RBMPs clearly identify the gap to good status, and 
that  the  Programme  of  Measures  is  designed  and  implemented  to  close  that  gap. 

104 

 
 
Hungary should indicate in the second RBMP when WFD objectives will be achieved. 

Exemptions should be adequately justified at water body level.  

Assessment: The application of exemptions is again provided at the water body level in 

this  second  RBMP  and  the  time  when  the  WFD  objectives  are  expected  to  be  met  is 
reported.  A  significant  number  of  surface  water  bodies  is  expected  to  achieve  good 

status  only  after  2027,  raising  the  question  regarding  the  level  of  ambition  of  the 
Programme  of  Measures.  More  detailed  information  on  the  justification  of  the 

exemptions is provided in the national guidance document and the RBMP.  

Therefore this recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

105 

 
 
  
 
 
Topic 9

  Programme of measures  

The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of the Programmes of Measures reported by 

the Members States; more specific information on measures relating to specific pressures (for 
example arising from agriculture) is provided in subsequent chapters. 

The Key Types of Measure (KTM) referred to in this section are groups of measures 
identified  by  Member  States  in  the  Programmes  of  Measures,  which  target  the  same 

pressure or purpose. The individual measures included in the Programmes of Measure 
(being part of the RBMPs) are grouped into Key Types of Measure for the purpose of 

reporting.  The  same  individual  measure  can  be  part  of  more  than  one  Key  Type  of 
Measure because it may be multi-purpose, but also because the Key Types of Measure 

are not completely independent silos. Key Types of Measure have been introduced to 
simplify  the  reporting  of  measures  and  to  reduce  the  very  large  number  of 

Supplementary Measures reported by some Member States (WFD Reporting Guidance 
2016).  

A Key Type of Measure may be one national measure but it would typically comprise 
more than one national measure. The 25 predefined Key Types of Measure are listed in 

the WFD Reporting Guidance 2016. 

The Key Types of Measure should be fully implemented and made operational within 
the  RBMP  planning  period  to  address  specific  pressures  or  chemical  substances  and 

achieve the environmental objectives. 

9.1  Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

9.1.1 General issues 

An  indication  as  to  whether  or  not  measures  have  been  fully  implemented  and  made 

operational is whether they have been reported as being planned to tackle significant pressures 
(at the Key Types of Measure level). Significant pressures are reported at the water body level. 

It would therefore be expected that there would be measures planned in the RBMP to tackle all 
significant  pressures.  Generally  the  reported  significant  pressures  are  well  covered  with 

operational KTMs in Hungary, to reduce the pressure for both surface water and groundwater, 
with  some  exceptions.  KTMs  were  not  reported  for  groundwater  bodies  for:  ‘point  -  mining 

106 

 
 
  
waters;  point  –  other’,  and  ‘diffuse  –  other’62.  For  surface  water  bodies,  KTMs  were  not 
reported for ‘diffuse - atmospheric deposition’ and ‘diffuse – other’. Conversely, KTMs have 
been reported to tackle pressures not reported at the water body level; these relate to specific 

substances  causing  a  failure  of  objectives  including  atrazine  in  groundwater  bodies  and 
fluoranthene,  arsenic  and  its  compounds,  chromium  and  its  compounds,  copper  and  its 
compounds, and zinc and its compounds in surface water bodies63. All four Hungarian River 
Basin  Specific  Pollutants  were  reported  as  causing  a  failure  of  objectives  in  surface  water 

bodies and KTMs have been reported to address them. Nitrate, ammonium and sulphate were 
also  reported  as  causing  failure  of  objectives  in  groundwater  bodies,  and  KTMs  have  been 

reported  to  address  these.  12  Priority  Substances  were  reported  to  be  causing  failures  of 
objectives  in  surface  waters  and  the  same  KTM  (KTM15  -  Measures  for  the  phasing-out  of 

emissions,  discharges  and  losses  of  Priority  Hazardous  Substances  or  for  the  reduction  of 
emissions, discharges and losses of Priority Substances) was identified to address all of them. 

71 national basic measures and 87 national supplementary measures have been mapped against 
the  pre-defined  KTMs  and  13  new  KTMs  developed  by  Hungary.  Of  these,  14  %  of  basic 
measures  and  26  %  of  supplementary  measures  were  mapped  to  KTM6  –  “Improving 

hydromorphological  conditions  of  water  bodies  other  than  longitudinal  continuity”.  An 
inventory  of  national  measures  was  reported.  More  pressures  were  reported  to  be  mapped 

against national measures than those to be tackling significant pressures, indicating that there 
may be a number of measures that are yet to be made operational. 

Information on indicators of the gap to good status and the progress expected to be achieved in 
the implementation of the measures was reported for 2015 and 2021, but not for 2027.  Little 

progress  is  expected  for  many  of  the  indicators  of  the  gap  to  good  status  between  2015  and 
2021, with some exceptions. For example, the load of biological oxygen demand emitted from 

wastewater treatment  plants  to  groundwater bodies  is  expected to  decrease by approximately 
50 % as a result of the construction and upgrade of wastewater treatment plants; however, less 

of  an  impact  on  the  load  of  nitrogen  and  phosphorus  is  expected.  Similarly,  the  number  of 
groundwater bodies affected by storm water overflows is expected to decrease to 0 by 2021, as 

are  the  numbers  of  water  bodies  affected  by  point  sources  from  contaminated  sites  or  by 
abandoned  industrial  sites.  The  indicators  reported  for  the  progress  of  implementation  of  the 

measures indicate that there will be a significant number of measures still to be implemented in 
the 2021 Programme of Measures. 

62 Hungary clarified subsequently that pressures on groundwater bodies reported as significant at water body level 
but for which gaps have not been reported were considered not to require KTMs in order to reduce them more 
efficiently than already done. The environmental objectives can be met without additional measures. 

63 Hungary clarified subsequently that these measures are in place to prevent deterioration in the status of water 

bodies. 

107 

 
 
                                                      
Cost-effectiveness  analysis  is  an  appraisal  technique  that  provides  a  ranking  of  alternative 

measures  on  the  basis  of  their  cost  and  effectiveness,  where  the  most  cost-effective  has  the 
highest  ranking.  A  cost-effectiveness  analysis  was  carried  out  for  the  first  Programme  of 
Measures but it was not clear whether it had been applied at a water body level or not64. For the 
second  Programme  of  Measures  it  was  reported  that  a  combination  of  both  quantitative  and 
qualitative analysis has been carried out in Hungary for supporting the selection of measures.65 
Hungary  applied  the  Driving  Forces-Pressure-State-Impact-Response  (DPSIR)  methodology 

and considered that measures related to driving forces are the most effective, followed by those 
measures  that  target  pressure  reduction,  measures  improving  the  status  of  water  bodies  and 

finally measures to reduce the impacts. 

A  critical  factor  in  the  success  of  the  implementation  of  the  Programme  of  Measures  is  the 

availability of funding to support the investments required. It was reported that € 3 353 million  
was  invested  in  Article  11(3)(a)  measures  (measures  required  to  implement  Community 

legislation for the protection of water) in the first cycle, and that € 1 395 million  was invested 
in  measures  required  by  Article  11(3)(b-l),  Article  11(4)  and  Article  11(5)  (other  measures). 
The capital investment required in Article 11(3)(a) measures for the second cycle was reported 

to  be  €  2 119  million    with  annual  operation  and  maintenance  costs  of  €  24.9  million  .  The 
capital  investment  required  for  measures  required  by  Article  11(3)(b-l),  Article  11(4)  and 

Article 11(5) was reported to be € 1 885 million,  with annual operation and maintenance costs 
of € 79 million . Depreciation has not been included in any of the calculations. European Union 

funding was reported to be € 3 675 million for the first cycle and € 2 962 million for the second 
cycle.  It  has  been  reported  that  clear  financial  commitments  have  been  secured  for  the 

Programme  of  Measures  in  Hungary.  This  includes  all  sectors:  agriculture,  industry,  urban, 
hydropower, energy, aquaculture, recreation and flood protection. Transport has been reported 

to  be  not  relevant  in  Hungary.  The  total  cost  of  the  second  Programme  of  Measures  is  over 
HUF  1264.7  billion  (€  4 billion  )  over  the  whole  cycle,  of  which  HUF  1241  billion    (€3.97 

billion)  is  covered  by  European  Union  funding  for  2014-2020  and  an  additional  HUF  17.8 
billion  (€57 million) is expected to be covered. The necessary measures of a comprehensive 

nature to ensure the conditions for implementation of the measures need about HUF 5.9 billion 
(€19 million) from the domestic budget.  

Hungary  is  a  landlocked  country  but  it  has  nevertheless  taken  into  consideration  the 
requirements of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. 

64   Hungary clarified subsequently that this had not been carried out at a water body level. 
65   Hungary  clarified  subsequently  that  Cost  effectiveness  analysis  was  not  carried  out  in  the  second  cycle 
because  the  measures  did  not  change  substantially  and  noted  that  a  general  description  of  the  method  of 
prioritisation could be found in chapter 7.2 of the RBMP. 

108 

 
 
                                                      
The RBMP and Floods Directive Flood Risk Management Plan have not been integrated into a 

single  plan  in  Hungary,  but  joint  consultation  was  carried  out  on  the  RBMP  and  Flood  Risk 
Management  Plans,  and  the  objectives  and  requirements  of  the  Floods  Directive  have  been 

considered  in  the  second  RBMP  and  Programme  of  Measures  (see  Chapter  1  for  further 
information).  Hungary  indicated  that  specific  win-win  measures  in  terms  of  achieving  the 

objectives  of  the  WFD  and  Floods  Directive,  drought  management  and  the  use  of  Natural 
Water Retention Measures have been included in the Programme of Measures. 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  and  a  clear  financial 

commitment  has  been  secured  for  the  implementation  of  the  Programme  of  Measures  in  the 
flood  protection  sector  in  Hungary.  Article 9(4)  has  not  been  applied  to  impoundments  for 

flood protection in the Hungarian Danube RBD. 

9.1.2 Measures related to other significant pressures 

Other significant pressures in Hungary were reported as ‘anthropogenic other’ or ‘unknown’. 
Information  was  reported  for  surface  water  bodies  only.  The  gap  indicators  for  each  other 

significant pressure and KTM indicators are given for 2015 and 2021, but values are the same, 
meaning the WFD objectives will not be achieved. 

9.1.3 Mapping of national measures to Key Types of Measure 

It was expected that Member States would be able to report their Programmes of Measures by 
associating  their  national  measures  with  predefined  Key  Types  of  Measure.  Key  Types  of 

Measure are expected to deliver the bulk of the improvements through reduction in pressures 
required  to  achieve  WFD  environmental  objectives.  A  Key  Type  of  Measure  may  be  one 

national  measure  but  it  would  typically  comprise  more  than  one  national  measure.  Member 
States  are  required  to  report  on  the  national  measures  associated  with  the  Key  Types  of 

Measure, and whether the national measures are basic (Article 11(3)(a) or Article 11(3)(b-l)) or 
supplementary (Article 11(4)).  

Table 9.1 summarises the number of national measures that have been mapped to the relevant 
Key  Types  of  Measure  in  Hungary.  Table  9.2  then  summarises  the  types  of  basic  measures 

associated with the national measures mapped against the Key Type of Measure. 

109 

 
 
 
Table 9.1 

Mapping  of  the  types  of  national  measures  to  Key  Types  of  Measure  in 

Hungary 

Key Type of Measure 

KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment 
plants 
KTM10 - Water pricing policy measures for the 
implementation of the recovery of cost of water services 
from industry 
KTM11 - Water pricing policy measures for the 
implementation of the recovery of cost of water services 
from agriculture 

KTM12 - Advisory services for agriculture 

KTM13 - Drinking water protection measures (e.g. 
establishment of safeguard zones, buffer zones etc) 
KTM14 - Research, improvement of knowledge base 
reducing uncertainty 
KTM15 - Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, 
discharges and losses of Priority Hazardous Substances or 
for the reduction of emissions, discharges and losses of 
Priority Substances 
KTM16 - Upgrades or improvements of industrial 
wastewater treatment plants (including farms). 
KTM17 - Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion 
and surface run-off 

KTM18 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse 
impacts of invasive alien species and introduced diseases 
KTM19 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse 
impacts of recreation including angling 

KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture 
KTM20 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse 
impacts of fishing and other exploitation/removal of animal 
and plants 

KTM21 - Measures to prevent or control the input of 
pollution from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure 
KTM22 - Measures to prevent or control the input of 
pollution from forestry 

KTM23 - Natural water retention measures 

KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture. 

KTM4 - Remediation of contaminated sites (historical 
pollution including sediments, groundwater, soil) 
KTM5 - Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing 
fish passes, demolishing old dams) 

KTM6 - Improving hydromorphological conditions of water 
bodies other than longitudinal continuity 
KTM7 - Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment 
of ecological flows 
KTM8 - Water efficiency, technical measures for irrigation, 
industry, energy and households 

110 

National basic 
measures 

National 
supplementary 
measures 

Number of 
RBDs where 
reported 

3 

3 

3 

2 

5 

2 

2 

2 

2 

7 

4 

1 

2 

23 

4 

4 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

7 

3 

1 

4 

2 

3 

1 

1 

2 

7 

10 

7 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
National basic 
measures 

National 
supplementary 
measures 

Number of 
RBDs where 
reported 

Key Type of Measure 

KTM9 - Water pricing policy measures for the 
implementation of the recovery of cost of water services 
from households 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
Measures to control the cooling water discharges into 
surface waters 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
Measures to control, reconstruct or eliminate of improperly 
constructed wells 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
Measures to improve and control of artificial recharge or 
augmentation of groundwater bodies 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of fish 
farms 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
Measures to prevent pollutions from industrial accident 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
Measures to reduce impact and control indirect water 
abstractions from groundwater bodies 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
Measures to reduce pollutions from agricultural sites 
(including livestock farms) 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
Measures to retain sediment and nutrient before discharged 
to surface waters 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
Review and update of legislation for the protection of water 
on non-priority substances 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
Supplementary and specific  measures to protect damaged 
water dependent habitats due to quality changes 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
Supplementary and specific measures related to protection 
of bathing waters 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
Supplementary and specific measures to protect damaged 
water dependent habitats due to hydrological changes 

KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM - 
Treatment for thermal waters discharged to surface waters 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

2 

1 

2 

2 

1 

2 

1 

2 

Total number of Mapped Measures 

87 

71 

Source: Member States reporting to WISE 

111 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 9.2 

Type of basic measure mapped to Key Type of Measures in Hungary 

Key Type of Measure 

KTM1 - Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants 
KTM10 - Water pricing policy measures for the implementation 
of the recovery of cost of water services from industry 
KTM11 - Water pricing policy measures for the implementation 
of the recovery of cost of water services from agriculture 
KTM13 - Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment 
of safeguard zones, buffer zones etc) 

KTM15 - Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges 
and losses of Priority Hazardous Substances or for the reduction 
of emissions, discharges and losses of Priority Substances 
KTM16 - Upgrades or improvements of industrial wastewater 
treatment plants (including farms). 
KTM17 - Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and 
surface run-off 

KTM19 - Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of 
recreation including angling 

KTM2 - Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture 
KTM21 - Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution 
from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure 
KTM23 - Natural water retention measures 

KTM3 - Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture. 
KTM4 - Remediation of contaminated sites (historical pollution 
including sediments, groundwater, soil) 
KTM6 - Improving hydromorphological conditions of water 
bodies other than longitudinal continuity 

Basic Measure Type 

n
o
i
t
u
l
l
o
p
l
a
t
n
e
d
i
c
c
A

r
e
t
a
w
s
l
o
r
t
n
o
C

n
o
i
t
c
a
r
t
s
b
a

r
e
t
a
w
y
r
e
v
o
c
e
r

t
s
o
C

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
s

3 

3 

e
s
u
r
e
t
a
w

t
n
e
i
c
i
f
f

E

s
d
r
i
B
r
o
s
t
a
t
i
b
a
H

y
g
o
l
o
h
p
r
o
m
o
r
d
y
H

D
E
I
C
P
P
I

s
e
t
a
r
t
i

N

r
e
h
t
O

e
c
r
u
o
s

t
n
i
o
P

s
e
g
r
a
h
c
s
i
d

3 

e
s
u
f
f
i
d
s
t
n
a
t
u
l
l
o
P

t
c
e
r
i
d
s
t
n
a
t
u
l
l
o
P

r
e
t
a
w
d
n
u
o
r
g

r
e
t
a
w
n
o
i
t
c
e
t
o
r
P

n
o
i
t
c
a
r
t
s
b
a

e
g
r
a
h
c
e
R

n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
g
u
a

s
r
e
t
a
w
d
n
u
o
r
g

y
t
i
r
o
i
r
P
e
c
a
f
r
u
S

s
e
c
n
a
t
s
b
u
S

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

2 

3 

2 

2 

2 

4 

4 

1 

2 

1 

2 

4 

2 

2 

23 

r
e
t
a
W

e
t
s
a
W
n
a
b
r
U

2 

1 

KTM7 - Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of 

2 

2 

112 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ecological flows 

KTM8 - Water efficiency, technical measures for irrigation, 
industry, energy and households 
KTM9 - Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of 
the recovery of cost of water services from households 
KTM99 - Other key type measure reported under PoM 

Key 

4 

2 

2 

1 

2 

1 

2 

7 

2 

1 

1 

2 

Source: Member States reporting to WISE 

‘Accidental pollution’ = Article 11(3)(l): Any measures required to prevent significant losses of pollutants from technical installations and to prevent and/or reduce the impact of 
accidental pollution incidents. 
‘Controls water abstraction’ = Article 11(3)(e): Controls over the abstraction of fresh surface water and groundwater and impoundment of fresh surface waters including a register or 
registers of water abstractions and a requirement for prior authorisation of abstraction and impoundment. 
‘Cost recovery water services’ = Article 11(3)(b): Measures for the recovery of cost of water services (Article 9). 
‘Efficient water use’ = Article 11(3)(c): Measures to promote efficient and sustainable water use. 
‘Habitats or Birds’ = Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)  or Birds Directive (2009/147/EC)  
‘Hydromorphology’ = Article 11(3)(i): Measures to control any other significant adverse impact on the status of water, and in particular hydromorphological impacts. 
‘IPPC IED’ = Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Directive (96/61/EC) and the Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU) . 
‘Nitrates’ = Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC). 
‘Other’ = Other Directives mentioned in Part A of Annex VI of the WFD. 
‘Point source discharges’ = Article 11(3)(g): Requirement for prior regulation of point source discharges liable to cause pollution. 
‘Pollutants diffuse’ = Article 11(3)(h): Measures to prevent or control the input of pollutants from diffuse sources liable to cause pollution. 
‘Pollutants direct groundwater’ = Article 11(3)(j): Prohibition of direct discharge of pollutants into groundwater. 
‘Protection water abstraction’ = Article 11(3)(d): Measures for the protection of water abstracted for drinking water (Article 7) including those to reduce the level of purification required 
for the production of drinking water. 
‘Recharge augmentation groundwaters’ = Article 11(3)(f): Controls, including a requirement for prior authorisation of artificial recharge or augmentation of groundwater bodies. 
‘Surface Priority Substances’ = Article 11(3)(k): Measures to eliminate pollution of surface waters by Priority Substances and to reduce pollution from other substances that would 
otherwise prevent the achievement of the objectives laid down in Article 4. 
‘Urban Waste Water’ = Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC). 

113 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9.1.4 Pressures for which gaps to be filled to achieve WFD objectives have been reported 

and the Key Types of Measure planned to achieve objectives 

Member  States  are  required  to  report  the  gaps  that  need  to  be  filled  to  achieve  WFD 

environmental  objectives  in  terms  of  all  significant  pressures  on  surface  waters  and 
groundwater,  in  terms  of  Priority  Substances  causing  failure  of  good  chemical  status  and  in 

terms  of  River  Basin  Specific  Pollutants  causing  failure  of  good  ecological  status/potential. 
Member  States  were  asked  to  report  predefined  indicators  for  the  gaps  to  be  filled  or  other 

indicators where relevant. Values for the gap indicators were required for 2015 and 2021 and 
were optional for 2027. 

The  information  reported  in  WISE  on  the  gaps  to  fulfil  to  achieve  good  ecological  status 
include detailed data on the significant pressures on surface and groundwaters that may cause 

failure on the environmental objectives. For chemical  status,  the Member States  reported the 
specific chemical substances causing failure. 

This information is reported at the sub-unit level. Sub-units are smaller geographic areas within 
particular  RBDs  identified  by  Member  States.  Not  all  Member  States  have  defined  and 
reported sub-units. 

Member States were required to report which KTMs are to be made operational to reduce the 
gaps to levels compatible with the achievement of WFD environmental objectives. A number 

of  indicators  were  predefined  for  each  KTM.  Values  of  the  indicators  for  the  second  and 
subsequent  planning  cycles  were  also  to  be  reported  to  give  an  indication  of  the  expected 

progress and achievements: the values for 2027 could be optionally reported. This means that 
the value of the indicator will be reduced with time as measures are implemented. A value of 

zero is comparable with 100 % good ecological status or potential or good chemical status.  

This  information  was  reported  at  sub-unit  level,  or  at  RBDs  level  if  sub-units  have  not  been 

reported by the Member State. 

9.2  Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

In general, the amount and quality of readily available information has improved between the 
two  cycles.  Often,  there  is  no  equivalent  information  for  the  first  cycle  and  it  is  difficult, 
therefore,  to  make  direct  comparisons  between  the  two  cycles.  However,  the  financing  of 

measures was not secured in the first cycle while there is a clear financial commitment for the 
implementation of the Programme of Measures in the second cycle. In the second cycle, there 

was no information provided on progress towards meeting objectives until 2027, whereas this 

114 

 
 
information was available in the first cycle. In the first cycle measures were only partly based 

on the status assessment and partly on expert judgement; no information was provided through 
WISE on how this was assessed in the second cycle66. In the report to WISE, Hungary reports 
that “All planned measures have started”. The obstacles to implementation were reported to be 
delays, extreme events, governance and finance.  

Hungary  provided  a  summary  in  the  second  RBMP  on  the  progress  of  implementation  of 
measures listed in the first RBMP. This sub-chapter discusses i) progress in basic measures, ii) 

progress in supplementary measures; iii) extensive problems hindering the achievement of the 
goals  of  the  RBMP;  iv)  water  management  problems  explored  since  the  first  RBMP. 

According to this sub-chapter, significant progress has been achieved in the implementation of 
basic measures since the first RBMP (National Wastewater Programme, Implementation of the 

Nitrates Directive, Programme on Drinking Water Protection  Zones,  National  Environmental 
Remediation  Programme).  However,  most  of  these  programmes  will  continue  during  the 

implementation phase of the second RBMP. 

In  the  first  RBMP,  three  programmes  were  defined  for  supplementary  measures:  i) 
development  of  environmental  infrastructural  systems  (such  as:  sewerage  and  wastewater 

treatment facilities for settlements under 2000 population equivalent, re-cultivation of polluted 
sites, protection of drinking water resources); ii) improvement of hydromorphological status of 

surface  water  bodies  and  lake  water  bodies  ;  iii)  measures  to  control  agricultural  pressures 
within  protection  zones  of  the  water  bodies  (erosion  sensitive  areas,  excess  water  sensitive 

areas, riparian buffer zones, etc.). There were nine so-called comprehensive measure groups in 
the first RBMP: legislative tasks, development of administrative  tools and administrative law 

enforcement,  strengthening  administrative  work,  development  of  monitoring  networks  and 
tools,  development  of  IT  systems,  measures  to  recover  the  cost  of  water  services,  use  of 

financial  incentives  (grants),  research  and  development,  ability  development  and  awareness 
formation. It was reported that significant improvement has been achieved, but most of these 

programmes will be continued in the next cycle. Surface water status in the examined period 
did not improve or improved only slightly. The number of bodies in unknown ecological and 

chemical  status  has  dropped  significantly,  but  still  exceeds  50  %.  The  status  of  groundwater 
bodies  is  much  more  favourable  than  is  the  case  for  surface  waters,  but  one  third  of  the 

groundwater bodies are still in poor condition: of the 185 groundwater bodies, 98 are in good 
status, 64 are in poor status and 23 are in good status but are indicated to be at risk. 

66  Hungary  subsequently  clarified  that  in  the  2nd  cycle  the  planning  of  measures  was  based  on  DPSIR 
methodology:  measures  can  target  driving  forces  to  manage  demands,  reduce  significant  pressure,  improve 
status of water bodies or mitigate significant impacts. Prevention of deterioration can also be the goal of the 
measure. 

115 

 
 
                                                      
New  regulations  were  required  to  implement  the  Programme  of  Measures  in  the  first  cycle. 

This is in progress. 

9.3  Progress with Commission recommendations 

The Commission recommendations based on the first RBMP and first Programme of Measures 

requested action on the following: 

•  Recommendation:  Carry  out  a  more  detailed,  quantitative  pressures  and  impacts 
analysis using source apportionment in the second RBMPs. Applying this more detailed 
analysis,  measures  could  be  assigned  to  water  bodies  specifically  more  focused  on 

agriculture, water abstraction and protected areas.  

Assessment: Quantitative and qualitative assessments have been carried out in Hungary 
to  support  decisions  for  the  selection  of  measures  in  the  second  cycle.  Source 

apportionment has been carried out.  

This  recommendation  has  been  fulfilled.  However,  a  significant  number  of  water 

bodies are not expected to achieve good status by 2027. 

Recommendation: Ensure that the RBMPs clearly identify the gap to good status, and 
that  the  Programme  of  Measures  is  designed  and  implemented  to  close  that  gap. 

Hungary should indicate in the second RBMP when WFD objectives will be achieved. 
Exemptions should be adequately justified at water body level.  

Assessment: Information on indicators of gaps and KTMs were reported for 2015 and 
2021,  although  not  for  2027.  With  some  exceptions,  not  much  progress  is  expected 

between 2015 and 2021for most of the indicators in tackling pressures to achieve WFD 
objectives. 

This  recommendation  has  been  partially  fulfilled  (the  gap  has  been  defined,  but  the 
measures have been designed to close the gap only in part67). 

67  Hungary  commented  that  the  Programme  of  Measures  was  consulted  with  a  broad  range  of  stakeholders, 
including  representatives  of  sectors  causing  failure  of  good  status.  It  represents  the  maximum  level  of 
commitment  that  it  was  possible  to  reach.  The  availability  of  budget  also  conditions  the  ambition  of  the 
Programme of Measures. 

116 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Topic 10

  Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity  

10.1  Assessment  of 

implementation  and  compliance  with  WFD 

requirements in the second cycle 

10.1.1  Water exploitation and trends  

Water abstraction pressures are relevant for Hungary, though the existing and reported data do 

not  draw  a  clear  picture.  The  Water  Exploitation  Index+  (2013)  is  0.48  %,  with  the  worst 
month  being  August  (1.31  %);  whilst  20  %  of  groundwater  bodies  fail  in  achieving  good 

quantitative  status.  Water  scarcity  issues  are  considered  as  not  relevant  at  the  international 
level;  however,  they  are  a  significant  water  management  issue  at  national  level  within  the 

international Danube basin. No specific water resource allocation and management plans have 
been set up68.  

10.1.2  Main uses for water consumption  

The major use for water consumption is  urban (from groundwater, accounting for overall 62 

%),  followed  by  agriculture  consuming  6  %  from  groundwater  and  15  %  of  the  country’s 
overall  consumption  from  surface  water  resources69.  Energy  uses  cause  8  %  of  water 
consumption.  The  calculation  methods  for  the  water  consumption  are  based  on  direct 

measurement/monitoring, which is a positive note. 

There  is  a  significant  number  of  water  abstractions  not  included  in  the  Water  Registry. 
According to the Hungarian Association of Water Well Drills, about 4000-5000 wells are set 

up every year, but according to the Water Registry, only 400-500 wells are registered. Experts 
have estimated the unauthorised water abstraction at nearly 100 million cubic metres per year, 

which is 12 % of the registered water abstractions. 

The  hydrological  load  caused  by  water  abstractions  and  water  transfers  is  considered  in  the 
second RBMP  to  be  a  significant  burden  if  the  level  of  abstraction  exceeds  the  usable 

resources.  However,  a  water  abstraction  is  significant  to  a  surface  water  body  if  the  water 
abstraction  exceeds  90  %  of  the  usable  runoff  in  August,  a  criteria  which  might  not  be 

sufficiently checked against the biological status of water bodies.  

68   Hungary subsequently clarified that there are water allocation plans for  the large water management systems 

in the Tisza Valley, to be applied in case of drought situation. 

69  Hungary  subsequently  clarified  that  the  major  water  consuming  sector  is  agriculture  (irrigation).  Water 
extraction for urban water supply might exceed that of agriculture but the overall consumption of irrigation is 
higher 

117 

 
 
                                                      
Measures related to abstractions and water scarcity  

The second RBMP deals extensively with water abstractions, especially in quantitative aspects 
in different chapters, but only partial information can be found on how water abstractions are 

controlled. 

Regarding  the  water  utility  services,  a  major  step  forward  was  the  publication  of  the  Act  on 
Water Utilities70 (effective since 31 December 2011), since the principle of pricing is governed 
according to the cost-recovery principles of the WFD. A set water fee is payable for state water 
abstraction, which ensures increased control of abstractions. 

The  assessment  of  the  impact  of  water  use  is  greatly  distorted  by  unauthorised  water  use, 

mainly  affecting  groundwater.  The  first  phase  of  the  planned  measure  7a.3  “Additional 
regulation  of  water  use”  is  the  identification  of  illegal  water  abstractions,  followed  by  a 

decision  on  their  liquidation  (technical  proposal  and  timetable)  or  legalisation  (permitting 
procedure  and  technical  conditions).  The  measure  also  includes  the  introduction  of  clear 

sanctions on illegal water use in the regulations and enforcement of the legislation. 

Measures  for  the  efficient  and  sustainable  use  of  water  (Article  11(3)(c))  have  been 

implemented  in  the  previous  cycle  but  new  measures  and/or  significant  changes  are  also 
planned for the 2016-2021 period. Enforcement of ecological aspects in sustainable water use, 

include  registering,  reviewing,  modifying  and  authorising  surface  abstractions  and  transfers, 
registration,  revision,  modification  and  authorisation  of  groundwater  abstractions,  additional 

regulation  of  water  use  (e.g.  unauthorised  use  elimination  or  legalisation),  exploration  of 
alternative  groundwater  resources,  utilisation  of  thermal  waters,  regulation,  stimulation  and 

modernisation of the utilisation of thermal waters used. KTM 8 - "Water efficiency, technical 
measures  for  irrigation,  industry,  energy  and  households",  include  measures  such  as  use  of 

water-saving  solutions  for  crop  production  (crop  culture,  irrigation  technology,  energy 
efficiency),  reducing  technology  and  network  losses,  use  of  water-saving  fittings  and  water-
saving solutions for industrial water supply. 

Measures  for  the  prior  authorisation  of  artificial  recharge  or  augmentation  of  groundwater 
bodies (Article 11(3)(f)) have been implemented in  the previous cycle, and new measures or 
significant changes are planned for the next period. 

70   https://segitseg.magyarorszag.hu/segitseg/portal/kereses/jogszabalykereso.html  

118 

 
 
                                                      
Complementary  measures  are  planned  to  be  implemented  in  the  Hungarian  Danube  RBD 

associated  with  KTM  7  -  "Improvements  in  flow  regime  and/or  establishment  of  ecological 
flows" and KTM 8 - "Water efficiency, technical measures for irrigation, industry, energy and 

households", in  both  surface and  groundwater bodies. KTM 14  -  "Research, improvement of 
knowledge  base  reducing  uncertainty"  is  planned  to  address  gaps  of  urban  water  abstraction 

pressures  in  a  limited  number  of  surface  water  bodies.  KTM  23  -  "Natural  water  retention 
measures"  is  planned,  often  to  address  excess  waters,  for  ground  and  surface  water  bodies 

addressing pressures from agriculture, industries and other uses, addressing a larger number of 
water bodies (>50). Water reuse is also foreseen. 

Regarding  basic  measures  (Article  11(3)(e)),  there  is  a  concession,  authorisation  and/or 
permitting  regime  to  control  water  impoundment  and  a  register  of  impoundments.  Small 

abstractions are exempted from these controls. As 20 % of groundwater bodies fail achieving 
good status due to quantitative reasons, action may be insufficient. 

10.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

Several  measures on the control of water abstractions are included in  the second RBMP and 
the  Governmental  Decree  115/2014  on  metering  devices71  introduced  a  major  change,  but 
implementation might be a challenge, e.g. given the relevance of non-authorised abstractions. 
However,  measure  7a.3  “Additional  regulation  of  water  use”,  a  new  measure  in  the  second 

cycle, aims at addressing this issue. 

10.3 Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMP  and  Programme  of  Measures 
requested action on the following: 

•  Recommendation:  Carry  out  a  more  detailed,  quantitative  pressures  and  impacts 
analysis using source apportionment in the second RBMPs. Applying this more detailed 
analysis,  measures  could  be  assigned  to  water  bodies  specifically  more  focused  on 

agriculture, water abstraction and protected areas. 

71 Member State  Hungary subsequently clarified, that the water metering of groundwater abstraction is mandatory 
from  2008  under  the  Ministerial  decree  30/2008  (KvVM).  The  water  metering  of  surface  water  use  is 
mandatory since 01.01.2014 but under other legislation: the Governmental Decree 147/2010. par 60. (7). More 
detailed  regulation  on  metering  is  in  Ministerial  decree  30/2008.  KvVM  par.  69.  since  01/10/2016.  The 
Governmental  Decree  115/2014  regulates  only  the  calculation  of  the  tariff  of  the  agricultural  water  supply 
(service). 

119 

 
 
                                                      
Assessment: Measures for the efficient and sustainable use of water (Article 11(3)(c)) 

have  been  implemented  in  the  previous  cycle  but  new  measures  and/or  significant 
changes are also planned for the 2016-2021 period. 

The  aspect  of  this  recommendation  that  concerns  measures  for  water  abstraction  has 
been partially fulfilled.  

•  Recommendation:  Ensure  that  abstraction  is  addressed  through  effective  permits, 

metering and controls. 

Assessment:  There  had  been  some  revision  of  the  permitting  procedures  during  the 
implementation  of  measures  of  the  first  RBMP,  but  it  was  concluded  in  the  second 

RBMP  that  further  revision  is  needed.  The  process  of  reviewing  permits  to  support 
good  status  is  in  place  and  will  be  implemented  with  the  measures  as  listed  in  the 

second RBMP (measure 7a.3 Additional regulation of water use (e.g. unauthorised use, 
elimination,  legalisation).  The  implementation  of  metering  by  the  Governmental 

Decree 115/2014 is uncertain; the metering devices are linked to the tariff scheme for 
agricultural water supply, and the cost of the metering devices should be included in the 
tariff  paid  by  the  user;  no  information  has  been  provided  yet  on  the  timeline  and  the 

real  implementation; it  should be further noticed that non-authorised abstractions will 
require additional attention. 

Therefore this recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

120 

 
 
 
 
Topic 11

  Measures related to pollution from agriculture  

11.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

Agricultural pressures have been identified as significant in the second cycle. These pressures 

were also identified in the first cycle, when nitrogen, phosphorous and pesticide pollution from 
point and diffuse sources were identified as significant pressures. Certain hydromorphological 

modifications - especially at sub-unit level (Danube, Tisza and Dráva Rivers and Lake Balaton 
sub-basins)  -  are  directly  connected  to  farming  activities,  as  many  of  the  dams,  weirs  and 

drainage systems  are used for agricultural purposes. As in the first  cycle, from a quantitative 
point  of  view,  water  over-abstraction  and  agricultural  use  related  to  water  transfers  were 

considered  as  significant  pressures.  Furthermore  excess  water  has  also  been  reported  as  a 
pressure in the second cycle.   

No  gap  assessment  was  reported  in  WISE  for  nitrogen  and  phosphorus  from  agriculture. 
Furthermore,  Hungary  reported  the  ’’Number  of  water  bodies  affected”,  ’’Area  (km2)  of 

agricultural land at risk of soil erosion” and “Number of water bodies affected by significant 
nutrient/pesticide  load  from  inland  waters”  for  each  of  the  basins.  The  implemented  and 

planned measures match the identified pressures. There is a clear indication of the areas to be 
covered by measures to tackle diffuse pollution. The total area is not foreseen to be increased 

between 2015 and 2021. The implementation of basic measures (the minimum requirement to 
be complied with) under Article 11(3)(h) for the control of diffuse pollution from agriculture at 

source is mandatory in Nitrate Vulnerable Zones and voluntary under the Agro-environmental 
Programme.  The  implementation  of  basic  measures  Article  11(3)(h)  covers  microbiological, 

nitrate, organic, pesticide, phosphorus and sediment pollution.  

Hungary  applied  the  following  measures:  KTM  2  -  "Reduce  nutrient  pollution  from 
agriculture"  (basic  and  supplementary),  KTM  3  -  "Reduce  pesticides  pollution  from 

agriculture"  (basic  and  supplementary),  KTM  12  -  "Advisory  services  for  agriculture" 
(supplementary), KTM 17 - "Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and surface run-

off"  (basic  and  supplementary)  and  KTM  23  -  "Natural  water  retention  measures"  (basic). 
KTM 13 -"Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment of safeguard zones,  buffer 

zones etc.)" is applied as basic and supplementary measures. 

Hungary already has a clear regulation on protecting drinking water resources with safeguard 

zones. The RBMP sets measures to further improve some of these regulations. Also, additional 

121 

 
 
control  measures  on  all  agricultural  land  (not  just  in  safeguard  zones  but  in  the  wider 

catchment) to prevent pollution by nitrogen, phosphorus or pesticides are foreseen, namely:  

  Measure 2.1 Effective restriction on nutrition application (mandatory measure) 

  Measure  3.1  Regulation  of  application  of  pesticides  according  to  the  EU  Sustainable 

Use of Pesticides Directive (in the case of arable land, plantations and pastures) 

  Measure  3.2  Limitation  of  application  of  pesticides  in  the  framework  of  the  national 

agro-environmental programme (mandatory) 

  Measure  12.1  deals  with  "Consultancy  on  Sustainable  Nutrition  Management  and 
Pesticide Use including arable, grape, orchard and pasture areas in water protection". 

  Measure 13.2 deals with "Protection of drinking water bases, designation of safe zones, 
regulation  and modification  of activities (Implementation  of the diagnostic and safety 
program)". 

In the RBMP, there is a clear categorisation attached to the measures regarding which ones are 
mandatory  or  voluntary.  For  example,  it  is  mentioned  that  nutrient  control  is  mandatory  in 

Nitrate Vulnerable Zones but voluntary under the agro-environmental programme outside these 
zones. .  

Farmers/Farmers'  Unions  have  been  consulted  under  the  public  consultation  process  in  the 

RBD.  

Financing of agricultural measures is secured in Hungary.  

11.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

Agricultural  pressures  have  been  identified  as  significant  also  in  the  second  cycle,  as  had 
already  been  the  case  in  the  first  cycle,  when  nitrogen,  phosphorous  and  pesticide  pollution 

from  point  and  diffuse  sources  were  identified  as  significant  pressures.  Abstractions  or  flow 
diversions  are  again  reported  as  pressures  from  agriculture.  Certain  hydromorphological 

modifications - especially at the sub-unit level - are directly connected to farming activities as 
many of the dams, weirs and drainage systems are used for agricultural purposes. Also excess 

water was reported as a pressure. 

122 

 
 
11.3 Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMP  and  Programme  of  Measures 
requested action on the following: 

•  Recommendation:  Consider  whether  exclusion  of  water  pricing  in  agriculture  is 
justified.  Hungary  should  elaborate  on  this  issue  in  the  second  RBMPs.  Prioritize 

clearly  the  measures  foreseen  in  terms  of  cost-effectiveness  and  define  whether 
measures are voluntary or obligatory. 

Assessment:  This  recommendation  has  not  been  implemented  for  this  topic  as  no 
measure to tackle over-abstraction from agriculture has been reported72.  

•  Recommendation:  Agriculture  is  indicated  as  exerting  a  significant  pressure  on  the 
water resources in Hungary. This should be translated into a clear strategy that defines 
the  basic/mandatory  measures  that  all  farmers  should  adhere  to  and  the  additional 

supplementary  measures  that  can  be  financed.  This  should  be  developed  with  the 
farmers' community to ensure technical feasibility and acceptance. There needs to be a 

very clear baseline so that any farmer knows the rules this can be adequately advised 
and enforced and so that the authorities in charge of the Common Agricultural Policy 

funds  can  adequately  set  up  Rural  Development  programmes  and  cross  compliance 
water requirements. 

•  Assessment: A gap assessment as a basis for defining the baseline was performed and 
reported.  Hungary  reported  "Number  of  water  bodies  affected",  "Area  (km2)  of 
agricultural  land  at  risk  of  soil  erosion”  and  "Number  of  water  bodies  affected  by 

significant  nutrient/pesticide  load  from  inland  waters"  for  each  of  the  sub-basins. 
Measures to reduce pressures from diffuse nutrient sources are described in the second 

RBMP and linked to the identified pressures. Basic measures under Article 11(3)(h) are 
defined. However, most measures that result in a change in the agricultural land usage 

and / or cultivation method affecting land use will only be implemented on a voluntary 
basis. Landowners' willingness to join cannot be predicted in advance, but can only be 

assessed and evaluated when following-up the measure implementation. So, it remains 

72   Hungary  explained  that  an  economic  analysis  was  carried  out  to  establish  a  reference  to  the  sectoral  gross 
production  value  for  agriculture.  An  agriculture  affordability  study  was  also  carried  out.  This  included  the 
assessment of possibilities for introducing taxes on diffuse agricultural pollution. As a result, it was concluded 
that pesticide/fertiliser tax would not be effective. It was verified that limiting and controlling during transport 
processes (erosion, overflowing) could be more effective. 

123 

 
 
                                                      
unclear  what  will  be  achieved  through  measures  to  implement  the  Nitrates  Directive, 

through  basic  measures  under  Article  11(3)  of  the  WFD,  basic  measures  included  in 
pillar  1  (GAEC,  greening)  of  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy  and  supplementary 
measures under pillar 2 of the Common Agricultural Policy73.   

•  Recommendation: Ensure in the second RBMP that controls are put in place including 
mandatory  requirements  for  farmers  where  necessary  at  farm  level  to  tackle  diffuse 
pollution from nutrients and pesticides, in order to meet WFD objectives. 

Assessment:  It  is  not  fully  clear  how  this  recommendation  has  been  implemented,  as 

several  measures  on  farm  level  are  listed  in  the  RBMP  but  only  for  those  which  are 
funded under the Rural Development program it is clear that they are controlled by the 

competent authority for implementing the Rural Development programme.  

•  Recommendation:  Ensure  that  the  Rural  Development  Programme  adequately 

contributes to the achievement of WFD objectives. 

Assessment:  The  RBMP  lists  measures  that  are  financed  by  the  Rural  Development 
Programme.  There  has  been  a  large  development  in  WFD  supporting  measures  from 

the  previous  programming  period  (2007-2013)  to  the  current  programming  period 
(2014-2020). This recommendation has been implemented 

73   Hungary has informed that the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework report on Rural Development 

Programmes was considered in the impact assessment of diffuse pollution and measures. 

124 

 
 
 
                                                      
 
Topic 12

  Measures related to pollution from sectors other than 

agriculture  

12.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

In  the  context  of  this  topic,  pollution  is  considered  in  terms  of  nutrients,  organic  matter, 
sediment,  saline  discharges  and  chemicals  (Priority  Substances,  River  Basin  Specific 

Pollutants,  groundwater  pollutants  and  other  physico-chemical  parameters)  arising  from  all 
sectors  and  sources  apart  from  agriculture.  Key  Types  of  Measure  (KTM)  are  groups  of 

measures identified by Member States in their Programmes of Measures which target the same 
pressure or purpose. A KTM could be one national measure but would typically comprise more 

than  one  national  measure.  The  same  individual  measure  can  also  be  part  of  more  than  one 
KTM  because  it  may  be  multipurpose,  but  also  because  the  KTMs  are  not  completely 

independent of one another. 

KTMs  relevant  to  non-agricultural  sources  of  pressures  causing  failure  of  WFD  objectives 
have been reported for the Hungarian Danube RBD. These KTMs include: 

  KTM1 - "Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants", 

  KTM4 - "Remediation of contaminated sites (historical pollution including sediments, 

groundwater, soil)",  

  KTM14 - "Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty".  

  KTM 15 - "Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges and losses of Priority 
Hazardous  Substances  or  for  the  reduction  of  emissions,  discharges  and  losses  of 

Priority Substances".  

  KTM  16  -  "Upgrades  or  improvements  of  industrial  wastewater  treatment  plants 

(including farms)". 

  KTM17 - "Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and surface run-off" 

  KTM21  -  "Measures  to  prevent  or  control  the  input  of  pollution  from  urban  areas, 

transport and built infrastructure". 

125 

 
 
  KTM22 -" Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from forestry". 

  KTM23 - "Natural water retention measures". 

The  WFD  specifies  that  the  Programmes  of  Measures  shall  include,  as  a  minimum,  “basic 

measures” and, where necessary to achieve objectives, “supplementary measures” when basic 
measures are not enough to address specific significant pressures (see Chapter 9). Information 

on  basic  and  supplementary  measures  used  to  tackle  pollution  from  non-agricultural  sources 
has  been  provided.  Information  on  types  of  basic  measures  to  tackle  pollution  from  non-

agricultural sources is also provided for nine measure types. 

Hungary  provided  more 

targeted 

information  on  basic  measures 

required  under 

Article 11(3)(c to k). Use of an authorisation and/or a permitting regime to control waste water 
point source discharges (Article 11(3)(g)) was reported for surface and groundwater. A register 

of  wastewater  discharges  (Article  11(3)(g))  is  available  for  surface  and  groundwater.  Small 
wastewater discharges are exempted from controls and some direct discharges to groundwater 

are authorised in accordance with Article 11(3)(j). 

Hungary reported that there are measures in place to eliminate / reduce pollution from Priority 
Substances and other substances. 

12.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle  

In the first RBMP, the description of chemical measures did not refer to specific chemicals, the 

relevant measures were related to industrial and illegal wastewater discharges, thermal waters 
and cooling water. 

Information reported to WISE shows that  KTMs have been reported for significant pressures 
from  most  of  the  individual  Priority  Substances  that  are  reported  to  be  causing  non-

compliance. 

A measure is planned in the second RBMP to review and revise the water resources licensing 

regulation in connection with the emission limit values of some pollutants into surface waters. 
Six measures are listed in the Programme of Measures under KTM 15 “Elimination of Priority 

Hazardous  Substances  emissions  and  emission  reduction  of  Priority  Substances”  to  set  the 
emission limit values so that the Environmental Quality Standards for Priority Substances and 

River Basin Specific Pollutants are met in the water bodies. 

126 

 
 
A review and update of legislation for the protection of waters from Priority Substances was 

reported  under KTM 15. 

It is stated in the second RBMP that the less than good status of groundwater bodies is caused 

almost  entirely  by  diffuse  nitrate  pollution.  There  are  several  groups  of  measures  addressing 
nitrate pollution from point and non-point sources. Some of the measures are mandatory and 

considered as basic measures in connection with European Union legislation aimed at reducing 
emissions. 

12.3 Progress with Commission recommendations 

There was one Commission recommendation in the first RBMP and Programmes of Measures 
relevant to this topic, as follows:  

  Recommendation: "Due to significant lack of data, only 13 % of surface water bodies 
were  classified  for  river  basin  specific  pollutants.  The  identification  of  river  basin 
specific  pollutants  needs  to  be  more  transparent,  with  clear  information  on  how 

pollutants  were  selected,  how  and  where  they  were  monitored,  where  there  are 
exceedances and how such exceedances have been taken into account in the assessment 

of ecological status. It is important that there is an ambitious approach to combatting 
chemical pollution and that adequate measures are put in place" 

Assessment:  Hungary  has  identified  KTM15  and  other  KTMs  as  relevant  to  tackling 
chemical  pollution,  and  specific  measures  have  been  identified  for  some  individual 

pollutants. It  is  foreseen to  review and possibly  revise the emission limit values for a 
number of substances. 

Hungary  has  not  provided  information  on  the  expected  effectiveness  of  the  proposed 

measures, and it is not clear whether all relevant substances are covered, therefore this 
recommendation can be considered partially fulfilled. 

127 

 
 
 
 
Topic 13

  Measures related to hydromorphology  

13.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

Significant  hydromorphological  pressures  were  reported  for  both  rivers  and  lakes  and  are 

assigned  to  specific  sectors.  Hydrological  alterations  are  mainly  related  to  aquaculture, 
agriculture  and,  to  some  extent,  hydropower.  Dams,  barriers  and  locks  are  mainly  related  to 

irrigation, flood protection and recreation, but in the highest number of affected water bodies 
their use is not specified according to the uses listed in WISE (other use74). Physical alterations 
are mainly related to agriculture, flood protection and to some extent navigation, but in a high 
number  of  affected  water  bodies,  physical  alterations  are  related  to  other  uses  not  listed  in 
WISE75. 

Operational  KTMs  to  address  the  significant  hydromorphological  pressures  were  reported: 

KTM  5  -  "Improving  longitudinal  continuity  (e.g.  establishing  fish  passes,  demolishing  old 
dams)",  KTM  6  -  "Improving  hydromorphological  conditions  of  water  bodies  other  than 

longitudinal  continuity",  KTM  7  -  "Improvements  in  flow  regime  and/or  establishment  of 
ecological  flows",  KTM  8  -  "Water  efficiency,  technical  measures  for  irrigation,  industry, 

energy  and  households",  KTM  14  -  "Research,  improvement  of  knowledge  base  reducing 
uncertainty"  and  KTM  23  -  "Natural  water  retention  measures".  Overall  management 

objectives and quantitative objectives in terms of restoring river continuity have been set. 

The types of specific hydromorphological measures planned are diverse, including fish ladders 

and  bypass  channels,  habitat  restoration,  sediment  management,  removal  of  structures, 
reconnection  of  meanders,  lowering  of  river  banks,  restoration  of  modified  bank  and  bed 

structure,  channel  narrowing,  setting  of  ecological  flows,  inundation  of  flood  plains, 
operational modifications for hydro-peaking, and dredging minimisation and/or modification.  

In  terms  of  basic  measures,  there  is  an  authorisation  and/or  permitting  regime  in  place  to 
control  physical  modifications,  which  covers  changes  to  the  riparian  area  of  water  bodies 
according to Article 11(3)(i) of the WFD. There is also a register of physical modifications of 

water bodies. 

74   Hungary subsequently informed that the pressure “Dams, barriers and locks – Other” mainly related to excess 

water diversion to drain agricultural or urban areas. 

75 Hungary subsequently informed that for a high number of affected water bodies, physical alterations are related 

to urban development (other) uses. 

128 

 
 
                                                      
Win-win  measures  in  terms  of  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  WFD  and  Floods  Directive, 

drought  management  and  use  of  Natural  Water  Retention  Measures  were  included  in  the 
Programme of Measures. In addition, the design of new and existing structural measures, such 

as flood defences, storage dams and tidal barriers, was reported to have been adapted to take 
into account WFD objectives. 

KTM 23 - "Natural water retention measures" was reported as operational to tackle significant 
hydromorphological pressures, abstractions and diffuse pollution from urban run-off. KTM 23 

includes  several  measures  on  creating  water  conservation  opportunities  (e.g.  via  green  roofs, 
cisterns, water reservoirs, lakes), rainwater management, field level water retention to increase 

infiltration and reduce drainage, and water retention by storage. The RBMP also mentions that 
Natural  Water  Retention  Measures  should  be  considered  prior  to  any  other  measures  to 

decrease demand on drainage and that this type of measure has high priority in Hungary.  

Ecological flows have been derived and implemented for all relevant water bodies, but at the 

same  time,  there  is  no  reference  to  using  the  principles  of  the  Common  Implementation 
Strategy  guidance  on  ecological  flows76.  Basic  measures  under  Article  11(3),  which  impose 
controls on uses impacting the flow regime, are included and it is mentioned if and how these 

measures  can  support  ecological  flows  implementation.  KTM  7  -  "Improvements  in  flow 
regime and/or establishment of  ecological  flows" includes a measure on the change of water 

distribution  to  ensure  minimum  ecological  flows.  The  hydrological  load  caused  by  water 
abstraction and water transfer is considered in the second RBMP to be a significant burden, if 

the  degree  of  abstraction  exceeds  the  usable  resources  (where  usable  resource  =  recoverable 
resource – ecological flow) and hence minimum ecological flow is not maintained. However, 

water abstraction is considered to be important in a surface water body if the water abstraction 
exceeds 90 % of the usable runoff in August, a criterion which may not be sufficiently checked 

against with the biological status of water bodies. 

Concerning  the  level  of  ambition  for  tackling  significant  hydromorphological  pressures, 

indicators on the gap to be filled were reported for 2015 and 2021 but not for 2027. From the 
information  available,  it  can  be  concluded  that  there  will  be  different  levels  of  progress  in 

terms of closing the gap for different hydromorphological pressures by 2021.  

Mainly for significant physical alterations, the forecast is that the gap will be, to a large extent, 

closed  between  2015  and  2021,  although  a  certain  share  of  water  bodies  affected  by  these 
pressures (from 0 to 20 %) are not expected to achieve good status  or potential by 2027. For 

76   https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/4063d635-957b-4b6f-bfd4-b51b0acb2570/Guidance%20No%2031%20-

%20Ecological%20flows%20%28final%20version%29.pdf  

129 

 
 
                                                      
significant  pressures  related  to  dams/barriers/locks  and  hydrological  alterations,  only  partial 

progress is expected in terms of closing the gap between 2015 and 2021, with a reduction of 
around 15 % of the number of affected water bodies. 

13.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

In the first RBMP, complementary measures were planned in three areas by 2015. One of these 

areas  concerned  measures  to  improve  the  hydromorphological  state  of  watercourses  and 
standing  waters.  In  the  assessment  of  the  first  RBMP,  it  was  concluded  that  no  detailed 
information was found about the expected effects of hydromorphological measures. No special 

financial  resources  were  available  to  implement  hydromorphological  measures  and  the  exact 
improvements due to these projects could not be judged precisely.  

In  the  second  RBMP,  there  is  more  comprehensive  information  about  the  funding  of  the 
planned measures, including for measures related to hydromorphology. In addition, the gap to 

be closed for hydromorphological pressures is better specified for 2015 and 2021. 

13.3 Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMP  and  Programme  of  Measures 
requested action on the following: 

•  Recommendation: Hungary should also further analyse hydromorphological pressures 
and  impacts  in  the  second  RBMPs  and  reconsider  the  necessary  supplementary 

measures which should be implemented to reach targets. 

Assessment:  Operational  KTMs  to  address  significant  hydromorphological  pressures 
were  reported,  but  information  on  the  number  of  supplementary  measures  is  not 

provided  in  the  WISE  reporting.  In  the  second  RBMP  there  is  more  comprehensive 
information about the funding of the planned measures, including for measures related 

to hydromorphology. 

Based  on  the  information  found,  the  measures  aspect  of  this  recommendation  is  to  a 

large extent fulfilled. 

•  Recommendation: Natural water retention measures should be used more extensively. 

•  Recommendation:  Consider  and  prioritise  the  use  of  green  infrastructure  and/or 
natural water retention measures that provide a range of environmental (improvements 

130 

 
 
in  water  quality,  flood  protection,  habitat  conservation  etc.),  social  and  economic 

benefits which can be in many cases more cost-effective than grey infrastructure. 

Assessment: KTM 23 - "Natural water retention measures" was reported as operational 

to  tackle  significant  hydromorphological  pressures,  abstractions  and  diffuse  pollution 
from  urban  run-off.  Several  specific  measures  are  included  in  the  context  of  this 

measure,  and  the  RBMP  states  that  Natural  Water  Retention  Measures  have  high 
priority  in  Hungary.  Furthermore,  links  are  discussed  in  the  RBMP  between  Natural 

Water  Retention  Measures,  flood  protection  objectives  and  nature  conservation 
considerations. 

These recommendations are therefore considered as fulfilled. 

131 

 
 
 
 
Topic 14

  Economic analysis and water pricing policies  

14.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

Information  reported  to  WISE  suggests  a  rather  wide  definition  of  water  services:  drinking 

water  abstraction/treatment/distribution,  impoundment/storage  of  water,  irrigation  water 
abstraction/treatment/distribution, self-abstraction and sewage collection/wastewater treatment. 

Self-abstraction has been added since the first RBMP, and it is stated in the second RBMP that 
more water services are included in the cost recovery calculations. 

The  legal  definition  of  water  services  in  Hungary  is  set  out  in  Act  LVII  of  1995  on  water 
management, harmonizing/adopting the relevant requirements of the WFD in 2004 and so  did 

not change since the first cycle. 

The use of Article 9(4) was reported for drinking water, irrigation, self-abstraction, wastewater 
and water storage. For the reasons to apply Article 9 (4) of the WFD, affordability studies were 
carried out. 

Cost  recovery  rates  were  reported  in  the  RBMP  for  impoundment/storage  of  water  (110  %), 
irrigation water abstraction/treatment/distribution, self-abstraction (in 2013 it was 115 %, but 

between 2014 and 2016 it was 0 %). The cost recovery rate in water utilities was 86.3 %. 

Cost  recovery  rates  were  not  broken  down  by  water  use  (although  several  water  uses  are 

indicated  that  benefit  from  the  services),  except  for  agriculture,  energy  -  non-hydropower, 
fisheries/aquaculture and tourism/recreation, which benefit from the service "self-abstraction" 

and also contribute to cost recovery. In case of self-abstractions, the paid WRF (water resource 
fee)  was  presented  in  a  more  detailed  breakdown  by  sector.  In  case  of  the  paid  WLF  (water 

load fee), the industry and the water utility were also separated. 

It  was not  explained whether users’ contributions to cost recovery were adequate or not,  and 

the  contribution  of  water  users  to  the  cost  recovery  was  assessed  on  the  basis  of  an 
affordability  study,  applying  Article  9(4)  of  the  WFD  for  the  drinking  water  and  wastewater 
services. For agricultural water services (e.g irrigation), an affordability study was carried out, 

aimed at preparing regulatory proposals to fulfil the ex ante conditionality linked to EU funds - 
both for the water resource fee and for the water service charge/tariff. 

Regarding water pricing in  agriculture, it will be introduced  from  2017 onwards,  even if not 
leading to full cost recovery  

132 

 
 
The economic analysis was reported as having been updated. 

14.2 Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMP  and  Programme  of  Measures 

requested action on the following: 

•  Recommendation:  Develop  fully  the  economic  analysis  of  water  use,  including  the 
calculation of Environmental and Resource Costs covering those generated by diffuse 
and point sources, and ensure that the water tariff and the water fees lead to adequate 
recovery of the costs of water services. 

Assessment:  In  the  second  RBMP  the  calculation  method  for  environmental  and 

resource  costs  was  updated  and  a  calculation  was  made  for  many  relevant  water 
services,  but  not  all.  Hungary,  in  addition  to  the  "WRF,  water  resource  fee/tax"  also 

considered  the  water  pollution  charge  and  the  wastewater  fines  as  the  regulatory  tool 
for the internalisation of all environmental costs and of part of the resource costs.  

The  users’  contributions  to  cost  recovery  were  calculated  for  relevant  water  services, 
but  whether  or  not  these  rates  were  adequate  was  not  fully  explained.  Thus  the 

recommendation has been partially fulfilled. 

•  Recommendation:  Consider  whether  exclusion  of  water  pricing  in  agriculture  is 
justified.  Hungary  should  elaborate  on  this  issue  in  the  second  RBMPs.  Prioritize 
clearly  the  measures  foreseen  in  terms  of  cost-effectiveness  and  define  whether 

measures are voluntary or obligatory. 

Assessment:  From  2017  onwards,  there  will  be  a  gradual  water  price  increase  for 

agricultural  water  users  (regulated  by  the  modified  Governmental  Decree  115/2014), 
even  if  not  leading  immediately  to  full  cost  recovery  (a  maximum  of  partial  cost 

recovery  is  planned  in  2021,  with  the  national  budget  covering/subsidising  the  rest). 
The basis of this pricing policy is an affordability analysis which was carried out both 

for the application of agricultural water service charges and for the water resource fee 
payable by agriculture.  

•  Recommendation: The cost-recovery should address a broad range of water services, 
including  impoundments,  abstraction,  storage,  treatment  and  distribution  of  surface 

waters,  and  collection,  treatment  and  discharge  of  waste  water,  also  when  they  are 
"self-services",  for  instance  self-abstraction  for  agriculture.  The  cost  recovery  should 

133 

 
 
be transparently presented for all relevant user sectors, and environment and resource 

costs should be included in the costs recovered. Information should also be provided on 
the incentive function of water pricing for all water services, with the aim of ensuring 

an  efficient  use  of  water.  Information  on  how  the  Polluter  Pays  Principle  has  been 
taken into account should be provided in the RBMPs. 

Assessment:  According  to  WISE,  a  rather  wide  definition  of  water  services  was 
indicated:  drinking  water  abstraction/treatment/distribution,  impoundment/storage  of 

water,  irrigation  water  abstraction/treatment/distribution,  self-abstraction  and  sewage 
collection/wastewater treatment. Self-abstraction has been added since the first RBMP, 

and it was stated in the second RBMP that more water services were included in cost 
recovery  calculations,  such  as  utility  water  supply,  municipal  sewerage  disposal 

service, agricultural water supply, own water intakes, impoundment and storage.  

However,  overall  the  legal  definition  of  water  services  in  Hungary  has  not  changed 

since the first cycle. The use of Article 9(4) was reported for drinking water, irrigation, 
self-abstraction,  wastewater  and  water  storage.  Results  of  affordability  studies  for 

several water services were provided in Annex 5-2 of the second RBMP. 

Hungary  informed  the  Commission  that  the  data  reported  in  WISE  on  cost  recovery 

rates is incorrect. According to the corrected information, cost recovery rates were 110 
% for impoundment/storage of water, while for irrigation water abstraction / treatment / 

distribution, self-abstraction it was 115 % in 2013, but  % between 2014 and 2016.  

In  the  RBMP,  there  were  textual  descriptions  of  cost  recovery  rates  for  different 

services  (structured  differently  than  in  the  WISE  reporting),  explaining  a  "water 
resource  fee/tax"  and  other  legal  provisions.  Here,  it  was  also  stated  that  the  cost 

recovery rate for the impoundment of water for energy production ranged between 132 
%  and  110  %  in  2012  and  2013,  respectively.  Hence,  there  were  inconsistencies 

between the electronically reported information and the information in the RBMP. 

Hungary seemed to regard the "WRF, water resource fee/tax" and the  water pollution 

charge  and  wastewater  fines  as  the  regulatory  tool  for  the  internalisation  of  all 
environmental costs and a part of the resource costs. Methodologies are described in the 

annexes to the RBMP, and the contribution of each type of water user to cost recovery 
was confirmed by means of affordability analyses.  

134 

 
 
The affordability analyses of disproportionate costs and of the Programme of Measures 

between 2016-2021 on macroeconomic level is also used to show that the main actors, 
in particular the population and agriculture, have a limited affordability to pay. 

From  2017  onwards  there  will  be  gradual  water  price  increases  for  agricultural  water 
users (regulated by the modified Governmental Decree 115/2014), but this will not lead 

immediately  to  full  cost  recovery.  The  basis  of  this  pricing  policy  is  an  affordability 
analysis  which  was  carried  out  both  for  the  application  of  agricultural  water  service 

charges and for the water resource fee payable by agriculture.  

Hungary regarded the water load fee (WLF) and the wastewater fines as the regulatory 

tools for applying the Polluter Pays Principle. A study was carried out which examined 
the  possibilities  for  introducing  taxes  which  can  be  levied  on  agricultural  diffuse 

polluters.  One  of  the  conclusions  was  that  so-called  "input  taxes"  (pesticide  tax, 
fertilizer  tax)  were  not  advisable.  It  was  justified  that  "in  order  to  reduce  the  diffuse 

load, greater emphasis should be placed on limiting and preventing transport processes 
(erosion, excess water runoff, water retention)" . 

Overall, progress on this recommendation has been made, but some gaps still remain. 

135 

 
 
 
 
 
Topic 15

  Considerations specific to Protected Areas 

(identification, monitoring, objectives and measures) 

15.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

Hungary has reported types of Protected Areas for all relevant Directives in the second RBMP 
(Table 15.1).  

Table 15.1  Number of Protected Areas of all types in each RBD, for surface and 

groundwater 

Protected Area type 

Abstraction of water intended for human 
consumption under Article 777 

Recreational waters, including areas designated 
as bathing waters under Directive 76/160/EEC78 

Protection of species where the maintenance or 

improvement of the status of water is an 
important factor in their protection, including 

relevant Natura 2000 sites designated under 
Directive 79/409/EEC (Birds)79 

Protection of habitats or species where the 
maintenance or improvement of the status 

of water is an important factor in their 

protection, including relevant Natura 2000 sites 
designated under Directive 92/43/EEC 
(Habitats)80 

Number of Protected Areas in 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Groundwater 

1908 (569) 

1908 (23) 

1933 

41 

55 

197 

28 

55 

369 

54 

374 

77   Hungary  subsequently  informed  the  Commission  that  the  figures  in  Table  15.1  on  drinking  water  protected 
areas  should  be  revised  because  only  a  few  surface  water  bodies  have  direct  connection  to  those  areas. 
Meaning of “Overlapping / partly within Protected Area” and “Dynamically / hydrologically connected with 
Protected Area” were misinterpreted. The corrected data are in brackets in this table. 

78  Directive  2006/7/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  15  February  2006  concerning  the 
management  of  bathing  water  quality  and  repealing  Directive  76/160/EEC  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32006L0007 

79  Directive  2009/147/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  30  November  2009  on  the 

conservation of wild birds http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009L0147 

80   Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and 

flora http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31992L0043  

136 

 
 
 
                                                      
Protected Area type 

Nutrient-sensitive areas, including areas 

designated as vulnerable zones under Directive 
91/676/EEC (Nitrates Directive)81 and areas 
designated as sensitive areas under Directive 
91/271/EEC (Urban Wastewater Treatment 

Directive) 

Areas designated for the protection of 

economically significant aquatic species 

Other 

Number of Protected Areas in 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Groundwater 

4 

4 

1 

7 

129 

26 

133 

Source: Member States reporting to WISE 

The  status  assessments  (both  for  surface  and  groundwater)  are  generally  made  with  high  or 
medium confidence, except for the chemical status for surface water, where unknown status is 
assigned  to  a  significant  number  of  water  bodies.  An  overview  of  the  status  of  water  bodies 
associated with Protected Areas was reported (Figure 15.1). 

81   Council  Directive  91/676/EEC  of  12  December  1991  concerning  the  protection  of  waters  against  pollution 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
agricultural 

sources 

by 

from 
caused 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:31991L0676 

nitrates 

137 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 15.1  Status of water bodies associated with the Protected Areas reported for 

Hungary. Note: based on status/potential aggregated for all water bodies 
associated with all Protected Areas 

Source: WISE electronic reporting 

138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Hungary  used  a  differentiated  approach  for  setting  specific  water  objectives  in  relation  to 

Protected  Areas  under  the  Birds  and  Habitats  Directives.  Objectives  have  been  set  where 
needed; in 25 % of Protected Areas it was reported that WFD objectives are sufficient to meet 

the requirements of these Directives, so additional specific water objectives have not been set. 
Where additional objectives have been set, these are deemed to have been met in some cases 

and not in others. It is not clear how additional specific objectives could be reported as having 
been  met  without  a  dedicated  monitoring  programme.  Hungary  subsequently  clarified  that 

there are dedicated monitoring programmes for protected areas. These are reported under the 
spatial data folder in Reportnet but not in the River Basin District XML files. 

For surface water Drinking Water Protected Areas, objectives have only been set for a small 
part of the designated areas82. 

No data were reported on the specific monitoring programmes for Protected Areas in Hungary 
in surface or groundwater bodies (Table 15.1)83. 

Table 15.1  Number of monitoring sites associated with Protected Areas in Hungary84 

Protected Area type 

Protection of habitats or species where the maintenance or 
improvement of the status of water is an important factor in 
their protection, including relevant Natura 2000 sites85 
designated under Directive 92/43/EEC (Habitats) 

Abstraction of water intended for human consumption under 
Article 7 

Nutrient-sensitive areas, including areas designated as 

vulnerable zones under Directive 91/676/EEC and areas 

designated as sensitive areas under Directive 91/271/EEC 

Number of monitoring sites associated 
with Protected Areas in 

Lakes 

Rivers 

Groundwater 

NR 

NR 

NR 

9 

33 

12 

1195 

338 

1710 

Source: WISE electronic reporting  

NR = not reported 

82   Hungary clarified that approximately 95 % of drinking water originates from groundwater sources.  
83   Hungary subsequently clarified that there are dedicated monitoring programmes for protected areas. These are 

reported under the spatial data folder in Reportnet but not in the River Basin District XML files. 

84   Hungary confirmed that the reported information was inaccurate, the numbers in this table reflect the corrected 

data. 

85   Hungary subsequently clarified that each Natura 2000 site is monitored by national park directorates but that 

precise monitoring sites are not reported. 

139 

 
 
                                                      
Exemptions have only been applied to Protected Areas designated under the Birds and Habitats 

Directives.  Exemptions  have  been  applied  to  82  %  of  the  Protected  Areas  relevant  to  these 
Directives; in 83 % of the Protected Areas to which exemptions are applied the reason for them 

is disproportionate costs, with the rest due to natural conditions. 

15.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

The main change from the first cycle was an increase in the number of Protected Areas related 
to the Habitats and Birds Directives due to the reporting of groundwater dependent Protected 

Areas. According to the updated information, a significant increase in protected areas of water 
intended for human consumption under Article 7 was also observed in the second Plan. 

15.3 Progress with Commission recommendations 

The  Commission  recommendations  based  on  the  first  RBMP  and  Programme  of  Measures 
requested action on the following: 

  Recommendation:  Carry  out  a  more  detailed,  quantitative  pressures  and  impacts 
analysis using source apportionment in the second RBMPs. Applying this more detailed 
analysis,  measures  could  be  assigned  to  water  bodies  specifically  more  focused  on 
agriculture, water abstraction and protected areas.  

Assessment: With regards to measures in relation to Protected Areas, additional basic 

measures  were  only  reported  for  Protected  Areas  designated  under  Article  7  of  the 
WFD. No additional measures were reported, even though some additional objectives 

were  set  to  protect  water-dependent  interest  features  in  Protected  Areas  designated 
under the Birds and Habitats Directives. 

For  measures  in  relation  to  Protected  Areas,  this  recommendation  has  not  been 

implemented. 

140 

 
 
 
 
 
Topic 16

  Adaptation to drought and climate change 

16.1 Assessment of implementation and compliance with WFD requirements 

in the second cycle 

Climate  change  was  considered  and  it  is  stated  that  the  CIS  guidance  on  how  to  adapt  to 
climate  change86  was  used.  Climate  change  was  considered  for  flood  management,  for 
monitoring  change  at  reference  sites  and  for  the  preferential  selection  of  robust  adaptation 

measures.  However,  KTM24  (climate  change  adaptation  measures)  has  not  been  made 
operational to address any of the significant pressures87. No sub-plans were reported nor a link 
to a national strategy88.  

According to  the 2012 “Topic Report on Water Scarcity  and Drought  in  the RBMP”89, there 
was no clear distinction in Hungary between droughts and water scarcity. Even though there is 
no legal obligation to prepare Drought Management Plans, many Member States have prepared 

them  in  order  to  cope  with  droughts.  No  Drought  Management  Plan  has  been  developed  in 
Hungary. Hungary subsequently clarified that a Drought Management Plan was developed but 

not  yet  adopted  by  the  government.  According  to  Hungary,  this  shows  that  there  is  a  clear 
distinction in the country between droughts and water scarcity.  

16.2 Main changes in implementation and compliance since the first cycle 

No climate proofing of measures was reported in the first RBMP, but this was reported in the 

second RBMP. 

16.3 Progress with Commission recommendations 

There  were  no  Commission  recommendations  on  this  topic  based  on  the  first  RBMP  and 

Programme of Measures. 

86   https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/a88369ef-df4d-43b1-8c8c-
306ac7c2d6e1/Guidance%20document%20n%2024%20-
%20River%20Basin%20Management%20in%20a%20Changing%20Climate_FINAL.pdf  

87   Hungary subsequently clarified that KTM24 (climate change adaptation measures) has been made operational 
to address all the significant pressures related  to climate change. This was not reported separately because it 
would be a duplication of the same individual measures. 

88   Hungary subsequently clarified that the 2nd National Climate Change Strategy 2025 with outlook to 2050 was 
approved by the Government on 20/05/2015 and is under adoption by the Parliament. It had not been adopted 
when  the  RBMP  was  prepared.  http://www.vizugy.hu/vizstrategia/documents/E3E737A3-3EBC-4B6F-973C-
5DD9B8A6DBAB/OVGT_foanyag_vegleges.pdf 

89   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/Assessment%20WSD.pdf  

141