evropska konvencija o krajini - Ministrstvo za infrastrukturo in prostor

52Delavnica 1 / Workshop 1koncepti težijo k posploševanju in poenostavljanjukompleksne stvarnosti, tudi strokovneklasifikacije in tipologije težijo k poenostavitvinašega odnosa do krajin. Ta preprost inenostaven pristop pa je v krajinskem planiranjulahko nevaren – administrativno je zeloprivlačen, saj je na krajinske tipe možno zlahkoto navezati normativen način prostorskegarazvoja in varstva. Vendar je taka pregledna inpreprosta delitev v prostorskem načrtovanjudejansko kontraproduktivna. Operativno je sicerprivlačna, saj je nanjo kot na videznespremenljivo zlahka moč navezati normativninačin prostorskega razvoja oziroma varstva, ki jeenostavnejši, zlasti za državno administracijo, nepripelje pa do optimalnih oziroma optimiziranihpredlogov prostorskega razvoja in varstva. Dopredlogov, ki bi bili izbrani izmed dovolj alternativin bi ponudili možnost prostorskega razvoja ponačelu najmanjše škode 15 .Če bomo že kdajkoli iskali skupni imenovalecevropskih kulturnih krajin, je to ob dejanskiprostorski in zgodovinski kulturni raznolikostiznotraj in zunaj meja sedanje evropskeskupnosti lahko samo njihova raznolikost. Taraznolikost zahteva optimizacijske postopkeprostorskega načrtovanja in prav v njih samih jezajeto tudi varstvo naravnih in kulturnih krajin.the treatment of landscapes should be balancedwith the awareness that landscapes are culturalconstructs even more then they are natural phenomena.But one does not exclude the other.Cultural constructions of landscapes emergefrom a very ancient relationship of humans tonature. Even though, at least from Enlightenmentonwards 13 , the history of the landscape inthe West seems like an unscrupulous exploitationof the earth, »where measurement, notmemory, is the absolute arbiter of value«, theclear-cut opposition between European cultureand nature is questionable, argues Schama, revealingthe power of the ancient links betweenthe two 14 . Landscape heritage at this part of theworld evolved, paraphrasing Thoreau, on thefoundations of the Western landscape imaginationwhich envisioned its own fertile world fromwoods, waters and rocks. Our nature myths, infact, have never gone away; they lie just below thesurface of the seeming reality of our landscapes.As much as mythological conceptions tend togeneralize and simplify complex realities, professionalclassifications and typologies tend tostraighten out our relationship to the landscapes.But this simple and easy approach isperilous in landscape planning – it is very attractivefor administrative actions, because the normativeway of spatial development and protectionis easily attached to types and classes. Asa fixed description it is simple, especially for thestate administration, but it can not lead to theoptimal and optimized suggestions for spatialprotection and development. It erases the possibilityfor a most feasible suggestion to be selectedamong many alternatives and neglect theoption of spatial development on the principle ofminimal damage 15 .If sometime the common denominator of Europeancultural landscape should become an issue,along the objective spatial and cultural diversitywithin and beyond the borders of thepresent European Union, this could only be theirdiversity. This diversity deserves optimizationprocedures of landscape planning, which arealso the only way to secure protection of naturaland cultural landscapes.15V obratu od antropocentrične k biocentrični etiki Paul W. Taylor, v Respect for Nature: a Theory of Environmental Ethics (Princeton 1986) razvije etično stališče,po katerem naj bi prioritetni principi, ki razrešujejo konflikte med ljudmi in drugimi vrstami, kadar pride do tekmovanja za omejene vire ali za življenjskiprostor, sledili načelu najmanjše škode. To načelo je zlahka moč aplicirati v razreševanje konfliktnih interesov po razvoju in varstvu v krajinskem planiranju.Concerned with the moral relations that hold between humans and the natural world, Paul W. Taylor, Respect for Nature: a Theory of Environmental Ethics(Princeton 1986) developed the ethical stand, by which priority principles for resolving conflicts between humans and other species when there is competitionfor limited resources and habitats should follow the principle of minimal damage. This principle could easily be applied to the conflicting interests ofdevelopment and protection encountered in landscape planning.