evropska konvencija o krajini - Ministrstvo za infrastrukturo in prostor

Pri razvijanju Evropske konvencije o krajinah seje po mojem mnenju stalno treba zavedatizmuzljivosti prostorske podobe. Vedno jeprisoten razkorak med stvarnostjo in podobo –načela, povezana z idelalno podobo krajine, nisov skladu z aktualno družbeno prakso. Rečeno zjezikom mita: priča smo razkoraku medresničnostjo in resnico, med stvarnim razvojemprostora in ideološko zgodovino krajine. Zato jesmiselno loviti ravnotežje med željo popoenotenjem postopkov, ki bodo uravnavalinačrtovanje in ravnanje s krajinami, in medzavestjo, da so krajine večkrat celo bolj kulturnikonstrukti kot naravni fenomeni, čeprav enidrugih ne izključujejo. Kajti ti kulturni konstruktivečinoma izhajajo iz zelo prvinskega odnosamed človekom in naravo. Četudi je, vsaj odrazsvetljenstva dalje 13 , vsa zgodovina krajine nazahodni polobli videti kot brezkompromisnoizkoriščanje, v katerem so absolutni določevalecvrednosti merske enote in ne spomin, je vendarsmiselno podvomiti v neizpodbitnostmedsebojno izključujočega se značaja evropskekulture in narave in izpostaviti moč povezav, kiju vežejo, zagovarja Schama 14 . Kulturnadediščina na tem delu sveta, je zgrajena, prostopo Thoreauju, na temeljih zahodne krajinskedomišljije, ki si je zamišljeni rodovitni svetustvarila iz naravnih prvin, gozdov, voda in skalin je pod površje današnje navidezne stvarnostinaših krajin pretihotapila svoje z divjino inpristno naravo najbolj povezane mite.Našteto naš odnos do krajin seveda zapleta inmu manjša preglednost. Prav tako kot mitološkiparts. Because the consciousness is a subject ofchange, the spatial conception is changeable aswell, even when, as proven in the case ofSlovenia, certain features persist despite thesocial change 11 . It bears importance for spatialplanners from two points of view. First, selectedfeatures, patterns and landscape types are trulyimportant for social identification and should beacknowledged in planning spatial changes. Secondly,the manipulation of the spatial identitythat occurs on the national level can be counterproductive.Creating an unrealistic image ofspace and becoming infatuated with it can blurthe vision and blind us to serious problems in theenvironment 12 . Therefore, it makes no sense tolimit the spatial identity only to the componentsestablished as national symbols during periodsof endeavours for nationhood. Knowledge aboutthe processes of establishing the social conceptionof space is certainly useful information ifonly to be constantly questioned, by every singlespatial intervention.When evolving European landscape conventionthe ambiguity of the spatial image should constantlycome to mind. There is always a discrepancybetween the reality and the image. Theprinciples linked to the ideal conception of spacedo not match actual social practice. To put in thelanguage of myth, we are dealing here with adiscrepancy between reality and truth, a discrepancybetween the real development of thecountry and the ideological history of the landscape.The effort to tune the processes , whichwould rule the European spatial planning and51Delavnica 1 / Workshop 111Kontinuiteti pojavljanja izbranih delov prostora v kolektivnem spominu lahko sledimo v briljantnem delu Simona Schame, Landscape and Memory (NewYork, 1995), ki razkriva, da pod površjem naših vsakdanjih, samoumevnih predstav o krajini in z njimi povezanimi predstavami o varstvu krajine ležijonajbolj prvinski miti o naravi, strahovi in obsesije, in, prosto po Levy-Straussu, tudi »divja misel«.The continuous appearance of certain parts of space in the collective memory can be traced in the brilliant work of Simon Schama, Landscape and Memory(New York, 1995). The book reveals how under the surface of our conventional conceptions of landscape and its protection thrive most ancient myths aboutwildness and nature, fears and obsessions.12Aktualen primer v Sloveniji je trenutno ravnanje vlade s kulturno krajino Lipice, ki se je izoblikovala skozi skoraj petstoletno vzrejo lipicancev na tem deluSlovenskega Krasa. Lipica je kot izjemna kulturna krajina zakonsko zaščitena kot spomenik državnega pomena, vendar ji grozi uničenje, ki ga vlada ne lepodpira, temveč je celo njegov glavni akter, saj svojim ciljem ustrezno spreminja zakone, ki uravnavajo delovanje znotraj zaščitenega območja (trenutnoZakon o Kobilarni Lipica). Delno se prej nemaren in zdaj aroganten odnos da razložiti prav s tem, da Lipica kot posebna, izjemna krajina, nikoli ni imelapriložnosti, da bi vstopila v nacionalno podobo prostora. Ker je delovala kvečjemu kot simbol neke preživele monarhije, vanjo na ravni nacionalneidentifikacije nikoli ni bil »investiran smisel«, kot je bil na primer v krajino Blejskega jezera.Currently in Slovenia the case is a treatment of the cultural landscape of Lipica, which developed through the almost five hundred years long breeding of theLipizzaner horse in this part of Slovenian Karst. Lipica is legally protected as a monument of national importance and is proposed to the UNESCO’s list ofworld monuments. It is facing demolition (transformation into a golf-course), which is not only supported by the present government, but by changing thelegislation, which governs the management within the protected area, to suit its current goals, the present government is even the main promoter of thisunacceptable change. Even before the governmental stand towards Lipica was rather negligent and this, as well as current arrogant stand can be explainedby the fact, that Lipica never really get the opportunity to enter the social conception of national space. At most the symbol of some long outlived monarchy itwas never invested with meaning on the level of national identification, as the landscape of Bled and its lake definitely was.13Za nekatere zgodovinarje se je na Zahodu ključni odmik od sožitja z naravo zgodil že v renesansi, za druge je »kriv« razvoj znanosti v 16. in 17. stoletju, ki jenaš planet, pod predpostavko, da je neusahljiv vir, obsodil na brezkompromisno izkoriščanje. Razlago najdemo v Caroline Merchant, Radical Ecology: TheSearch for a Livable World (New York and London, 1992). Prvi krivec za dihotomijo narava - kultura je menda iznajdba pluga v 7. stoletju našega štetja, kinaj bi kmetovanje spremenila v ekološko vojno, kar v prepričljivi kritiki standardnega razumevanja opozicije znanost – narava ovrže David Rothenberg,Hand’s End: Technology and the Limits of Nature (Berkely and Los Angeles, 1993).For some historians the key split between nature and culture happened in the Renaissance, for others it is the scientific revolution of the sixteenth andseventeenth century. Explanations can be found in Caroline Merchant, Radical Ecology: The Search for a Livable World (New York and London, 1992). As the»guilt« for the dichotomy between nature and culture is also assigned to the invention of the fixed-harnessed plow, which turned farming into ecological war,a persuasive and subtle critique of standard opposition between science and nature is provided in David Rothenberg, Hand’s End: Technology and the Limitsof Nature (Berkely and Los Angeles, 1993).14Glej Simon Schama, Landscape and Memory (New York, 1995).Simon Schama, Landscape and Memory (New York, 1995).