Pámer Zoltán CERS HAS Pécs, 20 April 2018 Cross-border Aspects of Environmental (and CE) related Developments between Hungary and Croatia Pámer Zoltán CERS HAS Pécs, 20 April 2018

Content Introduction – significance of cross-border cooperation between Hungary and Croatia; Institutional differences in regional and sustainable development; Overview of the two analysed 2007-2013 cooperation programme; Methodology of the comparative analysis; Comparison of performance patterns in for areas of intervention related to environment and circular economy; Conclusions.

Introduction – significance of cross-border cooperation Traditionally strong border (Hajdú, 2006). Re-bordering of Europe (Pap-Reményi, 2017): split of Yugoslavia affected cross-border cooperation. Euroregions – tools for Europeanisation (Popescu, 2008; Scott–Liikanen, 2010) – half success. PHARE cross-border cooperation and INTERREG Neighbourhood Programme played a key role in EU integration (Pámer, 2011). IPA Cross-border cooperation 2007-2013 brought intensification of cooperation through increased financial framework (Csapó et al, 2015)

Institutional differences in regional and sustainable development Historical similarities in public administration – significant differences in governance (Bali, 2006, Reményi, 2006, Lőrinczné, 2015). Compatibility in competences of local governments by law – nationalisation of social services in Hungary. Decentralisation of state functions to county level in Croatia. EU integration brought new structures: Regionalisation in Hungary; recently re-centralisation; Strengthening of the county in Croatia.

Competences related to sustainable development Hungary: strong state competences Protected areas; Environmental permission; Governmental offices: award of construction rights. Spatial planning on local level. Croatia Spatial planning on local level – strong county control and support; growing role of testate; Protected areas, environmental permission on county level; Construction rights on local level.

The Hungary-Croatia Cross-border Cooperation Programme 54.8 million EUR co-financing. The biggest such programme that time in Croatia. Two priorities Environment and sustainable tourism; Cooperative economy and human resource development

Methodology Database: beneficiary-level project partnership and financial (commitment, realised funding) data; Breaking down project data to Areas of Intervention related to sustainable development (1.1 and 1.2) Grouping of project beneficiaries to organisation type categories and analysis of their participation: NGO Non-profit company (local) Non-profit company (regional) Non-profit company (national) Other education or training institution Private non-profit company Public administration (local) Public administration (regional) Public administration (national) Research institute University and higher education institution Breaking down primary project-level performance data to LAU2 units, analysis of their participation on the settlement network.

Methodology – variables Number of PPs: number of project partners with budget. Funding realised: disbursed, approved and reimbursed EU co- financing Source: Calls for Proposals 2009-2011, own edition.

Methodology – variables Number of PPs: number of project partners with budget. Funding realised: disbursed, approved and reimbursed EU co- financing Source: Calls for Proposals 2009-2011, own edition.

LAU2 categories applied

LAU 2 units – categories 5-2

Comparison of performance patterns – 1 Comparison of performance patterns – 1.1 Sustainable and attractive environment

Comparison of performance patterns – 1 Comparison of performance patterns – 1.1 Sustainable and attractive environment Funded projects: landscape development, small-scale investments in environment protection, nature protection, environmental planning, disaster management, de-mining, soft activities related to environmental and natural awareness. Overrepresentation of national public administration bodies, with dominantly hard projects. In Hungary local public administration is of key importance, in Croatia their role is more limited. Croatia favours regional nonprofit bodies and public administration – Hungary practically lacks them. NGOs are equally important, but more active in finance in Hungary. Research institutes and universities are not involved.

Comparison of performance patterns – 1.2 Sustainable tourism

Comparison of performance patterns – 1.2 Sustainable tourism Funded projects: investments in green tourism infrastructure and services (bicycle paths, thematic routes, cultural heritage protection) tourism promotion, investment attraction. Most applied intervention – projects limited to the 40 km zone from the border rivers. More diverse picture of applicant organisations. Local governments play the key role – somewhat harder projects in Hungary. National public administration is similarly represented. Regional bodies, again, more active in Croatia. Croatia favours regional nonprofit bodies and public administration – Hungary practically lacks them. This gap is filled by NGOs and private nonprofit bodies in Hungary. In Hungary research institutions and universities are also involved.

Comparison of activity and absorption across the settlement structure

Comparison of activity and absorption across the settlement structure Five-level settlement hierarchy defined – Cat. 0 (municipalities up to 2000) and Cat. 1 (municipalities above 2000) have been merged. Category 1, 2 and 3 are more active in Hungary than in Croatia; Category 2 and 3 prefer harder projects; Category 4 is more active in Croatia, but prefer smaller projects. Performance of the two regional centres is identical. Regional centres more concentrate funding than project participation.

Comparison of activity and absorption across the settlement structure

Conclusions Sustainable development is in focus in CBC: nearly 2/3 of the funding; Landscape, environmental planning with tourism development hand in hand; In environmental development state actors are important, in Croatia regional level is also important. Tourism involves the local players, regional coordination is also stronger in Croatia. In Hungary NGOs and private nonprofit companies fill the regional gap. Role of the strong regional centres is similar. In Croatia county seats are drivers of project development, in Hungary this role is fulfilled by lower category settlements, with more investment-oriented projects.

Pámer Zoltán Centre for Economic and Reginal Studies of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences 7621 Pécs, Papnövelde u. 22., Hungary A tanulmány a Változás és folytonosság a magyar térképzetekben: nemzet, területiség, fejlesztés és határpolitika című NN 114468 témaszámú Nemzeti Kutatási, Fejlesztési és Innovációs Hivatal (NKFIH) kutatás keretében készült. Research for this publication has been supported by National Research, Development and Innovation Office – NKFIH grant #NN 114468 (Change and Continuity in Hungarian Spatial Imaginaries: Nationality, Territoriality, Development and the Politics of Borders).