HUNGARY

Landlocked in central Europe, the Republic of Hungary is largely an area of fertile plains with lesser hilly and low mountainous areas. Its lowlands are dominated by the once intricate courses of the Danube and Tisza Rivers, now so well regulated that their former extensive floodplain fisheries have long been in decline. There are only three major lakes and relatively little reservoir area within the country.

Although primarily an agricultural land, increases in both industrial and domestic pollution have affected fisheries adversely. Furthermore, the quantity of water available for fisheries is severely restricted not only because of internal use, but because Hungary is largely dependent upon upstream countries for its supply. As a result, intensive warmwater pond fish culture provides by far the bulk of Hungary's fish production, and sport fishing is beginning to compete with commercial fishing.

Hungary is situated in central Europe between 45°48' and 48°40'N latitudes and 16°23'E longitudes.

Its extreme length (E–W) is 528 km; its extreme width (N–S) is 268 km. Its altitudinal range is from 78 to 1 015 m, but two thirds of the country is below 200 m in elevation and only two percent rises above 400 m.

Hungary is bounded on the north by Czechoslovakia for 608 km, on the northeast by the USSR for 215 km, on the east and southeast by Romania for 432 km, on the south and southwest by Yugoslavia for 631 km, and on the west by Austria for 356 km¹

¹ The lengths of these boundaries are taken from Worldmark (1984)

Lying largely within the middle Danubian or Pannonian Basin, Hungary is ringed on the west by the Alps and on the north and east by the Carpathians. The Danube, flowing from north to south, bisects the country into two major regions: (i) the Great Plain or Alföld, a lowland to the east of the Danube and south of the Northern Upland, occupying about 55 percent of the total area, and (ii) Transdanubia, a hillier region west of the Danube, occupying about 40 percent of the country. The Great Plain, a generally level and fertile series of hillocks and sand dunes, the chief agricultural area of Hungary, has a mean elevation of about 90 m. It, in turn, is bisected by the Tisza River which also runs from north to south across the country. Bounded on the west by Alpine foothills, Transdanubia is occupied by hills, low mountains, flatlands and the Lake Balaton Basin. Two other (minor) regions complete the picture: (i) the Little Plain, drained by the Rába and other rivers from Austria, an area of agriculture and swampland in the extreme northwest, and (ii) the Northern Upland, a well-forested volcanic fringe of the Carpathians ranging for 225 km along the Czechoslovakian border, east of the Danube and north of the Great Plain.

Originally much of the higher land was forested, especially with deciduous trees such as oaks and beeches, and with some conifers at heights. The eastern lowlands supported steppe and riparian grasses, shrubs and reeds. Much of the natural vegetation has been replaced as over half of the land is now cultivated for annual crops.

Soils in Hungary are distributed about as follows: forest soils (41 percent), skeletal in waterlogged fields and inundated areas (26 percent), chernozems (25 percent), alkali (6 percent), kotus and peat in the marshlands (2 percent). There are large areas of alkaline soils, covering about one million hectares in the eastern region. Some of these can be reclaimed for use as rice fields or for fish ponds, but a distinction must be made between two major types. Sodic alkali soils (solonchak), which are mostly in Danube deposits, can be found only where soils contain lime in their surface deposits. Tisza deposits (to the east) are solonetz and do not contain lime. In using lakes on alkaline soils for fish farm production, solonchak soils may produce a very high pH and free ammonia which may be dangerous especially when aquatic plants are decomposing in summer. On solonetz soils, there may be danger due to the release of hydrogen sulphide which may kill fish. This has occurred in backwaters and barrage ponds (Vámos and Tasnádi, 1975).

4. CLIMATE

Continental, but so strongly influenced by air currents from the Atlantic and Mediterranean that weather conditions vary greatly both seasonally and from year to year. Sometimes, one or the other of the three climatic types predominates.

The mean annual temperature is 11°C with an average range of -4° to 23°C and an absolute range of -34° to 41°C. January is the coldest month with a mean temperature of 0° to 4°C; July is the warmest month with a mean temperature of 20° to 22°C. The country is generally frost-free from mid-April to October.

The average annual precipitation is about 640 mm: 500–550 mm on the plains and 600–800 mm in the western hilly area. The heaviest rainfall occurs in May–July and in October. Only eight percent of the precipitation is in the form of snow. Most Hungarian rivers freeze over from late December to mid-February, and there is ice-cover on the lakes. Severe droughts may occur, increasing the need for irrigation and affecting fisheries adversely.

The total hours of sunshine are high for this latitude: 1 950–2 050 h per year or a total annual insolation of between 80 and 110 kcal/cm². The evaporative rate is also high. The average value of potential evapotranspiration on the Great Plain is about 700 mm; in a warm year, evaporation from water surfaces may reach 1 000 to 1 500 mm.

5. HYDROGRAPHY AND LIMNOLOGY

The total area of inland water in Hungary according to Table 4 is 0.74 percent of the country's total area or 690 km². This figure is equivalent to only the area of Lake Balaton and the Hungarian portion of Lake Fertö and therefore, must be too low. Hungary/EIFAC (1977) states that Hungary's inland waters total 1 450 km² or 1.6 percent of the country's area. Dobrai, Thuránszky and Pékh (1981) state that the water areas in fish production constitute 195.7 km² of pond farms and 1 299 km² of natural waters. Collectively, this constitutes 1 495 km² or 1.6 percent of the country's total area. A similar figure, 1 500 km² of surface waters is given by Fish Farm.Inter., 11 (11) (1984). According to FAO (1988) the inland water area of Hungary is 1 400 km² or 1.5 percent of the country's area.

The approximate annual run-off from rainfall on Hungarian territory is only 64 mm or 6 000 million m³. Added to this is 114 000 million m³ received from upstream countries, resulting in a total annual river discharge leaving the country of 120 000 million m³ (Van der Leeden, 1975; ECE, 1978).

5.1 Rivers(Folyam)

All of the rivers of Hungary flow into the Danube, which with its tributary the Tisza constitute the two great river basins of Hungary. A third basin, the Drava is of importance only along the country's southwestern boundary. Hydrological data, including discharge, on these and other principal Hungarian rivers will be found in Tables 1 and 2.

Danube River. The greatest river in Hungary, the Danube or Duna, has a total length within the country of 417 km. Entering from Czechoslovakia (just below the border with Austria), it then flows along the Hungarian-Czechoslovakian boundary for 140 km before turning south to cross the country and finally enter Yugoslavia.

It is a great river throughout its extent, averaging about 450 m in width with a depth of 3 m, a drop of 40 – 5 cm/km, and a velocity of 0.6 – 2.5 m/sec. The range for minimum, maximum and average discharges, respectively are as follows: 570–620, 7 700–9 500 and 2 100 – 2 400 m³/sec.¹

¹ As is characteristic of many of the measurements provided in this review, these sometimes vary decidedly depending on the source. Those cited above are primarily from Dvihally-Tamás (1975); see Table 1

Table 1

Hydrologic data on the principal rivers of Hungary

Source: Van der Leeden (1975) after Ballo (Hungarian National Water Authority) (1973)

Table 2

Discharge of the Danube and Tisza rivers in Hungary

Source: Van der Leeden (1975) after Unesco (1971)

Table 3

Characteristics of Lake Balaton

Source: Biró (1977) and Dévai and Moldován (1983)

The Danube's total fall within Hungary is from 134 to 85 m, but most of this occurs in its upper portion. The average gradient as the river arrives from Austria is 30–40 cm/km, but it soon drops to 8–12 cm/km, and on the Great Plain it is a true “plains river” with a declination of only 9 km to the km. This slight fall, in addition to the irregularity of flow, accounts for great floods which markedly affect land use and its characteristically cyprinid fishery.

There are two regular floods a year. The early “white flood” (April–May) results from the thawing of snow in the Alps while the Carpathian rivers are still frozen and the Danube is ice-covered. The Alpine torrents break up the ice into floes which pile up and augment the floods. The later “green flood” involves more water - not just from the Alps but from ample June rains. For protection against these floods, over 1 100 km of dikes had been installed by 1968 to protect over 1 265 000 ha of land. With subsidence, the Danube normally reaches its lowest level at the end of summer. It may be frozen over for a month or so during severe winters.

According to Dvihally-Tamás (1975) the water of the Hungarian Danube is characterized by Ca⁺⁺ and HCO₃ ions in excess, and its total amount of dissolved salts averages 200 mg/l. Its gross primary production (in g/0₂/m²/day) averages 3.9 with a maximum of 15. He considers it to be contaminated at a low to medium level as compared to rivers in European industrial areas. Two of its principal sources of pollution are the city of Budapest and the Vág, which brings in waste-water from Czechoslovakia.

Major direct or indirect right bank affluents of the Danube are the Lajta and Rába (both originating in Austria), the Marcal and the Sió Canal (outlet of Lake Balaton) joined with the Kapos and Sárviz. Major left bank affluents of the Danube stem from the mountains of Slovakia: the Vág (Vah), Nyitra (Nitra), Garam (Hren) and Ipoly (Ipelv). The Ipoly, originating in Czechoslovakia, forms part of the Czech-Hungarian boundary before entering the Danube. There are almost no tributaries to the Danube entering from the Great Plain within Hungary.

Despite river training and diking, islands and side branches have not been eliminated in the upper section of the Hungarian Danuble. A rich water network still persists along much of the Hungarian/Czechoslovakian border and constitutes a good fishing section. Another good fish-producing section on the Danube is the stretch below Paks (about 100 km below Budapest) where old meander curves provide rich fishing areas.

Tisza River. The second largest river system within Hungary is the Tisza whose catchment is in the eastern half of the Carpathian Basin. With headwaters in the USSR and Romania, it enters Hungary from the north and proceeds southerly to enter Yugoslavia where it joins the Danube as its second largest tributary. Table 1 shows its length within Hungary as 763 km, its mean width as 150 m and its mean depth as 5.5 m¹.

¹ Erdei (1968) states, however, that the Tisza's full course in Hungary is only 579 km, shortened by regulation during the last century from its original 955 km within the country, and Dobrai, Thuránszky and Pékh (1981) say that its Hungarian course is 600 km

Primarily a “plains river” throughout its Hungarian course, with a fall of only 6 cm/km, it meanders sluggishly over its floodplain of dunes and oxbow marshes. Like the capricious Danube, it is subject to floods and 4 000 km of dikes have been installed. Floods occur in early spring, early summer (“green flood”) and autumn. The Tisza's flow is lowest in winter and it may freeze over.

Its major Hungarian affluents from the right are the Bodrog and Sajó (both from Czechoslovakia), the Eger and Zagyva. From the left it is joined by the Körös (Cris), Szamos (Somes) and Maros (Mures) from Romania.

Dráva River. The third largest river system in Hungary is the Dráva with a mean width of 150 m and mean depth of 2.5 m. With most of its volume originating in Austria (where it is called the Drau), it flows across the northern tip of Yugoslavia, forms 95 km of the Hungarian-Yugoslavian border, and then turns back into Yugoslavia for about 64 km before joining the Danube. The Dráva also has three annual floods.

Market fishing is conducted, primarily by fishery cooperatives, on the Danube, Tisza and their tributaries. The average annual professional catch during the last decade has been about 1 000 t on the Danube and 800 t on the Tisza (Dobrai, Thuránszky and Pékh, 1981). Catches are primarily of cyprinids. The rivers are also used by anglers.

5.2 Lakes (Tó)

There are only three lakes of consequence in Hungary, all in Transdanubia.

Lake Balaton. Fringed by the Bakony Mountains on its northern shore, Lake Balaton lies in the western half of the country at an elevation of 104 m. Formed in a tectonic rift, it is the largest lake in central Europe, its area of 596 km²₃ exceeding that of either Lake Geneva or Constance. Fed by the Zala River with a flow of 12–15 m³/sec., 32 small streams and 11 canals, it debouches via the Sió Canal which proceeds to the Danube. With an average depth of only 3 m, its surface water attains a temperature of 24°C (occasionally 30°C). Ice cover averages 44 days and the lake may freeze to a depth of 40 cm. About 25 percent of its shore is covered with Phragmites. This slightly alkaline lake (400 kg/1) of Ca and Mg bicardonates according to Biró (1984) is very rich, saturated with oxygen, and can be considered hypereutrophic (see Table 3 for other characteristics).

Balaton has been fished since 5000 B.C. Gillnets and seines were used here in 1230 A.D., and in 1880 about 20 000 gillnets were in use (Biró, 1977). Ice fishing with long nets was abandoned in 1957. Most of the commercial fishing today is pursued using long surrounding nets which were introduced here in the 1920s. Of a total of perhaps 47 fish species in Lake Balaton, about 15 are of economic significance. The most valuable indigenous fish is the pike-perch (Stizostedion lucioperca), but common bream (Abramis brama) together with the garda (Pelecus cultratus), a shoaling cyprinid, accounts for about 80 percent of the net catch. Following large introductions of European eel (Anguilla anguilla), the eel catch had attained 32.8 t by 1969 of which anglers took 22 percent (Kovary, 1971). The overall catch by professional fishermen is about 1 000–1 200 t of fish per year, although declining in 1985 and 1986, and anglers' catches were 347.9 t in 1977 (Dobrai, Thuránszky and Pékh, 1981). (See also Tables 7 and 9.)

One of the principal vacation areas in Hungary, sometimes visited by over half a million people on a week-end, Lake Balaton has a shoreline which is a continuous chain of summer resorts and lodges. As a resort area, both commercial fishing and angling must complete with other water uses such as swimming, boating and water-skiing, and the high tourist population now exceeds that estimated to tax the capacity of the lake.

Lake Fertö¹. The second largest lake in Hungary is Lake Fertö in the extreme northwest, where it is shared with Austria, known in that country as the Neusiedler See. About 32 km in length (N–S) and 4–10 km wide (E–W), it is a steppe lake which has almost dried up at times. Its reported area varies both with the year and the author consulted. It is assumed here that Löffler (1979) is close to the mark. He says that at an elevation of 115.5 m above sea level, the total area of the lake approaches 300 km², of which about 200 km² are covered by the reed, Phragmites, and that at its deepest the present basin is about 113.5 m above sea level. In the same publication, Hacker (1979) indicates that the Hungarian portion of the lake is about one-fifth of the total area, i.e., about 60 km² at 115.5 m elevation. Kusel-Fetzmann (1979) also states that the total area is about 300 km², about 50 percent is covered with reeds and that its depth is 0.5–2 m, maintained since 1965 at 1.75 m through an agreement between Hungary and Austria. Wurzer et al (1982) agree that the total area of the lake is 300 km² but that the area of open water is about 150 km². One of the latest estimates indicates that the total area of Lake Fertö without its reed belt is 152 km², of which the Hungarian portion is only 20 km² (Republik Osterreich, 1983).²

¹ This is essentially the same description that is used in section 5.2 of the review for Austria and the full citations for Republik Österreich (1983) and Wurzer et al. (1983) will be found there

² Some estimates in addition to those cited in the main text follow. Erdei (1968) says that Lake Fertö has a total area of 335 km² of which one-fourth is in Hungary, i.e., its Hungarian area would be about 84 km². Kovary (1971) gives its total area as 320 km² and its Hungarian area as 52 km². Hungary/EIFAC (1977) and Biró (1984) state that its total area is 280 km² of which 82 km² is Hungarian. Fodor (1984) gives its total area as 335 km² of which 87 km² is Hungarian

Fed by mountain water, including one tributary of consequence, the Wulka, this high-silicate water is mixed with soda-containing ground water from old sediments. The lake water has a high salt content which has ranged from about 1.8 g/1 depending upon the year and the depth of the water. Biró (1984) says that it has more than 5 000 mg/1 of Na₂SO₄. Its volume varies from 180 to 250 million m³. Its theoretical water retention time is about one year and its discharge is only about 0.5 to 2.0 m³/sec. (Wurzer et al., 1982). Normally, its only outlet (artificial) is the Hanság Canal which proceeds to the Moson Danube. The lake is turbid and contains many water weeds in addition to its reed belts. Summer water temperatures are high; they reach 25–30°C. Ice cover lasts 10 to 97 days and in 1928/29 the lake froze to the bottom with severe effects upon its fish population.

The lake now contains about 23 species of fish, including introductions, according to Hacker (1979). Fourteen of these are cyprinids, including the exotic silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molotrix) and grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella). The lake also contains pike (Esox lucius), three percids and the introduced European eel. In 1975 Austria and Hungary signed an international agreement concerning the management of the lake's fisheries especially with respect to stocking. Both countries have stocked the Fertö with elvers. Hungary's commercial eel catch in 1970 was 7.8 t with anglers accounting for 20 percent of the catch.

For many years there have been plans to drain the lake and convert it into agricultural land (despite its poor soil). It now appears that the lake will continue as a unique resource, including its wealth of bird life as well as its highly fluctuating fishery.

Lake Velence. Known as the Velencei-tó in Hungary, this lake lies at an elevation of 106 m, northwest of Balaton toward Budapest. The third largest lake in Hungary, it has an area of about 26 km² but only about 17 km² of open water. The remainder is reeds and meadow, worked artificially to maintain depths for bathing and fishing. It is fed by only a few small streams and has a depth of 0.9 m (Andrikovics, 1975). It is classed by Biró (1984) as a “sodic” lake, containing 2 000–3 000 mg/l of Na and Mg bicarbonates. Stocked with elvers, its eel catch in 1969 was 9.9 t (Kovary, 1971).

5.3 Reservoirs (Rezervoár)

Despite a considerable dependence on the use of small reservoirs for both water resource management and inland fishery development (as also in countries such as Bulgaria and Spain), the total number of sizeable reservoirs has not been large in Hungary. Circa 1972, the total number of lakes and reservoirs in the country surpassing 100 ha was only 34. There were, however, 300 reservoirs of 10 ha or over and more than 1 200 of 0.5 ha or over (SCOPE, 1972).

Reservoir construction, mainly for agricultural purposes has increased in recent years. Hungary/EIFAC (1977) stated that the total area of all types of Hungarian reservoirs was 8 540 ha and by the end of 1978, agricultural reservoirs with a total surface area of 8 000 ha average volume of 640 000 m³, and total capacity of 125 million m³ had been built. Not yet in operation at the time was the newest and largest reservoir, one constructed on the Tisza River, reported to have an area of over 12 000 ha, one-fifth the area of Lake Balaton (Dobrai, Thuránszky and Pékh, 1981).

The primary function of a Hungarian reservoir (storage for agriculture, drinking water or industry) is considered paramount, and many are seasonal in nature and subject to severe fluctuations in water level. Nevertheless, reservoirs are considered to be “natural waters” and capable of being used for at least semi-intensive fish and water-fowl production.

5.4 Canals (Osatorna)

Hungary has many canals. Some function partly as artificial waterways for transport and partly as irrigation or drainage channels. Examples include the 97-km Main Eastern Canal connecting the Tisza with the Berettyó (a tributary of the Körös), the 100-km Sió Canal connecting Lake Balaton with the Danube, and the Hanság between Lake Fertö. and the Moson Danube.

6. LAND AND WATER USE

Table 4

Pattern of land use in Hungary, 1986¹

¹ The Statistical Yearbook of Hungary (Statisztikai Évkönyv, 1981) uses a different classification for land use which does not permit one to distinguish between land and water areas. It does, however, list 384 km² of the country as reeds (nádas) and 252 km² as fish ponds (halastó). The Statistical Yearbook for 1987 lists reeds and fish ponds as 630 km² in 1980 or almost the same total as in 1981

Source: 1987 FAO Prod.Yearb., 41, Publ. 1988

Although agriculture accounts for only about 20 percent of the national income, Hungary is fundamentally an agricultural country. Its proportion of arable land to its total area (51 percent) is one of the highest in Europe and the country as a whole is about 59 percent urban and 41 percent rural. Most of the arable land lies in the Great Plain, but there are pastures, vineyards and orchards in the hills. Cereals are the predominant crop followed by livestock production. A large portion of the land is devoted to fodder. Most of the agricultural land is controlled by collective and State farms.

In order to achieve its present agricultural staus, there have been profound changes in the original land and water areas. Until the middle of the last century, over a million hectares along the banks of the Danube and more than two million hectares on both sides of the Tisza were marshland and bog -almost useless for farming. During the second half of the century, these great expanses were drained and reclaimed with marked effect on the fisheries (see section 9). Similarly, elimination of marshy areas of Lake Balaton in the last century reduced much of the natural spawning area. Shortening of Hungary's rivers has already been mentioned in section 5.1. Biró (1984) says that the river lengths in Hungary had been reduced from 6 014 km to 3 589 km by about 1967. By 1967, 105 curves on the Tisza alone had been straightened and by 2050 it is expected to be completely regulated.

In years of average and normally distributed precipitation, most of the crops in Hungary can provide medium yields without irrigation. In the not infrequent dry years, however, irrigation is a necessity, as it also is for crops such as rice. In 1976, 320 000 ha were under irrigation, decreasing however by 1986 to 163 000 ha or only 1.8 percent of the country's area. Not all of these demands are made on surface waters. Ground water supplies are good and have a considerable place in irrigation. Fertilizer use is well above the European average and well above that of other lower Danube countries. Herbicides are widely used for weed control and vines and orchards may be sprayed eight times a season.

Forest resources are very small. Hungary ranks about fifteenth in European forest production. Mineral resources are also small aside from high supplies of bauxite, some uranium, some poor grade coal and some oil and natural gas.

Industry, which accounts for over half of the economy, is increasing, with emphasis on the machine industry, electronics and chemicals. Virtually all industry is state-owned and highly concentrated in Budapest, Györ and Miskolc. In 1970, less than one third of the industrial effluent was treated adequately and only 35 percent of the domestic sewage was treated properly (Johnson and Brown, 1976).

Most power is thermally generated. In 1985, only 46 000 kW or less than one percent, of the installed electrical capacity of 5 815 000 kW was hydroelectric, and there is little potential for its increase. The most important hydroelectric development is the Nagymaros-Gabcikovo barrage on the Danube with Hungarian and Czechoslovakian operation of a 850 mW plant, the first high capacity hydrostation in Hungary. Installed nuclear and geothermal power totalled 829 000 kW in 1985.

Automobile road density in Hungary was about 1 km/km² in 1986. Railway density is low, about 0.14 km/km² (1987). Passenger car ownership is low, only 156/1 000 people (1987). Navigable waterways totalled 1 622 km in 1987. Of these, 417 km were on the Danube (which also had about 105 km of alternate routes), 443 km on the Tisza and lesser amounts on the Körös (about 124 km), Sió (100 km) and Dráva.

Landlocked and distant from an oceanic supply, demand for fish in the Hungarian diet has been rather low. It has increased to four times the demand of 1950 but (in 1987) the annual fish consumption was still only 2 kg per caput including imports and angler catches as opposed to a total meat consumption of 74 kg per caput. As in other central European countries, the demand for freshwater fish is quite seasonal. The amount of fish sold during the first few days before Christmas is about equal to the amount sold in two normal months. Still, with its large river systems and with ponds, reeds and marshes occupying much of the Great Plain until the middle of the last century, fishing has been a traditional occupation in Hungary. Commercial capture fisheries are still holding up rather well, although in competition with other water uses and undergoing gradual replacement by pond fish culture and intensive production (almost pondfish culture) in backwater areas. Angling by residents is increasing but - with its emphasis on warmwater fishes - is not a real attraction to tourists from other countries. (Including those in transit, Hungary had about 16 million tourists in 1986.)

With respect to complete use of surface water, the percentages of use in 1972 were as follows: agriculture (32.1 percent) industry (23.4 percent), population (2.5 percent), other uses (42 percent) according to ECE (1978)¹. Hungary is one of the few European countries in which agricultural water use still exceeds that of industry (others are Cyprus, Greece, Malta, Portugal and Spain).

¹ Ambroggi (1980) gives somewhat different figures for Hungarian water use: agriculture (about 45 percent), industry (about 45 percent) and domestic use (about 10 percent)

7. FISH AND FISHERIES

There are about 70 species of fish in Hungary. About 55 species belonging to 15 families are resident in the Danube, about 47 species are found in Lake Balaton, and about 23 species are found in Lake Fertö. Thirty-two species have value as food or sport fish; they are listed taxonomically in Table 5 under categories used in “Fisheries in Hungary”.

The common carp (Cyprinus carpio) is by far the most important species in Hungary, accounting for about 70 percent of the pondfish production, 33 percent of the commercial catch in natural waters and 41 percent of the catch by anglers in 1978. The common bream (Abramis brama) is also of outstanding importance commercially, commanding an annual catch of about 1 500 t.

Among the native predatory fish in natural waters, those of most importance are the pike-perch (Stizostedion lucioperca), the pike (Esox lucius), European catfish or wels (Silurus glanis) and asp (Aspius aspius).

The European eel (Anguilla anguilla), which most authors consider is not native to Hungary, was planted in Lake Fertö in 1913. Elvers obtained through import from France and Ireland have been stocked in the lakes since 1961 and eels have now achieved importance in the capture fishery. Three other imports, carps introduced from China in 1963 as pondfish, have also achieved some prominence in natural waters. The bighead (Aristichthys nobilis) and silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) are still primarily pondfish but the grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) constituted three percent of the angler's catch in 1978. Both it and the silver carp apparently propagate naturally in Hungarian waters (Pintér, 1980).

Table 5

Commonest exploited fishes of Hungary ^a

^a These three divisions are those made in Dobrai, Thuránszky and Pékh (1981); the term “market” applies even to fish taken primarily for sport; (i) the capture of primary fishes is controlled by legal divisions for each species. Most are dealt with by pond farms and are stocked in natural waters; (ii) capture not controlled by separate species provisions, and artificial propagation and introduction not undertaken; (iii) their number is unappreciable on a national scale although they may have local importance

^b Not native to Hungary

^c FAO (1988) mistakenly states that this species (together with carp) is a most important market fish

Of other introduced species, the American largemouth black bass (Micropterus salmoides), which became established in the Dráva years ago, occurs sporadically in other areas and is taken by anglers in the cooling water reservoirs of power plants. The rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), first introduced in Hungary in 1885 is raised in trout farms and also found in some natural waters. Two other North American fishes, neither considered desirable, are the brown bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus), introduced in 1902 and the pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus) which are both abundant in some areas of the Danube, Tisza and Körös rivers. The subspecies of the goldfish, the giebel, or silver crucian (Carassius auratus gibelio) was introduced from Bulgaria in 1954. As in Romania, it has become an abundant species but forms stunted populations and is sometimes considered a pest¹.

¹ Tóth and Biró (1984) discuss 18 exotic fish species which have been introduced into Hungary since the turn of the century. They differ from most authors in saying that the European eel is a native member of the Hungarian fish fauna

With respect to native fishes, the once abundant runs of several species of sturgeons (Acipenseridae) are gone, blocked by dams on the Danube. Only the sterlet (Acipenser ruthenus) still remains in the Hungarian rivers. The native brown trout (Salmo trutta) is confined to mountain areas such as the Bükk Mountains in the north. Crayfish are native to Hungary and furnish a small fishery.

Determination of the individual species or species groups and the relative amounts taken, either individually or collectively, by commercial fishermen or by anglers or produced in pond farms is not a simple one using easily available “standard” statistics such as those in Tables 6 and 7.

Table 6 shows the nominal “catch” for the inland waters of Hungary as compiled by FAO for the period of 1965–87. As with similar tables for other countries, it is included both for uniformity and as (another) illustration of the difficulties of obtaining meaningful information from these second-hand compilations. The statistics shown in Table 6 were sent to FAO by Hungary, but their presentation simply does not permit one to distinguish between the species involved, those cultured in ponds and those taken by capture, whether commercially or for sport².

² By definition, in the FAO Yearbooks of Fishery Statistics, nominal catch data exclude all quantities caught by sports fishermen but they have been included at times for several countries, including Hungary, as has been shown in this review.

Furthermore, as will be shown later, at least some of the “catches” (from fish ponds) were then used as “stocking material” and do not represent marketable or consumable yield for food. For example, in 1973, 9 000 t of the total catch of 29 100 t shown in Table 6 were actually used to restock ponds, according to Hungary/EIFAC (1974) (see also section 7.2).

Turning now to Table 7, compiled from the official statistics in Hungary's statistical yearbooks, we find that for the years 1960, 1970, and the period of 1975–79, Hungary's own figures for its total fish catch are almost identical with those that appear in the FAO Yearbooks. However, here they are not arranged by species groups as is done by FAO but in three columns: total catch, fish from fish farms and fish from Lake Balaton³. From this table, we can determine which fish originate from aquaculture in fish farms and which from capture fisheries but from this table alone we cannot determine the species groups caught, nor whether sport as well as commercial catches are included. Thus, for example, Table 7 shows that in 1978 of a total of 32 584 t of fish “caught” in Hungary, 23 579 t derived from fish farms, and 1 159 t from Lake Balaton - leaving 7 846 t to be accounted for from unknown sources. One might assume that the latter amount comes from areas such as the Danube, Tisza and Hungarian reservoirs but one would still not know whether it represented recreational as well as commercial fisheries.

³ The catch from fish farms listed in the Hungarian statistical yearbooks under “tógazdasági” is translated there as “fish hatcheries” but “fish farms” (including both pond farms and trout farms) is the correct term (Pintér, 1985, pers.comm.)

Luckily, Anon./Hungary (1982) contains some figures which will at least answer the latter question which has been raised concerning the statistics in Table 7. He states that in 1978 the gross production of fish farms was 23 600 t and that the “total catches from natural waters (commercial and recreational)” were 9 005 t of which 5 919.6 (5 920) t were from the commercial fishery and 3 085 t from the sport catch. If then, we refer back to the 1978 catch shown in Table 7 and subtract the 23 579 t (23 600 t) shown there as derived from fish farms from the total Hungarian catch of 32 584 t, we obtain a figure of 9 005 t. Other things then being equal, we arrive at the following breakdown of the 1978 production/catch in Hungary: 23 579 t from fish farms and 9 005 t from capture fisheries of which 5 920 t are from commercial fisheries and 3 085 t from the sport catch. It appears, therefore, that proportionally, the 1978 “catch” in Hungary was derived as follows: 72 percent from aquaculture, 18 percent from commercial capture fishing and almost 10 percent from sport fishing. Other earlier information from Hungary corroborates the thesis that the harvest from recreational fisheries has been incorporated into the overall “catch” statistics recorded by Hungary and later reproduced in modified form by FAO.¹

¹ One finds the same type of error in Europa (1988) and Worldmark (1988) where the total Hungarian fishing “catch” actually includes: commercial catch, angler's catch, and aquacultural production

Table 6

Nominal catches by species in the water of Hungary, 1965, 1970, 1975, 1980–87 (tons)

^a 1965 includes “Miscellaneous freshwater fishes…quantities n.e.i.”

0 - probably nil, negligible, or insignificant; or less than 50 t during the 1965–70 period, or less than half a ton during later years.

... - not available

Source: 1965 Yearb.Fish.Stat.FAO, 36 (Publ. 1974)
1970–81 FAO Fish.Dept.Fishery Statistical Database (FISHDAB)
1982–87 Yearb.Fish.Stat.FAO. 64 (Publ. 1989)

For example, communications sent directly to EIFAC by Hungary (Hungary/EIFAC, 1974, 1977) state that in 1974 the total fish catch was 30 161 t of which 23 606 t (78 percent) came from fish farms and 6 555 t from capture fisheries in natural waters of which 4 805 t (16 percent) were commercial and 1 750 t (6 percent) were from the sport catch.²

From such examples, it appears very likely that the reports of Hungarian catch data for other years follow the same pattern. And if so, it would then appear that since the FAO figures for total catch in Table 6 agree with the official Hungarian figures for total catch shown in Table 7, that FAO has mistakenly included the catches by Hungarian anglers in its statistics³. This conclusion appears to be corroborated by the statement by Dobrai, Thuránszky and Pékh (1981) that anglers account for about 10 percent of the total fish harvest in Hungary.

² The FAO Yearbook's figure for Hungary's total catch in 1974 was 30 159 t

³ This type of error is, however, readily understandable. Reference to publications such as Anon./Hungary (1982) and Dobrai, Thuránszky and Pékh (1981) show that the Hungarian authorities constantly stress that the catch by anglers is part of a “planned” system of fishery management in which commercial and recreational fishing work hand in hand, complementing each other to produce a full utilization of the aquatic resource. This concept is not followed by all countries or by all angler and commercial fishermen and has obviously not been understood by FAO

Finally, a figure in a paper by Pintér (1983) sheds some additional light on the subject of the sometimes confusing Hungarian fishery statistics, especially as to the composition of the harvest from aquaculture (see Table 8). The figure for total fish production in Table 8 for 1960, 1970, 1975 and 1979 agree almost exactly with the total catch figures for the same years shown in official Hungarian statistics (Table 7). However, in several instances, Pintér's breakdown of these total figures (Table 8) does not agree with the listings used in other sources used in this review. In some cases the reasons for the differences are obvious. For example, Pintér distinguishes the result of special aquaculture activities such as intensive utilization of backwaters and reservoirs from the traditional capture fisheries in natural waters. Thus, the fish taken from these intensively used waters may be included with the production from fish farms and construed as constituting “food fish from fish farming”. (It may be noted that several Hungarian publications assert that reservoirs are considered to be “natural waters”. This is, however, only from the point of view of legal fishing regulations.) We see, therefore, that matters of definition underline the interpretation of many of these statistics. There are also some small differences between figures which cannot be explained but these are not considered to be of real importance. What Pintér has shown - and is of most importance - is the clear distinction between “production of stocking material” and production of marketable or consumable food fish as two quite different components of aquacultural production (often called “catch”). Thus, in the years 1960, 1970, 1975 and 1979 the production of stocking material constituted about one quarter of Hungary's entire fish catch (see also section 7.2).

The preceding explanation demonstrates the ease with which fishery statistics can be misinterpreted without a full array of data. But, rather than continue a tedious analysis, it may be more fruitful to elicit a picture of Hungarian fisheries and aquaculture by presenting a few more recent statistics obtained directly from Hungarian sources. (See Tables 9–11.)

Table 7

Fish catch in Hungary, 1960, 1970, 1975–79 (tons)

^a Pintér (pers.comm. 1985) states that this catch in Governmental statistics is entirely commercial

^b This column, not included in the original publications, was derived by the author by subtracting the sum of the “catch” from fish farms and Lake Balaton from the “total catch”.

Source: Statisztikai Évkönyv, 1980 (Statistical Yearbook, Hungary)

Table 8

A recent version of the origin of fish production/catch in Hungary 1950, 1960, 1970, 1975, 1979 ^a

^a The percentages on lines 1–4 and the number of tons on lines 5–6 are taken from the original author (Pintér, 1983). The number of tons appearing on lines 1–4 have been calculated using Pintér's percentages times line 6. It is assumed that the figures on line 5 represent the sum of the tonnages taken from the origins specified in lines 2 and 3. In actuality, Pintér's figures on line 5 differ somewhat from summations of the calculated figures on those lines. The reasons for the discrepancies are unknown, but the major conclusions are not invalidated by the small differences

Source: Figure 20.1 (p. 280) in Pintér (1983)

7.1 Capture Fisheries

The capture fishery in Hungary is practised in natural waters: the major rivers and their tributaries, overflow areas, oxbows and static water such as the largest lakes and some reservoirs. (As has been pointed out, in Hungary, with respect to fisheries, reservoirs other than fish ponds are legally considered to be “natural waters”.) In recent years the area of these waters seems to have varied from about 1 250 km² to 1 390 km², depending upon the year, their use, and construction of new ones.

In some years cyprinids constitute about 80 percent of the capture fishery in natural waterways. Common carp alone form about one-third of the catch and bream also contribute a significant quantity. Fish such as pike-perch, eel, sterlet and European catfish (wels), although caught in much smaller quantities, are considered “high-value” fish and are in demand because of their quality.

7.1.1 Commercial fishing

The difficulties of obtaining accurate figures for the Hungarian commercial catch from readily available references have already been discussed. In 1971, the total commercial catch in Hungary was 4 903 t and in 1978 it totalled 5 920 t (Anon./Hungary, 1982). Table 9 shows total commercial catch figures ranging from 7 398 t to 8 685 t during the 1983–86 period.

The fishing methods range from use of old traditional Danubian gear such as reed and willow traps to quite modern ones. On Lake Balaton, for example, 1 000 × 5 m surrounding nets are used together with 25-m trawlers. Small and giant fish traps, lift nets, seines and electric trawls are used in a variety of situations and eel traps in conjunction with drainage are used at the outlets of Balaton and Velence.

Table 9

Capture fishery in Hungary, 1981–86

^a It will be noted that the addition of the gross production derived from fish farming in 1981 and 1982 (derived from the same source and shown in Table 10), results in a total harvest from capture fishing and fish culture of: 39 145 t in 1981 and 42 042 t in 1982. See the totals for the same years shown in Table 6; close agreement for 1981, exact agreement for 1982

Source: Anon./Hungary (1984) for 1981–82
Pintér (1986, 1988) for 1983–86

7.1.2 Sport fishing

Many of the warmwater fish represented in the commercial fishery are also caught by sport fishermen. Anon./Hungary (1982) lists the 1978 rod catches of different species in Hungary in this order: common carp (41 percent), “bream” (38 percent), pike, pike-perch, grass carp (3 percent), wels, asp, eel, barbel, kösüllö¹. Coldwater fishes are scarce in Hungary but there are a number of trout streams in the uplands, some of which are relatively unexploited by anglers, where brown trout can be taken. There are also some rainbow trout in wild waters and the largemouth black bass is fished in some reservoirs.

¹ The “bream” catch included species of low market value such as: common bream, white bream, roach, orfe, crucian carp and giebel or silver crucian

In 1971 the reported catch by 94 600 Hungarian anglers averaged 14.3 kg annually for a total take of 1 357 t or 22 percent of the entire capture fishery. In 1978 the reported annual catch by 204 942 anglers averaged almost 15.1 kg for a total of 3 085 t or 34 percent of the capture fishery (Anon./Hungary, 1982). Table 9 shows the angling catch to have ranged from 4 478 t to 4 964 t during the 1983–86 period.

Although the number of anglers in Hungary is still very small compared with the number in many western countries, it is increasing rapidly. In 1960, the total number of licensed resident anglers in the country was 51 800 or only 0.5 percent of the total population. By 1970, it had risen to 92 800 or 0.9 percent of the population, and by 1980 to over 250 000 anglers or 2.3 percent of the population (Thuránszky, 1982). FAO (1988) states that there were 316 000 licensed anglers in Hungary in 1986.

As has been emphasized above, Hungary considers sport fishing to be an integral part of full utilization of the aquatic resources as well as part of a social goal to secure recreational possibilities for everyone. The State has enunciated various principles concerning its development: (i) recreational fisheries have to be developed without losses in commercial fishing; (ii) natural waters must be managed to secure harvest of fish species not produced economically in fish farms; (iii) catches from natural waters should cover the gap in marketing during summer when fish farms are not selling their products; (iv) full utilization of natural waters demands the improvement of its stock of fish through selective commercial fishing; (v) a good bag should be developed for sport fisherman (since its possession is the main motive of the sport) but the angler should not sell his catch, and the number of anglers should not be limited. In furtherance of such ends: (i) commercial and recreational fisheries are carried on simultaneously in the majority of the country's natural waters; (ii) some waters are used exclusively for recreational fishing (e.g., the Government has granted angling associations large tracts of water around cities and important recreational areas); and, conversely, (iii) there are some waters where no anglers are admitted and fishfarm-like management is carried out. Circa 1980, 0.45 ha were available for each angler in type (i) waters and 0.09 ha in type (ii) waters¹.

¹ Based on Pintér (1978) and Anon./Hungary (1982)

The basic condition for angling in Hungary is membership in one of the angler's societies but foreign tourists as well as Hungarians who take out licences for only a two-week period are excepted. Admission to a society involves payment of a tax-like fee which is the price of the State-issued fishing licence. The angler may then purchase an areal permission for a selected water section with the competent water-utilizing body. Although the permission may be valid for most areas of the country, the general practice is that the angler obtains permission for only one water area, usually near his residence and then buys on-the-spot area licences for one day or a week. There are various limits and seasons according to angling law and anglers must pass an examination on basic knowledge of the regulations and fish fauna. They are not permitted to sell their catch.

7.2 Aquaculture

The first modern carp farm in Hungary (covering 75 ha) was established in 1984. Definite plans for expansion of the industry commenced in 1950, large-scale construction of ponds commenced in 1953, and by 1954 production was up to 4 556 t. By 1980 there were 21 151 ha fish ponds with a total production of 23 996 t.

Common carp is the principal species cultivated, representing about 65 percent of the production (1983–86). Production is usually a three-year cycle. The first year produces fingerlings of 25–35 g, the second-year fish of 200–300 g, and the third-year food fish of over 1 kg. In less common usage is a two-year system in which fingerlings of 80–100 g are produced during the first year and food fish somewhat under 1 kg the second year. Carp above 1 kg in weight are a first-class commodity and are usually sold alive. Their most important export market is the Federal Republic of Germany. Some supplementary fish may also be raised with the carp: pike-perch, tench and wels.

In general, the principle in Hungary is to allow the ponds themselves (through fertilization) to provide the nutriment needed. Wheat, maize, lupine and peas may, however, also be added, and the highest yields at pond farms originate from application of feeds.

The herbivorous Chinese carps (grass, silver and bighead) constitute about 33 percent (1983–86) of warmwater pondfish production, using various polycultural combinations together with common carp. At present the Chinese carps have less market demand than does the traditional common carp.

There is also some cultivation of sterlet, pike, asp, barbel and black bass primarily for stocking natural waters. There is also a market demand for such fish; the consumer's price for the predatory fish is about 2.5 times the price of common carp. Eel farming using geothermal water was set up during the 1979–81 period.

Trout are raised in only a few areas in Hungary because of the absence of suitable water. The largest trout farm at Ódörögd, north of Lake Balaton, uses karstic water with a temperature of 10–14°C. Rainbow trout are reared here in raceways using artificial feeds. Rearing fingerlings to 30 g takes 100–160 days and trout reach the market weight of 250 g in 180–300 days. The farm which has been operating at full capacity since 1978, produced 200 t in that year and the total production of rainbow trout in Hungary was 280 t in 1979 and 409 t in 1986. Part of these trout are sold locally and part are exported. A small number of brown trout (Salmo trutta) are raised to stock recreational water.

With water temperatures usually reaching at least 20°C in September, the major pondfish production in Hungary is, however, of warmwater fishes. These pond areas vary around 20 000 ha in total extent. FAO (1988) states that the pond area in 1986 was 20 925 ha. Circa 1980 when the pond fish areas in Hungary totalled 19 586 ha, they were distributed approximately as follows: 13 962 ha on 22 state farms (which carry on mixed farming); 3 991 ha on about 200 agricultural cooperatives; 1 352 ha on 17 fishery cooperatives; and 263 ha used by the Hungarian National Angling Union (Dobrai, Thuránszky and Pékh, 1981). In 1978, the state farm fisheries produced 15 920 t of warmwater pond fish and 295 t of trout¹. Of the 22 state farms, 11 possess pond farm areas of over 200 ha, e.g., the state farm of Hortobágy is 5 000 ha, and the fish farm of Balaton is 1 800 ha. Some individual fish ponds in Hungary reach 600 ha in extent.

¹ The state farms also controlled the Lake Balaton capture fishery with a gross harvest of 1 159 t and collectively produced over 50 percent of the annual production/catch of fish. The cooperatives which operated on about 5 300 ha of pond area and about 46 000 ha of natural waters, produced about one-third of the country's production/catch

Unfortunately, most of the farm ponds in Hungary have been constructed on infertile alkaline areas because central guidelines did not permit their construction on higher quality lands. The yields from ponds on poor ground or of such large size that intensive cultivation is difficult are relatively low.

Overall yields from farm ponds have not risen much in recent years.² Thus, Rabanal (1971) cited an average total yield of about 1 000 kg/ha/year and about ten years later Dobrai, Thuránszky and Pékh (1981) said that the national average indicated 1 000 kg/ha/year. Some yields for the intermediate and later years follow.

² However, even at a lower level of production, the profitability of pond farming during the last few years is said to have improved (Pintér, 1988)

In citing such yields, one must distinguish, however, between the total amount caught or harvested from a pond and that portion of the take which is actually marketable or consumable. Table 10 illustrates this difference. The marketable yields (net production per unit area) shown there are far lower than the gross yields.

Another table (Table 11) is also shown as an example of the current presentation to EIFAC of aquacultural production in Hungary. From such a table, one gains a better concept of the entire process.

Table 10

Hungarian fish ponds: size and yields, 1974, 1975, 1981, 1982

Source: Anon./Hungary, 1976 and 1984

Table 11

Aquacultural production in Hungary, 1983–86

Source: Pintér (1986, 1988)

A more recent presentation of aquacultural production in Hungary is that found in Table 12. It would appear, however, that the FAO-compiled statistics in this table suffer from some of the same inaccuracies which have been pointed out before. For example, compare the production for the Chinese carps in 1984 with that shown in Table 11, and the differences shown between the statistics for 1985 and 1986. Regardless of such differences, the Source states that the aquacultural production in Hungary during the 1984–87 period had an annual value ranging from US$ 14 028 million (1985) to US$ 22 686 million in 1987.

Offsetting such problems as poor land and sometimes limited water is the development of superior technology in the operation of Hungarian pond farms, with emphasis on use of better feeds and feeding methods, water supply of controlled temperature, aeration and increased mechanization, induced breeding and cage culture. An outstanding example in this development is the Warmwater Fish Hatchery at Százhalombatta (TEHAG) near Budapest, inaugurated in 1974, which uses ponds with water from a thermal power plant and hormonally-induced artificial fertilization. Considered to be the largest unit of its kind in Europe, it supplies about 30 percent of the country's requirements for fish fry and 30 percent of one-summer fingerlings. As further evidence of advancement, some ponds at Bikal have attained yields about 2.5 t/ha/year and some experimental ponds using a combination of common and Chinese carps with supplemental feedings have yielded 4 t/ha/year. The use of ducks in pond culture may also increase yield (see, especially, Balogh, Kozma and Mosonyi (1975) and Woynarovich (1979).)

Table 12

Aquacultural production in Hungary, 1984–87 (in tons)

... - Data unavailable

F - FAO estimate

Source: FAO Fish.Info.Data and Stat.Serv. (1989)

Further fish pond development in Hungary depends mainly on the economic possibilities of pond farming intensification. Table 8 shows that the line between capture fisheries and pond fish production is in Hungary, as in several other countries, not always a clear one. Pintér, source of the material in this table says (in a personal communication, 1985) that his criteria of aquaculture are the use of feeding and/or fertilization. In addition to standard aquaculture in closed (pond) systems, almost all Hungarian natural waters and reservoirs are systematically stocked. Thus at Lake Balaton pike-perch production is augmented by annual fry stocking, 160 t of two-summer carp are stocked annually and elvers are also stocked each year. Backwaters adjacent to flood control embankment, oxbows and other waters also receive stocking - sometimes resulting in such production that it may be considered aquaculture.

Currently about 1 100 ha of backwaters are under intensive fish production in Hungary. On over approximately 90 percent of this area the food fish are produced through polycultural stocking with two-year fish and on about 10 percent of the area, two-year fish are produced through fingerling stocking (Pintér, 1983). There are apparently a considerable number of reservoirs in Hungary which store water for only a year. Many of these seem to have been adapted to fishery production through a combination of the same type of features used in standard farm ponds, e.g., drainage, fishing pits and fish screens. Most of them, however, are used for traditional natural water fishing and for angling.

Cage culture has also been used in Hungary, of late in deep gravel pits. Since it requires the use of complete feeds it seems most suitable for fish which have a special need in domestic or export market, e.g., high-value fish. Good results have been obtained with wels and the hybrid of sterlet x beluga (Huso huso).

8. OWNERSHIP, ADMINISTRATION, MANAGEMENT, INVESTIGATION AND AGREEMENTS¹

8.1 Ownership

All fish in natural waters and man-made reservoirs in Hungary are State-owned. The law decree on fisheries (decree of legal force No. 30 of 1977) states that with few exceptions the right of fishing is the legal due of the State. The State transfers this right to State-owned companies, agricultural and fishery cooperatives and to the Hungarian National Angling Union (HNAU).

To ensure planned utilization of the water areas, the beneficiary of the fishing right must prepare a working plan for the approval of the competent technical body (Fishery Inspector) of the local County Council (see section 8.2.2) for a five-year period. Interim modifications can be made. The fishing right can be cancelled or withdrawn if the beneficiary fails to observe prescription of the plan, or if justified in the interest of the national economy. In the latter case, there may be idemnification.

The beneficiary must also pay the State for the fishing right. These payments raise a Fund for Fisheries Development used to develop the fishery sector, especially the fisheries of natural waters, but which may also be used for hatcheries, research, technological developments, etc.

¹ Based largely on material from Hungary sent to EIFAC in 1979, Dobrai, Thuránszky and Pékh (1981) and Anon./Hungary (1982) and updated by Hungary/EIFAC (1989)

8.2 Administration and Management

8.2.1 The sector of fishing and fish farming is under the supervision of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

The Department for Fisheries and Wildlife of this Ministry is responsible for central management of the fisheries, including: elaboration of fishery policy, State management of the fisheries and elaboration of long and middle-term plans.

8.2.2 The regional administration of fisheries is carried out by the Fishery Inspectors of the 20 County Councils of Hungary. They have as their functions: State management of fisheries at the first level, supervision of the fishery activities prescribed in the management plans for each water area, issue of licences to fishermen, etc.

8.2.3 In addition to these administrative units, there are the following:

1. National Centre of State Farms, responsible among others for control of all State-owned farms and at the same time their business federation;

2. Association of Fishery Cooperatives, a business federation established by the fishery cooperatives and which grants vocational and legal assistance to members. Any agricultural cooperative which needs assistance from the central apparatus of the Association for better fishery management, regular supply of breeding material or for marketing may join the Association.

3. A fish marketing sector which belongs only partly to the productive sector. The domestic wholesale trading company for fish and fish products is controlled by the Ministry for Internal Trade, and the TERIMPEX Foreign Trade Company by the Ministry for Foreign Trade.

4. Hungarian National Angling Union (HNAU), the central organ of the angling associations (about 600 in number). The HNAU cares for the professional and ethical education of anglers and helps the associations in management matters. Both the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the County Councils consult with the HNAU in matters concerning angling.

8.3 Investigation

1. The Fisheries Research Institute at Szarvas (HAKI) has been in charge of coordinating all fish-related research work in Hungary since 1975. Both biological and technological aspects are stressed.

2. The Institute cooperates with various Hungarian scientific institutes, stations and training institutes and coordinates their work: (a) Hungarian Academy of Sciences (Veterinary Research Institute in Budapest, Balaton Limnological Institute at Tihany, Danube Research Station at Göd and Genetics Station at Göd), National Veterinary Institute (Budapest), University of Sciences “József Attila” (Szeged), University of Agricultural Sciences (Debrecen), High School for Agriculture (Kaposvár), University of Rural Sciences (Keszthely) and TEHAG (Százhalombatta). It is also the Interregional Centre of the FAO/ADCP Network of Regional Aquaculture Centres.

8.4 Training

1. There is no university in Hungary especially designed for training in fish farming or breeding but the basis as well as special courses in high-level fishery education is offered at a number of universities.

2. The training of high level specialists in fish-farming science is undertaken at: Kaposvár and Szarvas for production engineers, and at Debrecen, Gödöllö, and Keszthely for general agronomist-engineers. Post graduate training is available at Debrecen.

3. Special training and continuing education in fish farm production is offered at Százhalombatta not only for Hungarians but for foreign students;

4. The Skilled Workers' School at Tata provides training for skilled workers in fish farming at low and medium levels.

8.5 International Agreements

Hungary has bilateral agreements concerning the use of boundary waters with: Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia. It belongs to the Danube Commission along with the other Danube countries concerning navigation and related problems. It adheres to the Convention on Fisheries of the Danube, together with Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Romania, the USSR and Yugoslavia, to take joint action to protect the river's fish stocks.