Comments of Slovakia on Replies of Hungary to Questions
put by Members of the Court; Comments of Slovakia on
Hungary's Observations on the PHARE Report

02/05 '9i 16:55 ~~ +421 i 5162355 MZVSR OMSD +·H OSPINA 141002

COMMENTS OF SLOVAKIA ON HUNGARY'S ANSWER
TO THE QUESTION OF JUDGE RANJEVA, POSED ON 7 MARCH 1997

Slovakia wishes to make a few, brief comments on Hungary·s Answer to the
following Question of Judge Ranjeva:

,Can Hungary draw up a table calling to mind:

(1) the financial commitmentsannouncedby the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republies;

(2) the fulfilment of those commitmentsby the USSR;and

(3) the impact of thatfulfilment on performanceof the Gabëikovo-Nagymaros
Project?"

First. Hungary refers to ,the USSR's Joan"(at para. 7 of its Answer). This is
misleading. There was no lean, but merely an agreement to supply goods (turbine­
generator units) and technical services,he USSR·scosts being met ,on the basis of
theAgreement on settling multilateral accounts by transferable roubles" (HM, Vol. 3,
Annex23).

Second, it is noted that the relevant agreement between Hungary and the
USSR was signed after the 1977 Treaty. A similar agreement was aise signed
between the USSR and Czechoslovakia for the supply of turbines at Gabëikovo -
after the 1977 Treaty (Agreement between the USSR and Czechoslovakia on
Cooperationin relation to the Gabëikovo Partof the G-N Project, 15June 1978).

Third. as to the approximate value of the goods and services, Hungary
suggests a figure of 150 million roubles. But at paragraph 3.33 of the Hungarian
Memorial, the figure of 100 million roubles is mentioned in relation to a lean to
Hungaryand Czechoslovakia (it is unclear as to whether this sum woutd be shared

orbeto each party).

Fourth, it is claimed by Hungary that commitments were not fulfilled due tc
,financial constraints" (para. 6). No supporting reference is given and it is unclear
which party (the USSR or Hungary) was suffering from ,financial constraints". The

impression is given,as in the Hungarian Memorial (para. 3.42), that the USSR was
financially unable to meet its commitments.This appears unlikely, particularly as the
USSRmade no attempt to terminale the similar agreement, mentioned above, that
existed between the USSR and Czechoslovakia. While the USSR/Czechoslovakia
agreement was not implemented as intended, this was sole!y because
Czechoslovakiawished to utilise its own turbinesfrom the Skoda works.

Fifth. it follows that, as to the alleged ,serious resource shortage" (Answer,
para.7), Czechoslovakia could also have supplied turbines to Hungary.

102/05 '97 16:55 FAX +421 7 5162355 MZV SR OMSD -7-7-OSPINA l4l03

Sixth, it is unclear what impact the non-supply of USSR built turbines could
have had. This equipment had no purpose prior to the construction of the
Nagymaros barrage_-which, of course, never happened.

Finally, it is clear from Hungary's Answer that it managed to finance the
construction of Nagymaros in a satisfactory manner.

2 -t-H OSPINA 141004
02/05 '9i 16:55 FAX +421 i 5162355 MZVSR OMSD

COMMENTS OF SLOVAKlA ON HUNGARY'S ANSWER TO THE
.. .. UESTION OF JUDGE VERESHCBETIN

The question that Judge Vereshchetin put to Hung:uy is asfollows:

,This moming) the counselfor Hungary menti.onedtbat in November 1989)

Hungm.yhad handed overto Czechoslovakia aprelim:inary drafttreaty on the
completion of the project without Nagymaxos.My question isthe following: In
1990-1992, the period proceedin.gthe ter.minationof the Treaty by Hlmgary, did
Hungm.yfonnally reiterate this proposai or propose new concrete modificationsto the

1977 Treaty andto the project itselfwhich, ifaccepted by the other Party, would have
met Hungary's environmenta.Lpolitical and economie concernsand permitted to
preserve the integrated chaxacterof the project?"

1. There are two separate questions here: fust. during 1990-1992, did Hungary ever
reiterate the proposai contained :inthe draft amendment to the 1977 Treaty presented to
Czechoslovakia with Hungary'sNote Verbale of30 November 1990 ~Vol 4, Annex 30);

secon4; apart form thisproposai of 30 November, didHungary during 1990-1992 propose any
,,new concrete modifications to the 1977 Treaty and to the project itself" which, had they been
accepted by Czechoslovakia, ,would have met Hungary's environmental, political and
economie concems and permitted to preserve the integrated character of the project"?

2. Hungary's answer to the fust question is,,no", and Slovakiaagrees witb.that answer.
But Hungary fa:ilsto answer the second question, whose answer is also ,,no" and it wrongly

states thatCzechosl.ovakianever made ,an equivalent o.ffer". Hungary's account of events
covering the years 1990-1992 ismislead:ingand inaccurate.

3. Hungary's proposai of 30 November 1989 to amend the 1977 Treaty must be

viewed in the context of the negotiations tb.at followed Hungary 'sunilateral suspensions of
work at Nagymaros and at GabCikovo.At meetings on 24 May and again on 20 July 1989,the
two Prime Mnisters had agreed to undertake jo:in.t_stud:i.es into Hunga:ry's env:ironm.ental
concems so as to be able to discusswhat action to take concem:ÏngNagymaros before the end

of October 1989. Alth.ougb.no such joint studies were begun_l,the negotiations between the
Treaty parties:inOctober 1989took an encouraging turn.,according to Hungary's own account
(HM. para. 3.96). For at another meeting of Prime Ministers on 11 October, Hungary's Mx.

Némethadvanced the followingproposai in the form of a ,trade": Czechoslovaki.awould agree
to the abandonment of the Nagymaros part of the Project; Hungary, in turn, would resume
work at GabCik:ovoand prepare for the da:mmin.gof the Danube in a year's time (one year
behind the agreed schedule as a result ofHungary's suspension ofwork at Dnnakiliti on 20

July) based on mutually agreed environmental and water quality guarantees conceming the
operation of Gabcikovo. (See. SR, paras. 7.26-7.40, conceming the events covered by this
para. and by pm·as.4-6, below.)

1 ln July 1989, Hungary commissioned the Sechtel study, whose report was issued in February 1990.
Hungary did not await the resultsofthis study before abandoning Nagymaros (on 27 October), and
Czechoslovakia was unaware of the study atthe time. See. e.g., SR, paras.8.26 and 11.22-11.24.

1 1405
02/05 '9i 16:55 FAX +421 i 5162355 MZVSR OMSD +·H OSPINA '

4. The Czechoslovak Prime M:in:istergave his Government 'sresponse to Hunga:ry's 11

October proposai at a meeting with Mx. Németh on 26 October. He virtually accepted
Hungary's proposal ..as to GabC:ikovo,proposing only to advance somewhat the date for
resumption ofwork.Asto Nagymaros, he tabled a counter-proposal, aimed directly at meeting
Hungacy:'s environmental concem.s:

To allow tim.efor the agreedjoin.t stu.dies,he proposed that the 15-month speed-up of
work under the Febmary 1989 Proto col be cancelled asto Nagymaros, allmv.inga great
deal oftime for study before resuming construction there, :inaddition to the fact that

Nagymaros would not go :intooperation under the revised schedule for another four or
:fiveyears.

To further ease Hun.gary's concems over the effects of peak mode operation, he
pledged tb.atCzechoslovak:i.awould even abandon peak power if the joint studies so

indicated.

5. Four days later, by Note Verbale of30 October, Czechoslovakia confirmed its Prime
Ministersproposais.At the same time,in the light of the fact that its proposais would allow

plenty of time for :further study before any environm.ental threat could possibly arise,
Czechoslovak:ia made Îtclear that it saw no justification at the time for the amendment of the
1977 Treaty in order to abandon Nagymaros.

6.On 27 October, the day following the cr.iticalmeeting of Prime Ministers, Hun.gary
officially abandoned Nagymaros by Govemment Resolutiongivinginstru.ctionsthat r~:l.lJ.!~.4
. private law contracts·btennin.ate·d·(HM rs~o).-Iso·actng,Hunmgar-xanied
out, to the letter, the recommendations made the month before by the Hardi committee (see.

SC-M, paras. 5.29 and7.10; see. also, SR, para. 7.29). However, the Resolution reaffirmed
Hungary's proposai to proceed with Gabcikovo subject to a guarantees agreement (see. SR,
paras. 8.16-8.18). Thus, the 30 November amendment proposai was advanced by Hunga.Q!!ê.
month a:fteÎthad definitively abandoned the Nagymaros section of the Project. There was no

longer any chance to ,preserve the integrated character of the project". What Hun.gary sought
by itsamendment proposai was for Czechoslovakia to accept this fait accompli and to absolve
it of any vvrong doing. But, of course, Czechoslovakia had already po:inted out a month before
that thereas no justification for such an amendmsice there was plenty of time to exanrine

thoroughly the poSSJ.'edverse e:ffectsofthe Nagymarodam and of peak mode operation on
the environment and on water quality, which Hungary claimedto fear.

7. What had changed by then was that Hungary had unilaterally acted to abandon

Nagymaros; it was no longer a negotiable topiIn addition, in its 30 November proposai,
Hungary expressly linked the October proposai made by Hungary to proceed with GabCikovo
(subject to a gu.arantees agreement) to Czechoslovakia's acceptance of a Treaty amendment
efuninating the Nagymaros section and peak mode operation - and witb..it any legal

respoDSI'biliofHungary for its unilateral abandonment - even before joint studies had begun
(see. SR, paras. 8.19-8.21).

8.As Hungary's Answer points out, the Treaty amendment proposai of 30 November
was made at a time when. Czechoslovakia was in the tbroes of the Velvet Revolution: a new

Govemment was installed in Prague on 10 December, and a President was elected on 29
December 1989. In contrast- and contrary to the mislead:ingimpression gi:venby paragraph 6
of Hungary's Answer- the change of Government in Hungary occurred later, in May 1990,

202/05 '9i 16:55 FAX +421 i 5162355 MZVSR OMSD -7-H OSPINA @006

when the Németh Government was replaced by a multi-party Govemment. l'hus, it was the
same Németh Govemment that had participated in al1ofHungary's actions during 1989 and in
the negotiations betw.een May and November 1989 which, by Ietter dated 10 January 1990 to
Czechoslovak:ia's new Prime Minister, took the next decisive step (HR, Vol 4, Annex 32).
Hunga:ty's su.mmary of thisletter is in.com.pleteand mislead:ing.

9.Mr. Németh's 10 January letter notified Czechoslovakia of three thlngs:

• First. that Hungary had defin:itively abandoned Nagymaros and had taken measures to
terminate the related private law contracts. As a result, neitb.er proceeding with the
construction of Nagymaros nor peak mode operation (whlch depended on Nagymaros)
were any longer matters for negotiation. This merely confum.ed what the Hungarian
Government had aJread.ydecided in.its Resolution of 27 October 1989.

• Second, that Hungary had withdrawn its proposai of October 1989, repeated (albeit in.
modi:fied form) :inits 30 November draft Treaty amendment, to proceed with GabCikovo
subject to a guarantees agreement. J:nsteaHungary pl'Oposeda reassessment ofwhetb.er the
Project should proceed at ali following ajoint scientific study.

• Thir4 hat these stu.diesshould be scheduled for completion by the second half of 1990 so
as to allow the new Governments of the Treaty parties to m.ake the finaldecisions
conceming the Project and any necessary Treaty amendments or even an entirely new

t:reaty. Of coursesinceHungary had already abandoned Nagymaros, the only decisions th.at
remained concemed GabCikovo. Therefore, the assertion in Hungary' s Answer (para. 2) th.at
Mr. Németh proposed in his 10 January letter that joint :investigations ,should be extended
to theOriginal Project as a whole" is incorrect. The issue ofNagymaros was a closed book

by that time.

10. For the same reason, paragraph 3 of Hungary's Answer is misleading. After 30
November, Hungary never deviated from its :insistencethat the Treaty be amended to eliminate
Nagym.aros from the Project That decision was taken without any attempt to proceed with

joint studies of supposed environmental risks.Czechoslovak:i.a's26-30 October proposai asto
Nagymaros, whlch would have allowed ample time for suchstudies, was totally ignored by
Hungary. Its defin:iti:vedecision to abandon Nagymaros on 27 October was never a matter th.at
Hungary was willing to discuss thereafter. The only issue for discussion by the end of 1989, so

far as Hungary was concemed, was whether to abandon the entire Project.

11. Hungary's Answer also misdescribes the final two exchanges between Prime
Ministers before Hungary acted to abandon the entire Project by mid-1990. While proposing

the resumption ofnegotiations, the new Czechoslovak Prime Minister's 15 February response
toMr. Németh's 10 January letter did not accept Hungary's proposai for theixresumption as
set out byMr. Németh. He specifically referred back to the 30 November Treaty amendment
proposai conceming the putting into operation during 1991 of the Gabcikovo section on a joint

basis -that is, to the environmental guarantees agreement proposai that Hungary had fust
tabled inOctober 1989. And he proposed that Hungary :furtb.erelaborate its ideas for Treaty
amendments for discussion :iJune 1990. The new Prime M:in.isterwas clearly trying to pick up
the negotiati.ons at the point they had left off at the end of 1989, when. the Velvet Revolution

startedto occupy Czechoslovakia 's :full attention. It was evident that Hunga:ry's own proposai
in 1989 to proceed with the Gabcik:ovo section subject to a guarantees agreement was entirely
different from its 10 January proposai to conduct jo:int studies to investigate whether
Gabcikovo ough.tnot also tobe abandoned along with Nagymaros.

302/05 '97 16:55 FAX +421 7 5162355 MZVSR OMSD -H->OSPINA 141007

12. The final episode in the negotiati.ons ane~cha nhat eemed to have begun so
fmitfu11y.inthe autumn of 1989 was Prime Minister's Németh letter of 6 March 1990. He
made it ccystal clear-thatonly the fate of the GabCikovo section remained at issue and that

Hungary had withdrawn its proposai to proceed subject to a guarantees agreement. He
expressed Hungary's current assessment of the Project :in calling it a ,giganti.c investment
fiasco".

13. Thereafter, there were no furtb.er negQti.ations during. 1990. concerning how to

proceed with the Gabcikovo section of the Project. Hungary' s 1992 Declaration makes it clear
that,by mid-1990, ailrelated private law contracts had been terminated by Hungary (Hl.\1,
Vol 4, Annex 82, at p. (162). The same document makes thisstatement conceming the
attitude of the new Hungarian Government to theG-N Project (ibid.. at p. 163}:

,,A.fterthe change of the political regime, the new Hungarian govemmentpub1ished
litsgeneral politi.calprogramme on 22 May 1990. The programme announ.ced /.inter aliatb.at
,The Govemment, on the ground of experts' opinion, considers the construction of the Danube

Barrage System as a m.istaken project, and willinitiate, as soon as possible, negotiations on
the rehabilitation and the sh.aringof damag'Mtbthe Czechoslovak govemment to be
elected".

14. The meeting of Environmental M.inisters on 5 September 1990, mentioned in
paragraph 7 of Hunga.:ry's Answer. was for the pmpose of informing Hungary of the
provisional alternatives then under study by Czechoslovakia. It was a briefing not a
negoti.ation.he meetings ofthe Plenipotentiaries and the Joint Operational Group during 1990

were purely technicalin nature an:dnutdîrect:eâ atadvmcm groposalS-toresolvetliedispufe.
As Hungary's 1992 Declaration states, :inter-govemmental negotiations did not resume until
April1991 (ibid., at p. 163). The impression Hungary's Answer tries to give of continuing
negotiations during 1990 and prior to April1991 is :incorrect- there were no such negotiations;

but in the meantime Hunga.:ryhad succeeded :inhaving the scheduled darnming of the Danube
unilaterally postponed for a second year. ·

15. Hunga.:ry'sabandonm.ent ofthe entire Project by mid-1990 was made official :inthe

Hungarian Govemment's Resolution of20 December 1990 (HM, Vol 4, Annex 153). In this
Resolution, the respoDSJ.oleM:inisterswere instru.cted to start negotiations with Czechoslovakia
,on the terminati.on of the 1977 Treaty by mutual consent and on the conc1usion of a treaty
addressing the consequences of the term:inati.on".Thereafter, the Hungarian Govemment never
aga:inshowed the slightest :intere:inor advanced any proposais aimed at, the resumption of

anypart of the Treaty Project on a jo:intbasis.

16. Hungary's An.swer (para. 11) contends that by the end of 1990: ,Slovakia was, as
has now become clear, work:ing hard on the preparation of Variant C. Thus it opposed any

compromise that could be reached by the federal Govemment /ie.,Czechoslovakia/." It goes
onto assert that .:in,,December 1990 and Januacy 1991 the Slovak Govemment.completed and
approved design details of the construction of Variant C". Dur.ing the oral hearings, Slovakia
descn'bed the nature of these studies of alternatives being examined by Czechoslovakia in the

lighofHungacy's refusai to proceed with GabCikovo (see. CR 97/15, pp. 15-16). They were
the sorts of internai··precauti.onary measures any t·esponst'ble govemment takes in such
circu.mstances. Hungacy was, in fact, periodically briefed as to these studies of alternatives and
variants; they were not being undertaken in secret as Hunga.:ryhere intimates. But the only
point of relevance to Judge Vereshchetin's Question is that, a:fter its abandonment of the

4 -H->OSPINA 141008
02/05 '97 16:55 FAX +421 7 5162355 MZVSR OMSD

Project in1990, Hungary made no concrete proposais of any kiiÏd other than for the total

termination of the 1977 Treaty. In contrast, as the subsequent negotiations in1991 revealed,
Czechoslovakia was making eve.cyeffort to get Hungary to make concrete proposais for joindy
resuming Gabcik:ovo, and Czechoslovakia itse1fadvanced a number of alternatives.

17. The nex:t round of inter-govemmental negotiations consisted of meetings in Ap~
July and December 1991. Prior to the Aprilmeeting, the Hungarian Parliament had limited the
mandate of itsGovernment 'snegotiations to the te:rmination of the Treaty.This, of course, was
:inline'WÏththe Hun.garian Govemment's Resolution of 20 December 1990 (see. CR 97/10, pp.

53-54). Paragraph 15 of Hungazy's Answer is, therefore, correct: Hnngary proposed at the
April meeting to terminate the Treaty, and Czechoslovakia did not accept that proposai But
there were no Hungarian proposaJs to ma.ke,alterations to the Project". The Project had ended

a year before, so far as Hungary was concemed, when it terminated the related private law
contracts.

18. The second meeting of 14-15 July 1991 was criti.cal -but it is not mentioned in

Hungazy'sAnswer. just as it was studiously avoided in Hungary' s written and oralpleadings. It
was during thismeeting that it became clear to Czechoslova.kia that Hungary' s sole goal was to
secure an agreement to terminate the 1977 Treaty. What transpired during tb.esenegotiations
has been extensively descnbed in Slovakia's pleadings (see. SR, paras. 9.13-9.22; SC-M. para.

5.75, et seq .). Prior to the meeting, Czechoslovakia called upon Hungary to suhmit any
suggestions itwished to have considered; none were submitted by Hungary. At the meeting,
Czechoslovaki.a proposed that each side formulate variants to the Treaty Project for submission
to a trilateral commission, and itself came up witb. four such alternatives, none of which

included Variant ,C". Hungary sub.mitted no proposais and adhered to its linrited mandate to
negotiate only about termination of the 1977 Treaty. It blocked Czechoslovakia's suggestion of
a trilateral commission by imposing a condition thataliwork on the Project be stopped - and at

this time no work on Variant ,C" had been started (see. CR 97/10, pp. 58-59, and CR 97/15,
p. 28).

19. At the July meeting, one of Czechoslovakia's proposed variants for proceed:ing

joindy with GabCikovo (called Variant ,,D") was precisely the sort of proposai that Judge
Vereshchetin has inquired about. It involved a ,canal solution" on the assumption tb.at
Nagymaros would not be built and there would be no peak mode operation. Under this variant,
there was to be no reservoir, only a by-pass canal and a run-of-the-river power plant at

GabCikovo. But during the negotiations Hungary refused to consider this or any other
alternative. It was only after this meeting that Czechoslovakia, on 25 July 1991, decided to
authorise initiaplamri:ngand financing for Variant ,C" (see. CR 97/10, p. 59).

20. Czechoslovakia called again upon Hungacy, by Note Verbale of 27 August, to
submit proposais for a solution to the dispute. And as Slovakia 's written pleadings and oral
presentations have shown, even after Czechoslovakia proceeded 'W:i.thVariant ,C" in

November 1991, following the issuance of a construction permit on 30 October 1991 which
became effective on 18 November, it over and over again urged Hungary to submit proposais
for the joint resumption of Gabcikovo for the consideration of a trilateral commission. Hungazy
tumed a deaf ear and.blocked all attempts at appointing a trilateral com:mission (see, para. 26,

below).

21. In paragraph 17 of Hungary's Answer, the unprecedented appearance of
Czechoslovakia's Environmental M.inister, Mr. Vavrousek, before the Hungarian Parliam.ent's

5 MZVSR OMSD -H-7 OSPINA i4009
02/05 '97 16:55 R~ +421 7 5162355

Committees for the Env:ironment, for the Economy and for Foreign Relations is discussedHis

appearance was two months before Czechoslovakia proceeded witb.Variant ,C", as well as
p1iorto the last of the 1991 negoti.ations, on 2 December. Mr. Vavrou8ek's statement is of
direct pertinence to the Question. fitrepresented attempt by Czechoslovakia to get Hungazy
to join in a constructive attempt to resolve the dispute.

22. What Mr. Vavrou8ek proposed was that ali the possible variants and alternatives be
examin.edin an open manner and that the Hungarian negoti.ators be released from their narrow
mandate to consider only the termination oftb.e Treaty. Hungary states in paragraph 17 ofits

Answer that ,,Hungary agreed, but by th.at stage Variant C was well underway and no joint
:investigationwas posSible". Of com-sethiis incorrect: a construction permit had not yet been
issued and no steps to proceevviththe fust construction acti:v.iconcem.ing Variant , C" had

been taken.And even tb.ough in:itiplanning and financ:ingfor Variant ,C" had been approved
on 25 July, inthe light of Hungazy's refusai during the 14-15 July negoti.ations to give any
considerationto other variants for resu:mlng Gabcikovo on a joint basis, by its Note Verbale of
27 August Czechoslovalcia renewed its request that Hungary come up with.proposais for a

technical solutionf the dispute, a request to which Hungary paid no heed.

23. And even.the assertion in paragraph 17 tb.at ,Hungary agreed" is incorrect.MI.
VavroU:Sek'sproposais were made to a joint session of tb.ree committees of Hungary's

Parliament. During the session,twas noted th.atthese committees had no decisional authority
over the Parliament, and, of course, they had nonein respect to the Hungarian Govemment,
either.Altb.ough, no joint communiqué was issued as Mr. Vavrou8ek had suggested, a joint

statement was subsequently made public by the three Parliament__ Ç~1'lJ_!!']Rt~~-~l!_]_j)_cto"f!~L-
199l{SM,- Â.t1.llex-98rtlfaf supportThé -o:riiiiiuatio.f- the-inter-govemmental talks but
contained no concrete proposais.

24. When these talks resumed on 2 December, the position of the .Hungarian
Govemment was, once again, totally obstructive. Clear Hluygary had not ,agreed". It made
no proposals; and itlaid down a 10-day ultimatum that work on the Project be stopped or
Hungazy would refuse to consider even the appointment of a trilateral commission. On 23

December, Hungary bluntly put anend to any :further discussion of the appointment of such a
commission (see. SR, pars. 9.27-9.33).

25. In contrast- rigb.t up 'to the time of Hungazy's Notification of tern:rination of the

1977 Treaty on 19 May 1992- Czechoslovakia made proposai after proposai seek:i.ngto find a
way to resume Gabcfkovo on ajoint basis (see. SR, paras. 9.34-9.48SC-M, paras. 5.93-5.112;
CR 97/10, pp. 54-55).

2
(SM, Annex 97). This unprecedented meeting tool< place on 11 September, not 9 November 1991,
as Hungary states.

6 lJ<:;U58 ï 1 b : 5;!• :- -J.;.v u -Jv v

Annexe 2 à HS 97/72
Annex 2 to HS97/72
,
MINlSTR.Y DE'FOREIGN91./:'P!JllRS
OFTHE SLDV91.IR<BPUBLIC

2 May 1997

Sir,

1 have the honour to acknowledge receipt ofyour letter No. 97158 of 28 April

1997 transmitting the answers of Hungary to questions put by Members of the Court
during the second round of oral hearings, together with observations on the PHARE
Report

ln confonnity with the decision of the Court, announced by the President at
the end of oral hearings (CR 97/15, p. 66), 1am attaching the comments of Slovakia
on Hungary's observations on the Phare Report.

Further, with reference to Article72 of the Rules of Court, 1 am sending the
comments of Slovakia on Hungary's answer to the question of the President.

Accept, Sir, the assurances of my highest consideration.

PeterTOMKA

Agent of the Slovak Republic

Mr. Eduardo VALENCIA-OSPINA
Registrar
ln~emati C oura lfJustice
PeacePalace

The Hague

Annexes:19.pages :, 02/05 '97 16: 55 FAX +421 7 5162355 MZV SR OMSD ·H-7 OSPINA 141011

CASE CONCERNING THE GABCIKOVO ..NAGYMAROS
PROJECT '(BIJNGARY/SLOV AKIA)

Slovak Republic

REPLY TO HUNGARY'S COMMENTS ON

THE ·pHARE REPORT

1. Intmdvmon

·1.1 Pretiminary Commenis

The EC PHARE report should be evaluated in the light of the report's contex.t in
relation to this dispute. The need.for a complex madel to help und.emtand the

problems a.:ffectiDg surface and ground waters in the Danubian. Lowland bad been
widely recogoized, particularly intheligb.tof the impacts of the Gabcikovo section of
the GIN Project Czechoslovakia's proposa4 in 1990, that Hungary participate in an
EC sponsored project, under the PHARE program, to develop a state of the art

computer modelling system was nonetheless rejected by Hungary. Czechoslovakia.
proceeded alone in the project, substantiallyfinanced by the EC and nm by an
:independent consortium of expert consul:taneyfirms. The project lasted fouryears.

Hungary has submitted no evidence of equivalent weigbt to the PHARE project' s
:findingsin tbis dispute. It bas not car.riedout an EIA subsequent to the 1985 ElA of
the Hunga:riau Academy of Sciences. It has merely produced the 1994 Scientific
Evaluation , which is a compilation of chapters by autbms (mainly) un:fa:miliawitb.

the Project area and whi~ ~y, 2 focus on uncertainti.es experi.en.cedin the
evaluation of the Project impacts •

With îts Reply, Slovakia .respondedto Hungary' s Scientitic Evaluation with studies
3
founded on a.ctUal .ata •It was only after theseexchanges tbat the PHARE report
appeared in ea:dy 1996. It,too, gave no support toHungaty's c:laims of an ecologi.c:al
state of necessity. Having sought to exelude the PHARE report on p.rocedural
grounds, Hungary now seeks to criticise the reporton technical grounds whilst,at the

same time, claiming tbat ~repor stpports Hungary's legal position.

In the commen.ts thst follow, it will be shown tbat theseapproaches aze ill-founded.
Hunga:ey'sc:ritisisms of the PHARE report are basedon a superficial and erroroneous

1
Volume 2tô tb.Hungarian Cowner-Memorial
3SR.,pa:ms1.13-1.17, 11.()4..11.06
SR, Vol.302/05 '97 16:55 FAX +421 7 5162355 MZV SR OMSD ""'O "S"PINA 141012 '

2

amdysis of its contents. And, Utde from its :findings, 1:hereis a tùrtheimportant

aspect totbe four year PHARE project. A state of the artcomputer modeiling system
has DOw beeu developed tha.tprovides the means for preàicting - and, therefore,
managing - tmviroi1.Il'le:Oal.acts. This is a management tool that goes iiu: beyond
the limited.analysesof an EIA..

It sbouldalso be emphasized tbat the PRARE projeet, iD addition to being carried out
by an international team of 25 speciallsts :frosix intem.atiomùly well known and
respected organisat iaon is~ own system of indeperu:lcnt review. Hence, in
co.rmection with two worlŒhopsheld in 1992 aad 1995, the following in:Œroational

experts undertook. revi.ews of the project meth.odology a:nd:resul:ts:
• ProfessorWolfgangl<in;Œlbacb, Kassel UDiver:sity(1992+ 1995)
• Dr. C.A.J. Appe.lo, Pree University AmsŒràam (1992)
• Dr. Hans-Peter Nachtnehel, Universï:tât ftlr Bod::nk.ultur, 'W.ien(19+21995)

• Pmfessor Ludwig Luckner, Institut tür Bodenknltur und Wasserwi:rtseha:ft,
Dresden (1992)
• Dr. Stefan B~ UNESCO, Paris (1992)
• Professor Johann Scbre:ù:Œr,Norddetttclle Natvrschniz Akademi, Scltneverdingeu
(1995).

-- ---1-.2-E!ontmta ofthisreply----- ----- ----------------------------------------

Inîts comments·on the PHARE report, dated 24 Aprill997, Hungary brlngs forward
num.crousclaims and sta:tementswhich, if' they sboulaUbe clari:fiedami comm.emed.
~ wmùd reqnire an even longer reply than the Hunga:rian commenta and tbt1r
Icla.ted a::rJDCX'his would be neitherusefu1 nor feasiblein 1he short tim.eavailable.

The present reply, thert=fô:re,does not pretendto adàre.ssail the issuesraised in the
Hungarian comments, but~ on the more impo:rtant cnes.

Some gebeia1comme.nts on the Rungarian approach of selecting quotati.ons from the
PHARE report are siven immediately below (Subsection 1.3) together witb general

comments on the .lack of scientifie balanceinthe fhmgarian comments. The :foll.owiDg
sectionsreply to the key points in Hungary's eoll'lii1eiltson documentation (Section 2),
review of moclel calibration and validation (Section 3) and rcview of model
applications (Section 4). These sections correspond to the chapters wi1:h the saane

n.um.ber in H"Clllgar" comments. F:i:nail:SectionS contaiŒ sŒne brief conelusioŒ.

1.3 HUD.gary's selective qu.ataioDS from the PHARE l"'CPOI'tnd i:tuse of 'IUl..
b:alaDŒd sdmtific: arguments

In H11llg3ry's cŒ:mnents on the PHARE report, Hungary acknowl.edges that the
PHARE project was ·~a ambiti.ous and extensive compu±c::prrogramme of compu.ter
simulation modelHng to provide tools to assistin enW:onm.etl:taassessttu:nto-f'water -H-7 OSPINA [gj013
02/05 '97 16:55 FAX +421 7 5162355 MZVSR OMSD

3

management in the Danubian Lowland'"". Hungary furtb.er :Œfe:J:Sto numerous
5
quotations from the PHARE report, wbich it states support Htmgary's concems.
However, Hungary a1so concludes that the model sim.ula:tions"are umeliable and fo:rm
no basis for dismissing long-term concems" •

The approach taken and the poims madein the Hungarian CO.JllDleD1saΠrepetitive of
its oral pleadings. Thus, as Slovakia has stated previously 7,Hungaey,s approach is
misleading and unscientific in certainaspects.

Hungaey"s Append.ix 3 contains 18 pages of selected extracts from the PHARE report.
Many ofthese are mislesding for one of the following two reasons:
• either the quotatio.ns are taken. completely out of context by selecting ooly .balf

sentences or o.mitting the explanatory comments in the following semences, t1ms
lea.v.inga distorted impression,
• or the quotations are 1aken from :thep.r:oblemidel'li:i:ficanectio.us, whiçh descri.be
processes tbat can occur in tbem:y, while the cor.responding tex:t from the

concluding sections are most often omitted. It is in these (omitted) sections of the
P.HARB zeport t:bat, on the basis of the comprebensive project work, the
conclusions may be found as to the extent tbat such processes. are impommt m

].XM1:ise. To present only the sentences from tbe problem identification section
gives the impression tba:theseseDtem:cs repzesent conclusions of the report.
Exam.plesof this are shown in Appendix 1to the present Reply.

As .result of this approach, the general overview, as weil as the balance between
positive and negative impacts, is lost. Of course the PHARE :Œportdoes not speak of
only positive impacts. But the Hungarian approach has been. to select the particular
sentences which :tàvour its case and say tbat only these sentences are credible and then

claim ·iludthe l1:Stis not reliibie. This is clearly ~le from a scientific
standpoinL

2.Documentation

8
Hungaey st:Uestbat 8he model documentation is inadequate and tha± "There are no
equations presented' . Hungm:y's statement merely seems to reflect the .fact tha.tthe
model documentation is not formally part of the Final Report. As noted. during the
oral pleadings 10, co.mpreb.ensi.vedocumentation bas of course been provided to the

project. 'l'hussciemific documentation (including extensive equations anddeser.iptîons
of numerical techniques) and users guides have been provided for all the models

4 Hungariau. comments on the PHARE reportp 1.
5Hungarian.commenta on the PHARE .report, Appcmd3 (iàentical to .AJ:mex13to Hlmgararal
presentation)
6Hungarian commeuts 011thePHARE reportp 17.
7CR 97115,pp ·30-:3(RdSgaani)

9Hnngarian camm.em on the PHARE report, 3.
10ungarian comments on the PHARE report, Appendix 1.p 1.
CR 97/15,p 31 (Re&gaard)02/05 '97 16:55 FAX +421 7 5162355 MZV SR OMSD -H-7 OSPINA [4014 .

4

brie.flydescribed. in Appendices Al-AlO of Volume 2 of the PHARE Final Report.
The documentation amolmts to more than 1500 pages and is thus not suitable for
inclusion in a:finalproject report.

This is enti:relusual practice a:o.cazmot come as a sw:prise to Hungary:
• First, it is welllaJDwn the profëssional scientific community tbat good madel
codes are alwa.yssupplied togetherwi'th comprehensive documentation.

• Second, two of the model codes applied .in thePHARE Project arc also being uscd
in Hungary 11• One of t:lu:mbas actŒl.ly been pmebased by the Govemment of
Hungary. namely the MIKB SHE mode! code, which isinstalled athe Ministty for
Env:ironment and Regional P.olic~Budapest.

The H•mgarian claim. tha:t the model documentation is inadequate is simply not
correct. For praeti.caresson tse~comprehessi:ve documentation available did not
form part ofthe PHARE Final .Report.

3. Model CaJibraüoo pnd VaUwtiou

3.1 Introduction

2
Slova.kia agreeswi:tb. Hungary s commen:tson the need for mode! calibration and
:rigorous validation tests inorder to demcmstra.tethe models, pŒdictive capabilities.
Such validation tests have generally been carried out following a rigorous procedure.
The comprehensive data existing bath for the pre-dam.situation and the post-dam

situationprovided.much more dif:ticuland more usefi:I4tests tban is usually possible.
Although mw::h data were available, more data would always be desirable. and as
statedin the PHARE Report there are examples of situations where a thorougb mode!
validation oftbe individual models wasnot possible. However, it IJJllSbe em:pha.sized

that these few exam.ples are exe§Ptions to a very comprehensive validmion test
scheme and have been blown out.of aliproportion by Hungary.

FurthermŒe, it shoulci be kept in mind tbat the modelling system is integrated, with
one model being dependent on (li.nketo)the other models. ~ for Hungary means

a '-potential for :mistakes"Itstates: "Small errors in assumed values for one part of
the calculationmay have disproporti.onate consequences on dependent processes. It is
also easy to overlook im.portanteffec1:sina.ttemptingto obtain a workable model'. 12•
This isa rather tb.eoretical view,. wbich bas nottaken all thestrengtbs of inte.gr:a:tl::d

modelling into account. The :integratemodelling cani.ed out in the PHARE project,
whete the interdependency between processes aΠdescribed as int.erdependency
bet:ween model dse~snot pose largerrisks tban. the mo:re traditi.onal use of indivi.dual

~sta atone' models. On the contrary,the factthsi possible er:rors for one part have
effects on other dependerrt processcs, implies ~ eVen if thefirst process cannat be

11PHARE Project, Final Report, December 1995. Vol2, AppcmdiM1K.E SHE installatiops2 and
MliΠ11:installsti, 2.
l2Hungarùm cmmnen:ts on the PHARE reporp.202/05 '97 16:55 ~~ +421 7 5162355 MZVSR OMSD ~-H OSPINA l4015

s

fully validated due to lack oda1! on tb.atprocess,then it can implicitlybe validated
by test:ing againsfield data on the othcr process.Or, in otherwo~ an integraŒd
modelling approach provides mucb. betterpossibilities for check:ingthe co:DSistencyof
the overal.l model against aildifferentsorts of data. and consequently mak.es much

more efficient use of the ex:isting dataAn13example of this is the mode! validation
againstdischarge data.in the seepageŒnals ,as discussed. below.

Hungary bas not presented any iDtegrated modelling at ali, buthas in its p1eadings

confined its presentations to limited modelling ofindividual processes. The Hungarian
comments to the PHARE project often.reflect thisnon-integratedapproach.

An important partof the modelling study is the assessment of uncertainties on model
simulations described in Volume 3 of the Final Report of the PHARE Project. The

value of this approach isin general aclmowledged by Hungary. Ho"M:Weri,t most
ofùm re-labels model resnltsack:nowledged as being 'un.cert.aias 'unreliable'.

3.2 River and Reservoir Hydrodynamic Modelling

The river and.reservoir hyd.rodynamics (i.e. flow velocities) benconsid.ered asquite
accumte, and under aU circumstances much less uncertain.tban the dependent
processes such as sediment 1ransport and water qwility.

Hungary's comments on the consequences of 1he relatively smal1amount of flow
velocity data in the reservcir4is out of propmûon to the real pmblem.. It ÎScom:ct
1hat limited data on .flow velocitieswere available. However, as flow mode11ing in.
such a reservoir with very well deiin.ed. geometry is quite simple and d.oes not

represent any :fimdamental scientific problem, the question of limited reservoir flow
databeing available is in the overalt contex:t not considered major.

Moreaver, such. data are easy and cheap to obtain. If it bad been consid.m:ed

scienti:fieallyimportant bthe international PHARE team. to get betterdata here, this
would easily have been passible within the :framework of the PHARE project. In fact,
the PHARE project funded much more expensive field wor:kon other topic w hich
were considered more important.

3.3 River and Reservoir Sediment Transport Modelling

Cohesive sediment transport modeJiing is.as menti.oned by Professer van Rijn 15, a

very complex task,and the parameters are in general assaciated with higb. degree of
uncertainty as .t;nmrtionedin the PHARE Final Report. In Volume 2, it isexplictly
stated:·"Some of the models, however, could stilneed fm:thercalibration in orderto
improve the accuracy. Furtbe.r data 'from CODtinous monitoring of the reservoir

13
14PHARE P.r o"maljl~art, December 1995. Vol2, Fig. 5.19
15Hungarian cammems on the PHARE repmt,p4
HungariancomJllentsothePHARE Report, Appendix 2 +·H OSPINA 141016
02/05 '97 16:55 FAX +421 7 5162355 MZVSR OMSD ,.

6

sedimentation are required. in ~ respect'' 1• Despite thisuncertainty due to mjssing

data,a high degree of consiste.ncyin the modelling results of the sedimentation in the
reservoir was nwealed even with very cgnseryatjve estimates of cri.ti.cvalues for
erosion and deposition as d.iscu.ssedbelow.

U.nfortnnate];y, Pro.fessor van Rijn only commented on Volume 2 of the PHARE
report (and appaŒmly only one partthereof}..In Volum.e 3~the uncertsinties in mociel
predictions and mode1 par.m1eters of the meDt:io.nedsediment transport models are

adressed in Section 6.4 (1-D madel of :theDanub 7.4)(~-D madel of the river branch
system), and 8.4 (2-D mode! of the reseiV.olr)T.heΠisno issue with the comment of
Pl:ofessor van Rij~ tbat 1he c.ritical velocityfor erosion is probably too low for
conmlidgtrd sediment. How.we th~ objective of tbe modellin.gVIaS DOt to sim:ulate

. erosion of consol.idaŒd.sedi:men.t;but to simulate depooîtion of 1JŒ sediment. For
flushing scenarios (notinclud iewo)l~ have been Œleva.nt. Hence, as mcntioned in
the PHARE Report 1, the erosiGnis :llGtade.mimmt proecss in the reservoir for the
i.nvestigatedscenarios where the objectives weΠto si:mulate the sec:timenta.t:i

patŒm. Uncertainties in erosion pm:aweters a.Œ II.QcritiŒl for the investigated
scenarios.

The ca3ibraticm.of fal1 velocity is based. on the -comparlson between the measured
grain size distribuûon of suspeaded seiüment and :newly depos:ited sediment. Thus,
both gram size distri.bution andfaH velocity are associated.with considerably less
:u.ncertaintycompared -10--tbe---uncertai:uty mon--erosioand deposition-rates.- .The

depüsltion l'aiecritical :tàil-velocityf"ordeposition) only be determiŒd accttrately
when adequate dm. on .reservoir sedimentation afte:rsome years are ava:i.J.able.

No standard cohesive sediment madel panuneters exist and a high degree of

variability :fromone applicationto anotber exists as menti.onedby .19ofessor van Rijn.
The parameters are not only site specifi.c8!but also mode! specific •As an exa:mple,
the critical velocity in a 1-D model Œfers to a cross-sectional averaged velocity

wh.ereas in a 2-D model itrefersto a deptb averaged velocity. The critica! velocity in a
1-D madel istherefore nooessa:rilysmallertban.the corresponding modcl parametcr in
a 2-D mode!. Only field measure:ments and in-situ tests provîde su:fficientdata for
accurate calibmtion of the cohesive sediment tmusport mode!. Due to lack of :field

measuremen.ts, prelimary values weŒ obtained from theliteŒture and not !east from
the experience of the consultants. In the refm:ence mentioned in the ~ an
extensive and very use:ful summaey of relevant literature is provideThe auth.or (L.C.

van Rijn) referred to other authors regarding examples of applied sediment
parameters. 'Examples of the infimnation obtai.ned :fromthe Handbook are:
• critical shear st:Œssfor deposition 0.06 N/m (Section 12.5 in the Handbook),
wbich correspond to 0.10 mis for a Chezy value of 40 m*'ls

16
11PHA.RE Project, Final~ DeŒmber 1995, Vol2, p 10-4!
111HARE Projeel;,FmaRepart,Vol. 3, Section 8.4.2
19HARE ProjectFinal Report. Vol.p7-32.
PHARE Pmject,;Final Report, V2,10-28
:zRijnL.C.van. 1989, "Handbook on sedimmttaasporbyeu.mmts andwa.ves,Delft HydraWics.
RepmtH461"02/05 '97 16:55 FAX +421 7 5162355 MZV SR 01\lSD -H-? OSPINA !41017

7

• critical velocity for erosion 0.30 m/s for loose lean ela.yey soil (Section 12.7.2 :in
the Handbook)
2
• erosion :rateor erodibility coefficient M 0.01 -0.4 glm /s (Section 12.7.4 in the
Handbook). Based on. consultants experience, this value is, however, mu.ch too
high inthe 2-D modelwbere only a value ofO.OOSg/m /s (con:esponding to 50%
ofthe lower limit)was used.

The cohesive sediment transport parametersregarding erosion of the sedim.ent and
regarding the cri.tica1 velocity for deposition are associated witb. considerable
uncert:ain1ies as mentionedby Professer vm Rijn. However, the basic hydrodynamic

conditions show thateven with.very conservative estimates ofthe cri:tical.velocity for
deposition, the old highly permeable main cbm:melthrough the reservoir will nm be
subject to severe sedimentation. Figure 9.26 in Volume 2 of the PHARE. report shows
the simulated and measu:redflow velocities from iwo cross-sections in· threservoir
3
during a period 'Withvery low discharge (825 m /s at Bratislava). Two th:i:ngare
noticed; first, a saiisfaetory agreement between madel zesults and measurements is
present and second, even for this extŒme low discbarge the velocity is higher tban the
critical velocity for deposition of 0.10 rnls (assumed in 'the model) in the main
channel. I:n addition, witb. such a low discbarge, the concentŒtion of suspended

sediment from upstream is very low.

The PHARE projeet consultant team bas extensive experience in modelling of
cohesive sediment gained from other similarprojects. Examples are Venice Lagoon

Itaiy, Ham.burg Harbour Germany, Plouvenice Czecb. Republi ci~er Elbe.
Copenhagen Harbour, The Great Belt D~ the 0resund Denmar~ The Loire
France, the River Usk England. Adequate documentation of the general model validity
therefore exists from numerous projects.

The Hungarian comments on the sediment modelling aΠall based on the note from
Professor van Rijn. lt should be noted tbat Pmfessor van Rijn's commeD.ts are not as
critical as the Hungarlan commenta imply. Professor van Rijn refers to the PHARE

models as "sta.teof the art" and suggests 1hat the resulte produced may be reasonable
in the light of how much they have been calibrated. He is complimentary about the
attempt of the project to undertake the difficult task of modelling the 'fl'ansport
processes of graded sediments. Finally, it should be noticed tha.tProfessor vaRijn's
note is little more tban one page long with reference to only one of several relevant

chapters m the PHARE Report. In the light of t.bese fact.and of the above detailed
comments to the points made by Professor van Rijn.,it can be concluded. tbat the
Hungaria:n.claims as to the umellit.biliof the PHARE models results me incorrect
and result from a super.ficial analysis.

3.4 Swface Water Quality 1\ifodelling

In Hungary' s comments, it is stated that theze is not enough data for an adequate
1
model calibration and valida:tion?. As also stated at several places in the PHARE

21
Hungary•s coiiii1ll:ntS on 1he PHARE :report. p 702/05 '97 16:55 FAX+421 7 5162355 MZVSR OMSD -?-t-OSPINA 141018 '

8

l'epartthe data on surfacewat.erqualityare :ümitedandmore datawould reduŒ the
unŒrtai.nty of the subsequent mod.elpredictions. Howeverimust be emphasized that

enough useful data were availabletoallow calibratioand in some cases rough madel
validations.

The uncertainty on some mode! param.etersdue to limiteddata must also be seen.in

the context of how the models were used in the subsequentscenario simulations.
Generally, the parameters and :inpu:fimctionschosen for the simulations have been
assessed on the 'safe' sicie,implyinthatsim.ula.trons show worse situations ththe
best estimate. Furthermore, the uncertaittties aanalysed and theirimportance for
22
model outputs are qwmtified by thorough seŒi:tivity analyses• The conclusions
drawn in thPHARE report.havtalŒn theseuncertainties into accoun:t:
• The margin between the simulated eutrophication leve! ithereservoir and the..
water quality ~ cri.ti.cal leve! is so large tbat the acknowledged mode!
uncertahrties do;a.affectthe conclusion tha:t tbere are no eutrophication or ether

water quality problems in the reservoir.
• 'The1Dlcertaintic:saffect the con.clusionwater qaal.it(oxygeu conditions):inthe
Old Danube in the way that,if theseuncertaintiesbad not been considered,. the
conclusion tbat no water quality problems will oecar in the Old Danube for
3
dischargesat 400 m 1sor more might bave beee.extended to smallerdischa:rges.
These aspectshave appat:eJitlynotbeen. takenimo account by Hu:ngary's Professor
Somlyody or inthe Hungatian cnmments. Th~ the Hungarian view appears to b~ of
a!allierp~eiiDiMAcJW.actèr iO,w-l maponcfÏcSiittbat n spitdfng

of available lmowledge and local data.,nothing usefùl cbe said. The conclusion of
the PHARE Project:, on the other band, is that,put in the :righpmspective and
coDSidering the 1m.Œrtainties involved, the wa:ter quslity models can produce
extremely useful results.

3.5 Groundwater Mode/ling

Hungary's comm.ents on groundvvatermodelling are undermined by various iàctual

errors:
• The claim. tbat the "historical groundwater leve! decreases around Bzatislava. are
clearly due maiDly to local abstraction (800.4 of the 100 million cubmeters of
groundwater abstracted from the Zitny Ostrov per year)'{)is not correct.The

general decrease of gmundwater le2els between 1960 and 1990 ismore tban 1 m
over an aŒa of more than 100 km •TiŒ impact of groundwater abstmction of 16
mill m /s atKalinknvo is shown in thePHARE Report24to be moΠtba:n 10 cm
only over anaŒa of 1-2 km2•

• In the Hungarian comm.en:ts, itis estimetedthata hydraulic cOl'lduetiviof 100
mlday at the 0-18 front hasbeen usedin the mode4 and Hungary states that this
indicates a COl'.ltradicttonvalues in the regional mode!, w.bich geneŒlly are
largT ~his estimate is based on a simplcalculatioapparently usblg data from

21
23HARE Project,·FinalRepaDeŒm.ber 1995, VoL 3 pp 6-41, Vpp7-32, VolS. pp 8-36.
24ungariancommemo :nthe PHARE R.ep po~ _
PHARE Projed:, Final.Repart,December, Vol. 3, Fig. 3.13
:=Hungarian. comments on the PHARE Rep7rt, +·H OSPINA i4019
02/05 '97 16:55 FAX +421 7 5162355 MZV SR OMSD

9

Fig. 7.25 and Table 7.3 in Vol. 2 ofthe PHARE Final Report. Unfort:u heately~
calculation. is wrong by a factor of 3. If iDstead of a "given typica! hydraulic

gradients''the specifiegradient is mad from the concerned figure (Fig. 7.2S in Vol
2) the gradientcan be seen to be 0.001, and hence thehydraulic conductivity cau be
caleulated to 300 m/day, which (in contrast to the 100 miday estimat.ed by
Hungary) is consistent with values in the mgional model. Thus theze is no

contmdiction in the PHARE Report - but instead a simple error in the Hungarian
comments.

In the }iungarian comments it is statedtbat the performance of the ground water
modelli.t;Jis "re.latively poor',26.However, this is based on references to the 'Wl'Ong

figures and sections inthe PHARE Report~
• .All the references in relation to model performance are made to the so-called.
regional groundwater model, which covers the entire 3000 km 2 modelling area.
However, as stated explicitly in tbe PHARE Repoti' 7 the regional model was

supplemented. by local 2odels in the two key .areas,namely arouDd the reservo2r
(approx:imately 300 km )and in theriver b:ranch system (approximately 100 km ).
The role of the regioŒl model in this regard was to p:mvide boundary conditions to
the two local models.

• The :regional ground water model is not as a.ccurate as the local models for two
main reasons, fi:rstdue to thecoarser.resolution in the model grid, and second due
to the :facthat thelocal mode.ls bave been established exactly :inthea:reaswbere it
was CODSi.dmo efbigbest priority toget as good a model performance as possible.

Therefore, the quotati.ons :from the PHARE Report selected by Hungmy - tbat the
regional mode! did not per.fo.tmso well in the downstream model area.and close to
the mode! boundaries - simply re:flect.the :fact tbat these areas are not important
for the PHARE p.:mjectas the reservoir and river branch.areas.The importlmt thing

is that the model performance in these areas are stiJl sgood tbat the deficiencies
there do not .i.n:fluenthe model perfo:mtances in thetwo high priority aŒas.
• The local models have a mucb. .finer resolution intbeir respective areas tha:n the
regional mode!. Th.us the mode.ls in the reservoir and river br.mch area uses
horizontal discretizati.ons of 250 m and 100 m, respectively, as compaŒd to the

500 m grid in the region.a.lmode!.
• Thus, the discussion on model ped:bmnmce in these bigh priority areas should be
made on the basis of results from the local .models, and not the regionalmodels as
done by Hanga:ry. For example the relevant figures showing the performance of the

ground wmer model in the reservoir area are Figs 5.22 and 5.25 in Vol. 2 of the
Final Report, and not Fig. 5.18 as referredtoby Hungary. The madel perforrmmŒ
on thesefigures are seen to be very good both for thepre-dam situation (Fig. 5.22)
and for the post-dam situation (Fig. 5.25). The performance of the post-dam

situation should be seen in the ligbt thatit is ·a model validation 'Witb.increased
grounQ.wat.erlevels and d.ecreased g:mundwater :fluctuations, which gener:a.lly are
quite well predicted.

26
27HDDgm:iancommem:s on the PHARE Report,p 9
PHARE .ProjectFmal Report, Dec:ember, VoLp4-8 and Fig. 4.302/05 '97 16:55 FAX +421 7 5162355 MZVSR OMSD +·H OSPINA 141020J

10

In the Hungarian comm~ itisstated tbat "theleakage dedu.ced from the sediment
mode! bad to be divided by a fiJctorof ten.In other words, the sediment modelling is

given ten-fold en:ors,and the erroris suggesting tenfold UDderest:imationof the effects
of sedimentation and clog~.This is not a conect preserd:aâon of the sc.ienti:fic
methodology applied in the PHARE Project:
• The leakage is no.t deduced :from the sediment madel alone, ami the sed;ment

mode! is Œt·giving ten-fold errors. In fact by comparison a.ga29st local .field data
the sedimentation appeam to be in the ri.ghtorcierof magnitude •
• The calcula:tion of the flow of water from the reservoir into the aquifer is
deter:mined. .from two fBctors, one of which represents the cli:B:erew:esin level

between the reservoir water table and the aquifer groun.d .water table, and the
second of which is the so-calledleakage coefficient. This coefficiem is calculated
on the basis of the weil known Carma:n-Kozeny theoretical fornwJ.a., including a
calibration factor, which bas to be assessed through comparison of model output

and .field data (in this case groun.d wa.ter level observations from a few wells
amUDd the reservoir). The calibration :t.i1irojustifiedtheoreticallyby the :metthat
the sediments aŒstratified or l.a.yeMdue to variations inflow velocities du:rlngthe
sedimemation process..
• For illustration,the Carm.an-Kozeny formula bas also beenused toconvert: data on

grain size distribution in the aqui:ferto model parameters. Also for the aquifer a
calibration factor ofabout 10 was used. ObYi.ously.cloggiug does not exist in the
gŒ.vel aquifer many m.etel's below the su:r:&ce.This calibration factorbas nothing

~erto 4Q~ç1Qggmg._

In theHungarian comments, it is statethat themodel calculaûon ofwatar flows from
the aquifer to theaquifer is notmliable. However, tbe evidence in the PHARE Report
suppŒ:ting tbese ca.lculaticmis reliable and. bas either been distorted oneglected by
Hunga:ry:

• The model simulates the ground water levels near the reservoir qui.teweil,.both
witb respect to level and dynamics 30•This fact isdistorted because Hunga:ry made
reference to thewro.ng .figuΠas descr:ibedahove.

• The madel gives a good. simulation of the ~ 31 of the oxygen isotope 0-1 g
.from the reservoir in:tthe aquiièr near Kalinkovo . This fàct isdist.ortedbecause
Hungary made a simple calcula.tion error as described above.
• The model gives a very good prediction of the discharges inthe seepage canali 2•
The water in the seepage caŒ1s originstes from the flow of water t.hrough. the

bottom of the reservoir. The comparison of madel pŒdiçtio:ns against.measuŒd
discharge data shows a remarlŒbly good match at differetrt.locations along the
canals. 'l'hus,atthe two stations most downstream on hoth scepage ca:na1.(station
2809 and 3214 in Fig. 5.19, Vol. 2) the agreemer.rtsbetweenmodel predictioDS and

field data are within 5%. It should be empbasi2ed that this is a very :reliable test,
because the discbarge datahave not beenused atan in the calibration process,and
because it integrates the etÏects of :reservoisedime:at calculati.n of leakage

21
29u:oprian COI:II!DeDtsthe PHARE Report, p 8
PHARE Project, Fi:DallùpŒt, Decemi:Jft'1995, 2,Table 10.5
31HARE ProjectFiDalhport. Decembet 1995, Vol2. Fig. 5.2S
32HARE Project, .F.inalRepart. Decc:mher 1V5o. 2, Fig. 7..24
PHAlΠProject, Fmal Report, December 1995, 2,LFig. 5.19 -7-7OSPINA !4121
02/05 '97 16:55 FAX +421 7 5162355 MZVSR OMSD

11

factors ami geological parameters in the aquifer. This evidence is completely
neglected .intheHungarian comments.

Thus, tests against different types ofda~ made possible o.nlydue to the :i:megmted
nature oftbe mode~ show collSiste.ncy,implying tba.t1he totatestisstronger than
each of the testsindividually.

The conclusions in the Hungarian comm.ents are scient.i:fically incorrect duto a
combination of erro.rs, mis.in.terpretaiions of resul.tsfrom thePHARE Report and
neglect,ofimportan:t e\'idence presented in thPHARE Report.

3.6 Groundwoter Quality

The concem for groundwa:tet quality defined in the introductory sections of the
PHARE Report consti.tuŒd an important motivation for estabHsbing the PHARE
Project Ïl'se1f:and was the single most impmtmt issne studied in the entire project.

In Hungary: s comments, two key aspects are focused on, namely the link to the
reservoir, including l'eSe!Voirscdhnenta:d.on anthe geochemical processes within the
aquifer.

The doubts ex:pmssed by Hungary on the sedimentation calculat:ion and leakage
calculations in the reservoir have alreadbeen addr:esseadbove.

Wrth :regard to the geochemical processes, these were studied in great detail. A

comprehensive field program was conducted in the cross-section near K.alinkovo and
a very comprebensive bio-geociliemical model was constructed and used in orcier to
im.prove the understanding ofthe complex processes. This work, which was basically

:researchwork, was presemed to many international experts in33he field, including the
persons participating .inthe in:ternational PHAREwoJ:kshops ,and was also presented
at an in:temational conference,wheŒa paper was accepted a:fterthe usualscientific,
peer review procedures 3•

The facts emphasiŒd by Hunga:ry on the detectedconcentrations of manganese and
nitrite inthe Kalinkovo field monitoring, are nŒtsmprising aud aremt a matter of
conc:em. As sta:ted during the oral pleadings Hungary' s empbasis on such
35
concen:trationsat thislocation is out of proportion both with regard to manganese
and Ditrite6•

33
3 CR.97/15,p 31 (Refsgaard)
"Griflioeu, J.,P. Eugesgaard. A. Bnm, D. Rodak, L Mucha, and I.C. Refsgaard: Nitrateand Mn
chemist:in the alluvial Dalmbian LawlmdaquifSlcvakia. Proc:eectingsof the Iutemational
Conference on GXo1mdwaŒrQuality: Remidiation and Prate(GQ9S Pague, IAHS Publication
35. 225,pp87~95 19,95
36CR97/1S, p 36 (Refsgaard)
CR 97/15, p 12 (Mucha)02/05 '97 16:55 FAX+421 7 5162355 MZV SR OMSD ~+-> OSPINA 141022

12

The groundwater ch.emimy in the aqaifers is,and always bas been, of a very complex
natu,Œ.Thus, there are some uncertainties regarding how the system will deve!op in

the future.What bas been.concluded on the basis of the PHARE Pmject and the
comp:rehensive monitoring which basnm in parall=l, is simply that neither the .model
studies nor the field datbas sc farshown any indications on problems with ground

water quality caused by the reservoirFurtherm iocan be stated that .such signs
should occur at some time in the future,.tlu:re are possible management optionsto
remediate them.

3.7 Floodplain Eco/ogy

Apparently Hungary largely agrees with theapproach taken by thePHARE Project on
.tloodplain. ecolo 7.~

The o:nly point where tb.ereis some disagreeme:nt.iswhether the pegelweg (sum of
variationsove.ra year) isa appropriateparameter for the description of water level
dynandes. In the PHAR.E PEOjeet,x=ommendati.ons :fiom the international experts

given at the fust workshop in 1992 have been followed. These:recommendations are,
am~ otheŒ, based.on compz;eheDsive.experience from studies of the Danube in
Austria39_ .

4. Model Applicatioos

4.1 Hydrodynœn iedsment Transport and wŒe ruality

In Hungary's commen:ts, the PHARE modemng of coarse sediment transportin the
Old Danube is crltizisedwith a Earticular focus on the armourlng process just

downstream. of the weirsat Cunovo . But thesediment transport model established in
the PH.A:RE Project was not aimed at providing detailedpredictions of changes in
river crosssections on a very localsca lut ~ather to assess longteml effects on a
regional scale.

The effects on the very local scale will anywabe affected by the meandering of the
river withintheold river embankments, which bas been initiateduring the past four
years.

The annouring process is not described. ex:tensivinythe PHARE Report. However,
the key point, nam.ely the assumptionthat a:rmouring willoccu s very reasonable
and in accordance with tb.éexperience oftheinternational consultanteam on ::rimHar

pmjects. Howeve:r, even if the ar:rnoming assumption tumed out not tobe valic4 the

37Hu:agarian comments on the PHARE Repp11.
JICR.97/15p 31(Re&gaard}
39"0k:osystemstwtie Do:naustauAltenUnivemitit!lwrlWap.m"- In:osbnlck. Ectitm: Hans­
PeterNacb.CDeèel.
40Hungarian eomments on 'thePHARE Repop12. 02/05 '97 16: 55 FAX +4,?.1 7 5162355
MZVSR OMSD ~-H OSPINA 14023

13

erosion would under ali eircumstances only be a small fi:act.i.onof the bed.load
ttansported in the pre-dam situation, becauthed.isc:hargesare much smaller.

, Witb. regard to sediment deposition in tbe river branch system, the conclusion from

the PHARE Project is tbatsedimentation will generally oecurin the side 'branches
where thevelocities are verysmalL andnot in the main brancb. In the main branch,
sedimentation will not occur in the upstream parts due to relatively high :flow
veloci tiie si~the downstream parts where veloci1ies are much smaller there is

no sediment left ithe water, because it has deposited in theupstŒam side branches.

The Hungarien co:m:J:Ilentrefeto ~ above conclusions and sta:tetha"the auth.ors of
the PHARE :report conclude that no deposition of :fisediments will oecur in the
main s.i.de~ -a conacusiohe which eontradicts tb.eir own:findings'tThis is

wrong: there is no contradiction.

Conceming wa:terquslity, the fact tbat model simulations have not been cm:riedout
fΠlong time series is described by Hungazy as "an important restriction of model

performance',.u. However, as stated in the PHARE Report, the key reason for this
limitationis the simple :fact tbasuch mode! simJl]aûons are not feasible 'Witthe
present generationof computers. H~ thiscarmot be considered a realistic critisism.
The approach takŒ. in·the PHARE Pmject is the standardone of identifying worst
case sceuarios, where combinations of adve!Se flow and climate circumstances are

studied.In thepresent case, the Ul:lCeftainnithisŒgardhave beenassesssed furtber
through sensiti:vitanalyses.

In the Hun:garian comments, the 'COI1ditionin the Old Danube are, on the basis of

selectiveextracts ftom the PHARE Report, prescmted as being generally rather poor,
gi.ving "rise towater qua1ityproblems. Under WMR IV, for sommer conditions,
dissolved oxygen levels fall to ~ and forWMR. ., levels 1àltoaround smgll.
As noted in the report, tb.ese lcvels me at o;rbelow limits for cypr:iDidwater andwell
3
below lim.itsfor sal.m.onid fish'•4However, Hungary bas not includeci in its
commcnts the following important facts:
• The WMR IV scenario corŒsponds to 200 m?/s discharge in the Old Danube, while
WMR.li corresponds to the actual400 m /s.
• The 2 m.g/1 and 5 mg/]. oxygen concentrations are minimum conce:ttllaûons

occurring between 3 and 6 am in the early moming. Due 44 diurnal variations the
maximum concentratiOIJ12homs1ater is 3~ m5gllhigher •
• The oxygen conditions predicted for WMR. n are almostthe same as in the pre~
dam situation4•Th.usthe situation at 400 m /s can be assumeto be as good as the

pre-dam situation, i.e. not criatcall.
• With regard to the law oxygen conŒutrations for WMR. IV, the PHARE Report
concl'Qd,es.W'h.crea2s.5mg 0 21in generalis a verylow concentration criticato
:fish species, but generalnot to bentbic ~ it must be emphasised tb.at this

4\HDDgariancomments on the PHARE ReporpIS
42HnngarïenCOJ.13m.ODttbe PHARE Reportp13
43Hnogar.ian comments on thePHARE Report, p 13
'" PHARE Projeet, Fmal Report, December 199S, VoL.3, Fig. 6.17
., 'PHAREProject, Final Report. December 1995, Vol3, Figs. 6.17 -6.1902/05 '97 16:55 FAX +421 7 5162355 MZVSR OMSD -7-7OSPINA 14124

14

worst case situation will occur verY rareiY a,nd oyer only a fekm river length.
Furtherm.o:Œ,thiscritical situation will have a duratofna few hours, so tba1:the
fishmay move away and retum a:fterwatdsHence, such .Œrely occurring worst
case situations are not exgec;te4 to ba.ve siznifjçantloŒ lasting ecglog;icaJ

effects',46.

W"rthrespect to thereservoirwater quality,Hun.gary states tbat "It is noted. tbat some
stratification in the reservoir mighbe expected, but has not been included in the

moder''". This .isagain a theoŒtical state wmb i~ when placed in perspecti:ve
'Witbthe relevant datatums out to be of no practical importance. I:factthis was an
issue in the lnception Phase of the PHARE Project in 1992. Howevers a:fter some
initiastudies, iwas con.cludedthat stati:ficationwas not likely to develop due to the

large flow veloci48es and short mention times. This conclusion was con:Brmed by
field data in 1994-

4.2 Groundwater Flow andGroundwater Quality

Hungary statesthat there is some confusion in the PHARE report regarding remediai
:sneasuŒs49•This is apparently because H1lngSrYs asaliead.ydescribed in Subsection

3.5, bas mixed the result.sfromtheregionai model and the local models. As stated in
Subsecti.on3.5 the~regional ground watermadel is not suitable for maldng pŒdi.ctions
near-tbe-rese:rvoir_and_il:Lthe_river_bran~~~-~ql~_.fro:m. l_QÇam. odels
should be usedinstead. This is CODSistentin thetext of the PHARE Re.Port:_bU±_may
not be evident at a fust glaneefromallfigures. Forexempl Fi. 5.1 of Vol. 1, which

Hungary refers to, shows a gmphical m.apfrom the regional m.odel ldeally, the data
from the two area.covered by the local models should have been replaced by madel
output from these models. However!> this bas not been done, whîch apparently
confuses some readers.

Concemi:ng modelüng offlows inthe river branch system, Hungary states that 1ims
becomes appamm t.bat the regional grotmd water model is incapable of rep.Œsenting
the remediai measures" 50•This is not of any .i:mportance,beŒuse the ~ river

branch. model is used for this purpose. The river branch model bas been calibr.ated
against :field data from the surface watesyste ~nd further uses exactly the same
geologi.cal para.metersas tregio.uamode~ just with a much finer spatial resolution.

Wrth regard to groundwater quality modelling, Hungary focuses only on the scenario
calculations made by the denitrifiea.timode!, and deseribes an çpaŒnt lack of
calculatiollS othemore complex Manganesedissolution processes . However, such
comprehensive calculati.oΠhave been canied out for the Kalinkcwo cross-section.

46
47P.HA.RBProject, Final ReDecember 1995, Vol. pS-13
HungarianŒm:mentson thePHARE Reportp 14
~9 Project, Final Report., .December 199p.11·10 3,
50Hungarim c:Oi.nm.on3the PHARE Rq:Jort.14
51Hungarian comments on.thePHARE Reparp.14
Hungmian commems on.the PHARE Reportp 1502/05 '97 16:55 FAX +421 7 5162355 MZVSR OMSD +·H OSPINA 141025

15

They are thoroughly describedin Subsection 5.2.1 of Vol. 2, wheΠthe effects of the
51
reactivesediment layer, wbich Hungary could not :find ,are also descrlbed.

4.3 Agriculture

H~ appmently agrees with the approach and :resultsproduced by the PHARE
Project: he.re.

The :tiguŒson :reductionsin crop yield:icase of redw:ed gmund waterlevels may be
put into proportion by quoting the main conclusion regarding the situation on the
Slovak side: "The changes in agricultura.production on Zitny Ostrov due ta the
damming of 1he Danube a:remarginal The difference in crop yield it:tdexes between

pre-dam (WMR I) and post-dam (WNIR m scen54ios was simulated to be less tban
1% for irrigated as well as fornon.:i:rrigated.area•"'

4.4Ecology

Hungary appaŒntiy ~ 'Withtheapproach and the resultsfrom the PHARE Project
here, and the main bulk of the H1mgarlan comments isconstitutedby more than 20

quota.tioΠfrom thePHARE Report.

H1mgary further states that: "An important pointmade by the reportis tbat no clear
ecological objectives have been decided for the ~ whîch is a necessary pre­
requisiteto a decision on management strategies.,ss (which was alsoa point made in

the Slovak oral.plesdings).This implies thatvalue judgements asto which impacts are
negative and which are positive are di:fficulto ~ because they must împlicitl.y
reflect(:non-form.ulated) ecologicàl objectiveIf this fa.ciscombmed with two o1her
conelusi.ons,.which have not been contested byHungary:

• Both the EC Working Group Data Report from Nove:mber 1993 and the PHARE
project have con:fùmed that M itmymible pmra1 eeglge;icalin:mac.t have
ocCUJ.".rsence October1992 56

• The Variant C barrage system does not in i1selpose importan57 cons~ on the
contŒcy', it providesawide nmp ofmqmaaement PPssibiliti§
it becomes evident tba.tit is still possibldecide on theobjectives for this area and
consequently c:Œate1he types of ecological systems desi.red.

':.ungarianCOIDIU«lton.thPHARE .Raport,pIS
s Huagarian comme:D1srthe PHARE Report,p 15
54PHARE .P:rojcct, FReport,December1995, VoJ. lp S-0
ssHungar:iacommentson mePHARE Report,p 15

57~Rï97/1S,pp:37-38(Rc.fi;pm;d)
CR.97/lS, p 3(Ref.sgaard)02/05 '97 16: 55 FAX +4~.17 5162355 MZVSR OMSD -+·HOSPINA l4026 :.

16

5. Brief CopeÙI:IÏOJIS

The PHARE project Œpresen.tea major effort by a joint intematteamlof experts
supported by Slovak: experts to develop a comprehensive in:tegratecomputer
modelling system for environmental assessment waŒr Œsources in the Danubian.

Lowland.

The Hungarian claims as to the lack of reliability ofmode~veesbeen sbown to
be based on supedicial aŒlyses and comprise numerous faetual emors,
misinŒrpn:tations, as well as an unbalanced. selection of quotatious.

58
Co!IBeC thJc.oncmsions lrse~ted by Slovakia in the oral pleadingcan be
maintaiDed. These conclusions, wbilemaintainiDg a scientific balance between
posi:üve and negative impacts, are basically suppotheSlovak view tbat Variant

C has bad no in'eversible enviromnen1Bladverse effects, and.that 'thimpacts
~ seen from an envirom:nental poofvie be considered as positive.

!CR 97/10, pp 48-49; CR 9711S,pp(Refsgaard)02/05 '97 16:55 FAX +4~1 7 5162355 MZVSR OMSD -7-7OSPINA !41027

17

APPENDIXl

Exam.ples ofBugarian quotations from the PHARE report - shown in their :fo.D

conte:rt.

Below, four examples of misleading Hungar.ian quotationsaΠgiven.. These examples
are from the :fust pages of the 18 page long Appendix 3totheHu.ngarian commen:ts.

Many more examples can be fow:r.don subsequent pages.

In the examples given below the Hungarian selection inAppendix 3 to the Hungaril:m
commenta is shawn with italics"'whilethe te2dnot included in the Hungarian selection
is shown wi:thordinacy textscript.

Example 1:

"Some samples .... showed relative/y htgh conte-na of some PAH's••
(Hungarian .Appendix 3, pAnne% 13-2)

''From the existing data no genem1 pollution. bas been detected. However, some
~ampl ersm the:floodplainalong the Danube river showed relatively high contents

of some PA.H"s, which can.be attributed to local pollution."
(PHARE Project, Final Report, December 1995 Vol. l,p4-10)

Example2:

"Only very scarce and not very reliahle data on flowand water levels in the river
brtmeh system was available"

(Hungarian. .A.ppendix!J,p Annex 13-2)

"Only very scarce and not very reliable data on flow and water levels in the river
branch system was avaüable. Therefore, a.programme comprising measurements of
discharges and wa:t.erlevels at a number of locations was ca:dut under thisproject

during the summer 1994."
(PHARE Project, Final Report, December 1995, Vol. 1, p 4-18)02/05 '97 16:55 FAX +4~1 7 5162355 MZVSR OMSD ~~~ OSPINA 14028

18

E'XWT'Q)te:

"The sum of the fl1I1IUJround water jluctuattons (Pegelweg)••was reduced to about
113••in most of th11p8treŒnpmt ofZitny Ostr011."
(Hunga:rian.A.ppendir3,p Amr~ 13-3)

"The sum of the anmuzl gnnmd watel" fluctuations(Pegelweg) in WMRn and
WMRm was reduced to about 113 of WMRI in most of the upstl'eampart of Zitny
Ostf'av. However, a managemc:mt scemzrio"Withtemporal variationso.fwater levelsin
the seepage canals indi.ca:ce1ha:aleaS lesstban about 1.5km away from the canals
it 'Wilbe possible to establish g;round.WEdernamics with the same Pegelweg as in

WMRI (pre-dam)."
(PHARE Project,Final Report, December 1995,Vol.l, p 5-=3)

Ex;ample4:

"For ali post-dam scelZQI'iosthe lowesoxygen r:once1'111"atitse sim:ulatedin the
baclr:waterzone ... minilmlm concentranonisS-6 mg 0:/1 with th~ption of W.MR.

1VWitn~er-weirs;··wfœrtn"t·isœ' o llnd:2.~:Sm-gm·Oii'lingtmœ'alis·
a very low concentration critical tofish spectes .. "
(Hungarian.Appendb: .3,pAnne% 13-3)

"In general,water quaüty simulations do not ia.dica.te major problems in the Old

Danube. For all post-dam scenarios the lowesto~n concentrations are s.im:ulated
in the backwater zone close to the çon:fiuence betweenthe canal and the Danube.
Model resuitsfor a wŒst case situation are presented in Fig. 5.4. This situation
c.orrespondsto discharges of approximately 1000 m /s atBratislava of which aU
3 3 3
(WMR I), 400 m /s (WMR TI), 800 m /s (WMR ID) and 200 m /s (WMR IV),
respectively, flows.inthe Danube channel between Cunovo and tbe dow:nstream
confl:wmce w.itbthepower camù. Furthmmore" respimtion ratesconesponding to the
hlgbest ones observed dming the field campaign, i.e. summer periods with high
bialogicalaèti:vities. havbeen assumed. The ox.ygen.concentrationshave diumsl

varlations which genemlly increase with decrease in discharge. The çoncentrations
sbown in Fig. 5.are theminimum. ones occm.ring earlymoming between 3and 6 am.
The maximum co.DŒD.tration oŒurring late a:fŒmoonare typically2-3 mg 0 2l
hi.gb.er.ltseenfrom the figure tbatbisworstcaseminimwn concentration is S-6 mg

0;11 witlr thexceptionofWM.R!Vwith underwaterwei:rs, where iti8 oround 2.5 mg
0:1/. Whereas 2.5 mg 0:11in general is a v~ low concentration critical to flsh
species, but generallnot tobentbic fatma,itmust be emphas:ised thatthiswo:rstcase
si"tuatlowill oc.cuve:r:rarel.and overonly a few km riverlength.Furtherm.ore, this

critieal situation will have a dut'ationof a few hours, so tbatthe :fishmay move a.way
and retum. a.:fŒrwardsHcnce, such rarely occurring wom case situations are not
expeotedto have significant long lasting ecological effects.'•
(PHARE Project,Final Report, December 1995, Vol 1, p 5-l3)02/05 '97 16:55 FAX +421 ï 5162355 MZ\'SR OMSD _,..., SPI\A i4029

COMMENTS OF SLOVAKIA ON HUNGARY'S ANSWER

TC THE QUESTION OF THE PRESIDENT

ln Hungary's Jengthyresponse tc the President's Question, it is
clairned that the discharge distribution set by the Joint Contractual
Plan was never arnended (at para. 6).

The Parties are in agreement that the Joint Contractual Plan
3
originally provided for a discharge of 50 m s i/to the old riverbed -
but only in the months March - November. By 1989, this had
evolved. The minimum discharge was 50 m /s and the amount of
3
water had been increased to 200 m /s during the vegetation period.
Thus, the Hungarian Memorial states:

"The Joint Co3tractual Plan was subsequeritly amended to
allow for a 200 rn /s discharge" (HM, para. 5.52).

ln Hungary's analyses of the impacts of the "Original Project",
the minimum discharges are 50/200 m /s (e.g. HC-M, para. 1.83,
HR, para. 1.117) or 200 m /s (e.g. HR, Vol. 2, Plates 7.2 and 7.3).

This is consistent with sub-paragraphs (i) and (iO at page 2 to
Slovakia's response to the President's Question./,