European Parliament Committee on Budgets€¦ · European Parliament Committee on Budgets Delegation to Hungary 23 - 25 July 2008 . Page 2 of 56 . Page 3 of 56 ... European Parliament

Committee on Budgets Policy department for Budgetary Affairs

European Parliament

Committee on Budgets

Delegation to Hungary

23 - 25 July 2008

Page 2 of 56

Page 3 of 56

GENERAL INFORMATION

Page 4 of 56

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

BUDG Delegation to Hungary 23 - 25 July 2008

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS as per 16 July

Members of the European Parliament Committee on Budgets: Mr Kyösti Virrankoski (Vice-Chairman) (ALDE)

Mr Szabolcs Fazakas (PSE) - hors quota

Ms Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE)

Mr Wiesław Stefan Kuc (UEN)

Mr László Surján (PPE) - hors quota Political advisers: Ms Nicole Wirtz (PPE) Secretariat of the Committee on Budgets: Ms Rita Calatozzolo (Administrator)

European Parliament Budapest Information Office Mr Zoltan Szalai (Head of Budapest office)

Ms Andrea Lovei (Administrator)

Interpreters: (Interpretation will be provided from and into HU/FR/EN)

Ms Pascale Dillard (Team Leader) Ms Tasmine Fernando Ms Fiona Dow Ms Barabara Grut Ms Patrizia Buffagni Ms Elodi Anna

Page 5 of 56

Fact-finding mission on the European Solidarity Fund in Hungary

Programme of the visit

Wednesday, 23 July 2008

09.15 - 11.10 Departure from Brussels to Budapest (Flight MA 601)

11.30 - 12.00 Transfer to Hotel Intercontinental APACZAI CSERE J.U.12-14 •

BUDAPEST, H-1052 - HUNGARY Front Desk: +36-1-3276333 • Fax: +36-1-3276357

12.30 - 14.00 Free lunch 14.45 Transfer to Ministry of Local Government: Budapest 1051 József

Attila str. 2-4 (5 minutes walk from Hotel) 15.00 - 16.00 Meeting with Senior State Secretary István Jauernik, Deputy Minister

of Ministry of Local Government 16.00 - 17.00 Presentations from officials of different ministries involved in the

management of the Solidarity fund (Local Government Ministry and Environment and Waters Ministry)

17.15 Transfer to the Hotel Intercontinental 19.30 Free dinner

Thursday, 24 July 2008

07.00 Departure from the Hotel Intercontinental (trip to Szolnok ca. 1,5 - 2,00 hours)

09.00 Arrival at the Mayor's Office Szolnok (5000 Szolnok, Kossuth tér 9.) Venue: Chief Administrator's meeting room

The delegation is received by Mr Ferenc Szalay, Mayor of Szolnok Town of County Rank

Presentation of Szolnok town - 10 minute film (EN)

Page 6 of 56

Ferenc Szalay, Mayor: Presentation on the tasks and duties of the local government concerning flood protection in connection with the great flood on Tisza river in 2006 and in 2000

László Varga, Director, Middle Tisza District Environment

and Water Directorate: Presentation on the flood protection issues and tasks of the Directorate

10.30 Visit of Tiszaliget Round Dam - a site hit by the flood in Szolnok 10.45 Departure to Tiszaroff 11.30 Arrival at Tiszaroff - Visit of the site damaged by the flood

Meeting the local representatives of Tiszaroff on the site

Brief presentation about the 2006 flood

Summary of the flood protection work

To Tiszaroff, the delegation is accompanied by Mr László Varga, director and the experts of the Mayor's Office, Szolnok

12.00 Departure to Tokaj Passing by Tisza Lake and Abádszalók lunch will not be provided - a stop will be made to buy some snacks

and continue the transfer on the bus 15.00 Arrival in Tokaj

Venue: Engineering District, North Hungarian Environment and Water Directorate (Tokaj, Széchenyi sétány 2.)

The delegation is received by János Májer, Mayor of Tokaj

János Májer, Mayor of Tokaj: Presentation on the 2006 flood

situation and the role of Tokaj municipality in the protection work

Sándor Pócza, Head of Tokaj Engineering District, North

Hungarian Environment and Water Directorate:

- Presentation on the flood situation on river Tisza in 2006 and on the Tiszadob Floodgate Reconstruction Project financed by the Solidarity Fund

- Visiting sites hit by the flood

16.15 Closing discussion - joint reception given by the Mayor of Tokaj and

the Chairman of Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Assembly:

Page 7 of 56

János Májer, Mayor, Tokaj town Dr. Ferenc Ódor, Chairman, Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County

Assembly Dr. Ferenc Koncz, Vice Chairman, Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén

County Assembly Dr. Szabolcs Sója, Vice Chairman, Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén

County Assembly Dr. Marianna Varga, Lawyer - international affairs, Borsod-

Abaúj-Zemplén County Zsuzsa Bánáti, Counsellor to the Vice Chairman, Borsod-

Abaúj-Zemplén County 17.15 Departure to Budapest 20.00 Arrival in Budapest 20.30 Dinner hosted by Árpád Kovács, President of the Hungarian State

Audit Office - Mr Attila Zöldhegyi, Department Head, State Audit Office will also attend

Venue: Boat SPOONCAFE in front of Hotel Intercontinental

Friday, 25 July 2008

08.30 Transfer from Hotel Intercontinental to Ministry of National

Development and Economy. Address: 1055 Budapest, Szemere Str. 6. 09.00 - 10.00 Meeting with Mr. Gordon Bajnai, Minister for National

Development and Economy - Venue Library Room of the Ministry 10.00 - 11.00 Presentation of Ministry officials about the Hungarian National

Development Plan, and about the intervention and results of the Structural funds in Hungary and on Hungarian economy

11.00 Transfer to Hungarian Parliament: address Kossuth Lajos ter 1-3,

Budapest, Hungary

11.15 - 12.15 Meeting with Mr Mátyás Eörsi, Chairman of the European Affairs Committee - Hungarian Parliament

12.30 free lunch 14.00 Departure from Hotel Intercontinental transfer to the Airport (Brussels

and other destinations) (17.35 - 19.35 flight Budapest Brussels MA 602)

Page 8 of 56

Useful contacts and addresses:

Hotel Intercontinental APACZAI CSERE J.U.12-14 • BUDAPEST, H-1052 • HUNGARY Front Desk: +36-1-3276333 • Fax: +36-1-3276357

Email : [email protected]

Parliament of Hungary Kossuth Lajos ter 1-3, Budapest, Hungary

Ministry of Local Government Budapest 1051 József Attila str. 2-4 Contact person to Mr István Jauernik

Ms Főfai Gabriella GSM + 36 20 207 46 37

Ministry for National and Development and Economy 1055 Budapest, Honvéd u. 13-15. P.O.Box: H-1880 Budapest, Pf.: 111. Tel +36-1-374-2700, +36-1-302-2355 Contact Person to Minister Bajnai: Eszter Juharos Tel. : + 0036-30-364-7313 EP Information Office in Budapest Ms Andrea Lovei c/o Orszaghaz (National Assembly Hungary) Kossuth Laos Ter 1-3 HU - 1357 BUDAPEST GSM: + 36 209 609413 Tel + 36-1-441 6601 Fax + 36-1-441 6603 Mrs Rita Calatozzolo (COBU Secretariat) assisting the delegation

Tel (+32) 498.98.35.34

Page 9 of 56

FACTS ON HUNGARY

Page 10 of 56

Fact sheet on Hungary

This brief overview aims to provide the delegation to Hungary with some general information on the country as a whole and on its capital Budapest. Information with special respect to the country's political structure and economic situation will be considered. Hungary a landlocked country in the Carpathian Basin of Central Europe, bordered by Austria, Slovakia, Ukraine, Romania, Serbia, Croatia, and Slovenia. The official language is Hungarian (also known as Magyar), which forms part of the Finno-Ugric family. It is one of the four official languages of the European Union that is not of Indo-European origin. Hungary was one of the 15 most popular tourist destinations in the world in the past decade, with a capital regarded as one of the most beautiful in the world. Despite its relatively small size, the country is home to numerous World Heritage Sites, UNESCO Biosphere reserves, the second largest thermal lake in the world (Lake Hévíz), the largest lake in Central Europe (Lake Balaton), and the largest natural grassland in Europe (Hortobágy). Basic data on Hungary Population 9,930,915 (July 2008 est.) Population growth rate -0.254% (2008 est.)

Ethnic groups Hungarian 92.3%, Roma 1.9%, other or unknown 5.8%

ReligionsRoman Catholic 51.9%, Calvinist 15.9%, Lutheran 3%, Greek Catholic 2.6%, other Christian 1%, other or unspecified 11.1%, unaffiliated 14.5% (2001 census)

Area 93,030 sq km Land use arable land: 49.58%; permanent crops: 2.06%; other: 48.36% (2005)Natural resources bauxite, coal, natural gas, fertile soils, arable land Political situation The last parliamentary elections were held in 2006 when four parties or party alliances passed the minimum threshold to enter the Parliament, a unicameral body consisting of 386 members. The Hungarian Socialist Party (MSZP - 190 seats) and the former coalition party Alliance of Free Democrats (SZDSZ - 20 seats) gained authority to form a government. The opposition included the Hungarian Civic Union (FIDESZ) in alliance with the Christian Democratic People's Party (KDNP - 164 seats in common), and the Hungarian Democratic Forum (MDF - 11 seats). As a culmination of various disagreements between the ruling parties, mostly concerning the nature of the country's reforms, the SZDSZ quit the coalition on May 1, 2008. This also meant that the MSZP would form the first minority government of Hungary under the leadership of Ferenc Gyurcsany who has been Prime Minister since 2004.

Page 11 of 56

Economic overview Hungary has made the transition from a centrally planned to a market economy, with a per capita income nearly two-thirds that of the EU-27 average. The private sector accounts for more than 80% of GDP. Foreign ownership of and investment in Hungarian firms are widespread, with cumulative foreign direct investment totalling more than $60 billion since 1989. Hungary issues investment-grade sovereign debt. International observers, however, have expressed concerns over Hungary's fiscal and current account deficits. In 2007, Hungary eliminated a trade deficit that had persisted for several years. Inflation declined from 14% in 1998 to a low of 3.7% in 2006, but jumped to 7.8% in 2007. Unemployment has persisted above 6%. Hungary's labour force participation rate of 57% is one of the lowest in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Germany is by far Hungary's largest economic partner. Policy challenges include cutting the public sector deficit to 4% of GDP by 2008, from about 6% in 2007. The government's austerity program of tax hikes and subsidy cuts has reduced Hungary's large budget deficit, but the reforms have dampened domestic consumption, slowing GDP growth to about 1.4% in 2007. GDP growth in the first quarter of 2008 was 1.7 percent, and some estimates say growth will pick up in range of 2.8-4.0 percent in the second half of 2008, due to starting of large investments, as 2400 megawatt Emfesz gas-fired power plant (the largest gas-fired power plant in Europe) next to the Ukrainian border (Nyírmeggyes), worth of 1.5 billion euros, a Mercedes-Benz car plant in Kecskemét, worth of 800 million euros (the largest investment in Hungary, since fall of communism), and Eurovegas casino-city next to the Slovakian and Austrian border (Bezenye), worth of 700 million euros. Hungary's low employment rate remains a key structural handicap to achieving higher living standards. The government introduced useful measures in the key areas, namely early retirement, disability and old pensions. Nevertheless, the government will need to pass additional reforms to ensure the long-term stability of public finances. The government plans to eventually lower its public sector deficit to below 3% of GDP to adopt the Euro. Economic data on Hungary GDP (PPP) $191.3 billion (2007 est.)GDP - per capita (PPP) $19,000 (2007 est.) GDP - real growth rate 1.3% (2007 est.) GDP - composition by sector agriculture: 2.8%; industry: 31.5%; services: 65.7% (2007) Unemployment rate 7.3% (2007 est.) Inflation rate 7.9% (2007 est.) Budget revenues: $63.97 billion; expenditures: $71.69 billion (2007) Public debt 67% of GDP (2007 est.) Debt - external $125.9 billion (2007) Current account balance -$7.75 billion (2007 est.)

Page 12 of 56

City of Budapest

Budapest is the capital city of Hungary. As the largest city of Hungary, it serves as the country's principal political, cultural, commercial, industrial, and transportation center and is considered an important hub in Central Europe. In 2007, Budapest had 1,696,128 inhabitants with an official agglomeration of 2,451,418, down from a mid-1980s peak of 2.1 million. The city covers an area of 525 square kilometers (202.7 sq mi) within the city limits. Budapest became a single city occupying both banks of the river Danube with the unification on November 17, 1873, of right-bank (west) Buda and Óbuda (Old Buda) together with Pest on the left (east) bank.

Aquincum, originally a Celtic settlement, was the direct ancestor of Budapest, becoming the Roman capital of Lower Pannonia. Magyars arrived in the territory in the 9th century. Their first settlement was pillaged by the Mongols in 1241-42. The re-established town became one of the centers of Renaissance humanist culture in the 15th century. Following nearly 150 years of Ottoman rule, development of the region entered a new age of prosperity in the 18th and 19th centuries, and Budapest became a global city after the 1873 unification. It also became the second capital of Austria-Hungary, a great power that dissolved in 1918. Budapest was the focal point of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848, the Hungarian Soviet Republic of 1919, Operation Panzerfaust in 1944, the Battle of Budapest of 1945, and the Revolution of 1956.

Widely regarded as one of the most beautiful cities in Europe, its World Heritage Sites include the banks of the Danube, the Buda Castle Quarter, Andrássy Avenue, and the Millennium Underground railway, the first on the European continent. Budapest attracts over 20 million visitors a year. The city ranks 52nd on MasterCard's 'World's Top 75 Financial Centers' list and 74th on Mercer Consulting's 'World's Top 100 Most Livable Cities' list. The headquarters of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) will be in Budapest.

Page 13 of 56

GENERAL INFO ON EUSF

Page 14 of 56

EUSF - legal framework

Page 15 of 56

Page 16 of 56

Page 17 of 56

Page 18 of 56

Page 19 of 56

Page 20 of 56

THE EU SOLIDARITY FUND

Generalities

Background The EU Solidarity Fund was established in 2002 following the devastating floods that hit Europe during the summer of 2002. Its aim is to enable the Community to respond in a rapid, efficient and flexible manner to emergency situations. The Fund is a complementary instrument in addition to the efforts of the States concerned to cover a share of their public expenditure in order to help the beneficiary State to carry out the essential emergency operations. The relevant provisions are laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement on budgetary discipline and sound financial management of 17 May 20061 and in Regulation No 2012/2002.2 The appropriations spent for the Solidarity Fund do not count for the ceilings foreseen in the Financial Perspectives. Criteria At the request of a Member State or country involved in accession negotiations with the EU assistance from the Fund may be mobilised when a major natural disaster with serious repercussions on living conditions, the natural environment or the economy in one ore more regions or one or more countries occurs on the territory of that State. A "major disaster" within the meaning of this Regulation means any disaster resulting, in at least one of the States concerned, in damage estimated either at over EUR 3 billion in 2002 pries, or more than 0,6% of its GNI. Under exceptional circumstance, even when the above-mentioned quantitative criteria are not met, a region could also benefit from assistance from the Fund, where that region has been affected by an extraordinary (natural) disaster affecting the major part of its population, with serious and lasting repercussions on living conditions and the economic stability of the region. However, total annual assistance for such cases shall be limited to no more than 7,5% of the annual amount available to the Fund. Assistance from the Fund shall take the form of a grant for each disaster a single grant shall be awarded to a beneficiary State. Payments from the Fund are in principle limited to finance measures alleviating non insurable damages and shall be recovered if the cost of repairing the damage is subsequently met by a third party. The following emergency operations can be financed under the EU Solidarity Fund: * immediate restoration of infrastructure and plant in the field of energy, water, telecom, transport, health and education * temporary accommodation and rescue services

1 ) OJ C 139 of 14 June 2006. 2 ) Council Regulation No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund

Page 21 of 56

* immediate preventive infrastructure and immediate protection of the cultural heritage * immediate cleaning up of the area hit by the natural disaster, including natural zones. Procedure No later than 10 weeks after the first damage caused by a natural disaster, a State may submit an application for assistance from the Solidarity Fund to the Commission providing all available information on the total damage, the estimated cost of the emergency operations, any other source of Community, international or national funding including insurance coverage. The Commission shall assess if the conditions for mobilising the Fund are met and shall determine the proposed amount of any possible grant as quickly as possible within the limits of the financial resources available. There will be a ceiling on the annual amount available for the Fund of EUR 1 billion (current 2006 prices).On 1 October each year, at least one-quarter of the annual amount should remain available in order to cover need arising until the end of the year. The portion of the annual amount not entered in the budget may not be rolled over in the following years. The Commission shall submit to the budgetary authority the proposals needed to authorise the corresponding appropriations. The decision to deploy the Fund will be taken jointly by the two arms of the budgetary authority in the form of an amending budget. Additionally, Council and Parliament take a legislative Decision on the mobilisation of the Solidarity Fund. Where there is scope for reallocating appropriations under the heading requiring additional expenditure, the Commission shall take this into account when making the necessary proposal. The decision to deploy the Fund will be entered in the budget, if necessary, over and above the ceiling of the relevant headings. On the basis of this the Commission concludes an agreement with the beneficiary State to implement the grant decision. The agreement has to describe the type and location of operations to be financed by the Fund. The beneficiary State is responsible for coordinating the contribution of the Fund to the operations defined in the agreement. Operations funded under the Solidarity Fund must not benefit from assistance from certain other Community Funds and instruments. A grant shall be used within one year of the date on which the Commission has disbursed the grant. Not later than six months after the expiry of the one-year period from the date of disbursement of the grant, the beneficiary State shall present a report on the financial execution of the grant with a statement justifying the expenditure including any other source of funding received for the operations concerned including insurance settlements. The report shall also detail the preventive measures introduced or proposed by the beneficiary State in order to limit damage and to avoid, to the extent possible, a recurrence of similar disasters. In exceptional cases and if the remaining financial resources available in the Fund in the year of the occurrence of the disaster are not sufficient to cover the amount of assistance deemed necessary by the budgetary authority, the Commission may propose that the difference be financed through the next year's Fund. The annual amount of the Fund to be budgeted in each year may not, under any circumstances, exceed EUR 1 billion.

Page 22 of 56

At several occasions the European Parliament has expressed its concern about the lengthy procedure that has to be followed before any money from the EU Solidarity Fund can be paid to a Member State. In some cases (such has been the case for Hungary) this is also due to the fact that the beneficiary countries authorities need a long time to gather all the relevant information to be provided to the Commission.

Page 23 of 56

Meeting with Senior State Secretary István Jauernic, Deputy Minister of Local government on EUSF

Wednesday, 23 July 2008

Page 24 of 56

P6_TA(2007)0222

Mobilisation of the Solidarity Fund: floods in Hungary and Greece

European Parliament resolution of 7 June 2007 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund according to point 26 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (2007/2068(ACI)) The European Parliament,

– having regard to the Commission proposal (COM(2007)0149),

– having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management3,

– having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund4,

– having regard to its position of 10 October 2002 on the proposal for a Council regulation establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund5,

– having regard to the results of the Trialogue of 18 April 2007,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A6-0175/2007),

A. whereas the European Union has set up the appropriate institutional and budgetary instruments to provide financial assistance in relation to damage resulting from major natural disasters,

B. whereas Hungary and Greece have requested assistance in relation to the damage resulting from the floods between March and April 2006,

C. whereas the European Union's financial assistance to Member States affected by natural disasters should be made available as quickly and efficiently as possible,

1. Approves the decision annexed to this resolution;

2. Deplores the delay of some Member States in introducing their request which is not in line with sound financial management;

3. Instructs its President to forward this resolution, including the Annex, to the Council and Commission, for information.

3 OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1. 4 OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3. 5 OJ C 279 E, 20.11.2003, p. 118.

Page 25 of 56

ANNEX

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

of 7 June 2007

on the mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund according to point 26 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the

Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management6, and in particular point 26 thereof, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund7, Having regard to the proposal from the Commission, Whereas:

(1) The European Union has created a European Union Solidarity Fund (the "Fund") to show solidarity with the population of regions struck by disasters.

(2) The Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion.

(3) Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 contains the provisions whereby the Fund may be mobilised.

(4) Hungary and Greece submitted applications to mobilise the Fund, concerning two disasters caused by flooding,

HAVE DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2007, the European Union Solidarity Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 24 370 114 in commitment and payment appropriations. 6 OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1. 7 OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3.

Page 26 of 56

Article 2

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 7 June 2007

For the European Parliament For the Council The President The President

Page 27 of 56

Mr Dr. István Jauernik

CURRICULUM VITAE

Senior State Secretary of the Ministry of Local Government to Hungary Born in Tiszaföldvár on 25 March 1951. Education: University of Agricultural Science in Gödöllő (1975) University Degree in engineering of agriculture and energy-management (1986) Qualifications: Expert engineer of agriculture and energy-management Professional career: 1975-1978. Department manager of the Kunszentmárton-Kőrösmente Agricultural

Productive Association 1978-1982. Leading manager of the Aranykalász Agricultural Productive Association in

Tiszaszentimre 1983-1986. Kőrösmente Agricultural Productive Association 1986-1989. Economic policy associate in the Hungarian Socialist Worker’s Party’s party

committee in Kunszentmárton from 1989 Department manager of the Szabadság Agricultural Productive Association in

Öcsöd 1991-1994. Manager of the Szolnok Jász-Kun Seed Ltd. from 1998 President, member of the national management board of the Kunszentmárton

and its Surrounding’s Beekeeper Association Political career: from 1977 Member of the Hungarian Socialist Worker’s Party October 1989 Founder member of the Hungarian Socialist Party (HSP), president of its

Kunszentmárton Organisation from 1989 until 1991 Member of the National Committee of the HSP from 1998 until 2002 Member of the National Committee of the HSP from 2000 Member of the County Chairmanship of the HSP

Page 28 of 56

from 2002 Vice-president of the HSP’s county organization 1990 Candidate for Parliament 1990 Member of the body of representatives of Kunszentmárton’s Local Authority,

committee chairman from 1994 Member of Parliament 1994-2002. Member of the County Assembly of Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County from 22 September 2003 until 30 December 2003 Chairman of the committee of inquiry

reviewing the reasons of pre- and primary school closings 2006. Obtains mandate on the parliamentary elections 2006. Chairman of the Committee of local government and territorial development

of the Parliament from June 2008 Senior State Secretary of the Ministry of Local Government

Page 29 of 56

The floods of 2006 - The intervention of the Solidarity Fund - Procedural aspects

Following the flooding disaster that hit Hungary in April/May 2006, the Hungarian authorities submitted to the Commission on 9 June an application for Solidarity Fund assistance. The application was presented in English thus requiring no translation before the Commission services could carry out its assessment. Additional information requested by the Commission and necessary to complete the assessment was received on 21 September. The flooding qualified as a major disaster within the meaning of the Regulation as the direct damages of some EUR 560 million exceeded the threshold for mobilising the Fund (EUR 459.494 million, which represents 0.6% of Hungary's GNI). The disaster affected over 1.5 million inhabitants in 8 of the Hungary's 20 counties along the catchment areas of the Danube and Tisza rivers. The Hungarian authorities reported serious damage to infrastructures, in particular in the water/waste water sector (EUR 136 million), for flood protection (EUR 85 million), in the transport sector (EUR 93 million) as well as in agriculture (over EUR 61 million), to the cultural heritage, and to several natural parks. The Commission decided on 1 December 2006 to mobilise the Solidarity Fund and proposed to grant financial aid amounting to EUR 15 million. The corresponding amending budget proposal - covering the Hungarian as well as the Greek case - was presented in 2007, as soon as the assessment of the Greek application had been completed. The European Parliament gave its approval to the mobilisation of the Solidarity Fund in favour of the two countries.

Page 30 of 56

EU Solidarity Fund Applications since 2002 Year Country Nature of the disaster Damage

(million €)1 Category8 Aid granted (million €)

1 AT Flooding 2 900 major 134

2 CZ Flooding 2 300 major 129

3 FR Flooding (Le Gard) 835 regional 21

2 0 0 2

4 DE Flooding 9 100 major 444

Total aid for 2002 applications 728

Year Country Nature of the disaster Damage (million €)1 Category9 Aid granted

(million €)

1 ES Oil spill (Prestige) 436 regional 8.626

2 IT Earthquake (Molise/Apulia) 1 558 regional 30.826

3 IT Volcanic eruption (Etna) 894 regional 16.798

4 IT Flooding (North Italy) 1 900 (major) Rejected

5 GR Adverse winter weather not clear (major) Rejected

6 PT Forest fires 1 228 major 48.539

7 FR Forest fires (Southern France) 531 (regional) Rejected

8 ES Forest fires (Portuguese border) 53 neighbouring country 1.331

9 MT Flooding 30 major 0.961

2 0 0 3

10 IT Flooding (Friuli Venezia-Giulia) 525 regional Rejected

Total aid for 2003 applications 107.081

1 FR Flooding (Rhone delta) 785 regional 19.625

2 ES Flooding (Malaga) 73 (regional) Rejected

3-9 ES Forest fires (7 applications) (480) (regional) all 7 rejected

10 SK Flooding 29 (regional) Rejected

2 0 0 4

11 SI Earthquake 13 (regional) withdrawn


1 SK Storm (Tatras) 203 major 5.668

2 IT Flooding (Sardinia) (223, over-est) (regional) Rejected

3 EE Storm 48 major 1.29

4 LV Storm 193 major 9.487

2 0 0 5

5 SE Storm "Gudrun" 2297 major 81.725

8 Data in italics is subject to verification/confirmation by the Commission 9 Data in italics is subject to verification/confirmation by the Commission

Page 31 of 56

6 LT Storm 15 neighb country 0.379

7 EL Evros flooding (112) (regional) Rejected

8 RO Spring flooding 489 major 18.798

9 BG Spring flooding 222 major 9.722

10 BG Summer flooding 237 major 10.632

11 RO Summer flooding 1050 major 52.4

12 AT Flooding (Tyrol/Vorarlberg) 592 regional 14.799


Year Country Nature of the

disaster

Damage (million €)1 Category10 Aid granted

(million €) Year

1 UK Buncefield oil depot explosion (700) (regional) withdrawn

2 EL Evros flooding 372 regional 9.306 m€

3 HU Flooding 519 major 15.064 m€

2 0 0 6 4 ES Galicia forest fires (91) (regional) Rejected


1 DE Storm "Kyrill" 4750 major 166.9 m€

2 FR La Réunion, Cyclone "Gamede" 211 regional 5.29 m€

3 ES EL Hierro flooding (18) (regional) Rejected

4 ES La Mancha flooding 66 (regional) Rejected

5 UK Flooding 4 612 major 162.387 m€

6 CY Forest fires 38 (regional) Rejected

7 ES Forst Fires Canary islands 144 (regional) Rejected

8-16 IT 9 applications for forest fires in 9 regions - (regional)

not admissible,

deadline missed

2 0 0 7

17 FR Storm Dean/Martinique 509 (regional) pending

18 EL Forest fires 2 118 major 89.769 m€

19 SI Flooding 233 major 8.254 m€

Total aid for 2007 applications 432.6 m€ 2 0 0 8

1 CY Drought 165.4 major pending

10 Data in italics is subject to verification/confirmation by the Commission

Page 32 of 56

Thursday, 24 July 2008

Flood protection

Meeting with the local representatives of Tiszaroff

Visit of the sites

Page 33 of 56

Flooding in Hungary

Type of Event: Flooding

Location of Event: Hungary

Date of Charter Activation: 14/04/2006

Charter Requestor: European Commission Civil Protection Monitoring and Information Centre

Project Management: DLR

Description of Event

Heavy rainfall and snowmelt in Hungary at the end of March and in April 2006 caused the highest peak of overflow in the last century of the river Tisza, a major tributary of the Danube. The cities of Prague, Budapest, and Belgrade were threatened; by mid-April, thousands had been evacuated.

Images and/or Image Products

Hungary, Tisza Flood: Szeged Source: RADARSAT-1, Landsat 7 ETM+

Acquired: 15/04/2006, 20/08/2000 The map shows the city of Szeged in Hungary during the flooding event of the Danube/Tisza rivers in April 2006. The flooded area has been extracted from radar

satellite data (RADARSAT) acquired on 17 April 2006. The background satellite image is based on Landsat 7 ETM+ data acquired on 20 August 2000 displayed as

real colour composite. The flooded area has been mapped with highest possible accuracy.

Copyright Canadian Space Agency 2006, USGS 2000 Image processing, map created 18/04/2006 by DLR in

the framework of GMES RISKEOS.

Hungary, Tisza Flood: Szolnok Source: RADARSAT-1, Landsat 7 ETM+

Acquired: 15/04/2006, 20/08/2000 The map shows the city of Szolnok in Hungary during the flooding event of the Danube/Tisza rivers in April 2006. The flooded area has been extracted from radar

satellite data (RADARSAT) acquired on 17 April 2006. The background satellite image is based on Landsat 7 ETM+ data acquired on 20 August 2000 displayed as

real colour composite. The flooded area has been mapped with highest possible accuracy.

Copyright Canadian Space Agency 2006, USGS 2000 Image processing, map created 18/04/2006 by DLR in

the framework of GMES RISKEOS.

More detailed information on the flood: see annex 1

Page 34 of 56

The CV of Mr Ferenc Szalay (mayor of Szolnok) will be distributed on the way

to Szolnok

Page 35 of 56

Presentation on the flood situation on river Tisza in 2006 and joint reception given by the Mayor of Tokaj &

the Chairman of Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Assembly

The CVs of Mr János Májer , Mayor of Tokaj, and of Dr. Ferenc Ódor, Chairman of Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Assembly, will be distributed on the way

Page 36 of 56

Dinner hosted by Árpád Kovács, President of the Hungarian State Audit Office

Page 37 of 56

Mr Árpád Kovács

Page 38 of 56

Page 39 of 56

Ministry of National Development and Economy

Friday, 25 July 2008

Page 40 of 56

Intervention and results of the Structural Funds

This document aims at providing background information to the BUDG delegation to Hungary taking place on the 23 - 25 July 2008. The factual information below deals with various subjects related to the situation of Hungary as regards EU funding, such as: - The general situation as regards Hungary and EU funds, - Cohesion Policy 2007-2013 in Hungary, - The European Social Fund (ESF) in Hungary for 2007-2013, - 3 concrete examples of "success stories" concerning Cohesion Policy, - Hungary's Rural Development Plan. The source for the information presented is the Commission's various websites and documents. HUNGARY AND EU FUNDS11.

Hungary contributed in 2007 to the financing of the EU budget for an amount of 759.4 million euro, representing some 0.8% of the overall Member States' contribution. For the same year, Hungary received EU funds for 2.427,6 million euro, which can be broken down as follows. The table below presents for each heading and sub-heading of the multiannual financial framework the amount received in 2007, the percentage that this amount represents as compared to EU funding as a whole, and finally what it represents as a percentage of the global EU funding received by Hungary.

According to Commission's calculations, the operating budgetary balance is + 1,6 billion euro, what represents slightly more than 1.72% of the Hungarian Gross National Income.

As compared to other Member States, Hungary received relatively great funding from the Cohesion Fund (Heading 1b), for Rural Development (2), "Fundamental Rights and Justice" (3a) as well as for "Europe for citizens" and from the European Solidarity Fund (3b).

2007 EU funding to Hungary (in EUR million)

Total EU funding

HU funds in HU

As a % of total EU funds

As a % of EU funds to HU

a b (b/a) b / Σ(b) 1 SUSTAINABLE GROWTH 43.713,0 1.357,6 3,11% 55,92% 1.1 Competitiveness for growth and employment 6.738,2 53,5 0,79% 2,20%

1.1.1 Seventh Research framework programme (incl.compl. 6th FP) 4.059,4 16,7 0,41% 0,69%

1.1.2 Decommissioning (Direct research) 31,7 0,0 0,00% 0,00% 1.1.3 Ten 371,5 4,4 1,18% 0,18% 1.1.4 Galileo 0,0 0,0 NA 0,00% 1.1.5 Marco Polo 9,5 0,0 0,00% 0,00% 1.1.6 Lifelong Learning 958,8 24,6 2,56% 1,01% 1.1.7 Competitiveness and innovation framework programme 267,4 2,5 0,95% 0,10% 1.1.8 Social policy agenda 119,6 1,4 1,14% 0,06% 1.1.9 Customs 2013 and Fiscalis 2013 35,2 0,5 1,31% 0,02% 1.1.10 Nuclear decommissioning 37,9 0,0 0,00% 0,00% 1.1.11 European Global Adjustment Funds 18,6 0,0 0,00% 0,00%

11 The figures below are taken from the Commission's 2007 Financial Report (For the assumptions underlying

the calculations, please refer to original Commission's document)

Page 41 of 56

1.1.DAG Decentralised agencies 198,5 0,0 0,00% 0,00% 1.1.OTH Other actions and programmes 630,2 3,5 0,55% 0,14% 1.2 Cohesion for growth and employment 36.974,8 1.304,2 3,53% 53,72% 1.2.1 Structural funds 32.699,6 933,9 2,86% 38,47% 1.2.11 Convergence objective 23.521,6 853,2 3,63% 35,15% 1.2.12 Regional competitiveness and employment objective 7.835,2 50,2 0,64% 2,07% 1.2.13 European territorial cooperation objective 1.297,8 30,0 2,31% 1,24% 1.2.14 Technical assistance 44,9 0,5 1,06% 0,02% 1.2.2 Cohesion Fund 4.275,2 370,2 8,66% 15,25% 1.2.DAG Decentralised agencies 0,0 0,0 NA 0,00% 1.2.OTH Other actions and programmes 0,0 0,0 NA 0,00%

2 PRESERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 54.648,4 956,2 1,75% 39,39%

2.0.1 Market related expenditure and direct aids 42.650,1 476,9 1,12% 19,65% 2.0.11 Agriculture markets 42.413,2 474,9 1,12% 19,56% Direct Aid 37.044,7 471,5 1,27% 19,42% Export refunds 1.444,7 12,2 0,85% 0,50% Storage -106,7 -51,1 47,90% -2,11% Other 3.477,5 42,3 1,22% 1,74% 2.0.12 Fisheries market 24,7 0,0 0,00% 0,00% 2.0.13 Animal and plant health 212,3 2,0 0,94% 0,08% 2.0.2 Rural development 10.874,3 476,0 4,38% 19,61% 2.0.3 European fisheries fund 749,7 1,6 0,21% 0,07% 2.0.4 Fisheries governance and international agreements 217,8 0,0 0,00% 0,00% 2.0.5 Life+ 114,4 1,6 1,39% 0,07% 2.0.DAG Decentralised agencies 40,8 0,0 0,00% 0,00% 2.0.OTH Other actions and programmes 1,3 0,0 0,00% 0,00%

3 CITIZENSHIP, FREEDOM, SECURITY AND JUSTICE 1.049,8 36,9 3,51% 1,52%

3.1 Freedom, security and justice 212,2 1,3 0,63% 0,06% 3.1.1 Solidarity and management of migration flows 68,7 0,6 0,90% 0,03% 3.1.2 Security and safeguarding liberties 5,1 0,0 0,00% 0,00% 3.1.3 Fundamental rights and justice 2,3 0,3 12,28% 0,01% 3.1.DAG Decentralised agencies 93,4 0,0 0,00% 0,00% 3.1.OTH Other actions and programmes 42,7 0,4 1,02% 0,02% 3.2 Citizenship 837,6 35,5 4,24% 1,46% 3.2.1 Public health and consumer protection programme 70,8 1,5 2,05% 0,06% 3.2.2 Culture 2007-20013 38,1 0,2 0,61% 0,01% 3.2.3 Youth in action 124,7 4,1 3,25% 0,17% 3.2.4 Media 2007 98,2 0,9 0,97% 0,04% 3.2.5 Europe for Citizens 18,6 1,3 6,74% 0,05% 3.2.6 Civil protection Financial instrument 8,3 0,3 3,59% 0,01% 3.2.7 Communication actions 75,2 2,2 2,92% 0,09% 3.2.8 European Solidarity Fund 196,6 15,1 7,66% 0,62% 3.2.DAG Decentralised agencies 76,6 0,0 0,00% 0,00% 3.2.OTH Other actions and programmes 130,5 10,0 7,68% 0,41% 4 THE EU AS A GLOBAL PARTNER 7.291,8 61,6 0,84% 2,54% 4.0.1 Instrument for Preaccession (IPA) 2.510,5 61,6 2,45% 2,54% Other actions and programmes 4.781,3 0,0 0,00% 0,00% 5 ADMINISTRATION 6.805,6 15,4 0,23% 0,63% 6 COMPENSATIONS 444,6 0,0 0,00% 0,00% TOTAL EXPENDITURE 113.953,3 2.427,6 2,13% 100,00%

Page 42 of 56

COHESION POLICY 2007-2013 IN HUNGARY

The investment Hungary has been allocated €25.3 billion for the 2007-13 programming period. The Hungarian contribution will be €4.4 billion. Regions to receive investment Of the seven Hungarian regions, six fall under the Convergence objective and one, the Central Hungary region, fulls under the Phasing-in Regional Competitiveness and Employment objective. Strategic objectives The main objectives of the Hungarian National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) are to sustain long-term growth and increase employment. Sustained long-term growth is to be achieved through the following specific objectives:

Page 43 of 56

• improving competitiveness, including strengthening the knowledge economy; • widening the economic basis; • developing the business environment. Increased employment is to be achieved through the following specific objectives: • increasing labour supply by improving employability and labour market activity; • increasing labour demand by promoting job creation; • developing a labour market environment that ensures balance between supply and demand. The objectives of the NSRF are translated into six thematic and territorial priorities: economic development, transport development, social renewal, environment and energy, regional development and state reform. In the field of economic development, investments will be made in RTD, SME development, business infrastructure and ICT. In transport, support will be provided for TEN-T priority projects, road and rail investments and the development of sustainable means transport. The social renewal priority will see support targeted at active labour market policies and investments in human capital and human infrastructure. In the environmental field, priority is given to ensuring compliance with the Community’s environmental legislation, with a focus on actions targeting wastewater and drinking water. As regards regional development, support is to be given to regional growth poles, rural development and the realignment of disadvantaged micro-regions. In terms of state reform, the aims are to modernise Hungary’s public administration and provide support to civil society. The expected impact of the new Cohesion Policy To measure the impact of the investments, Hungary has set the following target: an increase of more than 10% in the added value generated by enterprises by 2015 and a 4% increase in the number of employees outside the public sphere by 2015. An investment for growth and jobs The Hungarian NSRF includes a commitment whereby spending on the earmarked Lisbon categories is expected to increase by another 10% in the 2007-13 period (46% during 2004-06). Operational programmes The objectives and priorities of the NSRF will result in 15 operational programmes, two of which are co-financed by the European Social Fund (ESF) and 13 by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF). The 15 operational programmes include seven regional and eight sectoral programmes. The ERDF will also contribute towards financing the European Territorial Cooperation Objective. Hungary will be taking part in operational programmes for: • Cross-border cooperation with Slovakia, Austria, Romania and Slovenia. • Transnational cooperation between Central Eastern Europe and South Eastern Europe. • Interregional cooperation in the European Union among all Member States.

Page 44 of 56

Page 45 of 56

FOCUS ON THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL FUND IN HUNGARY 2007-2013 The Hungarian strategy for ESF funding will raise participation in the labour force to support continued economic growth while reducing regional disparities in employment and improving opportunities for disadvantaged groups. Further, it will modernise the education and training system to provide the skilled workers businesses need, today and for the future, and increase the performance of the public administration.

The socio-economic and employment situation in Hungary Since the mid-1990s the Hungarian economy has grown briskly with average annual GDP growth of 4.2%. Recently this has been falling, to 3.9% in 2006, and is forecast to be around a healthy 2.5% for 2007-2008.

Despite this welcome economic growth, employment has been increasing rather slowly in recent years. Standing at 57.3% in 2006, the employment rate is well below the EU target of 70% and the actual EU average of 64.3% in the same year. The employment rate for women was 51.1% in 2006, also below the EU average of 57.1%. At the same time, the unemployment rate has increased, from around 6% in the years up to 2004 to 7.5% in 2006 – approaching the EU-27 average of 7.9%. In 2006, only 62% of the working age population was present in the labour market. There is also a low rate of part-time employment at 4% compared to the EU-27 average of 18.8% in 2006.

Particular social challenges include low employment among disadvantaged groups such as the Roma, people with disabilities and the low skilled. In addition, there are strong regional disparities in wealth and employment, especially at local and micro-regional levels. At the same time, regional mobility of the workforce is low. As the economy continues to move away from agriculture and manufacturing, and towards services, it is important to help workers adapt to new jobs and new types of jobs.

Ensuring access to high-quality education and training for all is an additional challenge. Further, as Hungary undertakes the transition towards a more knowledge-based economy, education and training systems must adapt more to the demands of the labour market. The need for improvement is evidenced by skill shortages and bottlenecks to growth in the most developed regions, such as the Central Hungary region which includes Budapest.

Hungary’s ESF priorities

The Hungarian strategy for ESF funding is to raise the employment rate and labour force participation to support continued economic growth. At the same time, it will reduce regional disparities in employment, improve the labour market situation for the disadvantaged, modernise the education and training system to provide the skilled workers that businesses need, and increase the performance of the public administration. This strategy forms part of a coherent approach for jobs and growth contained in the National Reform Programme and is complemented by other Structural Fund spending.

Hungary’s ESF priorities will be implemented through two Operational Programmes covering the whole country:

The Operational Programme: social renewal

The social renewal programme will consume by far the largest part of ESF funding and aims at supporting both growth and employment through measures primarily focused on improving of the quality of human resources.

The main priorities are as follows:

Page 46 of 56

• Improving employability and promoting entry into the labour market through training, help for job-seekers, development of the employment services and support for social economy. Particular support will be given to increasing labour market participation among women, young people, older age groups, the Roma population and people living with disabilities.

• Improving the adaptability of individuals and organisations by facilitating access to training, developing the institutional system, and providing targeted support to social partners and non-governmental organisations.

• Providing quality education and access to it for all through the implementation of the national lifelong learning strategy. Supporting the dissemination of competence-based education and decreasing the segregation of disadvantaged pupils will be given a particular emphasis.

• Developing the content and structure of higher education to support the needs of businesses and the knowledge economy. This includes the enhancement of research and development capacities.

• Strengthening social inclusion by improving access to social services for disadvantaged groups to join the labour market. Particular support will be given to the most disadvantaged regions with significant Roma populations, to youth programmes, and to the development of local communities and the civil society.

• As part of a major reform and upgrade in the provision of health services in Hungary, support will be given to improving human-resources development in the health sector, including their organisation. This will improve the quality and efficiency of health service provision and contribute to addressing the relatively poor health and low life expectancy in Hungary compared to other EU countries.

The Operational Programme: state reform Support under this programme aims to increase the quality of administrative and judicial services’ operations and improve the functioning of government as well as those non-governmental organisations with administrative functions.

Supported activities will include:

• Implementing better processes and organisational development in the public administration.

• Improving the quality of human resources in the public administration.

Eligible regions 2007-2013 The level of ESF funding differs from one region to another depending on the relative wealth.

Central Hungary region is eligible under the regional competitiveness and employment objective.

All the remaining regions with a GDP per head of less than 75% of the EU-25 average are eligible under the convergence objective.

Page 47 of 56

SUCCESS STORIES

Green benefits for industries In regions with an industrial tradition like Vienna in Austria and Györ in Hungary, economic activity has long been synonymous with deterioration of the natural environment. The growing demand for environmental protection is, however, now being met in a certain number of firms where more environmentally friendly practices are adding value to their image and ensuring more sustainable conditions for development. But to achieve the full benefits, this approach must be followed in an integrated manner, which includes having a cross-border context, through cooperation between government agencies, businesses and consultancy firms. This was the aim of the "Ecoprofit Vienna-Györ" cross-border project. "Ecoprofit" is one of the consulting modules created by the "Viennese Initiative for Entrepreneurial Protection of the Environment". Specially designed for small and medium-sized businesses in the production sector, it consists in making entrepreneurs aware of the basic principles of management of materials and energy by encouraging them to participate in working groups and individual consulting sessions. The purpose is to convince them that it is possible not only to maintain the status quo, but also to become more competitive by respecting the environment if they are able to meet the challenge of innovation and manage costs effectively. Implemented in 2001 under INTERREG II, "Ecoprofit Vienna-Györ" has primarily developed in Vienna where the number of firms participating increased from 15 in the first year to 40 in the following year. In parallel to this, the Viennese specialists have established contacts with city government officials in Györ with a view to setting up a similar initiative on the Hungarian side, and information material in Hungarian has been drafted. In the longerterm the project has contributed to the introduction of a system of environmental management, in accordance with European regulations, in the economic area situated between the two Cities (which in particular requires the adaptation of Hungarian standards in this area). With INTERREG III, cooperation has been continuing on an enlarged basis since 2000 through the "EcoBusinessPlan" (EBP). This includes all the existing modules (Ecoprofit, Protection of the Climate, Tourist Ventures, EMAS and ISO 14.001) and provides for the development of an additional module aimed at reducing the amount of waste produced by small businesses. Technical information Programme: INTERREG II A Austria/Hungary, Project: Ecoprofit Vienna-Györ Total cost 40 365 000 euros EU contribution 11 399 000 euros

Eleven countries across Europe: a common territorial vision The transnational area known as CADSES (Central Europe, Adriatic, Danube and South East Europe) cuts across the centre of Europe and encompasses Germany, Austria, Italy and eight applicant countries seeking membership in the EU (Estonia,

Page 48 of 56

Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Slovenia). By launching the "Vision Planet" project, financially supported by INTERREG and PHARE, the eleven partner countries wanted to provide themselves with a framework for analysis and projection in order to achieve greater spatial integration and a more coherent development of the regions forming this geographical entity. The method they applied to do this consisted of gradually setting up a framework of dialogue and cooperation between the area's regional planning authorities. By setting up these structures, they wanted to achieve more transparency and a common basic vision to define a more long-term regional planning strategy. Unlike the experience acquired in other transnational projects, this was an entirely new approach in the political context of CADSES. Despite that, "Vision Planet" was able to achieve some interesting results, which showed that the project has real influence on the development of territorial policies. The participants drew up a map of the regions which were more advanced in regional planning, took stock of the diversity characteristic of the area covered by the project, shed light on critical situations and established contacts between various regional government agencies according to their respective areas of responsibility. Completed at the end of 2000, the project has provided a comparative view of the different regional planning policies, enabling government agencies to see in what fields they are making progress and where more effort needs to be made. The countries where these policies have been implemented recently can benefit from the results of "Vision Planet" to better define their regional development policy and to explore new methods. The project has also influenced decisions on the use of European funding in the applicant countries. For example, participation in the project has helped the Romanian and Hungarian authorities to implement PHARE transnational programming. The pursuit of this joint approach should lead to the publication of the first policy paper on regional planning priorities in the partner countries. Technical information Programme: INTERREG II C CADSES (Central Europe, Adriatic, Danube and South East Europe), Project: Vision Planet Total cost 987 495 euros EU contribution 540 602 euros CCC: enlarging opportunities for SMEs (Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary) The “Cross-border Business Cooperation for Central Europe” (CCC) project focused on the exploitation of new business opportunities arising from the eastward enlargement of the EU. The project was implemented in the eastern border regions of Austria. Supported under the INTERREG IIA initiative, the aim of the CCC project was to promote transnational economic activities and to assist small and medium-sized companies to exploit opportunities in new markets. The central players in the CCC project were the federal states

Page 49 of 56

of Vienna, Lower Austria and Burgenland - as the “Vienna Region” - and the Republic of Austria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary. There were also cooperation arrangements at the institutional level between the respective economic development agencies and regional management bodies, as well as directly at company level. The project activities included: • Networking with the relevant players and filling gaps in the existing range of services offered; • Support for companies, especially small and medium sized enterprises; • Improved marketing of Austria’s “competence for the East” in the international competition to attract business investment; • Initial and further training activities. Technical information Project: Cross-border business Cooperation for Central Europe (CCC), Programme: INTERREG IIA Total cost EUR 1 160 000 EU contribution EUR 580 000

Page 50 of 56

HUNGARY'S RURAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN Country profile: Size: 93,030 km2. Population of 10,077,000 inhabitants. The average population density in 2006 was 108.5 persons per km2. Hungary is divided into 7 Regions, 6 of which are Convergence Objective. Rural areas cover 87% of the territory and are inhabited by 45% of the population. Unemployment rate 6.33 % (2005). In 2006, approximately 62.5 % of Hungary's territory was under agricultural cultivation (5.8 million ha); fragmented and polarised farm structure with an average 2.3 ha holding size: 93.4 %, are below 10 hectares accounting for approximately 25 % of the land use. Forests cover 1.85 million hectares, covering 19.1 % of the country's territory; 58 % owned by the state, 41 % are in private ownership and 1 % is owned by communities. Approximately 5 % of the total workforce is employed in agriculture; unfavourable age structure: 62.2 % of the agricultural manpower in the age group of "40 years and older" (2005). 14% of the UAA (utilised agricultural area) is classified as less favoured. Chosen strategy: The overall objectives were chosen in accordance with the Community Strategic Guidelines (CSG) and the National Strategy Plan and are: - contributing to the competitiveness of agriculture, food production and forestry, - sustainable development and the protection of natural values and biodiversity, - strengthen entrepreneurship and provide access to services throughout rural areas. Budget over and share of EU funding

Public contribution Axis

Total public

EAFRD Contribution rate %

EAFRD amount

Axis 1 2,366,378,274 71,77% 1,698,357,613 Axis 2 1,626,706,126 76,86% 1,250,219,555 Axis 3 690,690,802 71,77% 495,711,102 LEADER 272,355,669 76,86 209,321,387 Technical Assistance 202,978,313 75,00% 152,233,735 Total 5,159,109,184 73,77% 3,805,843,392

Overall aim of RD programme in country The programme aims at contributing to the competitiveness of agriculture, food production and forestry (axis 1), respecting the principles of sustainable development and the protection of natural values and biodiversity (axis 2), and to strengthening entrepreneurship and providing access to services throughout rural areas (axis 3). The Leader approach will serve the realisation of the objectives of all axes of the RDP.

Page 51 of 56

Axis 1 budget allocation and main priorities: EAFRD: € 1.698.357.613 (45 % of programme total) Total public funding: € 2.366.378.274 The objectives of Axis I will be realised through the following main actions: 1) farm and production restructuring 2) support for investments in primary and secondary production and infrastructure 3) support for age restructuring 4) training and information activities, including the use of advisory services. Axis 2 budget allocation and main priorities: EAFRD: € 1.250.219.555 (33 % of programme total) Total public funding: € 1.626.706.126 The objectives of Axis II will be realised through the following main actions: 1) support for agri-environment, forest-environment and Natura 2000 territories 2) support for LFAs and 3) support for forestry. Axis 3 budget allocation and main priorities: EAFRD: € 495.711.102 (13 % of programme total) Total public funding: € 690.690.802 The objectives of Axis III will be realised through the following main actions: 1) enterprise development 2) support for improving basic services 3) preserving natural and cultural heritage 4) local capacity building. Support for diversification, micro-businesses and tourism will represent the major component of axis III (58 %), closely linked with job creation, followed by measures for the quality of life (31 %) - a significant proportion of funding (10 %) is earmarked for training and capacity building given the envisaged delivery mechanisms. Leader budget allocation: EAFRD: € 209.321.387 (6 % of programme total) Total public funding: € 272.355.668 272.3 million EUR of which EAFRD contributes with 209.3 million EUR

Page 52 of 56

Mr Gordon Bajnai (Minister for National Development

and Economy)

CURRICULUM VITAE

Status: Minister Education 1991 Budapest University of Economic Sciences, International Relations Professional Experience 2008 - Ministry for National Development and Economy, Minister 2007 – 2008 Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development, Minister 2006 – 2007 National Development Agency, Government Commissioner for Development

Policy 2006 - Budapest Airport Plc, Chairman of the Board of Directors 2000 – 2005 Wallis Plc, CEO 1995 – 2000 CA IB Securities Plc, managing director, appointed vice CEO, Director of the

Corporate Finance and Equity Capital Market Division 1993 – 1994 EUROCORP International Finance Plc., Consultant 1993 - EBRD (London), professional training 1991 – 1993 Creditum, financial consulting company Other Board, council membership March-June 2006 Budapest University of Economic Sciences, Member of the Economic Council 2006-28 April 2006 Wallis Plc, Vice President of the Board of Directors 2000-28 April 2006 Wallis Plc, Member of the Board of Directors 2003–June 2006 ZWACK Plc, Member of the Supervisory Board 2003-October 2005 Rába Plc, Member of the Board of Directors 2001-2004 Graboplast Plc, Member of the Board of Directors 1999 Equinox Private Equity Fund, Member of the Investment Committee

Page 53 of 56

1998-1999 Danubius Radio, Member of the Board of Directors Honors 2006 Officer’s Cross Order of Merit of the Republic of Hungary (Civic Order of

Merit) as an acknowledgement for his exceptional professional and company management work and his achievements in the area of company management culture development

2003 Young Manager of the Year by the National Association of Managers 1999 Voted one of the 30 most promising business Central-Eastern European

executives by the journal Central European Business Review

Page 54 of 56

Meeting with Mr Mátyás Eörsi Chairman of the Parliament Committee

on European Affairs Friday, 25 July 2008

Page 55 of 56

Meeting with Mr Mátyás Eörsi, Chairman of the Parliament Committee on European Affairs

CURRICULUM VITAE

Dr. EÖRSI, Mátyás

CURRICULUM VITAE

Personal information

Surname / First name EÖRSI, Mátyás

Nationality Hungarian

Place of Birth Budapest

Date of Birth 24/11/1954

Memberships , Work experience 2008- Deputy Leader of Parliamentary Faction of Hungarian Liberal Party (SZDSZ)

2007- 2008 Leader of Parliamentary Faction

2002-2006 Deputy Leader of Parliamentary Faction

2000- Member of Executive Board 2001-2006 Vice-president of Liberal International

2001-1994- Leader of ALDE (Liberal) Group

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe 1994- Member of Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

2004- Chairman of the Committee on European Affairs, Parliament of Hungary

1997-1998 Political State Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Hungary

1994-1997 Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Parliament of Hungary

1990- Member of Parliament

National Assembly of Hungary 1987- 2002 Lawyer at Eörsi & Partners Law Office, Budapest, Hungary Specialization Commercial law,

International Private Law, Arbitration, Acquisitions and Mergers.

1979 -1987 Legal consultant at KOMPLEX Foreign Trade Inc., Budapest, Hungary

Page 56 of 56

Education and training

Dates 1979 -1981

Principal subjects Commercial law

Name and type of organisation providing organisation and training

Eötvös Loránd University, Faculty of Law, Budapest, Hungary

Level in national or international classification

post-graduate studies

Dates 1774-1979

Title of qualification awarded Dr.

Principal subjects legal studies

Name and type of organisation providing organisation and training

Eötvös Loránd University, Faculty of Law, Budapest, Hungary

Languages Hungarian Native English Proficient German Basic

Annex 1 Flood extent and damage estimation in

Hungary during the floods in spring 2006

Ad de Roo, Jan Kucera, Rado Bonk, José I. Barredo, Katalin Bodis, Janos Szabo, Jutta Thielen

EUR 22712 EN

2006

De Roo et al. (2006) Flood extent and damage estimation of the spring flooding in Hungary 2006

2

The mission of the Institute for Environment and Sustainability is to provide scientific-technical support to the European Union’s Policies for the protection and sustainable development of the European and global environment. European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability Contact information Address: TP261, 21020 Ispra (Va), Italy E-mail: [email protected] Tel.: ++39-0332-786240 Fax: ++39-0332-786653 http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu Legal Notice Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of this publication. A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa server http://europa.eu.int EUR 22712 EN ISSN 1018-5593 Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities © European Communities, 2006 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged Printed in Italy


3

Flood extent and damage estimation in Hungary during the floods in spring 2006

Ad de Roo, Jan Kucera, Rado Bonk, José I. Barredo, Katalin Bodis, Janos Szabo, Jutta Thielen


4


5

Table of contents Introduction..........................................................................................................................................7 1. Observed water levels at measuring stations ...................................................................................8

Flood Warning Levels in Hungary...................................................................................................8 Main Danube....................................................................................................................................9 Tisza .................................................................................................................................................9

2. Flood extent estimation..................................................................................................................12 Methods..........................................................................................................................................12 Results............................................................................................................................................12

3. Flood depth estimation...................................................................................................................15 Methods..........................................................................................................................................15 Results............................................................................................................................................15

4. Flood damage estimation ...............................................................................................................25 Methods..........................................................................................................................................25 Results............................................................................................................................................25 Damage estimate using Dutch flood damage standards.................................................................28

5. Accuracy issues..............................................................................................................................29 Flood extent assessment.................................................................................................................29 Water depth estimation ..................................................................................................................29 Damage assessment........................................................................................................................29

6. Results improvement and future perspectives for new products ...................................................30 Flood extent assessment.................................................................................................................30 Water depth estimation ..................................................................................................................30 Land use .........................................................................................................................................31 Monetary impact ............................................................................................................................31 Forecast and scenarios of potential damage...................................................................................31

7. Conclusions....................................................................................................................................32


6


7

Introduction Following the application of Hungary for the EU Solidarity Fund following the floods in April 2006, an analysis was carried out on flood extent and the land use in the flooded areas. This analysis has been done with available methods and data and includes:

• MODIS-Terra satellite data • SRTM elevation data (corrected at JRC, 1m intervals) • CORINE 2000 land cover data • The JRC population density grid of Europe • TELEATLAS database including roads and railways

Chapter 1 gives an overview of measured river discharge and water levels by the Hungarian water authorities. Chapter 2 presents the flood extent assessment as derived from MODIS-Terra imagery Chapter 3 describes the assessment of water depth in the flooded areas using SRTM data Chapter 4 describes the analysis of land use in the flooded areas and a coarse damage assessment Chapter 5 discusses the inaccuracies contained in the products. Given the use of the above mentioned data, the accuracy issues discussed in Chapter 5 need to be taken into account. Chapter 6 presents how results and estimates could be improved and discusses possible new products for rapid damage estimation Conclusions are presented in Chapter 7.


8

1. Observed water levels at measuring stations Included in this document are a number of observed flood hydrographs from selected points in Hungary, as taken from websites from Hungarian water authorities. The locations of the selected points are shown in Figure 1.1. The earliest high water levels were reached in the upper Tisza (gauge Tiszabecs, Figure 1.4) and along the main Danube (gauge Nagymaros, Figure 1.2) on 31 March 2006.

Figure 1.1: The 5 locations in Hungary with observed waterlevels as referred to in this document

(Budapest is included as a reference point)

Flood Warning Levels in Hungary In Hungary, the Warning Levels are used in the following way (source: pers comm Dr. Sandor Toth) Warning Level I water levels exceed the normal river bed and start entering the floodplain; typically no damage yet Warning Level II average of Warning Level I and III water level; typically not much damage Warning Level III water levels 1 meter below the 1% probable flood (design flood – comparable with the 100 year return period flood); typically water levels where damage starts)

Fig 1.4.

Fig 1.7.

Fig 1.2.

Fig 1.6.

Fig 1.5.


9

Main Danube The water levels in the Danube at Nagymaros (50km upstream Budapest, Figure 1.1) started to surpass Warning Level II on 31 March 2006 (Figure 1.2), whereas Warning Level III was exceeded between April 1st and April 7 2006, with the peak of the flood on April 4th 2006. Downstream of this location in the Danube, the floods started later than this.

Figure 1.2: Observed water level at Nagymaros (Danube river, 50km upstream Budapest),

Hungary.

Tisza Along the Tisza river, a critical flood situation lasted for several weeks. Waterlevel observations are given for 4 locations starting from upstream to downstream in the Tisza river (Figure 1). On 24 April, the situation was still critical as reported in Figure 1.3 below.

Figure 1.3: Observed warning levels at the end of April along the Tisza in Hungary

(Source: http://www.vizugy.hu/ )


10

Figure 1.4: Observed water level at Tiszabecs (Tisza river, incl. Ukrainian part of Upper-Tisza).

At Tiszabecs (figure 1.4) - close to the Ukrainian border - along the Upper Tisza, flooding exceeding warning level II was observed at 31st March 2006.

Figure 1.5: Observed water level at Tokaj (Tisza river, incl. all the Upper-Tisza region: East-

Slovakia + Ukraine + North-Romania). At Tokaj (figure 1.5)- including the entire Upper-Tisza receiving water from East-Slovakia, Ukraine and Northern Romania – the water level started to exceed Warning Level II on April 4, with the peak observed on April 10.


11

Figure 1.6: Observed water level at Szolnok (Tisza river, middle section).

At Szolnok (figure 1.6) – in the middle section of the Tisza, the water level started to exceed Warning Level II on 6th April, lasting until 13th May 2006, with the peak around 21 April.

Figure 1.7: Observed water level at Szeged (Tisza river, lower section), Hungary.

At Szeged (figure 1.7) in the lower section of the Tisza, Warning Level II was also exceeded on 6th April, and lasting until 15th May, with a peak on 21 April.


12

2. Flood extent estimation

Methods The delineation of the flooded areas in Hungary was achieved by a comparison of pre-flood and post-flood satellite imagery. For the assessment of pre-flood conditions, the Landsat ETM European mosaic from the summer 2000 was used. The resolution of the mosaic is 25 m and data are projected to the standard ETRS-LAEA projection. For the delineation of the water mask – representing the water surface extent under normal non flooding conditions -, the semi-automatic region growing technique on the band 4 (near infrared) was used. The obtained raster water mask was vectorized to an ESRI shape file. The flooded areas were assessed using MODIS-Terra imagery. The image from the 8th April 2006 was used for Danube, from 24th April 2006 for Tizsa. Image dates were selected to be cloud-free and as close to the flood peak as possible. The resolution was 250m. These imageries were overlaid with previously described pre-flood vectorized water mask. All the main rivers (Danube, Tizsa, Koros) and their tributaries were visually checked and flooded areas were delineated by vector polygons. Finally, the pre-flood vectorized water mask was subtracted from flood extent water vector data and flooded polygons were obtained (Fig 2.1).

Results The majority of the flooded areas were successfully delineated. However, the delineation of flood extent line in towns and cities was not possible due the relatively coarse resolution of MODIS data. The results were also compared with the flood extent maps produced by DLR Center for Satellite Based Crisis Information and the Dartmouth Flood Observatory (http://www.zki.caf.dlr.de/applications/2006/hungary/hungary_flood_2006_en.html) (Fig 2.2) and (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~floods/2006051Hung.html) (Fig 2.3). The agreement was generally very high. The discrepancies with the DLR flood maps can be explained by the different imagery used by DLR for analysis. Their flood extend maps were created using AWiFS data with the resolution approximately 70 m. The agreement with the maps produced by Dartmouth Flood Observatory was high, since the same MODIS data were used for flood delineation.


13

Figure 2.1: Flooded area ( red – hatched lines) along Tisza river near Tiszaalpan depicted on Landsat imagery.

Figure 2.2: DLR map of flooded area (in blue) overlaid with JRC result (in yellow). (courtesy DLR,

the map is under DLR copyright). The spatial agreement is acceptable.


14

Figure 2.3: Tisza and its tributaries floods depicted with red color on the map of Dartmouth Flood

Observatory (copyright) overlaid with JRC result in yellow.


15

3. Flood depth estimation

Methods The water depth of the flooded areas along the Tisza and the Danube river is estimated using a digital elevation model (DEM) and the flood extent area, as derived described previously. The highest resolution DEM available for this study for the affected area, is the SRTM DEM (http://www.dlr.de/srtm/ and http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/srtm/ ) – as currently modified and corrected by JRC. The Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) obtained elevation data on a near-global scale to generate the most complete high-resolution digital topographic database of Earth. SRTM consisted of a specially modified radar system that flew onboard the Space Shuttle Endeavour during an 11-day mission in February of 2000. In order to gather topographic (elevation) data of Earth's surface, SRTM used the technique of interferometry. In interferometry, two images are taken from different vantage points of the same area. The slight difference in the two images allows scientists to determine the height of the surface. Its resolution after the mosaicing is 100m and with the combination of other datasets it covers the whole of Europe. The data in the SRTM represent the Earth’s surface, including vegetation canopy or human structures, thus not necessarily representing the ground elevation. The key issue in the analysis is to estimate the elevation of the water surface as detected from the satellite images. This was done by finding the elevation of the boundaries of the flooded areas mask: areas higher than the elevation at the flood extent edge are not flooded, and areas lower that this are flooded. To filter out artefacts – due to the fact that the SRTM does not represent surface elevation but includes vegetation canopy or buildings – a local elevation minimum was assigned to the pixels within the flood extent mask. To obtain water depth, the original SRTM DEM was subtracted from this water level map. Negative values were replaced by a zero value. Due to the accuracy of the SRTM, the resulting values of water depth are rounded classes of meters: Class 1: waterdepth 0.1 – 1.0m Class 2: waterdepth 1.0 – 2.0m Class 3: waterdepth >2m.

Results The overall situation of flooded areas is presented (Figure 3.1) and several detailed maps (Figures 3.2 – Figure 3.9)). Overlays with landcover and transport infrastructure are presented in next chapter. Figure 3.1: Overall situation of flooded areas at Spring 2006 on Hungarian territory. Figure 3.2: Upper Tisza region (zoom 1) Figure 3.3: Middle Tisza region (zoom 2) Figure 3.4: Szolnok area (zoom 3) Figure 3.5: Csongrád region (zoom 4) Figure 3.6: Szeged region (zoom 5) Figure 3.7: Esztergom – Nagymaros region (zoom 6) Figure 3.8: Dunaújváros region (zoom 7) Figure 3.9: Baja region (zoom 8)


16

Figure 3.1. Estimated water depths in the flooded areas in Spring 2006 in Hungary, as derived from SRTM based elevation data and flood extent derived from MODIS images.


17

Figure 3.2. Water depths in the flooded areas of the Upper Tisza region (zoom 1)


18

Figure 3.3. Water depths in the flooded areas of the Middle Tisza region (zoom 2)


19

Figure 3.4. Water depths in the flooded areas of the Szolnok area (zoom 3)


20

Figure 3.5. Water depths in the flooded areas of the Csongrád region (zoom 4)


21

Figure 3.6. Water depths in the flooded areas of the Szeged region (zoom 5)


22

Figure 3.7: Water depths in the flooded areas of the Esztergom – Nagymaros region (zoom 6)


23

Figure 3.8: Water depths in the flooded areas of the Dunaújváros region (zoom 7)


24

Figure 3.9: Water depths in the flooded areas of the Baja region (zoom 8)


25

4. Flood damage estimation

Methods In this chapter an attempt is made to determine the direct losses produced by the flood event. The effects of flooding vary greatly between urban and rural areas, and between direct and indirect losses (e.g. interruption of economic activities). The assessment presented here is based on the direct tangible losses produced by the flood event. Direct damage is estimated on the basis of the following information, currently available at DG JRC:

• waterlevel in the flooded areas (Source: SRTM & JRC processing) • land use class in the affected areas (Source: CORINE 2000 [v8] ) • type of roads and railways sections flooded (Source: TELEATLAS database) • population (inhabitants) affected by the flooding. (Source: JRC’s Population Density Grid -

100m-, version 3, based on 2001 data. Produced in 2005 by JRC1). Several spatial datasets and spatial analysis techniques have been used into a GIS for the estimation of the damage. The damage produced by a flood event depends on several criteria: maximum waterlevel, flood duration, water flow velocity, sediments and bedload transported during the flood etc. This study uses solely the waterlevel as a basis for the damage estimation, since the other information is not available. Flood duration could potentially be obtained by including more satellite images in the analysis.

Results Using the above mentioned data and methods, it was estimated that the total flooded area in Hungary in April 2006 was 96,365 ha (963.65 sq. km), see Figure 4.1 and Table 4.1. Fourteen Hungarian provinces (NUTS 3 level) were affected by the floods.. The names of the affected provinces (NUTS 3) are:

• Borsod-Abauj-Zemplen • Jasz-Nagykun-Szolnok • Zabolcs-Szatmar-Bereg • Komarom-Esztergom • Heves • Budapest • Hajdu-Bihar • Bekes • Pest • Bacs-Kiskun • Gyor-Moson-Sopron • Csongrad • Tolna • Baranya

1 Gallego J., Peedell S. (2001) Using CORINE Land Cover to map population density. Towards Agri-environmental indicators, Topic report 6/2001 European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, pp. 92-103.


26

Figure 4.1. Flooded areas in Hungary overlaid on CORINE 2000 land use


27

Table 4.1 shows a breakdown of the flooded areas in land use classes (CORINE 2000 [v8]) as a function of water depths. It should be noted that the minimum unit for inventory in CORINE is 25 ha, with a minimum width of unit of 100 m. Thus any object (e.g. residential areas, industrial, etc) below this threshold could be not represented in the CORINE layer. This may produce an underestimation of urban land-use classes in specific zones of the affected area. CORINE 2000 Flooded area (ha) by water depths (m)

CODE Land-use class Water depth 0.1 to 1 m

Water depth 1 to 2 m

Water depth > 2 m TOTAL

1 Continuous urban fabric 9 - - 92 Discontinuous urban fabric 630 - - 6303 Industrial or commercial units 92 - - 924 Road and rail networks and associated land 10 - - 105 Port areas 50 1 1 527 Mineral extraction sites 10 - - 108 Dump sites 98 1 4 1039 Construction sites 17 - - 17

10 Green urban areas 100 - - 10011 Sport and leisure facilities 777 1 - 77812 Non-irrigated arable land 21,727 1,718 1072 2451714 Rice fields 1 - - 115 Vineyards 95 - - 9516 Fruit trees and berry plantations 182 - - 18218 Pastures 9,817 491 232 1054020 Complex cultivation patterns 1,201 14 4 1219

21 Land principally occupied by agriculture, with significant areas of natural vegetation 2,366 44 25 2435

23 Broad-leaved forest 36,889 232 89 3721024 Coniferous forest 60 - - 6025 Mixed forest 266 - 26626 Natural grasslands 10,164 953 945 1206229 Transitional woodland-shrub 5,240 266 172 567832 Sparsely vegetated areas 285 4 1 290

Total 90,086 3,725 2,545 96,365Table 4.1 CORINE2000 land use classes in the flooded areas as a function of estimated waterlevel Road type (after TELEATLAS) Length of the sections flooded

(km) by water depth 0. Motorway (Freeway) 2.4 (0.1 to 1 m)1. Major Road of High Importance 0.45 (0.1 to 1 m)2. Other Major Road 24.7 (0.1 to 1 m)3. Secondary Road 43.0 (0.1 to 1 m)4. Connecting Road 52.0 (0.1 to 1 m)5. Local Road of Major Importance 50.2 (0.1 to 1 m)6. Local Road 33.5 (0.1 to 1 m)Railways 70.66 (0.1 to 1 m), 0.24 (1 to 2

m), 0.2 (>2 m)Table 4.2 Roads and railways affected, estimated using the TELEATLAS database Table 4.2 shows the total length of several road types and railways in the flooded areas, with additional information on the estimated water depth. It should be noted that a railway in the Teleatlas database represents a railway line by means of the approximate centre-line of the component track(s) or by means of the outer (not dead-end) tracks in case of an extensive railway


28

area. This could lead to location inaccuracies. Furthermore, generally only the railway lines for passenger traffic are captured. Metro subways and tramways are not included in the database. Thus also here, some underestimation can occur. Using the population grid data and the flood extent and water depth information, the total number of inhabitants in flooded areas is estimated at ~47,000 (Table 4.3).

Number of inhabitants Water depths (m) 45,335 0.1 to 1 1,100 1 to 2 650 > 2 Total: 47,085

Table 4.3. Estimate of population in the flood affected areas, as a function of waterdepth Hungary reported that “2,792 settlements evacuated from their homes”. In this study, we estimate 1,750 inhabitants in areas flooded with more that 1 m of water. We found a large number of people (>45,000) in flooded areas with less than 1m water level. It is likely that people with little water in their house are not necessarily evacuated. It should be noted here that given the accuracy of the SRTM elevation data (1m intervals), the results should be interpreted with care.

Damage estimate using Dutch flood damage standards Currently, we do not have yet available depth-damage relations according to Hungarian price standards. For a proper assessment it would be necessary to collect flood damage functions for all the Member States of the EU. At presents, JRC has an study running to collect those damage functions. It is expected that this information will be available in 2007. Based on data, gathered during an earlier study for the Rhine & Meuse floods in 1995 in the Netherlands (Van Der Sande et al., 1999), a very coarse damage estimate could be made for Hungary. Obviously, one should be aware that price levels in Hungary and The Netherlands are different, and that the Dutch data are in the mean time 11 years old. Using the 1995 Dutch depth-damage data and a standard waterlevel of 0.5 m for the areas in the class “water depth 0.1 to 1 m’ in table 4.1 the following direct-damage numbers are estimated for Hungary: - Continuous Urban Fabric 6.5 Million Euro - Discontinuous Urban Fabric: 276.7 Million Euro - Industrial/commercial 2.2 Million Euro - Green Urban Areas 3.6 Million Euro - Roads (all): 1.5 Million Euro - Railways: ? - Sport and leisure facilities: ~200 Million Euro - Agricultural land (>20,000 ha)* 50 Million Euro - Other ? Total estimated damage ~541 Million Euro * estimate for agriculture: 0.50 Euro/m2.


29

5. Accuracy issues The accuracy of the assessment is the product of the accuracies and spatial resolutions of the datasets used as input in the damage estimation. There are a number of accuracy issues that should be taken into account in the interpretation of the results.

Flood extent assessment Since the MODIS sensor has the resolution of 250 m, only large and well distinguishable flooded areas are detectable. It is not possible to delineate flood extent lines in the cities where much finer spatial resolution is needed (at least 5m). For example, flood extent in parts of Szeged could not be clearly detected.

Water depth estimation The SRTM elevation data used here have been corrected by JRC to solve problems in mountain areas and fill in other areas without data. In the current version, the final product was produced without decimals (steps are used of 1m). In the next version of the SRTM corrected DEM – foreseen to be available in December 2007, this issue will be addressed and corrected

Damage assessment In the CORINE 2000 dataset urban clusters with sizes below 25 ha are not mapped. This can lead to under-estimation of the total urban area affected, and thus an under-estimation of the direct damage. This accuracy can be improved by using land-use datasets with a finer spatial resolution. The damage produced by a flood event depends on several criteria: maximum waterlevel, flood duration, water flow velocity, sediments and bedload transported during the flood etc. This study uses solely the waterlevel as a basis for the damage estimation, since the other information is not available. Flood duration could potentially be obtained by including more satellite images in the analysis. .


30

6. Results improvement and future perspectives for new products This study uses readily available data sets and satellite images. However, several data products are under development that will likely increase the accuracy of the results obtained with this study. Furthermore, several research activities are ongoing at the JRC that could also lead to more accurate results and to the definition of new products. The following issues have been identified as subjects for further work:

• The first issue concerns the resolution and accuracy of the available data sets. This affects several intermediate products such as flood extent, water depth and land use.

• The second issue relates to the monetary impact of flood on property and assets. • The third aspect is more forward-looking and is about the capacity to furnish estimate of

future potential damages in hot-spot areas of the EU+. While the solution to the first issue includes elements which cannot be tackled solely by the JRC since based on the availability of adequate satellite instruments, the second and third issues could be subject of further research at JRC.

Flood extent assessment To obtain a more accurate estimation of flood extent outside urban areas, high spatial resolution satellite data are necessary. Ideally, pre- and post flood radar SAR data or optical SPOT data would be the best data (resolution 10-20m). These data should be acquired in systematic manner, so that they cover whole affected areas. Potentially, the International Charter "Space and Major Disasters" (ESA, CNES, CSA, NOAA, CONAE, JAXA and USGS), should be used for this (http://www.disasterscharter.org/main_e.html ). The International Charter aims at providing a unified system of space data acquisition and delivery to those affected by natural or man-made disasters through Authorized Users. Each member agency has committed resources to support the provisions of the Charter and thus is helping to mitigate the effects of disasters on human life and property. For urban and built-up areas, even higher spatial resolution satellite data are need (ideally very high resolution satellite data – IKONOS etc - or aerial photography).

Water depth estimation In this study, the highest resolution DEM available for a pan-European scale has been used: the SRTM with a spatial resolution of 100 m. In the processing of a first corrected version by JRC – used for several other purposes, the data were rounded down to meters. The next version with centimetre resolution is foreseen to be available at JRC in Dec 2006. This will also increase the accuracy of the damage estimate since there is a fast rise of the costs in the 0-1m water depth range Ideally, a Lidar type DEM is required to do these type of analysis with high accuracy. Lidar typically has a 10-20 cm vertical accuracy and a spatial resolution of around 5m. In the framework of GMES a product such as a pan European Lidar type DEM has been under discussion. To obtain a


31

more accurate water depth and flood damage assessment, this pan European Lidar quality DEM is strongly required.

Land use For land use analysis, the current estimate has been based on the CORINE Land Cover (CLC), with a spatial (horizontal) resolution of 25 ha, i.e. with a ‘picturing’ window of 500 x 500 meters. The limitations of CLC for damage estimation are therefore obvious when more detailed information has to be retrieved (see Section 5). On areas of specific interest, the JRC has collected detailed land use data sets at resolution of 1 ha (100 x 100 meters) with an improved nomenclature and classification of land use categories. These data sets are stored in the MOLAND database which includes the area of the Tisza River Catchment. The MOLAND database is complemented with socio-economic data which could be useful of a more detailed impact analysis. The inclusion of additional areas (for example all regions of the EU+ at high risk for a given natural hazard) in the MOLAND database requires additional efforts and resources.

Monetary impact More accurate economic loss estimation are feasible with proper damage curves. These curves quantify the damage as function of the water depth and of the characteristics of flooded area. The JRC has initiated a study to produce flood damage functions for all EU+ Countries. The functions will be differentiated by land use typologies. The outcome of this study shall be ready in mid 2007 and at that point the JRC will be in the position of producing accurate flood damage estimations. That datasets and a more accurate land use layer (e.g. MOLAND) for the affected areas may produce a powerful tool for fast response and accurate flood damage estimations across EU.

Forecast and scenarios of potential damage The capabilities developed at the Joint Research Centre also allow contributing to the preparation of the response to extreme events. Based on the wide availability of data and of modeling tools, the JRC has initiated the definition and construction of an integrated framework for the evaluation and prediction of risks at EU scale. Currently work is on going on the following subjects: - EU+ maps of risk induced by weather driven natural hazards, with estimation of exposure

(based on physical assets and population) and vulnerabilities at NUTS-3 level. A first release of the maps have been achieved in 2005, further improvements are being performed. Although this map has a quite coarse resolution (1 km), it gives an quantitative measure of areas exposed to risk (e.g. flood). It is the basis for a potential new product, at higher resolution, which focuses on specific areas (e.g. river catchments in critical regions).

- modeling activities to link meteo-climatic conditions to hydrological extremes (flood and drought). This activities is based on the hydrological model LISFLOOD which is turn is the key element of the European Flood Alert System, run quasi-operationally at the JRC since several years

- modeling activities to forecast regional development as consequences of socio-economic scenarios. This is based on the MOLAND land use prediction model which allows analyzing the link between environmental catastrophes and regional development. The combination of two models MOLAND and LISFLOOD allows to predict flood risk area and therefore to perform ex-ante impact analysis (at both EU+ and regional scale)

The overall aim is to define scenarios of European growth coupled with potential exposures to natural hazards to evaluate likely future impacts and also to advice on mitigation measures.


32

7. Conclusions From the analysis of MODIS satellite images for flood extent, SRTM elevation data, CORINE 2000 land cover data and TELEATLAS data, it was found that a total of 96,365 ha was flooded in Hungary (964 km2). Of this 964 km2, 90,086 ha were covered with less than 1m water, 3725 ha with 1-2 m, and 2545 ha with more than 2 m water. It is estimated that 1326 ha of urban area was affected by the flood. 47,085 inhabitants are living in the flooded areas. Of these, 45,335 live in areas with an estimated waterdepth of less than 1m, 1100 in flooded areas with waterlevels between 1 and 2 m., and 650 inhabitants in flooded areas with more than 2m waterlevel. Of the flooded areas, 92 ha is estimated to be with industrial or commercial use. 21,727 ha arable land was affected, 95 ha vineyards and 182 fruit tree plantations It was estimated that around 206 km of roads were affected and around 70 km of railways. A coarse direct damage estimate was obtained using depth-damage curves of the Meuse flood in the Netherlands in 1995, which obviously should only be used as a rough indication. The results obtained in this study demonstrate that estimate of damages is possible with the current availability of data. However, the estimate could be improved by optimising the selection of data and also by establishing a more dedicated framework dedicated to impact assessment and rapid damage evaluation.


33

European Commission EUR 22712 EN – Joint Research Centre, Institute for the Environment and Sustainability Title: Flood extent and damage estimation in Hungary during the floods in spring 2006 Authors: Ad de Roo, Jan Kucera, Rado Bonk, José I. Barredo, Katalin Bodis, Janos Szabo, Jutta Thielen Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 2006 – 34 pp. – 21.0 x 27.9 cm EUR - Scientific and Technical Research series; ISSN 1018-5593 Abstract Following the application of Hungary for the EU Solidarity Fund following the floods in April 2006, an analysis was carried out on flood extent and the land use in the flooded areas. This analysis has been done with available methods and data and includes: • MODIS-Terra satellite data • SRTM elevation data (corrected at JRC, 1m intervals) • CORINE 2000 land cover data • The JRC population density grid of Europe • TELEATLAS database including roads and railways

Documents

European Parliament Committee on Budgets€¦ · European Parliament Committee on Budgets Delegation to Hungary 23 - 25 July 2008 . Page 2 of 56 . Page 3 of 56 ... European Parliament