LEGISLATIVE AND PLANNING NORMATIVE FRAMEWORK

ON HERITAGE AND LANDSCAPE

THE ROMANIAN CASE

Regulatory framework on heritage and landscape was mainly developed in Romania after 1989.

• first law concerning historical monument was created in 1892 and a French model of the Commission of Historical Monuments

• 1948 – the Commission of Historical Monuments is suspended

• 1959 – a new Direction of Historical Monuments is in charge with heritage protection

• 1980 – the body responsible for heritage is suspended again

• 1990 – the domain of heritage was affected by legislative instability and absence of regulatory dispositions.

During 1990-2000 decade, decrees and laws are promoted referring to the acceptance and ratification of European or UNESCO conventions.

• Decree nr.187/30.03.90 for the acceptance of the Convention for protection of World Heritage, cultural and natural, General Conference of UNESCO, Paris 16.11.1972

• Law nr. 50/97 regarding the ratification of European Convention for the protection of archaeological heritage, La Valetta, 16.01.92

• Law nr. 157/97 for ratification of the Convention for the protection of architectural heritage of Europe, adopted in Granada, 03.10.1985

New legislation concerning heritage had to start with a basic legislative structure - 2 main laws:

• Law 422/2001 – Law for the protection of historical monuments, republished in 2006, O.M.938/20.11.2006

• Law 378/2001 – Law concerning the protection of archaeological heritage and declaring of some archaeological sites as areas of national interest

In the field of mobile heritage, Law 182/2000 – Law concerning the protection of mobile national heritage and Law 311/2003 – Law of museums and public collections completed the legal general frame.

The law regarding immobile heritage introduced rules referring to inventory, classification, modalities of intervention, institutions and professional bodies, obligations and rights of the owners, local authorities attributions, financing and sanctions but needed to be completed by methodological standards:

Ministerial Order nr.2682/2003 regarding the approval of methodological standards for classification and inventory of historical monuments, the List of Historical Monuments, the analytical accounting fiche for historical monumentsor for a specific heritage – World Heritage Monuments:

Law 564/2001 approving the GO nr. 47/2000 concerning the protection measures for historical monuments being of the WH List.In the following years the legal system for special categories of heritage was a priority- Ordinance nr. 43/30.01.2000 concerning the protection of architectural heritage and declaration of architectural sites as areas of national interest, Law 454/2006 for the approval of GO nr. 21/2006 regarding the concession system for historical monuments, Law nr. 6/2008 for the legal system of technical and industrial heritage .

Urban and territorial planning were the fields where legal provisions were introduced as a new way of tackling also the context of heritage objects – areas with architectural or ambient values.

The first territorial document was the Spatial Plan for National Territory (PATN)- Section III – Protected Areas approved by a special law - Law5/2000.Since that point, at all levels of planning-county, zone, central area or area of historical/architectural significance, plans concerned with the inventory and protection of built heritage were promoted: PATJ – county level, PUG – city or village level, PUZ – central or built values areas.

The main objectives of these plans are to link territorial development of a region, an area or a community to heritage valuation and enhancement, to provide an adequate protection but also a sustainable development of the territory concerned.As areas of architectural and urban value were existing in most of historic cities all over Romania, by the Minister Order nr.562/2003 was approved the technical regulation of Methodology for the elaboration and framework of urban documents for Protected Built Areas – in use since today for these urban studies and plans.

The field of Landscape was less fortunate:

Law 451/2002 is in force for ratification of the European Convention of Landscape, adopted in Florence at 20 October 2000 but since, no methodological documents in view of an adapted application were produced.

Although the Ministry of Regional Development and Tourism initiated a pilot project and a methodology to be developed in 2007, these documents were not transposed into the legal framework.

In the urban plans, a chapter is related to landscape protection (PUG, PUZ) but the provisions included in their set of rules and regulations can hardly be applied in the absence of a methodology.

Legal context for urban planningLAW 350/2001

REGULATORY PLANNING

General Master Plan - PUGZonal Master Plan - PUZDetailed Master Plan - PUD

Derogatory procedures: allowed for exceptional cases, but used intensely, especially in the years of real estate development booming.

Too much room left to private side!Passive attitude of local public authorities.Little negotiation for getting advantages in public interest.

Legal context for urban planning

STRATEGIC PLANNING

Supposedly part of PUG – strategic dimension.

No obligation for elaborating local development strategies or other sectorial strategies (housing, transportation, green...)

Financial support from USAID, EU, international cooperation programs...Consultancy companies and foreign experts: short visits

Documents in the shelf

Legal context for urban planning

TERRITORIAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS:

STRATEGIC PLANNING + REGULATORY FRAME

PATZ – Valea Hartibaciului RESTRUCTURAREA RELAŢIEI URBAN-RURALIN CONTEXTUL COEZIUNII TERITORIALE

Phase 1 – 2009, Environment impact report 2010 .... October 2012: Regional Environment Agency evaluation

Pilot financed by the Ministry of Regional Development

+ an active GAL – Local Action Group – grouping of local authorities

CONCLUSIONS: legal and institutional frame

Technical argument

Political will

common interests of the local community

Lack of resources for reliable and relevant data

Lack of interest for “planning”

Not aware of the use of territorial approach

“collective” interest has negative connotations from the communist regime

DISCONNECTIONS

CONCLUSIONS: needs for changes of legal and institutional frame usually following the CHANGES OF ATTITUDES AND WAYS OF DOING

Technical argument

Political will

common interests of the local community

CONNECTIONS

Building up accessible and clear arguments

opening of professionals towards participation and wakening from apathy for local stakeholders

Local democracy at work: better chances in small communitiesAccountability