Pag. | 2ContentsContentsIntroduction......................................................................................................................................................... 3VIVA EAST PART and the need for connecting planners with conservationists.................................................. 4Pilot area context: needs for connecting planning with heritage................................................................... 4Planning for heritage today............................................................................................................................. 7Territorial Plans – law enforcement for securing sustainable development.................................................. 9Territorial Plans at National Level ................................................................................................................. 11Territorial Plans – law enforcement for securing sustainable development................................................ 12Territorial Plans at County Level ................................................................................................................... 13Disconnections – building bridges................................................................................................................. 15EU funding and planning for heritage ........................................................................................................... 16
Pag. | 3Context and State of the Art forTangible Heritage in Romaniaparticular attention to minor historic centersVera MARINMember of the Scientific Working Group VIVA _EASTPART projectIntroductionThe title of the Report is very ambitious. It is rather difficult to decide on a typology that will give a completeimage of the Tangible Heritage for a whole country. The choice is made even more risky when it comes toexamples. How to have a fair selection when there are so many places with built or natural heritage, or withbuilt and natural heritage melted together in a beautiful landscape?The focus on quantitative data is not an option. Even though it is easy to find, for instance, the list ofhistorical monuments1, the lists and numbers of these items of officially recognized tangible heritage do notshow the realities. Sometimes, even if it is on that list, the monuments are not there anymore. And not justthe ones of the “missing historical monuments” list of the Ministry of Culture in 20042, but many others.Every listed historical monument should have an official recording file – at least a hard copy - that containsdetails and the current status of that item. Unfortunately, these records are very much left behind. Eventhough there were efforts to bring information on tangible heritage in the 21stcentury 3through GIS systems,the results of these efforts are not good enough. There is no good solid knowledge base on the historicalmonuments in Romania. And even less for tangible heritage which is not even listed. Therefore, the contentof the present report is not focused on tangible heritage typology nor exemplification, and it is not ademonstration of the need for more information both quantitative and qualitative. This demonstration is thepurpose of advocacy campaigns in which the team of ATU – Association for Urban Transition is alreadyinvolved. This report is centered on the link between planning approach and tangible heritage seen fromthe territorial perspective. Since this is one of the main topics of the VIVA EAST PART project.1http://www.cultura.abt.ro/Files/GenericFiles/LMI-2010.pdf2http://mail.cultura.ro/cultura/uploads/files/MonumenteDisparute-2004.pdf3http://egispat.inp.org.ro/Romania.aspx
Pag. | 4VIVA EAST PART and the need for connecting planners withconservationistsPilot area context: needs for connecting planning with heritageThe pilot area for VIVA EAST PART project in Romania is Valea Hartibaciului, in Sibiu County. It is a goodexample for the object of our project: small historic centers, diffuse heritage in semi-urban or rural areas.The general context for this heritage is even more difficult than for the one in the urban areas. The ruralspace is confronted nowadays with a complex situation of penury, demographic problems of an agingpopulation and decrease of number of inhabitants, lack of financial resources for the local budgets,difficulties in managing public services to the population, etc. If some of these rural communities do betterin terms of resources, it is usually because of tourism. But then, one should speak about the risks broughtover by mass tourism to places that are fragile. This is a key issue for our project.
Pag. | 5The pilot area was analysed through a territorial planning perspective in a project financed by the Ministryof Regional Development. The territorial planning instrument is called PATZ – Planul de Amenajare aTeritoriului Zonal the zone is the area that has a unity from both the geographical and traditionsperspective.The PATZ approach is specific for the territorial planning documentations: various topics data is collectedand represented on maps as the one presented above.Usually, very little relevant data is available on the existing economic actors present in a territory or onownership status over the land.As it can be observed in the plan presented above as an example, the indicators on social dimensions aremainly demographic from the statistics (age, education) and there is not much knowledge on therevenues levels of the population. The information is at the level of the administrative unit and not at thelevel of neighbourhood or dwelling.
Pag. | 6The pilot area has lost 30% of population in from the ’50 to 2007. Only the population of the town hasincreased by 25%. The population of the villages from the Valley has decreased by 40 % in average but evenby 70% for some cases (Bruiu and Mihaileni) and by 60% for villages where there are listed historicalmonuments (Marpond, Altana).The connection between planning and heritage protection and promotion is essential. The concept ofterritorial cultural systems that is brought over in the area by VIVA EAST PART project can help to thesustainable development of the area. If there are less and less inhabitants, the future of the tangibleheritage is very unsecured. Also, by planning the cultural systems, on the basis of the cultural heritage assets,the future of the inhabitants can improve. There are strong links between the tangible and intangibleheritage and the quality of life of the people living in this area.
Pag. | 7Planning for heritage todayThe common understanding for planning in Romania is on the normative side: the urban or territorialplanning documents are seen as regulatory frames. The word “planning” is not perceived positively.Romanians still remember about the five years plans imposed by the communist government with a very topdown centralized approach.The documentations stay as regulatory frames also for heritage protection. In theory, the officially approveddocumentations are setting the rules for preserving certain buildings. But they do not resist against thepressures coming from those who see the land between these buildings as being too tempting. One canspeak then about the weaknesses of these rules.These rules are set by professionals who know the importance of certain buildings, or natural heritage areas.They have concrete and rigorous frames for the studies they make in order to analize and bring argumentson the values that need to be preserved and on the regulations imposed for preserving these values.But even if the specialists write recommendations to preserve these values, others can still take decisions togive up preserving them.
Pag. | 8Because of many examples of these confrontations in which the tangible heritage was lost in the name ofnew buildings with high level of profit for the invested money, there is now a common understanding thatthere is an opposition between economic growth and heritage preservation and historical monuments arecostly and stand against progress and development. This understanding is not only with heritage protectionactivists but it’s also the perspective of an important part of the professionals who are trying to save thebuilt heritage. The only heritage, which is given a chance for reconciliation between business interests andpreservation interests, is the one bringing tourism. We have therefore a “comodified” heritage as a productto be consumed for mass tourism. And one can find “plan” and “heritage” together with search engines oninternet for “planning a holiday to see some heritage”.Fortunately, you have more and more people who are willing to understand why the heritage is not doingwell. More and more people is asking for information on the official records for the status of listed historicalmonuments. There are initiatives from non-governmental organizations to list some buildings with the hopethat they will benefit from this protection status. Professional organizations have started recently to gotowards parliamentarians to discuss specific legislation for heritage protection.May be there is specific legal frame for heritage protection, but there isn’t enough on the incentives side.
Pag. | 9Territorial Plans – law enforcement for securing sustainable developmentThe spatial planning is legally defined in Romania by Law 350/2001. Spatial planning is the activity with the aims ofbalancing demands for development with the need to protect the environment and to achieve social and economicobjectives. Spatial planning embraces measures to co-ordinate and integrates the spatial impact of other sectoral policies.Spatial planning encompasses elements of national planning, regional (zonal) planning and land use planning.Unfortunately, spatial planning has, for the moment, a legislative and institutional gap referring the regional policy.- National spatial planning includes a broad development framework that guides spatial development patterns andlower-tier spatial plans.- A regional planning attempt to shape development patterns within a region or a county though a strategy whichlinks physical changes with economic, social and environment policy. Regional planning operates at a level belownational level but above the local level. It can also refer to administrative territories that associate in order tosolve a common problem. This is the case of inter-county, inter-municipal, inter-communal plans, cross-borderplans and metropolitan and peri-urban plans.- Land use planning (or urban planning or physical planning) operates at the NUTS 4 level (cities, towns, communes)in order to regulate the conversion of land and property uses, considering the complex development ofsettlements (economic, ecological, social, cultural), taking into account the principles of sustainable development.The spatial planning documents are: The National Spatial Plan – with several sections – each of them approved as a LAW The National Concept for Spatial Development The Zonal Spatial Plan The County Spatial Plan The General Urban Plan The Zonal Urban Plan The Detailed Urban PlanAssessment of/commentary on advantages and gapsBy virtue of its tradition, Romanian territorial and urban planning system has European roots. The French “aménagementdu territoire”, a non statutory approach rooted in intervention by the central state in territorial development, has been the
Pag. | 10main inspiration for the planning model embraced by the Romania.The regional economic approach coming from the French matrix, the social development component make the Romanianplanning system fit to cope with regional planning requirements and to evolve towards full fledged spatial developmentplanning.After 1990 and until 2001 when the law concerning territorial planning and urban planning appeared , the regulations hadguide the plans also towards the approaching of aspects about natural and cultural heritage’s conservation and otherenvironment issues – aspects that had been entirely neglected in the communist period, establishing, in the same time, astrategic character of these documents.In Romania’s case, the strong hierarchical and regulatory character of the planning system can be considered an advantage.However, spatial planning activity has been relatively neglected so far. The importance of the domain is not enoughrecognised.This fact is intensified by the lack of the co-ordination at the national level, the structural weaknesses of central and localinstitutions in charge with spatial planning (the lack of qualified personnel, a low remuneration standard but political fights,also).The involvement of politics in (spatial) development policy implementation is particularly visible in pre-election periods,when lagging development projects are revived and political actors compete for their implementation and identification ofnew promising development projects and opportunities. Local authorities are not enough involved in theimplementation/monitoring process of the spatial plans.The increasing of the role of spatial planning through institutional measures should refer to territorial government.This institutional question concerns at least three dimensions of territorial governance: Vertical relations of territorial governance, meaning not only the problem of coordination between thevarious administrative levels of planning, from EU to local, but especially the quality of connections to be established Horizontal relations of territorial governance, referring not only to problems of coordination betweendifferent sectors of interventions, but the relationship between overall strategies and individual projects in spatialtransformations Coordination between cohesion and subsidiarity in territorial governance, representing the crucial node ofterritorial cohesion policy.The lack of a proper integration of territorial planning and regional development is another weakness. For the moment, thetwo activities have not enough connected legislation and they are coordinated, at central level, by two distinct ministries.At regional level the gap between the two activities is more evident. Only two of eight development regions have a regionalspatial plan. The fact that the regions are not territorial - administrative structures and they have not their own regionaladministration entails the powerlessness of the regional spatial plans.The issue of maritime spatial planning and the implementation of the ICZM must be initiated in the existing spatial planningframework. The PlanCoast project is a opportunity and a starting point.
Pag. | 11The political will is more important than technical arguments in overcoming obstacles related to the development of spatialplanning in Romania. The profession of territorial planner does not exist in the present university curricula. The Universityof Architecture and Urban Planning provides a small number of courses dedicated to this speciality and in Bucharest thereis only one course of master on territorial planning and regional development within this university.This box is with relevant excerpts from: Draft of Romanian National Report – March 2007, Urban Proiect aspartner in a project on Coastal Territorial Planning - http://www.plancoast.eu/ INTERREG III B CADSESTerritorial Plans at National LevelAt national level, the various sections of the PATN are setting a frame for coherent sustainable development.The section 4 of PATN is presenting the categories of settlements as well as the connections among these.The Natural Areas sections together with the Built Protected Areas sections are o high relevance for thecontent of VIVA project.The built heritage concentration is with smaller “spots” in the eastern and southern part of Romania. Ourpilot project area is part of a region towards the east of Sibiu where the high level of concentration of builtheritage covers a large perimeter.
Pag. | 12Territorial Plans – law enforcement for securing sustainable developmentPATJ – county level – administrative boundariesPATJ without impact. Strong spatial approach. Very little on the decision making side. Reference frame forThis section III of PATN presents the concentration of natural heritage with national interest value. It is only in2009 that the natural protected areas came together with the built heritage areas for a territorial analysis ontourism potential. The “tourism resources” are defined as components of natural or antropic environmentwhich, for their qualities and specificity are recognized and valorized through tourism.The important merit of this approach is that it focuses the attention on the technical infrastructure for enablinggood quality public services in these areas and this is important both for touristic activities and the quality oflife of the inhabitants. But it also introduces the concept of “specific infrastructure for tourism”: infrastructurethat exists only for the use of tourists. This induces a gap between inhabitants and tourists that is not reallynecessary from our perspective.
Pag. | 13Territorial Plans at County LevelThe territorial administrative level of the County also hs planning documentations for its territory. As statedin the above quoted report of the team of URBAN PROIECT written in 2007, the situation didn’t improve:there is still an important gap between the “technical” argument and the priorities for public investmentswhich demonstrate a low level of commitment to the achievement of the objectives established in a PATJ.There is sometimes a disconnection between the County level development strategy (document which issupposed to guide the public programs) and the content of the County level Territorial Plan. This is basicallya sign of the difficult relationship between the operational and the regulatory sides of planning. Theoperational side of the planning – county development strategies and local development strategies areusually written documents with very limited spatial support. The PATJ, with all its maps and hence with allthe care for space that is demonstrated by the professionals who are working in the elaboration teams isunderstood and used mostly as a regulatory frame. It has to take into consideration constraints derived fromthe sections of PATN and it is imposing, at its turn, constraints on each PUG – Plan Urbanistic General(Master Plans) for each settlement.The Register of Urban Planners established in 2005 gives recognition to professionals who are capable ofcoordinating territorial planning documentations. The number of professionals with the right to coordinatesuch documentations is rather limited: one or two per county (http://www.rur.ro/specialisti.php).
Pag. | 14There are teams of professionals dealing with the master plans for local communities both urban and rural –and those also need to have a stamp from the Register of Urban Planners for being able to sign thesedocumentations. Even though they are defined as being both regulatory and operational frames, both PUGand PUZ (Zonal Urban Plan – for an area of a settlement) are not really working as instruments for orientingdecision and allocation of public resources. Actually, the legal frame does not even impose to have anapproved PUZ before having the construction permit and before organizing a tender for opening a publicinvestment working site.Picture of the General Urban Plan – development proposal – SighisoaraAll this information is relevant because it explains somehow the need for insuring more connectionsbetween various groups of professionals on one hand and between professionals and decision makers onthe other hand.
Pag. | 15Disconnections – building bridgesThe planning professionals who are specialized in heritage analysis have the recognition from the Register ofUrban Planners but also from the Ministry of Culture (section 2 – urbanism, gardens and parks: A – studiesand research, B – project verification, C – complex project coordinator, D – project coordinator, G –inspection and monitoring of historical monuments).The number of these specialists is very limited both in case of territorial planning (stamp right intitledprotection and development of built heritage – F6) and in case of urban planning documentations (stampright for urban history analysis – G5) and the majority of those professionals having this signature right fromthe register of Urban Planners have obtained it in 2005 and 2006, at the moment of the establishment ofthis organization.These specialists are the ones who talk both the language of “conservation” and the one of “planning”andthey could insure the links between the various categories of professionals to answer the challenge of thedisconnections between the operational approach and the regulatory one which is understood here asclosely related to the disconnections between the technical argument and the political will.
Pag. | 16EU funding and planning for heritageStarting with 2007, the situation tends to improve. The financial resources that can be obtained from theEuropean Union for urban regeneration or valorization of heritage through touristic activities orenvironment protection or rural development are conditioned by the elaboration of planning documents.There are funds for an operational approach. Unfortunately, many management authorities did not requireda spatial approach and it was only through the regulatory side of PATZ, PUG, PUZ that this connection to thespatial approach was insured. In 2007, the Regional Development Agencies were required to deliver Regionaldevelopment Strategies which were again written documents and only rarely they were quoting approvedcounty territorial planning documentations.Now Romania is getting through a process of Regionalization and this will be hopefully helpful in order tomatch spatial approach with the operational one. It is also a moment to reflect on the possibilities ofinsuring better connections through planning instruments that we already have. The financial resourcesshould come to the Regional or Local Public Authorities only with the condition of presenting concreteprograms that bring heritage and development together and that prove a good understanding of what isthat the territory can support and sustain.Planning is hence a process that can bring together the “spheres” of technical argument, of political will andof the common interests of the communities that inhabit those territories