Discussion Papers 2001.
Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union 157-171. p.
Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union
0 Edited by Zoltcin Gal, Pecs, Centre for Regional Studies, 2001
SPATIAL PLANNING IN THE LIGHT OF
THE EUROPEAN INTEGRATION
Laszlo Farago
Introduction
Hungary already established relations with the European Commission as soon
as in the days of the systemic change, and signed the association agreement in
1991. The Hungarian government was one of the first ones in East-Central
Europe to hancyn its application for the accession in 1994. In 1997, at the Lux-
embourg summit, Hungary was listed among the six countries of the "first
round". According to the Agenda 2000, the first round of the accession can take
place around 2002-2003. However, I am more pessimistic; because of the
problems about the European Monetary Union and the necessity of the institu-
tional reform of the EU, I only expect the accession in 2006 or 2007, i.e. by the
end of the programming period lasting until 2006, or in the beginning• of the
following period.
The preparation means a lot of things to be done also from the aspect of
spatial planning. The definition of the concrete Hungarian spatial policy and
spatial planning tasks is made difficult by the fact that we have to target a fu-
ture state of a periodically changing process without knowing the exact date. In
my opinion the regulation valid from 2007 will be relevant for Hungary as a
member, so by the end of the present programming period Hungary should be
in a position that allows it to actively influence the future reforms, like for ex-
ample the Scandinavian countries did before their accession.
The place and role of spatial planning in spatial development
In Europe, similar answers can be given to the similar spatial problems and
challenges, also, the regional co-operation and the participation in international
networks would justify an international co-operation in spatial planning, still all
that we can witness is a significant convergence of the spatial planning prac-
tices of the individual countries over the recent ten years, since the considerable

Faragó, László: Spatial Planning in the Light of the European Integration.
In: Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union. Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies,
2001. 157–171. p. Discussion Papers. Special
158
L. Farago
increase of the regional supports and the introduction of programming. As the
expectations of the EU in the field of spatial policy and planning are mediated
primarily by the operational principles of the Structural Funds, the bigger role
the Funds played in the development of the individual countries, the stronger
the process of "unionisation" was and vice versa, the Funds had no or hardly
any effect on those countries that were not eligible for supports from these
sources.
The European Commission is striving for consistency in the documents that
it makes — irrespective of whether they are spatial policy documents made for
the whole of the Union (e.g.  Europe 2000,  ESDP) or programmes made for the
individual countries or regions  (Community Support Framework, Single Pro-
gramming Document).  The content and terminology of these documents show
many similarities. At the same time, their adaptation and implementation takes
place in accordance with the national characteristics (laws, institutions, tradi-
tionally used technical terms), which is natural but not free from problems.
The differences can only be interpreted at the European level and the use of
common money on the ground of commonly accepted principles can only be
assessed if there are  generally accepted principles and a common professional
language in which communication takes place. The interpretation and "single"
use of the new categories and concepts promote further integration, but it is
inevitable also because the changes of paradigm in the recent years have hardly
been followed by the "traditional" spatial planning.
Thus, beginning from the foundations, it is inevitable to interpret the catego-
ries of spatial development, spatial policy and spatial planning, as well as their
interrelations.
The Council of Europe played the initiating role in this field, for the creation
of a similar interpretation and practice. The Informal Council of Ministers Re-
sponsible for Spatial Planning (CEMAT) is continuously working on the for-
mation of common viewpoints and the statement of the recommendations. For-
merly these ministers and the ministries behind them were mostly responsible
for physical planning and urban planning, and the change of the attitude from
this background is only slowly going on.
The first document accepted as a recommendation in this topic was the
European Regional Planning Chart, also known as the Torremolinos Chart
(1983/84). As the title of the document implies, the use and relationship of the
concepts "regional" and "spatial" were not clear then, either, and "planning"
was endowed with a lot of characteristics which are part of a much wider con-
cept, of spatial development in my opinion.
In my viewpoint,  spatial development means the conscious management of
the use of space,  which consists of four (+ one) tightly connected subsystems.
These are as follows:

Faragó, László: Spatial Planning in the Light of the European Integration.
In: Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union. Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies,
2001. 157–171. p. Discussion Papers. Special
160
L. Farago
sion and the Directorate General XVI have an outstanding importance, but sev-
eral other institutions — e.g. the European Parliament — also participates in the
decision-making or the execution.
The (spatial) organisational and institutional system follows the spatial
structure; it is usually well divided both vertically (EU; country; NUTS 2;
NUTS 3; local level) and horizontally (e.g. settlement system).
The fourth subsystem is the  collection of  possible — indirect and direct
—tools.
The tools of spatial development can basically be  indirect and  direct tools.
Among the indirect tools, the  general economic policy tools  are the most im-
portant, which have considerable spatial relevancies, as well. In the European
Union, among the indirect spatial policy tools the CAP/CARPE and its finan-
cial resources have an outstanding significance.
Direct tools are the financial constructions that follow regional aspects in
the distribution, and spatial planning. We do not have to emphasise the impor-
tance of the Structural and Cohesion Funds, but planning, as the ultimate, active
tool of spatial development, has to be mentioned separately. There are several
factors that justify its selected place among the other tools. Planning is a tool,
but it also has an important role in the definition and shaping of the objectives,
thus it actively affects spatial policy, as well. When a plan becomes a norm, the
plan itself directly regulates, thus it is  part of the regulatory system.  The insti-
tutions of planning (decision-making competencies) are important institutions
of spatial planning.
The concept of spatial development integrates the conscious spatial inter-
ventions at different levels, so it can be interpreted at supranational, national,
regional (macro-, meso- and micro-, or even NUTS-) levels. The opinions are
more divided about the issue whether settlement development or in a bit
broader sense, local development is part of spatial development or not.
Approaching spatial development from the aspect of the spatial types of eli-
gible regions, spatial development integrates and involves the development of
both rural and urban areas, including their special cases, e.g. industrial crisis
regions, mountainous areas etc. If we deal separately with rural development
now in Hungary, we must not forget about the other side, the development of
urban areas, either, because just as towns and village are categories depending
on each other, rural areas can also be only interpreted in their relationship to the
urban regions.

Faragó, László: Spatial Planning in the Light of the European Integration.
In: Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union. Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies,
2001. 157–171. p. Discussion Papers. Special
Spatial Planning in the Light of the European Integration
161
Spatial planning trends in the European Union
The strengthening of the integration and the free movement of goods, capital
and labour increase regional differences, and the increasing regional disparities
act against the integration. A further deepening of the integration necessarily
has to go together with the efforts aiming at the decrease of the disparities. The
accession of new members has always raised and still raises new spatial prob-
lems to be solved; thus the enlargement of the community increased and the
further enlargements will also increase the importance of spatial policy.
In the beginning, the years of the boom, the problems of the lagging behind
and crisis regions seemed to decrease, thus no new efforts or efforts of other
nature were necessary, so the efforts made at the creation of a harmonised spa-
tial policy were unsuccessful. The taking over of de Gaulle and the French op-
position against the increase of the integration also acted against a further
strengthening of the spatial policy. Moderate results were achieved in the field
of the institutionalisation of the spatial policy. In 1964, "regional policy" was a
responsibility of the Economic Committee, and in 1968 it was given an inde-
pendent directorate general, the DG XVI.
Following the death of de Gaulle, the accession of new members was put on
the schedule, which made several spatial issues topical again. The accession
negotiations with the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom projected the
increase of the number of problem areas. The introduction of the "ceiling sys-
tem" in 1971 aimed at spatial equalisation. The Paris Summit in 1972 also
committed itself to the moderation of structural and spatial disparities. A report
was made on the regional problems following the accession of the new member
states. The member sates committed themselves to the harmonisation and co-
ordination of their spatial policies and made a decision upon the establishment
of the Regional Development Fund.
The operation of the "new regional policy" and the Fund divided the mem-
ber states into two groups: those against it (e.g. the FRG), being more and more
the financing parts of the programme; and the potential beneficiaries, with Italy
in the first place. The oil crisis and the quarrels between the United Kingdom
and Germany pushed spatial policy into the background again.
After the election of 1974 in England, France and Germany, the integration
negotiations and also the spatial policy were given a new momentum. In 1974,
the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) was established. In the
beginning it had a very limited effect, because its capital assets were small and
quotas regulated the eligibility of the individual countries for support. Because
of the quota system, the ERDF could not be an active agent of the spatial policy
of the community; the member states preserved their role in this field. In 1975,
the regional amendment of the "ceiling system" of 1971 took place.

Faragó, László: Spatial Planning in the Light of the European Integration.
In: Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union. Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies,
2001. 157–171. p. Discussion Papers. Special
162
L. Farag6
Parallel to the accession negotiations with Greece, the capital assets of the
ERDF were raised and 5% of the financial tools were taken out from the quota
system, from the authority of the member states, and this sum was spent on the
remedy of pan-European problems.
The accession of Greece (in 1982) and the start of the negotiations with
Portugal and Spain were new challenges for spatial policy. The whole of
Greece is still below the average level of development of the EC. IN 1970, the
ratio of the ten richest and the ten poorest regions was 3:1; with the accession
of Greece, this ratio was 5:1.
In 1984, regional policy and its financing were revised again. Twenty per
cent of the Fund was spent on programme financing. The community pro-
grammes solving the problems affecting the whole of the EC were differenti-
ated from the national programmes of community interest. Later the programme
called Community Support Framework supplemented this.
In 1988-89, the spatial policy and the operation of the ERDF were re-
formed. The Council of European Municipalities and Regions was established,
which, as a consultative body, takes part in the formation and implementation
of spatial policy. The sum at the disposal of the Fund was raised and the six
objectives on which the Structural Funds could be spent were defined.
The problems of the progress of integration and the start of the pre-acces-
sion negotiations with eleven countries, also, the experiences of the structural
policy so far have led to other reforms.
The accession of any applicant state will increase the number of areas eligi-
ble for support, so the Committee wants to decrease the proportion of the
population living in the beneficiary regions from the year 2000. They want to
achieve this by the stricter enforcement of the eligibility criteria on the one
hand, on the other, some regions and countries have developed to such an ex-
tent during the previous programming periods, due to the supports from the
Structural Funds among other things, that they are taken out from the eligible
ones. The regions and countries will receive a transitory support (phase-out),
similar to our pre-accession programme, so that the sudden stop of the supports
should not reverse the very favourable trends.
A more significant change is the decrease in the number of objectives. The
former six (seven) objectives were replaced by three objectives. The one most
important for Hungary, the "classical" Objective 1 has remained. More than
two-thirds of the resources of the Structural Funds will be spent on this objec-
tive. The eligible regions are still those whose regional GDP per capita, on pur-
chasing power parity, was less than 75% of the EU average in the last three
years, thus the whole of Hungary will be eligible. An unfavourable change for
Hungary is the decrease in the upper limit of the supports.

Faragó, László: Spatial Planning in the Light of the European Integration.
In: Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union. Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies,
2001. 157–171. p. Discussion Papers. Special
Spatial Planning in the Light of the European Integration
163
One can ask whether these changes do not question my statement that the
enlargement always brings about the appreciation of the regional policy. My
answer is that they do not, because the reforms before the enlargement came
partly from the operational experiences so far, also, the increase of the signifi-
cance of regional policy is demonstrated by the growing share of the Structural
Funds from the community budget.
The strengthening of common regional policy necessarily increases the im-
portance of spatial planning. Despite the fact that spatial planning is one of the
responsibilities of the EU (EC Treaty, Chapter 2., Art. 130), the role of the
Union in spatial planning is still ambiguous, and a spatial plan in the traditional
sense has still not been made in a European scale.
In my opinion, the  chances of spatial planning at the EU level improved af-
ter the second half of the eighties.  The Single European Act (1986) explicitly
specified regional policy among the community policies. The Act set as an ob-
jective the strengthening of economic and social cohesion, which is also a re-
quirement for the further integration and the monetary union. It summoned the
European Commission to strive for the  convergence of the living standards of
the European regions  ("convergence objective"), which required the appear-
ance of direct regional goals.  One tool for the achievement of these is spatial
planning.
In 1989-1994, the informal meetings of the ministers responsible for spatial
development greatly contributed to the development of spatial planning on
common principles. In 1990 and 1991, the Europe 2000 document was dis-
cussed. On the meetings a recommendation was made for the establishment of a
spatial development committee. The Europe 2000+ document  in an explicit
form commits itself for the necessity of spatial planning at European level,  and
at that time it seemed that this opinion is more and more accepted in the mem-
bers states, both in scientific and professional circles. In 1993 a decision was
made on the working out of the document called European Spatial Develop-
ment Perspectives (ESDP). The elaboration and official publication of this
document is a very important milestone from the aspect of European spatial
policy and planning.
The role and chances of spatial planning further increased after 1992, when
the European Parliament took a stand on the "European spatial planning pol-
icy". Chapter 14 of ,the Maastricht Treaty, called "Economic and social cohe-
sion", regulates regional policy and established the Committee of the Regions,
presently only with advisory functions. The Treaty requires that every third
year a report be made on the achievements in the field of social and economic
cohesion. A new spatial policy tool is the Cohesion Fund, which gives supports
mostly for the development of environmental protection and the Trans-
European networks. The support can reach 80-85%. The Maastricht Treaty, by

Faragó, László: Spatial Planning in the Light of the European Integration.
In: Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union. Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies,
2001. 157–171. p. Discussion Papers. Special
164
L. Farag6
committing itself to the importance of the creation of Trans-European
(transport, telecommunication and energetic) networks, also defined planning
tasks. High-proportion supports are operated in order to achieve that the
individual member states plan and develop in accordance with the pan-
European objectives.
The further increase of the integration thus requires the harmonisation of the
spatial policies of the member states, and a considerable progress has taken
place in this respect. However,despite the often-said intention, the question is
still open whether there is a common action or land use plan, which should be
made at the level of the Union, or the planning tasks should still be carried out
in a decentralised way, at national or regional level, on the basis of the guide-
lines 9f the European Union. The prevailing view is still that the achievement
of the European requirements can be secured by a decentralised, problem-ori-
ented strategic planning that is adequate to the local characteristics. Instead of a
supranational plan it is enough if the member states and the new applicants
develop their settlement network in a way that does not contradict with the
European principles, they adjust their transport development concepts to the
Trans-European transport networks, develop their cross-border co-operation,
decentralise decision-making and public administration, this way creating a
greater chance for equalisation. The European Union has a positive incentive
system affecting the meeting of these requirements.
Actually this view was reinforced by the discussion of the document called
European Spatial Development Perspectives in Glasgow. In Chapter 4. B. of the
Glasgow document it was laid down that  spatial planning is not a community
competency.  The ESDP is not obligatory for the member states, either; its ap-
plication is voluntary. At the same time, the Commission has responsibility so
that the sectoral policies should not conflict each other and neutralise each
other's effects.
In the European Union, the spatial plans are still made within the national
frameworks, considering the community guidelines. In this sense, the "spatial
plan" of the Union is the total of the national plans, which respect the common
principles and the sovereignty of each other.
The future of planning is hard to forecast, because conflicting opinions and
"interests" affect it. The British Euro-scepticism is afraid of any further pan-
European competency. The strengthening of the Union-level planning is not far
from the traditions of the French spatial planning. The Germans are afraid of a
French-type centralisation, but the federal state recommends the strengthening
of the planning practice of the EU. However, the also German  Lander —  some
of which are bigger and stronger than a few member states — would feel un-
happy about the further strengthening of Brussels, so if planning at the level of
the Union becomes an issue of inter-governmental consensus, the  Lander  will

Faragó, László: Spatial Planning in the Light of the European Integration.
In: Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union. Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies,
2001. 157–171. p. Discussion Papers. Special
Spatial Planning in the Light of the European Integration
165
have to be involved in this; in general, all those NUTS 2 level regions that have
their own "governments", "parliaments" and legislative powers.
It is probable that the Union will operate in a similar way to the present fed-
eral states in the field of planning: in the preparation and approval of the Union
plans, the large-scale autonomy of the nation states will remain. The Union
level plans are made up from the plans of the nation states in a bottom-up way,
with spatial policy co-ordination. The main characteristics of the Union plans
will be the vertical division of power and responsibilities. We must not forget
that this federal solution preserves the differences and does not lead to the
making of a physical plan at the European level.
Spatial planning in Hungary
Spatial planning and especially physical planning in Hungary did not seriously
lag behind the Western European trends even in the "socialist" era, and from
the 1980s a considerable renewal could be seen.
In the first half of the 1980s, the re-regulation of the preparation and ap-
proval of physical plans — including the provision of the opinion-forming op-
portunity of the non-governmental sector — can be defined modern by the Euro-
pean standards. From the second half of this decade, however, in Hungary too
one could feel that spatial planning became uncertain; at the same time, the
efforts of the Hungarian spatial policy were adequate to the European trends,
and the development-type planning gained a new momentum.
In 1985, the Parliament approved of the long-term guidelines of spatial de-
velopment, building on the European experiences, and then the government
worked out programmes for their implementation and established a financial
fund.
The government wanted to launch a programme that creates everywhere the
possibility of development on own resources.  The potential beneficiaries of the
supports were seven counties. We can see thus that similarly to the current spa-
tial policy of the European Community, the government wanted to intervene in
selected regions, mainly targeting the backward areas and declining regions.
They planned to use 21 billion HUF in a five-year planning period. The  Re-
gional Development and Organisational Fund was created. From the first 3
billion HUF, 2,4 billion operated in a  decentralised  way — this proportion
would be welcome today at the distribution practice of the central resources.
They intended to use these sums as multipliers for the acceleration of the eco-
nomic development of the backward regions and the relocation of the Budapest
industry.

Faragó, László: Spatial Planning in the Light of the European Integration.
In: Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union. Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies,
2001. 157–171. p. Discussion Papers. Special
166
L. Farag6
In 1989, the Council of Ministers approved of the long-term development
concept of the North Hungarian region. Within this, the solution of the socio-
economic problems of Borsod-Abatij-Zemplen county was given a special em-
phasis; also, concrete tasks were stated for Szabolcs-Szatmar-Bereg and Nograd
counties, as well. The action plan drafted the creation and further decentralisa-
tion of the single system of the Regional Development and Organisational Fund
and the Employment Fund, and the extension of public utility work to infra-
structure developments. In the economically backward regions, affected by
central structural policy decisions, several measures were designed in order to
encourage the enterprises: the reduction of profit tax, the normative introduc-
tion of severance pays, re-start and entrepreneurial loans and the animation of
small and medium size enterprises.
Unfortunately the change of the institutional system could not keep up with
the transitions, so spatial development did not follow the progressive changes
either at governmental or lower levels. The uncertainty of the competencies of
the individual ministries was the main problem. By the creation of the Ministry
of Environment and Regional Development, the chance was given for the inte-
gration of the two activities, after the abolishment of the division of the institu-
tions of spatial development and physical planning.
In the early 1990s, the designation of the beneficiary regions and the order
of the use of regional development supports gradually modernised. There were
experiments for the creation of concepts and programmes at regional level
(South Transdanubia, Great Hungarian Plain). The introduction of the system
of the prefects of the Republic can also be taken as a regionalisation effort.
Physical planning activity was also carried out at national, regional, county and
micro-regional level, but these were occasional, because of the lack of norma-
tive regulation.
The beginning of the 1990s, as a continuation of the previous decade, was a
transitory period, and a major change only occurred in 1996. The Parliament,
after a long preparation phase, approved of the Act No. XXI. on Regional De-
velopment and Physical Planning in 1996. This period was definitely prevailed
by the need for the EU harmonisation.
The most essential elements of the Act on Regional Development of 1996
are as follows:
—The Act inaugurated new concepts among the general provisions;
—It defined the regional development and physical planning tasks of the
central state organs, and established the National Regional Development
Council;
—Several new elements appeared among the regional organs and their re-
sponsibilities. New institutions are the county and regional development

Faragó, László: Spatial Planning in the Light of the European Integration.
In: Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union. Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies,
2001. 157–171. p. Discussion Papers. Special
Spatial Planning in the Light of the European Integration
167
councils and the local governmental associations for regional develop-
ment purposes;
The Act divided the financial tools of spatial development into central
and regional resources, dividing in a 50-50% proportion the earmarked
provisions of the budget for spatial development purposes;
It specified three types of the regional plans: regional development con-
cept, regional development programme and physical plan;
It made a decision on the establishment and operation of the regional in-
formation system.
The Act No. LXXVIII of 1997, on the shaping and protection of the built
environment, dealt with the physical planning of the settlements. The new act
omitted some of the formerly used specifications and inaugurated new ones.
The modernisation took place by the acquisition of the European experiences.
Following the change of government in 1998, a new ministry acquired spa-
tial development and physical planning. Within the frameworks of the new
ministry, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (later re-named as
Ministry of Agriculture and Regional Development), primarily rural develop-
ment had greater opportunities, and the operational experiences so far suggest
that the role and importance of the bigger towns is underrated.
The need for the acquisition of the resources of the European Union made it
necessary in Hungary to pursue a spatial policy compatible with the spatial
policy of the EU, to create those institution and regulatory system which are
suitable for the reception and spending of the Union money, and not least to
work out planning documents which can serve as the basis of the negotiations
with the European Union.
In the recent years a number of regional development concepts, programmes
and physical plans have been made at micro-regional, county and regional
level. Unfortunately, the division of functions among these is unsettled and in
practice it often occurs that there is no harmony among them.
The regional tier is only a quasi tier both as regards the preparation and the
approval of plans, which comes from the floating of the creation of the regions.
However, opposite to our expectations, our planning obligations towards to EU
will not strengthen the position of the regions, in fact, it might even make than
more uncertain. In the case of the PHARE and the pre-accession programmes —
and also after the accession — the government always has to submit a national
level planning document to the European Commission, and it is a national com-
petency to what extent and how the national plan is built upon the regional and
county plans. At the assessment of our applications for support and our plans,
the Commission primarily examines the harmony of the efforts of the European
Union and those of Hungary, and the "regionalisation" of the plans is hardly

Faragó, László: Spatial Planning in the Light of the European Integration.
In: Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union. Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies,
2001. 157–171. p. Discussion Papers. Special
168
L. Farag6
more than a formal element. This is also underlined by the fact that not only the
appointment of the Hungarian planning and implementation organisations is the
competency of the Hungarian government, but also the government is also re-
sponsible for the financial implementation and control.
In my opinion, it will be a result of the "fight" of the internal interests what
role the regional and county level will be given in the formation and imple-
mentation of the programmes. In this fight, not equal parties will combat, so the
result is easy to forecast. The central government will give the regions roles by
which it seemingly satisfies the requirement of decentralisation and subsidiar-
ity, but it will only decentralise to the regional level if that is also a centralisa-
tion at lower tiers, better serving this way the interest of the centre. As long as
the central government itself does not know what they want, they can use the
counties and the micro-regions against regionalisation.
Pre-accession programmes
For the practice of the operation of the Structural and Cohesion Funds, the EU
announced the SAPARD and the ISPA programmes for Bulgaria, the Czech
Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and
Slovenia. The award of the supports is not automatic in these cases, either; the
applicant countries have to prepare adequate plans and have them accepted by
the Commission.
The SAPARD programme is for the community support of sustainable agri-
culture and rural development. According to preliminary estimations, Hungary
can get approximately 12-13 billion HUF of support through this channel, pro-
vided that it has adequate programmes. It is an interesting experiment that we
can see now: the county, regional and national concepts and programmes are
being made simultaneously, without anybody providing the harmony among
them. The present practice of planning is more like a tuning before the concert,
but is certainly not up to the requirements of the full rehearsal.
The actions have to fit into a comprehensive programme, the basis of which
is a six-year rural development plan. The preparation of this is underway in the
Ministry of Agriculture and Regional Development. The structure and formal
elements of the plan are very similar to what is necessary in the case of the
Community Support Framework, the difference being that their content is
linked to agriculture and rural development. The way the plan is approved and
can be modified is also similar to the procedures related to the CSF and the
SPD. Within six months following the submission of the plan, the Commission
is supposed to approve of a rural development plan. For the measurement of the

Faragó, László: Spatial Planning in the Light of the European Integration.
In: Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union. Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies,
2001. 157–171. p. Discussion Papers. Special
Spatial Planning in the Light of the European Integration
169
effects and for the sake of control, the rural development actions have to be
subject to continuous monitoring and ex-post evaluation. The applicant coun-
tries have to submit annual reports to the Commission on the events that took
place in the previous year. A monitoring committee has to be set up for the
rural development programme.
The European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund provide the re-
sources. The amount of the Community contribution is usually 75% of the state
support. In the case of profit-oriented activities, the state support cannot be
more than 50% of the total costs.
The ISPA programme is also for the practising of the operation of the Cohe-
sion Fund, primarily in the field of infrastructure developments and environ-
mental protection. The ten applicant countries can have access to this resource
in 2000-2006, but after the gaining of the membership this opportunity is natu-
rally lost.
The amount or the support, as it is foreseen, is one billion Euro-s, from
which Hungary can receive approximately 25 billion HUF per year. The con-
crete projects eligible for support are selected on the basis of the national pro-
gramme for the acquisition of the "Acquis". The programmes have to reach a
minimum expenditure of 1.25 billion HUF each. The proportion of the support
cannot be more than 85% in most cases, but it can reach 100% in the case of
preparatory works (studies, experts), however, these works cannot exceed 2%
of the total costs.
The involvement of private resources is also required. The applications have
to contain a cost-benefit analysis, too. It is almost a commonplace now that the
principle of evaluation, monitoring and control has to be asserted. The institu-
tions for these have to be built out no later than 2002.
One project can only be financed from one source, thus a close co-ordina-
tion with the PHARE and SAPARD programmes has to be established.
Within the PHARE programme, those projects can get a maximum 25%
support, which directly assist the EU accession. Local or governmental co-fi-
nancing is a requirement, private resources are excluded. Cross-border projects,
transport or environmental investments can apply. The size of the projects eli-
gible for support has to exceed two billion Euros. The formerly written general
rules apply for the programme under preparation: they cannot contradict the
different policies and regulations etc. of the EU.
In the field of transport, the investments connected to the TENs and the de-
velopment of combined freight traffic, can be eligible for support. As regards
environmental protection, the decrease of sulphur- and nitrogen-oxides, water
and sewage treatment and investments aiming at the improvement of energy
efficiency enjoy priority.

Faragó, László: Spatial Planning in the Light of the European Integration.
In: Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union. Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies,
2001. 157–171. p. Discussion Papers. Special
170
L. Farago
Hungary will be an Objective 1 region after the present reforms, as well, so
until the EU accession Hungary has to prepare the document that the Hungarian
government wants to submit to the European Commission, together with the
application for support; this latter will serve as the basis of the Community
Support Framework. The regulation of the Structural Funds clearly indicates
that this planning document has to have a spatial view.
Hungary is recommended to follow the practice of Portugal. In Portugal, two
very similar national planning documents were made. The national plan, build-
ing on constitutional bases, was approved of by the Parliament. The document
submitted to the European Commission should not be had approved by the Par-
liament, because that document can change during the negotiations, and as
practice shows, it does change, then ceases to exist in its original form and
transforms into a Community Support Framework.
Presently there is not any kind of normative basis for the existence of such a
plan and the circumstances of its preparation. The Act No. XXI of 1996 and the
government decree assisting its implementation include the  spatial development
programme at national level (National Regional Development Plan),  but not a
plan. In principle, the national spatial development programme specified in the
Act can be more detailed and in-depth than the document submitted to the EU;
it can mention county level, in certain cases even micro-regional problems. It
can make recommendations for the support of programmes of such small scale
that cannot be treated at the level of the Union.
If the Parliament does not accept the plan to be submitted to the Commis-
sion, then a comprehensive document defining the main frameworks is needed.
This is the document that the government decree in force calls Comprehensive
Development Plan;  it defines for the medium term the range of action of the
government and the individual sectors, it determines the use of the development
resources of the state and it is indicative for the other actors.  This latter means
that other initiatives can receive central support in a given period if they want
to implement developments harmonising with this plan. During the period when
the plan is in force, the use of the different central resources can take place in
accordance with the strategic objectives approved in that plan, connected to the
individual operational programmes.
The National Development Plan submitted to the Commission is a medium
term  strategic programme,  negotiated and accepted in a broad circle, which
integrates the actions aiming at the achievement of the objectives into complex
strategic programmes.  Accordingly,  it has a hierarchy of objectives and a
compatible hierarchy of programmes.  As a  document co-ordinating the activi-
ties and resources, it defines those strategic — and in some cases operational —
programmes to which the presently separately working sectoral and other budg-
etary resources have to organised.

Faragó, László: Spatial Planning in the Light of the European Integration.
In: Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union. Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies,
2001. 157–171. p. Discussion Papers. Special
Spatial Planning in the Light of the European Integration
171
Because the whole of Hungary will be eligible for support under Objective
1, the regional depth, specification is the NUTS 2 level, i.e. the regions. The
basic unit of Objective 2 areas would be the NUTS 3 level, but, because the
whole of the country is supported under Objective 1, the problems of the coun-
ties struggling with restructuring will have to be solved within these frame-
works, too.
For the finalisation of the National Development Plan, and the Community
Support Framework made jointly with the European Commission, it has to be
clarified what kind of actions and developments should take place in the
framework of national level sectoral programmes and which are the planning
and implementation competency of the regional level. The clarification and
regulation of this is the responsibility of the Hungarian government, because
the European Commission delegates planning to the competency of the member
state. Brussels clearly prefers the decentralisation of spatial development to the
regional level, with clear and transparent decision-making and financial mecha-
nisms, which are capable of the rapid distribution of significant resources in a
way satisfactory for the Commission.
If the regional level strengthens and becomes capable of the implementation
of regional development programmes, in addition to their preparation, the
would-be first Hungarian Community Support Framework can consist of cen-
trally managed "sectoral" programmes and regional programmes implemented
in a decentralised way. The content of the regional programmes is influenced to
a large extent by how much the programming and management competencies of
the regional level will strengthen.
References
European Regional Planning Strategy, 1992. Brussels, EC.
European Spatial Development Perspective, Noordwijk, 1997.
Farago, L. 1994: Adalekok a tertiletfejlesztessel kapcsolatos fogalmak vitajdhoz.
(Contribution to the discussion of the terms Relatated to regional development).
4. pp. 23-39.
—Ter es Tcirsadalom.
Farago, L. 1998. Tertileti tervezes — eur6pai elvdrasok es ajdnlasok (Spatial planning —
European expectations and recommendations). — Csefko F. (ed.): EU-integrOcio —
Onkormdnyzatok I. Budapest, Onkormanyzati Szovetsegek Tandcsa.