HUNGARY (continue)

9. STATE OF THE FISHERY

9.1 Yield

Reference to early statistics shows that there was a great overall rise in “catch” during the 1938–64 period: the average annual catch of 6 200 t during 1934–38 doubled to 13 000 t in 1958 and attained 22 700 t by 1964 (FAO Yearbook of Fishery Statistics, 26; Iyengar, 1974). Since that time (see Table 6), the overall yield from Hungarian capture fisheries and aquaculture has been comparatively even, rising decidedly only during the last few years.

One must bear in mind, of course, that the statistics throughout this entire time may not be uniform. The catch for angling (which should not have included by FAO in its Yearbook) has been represented in at least some of its records. Furthermore, the true picture of marketable or “consumable” production of Hungarian fish farms has been masked in the generally available statistics through inclusion of the quantity of fish used for restocking.

Nonetheless, the total yield from capture fisheries has - surprisingly enough - not only held its own for many years but has been seen to increase, even when using such constraints as have been imposed upon it by its representation in Table 8. Secondly, the total or gross production of fish farms has also increased. Table 13, which presents a record of some of the statistics that definitely distinguish between the catch in natural waters by the capture fishery and the production of fish farms illustrates these two points. Nevertheless, recalling the differences in total production from fish ponds and marketable production (sections 7 and 7.2) the summation of FAO/UNDP (1979) is pertinent: “It is … clear that both annual production and total pond surface area have remained relatively unchanged from 1960 to 1980 at about 12 000 to 16 000 tonnes of market fish and 21 000 hectares respectively”¹.

¹ These net yields of market fish (stocking material not included) range from 571 to 762 kg/ha/year (see also Table 10)

There are a considerable number of figures on yield per unit area from Lake Balaton. The figures through 1975 that follow are from Biro (1977, 1978, 1979). From 1902 to 1975 (when the total commercial catch from the lake varied between 300 and 1 963 t), the commercial yield varied from 5 to 33 kg/ha/year. During the 1950–75 period, the yield by commercial fishermen averaged 24 kg/ha/year. During the 1976–79 period, the yield as derived from Table 7 ranged from 14.9 to 19.5 kg/ha/year. With respect to the commercial yields of individual fish species from Lake Balaton, Biró (1978) states that between 1902 and 1976 bream (Abramis brama) constituted 70–80 percent of the annual catch with a yield of 89–106.8 kg/ha/year; pike-perch (Stizostedion lucioperca) constituted 6–12 percent of the catch with a yield of 1–3 kg/ha/year; and asp (Aspius aspius) constituted 0.4–1.5 percent of the catch with a yield of 0.007–0.5 kg/ha/year. He further stated that the present yield of these species from Lake Balaton was as follows: bream (16.8 kg/ha/year), pike-perch (2 kg/ha/year), and asp (0.18 kg/ha/year).

Table 13

Some annual returns in Hungary from fish farms and natural waters (tons)¹

There do not appear to be many figures for the yield from capture fisheries from other areas. Holčik and Bastl (1976) state that during the 1961–72 period, the 142-km section of the Danube River from the mouth of the Ipoly downstream to Dunaföldvár yielded 21.6 kg/ha/year². The Hungarian yield from natural waters was 55.7 kg/ha/year in 1976 and 66 kg/ha/year in 1977 (Thuránszky, 1978).

¹ In all these cases, the source positively distinguished between “catch” from “fish farms” and “natural waters”. It is also known that the catches from natural waters in 1971, 1974 and 1978 include both commercial and sport fishing. Slight differences in these figures and those in other tables (such as Tables 6 and 7) are not considered important: initially reported figures are often subject to revision in later publications and errors of transcription are common

² The area studied occupied 9 171 ha of river plus 195 ha of adjacent river arms (see Czechoslovakia for reference)

As previously related, the overall or gross aquacultural yield in Hungary now appears to be somewhat above 1 t/ha/year (see section 7.2).

9.2 Factors Affecting the Fishery

Drainage and the use of former bottom lands for agriculture have reduced habitat, including the once nutrient-rich spawning and feeding areas, for fish. Nevertheless, the most important factor limiting fishery production in Hungary is simply the quantity and quality of water available for both wild and cultivated stocks. Hungary has a limited supply of usable water, agreements with downstream countries limit the amount of water that can be diverted from its international rivers, and due to its topography, water storage potentials are relatively restricted³.

³ The practicable storages (Framji and Mahajan, 1969) are of the order of 90 million m³ in the dead reaches of the rivers, 700 million m³ in the live reaches upstream of weirs, 400–500 million m³ in small hillside ponds and reservoirs in mountainous areas, and about 600 million m³ in the plains

About 95 percent of Hungary's surface water originates outside the country, and aside from that in the Danube, much of it is of poor quality. For example, some of the most seriously polluted water in Hungary, that of the Sajó River, originates in Czechoslovakia. Total annual water demand in Hungary was 5.30 km³ in 1970, and it was considered that it would rise to 12.5 km³ by 1985 (Alföldi, Almássy, and Major, 1978). The latter amount would be more than twice the annual runoff from rainfall alone on Hungarian soil.

Competitive demands upon water are great. There are few for development of hydroelectric power or for the development of mineral or forest products, but demands by agriculture for irrigation are high. In fact, fish ponds themselves use a high percentage of the available water. Elekes (1972) says that the water supplied for 37 000 ha of fish ponds is 400 million m³ annually or almost 50 percent of the total water requirements for agriculture¹. Figures furnished by Benedek and Simo (1978) differ, but stress the same general point. They say that “present” annual water demands in Hungary for animal breeding are 370 million m³ of which fish ponds use about 70 percent (i.e., 259 million m³).

¹ Note that this figure for 37 000 ha of fish ponds is far greater than the various official figures previously cited

The advent of modern agriculture with its emphasis on the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides and the intensification of animal production with an increase in liquid manure have increased water pollution in Hungary. There have been some severe fish kills at Lake Balaton (500 t in one year), and eutrophication has altered its fish fauna. Its European perch have almost disappeared, and pikeperch are declining. It has been estimated that by 1985, Hungary's industrial waste discharge would be three times what it was in 1972, and that its domestic wastes would be doubled (Johnson and Brown, 1976). In 1972, 800 km of stream were said to be fishless because of pollution, and without strict control the potential for damage to fisheries is large (Holden and Lloyd, 1972). “Extreme meteorological conditions” (perhaps coupled with pollution) have also caused severe losses. In 1987, Pintér (1988) recorded known fish kills in Hungary as reaching 919 t or 2.5% of the total catch/production.

The total annual discharge leaving the country is 11 259 m³ per caput, but the average annual runoff per caput for rainfall only on Hungarian territory is only 563 m³. Were it not for the Danube, the amount of water available for waste dilution would be very small indeed.

Factors important to the continued development of aquaculture in Hungary include the following:

1. extension of irrigation to areas previously lacking water but otherwse having favourable soil and topographic conditions for fish farming;
2. the use of sodic or saline areas otherwise unfavourable for agriculture (about 200 000 ha of sodic soils cannot be used for agriculture, but the addition of water and organic matter makes some of them suitable for fish culture);
3. rehabilitation of the existing pond systems. Many of these, constructed years ago, do not meet the requirements for efficient production of the size and type of fish crop it is now possible to produce. They are too large for intensive cultivation and harvest is difficult;
4. greater use of phytophagous fish such as the Chinese carp, and substitution of intensive polyculture for extensive monoculture;
5. use of ducks on ponds;
6. development of better supplementary feeds than the unmilled cereals generally fed in the past;
7. disease problems associated with intensive culture;
8. genetic changes and improvement in stocks, and
9. the use of cooling water from thermal power stations, as well as the use of more ground water, including warm artesian supplies.

It may be noted that the supply of broodstock and fry to be used throughout the country is adequate, and in a country as small as Hungary, distribution from hatcheries to rearing ponds is relatively easy.

9.3 Prospect

The yield from capture fisheries seems to be holding up well. Eventually, however, one can only visualize a decline especially in the river fisheries as stream regulation and drainage continue and if pollution cannot be abated. An optomistic statement by Hungary/EIFAC (1974) said that although pollution of natural waters was increasing, the production from capture fisheries was not decreasing because new reservoirs were being built. There are also plans to construct dams exclusively for recreational purposes. However, as has been indicated, storage capacity in Hungary is relatively small, and the quality of its surface water is unduly determined by effluent discharge from upstream countries.

Similarly, it is difficult to foresee an increase in commercial yield from Hungary's few natural lakes, with their ever-increasing multiple use, unless eel stocking raises the output. At Lake Balaton, for example, its water quality started to deteriorate at the beginning of the century with modifications in the shoreline and water levels. Undisturbed shoreline now constitutes only 60 percent of the lake, and reeds, which are natural filters, are perishing (Dévai and Moldovan, 1983). With increased nutrient loading it is now almost hypereutrophic, and being a large resort area the lake is subject to many activities incompatible with fishing.

The growth of angling in Hungary, aided by the activity of the angling associations and the HNAU, and with support by the Government, is significant. With angler-catch already exceeding that of commercial fishermen in some waters, there is growing conflict between the two groups, despite the governmental policy of their integration. Stocking waters intensively with commercial-size fish and development of fee-fishing is one measure to offset the increase in angling intensity.

All in all, the greatest possibility of sustained and increased fishery yield-in-Hungary lies in the field of intensive aquaculture of warmwater species. Aside from technical problems in rearing these fish, there are some difficulties in obtaining consumer acceptance of the Chinese carps and lessened demand for the traditional common carp. Improvements in processing will alter demand, especially as more “kitchen-ready” fish are placed on the market. Sales of live fish will decrease. Meanwhile, a very high demand for the so-called “high-value” fish such as eel, European catfish, pike-perch and sturgeon and efforts to produce these species easily will increase.

The fifth Hungarian National Five-Year Plan (1976–80) called for a 45 percent increase in fishery production, i.e., to about 44 500 t in 1980. An even more optamistic prediction was made by Amir (1986) who expected the production in Hungary to reach about 60 000 t in 1986 and who spoke of a target for 1990 of 80 000 t. However, as is shown in Table 6, the increase by 1980 was only slight, because of “unfavourable conditions”, and as shown in Table 11, the prediction by Amir (1986) was altogether too high. Continuation of efforts to increase the catch will be based on a threefold system: intensification of pond production; reconstruction of old fish ponds and establishment of new ones; and more intensive management of natural waters.

It should also be noted that Hungary has established various incentives to improve the quality of its waters, and taken many measures to prevent adverse damage to the surface waters that support all of its fisheries.

10. REFERENCES SPECIFIC TO HUNGARY

Alföldi, L., E. Almássy and P. Major, 1978 Methods for estimating ground water resources and the balance of subsurface waters. In Water development and management. Proceedings of the United Nations Water Conference, Mar del Plata, Argentina, March 1977, edited by A.K. Biswas. Oxford, Pergamon Press, Vol.1, Part 4, pp. 1679–92

Amir, A.A., 1986 Hungary boosts supplies from ponds farm. Fish Farm.Inter., 13(7):24

Andrikovics, S.,1975 Macrofaunal biomass in the submerged vegetation stands of Lake Velence. In Limnology of shallow waters, edited by J. Salánki and J.E. Ponyi. Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó, pp. 247–54

Arai, S., 1977 Eel culture in Hungary. A report prepared for the Development of Fish Culture Prject. Rome, FAO, FAO, FI:HUN/71/512/3:10 p.

Ballo, I.Z., 1973 Water resources administration in Hungary. UN Paper presented to the Interregional Seminar on Current Issues of Water Resources Administration, New Delhi, 1973

Balogh, L., L. Kozma and G. Mosonyi, 1975 Halastavi peosenyekacsa (Fish-cum-duck culture). Budapest, Mezógazadasági Kiadó, 210 p.

Benedek, P. and T. Simó, 1978 Environmental aspects of pollution control in Hungary. In Water development and management. Proceedings of the United Nations Water Conference, Mar del Plata, Argentina, March 1977, edited by A.K. Biswas. Oxford, Pergamon Press, Vol.1, Part 4, pp. 1693–709

Biró, P., 1975 Observatins on the fish production of Lake Balaton. In Limnology of shallow waters, edited by J. Salánki and J.E. Ponyi. Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó, pp. 273–9

Biró, P., 1977 Effects of exploitation, introductions, and eutrophication on percids in Lake Balaton. J.Fish.Res.Board Can., 34(10):1678–83

Biró, P., 1978 Exploitation of fishery resources of Lake Balaton. Verh.Int.Ver.Theor.Angew.Limnol., 20(4):2146–9

Biró, P., 1979 Human impacts on biomass, population size, and yield-per-recruits of asp (Aspius aspius L.) in Lake Balaton. In Human impacts on life in fresh waters, edited by J. Salánki and P. Biró. Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó, pp. 125–39

Biró, P., 1984 Lake Balaton: a shallow Pannonian water in the Carpathian Basin. In Ecosystems of the world 23. Lakes and reservoirs, edited by F.B. Taub, Amsterdam, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., pp. 231–45

Central Statistical Office (Hungary), 1975 Hungary today, 1975. Budapest, Central Statistical Office, 249 p.

Dévai, G. and J. Moldován, 1983 An attempt to trace eutrophication in a shallow lake (Balaton, Hungary) using chironomids. Hydrobiologia, 103:169–75

Dobrai, L., Z. Thuránszky and G. Pékh, 1981 Fisheries in Hungary. Budapest, Interpress, 78 p.

Dvihally-Tamás, S., 1975 Primary production of the Hungarian Danube. Verh.Int.Ver.Theor.Angew.Limnol., 19(1):1715–22

Elekes, K., 1972 Modern fish ponds in Hungary. In Advanced planning. Water use in agriculture, edited by I. Markó. Budapest, Épitésügyi Tájékoztatási Központ, pp. 103–8

Erdei, F. (ed.), 1968 Information Hungary. Oxford, Pergamon Press, 1144 p.

FAO, 1988 Hungary. Fishery Country Profile, FAO, FID/CP/HUN. February 1988, 4 p.

FAO, 1976 Department of Fisheries, Summary report of the second session of the International (Scientific) Advisory Panel of the UNDP/FAO Project for Development of Fish Culture Research in Hungary (HUN/71/512), 24–27 February 1976. Rome, FAO, March 1976 (HUN/71/512):16 p. (mimeo)

FAO/UNDP, 1979 Development of fish culture research Hungary. Project findings and recommendations. Terminal report. Rome, UNDP/FAO, (FI:DP/HUN/71/512):75 p.

Fodor, E. (ed.), 1984 Fodor's Hungary 1984. New York, David McKay Co., Inc., 421 p.

Hungarian Central Statistical Office, 1987 Statistical Yearbook, 1987. Budapest, 431 p.

Hungary/EIFAC, 1974 Country report on inland fishery activities in Hungary, 1973. (Paper sent to EIFAC Secretariat by EIFAC Correspondent for the 8th Session of EIFAC, 1974).

Hungary/EIFAC, 1974a Information on inland water fisheries production in Hungary. (Response to a questionnaire, EIFAC/74/Circ.10, Nov. 1974). Unpublished.

Hungary/EIFAC, 1977 Information on inland water fisheries production in Hungary. (Response to the EIFAC Secretariat.) Unpublished.

Hungary/EIFAC, 1989 Information on inland water fisheries production in Hungary. (Response to the EIFAC Secretariat.) Unpublished.

Iyengar, H.D.R., 1974 Report of travel to Hungary for terminal evaluation of WFP/HUN/606 - Fisheries Development (3–14 June 1974). FAO Fish.Travel Rep.Aide Mem., (915):8 p.

Keefe, E.K. et al., 73 Area handbook for Hungary. Washington, D.C., Superintendent of Documeuments (DA PAM 550–165):338 p.

Köváry, J., 1971 The methods and techniques employed in the development of eel fishing in Hungary. EIFAC Tech.Pap./Doc.Tech.CECPI, (14):119–23

Központi Statisztikai Hivatal, 1981 Statisztikai Évkönyv, 1980.. Budapest, 541 p.

Központi Statisztikai Hivatal, 1982 Statisztikai Évkönyv, 1981. Budapest, 411 p.

Láng, I., 1979 Present and future of Lake Balaton, introductory remarks. In Human impacts on life in fresh waters, edited by J. Salánki and P. Biró. Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó, pp. 15–20

Pintér, K., 1978 Socio-economic aspects of the development of sport fisheries in Hungary. In Recreational freshwater fisheries: their conservation, management, and development. Proceedings of a conference of the Water Research Centre held at Keble College, Oxford, 12–15 December 1977, edited by J.S. Alabaster. Medmenham, U.K., Water Research Centre, pp. 181–94

Pintér, K., 1980 Exotic fishes in Hungarian waters: their importance in fishery utilization of natural water bodies and fish farming. Fish.Manage., 11(4):163–7

Pintér, K., 1983 Hungary. In World fish farming: cultivation and economics, by E.E. Brown. Westport, Connecticut, AVI Publishing Co., pp. 278–94 2nd ed.

Pintér, K., 1986 Hungary. In National reports of EIFAC member countries for the period January 1984 – December 1985 (edited) by European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission. EIFAC Occ.Pap./Doc.Occas.CECPI, (16):57–69

Pintér, K., 1988 Hungary, In National reports of EIFAC member countries for the period January 1986 – December 1987 (edited) by European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission. EIFAC Occ.Pap./Doc.Occas.CECPI, (20):49–64

Rabanal, H.R., 1971 Report on travel to Hungary for evaluation of WFP 606 - Pilot project for the Development of Fisheries, 17–21 May 1971. FAO Fish.Travel Rep.Aide Mem., (571):9 p.

Rezler, J., 1957 The land. In Hungary, edited by E.C. Helmreich. New York, Frederick A. Praeger, pp. 34–44

Thuránszky, Z., 1978 Hungary. In Reports from EIFAC member countries. Biennium, 1976–78 (Meeting paper). Rome, FAO, EIFAC/78/Inf.7:51–2 (mimeo)

Thuránszky, Z., 1982 Hungary. In Country reports of EIFAC member countries for intersessional period 1980–82, edited by K. Tiews. (Meeting paper). Rome, FAO, EIFAC XII/82/16:41–2 (mimeo)

Tóth, J. and P. Biró, 1984 Exotic fish species acclimatized in Hungarian natural waters. EIFAC Tech.Pap./Doc.Tech.CECPI, (42)Vol.2:550–4

Vámos, R. and R. Tasnádi, 1975 Soda and H₂S formation in alkali lakes. In Limnology of shallow waters, edited by J. Salánki and J.E. Ponyi. Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó, pp. 189–93

Woynarovich, E., 1979 The feasibility of combining animal husbandry with fish farming, with special reference to duck and pig production. In Advances in aquaculture, edited by T.V.R. Pillay and W.A. Dill. Farnham, Surrey, England, Fishing News Books Ltd., pp. 203–8

Anon./Hungary, 1976 Report on Hungarian fisheries, 1974–75. (Received from Hungarian Correspondent to EIFAC), 3 p. (mimeo)

Anon., 1979 Hungary, 1979. Budapest, Buda Press, 81 p.

Anon.,¹ 1982 Hungary country review. In Allocation of fishery resources. Proceedings of the Technical Consultation on Allocation of Fishery Resources, held in Vichy, France, 20–23 April 1980, edited by J.H. Grover. FAO/American Fisheries Society, pp. 586–90

Anon., 1984 Country report 1982–84. Hungary. In National reports for the intersessional period 1982–84/Rapports nationaux pour la periode inter-sessions 1982–84, edited by the (EIFAC) Secretariat/edités par le (CECPI) Secrétariat. Meeting paper. Rome, FAO, EIFAC/XIII/84/Inf.4:45–51 (mimeo)

¹ Although this reference should have been credited to K. Pintér in the original publication, I have retained the citation Anon. (1982) in order to facilitate literature search