Water Quality Monitoring Systems: A Comparative Evaluation of Legislative Frameworks European and Brazilian

Objective: The aim of this study is to identify the similarities and differences in water quality monitoring systems in Brazil and Hungary, analyzing their regulatory frameworks, methodologies used, and parameters assessed. In addition, it seeks to assess the effectiveness of these approaches in the protection and sustainable management of water resources, considering the challenges and advances of each country. Theoretical Framework: This study is based on models and regulations that guide the monitoring of water quality. The Water Framework Directive (WFD), applied in the European Union, establishes the assessment of the ecological status of water bodies based on biological, physical-chemical and hydromorphological indicators. In Brazil, the National Water Resources Policy (Law No. 9.433/1997) and CONAMA Resolution No. 357/2005 regulate the management and classification of water quality, adopting a decentralized model based on river basins. The research is also based on the theory of environmental indicators, which emphasizes the importance of physical-chemical and biological parameters in assessing the health of aquatic ecosystems. This approach allows for a comparative analysis between Brazil and Hungary, contributing to the improvement of water monitoring and management policies. Method: This comparative study analyzes water quality monitoring systems in Brazil and Europe-Hungary based on a law review and secondary data from official bodies such as the ANA and the WFD. Data collection involved the analysis of physical-chemical, biological and hydromorphological parameters, as well as legislation and institutional reports. The comparison was made considering monitoring frequency, regulatory guidelines and water management challenges, with the aim of identifying good practices and opportunities for improvement. Results and Discussion: The results showed that Hungary adopts an integrated ecological approach according to the WFD, while Brazil uses the IQA, which focuses on physical-chemical parameters. Hungary has a higher frequency of monitoring, allowing for more detailed assessments. The discussion highlights how regulatory differences impact water management, with the European Union ensuring greater standardization. In Brazil, challenges such as decentralization and a lack of up-to-date data limit the effectiveness of monitoring. The study's limitations include its reliance on secondary data. Even so, the findings suggest that Brazil could adopt aspects of the European approach to improve water governance. Research Implications: The practical and theoretical implications of this study focus on comparisons of water quality monitoring systems between Europe/Hungary and Brazil. The results can influence water management practices, environmental policies and the implementation of more effective monitoring systems. The implications are relevant to areas such as environmental governance, sustainability, conservation of aquatic ecosystems and the development of regulations and public policies for the protection of water quality. Originality/Value: The present study, add to the literature by a comparison of water quality monitoring systems in Hungarian and Brazilian rivers, providing differences and similarities in the respective legal framework. The importance and contribution of this study is clearly demonstrated in its ability to inform public policy on environmental monitoring practices as well as the insights it provides about potential interventions for the implementation of effective water quality protection systems in Brazil/Hungary.