Page 45 - Studia Universitatis Hereditati, vol. 5(1) (2017)
P. 45
ia universitatislic investments in cultural heritage. This reflects the question is whether such a system is sustain
the accessibilit y, use, fruition and enr ichment of immobile cultur al her itage 45 the general belief that the cultural heritage can able in the long term, not to mention other paid
not be autonomously financed, thus automati services, which could generate the – as yet – vir
cally constituting little more than a burden. tually non-existent revenue.
The Codice dei beni culturali e del paesag Clearly enough, the tourism sector bene
gio (Article 110) defines the benefits from en fits from the cultural heritage and its protection
trance fees (and services for visitors) into the the most; cultural and natural landscapes are by
state-owned ‘institutions and places of culture’ definition the core of touristic offer in a certain
as budgetary revenue for the implementation of area.23 This is why an implementation of a monu
their conservation and the expropriation or pur ment rent of a sort would be logical – similarly as
chasing of cultural heritage, including on the royalties are charged for the play of music in bars
basis of pre-emption rights. Earnings from for and restaurants. This would also formally reflect
admission fees (and services for visitors) to in the exhibited economic importance of immova
stitutions and facilities owned by other public ble cultural heritage for the development tour
entities are intended to increase and enrich the ism, whereas state budget would benefit greatly
cultural heritage. Article 120 of the Codice dei in the field of cultural sector, which could pro
beni culturali e del paesaggio provides sponsor vide an adequate financial basis for the investing
ship of cultural heritage, i.e. any form of contri of public funds into cultural heritage.
bution by a private entity to carry out activities
in the field of protection and enrichment of the Povzetek
cultural heritage in order to promote their own
name, trademark, image, activities or products. Prispevek predstavlja temeljne razlike v poudarkih
Such promotion must be in accordance with the varstva kulturne dediščine v Sloveniji, na Hrvaškem in
artistic and historic properties, appearance and v Italiji. Pomembne razlike se kažejo že v ustavah ome-
dignity of cultural heritage, which must be de njenih držav, pri čemer je v Sloveniji poudarjen koncept
fined in the contract of sponsorship In Croatia, ohranjanja kulturne dediščine, medtem ko se na Hrva-
a most successful system of public funding was škem koncept ohranjanja kulturne dediščine neposred-
devised, not so much through concessions for no povezuje z njeno uporabo, v Italiji pa z njeno oboga-
the use of publicly owned cultural heritage as via titvijo.
monument rent.22 In Italy, budgetary revenue is Bistvene razlike v določanju pravic in odgovornosti na
revenue arising from the sale of tickets and addi področju zagotavljanja dostopnosti, uporabe, uživa-
tional services for visitors in museums and oth nja in obogatitve kulturne dediščine se izražajo tudi v
er public spaces of culture, such as archaeological področnih zakonodajnih dokumentih in s temi pove-
parks and monumental complexes. In Slovenia, zanih finančnih mehanizmih teh držav. Jasne usmeritve
the entrance fees to museums do cover a small so bistvenega pomena prav na področju arheološke de-
part of the operating costs of museums, so it diščine, saj ima ta redkokdaj takšne lastnosti, ki bi lah-
would be wise to ask ourselves whether it could ko neposredno omogočile njeno uporabo, razumevanje
be possible to establish a more efficient system. in uživanje. Splošno veljavne smernice za to področje so
As for the case of archaeological sites with podane v različnih mednarodnih pogodbah in listinah.
Predstavitev je namenjena prikazu določenih pomanj-
exhibited archaeological remains (archae kljivosti na naši zakonodajni ravni, zaradi katerih na-
ological “parks”), entrance is mostly free. Of stajajo znatne posledice v praksi. Najbolj očitna je, da v
course the concept of making entrance available samem Zakonu o varstvu kulturne dediščine niso pred-
to low income groups is not reproachable, but videni mehanizmi za zagotavljanje državnih proračun-
chanism for ensuring the revenue from which it could be possible to 23 Janez Planina, “Primarna in sekundarna turistična ponudba ter nju-
finance relevant public investments. ne posebnosti,” Turistični vestnik 4 (1966): 161–164.
22 Jadran Antolović, Spomenička renta.
the accessibilit y, use, fruition and enr ichment of immobile cultur al her itage 45 the general belief that the cultural heritage can able in the long term, not to mention other paid
not be autonomously financed, thus automati services, which could generate the – as yet – vir
cally constituting little more than a burden. tually non-existent revenue.
The Codice dei beni culturali e del paesag Clearly enough, the tourism sector bene
gio (Article 110) defines the benefits from en fits from the cultural heritage and its protection
trance fees (and services for visitors) into the the most; cultural and natural landscapes are by
state-owned ‘institutions and places of culture’ definition the core of touristic offer in a certain
as budgetary revenue for the implementation of area.23 This is why an implementation of a monu
their conservation and the expropriation or pur ment rent of a sort would be logical – similarly as
chasing of cultural heritage, including on the royalties are charged for the play of music in bars
basis of pre-emption rights. Earnings from for and restaurants. This would also formally reflect
admission fees (and services for visitors) to in the exhibited economic importance of immova
stitutions and facilities owned by other public ble cultural heritage for the development tour
entities are intended to increase and enrich the ism, whereas state budget would benefit greatly
cultural heritage. Article 120 of the Codice dei in the field of cultural sector, which could pro
beni culturali e del paesaggio provides sponsor vide an adequate financial basis for the investing
ship of cultural heritage, i.e. any form of contri of public funds into cultural heritage.
bution by a private entity to carry out activities
in the field of protection and enrichment of the Povzetek
cultural heritage in order to promote their own
name, trademark, image, activities or products. Prispevek predstavlja temeljne razlike v poudarkih
Such promotion must be in accordance with the varstva kulturne dediščine v Sloveniji, na Hrvaškem in
artistic and historic properties, appearance and v Italiji. Pomembne razlike se kažejo že v ustavah ome-
dignity of cultural heritage, which must be de njenih držav, pri čemer je v Sloveniji poudarjen koncept
fined in the contract of sponsorship In Croatia, ohranjanja kulturne dediščine, medtem ko se na Hrva-
a most successful system of public funding was škem koncept ohranjanja kulturne dediščine neposred-
devised, not so much through concessions for no povezuje z njeno uporabo, v Italiji pa z njeno oboga-
the use of publicly owned cultural heritage as via titvijo.
monument rent.22 In Italy, budgetary revenue is Bistvene razlike v določanju pravic in odgovornosti na
revenue arising from the sale of tickets and addi področju zagotavljanja dostopnosti, uporabe, uživa-
tional services for visitors in museums and oth nja in obogatitve kulturne dediščine se izražajo tudi v
er public spaces of culture, such as archaeological področnih zakonodajnih dokumentih in s temi pove-
parks and monumental complexes. In Slovenia, zanih finančnih mehanizmih teh držav. Jasne usmeritve
the entrance fees to museums do cover a small so bistvenega pomena prav na področju arheološke de-
part of the operating costs of museums, so it diščine, saj ima ta redkokdaj takšne lastnosti, ki bi lah-
would be wise to ask ourselves whether it could ko neposredno omogočile njeno uporabo, razumevanje
be possible to establish a more efficient system. in uživanje. Splošno veljavne smernice za to področje so
As for the case of archaeological sites with podane v različnih mednarodnih pogodbah in listinah.
Predstavitev je namenjena prikazu določenih pomanj-
exhibited archaeological remains (archae kljivosti na naši zakonodajni ravni, zaradi katerih na-
ological “parks”), entrance is mostly free. Of stajajo znatne posledice v praksi. Najbolj očitna je, da v
course the concept of making entrance available samem Zakonu o varstvu kulturne dediščine niso pred-
to low income groups is not reproachable, but videni mehanizmi za zagotavljanje državnih proračun-
chanism for ensuring the revenue from which it could be possible to 23 Janez Planina, “Primarna in sekundarna turistična ponudba ter nju-
finance relevant public investments. ne posebnosti,” Turistični vestnik 4 (1966): 161–164.
22 Jadran Antolović, Spomenička renta.
