COHESION POLICY CHALLENGES AND DISCOVERY IN 2021–2027 THE CASE OF HUNGARY

With the political agreement by the European Parliament and the Council on the Commission’s proposal for 2021–2027 on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the Cohesion Fund (CF) and the European Territorial Cooperation Programmes („Interreg”), and all the other instruments related to cohesion policy, we have entered the final stage of the provisions for the new EU programming period: the final approval of the legal texts (EC, 2020a). Thus, the main objective of our study is to present the most important challenges at the Member State level (Hungary) with a bottom-up and practice-oriented perspective. Methodologically, three specific factors were identified and studied in the paper that constitute significant challenge for national level policymaking, as follows: (1) as regards the soci(et)al aspect, the questions of the new “regions” (Central Hungary vs Budapest and Pest region); (2) regarding the economic aspect, the newly created territorial “units” (Economic Development Zones); and lastly (3) as a nature-focused aspect, the management of surface water. These factors are directly connected to the five investment priorities of the EU for 2021–2027 i.e. Smarter, Greener and carbon free, Connected, and Social Europe that is Closer to its citizens (EC, 2018) and represent criteria that reflect the reality on the ground. These factors were examined in specific case studies exploring their relations to national and interregional policymaking and EU level policies also, together with their presence in the planned programming documents, e.g. the Operational Programmes and Partnership Agreement. As a result, we aim to identify some direct causal relations between policy and practice, highlight some synergies (or their absence) between national and interregional level sectoral (horizontal) and EU-Member State level (vertical) processes, and additionally, shed some light on the possible future scenarios in these specific and important areas. Through these outcomes, our research could contribute to a more tailored approach to regional development, that is a major objective of the New Cohesion Policy.


INTRODUCTION
The EU Member States face various environmental, social and economic challenges, some of which are common and important at European level, while others are specific and limited to a few countries. Therefore, Member States face a dual challenge during their strategic The main research problems addressed are the followings: − RP1: In Hungary the management of surface water is not handled in an integrated way, so surface water objectives are set in parallel from both sectoral and territorial perspectives, in different territorial frameworks, partly similarly to the European Union. These two main research topics were selected for two reasons: firstly, they represent the most important territorial characteristics of the country, and secondly, they represent the two main types of actual policy challenges, one geographical and one soci(et)al-economic. Thus, based on these typical challenges, possible policy answers could be analysed to them, for example their focus, approach, territorial level, funding, synergies and maturity.
Our paper has both theoretical and practical relevance as it studies the main spatial structure characteristics of Hungary, focusing on large territorial areas, social and economic concentrations and "fractures" of geographical space, and the question addressed is: if and how Member States can represent their specific issues and interests in the EU programming period between 2021 and 2027 through strategic programming activities.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND METHODS
As our paper is very actual and has a strong policy-relevance, our empirical research relied mainly on the analysis of strategic programming and policy documents, development concepts and the connected national and EU level regulations from the near past and designed for the next EU programming period between 2021 and 2027. As regulations and tools concerning the 'new' programming period have not been covered with sufficient scientific outputs yet, a relatively limited scientific literature could be analysed and referenced in the paper. Based on the above, scientific and policy documents will be both analysed in this chapter.
Starting with the relevant scientific outputs, as it is clearly stated by Bachtler et al. (2019, 2) in Towards Cohesion Policy 4.0, "The challenge for EU and Member State policymakers is to develop or adapt policy frameworks and strategies that will stimulate sustainable growth, in a manner that ensures greater inclusiveness, especially in access to employment and capacity for entrepreneurship. This demands a more granular approach to structural policy, tailored better to the specific conditions of the different types of regions and communities across the EU.
Different strategies are needed for frontier regions, intermediate regions (some catching up but others only keeping pace) and lagging regions." Now, we arrive to the next question posed by Crescenzi, Fratesi and Monastiriotis (2020): "How important are local-and national-level characteristics and policy choices in shaping the benefits produced by the policy and their distribution?" They also provide the answer: "As Cohesion Policy can only deliver as a three-layered system (EU-member states-regions). If member states are punching below their weight, the entire architecture is weaker and less politically sustainable." Contrary to the "blame Brussels" strategy they urge a shifted focus by the "new member states in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE)" from concentrating their efforts (and resources) on capital cities and their regions, and at the same time to achieve 'unity with diversity' in Cohesion Policy, they call for a process of 'policy discovery' to be initiated and directed at the national level in order to lead a reflection on the spatial development model of each member state (and its regions) within the framework of a strong EU-wide Cohesion Policy (Crescenzi et al., 2020).
And lastly: has European Cohesion Policy undergone a learning process in the last decades?
According to some authors and recent works, the answer is yes (Rodríguez-Pose & Novak, 2013;Fiaschi et al., 2018;Rodríguez-Pose, 2021). As it can be seen on Figure 1 Hungary is clearly one of the main beneficiaries of Cohesion Funds (with investment intensity around €400 per capita on an annual basis between 2007 and 2013), the effective use of these funds is of outstanding importance in 2021-2027 also. Recent research also emphasises the need for carefully-targeted, place-sensitive intervention in areas that are often perceived -even by themselves -as "places that don't matter" (Rodríguez-Pose, 2021).
Have Member States also undergone a learning process in the last decades? This is the main question to which our paper seeks the answer through studying the case of Hungary from the perspective of a typical geographical and a soci(et)al-economic challenge also. Moving on to policy documents, it must be emphasized that EU priorities are changing from one programming (budgetary) period to the other, for example Europe 2020 has set 11 thematic objectives for the period of 2014-2020, EU cohesion policy has set a shorter, modern menu of 5 policy objectives supporting growth for the period 2021-2027 (EC, 2020b). On the other hand, the Hungarian Partnership Agreement for 2014-2020 has set out 5 national development priorities (PA, 2014), while in the Partnership Agreement for 2021-2027 more than 10 policy objectives have been identified (PA, 2021). Thus, controversial processes could be observed at the EU and national level in the specification of the main targets (development and/or policy objectives and/or priorities).
Regarding the planned policy answers at the national level, the Hungarian Partnership In the list above, the three most important aspects connected to our research are highlighted in bold. The visualization of goals is a widely used method in development policy, as an efficient tool to present both the current situation and specific objectives. In the following, two maps are presented in relation to the two main research strands of our paper: the management of surface waters as a geographically determined issue; and the territorial inequalities as a soci(et)al-economic issue. As regards the water catchment area, the visualization in the OFTK is referred, as indicated on Figure 2. As regards the predominance of Budapest and the connected peripheral territories in relation to the country's social and economic "blood flow", it is well-visualised on Figure 3 about the structure of strategic relations.
As referred above in the most important national level strategic policies and legal regulations, the Hungarian Government has declared several times that the reduction of territorial inequalities is a prioritized national objective. Additionally to these documents, the draft Partnership Agreement of Hungary with the European Commission for 2021-2027, and the following recent regulations also underline this intention (Evaluation report, 2020):  Based on all the above, making Europe greener and more carbon-free together with the reduction of territorial inequalities will be a prioritized objective at both EU and Member State (Hungary) level in 2021-2027, so our research question is whether the strategic level objectives can be observed "in the field" also at Member State level through the studying of specific case studies.
Regarding the data and methods used in our research, our research mainly relied on the analysis of the existing (still relatively limited) scientific literature and the relevant EU and national level policy documents (as presented above). Additionally, in the next chapter (Results) the current standing point and conceptual system is presented in detail, connected to our main research questions. The overall objective of our research is to raise some relevant questions and generate research interest on this very actual and relevant issue, by shedding light on the Hungarian example through document analysis and secondary research. An in-depth analysis supported with statistical data and interviews could be completed in the future only, when some preliminary (mid-term) results and specific, measurable indicators will be already available, so this constitutes a possible future research direction.
In connection to our first research question (RQ1: To what extent do sectoral and territorial policies define the same objectives for surface waters?), the current status will be analysed in detail, based on the textual and conceptual analyses of the relevant EU and national level policies.
In connection to our second research question (RQ2: Could the re-designing of regional (not administrative) borders and the creation of new functional territorial formations contribute significantly to reduced territorial inequalities?), two recent initiatives will be presented as "case studies" and some relevant aspects will be analysed based on the information available so far.
In relation to surface waters, different policy papers of the European Union and Hungary can be examined, and this issue can be explored from two perspectives and in two territorial dimensions. On the one hand, it is possible to analyse how water management objectives are present at the level of the European Union and, within the same framework, how surface waters are reflected in the general system of regional policy. On the other hand, the water side and its territorial characteristics can be taken into account in Hungary, as well as the role of waters in regional development. In relation to the Metropolitan region of Budapest, our paper focuses on how national government level and local /county level actors react on the new administrative setting. The "divorce" of Budapest and the neighbouring Pest County has raised several technical, administrative, and practical questions for regional development policy actors. In relation to the economic aspect, the evolution process of the recently established new "economic zones" can be examined at the national level, together with some future plans and strategic programmes.
In the following, an analysis of the current policy documents was completed in connection to the first research topic (surface water management), while in connection to the second research topic (territorial inequalities), two case studies were presented and analysed (the Metropolitan region of Budapest and the new "economic zones"), as innovative territorial development interventions. The basic difference between them is that the former required a legislative change both at Member State and EU level, namely the modification of a NUTS2 region, while the latter is based on a functional redesign (regrouping) of the existing administrative and planning-statistical territorial units.

Analysis of the Situation
The geographical, natural, social and economic characteristics of a country present challenges and opportunities for the country's territorial policy at the same time. As regards Hungary, the country has several distinct territorial elements that require (preferably) focused and integrated development policy in a top-down or bottom-up manner.
Starting from the complexity of the geographical space, the physical geographical, geomorphological picture is the first determining feature. Due to its location in the Carpathian Basin, Hungary has predominantly lowland and hilly landscapes, with a small number of low mountains, which are not obstacles to the territorial processes of society and the economy.
Hungary is isolated from the seas; it has land borders. A more decisive factor -and most important from the perspective of our paper -is the issue of surface water and groundwater. In Hungary there is relatively dense river network, with opportunities and threats (flooding limited crossing possibilities, different economic functions etc.). There are also plenty of stagnant waters in Hungary, of which Lake Balaton is the largest lake in Central Europe. In addition to the possibilities (mainly tourism), there are also problems (for example drying up of lakes, high water level, the quality of the water). The wildlife of wetlands is also of paramount importance in Hungary (the Carpathian Basin is a separate biogeographical region in Europe), including the maintenance of biodiversity. Hungary is rich in groundwater, the utilization of which is most pronounced in the supply of drinking water, medicinal waters for bathing and industrial water. However, the threat to water quality (e.g. fertilizers) and the lack of water in some places are serious challenges. Due to these, water management and planning have played an extremely important role in Hungary's territorial, economic and environmental policy for centuries, and currently several policies include references to these waters, but an integrated approach is not present.
In social and economic terms, an important spatial structural feature is the dominance of Budapest and Central Hungary. Currently the capital city concentrates 18% of the population, while 37% of the national GDP is produced here, while the Central regions (Budapest and Pest County) figures are 31, and 48% respectively (2019). The lack of big cities is a prominent feature of the Hungarian spatial structure; the second-tier cities (8) have only 100-200 thousand inhabitants each. Slow agglomeration processes can be detected around some of them, but the Budapest agglomeration alone is of such a size compared to the country (2.5 million people with the capital) that it can be treated as a key spatial structural element. (According to Eurostat, it is one of the 20 largest urban regions in the EU, and the only one from the cities of the Eastern Member States.) The situation is similar in terms of economic role and relations: even regional centers (5 large cities) do not show a prominent economic zone (Berkes, 2020). On the other hand, it is important to emphasize that the Budapest metropolitan area is not a homogenous and highly developed space, with 21 st century services available everywhere at low cost. Even the Capital city has internal structural problems (for example lacking infrastructure elements, overburdened and underutilized areas, extensive brownfields), while there are lagging microregions in Pest County's fringe also, and internal peripheries outside the agglomeration settlements' ring adjacent to the capital. Farther we go from Budapest, more similarity can be detected to the neighbouring counties. In a historic context it becomes obvious that after World Regarding territorial development in the country, it can be said that on regional level it is characterised by a developed North-Western and Central Region and an underdeveloped Southern Transdanubia and Eastern Hungary (Pénzes, 2014), and on micro-regional level there are 31 beneficiary districts (járás) formed from 174 districts, as identified by Government Decree 290/2014. The development of the lagging behind areas of Hungary has been a priority since the change of regime (1990s), and all national governments have been continuously trying to achieve the development of these disadvantaged areas with various means. Since its accession to the European Union in 2004, several Cohesion Policy funds and the connected programmes, institutions and instruments have been introduced and set up in the country with mixed experience (Nyikos & Soós, 2020).
For the sake of complexity, it has to be mentioned that Hungary also has a distinctive political geographical feature: it is neighbouring seven countries, five of which are EU Member States and three are members of the Schengen Zone. In our era, with special respect to international migration processes, this aspect is gaining more and more importance (in line with highlighted EU priorities on border management and security, for example). In connection with the border issue, it is also important that about 2 million Hungarians live outside the borders of Hungary (Megyesi & Péti, 2019), in the Carpathians and the Carpathian Basin, and a significant part of them on the immediate other side of the borders. For these reasons, the Hungarian government has always paid special attention to the border zone and the Hungarians living abroad.
Overall, the spatial structure of Hungary is not complicated, but it has some striking elements: the quantity (and quality) of the surface waters, the weight and internal division of the capital region, the differences in territorial development and the state borders of the country.
Dealing with these issues has long required an appropriate policy in Hungary. The question arises: which of these fit into the new objectives of the EU for the next programming period (2021)(2022)(2023)(2024)(2025)(2026)(2027). In this paper three of the four main phenomena are highlighted, the role of country borders and cross-border relations that go beyond the scope and limitations of the current paper, so this specific feature of the country is not analysed further. (In the European Union, the Interreg program is specifically aimed at the development of the border areas, and although the financial means of this policy are not outstanding, they have an increasing tendency in volume and importance both, that is favorable for Hungary.)

Water Management and Regional Policy
Surface waters have always played an important role in the development of settlements and areas, but over the centuries their roles and functions have changed, and the surface waters can be both an opportunity and a risk. Currently there is social, economic need and political expectation to deal with them. However, even in this case, both sectoral and territorial policy is interested in it, so territorial issues in water policy and water issues in territorial policy can be found.
As regards the European Union, from the sectoral point of view, the following can be stated.
The definition of surface water can be found in the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD, the "Directive 2000/60 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy"): it means a discrete and significant element of surface water such as a lake, reservoir, a stream, river or canal, part of a stream, river or canal, a transitional water or a stretch of coastal water (EC, 2020c).
With the entry into force of the Water Framework Directive in the European Union, the European Union's water policy was born, which is an important part of its environment policy (Szilágyi, 2019). In the EU multiannual environmental action programmes set the framework for future action in all areas of environment policy. They are embedded in horizontal strategies and taken into account in international environmental negotiations. Environment policy has recently been moved to centre stage in EU policy making, with the European Commission launching the European Green Deal as the main driver of its economic growth strategy (EC, 2021a). Some parts of this are water-related, but the focus is more on the atmosphere: reducing greenhouse gases. Surface waters are more likely to be affected by climate change, with some estimates that 80 percent of the effects of climate change affect waters. As a result, the potential for development of surface waters is less pronounced, because the emphasis in development policy is not on repairing damage but on preventing it.
The issue of quantity, quality and biodiversity can be observed in the European Union's water policy and in the WDF. The policy encompasses an integrative approach, many elements of the hydrological cycle as well as different types of water use, which should be taken into account in the planning and operation of other EU policies. In addition, including a combined approach, its control methods include both the regulatory model for individual emissions and the (immission) regulatory model for water quality standards, as well as quantitative water protection, recognizing that there are close correlations between these sides (Szilágyi, 2018).
Here, the essence of territoriality is that regulation is based on river basin districts and is not based on the classical administrative units (NUTS) of the Member States. From a sectoral point of view maritime policy plays an important role in the EU, but Hungary does not have contact with the sea, so it will not be addressed.
It can be emphasized that the European Union is in line with the UN recommendations. In 2015, the Seventh UN World Forum adopted 17 Sustainable Development Goals, including: "By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all" (UN, 2015). It contains quantitative issues (sustainable withdrawals and supply of freshwater), quality issues (improving water quality), and biological issues (protecting and restoring waterrelated ecosystems). In addition, territorial objectives can also be found here, both at international (expanding cooperation and capacity-building), regional (implementing integrated water resources management) and local level (supporting and strengthening the participation of local communities in water management).
From a territorial point of view, in the new cohesion policy of the European Union the water issue is not dominant, whereas cohesion policy is also in line with the EU's overall objectives.
The role of waters can be investigated in the case of the official macro-regional strategies in EU. [A macroregional strategy is an integrated framework endorsed by the European Council, which may be supported by the European Structural and Investment Funds among others, to address common challenges faced by a defined geographical area relating to Member States and third countries located in the same geographical area which thereby benefit from strengthened cooperation contributing to the achievement of economic, social and territorial cohesion (EC, 2021b).] Three of the four EU transnational strategies are related to water: the Baltic Sea, the Adriatic-Ionian and the Danubian cooperations. Here, however, in contrast to water policy, administrative units (countries, NUTS regions) form and delimit macro-regions.
These are bottom-up initiatives, and the community of participating countries and regions is based on the principle of common waters and their use (Szabó, 2017).
As for Hungary, its hydrography is basically determined by the fact that it is located in the middle of the Carpathian Basin, surrounded by the Carpathian Mountains. In Hungary, there are 9,800 watercourses in the water register, and surface water gravitates towards the southern center, and from there it flows into the Black Sea via the Danube. The whole area belongs to the Danube catchment area. This feature of the basin also points out why this phenomenon is so important in the life of Hungary. Due to the continental climate, the water regime fluctuates: both flood (and inland water) and low water levels are present, and only 28% of watercourses are permanent. The average water flow of 29 rivers exceeds 1 cubic meter/second, the Danube (6500 m 3 ) and the Tisza (820) and Drava (670) stand out. There are about 3,500 lakes in Hungary, of which 25% are natural and 75% artificial. Of these, Lake Balaton stands out, which is the largest lake in Central Europe (592 km 2 ). Other larger lakes include Lake Tisza (121), Lake Fertő (315, but 75 km 2 is in Hungary), Lake Balaton II. reservoir (52) and Lake Velence  The role of water as a natural resource has changed in Hungary, it has been relegated in several respects, but at the same time its new functions have been strengthened. On the one hand, drinking water from surface watercourses is approx. only 12% and 88% is coastal filtered water. Residential water consumption has changed, the consumption of bottled (groundwater) mineral water has increased. On the other hand, in 2016, commercial fishing officially ceased in Hungary, but the role of fish farming increased (regarding the size of the area used and the amount of fish). The role of shipping is significant only in the case of the Danube and Lake Balaton (in the case of other surface waters only local tourism and recreation are significant), and in recent years the role of domestic passenger and freight transport has decreased.
Agricultural water use for irrigation has substantially decreased in the last few decades (90% of the used water is surface water), however, due to climate change, this trend may be reversed.
The major user of water is industry (e.g. industrial cooling water, food industry), but due to industrial restructuring, some water-intensive industries (e.g. metallurgy, sugar industry) have been pushed back, while battery manufacturing is emerging as a new, water-intensive industry.
The energy utilization of surface waters is negligible in Hungary (it accounts for 0.7% of electricity production), there are only small hydropower plants with local significance.
In addition to the declining economic role, the demand of society for the utilization of surface waters is strengthening. This is basically related to recreation and tourism. It includes bathing tourism, water sports, ecotourism, and fishing, which is especially popular in Hungary.
(700,000 registered anglers were registered in 2020, which is more than 7% of the population under the Ministry of the Interior (BM)) can be highlighted, the task of which is to set goals related to water management and status, to identify the measures and tasks required to achieve them, and to determine the conditions and method of implementation. The scope of the plan is all water-related activities throughout the country. In order to achieve the objectives set out in the Water Framework Directive, Hungary had to prepare a strategic plan and a program of measures. Within this framework, after the first (2010), the second (2016) river basin management plan, the third river basin management plan (2021) is now being prepared by NDGWM (which institution is part of the state administration). The objective of this plan is to reconcile measures to ensure the achievement and maintenance of the environmental objectives of the WFD with the needs of agriculture, energy production, shipping, tourism, climate adaptation, sustainable water management and rural and regional development.
Water management operates at the regional and municipal level in Hungary. In the first case the deconcentrated units of water management (12 offices, subordinate to NDGWM) belong mainly to the catchment areas, crossing the administrative borders of counties (Budapest and 19 counties are in Hungary) ( Figure 5). Its tasks are multifaceted, including flood protection, water management, river, lake and inland water management, regional water distribution, protection of wetlands, etc. At the level of settlements, drinking water supply, water base protection, wastewater treatment, rainwater management etc. are the main tasks of the local self-governments. Approached from the point of view of territoriality, firstly it can be stated that the XXI. Act on Spatial Development and Spatial Planning does not deal with surface waters, but its first version (in 1996) highlighted and treated Lake Balaton separately, as a special area of regional development, which has been the case ever since. A Government Decree (218/2009) on the content requirements of the regional development concept, the regional development program and the spatial planning plan takes into account many factors when recording the analysis of the area's endowments and internal resources, and water management appears as a separate point, but is not detailed in the text. As stated in the Kvassay plan, it would be expedient to make specific content requirements for the water management chapter of the regional development plans. This reflection is an indication that documents and actors in the two policies are not completely isolated. In Hungary, on the one hand, regional development plans are being prepared for the counties, and on the other hand, plans can be prepared for specially designated areas. In the case of the former, different formations of surface waters appear with different weights in the documents, as the administrative boundaries of the counties do not coincide with the boundaries of river basin districts, rivers separate the counties only in some cases. The Danube itself affects seven counties and the capital, while Lake Balaton covers three counties. In the case of special areas of development, however, five of the current ten Territorial Development Councils (bottom-up organizations) are linked to surface water (Lake Balaton, Lake Tisza, Lake Velence and Lake Danube Bend, Upper Danube and Szigetköz) and one area of traditional water scarcity (Homokhátság) (Figure 6). Of these, the Balaton Development Council is the oldest and appears separately in the Regional Development Act, since 1996. However, these bottom-up organizations do not have adequate financial resources, the counties are the priority units of regional development. However, there are different government territorial designations (such as tourist areas) through which some areas receive public funding.

Figure 6 Territorial Development Councils
Source: Ministry of Economy.
In Hungary, as a response to climate change, the national climate strategy has been completed, and the preparation of counties' and municipalities' climate strategies has started in recent years, through various content guidelines. This is related to the Green Deal, also in that the role of waters is subordinated to the atmosphere, as in EU documents (see there for reasons).
Hungary is a member of the Danube Macro-Region (macro-regional strategy) (Figure 7). A paper by Gál, Lux and Illés (2013)   Water has an appropriate role in the Hungarian Partnership Agreement, it appears in several parts and forms. Of the five policy objectives, a greener Europe appears, such as the development of infrastructure for water management that addresses both water abundance and drought; in the field of disaster management, the development of disaster resilience is needed.
In addition, it is related to surface waters that the efficiency and development of public utilities providing drinking water and wastewater treatment still need to be developed. Related to this are the goals of protecting the aquatic ecosystem, increasing the number of native fish stocks in the waters, and protecting water quality. Overall, integrated water management is the goal.
In the case of delimitation agreements and issues between each operational program (water management and disaster management, climate adaptation part), it is emphasized that: disaster management and regional, large-scale water management developments and stormwater management, as well as stormwater management related to major water utility developments, can also be supported only in the KEHOP (Environmental and Energy Efficiency Operational Program). TOP plus supports local, settlement-level stormwater management (e.g. stormwater reservoirs) and small-scale water management.
The Summary of Hungary's Recovery and Adaptation Plan (draft) emphasizes that water management is a key area for the future of Hungary and Europe, where it is essential to develop and strengthen an optimal and sustainable system in line with the country's natural conditions.
In the draft, component D is about water management itself, although its essence is limited to irrigation and abstraction: the proportion of irrigable agricultural land must be increased, and farmers must have legal access to water resources. In component G, which deals with the transition to a circular economy, wastewater treatment appears in smaller settlements: they are connected to a sewerage agglomeration or a sewage treatment plant, several small settlements may decide to build a common sewerage network and sewage treatment plant.

The Question of the Metropolitan Region of Budapest in Regional Policy
Regarding multi-centred development, the research of Nemes-Nagy and Tagai (2009) is referred mainly, that analysed in detail the GDP/capita volume in connection to regional inequalities (centre -periphery).  Hungary Region. We presume that this will not hamper substantially the socio-economic development of the Metropolitan region, since it is well embedded in the world economy, however, the lack of coordination might entail a loss of resources, and it may lead sub-optimal solutions in problem areas affecting both entities. An in-depth analysis and future scenarios can (approved on 16 September 2021 by the European Commission). The Hungarian regional aid map was among the first maps approved by the European Commission within the framework of the revised Regional Aid Guidelines (RAG) and introduces a significant difference: the 50% maximum state aid ratio for Pest County.  This is the maximum available state aid ratio within the European Union for the investment activities of large companies, and it could generate a positive impact on the processes and challenges analysed formerly.

The Economic Aspect and the Newly Created Zones versus Regional Policy
As described above, the areas of Eastern Hungary and South Transdanubia are economically backward in Hungary, but the territorial picture can be further refined to the district level (31 underdeveloped districts in Hungary, Government Decree 290/2014) and to the settlement level ( Figure 11). The latter, while showing the macro-regional differences, also shows that the picture is mosaic in places (Pénzes, 2014). Thus, by drawing boundaries that do not consider the existing administrative (county, district) boundaries, but focus rather on functional characteristics, new, more suitable development areas can be demarcated. Such areas could be designed with a top-down and bottom-up approach also. Typical top-down areas are the Lake Balaton, Tokaj Region, and the Middle Danube Region. These are direct beneficiaries of national and EU state aids, while the ones generated with a bottom-up approach are normally less prioritised by non-refundable cash subsidy schemes.
The national vision stated in the OFTK (2014) is the following: "In 2030, Hungary will be a leading economic and intellectual centre in Central and East Europe, ensuring that its residents can make a stable living, with a competitive economy based on the sustainable usage of resources and, in connection with that, an increasing population, strengthened communities, rising living standards, and an improving environment." The OFTK also introduced the future spatial structure that formed the basis of the Creative Region development programme. The spatial structure vision forms the so-called functional areas where specific zones of national importance could be developed for economic, social and/or environmental functions/tasks ( Figure 12).
The OFTK also identifies the territorial strategy tasks for medium and long term. The medium-term territorial strategy tasks are: − addressing the issues of regions lagging behind, rural areas, internal and external peripheries, employment and social issues − improving the accessibility of the border areas and strengthening their cross-border relations.
− The territorial strategy tasks laying the bases of long-term development are: − decisive macro-regional and space organising role of Hungary  Under sub-section 3.1.7.2, the OFTK also described the Development of special economic zones, as a necessary action to be taken. In the OFTK concept, the necessity of new aspects, such as investment stimulating spatial structure (especially the establishment of attractive locational conditions) are also specified, additionally to the reduction of territorial imbalances and inequalities in social and economic development.
"The whole national economy cannot be competitive if economic activity is almost "paralysed" in disadvantaged regions, which represent a considerable portion of the territory of the country. Apart from support policy, other economic incentives are also required for a territorially more balanced development of the economy. In order to facilitate economic development in the whole country, those growth and cohesion regions need to be identified where relevant territorial and economic development can be achieved with the help of targeted and integrated regional interventions. The former could be regions that already function as dynamic zones of the economy in the Hungarian structure of agglomeration with their outstanding potential sites, actual and potential investors and enterprises, while the latter category includes regions that face severe employment problems and may be (re)connected to the economic circulation of the country only with a complex development policy approach." (OFTK, 2014, p. 164).
According to the document, a special economic zone could serve as a tool of territorially selective economy stimulation, because it is a production and service providing territorial unit where the established enterprises are eligible for preferences under various conditions in order to boost economic developments in the region, for example through providing an enterprise friendly environment in line with the local specificities and available resources, to encourage investments and to enhance employment options. Additionally, it specifies cities as the urban territories of the external ring and possible counter-poles, or development poles in the countryside to be prioritized through focused investments. Under sub-section 3.1.4.6, city territories of (potential) national significance are listed, and this category includes Miskolc, Debrecen, Szeged, Pécs and Győr, as well as Székesfehérvár due to its economic power and historical role, and the catchment areas of these cities. "These cities can constitute a partly independent territorial level next to / below the capital, thus decreasing the Budapest-centred nature of the country." Very specific examples are the relocation of national public authorities (ministries) to cities outside the capital, as shown by the case of Debrecen, among others.
These cities can provide the necessary critical mass where special cultural and economic niche needs may arise and can be satisfied over a long period of time, and their task is to channel and radiate innovative, technological, economic and cultural development towards their own territories in the wider sense (across several counties) and towards other cities. Additionally, the higher education and health care functions of these cities are also important, and as potential alternative centres of intellectual life outside the capital, the number of innovation scenes can be increased also, so the social elite does not depend on a single centre, thus can exhibit higher and more stable performance.
This intention could be observed also in the next part, through the presented case study, where the evolution process of these newly established economic zones in Hungary is presented. One of the cities included in the case study is Miskolc, a typical example of a Central and Eastern European city that has experienced through its history all global tendencies and major shocks starting from an oppidum, through the privileged free royal city status to municipal law rights, prioritized beneficiary of socialist industrialisation and soon after one of the main industrial crisis zones of the county to depression, pathfinding, slow recovery and repositioning in our days (Józsa, 2020).
The process of the case study began with the establishment of the so-called Creative Region, Here Miskolc and Debrecen can be both identified, as cities listed in the OFTK, as potential counter-poles to the capital and at the same time, cities of (potential) national significance. The Creative Region Development Zone is also connected to sub-national ( In Figure 13, the main milestones of the creation process of the newly established development zones are identified, focusing on the Creative Region initiative.

CONCLUSION
Economy is one of (if not the) most important forces shaping space. Administrative borders and planning-statistical territorial units (national level, or EU level NUTS or LAU classifications) are rarely considered by economic actors, even if we refer to recruitment areas, logistic or other service centres for example. The case of surface waters is an example of how a geographical phenomenon can be addressed by both sectoral and territorial policies, and the existence of a link between them is not predetermined (territorial dimensions can be found in the former, while sectoral characteristics in the latter). The phenomenon of surface waters is a well-managed field in the EU through environmental policy, however, it is currently less emphasized due to the centrality of atmosphere in the Green Deal. The surface areas are very important in Hungary's environmental system, social and economic life, and policies. From a sectoral point of view, integrated water management is emphasized, in which quantity, quality issues and ecosystems appear regularly. Here, the territorial dimension brings forth river basin districts where international cooperation, crossing national and regional borders appear, and local communities are important, where local water management is emphasized. From the point of view of territorial policy, although its weight and detail vary from document to document, the main sectoral objectives are present and major surface waters have become an important element of national development goals, within which special attention is paid to flood management, mitigation of droughts related to climate change. However, the documents examined show a mixed picture about the coherence of relevant policies: interconnection appears in relation to national level plan(s), but at the regional level, there are separate planning paths for different territorial units (in addition to mutual commenting on each other's documents).
The current European environmental policy, reinforced with the Water Framework Directive, favours Hungary. Beyond that, although water issues are represented in the Green Deal, the atmosphere is more critical, as for example the greenhouse effects receive much more attention than water management. However, the effects of climate change are water-related, so it is Hungary's strong interest to emphasize this and further strengthen the role of the country's surface waters in EU policies.