Project Acronym: SEE River Work package: WP4 – Application of the SEE River Toolkit on the Drava River Corridor Action: 4.1. Preparation of the Drava River Framework – Analysis of the International Drava River Corridor
Preparation of the Drava River Framework Analysis of the International Drava River Corridor
NATIONAL DRAVA RIVER CORRIDOR ANALYSIS REPORT OF HUNGARY
June 2013
National Institute for Environment South-Transdanubian Water Management Directorate Department of Water Resources Management Department of Water Supply Management [email protected] [email protected]
Table of contents: 1. Introduction – Purpose of the Analysis Report ...... 3 1.1. What this report analyses and what is it used for...... 5 1.2. Pilot area versus National Report ...... 6 2. Resource analysis ...... 8 2.1. Location information ...... 8 2.2. Nature values ...... 10 2.3. Water related resources ...... 19 2.4. Cultural values ...... 23 2.5. Economic resources ...... 32 3. Risk analysis ...... 35 3.1. Flood risk ...... 35 3.2. Droughts ...... 38 4. Spatial analysis ...... 40 5. Stakeholder analysis ...... 43 6. Map of hotspots ...... 48 7. Synergies and conflict analysis ...... 49 8. Feasible measures ...... 50 9. Progress indicators and benchmarks ...... 51 10. Reference documents ...... 52 11. Appendix 1 ...... 53
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 2
1. INTRODUCTION – PURPOSE OF THE ANALYSIS REPORT
This report is one of the five National Drava River Corridor Analysis Reports (NDRCAR) describing pilot areas selected in each of the five Drava countries. The report is based on the detailed analysis of pilot areas selected in each Drava country – in this case this is the Hungarian Drava corridor with the pilot area (see location of the pilot are in the following map). Information and insight gained on the pilot area shall make possible the extension of the experiences to cover the whole of the Drava River Corridor.
Pilot area for Hungarian part of Drava
The Drava River is a river that flows through the southern parts of Central Europe. The Drava River links five countries on its 725 km course from the Italian Alps to its confluence with the Danube. The first short stretch lies in Italy, then the Drava flows across Austria and Slovenia into Croatia. Further downstream it forms the basis of the border between Croatia and Hungary before meeting the Danube near Osijek. Sections of the Drava in Hungary and Croatia are some of the most natural and unspoiled waters in Europe, hosting many rare species.
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 3
Drávaszabolcs – Drávakeresztúr Pilot Area
The Pilot Area in Hungary is located between the 80 and 142 rkm sections of the river, from Drávaszabolcs to Drávakeresztúr, including the Drava flood plain up till the tributary Fekete-víz, and the municipality borders of Drávapiski and Drávaszerdahely.
Location map of the pilot area
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 4
1.1. What this report analyses and what is it used for
The aim of the Report is to provide a sound basis of information on the resources, risks, opportunities, potential synergies and conflicts among nature values and existing or potential uses of the river corridor. The purpose of the Report is to support the regional or local consultations held on the management and development of the Drava River Corridor (DRC) with the stakeholders. As some of the information this Report is to contain will be available at a later stage of the SEE River project only, first the “baseline” part of the Analysis Report was issued, covering Chapters 1 to 8. This will be extended with further chapters, utilizing the information revealed by the stakeholder consultations and the results of the development of the Drava River Toolkit. This first issue of the Report contains the baseline analysis of the Drava in terms of Resource analysis (Status of the river corridor regarding Nature values, Water related resources including quantity and quality, Cultural values) Risk analysis (Flood risks and status of flood defence, Climate change, droughts) Spatial analysis (Spatial structure, Identification of the Drava River Corridor) Institutional setup analysis (legal, institutional, organisational setup within the DRC per country) Project analysis (Projects – past, ongoing, planned, foreseen development and conservation projects, including potential threats and benefits involved) Stakeholder analysis (Identification of stakeholders, the existing and future goals and aspirations) Map of Hotspots (to visualise the existing or potential conflict zones between river uses, nature values and development projects) In order to help the process leading towards sustainable and integrated development, thus to move the river corridor towards the notion of a Contemporary River, the Report will at a later stage contain two more chapters on Synergies and conflicts analysis (as identified among projects, stakeholders, conservation and development issues) Feasible measures (→ Toolkit) to dissolve conflicts. Progress indicators and benchmarks (to measure the distance of the present and foreseen status of the river corridor from the goals set in the Drava River Declaration).
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 5
The Report is based on an extensive set of previous reports, documents, plans and other material relevant to the management of the Drava River Corridor. They are listed in the chapter named: Reference documents.
1.2. Pilot area versus National Report
The goal of this National Drava River Report is to give a detailed insight to the pilot area and to provide a general overview for the rest of the river corridor within the country. This difference in expected elaboration allowed different approaches to be followed within the pilot area and outside of it. Pilot areas – where the SEE River project could carry out a detailed survey – cover about 25% of the length or area of the Drava River corridor. On the remaining 75% basically the same type of information was needed for the overview, although the goal of the Analysis Report allowed less exact characterisation. In this latter part estimation methods were mainly applied, ranging from extrapolation and analogy, through fast surveys, to the use of available GIS information andr expert judgement. . . Drava River Corridor . . . . .
. pilot pilot pilot pilot pilot . estimate estimate estimate estimate . Some of the analysis presented in this report has been carried out by the detailed survey of the pilot area and for the rest of the corridor information is based on sources readily available (mainly from river basin management plans, as for example in the case of resource, risk and spatial analysis). From other aspects, practically the same information is valid for the whole area (e.g. institutional setup analysis). In case of the stakeholder and project analyses, a detailed survey of the pilot area has been carried out, meanwhile for the rest of the national river section only the most important projects and stakeholders were identified. Nevertheless, some features of the corridor outside the pilot area were extrapolated or generalized from the pilot area studies, especially those, that have a definite spatial patterns.
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 6
Based upon the contents of the National Reports, a joint report covering the full length of the Drava River will be compiled. The International Drava River Report (IDRR), is mainly derived by the synthesis of the National Reports, has a parallel structure and follows the same line of thinking.
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 7
2. RESOURCE ANALYSIS
In this chapter a short overview of the natural, economic, and social resources intrinsic to the Drava River Corridor is provided. Geographic characteristics of the river corridor are described in concise sections covering the following topics: nature values, water related resources, economic resources, cultural values.
2.1. Location information
The Hungarian section of the Drava is located in the south - southwestern part of Hungary along the Hungarian-Croatian border. The sections of the Drava between 70.2 - 198.6 and 227.6 - 236.0 river kms are shared between among Croatia and Hungary, while the section between 198.6 - 227.6 rkm belongs entirely to Croatia. Areas especially relevant for the SEE RIVER project are the river corridor and the pilot area. Concept and actual delineation of the zone defined as the river corridor will be described in detail in Chapter 4. The Pilot Area is a part of the river corridor between the 80 - 142 rkm sections. Drava is a unique phenomenon in terms of the Hungarian water management and protection of aquatic environment. This is well reflected by the fact that in 1996 it became part of the Danube- Drava National Park and a nature reserve. Its moderate level of regulation and relatively slightly disturbed natural world in the gallery forests along the coast with the peculiar ethnic environment constitutes an irretrievable treasure. In the forest belts along its coast one can still find rare flora and fauna in natural environment. The most important principle of water management and other environmental interventions, acting upon the consequences of socio-economic development, are nature conservation and environment protection, which have been consistently kept in mind by the Hungarian and Croatian experts in water activities of common interest. The basic task of the Drava in the region due to its natural hydrological situation is to play the recipient role. The Drava is the main recipient of waters emanating from the south-east of the Alps; and takes its rise in South-Tyrol in the west end of the Carnic Alps in Italy 1192 m above sea level. Its length is 733 km, the total catchment at its mouth to the Danube is 43238 km2. During the 733 km route its slope of water level 1110 m (average 1.51 m/km).
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 8
TOTAL CATCHMENT AREA OF THE DRAVA
CATCHMENT AREA OF THE DRAVA
CATCHMENT AREA OF THE DANUBE
Five countries are located in its catchment area: Italy has the smallest catchment area, a total of only 86.4 km2, which is 0.2% of the total catchment. Leaving Italy the river enters Austria, where the catchment area of the Drava is 22613.5 km2, 52.3%, the largest among the five countries. Then through Slovenia (4972.4 km2, Slovenia 11.5%,), Croatia, Hungary and again Croatia it reaches the mouth of Danube south from Apatin at Danube river km 1382 m at 82 A. above the sea level. The Hungarian catchment area with its 8431.4 km2 is second largest (19.5%), the Croatian is 7134.3 km2 (16.5%). The catchment area is 33977 km2 in the Barcs section and 35764 km2 in the Drávaszabolcs section of the Drava.
Catchment areas of Drava river by country [km2]
The Drava River catchment is long and relatively narrow. The ratio of the catchment areas in the left and right bank is 1:3.3. The width of the Drava catchment is an average 70 km to the border of Austria, and 35 km down from there to the mouth of the Mura (236 rkm), finally 60 km from there to Osijek (20 rkm). Leaving behind its well and passing around the Alps mountains it takes the path to the east. Its first tributary, which larger than itself is the Isel, and then the Möll, Gail, Gurk, Lavant rivers, one after the other. Its largest tributary is the Mura, which is reached by the Drava in Hungary at the section between 236.0 - 237.0 river km on the left side. Here, the catchment area of the Drava is 16 381 km2.
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 9
2.2. Nature values
The Transboundary UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Mura-Drava-Danube
Spanning over Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, Hungary and Serbia, the lower courses of the Drava and Mura rivers as well as related Danube sections are among Europe’s most ecologically important riverine areas. Since 1993, NGOs have been campaigning to protect the unique landscape of the three rivers in a transboundary biosphere reserve (TBR), they call today “Amazon of Europe”. Step- wise, public administrations and NGOs are more and more cooperating to jointly achieve the TBR. The Mura-Drava-Danube river corridor hosts highly valuable natural and cultural landscapes in all five countries, with long river sections forming the state borders - in the past the Iron Curtain. Here, despite numerous former human interventions, this stunning river landscape kept an amazing biological diversity with rare natural habitat dynamics. Since World War II the largest sections of the Mura-Drava system remained simply untouched (military-“protected” zones). There were only some basic water monitoring and small interventions by the border water commissions. Only in the late 1990s these river areas became subject of contradictory interests: resource exploitation (sediment extraction, hydropower, navigation) and old-fashioned river regulation vs. nature conservation. Today, the corridor’s distinctive natural values are still at risk. Conflicting management practices and various “development plans”, such as regulating the natural river courses, extracting sediments and building new hydrodams, are threatening the TBR’s ecological integrity. In spite of its relative intactness, the TBR river area is subject to important hydromorphological alterations, notably to a continued river bed deepening and floodplain degradation. More than a century of river regulation, building of flood protection dikes, gravel and sand extractions and the upstream hydropower plants (altering the water tables, flow and sediment dynamics etc.) have led to a loss of up to 80% of the former floodplain areas and to the alteration of about 1,100 km of natural river banks and stretches. These changes have direct negative impacts for the long term preservation of the region's characteristic biodiversity and rich ecosystems. Comprehensive restoration efforts are therefore essential in the upcoming decades, and one of the major tasks for the TBR “Mura-Drava-Danube” is to counteract and reverse these negative trends. Restoration measures will allow the riparian countries to achieve EU environmental objectives (WFD, FFHD, BD, FD) and the objectives agreed in the “Drava Declaration” (2008). Besides, for many local people, the intact river and floodplains are vital for their livelihoods, such as fisheries, flood protection, clean water for drinking, forestry and agriculture as well as recreation and tourism. The rivers are part of their rich multi-ethnic cultural heritage. Over the last 15 years, all five Governments set up 12 protected areas along these rivers, thus forming the TBR backbone. In 2009 Croatia and Hungary signed a Joint Declaration to establish the MDD TBR, followed in 2011 by a 5-country Ministerial Declaration. On 11 July 2012, the UNESCO
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 10
MAB Committee in Paris officially approved the Croatian-Hungarian part of the Biosphere Reserve “Mura-Drava-Danube”. These 630,000 ha cover some 80% of the future 5-country area. Serbia, Austria and Slovenia plan to submit their nominations to UNESCO in 2013-2014. If accepted, it would become the first 5-country TBR worldwide. The TBR aims at the conservation and restoration of natural and semi-natural habitats and ecosystems in the cross-border river area. The Ministers agreed that bi- and multilateral cooperation via existing and future framework must aim to improve, harmonise and sustain the management of a shared ecosystem. The new five-country Coordination Board serves to achieve and make the TBR function effectively as well as to develop common conservation and restoration projects and a sustainable use of the MDD river system. National management units shall cooperate with local communities for the benefit of sustainable development that improves ecosystem-based floodplain management and supports the local communities’ livelihood. The first meeting of the new governmental Coordination Board (CB) establishing the MDD TBR was held in October 2011 in Budapest. It was preceded by the first meeting of the International Working Group (IWG), an informal stakeholder forum of some 70 TBR partners (27 NGOs, 3 international organisations, 26 public and governmental institutions, local communes and others) that is facilitated and supported by WWF to ensure regular and diverse inputs to the governments’ work. The CB then adopted a Road Map with all needed steps from nominations to a well-functioning TBR. The 2nd meeting of CB and IWG in May 2012 in the Kopacki rit nature park (Croatia) served to exchange first views on the key issues, common principles and guidelines for harmonised management in the future TBR cooperation framework. This new dimension of coordinated nature and water management is being currently formulated and was discussed at the 3rd CB meeting on 18- 19 September 2013 in Vienna. The TBR MDD has a focus on a very long riverine area and extends well beyond the protected areas and addresses various land uses in the buffer and transition zones of the biosphere reserve, in fact in the wider MDD river corridor. This region is mainly characterised by various, in- and extensive or abandoned agriculture that are at risk to lose valuable elements of the old cultural landscape. The TBR MDD success is strongly connected to a parallel engagement of governments, regional institutions, NGOs and other stakeholders, i.e. there is both a top-down and bottom-up contribution to the TBR. The fact that the entire TBR region is very big and complex, i.e. the sub-regions are different in their landscape character, development standards and priority issues, is perceived as strength but not as a weakness.
Transboundary UNESCO Biosphere Reserve (TBR) in Hungary
In the lower part of the joint MDD TBR system, the large protected areas of the Duna-Dráva national park preserve extensive floodplain forests. Various field actions were undertaken over the last 20
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 11
years to reverse deteriorating trends: Five Drava side-arms were restored and the beaver was re- introduced after more than 100 years. A water retention project has been developed to improve the water discharge of oxbows. On the base of a bilateral working group (2008) and the Ministerial Declaration (2009), Hungary and Croatia prepared and coordinated their TBR nominations in a bilateral Committee. This included their agreement on bilateral objectives, a joint zonation system (harmonised core, buffer and transition zones), an annual Cooperation Programme with action plan (on protection policies and practices, common projects, visitor and tourism policy, cultural heritage, research and monitoring as well as PR). This process involved interested stakeholders and NGOs for coordinating the future activities. This innovative river cooperation constitutes a model for the further extension across the TBR region. Danube-Drava NP is also doing various habitat restoration in corridor areas away from the river: This includes grassland management (conversion of arable land into a wetland/grassland mosaic; mowing and grazing with old breeds of grey cattle; on dry sand dunes removal of alien trees and grazing by local “racka” sheep to suppress invasive weeds) and the renewal of abandoned fishponds. In co-operation with Kopacki Rit (HR), at an old, disconnected oxbow, at the former Danube floodplain a dam was removed and a canal dredged to improve its water discharge.
Rehabilitation of Drava side arms in Hungary
The side-branches, gravelly or fine-sediment substrate fords, gravel and sand bars, shoals, eroding and high banks along the Drava together with their habitats, communities, and surviving more or less natural patches of vegetation appear as a highly varied yet very typical landscape, carrying a peculiar natural and scenic value. Upon recognizing that, Duna-Drava National Park was established in 1996, whose major natural values are the Drava itself, and the mosaic of wetland habitats adjoining the river. This is how the preservation of biological diversity (rare, protected and strictly protected species, valuable communities and associations) can be ensured along the Hungarian section of the river. Croatian side of the river is protected since 2011 as regional park. The Drava, border river between Hungary and Croatia, does not strictly follow the line of the state border: it sometimes crosses the border, flowing through Hungarian land on both of its sides, sometimes it flows winding inside Croatia for kilometres. Its characteristic natural and near-natural habitats have survived in similar condition, preserving the same natural values in both Croatian and Hungarian land.
It is partly the former state border status of this land that made it possible for the biological diversity of the Drava land to survive. Infrastructural development either lagged behind or was totally absent, and agriculture did not take advantage of the opportunities offered by the floodplain areas. On the other hand, increasing human interference started negative processes threatening both the landscape and the sustainability of biological diversity. Earlier Croatian intentions looked at creating another hydro-electric power plant on Drava as a perspective for developing energetics and
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 12
infrastructure in the region. However, the negative effects of hydro-electric power plants on the upper reaches on the living organisms of the Drava are conspicuous. River regulation activities and a series of water management interventions on the Drava have greatly transformed the hydromorphology and hydrodynamics of the river: water velocity has increased in the main bed, causing river bed erosion. Due to the excessive and unsustainable extraction of gravel and sand from the Drava riverbed, the active sediment content of the river decreased drastically. These effects have caused the gradual deepening of the main riverbed, accompanied by a more uncertain water supply to side-branches, the acceleration of their separation and filling up, due to the lack of water and the processes of succession. In some side-branches there are periods during which they become almost completely dry or hold only very little water. In order to preserve the wetland system of Drava side-branches and restore its hydrodynamics, it is essential to implement nature conservation reconstruction activities. Upon recognizing this, the joint Hungarian-Croatian IPA landscape rehabilitation project in 2010-2013 aimed at the reconstruction of side-branches. The hydrological restoration was planned for such Drava sections of Duna-Drava National Park where the negative effects are present most prominently and where the ways of restoration seemed to be the most obvious. As part of the project, the Drávatamási-upper (DTF), Drávatamási-lower (DTA), Tótújfalu (TF) and Drávapalkonya (DP) Drava-side-branches were rehabilitated (habitat rehabilitation - improving of partially damaged habitats, which still preserved some basic features of the original state). Following planning, authorisation and licensing, stone barriers were partially removed and transformed in the side-branches that had been earlier blocked artificially for river regulation purposes. Dredging was carried out so as to provide remedy for silting up and to allow water supply to the rehabilitated side-branches.
The surveying of Drava side-branches was performed on a national level, resulting of whith a publication containing all the existing river side-branches in Hungary (Pálfai 1998). As a continuation, a study was produced in 2004, listing and describing the conditions of side-branches of the Drava sections between river kilometres 70.2 – 198.6 in Hungarian and partly Croatian territories. Altogether 29 side-branches were reviewed, of which 16 where classified as “immediate action required”. This category included only those side-branches which had high nature conservation significance, and were either silted up or had limited or completely no water supply due to cross- directional blockage. The four side-branches at Drávatamási (upper and lower) at Tótújfalu and at Drávapalkonya were, too, classified as “immediate action required”. All four are possessed by the Hungarian State, and managed by the South-Transdanubian Water Management Directorate. As part of Duna-Drava National Park, they are protected nature conservation areas. Their hydrological rehabilitation was launched in 2011 and completed in 2012.
- Drávatamási-upper side-branch
This side-branch stretches on the left side of the Drava, between river kilometres 146.1 – 147.8, in
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 13
the administrative area of Drávatamási and Barcs. Together with the Drávatamási middle side- branch, it encloses a large island. The length of the side-branch is 1.5 km, its average width is 100 m, and its surface area is approximately 15 ha. At its upper confluence section it was blocked across its entire width by a 250-300 m long stone barrier running along the main Drava branch. The width of the lower mouth, measured parallel with the main branch, is 200–250 m, and it is divided into two by an island in its upper one-third. The side-branch carried flowing water only when water levels were higher than the top of the cross barrier. It is located in Hungarian territory with its entire length, the Hungarian-Croatian border passing just below its lower mouth. The Drávatamási middle side-branch is found 150 m upstream from the lower mouth. The main aim of the side-branch rehabilitation was to ensure that much greater amounts of water can run through the side-branch, washing away the bulk of deposited silt and aquatic vegetation, and thus slowing down eutrophication processes and organic matter accumulation, creating better habitat conditions. Among the four side-branches selected for rehabilitation, it is in the Drávatamási- upper side-branch where the original hydrodynamic situation survived the best, with the lowest degree of silting-up. The bottom surface of the side-branch is still hard and gravelly on quite a long section. Based on the hydrological technical plans, water supply to the side-branch was improved by lowering the top level of the stone barrier, and by installing two twinculverts. As works were implemented, the top of the barrier blocking the side-branch was lowered at two places to 2-2.5m lower than the current threshold.
Map of Drávatamási-upper side-branch
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 14
Reconstruction of the stone barrier blocking the side- After the interventions the Drava flows into the side-branch branch inflow in January 2012 in October 2012
- Drávatamási-lower side-branch
This side-branch stretches on the left side of the Drava, between river kilometres 144.25 – 145.15, in the administrative area of Drávatamási. Its length is 0,85 km, average width is 30 m, water surface area reaching approximately 2.6 ha. Together with the main Drava branch, it encloses a small island. The Hungarian-Croatian state border crosses the island longitudinally, thus the entire side-branch is in Hungarian territory. The upper confluence section was blocked across its entire width by a stone barrier, causing silt to accumulate in the bed, which, in turn has resulted in the alteration of hydrodynamics in the side-branch. From what used to be a branch with fast-flowing water and gravelly substrate, a silted-up water body with almost stagnant water was created, resembling an oxbow in the major part of the year. Its lower mouth has an open structure, with a length of 200-250 m measured parallel with the Drava. Towards its upstream end section it is moderately overgrown by vegetation. The lower end is open. It used to take part in the water circulation of Drava only at times of high water level. The main objective of the side-branch rehabilitation here is to recreate water current relations that are as close to the original as possible. At the upper mouth of the side-branch a blocking stone barrier had been built earlier, which caused that the bed of the branch nearby was strongly silted up, as well as in certain sections further downstream. The thickness of the accumulated silt reached as much as 2 metres at places, measured from the optimal bed bottom level. The two stone barriers were partially removed, and a steel twin culvert was installed below the lowered top of the barrier, moreover, dredging and bank reconstruction was accomplished in a section of more than 500 metres. As a result of the rehabilitation, there is a living connection between the river and the side- branch even at low Drava water levels, meaning that water is flowing into the sidebranch even when the water level is 2.5 m lower than before.
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 15
Map of the Drávatamási-lower side-branch
Lower part of the side-branch in July 2011 Beginning of dredging in August 2012
- Tótújfalu side-branch
This side-branch stretches on the left side of the Drava, between river kilometres 140.65 – 141.40, in the administrative area of Tótújfalu. All of its stretch is located in Hungarian territory. With the main river branch of Drava, it encloses two small islands. Its length is 0.9 km, average width is 60 m, water surface area reaching approximately 5.4 ha. The upper mouth is right below a T-shaped regulation object, where the side-branch is moderately overgrown, reaching a width of about 15 m. Its lower, confluence section is above the stone barrier across the bed, its width reaching 100-150 m, measured parallel with the Drava. About 200 m upstream from the lower, confluence mouth, a stone barrier was built. At its middle section, the side-branch allows open connection with the Drava through a minor branch of 5-8 m. Both of its banks are strongly overgrown, covered by the canopy of overhanging trees. The side-branch has minor involvement in carrying flowing Drava water, at times of medium or higher water levels. The bed of the Tótújfalu side-branch is much less filled up than that of the Drávapalkonya branch, therefore only a 200 m long section was dredged in the uppermost part and right below the mouth, and the removed silt was released into the main Drava stream. As part of the reconstruction, the
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 16
permeability of the stone barriers that had been built high before, had to be ensured. The rate of water flow was improved by the partial removal of the stone barriers. At medium-high water levels on the Drava, water supply to the side-branch will be better. In both of the stone barriers,a steel twin culvert was built in, below the lowered top levels, which will allow water into the sidebranch even at times of low water levels. The culverts will supply water to the side-branch even at water levels 1.5 m below the new threshold
Map of the Tótújfalu side-branch
The side-branch is filled up with sand and silt Water supply is improved after side-branch rehabilitation
- Drávapalkonya side-branch
This side-branch stretches on the left side of the Drava, between river kilometres 80.80 – 81.30, in the administrative area of Drávapalkonya. With the main river branch it encloses a larger island (Szerb-island). Its length is 920 m, its average width is 10 m, total water surface area is 0.9 ha. Because its upstream mouth carrying water from the Drava was blocked and was highly overgrown, its landscape forming effect was negligible. Its lower mouth section with the confluence had been filled up by the Drava. The side-branch was not carrying water at all. Its lowermost section of 100 m length is in Croatian territory, the rest of it upstream is in Hungary. Among the four side-branches, it was the one at Drávapalkonya that was most silted up, requiring the removal of altogether 8000 m3
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 17
of silt, sand and sediment on a 840 m long section. Because of the low water levels of the Drava, it was not possible to apply a floating dredge, and thus the works were implemented from land, during the winter. A layer of 0.5-2.5 m thick sediment was removed from the bed. That accomplished, the Drava will be able to fill the bed of the restored side-branch at much lower water levels than before. To allow sufficient flow, the cross-barrier at the middle section of the side-branch was removed partially, down to the new bottom level of the bed. Unfortunately, the lowermost, downstream 100 m section of the side-branch was not part of the rehabilitation works due to its being located in Croatian territory, thus the planned flow parameters cannot be reached at times of average or low water levels.
Map of the Drávapalkonya side-branch
A silted-up part of the side-branch The bed of the restored side-branch filled with water
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 18
2.3. Water related resources
In the catchment area of the Drava the annual rainfall varies between 660 - 1530 mm with an average of 990 mm. In its climate the atlantic, mediterranean and continental influences are also reflected. The precipitation basically characterized by two types: 1.) Affected by the Atlantic Ocean air masses causing precipitation, in the summer - from June to August -, precipitation maximum evolves, which is typical for the Gurk and Lavant Valley. 2.) The effect of the Mediterranean Sea results in a precipitation maximum in the Gali catchment in the autumn, between October-November.
It appears from the rainfall observation data, that the Drava river flow regime is determined typically by the alpine (two-thirds of high mountain catchment area) precipitation. Here the average specific water transport is 20 l/s/km2, contrary to the Hungarian hilly catchment area with its 5 l/s/km2. The flow regime of the alpine section of the Drava is evolved by the combined effect of the Atlantic Ocean, the mediterranean and the continental climate. It can be stated from the average monthly mean water levels for many years, that above the mouth of the Mura the highest water yield usually runs off in June. This derives from the melting snow in the high mountains. Going downwards a secondry peak can be observed in the flow regime caused by the strengthening of the mediterranean effect in autum. In the low-lying catchment area of the Mura, snowmelt begins earlier. As a result of this, downstream from the mouth of Mura higher water levels occur even in May. As a result of the mediterranean influence prevailing in the Mura catchment's climate, in this segment the autumn maximum shifts to October - December. Its water regime is determned mainly by the runoff of the alpine catchment. The Drava in its upper section (Italy, Austria, Slovenia) has high water level slope, an average 2.0 - 2,5 m/km. After coming out of the mountains its water level slope reduced by half, and then in the vicinity of the mouth of Mura is only 45-50 cm/km. Going downstream, in the Hungarian-Croatian section in the area of Vízvár (190 rkm) it has a significant slope break, after which 20-25 cm/km until Barcs, and 7-12 cm/km down to Drávaszabolcs and to the mouth.
The sediment transport capacity of the Drava depends highly on the water level slope of the river, and through this on the kinetic energy of the water. Significant portion of the sediment transported by the segment below the Mura mouth derives form the Mura and from the river bed and bank eroded by the stream, thanks to the 22 hydroelectric power plant set up in 3 countries (Croatia, Slovenia and Austria) above Dubrava, which has water retention effect on the the sediments. Infiltration of small amounts of sediment in coastal areas is likely by the groundwater, however monitoring in this field has not happened so far.
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 19
The Drava's river bed is modified almost daily by the forces forming the shape of a river bed. In the place of water level slope the river loses from its energy and puts down a part of its carried sediment in the form of reefs. However, the energy loss affects the river bed not only longitudinally, but also transversally. The transverse energy shapes and changes the river bed profile; increase, or even break down the reefs. As a result of this, significant reefs have formulated and are formulating also today between Őrtilos and Barcs. In the section below Barcs especially the convex bend of the curve and the short sections under the transverse regulatory works are characterized by deposits of sediments, reefs. The material and granular structure of the river bed is typically gravel until Vízvár (particle size of 16-52 mm), sandy gravel until Barcs (0.5 to 20 mm), and sand down to Drávaszabolcs and to the mouth. In the Drava Valley, from Barcs to the mouth in relatively large depth (20-30 m) sand without a top layer can be found.
Water regime of the Drava
Water regime of the Drava is well balanced due to favourable conditions prevailing in the catchment and the many hydroelectric power plants operating upstream. The ratio of the medium low flow to medium flow is 1:2,6 and middle to high flow is 1:3,7 - 1:5.
There are four gauging stations on the Hungarian Drava, at three of them regular discharge measurements are also taken. Stage and discharge data series are available at Őrtilos, Barcs, and Drávaszabolcs, while only stages at Szentborbás.
Water flow characteristics of the Drava in Hungary Name Location Gauge 0 LNV (cm)/date LKV Design flood water LKQ LNQ (rkm) (m.a. sl) (cm)/date level (MÁSZ): (m3/s) (m3/s) Őrtilos 235,9 125,94 476 cm (1972. -168 cm (2000. 437 cm (130,31 m 95 m3/s 1860 m3/s VII. 18.) II. 26.) B.f) Barcs 154,1 98,14 618 cm (1972. -164 cm (2011. 627 cm (104,41 m 114 m3/s 3040 m3/s VII. 19.) XI. 24.) B.f.) Szentborbás 133,1 94,74 634 cm (1972. VII. 20.) Drávaszabolcs 77,7 86,76 596 cm (1972. -55 cm (2002. II. 614 cm (92,90 m 127 m3/s 2490 m3/s VII. 22.) 14.) B.f.)
The difference between observed extrema (highest and lowest values) of the river stages at Őrtilos is 644 cm, at Barcs 782 cm, at Drávaszabolcs 651 cm. In case of discharges the proportion of the extrema is informative: at Barcs the ratio of the maximum to the minimum is 26,7, while at Drávaszabolcs 19,6.
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 20
Over the past decades, analysis of water level and discharge data did not detect any trend in the discharge, only some decrease of the water levels. This suggests that in the Drava runoff no effect of the global climate changes reveal itself. Along the Drava above Hungary 22 hydroelectric power plants with reservoirs have been built, and their operation significantly effect the water regime of the Hungarian part of the river. There are 3 plants in Croatia, 8 in Slovenia and 11 in Austria. However the hydroelectric power generation affects the water regime, especially the daily fluctuation in the operation of the Dubrava hydroelectric power plant, which is right above the Hungarian Drava stretch. The role of the amount of water stored by the hydroelectric power plant is to make operation of the plant more predictable, so when energy is needed, be the amount of water available, from which it can be produced. The following three diagrams illustrate the daily changes in water level resulting the operation of the lowest Dubrava hydroelectric power plant:
Water levels at Dráva-Őrtilos water gauge between 21.09-23.09.2004.
Water levels at Dráva-Barcs water gauge between 22.09-24.09.2004.
Water levels at Dráva-Drávaszabolcs water gauge between 23.09-25.09.2004.
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 21
Further information on flood flows can be found in Section 3.1 (Flood risk) of this report.
Water quality, water status of the drava
The River Basin Management Plan of the Drava designated the Hungarian stretch of the river Drava into two surface water bodies: Drava upper (code: AEP439) and Drava lower (code: AEP438). Both water bodies were identified as heavily modified, due to river control structures and because the flood zone is reduced in width by the levees. The biological, physico-chemical and hydro-morphological status of the water bodies is shown by the following tables.
Biological characteristics Code Phyto- Phyto- Macro- Benthic Fish fauna Biological benthos plankton phytes invertebrate status Drava lower good good - good high good Drava upper - good - - good good
Physico-chemical characteristics
Code organic Physico-chemical nutrients salt content acidity matter status
Drava lower high high high high high Drava upper high high high high high
Hydro-morphological characteristics Code Hydro-morphological status
Drava lower moderate Drava upper good
The above presented data render the overall ecological potential of the Drava water bodies to the cathegory ‘good’.
The chemical status on Drava lower is good, while Drava upper is suffering from data gaps.
The environmental objective attributed to the Hungarian Drava stretch is to sustain the good potential.
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 22
The overall ecological assessment scored better than the hydro-morphological status which was the reason for the measures set for repairing the latter conditions. On the upper Drava the hydropower plant of Croatia has an influence on hydrology, so bilateral steps are needed to fulfil the objectives. On this water body the next measures has been foreseen:
Water supply of the habitats of disconnected oxbow lakes and floodplains (2015-21) Water supply of the side arms and old oxbows on the connected floodplain, lifting of water levels in the main river bed (2015-21) On erosion prone areas change of cultivation method and sector (2015-21) Maintenance of river beds (2015-21) The measures foreseen on the lower Drava:
Water supply of the habitats of disconnected oxbow lakes and floodplains (2015-21) Water supply of the side arms and old oxbows on the connected floodplain, lifting of water levels in the main river bed (until 2015) Reduce the regulation of the river (until 2015) Assessment of the habitat conditions, explore the reasons of the degradation, making of maintenance plans
2.4. Cultural values
The region in South-West Hungary along the Croatian border is characterised by an undisturbed natural environment, the vicinity of the Dráva River, a diverse and rich biota as well as a varied cultural and ethnic heritage. Project “Three Rivers Bike Route” organised by the South-West Hungary Regional Development Office received a grant in 2005 from the INTERREG IIIA fund. The project directly aims to connect the region along the Hungaro-Croatian border to the network of international bike routes, thus enhancing tourism. Successful completion of the project will make this region an integral part of the international bike route network: from Mohács it is connected to the EuroVelo® line, from Murakeresztúr, continues along the line of the western border, and it will be part of the Three Rivers bike route leading from Austria. The project will also allow for the joint development of products and services, the creation of an integrated range of cross-border tourism offers, the high-quality presentation of the treasures of the Danube-Dráva National Park, and the involvement of local entrepreneurs and local governments in the product development process. In the course of the project, bike routes if approximately 120 km have been defined between Mohács and Barcs, connecting 34 settlements, and in part following the border along the Dráva River (between Drávaszabolcs and Barcs). The route spans two counties and four subregions in South-West Hungary along the border. The route follows in part low-traffic highways that are suitable for cycling
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 23
and in part the flood prevention bank, thus visitors will have the opportunity to get acquainted with both the treasures of the local settlements and the environment of the Dráva River.
There is no surfaced road between Barcs and Drávatamási on the bike route.
Western-Drava
Őrtilos where the Mura River flows into the Drava is paradise for nature lovers and naturalists. Here start the adventurous journey of the water tourists, providing lasting memories and pass the “Three Rivers Bike Route” international cycle tour itinerary. The route to Szentmihály Hill starts from the riverside railway station and weaves through the vineyards, finally offering a wonderful view of the River Dráva. St. Michael's church, on the hill top, was built in the 18th century on foundations dating from the Middle Ages. Annually, on the Sundays following the Day of Saint Mihály and Saint Anna, a border crossing is temporarily opened on the Dráva, and a ferry carries the Croatian and Hungarian people across the river. The New Zrínyi Castle once stood on the Belezna side of Őrtilos, but following the Turkish seize of 1664, this was never renovated. The unique flora and fauna of the Dráva may be studied on a 10 kilometre nature trail along its banks.
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 24
St. Michael's church St. Michael's church
Monument of Zrinyi Castle East side moat of Zrinyi Castle
The pure water of Lake Kotró one of the hot spots of national and international diving may be found at Gyékényes. The village has become renowned thanks to the quarry lakes lying beside it. Of these the largest is Lake Kotró, which has hosted diving events, (including European and World Championships,) for years. The traditional Nagyatád Triathlon Competition also begins with the swimming of this lake. The Evangelist church was built in the neo-gothic style in 1887 and the neo- classicist Roman Catholic church between 1830-35. The Kossuth Supper has been traditional in Gyékényes for over a century. The locals meet annually on the weekend following March 15th to commemorate the events of the 1848-49 uprising. Originally this was a private event, but today many arrive from far away to witness this early spring event.
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 25
Kotró Lake Momument of 1848-49 in Gyékényes
Roman Catholic church in Gyékényes Evangelist church in Gyékényes
Close to the row of old chestnut trees in the centre of Csurgó lies the protected park of the Protestant Grammar School. This symbol of the town was founded in 1792 by Count Festetics and the former school now houses the town museum with its rich collection of local-history material. It is also home of an international art camp held each summer. The current school building was founded in 1896 and is surrounded by the aforementioned park. Many famous names of the day are linked to the founding of the school and Mihály Vitéz Csokonai, during his time as a teacher here, wrote many begging letters asking for books, as there was no school library. Over time a rich collection came into being, which today is unique. Nearby stands the Korona Hotel, built in 1895 and the former savings bank palace, which is today the Town Hall. The eclectic building of the library dates from the beginning of the last century and the Meller House from the 1880's. The Csokonai Community Centre also adorns the town centre, its upper floor a tourist information centre affording a taste of the flora and fauna of the National Park.
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 26
Protestant Grammar School in Csurgó Ágneslaki Arboretum in Csurgónagymarton
To the south-east from Csurgó we find the Festetics Manor and the glorious trees of its park in Berzence, which was built in 1750, and today operates as a social home. Likewise dating from the 18th century is the Postal Inn on the high street and to which Imre Makovecz's Community Centre has been sensitively added. This was one of the stops on the Sopron to Pécs post route. At the Holy Cross in Árpád Square we may see sculptures of Saint Katalin and Saint John of Nepomuk, followed by three chapels and a parish church, amongst which the Chapel of Christ's Heart has been a place of prayer since 1908. Berzence's newest pride is the renovated school, completed in 2007, providing a home for the exhibition of fauna and flora of the Danube-Dráva National Park, the 'Gold-panning in the Carpathian Basin' exhibition, and the local history collection, containing the costumes of the various local ethnic groups. In the Lankóc and Vecsenye Forests we may be lucky enough to find plants such as the Butcher's Broom, the Thin-spiked Wood-sedge, the Spinulose Woodfern and the Scrubland Nettle.
Festetics Manor in Berzence Baroque church in Berzence
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 27
Imre Makovecz's Community Centre in Berzence
Middle-Drava
Narcissus garden of the Pasha Flower-filled meadows, forests full of game and a special surprise - a 12 hectare blanket of white narcissus - await visitors to Babócsa. During the Turkish occupation the Pasha built a palace, Turkish bath, and seraglio here, planting the garden of narcissus for the ladies of his harem. At the end of April, during their flowering, a rich cultural and sports programme is organised in the Pasha Garden. The Princze Manor offers a rich archaeological collection. Walk up Castle Hill to view the church, in which the members of the Somssich family are laid to rest amongst frescoes painted by Gyula Merész. In the Middle Ages Babócsa was one of Somogy County's most significant settlements, to which the underground ruins bare witness. More information on the subject is available at the keeper's house at the entrance to the Pasha Garden, to the right of which lie the remains of the Saint Egyed church, whilst crossing the bridge opposite, we find the banks of the castle.
Turkish well int he Pasha Garden House for guardian int he Pasha garden
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 28
Ruins of the Saint Egyed church The Castle of Somssich family in Babócsa
In Drávaszentes a teaching and visitor centre has been built. The building was planned by architect Sándor Dévényi and includes a lecture room for 80, accommodation, offices and a 13-metre high lookout-tower. The Refreshing Meadows Study Trail begins from the centre and ends at the ornithological lookout-tower and provides an insight into local wildlife. During the course of the walk the visitor will meet with the large herd of long-horned grey cattle belonging to the Danube-Dráva National Park. On the meadows of the visitor centre indigenous animal species are presented in a show farm. Thanks to the Dráva Project the centre has been extended and an interactive nature- study exhibition has been included in the 300m2 attic showing the wildlife of the riverside and its varied landscape. A tree has been placed amongst the maps and models and a giant eagle's nest, which can be climbed into by the younger generation.
Teaching and visitor centre in Drávaszentes Teaching and visitor centre in Drávaszentes
The future of Barcs is based on those treasures which greet our gaze wherever we look and, central to them, on the River Dráva. The quayside here was planned with the advice of round-the-world sailor Nándor Fa. One may walk along the promenade from the quay as far as the bathing area, using a beautiful footbridge to enable one's crossing of the Rinya Stream. The bathing area has been up- dated as a part of the Dráva Project, offering bathing possibilities in natural surroundings, and parking facilities. After a refreshing swim we may follow the plane and lime tree-lined route to the
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 29
town centre, where the Dráva Museum offers an insight into the town's local history, stretching back seven thousand years.
Drava Museum In Barcs Drava Museum In Barcs
Eastern-Drava – the Ormansag
Although Sellye was decreed a town in 1997 its golden age in the past was during the time of King Mátyás, when it was an estate and religious centre. The Franciscan Cloister was burnt down by the Turks in 1532, as was the 14th Century castle. Today the town is famous for the Baroque-style Draskovich manor-house, currently serving as a student hostel. It is surrounded by the arboretum, which was planted in 1760-70, then on a 15-hectare site. It was placed under protection in 1995 in consideration of its 335 species of trees, including the Giant Redwood. Next to here is the Museum. It is worth visiting if you would like a thorough insight into the life of the Ormánság. It contains material on folk art, vernacular architecture and the local lifestyle. The town offers many interesting events for the tourist, amongst which we find the Art Camp, the Youth Art Camp, the Town Fete, street parties and the Grape-harvest Procession. The Melon Festival is worthy of special mention; a fruit of especial importance here.
Draskovich manor-house in Sellye Garden of the Draskovich manor-house in Sellye
Drávaiványi with two hundred inhabitants lies a stone's throw from Sellye and the River Dráva and the thus the "Three Rivers" cycle route is easily reached along the embankment. The pride of the
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 30
village is the nationally protected Protestant church of 1792, which is built in the Late Baroque style. Its ceiling is decorated with 164 painted wood panels, no two of which are the same, and it is perhaps the most authentic example of the ancient Hungarian symbolic system. The "Sun Disk" in the centre also lists the patron builders. In agreement with the Emperor the church was built by donations from the landowners and work from the local parishioners.
The church in Drávaiványi The painted wood panels of the church
"What's in the pot, Aunt May" is a question that has come to symbolise the culinary event held in Kémes each June. Knowing the local cuisine Aunt May has surely conjured up a dish fitting to the folkloric events to be seen at the cottage museum. Kémes is a part of the regional eco-tourism development project, thanks to which the cottage museum came into being, presenting the local ethnographic memorabilia and also the typical Ormánság parlour. Both the restored railway station and the old mill are worth visiting. The Neo-baroque Protestant church was built almost two hundred years ago and is decorated with painted panels on the ceiling and choir. There is also a beautiful twin-towered Roman Catholic church. The locals swear that they once had a castle in the village, joined to that of Siklós by an underground passage. Going further back, during the construction of a bridge during the 1950's, Roman graves were discovered and elsewhere Bronze Age urn graves have been found.
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 31
Twin-towered Roman Catholic church in Neo-baroque Protestant church decorated with Kémes painted panel sin Kémes
The town is first mentioned in 1323 and the medicinal waters of Harkány, in 1823. Tradition has it that a local labourer discovered that the waters of the local marshes proved beneficial for his chronic leg pains. Building of the baths was begun in 1824 by the Batthyány family, owners of the nearby Siklós Castle. It became a Mecca for sufferers of rheumatic diseases and today receives close to a million visitors a year. The water is also beneficial for digestive disorders and skin diseases. The baths are set in a 13.5-hectare park and the water surface covers almost 8,000m2, with a covered recreation area of a further 5,000m2. The first wells were made in 1866 and 1882, but today other wells provide the water for the baths. Between the historic castle walls Gazing from Tenkes Hill towards the River Dráva we look over the sunniest part of the country and Siklós Castle, proudly ruling over its bustling small town. The first cultural mark - still evident today - was left by the sandals of the Roman legionaries, in the form of the introduction of viticulture and viniculture. They also left a mosaic-floored villa and many carved column-capitals and sarcophagae, some of which are on public view. The area, rich in natural treasures, was given the name of an ethnic group derived from Kán the conqueror, the Soklyósi, under which name the castle is first mentioned in the 13th Century. The historical heritage reaches into the recently restored town centre too and of note are the Serbian Orthodox church and the Turkish mosque. The fame of the local wines has reached afar and thanks to them Siklós has become a centre of agriculture and trade over the centuries. The Dráva Project has also made a contribution, providing a tour station at the arboretum and effecting the restoration of the former Postal Hostelry, which now caters for hikers, cyclists and riders.
Siklós Castle Turkish mosque in Siklós
2.5. Economic resources
Economic activity in the Drava region is rather low, due to historical reasons. Sectors offering the most significant prospect in the area are agriculture (including forestry) and tourism. A program on
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 32
the development of tourism infrastructure is under wax, whaile and another programme, named Old-Drava, with the objective of providing better access to water resources for recreation, irrigation, and nature conservation purposes is in the planning phase.
Old-Drava Program
Old-Drava Program is a complex regional development program equally affecting the natural, social and economic spheres, which can create the conditions of the sustainable development in the long term in one of the most disadvantaged regions of Hungary, the Ormánság. The Program may become the first national model program for regional and rural development resulting in durable solutions and, if successful, it can also be a model at international scale. The planning area of the Program and the list of the local governments affected by the Program are included in the following figure and table. 7 out of the 43 affected settlements are in Somogy county, while the other 36 settlements are in Baranya county.
The current way of water management in the area and the landscape use based thereon (especially the industrial agriculture) causes drought and the degradation of the natural systems across the whole Ormánság. Besides the degradation of the natural environment, the disintegration and the
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 33
cultural and economic impoverishment of the society are typical. The previous living opportunities (grazing livestock, fishing, pomiculture, etc.) have already disappeared on the large part of the area.
Currently the dominant industrial agriculture provides income opportunities only for a narrow layer of the local population, however – in the absence of major cities – only the primer sector and the small local manufacturing based thereon would be able to create masses of jobs in the short and medium term. The restoration of the once rich natural environment and the landscape management based thereon is a primary mission across the whole Ormánság. In economic terms, nowadays, the region is one of the most underdeveloped regions of Hungary where the local society lives in complete hopelessness.
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 34
3. RISK ANALYSIS
Risk analysis deals with the three major risks within the Drava River Corridor: flood risk, water quality hazards and droughts. The analysis detailed in this chapter covered the risk phenomenon, its expected probabilities and effects on the Corridor, and the mitigation measures taken or contemplated to be taken in the future. The probable effect of climate change both on expected floods and droughts is part of the analysis.
3.1. Flood risk
Flood wave characteristics of the River Mura and Drava are similar, due to the similarity of the two catchments. It is not unusual that their floods meet and superponate at the confluence at Őrtilos (236,0 rkm). In such cases extreme high flood waves occure, as it was the case in 1951, 1965, 1972, and 1975.
Flood recession time depends also on the imponding effect of the Danube, which can even be felt at Drávaszabolcs, 60 kilometres upstream.
The following table shows the 100 year flood levels at different sections of the river. Levels are given in metres above mean Baltic Sea level (the geodetic reference system used in Hungary), as well as in metres above mean Adriatic Sea level (the reference system used in Croatia).
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 35
100 year flood level Location River km m above m above (municipality, gauge station, tributary confluence) Baltic Sea Adriatic Sea 70,2 91,89 92,57 State border, outflow to HR 76,5 92,74 93,42 Fekete-víz confluence 77,7 92,9 93,58 Drávaszabolcs gauge station 78,7 93,04 93,72 Egerszegi-patak confluence 80 93,24 93,92 Drávapalkonya 90 94,73 95,41 Cún 100 96,22 96,90 Vejti 110 97,39 98,07 Drávasztára 119,5 98,98 99,66 Korcsina-patak confluence at Drávakeresztúr 120 99,13 99,81 Drávakeresztúr 128 100,32 101,00 Felsőszentmárton 134 101,22 101,90 Tótújfalu 134,3 101,26 101,94 Szentborbás gauge station 140 102,17 102,85 Drávagárdony 143 102,6 103,28 Drávatamási downstream end 146 103,12 103,80 Drávatamási upstream end 147 103,25 103,93 Rigóc-patak confluence at Drávatamási 154,1 104,41 105,09 Barcs gauge station 155 104,55 105,23 Barcs 157 105,02 105,70 HR 159 105,49 106,17 HR 165 106,89 107,57 HR 172 108,57 109,25 HR 183 112,54 113,22 Bolhó 187 113,02 113,70 Heresznye 197 114,99 115,67 Bélavár, Dráva inlow section from HR 200 116,06 116,74 HR 203 117,2 117,88 HR 208 119,1 119,78 HR 215 121,77 122,45 HR 217 122,64 123,32 HR 226,5 126,76 127,44 Zákány-Botovo bridge, Dráva outflow section to HR 235,8 130,31 130,99 Őrtilos gauge station 236,5 130,62 131,30 Légrád 236,7 130,72 131,40 Mura confluence
The potential flood zone, the total area exposed to the 100 year return period flood along the Drava in Hungary is 514 km2. Out of this area 296 km2 (58%) is protected flood plain, i.e. protected flood
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 36
levees. The extent of the unprotected or inadequately protected area is 218 km2 (42%). This includes the floodway as well as the area exposed to inundation by the 100 year flood area.
Flood risk area along the River Drava Flood zones Area, km2 Drava inundation area 218 Drávaszabolcs protected flood plane 82 Kémes protected flood plane 27 Ormányság protected flood plane 187 Drava flood plain, total: 514
On the left bank, on the Hungarian side of the river flood levees were built between Drávaszabolcs (64,5 rkm) and Drávagárdony (140,6 rkm). Above that section high riverbanks and high terrain provide enough protection against flood waves. Consequently, the flood zone was left more or less within its natural boundaries and the side-arms were not separated from the river by the flood levees. Total length of the Drava flood levees is 100,1 km, including those built along the tributary Fekete-víz near its confluence to the river.
Most part of the floodway is covered with forest, a smaller proportion is covered by pasture/grassland or tillage, while the rest is occupied by side-arms and tributaries. Proportions of the above land cover categories are depicted in the folowing figure.
Land cover, %
Other Pasture Forest
Levee km
Land cover of the foreshore between 0 – 73,0 levee km along the Drava (64,5-141,5 rkm)
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 37
Average witdth of the foreshore on the Hungarian riverbank is 600-700 m, the narrowest is in the vicinity of Tésenfa and Kémes (20,5 – 21,0 rkm), where it is only 80 m, while the widest is at Drávasztára (48,5 – 49,0 rkm) where the width is 1,8 km. The following figure depicts width of the foreshore along the left riverbank.
Width of the foreshore, m
Levee km
Width of the foreshore between 0 – 73,0 levee km along the Drava (64,5-141,5 rkm)
3.2. Droughts
The recent years’ more and more frequent climate fluctuations affect particularly adversely the Ormánság, a region with scarce water management. Heat and cold records fell surprisingly often between 2007 and 2012, extreme values in the climate appear more and more often. National heat records were measured several times and in more seasons in the Ormánság, e.g. in Sellye, which were followed by 25-30 ˚C cooling downs more than once (e.g. in the winter of 2009/2010). The precipitation amount shows amazing extremes in the recent years. Nearly 1350 mm precipitation fell in the region in 2010 and giant (inland) wetland areas were created, then in 2011 the climate changed to almost semiarid-like similarly to the period between 2000 and 2009, the monthly precipitation amount (until September 2012) usually did not reach 30mm. Such fluctuation in
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 38
temperature and precipitation affects every living organism and damages the biodiversity even further. The precipitation deficient years has lasted – apart from some exceptions (e.g. 2010) – since the beginning of the 1990s which results in catastrophic consequences in the Ormánság: the subsoil with poor water balance (e.g. alluvial gravel blanket) and the withdrawing effect of drainage channels have almost desiccated the area. Simultaneously, the bad water system does not keep the precipitation falling in some wet years but wicks it away, the water-holding capacity of the water system is not sufficient and the current system even prepares the more rapid dehydration after the rainy periods.
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 39
4. SPATIAL ANALYSIS
This project is focusing on the river corridor, a spatial entity, that can be defined as the area under the direct influence of the river. This influence might be - of a physical character (e.g. the flood prone area), or - due to ecological, environmental, economic or functional connections. Although the previous chapters were already exploring and analysing different aspects of the river corridor, it mostly remained a notion, rather than a spatially defined area. This chapter intends to review and synthesize the spatial representations of the resource and risk elements described in Chapter 2 and 3, and give an overview of the procedure that resulted in the delineation of the Drava River Corridor within the pilot area and along the Drava River in Hungary. The spatial analysis includes the following elements: Drava riverbank, and levees/dikes Reservoirs, impounded sections within the river Side-branches, oxbow lakes and tributary confluences along the river Location of artificial flood control elements in the river or along the riverbank Flood risk areas, historical flood zones (delineate at least the area which could be flooded by the 100 years return period flood – a characteristic the Flood Directive is also explicitly referring to.) Extent of groundwater aquifers under influence of the river Nature protection areas, national parks, Natura 2000 areas, planned extension of nature areas along the floodplain Municipalities, including present and planned built up areas (as defined in the relevant spatial development plans) Infrastructure development plans (roads, railway, etc.) Land use including agriculture (tillage, pasture/meadows), forestry, recreation, mining (e.g. gravel lakes), etc. along the floodplain (use of the EU Corine database suggested) National spatial plans
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 40
Delineation of the Drava River Corridor on the left bank of the River Drava.
The River Corridor is identified by the morphological floodplain, i.e. the zone that has been occupied by the river in the last 400-500 years. Distinguishing feature of the zone is the presence of oxbows, abandoned and partly sedimented side-arms, and morhological remnants of intesive riverine activity.
Much of the river corridor is prtedted nature area. The following figure shows the spatial connections between nature area and river corridor.
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 41
Map of the river corridor and the protected nature areas.
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 42
5. STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
In this chapter the results of the stakeholder identification process is provided. A list and short characterisation of the a stakeholders should be compiled for the pilot area, and of those that have a major role concerning the national river corridor.
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 43
Type of organisation Organisation Contact person E-mail address Telephone Potential role in the pilot (ministry, local number action process authority, NGO etc) Duna-Dráva Nemzeti Institution Institutional stakeholder [email protected] Park Igazgatóság Dél-dunántúli Institution Environmental authority Környezetvédelmi, [email protected] Természetvédelmi és Vízügyi Felügyelőség Dráva Menti Organization SH Water management [email protected] Vízitársulat Baranya Megyei Institution SH Regional development [email protected] Kormányhivatal Baranya Megyei Institution SH Regional development [email protected] Önkormányzat Tiffán Zsolt (a Baranya Institution SH Regional development Megyei Önkormányzat [email protected] Közgyűlésének elnöke, országgyűlési képviselő)
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 44
Dél-Baranyáért NGO SH Regional development [email protected] Alapítvány Siklósi Többcélú Organization SH Regional development [email protected] Kistérségi Társulás Aquaprofit Műszaki, Business SH Water management [email protected], Tanácsadási és [email protected] Befektetési Zrt. Magyar Turizmus Zrt. Business SH Tourisme Dél-dunántúli [email protected] Regionális Marketing Iroda Dél-Baranya Organization SH Regional development Határmenti Települések [email protected] Egyesülete Leader- HACS Mecsekerdő Zrt. Business [email protected] SH Forestry Ormánságfejlesztő Organization SH Regional development Társulás [email protected] Fenntartható Organization SH Regional development Ormánság Nonprofit [email protected] Közhasznú Kft. Ormánság Szíve NGO SH Regional development Kiemelkedően [email protected] Közhasznú Alapítvány
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 45
Ormánság Alapítvány NGO [email protected] SH Regional development Dráva Alapítvány NGO [email protected] SH Regional development Dráva Szövetség NGO [email protected] SH Regional development Sellyei Kistérségi Organization SH Regional development [email protected] Társulás Sellye és Környéke Organization SH Industry [email protected] Ipartestület Maláka Szociális Organization SH Regional development [email protected] Szövetkezet Okorág Községe Local government [email protected] SH Municipality Markóc Községe Local government [email protected] SH Municipality Drávakeresztúr Local government SH Municipality [email protected] Községe Drávafok Községe Local government [email protected] SH Municipality Felsőszentmártoni Local government [email protected] SH Municipality Körjegyzőség [email protected] Sellyei Szarvas NGO SH Recreation Vadásztársaság [email protected] Okor Vt [email protected] Dráva-Fa Bt. Business [email protected] SH Forestry Dráva Agro Zrt Business [email protected] SH Agriculture Dráva-Sziget Kft. Business [email protected] Első Magyar Biogáz Business SH Industry [email protected] Kft. Batul Bt. Business [email protected] SH Industry
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 46
Euro Kliens Kft Business [email protected] SH Industry Faller és Társa Bt. Business [email protected] SH Industry Ormánsági Arany Business SH Agriculture [email protected] bárány kft.
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 47
6. MAP OF HOTSPOTS
Making use of the results of Chapters 2 and 3 on resources and risks – with special emphasis on nature values, conservation goals and economic resources, on flood and water quality risks – including their spatial relationships as collected in Chapter 4, moreover the spatial information of development projects (or aspirations) addressed in Chapter 6, a map of conflicting river corridor uses will be constructed. In the pilot area the conflict spots or zones were identified in a profound way, while on the rest of the DRC potential conflicts zones were assigned in a more indicative manner, using the available, less detailed data and extrapolations. Conflict locations are categorised and marked separately by type (e.g. conservation versus river training, versus flood control, versus tourism, etc.) and significance. The map of hotspots prepared within the 5 National Drava River Corridor Analysis Reports will be merged into a map of the whole DRC.
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 48
7. SYNERGIES AND CONFLICT ANALYSIS
Based on the database of projects and the results of the institutional and stakeholder analysis, the possible synergies and conflicts among projects and stakeholder aspiration will be analysed in this chapter. Proposed means of the analysis will be the synergy table and the conflict table constructed on known or estimated characteristics of development projects and nature conservation measures, plans. Using these tables, possible synergies and conflicts between/among different categories of projects can be cross-examined. Based on the above tables, a more concrete analysis of the actual projects will be given in this chapter.
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 49
8. FEASIBLE MEASURES
The aim of this chapter is to offer a set of feasible measures, which can be applied in the course of the project for the stakeholder involvement and consensus building process; the resolution of particular conflicts; promoting integrated river corridor management approaches; reshaping project ideas to have better local/regional/international acceptance, to be eligible for financing schemes, to reconcile with other sectoral or stakeholder aspiration. Some of the proposed measures do concern processes, like stakeholder involvement, consensus building, conflict resolution, while others concern project content, and it was worthwhile to differentiate between the two categories. The Analysis Report is not intended to come up with decisions, this is definitely in the hands of the stakeholders and the public authorities responsible for policies and licensing. Therefore it was necessary to offer a choice of potential measures the interested parties might select from.
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 50
9. PROGRESS INDICATORS AND BENCHMARKS
Progress indicators are the means to measure the distance between a past and a present or future status, with reference of the fulfilment of certain goals. In this case the goals were derived from the objectives of the Drava River Declaration. Most of these objectives are rather general and worded in an easily perceptible manner, therefore the indicators have also be kept as simple as possible, to be in accordance with the comprehensive nature of the Declaration. As a response to the 10 DRV goals, river corridor status might be analysed through the following indicators: 1. Intergovernmental policy integration indicator 2. Flood warning indicator 3. Water retention indicator 4. River and floodplain restoration indicator 5. Biotope network indicator 6. Migratory fish connectivity indicator 7. Cross-border recreation indicator 8. Riparian country cooperation indicator 9. Integrated river basin management indicator 10. Stakeholder partnership indicator
The definition of the indicators can be found in Appendix 1 of this Report.
As the Declaration was signed in 2008, we are accounting progress between 2008 and 2012 (or 2013). In this respect, progress indicators show, how far the region got in the direction of the 10 objectives since 2008. Progress is quantified by the indicators, but fulfilment of the goals is in many cases the matter of qualitative categories. These categories are denoted by benchmarks.
By definition, the indicator’s scope is the whole of the Drava River Corridor. Nevertheless they can be applied to any part of it, even to the pilot area. They can be adapted by setting the indicator’s reference variables (river length, river corridor area, number of projects, number of river disconnections, etc.) to that of the pilot area.
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 51
10. REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
The NDRCAR covers a broad range of topics, and draws upon several types of sectoral, international, regional, and local documents and plans. This Report has been based on the following references:
International documents Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds and its codified update: Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds
Regional documents Vízgyűjtő-gazdálkodási Terv – Dráva Részvízgyűjtő (River Basin Management Plan of the Drava Sub-basin), Vízügyi és Környezetvédelmi Központi Igazgatóság,2010. április National Park Management Plan, Danube-Daran National Park Directorate (excerpts) Natura 2000 Maintenance Plans Regional Spatial Development Plans Regional Economic Development Plans
Local documents Municipal spatial development plans
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 52
11. APPENDIX 1
Progress Indicators Derived from the objectives of the Drava River Declaration 1st Draft
Progress indicators are a means to measure the fulfilment of objectives set in the Drava River Declaration. In order to make the actual processes comparable to the objectives, these rather general objectives should be transformed into a more specific set of targets that can be associated with appropriate indicators. The targets – in accordance with the focus of our project – should be within the context of the river corridor. Some of the objectives allow a considerable degree of freedom in the selection of targets (e.g. #1, 8, 9, and 10), while others are worded almost in an operational manner (e.g. #2 and 6) and lead to unambiguous targets. Nevertheless, in every case special care had to be given to the selection, not to end up with targets that are either too specific or too general, otherwise the indicators will become marginal or meaningless, respectively. An other important issue is data demand and availability: all indicators should be determined from information that is either readily available or at least can be made available with reasonable a effort. As the Declaration was signed in 2008, we are accounting progress between 2008 and 2012 (or 2013). In this respect, progress indicators show, how far the region got in the direction of the 10 objectives since 2008.
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 53
1. INTERGOVERNMENTAL POLICY INTEGRATION INDICATOR Drava River Declaration Objective: 1. To promote the Drava River as a model for integrated implementation of EU policies on water and nature protection The EU Directives on water management (Water Framework Directive), flood protection (Flood Directive), and biodiversity conservation (Flora-Fauna-Habitat Directive and Birds Directive) constitute a fundamental basis for river basin management in the Drava River catchment. Intergovernmental coordination and exchange of information can positively reinforce the implementation of relevant policies. Rationale of the indicator: This objective calls for inter-governmental coordination to achieve an integrated implementation of EU policies concerning water management, flood protection and biodiversity conservation. (Although the Declaration mentions the Drava River catchment, but within the context of this project, it should be understood as the Drava River Corridor.) Practical inter-governmental coordination of Drava River issues takes place in Bilateral Commissions set up for discussing water or environment related topics of common interest. The scope and general responsibilities of similar Commissions having a mandate on the River and in each of the Drava countries should be outlined in the national Analysis Reports. Based on the findings, the potential of these bodies for policy integration can be evaluated. Aspects for establishing an indicator on intergovernmental policy integration might be the followings: - complexity of the scope of the commissions: whether water and biodiversity conservation issues are integrated within one commission (e.g. in a subcommission) or decisions are taken in separate commissions with limited or no overlap; - the ability of the commissions to overview problems that need multilateral instead of bilateral vision, as in the case of the Drava River. Proposal for an Intergovernmental Policy Integration Indicator can be formulated when more detailed information on the different commissions are available.
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 54
2. FLOOD WARNING INDICATOR Drava River Declaration Objective: 2. To enhance flood protection through the improvement of flood warning systems and through increased information exchange Flood protection in the Drava River basin is a shared responsibility of all riparian countries. To give warnings in flood-prone areas at an early stage, flood risk must be detected sufficiently early to provide time for people to react. In a context of cross-border coordination and climate change along the Drava River, emphasis should be given in future to the improvement and adjustment of flood forecast models and flood warning systems. Rationale of the indicator: The purpose of a flood warning system is to forecast a time-profile of the flood wave (flood crest and shape) with a given accuracy and lead-time. This lead time can be compared to the response time, i.e. to the time period required for advance warning to carry out the protection measures adequate to the expected flood hazard. Improvement of the flood warning system might aim at - technical and organisational aspects, including the telemetric system, the forecasting model, and the transfer/dissemination of flood warning information to local communities; and - cooperation and information-exchange aspects, mainly among organisation actively involved in flood defence. In case of floods, there is a vital need for information exchange on events affecting flood flow, e.g. on inundations, dam failures, reservoir operation, etc.. Once cooperation on information exchange has been established, consequent technical requirements (data transfer, evaluation and forecast) fall into the previous category. Flood Warning Indicator (FWI) is the quotient of the lead-time (LT) and the response time (RT) necessary for different protection measures or actions. FWI = LT/RT As lead-times and response times (and consequently FWI) vary along the river and depend also on the size of the population and assets endangered, they should be determined on a place-to-place basis. Response times in most countries are connected to certain levels of flood alert. Many countries (including Hungary) adopted a three level flood alert system (initial alert, flood warning, severe flood warning) plus an additional level for emergency mobilization and evacuation. Each of these levels are conditioned on actual and/or forecasted meteorological and/or flood phenomena (e.g. amount of precipitation, river stage, rise of water, etc.) and trigger a predefined set of actions. The proposed indicator is the quotient of the lead-time and the response time connected to local flood alert levels. To evaluate the indicator, the following questions should be answered for different sections of the river:
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 55
- How much earlier it becomes known that the flow will exceed the flood warning, the severe flood warning or the emergency (e.g. evacuation) level , with a predefined certainty? (In other words, what is the lead-time of the forecast having at least 75% success probability?) - How much time is needed for the execution of actions defined for a severe flood situation (or an evacuation)? Example Based on available hydro-meteorological information a serious flood event can be forecasted with 6 hours of lead-time and with 75% reliability, moreover 5 hours are needed to evacuate a given community at risk. In this case the flood warning indicator (FWI = LT75%/RT) is 1.2 which can be considered good. Maybe the forecasting system is worth a bit of an improvement, to gain an additional hour of LT, which would result an excellent index. But in general it is good enough. Nevertheless, in several critical flood situations unexpected interventions and unreported events did occur: either on a tributary (e.g. release of water from a filled-up reservoir accelerating rise of the river stage), or at an upstream section of the river (e.g. a dike failure causing a drop in the flood crest downstream). Due to the lack of information exchange these unaccounted events decrease the reliability of our forecast, resulting in underestimated hazards and false alarms. Because of these, in actual cases the 75% certain lead-time proved to be only 3 hours, thus the FWI is only 0.6, which we consider unsatisfactory. Reliability of the forecast plays a key role in the Flood Warning Indicator. Out of the many criteria forecast reliability is measured with, for our purpose the Conditional Success Index (CSI) could be suggested, which is a general indicator of the ability to forecast an uncommon event (see:WMO Manual on Flood Forecasting and Warning (2011), Chapter 4., p.4-13). The CSI can be calculated in the following manner: CSI = hits/(hits + false alarms + misses) In the above formula, hits, false alarms and misses are counts of the following events within a given time period: hits - is the number of successful extreme event forecasts; false alarms – is the number of forecasts, where the forecasted extreme event was more serious than the actual; misses – is the number of forecasts, where the forecasted extreme event was less serious than the actual. If CSI is above 33%, the forecasting system is considered useful. Between 50% and 75% the forecast is informative and above 75 % reliable. Benchmarks for the Flood Warning Indicator: FWI < 1.0 unsatisfactory warning 1.0 ≤ FWI < 1.2 acceptable warning 1.2 ≤ FWI satisfactory warning
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 56
3. WATER RETENTION INDICATOR Drava River Declaration Objective: 3. To enhance flood protection through protection and restoration of water retention areas along the Drava River Recent insights – particularly based on flooding disasters – indicate that linear security measures for protection from floods alone may not provide the most effective solutions. In the face of climate change and an expected increase in extreme flood events, we aspire to an improvement in the flood situation and raising the level of system security along the Drava River – this means in the first instance preservation, and then, where necessary and feasible, creation or restoration of suitable water retention areas. Rationale of the indicator: Water retention is an emerging if partial solution for flood protection. Nevertheless, ranging from rain water retention measures (upper part of the basin), through emergency reservoirs (within the river valley or outside of it), to retention in depressions and oxbow lakes within the river corridor. Also, the level of integration with river restoration and nature protection goals can be rather different. Within the Analysis Report, the available practices and plans (including maps, technical data and operation rules) should be collected and analysed. Target values (as of 2008): a. the number and extent of actual and potential water retention areas within the pilot area and on the catchment; b. the volume of water that can be potentially retained in retention areas. Water Retention Indicator (WRI): a1. the number of potential water retention areas versus the target value; a2. the areal extent of potential water retention areas or facilities versus the target value; b. the volume of potential water retention areas or facilities versus the target value.
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 57
4. RIVER & FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION INDICATOR Drava River Declaration Objective: 4. To continue and further develop restoration of the Drava River and its floodplains In recent years many river restoration and rehabilitation projects have shown that flood protection and nature conservation need no longer conflict with each other. River restoration often leads to an enhancement of ecological diversity. Water retention areas associated with the river can prevent uncontrolled outflow of water, thus improving flood protection. Further river restoration and rehabilitation projects with these multiple benefits will be encouraged, both on national level and in a transboundary context, taking into account the economic capacities of particular states. Rationale of the indicator: This goal can be related to the WFD notion of cross-sectional hydro-morphological status of the river corridor. Potential restoration measures might aim at renaturalization of the riverbed in terms of flow dynamics and shape, removal or modification of groyne fields, renaturalization of the riverbank, removal of hard embankments, revitalisation of cut of river branches, restoration of wetlands and natural vegetation on the floodplain, extension of the floodplain by relocation of the levees, etc. As there are too many different restoration measures that can be taken into account, a simple set of indicators might be of practical use, namely a. the area of the riverbed restored, b. the area of the riverbank restored, c. the area of the dead-branches and that of the floodplain where biotics were restored. Target values: Within the Analysis Report, an inventory of the actual or potential restoration sites and their areal extent should be prepared and target values (as of 21008) be established for all four restoration types. River & Floodplain Restoration Indicator (RFRI): RFRIa,b,c,d = the area of potential restoration sites of type a, b, c, and d versus their respective target values.
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 58
5. BIOTOPE NETWORK INDICATOR Drava River Declaration Objective: 5. To maintain and further develop the Drava River as an “ecological backbone” Ecological core zones along the Drava River such as Natura 2000 areas, nature conservation areas, landscape conservation areas or free flowing river sections form an “ecological backbone” of the river basin. This transnational biotope network has to be safeguarded through active transboundary cooperation. The establishment of transboundary protected area systems such as the proposed UNESCO Biosphere Reserve “Danube-Drava-Mura” across five riparian countries forms a key part of this, and will be supported. Rationale of the indicator: Both objective #5 and #6 aim at the longitudinal ecological connectivity of the river corridor: #5 on the river as well as the floodplain, while #6 concentrate on the river itself and with respect to migratory fish. Since longitudinal connectivity within the riverbed is and will be limited by the barrages of the hydropower plants, connectivity of the biotopes can realistically be pursued on the floodplain only. Thus the objective can be reformulated as aiming at the extension and interconnection of the ecological zones (Natura 2000 sites, nature parks, biosphere reserves) along floodplain; preferably on both, but at least on one of the riverbanks. Within the Analysis Report protected areas and their potential longitudinal extension and interconnections should be explored. Target values (as of 2008): a. Length of the actual and potential ecological protection zones along the Drava, as measured separately on both riverbanks; b. The number of disconnections to be eliminated. Biotope Network Indicator (BNI): BNI = (L2008 - L2013)/L2008 • 100 [%] where L2008 – is the length target value as of 2008; L2013 – is the length of the of the potential ecological zones along the river, measured separately on both riverbanks by the end of 2013. Benchmark: BNI = 100%, target is met
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 59
6. MIGRATORY FISH CONNECTIVITY INDICATOR Drava River Declaration Objective: 6. To re-establish the ecological connectivity of the Drava River for migratory fish As a result of numerous barriers, the Drava River is no longer passable for fish migrating over long distances. In the future we aim to cooperate in establishing appropriate measures, including fish passes and fish by-passes, to support fish migration in the Drava River and its tributaries, in accordance with the objectives of the Water Framework Directive and the Habitats Directive. Rationale of the indicator: This objective – as responding to the diagnose given in the “Present Situation” section of the Declaration – asks for the longitudinal continuity of the Drava river with respect to migratory fish. In 2008 there were 24 hydropower plants along the Drava that could have formed obstacles in the way of migration. Before setting the actual target, the following questions should be answered: - What species to which point of the river would migrate were there no obstacles in their way? - Which hydropower plants or other structures formed obstacles in 2008 for those species and which form by the end of this year, due to the lack or inappropriate design of fish-passes? Target value: number of fish-passes to be constructed or improved regarding the 2008 status (N2008) Migratory Fish Connectivity Indicator: MFI = (N2008 - N2013)/N2008 • 100 [%] where N2008 – is the target value as of 2008; N2013 – is the number of fish passes to be constructed or improved according to end of 2013 status. Benchmark: MFI = 100%, target is met
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 60
7. CROSS-BORDER RECREATION INDICATOR Drava River Declaration Objective: 7. To establish the Drava River as a cross-border recreation area The Drava River provides an attractive location for holiday-makers. A 366 km Drava River cycle path leads from the river’s source to Maribor in Slovenia. Opportunities for sustainable regional recreation developments of this kind, based on the Drava River´s intrinsic values, should be further explored. We aim to enhance the quality of the Drava River’s environment for those who seek recreation and relaxation in an attractive landscape setting. Rationale of the indicator: Within Objective #7, there are a three separate goals included: a. development of sustainable tourism in the region: that means, the type and number of recreational facilities and the visitor load is in balance with the ecological and socio-cultural carrying capacity of the Drava River Corridor and its municipalities;b. to establish cross-border tourism opportunities along the Drava; c. to improve the environmental quality of the DRC. Due to the differences in the goals, three separate target values should be established. Target values shall be derived within the Analysis Reports of the pilot areas in the following proposed terms: a. the number of recreational facilities within the riparian zone (angling and camp sites, beaches, harbours) allowed by National Park management rules or municipal regulations; b. the type and extent of cross-border tourist facilities and programmes (e.g. length of existing and planned cycle path along the DRC, number and length of organised boating tours along the river, etc); c. water quality standards for bathing waters to be met at locations of potential beaches. Progress indicators: a1. The number of recreational facilities in the riparian zone versus the allowed number of facilities; a2. The number of tourist arrivals versus the population of the municipalities within the pilot area; b2. The length of the actual cross-border recreational facilities and programmes versus the total length; b2. The number of actual cross-border recreational facilities and programmes versus the total number; c. The number of actual and potential beach locations where bathing water quality standards has been met.
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 61
8. RIPARIAN COUNTRY COOPERATION INDICATOR Drava River Declaration Objective: 8. To use opportunities for the Drava River to be a connecting lifeline for different nations After many years of fragmented approaches, today’s more unified Europe offers new opportunities to bring together the people of many different origins who live in the Drava River basin. Those responsible for water management and nature conservation in each country will initiate new dialogues with their counterparts in the other riparian countries, in coordinated efforts towards the shared aim of a high quality of life for the people in this region.
Rationale of the indicator: This objective is partly in overlap with objective#1 with regard to international institutional cooperation in water management and nature conservation issues. Since this part of the goals in already taken into account at objective #1, consequently objective #8 should be oriented to the promotion of cooperation and dialogue among municipalities and citizens of the riparian countries along the Drava. Trans-boundary connections on the citizen level might take the form of cultural events, discussion of regional development of mutual interest, joint local projects in connection with the Drava and its environment, or infrastructure development regarding cross-border traffic (bridges, ferries) and communication. Target value: Within the Analysis Report, an inventory of the actual and potential cross border cooperation projects, cultural events, dialogue initiatives and potential infrastructure development possibilities should be prepared. The target value is the number of items inventoried. Riparian Country Cooperation Indicator (RCCI): RCCI = the number of potential cooperation items versus the target value.
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 62
9. INTEGRATED RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT INDICATOR Drava River Declaration Objective: 9. To undertake integrated river basin management rather than fragmented sectoral measures International agreements concluded in recent years such as “Agenda 21”, and EU Directives such as those on Water, Floods, Flora, Fauna and Habitats, Wild Birds and Sustainable Energy Sources, together with the shift in social perceptions which these texts represent, strengthen the ongoing development of more sustainable approaches in the field of flood protection and hydropower. Modern approaches to activities such as these, therefore, in a context of integrated river basin management, seek to integrate economic, ecological and social aspects. Harmonised planning of water management, flood protection, hydropower use, recreation and biodiversity conservation can lead to sustainable solutions that also have higher public acceptance.
Rationale of the indicator: This objective is similar to Objective #1 as far as both require the integration of water management and biodiversity conservation issues. Objective #9, on the other hand includes a broader range of activities into the context of integrated river basin management, like sustainable development of flood protection, hydropower generation, recreation and other economic sectors. An indicator for integrated river basin management can be derived from the evaluation of water related development projects using Table A1.1 “Interrelationship evaluation table”. Rows of the table contain the number of projects according their main objective. If a project has only one objective (that is its main objective in fact) then it will get a score in the column corresponding that one. If it has additional, integrated objectives, it will get a score at each of the corresponding columns. Scores of an other project have to be added to the scores of projects having the same main objective. Non-integrated projects will collect scores in the main diagonal only, while integrated projects will get multiple scores.
Example: A flood protection project gets a score in the column “Flood protection”, and also 1 in “Floodplain rehabilitation” in case it has a component for widening the floodplain by relocation of the levee. An additional score can be given at “Biodiversity protection in the floodplain” for en eventual oxbow lake rehabilitation component. Integrated River Basin Management Indicator (IRBMI): IRBMI = Total number of scores versus the sum of scores within main diagonal. Benchmarks: IRBMI < 1.2 poor integration 1.2 ≤ IRBMI ≤ 1.5 good integration
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 63
1.5 ≤ IRBMI excellent integration (Having actual information on projects of a pilot area, the benchmarks can be modified.)
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 64
Table A1.1: Interrelationship Evaluation Table (example)
Integrated objectives of the project River hydro- Biodiversity Biodiversity Floodplain Flood Rural Hydropower Main diagonal morphology conservation conservation on Tourism Transport rehabilitation protection development generation score improvement in the river the floodplain
Main objective of the project River hydro-morphology 2 1 1 improvement
Floodplain rehabilitation
Biodiversity conservation in the river
Biodiversity conservation on the floodplain
Flood protection 1 2 3
Rural development 2
Tourism 1 3 1
Navigation
Hydropower generation 1 1
Score 2 2 0 2 3 3 3 2 1 11
IRBMI= 1,64
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 65
10. STAKEHOLDER PARTNERSHIP INDICATOR Drava River Declaration Objective: 10. To undertake further development of the Drava River area in partnership with its resident human populations Those engaged in agriculture, forestry, tourism, energy production and economic development, as well as residents in local communities, are all important partners in achieving the objectives of sustainable development of the Drava River. Adequate cooperation among all these groups can help to minimize any conflict between ecosystem values and economic development.
Rationale of the indicator: Objective #10 is promoting public participation or in more general terms, stakeholder participation participatory ) in the planning and decision making process of regional development issues, as a means to steer economic development towards environmental sustainability. It is clear from the wording of the objective, that the associated indicator should not be intended to measure the economic development of the region or the environmental sustainability of that development, but the stakeholder involvement. The Analysis Report should identify those development projects that have a significant impact on the river, the riverbank or nature protection zones within the DRC, moreover it should reveal, whether stakeholders, including local residents – and when justified, also of the neighbouring country – were adequately involved in the decision making process. Reference value: the number of significant development projects between 2008 and end of 2013. Stakeholder Partnership Indicator (SPI) SPI = the number of significant projects where stakeholders were involved in decision making versus the reference value.
Drava River Corridor Analysis Report – HUNGARY 66