Situation Report

Preparation of Situation Reports

Preparation of a Situation Report for each country, which will define what elements of the regional environment constitute cultural heritage. Buildings can be important not just for their architectural or historical quality but also for their “association” with people or events. They often provide a reference to a sense of place and help connect a community to the past, beyond adversity. It is essential to understand the background as to why buildings are important within a particular context in order to evaluate the cultural aspirations for their potential restoration. This will involve co-operation between professionals, and NGO’s, with input from international organisations such as ICOMOS, Europa Nostra. Special attention will be paid to the value of cultural heritage within different cultures across S E Europe.
 
The leading NGO in each country will be responsible for preparing the report and co-ordinating assistance from its in-country partners. The completed Situation Report will be fully published and disseminated and will form the basis of an International Conference to be held in Dubrovnik in May 2009.

Overall Situation Report on Cultural Heritage of South-East Europe

(Albania, Croatia, Hungary, Kosovo, Romania, Serbia)

In order to provide a context within which to develop a working strategy for the successful implementation of this project it is important to understand the cultural background of the region and to define those elements of the environment which constitute cultural heritage. This Situation Report seeks to do so at a Regional level by providing a summary of the key influences affecting cultural heritage.
A more detailed description relating to each participant country is appended to this report.

What constitutes Cultural Heritage?

In Albania the principal Cultural Law defines ‘cultural monument’ as the object or the construction of cultural and historical values protected by the state.  This provides a very general definition which is generally relevant across the region.  It recognises the concept of an Asset which has a Value within society, and is afforded Protection by the state.
Each of the participant countries have their own definitions embodied within their legal system but they all embrace Asset, Value and Protection.
There is a general recognition that cultural heritage (mobile and immobile) contributes to society, but within the Kosovo situation there is also a recognition of the need for cross cultural understanding in dealing with heritage assets.
 
“The Identification of Cultural Heritage in Kosovo shall be achieved by stressing its unity, regardless of its cultural identity. However, an understanding in recognition of cultural values of every ethnic community in Kosovo should be valued within the context of diversity and tolerance. “
 
Across the region there are many different ethnic groups and religions, each with their individual cultural values and assets which are important within their society. The concept of understanding and tolerance is therefore key to ensuring the retention/protection of heritage assets to ensure their contribution to the development of society.
 
Legislation and Policy

Throughout the region there is formal legislation and policy relating to the identification, protection and control of heritage assets. Each has in place primary legislation created or updated within the last 10 years (Albania -2003, updated 2008: Croatia – 1999: Hungary -2001: Romania 2001: Kosovo – 2007) but not yet fully established in practice. Serbia’s principal legislation dates from 1994 but also includes new elements since that period.
Hungaryhas a long history of protection with the first Commission on Historic Monuments set up in 1872, and the 1^st Act of Parliament approved in 1881.
All countries have gone through difficult periods where historic building conservation and monument protection was not supported at government level: in Romania the National Commission for Historic Monuments was disbanded in 1977 removing all protection until the end of communism in 1989: in Albania the 2003 legislation was the first relevant legislation in 35 years.
Legislation is commonly controlled through a dedicated Ministry of Culture (Croatia, Romania, Serbia) or a Ministry in which Heritage is a major function: Ministry of Tourism, Culture, Youth and Sports (Albania): Ministry of Education and Culture (Hungary): Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sports (Kosovo).
Through these Ministries, National and Regional Committees have been formed which are responsible for the implementation of the legislation and for asserting control through the legislation. This has frequently led to over bureaucratic practices and inconsistencies in decision making within the country.
In Romania there are 10 regional Historic Buildings Commissions each responsible for interpretation of the legislation and control of development.
In contrast the Regional Directorates of National Culture in Albania are more fully empowered and expanded to include other ministerial institutions in the regions that they cover, such as offices of archaeological parks, local specialists of the Albanian Archaeological Service and ministry managed museums. This consolidation enables Regional Directorates to take a more holistic approach to the management of heritage in their area, from rescue archaeology to building restoration.
In Hungary strategic policy planning and control in heritage is centralised through the National Office of Cultural Heritage which maintains standards across 7 regional offices.
In Serbia where the basic organisational structure is of municipalities and cities, each municipality is under obligation to ensure the protection of cultural heritage.
 
Listing Process

Whilst the general concept of protection of the historic cultural environment is widely accepted across all countries, the criteria for Listing and the degree of protection afforded inevitably varies. There are over 49000 listed sites (Buildings, monuments, archaeology) in the 5 countries: Albania 1500: Croatia 4215: Hungary 11319: Kosovo 425: Romania 29425, Serbia 2308.
The criteria under which protection is judged varies across the region but there is a common approach offering temporary or preventive protection during the decision making process.
Different Committee systems exist throughout the Region which are responsible for making the decision on protection, but all exist within a governmental structure and it is usually the principal Ministry which is responsible for the final decision.
The most commonly protected buildings/structures relate to dwellings and religious buildings. The protected “objects” are generally referred to as “Monuments” without typological distinction, and are usually categorised as grade 1 and 2, or grade A and B.
The first category in both cases comprises “monuments” of National significance which are protected in their entirety.
In Romania and Hungary a zone around the monument is also protected as a means of ensuring the setting of the monument, (but not always adhered to). Of all of the countries, zonal protection is most advanced in Hungary where a number of specific Conservation Areas (40 in total) exist across the country.
It is clear from the “Country Situation Reports” that although legislation exists to enable protection, inclusion on the national lists does not secure the future of the asset. Responsibilities of owners/managers are specifically referred to in the legislation of Croatia where restrictions on rights is identified in order ensure protection  as a priority.
A similar situation exists in Serbia where the rights and obligations of owners and users of cultural assets are defined by the Law on Cultural Assets/Goods.
In Romania a major issue exists with regard to enforcement of the legislation which is frequently ignored, to the extent that a Presidential Commission has been established to investigate the situation  and  Ministerial initiative is underway to address the problem of heritage at risk.
Sites of Archaeological importance are protected through different but related legislation. Nationwide archaeological surveys have not been undertaken in all countries. There are clear differences in the relative number of archaeological sites protected.
In Hungary there is a separate list for archaeological sites with 50.000 items. In Kosovo, of the 425 Monument sites 96 are archaeological (22.5%), in Romania of the 29425 Monument sites, 9585 are archaeological (32.5%). In Croatia of the 4215 Monument Sites, 266 are archaeological (6.3%).
 In Serbia of 2308 Monument sites, 150 are archaeological sites, and in Albania there are approximately 3000 assets classified as ruins and many more archaeological sites which are not fully documented.
Many sites have yet to be found/researched, but a common problem is lack of control of development/urbanism which can directly affect unrecorded sites.
 
Management and Conservation of Heritage Sites

In nearly all cases the responsibility for the management of heritage sites lies with the relevant Ministry of Culture or equivalent body, but is effectively state controlled.
The legislation and mechanisms for control are commonly in place but ineffective implementation is a problem which has been identified across the region.
The level of management varies in relation to the category of site. As expected, all of the World Heritage Sites have effective Management Plans but this has been rarely copied on other sites, where the lack of management plans compromises pro-active management.
In Hungary, there is a separate government organisation (The National Trust of Monuments for Hungary) for managing the most valuable listed sites in state-ownership.
In Croatia there is a strong organisational base in place through the Ministry of Culture and Department of Cultural Heritage Protection but implementation of management systems on sites is unclear.
Albania and Kosovo both recognise the role of state control but proper management on-site is impeded through lack of trained staff, lack of pro-active management and a lack of education in contemporary management systems.
Romania also displays these characteristics with the result that management, presentation/interpretation of sites is not consistent.
In this respect Serbia recognises an abuse of regulations and inadequate interpretation which impedes the management of cultural sites.
In all countries there is a lack of management of remote sites, and a lack of understanding at a local community level of the importance of those sites to national heritage.
 
Assessment of NGO/Associations Activity

Throughout the Region there are generally only a few NGO’s operating within the field of Heritage with the ability to make significant national or international impact.
The previous presence of communism has meant that social priorities have tended to prevail but this situation is slowly changing. Also previously heritage management was frequently seen as a responsibility of State, and therefore the NGO’s have only begun to be developed since the political changes of the respective countries.
The number active in each country varies across the region. In Romania such activity is concentrated through a small number of active NGO’s but they do not all operate at an international level.
 In Kosovo and Croatia only a very few are active, and in Albania the main activity is through international organisations operating there. Hungary has perhaps a larger number of such NGO’s  but a more interesting development  is that of associations of owners of historic properties who have expressed a need for locally accessible consultation opportunities and advice on problems relating to heritage assets.
In Serbia the protection and presentation of cultural heritage is still very institutionalised and the civil sector is not really active.
 
International Funding

International funding is crucial to heritage and heritage related projects throughout the Region. It is frequently channelled through active international NGO’s and can have a major influence on heritage management. Major organisations like WMF, Getty Foundation, Unesco, as well as extensive funding from the European Union are all important contributors to the protection of the cultural heritage of the region. The individual situation reports demonstrate this involvement in each country.
 
Media and Awareness

In all countries within the Region an independent media is less than 20 years old. Reporting on heritage issues has not been a leading priority and has tended to be sensationalist based and not always fully informed. However this situation appears to be changing, with more positive reporting towards heritage issues in newspapers and television.
The provision, and resultant popularity, of heritage based television programmes in Hungary and Romania is increasing.
Media awards for positive and informative reporting on heritage issues exist in Hungary, and are sponsored through the relevant Ministries, and similar awards are being considered by the Romanian Ministry of Culture. Direct initiatives through NGO’s (Transylvania Trust and Cultural Heritage without Borders) in Romania and Kosovo through the provision of media awards are also helping to encourage a more informed attitude in reporting.
However in all countries there is a clear identified need to improve the professional understanding of journalists/reporters in heritage issues.
 
Education and Training

Training in heritage related issues (conservation, heritage management, practical skills development, environmental awareness) varies significantly.
In all cases there is very little heritage related teaching at the lower school levels, and where it does exist it is usually through the initiative of an NGO or other external institution as an extra-curricula activity.
At the higher educational level the main route for such training is through the Universities of Architecture. This is more highly developed in Romania and Hungary where a number of architectural universities exist but there is still no specific semester/module related to heritage conservation.  Both countries have each only a single Post graduate course in heritage conservation.
Also in these two countries some Vocational Schools (Construction/Technical Colleges) exist but the main teaching emphasis is on modern construction with very little, if any teaching on conservation issues.
Practical training in conservation skills exists to different degrees in each of the countries, but is perhaps more highly developed to an international level in Romania. There is a clearly identified need throughout the region for the provision of more courses.
The subject of heritage management, which is crucial to the future of heritage in the region, is significantly missing from most courses (Post Graduate excepted).
Throughout the region there is an urgent need for a more fundamental emphasis on heritage management/maintenance/conservation throughout the education system at all levels.
 
Cultural Tourism

It is acknowledged that cultural tourism plays a major role in the contemporary approach of conserving and protecting cultural heritage throughout the region.
In 2007 the town of Sibiu in Romania was the Cultural Capital of Europe, and this attracted considerable inward investment at both private and governmental level which had an immediate and significant impact on infrastructure and on the physical condition of the historic environment. In 2010 it will be the turn of Pecs in Hungary to assume this role.
Throughout the region the general landscape, the historic environment and the vernacular architecture, all provide an environment which is highly attractive to tourists, where the tourism industry is expanding rapidly where it is exerting demands of its own in terms of quality of environment, facilities, authenticity.
Generally tourism is seen as a positive experience resulting in the repair of the historic building stock of towns and cities, castles, religious buildings and vernacular heritage through increased investment and increased expenditure.
However there is a general concern throughout the region that without positive management of the historic environment the very experience which tourists seek will be threatened through over development or over use.
 
Townscape Character and Vernacular Architecture

“………………. modern development is being undertaken which ignores the inherited urban topography and which is damaging and destroying urban morphology and urban character”. (from the Situation Report on Albania). This is a fear which exists across the region primarily because of development pressures and a lack of understanding of the importance of the historic environment.
The situation has been partially addressed in Hungary through the creation of Conservation Areas, many of which recognise the importance of characteristic village structure.
In Romania, legislation exists which allows group listings within urban areas and therefore potentially embraces area protection, but in reality it is either not implemented or is insufficient to hold off development pressures.
Serbia has special protection for historic town centres and also for identified rural settlements.
In Albania the lack of sufficient urban planning resulted in the above issue.
In all of the countries vernacular architecture is a major component of their character and attractiveness (15% of the nationally listed monuments in Hungary comprise vernacular architecture),however lack of protection is still identified as a major issue. In some cases village museums have been created but these are no substitute for living villages.
 
Archaeological Sites

Primary legislation exists throughout the region for the protection of archaeological sites but major development pressures have presented a significant threat to in-situ retention.
Excavation and recording appears more common than non-invasive investigations.
In Albania the initially positive attitude towards archaeology under communism in the search for national identity has given way to destruction through unplanned development but is now again moving towards an interest in protection. The issue of development pressure is very common.
In Kosovo a new Archaeological Institute has been created which will be responsible for archaeological sites.
In Romania, as with the other countries there exists primary legislation, and a significant number of sites are registered. Authorisation for working on protected sites is controlled through the Ministry of Culture. But throughout the region there is a need for public education on the importance and value of archaeological sites and the wider historic environment, as part of a national heritage.
 
Some Common Problems

--  A need to improve the educational base of heritage training.
 

--  Lack of perception within communities of what constitutes the historic environment and therefore a lack of awareness of  the value of heritage.

--  Inadequate legal provisions to ensure proper protection.

--  Inadequate enforcement of existing legal provisions.
 
--  Lack of sufficient funds directed at protection, conservation, management of the historic environment.
 
--  Insufficient specialist training, which presents a shortage of skilled labor.
 
--  Rapid economic growth leading to increased pressure from development.
 
--  Unplanned or uncontrolled construction of buildings.
 
--  Excessive pressures from tourism development.
 
--  A need for better educated management systems for heritage assets.

 
Conclusion

Many common issues have been identified across the region in relation to the understanding and management of heritage assets (Buildings, monuments and environment). This information will set the context for addressing some of the issues, particularly concerning the assessment of heritage at risk, developing a common methodology for addressing the problem of risk, and as a basis for raising awareness at public and institutional levels to ensure the understanding and protection of heritage in the longer term.