Page 44 - Studia Universitatis Hereditati, vol. 5(1) (2017)
P. 44
dia universitatis her editati, letnik 5 (2017), številk a 1 44of its most sensitive section, i.e. the activities ofthe owners chose who may be entrusted with
preservation of cultural heritage, in the hands the management, since the body that issued the
hereditatiof the owner or holder, as well as differentiation act is not necessarily the owner. We clearly need
of professional qualification requirements of a guidelines in the managers’ selection process
manager with regard to the tasks assigned. as well as in determining how to fund heritage
management – and in the provision of quality
Furthermore, the Italian legislature metic standards. Major deficiencies were recorded e.g.
ulously defines procedures of allocating manage in the management of the open air archaeologi
ment. The internal structures of a heritage hold cal sites, which were comprehensively surveyed.18
er can directly manage this heritage in a twofold
manner: holders of cultural heritage can set up a Quote: “In Slovenia we recorded 44 loca
legal entity, which is directly allocated the man tions, where a number of shortcomings in the
agement of heritage, or a heritage manager can field of management were identified. The most
be selected through a public tender. The prac evident is lack of basic maintenance and the
tice of legal entities in the form of large consor consequential decay of the heritage, and, las
tia or foundations has proven particularly suc but not least, the absence of interpretative con
cessful, where the financial burden of the new tents, which would increase their availability in
entity is split into a larger number of founders the broadest sense of the word.”19 (Breznik 2014,
and heritage holders, while the management of 106).
such a combined group proved to be more coor
dinated. An example at hand is e.g. the “Aquileia This brings us to the basic question, rele
Foundation” (Fondazione Aquileia), established vant for the ensuring of public access to cultural
for the purpose of enrichment activities in the heritage and its fruition: the funding. In this re
area of Aquileia, under the Regional Act (Leg spect, the movable and immovable cultural her
ge Regionale 18/2006,17 based on the Article 115 itage is highly differentiated: in the case of na
of the Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio) tional and authorized museums, intended for
by the Ministry of Culture, the region of Friuli the fruition of cultural heritage, the funding is
Venezia Giulia, the municipality of Aquileia, the clearly regulated (ZUJIK). However, in the case
province of Udine and the Gorizia archbishop of immovable cultural heritage the state budget
ric, which all co-finance the foundation. provides for the implementation of specific
measures for the protection and restoration20 –
In Croatia and Slovenia, the law provides no doubt a prerequisite for any kind of fruition
that owners may entrust the management of of cultural heritage –, but the enrichment activ
heritage to another legal entity, while the selec ities are essentially neglected. In general, the ab
tion process and the allocation is not defined sence of mechanisms which could provide the fi
in detail. However, the ZVKD-1 provides that nancial resources is a problem, since they could
“in accordance with the act declaring a site, the create revenues in the state budget,21 from which
body which issued the act may directly man it would be possible to finance the planned pub
age the monument site, setting up for that pur
pose a public institution, or entrusting the man 18 Cf. Andreja Breznik, Upravljanje arheološkega parka v RS (Ljubljana:
agement of a public to an institution established Doctoral Dissertation University of Ljubljana, 2012).
for the purpose of managing monuments and
sites, or entrusting the management to a natu 19 Andreja Breznik, “Vrednotenje arheoloških najdišč za upravljanje
ral or legal person under the law governing pub v obliki turističnega kompleksa arheološki park,” Studia universita-
lic-private partnership” (paragraph 3 of Article tis hereditati 2, no. 1-2 (2014): 106.
59). This is clearly contrary to the provision that
20 Koželj, Financiranje kulturne dediščine, 54–56.
17 ht t p://w w w. fond a z ione aqu i leia . it /repositor y/dow n load / l r18- 21 It was expected to collect certain assets by unprecedented sale of
2006.pdf (date of access: 1.5.2018).
state-owned monuments or monuments owned by municipalities
(Article 6 ZVKD-1), or in the context of countervailing (Article
31 ZVKD-1) and alternative measures (Article 115 ZVKD-1), or
through compensation for devaluation (Article 41), all of which ca-
ses involve emergency situations associated with at least partial loss
of cultural heritage, and cannot, therefore, constitute a basic me-
preservation of cultural heritage, in the hands the management, since the body that issued the
hereditatiof the owner or holder, as well as differentiation act is not necessarily the owner. We clearly need
of professional qualification requirements of a guidelines in the managers’ selection process
manager with regard to the tasks assigned. as well as in determining how to fund heritage
management – and in the provision of quality
Furthermore, the Italian legislature metic standards. Major deficiencies were recorded e.g.
ulously defines procedures of allocating manage in the management of the open air archaeologi
ment. The internal structures of a heritage hold cal sites, which were comprehensively surveyed.18
er can directly manage this heritage in a twofold
manner: holders of cultural heritage can set up a Quote: “In Slovenia we recorded 44 loca
legal entity, which is directly allocated the man tions, where a number of shortcomings in the
agement of heritage, or a heritage manager can field of management were identified. The most
be selected through a public tender. The prac evident is lack of basic maintenance and the
tice of legal entities in the form of large consor consequential decay of the heritage, and, las
tia or foundations has proven particularly suc but not least, the absence of interpretative con
cessful, where the financial burden of the new tents, which would increase their availability in
entity is split into a larger number of founders the broadest sense of the word.”19 (Breznik 2014,
and heritage holders, while the management of 106).
such a combined group proved to be more coor
dinated. An example at hand is e.g. the “Aquileia This brings us to the basic question, rele
Foundation” (Fondazione Aquileia), established vant for the ensuring of public access to cultural
for the purpose of enrichment activities in the heritage and its fruition: the funding. In this re
area of Aquileia, under the Regional Act (Leg spect, the movable and immovable cultural her
ge Regionale 18/2006,17 based on the Article 115 itage is highly differentiated: in the case of na
of the Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio) tional and authorized museums, intended for
by the Ministry of Culture, the region of Friuli the fruition of cultural heritage, the funding is
Venezia Giulia, the municipality of Aquileia, the clearly regulated (ZUJIK). However, in the case
province of Udine and the Gorizia archbishop of immovable cultural heritage the state budget
ric, which all co-finance the foundation. provides for the implementation of specific
measures for the protection and restoration20 –
In Croatia and Slovenia, the law provides no doubt a prerequisite for any kind of fruition
that owners may entrust the management of of cultural heritage –, but the enrichment activ
heritage to another legal entity, while the selec ities are essentially neglected. In general, the ab
tion process and the allocation is not defined sence of mechanisms which could provide the fi
in detail. However, the ZVKD-1 provides that nancial resources is a problem, since they could
“in accordance with the act declaring a site, the create revenues in the state budget,21 from which
body which issued the act may directly man it would be possible to finance the planned pub
age the monument site, setting up for that pur
pose a public institution, or entrusting the man 18 Cf. Andreja Breznik, Upravljanje arheološkega parka v RS (Ljubljana:
agement of a public to an institution established Doctoral Dissertation University of Ljubljana, 2012).
for the purpose of managing monuments and
sites, or entrusting the management to a natu 19 Andreja Breznik, “Vrednotenje arheoloških najdišč za upravljanje
ral or legal person under the law governing pub v obliki turističnega kompleksa arheološki park,” Studia universita-
lic-private partnership” (paragraph 3 of Article tis hereditati 2, no. 1-2 (2014): 106.
59). This is clearly contrary to the provision that
20 Koželj, Financiranje kulturne dediščine, 54–56.
17 ht t p://w w w. fond a z ione aqu i leia . it /repositor y/dow n load / l r18- 21 It was expected to collect certain assets by unprecedented sale of
2006.pdf (date of access: 1.5.2018).
state-owned monuments or monuments owned by municipalities
(Article 6 ZVKD-1), or in the context of countervailing (Article
31 ZVKD-1) and alternative measures (Article 115 ZVKD-1), or
through compensation for devaluation (Article 41), all of which ca-
ses involve emergency situations associated with at least partial loss
of cultural heritage, and cannot, therefore, constitute a basic me-
