University of Arts in Belgrade

Center for Interdisciplinary studies

Universit Lumire Lyon 2
UNESCO Chair in Cultural Policy and Management

Methodology of Research exam paper

Partnerships as strategies in cultural policy for sustainable
development of cultural heritage

Student: Kristina Radovi

Mentor: Prof Slobodan Cveji

May 2016, Belgrade

Introduction
Term cultural heritage has many definitions, depending on the context in which we are
using it. One of the first official definitions was introduced with the 1972 UNESCO Convention
concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, which mentions only
monuments, groups of buildings and sites as cultural heritage (UNESCO 1972: 2). With time
this definition has broaden, and introduced various aspects through many different conventions,
charters and recommendations, made mostly by UNESCO or ICOMOS. Today, according to
UNESCO, cultural heritage is all which is inherited from past generations, preserved in the
present and which can be further transmitted for the benefit of future generations. According to
ICOMOS, cultural heritage is an expression of the ways of living developed by a community and
passed on through generations, including customs, practices, places, objects, artistic
expressions and values. It is often expressed as either intangible or tangible (ICOMOS, 2002).
Tangible heritage is further classified into movable and immovable cultural heritage, the latter
being the focus of this thesis (archaeological heritage), which is defined as physical artefacts
from the past preserved and exhibited only at their place of origin. With the 1992 European
Convention on the archaeological heritage, known as the Valetta treaty, signed and ratified by
Serbia and which entered into force in 2010, archaeological heritage was officially defined as
all remains and objects and any other traces of mankind from past epochs which include
structures, constructions, groups of buildings, developed sites, moveable objects, monuments
of other kinds as well as their context, whether situated on land or under water, as well as
measures for its identification, protection, integral conservation and financing (COE 1992). In
Serbia, protection and use of cultural goods is regulated by the Law on Cultural Goods from
1994, where cultural goods are defined as material and spiritual objects and creations of
general interest which could be movable or immovable, the second further being divided into
monuments, cultural-historical areas, archaeological sites and places of significance (Official
Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 71/94). Present law is without a doubt outdated and is
not in accordance with newest theories and practices implemented

in the processes of

protection and rehabilitation of archaeological heritage.

Last decade has been a period of stagnation in the work of institutions which are
operating in the field of protection of immovable cultural heritage in Serbia, caused by
economic, political and administrative problems, but also in a big way by insufficient funding
(Dragievi-ei, Miki, Tomka 2015: 28). One of the biggest issues of the cultural heritage

system in Serbia is financial, since it depends mainly on the direct budgetary funding of the
state, in form of subsidies and grants. This kind of economic instrument of cultural policy is still
dominant in Serbia, while financing from the European pre-accession funds and the private
sector are rare occurrences. Allocation of funds is regulated by the Law on Culture, through
open competitions, which are not systematic nor with clear financial criteria. They do not have
enough impact on the cultural heritage system, because of the minimal level of investment and
absence of synergy between stakeholders (Miki, Muntean 2014: 154; Dragievi-ei, Miki,
Tomka 2015: 28-29). Even though the budget for culture for 2016 has nominaly increased for
around 392 millions CSD, the budget for cultural sector represents 0,69% of the total state
budget, and it is not likely that it will inrease in the future, due to the current financial situtation.
This amount is not nearly enough to sustain cultural sector, nor the department of protection of
cultural heritage, which is why current projects concerned with protection, conservation,
revitalization and presentation of immovable cultural heritage (archaeological sites) are either
receiving minimal budgets or even stopped being funded, while new ones are not even beign
considered. Those which are receiving funds, are receiving them in an uneven, irregular and
insecure manner, because of the financial crisis (Miki, Draa Muntean 2014: 156). Since there
is no strategic budget planning, and projects are financed according to the resources available
in the current year, process of revitalization of a single archaeological site can be prolonged for
many years (Dragievi-ei, Miki, Tomka 2015: 29). As a result, many important
archaeological sites and monuments are closed or unavailable to public, and those which are a
subject of excavations and interventions, many of them marked as of great importance, do not
become open in the end and therefore are a waste of potential. An example of good practice is
the archaeological site of Viminacium, which endured multiple revitalizations and became a kind
of an archaeological theme park. Next to the research that is continuously being conducted,
investments are made in infrastructure and an active marketing promotion, while models of
presentation and animation are innovative and engaging. Viminacium is managed by a limited
liability company, consisting of four public institutions - Archaeological institute, Faculty of Mining
and Geology, Faculty of Mathematics and SANU Mathematical Institute, which is a unique case
in Serbia.
Current Law on Cultural Goods does not oblige the state to finance protection of cultural
heritage, but on the other hand neither does it instruct to identify additional sources of financing
(Foo, Radonji ivkov: 35). Most obvious approach would be to seek alternative ways to
increase funding, in the wake of financial crisis, especially from the private sector, which is an

established practice in many countries in the world. There is an evident absence of mixed funds
and public-private partnerships (Miki, Draa Muntean 2014: 148), even though there exists a
Public-Private Partnership and Concessions Act, a relatively new law in Serbia, from 2011. It
allows cooperation between public and private partners in the sectors of culture and tourism, but
it still has not been used for the purpose of conservation of cultural heritage.
Research subject
Subject of this master thesis are public/private/civil partnerships in the sector of cultural
heritage, which are a globally widespread type of legal instrument of financing immovable
cultural heritage projects in the world. This form of interdisciplinary approach to conservation of
cultural heritage has begun to be used in the late 1960s, within the context of urban
regeneration schemes (Macdonald 2011: 893). This happened when it became clear that not
even the richest countries can afford, in their public sectors, to own, rehabilitate and maintain all
of their heritage assets worth preserving (Rypkema 2008: 131). Most common types of
partnerships are public-private ones (PPPs), which were first applied in public works, but soon
started to be alternatively used as a means of financing projects dealing with integral
conservation and presentation of immovable cultural heritage and today it is a widespread
method of financing these types of projects in the whole world. The use of PPPs expanded to
conservation and management of archaeological sites, buildings, landscapes, urban areas,
collections and natural areas of heritage significance (Rypkema 2008: 131). The civil, or the
third sector partners, are usually non-profit organisations which represent civil interests in these
projects, and contribute in the form of consultation on what should be protected by legislation,
but can go beyond that and include a playing role in economic means of achieving conservation
and sustainability (Macdonald 2011: 896).
Aim of the research
Aim of the research is to investigate examples of best practices of partnerships in the
sector of cultural heritage in the world, which would lead to establishing the most suitable model
of partnerships, that could be successfully implemented the current legislative and economical
context in Serbia.

Research questions
Research questions which this thesis will try to answer are:
-

What are the reasons which prevented the state to implement partnerships as an alternative

instrument for financing these types of projects?

Which are the obstacles, issues and threats that public stakeholders could face if they decide to
introduce this instrument as a part of their official financial policy, and which are those that could

ward off private investors from entering partnership agreements with public and civil sector?
What are the benefits that all of the stakeholders could expect?
What is the current climate for introducing additional funding, outside of state budget and what

measures could state undertake to facilitate its creation?

Which could be the incentives the state could introduce to make these projects more appealing
to private investors?
Hypothesis:

Private/public/civil partnership would be a suitable legal instrument to introduce as an additional

source of financing of cultural heritage projects, in current times of economic instability in Serbia
Benefits that would ensue from introducing partnerships as an additional funding source could
overcome the threats and obstacles it could face, if the synergy between the three sectors could

be achieved
If the states introduces quality incentives, thus creating a more positive financial climate, private
stakeholders could be more interested to enter partnership agreements with the public and civil
sector

Research methodology and data analysis

In order to answer questions asked in this thesis and address proposed hypothesis,
following research methods will be conducted:

Desk research
-

Research of international conventions, charters and recommendations which are concerned

with protection, conservation, revitalisation and presentation of immovable cultural heritage

(UNESCO, ICOMOS, ICCROM CoE)

Thorough research of available foreign and domestic literature dealing with the topics of: cultural
policies, public/private/civil partnerships in the field of cultural heritage (with the focus on
immovable heritage), sustainable development of immovable cultural heritage, cultural

economics, integrative heritage conservation etc.

Analysis of legal framework of foreign countries and Serbia, regarding cultural policies and
implementation of the instrument of partnerships in cultural heritage as well as examples of
good practice and selection of the most successful and appropriate ones for comparison
In order to gather necessary data about reasons, possible issues and obstacles which
prevented this form of legal instrument to be implemented in Serbia insofar, a qualitative
research will be conducted.
Qualitative research - semi-structured interviews

Semi-structured interviews will be carried out in order to gather information related to the
questions of inexistence of partnerships in the field of cultural heritage in Serbia. Experts
working in the field of protection of cultural heritage, archaeology, cultural economics and
cultural heritage in general, will be asked questions as a means to determine what are the main
reasons and obstacles for which the instrument of public/private/social partnerships hasnt been
utilised in Serbia yet, but also to find out what are possible solutions or ways to approach this
matter
The topic of public/private/civil partnerships has not been investigated enough in Serbia and
only by a few experts, so the research conducted in this thesis would make significant
contribution to the scientific and professional community investigating issues and questions
around it. Furthermore, this thesis will provide practical recommendations and solutions, while
contributing to the effort of changing the current viewpoint of cultural heritage having to be

dependent solely on governmental financing and being a generator of not only social and
cultural values, but also economic.

Proposed bibliography
Battinelli, P. and Striber, J. (eds.) (2013) Italian-Serbian Bilateral Workshop on Science for
Cultural Heritage. Asocijacija italijanskih i srpskih naunika i istraivaa: Beograd

Council of Europe (1992) European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological

Heritage. Valleta, Malta
Directorate General for Internal Policies (2011) Encouraging private investment in the cultural
sector, Brussels: European Parliament
Dragievi-ei, M. Miki, H. and Tomka, G. (2015) Compendium of cultural policies and
trends in Europe: Serbia, Bonn: Council of Europe/ERICArts, Available:
www.culturalpolicies.net [14 August 2015]
Dupr, L. Falessi, N. and Liveri, D. (eds.) (2011) Cooperative Models for Effective Public Private
Partnerships: Good Practice Guide. Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg
Foo, M. Radonji ivkov, E. (2015) Vrednovanje kulturnog naslea i njegovo ouvanje:
principi, kriterijumi i metodoloki pristupi, in Miki, H. and Rypkema, D. (.ed) Kulturno naslee i
kreativne ekonomije: vodi za odrivo upravljanje kulturnim dobrima, Beograd: Fondacija Grupa
za kreativnu ekonomiju
ICOMOS (2002) International Cultural Tourism Charter: Principles And Guidelines For Managing
Tourism At Places Of Cultural And Heritage Significance, ICOMOS International Cultural
Tourism Committee
Law on Public-Private Partnership and Concessions (Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia,
No. 88/11)
Loulanski, T. (2006) Cultural Heritage in Socio-Economic Development: Local and Global
Perspectives, Environments Journal Volume, vol. 34, no. 2, January, pp. 51-69
Macdonald, S. (2011) Leveraging heritage: public-private, and third-sector partnerships for the
conservation of the historic urban environment, Heritage, a driver of development: Rising to the
Challenge, 17th ICOMOS General Assembly Symposium, Paris, pp. 893-904
Mason, R. (ed.) (1998) Economics and Heritage Conservation: Concepts, Values, and Agendas
for Research. The Getty Conservation Institute: Los Angeles

Mazzanti, M. (2002) Cultural heritage as multidimensional, multi-value and multiattribute

economic good: Toward a new framework for economic analysis and valuation. Journal of
Socio-Economics, vol. 31, December, pp. 529-558
Miki, H. and Draa Muntean, A. (2014) Heritage for development in South-East Europe, in
Miki, H. and Rikalovi, G. New Cultural Heritage Perception and Collaboration in Serbia
through the Ljubljana Process, Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing
Rypkema, D.D. (2008) Heritage and Development: The Role of Public-Private Partnerships, in
Mlkki, M., Mntysalo. R and Schmidt-Thom, K.(ed.) Economics and Built Heritage
Towards New European Initiatives, Helsinki: Helsinki University of Technology, Centre for
Urban and Regional Studies
Rypkema, D.D. (2008) Heritage Conservation and the Local Economy. Global Urban
Development, vol. 4, no. 1, August, pp. 1-8
UNESCO (1972) Convention concerning the protection of the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage. UNESCO, Paris