2. Pag. | 2
Contents
Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................................... 3
VIVA EAST PART and the need for connecting planners with conservationists.................................................. 4
Pilot area context: needs for connecting planning with heritage................................................................... 4
Planning for heritage today............................................................................................................................. 7
Territorial Plans – law enforcement for securing sustainable development.................................................. 9
Territorial Plans at National Level ................................................................................................................. 11
Territorial Plans – law enforcement for securing sustainable development................................................ 12
Territorial Plans at County Level ................................................................................................................... 13
Disconnections – building bridges................................................................................................................. 15
EU funding and planning for heritage ........................................................................................................... 16
3. Pag. | 3Context and State of the Art for
Tangible Heritage in Romania
particular attention to minor historic centers
Vera MARIN
Member of the Scientific Working Group VIVA _EASTPART project
Introduction
The title of the Report is very ambitious. It is rather difficult to decide on a typology that will give a complete
image of the Tangible Heritage for a whole country. The choice is made even more risky when it comes to
examples. How to have a fair selection when there are so many places with built or natural heritage, or with
built 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 of
historical monuments1
, the lists and numbers of these items of officially recognized tangible heritage do not
show the realities. Sometimes, even if it is on that list, the monuments are not there anymore. And not just
the 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 contains
details and the current status of that item. Unfortunately, these records are very much left behind. Even
though there were efforts to bring information on tangible heritage in the 21st
century 3
through GIS systems,
the results of these efforts are not good enough. There is no good solid knowledge base on the historical
monuments in Romania. And even less for tangible heritage which is not even listed. Therefore, the content
of the present report is not focused on tangible heritage typology nor exemplification, and it is not a
demonstration of the need for more information both quantitative and qualitative. This demonstration is the
purpose of advocacy campaigns in which the team of ATU – Association for Urban Transition is already
involved. This report is centered on the link between planning approach and tangible heritage seen from
the territorial perspective. Since this is one of the main topics of the VIVA EAST PART project.
1
http://www.cultura.abt.ro/Files/GenericFiles/LMI-2010.pdf
2
http://mail.cultura.ro/cultura/uploads/files/MonumenteDisparute-2004.pdf
3
http://egispat.inp.org.ro/Romania.aspx
4. Pag. | 4
VIVA EAST PART and the need for connecting planners with
conservationists
Pilot area context: needs for connecting planning with heritage
The pilot area for VIVA EAST PART project in Romania is Valea Hartibaciului, in Sibiu County. It is a good
example 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 rural
space is confronted nowadays with a complex situation of penury, demographic problems of an aging
population 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 better
in terms of resources, it is usually because of tourism. But then, one should speak about the risks brought
over by mass tourism to places that are fragile. This is a key issue for our project.
5. Pag. | 5
The pilot area was analysed through a territorial planning perspective in a project financed by the Ministry
of Regional Development. The territorial planning instrument is called PATZ – Planul de Amenajare a
Teritoriului Zonal the zone is the area that has a unity from both the geographical and traditions
perspective.
The PATZ approach is specific for the territorial planning documentations: various topics data is collected
and 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 on
ownership status over the land.
As it can be observed in the plan presented above as an example, the indicators on social dimensions are
mainly demographic from the statistics (age, education) and there is not much knowledge on the
revenues levels of the population. The information is at the level of the administrative unit and not at the
level of neighbourhood or dwelling.
6. Pag. | 6
The pilot area has lost 30% of population in from the ’50 to 2007. Only the population of the town has
increased by 25%. The population of the villages from the Valley has decreased by 40 % in average but even
by 70% for some cases (Bruiu and Mihaileni) and by 60% for villages where there are listed historical
monuments (Marpond, Altana).
The connection between planning and heritage protection and promotion is essential. The concept of
territorial cultural systems that is brought over in the area by VIVA EAST PART project can help to the
sustainable development of the area. If there are less and less inhabitants, the future of the tangible
heritage 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 intangible
heritage and the quality of life of the people living in this area.
7. Pag. | 7
Planning for heritage today
The common understanding for planning in Romania is on the normative side: the urban or territorial
planning 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 top
down centralized approach.
The documentations stay as regulatory frames also for heritage protection. In theory, the officially approved
documentations are setting the rules for preserving certain buildings. But they do not resist against the
pressures coming from those who see the land between these buildings as being too tempting. One can
speak 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 arguments
on 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 to
give up preserving them.
8. Pag. | 8
Because of many examples of these confrontations in which the tangible heritage was lost in the name of
new buildings with high level of profit for the invested money, there is now a common understanding that
there is an opposition between economic growth and heritage preservation and historical monuments are
costly and stand against progress and development. This understanding is not only with heritage protection
activists but it’s also the perspective of an important part of the professionals who are trying to save the
built heritage. The only heritage, which is given a chance for reconciliation between business interests and
preservation interests, is the one bringing tourism. We have therefore a “comodified” heritage as a product
to be consumed for mass tourism. And one can find “plan” and “heritage” together with search engines on
internet 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 doing
well. More and more people is asking for information on the official records for the status of listed historical
monuments. There are initiatives from non-governmental organizations to list some buildings with the hope
that they will benefit from this protection status. Professional organizations have started recently to go
towards 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.
9. Pag. | 9
Territorial Plans – law enforcement for securing sustainable development
The spatial planning is legally defined in Romania by Law 350/2001. Spatial planning is the activity with the aims of
balancing demands for development with the need to protect the environment and to achieve social and economic
objectives. 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 and
lower-tier spatial plans.
- A regional planning attempt to shape development patterns within a region or a county though a strategy which
links physical changes with economic, social and environment policy. Regional planning operates at a level below
national level but above the local level. It can also refer to administrative territories that associate in order to
solve a common problem. This is the case of inter-county, inter-municipal, inter-communal plans, cross-border
plans 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 of
settlements (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 Plan
Assessment of/commentary on advantages and gaps
By virtue of its tradition, Romanian territorial and urban planning system has European roots. The French “aménagement
du territoire”, a non statutory approach rooted in intervention by the central state in territorial development, has been the
10. Pag. | 10
main inspiration for the planning model embraced by the Romania.
The regional economic approach coming from the French matrix, the social development component make the Romanian
planning system fit to cope with regional planning requirements and to evolve towards full fledged spatial development
planning.
After 1990 and until 2001 when the law concerning territorial planning and urban planning appeared , the regulations had
guide the plans also towards the approaching of aspects about natural and cultural heritage’s conservation and other
environment issues – aspects that had been entirely neglected in the communist period, establishing, in the same time, a
strategic 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 enough
recognised.
This fact is intensified by the lack of the co-ordination at the national level, the structural weaknesses of central and local
institutions 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 of
new promising development projects and opportunities. Local authorities are not enough involved in the
implementation/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 the
various 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 between
different sectors of interventions, but the relationship between overall strategies and individual projects in spatial
transformations
Coordination between cohesion and subsidiarity in territorial governance, representing the crucial node of
territorial cohesion policy.
The lack of a proper integration of territorial planning and regional development is another weakness. For the moment, the
two 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 regional
spatial plan. The fact that the regions are not territorial - administrative structures and they have not their own regional
administration 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 planning
framework. The PlanCoast project is a opportunity and a starting point.
11. Pag. | 11
The political will is more important than technical arguments in overcoming obstacles related to the development of spatial
planning in Romania. The profession of territorial planner does not exist in the present university curricula. The University
of Architecture and Urban Planning provides a small number of courses dedicated to this speciality and in Bucharest there
is 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 as
partner in a project on Coastal Territorial Planning - http://www.plancoast.eu/ INTERREG III B CADSES
Territorial Plans at National Level
At 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 the
content of VIVA project.
The built heritage concentration is with smaller “spots” in the eastern and southern part of Romania. Our
pilot project area is part of a region towards the east of Sibiu where the high level of concentration of built
heritage covers a large perimeter.
12. Pag. | 12
Territorial Plans – law enforcement for securing sustainable development
PATJ – county level – administrative boundaries
PATJ without impact. Strong spatial approach. Very little on the decision making side. Reference frame for
This section III of PATN presents the concentration of natural heritage with national interest value. It is only in
2009 that the natural protected areas came together with the built heritage areas for a territorial analysis on
tourism potential. The “tourism resources” are defined as components of natural or antropic environment
which, 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 enabling
good quality public services in these areas and this is important both for touristic activities and the quality of
life of the inhabitants. But it also introduces the concept of “specific infrastructure for tourism”: infrastructure
that exists only for the use of tourists. This induces a gap between inhabitants and tourists that is not really
necessary from our perspective.
13. Pag. | 13
Territorial Plans at County Level
The territorial administrative level of the County also hs planning documentations for its territory. As stated
in 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 investments
which 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 is
supposed to guide the public programs) and the content of the County level Territorial Plan. This is basically
a sign of the difficult relationship between the operational and the regulatory sides of planning. The
operational side of the planning – county development strategies and local development strategies are
usually written documents with very limited spatial support. The PATJ, with all its maps and hence with all
the care for space that is demonstrated by the professionals who are working in the elaboration teams is
understood and used mostly as a regulatory frame. It has to take into consideration constraints derived from
the 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 of
coordinating territorial planning documentations. The number of professionals with the right to coordinate
such documentations is rather limited: one or two per county (http://www.rur.ro/specialisti.php).
14. Pag. | 14
There 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 these
documentations. Even though they are defined as being both regulatory and operational frames, both PUG
and PUZ (Zonal Urban Plan – for an area of a settlement) are not really working as instruments for orienting
decision and allocation of public resources. Actually, the legal frame does not even impose to have an
approved PUZ before having the construction permit and before organizing a tender for opening a public
investment working site.
Picture of the General Urban Plan – development proposal – Sighisoara
All this information is relevant because it explains somehow the need for insuring more connections
between various groups of professionals on one hand and between professionals and decision makers on
the other hand.
15. Pag. | 15Disconnections – building bridges
The planning professionals who are specialized in heritage analysis have the recognition from the Register of
Urban Planners but also from the Ministry of Culture (section 2 – urbanism, gardens and parks: A – studies
and 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 intitled
protection and development of built heritage – F6) and in case of urban planning documentations (stamp
right for urban history analysis – G5) and the majority of those professionals having this signature right from
the register of Urban Planners have obtained it in 2005 and 2006, at the moment of the establishment of
this organization.
These specialists are the ones who talk both the language of “conservation” and the one of “planning”and
they could insure the links between the various categories of professionals to answer the challenge of the
disconnections between the operational approach and the regulatory one which is understood here as
closely related to the disconnections between the technical argument and the political will.
16. Pag. | 16
EU funding and planning for heritage
Starting with 2007, the situation tends to improve. The financial resources that can be obtained from the
European Union for urban regeneration or valorization of heritage through touristic activities or
environment 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 required
a spatial approach and it was only through the regulatory side of PATZ, PUG, PUZ that this connection to the
spatial approach was insured. In 2007, the Regional Development Agencies were required to deliver Regional
development Strategies which were again written documents and only rarely they were quoting approved
county territorial planning documentations.
Now Romania is getting through a process of Regionalization and this will be hopefully helpful in order to
match spatial approach with the operational one. It is also a moment to reflect on the possibilities of
insuring better connections through planning instruments that we already have. The financial resources
should come to the Regional or Local Public Authorities only with the condition of presenting concrete
programs that bring heritage and development together and that prove a good understanding of what is
that the territory can support and sustain.
Planning is hence a process that can bring together the “spheres” of technical argument, of political will and
of the common interests of the communities that inhabit those territories
