Skip to content

Hungary

River floods

Hungary: Vulnerabilities - Present flood risk

The regularly inundated area due to floods and the so-called excess waters is large, about one third of the territory of the country. In the Hungarian Great Plains large areas have no natural drainage (23).

About one quarter of the country is exposed to floods, which is exceptional in Europe. Flood dykes of 4200 km length protect 700 settlements, 2.5 million people, 2000 industrial plants and indirectly about 30% of the GDP. Flood protection has been successful in the past, but recently the Tisza Basin has exhibited new signs of increasing risks: peak flood levels show a clearly increasing trend. Reasons are manifold: primarily impacts of land uses changes primarily in upstream countries and climate alterations are speculated to which siltation of the flood plain bed should be added. Further increases in peak water level are anticipated which could hardly be tolerated by the existing protection system (23).


Read more

Hungary: Vulnerabilities - Future flood risk

The frequency and intensity of large precipitation volumes are projected to increase. Rain related drainage increases in winter, the snow related delayed drainage comes earlier, and floods can come earlier. The rivers will peak at higher levels, with high uncertainty. … Intensity and frequency of floods at inhabited areas are expected to increase (22).

It is highly probable that climate change will affect the high flows of the rivers to some extent, but it cannot yet be justified that these changes will be dominating. Another two affecting factors are the anthropogenic changes on the catchment and the occurrence of weather situations that have not yet been recorded. Therefore the level of flood protection must be anyway increased. It is highly probable that more and more extreme floods will occur, although their time of occurrence cannot be assessed (27).

Europe: casualties in the past

The annual number of reported flood disasters in Europe increased considerably in 1973-2002 (1). A disaster was defined here as causing the death of at least ten people, or affecting seriously at least 100 people, or requiring immediate emergency assistance. The total number of reported victims was 2626 during the whole period, the most deadly floods occurred in Spain in 1973 (272 victims), in Italy in 1998 (147 victims) and in Russia in 1993 (125 victims) (2).


Read more

Europe: flood losses in the past

The reported damages also increased. Three countries had damages in excess of €10 billion (Italy, Spain, Germany), three in excess of 5 billion (United Kingdom, Poland, France) (2).


Read more

Europe: flood frequency trends in the past

In 2012 the IPCC concluded that there is limited to medium evidence available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the magnitude and frequency of floods at a regional scale because the available instrumental records of floods at gauge stations are limited in space and time, and because of confounding effects of changes in land use and engineering. Furthermore, there is low agreement in this evidence, and thus overall low confidence at the global scale regarding even the sign of these changes. There is low confidence (due to limited evidence) that anthropogenic climate change has affected the magnitude or frequency of floods, though it has detectably influenced several components of the hydrological cycle such as precipitation and snowmelt (medium confidence to high confidence), which may impact flood trends (31).

Despite the considerable rise in the number of reported major flood events and economic losses caused by floods in Europe over recent decades, no significant general climate‑related trend in extreme high river flows that induce floods has yet been detected (7).


Read more

Europe: projections for the future

IPCC conclusions

In 2012 the IPCC concluded that considerable uncertainty remains in the projections of flood changes, especially regarding their magnitude and frequency. They concluded, therefore, that there is low confidence (due to limited evidence) in future changes in flood magnitude and frequency derived from river discharge simulations. Projected precipitation and temperature changes imply possible changes in floods, although overall there is low confidence in projections of changes in fluvial floods. Confidence is low due to limited evidence and because the causes of regional changes are complex, although there are exceptions to this statement. There is medium confidence (based on physical reasoning) that projected increases in heavy rainfall would contribute to increases in rain-generated local flooding, in some catchments or regions. Earlier spring peak flows in snowmelt- and glacier-fed rivers are very likely, but there is low confidence in their projected magnitude (31).

More frequent flash floods

Although there is as yet no proof that the extreme flood events of recent years are a direct consequence of climate change, they may give an indication of what can be expected: the frequency and intensity of floods in large parts of Europe is projected to increase (14). In particular, flash and urban floods, triggered by local intense precipitation events, are likely to be more frequent throughout Europe (15).


Read more

Adaptation strategies - Current measures

Further rising of the height of flood levees will not provide an efficient means of flood control. Extreme weather events of the past years and the associated floods and droughts unambiguously indicated that the earlier water management practices couldn’t be continued. Instead of the approach of  “fighting the floods” the concept of “living with the floods” should be followed. Similar changes in the approach are needed in handling excess water and drought problems, which should be aimed at changing land uses and thus reducing the potential damage. Sufficient spaces should be secured for waters and as much water should be stored as possible, diverting these waters to places in water shortage (27). In the Tisza River Basin, for instance, diversification of agricultural land use, and the inclusion of agro-tourism, may help to reduce climate related risks (28).

Following the severe floods of the Tisza between 1998 and 2002, the Hungarian government has adopted an ambitious flood safety plan, the New Vásárhelyi Plan. This plan includes the diversion control of peak flood flows, the retention, use and subsequent return of water to the river, and a further water emergency storage (for a total volume of 1500 million m3),  the cleaning up of the floodplain, and transfer to areas with short supply. In parallel to enhancing flood safety, the plan is oriented to the development of agro-ecological farming practices, ecotourism and nature conservation, in which the constructed water reservoirs play an essential role in changing the landscape structure and land uses (21,23).

Along the Tisza River, in the case of a flood of 1000 years return period, five flood peak storage reservoirs will be able to affect the entire Hungarian Tisza reach. The planned 60 cm reduction of the flood peak will be achieved both locally and also along the whole course of the river. The reservoirs will be activated in each 30th – 40th year and the probability that all reservoirs will be filled simultaneously is less than 1% (27).

Adaptation strategies - Contaminated and toxic waters

Development of cities should be prevented in areas that are vulnerable to toxins, contaminants, or other health hazards that may arise as a consequence of the flooding of industrial and mining operations or brownfield sites. At the same time, concerted efforts need to be made to relocate existing industrial plants out of floodplains and to remediate brownfield sites (30).

Adaptation strategies - General

Non-structural measures are in better agreement with the spirit of sustainable development than structural measures, being more reversible, commonly acceptable, and environment-friendly. Among such measures are source control (watershed/landscape structure management), laws and regulations (including zoning), economic instruments, an efficient flood forecast-warning system, a system of flood risk assessment, awareness raising, flood-related data bases, etc. As flood safety cannot be reached in most vulnerable areas with the help of structural means only, further flood risk reduction via non-structural measures is usually indispensable, and a site-specific mix of structural and non-structural measures seems to be a proper solution. As uncertainty in the assessment of climate change impacts is high, flexibility of adaptation strategies is particularly advantageous (26).

EU Directive on flood risk management

The new EU Directive on flood risk management, which entered into force in November 2006, introduces new instruments to manage risks from flooding, and is thus highly relevant in the context of adaptation to climate change impacts. The Directive introduces a three-step approach (2):

  • Member States have to undertake a preliminary assessment of flood risk in river basins and coastal zones.
  • Where significant risk is identified, flood hazard maps and flood risk maps have to be developed.
  • Flood risk management plans must be developed for these zones. These plans have to include measures that will reduce the potential adverse consequences of flooding for human health, the environment cultural heritage and economic activity, and they should focus on prevention, protection and preparedness.

References

The references below are cited in full in a separate map 'References'. Please click here if you are looking for the full references for Hungary.

  1. Hoyois and Guha-Sapir (2003), In: Anderson (ed.) (2007)
  2. Anderson (ed.) (2007)
  3. Mitchell (2003)
  4. Barredo (2009)
  5. Höppe and Pielke Jr. (2006); Schiermeier (2006), both in: Barredo (2009)
  6. Höppe and Pielke Jr. (2006), in: Barredo (2009)
  7. Becker and Grunewald (2003); Glaser and Stangl (2003); Mudelsee et al.(2003); Kundzewicz et al.(2005); Pinter et al.(2006); Hisdal et al.(2007); Macklin and Rumsby (2007), all in: EEA, JRC and WHO (2008)
  8. EEA, JRC and WHO (2008)
  9. Wang et al.(2005), in: EEA, JRC and WHO (2008)
  10. Milly et al. (2005), in: EEA, JRC and WHO (2008)
  11. Hisdal et al. (2007), in: EEA, JRC and WHO (2008)
  12. Ramos and Reis (2002), in: EEA, JRC and WHO (2008)
  13. Barnolas and Llasat (2007), in: EEA, JRC and WHO (2008)
  14. Lehner et al.(2006); Dankers and Feyen (2008b), both in: EEA, JRC and WHO (2008)
  15. Christensen and Christensen (2003); Kundzewicz et al.(2006), both in: EEA, JRC and WHO (2008)
  16. Palmer and Räisänen (2002), in: EEA, JRC and WHO (2008)
  17. Kay et al. (2006); Dankers and Feyen (2008), in: EEA, JRC and WHO (2008)
  18. Andréasson, et al. (2004); Jasper et al.(2004); Barnett et al.(2005), all in: EEA (2009)
  19. Arnell (2004); Milly et al. (2005); Alcamo et al. (2007); Environment Agency (2008a), all in: EEA (2009)
  20. Dankers and Feyen (2008), in: EEA (2009)
  21. Burnod-Requia (2004)
  22. Hungarian Ministry of Environment and Water (2009)
  23. Somlyódy and Simonffy (2004)
  24. Ciscar et al. (2009), in: Behrens et al. (2010)
  25. Kundzewicz (2006)
  26. Kundzewicz (2002)
  27. Farago et al. (2010)
  28. Werners (2010)
  29. Gautam and Van der Hoek (2003), in: Carmin and Zhang (2009)
  30. Carmin and Zhang (2009)
  31. IPCC (2012)
  32. Feyen et al. (2012)

Share this article: