2023-12-28 22:54:11
After six weeks, the review of the 21-page draft ended on Thursday. In addition to numerous institutions, tens of private individuals also submitted their statements. Many of them have something to do with monument protection, work for cities and work at universities at home and abroad, such as the renowned Celticologist and archaeologist Raimund Karl. The draft is “highly problematic in many respects, in some cases blatantly unconstitutional and unsuitable for contemporary, democratic monument protection”.
Karl is not the only one who is tearing apart the text of the law. Criticism is voiced in almost all statements. For example, the state archive speaks of “contradictions” and passages that are now being deleted but are important for the law. Some statements speak of a step backwards. The Institute of Archeology at the University of Innsbruck sees the project as a threat to freedom of research. There is also criticism from other universities and institutions.
ORF.at/Georg Hummer The Capuchin monastery in Salzburg is just as listed as thousands of other buildings in Austria
Eco aspect, world heritage and archaeology
The draft comes from the Ministry of Culture under Vice Chancellor Werner Kogler (Greens). Currently around 39,000 buildings throughout Austria are listed. This corresponds to around 1.8 percent of the entire inventory; the amendment affects a corresponding number of people directly as owners and monument conservationists and indirectly, for example as researchers.
Austria
This year monument protection for eight objects in Vienna
It was to be expected that a comprehensive and detailed draft would result in countless comments. The central point of the amendment is the ecological aspect: in the future, opportunities for changes in the interests of climate protection should be given greater consideration. In addition, the Federal Monuments Office should be able to place ensembles of buildings under protection in a quicker process. Liability issues should be given greater consideration and maintenance obligations for owners should be expanded.
In addition, the amendment provides for the UNESCO world heritage to be enshrined in law. In the area of protecting movable cultural assets, the Federal Monuments Office should take a more active role in the future. According to the ministry, “multiple simplifications” of procedures and deadlines are planned in the area of archeology. In addition, for the first time there are provisions regarding the safekeeping of finds made during archaeological excavations.
Freedom of research “undoubtedly violated unlawfully”
These provisions in particular are raising eyebrows. The Institute for Archaeological Science at the University of Vienna is reluctant to allow research into archaeological monuments. This is incomprehensible because research – such as photographic recordings – is “by nature non-invasive and non-destructive”. The requirement to obtain a permit “undoubtedly violates freedom of research in an unlawful manner.”
ORF.at/Christian Öser Particularly harsh criticism comes from the field of archeology
Sharp tones also come from the responsible institute at the University of Salzburg. The amendment would make the work of local researchers, for example, more difficult and criminalize their activities. The legal experts from the state of Salzburg stated that according to the wording, a photograph by a tourist would not be prohibited per se, but the photograph of an archaeological monument by a scientist would be.
Even the use of metal detectors without a permit is prohibited according to the draft. A city and community archaeologist considers this to be “problematic”, especially because the voluntary participation of interested laypeople, metal detectorists and local historians in archaeological work saves the communities enormous costs.
Definition too broad, university misses criteria
Even the concept of a monument causes criticism. The amendment focuses on “immovable and movable objects of historical, artistic or other cultural significance created by humans”. For Andreas Konecny from the Institute of Antiquity at the University of Graz, the definition is too broad, “even the garbage in my garbage can theoretically falls under it.”
ORF/Viviane Koth The Graz clock tower will be less affected by the preservation obligation than many lesser-known monuments
The University of Innsbruck lacks concrete criteria in the definition that justify the public interest in the preservation of monuments. The state archive, however, lacks the term “archive” in the draft. The Ministry of Culture itself speaks of a “broad” definition in its materials. However, a “certain prominence” of the objects that qualify as monuments is required.
“Insignificant relic”
The Chamber of Commerce, however, is critical of the planned obligation to preserve protected monuments. There is a building code maintenance obligation that is completely sufficient. The Federal Monuments Office is now able to involve the district administrative authorities. Criticism was also expressed in the review regarding the rules regarding changes to monuments. The state of Vorarlberg, for example, recommends that the ban on destruction and alteration be applied to “all and not just immovable monuments”.
debate
What are the biggest construction sites in domestic politics?
Anyone who violates these regulations will be subject to a fine. The Ministry of Justice is critical of the fact that the fines are earmarked for the monument fund. Legally, it is not possible to transfer criminal proceeds to a fund. In any case, the number and amount of fines were manageable in the past. The purpose of the penalties seems to be an “insignificant relic” that cannot be used to finance the monument fund anyway.
The ÖBB-Holding welcomes the request to modernize the monument protection law. At the same time, it is warned that the ban on destruction and modification can have consequences for the railway infrastructure. There is a fear that all interests will be subordinated to monument protection. The bishops’ conference also struggles with the obligation to preserve or with the prohibition of change and destruction. According to the conference, these rules are not compatible with the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right to property.
Expert recommends completely new negotiations
Further points of criticism and recommendations concern data protection, the competences of the Federal Monuments Office, accessibility and the monument advisory board, which is called in before destruction occurs. In its statement, the UNESCO Commission in Austria welcomes the fact that the World Heritage Convention is anchored in the Monument Protection Act. However, there is a lack of concrete details, for example regarding the preservation of world heritage and international standards.
According to ministry plans, the law will come into force in the first half of 2024. It is unclear what will be changed until then, but the amendment will change and can be assumed. If the internationally recognized expert Karl had his way, the “failed” draft would not be approved in this form. There are “big problems,” he says in an interview with ORF.at. He recommends that the legal text be discarded entirely and developed from scratch with the broad participation of parties interested in monument protection.
1703816624
#Monument #protection #law #heats #tempers
