h -serbia ipa cross-border

HUNGARY-SERBIA IPA CROSS-BORDER

CO-OPERATION PROGRAMME PROGRAMMING DOCUMENT FOR THE PROGRAMMING PERIOD 2007-2013 DRAFT 03/02/07 V.6.0.

VÁTI Nonprofit Company, Strategic Planning and Evaluation Directorate

Hungary-Serbia IPA Cross-Border Co-operation Programme 2007-2013 v. 6.0

TABLE OF CONTENTS 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................4

1.1. THE HUNGARY-SERBIA CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION PROGRAMME 2007-2013......................... 4 1.2. ELIGIBLE AREAS.............................................................................................................. 4 1.3. BACKGROUND OF THE BORDER REGION ................................................................................ 4 1.4 EXPERIENCE OF THE PREVIOUS PROGRAMMES........................................................................... 7 1.5 THE PLANNING AND PARTNERSHIP PROCESSES ......................................................................... 8

2. SITUATION ANALYSIS ............................................................................. 11

2.1. DEMOGRAPHY AND SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION .......................................................................... 11 2.1.1 Population dynamics ......................................................................................... 11 2.1.2. Spatial distribution........................................................................................... 15

2.2. ECONOMY.................................................................................................................. 17 2.2.1. GDP/capita....................................................................................................... 17 2.2.2. Number of registered enterprises..................................................................... 17 2.2.3 Ratio of the three sectors, dominant industries ................................................. 18

2.2.3.1 Agriculture............................................................................................................... 19 2.2.3.2 Services ................................................................................................................... 19 2.3.3.3 Tourism ................................................................................................................... 19

2.3. LABOUR MARKET DYNAMICS............................................................................................ 20 2.4. EDUCATION AND R&D .................................................................................................. 24

2.4.1. Primary and secondary education ..................................................................... 24 2.4.2. Higher education.............................................................................................. 25 2.4.3. Research and development............................................................................... 27

2.5. INFRASTRUCTURE ......................................................................................................... 29 2.6. ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................................ 31

2.6.1 Waste waters..................................................................................................... 32 2.6.2 Soil quality ........................................................................................................ 32 2.6.3 Veterinary services ............................................................................................ 33

2.7 JOINT PLANNING CAPACITY .............................................................................................. 33

3. SWOT ANALYSIS..................................................................................... 34

SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS ................................................................................................. 36

4. STRATEGY ............................................................................................. 37

5. EXPECTED IMPACT OF THE STRATEGY .................................................... 41

6. DESCRIPTION OF THE PRIORITIES AND AREAS OF INTERVENTION............. 42

PRIORITY 1. INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENVIRONMENT............................................................. 42 Area of intervention 1.1 Infrastructure ....................................................................... 42 Area of intervention 1.2. Environment ....................................................................... 43

PRIORITY 2. ECONOMY, EDUCATION AND CULTURE............................................................. 44

Hungary-Serbia IPA Cross-Border Co-operation Programme 2007-2013 v. 6.0

TABLE OF CONTENTS 3

Area of intervention 2.1. Economy.............................................................................. 44 Area of intervention 2.2.: Educational and Culture ...................................................... 44

PRIORITY 3. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE................................................................................. 45

7. HORIZONTAL ISSUES AND CROSS-CUTTING THEMES ............................... 46

8. COHERENCE WITH OTHER PROGRAMMES ................................................ 47

9. FINANCIAL TABLE................................................................................... 49

10. MAIN DOCUMENTS USED...................................................................... 50

11. ANNEXES ............................................................................................. 52

ANNEX 1 GDP BY MAIN BRANCHES IN THE ECONOMY .................................................................. 52 ANNEX 2 BASIC TOURISM DATA FOR THE ELIGIBLE REGION ............................................................ 53 ANNEX 3 HUNGARIAN NATURE CONSERVATION AREAS .................................................................. 54 ANNEX 4 LIST OF SERBIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTED AREAS...................................................... 55 ANNEX 5 PLANNED BORDER CROSSINGS FROM THE HUNGARIAN SIDE ............................................... 56

Hungary-Serbia IPA Cross-Border Co-operation Programme 2007-2013 v.6.0

1INTRODUCTION 4

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. The Hungary-Serbia Cross-border Co-operation Programme 2007-2013

The Hungary-Serbia Cross-border Cooperation programme will be implemented during the 2007-2013 European Union financial framework. This strategic document is based on a joint planning effort between the Serbian and Hungarian sides1 and is aimed to establish a framework for the activities which would lead to stronger socio-economic cooperation and improvement of quality of life in the region. The Calls for Proposals implemented under 2004-2006 period have set the basis for further successful development of the cooperation in the area.

1.2. Eligible areas On the Serbian side, the eligible area covers the entire Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, an administrative unit of the Republic of Serbia. On the Hungarian side the eligible area covers the counties of Csongrád and Bács-Kiskun. These administrative units are on the NUTSIII level in the EUROSTAT classification.

1.3. Background of the border region

The eligible area lies at the southernmost edge of the Republic of Hungary and the northernmost edge of the Republic of Serbia. The landscape is characterised by the Great Plains region in terms of its topography, and is connected by the rivers Danube and Tisa/Tisza.

There exists a history of strong interlinking in between two countries and the people living in the border region. There is a Hungarian minority in the territory of the Republic of Serbia, and a Serbian minority in the territory of the Republic of Hungary. These minorities connect the two nations. There are also a number of other minorities such as Slovaks, Ruthenes, Croats, Roma, etc in the eligible region. In recent years, except for minor conflicts, the relationship between the different ethnicities can be characterised as peaceful and tolerant. Political and economic relations

1 Note on data: whenever not indicated otherwise, the source of data are the latest reports of the Central Statistical Offices of the two participating countries.


1INTRODUCTION 5

between the two countries are also very stable and developing in a progressive way. Due to the geographical separation of the Communist Block, the border strip between Hungary and present Republic of Serbia was scarcely developed, and communication between people was limited due to severe control of movement of people, especially on the Hungarian side. Road and railway communications were neglected. Neighbouring communities were not able to have regular and easy connections. Such separations adversely affected everyday relations along the border area. Economic ties were very limited mainly to large state owned companies. Cultural and social relations were deteriorating with adverse effects on preservation of specific ethnic and national cultures. In the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia the Hungarian minority within the Republic of Serbia enjoyed significant autonomy – schools in native language, newspapers, theatres, etc. With the development of a democratic multiparty political system, the Hungarian minority became politically organised in several parties, with representation in the Serbian parliament.


1INTRODUCTION 6

Map 1 The eligible area After the fall of communism, relations between Hungary and Serbia were improved. Border crossings were modernized, and communication eased up. During the conflicts in the former SFR Yugoslavia the economic development of Vojvodina was strongly affected with adverse political and economical trends. Both sides of the frontier were affected by transition crises, most clearly visible in the drop of output and increase of unemployment. The increase in regional disparities made certain microregions along the common border some of the least affluent within the country. Unfortunately, the Serbian-Hungarian border is still a frontier with relatively strict border control due to the implementation of Schengen visa and border control regime. Hungary, a European Union member state, is set to become part of the Schengen border and visa regime from October 2007, or 1 January 2008 the latest. Serbia, on the other hand is unlikely to


1INTRODUCTION 7

become a member state of the EU within the 2007-2013 programming period. The Serbian government is strongly pleading for more relaxed visa regime to enable circulation of people, keeping in mind that more then 55% of entire Hungarian national minority live in two border districts. As a consequence of Hungary’s entry into the Schengen regime, the Hungarian-Serbian border will become a Schengen outer border, with the strict border crossing regime. This will certainly have strong adverse impact on the movement of people and might influence the implementation of CBC program.

1.4 Experience of the previous programmes

Cross-border co-operation between Hungary and Serbia started in 2003 in the framework of the Hungary-Serbia Pilot Small Projects Fund under the Hungarian National Phare programme, aimed at supporting people-to-people actions and facilitating institution building projects of non-profit organisations along the Hungarian-Serbian border, as well as preparing potential applicants for future INTERREG funding opportunities. Altogether 18 projects were implemented at a value of 631 328 EUR. The Neighbourhood Programme Hungary – Serbia and Montenegro 2004-2006 within the framework of the trilateral Hungary – Romania and Hungary – Serbia and Montenegro Cross-Border Co-operation Programme was prepared in 2004, in close partnership with relevant authorities in Serbia. The Neighbourhood approach brought a significant development in co-operation along the external borders of the European Union, incorporating external (CARDS) and internal (ERDF) EU financial instruments in the programme. The Neighbourhood Programme comprised two priorities: strengthening the spatial, physical and infrastructural integrity of the cross-border area and promotion of co-operation initiatives in order to facilitate the integration of markets and enhance coherence between local societies. The first call for project proposals was launched in February 2005. The amount available under the call was 5 000 000 EUR in Hungary and 2 000 000 EUR in Serbia, respectively. In total 115 applications were submitted


1INTRODUCTION 8

by Hungarian lead applicants and 79 proposals by Serbian lead applicants requiring support in an amount of 43.2 million EUR. As a result of the Joint Monitoring Committee’s decision approx. 75% of the total allocation (ERDF) was contracted (7.7 million EUR). Altogether 30 projects (including 6 joint ones) are being implemented with partners involved from both Hungary and Serbia. The second call for proposals was launched in August 2006. The indicative amount available in Hungary was 2.3 million EUR (including national co-financing) and 2 million EUR CARDS for Serbia. A total of 181 project proposals were submitted until the deadline including 57 joint projects. The contracting procedure of projects will be concluded by March 2007.

1.5 The planning and partnership processes The preparation of the Hungary-Serbia IPA Programme took its initial steps by organising a ’kick-off meeting’ with the participation of the National Development Agency (Interreg Managing Authority), VÁTI Interreg Directorate (JTS) and the Ministry of International Economic Relations of the Republic of Serbia (PCU) held on 30th March 2006 in Subotica. The participants discussed the strategic framework of the future programme, the work plan of the programming process, as well as main institutional and financial aspects. The first meeting of the bilateral task force (TF) of the programme (comprised of representatives from concerned counties (or equivalent NUTS III regions) and local stakeholders from both countries together with relevant line ministries in Serbia) took place on 12th May 2006 in order to prepare the programming process at a technical level and to discuss the planning concept (especially with regard to eligible programme area, elaboration of the situation analysis and SWOT, strategic projects, responsibilities, time schedule, etc.). Starting from May 2006 the drafting of the HU-SER Operational Programme was led by VATI’s Strategic Planning and Evaluation Directorate, with an active involvement of experts delegated from the Serbian side, co-ordinated by the TF. An indicative draft OP, containing


1INTRODUCTION 9

the situation analysis of the border region, the SWOT analysis and the preliminary set of interventions was prepared as early as June 2006 to be discussed at a regional workshop (held on 28 June 2006 in Baja). The programming workshop aimed at getting acquainted with the opinion and experience of the main local actors (approx. 30 participants) of the eligible programme area in order to ensure a wider social consensus regarding the priorities to be set. The results of the workshop were incorporated into the draft OP and discussed in details at the 2nd TF meeting on 17 July 2006 in Subotica. Further progress was made at the 3rd TF meeting on 6 September 2006, where the Serbian side gave detailed comments regarding the strategy and priorities of the OP. Furthermore, the first draft of the implementation chapter was introduced briefly (although the draft IPA Implementing Guidelines were not available that time). The partnership process of the planning period was characterised by an inclusive attitude towards social and economic partners. The members of the Task Force represented the local administrative units in the eligible area, as well as the national authorities. These entities were actively involved in shaping the OP. Close cooperation was established from the first moment on with the social and economic partners active in the eligible territory. A partnership workshop was held in the town of Baja on the 89th of June, where municipalities, microregions, deconcentrated entitites, civic organisations, educational institutions, chambers and other representatives were invited and actively participated in the discussions. The planners received written comments as well from many of those present. Special consultations were held with Road Management Agencies, national level Schengen authorities, the main higher education institutions and diplomatic representations during the planning process. Consultations were held with line ministries in an organised way in both countries.


1INTRODUCTION 10

SITUATION ANALYSIS 11

2. SITUATION ANALYSIS

2.1. Demography and spatial distribution

2.1.1 Population dynamics The total population of the eligible border area is about three million people. These inhabitants are divided on a roughly 2:1 ratio between the Serbian and the Hungarian sides. As the table below indicates, there is a steady natural decline of population in the eligible region. This is not offset by migration. Migration on the Hungarian side is negligible. On the Serbian side migration plays a significant part, but inward migration balances out outward migration.

POPULATION POPULATION IMMIGRANTS EMIGRANTS N

MIGR

(Census 1991) (Census 2002)

BIRTHS (2002)

DEATHS (2002)

NET BIRTHS From another

country (2002)

From another country (2003)

Into another country (2002)

Into another country (2003)

20

Vojvodina 1 970 195 2 031 992 20 206 29 764 -9 558 24 732 19 658 24 632 19 621 3

Csongrád 438 315 428 144 3 824 5 860 -2 036 305 356 n.a. n.a.

Bács-Kiskun 543 199 545 989 5 111 7 297 -2 186 643 396 n.a. n.a.

Table 1 Population dynamics in the eligible region

The table below indicates the size of the rural population as it appears in official statistics. However, due to the lack of international standards for urban/rural divisions, many settlements officially defined as urban might actually still retain markedly rural characteristics. As a consequence, the rural population of the eligible area might actually be significantly higher than the ratio indicated in official statistics.

Indicator (Unit Of measurement)

Bács- Kiskun

Csongrád Vojvodina Total eligible

region Surface (km2) 8 445 4 263 21 506 34 214

Population (person) 544 116 426 817 2 031 992 3 002 925 Density of population

(inh/km2) 64.4 100.1 94.5 87.8


2 SITUATION ANALYSIS 12

Source: 2002 Census, Statistical Vademecum

Table 2 Population status

Looking at demographic dynamics on a smaller, NUTS4 level, there are marked differences between the two sides of the border on the one hand, and between urban and rural microregions on the other hand. This is clearly demonstrated by the ratio of young people in the population, as illustrated on the following map. The Serbian side is clearly in a more advantageous situation. It must be added, however, that refugees from other parts of the Republic of Serbia and elsewhere in the FRY have contributed to the demographic processes in Vojvodina.

Rural population (number)

199 211 119 861 879 697 1 198 769



Map 2 Percentage of 0-15 age group



A similar trend can be observed in terms of the elderly population of the eligible area. Longer term demographic trends on the Hungarian side point towards ageing, especially in rural microregions. The same trend in Vojvodina appears to be significantly slower.

Map 3 Percentage of 65 (60) - age group



2.1.2. Spatial distribution

The two major urban centres in the eligible area are Szeged on the Hungarian side (168 276 inhabitants) and Novi Sad on the Vojvodina side (265 464). These two metropolitan centres have a full range of public institutional and infrastructural facilities that make them the focus of economic and social life in the region.

The town of Subotica (150 534) almost rivals the above two cities in size and significance. Although its influence is somewhat more limited, it is clearly the focal point of Norther Vojvodina and a key player in the immediate border area.

There is a strong network of middle sized towns on either side of the border, whose size reaches a 100 000 inhabitants and above. This group includes municipalities such as Kecskemét, Zrenjanin, Pancevo and Sombor.

Urban network Population

Szeged (H) 168 276

Kecskemét (H) 107 752

Hódmezővásárhely (H) 47 663

Baja (H) 37 628

Kiskunfélegyháza (H) 32 054

Novi Sad (SCG) 265 464

Subotica (SCG) 150 534

Zrenjanin (SCG) 136 778

Pančevo (SCG) 125 261

Sombor (SCG) 96 105

Kikinda (SCG) 69 743

Source: Dates of data for population number are H 2001 and SCG 1991; in the case of SCG, data also include data on townships

Table 3 Number of inhabitants in major cities

The map below illustrates the spatial distribution of the population in the eligible area. It is clear to see that urbanisation is stronger along the Szeged-Novi Sad-Belgrade axis than in the East or West of the eligible area.



Map 4 Population of dominant municipalities

The influence of the Serbian capital, Belgrade, can clearly be felt in the Southern part of Vojvodina Province. As the territory of the capital begins immediately at the southern border of Vojvodina, areas in the South of the



province might be understood as the agglomeration area of the capital city. Clearly the closeness of the capital has a strong influence on the economy, labour market, education and cultural life of the entire province.

2.2. Economy

2.2.1. GDP/capita

The Hungarian side of the border is less affluent then the national average, and while absolute numbers have naturally increased, the trend in the last fifteen years has been a further deterioration away from the national average. GDP per capita in Bács-Kiskun was at 66.4% of the national average in 2003, Csongrád at 76.7%. Average income levels in both counties are more than 10% lower than the national average.

Vojvodina on the other hand, although markedly less developed than the Hungarian side, is the most developed part of the Republic of Serbia, save for the capital, Belgrade. Within Vojvodina, there are differences in the level of economic development. Novi Sad and northern part of Vojvodina being more developed than the West and South-East of the Province.

Indicator Bács-Kiskun Csongrád Vojvodina

GDP/capita (€) 4 733 5 466 1 795

GDP/capita (in % of national mean) 66 77 111

Table 4 GDP data

We must stress that GDP per capita is a measure of economic output, and not of the general affluence of a territorial unit. Thus the marked differences between the two sides of the border region are not necessarily reflected to the same degree in terms of living standards, wages or infrastructural assets.

2.2.2. Number of registered enterprises

The number of economic enterprises is a telling indicator of the economic activity of a region. As the table below illustrates, the number of enterprises on the Serbian side is significantly lower, almost half of that on the



Hungarian side for a population that is double as large.

Area Number of enterprises Bács-Kiskun 53 136 Csongrád 46 069 Vojvodina 57 362

Table 5 Number of enterprises

The total number of registered enterprises in Vojvodina is 57 362, 46.8% of which are in commercial sector. The number of registered SMEs is 44,383. 71.9% of registered enterprises are privately owned and majority of these are SMEs. It is important to stress that SMEs make 98.7% of the total number of enterprises, employ 56.4% of employees, suppose of 41% of the assets, realize 40.1% of the total revenue, 38.5% of the net profit of the economy of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina. The largest percentage of registered SMEs in Vojvodina are in South Backa district, namely in Novi Sad (which represents 27.7% of total number of registered enterprises in Vojvodina), Sremska Mirovica – 24.4%, and in South Banat, namely in Pancevo – 42.2%. Border region lags behind in the number of SMEs..

Regarding the field of activity, private SMEs are most dominant in the field of commerce (62.8%), industry and mining (12.2%), and financial and other services (10.9%).

It is necessary to mention that there is an unfavourable proportion between active and registered enterprises (30%) - SMEs (38.2%).2 A very large percentage of SMEs stop functioning after a while, but they are not deleted from the registries. SMEs represent one of the main elements of the economic growth in the country, and therefore need additional encouragement in order to further develop.

2.2.3 Ratio of the three sectors, dominant industries

In Vojvodina, there are 32 industrial branches but only 9 branches participate with 76.1% in the domestic product of industry in 2001. Food industry (including beverage production) plays the most important role in the domestic production in Vojvodina (35.1% of the industrial domestic product in 2001), and it is followed by Oil and derivatives production (9.8%) and 2 Source: Project of the regional development plan of AP Vojvodina



chemical production (7.6%).

The makeup of economic output on the Hungarian side is summarised in a table at the end of this document.

2.2.3.1 Agriculture

The region has good quality arable land and a strong tradition of agriculture. Unfortunately the majority of agricultural products leave the region in an unprocessed or half-processed form.

Vojvodina accounts for 1.64 million hectares of the arable land, out of which 67.2% is in the possession of around 260 000 village estates, while the remaining 32.8% is the property of around 180 agricultural enterprises and farming cooperatives. The agrarian population is around 270 000 people, that is to say around 13% of the total population in Vojvodina. The agricultural sector is characterised by mobility away from the sector, a weak modern processing industry, and almost a lack of services in rural areas.

In the Hungarian counties a lower proportion are involved in agriculture; 6.9% in Bács-Kiskun and 5.9% in Csongrád (2006.1st quarter). Thus the agricultural population on the Hungarian side of the eligible area numbers some 13 600 people. The agricultural sector in Hungary was diminished in size by the transition to a market economy, and the capitalisation of the sector is still weak. The average size of farms is small in European comparison.

2.2.3.2 Services

Although the services sector is the most dominant one in the Hungarian counties, quite a high percentage of this is made up of state financed public services. Unfortunately it is impossible to determine from the statistical sources exactly what ratio this might be.

Most foreign investment on the Hungarian side of the region has targeted the industrial sector. In Vojvodina, the highest percentage of foreign investment went to financial sector (49%), business services (13%) and food and drink industry (10%).

2.3.3.3 Tourism

Tourism is a unique sector of economic activity, and therefore deserves



special attention. The table in Annex 2. summarises the most important facts about tourism in the eligible territory.

Szeged, Baja and Kecskemét, Novi Sad, Subotica, Sombor, and Zrenjanin are main destinations regarding urban tourism.

Sites like Lake Palic, Ludas, Szelidi and Büdösszék and national park Fruska Gora and Kis-Kunsági are destinations for nature lovers, whereas rural tourism, especially „salasi” (specialised folkloric sites), and Bugacpuszta, raise an increasing interest of tourists. Fruska Gora with 16 monasteries also offers possibilities for sightseeing and cultural tourism.

Spa and wellness tourism is strong in Kanjiza, Rusanda, Vrdnik, Csongrád, Szentes, Mórahalom, Kiskunmajsa.

The development of hunting tourism (Karadjordjevo complex, Karadjordjevo forest and hunting area), horse riding (Zobnatica forest and stud farm) bird watching, cycling and walking in the nature parks.

The Rivers Danube and Tisa/Tisza also unused potential for river tourism, although utilisation is often made difficult by the border status of these areas.

However, despite all the potential for tourism development, the region still remains highly unexploited, with low level of international tourists visiting the area. One of the main drawbacks is the weakness of an explicit regional identity or “tourism brand” that could attract a larger number of visitors.

2.3. Labour market dynamics The unemployment rate in Csongrád county at the beginning of 2006 was 7.2%, around the national average. In Bács-Kiskun it was lower than the national average at 9.6%.

The activity rate in Csongrád county was 53%, below the national average (54.5%). It was even lower in Bács-Kiskun at 51.9%.

The employment rate in Csongrád county was 49.2%, below the national average (50.3%). It was even lower in Bács-Kiskun at 46.9%.

Vojvodina is hit by a very high level of unemployment, at 20.3%.

Indicators Bács-Kiskun Csongrád Vojvodina



Unemployment rate (%) 7.1 4.9 20.3 Employment rate (%) 49.7 47.6 52.0 Activity rate (%) 53.5 50.0 65.2

Table 6 Employment characteristics of the eligible area

It is important to realise that taking into account the activity rate, the employment situation on the Hungarian side is not better than in Vojvodina. The difference in the activity rate compensates the large difference in the unemployment rate. The reason behind these statistics might be ageing as well as differences in statistical classification.



Map 5 Activity rate

On a NUTS 4 level, there are marked differences within the region, with rural microregions being deeply effected by labour market problems, while more urban ones, especially the large regional centres in a more favourable position.



Map 6 Unemployment rate It is important to add that Hungary, as a part of the European Union, is also a member of the single internal market of the Union. Hungarian citizens are already permitted to take up employment without obstacles in most EU member states, and



will have the right to do so in all of them by the middle of the eligible programme period. Serbia, on the other hand, is not expected to accede to the EU within this period. As a consequence, Serbian citizens will not be permitted to work without obstacles in the EU, including the other side of the border, in Hungary. This fact greatly hinders the likelihood of any European Union funded support scheme for cross-border labour mobility.

2.4. Education and R&D

2.4.1. Primary and secondary education

There is a very well developed system of kindergartens, primary and secondary schools on both sides of the border.

Table 8 Educational institutions in the eligible region

Bács-Kiskun Csongrád Serbia Vojvodina Primary education* 267 786 185 209 1 509 462 452 564 Continuation and secondary without leaving examination

20 290 16 127 76 695 –

Continuation education with leaving examination (secondary education)

127 899 151 526 2 596 348 751 182

University 35 925 39 340 411 944 88 596 Without specifying and without school education – – 357 552 75 377

Number of pupils in primary education (1–8 classes)

52 494 38 289 701 311 208 712

Number of pupils in secondary education (9–12 20 880 19 636 315 953 82 351

3Novi Sad University and 16 faculties within the framework of the university across the Vojvodina 4Colleges

Bács-Kiskun Csongrád Vojvodina Kindergartens 246 192 505 Elementary and primary schools 204 130 534 High schools* 75 75 125 Post-high school institutes Public universities and faculties 2 2 13+94 Accredited private universities 1 1 1



classes) Number of students in higher education 8 437 28 567 197 322 36 724

Number of students/1,000 inhabitants 15.5 66.9 24.5 19.1

Table 9 Levels of education in the region

2.4.2. Higher education

The University of Szeged is the major higher educational centre on the Hungarian part of the region, serving not only the Southern Great labour market, but also beyond, on the national scale. The university teaches a full range of disciplines. There are smaller higher education institutions in Kecskemét, Baja, Hódmezővásárhely and Kalocsa as well.

The University of Novi Sad is the major higher educational institution on the Vojvodina side. University of Novi Sad consists of 13 campuses, located in Novi Sad (9), Zrenjanin (1), Subotica (2) and Sombor (1). According to data from 2002/2003, most of the 1st- year students enrolled in technical and bio-technical sciences, then social, humanity and economic sciences (32%) and sciences (17%). In 2003/04 this structure has mainly remained unchanged.



Structure of Higher Education (2004)

-1000

4000

9000

14000

19000

24000

29000

Szeged

Novi Sad

Kecskemét

Baja

Hódmezővá

sárhely

Kalocsa

(per

sons

)

Human Science and EconomicSportsNatural ScienceHuman ScienceMedicalLegalArtEconomic TheologicalAgriculturalPedagologyTechnical

Graph 1 Structure of higher education

It must be added that students from the eligible area are enrolled in universities in other parts of Hungary and Serbia. The University of Belgrade is located right on the Southern border of the eligible territory. On the Hungarian side, both universities in Budapest and Pécs are within reasonable distance and cater for the educational demand of students from the eligible territories.

As for the ratio of the population with a university or high school degree, the eligible area shows a very varied picture in terms of internal geographical distribution. As the following map shows, urban centres are in a much more advantageous situation in this respect than more rural microregions.



Map 8 Higher education qualifications as precentage of population

2.4.3. Research and development

A number of R&D centres operate within University of Novi Sad. They include:

• The Scientific Centre for Food Engineering operates at the Faculty of Technology as one of the organizational units,



• Departments of Farming Machinery within the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the Faculty of Technical Sciences and within the Faculty of Agriculture.

• The Institute of Industrial Engineering and Management

• Research and Technology Centre of the Faculty of Technical Science

Two independent scientific institutes exist in Vojvodina. They include the Scientific Institute of Field and Vegetable Crops, founded in 1938, and the Scientific Institute of Veterinary Medicine.

On the Hungarian side they include the Szeged Biological Instute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Szeged; the Vinocultural Research Institute, Kecskemét; the Fisheries and Irrigation Research Institute, Szarvas; the Vegetable Research Centre Institute, Kecskemét; and the Planetary Observatory of Bács-Kiskun county.

The University of Szeged has Departments of Biophysics, Astronomy, Physics, Optics, Quantum electronics and a faculty of Medicine.

Vojvodina Field Total R&D

units Up to 2 researchers

5-7 researchers

15-24 researchers

25-49 researchers

Technical-technological sciences

2 1 1

Agricultural sciences 2 1 1 Medical sciences 1 1 Social sciences 1 1 Humanities 1 1

Hungarian side Field Total

R&D units

Up to 2 researchers

5-7 researchers

15-24 researchers

25-49 researchers

Technical-technological sciences

1 1

Agricultural sciences

4 4

Medical sciences 1 1 Social sciences 0 Humanities 0

Table 10 Academic research institutes



Csongrád county employs 4182 researchers, 8,4% of the national pool, Bács-Kiskun county employs 978 researchers, 2% of the national pool.

It is obvious from the above that the dominant line of research in the eligible area is in the field of agriculture, which is in line with the strong agricultural traditions of the area.

2.5. Infrastructure

The main artery of the border region is the E75 trans-European corridor (No. 10. Budapest-Kecskemét-Szeged-Novi Sad-Belgrade). This main transit route has recently been developed into a highway along the full length of the Hungarian part. The highway border crossing point at Röszke has also been opened. This main axis of the eligible area then continues in a semi-expressway on the Serbian side until Novi Sad, where the quality of the road is often very used. The Serbian government is making efforts to develop this road into a full highway, and a PPP tender has already been issued. The road then continues in the form of a highway between Novi Sad and Belgrade, where it joins up with the Belgrade-Nis highway, the main artery of the Balkans.

The trans-European corridor no. 10 meets the river corridor no. 7 in Novi Sad.

The E75 has been the main road of the region even before the completion of the highway on the Hungarian side, and this role is expected to intensify thereafter. Border station data from the first quarter of 2006 clearly demonstrates this trend (see Table 6)

Transit traffic is constantly on the increase on the border stations. The road also operates as an international passageway, carrying passengers and transport traffic from as far afield as Turkey, Bulgaria, Macedonia to Germany, The Czech Republic, Ukraine, Poland, Austria, Slovakia, Belgium and the Netherlands.



Border station Transit passengers Of whom non-Hungarian %

Of whom are non-Serb %

Röszke road 734 204 78.3 n.a. Szeged rail 7 149 68.7 n.a. Kelebia rail 41 900 75.2 n.a. Bácsalmás road 12 000 40.9 n.a. Hercegszántó 66 600 81.5 n.a. Tompa road 460 400 85.6 n.a.

Table 7 Border station data

The river Danube is defined as European Corridor VII which should contribute to the increase of river transport in the area. The river Tisa/Tisza is currently underutilised in terms of transport traffic.

There is a distinct lack of road connections in the border area except for the roads leading up to the international border stations.

The main extraregional railway line is the Budapest-Belgrade one, which crosses the border at Kelebia. As data from border crossings indicates, the role of rail passenger transport is quite small compared to road transport. The main international rail line does not pass through the regional metropolitan centre of Szeged. Subotica railway station used to be one with the most frequent transport and important size of transport operations. Railway transport is declining as a whole, and this is visible in the region. Railway transport is of importance for commodity transport and not so much for transportation of people.



Map 7 The transport network in the eligible area

There is a distinct lack of rail connections in the border area. It is especially striking that the main metropolitan centre in the area, Szeged, has no major railway link to the Vojvodina region.

An examination of Hungarian Government Decree No. 2291/2004 (XI. 17.) on planned new border crossings, and Hungarian Government Decree No. 305/2001. (XI. 27.). on the development of border crossings reveals that there are very few planned developments on this border area. These developments have been negotiated with the Serbian side as well.

Apart from the already completed highway border crossing points, the developments planned on the central government level do not correspond to the developments envisaged in border microregions by the Hungarian state Road Management and Coordination Directorate. A detailed table of this mismatch can be found in the appendix of this document.

2.6. Environment The Rivers Danube and Tisa/Tisza are the most prominent parts of the environmental heritage of the region (For maps and list see Annex 3 and 4).



At the edges of the region the Kiskunság National Park and the Fruska Gora and Palic natural protection area are also significant, albeit with minor cross-border significance.

The National Environmental Strategy on the Serbian side states that as a general drawback in the field of environmental protection, the environmental management system should be, institutionally and legally, further developed.

There are also difficulties with the quality and quantity of water resources. The quality of both ground and surface water mostly do not fulfil basic standards. Most of drinking water supply systems in Vojvodina are based exclusively on ground waters. Lack of adequate water treatment devices and techniques is reflected in the quality of water used. In Vojvodina the primary problems with physical and chemical water quality parameter are turbidity, and the presence of iron, arsenic, nitrates and manganese, the level of which is naturally higher. In many areas, the groundwater cannot be used for drinking purposes without prior treatment.

2.6.1 Waste waters

Approximately 20% of population in Vojvodina has been covered by the public sewerage system while some of the industrial plants discharge their waste water directly into the public water system without previously filtrating them. In Csongrád 51.9% of all flats were connected to the sewage system in 2005, while in Bács-Kiskun the same figure was 38.1%, as compared to 64.9% nationally.

In Bács-Kiskun county 14 570 000 m3 of water is canalised cleaned into the public sewage system, out of 14 760 000 m3 (total sewage canalised). The same ratio for Csongrád county is 22 359 000 m3/29 601 000 m3.

2.6.2 Soil quality

In Vojvodina, 85% of agricultural soils in affected by wind erosion with an annual loss of over 0.9 ton material per ha. Vojvodina faces a problem with waste from oil rigs (the quantity is estimated to be about 600 000 m3).



2.6.3 Veterinary services

2.7 Joint planning capacity Joint planning between the two sided has been missing or very weak in almost all areas, including flood protection, veterinary services, transport, education and intermunicipal planning along the common border.


3 SWOT ANALYSIS 34

3. SWOT ANALYSIS

STRENGTHS

WEAKNESSES

AGRI

CULT

URE

Strong agricultural traditions and potential, wide availability of fertile arable land,

Developed food processing industry on Serb side,

Strong agricultural traditions.

AGRI

CULT

URE

Agricultural products leave region processed on a low level

Outdated equipment and technologies Lack of cooperation and organization of

actors in the field of agriculture Lack of services in rural areas Lack of service for development

/improvement of agricultural management and rural development on Vojvodina side

EDUC

ATIO

N. R

&D

Major universities in Szeged and Novi

Sad, Active research institutions, dominantly

in the area of agricultural research.

LABO

UR M

ARKE

T Unemployment higher than national

average High unemployment in rural

microregions Lack of training and re-training schemes

which could facilitate re-insertion into the labour market on Vojvodina side

ENVI

RON

MEN

T

Natural protected areas on Rivers Danube and Tisa/Tisza

TRAN

SPO

RT

Rare road connections along border Main metropolitan centre of Szeged has

no major railway connection to Vojvodina region

Need for upgrading internal connections Need for upgrading of main connecting

transit route on the Vojvodina side

BORD

ER C

ON

TRO

L

Strong border control due to Schengen visa regime strongly influence freedom of movement of people in the border area, especially from the Republic of Serbia

Lack of adequate logistical capacities at Schengen outside border (affecting especially agriculture)


3 SWOT ANALYSIS 35

EDUC

ATIO

N Weak relation between educational/R&D

and private sector Weak links with labour market and

private sector

TOUR

ISM

Natural resources for tourism

development

TOUR

ISM

Tourism potentials unexploited Lack of regional identity/branding

ENVI

RON

MEN

T

Low water quality on Serbian side Soil erosion on Serbian side High level of unprocessed waste waters

on Serbian side Insufficiently developed water supply and

water management, sewage systems on Serbian side

Lack of knowledge and facilities for solid waste treatment on Serbian side

Lack of joint risk prevention and management strategies

OPPORTUNITIES

THREATS

AGRI

CULT

URE

Opportunities for cooperation in the processed agriculture products area,

Rural development through transfer of knowledge and other types of cooperation

PLAN

NIN

G

Lack of coherent planning across border. Slow emergence of cross-border

relationships due to weak linguistic connection

TRAN

SPO

RT

Completion of E75/M5 motorway facilitates access to Europe and is expected to bring investment opportunities

River Tisza/Tisa underused

BORD

ER C

ON

TRO

L Remains strong external border in the longer due to Schengen outer border position

LAN

GUA

GE

Existing bilingualism still able to expand in order to help build relationships

ENVI

RON

MEN

T

Lack of joint risk prevention and management strategies

Formázott: Felsorolás ésszámozás


3 SWOT ANALYSIS 36

TOUR

ISM

Development of the existing potentials: Rivers Danube and Tisa/Tisza Rural tourism Spas Hunting, fishing Natural parks Joint management of cultural heritage Complementarity of the touristic offer-

development of regional touristic identity

SM

E SE

CTO

Growth of the existing SME sector

Summary of main findings

The situation analysis and the SWOT analysis have identified a number of potential intervention areas, which could be helpful for the facilitation of the development of a lively and organic region. It is quite clear from the analysis and the SWOT that:

The Hungarian-Serbian border region is going to stay a Schengen outside border during the 2007-2013 period, with strong border control (and possible a continued visa) regime on the Hungarian side.

There have been weaknesses in planning between local municipalities and state organs along the common border (especially in the field of environment, water management and veterinary control).

In this area, the common cultural heritage is well identified and forms the basis of development. There is a potential for intense interaction between members of the business community, as well as the research and educational sectors.


6 DESCRIPTION OF PRIORITIES AND AREAS OF INTERVENTION 37

4. STRATEGY The overall strategic aim of the Serbia-Hungary 2007-2013 CBC Operational Programme is

a border zone with a higher standard of living and intense interaction between the two sides,

where the effects of the Schengen external border situation are felt by citizens as little as possible. In this area, the common cultural heritage is well identified and forms the basis of development, there is intense interaction between members of the business community, as well as the research and educational sectors. Citizens on both sides of the border region readily use each other’s languages, and the immediate area is visitor friendly in terms of bilingual sides and information provision.

The specific aims related to the two priorities are the following:

1. developed connecting cross-border infrastructure and environmental stability and safety in the border zone

2. intense economic, cultural and educational interaction to facilitate growth.

It is important to state that the scope of the 2007-13 CBC OP is limited by the availability of funding and the community level regulations behind it. However, a coherent and comprehensive strategy would contain a number of development priorities which are outside of the scope of the CBC programme. These are finance from domestic and other community resources. They can be found in the chapter on “Coherence with other programmes” in this document.



Based on the situation analysis and the SWOT analysis, two priorities with a number of potential intervention areas have identified, which would further the development of the main objective outlined above.

The strategy of the Programme therefore will be constituted as follows:

Priority 1. INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENVIRONMENT 1.1. Infrastructure 1.1.1. Minor improvements in cross- 1.1.2 Connecting local roads in the

OTHER INTERVENTIONS

Inte

rreg

iona

l ace

ssib

ility

Intr

areg

iona

l acc

essi

bilit

y Priority 1. Infrastructure and Environment

Priority 2. Economy, Education and Culture

Priority 3. Technical Assistance

1.2. Environment

CROSS BORDER CO-OPERATION

CREATION OF A BORDER ZONE WITH A HIGHER STANDARD OF LIVING AND INTENSE INTERACTION BETWEEN THE TWO

SIDES

Impr

ovem

ent o

f the

hum

an c

apac

ity

1.1. Infrastructure

2.2 Education and culture

2.1. Economy



2.1. Economy 2.1.1. Facilitating the establishment of business contacts

2.1.2. Development of cooperation in the field of tourism (cultural, rural and river)

2.1.3. Coordinated studies

2.1.4 The joint RDI efforts of independent and university based R&D institutions

border infrastructure and routine

border area

1.2. Environment 1.2.1. Cooperation in the field of veterinary services

1.2.1. Joint actions in field of water management and environmental protection

Priority 2. ECONOMY, EDUCATION and CULTURE

2.2. Educational and Culture 2.2.1. Cross-border education projects (training, exchange)

2.2.2. People to people actions

Priority 3.: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE



5. EXPECTED IMPACT OF THE STRATEGY For an assessment of the impact of the programme, the following

indicators will be used:

Impacts of areas of intervention

Output Indicator Source of information Result indicators Source

PRIORITY 1. INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENVIRONMENT

Aim of the priority: the creation of cross-border infrastructure and the maintenance of environmental stabil1.1. Infrastructure

Minor improvements in cross-border infrastructure and routine

Facilities built, routine improved

Programme monitoring Extra border transit capacity Border gua

Establishment of connecting local roads in the border area to facilitate border access

Km of road built Project monitoring Extra transit capacity Border gua

1.3. Environmental

Joint improvement of environmental and water safety standards.

Plans drawn up Actions completed

Project monitoring Environmental and water safety indicators.

Relevant au

Eradication of veterinary diseases

Actions completed Project monitoring Diseases eradicated Relevant au

PRIORITY 2. ECONOMY, EDUCATION and CULTURE Aim of the priority: Intense economic, educational and cultural interaction to facilitate growth in the border 2.1. Economy

Emergence of new business contacts across the border

Number of new contacts established

Project monitoring Synergies, economic growth, job creation

Regional st

RDI Number of joint RDI projects carried out

Project monitoring Increased RDI capacity in the border region Economic growth

Regional st

Establishment of adequate bilateral coordinated planning

Plans accepted Project monitoring Better joint development and operation between municipalities and state organs

Cultural heritage management to develop tourism

Heritage items restored

Project monitoring. Increase in the number of visitors, extra output in tourism sector

Regional st

2.2. Educational and Culture

Common educational projects Number of common educational projects

Project monitoring Increase in educational cooperation

People to people actions Actions completed Project monitoring Stronger cultural identity



6. DESCRIPTION OF THE PRIORITIES AND AREAS OF INTERVENTION

The following is a detailed description of how the priorities and areas of intervention of the 2007-13 Cross-border Cooperation Programme will facilitate the achievement of the main strategic objective of the Hungarian-Serbian border region.

Priority 1. INFRASTRUCTURE and ENVIRONMENT

AIM: The aim of this priority is support for minor infrastructural development in the Serbian-Hungarian border region, as well as environmental planning and minor actions in the environmental fields. JUSTIFICATION: The situation analysis and the SWOT analysis have highlighted the need for decreasing the effects of the Schengen outside border status, as well as the readiness of local actors to cooperate in the field of environment, a direct need of the region.

Area of intervention 1.1 Infrastructure AIM: The aim of this priority is the to try and mitigate the disadvantages arising from the fact that the Serbian Hungarian border region will remain a Schengen outside border region for the duration of the period 2007-2013. Such a situation poses very stark and practical challenges and problems for the inhabitants of the border region.



JUSTIFICATION: It has been identified in the SWOT analysis as one of the key threats to the development of the border region that the Hungarian-Serbian border region will remain an external one. Citizens currently often have to wait in long lines to cross the border, connecting roads to border crossings are in a bad shape. Transport traffic also has long waiting hours, and logistical facilities are often inadequate.

Area of intervention 1.2. Environment AIM: Cooperation between authorities on the two sides in the field of environmental and water management planning. JUSTIFICATION: The SWOT analysis of the border region highlights the sometimes severe environmental and water management problems of the region. This area of intervention aims to facilitate planning and cooperation in these fields.

ELIGIBLE ACTIONS: This area of intervention supports the following activities:

1.3.1. Joint planning of environmental and water system risk management 1.3.2. Cooperation in the field of veterinary services.



Priority 2. ECONOMY, EDUCATION and CULTURE

Area of intervention 2.1. Economy AIM: The situation analysis and the swot analysis of the border area highlights possible areas of interaction and cooperation in the economic domain. This area of intervention aims to facilitate the establishment of these linkages through economic development promoting activities. JUSTIFICATION: There opportunities for more businesses to cooperate in the border region. This potential has been established to be especially strong in the agricultural (vertical integration, processing) and tourism (rural, cultural, river) domains.

2.1.1. Facilitating the establishment of business contacts 2.1.2. The joint RDI efforts of independent and university based R&D institutions from both

sides of the border 2.1.3. Coordinated studies 2.1.4. Cooperation in the field of heritage management to exploit the touristic potential of

the region

Area of intervention 2.2.: Educational and Culture AIM: This area of intervention aims to facilitate interactions between educational, research and cultural institutions in order to create a common educational and cultural space. It also aims to promote learning and cooperation through people-to-people actions. JUSTIFICATION: The situation analysis has identified a number of actors in the educational and research domains who would be ready and capable to cooperate, finding



synergies across the border. The eligible region also has a common, rich cultural heritage, which still waits to be fully explored, restored and presented.

ELIGIBLE ACTIONS: This area of intervention supports the following activities:

2.2.1. Joint cross-border educational and training projects 2.2.2. People to people actions

Priority 3. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE


7 HORIZONTAL ISSUES 46

7. HORIZONTAL ISSUES and CROSS-CUTTING THEMES

• As bilingualism is a key aspect of cooperation, it appears as a horizontal aspect. All results of cross-border cooperation supported projects must be made available to the public in at least in Serbian and Hungarian. Efforts to use other minority and world languages are also encouraged.

• Projects must demonstrate their efforts to create equal opportunities

for genders, ethnicities and the disabled according to the principles of the European Union.

• Projects supported must observe and respect the principle of

sustainability as outlined in the Gotheborg Strategy of the European Union.


10 MAIN DOCUMENTS USED 47

8. COHERENCE WITH OTHER PROGRAMMES Under preparation.



9. FINANCIAL TABLE The financing of this programme has not been finalised yet. The proposed division of financial support (in Euros, current prices) between priorities is as follows:

Priority CommunityFunding (a)

National Public

funding (b)

National private

funding[1]c)

Total funding (d)= (a)+(b)+

(c)

Co-financing rate (e)1=

(a)/(d) COMMON ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL SPACE

(60% 30 067 200 5 305 976 35 373

176,47 0,85

CULTURAL SPACE (30%) 15 033 600 2 652 988 17 686

588,23 0,85

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE (10%) 5 011 200 5 011 200 10 022 400 0,5

Total: (100%) 50 112 000

12 970 164,7 0 63 082

164,7

The annual allocations are indicated in the table below (in euros, current prices):

IPA + ERDF (Total)

2007 4 040 000 2008 6 901 000 2009 7 527 000 2010 7 677 000 2011 7 831 000 2012 7 988 000 2013 8 148 000 Total 50 112 000



10. MAIN DOCUMENTS USED

• Draft Strategic National Reference Framework, Hungary, 2007-13 • Sectoral Operational Programmes of the Draft Strategic National Reference Framework, Hungary, 2007-13 • Jelentés a területi folyamatok alakulásáról • Southern Great Plains Region Operational Programme 2007-2013 draft • Danube–Körös–Maros–Tisza Euroregion Development Plan • Project of regional development plan of AP Vojvodina – Analysis of

recent development and SWOT Analysis • Power point presentation of road developments envisaged in border

microregions by the Hungarian state Road Management and Coordination Directorate (UKIG).

• Hungarian Government Decree No. 2291/2004 (XI. 17.) on planned new border crossings,

• Hungarian Government Decree No. 305/2001. (XI. 27.). on the development of border crossings.

• Serbian National Environmental Strategy. Draft submitted for inter-ministerial consultation. October 2005.

• Project of regional development plan of AP Vojvodina – Analisys of recent development and SWOT Analysis

Hungary-Serbia CBC Programme 2007-2013 v 5.0

11 ANNEXES 52

11. ANNEXES

Annex 1 GDP by Main Branches in the Economy GDP by main groups of industries (2004)

0

100 000

200 000

300 000

400 000

500 000

600 000

700 000

Bács-Kiskun Csongrád

(mill

ions

Ft)

AGRICULTURE, HUNTING AND FORESTRY

FISHING

MINING AND QUARRYING OF ENERGY PRODUCING MATERIALS

MINING AND QUARRYING, EXCEPT OF ENERGY PRODUCING MATERIALS

MANUFACTURE OF FOOD PRODUCTS, BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO

MANUFACTURE OF TEXTILES AND TEXTILE PRODUCTS

MANUFACTURE OF LEATHER AND LEATHER PRODUCTS

MANUFACTURE OF WOOD AND WOOD PRODUCTS

MANUFACTURE OF PULP, PAPER AND PAPER PRODUCTS, PUBLISHING AND PRINTING

MANUFACTURE OF COKE, REFINED PETROLEUM PRODUCTS AND NUCLEAR FUEL

MANUFACTURE OF CHEMICALS, CHEMICAL PRODUCTS AND MAN-MADE FIBRES

MANUFACTURE OF RUBBER AND PLASTIC PRODUCTS

MANUFACTURE OF OTHER NON-METALLIC MINERAL PRODUCTS

MANUFACTURE OF BASIC METALS AND FABRICATED METAL PRODUCTS

MANUFACTURE OF MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT N.E.C.

MANUFACTURE OF ELECTRICAL AND OPTICAL EQUIPMENT

MANUFACTURE OF TRANSPORT EQUIPMENT

MANUFACTURING N.E.C.

ELECTRICITY, GAS AND WATER SUPPLY

CONSTRUCTION

WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE; REPAIR OF MOTOR VEHICLES, MOTORCYCLES ANDPERSONAL AND HOUSEHOLD GOODS

HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS

TRANSPORT, STORAGE AND COMMUNICATION

FINANCIAL INTERMEDIATION

REAL ESTATE, RENTING AND BUSINESS ACTIVITIES

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND DEFENCE; COMPULSORY SOCIAL SECURITY

EDUCATION

HEALTH AND SOCIAL WORK

OTHER COMMUNITY, SOCIAL AND PERSONAL ACTIVITIES


11. ANNEXES 53

Annex 2 Basic Tourism Data for the Eligible Region

Bács-Kiskun Csongrád Vojvodina Number of tourists at hotels

72 499 84 682 282 837

Revenues of hotels from their core operation (€)

40.6 million 49.8 million 22.6 million

Number of guest nights

371 488/ 341 000 (2005)

391 967/ 400 000 (2005)

613 740

Average stay (day/person)

3.1 3.3 2.8

Hotel capacity (hotels/every kind)

2222 (hotels) /11041 (total

2005)

2259 (hotels) /9569 (total 2005)

743 000 (*2000)

Utilisation of hotel capacity (%)

16.1 % (2005) 16.1 % (2005) n/a


11. ANNEXES 54

Annex 3 Hungarian nature conservation areas

Nature conservation areas with national importance, Natura 2000 sites and Ramsar areas

Pusztaszeri

Körös-Maros

Kiskunsági

Duna-Dráva

Du n

a

Tisz

aMaros

Legend

Eligible areaBorder

National parkLandscape protection districtNature protection area

Special area for conservationSpecial (bird) protection areaRamsar area


11. ANNEXES 55

Annex 4 List of Serbian Environmental Protected Areas

1.Gornje Podunavlje (Upper Danube area) 2. Subotičke šume (Subotičke forests) 3. Selevenj-Palić-Ludaš kompleks (Selevenj-Palić-Ludaš complex): 3a) Selevenjske stepe (Selevenj steppe) 3b) Ludaško jezero (Ludaš lake) 3c) Palićsko jezero (Palić lake) 4. Zobnatička šuma i ergela (Zobnatica forest and stud farm) 5. Karađorđevo (Karadjordjevo complex) 5a) Bukinski rit (Bukinski Rit snjamp) 5b) šume i lovište Karađorđevo (Karadjordjevo forest and hunting area) 6. Fruška Gora (Fruška Gora Mt.) 7. Bosut-Zasavica (Bosut-Zasavica complex) 7a) Bosutske šume (Bosutske forests) 7b) Zasavica (Zasavica channel) 8. Obedska bara (Obedska Bara pool) 9. Titelski breg (Titelski Breg hill) 10. Ponjavica (Ponjavica) 11. Deliblatska peščara (Deliblatska Peščara sends) 12. Vršačke planine (Vršačke Planine Mts) 13. Uzdinska šuma (Uzdinska forest) 14. Carska Bara - Stari Begej (Carska Bara pool - Stari Begej channel) 15. Park Hajdučica (Hajdučica park) 16. Bara Rusanda (Rusanda pool) 17. Slano Kopovo (Slano Kopovo marches) 18. Park sokolac kod Bečeja (Sokolac park near Bečej) 19. Pašnjaci velike droplje kod Mokrina (Pastures of Large Bustard near Mokrin) 20. Koviljsko - Petrovaradinski rit (Koviljsko - Petrovaradinski Rit swampy area)


11. ANNEXES 56

Annex 5 Planned Border Crossings from the Hungarian Side

Mismatch between border crossings planned by governments and border area road development plans of the Hungarian state Road Management and Coordination Directorate (UKIG).

Border crossing point

Mode of transport

Planned changes in status according to government order 2291/2004 (HU)

Planned developments according to government order 2291/2004 (HU)

Status change plans by UKIG

Development plans by UKIG

Hercegszántó (- Bački Breg)

road change status to international limited freight border crossing point

for international passenger traffic; road development

Road reconstruction, 2 additional lanes

Bácsszentgyörgy (- Rastina)

road

change status to permanent border crossing point (from temporary)

1.5 km road in HU / 1.7 km road in SCG (priority: high)

Bácsszentgyörgy (- Ridica)

road

new border crossing point

1.9 km road in HU / 3.1 km road in SCG (priority: low)

Gara (- Ridica) road

change status to permanent border crossing point (from temporary)


Katymár (- Ridica)

road



Katymár (- Aleksa Šantič)

road


5.2 km road in HU / 10.1 km road in SCG (priority: medium)

Madaras (- Bajmok)

road



Bácsalmás (- Bajmok)

road change status to international border crossing point

for international passenger traffic, with reduced number of lanes; road development

Pavement upgrade

Kunbaja (- Tavankut)

road


2.5 km road in HU / 3.8 km road in SCG (priority:


11. ANNEXES 57


Mode of transport





low)

Csikéria (- Čikerija)

road



Csikéria (- Subotica)

road


2.5 km road in HU / 7.6 km road in SCG (priority: medium)

Mélykút (- Subotica)

road



Tompa (- Kelebja)

road road development

Pavement upgrade, new track

Kelebia (- Subotica)

railway building development, lighting, building of rails, public utilities

Kelebia (- Subotica)

road


3.5 km road in HU / 8.3 km road in SCG; use of control infrastructure of nearby railway border crossing point (priority: medium)

Ásotthalom (- Bački Vinogradj)

road



Röszke (M5) (- Horgoš)

road (motorway)

Röszke (- Horgoš)

road changes due to decreasing traffic (new border crossing point for motorway M5 nearby)

maintenance of the building

Röszke (- Horgoš)

railway building development

Röszke (-

Martonoš) bicycle


2.9 km bicycle route in HU / 5.4 km bicycle route in SCG (priority: low)

Szeged water change status to international

harbour developme


11. ANNEXES 58


Mode of transport





border crossing point

nt

Tiszasziget (- Đala)

bicycle


1.1 km bicycle route in HU / 1.4 km bicycle route in SCG (priority: medium)

Tiszasziget (-

Đala) road change status to

international border crossing point

for international passenger traffic, with reduced number of lanes; road development

Kübekháza (- Rabe)

road

change status to local border crossing point (from temporary)


h -serbia ipa cross-border

Documents