DRAFT IPA II CBC PROGRAMME 2014-2020 PUBLIC CONSULTATION - Hungary - Serbia 16 July 2014
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
DRAFT IPA II CBC PROGRAMME 2014-2020
Hungary – Serbia
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
16 July 2014
1INDEX
SECTION 1: STRATEGY ________________________________________________________________________ 3
1.1. Strategy for the cooperation programme’s contribution to the selected thematic priorities and the
relevant Partnership Agreement and Country Strategic Paper(s) _____________________________________ 3
1.2. Justification for the choice of thematic priorities _________________________________________ 15
1.3. Justification for the financial allocation _________________________________________________ 18
SECTION 2: PRIORITY AXES ________________________________________________________________ 21
2.1. Priority axis 1 ______________________________________________________________________ 21
2.1.1 Identification ____________________________________________________________________ 21
2.1.2 Fund, calculation basis for Union support and justification of the calculation basis choice _______ 21
2.1.3 The specific objectives of the thematic priority and expected results________________________ 21
2.1.4 Elements of other thematic priorities added to the priority axis ____________________________ 22
2.1.5 Actions to be supported under the thematic priority (by thematic priority) __________________ 22
2.1.6 Common and programme specific indicators ___________________________________________ 25
2.2. Priority axis 2 ______________________________________________________________________ 27
2.2.1 Identification ____________________________________________________________________ 27
2.2.2 Fund, calculation basis for Union support and justification of the calculation basis choice _______ 27
2.2.3 The specific objectives of the thematic priority and expected results________________________ 27
2.2.4 Elements of other thematic priorities added to the priority axis ____________________________ 28
2.2.5 Actions to be supported under the thematic priority (by thematic priority) __________________ 28
2.2.6 Common and programme specific indicators ___________________________________________ 31
2.3. Priority axis 3 ______________________________________________________________________ 33
2.3.1 Identification ____________________________________________________________________ 33
2.3.2 Fund, calculation basis for Union support and justification of the calculation basis choice _______ 33
2.3.3 The specific objectives of the thematic priority and expected results________________________ 33
2.3.4 Elements of other thematic priorities added to the priority axis ____________________________ 34
2.3.5 Actions to be supported under the thematic priority (by thematic priority) __________________ 34
2.3.6 Common and programme specific indicators ___________________________________________ 37
2.4. Priority axis 4 ______________________________________________________________________ 40
2.4.1 Identification ____________________________________________________________________ 40
2.4.2 Fund, calculation basis for Union support and justification of the calculation basis choice _______ 40
2.4.3 The specific objectives of the thematic priority and expected results________________________ 40
2.4.4 Elements of other thematic priorities added to the priority axis ____________________________ 41
2.4.5 Actions to be supported under the thematic priority (by thematic priority) __________________ 41
2.4.6 Common and programme specific indicators ___________________________________________ 45
2.5. Overview table of indicators per priority axis and thematic priority __________________________ 48
SECTION 6: HORIZONTAL PRINCIPLES ___________________________________________________ 51
Sustainable development ____________________________________________________________________ 51
Equal opportunities and non-discrimination ____________________________________________________ 52
Equality between men and women ____________________________________________________________ 53
21. SECTION 1: STRATEGY
1.1. Strategy for the cooperation programme’s contribution to the selected thematic priorities
and the relevant Partnership Agreement and Country Strategic Paper(s)
ANALYSIS OF THE PROGRAMME AREA
The cross-border region (CBR) covers 7 counties (NUTS III level or equivalent1): Csongrád and Bács-
Kiskun counties in Hungary, West Bačka, North Bačka, North Banat, South Bačka and Central Banat
counties in Serbia as well as the Serbian South Banat and Srem counties as adjacent regions.
The Serbian counties being considered on NUTS III (or equivalent) level together form the Region of
Vojvodina on NUTS II level.
With an area of 34,214 km2, 13.66% of Hungary’s and 24.33% of Serbia’s territory are covered by the
CBR.2
According to the 2011 census, Bács-Kiskun is the most rural county in Hungary, followed by Csongrád
county in second place.3 As can be seen, also Vojvodina is identically rural in its character considering
the similar low number of urban settlements out of the total number of settlements.
Population
According to the census of
2011, Hungary’s population
amounted to 9,957,731
people, whereas in Serbia
there were 7,186,862
4
inhabitants . The Cross-border
counties under analysis
comprise slightly less than 3
million people with a rough 2:1
ratio in favour of Serbia.
21.4% of the region’s
population lives in South Bačka
Figure 1: Population of the cross-border counties
(615,371) – which is the county
with the biggest population, Source: Own calculation based on HCSO and SORS statistics
followed by Bács-Kiskun
(522,312) and Csongrád county (419,366), in which also the three biggest cities (Novi Sad, Szeged and
Kecskemét) are located. The smallest county is North Banat with 147,770 people (5% of CBR
population), as shown in Figure 1.
The nine largest cities correspond to the county capitals of the Cross-border area. The largest city is
Novi Sad with more than 330,000 inhabitants including agglomeration, forming an important
economic centre in Vojvodina and Serbia as well, followed by Szeged and Subotica.
The rate of the population living in urban settlements (according to the terminology of the Serbian
Statistical Office) in Vojvodina reaches 60%; while the rate of the population living in cities in the
Hungarian CBR amounts to around 70%.5
1
In case of Serbia ’NUTS III (or equivalent)’ will be used as such a statistical unit officially does not yet exist in Serbia.
2
Source: SORS &HCSO online databases
3
HCSO (2013b), p. 9.
4
Yearbook 2012, p. 31.
5
Source: HCSO (2011); SORS (2011)
3Looking at the change in population in the Cross-border region, an overall decline of 4.6% between
2002 and 2011 can be seen. The biggest drop happened in the Serbian counties – Vojvodina lost
about 100.000 inhabitants6 – especially in West Bačka with a decrease of almost 26.000 people (12%
of the population), North Bačka and Central Banat – both with a decline of roughly 20.000
inhabitants (a decrease of around 10%). South Bačka county saw as the only one of the CBR an
increase of 21.700 people (3.6%). According to experts, the main reason for this is migration towards
the county capital Novi Sad due to the unfavourable economic situation characteristic for most of the
cities in Vojvodina (and in Serbia in general). Thus, many young people migrate mainly to Belgrade or
Novi Sad and leave their home counties. Also, Novi Sad is the administrative and university centre of
Vojvodina, which also attracts many people for work and studies.
In Hungary a decline of 2% was experienced over the time period 2002-2011.7
The distribution of the CBR’s population according to the age groups 0-14, 15-64 and 65+ is very
similar in the counties: the youngest population amounts to about 14%, the oldest to around 17-18%
and the inhabitants between 15 and 64 years of age (active working age category) have by far the
largest share with around 68-69%. Compared to the EU27, the cross-border counties’ population
distribution according to age groups anticipates a stronger trend of ageing than the European
average with less young people and a larger share of 15 to 64 year old inhabitants, expected to lead
to a significantly higher share of elderly in the future.
While the share of Hungarian people in the Serbian counties is quite significant in some cases (e.g. in
North Banat with a share of over 45%), in Hungary only very few Serbs were registered during the
census of 2011 (the highest in Csongrád county with 0.3%).
There are many ethnicities in the Serbian cross-border counties and about 67% citizens in Vojvodina
declared themselves as Serbs. This multicultural composition having historical roots shows a very
diverse picture among the Serbian counties, where no homogeneous share of a single ethnicity can
be encountered.
The percentage of Roma population within the CBC area ranges from 3.9% in Central Banat to 1.1% in
Csongrád county. Other ethnic groups in Vojvodina include among others Rusyns, Bunjevci and
Yugoslavs; in Hungary this category consists for example of Germans.
Economy and labour market
Economic development is a key element in the creation of an inclusive society, in creating more jobs
as well as in balancing regional differences. There are some similarities between the two sides of the
border region, but the opportunities these similarities enhance are not utilised, because of the lack
of co-operation:
In both sides of the border region agriculture/food production is a relatively important
segment of economy compared to the national average (Vojvodina contributes 8% to GDP,
South Great Plain contributes 11%).
Vojvodina is the most industrialised part of Serbia with strong food processing and beverage
sector, as well as developed chemical industry, rubber and plastic, oil and gas products and
metal processing. The Hungarian border region has strong potential in mining (oil and gas), in
manufacturing industries (automotive and mechanical equipments), in food processing and
in biotechnology.
6
According to the data published by the SORS, between 2009 and 2011 the natural increase of the population of Vojvodina
was around 10.000 people each year. However, no information on migration is available to allow for a more precise analysis
of the change of population.
7
HCSO (2013a), p. 7.
4 Knowledge based economic development is using the resources of higher education and
research. There are leading tertiary education institutions in both regions: University of
Szeged and University of Novi Sad are dominant in tertiary education and in R&D activities.
There are also some similarities in the fields of research activities: medical and health,
agriculture, engineering, ICT are being the leading sectors. In terms of research personnel
these areas represent 51% of all research staff on the Hungarian side and 63.5% on the
Serbian side.
Clusters on the two sides of the border have similar profiles and adequate university-based
research and education background. (e.g. metal, mechatronic, medical, IT, agriculture, local
products)
The lack of cross border co-operations among the relevant cluster organisations and the
members of clusters hinder the efficient use of the potential, created by the existing
synergies in economy, research and higher education.
The economic, taxation and customs rules are different in Hungary and Serbia, as well as in
Romania, thus opportunities are stemming from it, yet it is not utilized in the triple border
area.
Although the R&D expenditure is far below the EU average on both sides and most of R&D
activities are being concentrated in the higher education institutions, moreover, the activities
of the R&D institutions sometimes don’t meet the requirements of the local enterprises (and
therefore, the local enterprises don’t benefit from the research activities), the similar
research fields create an opportunity for co-operation.
Experience of the ongoing evaluation of the current CBC programme also proved that
involvement of the end-user of the research results would help local enterprises in benefiting
from the research activities, thus contributing to the SME development on the relevant field.
There is a negative trend in employment on the Serbian side and a stagnating labour market
in the two Hungarian counties of the cross-border area.
The lower employment rate and higher unemployment rate in each age group on the Serbian
side both in EU comparison as well as in comparison with the Southern Great Plain data show
increasing labour market problems in Vojvodina.
In Hungary, the employment rate of the elder part of the work force, the age group of 55-64
is generally far below EU-average. In Serbia data show that the employment rate in both age
groups and both for men and women decreased between 2009 and 2011, the employment
rates of these age groups are substantially lower in Vojvodina than the Serbian average.
Unemployment levels sharply grew in Serbia from 2009 to 2011, and slightly increased in
Hungary and in the EU average. The unemployment rate differs within Vojvodina: it is more
than 21% in West Bačka, North Bačka, Central Bačka and Srem counties.
Labour costs: The salary gap indicates that the labour market on the Hungarian side might be
attractive for job-seekers coming from Vojvodina.
The evident driving forces of daily commuting (better labour market chances and higher
income conditions) combined with the fact that Hungarians are the biggest ethnic group
among the 35% large ethnic minority of Vojvodina, could result in a rise of daily commuting
as well as in seasonal migration.
The bigger cities (Szeged, Subotica, Novi Sad, Kecskemét) play a dominant role in structuring
and resifting the labour market through generation of better employment possibilities and
addressing commuters from the surrounding areas.
5 Uncertain waiting time associated with border crossing make daily commuting rather
difficult. The development of a more reliable railway (and also public transport) connections
would ease the problem considerably.
Ageing is a more and more stressed characteristic of the population of the cross-border area.
The old age dependency ration indicates a need to reshape the social care system with more
emphasis on home care services. Efforts should be continued on this field.
In the Hungarian counties, life expectancy is a bit higher than in Serbia both for men and
women. In both countries, life expectancy has increased in the last two decades.
Environment, climate change and risk prevention
In relation to the climate change adaptation and mitigation as well as the sustainable use of natural
resources the following key statements can be highlighted:
Water management according to the Water Framework Directive: An integrated catchment-
based management along the Danube, Tisa and their tributaries in the region for preserving
the good quality and adequate quantity of surface and subsurface waters. The application of
the EU directives in Serbia would be especially important. This also requires a jointly
coordinated water quality monitoring system and hydrological database. A key question that
must be addressed by both countries is the quantification of net water intake and surface
runoff.
Joint flood protection and disaster management: As the frequency and magnitude of floods
is expected to increase in the future, flood protection is a key issue in the region. Protection
structures must be maintained and renewed in all regions of the border area. Co-operation
between water directorates and disaster management should be improved.
Joint development of irrigation systems: Irrigation in agriculture is gaining more and more
importance. The linking of irrigation systems and the reviving of old canals in the Cross-
border region would highly increase the adaptation capacity of agricultural stakeholders on
both sides. Meanwhile, irrigation canals should be integrated into the ecological network and
catchment-based water management.
Water retention and protection of subsurface aquifers: The water stress of the summer
drought season can only be eased by the intensified use of subsurface water bodies. In order
to keep these resources available in the future, special attention should be paid to the
sustainable use and possible recharging of aquifers. This requires joint monitoring and
regulations, and the planning of water retention and infiltration reservoirs, especially on the
Danube-Tisa interfluve.
Early warning of drought: To prevent the losses of agriculture as a matter of extreme drought
events, the elaboration and later the implementation of an early warning system would be
desirable. However, this requires a harmonised monitoring activity and drought modelling in
the Cross-border region.
Prevention and mitigation of extreme precipitation events: To prevent crop failure and
damages in human properties, the planning and implementation of joint hail suppression and
storm warning systems would be necessary. Increased runoff calls for the improvement of
urban drainage systems as well as the implementation of storm water reservoirs.
Renewable resources: Any measures that support the increased use of renewable energies
will necessarily decrease greenhouse gas emission and air pollution, and contributes to a
better human environment. The developments must be based on the unified energy strategy
of the cross-border region and the bases of the outstanding natural resources and
characteristics of the region.
6o photovoltaic electric power production; (The solar electric power producing
potentials of the Cross-border region are outstanding even if compared to European
data)
o utilization of thermal water heat; (To avoid the parallel utilization of the same
thermal water bases and to introduce the good practices of the thermal water use in
the whole border region (e.g. covered (greenhouse or plastic-tunnel) in agriculture,
horticultural plant cultivation; use of thermal water heat in public institutions)
o utilization of biomass for energetic purposes mainly based on the waste products of
the agriculture.
The dissemination of renewable energy utilization methods and knowledge is desirable,
which can be realized especially in project preparation, transferring know-how and creating
the measurement of the use of the renewable energy resources and the achievement of the
energy efficiency investments.
Sustaining existing natural reserves and biological diversity: Biological diversity and the
preservation of native species in our changing environment are getting more and more
difficult. Complex strategies are necessary in this respect, which are integrated to water
management and climate change related interventions. A key aspect would be the increase
of wetland areas and ecological water reservoirs. Prudent planning and assessment is
necessary to meet the interests of all stakeholders.
Improving the accessibility of protected areas: In order to maintain the social sustainability of
nature reserves, their accessibility to the public should be increased. This would have an
important role in environmental education and could generate tourism as well. A key area of
developments can be the ox-bow lakes along the Danube and the Tisa.
Transport
The absence of good and harmonized cross-border transport connections (especially regarding public
transport) limits the intensification of societal and economic co-operation across the border.
The majority of cross-border traffic happens on public roads. Transit traffic is constantly
increasing on the border stations and the timeframe of border crossing is relatively long
especially, in the case of the international border crossing points and for the crossing of
vehicles.
The region has a favourable geographical location in terms of logistics: Trans-European
transport networks lead across the region. (Nr. X/b. Budapest – Kecskemét – Szeged – Novi
Sad – Belgrade; Corridors VII along river Danube). However the potentials in the logistics
sector remain unexploited because of the relatively slow border crossing and the missing
East–West railway transport connections.
Despite the opening of new border crossing points, some limiting factors prevail: from the six
border crossing points only one can be used by vehicles without limits, three have 0-24
opening hours and only one railway point ensures continuous railway transport without
changing train. In addition, between Szeged, Subotica and Novi Sad the railway connection is
very poor. Also the railway network of the border region as a whole should be improved on
both sides of the border.
When deciding on cross-border infrastructural developments, the upcoming establishment
of the Schengen border-control system must be considered. Continuous discussions are
therefore needed about the development possibilities concerning border crossing where the
various interested organisations are involved. These include: border control offices, customs
offices, road and railway management and development organisations. Considering public
7transport there are only a few bus and railway relations, and all of them have a slow travel
time compared to the distance of the relations.
The river Danube, defined as European Corridor VII, is expected to contribute to the increase
of river transport in the area. The river Tisa is currently underutilised in terms of transport.
There are potentials in the tourism related to the rivers and canals also.
The development of missing bicycle routes should be accompanied by building rider-friendly
infrastructure and services, especially in the context of tourism development.
Tourism and cultural heritage
After a significant decrease in tourist turnover from 2008 in the border region, tourism
performance has been slightly increasing or stagnating since 2010 which is due to the
upswing of foreign tourism. However the average length of stay decreased in both sides of
the border in the programme area, which draws the attention to the necessity of the
improvement of attractive tourism supply, appropriate for longer stays.
Tourism has greater importance in the Hungarian border region than in the Serbian,
according to the main tourism indicators (tourist arrivals, overnight stays), both in absolute
value and per capita. The cross-border tourism turnover is different within the region: the
proportion of Serbian tourists is marginal in Bács-Kiskun county, while it is significant in
Csongrád county (16% of all foreign overnight stays with dynamic increase); the proportion
of Hungarian tourists is moderate in Vojvodina.
Territorial inequalities, in terms of development level of tourism supply, differences between
the two sides of the border, in terms of quality standards of tourism infrastructure, are
problems to be solved.
The border region is rich in cultural and natural values, however the potentials of tourism is
underutilized. Besides the existing tourism assets, especially in health, cultural (folklore),
gastronomy, rural, eco- and active tourism (with some key attractions with high number of
visitors), there is a shortage in integrated tourism products, common thematic packages, in
content and physical linkage among destinations, attractions and in modern, state of the art
tourism supply with wider attractiveness especially for longer stays.
Besides common values (e.g. common historical, cultural heritage, similarity of ethnic groups,
folk traditions, natural values), complementary elements of supply (local specialities – e.g.
local cultural and folk heritage, gastronomy, active programmes, wellness spas in Hungary,
orthodox heritage and mountain tourism in Serbia) and the seeds of cooperation can be a
base of an integrated tourism offer.
A barrier for harmonized tourism development is the lack of a common regional tourism
development strategy, marketing plan and branding.
As a general experience, after the border opening – following the EU accession –, an
increasing tourism turnover is expected. Increasing domestic demand through the recovery
of financial solvency of the population, the modernisation and improvement of national
tourism attractions and the further development of tourism co-operation between the
countries can enhance new possibilities for the cross-border region, too.
Aggravation of internal competition in the region, through the possible development of
parallel capacities on the two sides of the border, possible social problems in the multiethnic
area, the remaining lag in the tourism market position – because of the delay in the
development of background infrastructure – can hinder the tourism development of the
cross-border region.
8JUSTIFICATION FOR THE SELECTED INTERVENTION STRATEGY
The overall objective of the Programme is the following:
“Harmonically developing region with an intensified economic cooperation through sustainable use
of natural and cultural resources.”
The achievement of the overall objective can be ensured by applying the following strategy and
interventions.
The cross-border region of Hungary and Serbia do not belong to the most developed regions of
Europe but within Serbia the position of Vojvodina and also within Hungary - except for the central
region- the two Hungarian counties are considered as relatively strong both from social and
economic aspects. The significance of agriculture related activities in the cross-border region is
higher than the country averages both in Serbia and Hungary. Central settlements with substantial
employment potential – such as Novi Sad, Szeged, Kecskemét and Subotica – have major role in the
economy of the region especially in the processing industry. R&D and higher education located
mainly in the largest cities are also important drivers of local economic development. These are
those strengths the region has to capitalize on.
However, there are weaknesses to be considered. The youth unemployment rate on both sides of
the border region is high in European comparison. In Vojvodina it is more than twice as high as on
the Hungarian side of the CBC area, resulting in migration of the younger workforce to the Western
countries. With higher migration rate of the younger generation the old age dependency rate goes
further up. Therefore, it is crucial that young people could find their own carrier perspective in the
cross-border region. Besides fostering the creation of jobs, it is equally important to improve their
and other unemployed people’ professional knowledge and competences in order to respond to the
employment demands of local economy. This requires interventions in the harmonisation of the
vocational and adult training programmes, common development of the non-formal training
programmes and enforcing traineeship facilities in each other’s countries within the CBC region.
To foster economic growth, agriculture provides a good opportunity: Activities in production, sales
and food processing are to be developed in a more innovation oriented way. Another option is the
better capitalisation on the outputs and results generated by the regional R&D sector (e.g. in
agriculture/food, ICT, healthcare, mechatronics etc.) by local businesses, and their joint utilisation
within the cross-border area. The interim findings of the on-going evaluation of the current
programme formulated these opportunities as vital requirements to foster the development of the
local economy. All these together justify the boost of economic development through creating
strengthened cooperation amongst local enterprises, clusters and R&D organizations, which is in line
with the priorities set by EU 2020 and by both national governments in order to deliver economic
growth. Supported activities would be implemented through the cooperation of economic actors and
organizations with research potential, along with harmonized and unified innovation strategy. The
achievement of these goals can be assisted by supplying the necessary trained workforce by
launching practice oriented vocational training and by establishing an integrated job search
database.
In order to increase and broaden the economic and societal relations in the cross-border region,
tackling the problem of time-consuming border crossing – due to the fact that Serbia is not part of
the Schengen Agreement – is a key issue. In the past couple of years two smaller border crossing
points started to operate (Ásotthalom- Bački Vinogradi, Tiszasziget-Dala) and two other border
stations will open in 2014 (Röszke II.-Horgos and Bácsszentgyörgy-Rastina), but they are limited in
terms of opening hours and only operate on local level. In order to ease the pressure of busy periods
9at the international border crossing points, and that the smaller border crossing points could be used
for other purposes (such as tourism and other business co-operation activities), too, it is necessary to
increase their capacity in line with the actual demand and - if necessary - to upgrade the roads
leading to the crossing points.
The cross-border traffic is characterized dominantly by private vehicles. In order to develop greener
transportation infrastructure – preferred by EU 2020, too – further investments are necessary. Using
public transportation to cross the border is practically impossible due to rare and slow bus, as well as
train connections. The relatively slow public transport is partially caused by the waiting time for the
border control. Freight transport by railway is only operated on the Budapest-Kelebia-Novi Sad-
Beograd line, meaning that within the cross-border area it has limited availability. All these justify the
necessity of the development of the missing the missing East–West railway line, which could connect
the region to the trade channel network linking the ports of the Adriatic and the Black sea. In order
to spread environmentally friendly transportation alternatives, it is important to reconstruct,
modernize the logistical centres connected to railways and water transport at Tisa which will be
dedicated as an international water transit way in 2014. Considering passenger and tourism-purpose
traffic, it is important to extend bicycle infrastructure, as well as to develop the conditions of water
tourism.
The low elevation of the border area, as well as the rivers (Danube, Tisa), streams, rills crossing the
region call for harmonized water management. Climate change and the extreme weather conditions
have an effect on water management, too. Besides floods, inland inundation, sudden downpours and
hails, increasing drought hazard affects the cross-border area, too. Agriculture/food production,
being one of the dominant sectors of the region, is specifically suffering of the mentioned problems.
In order to mitigate hazard and damage related to agriculture, it is necessary to develop and
modernize the water management facilities in line with the regional development strategy. It is an
important task to sustain natural reserves and the rich natural biodiversity around streams and rills,
too. In the case of the water management developments the renewable energy solutions (small
water plants) are welcome to ensure the more environmentally friendly operation of the water
management systems. These interventions can contribute to decreasing the carbon-dioxide emission
and the sustainable and harmonized use of renewable energy sources. The above aspects justify the
necessity of further environmental developments.
Besides the similar natural values, the border region is also connected by the common cultural roots
and values. Tourism provides possibilities for the sustainable and harmonized utilization of these
assets. In the past years, primarily cultural thematic routes and bicycle trails were supported. In the
future product development, the highlighting of the presentation of both tangible and intangible
heritage and the promotion of unique local handmade products should be supported based on an
integrated tourism strategy. Another important area of product development is the connection of
the main attractions (e.g. historical cities, monuments, and thermal baths) in both sides of the border
region, through e.g. equestrian and bicycle routes, in accordance with the growing demand for
healthy lifestyle and active tourism. Creating an integrated network of water tourism linked to
significant rivers and canals could increase the international attractiveness of the region. Territorial
inequalities in tourism performance within the region could be reduced by improving the quality of
services, and by operating joint marketing activities and tourism destination management based on
common criteria (e.g. joint branding, common quality control system) thus ensuring a mutual
learning process. All these aspects justify the necessity of the support of tourism development.
Considering the common cultural roots it is highly important – especially for the young – to have
common understanding and respect for one another, which could be enhanced through common
actions, camps, activities, common cultural events. According to the on-going evaluation of the
current programme, small projects dealing with cultural and sport activities proved to be very
10successful, therefore the continuation of this scheme involving a substantial part of the population is
highly recommended in the field of culture, leisure sports and nature protection activities.
Within the strategy there are several thematic areas which are – due to their internal coherence –
strongly interlinked. The development of the environmental and transport infrastructure – further to
their own purpose – contributes also to enhancing of the economic activities and the internal trade
of the region. It is important that the water management investments may also contribute to the
stabilization of the agricultural/food production, as well as to the development of active and eco-
tourism (e.g. canoeing, biking and fishing), and to the promotion of the economic development of
the local communities involved.
KEY STATEMENTS OF THE ON-GOING EVALUATION OF THE HUNGARY-SERBIA IPA CBC 2007-2013
PROGRAMME
The on-going evaluation of the Hungary-Serbia IPA CBC 2007-2013 Programme presented some key
statements which are built in the 2014-2020 Programme Strategy and the description of the
Thematic Priorities. The following table shows the key statements and the responses of the current
strategy:
Key statements of the on-going evaluation of Key reflections built in the strategy and the
the HU-SRB IPA CBC 2007-2013 Programme Thematic Priorities of the HU-SRB IPA II CBC
2014-2020 Programme
Missing links amongst the relevant and potential The strategy and the Thematic Priorities contain
related projects in a specific sector which is interventions targeting the coordination of the
caused by the lack of common cross-border different types of activities through applying a
strategies (e.g. water management, tourism permanent communication platform (e.g. water
development, transport, economic management, transport) and developing
development). harmonized strategies in the field of tourism, or
economic development which can serve as the
reference point for further support of concrete
CBC projects.
Several project preparation documents (plans The strategy and the planned interventions are
etc.) and studies, researches were prepared, yet focusing on the implementation of
the results were not followed through by infrastructural developments (in the field of the
investments or implementation of the projects. environment and transport), with direct cross-
border effects and tangible results in the border
area. The prepared project documentations
financed from the previous programme were
taken into account at the elaboration of the
relevant infrastructural type activities.
Low efficiency of partnerships, the end-users are The frames of economic development are
not directly involved in the different projects designed in such a way that the supported non-
especially in the case of the economic profit intermediate organisations (e.g.
development and tourism which caused that the innovation transfer companies, research and
end-users are not interested in the project development institutions) are obliged to involve
results. the targeted enterprises as non-supported
partners or the group of enterprises (as non-
11Key statements of the on-going evaluation of Key reflections built in the strategy and the
the HU-SRB IPA CBC 2007-2013 Programme Thematic Priorities of the HU-SRB IPA II CBC
2014-2020 Programme
profit organizations: e.g. clusters) would be the
beneficiaries.
CONTRIBUTION TO THE RELEVANT PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT AND COUNTRY STRATEGIC PAPER(S)
The overall objective of the Hungary-Serbia IPA II Cross-border Cooperation Programme 2014-2020 is
to develop the cross-border region with an intensified economic cooperation through sustainable use
of natural and cultural resources. When selecting the thematic priorities of the CBC Programme,
Hungary and Serbia seek to achieve coherency between their development programmes related to
the cross-border region, with a high focus on possible synergies and overlapping development areas.
Also through a bilateral understanding and goal-setting the Programme supports and contributes to
the objectives defined in EU, national and regional level strategic papers.
Europe 2020 is a 10-year strategy set forth by the European Commission in order to advance the
economy of the EU through greater coordination of national and European policies. It aims at "smart,
sustainable, inclusive growth" through these main targets 1) raising the employment rate of the
population aged 20–64 from the 69% to at least 75%; 2) achieving 3% investment of GDP in R&D and
developing a new indicator to track innovation; 3) reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least
20%, increasing the share of renewable energy in energy consumption to 20%, and achieving a 20%
increase in energy efficiency; 4) reducing the share of early school leavers to 10% and increasing the
share of the population aged 30–34 having completed tertiary education to at least 40%; and 5)
reducing the number of population living below national poverty lines by 25%.
The contribution of the Hungary-Serbia IPA II Cross-border Cooperation Programme 2014-2020 to
Europe 2020 is ensured through its defined Thematic Priorities, with their aims being in line with the
Strategy.
TP2: Protecting the environment, promoting climate change adaptation and mitigation, risk
prevention and management;
TP3: Promoting sustainable transport and improving public infrastructures;
TP4: Encouraging tourism and cultural and natural heritage;
TP7: Enhancing competitiveness, business and SME development, trade and investment.
Through its investment activities – making it in line and conform to the EU 2020 Strategy – the
Programme targets at boosting the region’s economy in a smart, sustainable and inclusive way. In
other words it aims to develop the region through enforced cooperation; through innovation, which
builds on the knowledge, the natural as well as the cultural resources of the area and is utilized in the
region with high focus on SMEs; and through sustainable transport and environmental development
– all of which is to be fostering the social and territorial cohesion in the Hungary-Serbia cross-border
region.
The Partnership Agreement 2014-2020 of Hungary defines the main national development priorities
with strong thematic concentration in order to ensure alignment with the Europe 2020 strategy of
smart, sustainable and inclusive growth as well as the fund specific missions pursuant to their treaty-
12based objectives, including economic, social and territorial cohesion. In the Partnership Agreement
Hungary defines the following development priorities:
1. Improving competitiveness and global performance of the business sector
2. Increasing the level of employment through economic development, employment, education
and social inclusion policies, taking into account territorial disparities
3. Enhancing energy and resource efficiency
4. Tackling social and demographic challenges, good governance
5. Local and regional economic development
Besides the Hungarian Partnership Agreement, Hungary, in its first National Reform Programme
aims at achieving a competitive, dynamically and sustainably growing Hungarian economy which will
contribute to a “strong Europe”. The NRP is designed to give an adequate and credible response to
structural problems, with special regard to low labour force participation and high public debt that
currently inhibit dynamic and sustainable growth of the Hungarian economy. Thus the main purpose
of the programme is to present long-term structural reforms that will accelerate economic growth,
boost employment and ensure sustainable level of public debt – all through outlined measures to
support the national targets linked to the Europe 2020 Strategy focusing on employment, R&D&I,
climate change and energy efficiency, education and poverty.
In Hungary, considering cross-border cooperation, in accordance with the strategic priorities of the
National Development and Regional Development Concept 2020 (OFTK) the main areas are defined
to be 1) increasing competitiveness and employment through cross-border cooperation; 2)
promoting cross-border regional integration by strengthening the environmental, transport, water
and energy network cooperation; 3) facilitating institutional integration and improving the
relationship among the cross-border communities.
Besides the National Development and Regional Development Concept 2020 (OFTK) the Hungarian
national position as to recommended development goals for cross-border programmes is 1)
economic development (especially SME development and R&D&I development), 2) eliminating
lacking transport links, 3) promoting employment, 4) protecting the environment and promoting
energy efficiency, and 5) enhancing institutional capacity.
Csongrád county in its draft Regional Development Plan for 2014-2020 outlines three main overall
objectives for the development of the county being 1) to be a hub of city-networks at the triplex
border considering knowledge concentration and cohesion, 2) to foster innovative economy and
resource management reacting to climate change, and 3) to enhance economic development based
on educated entrepreneurs in the key sectors of the county. In order to achieve the objectives the
document defines territorial and specific strategic goals based local development needs and
potential, as well as horizontal goals, all complying with the National Development and Regional
Development Concept 2020.
Based on the Situation Analysis and the SWOT of Bács-Kiskun county, being the part of the Regional
Development Concept of the county the possible development objectives are defined in line and in
conformity with the Europe 2020 Strategy with the same focus on employment, investment in R&D,
energy efficiency, education and poverty.
In Serbia the most comprehensive national document in terms of identification of national
development priorities is the ‘National Priorities for International Assistance in the Republic of
Serbia 2014-17, with projections until 2020’. It is in line with the strategic objective of Serbian
economic policy – being the acceleration of European integration/EU accession by implementing
systematic reforms in order to create a more attractive economic environment to act as a driver for
increased economic development and social cohesion by incentivising entrepreneurship and
promoting social inclusion. The strategic programming document provides means for increasing the
13alignment of international assistance with national priorities so that targeted donor interventions will
support mainstream public spending on policy reforms from the national budget. The document has
a wide policy scope, covering all sectors and policy areas significant in preparing the country for EU
accession and its socio-economic development. The defined sectors are 1. Justice; 2. Home Affairs; 3.
Public Admin Reform; 4. Competitiveness; 5. Energy; 6. Environmental Protection and Climate
Change; 7. Transport; 8. Agriculture and Rural Development; 9. Thematic fields: Culture, Media, Civil
Society. The document also defines two cross-cutting issues: Local/Regional Development and
Gender Equality.
Based on the draft National Plan for Regional Development of Serbia the Assembly of Vojvodina
adopted the provincial development programme for the period 2014-2020 (Development Plan of AP
Vojvodina 2014-2020) being the strategic document – including an action plan – that outlines the
fundamental routes of development for AP Vojvodina through four priorities: 1) Human Resource
Development, 2) Infrastructure development and creation of conditions for good quality of life and
work, 3) Sustainable Economic Development, 4) Development of institutional infrastructure.
The development axes defined through the Thematic Priorities of the Hungary-Serbia Cross-border
Cooperation Programme 2014-2020 are in line and conform to the EU, national and regional level
strategic documents.
141.2. Justification for the choice of thematic priorities
Justification for the choice of thematic priorities based on an analysis of the needs within the
programme area as a whole and the strategy chosen in response to such needs, addressing, where
appropriate, missing links in cross-border infrastructure, taking into account the results of the ex-
ante evaluation
Table 1: Justification for the selection of Thematic Priorities
Selected thematic Justification for selection
priorities
2. Protecting the The natural and environmental resources are primarily related to the main
environment and rivers of the region: the Danube in the West and the Tisa in the East.
promoting climate As a consequence of the geographical background water balance and water
management are among the most important environmental issues.
change adaptation
and risk prevention Ground water, artesian water and thermal water are also important
resources, and as in case of rivers, these subsurface water bodies also cross
the borders and form a hydrodinamically coherent system between the
Danube and the Tisa. Therefore, interventions on either side of the border
will affect water availability on the other side.
The region misses a coherent and state-of-the-art cross-border joint water
monitoring system for different issues (e.g. drought damage, forecasting of
floods, improving the hydrological status for water bodies, decreasing
chemical pollutions) and joint early drought warning systems.
There is a good and intensive co-operation among the water management
organisations which provides for a proper basis for the future co-operation
projects.
The canals connected to the Danube play a significant role in the water
management, especially in the irrigation of the border area, therefore the
reconstruction of such canals is necessary for the stable water level
management, and can also provide possibilities for the touristic development
of the neighbouring areas.
Climate change will endanger agricultural safety especially on the Hungarian
Great Plain and in Vojvodina, which can result in a significant decrease of the
GDP of the region. Due to climate change the annual water budget will
decrease, however, flood hazard will stay the same or can even increase due
to climate variability.
The expected increasing weather extremities (hails, storms) have also
negative effects on the agricultural production, which demands up-to-date
protection for the entire area of the cross-border region.
As a consequence of the variability in soils and water availability, land use is
much more complex and heterogeneous in Bács-Kiskun and Western
Csongrád county compared to the Serbian territories on the other side of the
border. The very intensive agricultural use of Bačka, Banat and Srem greatly
affects, in a negative way, the extension of nature conservation areas.
Consequently, the improvement of the national ecological network would be
highly desirable in Vojvodina.
15Selected thematic Justification for selection
priorities
3. Promoting Transit traffic is constantly increasing on the border stations and the
sustainable timeframe of border crossing is relatively long, especially in the case vehicles
crossing international border crossing points.
transport and
The mobility of population is low in the border region.
improving public
infrastructures Despite the favourable geographical location of the border region, the
relatively slow timeframe for the border crossing together with the missing
East–West railway transport connections result in underexploited potentials
in logistics.
Despite the newly created border crossing points, limitation on border-
crossing remains still relevant in terms of the opening hours, services for the
freight traffic and animal transport, use of the citizens.
The different economic, taxation and customs rules at the Serbian, Romanian
and Hungarian triple border area offer opportunities (e.g. logistics), which are
unexploited.
There are unutilised potentials in river tourism.
The Tisa will be dedicated as an international transit line providing new
potentials for the freight traffic on the river, which requires port
developments along the Tisa.
Regarding public transport, there are only few relations in the bus and
railway transport, but all of them offer slow travel time with respect to the
distances. The absence of good cross border transport connections
(especially public transport) limits the intensification of the cross-border co-
operations.
Roads, railway (Szeged-Subotica) and public transport (stations, information
system) infrastructure are in rather bad condition.
The development of missing bicycle routes should be accompanied by
building rider-friendly infrastructure and services. The further development
of the biking routes into a network can complete the supply of the existing
(Mórahalom, Palic, Szeged) or potential new tourist destinations at the
border region and can encourage the leisure sport connections within the
region.
In the Hungarian-Serbian cross-border region there is a high potential for
4. Encouraging
tourism based mainly on the natural and cultural assets of the region. The
tourism and natural key attractions to be developed can utilize both intangible cultural values
and cultural (traditions, ethnical variety etc.) and tangible ones, as water and active
heritage tourism (cycling, horse riding) based on the rivers and related canals.
In Hungary tourism concentrates significantly in settlements with thermal
bathes (e.g. Mórahalom, Makó, Szeged) and there are traditional touristic
areas also in Serbia, such as Palic.
The common cultural roots and the outstanding cultural heritage and values
bind together the cross-border area, the plurality of the built heritage is
reflected in the touristic supplies of the larger cities (e.g. Szeged, Novi Sad,
Subotica, Zombor, Kecskemét).
The rivers with their connected canals may provide a good opportunity for
16Selected thematic Justification for selection
priorities
the active and eco-tourism after the development of the missing
infrastructures (bicycle roads, and small ports for water tourism) and services
(accommodations).
Since the cross-border region is an area with typically rural characteristics
(small farms), tourism can strongly contribute to the catch-up of the less
developed settlements with job creation through the development of
tourism services (provided, first of all, by SMEs) and self-employment, with
additional income-earning opportunities for the citizens (e.g. private
accommodation) and with catalysing local investments and bottom-up
initiatives.
The different programmes, events organised for touristic purposes, may also
activate local citizens to strengthen the sense of community, contribute to
cross-border integrity, and to foster tolerance and social inclusion.
Besides these economic and social impacts, sustainable tourism also
facilitates the preservation and utilization of cultural and natural values of
the area.
The main challenge of the cross border tourism development is not to
develop parallel capacities (thus increase the inner competition in the
region), but to create a complex and joint touristic product-supply, based on
the local values and potentials of both sides of the border.
Through all these, tourism can strongly contribute to the development of the
common identity of the cross-border region, to the reduction of territorial
inequalities and to the strengthening of the population retention capacity of
the countryside.
Projects implemented within the programming period of 2007-2013 have
already generated tangible results through partnership building, preparation
of activities (e.g. studies) and soft-type product development (thematic
routes, events) –, yet there are problems still unsolved: e.g. limited number
of competitive joint tourism products with higher attractiveness for longer
stays, lack of interconnection amongst the individual elements of supply,
shortage of quality tourism and lack of integrated design and implementation
of regional tourism (including positioning and branding).
Beyond purely development activities, raising awareness of common cultural
heritage, bringing closer people from the two sides of the border through
cultural cooperation would contribute to a better appreciation and
understanding among people, especially the young generation.
In the current cross-border programme there was a strong demand for co-
operation projects and joint activities primarily in the area of sports and
culture. The need for such type of projects persists especially in ethnically
mixed areas and has a sound impact on strengthening mutual understanding.
7. Enhancing Economic branches, clusters (e.g. agriculture, medicine, ICT, engineering-
competitiveness, mechatronic) with similar research fields, profiles and with limited co-
business and SME operation are operating in the programming area.
development, trade
17Selected thematic Justification for selection
priorities
and investment Vojvodina is the most industrialised part of Serbia (with strong food
processing and beverage sector, yet also chemical industry, rubber and
plastic, oil and gas products and metal processing). Szeged and Novi Sad are
key players in the tertiary education and in the R&D activities.
Agriculture is a relatively important segment of the economy compared to
the national average (8% in Vojvodina and 11% in South Great Plain in
percentage of total GDP) contributing to the competiveness of the region
especially in the food processing sector. However the co-operation between
the players of the sector as well as the recognition of the local products is
rather poor thus needs to be further improved.
The R&D expenditure is below the EU average: in terms of GDP 0.89% in
Vojvodina, 1.9% in Csongrád and 0.55% in Bács-Kiskun as opposed to above
2% in the EU 27 countries. Also the utilisation rate of research results is low
in the programming area, and has low contribution to the development of
the production processes of the SMEs.
Key areas of research: medicine and health, agriculture, engineering. In terms
of research personnel these areas represent 51% of all research staff on the
Hungarian side and 63.5% on the Serbian side.
Missing cross border co-operation among the relevant cluster organisations
and the members of clusters hinder the efficient use of the potential created
by the existing synergies in the economy, research and higher education.
Utilization of the opportunities based on the different economic, taxation
and customs rules at the Serbian, Romanian and Hungarian border area is a
valuable potential.
High migration of the younger generation to Western countries (because of
high youth unemployment rates), very low integration of cross-border labour
markets, and low cross-border mobility prevents the formulation of a
sufficient, mobile labour force supply responding to the needs of the local
companies.
Similar primary and secondary educational system, but different vocational
profiles and vocational education systems prohibit the mutual recognition of
qualifications and thereby job mobility of the labour. There isn’t sufficient
and up-to-date information system of the job vacancies and trained labour
force in the border region which is available from both sides.
1.3. Justification for the financial allocation
TBD
18You can also read
