1. Pilot River Basin Project for the Szamos/Somes River Basin
TRANSNATIONAL ISSUES
Hungary – Romania
Attila Lázár

2. Szamos/Somes Pilot River Basin

3. Project Participants
Financed by the Hungarian Ministry of Environment and Water
Project management by VITUKI CONSULT Rt.
HUNGARY
ROMANIA
Ministerial level/
National level
Ministry of Environment and Water
Ministry of Waters and Environmental Protection
National Administration “Apele Romane”
Regional institutes
Upper-Tisza Water Authority
Upper-Tisza Regional Environmental Inspectorate
Somes-Tisa Water Directorate, branch of National Administration “Apele Romane”
Independent expert groups
VITUKI CONSULT Plc.
Tóth & Partner Consulting
Ltd.
NGOs
Tisza Klub
Maramures Ecological Society

4. COMPROMISE AND HARMONISATION
Trans-nationality (1)
Each country has its own:
standards, monitoring history and available data
bilateral agreements with neighbouring countries
understanding on the WFD, GDs (!!!)
national concept/strategy for the implementation (!!)
COMPROMISE AND HARMONISATION
ARE NECESSARY

5. Trans-nationality (2) Project agreements:
Working language: ENGLISH + (Hungarian – Romanian)
Use of the same software
Continuous information and document exchange
Workshops to exchange and harmonise methods
Exchange of methodologies and results
(with the exception of raw data – Monitoring, WATECO)
Each national expert group works on and responsible for its own river basin part !!!

6. Water Body Guidance Document (1)
Similar national and common project typology:
HUNGARY
ROMANIA
(ecoregion: 11)
sub-ecoregions
relief (geographical region,
ground surface slope)
geology (hydro-geochemistry)
lithological river bed structure
size of the catchment
Obligatory parameters:
ecoregions: 10 and 11,
altitude,
size of the catchment,
geology (bedrock material),
Optional parameters:
lithological river bed structure,
river slope,
climatic characteristics
annual mean specific flow,
monthly minimum specific flow with 95 % probability,
20 stream types for Hungary
20 stream types for Romania
(excepting Danube River)
3 stream types for Szamos
14 stream types for Somes
(18 sub-types)

7. Water Body Guidance Document (2)
Different national surface WB characterisation:
HUNGARY
ROMANIA
(Including an assessment of WB status)
natural or near-natural (SWB)
heavily modified (HMWB)
artificial (AWB)
natural or near-natural (SWB);
modified from qualitative point of
view (QWB);
heavily modified, non-modified
from qualitative point of view
(NQ-HMWB);
heavily modified, modified from
qualitative point of view (QHMWB)

8. GIS Guidance Document Common reference system: WGS-84 Scale: 1:100,000
HUNGARY
ROMANIA
Reference system
EOV
Stereo 70 - Krassovsky ellipsoid – datum Pulkovo
Scale
1:100,000
1:200,000
Coding
own
Common reference system: WGS-84
Scale: 1:100,000
Software: ArcMap 8.3
Coding: Modified Pfaffstetter

9. Monitoring Guidance Document
Long history and common methodology of bilateral monitoring at the border section
Different national standards, parameters, sampling frequencies and classification systems
Common monitoring database could only be established at the border section
Common WQ assessment (Romanian 3+1 classification)
and trend analyses

10. WATECO Guidance Document
Different statistical data due to River Basin catchment size differencies
Different agenda for data collection of National Statistical Offices and regional organs
HUNGARY
ROMANIA
Data on
micro-regions
counties
Data availability
all necessary
80 – 90 %
ICPDR methodology
Gaps were filled by expert estimates

11. Other issues Timing of products
- each deadline for the next steps were discussed on the workshops
- each country prepares its own products and conclusions that are exchanged 1-2 weeks before the deadline
Transnational co-ordination
- continuous information and document exchange
- co-ordination of technical work at country level
- co-ordination of progress, timing and reporting by PRB leader
- final products/outcomes are harmonised and presented as homogenous as possible

12. Conclusions
Good working relations at regional expert and national levels
Similarities in national methodologies are evident
Most differencies in methodologies were detected and harmonised at PRB level
Unsolved issues (such as the term of geology) has to be solved by bilateral agreements on common water management
Identified gaps in GDs should be solved at EU level
(e.g.: ox-bows, evaluation of biological and hydromorphological elements, etc.)

13. Thank you for your attention