evropska konvencija o krajini - Ministrstvo za infrastrukturo in prostor

namerava na novo ukrojiti kulturne percepcije invlogo upravnih struktur države, ki so zanje bilezgodovinsko odgovorne.Po drugi strani pridobljene izkušnje kažejo, da zuporabo tradicionalnih instrumentov načrtovanjakrajin Italija ne more primerno voditi svojihčudovitih krajin, niti ne more učinkovito slediticiljem kakovosti. Največ, kar lahko stori, je, danaloži veliko omejitev, ki pa so redko učinkovitepri obravnavanju močnih pritiskov zaspremembe v današnji krajini. Zdi se, da dosedaj še ni našla prepričljivih rešitev, ki so delpozitivnega približevanja krajevne politike inozemeljske politike, uravnoteženega približevanja,ki ne žrtvuje elementov ohranitve niti razvoja.Italija ne zmore upravljati krajine zaradiobjektivnih težav soočanja z ekonomskimi insocialnimi procesi, ki prevevajo občutljivekrajine, ki smo jih podedovali. Prav tako nezmore spodbuditi sodelovanja med pristojnimidržavnimi organizmi, odgovornimi za ohranitevkulturne dediščine in krajine, ter regionalnimi inobčinskimi vladami, ki so po zakonupooblaščene za načrtovanje in upravljanje krajin.Končno, obstaja problem, ker Italija ne zmoreučinkovito združiti politike ohranjanja s politikovrednotenja svoje dediščine, saj veljavnazakonodaja jasno ločuje ohranjanje odvrednotenja s tem, da prvo daje pod okriljedržave, medtem ko se za drugo borita država inregionalne vlade.V takšnih razmerah uspeh politike varovanja inupravljanja krajine ni odvisen le od zbližanjapolitike načrtovanja krajine in lokalnih načrtov.Na splošno se nanaša na potrebo po sprejemunovega modela večnivojskega upravljanja, kivključuje veliko institucij, od Evropske unije donacionalne državne vlade ter regionalnih,provincialnih in občinskih vlad.Izolacija ohranjanja krajine od medsebojneodvisnosti med različnimi institucijami nizmagovalna poteza, kot smo videli pri politikipreprostega omejevanja, ki se neizbežno nanašale na omejene dele krajine. Soočanje s temizzivom pa je prav tako zelo tvegano, predvsemče vrednosti krajine različni institucionalnisubjekti ne znajo dovolj ceniti.Pomemben vpliv prihaja s strani noveekonomije, ki omogoča posamezno obravnavoin kakovostne okoliščine in tako v krajini odkrivathat is intentionally removed from the realm ofdemocratic discussion, precisely with the aim ofguaranteeing its correct conservation, aboveand beyond any of the other values at stake. Furthermore,the power of the Superintendents, asdiscretional as it is autocratic, in interpretingaesthetic-cultural values represents the coherentexpression of this vision of conservation thatis centred on a specific method of State government.Currently the situation is changing profoundlywith respect to the period when, some fifty yearsago, governance was seen as being separatefrom conservation. The growing articulation ofpowers that accompanies the transformation ofour society and our institutional system placesthe unitary model of the State in crisis and requiresa reconsideration of institutional structuresin favour of a new, more balanced modelof local and centralised powers.The landscape becomes the element at stake ina complex interweaving of powers and responsibilitiesbetween the State, the Regions and localEntities. Following the involvement of theRegional, Provincial and Municipal Governments,things have changed. The value of thelandscape and that of local development areerupting on the scene in a very positive manner.We are finally faced with the concrete possibilityof joining landscape, territory and economy.However, the equilibrium between the variousspheres of value remains very flexible, and weseriously risk sacrificing the landscape throughan approach that tends, inevitably, to re-dimensionthe role of cultural perceptions and the administrativestructures of the State that werehistorically responsible for them.On the other hand, the experience gained todate demonstrates that by using the traditionalinstruments of the Landscape Plan, Italy cannotin fact manage to properly govern its magnificentlandscapes, nor can it effectively pursuequality objectives. At the most it manages toimpose a great deal of restrictions that, what ismore, rarely seem to be effective in dealing withthe strong pressures for change in the contemporarylandscape. It does not yet appear to havedefined convincing solutions that are part of apositive convergence between landscape policiesand territorial policies, a balanced convergencethat does not sacrifice either the instancesof conservation or those of development.81Delavnica 1 / Workshop 1