EKIP– Expert Club for Economics and Politics A Different Opinion
Very often, people around the world expect easy answers to complex questions. We find this type of behavior in Bulgaria when, on a given topic, it is said, "Let's do it like 'the West' or 'civilized countries do it."
The topic of cultural heritage preservation is one of those immeasurably complex questions for which there is no easy answer. In Bulgaria, the preservation of cultural heritage is based primarily on the Cultural Heritage Act, which in its current form has been in force since 2009 (of course, with some amendments since then). The opinion of many experts is that this law is not good.
According to most of them, the organizations that take care of its adequate functioning – most notably the National Institute for Immovable Cultural Heritage (NICHH) – do not work in the best way, due to insufficient funding, small staff, or insufficient authority to impose decisions on the owners of valuable sites.
How are different countries around the world approaching it?
The truth is that around the world – both in the West and in other directions on the map – cultural heritage protection policies are extremely diverse. The problem in this case is that the topic is truly multi-layered, as is the assessment of whether a given law (or lack of law) works better or worse than another in another country.
What is interesting, however, is the approach and, as lawyers like to say, the “spirit” of the law. In some countries, there is practically no central law on the protection of cultural heritage– such is the situation in Germany or Switzerland. This does not mean that no one takes care of cultural heritage there – no, there are private non-governmental organizations, usually funded by donations, that provide advice or directly prepare restoration plans. Very often, these plans are prepared free of charge for the owners of cultural property, since non-governmental organizations have the freedom to decide whether to do this, and sometimes even the restorations themselves are financed by donations, through the NGO. Hundreds of such buildings can be seen on the website of the German Deutsche Stiftung Denkmalschutz.
In many other countries, the law is very “soft” and its main role is not to prohibit, but to educate and assist. At the same time, the laws provide many opportunities for various incentives – most often serious tax breaks. The emphasis on working together with private owners of immovable cultural values, the direction towards giving advice and recommendations, rather than prohibitions, is a main emphasis in the laws of many countries, such as the Netherlands or the Czech Republic.
What is the approach in Bulgaria?
In Bulgaria, the main activity of the NINCN and the Ministry of Culture is to give opinions regarding cultural values. In other words, if you want to do something to your house, you get approval or refusal. Advice or recommendation on the best option for restoration – or even a suggestion on who is the best specialist in Bulgaria in the respective architectural style – is usually missing. People do not receive help from the NINCN, only prohibitions. I am not commenting here whether the reason is the small staff of the NINCN or something else.
As for funding, the German NGO's approach is much more honest, since using public money for the restoration of private buildings is another opportunity for corruption. We must also be aware that every creation of a state institution to take care of a given public problem reduces the chance and incentives for free citizens, independent of political figures and political funding, to create an organization that would offer a solution to this public problem.
The example of the USA
The US policy is also particularly interesting. To skip the initial comments in our country, which I often hear – yes, the US has a rich history, yes, there are many buildings in the US that deserve preservation and are valuable cultural heritage. In fact, if we comment on private buildings, then generally speaking, the period in which private buildings were built, which are assessed as cultural heritage in Bulgaria and in the US, is almost the same – mainly from the 19th and the first half of the 20th century.
In the United States, anyone has the right to propose that a building be included in their list of cultural heritage. At the same time, a site cannot be declared a cultural asset if the owner does not agree to it. And even if a site is included in the National Register of Historic Places, the owners still have the freedom to freely dispose of it. In fact, most often the main legal restrictions are more related to local urban planning regulations. A number of tax incentives are offered for maintaining buildings on the historical list – both at the state and federal levels.
Despite this rather liberal policy and lack of prohibitions, the USA cannot complain about a lack of good maintenance of cultural heritage buildings. The same can be said for other countries with quite liberal laws aimed at individual freedom and choice, such as Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands, etc.
Ultimately...
Of course, there are countries around the world where the laws are stricter and more restrictive – for example, France, Denmark, Italy, etc. But this does not mean that there are no cultural values that have been destroyed there, or those that are being restored or managed in a controversial way (for example, the restoration of Chartres Cathedral, or the placement of an ugly fountain on top of an ancient fountain in Pompeii ).
The topic is much more complex, but moving towards more free private initiative, through more dialogue with experts, advice from professionals, and education, is probably the more correct approach, compared to hoping that bans by state institutions will solve all the problems.
