Background to the PFRA European Overview UC10508

Background to the PFRA European Overview UC10508 The individual Member State Reports reflect the situation as reported by the Member States to the European Commission in 2014 The situation in the MSs may have altered since then Assessment of Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps Member State Report: HU - Hungary Date that the assessment was completed: 15 December 2014 Information reported and assessed The schemas for electronically reporting/making information available to the Commission were filled in at a basic level with substantial information left out. Hungary did not make available links to its national flood risk and flood hazard maps for any of its units of management. Basic summaries were provided on the methods used to prepare the maps. Specific details of national maps for visualisation at the European level were reported. There were no links to other relevant information on the preparation of the maps. This report is structured according to a questionnaire that was completed for all Member States that reported on their flood hazard and risk maps. Questions 2 and 3 of the questionnaire were answered on the basis of a qualitative check of a subset of the Member State s flood hazard and flood risk maps located on national servers and/or web pages. All other questions (question 1 and questions 4 to 11) were answered on the basis of an assessment of numeric and summary information reported by the Member State on the methods used in the preparation of their maps. The report does not include indepth assessment of national background methodological reports which may have been referenced in the Member State s reports and/or provided with their electronic reports. This report includes information on what the Member State has included/considered or not included/considered in its flood risk and hazard maps and their development. This is a presentation of the facts on the electronic information reported to WISE by Member States and does not discuss which elements are mandatory according to the Directive and which are optional. Main outcomes of the assessment a) Good practices adopted: Mapping all three fluvial flood probability levels on one map covering the whole country enables the user to compare the impacts on different regions. There is also an option to view the different probabilities on separate maps. b) Weaknesses: Mapping the whole country on one map means that some significant details are lost and these maps cannot be used at a local level. c) Lessons to be learnt: For practical application of the excess surface water inundation hazard and risk maps, information on medium and high probability areas would be useful alongside the low (1000 year) probability inundation areas. Addition of these two probabilities would be a benefit for users. d) Questions seeking clarification from Member State: 1 of 20

1. The textual information on the fluvial hazard maps states that the resolution of spatial data used for the compilation of the maps is 50x50 m. Why were the maps produced at the 1: 2,000,000 scale when this means that the maps cannot provide the details of the data set used? HU response to question 1: Neither the Directive, nor the reporting manual had defined any direct instruction regarding to the scale or size of the maps. Hungary chose the submitted scaling for easy handling and comprehensive demonstration of the system. Hungary possesses one of the highest flood-related vulnerabilities in Europe. It is a crucial factor in the general safety of the nation; therefore the flood risk management is kept as a continuous and consecutively developing duty. Due to that in Hungary further terrain and structure surveys were carried out. The profiles and discharge values of the different return probability events were modified and, with utilisation of the new data, the existing hazard and risk maps are under recalculation. These updates had been announced in the national report in 2014 as well. The preliminary assessments and the original hydrodynamic numerical calculations of the hazard and risk maps were carried out on 50x50 m resolution digital terrain models to achieve the most detailed outcome. During the upcoming steps we are going to take the comments into account as the general statements as the predefined criteria analysis in the tables. The maps, which are based on the new numerical modelling and further improvement, will be published in the scale range of 1:25.000-1:50.000 with a possibility to zoom in. The links to the APSFR distribution will be recorded in the editorial formats. 2. Some of the flood hazard maps (i.e. maps showing IED and IPPC installations or waste water treatment plants) depict installations outside flood influenced areas, while maps of numbers of potentially affected inhabitants under the flood scenarios present information only for the affected areas. Why were these different approaches selected? HU response to question 2: In the 2014 national report for demonstration, all IED and IPPC installations were indicated, including the areas outside of the hazard extent. The ongoing hazard and risk map enhancing process will plot the risk elements only in the areas with direct exposure. 3. In the excess surface water inundation hazard map the textual information about the method used is identical to the information given for the fluvial hazard maps, though the phenomenon is different and the affected area shown on the map is also different. Please explain what methodology was used for calculation of the extent of the affected areas in the excess surface water inundation hazard map?4. Please explain why only the low probability floods were provided for the excess surface water inundation hazard map. HU response to questions 3 and 4: The investigation of flood and excess water hazards differ from each other. The identical upload of the methodology occurred in error. The composition of the high groundwater tables floods was the following: 2 of 20

In the first step the excess water inundation maps had been collected from the period 1961-1980 and they were generalised. By overlapping them it became traceable how many times the patches overlay each other, so showing the number of events with water coverage during the 20 years. Dividing the number by twenty gave the relative frequency of the inundation appearance. Four categories were created and textual grading was given as well. Based on the different classes, the extents of the groundwater inundation map were edited, which can be considered as the initial version of the hazard map. During the second phase (end of 1980 s) the incidence maps were superposed with topographical maps (isoheight lines), soil type distribution, near-surface geologic and groundwater maps, as well as land use maps, known swamp locations and the drainage system topology. They had evaluated the overlapping areas with an investigation of the possibility of inundation appearance and after that the boundaries of the hazard categories were drawn. At present in Hungary the more detailed identification of the hazard and risk maps is an ongoing process. The interpretation methodology of the excess water will be modified. New hazard maps will be elaborated based on the advanced program. For determination of the excess water hazard Hungary applies the Directive Chapter III. Article 3. point 7. The presented threat of inundation by high groundwater is limited to low probability, extreme scenarios. 3 of 20

Mapping of areas of potential significant flood risk Question 1: What are the reasons reported in the FHRM schema for the non-inclusion of some APSFRs, elements or aspects in the flood hazard and flood risk maps? Hazard maps produced by HU in 2012 reported that three types of floods (fluvial floods from rivers ; groundwater inundation by excess surface waters ; and pluvial flash floods of small water courses ) would be considered in the FHRM schema. However, the 2014 report on methodologies used (WISE Floods summary reports - FD.9.0 FHRM A - Methodologies used to prepare flood hazard maps) mentioned only two types (fluvial and groundwater), as being considered in the preparation of the maps available for assessment. explanation was found for the reason behind the differences. However, the HU authorities have clarified that the detailed surveys of the affected small water courses had not been finalised in time for the report s submission in 2014. It is explained that the affected number of inhabitants, settlements and land coverage is less than 10% of the whole hazard extent. The surveys are now complete and the next update of the hazard and risk maps will contain the low, medium and high probability scenarios for the 116 highest risk small water courses. For the risk maps the HU report mentioned in 2012 that (1) Human health; (2) the Environment; (3) Endangered or damaged cultural heritage; and (4) Hampered economic activities would be considered in the preparation of flood risk maps. The 2014 WISE report (FD.9.0 FHRM D - Methodologies used to prepare flood risk maps) gives details of the four applied methodologies (D.1 Human Health Methodology; D.2 Economic Activity Methodology; D.3 IED installations Methodology and D.4 WFD Protected Areas Methodology). Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk (APSFR) and other risk areas identified by the assessment of flood risk and those for which maps were prepared Unit of Management Number of Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk (1) a) Identified according to Article 5 HU1000 2 b) with links to national maps c) with details of maps provided to WISE FHRM information reported at Unit of Management scale (2) b) with links to national maps c) with details of maps provided to WISE Number of other areas with available national FHRM (3) b) with links to national maps PDF maps uploaded to WISE 1 0 Key: a) Article 5 requires the identification of areas of potential significant flood risk (APSFR) based on a new Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment or an existing one. b) Member States were asked to provide links to national web pages or viewers where maps of the flood hazard and flood risk associated with APSFRs could be viewed (column 1). Alternatively or additionally maps could be made available and reported at the level of the Unit of Management (column 2) or at other geographical scales (column 3), c) Member States were asked to provide numeric details (such as source of flooding, numbers of potentially affected inhabitants and types of potential adverse consequences) of the maps associated with the APSFR so that they could be depicted on a European map of flooding. The maps could be reported with the relevant APSFR code (column 1) and/or at the level of the Unit of Management (column 2). In some circumstances, (c) may be greater than (a), for example if additional APSFRs were identified after 2012. 4 of 20

Content of flood hazard and flood risk maps te: t all of the maps prepared by Member States have been examined. Instead a subset was selected and reviewed by designated assessors. The maps for checking were selected on the basis of information provided by Member States with their Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments (PFRAs) in 2012 (where available) and the screening of the maps made available in the LinkToMS schema. The aim was to select a sufficient number of maps to reflect: Potential differences in methodologies, presentation and visualisation of maps between the Units of Management (UoM) within a Member State. Some Member States have a strong national approach, in others there are differences between administrative regions; Differences in sources of floods included in hazard and risk maps. Some APSFRs and UoM are associated with more than one source of flooding whereas others are not. The aim was to check maps associated with all possible types of flood associated with a Member State. For those Member States applying Article 4 and Article 13.1.a the selection of relevant flood types can be informed from the reporting of APSFR in March 2012; Differences in the Articles applied across a Member State and within UoMs. Whilst some Member States have applied only one Article across their whole territory and for all flood types, others have applied different Articles within a UoM and also according to flood types. The application of Article 13.1.b and Article 13.2 by some Member States in at least some of their UoMs. In these cases Member States may have provided UoM codes, other area codes or both: in these cases it was the flood maps associated with the areas that were checked. The objective was to check examples of maps within the linked areas in relation to all potential and relevant sources of flooding and that may have been mapped. Links to national web pages where examples of national maps can be viewed are given below. Question 2 Which types of flood, scenarios, hazard elements and potential adverse consequences have been mapped and visualised? Unit of Management HU1000 HU1000 APSFR code The provided link went straight to the APSFR t applicable: PDF maps were provided for the Map located by searching for name of APSFR whole of HU. Source(s) of flooding mapped Fluvial Excess surface water inundation (groundwater) Mechanism(s) of flooding mapped Defence exceedance Natural exceedance Characteristic(s) of flooding mapped Linked map available to public Mapped scenarios: Floods with a low probability mapped Floods with a medium probability mapped Floods with a high probability mapped Separate maps or layers for each probability scenario Separate maps or layers for each flood type More than one scenario shown on the same Map More than one source of flooding shown on the same Map Hazard Elements shown on map: 5 of 20

Unit of Management HU1000 HU1000 APSFR code Flood extents Water depth Water levels Flow velocities Relevant water flow Flood Hazard and Flood Risk on the same map Separate maps of Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Potential adverse consequences shown on: Number of Inhabitants potentially affected Human health The community Type and sectors of economic activity Land use Point locations for storage of chemicals, vital networks and services Property Infrastructure Location of Industrial Emissions Directive installations WFD Protected Areas Status of water bodies Areas vulnerable to floods with high content of transported sediment and debris flow Other significant sources of pollution Cultural Heritage Other useful information Impacts of Climate Change Coastal protection defences in place Link to national maps: http://www.vizugy.hu/index.php?module=content&programelemid=62 6 of 20

Contextual information provided with maps Question 3 What contextual information was generally provided with the maps? Unit of Management HU1000 HU1000 APSFR code Title: brief description of the map Explanation to the public on how to understand and interpret the flood maps Responsible authority (organisation responsible for the development and publishing of the maps, with contact details) Date of preparation / publication Legend (textual description of symbols, colours, line features, etc.) Purpose of development and intended use Method of development Limitations of map and / or assessment of uncertainty Disclaimer (to enforce explanatory information and limitations, and provide legal protection to the responsible authority against adverse consequences of misuse) rth and scale: preferably using scale bar as this allows for changes in page size Scope and detail of the explanatory information: should be appropriate to the intended audience Intended audience & complexity: Maps intended for public use should be simple and self-explanatory and include a clear legend, such that as little supporting or explanatory information as possible is required for correct interpretation. Summary of findings from questions 2 and 3. HU provided two types of hazard maps (Fluvial and groundwater) and risks maps for both types. There is no explanation in the 2014 WISE summary report why the pluvial flooding and artificial waterbearing infrastructure source flooding (reported in FD.1.2 Types of flood to which each Article has been applied) hazard maps and risk maps were not provided. 7 of 20

Methodologies used to prepare flood hazard maps Question 4 What methods and relevant information have been used to identify, assess or calculate flooding hazards for the relevant scenarios, and are these compliant with the requirements of the Floods Directive? The sources of flood for which flood hazard maps have been published, or which have been assessed but flood hazard maps have not been published, were: Source of flooding Fluvial Pluvial Coastal Groundwater Artificial water bearing infrastructure Sewerage systems Other (described below if applicable) Published HU1000 HU1000 Hazard assessed but not published Neither published nor assessed HU1000 HU1000 t relevant HU1000 HU1000 HU1000 Other t relevant. Comments As 100% of the territory of Hungary is in the Danube River Basin District, Hungary produced hazard maps and risk maps for the entire country. There is no difference in the applied sources and methods. A) Fluvial floods Scenarios mapped or assessed Scenario Return period e.g. 100 years Percentage e.g. 1% Decimal e.g. 0.01 Low probability 1000 years 1 0.001 Medium probability 100 years 1 % 0.01 High probability 30 years 3.3 % 0.033 Other expression Thousand year probability Hundred year probability Thirty year probability Summary of the information found and in particular any differences between the UoMs in the Member State. In case of fluvial floods three hazard scenarios of flooding were considered in the hazard and risk maps: (a) Flooding of areas not protected by levees; (b) failure or insufficient size of flood protection levees; (c) overtopping of flood protection levees. 8 of 20

Elements mapped or assessed Scenario Flood extent Water depth/level Water/flow velocities Low probability Medium probability High probability Other Summary of the information found and in particular any differences between the UoMs in the Member State. Hungary used 1D and 2D models to determine the extent of flooding. From the modelling results flood extents and water depths were mapped in the flood hazard maps. It was reported in the WISE summary report (FD.9.0 FHRM A Methodologies used to prepare flood hazard maps) that water velocities were low and would be unlikely to cause additional damage, thus inundation water velocities were not mapped. Methods used What scenarios were considered and tested in the development of the published maps? What were the reasons for the exclusion or inclusion of certain scenarios for the final published maps? How were return periods and/or probabilities of flooding calculated, for example what was the length of measurement series used in the calculations? How was the most appropriate scale of the map determined? Three flood probability levels (30 years, 100 years and 1000 years) were considered in the modelling, taking account of (a) Flooding of areas not protected by levees; (b) failure or insufficient size of flood protection levees; (c) overtopping of flood protection levees. There is no additional information on whether further scenarios were considered. There is no additional information on whether there were more scenarios considered than what has been published. The HU authorities have clarified that the hydrological analyses covered the total probability range (1-1000 years) but in the 2014 reporting, only the three designated values (30/100/1000) were derived, following the Directive and the manual. Statistical analysis was used to determine flood return periods, flooding characteristics (water level and discharge) and related time series. These values were then applied in the 1D and 2D hydraulic models. information is provided in the WISE 2014 report about the length of measurement series used in the calculations. The HU authorities have clarified that in the process of the hazard and risk map development, the rainfall and water level series were investigated as well. The hydraulic basis of the numerical modelling was generated from the data of 140 gauges. The length of the series is above 100 years in the case of 60 stations; for 10 stations it is 80-100 years; for 35 stations it is 50-80 years; and another 35 stations have series of less than 50 years. The water levels for the predefined return probability values were carried out by statistical analyses. Hungary applied a scale of 1: 2,000,000 for all published flood hazard and flood risk 9 of 20

For example, flood maps intended to raise public awareness should enable anyone to find out where there are risks of flooding. Maps for this purpose may have a relatively larger scale e.g. 1: 10,000 to 1: 25,000 compared to those used for national or regional planning purposes (1:100,000 to 1: 500,000). Also the mapping of some hazard features such as flow velocity may require a more detailed scale such as 1:1,000 or 1:5,000. What was the resolution of digital terrain models used to calculate flood hazards? How were existing flood defences taken into account? How were existing infrastructure or buildings taken into account? What other data sets were used? What are the key assumptions of the method? What were the identified uncertainties in the methods and resultant maps and assessments? What were the shortcomings of the method? maps. 50 x 50 m resolution digital terrain models were used in the modelling work, and were complemented by information gained from air-borne high resolution photographs. information was given on how active flood defences were taken into account. However, it was mentioned that levee breaches were taken into account in the calculation of scenarios. The HU authorities subsequently indicated that the methodology for determining the flood hazard and risk did not consider the operation of flood defences because the onset of floods is quite rapid and at the same time the length of the affected flood defences could be more than 1000 km. In every case it was not predictable that the defences would guarantee a decrease of the threat. Also in partly or completely embanked floodplains the inherent/designed resistance/strength of the dikes were considered. If the load on the water side of the embankment rose above the strength of the structure (leading to a possible failure of the structure) then the inundation modelling had the boundary condition of the discharge and water volume flowing out at the location of the possible failure. Levees of insufficient size and / or low stability levels were considered in the modelling work with the probability of failure considered, and in the models the location and height of roads and railways were taken into account when propagation of flooding (velocity and water depth) was calculated. information was provided. One key assumption of the method was that the velocities which occur when levees fail or when overtopping happens will not cause additional damage, thus mapping them is not necessary. The statistical values of different return period floods include some uncertainty in the light of extreme floods in recent years. It is stated in the WISE summary report (FD.9.0 FHRM A Methodologies used to prepare flood hazard maps) that design or benchmark flood levees should be re-determined in 2014 or 2015. One of the shortcomings of the method is the 10 of 20

What were the advantages of the method? low spatial scale applied in the maps. One of the advantages of the method is the applied modelling technique, which enables HU to update the maps efficiently when additional data becomes available. B) Pluvial floods information was found on whether the hazards of and risks from flooding from pluvial floods have been mapped. C) Coastal floods Hungary is a land-locked country. This flood type is not applicable. D) Groundwater floods Scenarios mapped or assessed Scenario Return period e.g. 100 years Percentage e.g. 1% Decimal e.g. 0.01 Low probability 1000 years 1 0.001 Medium probability High probability Other expression Thousand year probability Summary of the information found and in particular any differences between the UoMs in the Member State. Hungary provided only a low (1000 year) probability flood map for groundwater (excess surface water flooding). Elements mapped or assessed Scenario Flood extent Water depth/level Water/flow velocities Low probability Medium probability High probability Other Summary of the information found and in particular any differences between the UoMs in the Member State. Hungary provided only a low (1000 year) probability groundwater (excess surface water flooding) flood map which contains only flood extent information. information on water depth and flow velocity was given on this map. The HU authorities have explained that the groundwater flood occurs because of a raised groundwater table or loss of infiltration capacity (due to soil type, actual groundwater level, frozen surface, intensity of rainfall, etc.). In such situations, no flow velocity exists that could be plotted or be relevant in risk analyses. There are no proper data series for statistical analysis of the flood depth and its development over time, hence there is no opportunity to demonstrate or consider it. Experience shows that the slight depths of the groundwater floods are not remarkable: they give shallow water coverage. The maximum value is around 1 m and it is not subject to categorisation. 11 of 20

Methods used What scenarios were considered and tested in the development of the published maps? What were the reasons for the exclusion or inclusion of certain scenarios for the final published maps? How were return periods and/or probabilities of flooding calculated, for example what was the length of measurement series used in the calculations? If probability scenarios were not assessed, please describe the assessment methods used. How was the most appropriate scale of the map determined? For example, flood maps intended to raise public awareness should enable anyone to find out where there are risks of flooding. Maps for this purpose may have a relatively larger scale e.g. 1: 10,000 to 1: 25,000 compared to those used for national or regional planning purposes (1:100,000 to 1: 500,000). Also the mapping of some hazard features such as flow velocity may require a more detailed scale such as 1:1,000 or 1:5,000. What was the resolution of digital terrain models used to calculate flood hazards? How were existing flood defences taken into account? How were existing infrastructure or buildings taken into account? What other data sets were used? What are the key assumptions of the method? What were the identified uncertainties in the methods and resultant maps and assessments? What were the shortcomings of the method? What were the advantages of the method? Only the low probability groundwater flood scenario was provided by Hungary. information was provided on why only the low probability scenario was applied. Only partial information was provided in the WISE summary report (FD.9.0 FHRM A Methodologies used to prepare flood hazard maps): in case of flooding from rivers caused by the failure of flood protection levees, first the geotechnical condition of the given protection levee section was considered, and secondly flood wave data characteristic to the given section were calculated and applied in the 2D model where flood propagation was simulated. Only the low probability groundwater flood scenario was provided by Hungary. Hungary applied a 1:2,000,000 scale for all published flood hazard and flood risk maps. clear information was provided on why this scale was used. 50 x 50 m resolution digital terrain models were used in the modelling work, was and were complemented by information gained from air-borne high resolution photographs. information. Locations and geometrical data for some infrastructure (such as roads, railway lines) were taken into account. information. Only the low (1000 year) probability groundwater hazard map was produced. information was provided on water depth and water velocity. information. As no clear definition is given for the applied calculation method, the shortcomings of the method cannot be assessed. As no clear definition is given for the applied calculation method, the advantages of the method cannot be assessed. 12 of 20

E) Floods from Artificial Water Bearing Infrastructure Summary of the information found and in particular any differences between the UoMs in the Member State. information was found on whether the hazards and risks of flooding from artificial water bearing infrastructure has been mapped. The HU authorities have explained that the failure of structures such as reservoir gates does not generate water-related damage within the considered probability interval. F) Floods from sewerage systems information was found on whether the hazards and risks of flooding from sewerage systems have been mapped. G) Other types of floods information was found on whether the hazards and risks of flooding from other sources have been mapped. 13 of 20

Methodologies used to prepare flood risk maps Question 5 What methods and relevant information have been used to prepare flood risk maps? Which potential adverse consequences are reported and how have they been identified and presented in flood risk maps? a) Risk to human health One "flood risk to human health" map was provided by HU for fluvial floods, which shows the low, medium and high probability flooding areas with different shades of blue. In addition, a corresponding "flood risk to human health" map was provided for groundwater flooding, which shows only the low probability flooding areas. Both maps are at a scale of 1:2,000,000. On both maps the location and the number of people potentially affected are shown with differently coloured and sized circles in five categories indicating the numbers of affected population: 0-2,000, 2,001-5,000, 5,001-30,000, 30,001-100,000 and 100,001-168,276. Population statistics from the year 2001 were used. If a settlement's limit line reached only part of a given hazard area, than the total population was assigned to that hazard area. In Budapest, the capital of Hungary, partitioning of the population was used based on the proportion of the given district area within the given hazard area. The effects of tourism and daylight as well as evening populations were not considered. b) Risk to economic activity One map showing flood risk to economic activity was provided for fluvial floods, indicating the low, medium and high probability flooding areas. One map showing risk to economic activity for groundwater flooding was also provided, which indicates only the low probability flooding areas. Both maps are at a scale of 1:2,000,000. The basis of both maps is the Corine Land Cover II map with 13 land cover categories. The following economic activities are indicated on the maps: - roads (motorways, main roads, secondary roads) - railway line - built up areas (settlements) - harbours - airports. c) Risk to Installations covered by the requirements of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) or previously under the IPPC Directive One maps showing flood risk to Installations covered by the requirements of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) or previously under the IPPC Directive was provided for fluvial floods, which indicates the low, medium and high probability flooding areas. One map showing risk to Installations covered by the requirements of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) or previously under the IPPC Directive for groundwater flooding, which indicated only the low probability flooding areas. Both maps are at a scale of 1:2,000,000 scale. Both maps show four types of installations: European Pollution Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR); IPPC; Seveso; and main waste water treatment plans. It is noted that installations outside hazard areas are also indicated on both maps. d) Risk to WFD protected areas One map showing flood risk to WFD protected areas was provided for fluvial floods, which indicates the low, medium and high probability flooding areas. One map showing risk to WFD protected areas was provided for groundwater flooding, indicating only the low probability flooding areas. Both maps are at a scale of 1:2,000,000 scale. Both maps indicate the following protected areas: Natura 2000 SAC; Natura 2000 SPA; Ramsar; National parks; nature protection areas; and groundwater protection zones (operational, long term and reserve). It is noted that WFD protected areas outside of the hazard areas are also shown. 14 of 20

e) Other consequences considered information was found on whether other consequences were considered. Justification for applying Article 6.6 Question 6 What are the justifications for applying Article 6.6 (coastal areas), if applied, and how has it been determined that an adequate level of protection is in place against coastal floods? Hungary is a land-locked country. This flood type is not applicable. 15 of 20

Justification for applying Article 6.7 Question 7 applied? What are the justifications for applying Article 6.7 (groundwater floods), if Groundwater is considered as a contributing source rather than as a main source of flooding It is difficult to distinguish the impact of groundwater flooding from other sources of flooding There is limited information or historical records on groundwater flooding Only low probability groundwater flooding is assessed to be hazardous or a risk Other (described below) Summary of the information reported and in particular any differences in UoMs in the Member State. Hungary provided only low (1000 year) probability flood hazard mapping for groundwater floods. In the WISE summary report (FD.9.0 FHRM C - Application of Article 6.7) it is stated that Article 6.7 is applied as groundwater floods are affected by groundwater, rainfall and snowmelt, as such, Hungary elected to apply Article 6.7 and limited the preparation of flood hazard maps to low probability events. 16 of 20

Application of Article 13.1.b in accordance with requirements of the Floods Directive Question 8 Have the flood hazard maps and flood risk maps been prepared in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Floods Directive where Article 13.1.b has been applied? Article 13.1.b has not been applied in Hungary. (Source: WISE Flood report WISE FD.1.1 Specific Areas to which each Article has been applied.) Compliance of the use of Article 13.2 with the requirements of Article 6 Question 9 Has the use of Article 13.2 provided a level of information in flood hazard and flood risk maps equivalent to the requirements of Article 6? Article 13.2 has not been applied in Hungary. (Source: WISE Floods summary reports: FD.9.0 FHRM G - Use of Article 13.2.) 17 of 20

Information exchanged between Member States and the preparation of coherent maps in international RBDs or UoMs Question 10 How has it been ensured that there was prior information exchange on the production of maps between Member States sharing international RBDs or UoMs, and how was it ensured that coherent maps were produced between the relevant Member States? The number of cross border Units of Management with shared flood risk areas in this Member State One HU1000 Summary of the information reported and in particular any differences between UoMs in the Member State. Hungary shared information with neighbouring countries using the Bilateral Transboundary Commissions and the ICPDR relevant forums and expert groups. (Source: WISE summary report - FD.9.0 FHRM E Coordination of the preparation of flood hazard and flood risk maps international Unit of Management). 18 of 20

Consideration of climate change impacts in the preparation of the maps Question 11 How has climate change been taken into account when the flood hazard scenarios were identified? Climate change has been taken into account For which sources of flooding For low probability scenario For medium probability scenario For high probability scenario Climate change trend scenarios have been obtained from the IPCC or other international sources Climate change trend scenarios have been obtained from the national research programmes Flood hazard scenarios are based on modelling of changes in flood hazard in relation to climate change Flood hazard scenarios included trend analysis of historical data of hydrological and meteorological observations Flood hazard scenarios included a statistical assessment of historical climate data Climate change has not been explicitly taken into account in the statistical analyses when the modelling work was done for fluvial flood scenarios. (Source: WISE summary report -FD.9.0 FHRM F Explanation of maps) Climate change has not been explicitly taken into account in the statistical analyses when the modelling work was done for the low probability fluvial flooding scenario. It was stated in the WISE summary report (FD.9.0 FHRM F Explanation of maps) that a 1000 year return period was selected for the low probability scenario as this way the unknown effects of climate change were implicitly considered. Climate change was not considered; only past information and data were used for statistical analyses when the modelling work was done for the medium probability fluvial flood scenario. (Source: WISE summary report -FD.9.0 FHRM F Explanation of maps) Climate change was not considered; only past information and data were used for statistical analyses when the modelling work was done for the high probability fluvial flood scenario. (Source: WISE summary report -FD.9.0 FHRM F Explanation of maps) Summary of how climate change has been taken into account in the production of flood hazard maps, and highlight any differences between UoMs in the Member State There is no information that climate change scenarios have been taken into account. Only indirect consideration was made for low probability fluvial floods. The HU authorities have confirmed that the low probability event is considered with a 1000 year return period, which gives the opportunity to realistically cover the uncertainty of the future consequences of the climate change, which are not well known yet. Several national and international studies are dealing with the effects of the climate change, the most 19 of 20

recent of which describes the trends and probable processes. Among them, an increased frequency of floods is listed, but without any concrete values. 20 of 20