Draft Situation Analysis and Preliminary SWOT
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Hungary-Croatia 2014 – 2020 CBC OP Draft for discussion /24th of June 2013 Draft Situation Analysis and preliminary SWOT for the drafting of the Hungary – Croatia Crossborder Operational Programme 2014 – 2020 Draft to be discussed during the workshop on the 28th of June in Čakovec, Croatia 1 Hungary-Croatia 2014 – 2020 CBC OP Draft for discussion /24th of June 2013 H-1082 Budapest, Üllői út 66/a, level 2, door nr. 2. tel: +36-1-210-0827 fax: +36-1-210-0827 www.vitalpro.hu H-1054 Budapest, Vértanúk tere 1. tel: +36-1-319-1790 fax: +36-1-319-1381 www.hbhe.eu HR-10000 Zagreb, Bednjanska 8a tel: +385-1-4572-769 fax: +385-1-4572-769 www.razbor.hr 2 Hungary-Croatia 2014 – 2020 CBC OP Draft for discussion /24th of June 2013 Table of Content 1. The situation analysis .............................................................................. 3 1.1. Demography.................................................................................................... 4 1.2. Spatial structure ............................................................................................. 6 1.3. Economy ......................................................................................................... 8 1.3.1. General overview .................................................................................................. 8 1.3.2. Agriculture ............................................................................................................10 1.3.3. Tourism ................................................................................................................11 1.3.4. Industry and services ...........................................................................................12 1.3.5. SME’s ..................................................................................................................14 1.3.6. R&D and innovation .............................................................................................15 1.4. Labour market............................................................................................... 17 1.5. Environment.................................................................................................. 20 1.5.1. Natural resources .................................................................................................20 1.5.2. Protected areas ....................................................................................................21 1.5.3. Water quality and flood prevention .......................................................................22 1.5.4. Public utility infrastructure (water supply and sewage system) .............................23 1.5.5. Soild waste management .....................................................................................25 1.5.6. Energy potential ...................................................................................................26 1.6. Transport ....................................................................................................... 27 1.6.1. Road infrastructure ..............................................................................................27 1.6.2. Railways ..............................................................................................................29 1.6.3. Aviation ................................................................................................................30 1.6.4. Inland navigation ..................................................................................................30 1.7. Education and training (incl. vocational training) ..................................... 30 1.8. Health and social care .................................................................................. 35 1.9. Cultural relations .......................................................................................... 39 2. The preliminary SWOT analysis of the border area ............................ 41 2.1. The internal factors identified: .................................................................... 41 2.2. The expectedly most influential external factors: ..................................... 43 1. The situation analysis 3 Hungary-Croatia 2014 – 2020 CBC OP Draft for discussion /24th of June 2013 1.1. Demography In the programme area which has a territory being a bit more than of Belgium, the number of population exceeds 2,1 million heads, 46% of that lives in Hungary and 54% in Croatia. The population density is 69 capita/km2, amounting to 59% of the figure of the European Union (EU 27) and lagging behind the national averages of the two countries as well (64% of the Hungarian and 91% of the Croatian average). It is especially the centre of the programme area which is scarcely populated, in the western part the population density could be regarded as high, but despite of that strong urban centre could not be found there. In Hungary Baranya county stands out somewhat, because of its county seat is Pécs, the biggest city in the programme area. Its neighbouring county, Somogy is the less populated county of Hungary, where the population density is even lower than half of the national average. In Croatia, MeĎimurje and Varaždin County are particularly densely populated, above national average, in contrast to the middle part of the territory (Koprivnica- Kruževci, Bjelovar-Bilogora, Virovitica-Podravina and Požega Slavonia), while the eastern Counties are close to Croatian average (75.71 inhabitant/km2). Figure 1: Population density of the counties within the programme area, 2011 Source: EUSTAT, own compilation In the entire programme area, according to the two recent censuses, the number of population in general decreased by 4-12%, whilst the population of the European Union increased by 4%. The most dramatic fall in the number of population was registered in Vukovar-Sirmium county (-12.4% in comparison to 2001), but Bjelovar- 4 Hungary-Croatia 2014 – 2020 CBC OP Draft for discussion /24th of June 2013 Bilogora County also has quite a significant drop in the population figures (-10.1%) in contrast with the Croatian average of -3.5%. In the three Hungarian counties the decrease in the number of population was similarly exceeding 5%, being twice as high as the national tendencies. By the year 2011 the whole area was characterised by population decline. The process was strengthened by the general negative migration balance of the programme area. The result of the above impacts in the area is that the proportion of the elderly increases and of the young decreases within the entire population. These will have severe negative social and economical consequences. The dependency ratio of the elderly population is the most favourable in Baranya among the three Hungarian counties: it is 24.5%, being lower than the national average. By contrast, the ratio of Zala county even exceeds the ratio of the European Union (25.9%). The dependency ratio in Croatia averages at 25.4%, but it varies between the counties in the border areas, from 23.1% in Medjimurje County (whose demographic data are in general the most positive within the Croatian part of the area) to 27.76% in Bjrlovar- Bilogora.1 One of the favourable conditions of the area is the cohabitation of different nationalities, colouring the cultural supply and strengthening the cross-border cooperation as well. In Baranya county 6.6% of the population is German, 4.5% Roma and 1.8% is Croatian. In Somogy 5.3% Roma and in Zala 2.6% Roma are registered. Increase of Roma population causes constantly emerging problems as their social integration is very problematic which is hindered by the fact that highest proportion of Roma minorities can be found in the micro regions in the most disadvantageous economic and social position. In Hungary, there are 23 561 (0.2% of total population) people considering themselves belonging to the Croatian ethnic group. It is 66% growth compared to the census of 2001, although presence of Croatian minority is still marginal. Within the three counties, in total 16,000 Croatians (68% of total Croatian minority) are living according to the census of 2011, most of them in the settlements being located alongside the border. The educational, cultural centre of the Croatians living in Hungary is Pécs. Croatia has 9.58% national minorities, of which Serbs are the largest (4.36%), followed by Bosniacs (4.36%), Italians (0.42%) and Albanians (0.41%) and Hungarians (0.33%). Of the eight counties included in the programme area, Vukovar- Sirmium has the largest proportion of minorities (about 20.3%), of which 15.5% Serbian. A significant Roma population lives in MeĎimurje County (4.49%), Bjelovar- Bilogora has, in addition to 6.31% Serbian population, a significant Czech minority (5.25%), There are 14,048 Hungarians in Croatia, i.e. 0.33% of overall population, mostly concentrated in the border area. The percentage of Hungarians in different counties of the programme area varies. Significant proportion of Hungarian minority (almost 2/3 of total) can be found in Osijek-Baranja County: 2.7%. Presence of Hungarian minorities is much more marginal in the other Croatian counties with proportion of 0.94% in Vukovar-Sirmium, 0.74% in Bjelovar-Bilogora, 0.24% in Virovitica- 1 DZS, Census of population 2011 (own calculation based on available data) 5 Hungary-Croatia 2014 – 2020 CBC OP Draft for discussion /24th of June 2013 Podravina, 0.21% in Požega-Slavonia, 0.08% in Koprivnica-Križevci, 0.06% in MeĎimurje and 0.03% in Varaždin County. Like Pécs for Croatians in Hungary, Osijek is