An analysis of the latest trends of the complex development of the Croatian-Hungarian border area 43Čelan, T.J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (1) 43–56.DOI: 10.15201/hungeobull.65.1.4 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 2016 (1) 43–56. Introduction The term “border” often has a negative connotation for being a separating line, a warning signal not to cross a line between the allowed and the forbidden (Stokłosa, K. et al. 2014). The awareness of both men- tal and factual borders in our life has made them a research topic in almost all disciplines – including geography. Since the end of the 1980s the status of state borders has become a rather popular topic in European geogra- phy and border areas have been continu- ously analysed and discussed. Cross-border co-operation is one of the most popular sub- jects in the border research (van Houtum, H. 2000). Despite the wide scientifi c interest in the problems of state borders the Croatian- Hungarian border area has not att racted spe- cial att ention in the literature during the last 20 years. In Croatia it has almost exclusively been published by the researchers at the De- partment of Geography of the Faculty of Sci- ence of the University of Zagreb (Čelan, T.J. 2014). In Hungary, the Hungarian-Croatian border and its related developments have gained wider att ention and have been in the focus of research at the Centre for Economic and Regional Studies of Hungarian Academy of Sciences in Pécs and the Institute of Geog- raphy at the University of Pécs as well. The question of state borders (separating vs. integrating) have been in the centre of academic att ention in Central Europe due 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. 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: tvrtko_josip_celan@yahoo.com Čelan, T.J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (1) 43–56.44 to historical traditions, and it has further strengthened with the boom of EU integra- tion in the period between 1995 and 2007. Aft er the fall of the communist regimes, the countries of the region joined to the EU one by one, and, as a result, cross-border rela- tions have increased both in numbers and in intensity (Gulyás, L. et al. 2013). Due to the intensifi cation of the co-operation between former communist countries and well-devel- oped EU states, border areas became impor- tant fi elds of economic development, with a role to connect the neighbouring areas and even to form transborder regions (Opačić, V.T. et al. 2004). According to Buffon (1993) and Opačić (2004) transborder region can be defi ned as a special form of peripheral region, socially and economically aff ected by the border and characterised by a signifi cant level of trans- border connections and integration (Buffon, M. 1993; Opačić, V.T. 2004). According to Martinez (1994) transborder region is a func- tional region, being the result of a complex development. Martinez also made diff erence between diff erent types of border areas, like: alienated, co-existing, mutually co-operat- ing and integrated border areas. According to Perkmann (2003), a cross-border region is a territorial unit that comprises contiguous sub-national units from two or more nation states. Cross-border regions diff er from basic ceremonial contacts to long-lasting and ef- fective co-operations, att ached or integrated into the multilevel policy implementation networks constituted by EU regional poli- cy. In this paper we would like to examine whether the Croatian-Hungarian border area has att ained the status of transborder region, or still exists just as a cross-border area. The demographical conditions and the spatial structure of the Croatian-Hungarian border was analysed in the latest planning process2 and signifi cantly more weaknesses were pointed out than strengths. They in- cluded: a decreasing population, negative 2 Situation and SWOT Analysis: Interreg V-A Hungary- Croatia Co-operation Programme 2014–2020: htt p:// www.huhr-cbc.com/en/offi cial-documents. balance of migration, ageing (see: Planning documents of the Interreg V-A Hungary- Croatia Co-operation Programme 2014– 2020). Negative demographic trends increase towards the borderline on the both sides of the national frontier. This refl ects that in case of the Croatian-Hungarian border the bor- der position is not an advantage but rather a handicap (Opačić, V.T. et al. 2004). The size and the structure of sett lements, which gen- erally have a rural character, the dominance of small villages and the lack of larger centres directly infl uence depopulation. The primacy of both capitals (Budapest and Zagreb) has also negatively contributed to the devel- opment of other regions, including border areas. The economic position of Budapest has become clearly stronger in the last two decades and its economic primacy increased (Pirisi, G. et al. 2012). The Hungary-Croatia Cross-border Co- operation Programme 2007–2013 (herein- after HU-HR (IPA) CBC Programme) as an instrument for minimising the existing border handicap has been one of the pos- sible fi nancial sources for overcoming prob- lems in the area, from demographic issues to cross-border traffi c and mobility. In the period 2007–2013. The instrument for pre-ac- cession assistance (IPA) brought signifi cant changes to Hungarian-Croatian cross-bor- der co-operation. The question is whether the established bilateral programme and the 169 joint projects brought about a balanced development, or it could be considered arti- fi cial to a certain extent. Geographical characteristics of the Croatian-Hungarian border zone The 355-kilometre3 stretch of the border between Croatia and Hungary is the most unique and complex section of the Hungar- ian boundaries, and this is the only one that has a long historical tradition. Despite fre- 3 The same fi gure is also indicated by State Geodetic Administration, Zagreb, Croatia. CIA (The World Factbook) gives diff erent data on the border length (Figure 1). 45Čelan, T.J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (1) 43–56. quent disputes the border retained its peace- 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 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 larger area than Croatia, the longest Croatian land border with Bosnia and Herzegovina (47% of all Croatian land borders) is even 256 km longer than the longest Hungarian bor- der5 (Figure 1). Except for the Hungarian, all other Croatian land borders derive from the former internal SFRY (Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia) borders, resulting in disputes among the new states and all re- mained partly unsolved. During the SFRY they were only borders of the federal units and were not confined properly like the Yugoslav border with Hungary. Their rec- ognition as state borders was based on the conclusions of November 1991 formulated by the Badinter Arbitration Committ ee (Čelan, T.J. 2014). Long parts of the boundaries with Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia and Serbia are passing alongside various river beds, but no- where present an obstacle at such extent as 4 In Hungarian the names are Muraköz, Baranya and “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 methodology. Source: CIA-The World Factbook, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the- world-factbook. in the case with Hungary. As of Croatia, its border with Hungary (Figure 1, A) is the 3rd longest (16%) and as of Hungary (Figure 1, B), its border with Croatia is the 4th longest with the share of 15 percent (htt ps://www.cia.gov/ library/publications/the-world-factbook). Geographical and transport barriers of Hungary are the strongest with Croatia, having only four cross-border river bridges. Border areas with diff erent geographical en- dowments have various chances for creating integrated cross-border regions (HARDI, T. 2010). Out of the 355.2 km of the Croatian- Hungarian state border the major part in the length of 226.4 kilometres (64%) goes along- side the river beds of Drava (180 km) and Mura (44.6 km). A short 1.8 km strip passes across the small river Krka (in Hungarian: Kerka) close to the village Alsószemenye6. 6 Source: Državna geodetska uprava/ State Geodetic Administration, Zagreb, Croatia: htt p://www.dgu. hr offi cial answer of 25.2.2014 on inquiry (Class: 015-02/14-01/03, Number: 541-02-3/1-14-2). Fig. 1. State land borders of the Republic of Croatia (A) and Hungary (B) per neighbouring countries (in km) Source: CIA-The World Factbook: total land bor- ders of the Republic of Croatia and Hungary. A B Čelan, T.J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (1) 43–56.46 Changes and trends in the development of the Croatian-Hungarian border area In this section we examine the development of the Croatian-Hungarian border zone in the light of several aspects, like language barrier, spatial structure and current socio-economic trends, transport, mobility, and EU funded cross-border co-operation. The Croatian-Hungarian border area as a language barrier Although Croatia formed diff erent types of state union with the Kingdom of Hungary from 1102 until 1918, neither the Hungarian language in Croatia nor the Croatian lan- guage in Hungary was signifi cantly wide- spread. Their usage is limited only to the relatively small communities of national mi- norities. The share of these minorities in the population of Hungary and Croatia is quite low, at 0.3 percent. The number of native speakers is even lower than the representa- tion7 of national minorities in both Hungary and Croatia. With the abolition of the offi cial use of Latin (as the lingua franca) in the 19th century, Croatians and Hungarians could no longer understand each other because both nations were very keen and persistent on us- ing their own national languages and none of them deemed it necessary to learn the lan- guage of its neighbour (Heka, L. 2007). Croatian and Hungarian languages belong to very diff erent families (Indo-European and Uralic/Finno-Ugric) and the language barrier is particularly strong. All these fac- tors led to the fact that bilingualism is not a typical feature of the cross-border area. The number of bilingual population, especially on the Croatian side is negligible. Without English or German proper communication is almost impossible nowadays. The only area where bilingualism is partly identifi able is the border zone of Baranya County (HU) and Osječko-baranjska County (HR), with two 7 Sources: www.dzs.hr and www.ksh.hu (Censuses 2011 and 2001). major cities of Pécs and Osij ek. The largest group of Croatian or Hungarian minorities live there and that is the only location where geographical handicap does not exist. Pécs and Osij ek are the two major regional centres where it is possible to study Croatian and Hungarian as foreign languages on universi- ty level8. Comparing the censuses in 2001 and 2011, there is a slight decrease of Hungarian minority in Croatia (16,595 vs. 14,048) whilst in Hungary the number of Croatians (25,730 vs. 26,774) has statistically9 increased. The spatial structure and the current socio- economic trends in the Croatian-Hungarian border area The development of the spatial polarisation (inland vs. borderland) of an integrated state formation is mostly dependent on the char- acter of a borderline (open or closed) and it is not only conditioned by economic aspects. Actual peripherality has a long and com- plicated history (Havlíček, T. 2007; Lang, T. 2015. Prior to the change of regime, the development of cross-border tourism was hindered by administrative obstacles which made sett lements in border regions periph- eral. Negative eff ects also emerged at the border section with Croatia (Dávid, L. et al. 2011). During the second half of the 20th cen- tury the border was a strict and clear divid- ing line, supported with the development of the Southern Defence System. This background negatively infl uenced the development of the border area (Čelan, T.J. 2014). Between the last two censuses (2001–2011) the total decrease of the population in the border area was 102,864 (55,332 on the 8 In both towns there are also Croatian and Hungarian Education Centres (with kindergarten, primary and grammar school). Several pre-school programmes and primary schools in Hungary can off er minority language or bilingual trainings, http://www. hrvatiizvanrh.hr/hr/hmiu/hrvatska-manjina-u- republici-madjarskoj/9 but on university level only Pécs and Osijek offer teaching of Croatian and Hungarian as foreign languages. 9 Sources: www.dzs.hr and www.ksh.hu (Censuses 2011 and 2001). 47Čelan, T.J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (1) 43–56. Hungarian and 47,532 on the Croatian side). Counties (i.e. NUTS III areas) are diff erent10 in their size, but they can indicate the demo- graphic trends. Both sides of the border zone have higher population decrease (in percent) than the national averages. Three Hungarian border counties (Zala, Somogy, Baranya), have similar relative decrease of the popula- tion (average 5.32%). The average decrease is a bit higher (7.13%) in the four Croatian counties, but it significantly varies, from 3.91 percent in Međimurska to 10 percent in Virovitičko-podravska. In the previous inter- censal period between 1991 and 2001 popula- tion decrease showed a total of 82,730; sig- nifi cantly higher in the Croatian part (54,313) than in the Hungarian (28,417). The relative fall of population (2.7%) in Hungarian coun- ties proved11 to be much lower than in the Croatian counties (7.5%). The intensity of depopulation is strongly infl uenced by the characteristics of the sett le- ment patt ern, which is signifi cantly bett er on the Hungarian side. One of the main reasons for stronger depopulation on the Croatian side12 has been the fragmented sett lement patt ern (Figure 2). The average size of sett lements is approxi- mately twice bigger on the Hungarian side than on the Croatian one, and the differ- ence in the size of sett lements varies more in Hungary from very small villages to bigger towns. Depopulation as a consequence of em- igration aff ects small villages more intensely than larger sett lements (Opačić, V.T. et al. 2004). In Hungary, three towns on the border zone have more than 50,000 inhabitants (Pécs, Kaposvár and Zalaegerszeg) while in Croatia only one sett lement, Osij ek (Figure 2). In both countries the size of towns correlates with the distance from the border. 10 Counties are smaller in Croatia. Croatia has 21 county including Zagreb, Hungary has 20 with Budapest. 11 Sources: www.dzs.hr and www.ksh.hu (Censuses 2011 and 2001). 12 In Croatia almost always is the case that more settlements form a local government (town/ municipality), in Hungary it is more frequent to have the 1 sett lement=1 local self-government principle. The negative population trends in compari- son with the countries′ statistics became even worse between 2001 and 2011. The aggregated population decrease between 1991 and 2011 offi cially amounts to 185,594, which means al- most the combined total population of Osij ek, Zalaegerszeg and Nagykanizsa was lost in the border area in the last two decades. Gross domestic product figures are not very promising either. The GDP per capita value of the region is below the EU and na- tional averages. Koprivničko-križevačka is the most developed among the investigated Croatian border counties13 with 82.6 percent of the national average (but Međimurska with 81.9 percent and Osječko-baranjska with 80.1 percent are quite close to it). The least devel- oped, and at the same time the most sparsely populated county in the whole Croatian- Hungarian border zone is Virovitičko-po- dravska with only 61.3 percent of the Croatian (10,325 EUR) national per capita GDP. On the Hungarian side, GDP per capita is the high- est in Zala (79.8%) compared to the national average (9,925.8 EUR). It is the 7th most de- veloped Hungarian country, while Baranya (64.0%) and Somogy (63.4%) are almost at the bott om (15th and 16th place) out of the 19 Hungarian counties14. Virovitičko-podravska and Somogy show equally low performance, like in demographic indicators, and the de- velopment of the transport network. Transport in the Croatian-Hungarian border area In the last 15 years Croatia and Hungary have developed their own motorway infra- structure, and both countries are good ex- amples for excessive road developments15 in 13 Source: First release, Number: 12.1.2. (14 February, 2014) – CROSTAT, www.dzs.hr Gross Domestic Product for Republic of Croatia, NUTS 2 Level and Counties, 2011. 14 Source: Hungarian Central Statistical Offi ce (data for year 2011) - htt p://www.ksh.hu/engstadat. 15 Hungary reached the milestone (1,000 km) of constructed motorways in 2007, whilst Croatia already in 2005 (http://www.huka.hr/mreza- autocesta; htt p://www.motorway.hu/) Čelan, T.J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (1) 43–56.48 East Central Europe. The investments were huge, and the maintenance of the network is centralised in both countries managed by large state corporations. The development of the motorway network contributed to the supreme role of the two capital cities linked by the new Zagreb–Budapest axis. The concentrated traffi c channelled to border crossing points resulted in excessive transport shadow areas on both sides of the border. Thus, the peripheral position, especially in the case of the middle section of the border area (Virovitica on the Croatian side and part- ly Kaposvár on the Hungarian side) has not improved, despite road investments. Proper West-East connections do not exist in Hungary. Only the far West (Čakovec/Nagykanizsa) and the far East (Osij ek/Pécs) have really modern road connections (htt p://www.huka.hr/mreza- autocesta; htt p://www.motorway.hu/), but only with the capital cities. Currently, there are only seven road bor- der crossing points along the entire Croatian- Hungarian frontier. This is not enough for a good level of cross-border transport and accessibility. Three out of the seven border crossings are between Baranja/Baranya, with- in a very short distance and two of them even Fig. 2. Map of the border area with the sett lements and border crossing points. Source: Own editing in co-op- eration with Gábor Kovács and János Csapó (University of Pécs). 49Čelan, T.J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (1) 43–56. do not have a river barrier (Figure 2). There are several strong cross-border, mainly cul- tural contacts and partnerships around Mura and Drava, but the lack of bridges and border- crossings prevents adequate communication (Čelan, T.J. 2011, 2013). The only major joint investment in the last decade was one bridge (with names – HR: Most Mura, HU: Zrínyi híd) on the Pan-European transport corridor16 V/B, where the new border crossing Goričan – Letenye II is located. That bridge17 connects Zagreb (Zagreb–Goričan motorway A4) and Budapest (Budapest–Letenye motorway M7) from October 2008. The regulation of the Croatian Government on border crossings published in the Offi cial Gazett e No. 79/2013 defi nes18 fi ve more in- ternational road border crossings with Hungary (Kotoriba, Donja Dubrava, Legrad, Ferdinandovac, Sopje), but without any con- crete plan for construction. Between 2012 and 2015 a project was implemented in Hungary with the task of defi ning possible new bor- der crossings and the development of cross- border infrastructure with all neighbouring countries, including Croatia. On the Croatian border section 44 possible crossings and con- struction areas have been analysed. The re- sults of the given project (KÖZOP-3.5.0-09-11- 2012-0003) have just been published and the decision of the Hungarian government was taken in January 2016 on prioritising road and partly bridge construction at four bor- der crossings with Croatia19. Future construc- 16 The term Pan-European transport corridor is used, as more appropriate for the region, not EU-TEN T network. htt p://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/ infrastructure/doc/ten-t-country-fiches/ten-t- corridor-map-2013.pdf 17 Uredba o objavi Ugovora između Vlade Republike Hrvatske i Vlade Republike Mađarske o uspostavi graničnog prij elaza Goričan–Letenye II (…): Offi cial Gazett e, Croatia (NN-MU 1 / 2006). htt p://narodne- novine.nn.hr/medunarodni/default.aspx 18 Narodne novine- NN 79/ 2013: Uredba o graničnim prij elazima Republike Hrvatske. 19 1007/2016. (I. 18.) Korm. Határozat: A 2014–2020. évek közötti határ menti közúti infrastruktúra- fejlesztésekről. htt p://www.kozlonyok.hu/nkonline/ MKPDF/hiteles/MK16007.pdf tion depends on the availability of funds and agreements with the Republic of Croatia. Road traffi c from Croatia to Hungary is very limited, comprising only 6.5 percent (in 2012) of the total number of passengers crossing all Croatian state borders. Goričan- Letenye is the busiest road border-crossing20 along the Croatian-Hungarian section where 60.4 percent of all passengers (Figure 3) and 56.8 percent of all vehicles crossed the border in 2004. Figures were similar in 2008 (64%) and in every other observed year with ap- proximately 60 percent share of passengers. It has to be noted that from 2008 the old and new border crossings of Goričan-Letenye I- II have been functioning as a joint unit (e.g. trucks can only use the old crossing) 21 and data used in this paper refer only to one unit. The peak in the number of passengers and vehicles was reached in 2008, while af- terwards fi gures decreased every year until 2013 (Figure 3). As it is primarily a touristic summer border-crossing and used domi- nantly by cars, it can be easily concluded that the reason for the decline was the fi nan- cial crisis and the consequent decline of the number of Hungarian tourists22 travelling to Croatia (from 453,000 in 2005 to 308,000 in 2013). Since Goričan-Letenye I-II is mainly a summer touristic crossing point, for the analysis of cross-border activity it is impor- tant to examine other Croatian-Hungarian border-crossings. All Croatian-Hungarian border crossings registered decreasing traffi c until 2013, with the exception of Duboševica-Udvar, which has been continuously expanding since 2008 (Figure 3), due to the importance of the di- rection Osij ek–Mohács/Pécs–Budapest (Pan- European corridor V/C). New motorway con- nections from Zagreb to Osij ek (opened in 20 The data are observed for the 6 chosen years in the last 10 years, from 2004 to 2014. Year 2008 was important due to the opening of the new border crossing Goričan–Letenye, while last three years to indicate recent changes. 21 The majority (more than 80%) of the traffi c since 2008 has been channelled through Goričan–Letenye II (new). 22 Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Croatia, 2013. htt p://www.dzs.hr Čelan, T.J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (1) 43–56.50 spring 2009) and from Budapest to Mohács/ Pécs (opened in spring 2010) signifi cantly im- proved the conditions and shortened the time of travel; however, the connection between Osij ek and Mohács is still missing. Based on traffi c data (Figure 3) border-crossing points can be categorised in the following way: strategic importance: Goričan–Letenye I, II and Duboševica–Udvar, medium importance: Terezino Polje–Barcs, Donji Miholjac–Drávaszabolcs, minor (local) importance: Gola–Berzence and Baranjsko Petrovo Selo–Beremend. The total number of passengers in the 2004–2013 decade was the highest (4,183,381) in 2004 with a stagnation; although relatively stable around 4 million, whilst in 2013 a slight increase compared to the previous year was registered for the fi rst time. The latest avail- able data for 2014 show signifi cant increase on all road border-crossings (total number of pas- sengers 4,469,764), as presented by Figure 3. The role of the accession of Croatia to the EU – – – can be measured only in the next years wheth- er the easier crossing of the border with faster police and no customs control, has increased the traffi c between the two countries. As a comparison, in the previous decade (1994–2003), the changes were much more turbulent. From the maximum level of 10.7 million passengers in 1996 to a slight stagna- tion until 2000, the volume dropped to only 5.1 million by 2003 (Opačić, V.T. et al. 2004). In 1980 the total number of passengers travel- ling between the SFRY and Hungary both by road and railway was 7.6 million (Pepeonik, Z. 1985). The big boom of the cross-border traffi c started in the 1990s, aft er the fall of the „iron curtain“ and had its peak in 1996, right aft er the end of war (1995) in Croatia. The fi rst reason for the intensifi ed cross-border traf- fi c was a large number of refugees coming to Hungary, escaping from the war. In addition increasing shopping tourism from Croatia to Hungary could be identifi ed driven by 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 51Čelan, T.J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (1) 43–56. mainly food. Many small towns and sett le- ments alongside the border (Barcs, Letenye, Berzence, Mohács) as well as bigger cities (Nagykanizsa, Pécs), were overwhelmed by Croatian shopping tourists in those years. Croatian language knowledge seemed to be a great labour market advantage and shop- ping tourism in the region highly relied on Croatian speaking shop assistants. Aft er 2000 with the opening of the fi rst big shopping malls in Croatia, the interest for shopping in Hungary decreased. In parallel, infl ation and EU accession raised prices in Hungary so there seemed to be no reason any more for frequent travelling (Opačić, V.T. et al. 2004). Water transport on Drava and Mura riv- ers exists only at a symbolic level23. As of its transit character (Pan-European transport corridor VII) the only cross-border river way used is the Danube (ports Mohács in Hungary 23 Source: Data provided by the Police Headquarters of Baranya, Somogy and Zala counties (Hungary). htt p://www.hu-hr-ipa.com/en/documents-draft -op and Vukovar in Croatia). Railway network is underdeveloped, especially in Croatia, with plans for reconstruction fi nanced via EU Funds. There is only one important train station, in Koprivnica, in the whole border area with Hungary. A signifi cant problem is that the rail network does not enable com- muting to the main employment centres for most of the people due to long travel time and high costs (Tésits, R. et al. 2013). Figure 4 presents border crossing data for three exist- ing Croatian-Hungarian railway border cross- ing points in the period of 2004–2014, char- acterised with a considerable decrease in the number of passengers. The most remarkable is Murakeresztúr–Kotoriba (Western part of border zone) where the number of passengers was 97,299 in 2004, and this fi gure dropped to 3,978 by 2014. The last international train interconnecting Zagreb and Budapest via that border-crossing was terminated in December 2008, since then only local cross-border trains operate once a day. 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 Čelan, T.J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (1) 43–56.52 Out of three railway border crossings the most important is Gyékényes–Botovo (Koprivnica), but also with decreasing signifi - cance: 230,475 passengers (2004) dropped to 140,403 (2013) (Figure 4). Suspending InterCity (IC) train Budapest–Venice at the end of 2011 and Budapest–Zagreb–Rij eka, furthermore Budapest–Pécs–Osij ek–Sarajevo at the end of 2012 led to only one daily train line operat- ing since the 10th of December 2012 between Hungary and Croatia. In December 2013 one IC train from Budapest to Zagreb was put back to operation (now via Kaposvár) improv- ing the situation and resulting in a modest increase of passengers by 2014 at Gyékényes– Botovo. At Magyarbóly–Beli Manastir cross- ing, aft er abolishing the international train to Sarajevo, the number of passengers dropped from 24,240 (2012) to 1,663 (2014). It is quite clear that the elimination of the abovemen- tioned train connections negatively infl uenced the overall cross-border traffi c. The refugee/migrant crisis occurring on the Croatian-Hungarian border section from the middle of September 2015 had further nega- tive impacts. The suspension of the interna- tional railway transport, which is still lasting until further notice on the given section, left as the only possibility to travel with car or bus between two countries. Currently, it is still not possible to travel by train between Hungary and Croatia (htt p://www.mavcsoport.hu). Regular public transport through the bor- der area does not exist at all. Besides the mentioned limited and currently suspended train lines between Budapest and Zagreb, a bus line has been connecting the two capitals twice a week since July 2013, with an increas- ing frequency since then. A weekend bus line operates in the Pécs–Osij ek–Pécs destination, but this limited possibility does not allow mo- bility for students or teachers between the two cities. Bus transport could serve more sett lements than the train, but the long travel time (from Pécs to Osij ek three hours) does not currently support its usage in the border area. Higher fuel prices in both countries have been hindering commuting by car for most of the inhabitants of the border zone. Mobility in the Croatian-Hungarian border area The border zone shows a typically low mo- bility character. The mobility of the labour force in the cross-border area is negatively in- fl uenced by the strong language barrier. Next to language and transport barriers further reasons for the low mobility can be specifi ed: lack of information and transparency, level of wages, taxes and diff erences in the social se- curity system, legal and administrative prob- lems, lack of recognition of qualifi cations and cultural diff erences. Based on the analysis of the Mobile region project in 2011, there are several conclusions: Mobility between Hungary and Croatia is very low, The lack of mobility in Croatia is even con- sidered as a threat, Hungary has the lowest percentage of citi- zens in the EU willing to move for a job change, Policies encouraging mobility and reduc- ing its risks do not exist. The accession of Croatia to the EU has not brought signifi cant changes in labour mobil- ity and there are only some sporadic exam- ples. Accessibility of the closest border-cross- ing by road is poor which also negatively in- fl uences mobility in the Croatian-Hungarian border area. It is especially visible between crossing points Terezino Polje–Barcs and Donji Miholjac–Drávaszabolcs, where a bor- der-crossing does not exist at the distance of 95 kilometres (see Figure 2). Croatian-Hungarian cross-border co- operation Compared to the Hungary-Croatia Pilot Small Projects Fund in 2002–2003, which was the beginning of cross-border co-op- eration, but with funding possibility only on the Hungarian side, furthermore to the Neighbourhood Programme Slovenia-Hun- gary-Croatia 2004–2006, the Hungary-Croatia (IPA) Cross-border Co-operation Programme – – – – 53Čelan, T.J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (1) 43–56. 2007–2013 has been a huge step forward in joint co-operation. In the period 2007–2013, IPA brought signifi cant changes, by intro- ducing single set of rules and the Lead Ben- efi ciary principle. Those modifi cations have also aff ected the Hungarian-Croatian cross- border co-operation by forming bilateral programme in 2007–2013 period, with 169 jointly implemented projects and small or medium-scale developments (Csapó, J. et al. 2015). The bilateral cross-border co-operation is continuing in the 2014–2020 EU Interreg V-A period as well. In the period between 2007 and 2013 the prime focus of the HU-HR (IPA) CBC Programme was on environmental/nature protection and tourism development (Čelan, T.J. 2015). A Hungarian-Croatian Regional Tourism Product Plan (RTPP) was elabo- rated (Varjú, V. et al. 2013) as a joint tourism strategy and set the basis for all other tour- ism related projects24. Finally, 40 percent of the available funds (54.8 million EUR) for the Programme were allocated to tourism projects25. The amount proved to be higher than expected during the planning process, showing that tourism might be the strongest direction of development in the border area. Cross-border co-operation and tourism de- velopment have always been on the agenda 24 Including the su mmarised publicly available (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- proposals/third-call-for-proposals-november-2011/16 in Hungary especially in the bordering re- gions since the change of regime and espe- cially aft er the EU accession (Aubert, A. et al. 2012; Csapó, J. 2014). However, a politically driven tourism development in a cross-bor- der context can be problematic, especially re- garding economic and social sustainability (Prokkola, E.K. 2008; Aubert, A. et al. 2008). It might be concluded that in the Croatian- Hungarian border zone without the EU fund- ed Programme co-operation might not exist on a large scale, so the present development is artifi cial to a certain extent. The develop- ment in the border area is neither balanced (Table 1), nor naturally driven except for some small areas of traditional co-operations like on both sides of Baranya/Baranja and the Mura River (Csapó, J. et al. 2015). In both ar- eas, Pannon EGTC and Mura Region EGTC26 have been established as the fi rst att empts of creating more functional cross-border region, but it has not reached the complex develop- ment level of the transborder region. Conclusions The aim of this paper was to analyse the cur- rent socio-economic changes in the Croatian- Hungarian border zone, and to understand how these changes have aff ected the devel- opment of the region. It can be concluded that the development of the area is neither naturally driven, nor balanced. There are 26 http://www.huhr-cbc.com/en/official-documents; htt p://www.pannonegtc.eu/; htt p://muraregio.eu/en/ 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 Zala megye Koprivničko-križevačka županij a Virovitičko-podravska županij a Baranya megye Osječko-baranjska županij a Međimurska županij a 4,164,741 6,877,942 3,843,085 3,165,675 15,656,832 13,317,197 5,266,338 316,137 282,179 115,584 84,836 386,441 305,032 113,804 13 24 33 37 41 44 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 Čelan, T.J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (1) 43–56.54 several obstacles that hinder proper cross- border relations: a) The spatial structure shows imbalance, and demographic trends becoming more and more negative in the last intercensal periods further disable the possibility for co-opera- tion in the area. Population decrease from 1991 and until the last census in 2011 offi - cially amounts to 185,594 persons. b) The Croatian-Hungarian language bar- rier is particularly strong and joint communi- cation is almost impossible without English or German. c) Road transport conditions have im- proved, with construction of new motorways, but until now it has not achieved any signifi - cant positive eff ect on the border area, which is still in a peripheral position. Although low and stagnating, road border crossings still showed relative stability in the last decade. The latest data received for 2014 showed sud- den signifi cant increase on all road border- crossings between Croatia and Hungary. d) Cross-border rail traffi c has almost dis- appeared. The refugee/migrant crisis occur- ring on the Croatian-Hungarian border sec- tion since the middle of September 2015 has had additional negative eff ect on the trans- port across the border area (e.g. suspension of the international train transport). e) Mobility is especially low in the border area, and with minor exceptions, daily labour commuting does not exist. According to our conclusions there are some positive changes to be noticed in the area. Regional planning has become more co- ordinated in the period 2007–2013, as the bilat- eral Hungary-Croatia (IPA) CBC Programme was for the fi rst time programmed and imple- mented with joint participation of both coun- tries. The planning of the new Interreg V-A Hungary-Croatia Co-operation Programme 2014–2020 is also elaborated jointly. The out- puts and results of the present Programme, with signifi cant increase of joint projects and small or medium developments around the Mura–Drava–Danube area, with the highest interest for joint tourism projects, is a large step forward for the border zone and the local communities. However, such partly politically driven tourism development in a cross-border context can be problematic, as it might lead to the conclusion that it is at a certain extent an artifi cial development. Otherwise, as outlined in this paper, without the EU funded cross-border co-operation pro- gramme strong interaction would not exist in the Croatian-Hungarian border area. Those tangible small positive changes are anyhow not suffi cient enough to minimise the barriers and the strong periphery status of the border area, especially when compared to Zagreb and Budapest. Due to development problems in the pe- ripheral areas, the transborder region has not been formed yet along the Croatian-Hungarian border (Opačić, V.T. et al. 2004). That recapitu- lation was formulated 12 years ago and it is still valid, taking into account the current neg- ative demographic trends, the language bar- rier, the peripheral location, the low mobility of people and limited cross-border traffi c. As a fi nal conclusion, it can be confi rmed that the transborder region has still not been formed along- side the Croatian-Hungarian border, but the cross- border activity is more signifi cant than in the pre- vious decade. It brought stronger co-operation in the area and two European Groupings of Territorial Cooperation (EGTCs) have been recently formed as well. REFERENCES Aubert, A. and Csapó, J. 2008. Tourism coopera- tion opportunities in the Danube-Drava-Sava Euroregion. In Neighbours and partners: on the two sides of the border. Ed.: Süli-Zakar, I. Debrecen, Kossuth Egyetemi Kiadó, 299–309. Aubert, A., Csapó, J., Marton, G. and Szabó, G. 2012. The development of cross-border cooperation in the strategy of the Datourway programme, 10th International Conference of Geography. Geographica Timisiensis 21. (2): 115–125. Bufon, M. 1993. Elementi obmejnosti in faktorji oblikovanja prekomejnih območij na primeru Slovenij e, Dela 10. 99–109. Čelan, T.J. 2011. Mogućnosti regionalnog razvoja Hrvatske na primjeru IPA prekograničnog pro- grama Mađarska-Hrvatska 2007–2013. Geografski horizont 57. (2): 21–40. 55Čelan, T.J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (1) 43–56. Čelan, T.J. 2013. Dodatak/Rezultati 3. poziva IPA prekograničnog programa Mađarska-Hrvatska 2007–2013. Geografski horizont 59. (2): 40–46. Čelan, T.J. 2014. A Historical Geographical Analysis of the Development of the Croatian–Hungarian Border. Modern Geográfi a 4. 75–92. Čelan, T.J. 2015. A Tourism Plan within a Cross- border Development Strategy: Sustainability of the Regional Tourism Product Plan of the Hungary–Croatia (IPA) Cross-border Co-operation Programme 2007–2013. Turizam 19. (2): 85–98. CIA – The World Factbook. htt ps://www.cia.gov/library/ publications/the-world-factbook/ Crkvenčić, J. and Crkvenčić, M. 2003. Prekodravlje- Repaš Area Growth of Sett lements and Population. Podravina: časopis za multidisciplinarna istraživanja 2. (4): 133–149. Croatian Bureau of Statistics (English website): htt p:// www.dzs.hr/default_e.htm Csapó, J. 2014. An Analysis of Tourism Oriented Cross Border Co-operations (2007–2013) between Hungary and Croatia. Czech Hospitality and Tourism Papers 10. (23): 48–63. Csapó, J., Čelan, T.J. and Trócsányi, A. 2015. A határ- menti együtt működés hatásai a területi fejlődésre a magyar–horvát szakasz példáján az EU tervezési mechanizmusának tükrében (2007–2013). (The ef- fects of cross-border co-operation on regional devel- opment on the example of the Croatian-Hungarian border zone int he light of EU programming). Területfejlesztés és Innováció 2. 22–31. Dávid, L., Tóth, G., Bujdosó, Z. and Remenyik, B. 2011. The role of tourism in the development of border regions in Hungary. Romanian Journal of Economics 2. 109–124. Državna geodetska uprava, Zagreb: htt p://www.dgu.hr/, offi cial answer of 25.2.2014 (Class: 015-02/14-01/03, Number: 541-02-3/1-14–2). EUROSTAT website: htt p://epp.eurostat.ec.europa. eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/ Gulyás, L. and Bali, L. 2013. From the coexistence of border zones to integration: Characteristics of Croatian–Hungarian border relations from 1945 until today. Eurolimes, Autumn, 16. 13–26. Hajdú, Z. 2004. Renewal of cross-border cooperation along the Hungarian–Croatian border. In Challenged borderlands: transcending political and cultural bounda- ries. Eds.: Pavlakovich-Kochi, V., Morehouse, B.J. and Wastl-Walter, D. Ashgate, Aldershot, Burlington, 109–122. Hajdú, Z. 2006. A magyar–horvát határ történeti, közjogi, közigazgatási kérdései 1918-ig. (Historical, juridical and administrative problems of the Hungarian–Croatian state border until 1918). Balkán Füzetek 4. 18–33. Hardi, T. 2010. Cities, Regions and Transborder Mobility Along and Across the Border. Centre for Regional Studies of Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Discussion Papers 82. 27 p. Havlíček, T. 2007. Border, borderland and peripheral regions. Theoretical considerations in the framework of the process of transformation. Issues in Geographical Marginality. Papers presented during the Commission Meetings 2001–2004, IGU, Grahamstown, South Africa, Rhodes University, 2–10. Heka, L. 2007. Hrvatsko-ugarska nagodba u zrcalu tiska. Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Rij eci 28. (2): 931–971. Hrvatska udruga koncesionara za autoceste s naplatom cestarine (HUKA). http://www.huka.hr/mreza- autocesta Hungary–Croatia Cross-border Co-operation Programme (htt p://www.hu-hr-ipa.com) with the programming document (2007–2013). (htt p://www.hu-hr-ipa.com/ en/downloads /programming-document) Klemenčić, M. 1991. Historij sko-geografska osnovica hrvatsko-mađarske granice (The historical-geo- graphical background of Croatian-Hungarian bor- der). Politička misao 28. (1): 182–191. KÖZOP-3.5.0-09-11-2012-0003 project with the re- spective decision of the Hungarian Government: http://www.kozlonyok.hu/nkonline/MKPDF/ hiteles/MK16007.pdf Központi Statisztikai Hivatal / Hungarian Central Statistical Offi ce. htt p://www.ksh.hu Lang, T. 2015. Socio-economic and Political Responses to Regional Polarisation and socio-spatial pe- ripheralisation in Central and Eastern Europe: a research agenda. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin, 64. (3): 171 –185. Magyar Közút Nonprofi t Zrt. htt p://www.motorway.hu/ Martinez, O.J. 1994. The dynamics of border interac- tion: New approaches to border analysis. In Global Boundaries. World Boundaries Series 1. Ed.: Schofield, C.H. London–New York, Routledge, 1–15. Máté, É., Makkai, B., Pirisi, G. and Trócsányi, A. 2016. Shrinking small towns – inadequate strate- gies? Experiences from rural Hungary. (under publishing process) Opačić, V.T. and Crlenko, I. 2004. Demographic trends and border traffi c as indicators of (non-)ex- isting transborder region in Croatian-Hungarian border area. Geoadria 9. (1): 73–88. Pepeonik, Z. 1985. Traveller crossings along Yugoslav boundary with special consideration for passes between Yugoslavia and Hungary. Geographical papers 6. 157–161. Perkmann, M. 2003. Cross-Border Regions in Europe: Signifi cance and Drivers of Regional Cross-Border Co-operation. European Urban and Regional Studies 10. (2): 153–171. Pirisi, G. and Trócsányi, A. 2012. The development of the Hungarian sett lement network since 1990. In Development of the Sett lement Network in the Central European Countries: Past, Present, and Future. Eds.: Csapó, T. and Balogh, A. Berlin–Heidelberg, Springer Verlag, 63–75. Čelan, T.J. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (1) 43–56.56 Planning documents of the Interreg V-A Hungary– Croatia Co-operation Programme 2014–2020, htt p:// www.huhr-cbc.com/en/offi cial-documents Police Headquarters of Baranya, Somogy and Zala counties (Hungary): Border crossing data on the border crosses of Hungary and the Republic of Croatia, 2004–2013. Prokkola, E.K. 2008. Resources and barriers in tourism development: cross-border cooperation, regionalization and destination building at the Finnish-Swedish border. Fennia 186. (1): 31–46. Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Croatia, 2013. 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. Tésits, R. and Alpek, L. 2013. Some aspects of the labour force mobility of the Drava Region. Modern Geográfi a 1. 1–12. van Houtum, H. 2000. An overview of European geo- graphical research on borders and border regions. Journal of Borderland Studies 15. (1): 57–83. Varjú, V., Suvák, A. and Dombi, P. 2013. Geographic Information Systems in the Service of Alternative Tourism – Methods with Landscape Evaluation and Target Group Preference Weighting. International Journal of Tourism Research. Doi: 10.1002/jtr.1943. htt p:// onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jtr.1943/full << /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error /CompatibilityLevel 1.3 /CompressObjects /Tags /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.0000 /ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams false /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize false /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments true /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Preserve /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages true /ColorImageMinResolution 300 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 300 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None) /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False /CreateJDFFile false /Description << /ARA /BGR /CHS /CHT /CZE /DAN /DEU /ESP /ETI /FRA /GRE /HEB /HRV (Za stvaranje Adobe PDF dokumenata najpogodnijih za visokokvalitetni ispis prije tiskanja koristite ove postavke. Stvoreni PDF dokumenti mogu se otvoriti Acrobat i Adobe Reader 5.0 i kasnijim verzijama.) /ITA /JPN /KOR /LTH /LVI /NLD (Gebruik deze instellingen om Adobe PDF-documenten te maken die zijn geoptimaliseerd voor prepress-afdrukken van hoge kwaliteit. De gemaakte PDF-documenten kunnen worden geopend met Acrobat en Adobe Reader 5.0 en hoger.) /NOR /POL /PTB /RUM /RUS /SKY /SLV /SUO /SVE /TUR /UKR /ENU (Use these settings to create Adobe PDF documents best suited for high-quality prepress printing. Created PDF documents can be opened with Acrobat and Adobe Reader 5.0 and later.) /HUN >> /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ << /AsReaderSpreads false /CropImagesToFrames true /ErrorControl /WarnAndContinue /FlattenerIgnoreSpreadOverrides false /IncludeGuidesGrids false /IncludeNonPrinting false /IncludeSlug false /Namespace [ (Adobe) (InDesign) (4.0) ] /OmitPlacedBitmaps false /OmitPlacedEPS false /OmitPlacedPDF false /SimulateOverprint /Legacy >> << /AddBleedMarks false /AddColorBars false /AddCropMarks false /AddPageInfo false /AddRegMarks false /ConvertColors /ConvertToCMYK /DestinationProfileName () /DestinationProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /Downsample16BitImages true /FlattenerPreset << /PresetSelector /MediumResolution >> /FormElements false /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles false /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /LeaveUntagged /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UseDocumentBleed false >> ] >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [2400 2400] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice