An Analysis of the Latest Trends of the Complex Development of the Croatian-Hungarian Border Area

Home , 2004 in Hungary, Baranya County (former), Letenye, Nagykanizsa, Vukovar, Zalaegerszeg

DOI: 10.15201/hungeobull.65.1.4Čelan, T.J. Hungarian Hungarian Geographical Geographical Bulletin Bulletin 65 (2016) 65 (1)2016 43–56. (1) 43–56.43

An analysis of the latest trends of the complex development of the Croatian-Hungarian border area

Tvrtko Josip ČELAN1

Abstract

This paper analyses the geographical feature of the Croatian-Hungarian cross-border area, focusing on recent changes and socio-economic trends of the last decade. In the paper current demographic, cross-border traffi c and mobility trends are examined. Special att ention is devoted to the spatial structure of the area and its key demographic indicators, modifi ed during the last intercensal period between 2001 and 2011. Demographic data are analysed on the level of NUTS III units, as they provide the statistical basis for planning and they are designated as co-operation units in the joint bilateral cross-border operational programme fi nanced by the EU. The transition that has taken place in the last years is observed in relation to the Croatian accession to the EU and to the full membership achieved in 2013. The Croatian-Hungarian cross-border co-operation has been intensifi ed since 2007. More EU funds became available than before, which brought about the possibility for stronger cohesion in the area and, accordingly, it has triggered territorial transformations. The main goal of this research is to defi ne whether changes having taken place in the border region since 2007 created a genuine transborder region. The assumption is that current development trends, although the most intensive in the last 100 years, are still not suffi cient enough to mitigate the huge geographical handicap, the transport and language barriers and in general the strong periphery status of the border area in comparison to the capital cities Zagreb and Budapest.

Keywords: peripherality, geographical handicap, regional policy, transport geography, EU cohesion policy, cross-border co-operation Croatian-Hungarian border area.

Introduction the problems of state borders the Croatian- Hungarian border area has not att racted spe- The term “border” often has a negative cial att ention in the literature during the last connotation for being a separating line, a 20 years. In Croatia it has almost exclusively warning signal not to cross a line between been published by the researchers at the De- the allowed and the forbidden (Stokłosa, partment of Geography of the Faculty of Sci- K. et al. 2014). The awareness of both men- ence of the University of Zagreb (Čelan, T.J. tal and factual borders in our life has made 2014). In Hungary, the Hungarian-Croatian them a research topic in almost all disciplines border and its related developments have – including geography. Since the end of the gained wider att ention and have been in the 1980s the status of state borders has become focus of research at the Centre for Economic a rather popular topic in European geogra- and Regional Studies of Hungarian Academy phy and border areas have been continu- of Sciences in Pécs and the Institute of Geog- ously analysed and discussed. Cross-border raphy at the University of Pécs as well. co-operation is one of the most popular sub- The question of state borders (separating jects in the border research (van Houtum, H. vs. integrating) have been in the centre of 2000). Despite the wide scientiﬁ c interest in academic att ention in Central Europe due

1 PhD-student, University of Pécs, Doctoral School of Earth Sciences; presently employed at the Joint Secretariat of the Interreg V-A Hungary-Croatia Co-operation Programme. Address: H-9707 Szombathely, Szabó Imre u. 31. E-mail: [email protected] 44 Čelan, T.J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (1) 43–56.

to historical traditions, and it has further balance of migration, ageing (see: Planning strengthened with the boom of EU integra- documents of the Interreg V-A Hungary- tion in the period between 1995 and 2007. Croatia Co-operation Programme 2014– Aft er the fall of the communist regimes, the 2020). Negative demographic trends increase countries of the region joined to the EU one towards the borderline on the both sides of by one, and, as a result, cross-border rela- the national frontier. This refl ects that in case tions have increased both in numbers and in of the Croatian-Hungarian border the bor- intensity (Gulyás, L. et al. 2013). Due to the der position is not an advantage but rather intensifi cation of the co-operation between a handicap (Opačić, V.T. et al. 2004). The size former communist countries and well-devel- and the structure of sett lements, which gen- oped EU states, border areas became impor- erally have a rural character, the dominance tant fi elds of economic development, with a of small villages and the lack of larger centres role to connect the neighbouring areas and directly infl uence depopulation. The primacy even to form transborder regions (Opačić, of both capitals (Budapest and Zagreb) has V.T. et al. 2004). also negatively contributed to the devel- According to Buffon (1993) and Opačić opment of other regions, including border (2004) transborder region can be defi ned as areas. The economic position of Budapest a special form of peripheral region, socially has become clearly stronger in the last two and economically aff ected by the border and decades and its economic primacy increased characterised by a signifi cant level of trans- (Pirisi, G. et al. 2012). border connections and integration (Buffon, The Hungary-Croatia Cross-border Co- M. 1993; Opačić, V.T. 2004). According to operation Programme 2007–2013 (herein- Martinez (1994) transborder region is a func- after HU-HR (IPA) CBC Programme) as tional region, being the result of a complex an instrument for minimising the existing development. Martinez also made diff erence border handicap has been one of the pos- between diff erent types of border areas, like: sible fi nancial sources for overcoming prob- alienated, co-existing, mutually co-operat- lems in the area, from demographic issues ing and integrated border areas. According to cross-border traffi c and mobility. In the to Perkmann (2003), a cross-border region is period 2007–2013. The instrument for pre-ac- a territorial unit that comprises contiguous cession assistance (IPA) brought signifi cant sub-national units from two or more nation changes to Hungarian-Croatian cross-bor- states. Cross-border regions diff er from basic der co-operation. The question is whether ceremonial contacts to long-lasting and ef- the established bilateral programme and the fective co-operations, att ached or integrated 169 joint projects brought about a balanced into the multilevel policy implementation development, or it could be considered arti- networks constituted by EU regional poli- fi cial to a certain extent. cy. In this paper we would like to examine whether the Croatian-Hungarian border area Geographical characteristics of the has att ained the status of transborder region, Croatian-Hungarian border zone or still exists just as a cross-border area. The demographical conditions and the The 355-kilometre3 stretch of the border spatial structure of the Croatian-Hungarian between Croatia and Hungary is the most border was analysed in the latest planning unique and complex section of the Hungar- process2 and signifi cantly more weaknesses ian boundaries, and this is the only one that were pointed out than strengths. They in- has a long historical tradition. Despite fre- cluded: a decreasing population, negative 3 The same fi gure is also indicated by State Geodetic 2 Situation and SWOT Analysis: Interreg V-A Hungary- Administration, Zagreb, Croatia. CIA (The World Croatia Co-operation Programme 2014–2020: htt p:// Factbook) gives diff erent data on the border length www.huhr-cbc.com/en/offi cial-documents. (Figure 1). Čelan, T.J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (1) 43–56. 45

quent disputes the border retained its peace- A ful character (Hajdú, Z. 2004). The Croatian- Hungarian boundary, colloquially often identifi ed with the Drava river, as a typical natural boundary, has been on its major parts one of the oldest European borders. Still, it is a complex border with diverse origins and signifi cant deviations from the present Drava river bed, as the consequence of its frequent changes in the past (Klemenčić, M. 1991). Typical lowland river meanders altered the B river bed. Rivers Mura and Drava are among the last remaining wetland habitats in Central Europe (UNESCO trans-boundary biosphere reserve from 2012). Several border sections such as Međimurje, Baranja and Prekodrav- lje4 (Crkvenčić, J. and Crkvenčić, M. 2003) have diff erent historical background. The unique shape of the Croatia has a clear impact on the length of its state borders. Although Hungary comprises signifi cantly Fig. 1. State land borders of the Republic of Croatia larger area than Croatia, the longest Croatian (A) and Hungary (B) per neighbouring countries (in land border with Bosnia and Herzegovina km) Source: CIA-The World Factbook: total land bor- (47% of all Croatian land borders) is even 256 ders of the Republic of Croatia and Hungary. km longer than the longest Hungarian bor- der5 (Figure 1). Except for the Hungarian, all in the case with Hungary. As of Croatia, its other Croatian land borders derive from the border with Hungary (Figure 1, A) is the 3rd former internal SFRY (Socialist Federative longest (16%) and as of Hungary (Figure 1, B), Republic of Yugoslavia) borders, resulting its border with Croatia is the 4th longest with in disputes among the new states and all re- the share of 15 percent (htt ps://www.cia.gov/ mained partly unsolved. During the SFRY library/publications/the-world-factbook). they were only borders of the federal units Geographical and transport barriers of and were not confined properly like the Hungary are the strongest with Croatia, Yugoslav border with Hungary. Their rec- having only four cross-border river bridges. ognition as state borders was based on the Border areas with diff erent geographical en- conclusions of November 1991 formulated dowments have various chances for creating by the Badinter Arbitration Committ ee (Čelan, integrated cross-border regions (HARDI, T. T.J. 2014). 2010). Out of the 355.2 km of the Croatian- Long parts of the boundaries with Bosnia Hungarian state border the major part in the and Herzegovina, Slovenia and Serbia are length of 226.4 kilometres (64%) goes along- passing alongside various river beds, but no- side the river beds of Drava (180 km) and where present an obstacle at such extent as Mura (44.6 km). A short 1.8 km strip passes across the small river Krka (in Hungarian: 6 4 In Hungarian the names are Muraköz, Baranya and Kerka) close to the village Alsószemenye . “Répás-kerület” (according to Hajdú, Z. 2006). 5 Data have been compared based on the same source, not to have discrepancies as of the diff erent 6 Source: Državna geodetska uprava/ State Geodetic methodology. Source: CIA-The World Factbook, Administration, Zagreb, Croatia: htt p://www.dgu. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the- hr offi cial answer of 25.2.2014 on inquiry (Class: world-factbook. 015-02/14-01/03, Number: 541-02-3/1-14-2). 46 Čelan, T.J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (1) 43–56.

Changes and trends in the development of major cities of Pécs and Osĳ ek. The largest the Croatian-Hungarian border area group of Croatian or Hungarian minorities live there and that is the only location where In this section we examine the development geographical handicap does not exist. Pécs of the Croatian-Hungarian border zone in the and Osĳ ek are the two major regional centres light of several aspects, like language barrier, where it is possible to study Croatian and spatial structure and current socio-economic Hungarian as foreign languages on universi- trends, transport, mobility, and EU funded ty level8. Comparing the censuses in 2001 and cross-border co-operation. 2011, there is a slight decrease of Hungarian minority in Croatia (16,595 vs. 14,048) whilst The Croatian-Hungarian border area as a in Hungary the number of Croatians (25,730 language barrier vs. 26,774) has statistically9 increased.

Although Croatia formed diff erent types of The spatial structure and the current socio- state union with the Kingdom of Hungary economic trends in the Croatian-Hungarian from 1102 until 1918, neither the Hungarian border area language in Croatia nor the Croatian language in Hungary was signifi cantly wide- The development of the spatial polarisation spread. Their usage is limited only to the (inland vs. borderland) of an integrated state relatively small communities of national mi- formation is mostly dependent on the char- norities. The share of these minorities in the acter of a borderline (open or closed) and it population of Hungary and Croatia is quite is not only conditioned by economic aspects. low, at 0.3 percent. The number of native Actual peripherality has a long and com- speakers is even lower than the representa- plicated history (Havlíček, T. 2007; Lang, tion7 of national minorities in both Hungary T. 2015. Prior to the change of regime, the and Croatia. With the abolition of the offi cial development of cross-border tourism was use of Latin (as the lingua franca) in the 19th hindered by administrative obstacles which century, Croatians and Hungarians could no made sett lements in border regions periph- longer understand each other because both eral. Negative eff ects also emerged at the nations were very keen and persistent on us- border section with Croatia (Dávid, L. et al. ing their own national languages and none 2011). During the second half of the 20th cen- of them deemed it necessary to learn the lan- tury the border was a strict and clear divid- guage of its neighbour (Heka, L. 2007). ing line, supported with the development of Croatian and Hungarian languages belong the Southern Defence System. This background to very diff erent families (Indo-European negatively infl uenced the development of the and Uralic/Finno-Ugric) and the language border area (Čelan, T.J. 2014). barrier is particularly strong. All these fac- Between the last two censuses (2001–2011) tors led to the fact that bilingualism is not a the total decrease of the population in the typical feature of the cross-border area. The border area was 102,864 (55,332 on the number of bilingual population, especially 8 on the Croatian side is negligible. Without In both towns there are also Croatian and Hungarian Education Centres (with kindergarten, primary and English or German proper communication is grammar school). Several pre-school programmes almost impossible nowadays. The only area and primary schools in Hungary can off er minority where bilingualism is partly identifi able is language or bilingual trainings, http://www. the border zone of Baranya County (HU) and hrvatiizvanrh.hr/hr/hmiu/hrvatska-manjina-u- Osječko-baranjska County (HR), with two republici-madjarskoj/9 but on university level only Pécs and Osijek offer teaching of Croatian and Hungarian as foreign languages. 7 Sources: www.dzs.hr and www.ksh.hu (Censuses 2011 9 Sources: www.dzs.hr and www.ksh.hu (Censuses and 2001). 2011 and 2001). Čelan, T.J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (1) 43–56. 47

Hungarian and 47,532 on the Croatian side). The negative population trends in compari- Counties (i.e. NUTS III areas) are diff erent10 son with the countries′ statistics became even in their size, but they can indicate the demo- worse between 2001 and 2011. The aggregated graphic trends. Both sides of the border zone population decrease between 1991 and 2011 have higher population decrease (in percent) offi cially amounts to 185,594, which means al- than the national averages. Three Hungarian most the combined total population of Osĳ ek, border counties (Zala, Somogy, Baranya), Zalaegerszeg and Nagykanizsa was lost in have similar relative decrease of the popula- the border area in the last two decades. tion (average 5.32%). The average decrease Gross domestic product figures are not is a bit higher (7.13%) in the four Croatian very promising either. The GDP per capita counties, but it significantly varies, from value of the region is below the EU and na- 3.91 percent in Međimurska to 10 percent in tional averages. Koprivničko-križevačka is Virovitičko-podravska. In the previous inter- the most developed among the investigated censal period between 1991 and 2001 popula- Croatian border counties13 with 82.6 percent tion decrease showed a total of 82,730; sig- of the national average (but Međimurska with nifi cantly higher in the Croatian part (54,313) 81.9 percent and Osječko-baranjska with 80.1 than in the Hungarian (28,417). The relative percent are quite close to it). The least devel- fall of population (2.7%) in Hungarian coun- oped, and at the same time the most sparsely ties proved11 to be much lower than in the populated county in the whole Croatian- Croatian counties (7.5%). Hungarian border zone is Virovitičko-po- The intensity of depopulation is strongly dravska with only 61.3 percent of the Croatian infl uenced by the characteristics of the sett le- (10,325 EUR) national per capita GDP. On the ment patt ern, which is signifi cantly bett er on Hungarian side, GDP per capita is the high- the Hungarian side. One of the main reasons est in Zala (79.8%) compared to the national for stronger depopulation on the Croatian average (9,925.8 EUR). It is the 7th most de- side12 has been the fragmented sett lement veloped Hungarian country, while Baranya patt ern (Figure 2). (64.0%) and Somogy (63.4%) are almost at The average size of sett lements is approxi- the bott om (15th and 16th place) out of the 19 mately twice bigger on the Hungarian side Hungarian counties14. Virovitičko-podravska than on the Croatian one, and the differ- and Somogy show equally low performance, ence in the size of sett lements varies more in like in demographic indicators, and the de- Hungary from very small villages to bigger velopment of the transport network. towns. Depopulation as a consequence of em- igration aff ects small villages more intensely than larger sett lements (Opačić, V.T. et al. Transport in the Croatian-Hungarian border area 2004). In Hungary, three towns on the border zone have more than 50,000 inhabitants (Pécs, In the last 15 years Croatia and Hungary Kaposvár and Zalaegerszeg) while in Croatia have developed their own motorway infra- only one sett lement, Osĳ ek (Figure 2). In both structure, and both countries are good ex- countries the size of towns correlates with the amples for excessive road developments15 in distance from the border. 13 Source: First release, Number: 12.1.2. (14 February, 2014) – CROSTAT, www.dzs.hr Gross Domestic 10 Counties are smaller in Croatia. Croatia has 21 county Product for Republic of Croatia, NUTS 2 Level and including Zagreb, Hungary has 20 with Budapest. Counties, 2011. 11 Sources: www.dzs.hr and www.ksh.hu (Censuses 14 Source: Hungarian Central Statistical Offi ce (data for 2011 and 2001). year 2011) - htt p://www.ksh.hu/engstadat. 12 In Croatia almost always is the case that more 15 Hungary reached the milestone (1,000 km) of settlements form a local government (town/ constructed motorways in 2007, whilst Croatia municipality), in Hungary it is more frequent to have already in 2005 (http://www.huka.hr/mreza- the 1 sett lement=1 local self-government principle. autocesta; htt p://www.motorway.hu/) 48 Čelan, T.J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (1) 43–56.

Fig. 2. Map of the border area with the sett lements and border crossing points. Source: Own editing in co-operation with Gábor Kovács and János Csapó (University of Pécs).

East Central Europe. The investments were improved, despite road investments. Proper huge, and the maintenance of the network West-East connections do not exist in Hungary. is centralised in both countries managed by Only the far West (Čakovec/Nagykanizsa) and large state corporations. The development the far East (Osĳ ek/Pécs) have really modern of the motorway network contributed to the road connections (htt p://www.huka.hr/mreza- supreme role of the two capital cities linked autocesta; htt p://www.motorway.hu/), but only by the new Zagreb–Budapest axis. with the capital cities. The concentrated traﬃ c channelled to border Currently, there are only seven road bor- crossing points resulted in excessive transport der crossing points along the entire Croatian- shadow areas on both sides of the border. Hungarian frontier. This is not enough for Thus, the peripheral position, especially in a good level of cross-border transport and the case of the middle section of the border accessibility. Three out of the seven border area (Virovitica on the Croatian side and part- crossings are between Baranja/Baranya, with- ly Kaposvár on the Hungarian side) has not in a very short distance and two of them even Čelan, T.J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (1) 43–56. 49

do not have a river barrier (Figure 2). There tion depends on the availability of funds and are several strong cross-border, mainly cul- agreements with the Republic of Croatia. tural contacts and partnerships around Mura Road traffi c from Croatia to Hungary is and Drava, but the lack of bridges and border- very limited, comprising only 6.5 percent crossings prevents adequate communication (in 2012) of the total number of passengers (Čelan, T.J. 2011, 2013). The only major joint crossing all Croatian state borders. Goričan- investment in the last decade was one bridge Letenye is the busiest road border-crossing20 (with names – HR: Most Mura, HU: Zrínyi along the Croatian-Hungarian section where híd) on the Pan-European transport corridor16 60.4 percent of all passengers (Figure 3) and V/B, where the new border crossing Goričan 56.8 percent of all vehicles crossed the border – Letenye II is located. That bridge17 connects in 2004. Figures were similar in 2008 (64%) Zagreb (Zagreb–Goričan motorway A4) and and in every other observed year with ap- Budapest (Budapest–Letenye motorway M7) proximately 60 percent share of passengers. from October 2008. It has to be noted that from 2008 the old and The regulation of the Croatian Government new border crossings of Goričan-Letenye I- on border crossings published in the Offi cial II have been functioning as a joint unit (e.g. Gazett e No. 79/2013 defi nes18 fi ve more in- trucks can only use the old crossing) 21 and ternational road border crossings with data used in this paper refer only to one Hungary (Kotoriba, Donja Dubrava, Legrad, unit. The peak in the number of passengers Ferdinandovac, Sopje), but without any con- and vehicles was reached in 2008, while af- crete plan for construction. Between 2012 and terwards fi gures decreased every year until 2015 a project was implemented in Hungary 2013 (Figure 3). As it is primarily a touristic with the task of defi ning possible new bor- summer border-crossing and used domi- der crossings and the development of cross- nantly by cars, it can be easily concluded border infrastructure with all neighbouring that the reason for the decline was the fi nan- countries, including Croatia. On the Croatian cial crisis and the consequent decline of the border section 44 possible crossings and con- number of Hungarian tourists22 travelling to struction areas have been analysed. The re- Croatia (from 453,000 in 2005 to 308,000 in sults of the given project (KÖZOP-3.5.0-09-11- 2013). Since Goričan-Letenye I-II is mainly 2012-0003) have just been published and the a summer touristic crossing point, for the decision of the Hungarian government was analysis of cross-border activity it is impor- taken in January 2016 on prioritising road tant to examine other Croatian-Hungarian and partly bridge construction at four bor- border-crossings. der crossings with Croatia19. Future construc- All Croatian-Hungarian border crossings registered decreasing traffi c until 2013, with

16 the exception of Duboševica-Udvar, which The term Pan-European transport corridor is used, has been continuously expanding since 2008 as more appropriate for the region, not EU-TEN T network. htt p://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/ (Figure 3), due to the importance of the di- infrastructure/doc/ten-t-country-fiches/ten-t- rection Osĳ ek–Mohács/Pécs–Budapest (Pan- corridor-map-2013.pdf European corridor V/C). New motorway con- 17 Uredba o objavi Ugovora između Vlade Republike nections from Zagreb to Osĳ ek (opened in Hrvatske i Vlade Republike Mađarske o uspostavi graničnog prĳ elaza Goričan–Letenye II (…): Oﬃ cial 20 The data are observed for the 6 chosen years in Gazett e, Croatia (NN-MU 1 / 2006). htt p://narodne- the last 10 years, from 2004 to 2014. Year 2008 was novine.nn.hr/medunarodni/default.aspx important due to the opening of the new border 18 Narodne novine- NN 79/ 2013: Uredba o graničnim crossing Goričan–Letenye, while last three years to prĳ elazima Republike Hrvatske. indicate recent changes. 19 1007/2016. (I. 18.) Korm. Határozat: A 2014–2020. 21 The majority (more than 80%) of the traﬃ c since 2008 has évek közötti határ menti közúti infrastruktúra- been channelled through Goričan–Letenye II (new). fejlesztésekről. htt p://www.kozlonyok.hu/nkonline/ 22 Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Croatia, 2013. MKPDF/hiteles/MK16007.pdf htt p://www.dzs.hr 50 Čelan, T.J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (1) 43–56.

spring 2009) and from Budapest to Mohács/ can be measured only in the next years wheth- Pécs (opened in spring 2010) signifi cantly im- er the easier crossing of the border with faster proved the conditions and shortened the time police and no customs control, has increased of travel; however, the connection between the traffi c between the two countries. Osĳ ek and Mohács is still missing. Based on As a comparison, in the previous decade traffi c data (Figure 3) border-crossing points (1994–2003), the changes were much more can be categorised in the following way: turbulent. From the maximum level of 10.7 – strategic importance: Goričan–Letenye I, II million passengers in 1996 to a slight stagna- and Duboševica–Udvar, tion until 2000, the volume dropped to only – medium importance: Terezino Polje–Barcs, 5.1 million by 2003 (Opačić, V.T. et al. 2004). Donji Miholjac–Drávaszabolcs, In 1980 the total number of passengers travel- – minor (local) importance: Gola–Berzence ling between the SFRY and Hungary both by and Baranjsko Petrovo Selo–Beremend. road and railway was 7.6 million (Pepeonik, The total number of passengers in the Z. 1985). The big boom of the cross-border 2004–2013 decade was the highest (4,183,381) traffi c started in the 1990s, aft er the fall of the in 2004 with a stagnation; although relatively „iron curtain“ and had its peak in 1996, right stable around 4 million, whilst in 2013 a slight aft er the end of war (1995) in Croatia. The fi rst increase compared to the previous year was reason for the intensifi ed cross-border traf- registered for the fi rst time. The latest avail- fi c was a large number of refugees coming to able data for 2014 show signifi cant increase on Hungary, escaping from the war. In addition all road border-crossings (total number of pas- increasing shopping tourism from Croatia sengers 4,469,764), as presented by Figure 3. to Hungary could be identifi ed driven by The role of the accession of Croatia to the EU the availability of goods and cheaper prices,

Fig. 3. Border road traﬃ c data of the Croatian-Hungarian border section (2004–2014). Source: Data provided by the Police Headquarters of Baranya, Somogy and Zala counties. htt p://www.hu-hr-ipa.com Čelan, T.J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (1) 43–56. 51

Fig. 4. Border railway traﬃ c data of the Croatian-Hungarian border section (2004–2014). Source: Data provided by the Police Headquarters of Baranya, Somogy and Zala counties (Hungary), htt p://www.hu-hr-ipa.com

mainly food. Many small towns and sett le- and Vukovar in Croatia). Railway network ments alongside the border (Barcs, Letenye, is underdeveloped, especially in Croatia, Berzence, Mohács) as well as bigger cities with plans for reconstruction fi nanced via (Nagykanizsa, Pécs), were overwhelmed by EU Funds. There is only one important train Croatian shopping tourists in those years. station, in Koprivnica, in the whole border Croatian language knowledge seemed to be area with Hungary. A signifi cant problem is a great labour market advantage and shop- that the rail network does not enable com- ping tourism in the region highly relied on muting to the main employment centres for Croatian speaking shop assistants. Aft er 2000 most of the people due to long travel time with the opening of the fi rst big shopping and high costs (Tésits, R. et al. 2013). Figure 4 malls in Croatia, the interest for shopping presents border crossing data for three exist- in Hungary decreased. In parallel, infl ation ing Croatian-Hungarian railway border cross- and EU accession raised prices in Hungary ing points in the period of 2004–2014, char- so there seemed to be no reason any more for acterised with a considerable decrease in the frequent travelling (Opačić, V.T. et al. 2004). number of passengers. The most remarkable Water transport on Drava and Mura riv- is Murakeresztúr–Kotoriba (Western part of ers exists only at a symbolic level23. As of its border zone) where the number of passengers transit character (Pan-European transport was 97,299 in 2004, and this fi gure dropped corridor VII) the only cross-border river way to 3,978 by 2014. The last international train used is the Danube (ports Mohács in Hungary interconnecting Zagreb and Budapest via that border-crossing was terminated in December 23 Source: Data provided by the Police Headquarters of Baranya, Somogy and Zala counties (Hungary). 2008, since then only local cross-border trains htt p://www.hu-hr-ipa.com/en/documents-draft -op operate once a day. 52 Čelan, T.J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (1) 43–56.

Out of three railway border crossings Mobility in the Croatian-Hungarian the most important is Gyékényes–Botovo border area (Koprivnica), but also with decreasing signifi - cance: 230,475 passengers (2004) dropped to The border zone shows a typically low mo- 140,403 (2013) (Figure 4). Suspending InterCity bility character. The mobility of the labour (IC) train Budapest–Venice at the end of 2011 force in the cross-border area is negatively in- and Budapest–Zagreb–Rĳ eka, furthermore fl uenced by the strong language barrier. Next Budapest–Pécs–Osĳ ek–Sarajevo at the end of to language and transport barriers further 2012 led to only one daily train line operat- reasons for the low mobility can be specifi ed: ing since the 10th of December 2012 between lack of information and transparency, level of Hungary and Croatia. In December 2013 one wages, taxes and diff erences in the social se- IC train from Budapest to Zagreb was put curity system, legal and administrative prob- back to operation (now via Kaposvár) improv- lems, lack of recognition of qualifi cations and ing the situation and resulting in a modest cultural diff erences. Based on the analysis of increase of passengers by 2014 at Gyékényes– the Mobile region project in 2011, there are Botovo. At Magyarbóly–Beli Manastir cross- several conclusions: ing, aft er abolishing the international train to – Mobility between Hungary and Croatia is Sarajevo, the number of passengers dropped very low, from 24,240 (2012) to 1,663 (2014). It is quite – The lack of mobility in Croatia is even con- clear that the elimination of the abovemen- sidered as a threat, tioned train connections negatively infl uenced – Hungary has the lowest percentage of citi- the overall cross-border traffi c. zens in the EU willing to move for a job The refugee/migrant crisis occurring on the change, Croatian-Hungarian border section from the – Policies encouraging mobility and reduc- middle of September 2015 had further nega- ing its risks do not exist. tive impacts. The suspension of the interna- The accession of Croatia to the EU has not tional railway transport, which is still lasting brought signifi cant changes in labour mobil- until further notice on the given section, left ity and there are only some sporadic exam- as the only possibility to travel with car or bus ples. Accessibility of the closest border-cross- between two countries. Currently, it is still not ing by road is poor which also negatively in- possible to travel by train between Hungary fl uences mobility in the Croatian-Hungarian and Croatia (htt p://www.mavcsoport.hu). border area. It is especially visible between Regular public transport through the bor- crossing points Terezino Polje–Barcs and der area does not exist at all. Besides the Donji Miholjac–Drávaszabolcs, where a bor- mentioned limited and currently suspended der-crossing does not exist at the distance of train lines between Budapest and Zagreb, a 95 kilometres (see Figure 2). bus line has been connecting the two capitals twice a week since July 2013, with an increasing frequency since then. A weekend bus line Croatian-Hungarian cross-border co- operates in the Pécs–Osĳ ek–Pécs destination, operation but this limited possibility does not allow mobility for students or teachers between the Compared to the Hungary-Croatia Pilot two cities. Bus transport could serve more Small Projects Fund in 2002–2003, which sett lements than the train, but the long travel was the beginning of cross-border co-op- time (from Pécs to Osĳ ek three hours) does eration, but with funding possibility only not currently support its usage in the border on the Hungarian side, furthermore to the area. Higher fuel prices in both countries have Neighbourhood Programme Slovenia-Hun- been hindering commuting by car for most of gary-Croatia 2004–2006, the Hungary-Croatia the inhabitants of the border zone. (IPA) Cross-border Co-operation Programme Čelan, T.J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (1) 43–56. 53

2007–2013 has been a huge step forward in in Hungary especially in the bordering re- joint co-operation. In the period 2007–2013, gions since the change of regime and espe- IPA brought signifi cant changes, by intro- cially aft er the EU accession (Aubert, A. et al. ducing single set of rules and the Lead Ben- 2012; Csapó, J. 2014). However, a politically efi ciary principle. Those modifi cations have driven tourism development in a cross-bor- also aff ected the Hungarian-Croatian cross- der context can be problematic, especially re- border co-operation by forming bilateral garding economic and social sustainability programme in 2007–2013 period, with 169 (Prokkola, E.K. 2008; Aubert, A. et al. 2008). jointly implemented projects and small or It might be concluded that in the Croatian- medium-scale developments (Csapó, J. et al. Hungarian border zone without the EU fund- 2015). The bilateral cross-border co-operation ed Programme co-operation might not exist is continuing in the 2014–2020 EU Interreg on a large scale, so the present development V-A period as well. is artifi cial to a certain extent. The develop- In the period between 2007 and 2013 ment in the border area is neither balanced the prime focus of the HU-HR (IPA) CBC (Table 1), nor naturally driven except for some Programme was on environmental/nature small areas of traditional co-operations like protection and tourism development (Čelan, on both sides of Baranya/Baranja and the T.J. 2015). A Hungarian-Croatian Regional Mura River (Csapó, J. et al. 2015). In both ar- Tourism Product Plan (RTPP) was elabo- eas, Pannon EGTC and Mura Region EGTC26 rated (Varjú, V. et al. 2013) as a joint tourism have been established as the fi rst att empts of strategy and set the basis for all other tour- creating more functional cross-border region, ism related projects24. Finally, 40 percent of but it has not reached the complex develop- the available funds (54.8 million EUR) for ment level of the transborder region.

Table 1. HU-HR (IPA) CBC Programme 2007–2013 county absorption of available EU funds and values per inhabitant NUTS III level/Counties EU contribution in EUR Population in 2011 census EUR/person Somogy megye 4,164,741 316,137 13 Zala megye 6,877,942 282,179 24 Koprivničko-križevačka županĳ a 3,843,085 115,584 33 Virovitičko-podravska županĳ a 3,165,675 84,836 37 Baranya megye 15,656,832 386,441 41 Osječko-baranjska županĳ a 13,317,197 305,032 44 Međimurska županĳ a 5,266,338 113,804 46 Source: htt p://www.hu-hr-ipa.com, htt p://www.ksh.hu, htt p://www.dzs.hr/default_e.htm. Csapó, J. et al. 2015, htt p://www.terinno.hu/szamok/teruletfejlesztes_es_innovacio_2015_2.pdf the Programme were allocated to tourism Conclusions projects25. The amount proved to be higher than expected during the planning process, The aim of this paper was to analyse the cur- showing that tourism might be the strongest rent socio-economic changes in the Croatian- direction of development in the border area. Hungarian border zone, and to understand Cross-border co-operation and tourism de- how these changes have aﬀ ected the devel- velopment have always been on the agenda opment of the region. It can be concluded that the development of the area is neither 24 Including the su mmarised publicly available naturally driven, nor balanced. There are (2011) compendium called Handbook to Tourism Projects in the Hungary-Croatia IPA Cross-border Co-operation Programme. 25 http://www.hu-hr-ipa.com/en/open-calls-for- 26 http://www.huhr-cbc.com/en/official-documents; proposals/third-call-for-proposals-november-2011/16 htt p://www.pannonegtc.eu/; htt p://muraregio.eu/en/ 54 Čelan, T.J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (1) 43–56.

several obstacles that hinder proper cross- local communities. However, such partly border relations: politically driven tourism development in a) The spatial structure shows imbalance, a cross-border context can be problematic, and demographic trends becoming more and as it might lead to the conclusion that it is more negative in the last intercensal periods at a certain extent an artifi cial development. further disable the possibility for co-opera- Otherwise, as outlined in this paper, without tion in the area. Population decrease from the EU funded cross-border co-operation pro- 1991 and until the last census in 2011 offi - gramme strong interaction would not exist in cially amounts to 185,594 persons. the Croatian-Hungarian border area. Those b) The Croatian-Hungarian language bar- tangible small positive changes are anyhow rier is particularly strong and joint communi- not suffi cient enough to minimise the barriers cation is almost impossible without English and the strong periphery status of the border or German. area, especially when compared to Zagreb c) Road transport conditions have im- and Budapest. proved, with construction of new motorways, Due to development problems in the pe- but until now it has not achieved any signifi - ripheral areas, the transborder region has not cant positive eff ect on the border area, which been formed yet along the Croatian-Hungarian is still in a peripheral position. Although low border (Opačić, V.T. et al. 2004). That recapitu- and stagnating, road border crossings still lation was formulated 12 years ago and it is showed relative stability in the last decade. still valid, taking into account the current neg- The latest data received for 2014 showed sud- ative demographic trends, the language bar- den signifi cant increase on all road border- rier, the peripheral location, the low mobility crossings between Croatia and Hungary. of people and limited cross-border traffi c. As d) Cross-border rail traffi c has almost dis- a fi nal conclusion, it can be confi rmed that the appeared. The refugee/migrant crisis occur- transborder region has still not been formed along- ring on the Croatian-Hungarian border sec- side the Croatian-Hungarian border, but the cross- tion since the middle of September 2015 has border activity is more signifi cant than in the pre- had additional negative eff ect on the trans- vious decade. It brought stronger co-operation port across the border area (e.g. suspension in the area and two European Groupings of of the international train transport). Territorial Cooperation (EGTCs) have been e) Mobility is especially low in the border recently formed as well. area, and with minor exceptions, daily labour commuting does not exist. According to our conclusions there are REFERENCES some positive changes to be noticed in the area. Regional planning has become more co- Aubert, A. and Csapó, J. 2008. Tourism coopera- ordinated in the period 2007–2013, as the bilat- tion opportunities in the Danube-Drava-Sava Euroregion. In Neighbours and partners: on the two eral Hungary-Croatia (IPA) CBC Programme sides of the border. Ed.: Süli-Zakar, I. Debrecen, was for the fi rst time programmed and imple- Kossuth Egyetemi Kiadó, 299–309. mented with joint participation of both coun- Aubert, A., Csapó, J., Marton, G. and Szabó, G. 2012. tries. The planning of the new Interreg V-A The development of cross-border cooperation in th Hungary-Croatia Co-operation Programme the strategy of the Datourway programme, 10 2014–2020 is also elaborated jointly. The out- International Conference of Geography. Geographica Timisiensis 21. (2): 115–125. puts and results of the present Programme, Bufon, M. 1993. Elementi obmejnosti in faktorji with signifi cant increase of joint projects and oblikovanja prekomejnih območij na primeru small or medium developments around the Slovenĳ e, Dela 10. 99–109. Mura–Drava–Danube area, with the highest Čelan, T.J. 2011. Mogućnosti regionalnog razvoja interest for joint tourism projects, is a large Hrvatske na primjeru IPA prekograničnog programa Mađarska-Hrvatska 2007–2013. Geografski step forward for the border zone and the horizont 57. (2): 21–40. Čelan, T.J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (1) 43–56. 55

Čelan, T.J. 2013. Dodatak/Rezultati 3. poziva IPA Havlíček, T. 2007. Border, borderland and peripheral regions. prekograničnog programa Mađarska-Hrvatska Theoretical considerations in the framework of the process 2007–2013. Geografski horizont 59. (2): 40–46. of transformation. Issues in Geographical Marginality. Čelan, T.J. 2014. A Historical Geographical Analysis Papers presented during the Commission Meetings of the Development of the Croatian–Hungarian 2001–2004, IGU, Grahamstown, South Africa, Rhodes Border. Modern Geográfi a 4. 75–92. University, 2–10. Čelan, T.J. 2015. A Tourism Plan within a Cross- Heka, L. 2007. Hrvatsko-ugarska nagodba u zrcalu border Development Strategy: Sustainability tiska. Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Rĳ eci of the Regional Tourism Product Plan of the 28. (2): 931–971. Hungary–Croatia (IPA) Cross-border Co-operation Hrvatska udruga koncesionara za autoceste s naplatom Programme 2007–2013. Turizam 19. (2): 85–98. cestarine (HUKA). http://www.huka.hr/mreza- CIA – The World Factbook. htt ps://www.cia.gov/library/ autocesta publications/the-world-factbook/ Hungary–Croatia Cross-border Co-operation Programme Crkvenčić, J. and Crkvenčić, M. 2003. Prekodravlje- (htt p://www.hu-hr-ipa.com) with the programming Repaš Area Growth of Sett lements and Population. document (2007–2013). (htt p://www.hu-hr-ipa.com/ Podravina: časopis za multidisciplinarna istraživanja en/downloads /programming-document) 2. (4): 133–149. Klemenčić, M. 1991. Historĳ sko-geografska osnovica Croatian Bureau of Statistics (English website): htt p:// hrvatsko-mađarske granice (The historical-geo- www.dzs.hr/default_e.htm graphical background of Croatian-Hungarian bor- Csapó, J. 2014. An Analysis of Tourism Oriented der). Politička misao 28. (1): 182–191. Cross Border Co-operations (2007–2013) between KÖZOP-3.5.0-09-11-2012-0003 project with the re- Hungary and Croatia. Czech Hospitality and Tourism spective decision of the Hungarian Government: Papers 10. (23): 48–63. http://www.kozlonyok.hu/nkonline/MKPDF/ Csapó, J., Čelan, T.J. and Trócsányi, A. 2015. A határ- hiteles/MK16007.pdf menti együtt működés hatásai a területi fejlődésre Központi Statisztikai Hivatal / Hungarian Central a magyar–horvát szakasz példáján az EU tervezési Statistical Offi ce. htt p://www.ksh.hu mechanizmusának tükrében (2007–2013). (The ef- Lang, T. 2015. Socio-economic and Political Responses fects of cross-border co-operation on regional devel- to Regional Polarisation and socio-spatial pe- opment on the example of the Croatian-Hungarian ripheralisation in Central and Eastern Europe: a border zone int he light of EU programming). research agenda. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin, Területfejlesztés és Innováció 2. 22–31. 64. (3): 171 –185. Dávid, L., Tóth, G., Bujdosó, Z. and Remenyik, B. 2011. Magyar Közút Nonprofi t Zrt. htt p://www.motorway.hu/ The role of tourism in the development of border Martinez, O.J. 1994. The dynamics of border interac- regions in Hungary. Romanian Journal of Economics tion: New approaches to border analysis. In Global 2. 109–124. Boundaries. World Boundaries Series 1. Ed.: Schofield, Državna geodetska uprava, Zagreb: htt p://www.dgu.hr/, C.H. London–New York, Routledge, 1–15. offi cial answer of 25.2.2014 (Class: 015-02/14-01/03, Máté, É., Makkai, B., Pirisi, G. and Trócsányi, A. Number: 541-02-3/1-14–2). 2016. Shrinking small towns – inadequate strate- EUROSTAT website: htt p://epp.eurostat.ec.europa. gies? Experiences from rural Hungary. (under eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/ publishing process) Gulyás, L. and Bali, L. 2013. From the coexistence Opačić, V.T. and Crlenko, I. 2004. Demographic of border zones to integration: Characteristics of trends and border traffi c as indicators of (non-)ex- Croatian–Hungarian border relations from 1945 isting transborder region in Croatian-Hungarian until today. Eurolimes, Autumn, 16. 13–26. border area. Geoadria 9. (1): 73–88. Hajdú, Z. 2004. Renewal of cross-border cooperation Pepeonik, Z. 1985. Traveller crossings along Yugoslav along the Hungarian–Croatian border. In Challenged boundary with special consideration for passes borderlands: transcending political and cultural bounda- between Yugoslavia and Hungary. Geographical ries. Eds.: Pavlakovich-Kochi, V., Morehouse, papers 6. 157–161. B.J. and Wastl-Walter, D. Ashgate, Aldershot, Perkmann, M. 2003. Cross-Border Regions in Europe: Burlington, 109–122. Signifi cance and Drivers of Regional Cross-Border Hajdú, Z. 2006. A magyar–horvát határ történeti, közjogi, Co-operation. European Urban and Regional Studies közigazgatási kérdései 1918-ig. (Historical, juridical and 10. (2): 153–171. administrative problems of the Hungarian–Croatian Pirisi, G. and Trócsányi, A. 2012. The development state border until 1918). Balkán Füzetek 4. 18–33. of the Hungarian sett lement network since 1990. In Hardi, T. 2010. Cities, Regions and Transborder Development of the Sett lement Network in the Central Mobility Along and Across the Border. Centre European Countries: Past, Present, and Future. Eds.: for Regional Studies of Hungarian Academy of Csapó, T. and Balogh, A. Berlin–Heidelberg, Sciences. Discussion Papers 82. 27 p. Springer Verlag, 63–75. 56 Čelan, T.J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (1) 43–56.

Planning documents of the Interreg V-A Hungary– Tésits, R. and Alpek, L. 2013. Some aspects of the Croatia Co-operation Programme 2014–2020, htt p:// labour force mobility of the Drava Region. Modern www.huhr-cbc.com/en/oﬃ cial-documents Geográﬁ a 1. 1–12. Police Headquarters of Baranya, Somogy and Zala van Houtum, H. 2000. An overview of European geo- counties (Hungary): Border crossing data on the graphical research on borders and border regions. border crosses of Hungary and the Republic of Journal of Borderland Studies 15. (1): 57–83. Croatia, 2004–2013. Varjú, V., Suvák, A. and Dombi, P. 2013. Geographic Prokkola, E.K. 2008. Resources and barriers in Information Systems in the Service of Alternative tourism development: cross-border cooperation, Tourism – Methods with Landscape Evaluation and regionalization and destination building at the Target Group Preference Weighting. International Finnish-Swedish border. Fennia 186. (1): 31–46. Journal of Tourism Research. Doi: 10.1002/jtr.1943. htt p:// Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Croatia, 2013. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jtr.1943/full 588 p., htt p://www.dzs.hr Stokłosa, K. and Besier, G. 2014. European Border Regions in Comparison: Overcoming Nationalistic Aspects or Re-Nationalization? Routledge Studies in Modern European History. Book 21. New York–London, Routledge, 379 p.