evropska konvencija o krajini - Ministrstvo za infrastrukturo in prostor

področje varstva in razvoja kulturne krajine nanek način nerazvito, hkrati pa je veliko boljdodelan varstveni in upravljavski sistemzastavljen na področju varstva narave. Varstvonarave se je oblikovalo kot poseben sektor zlastno institucionalno strukturo. Institucionaliziransistem varstva narave je postal celonajbolj dominanten pojav med dejavnostmi, kise posvečajo slovenskim krajinam. Glavnipristop, ki ga služba za varstvo narave uporablja,je neposredno zavarovanje, to je opredeljevanjeobmočij večje naravovarstvene vrednosti in to,da pripisujejo takim območjem status varovanihobmočij.Varstvo narave se je od svojih zgodnjih začetkovuveljavljalo z neposrednim zavarovanjem območij.Prvo zavarovano območje je bilo opredeljenoznotraj sedanjega Triglavskega narodnegaparka. Od prvotnih 1400 ha v letu 1924 jenaraslo na 2000 ha v letu 1961 in potem na83.807 ha v letu 1981. Ob koncu 90-tih let jebilo približno 8 % slovenskega državnegaozemlja v neki obliki varstva narave. Leta 2005,ko je Slovenija vstopila v Evropsko zvezo, so bilaobmočja varstva narave razširjena na približno38 % celotnega državnega ozemlja.Neprestano večanje območij, ki so pod nekoobliko varstva narave, je dobro opazen pojav.Vzrok za to naj bi bile neobičajno raznolike innaravno ohranjene krajine Slovenije. Ta razlogposlušamo vedno znova in znova, ko sesprašujemo o tem, zakaj Slovenija v tempogledu tako zelo izstopa znotraj Evrope. Čeodmislimo pridih nacionalne samozaverovanosti,nacionalnega ponosa, da smotako izjemni v tem pogledu, je to, kar tu posebnoizstopa, izenačevanje dejstev, znanstvenihspoznanj in odločitev o rabi prostora. Razmejevanjeprostora in pripisovanje statusazavarovanega območja ni znanstvena dejavnost.Niti ni predstavitev znanstvenega dejstva.To je načrt rabe prostora, čeprav zelopomanjkljiv, še zlasti ker je v njegov nastanek bilvključen en sam družbeni interes.Kratek preskok v teorijo odločanjaV zvezi s problemi urejanja krajine bi lahkoprepoznali dve možni obliki obnašanja prisprejemanju odločitev, standardizacijo in analizoz optimiranjem.scapes does not belong to any sector that exploitunbuilt areas, like agriculture, forestry, watermanagement and last but not least natureconservation. Landscape management practicescan rely only on the activities a particularsector is practicing within landscape. It was expectedthat the subsidizing system that agriculturehas established in the last 15 years couldwell be exploited in order to reach the culturallandscape management goals and to implementthe landscape management guidelines.Unfortunately, agricultural sector was not willingto adapt its subsidizing system to these goals. Itstands by its system and its criteria. Same is truealso of the other sectors when they are confrontedwith the same question. Each sectorwants to plan on its own, forestry, water management,etc. Each sector sticks to its goals andwants to keep the responsibilities for the developmentand management of ‘its own garden’. Isthis a consequence of centralized decision makingprocess? Is this situation only a sign of thestrong state administration? Are both reasonsjust two sides of the same coin? It is difficult toascertain the real cause of this transformation ofthe decision making system. It is significant inthis respect that a real threat does exist. Evenphysical planning might abandon the idea ofcomprehensiveness by transforming spatial planinto a compound map of separately taken decisions.The principal and direct path that could beexploited in order to bring landscape managementguidelines into life was, and it is still, practicallyunreachable.The sphere of cultural landscapes and activities,conservation or planning, connected to themremains somehow underdeveloped. Much moreelaborated conservation and management systemgrew out in the sphere of nature conservation.It established itself as a separate sectorwith its own institutional structure. The conservationsystem has become even the most dominatingfeature within the activities dedicated toSlovenian landscapes. The main approach ituses is direct conservation, i. e. it defines areasof higher natural value and gives them the statusof protected areas. The decisions about thedevelopmental problems within such areas remainunder control of experts from nature conservationoffices.Nature conservation was based on the directconservation approach from its early beginning.The first protected area was established in 192437Delavnica 1 / Workshop 1