Project for the conservation of a cultural heritage site of regional significance. Legislation in the field of conservation, use and state protection of cultural heritage sites
The preservation of cultural heritage requires improved policies and legislation, which this moment cannot always save objects from outside interference in time and punish the culprit. The Basic Federal Law of June 25, 2002 No. 73-FZ, which should ensure the safety of objects and popularize them, shows many gaps through which dishonest entrepreneurs make their way. The basic principles of cultural heritage protection were developed back in the 60s, however, after significant changes in the economy and society in the Russian Federation, they led to changes in this part of the policy. The 2002 law identified many concepts that were previously undefined, and was supplemented several times to more later years, including tougher penalties for violations, but this did not stop the wave of vandalism. One of these problems is the lack of an effective list of objects taking into account their current state. By the time the state or local authorities pay attention to a particular object, it may already be in a stage of extreme desolation without the possibility of restoration while preserving its historical and cultural value. This could also be avoided by improving interdepartmental coordination. The main objective of policy should be the preservation of this historical and cultural potential as an irreplaceable part of the culture and traditions of the state.
Today, there are several large public control organizations that help preserve cultural heritage. Unfortunately, not having any authority, they are not able to take drastic measures themselves, but their intervention often leads to positive results. According to Law No. 73-FZ, public and religious organizations can provide assistance to local authorities in matters of preservation and popularization of cultural heritage sites. For example, the largest and most striking example is the All-Russian public organization “All-Russian Society for the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments” (VOOPiK), created back in 1966. The organization has branches in different cities of Russia, unites not only professional architects and art historians, but also those who are not indifferent to the fate of culture. Today the organization participates in the work of expert advisory councils of cities, donates funds for the preservation of cultural heritage sites and monitors the immediate condition of monuments.
In St. Petersburg, the “Living City” movement, created in 2006, is involved in the protection of architectural monuments. The main activity is to preserve the historical appearance of the city by publishing materials in the media, holding rallies and pickets, collecting signatures and sending letters to international organizations and authorities. The movement also organizes exhibitions and events to popularize cultural heritage and maintains a register of lost or dilapidated monuments in St. Petersburg. For example, in 2007, this organization managed to collect about 11 thousand signatures against the construction of the Okhta Center skyscraper, since its construction was supposed to be in a historical place that would disturb the city’s landscape.
The government of the Novgorod region used to have a department of administration state protection cultural heritage under the local department of culture and tourism, which in 2014 separated into an independent organization. The Committee for State Protection of Cultural Heritage of the Novgorod Region records cultural heritage sites, controls urban planning regulations, monitors the condition of objects, and much more. On the committee’s website you can write an appeal or ask a question to the chairman, which will be considered as soon as possible.
Today, debates about the positive and negative aspects of the privatization of cultural monuments are still raging. In 2004 in St. Petersburg and 2008 in Moscow, a privatization program began, which allows private individuals to buy architectural monuments. A prerequisite is the preservation of the historical and cultural appearance, restoration and protection of the object. You can take ownership of any building that the state puts up for sale, except for religious buildings - they are transferred into the ownership of religious communities. However, there are not many people who want to purchase an architectural monument - the high costs of restoring and maintaining the objects, as well as some restrictions on further use, discourage investors. Since January 2012, in Moscow, for example, they launched the “Ruble per Meter” program, where an investor can buy a house for 49 years at the price of 1 square meter for 1 ruble per year, subject to restoration of a dilapidated building.
According to the administration of St. Petersburg, active work is underway to preserve cultural heritage sites. In 2014, 537 permits for the restoration of monuments were issued, 65 objects were included in the unified state register of cultural heritage objects (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation, orders for the protection of 722 cultural objects were prepared. St. Petersburg monitors compliance with the boundaries and modes of use of the historical territory, as well as the preservation of the historical center of the city. The difficulties are caused by the rapid deterioration of buildings during high tourist activity - the Hermitage building, which was restored for its 250th anniversary, is already showing cracks, and there are chips in the top layer of plaster. Many monuments are still in a state of disrepair, but actions taken by the authorities and activists of St. Petersburg give hope for the best. Already in the first quarter of 2015, large funds were allocated for the maintenance of cultural heritage sites:
Restoration work carried out on the territory of the Novgorod Kremlin on the eve of the city's anniversary covered a significant area of the cultural site. The funds allocated for the repair of the Kremlin were used to restore the walls, ceilings of the halls, the Church of Blaise and others. However, when carrying out these works, despite preserving the historical layout, appearance was significantly lost - old bricks, being replaced with new ones, did not at all match either the color scheme or texture. Wooden architecture, at the same time, is preserved in its original form. Informational portal culture of the Novgorod region comments on this as follows: “I am glad that in Lately In the region, restoration work on historical and cultural monuments is ongoing. To carry them out, funds from budgets of all levels and extra-budgetary sources, including charitable contributions, are attracted.” Official statements often differ from news ones, so Information Agency Veliky Novgorod is characterized by every tenth cultural monument as being in unsatisfactory condition.
Still, it is worth noting that today the priority areas for the protection of cultural heritage are:
- 1. Recognition of the primary role of culture in the revival and preservation of the cultural and moral values of the peoples of the Russian state;
- 2. Definition of security zones;
- 3. Protection of territories classified as lands of historical and cultural significance;
- 4. Creation of a favorable investment climate;
- 5. Carrying out restoration and other work to preserve and improve the condition of objects of cultural significance, monitoring the condition;
- 6. Insurance of historical and cultural monuments;
- 7. Control of development of areas located near cultural heritage sites and park areas;
- 8. Distribution of powers between various bodies;
- 9. Transfer of production hazardous to objects from the territory of historical and cultural significance;
- 10. Carrying out engineering and environmental measures (protection from vibration, stray currents, greening urban transport schemes, lowering groundwater levels, installing storm sewers, vertical planning and improvement of historical territories, bank protection works).
Protection of cultural heritage sites in Russia
Experience protection of cultural heritage sites in Russia goes back several centuries. Starting from the first decrees of Peter I, the process of identifying and recording Russian antiquities has been going on. In different historical periods, this process had its own characteristics, but at all times its effectiveness depended on the efforts of the state and society.
First of all, the preservation of heritage depended on the effectiveness of monument protection legislation, on forms of ownership and resolution of the land issue, as well as on the flexibility of the state’s cultural policy, based on authoritative scientific forces. Big influence The preservation of cultural heritage sites was also influenced by the political situation in the country and the level of culture of society. Subjective factors are also very important - scientific preferences, professionalism, personality traits of researchers, restorers and museum workers.
IN history of protection of cultural heritage sites Several stages can be distinguished:
. The 18th century, when the monument conservation process in Russia was just beginning;
. XIX - early XX centuries. — the most important stage in the history of cultural heritage protection,
when the foundations of state heritage protection were laid;
. Soviet time;
. post-Soviet period.
| V.N. Tatishchev | M.V. Lomonosov |
XVIII century can be considered as a “prehistory” of the protection of Russian antiquities. At this time, the state played a priority role in identifying and recording ancient rarities and in creating the first Russian museums. The decrees of Peter I became the strongest stimulus for the development of this process. The range of historical sources was significantly expanded, which affected the development of historical science, museums and Russian collecting. Among the most important legislative documents of Peter the Great is the February decree of 1718 “On the bringing of born monsters and also found unusual things...”; decrees of 1720 on sending copies of unique documents from monasteries and churches to governors and 1721 on the prohibition of melting down the found “mound things” and, finally, the April decree of 1722 on the delivery from churches and monasteries of “...many old things fair." The implementation of these decrees led to the formation of a unique museum - Kunstkamera, as well as to the preservation of ancient weapons in the workshops, the construction of the first triumphal arches. Historians began to actively use not only written but also material sources as objects of study. It was historians who became the first researchers of Russian antiquity. Among them are M. V. Lomonosov (1711-1765), V. N. Tatishchev (1686-1750), G. F. Miller (1705-1783).
 |
|
| A.A. Vinius | I'M IN. Bruce |
Interest in historical knowledge and material remains - evidence of the past - also affected the enlightened part of Russian society. A clear indicator of this process was the active development of collecting. The objects of private collections included a wide variety of monuments - minerals, coins and medals, weapons, ancient manuscripts, maps. Among the collectors of that time were Field Marshal General, scientist Y. V. Bruce (1670-1735), A. A. Vinius (1641-1717), the Golitsyn brothers, scientist P. G. Demidov (1738-1821 .).
WITH XIX century purposeful monument conservation activities of the state and scientific circles of Russian society begin. Interest in the historical past and its material evidence was part of the process of national self-identification.
Important role The patriotic upsurge of 1812 played a role in the formation of national consciousness. After the victorious war, monuments were erected in honor of the victory over the Swedes in Poltava (1817), to Minin and Pozharsky in Moscow (1818), and in 1820 they began collecting funds for the construction of a column on the Kulikovo Field. All this certainly affected the attitude of the state and society towards ancient objects. During the reign of Nicholas I, there was a deepening interest in national relics in state policy.
 |
| Moscow (drawing from the 18th century) |
In the very first year of the reign of Nicholas I, a Circular of the Ministry of Internal Affairs was issued to civil governors “On the delivery of information about the remains of ancient buildings and the prohibition of destroying them” (1826). The significance of this document can hardly be overestimated - it was essentially a government program to identify information about objects of Russian antiquity. In a short time, information was collected that became the basis for preparing the first list of ancient domestic monuments(more than 4 thousand objects).
Uncontrolled archaeological excavations were also subject to legislative regulation by the government, which resulted in the destruction of thousands of unique archaeological objects and the unimpeded export abroad of the found “mound antiquities.” In 1834, the government issued a decree according to which no one had the right to excavate on public and state lands. This was the first step towards state control of all archaeological work.
In the 19th century In Russia there was no special law on the protection of ancient monuments, but at the same time the state tried to regulate the safety of individual unique objects. There was a whole series of imperial decrees concerning the Kolomna Kremlin and the Kitai-Gorod wall.
The problems of preserving ancient monuments are also reflected in the all-Russian legislative document - the “Construction Charter”. The charter strictly forbade the destruction of the remains of ancient buildings and fortresses; the provincial authorities had to monitor their safety. Since the second half of the 19th century, despite the effect of the “Building Charter”, the absence of a special law on the protection of ancient monuments has been increasingly felt in Russian society.
 |
| Kitaygorodskaya wall (Moscow city) |
The need to develop a special law on the protection of Russian antiquities was discussed especially widely on the pages of periodicals, in scientific societies and various departments. In 1903, under the Ministry of Internal Affairs, a Commission was created to revise the “Building Charter”, in 1904 and 1908 - commissions to revise the existing regulations on the protection of ancient monuments.
The final document “Regulations on the Protection of Antiquities” (1911) was submitted for discussion to the State Duma. The document presented a fairly coherent state system for the preservation of ancient monuments, reflected the most pressing problems in the field of protection, and especially stipulated the government's preemptive right to purchase all antiquities that were in the possession of private individuals.
The “Regulation on the Protection of Antiquities” was not adopted by the State Duma. At a time when there was unquestionable power private property, this document could not be approved. Another important thing is that at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. The legislative process in the field of protecting Russian antiquities was unusually active, and the widest circles of enlightened Russian society were involved in it.
 |
|
| M.P. Pogodin | S.S. Uvarov |
Protection of Russian antiquities XIX - early XX centuries It is difficult to imagine without the activities of individual researchers - historians, archaeologists, architectural historians and art historians. It was a time when knowledge, initiative, and experience of various specialists led to effective results. Generalized works on the history of Russia are appearing, the range of historical sources is expanding, and the methods of their analysis are improving. In historical science, an independent field of knowledge about Russian antiquities is distinguished - archeology. Along with ancient rarities, which were in the sphere of attention of lovers of antiquity for many decades, in the second quarter of the 19th century. Scientists turned in their research to Slavic monuments, seeing their originality and national flavor. Such scientists as M. P. Pogodin (1800-1875), I. E. Zabelin (1820-1908), I. P. Sakharov (1807-1863), A. S. Uvarov (1825- 1884) did a lot to study and systematize Slavic monuments. In 1851, I. P. Sakharov published “A Note for the Review of Russian Antiquities,” which was essentially broad program identification and description of Slavic ancient monuments. M.P. Pogodin and A.S. Uvarov were not only famous scientists, but also one of the most authoritative collectors of their time. The famous “Pogodinskoe ancient repository” had no equal in the uniqueness of its collection. The collection included handwritten and early printed sections, a münz cabinet, silver and copper crosses, seals, weapons, and artistic treasures. “Poretsky Museum” by A. S. Uvarov became one of the first estate museums in Russia, which housed a unique collection of Slavic rarities (old printed books, icons, crosses), which enriched the museum that existed at the beginning of the 19th century. collection of “antiques” by S. S. Uvarov.
In the history of the protection of cultural heritage sites, the post-reform period is the most fruitful. Introduction into scientific circulation, analysis and systematization of various sources led to the formation and development of special historical disciplines - numismatics, sphragistics, historical geography. Archeology of this period can be spoken of as an independent science with its own objectives and research methods. In the field of preserving Russian antiquities, an archaeological and artistic method of studying objects is being formed, when the monument is considered as a historical source and as an artistic phenomenon.
Further development of architectural criticism, a deeper study of monuments of medieval architecture allowed architects to formulate the concept "architectural monument", determine the main approaches in its assessment. Among architects and restorers, great place In their work dedicated to the protection and restoration of architectural monuments, F. F. Richter (1808-1868), N. V. Sultanov (1850-1908), V. V. Suslov (1857-1920) stand out.
The concept of “architectural monument” during this period had quite wide boundaries - it included objects of religious and civil architecture, and fortress ramparts. At the beginning of the 20th century. this concept included estates, the study of which began thanks to the work of art historians N. N. Wrangel (1880-1915) and Yu. I. Shamurin (no later than 1888-1918).
The vast majority of scientists of this time were members of archaeological and architectural and artistic societies. The role of scientific societies in the study and popularization of ancient monuments cannot be overestimated.
The largest archaeological societies were the Odessa Society of History and Antiquities (1839), the Russian Archaeological Society (1846) and the Moscow Archaeological Society (1864). Until 1889, the Russian Archaeological Society carried out an examination of projects for the restoration of architectural objects. Active members of these societies were famous scientists, artists and writers - F. I. Buslaev, I. E. Zabelin, M. P. Pogodin, S. M. Solovyov, V. O. Klyuchevsky, A. S. and P. S Uvarov, A. M. Vasnetsov, K. M. Bykovsky, etc.
The study of architectural monuments has become a priority activity of professional architectural and artistic societies - the Moscow Architectural Society (1876), the St. Petersburg Society of Architects (1872), the Society of Architects and Artists (1903), the Society for the Protection and Preservation of Art Monuments in Russia and antiquity (1909). In the sphere of attention of these societies there were not only objects medieval Rus'(built before 1725), but also monuments of the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. Members of these societies were famous architects and artists M. D. and K. M. Bykovsky, F. O. Shekhtel, N. V. Nikitin, L. V. Dal, G. D. Filimonov, A. N. Benois, M V. Dobuzhinsky, N. E. Lansere and others.
Experience in the preservation of ancient monuments, which was accumulated by Russian society and departments in the 19th - early 20th centuries. became a significant foundation on which the sphere of protection and museum construction began to develop in Soviet years.
Relying on everything achievements XIX- the beginning of the 20th century, the protection of ancient monuments since 1917 experienced all the hardships of the controversial, ambiguous Soviet era. First of all, this area fell into a strict ideological framework, which led to the constant ranking of all cultural heritage into separate categories depending on ideological priorities. Compared to the previous period Soviet era was a time of a certain confrontation between the state and society in the field of preserving monuments of art and antiquity. The condition of religious objects was especially critical, which was determined by the strained relations between the state and the church.
After the events of 1917, those problems in the field of heritage protection that were lively discussed in Russian society at the beginning of the 20th century sharply worsened. This applies, first of all, to the export of cultural property outside the country. The flow of exported valuables was so huge that this problem caused a sharp resonance in public circles.
In the first months of the new government's existence, this problem was only partially resolved at the legislative level. Separate government orders concerned the safety of only a few large museum collections and ancient monuments (Tretyakov Gallery and L. N. Tolstoy’s Yasnaya Polyana estate). And only on September 19, 1918, the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars “On the prohibition of the export and sale abroad of objects of special artistic and historical significance” was approved, which was one of the few legislative documents on ancient monuments during the entire Soviet period that was strictly implemented.
The general process of nationalization, characteristic of the first post-revolutionary years, also affected cultural heritage. On October 5, 1918, the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars “On the registration, registration and protection of monuments of art and antiquity owned by private individuals, societies and institutions” was issued, which determined the basis for state protection of heritage. Firstly, the first state registration of monumental and “material” monuments of art and antiquity was announced, no matter in whose possession they were. Secondly, strict control was established over all cultural heritage sites. All this became the basis for the formation of the state security system.
The most important element of this established state system was the creation of a central institution for the protection of monuments of art and antiquity and provincial protection bodies directly subordinate to the center. On May 28, 1918, the All-Russian Department for Museums and the Protection of Monuments of Art and Antiquities was created (Museum department) in the system of Narkompros, headed by N.I. Trotskaya (1882-1962). The most prominent professionals were involved in the work of the Museum Department: N. G. Mashkovtsev (1887-1962), T. G. Trapeznikov (1882-1926), P. P. Muratov (1881-1950), V. A. Gorodtsov (1860-1945) and others. In June 1918, the Commission for the Discovery of Monuments of Old Russian Painting (headed by I. E. Grabar) was formed under the Museum Department. The entire sphere of protection of monuments of art and antiquities was concentrated in this department. Its employees coordinated work in this area both in the center and in the provinces, solving problems of the National Museum Fund, accounting and restoration of monumental and “movable” objects. The Museum Department was tasked with saving the national heritage - removing cultural property from mansions and estates abandoned by the owners, accounting for them, as well as creating museums of various profiles on their basis. Emissaries of the department were sent to various parts of the country, where they compiled inventories of estate collections. By June 1919, 215 estates had been surveyed, and primarily, estates in the Moscow region and the Center of Russia.
Museums of various profiles were created on the basis of rescued cultural values, many regional museum collections were replenished with new exhibits. 33 new museums have appeared in Moscow and the Moscow region alone. Most museums were created on the basis of existing architectural ensembles- estates, monasteries, palaces. These were estate museums (19 - only in the Moscow region), museum-monasteries (among them Donskoy, Joseph-Volotsky, Kirillo-Belozersky, etc.), museum-palaces (Winter, Stroganovsky, Gatchina, Pavlovsky, Livadia, Vorontsovsky) .
Nationalized private collections became the basis of a number of unique museums— The first museum of the new Western painting(collection of S. I. Shchukin), the Second Museum of New Western Painting (collection of I. A. Morozov), Museum of Furniture (collection of V. O. Girshman), Museum of Porcelain (collection of A. V. Morozov), etc.
Thus, the activities of the centralized state system for the preservation of monuments of art and antiquities in the first post-revolutionary years gave enough effective results. Two of the most pressing problems of heritage protection were justified by law: illegal export of valuables and the formation of the foundations of state protection.
At the same time, the formation of a purely utilitarian attitude towards cultural heritage began - ancient monuments could be sold, rebuilt, and used for economic purposes. Religious buildings—churches and monasteries—were especially in a critical situation. Starting from January 20, 1918 (the date of publication of the decree on the separation of church and state) and until the spring of 1922 (the Volga famine relief campaign), church property was practically destroyed. The church lost everything - church and monastery buildings, objects cult ritual made from precious metals. Religious buildings that once belonged to the church were leased to communities of believers.
 |
| Vorontsov Palace (Saint Petersburg) |
1920s - early 1930s — new stage in the history of cultural heritage protection. All economic and political processes taking place in the country most directly influenced the spheres of protection and museum construction. In 1921 the country entered an era new economic policy. Self-financing and self-sufficiency - the main principles of the NEP - provided for the existence of a decentralized financing system. The entire burden of expenses for monuments and museums was to fall on the regional budget, and responsibility for their safety was to be borne by local executive committees. The regional budget was extremely meager and was spent mainly on reconstruction work after the devastating imperialist and civil wars. In this regard, many monuments were doomed to destruction - there were not enough funds for restoration, nor for routine repairs, nor for basic protection. Small museums simply closed.
The country began the process of re-registration of cultural heritage in order to identify the most valuable objects, which in practice meant ranking monuments. This process had not only an economic, but also a political background: the rich historical past began to be replaced by the history of the revolutionary movement, objects associated with “individual and collective actions directed against serfdom, tsarist autocracy and the capitalist system” were protected. Thus, in Russia as a whole, out of 540 estates recognized as valuable in the first post-revolutionary years, as of October 1, 1926, 221 estates were left registered. Legislatively, this process was justified by the Decree of March 8, 1923 “On the accounting and registration of objects of art and antiquities.”
 |
| Sukharev Tower |
By the end of the 1920s. Most of the estate museums, monastery museums, and museums formed on the basis of private collections were closed.
Unique architectural and historical monuments rebuilt, used for economic purposes, and destroyed. Suffice it to recall the destroyed most valuable monuments Moscow - the Cathedral of the Savior on Bor, the Chudov and Ascension Monasteries, the Small Nicholas Palace in the Kremlin, the Resurrection and Iversky Gates in Kitay-Gorod, the Kazan Cathedral, restored by P. D. Baranovsky shortly before its destruction, the Church of St. Nicholas the Great Cross (1680-1688). ), Sukharev Tower, Red Gate, etc. Many of the mentioned objects were restored after the revolution, and in the 1930s. they were no longer there.
In the years Great Patriotic War 1941-1945 The country's cultural foundation suffered huge losses. Unique architectural monuments of the Novgorod land (the Church of the Savior on Nereditsa, the Church of the Savior on Kovalevo, St. Nicholas on Lipna, the Assumption on Volotovo Pole, etc.) were literally turned into ruins. In Smolensk, the most valuable architectural objects were damaged and looted famous museum Russian antiquity M.K. Tenisheva. Particular damage was caused to the suburbs of Leningrad: in Peterhof the Great Peterhof Palace was looted and set on fire, the Great Cascade was blown up, and fountains were destroyed. In Pushkin, the Catherine Palace was damaged, its furniture and the famous Amber Room were taken to Germany; in Pavlovsk, the wall paintings of P. G. Gonzago were destroyed, the Pink Pavilion and the hunting lodge were burned.
 |
Accounting for destruction and examination of monuments damaged during hostilities (measurements, sketches, photographic recordings) were carried out by specialists even during the war years. In 1942, “Yasnaya Polyana” by L.N. Tolstoy, the house-museums of P.I. Tchaikovsky in Klin, and K.E. Tsiolkovsky in Kaluga were restored and opened to visitors. In October 1943, the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR issued a decree on the restoration of palace-museums in the suburbs of Leningrad. Restoration workshops opened in Novgorod and Pskov.
IN post-war years There was active activity to erect monuments at the sites of major battles, obelisks at the mass and single graves of fallen soldiers. On February 18, 1946, a decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR “On the registration of military graves and their improvement” was issued.
The preservation of religious architectural monuments even during the war years was positively influenced by the government’s policy towards the church. On May 22, 1947, a decree of the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR “On the Protection of Architectural Monuments” was issued, which emphasized that unique architectural monuments that preserved fresco paintings by outstanding masters should be used only for museum purposes or for their intended purpose.
Of utmost importance in the restoration of cultural heritage in the post-war period was the 1948 decree “On cultural monuments”, which provided a classification of historical and cultural objects subject to state protection (monuments of architecture, history, archeology and monumental art). This document raised the most important problem of using heritage - increasing the responsibility of tenants for the safety of the used object.
In the post-war history of cultural heritage protection, the years stand out "Khrushchev's thaw". The state policy of this period in the protection of cultural heritage was the most typical for the entire Soviet period. Minor achievements paled against the backdrop of numerous destructions of monuments and ignoring the opinions of experts. Many issues related to the fate of cultural heritage sites were resolved by unprofessional and incompetent people. By this time, three quarters of the existing monasteries were closed. By 1967, compared to 1958, out of 13,414 Orthodox churches, only 7,523 remained. All this led to the use of churches and monasteries for economic purposes, and often to their destruction. So, in the early 1960s. The Moscow Church of the Transfiguration in the village of Preobrazhenskoye - a monument to the era of Peter I - was blown up because it interfered with the construction of a metro station.
Despite the publication in 1962 of instructions on the organization of protected zones of architectural monuments, city centers radically changed their appearance. Dominant buildings appeared, distorting the historical buildings. Suffice it to recall the construction in 1963 of Kalininsky Prospekt, laid along the “living tissue” of old Moscow - the Arbat lanes.
Pre-perestroika years- Very important stage in the history of cultural heritage protection. In 1965, preparation began for a multi-volume encyclopedic publication - the Code of Historical and Cultural Monuments. The capital's scientific institutes and regional forces were involved in this work.
A huge number of previously unknown monuments were identified and described, many of which were subsequently included in state protection lists.
In the mid-1960s. have to create All-Russian Society for the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments (VOOPIiK), which was the only public organization for the protection of monuments throughout the Soviet years, and whose main task was to identify, study, protect and restore historical and cultural monuments. Having significant funds, the society provided enormous assistance to the state in preserving unique cultural heritage sites.
Among the founders of VOOPIiK were famous cultural figures - I. L. Andronikov, P. D. Baranovsky, I. E. Glazunov, L. M. Leonov, D. S. Likhachev, B. A. Rybakov. Branches of VOOPiK were opened in all regions, territories and republics of the RSFSR.
 |
| D.S. Likhachev |
The most important event in the protection of cultural heritage of those years was the adoption in 1978 of the law “On the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments.” This law defined the protection of monuments as one of the most important state tasks. This document raised current problems of heritage protection - accounting and use, conditions for the implementation of contractual obligations between tenants and state protection authorities.
Despite all the positive provisions of this law, its implementation was not always successful. The articles of the law on liability for damage to monuments were practically non-functional, the articles on the establishment of protective zones were implemented with great difficulty, and questions of financing were still acute.
In the early 1990s. Russia has entered a new stage of development, characterized by fundamental changes in the economy, political system, ideology. Finally, the ideological pressure of the administrative-party leadership, which had played a decisive role in cultural processes for several decades, was eliminated.
Post-Soviet period. In the 1990s. A series of laws related to the problems of preserving cultural heritage were adopted. On April 15, 1993, the law “On the Export and Import of Cultural Property” was published; on March 17, 1994, the regulation “On the Archive Fund of the Russian Federation” was approved; on November 23 of the same year, the Federal Law “On Librarianship” was adopted, on April 24, 1996 The Federal Law “On the Museum Fund of the Russian Federation” came into force, on April 15, 1998 - the Federal Law on the Restitution of Cultural Property (“On Cultural Property Moved to the USSR as a result of the Second World War and located on the territory of the Russian Federation”).
Despite these adopted legislative documents, there was an acute lack of a special law on the preservation of cultural heritage, which would reflect modern economic and social realities. The division of state property into federal and municipal, which was directly related to the fate of cultural heritage, required detailed legal development.
On July 25, 2002, the President of the Russian Federation approved the Federal Law “On objects of cultural heritage (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation,” which was prepared taking into account the latest European experience and the real economic and sociocultural situation in the country.
Based on international law, the law summarized the many years of work of domestic scientists to develop a conceptual and terminological field in the field of protection. The concepts presented in the law are inseparable from the pan-European tradition of a broad interpretation of the concept of “heritage”, which includes not only material objects, but also examples of spiritual culture, traditional technologies and forms of management. Monuments today are perceived in inextricable unity with their spatial environment, and the object of protection can be a territory with a unique layout, landscape and valuable cultural and cultural objects. natural heritage.
In law as it exists today various forms property objectives are clearly defined government agencies protection of cultural heritage, the problem of privatization of heritage objects is highlighted. Archaeological monuments, particularly valuable objects of cultural heritage, monuments and ensembles included in the List are unconditionally state property. World Heritage UNESCO, as well as objects of federal significance. All other objects can become private property if “the owner bears the burden of maintaining the object he owns.” An object of cultural heritage can be purchased by the state or sold during public auction if the owner does not fulfill his obligations.
The law also reflects all modern trends in the study of cultural and natural heritage as an integral phenomenon. The interdisciplinary nature of many modern research became the basis for a broad systematic approach to defining the concept of “heritage”. Closely related to this concept is the concept of unique historical, cultural and natural territories, according to which the unit of protection is not a monument or even an ensemble, but a territory.
Associated with a systematic approach to cultural heritage is the practice of “environmental” protection, with the help of which the problem of the relationship between old and new objects in urban development is solved. The concept of environment covers not only material objects and their spatial connections, but also a person, his behavioral acts, and ways of life.
The cultural and natural heritage of Russia is actively involved in the world cultural space. Our country is a full member of such authoritative international organizations as UNESCO, ICOM, ICOMOS. Many unique monuments in Russia are under the patronage of these organizations.
Modern domestic researchers are developing new methodological approaches to the protection of cultural and natural heritage that correspond to the international level. In perspective Russian practice security - network creation biosphere reserves, preservation unique territories with comprehensive regeneration of historical and cultural monuments, traditional forms of management and environmental management.
Issuance of a permit to carry out work to preserve a cultural heritage site of regional significance, an identified cultural heritage site
Conditions for receiving services at OIV
Who can apply for the service:
Legal entities
Individual entrepreneur
having a license to carry out activities to preserve cultural heritage sites
Cost of the service and payment procedure:
For free
List of required information:
Application for a permit to carry out work to preserve a cultural heritage site included in the unified state register of cultural heritage sites (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation, or an identified cultural heritage site (research and survey work at a cultural heritage site) (original , 1 PC.)
- Required
- Available without return
Submitted for obtaining permission in case of carrying out research and survey work at OKN.
Application for a permit to carry out work to preserve a cultural heritage object included in the unified state register of cultural heritage objects (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation, or an identified cultural heritage object (restoration of a cultural heritage object, reconstruction of a lost cultural heritage object, adaptation of the object cultural heritage for modern use) (original, 1 pc.)
- Required
- Available without return
It is submitted to obtain permission in the event of work on the restoration of the OKN, the reconstruction of a lost OKN, or the adaptation of the OKN for modern use.
Application for a permit to carry out work to preserve a cultural heritage site included in the unified state register of cultural heritage sites (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation, or an identified cultural heritage site (conservation, emergency work at a cultural heritage site) (original, 1 PC.)
- Required
- Available without return
Submitted to obtain permission in the event of conservation work and emergency response work at the OKN.
Application for a permit to carry out work to preserve a cultural heritage site included in the unified state register of cultural heritage sites (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation, or an identified cultural heritage site (repair of a cultural heritage site) (original, 1 piece)
- Required
- Available without return
Submitted to obtain permission in the event of repair work at the OKN.
Identity document of the person submitting the application (original, 1 pc.)
- Required
- Available without return
A document confirming the authority of the applicant’s representative to submit an application and documents necessary for the provision of public services on behalf of the applicant (when submitting an application signed by the applicant) (original, 1 pc.)
- Required
- Available without return
A document confirming the authority of the applicant’s representative to sign the application on behalf of the applicant (when submitting an application signed by the applicant’s representative) (original, 1 pc.)
- Required
- Available without return
A copy of the agreement for the development of project documentation for the preservation of a cultural heritage site (for carrying out research and survey work) by the applicant (certified copy, 1 pc.)
- Required
- Available without return
Graphic plan (schemes) indicating the locations of field research in the form of pits and soundings, signed by the applicant (original, 1 pc.)
- Required
- Available without return
Copies of the title pages of the project documentation with a stamp on its approval or a copy of the letter on the approval of the project documentation by the relevant body for the protection of cultural heritage sites (certified copy, 1 pc.)
- Required
- Available without return
A copy of the contract agreement for the applicant to carry out the restoration of a cultural heritage object, adapting the cultural heritage object for modern use with all changes and additions, applications existing at the time of filing the application (if any) (certified copy, 1 pc.)
- Required
- Available without return
A copy of the contract for conducting designer's supervision and (or) a copy of the order appointing the person responsible for carrying out the designer's supervision and a copy of the order appointing the person responsible for carrying out scientific supervision (certified copy, 1 pc.)
- Required
- Available without return
A copy of the agreement for technical supervision and (or) a copy of the order appointing the person responsible for carrying out technical supervision (certified copy, 1 pc.)
- Required
- Available without return
Project documentation (working) for conservation and emergency work, signed by authorized persons (original, 1 pc.)
- Required
- Available without return
A copy of the contract agreement for the applicant to carry out conservation and emergency work with all changes and additions, annexes existing at the time of filing the application (if any) (certified copy, 1 pc.)
- Required
- Available without return
A copy of the order of the contracting organization on the appointment of those associated with this organization in labor relations and specialists certified by the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation responsible for organizing the restoration work corresponding to their specialty, specified in the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of April 19, 2012 N 349 (copy, 1 pc.)
- Required
- Available without return
A copy of the contract for the applicant to carry out repair work (in order to maintain the cultural heritage site in operational condition without changing its features that constitute the subject of protection) with all changes and additions, annexes existing at the time of filing the application (if any) (certified copy, 1 pc. .)
- Required
- Available without return
Project documentation (working) or working drawings for local repair work with a statement of volumes (list, inventory) of such work, agreed with the customer (original, 1 pc.)
- Required
- Available without return
Terms of service provision
15 working days
Result of service provision
Issued:
- Permission to carry out work on the conservation of regional cultural heritage sites (working document, 1 pc.)
Receipt forms
Through a legal representative
- for objects of cultural heritage of federal significance - by the federal body for the protection of objects of cultural heritage;
- for cultural heritage sites of regional and local (municipal) significance - by the relevant regional body for the protection of cultural heritage sites.
You can go to the executive authorities of the city of Moscow as part of a pre-trial appeal.
Pre-trial (out-of-court) procedure for appealing decisions
and (or) actions (inaction) of the Department, its officials
persons, government civil servants
1. The applicant has the right to file a pre-trial (out-of-court) complaint against decisions taken (committed) in the provision of public services and (or) actions (inaction) of the Department, its officials, and state civil servants.
2. The filing and consideration of complaints is carried out in the manner established by Chapter 2.1 of the Federal Law of July 27, 2010 N 210-FZ “On the organization of the provision of state and municipal services”, the Regulations on the specifics of filing and consideration of complaints about violations of the procedure for the provision of public services in the city of Moscow , approved by Decree of the Moscow Government of November 15, 2011 N 546-PP “On the provision of state and municipal services in the city of Moscow”, these Regulations.
3. Applicants may file complaints in the following cases:
3.1. Violation of the deadline for registering a request (application) and other documents necessary for the provision of public services, as well as the procedure for registration and issuance of a receipt
in receiving a request and other documents (information) from the applicant.
3.2. Requirements from the applicant:
3.2.1. Documents or information or the implementation of actions, the presentation or implementation of which is not provided for by the regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation and the city of Moscow for the provision of public services, including documents obtained using interdepartmental information interaction.
3.2.2. Applications for the provision of services not included in the list of services approved by the Moscow Government that are necessary and mandatory for the provision of public services.
3.2.3. Payment of fees for the provision of public services not provided for by regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation and the city of Moscow.
3.2.4. Documents or information, the absence and (or) unreliability of which
were not indicated during the initial refusal to accept documents necessary for the provision of a public service, or to provide a public service,
except for the cases provided for in paragraph 4 of part 1 of article 7 of the Federal Law
dated July 27, 2010 No. 210-FZ “On the organization of the provision of state and municipal services.
3.3. Violations of the deadline for the provision of public services.
3.4. Refusal to the applicant:
3.4.1. In accepting documents, the submission of which is provided for by the regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation and the city of Moscow for the provision of public services, on grounds not provided for by the regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation and the city of Moscow.
3.4.2. In the provision of public services on grounds not provided for by the regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation and the city of Moscow.
3.4.3. In the correction of typographical errors and errors in documents issued as a result of the provision of public services, or in case of violation of the established deadline for such corrections.
3.5. Other violations of the procedure for providing public services established by regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation and the city of Moscow.
4. Complaints about decisions and (or) actions (inaction) of officials, state civil servants of the Department are considered by its head (authorized deputy head).
Complaints about decisions and (or) actions (inaction) of the head of the Department, including decisions made by him or his deputy on complaints received in a pre-trial (extrajudicial) manner, are considered by a higher executive body of the city of Moscow in accordance with clauses 5.6, 6 of the appendix 6 to the resolution of the Moscow Government of November 15, 2011 N 546-PP “On the provision of state and municipal services in the city of Moscow.”
5. Complaints may be filed with the executive authorities of the city of Moscow authorized to consider them in accordance with these Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the bodies authorized to consider complaints), in writing on paper or in electronic form in one of the following ways:
5.1. Upon personal application by the applicant (applicant’s representative).
5.2. By post.
5.3. Using the official websites of bodies authorized to consider complaints on the Internet.
6. The complaint must contain:
6.1. The name of the body authorized to consider the complaint or the position and (or) surname, first name and patronymic (if any) of the relevant official to whom the complaint is sent.
6.2. The name of the executive authority of the city of Moscow or the position and (or) surname, first name, patronymic (if any) of the official, state civil servant, whose decisions and (or) actions (inaction) are being appealed.
6.3. Last name, first name, patronymic (if any), information about the place of residence of the applicant - an individual, including one registered as an individual entrepreneur, or name, information about the location of the applicant - a legal entity, as well as contact telephone number(s), address (addresses) email (if available) and postal address to which the response should be sent to the applicant.
6.4. The date of submission and registration number of the request (application) for the provision of a public service (except for cases of appealing the refusal to accept the request and its registration).
6.5. Information about decisions and (or) actions (inactions) that are the subject of appeal.
6.6. Arguments on the basis of which the applicant does not agree with the appealed decisions and (or) actions (inactions). The applicant may submit documents (if any) confirming the applicant’s arguments, or copies thereof.
6.7. Applicant's requirements.
6.8. List of documents attached to the complaint (if any).
6.9. Date of filing the complaint.
7. The complaint must be signed by the applicant (his representative). If a complaint is filed in person, the applicant (applicant's representative) must provide an identification document.
The authority of the representative to sign the complaint must be confirmed by a power of attorney issued in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation.
The powers of a person acting on behalf of an organization without a power of attorney on the basis of the law, other regulatory legal acts and constituent documents are confirmed by documents certifying his official position, as well as the constituent documents of the organization.
The status and powers of legal representatives of an individual are confirmed by documents provided for by federal laws.
8. A received complaint must be registered no later than the working day following the day of receipt.
9. The maximum period for consideration of a complaint is 15 working days from the date of its registration. The period for consideration of the complaint is 5 working days from the date of its registration in cases of appeal by the applicant:
9.1. Refusal to accept documents.
9.2. Refusal to correct typos and errors made in documents issued as a result of the provision of public services.
9.3. Violations of the deadline for correcting typos and errors.
10. Based on the results of consideration of the complaint, a decision is made to satisfy the complaint (in whole or in part) or to refuse to satisfy the complaint.
11. The decision must contain:
11.1. Name of the body that considered the complaint, position, surname, first name, patronymic (if any) of the official who made the decision on the complaint.
11.2. Details of the decision (number, date, place of adoption).
11.3. Last name, first name, patronymic (if any), information about the place of residence of the applicant - an individual, including one registered as an individual entrepreneur, or the name, information about the location of the applicant - a legal entity.
11.4. Last name, first name, patronymic (if any), information about the place of residence of the applicant’s representative who filed the complaint on behalf of the applicant.
11.5. Method of filing and date of registration of the complaint, its registration number.
11.6. Subject of the complaint (information about the decisions, actions, or inactions being appealed).
11.7. The circumstances established during the consideration of the complaint and the evidence confirming them.
11.8. Legal grounds for making a decision on a complaint with reference to the applicable regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation and the city of Moscow.
11.9. The decision taken on the complaint (conclusion on the satisfaction of the complaint or refusal to satisfy it).
11.10. Information on actions taken by the Department in order to immediately eliminate identified violations in the provision of public services,
as well as an apology for the inconvenience caused and information about further actions that the applicant needs to take in order to receive a public service (if the complaint is upheld) or reasoned explanations about the reasons for the decision (in case the complaint is refused).
11.11. Procedure for appealing a decision.
11.12. Signature of the authorized official.
12. The decision is made in writing using official forms.
13. The measures to eliminate identified violations specified in the decision include:
13.1. Cancel earlier decisions taken(in whole or in part).
13.2. Ensuring the acceptance and registration of the request, execution and issuance of a receipt to the applicant (in case of evasion or unreasonable refusal to accept documents and their registration).
13.3. Ensuring registration and delivery to the applicant of the result of the provision of a public service (in case of evasion or unreasonable refusal to provide a public service).
13.4. Correction of typos and errors made in documents issued as a result of the provision of public services.
13.5. Refund to the applicant of funds, the collection of which is not provided for by the regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation and the city of Moscow.
14. The body authorized to consider the complaint refuses to satisfy it in the following cases:
14.1. Recognition of the appealed decisions and (or) actions (inactions) as legal and not violating the rights and freedoms of the applicant.
14.2. Filing a complaint by a person whose powers have not been confirmed in the manner established by regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation and the city of Moscow.
14.3. The applicant does not have the right to receive public services.
14.4. Availability:
14.4.1. A court decision on the applicant’s complaint with identical subject matter and grounds that has entered into legal force.
14.4.2. Decisions on a complaint made earlier in a pre-trial (out-of-court) manner in relation to the same applicant and on the same subject of the complaint (except for cases of appealing previously made decisions to a higher authority).
15. The complaint must be left unanswered on its merits in the following cases:
15.1. The presence in the complaint of obscene or offensive language, threats to the life, health and property of officials, as well as members of their families.
15.2. If the text of the complaint (part of it), last name, postal address and email address are not readable.
15.3. If the complaint does not indicate the name of the applicant (the applicant's representative) or the postal address and email address to which the response should be sent.
15.4. If the body authorized to consider the complaint received a request from the applicant (the applicant’s representative) to withdraw the complaint before a decision on the complaint is made.
16. The decision to satisfy the complaint or to refuse to satisfy the complaint is sent to the applicant (the applicant’s representative) no later than the working day following the day of its adoption, to the postal address specified in the complaint. At the request of the applicant, the decision is also sent to the email address specified in the complaint (in the form of an electronic document signed with the electronic signature of an authorized official). In the same manner, the applicant (the applicant’s representative) is sent a decision on the complaint, in which only an email address is indicated for the response, and the postal address is missing or cannot be read.
17. If the complaint is left unanswered on the merits, the applicant (his representative) is sent, no later than the working day following the day of registration of the complaint, a written motivated notification indicating the grounds (except for cases where the postal address and email address are not indicated in the complaint email for a response or they are unreadable). The notice is sent in the manner established for sending a decision on a complaint.
18. A complaint filed in violation of the rules on competence established by paragraph 5.4 of these Regulations is sent no later than the working day following the day of its registration to the body authorized to consider the complaint, with simultaneous written notification to the applicant (his representative) about the redirection complaints (except for cases where the complaint does not indicate a postal address and email address for a response or they are not legible). The notice is sent in the manner established for sending a decision on a complaint.
19. Filing a complaint in a pre-trial (out-of-court) manner does not exclude the right of the applicant (applicant’s representative) to simultaneously or subsequently file a complaint in court.
20. Informing applicants about the judicial and pre-trial (extrajudicial) procedure for appealing decisions and (or) actions (inactions) committed in the provision of public services should be carried out by:
20.1. Placing relevant information on the Portal of state and municipal services (functions) of the city of Moscow and stands in places where public services are provided.
20.2. Consulting applicants, including by telephone, email, and in person.
21. If, during or as a result of consideration of a complaint, signs of an administrative offense or crime are established, the official empowered to consider the complaint immediately forwards the available materials to the prosecutor’s office.
2. Termination or suspension of one or more documents necessary for the provision of public services.
3. The applicant submitted an incomplete set of documents that are subject to mandatory submission by the applicant.
4. The submitted documents contain unreliable and (or) contradictory information.
5. The application was signed and (or) submitted by an unauthorized person.
6. Application for the provision of a public service by a person who is not a recipient of the public service in accordance with the Regulations for the provision of the service.
7. The applicant’s application for a public service, the provision of which is not carried out by the Department or is carried out in accordance with other administrative regulations for the provision of public services.
Grounds for refusal to provide services
1. Grounds for refusal to accept documents necessary for the provision of public services, if they are identified after acceptance of the application and other documents necessary for the provision of public services.
2. The types of work specified in the application for a permit do not correspond to the previously agreed project documentation for the preservation of the cultural heritage site.
3. Suspension of activities (liquidation) of the legal entity - the applicant.
4. The applicant does not have a license to carry out work to preserve cultural heritage sites, or the types of work specified in the application for a Permit are not included in the applicant’s license to carry out such work.
5. Non-compliance of documents with the requirements of Articles 5.1, 36, 40, 41, 42, 45, 47.2, 47.3 of the Federal Law of June 25, 2002 No. 73-FZ “On objects of cultural heritage (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation.”
This idea is being discussed in the Government of the Russian Federation. The decision must be made before the end of 2016
"Keepers of the Legacy"
The preservation of cultural heritage can become a priority national project in Russia. Currently, the Government of the Russian Federation is considering proposals from the Federal Ministry of Culture to include the “Culture” direction in the list of main directions of the country’s strategic development. The concept provides for implementation in 2017-2030. priority projects “Preservation of cultural heritage” and “Culture of the small Motherland”.
According to our information, the concepts of these projects are expected to be presented in December 2016 at the International St. Petersburg Cultural Forum. If the project receives support from the Government (it is expected that the decision should be made before the end of 2016), the issue will be submitted for discussion to the Council under the President of the Russian Federation for Strategic Development and Priority Projects.
Objectives and meanings
The project developers relied on the “Fundamentals of State Cultural Policy” approved by the presidential decree, as well as on the current “National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation”, according to which culture is one of the strategic national priorities.
The basic principle priority project “Preservation of Cultural Heritage” stated “Preservation through Development”: “Increasing the accessibility of cultural heritage sites, cultural and economic development of territories, education and spiritual development citizens based on cultural heritage."
The project is designed, according to the initiators, to solve the following tasks:
Identification, inclusion in the state register and cataloging of cultural heritage objects;
Improving state protection of cultural heritage sites;
Conducting scientific research in the field of heritage conservation and developing scientific and design documentation;
Restoration, conservation and adaptation of cultural heritage sites based on comprehensive programs using foreign experience and best practices;
Creation of a modern domestic restoration industry;
Organization of maintenance and profitable use of cultural heritage sites, increasing its accessibility for the population;
Popularization of cultural heritage, including using modern information technologies;
Development cultural tourism based on the use of cultural heritage objects restored and put into cultural circulation;
Promoting the development of a mass volunteer and voluntary movement for the preservation of cultural heritage;
Legal, financial and personnel support for the processes of preserving cultural heritage.
The project is planned to be implemented in 3 stages: 2017 – 1st quarter of 2018; Q2 2018 – 2024; 2025 – 2030
According to the concept, at the first stage no additional expenditures from the state budget will be required, and at stages 2 and 3 in the field of cultural heritage conservation, additional funding in the amount of 30 billion rubles is planned (including from income from monuments restored and introduced into cultural and economic circulation - “ with a total area of 400 thousand sq. m annually").
Global context
Judging by the concept of the project, its initiators are well aware that the importance of preserving the national cultural heritage goes far beyond the scope of a specialized industry. The project developers very carefully studied the latest European experience, in particular, the announcement by the European Union of 2018 as the Year of European Cultural Heritage and the presentation in June 2016 in the European Union of the Strategy for the development of the cultural dimension of foreign policy, which meets the most important priority of the European Commission - strengthening the position of the European Union as a global player. The documents of the European Commission emphasize the importance of preserving the cultural heritage of Europe not only to encourage cultural diversity, develop tourism, attract additional investments, introduce new management models and increase the economic potential of territories, but also to form and “promote” a “pan-European identity.”
In this context, the initiators of the project conclude, “it is obvious that Russia, being a country with a large number of cultural heritage sites and its own national code, is also interested in preserving cultural heritage sites, since they constitute a visible memory and the basis for subsequent development.”
Regional aspect
The project is planned to be implemented primarily in the regions of Russia with a “high density of cultural heritage sites”: Novgorod, Pskov, Smolensk, Arkhangelsk, Vologda, Bryansk, Yaroslavl, Kostroma, Kaluga regions, as well as in certain regions of the Caucasus and Southern Siberia. According to our information, the role of “pilot regions” is destined for experts in the Tver and Kostroma regions.
Particular attention should be paid – with the aim of preserving not only heritage sites, but also the cities and settlements themselves, which, according to a fair assessment of the project’s authors, is in itself a national strategic task. Territorial planning for the implementation of the project will be coordinated with the system plans of the Ministry of Economic Development for the development of social infrastructure in the regions. When implementing the project, the Ministry of Culture plans to coordinate efforts with the Ministry of Economic Development, the Federal Property Management Agency, the Ministry of Construction, the Ministry of Labor and other federal departments.
Plans and indicators
According to the calculated indicators of the priority project “Preservation of Cultural Heritage”, the share of monuments, information about which , by the end of 2016 should reach 70%, in 2017 – 80%, and from 2019 should be 100%.
From 2019 it is expected restore and introduce“for profitable use” of cultural heritage objects - 400 thousand sq. m. m annually.
Volume off-budget funding“measures for the preservation of cultural heritage sites” are planned to increase 60 times over 15 years. In 2016 it should be 1 billion rubles, in 2017 - 5, in 2018 - 8, in 2019 - 10, in 2020 - 15, in 2021 - 20, in 2022 - m – 25, in 2023 – 30, in 2024 – 35, and in 2030 – 60 billion rubles.
At the same time, the volume of attracted extra-budgetary funds from 2018 should significantly exceed the volume of similar state budget investments. For comparison, the project concept assumes them as follows: 2016 – 6.9 billion rubles; 2017 – 8.5; 2018 – 8.1; 2019 – 7.6; 2020 – 9.3; 2021 – 8.9; 2022 – 8.3; 2023 – 10.2; 2024 – 9.8; 2030 – 9.1 billion
True, the project also involves additional funding starting from 2019 preservation of monuments from the federal budget - 30 billion rubles each. annually.
In general, towards the end of 2030 it will be extremely interesting to discuss the state of affairs and current prospects with the initiators of the project.
For “Keepers of Heritage” comment on the idea of the priority project “Preservation of Cultural Heritage”
Alexander Zhuravsky, Deputy Minister of Culture of Russia:
Preservation of heritage must be recognized as a priority of socio-economic development
It seems extremely important that culture should appear among the priority areas that are considered at the Council under the President of the Russian Federation for Strategic Development and Priority Projects. After all, culture - along with the military-industrial complex, nuclear energy and space - is the sphere in which Russia globally competitive.
The cultural sector in Russia not only needs investment, it needs strategic development and competent project management. If this is not done, it will gradually lose its competitiveness.
Any country and its citizens are distinguished by a special cultural and civilizational type. If the preservation and development of culture and its competitiveness does not become a strategic priority for the state, then sooner or later the country or civilization loses its identity, which is eroded by more competitive civilizations. Today we see how European civilization experiencing difficulties with the sociocultural adaptation of arriving migrant communities. Including because for the “new Europeans” European culture does not seem native, attractive and strong. The crisis of pan-European political integration coincided with the almost official recognition of the failure of the European project of multiculturalism.
Therefore, today Europe, in search of a reliable foundation for its civilizational identity, turns to culture, and first of all, to its cultural heritage. It is in it, and not in supranational political institutions, that European civilization rediscovers (or tries to find) its own identity. That is why 2018 has been declared the Year of European Cultural Heritage in Europe.
We have a lot in common not only with the East. We have a lot in common with Europe, and, above all, culturally, in terms of cultural heritage. Let us at least remember Aristotle Fioravanti, let us remember the Italian architects of Russian classicism. Even common ones historical comparisons– “Russian Venice”, “Russian Switzerland”, etc. - talk about how much of our culture is rooted in a common European heritage. At the same time, there were periods when European culture influenced us to a greater extent, and there were periods when Russia influenced other European cultures. In literature, theater, ballet, performing arts. And even in architecture, especially if we talk about the contribution of the Russian avant-garde. Therefore, we also need to understand culture and the preservation of cultural heritage as a priority direction in the socio-economic development of our country.
Moreover, we have something to rely on: the Fundamentals of State Cultural Policy were approved by presidential decree, and this year the Strategy of State Cultural Policy was adopted. We propose - as part of the implementation of these strategic documents - to introduce the preservation of cultural heritage among the priority projects, to move in this area to real project management, which will allow us to solve in the foreseeable future many problems that have arisen over two decades. This applies to the reform of the restoration industry, and changes in legislation, and changes in the field of historical and cultural expertise, and the introduction of effective foreign experience, and changes in mental approaches to cultural heritage. A new class of managers of complex restoration projects is needed, who understand not only restoration, but also cultural economics, urban planning, and modern adaptive technologies.
Everywhere in the world we observe processes of valorization, capitalization of cultural heritage, active use of this resource in economic processes, in the development of territories and regions. 40% of the construction market in Europe is work with historical buildings. But in our country, monuments are still perceived as “unprofitable assets.” The status of a cultural heritage site reduces the investment attractiveness of a restoration project. Conditions, including those of a tax nature, have not yet been created for the large-scale attraction of investors and philanthropists into the restoration sector, as has been done in a number of foreign countries with comparable cultural heritage.
According to experts, the total amount of investment required to bring tens of thousands of Russian cultural heritage sites into satisfactory condition is about 10 trillion rubles. It is clear that there are no such funds. And even if they suddenly magically appeared, there are no restoration capacities and no such number of restorers to use these funds effectively. Thousands of monuments simply cannot wait until their turn comes or when the appropriate funds and capacities become available.
Hence, it is necessary to change the heritage management system. We need systemic actions that can radically change the situation. It’s not normal when 160 thousand monuments “hang” on the state budget, it’s not normal when expensive real estate that once adorned our cities is in a deplorable or even ruined state. The primary task is not even to increase budget investments, but to create civilized market of cultural heritage objects, with various forms of public-private partnership, which can be attended by a philanthropist, investor, or entrepreneur. We often like to compare ourselves to the United States. So, in the USA, for example, the key philanthropist in the field of culture is not the state (it accounts for only about 7% of total expenditures on culture), and not the money of large corporations and billionaires (about 8.4%), but individual donations ( about 20 percent), charitable foundations (about 9%) and income from endowment funds (about 14%), which also come from private or corporate income. I am not calling for a reduction in government support for culture, on the contrary. But I believe, following the experts in this field, that it is necessary at a more systemic level to form a multi-channel system of financing culture in general and the preservation of cultural heritage in particular.
At the same time, what is needed is not a mechanical increase in funding for heritage conservation, but competent management of resources and their regrouping. There is a need for public consolidation in preserving the national heritage, combining the efforts of the state with public organizations, with volunteer movements through which you can involve young people in preserving heritage and explain to them its significance. And, of course, fundamental work is needed to popularize cultural heritage, which sets all of us the task of expanding educational activities in this area.
To solve all these problems, we consider it necessary formation of the Project Office on the basis of AUIPK, which will generate projects in the field of cultural heritage conservation and organize their implementation. It is necessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach, implement heritage-related pilot projects in a number of regions, and create a model of effective management in this area. These should be “start-up” projects that stimulate investment activity, the development of small and medium-sized businesses, and the creation of new jobs. Another project office - "Roskultproekt" - is being created to implement other priority projects in the field of culture, to carry out analytical and project activities, as well as monitoring state cultural policy.
And, of course, I repeat, it is necessary to popularize our heritage, to clarify its deep, ontological meaning as an integral part of the national cultural code.
The Ministry of Culture sent relevant materials to the Government justifying the need to consider culture as another (twelfth) priority area, and “Preservation of cultural heritage” as a priority project. The project will be presented in December at the International St. Petersburg Cultural Forum. We hope that this initiative will be supported in one form or another. We expect that the decision will be made before the end of 2016.
Oleg Ryzhkov, head of the Agency for the Management and Use of Historical and Cultural Monuments (AUIPK):
Why do we have the FSB Academy, but not the Academy of Heritage Guardians?
The national project “Preservation of Cultural Heritage” should, from the very beginning, rely on specific projects implemented in the regions. The idea of making cultural heritage conservation a driver of economic and social development several regions of Russia was suggested to us by experts with whom the Ministry of Culture held consultations. There are regions with extremely high concentrations of cultural heritage sites, and this resource must be taken advantage of. The involvement of monuments in economic and tourist circulation should give a positive impetus to the regional economy: in addition to creating additional jobs, replenishing the tax revenue base and developing tourism, heritage preservation will increase the investment attractiveness of the region. Experts recommended the Tver and Kostroma regions as pilot regions, but, of course, the project is designed for implementation in all heritage-rich regions of the North-West and Central Russia.
The point of the project is to the preservation of cultural heritage has taken its rightful place in the country’s economic system. Now everyone is “using” the heritage resource, but they are not investing in it adequately in return. For example, heritage resources are actively exploited by the tourism industry - but does it invest in it? Regions already receive income from the development of small and medium-sized businesses related to heritage - but does heritage receive worthy investments from regional budgets?
The national project will give investment priorities and create a situation where regions and local communities will not passively wait for someone to come and start saving their monuments and creating points of economic growth - but will begin to do this themselves. You need to invest in the basic resource, in the heritage, and not to the businesses that exploit it.
Of course, the project has an ideological component: it is necessary to change people’s attitude towards the heritage of their region, their small homeland, your country - as your property. This, from my point of view, is the education of patriotism, not by abstract appeals, but real projects, in which local communities should be involved.
Of course, the popularization of the architectural heritage, work on its preservation - as scientific, innovative, creative activity– should be a significant part of the information policy of federal media, primarily television.
From our point of view, a certain restructuring of the administration system in the field of heritage will be required. The emphasis must shift from “protecting” heritage to “preserving” it. Naturally, not by weakening security and state control as such, but by integrating these tools into systemic government policy.
It is necessary, of course, to create professional training system for the field of heritage conservation, a system of scientific and educational institutions. Why do we have, for example, the Higher School of Economics, the FSB Academy, but not the Higher School or the Academy of Heritage Guardians? Abroad to train such professionals – in France, for example, out of 600 applicants for positions in state heritage protection bodies, only 20 people are selected. And then after this they must undergo special training for another 18 months, and only then are they “allowed” to the monuments. In European countries there is a whole specialized branch of science - Heritage Science, dedicated to cultural heritage and its preservation, including with the help of the latest physics, chemistry, and microbiology.
We consider AUIPIC as a unique national project site. Already today, projects are being implemented and developed at our sites in which approaches to preserving heritage are being developed as part of the strategy for the development of territories and regions.
For example, we have begun working with Ingushetia on the extremely promising project “Cultural Landscape of Dzheirakh-Ass,” which will make this reserve a point of growth for the republican economy.
We have very interesting project in Uglich, where, on the basis of the historical Zimin mansion and the adjacent territory, we expect to create a Center for Handicrafts with Fair Square, which will combine museum and educational functions with shopping and entertainment in its activities. And at the same time increase the tourist attractiveness of the city - in various ways, including recreating the production technology of Russian glass beads of the 13th century, known from excavations.
We continue to work on the project in Peterhof, which involves not only the restoration of a complex of architectural monuments, but also the reconstruction of the national Russian riding school as an intangible cultural heritage. We are working on this together with specialists from the French Equestrian Heritage Council - they were very enthusiastic about this undertaking.
An interesting project is taking shape in the industrial
in the Tambov region, where we plan not only to restore the surviving buildings, but to revive this estate as a functioning economic complex, which will give impetus to the development of the entire territory.
Header photo: volunteer cleanup to save the flooded church of the Krokhinsky churchyard (18th century) in the Vologda region.
Rabotkevich A.V., Head of the Department (Inspection) for the Protection of Cultural Heritage Objects of the Federal Service of the Russian Federation for Supervision of Compliance with Legislation in the Sphere of Mass Communications and the Protection of Cultural Heritage
1. Objects of cultural heritage (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation
Objects of cultural heritage and their main features
Objects of cultural heritage (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as objects of cultural heritage) are “objects of real estate with associated works of painting, sculpture, decorative and applied art, objects of science and technology and other objects of material culture that arose as a result of historical events, of value from the point of view of history, archaeology, architecture, urban planning, art, science and technology, aesthetics, ethnology or anthropology, social culture and being evidence of eras and civilizations, authentic sources of information about the origin and development of culture.”
The Constitution of the Russian Federation defines the duty of everyone to take care of the preservation of the cultural heritage of the peoples of the Russian Federation and gives everyone the right to access cultural values associated with cultural heritage sites.
Interdepartmental nature of relations related to cultural heritage objects
Relations in the field of state protection, preservation, use and popularization of cultural heritage objects are regulated by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, documents of international law in the field of cultural heritage, the Fundamentals of the legislation of the Russian Federation on culture, Federal Law dated June 25, 2002 No. 73-FZ “On cultural heritage objects (historical monuments) and culture) of the peoples of the Russian Federation" (hereinafter - FZ-73) and the laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation adopted in accordance with it.
Other relations in the field of cultural heritage objects are regulated by civil legislation, land legislation, legislation on urban planning and architectural activities, environmental protection, administrative and criminal liability and other sections of legislation, taking into account the provisions of Federal Law-73.
1.3. Main characteristics of cultural heritage sites
In accordance with Federal Law-73:
1) buildings, structures, memorial apartments, burials, works of monumental art, objects of archaeological heritage, groups of the above objects, as well as places of existence of folk arts and crafts, centers of historical settlements or fragments of urban planning and development, memorable places, cultural and natural landscapes, cultural layers, remains of buildings of ancient cities, settlements, villages, sites, places of religious rites;
2) types of cultural heritage objects have been established - monuments, ensembles and places of interest;
3) objects of cultural heritage are divided into categories of historical and cultural significance: federal, regional and local (municipal);
4) a separate object of cultural heritage may be of value from the point of view of history, archaeology, architecture, urban planning, art, science and technology, aesthetics, ethnology or anthropology, social culture;
5) regardless of the category of historical and cultural significance, objects of cultural heritage may be in federal ownership, the property of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, municipal property, private property, as well as in other forms of ownership, unless a different order is established by federal law;
6) objects of cultural heritage can be used for administrative, residential, socio-cultural, socio-political, religious, industrial and other purposes, if this does not contradict the established requirements for ensuring their safety;
7) land plots within the boundaries of the territories of cultural heritage sites are, in the prescribed manner, classified as lands of historical and cultural significance, the legal regime of which is regulated by land legislation and Federal Law-73;
8) sources of financing for measures for state protection, preservation and popularization of cultural heritage objects are the federal budget, budgets of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, local budgets, extra-budgetary revenues;
9) provision is made for the provision of benefits and compensation to users and owners of cultural heritage sites who have invested their funds in work to preserve cultural heritage sites;
10) control over the condition of cultural heritage objects is provided.
2. State protection of cultural heritage sites
Main functions of state protection of cultural heritage sites
In accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the protection of cultural heritage sites (historical and cultural monuments) is the subject of joint responsibility of the Russian Federation and the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.
Federal Law-73 includes the following measures for state protection of cultural heritage objects:
1) state control over compliance with legislation in the field of protection and use of cultural heritage sites;
2) state registration of objects that have the characteristics of a cultural heritage object in accordance with Art. 3 Federal Law-73, formation and maintenance of the register;
3) conducting historical and cultural examination;
4) establishing liability for damage, destruction or destruction of an object of cultural heritage, moving an object of cultural heritage, causing damage to an object of cultural heritage, changing the appearance and interior of this object of cultural heritage, which are the subject of protection of this object of cultural heritage;
5) approval, in cases and in the manner established by Federal Law No. 73, of draft zones for the protection of cultural heritage sites, land management, urban planning and design documentation, urban planning regulations, as well as decisions of federal executive authorities, executive authorities of constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local governments on land allocation and changing their legal regime;
6) control over the development of urban planning and design documentation, urban planning regulations, which should provide for measures to ensure the maintenance and use of cultural heritage sites in accordance with the requirements of Federal Law-73;
7) development of projects for protection zones of cultural heritage sites;
8) issuance, in cases established by Federal Law-73, of permits to carry out land management, excavation, construction, reclamation, economic and other work;
9) approval, in cases and in the manner established by Federal Law-73, of land management, excavation, construction, reclamation, economic and other work and projects for carrying out these works;
10) issuing, in cases established by Federal Law-73, permits to carry out work to preserve a cultural heritage site;
11) establishing the boundaries of the territory of a cultural heritage site as an object of urban planning activities of special regulation;
12) installation of information inscriptions and signs at cultural heritage sites;
13) control over the condition of cultural heritage objects;
14) other events, the implementation of which is classified by Federal Law-73 and the laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation under the powers of the relevant authorities for the protection of cultural heritage sites.
Currently, in accordance with paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 of Art. 63 FZ-73, before registering a cultural heritage object in the Register, the rules for the protection, restoration and use of historical and cultural monuments, approved by Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR dated September 16, 1982 No. 865 and Art. 31, 34, 35, 40, 42 of the RSFSR Law “On the Protection and Use of Historical and Cultural Monuments”, according to which the implementation of the relevant powers for the protection and use of historical and cultural monuments is carried out by state bodies for the protection of historical and cultural monuments regardless of their category of historical and cultural significance.
The above rules ensure the continuity and continuity of the functions of state protection of cultural heritage objects during the transition period of Federal Law-73.
Federal legislation provides for the possibility of transferring federal powers for state protection of cultural heritage sites to the relevant regional bodies for the protection of cultural heritage sites.
It is advisable to consider the following as the main conditions for such a transfer:
1) the presence of an independent executive body of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation authorized in the field of protection of cultural heritage objects;
2) approval by the Federal Service for Supervision of Compliance with Legislation in the Sphere of Mass Communications and the Protection of Cultural Heritage Objects of the appointment and removal from office of the head of the relevant regional body for the protection of cultural heritage objects, as well as issues of reorganization (liquidation) of this body;
3) the presence of qualified specialists in the relevant regional body for the protection of cultural heritage sites;
4) control over the implementation of delegated powers by the federal body for the protection of cultural heritage objects.
Features of the transition period of implementation of the Federal Law “On objects of cultural heritage (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation” until 2010
In order to bring relations in the field of cultural heritage of the peoples of the Russian Federation in accordance with Federal Law-73, the specified law defines a transition period until 2010.
During the transition period, the following activities must be implemented:
1) develop and approve normative legal acts, the publication of which is assigned by Federal Law-73 to the powers of the Government of the Russian Federation, and the laws of the relevant constituent entities of the Russian Federation in the field of cultural heritage;
2) adopt a federal law delineating objects of cultural heritage that are in state ownership into federal property, property of constituent entities of the Russian Federation and municipal property;
3) register in a single state register objects of cultural heritage objects of cultural heritage included in the specified register in accordance with Art. 64 FZ-73;
4) register in the unified state register of rights to real estate and transactions with it the requirements for the preservation of cultural heritage objects set out in security lease agreements, security agreements and security obligations Oh;
5) re-issue lease agreements for cultural heritage objects and agreements for the free use of cultural heritage objects that are state-owned, with the participation of cultural heritage protection authorities;
6) ensure compliance with the procedure for approving urban planning and scientific design documentation and the procedure for approving and issuing permits for excavation, construction, reclamation, economic and other work, established by Art. 31, 34, 35, 40, 42 of the RSFSR Law “On the protection and use of historical and cultural monuments”;
7) when developing regulations on historical settlements, determine the procedure for developing and approving complex (united) zones for the protection of cultural heritage sites in the territories within the boundaries of which cultural heritage sites of various categories of historical and cultural significance are located.
System of state protection of cultural heritage objects
The effectiveness of the implementation of measures for state protection of cultural heritage objects largely depends on the organization of the state protection system in the Russian Federation.
During the period of validity of the RSFSR Law of December 15, 1978 “On the Protection and Use of Historical and Cultural Monuments,” the state protection system included the Ministry of Culture of Russia and local state bodies for the protection of historical and cultural monuments represented by cultural bodies or other government bodies.
In accordance with the Decrees of the President of the Russian Federation dated 03/09/04 No. 314 and dated 05/20/04 No. 649, the Ministry of Culture and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation (Ministry of Culture of Russia), the Federal Service for Supervision of Compliance with Legislation in the Sphere of Mass Communications and the Protection of Cultural Heritage was established in the field of protection of cultural heritage heritage (Rosokhrankultura) and the Federal Agency for Culture and Cinematography (Roskultura).
The powers of the Ministry of Culture of Russia include the implementation of state policy and legal regulation in the field of state protection, conservation, use and popularization of cultural heritage objects.
The powers of Roskultura include maintaining a unified state register of cultural heritage objects and organizing a state historical and cultural examination of cultural heritage objects.
The powers of Rosokhrankultura include the remaining functions of the federal body for the protection of cultural heritage objects, defined by Federal Law-73.
From the perspective practical implementation functions of state protection of cultural heritage objects, the division of these powers between Rosokhrankultura and Roskultura is inappropriate, because in accordance with Art. 33 FZ-73, state protection is a single process, state accounting is its basis, and state historical and cultural examination is the basis for making decisions within the competence of Rosokhrankultura. The division of powers between the Federal Services and Federal Agencies is based on the principle of separating control and supervisory functions from the functions of managing state property and providing paid services.
Maintaining a unified state register of cultural heritage objects and conducting state historical and cultural examination cannot be considered as an activity for the provision of paid services, since:
1) the scope of work for maintaining the Register, established by Art. 20 FZ-73 does not contain measures for the use of information contained in the Register, but is aimed exclusively at registration, documentation and information support and monitoring of Register data;
2) Rosokhrankultura cannot issue assignments, permits, instructions and coordinate documentation related to cultural heritage objects, without being able to promptly organize the necessary historical and cultural examination;
3) conducting a state historical and cultural examination is a non-profit research activity, as a result of which no income is generated, and all funds received from the client of the examination are used exclusively for organizing and conducting a historical and cultural examination.
Taking into account the above, it is advisable to combine the functions of state protection of cultural heritage objects, as not related to legal regulation and management of state property, in the Federal Service for Supervision of Compliance with Legislation in the Sphere of Mass Communications and Protection of Cultural Heritage.
The organization of the activities of state bodies for the protection of cultural heritage sites in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation currently requires improvement.
In accordance with the Law of the RSFSR dated December 15, 1978 “On the protection and use of historical and cultural monuments”, a significant number of powers for the protection and use of monuments (maintaining state records, carrying out examinations, concluding security lease agreements, security agreements and security obligations; coordination of documentation, the issuance of assignments, permits and instructions) was entrusted to local state authorities for the protection of monuments.
The Ministry of Culture of the RSFSR, in established cases, carried out approval specified documents, and also ensured state control over compliance with legislation in the field of protection and use of monuments within its competence.
Changes in socio-economic conditions in the 1990s, the adoption of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the entry into force of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the Budget Code of the Russian Federation and other regulations of the Russian Federation led to contradictions between the existing Law of the RSFSR “On the Protection and Use of Historical and Cultural Monuments” and the new legislation .
The main contradiction was the discrepancy between the powers of state bodies for the protection of historical and cultural monuments in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, defined by the above-mentioned law of the RSFSR, and the permissible organizational and legal forms of their existence, established by the newly adopted federal laws.
For example, in many regions, practical activities for the state protection of historical and cultural monuments were carried out by research and production centers for the protection and use of historical and cultural monuments under the ministries of culture of the autonomous republics, the main departments and departments of culture of regional executive committees and regional executive committees, formed in accordance with the order of the Ministry of Culture of the RSFSR dated January 26, 1990 No. 33 “On the reorganization of the management structure for the protection of historical and cultural monuments.”
The absence in the legal documents of research and production centers of indications of their organizational and legal form and their actual status as cultural institutions has become an obstacle to the performance of state control and supervision functions by these monument protection bodies. At the same time, in regional cultural management bodies, which, as a rule, are the founders of these centers, the number of specialists authorized to deal with issues of protection of cultural heritage sites and carry out control and supervisory functions is either minimal (1-5 people) or they are completely absent.
However, in 60 constituent entities of the Russian Federation, these specialized organizations continue to function, exercising the powers of state bodies for the protection of cultural heritage sites in the form government agencies or state unitary enterprises.
Federal Law-73 stipulates that the powers of the corresponding regional body for the protection of cultural heritage objects must be exercised by the authorized executive body of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation.
Activities of state bodies for the protection of cultural heritage sites in organizing the state historical and cultural examination
In accordance with Federal Law-73, historical and cultural examination is carried out in relation to:
1) objects that have the characteristics of a cultural heritage site in accordance with Art. 3 Federal Law-73, identified in the process of research and other work;
2) land plots subject to economic development, including during construction, land management, reclamation and other activities;
3) documents justifying the inclusion of an object in the Register, exclusion of an object from the Register, changing the category of historical and cultural significance of a cultural heritage object, classifying a cultural heritage object as a particularly valuable object of cultural heritage of the peoples of the Russian Federation, classifying a cultural heritage object as a world cultural heritage site, classifying cultural heritage site to historical and cultural reserves;
4) projects for protection zones of a cultural heritage site, land management projects, excavation, construction, reclamation, economic and other works, the implementation of which may have a direct or indirect impact on the cultural heritage site;
5) urban planning, design documentation, urban planning regulations in cases established by Federal Law-73;
6) documents, including design documents, justifying work to preserve a cultural heritage site in order to ensure its safety and use in modern conditions and carrying out work to recreate a lost cultural heritage site;
7) documents justifying the conduct of land management, excavation, construction, reclamation, economic and other work, the implementation of which may have a direct or indirect impact on the cultural heritage site.
State control in the field of conservation, use, popularization and state protection of cultural heritage objects
State control is carried out by the federal body for the protection of cultural heritage objects and the corresponding regional bodies for the protection of cultural heritage objects within the limits of their competence. State control is implemented by:
1) monitoring compliance with legislation in the field of cultural heritage objects in terms of ensuring that individuals and legal entities comply with the requirements of state protection, conservation, use and popularization of cultural heritage objects;
2) control over the development of urban planning and design documentation, urban planning regulations, design and implementation of work to ensure the safety of cultural heritage sites, land management, excavation, construction, reclamation, economic and other works;
3) monitoring the condition of cultural heritage objects.
The issue of regulating urban planning activities in historical settlements has become particularly acute, requiring interaction with Federal agency for construction and housing and communal services, as well as with the Ministry of Regional Development.
More than 480 cities and towns in Russia were included in the List of Historical Populated Places in 1990 by a joint decision of the boards of the Ministry of Culture of the RSFSR and the State Construction Committee of the RSFSR and the Presidium of the Central Council of the All-Russian Society for the Protection of Natural and Cultural Monuments (VOOPIK).
The impossibility of regulating construction activities in historical urban areas at that time was due to the lack of legislative registration of the status of populated areas with a preserved historical environment.
In 2001, the Government of the Russian Federation, within the framework of the Federal Target Program “Preservation and Development of the Architecture of Historical Cities” (2002-10), clarified the list of historical settlements.
The term “historical settlement” received a legal definition in Federal Law-73, which contains the concept of “subject of protection of a historical settlement.” In a historical settlement, all valuable city-forming objects are subject to state protection as a subject of protection: planning structure, character of development, landscape, archaeological structure, appearance of buildings and structures, various functions acquired in the process of development.
However, the implementation of the provisions of Federal Law-73 as they relate to historical settlements will be possible only if a special procedure is established for regulating urban planning activities in these settlements and the list of such settlements is adjusted by a regulatory act of the Government of the Russian Federation.
Changing the categories of land plots, on which cultural heritage sites and their territories are located, to the category of lands of historical and cultural significance is possible after the establishment of a general procedure for changing the category of lands in the Russian Federation.
Currently, when making a decision to include an object in the Register (registration in the Register of a cultural heritage object included in the Register in accordance with Article 64 of the Federal Law-73), the boundaries of its territory are approved, within which land plots must be classified as historical lands. cultural significance.
The lack of a procedure for classifying land plots as lands of historical and cultural significance does not currently make it possible to adequately ensure the safety of cultural heritage objects using the instruments of land legislation.
One solution to this problem may be the approval by the Government of the Russian Federation of the Regulations on the procedure for classifying land plots within the boundaries of territories of cultural heritage sites as lands of historical and cultural significance and entering them into the Land Cadastre of the Russian Federation, the adoption of which requires joint work with the Federal Agency for the Cadastre of Real Estate Objects by definition the procedure for carrying out this activity.
3. Protection of cultural heritage sites
Problems of preserving cultural heritage sites
The requirements of Federal Law No. 73 on the need to carry out repair and restoration work on cultural heritage sites and to attract restoration specialists to carry them out are often ignored by those who ordered work on monuments, which leads to the replacement of repair and restoration work with work on the reconstruction of cultural heritage objects.
A serious problem at present is the firmly established tendency in construction practice towards the destruction of original monuments and the creation in their place of more or less exact copies of modern ones. building materials, which was noted in the report to the Government of the Russian Federation “Architecture of Russia. State and development prospects”, prepared by Russian Academy of Architecture and Building Sciences in 2002
This trend is contrary to international law (Venice Charter) and Art. 47 FZ-73, in which the reconstruction of cultural heritage objects is carried out in exceptional cases when the object is of particular significance, and work to reconstruct lost cultural heritage objects is carried out using technologies for the preservation of cultural heritage objects. This norm does not provide for the demolition of existing cultural heritage sites.
Information on the condition of a significant part of cultural heritage sites in the Russian Federation allows us to assess the current situation in this area as critical. In such conditions there is real danger that in the near future many historical and cultural values of Russia may be irretrievably lost.
With a reduction in federal budget funds allocated for the preservation of cultural heritage sites, the share of other sources of funding increased to some extent - regional and local budgets, the own funds of investors (owners or users), the Russian Orthodox Church and other faiths.
It is currently impossible to obtain precise quantitative data on the volume of these investments.
However, with a slight increase in funding, in many cases investors attract unqualified personnel to carry out the work; restoration is carried out with gross violations of methodological and technological standards, often without duly approved project documentation and in the absence of certified professional restorers or contrary to their recommendations.
Such illegal actions must be stopped by all possible legal means.
The state of the estimate and regulatory framework in the field of restoration and restoration work deserves special attention.
Restoration and restoration work on cultural heritage sites from 01/01/05 must be carried out in accordance with the “Federal Estimate Standards” (FSN-2001) and “Territorial Unit Costs” (TER-2001).
4. Use of cultural heritage sites
Features of leasing cultural heritage objects and free use of cultural heritage objects
According to the Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR dated September 16, 1982 No. 865 “On approval of the regulations on the protection and use of historical and cultural monuments”, currently in force within the framework of the transitional provisions of Federal Law-73, immovable historical and cultural monuments in state ownership were transferred to in accordance with the established procedure on the balance sheet of local state bodies for the protection of monuments (currently - the corresponding regional bodies for the protection of cultural heritage objects) for provision for use by individuals and legal entities.
The procedure and conditions for the use of each monument, which is in state ownership and provided for use on the right of lease or free use, were determined by the corresponding security document: a security-lease agreement for the use of an immovable monument of history and culture (hereinafter referred to as the security-lease agreement), a security agreement for transfer of an immovable historical and cultural monument under state protection (hereinafter referred to as the security agreement) or a security obligation for an immovable historical and cultural monument.
The security lease agreement was concluded between an individual or legal entity, to which the cultural heritage object is provided for use, and the relevant regional body for the protection of cultural heritage objects, on the balance sheet of which this object is located. For the use of monuments on the basis of a security lease agreement, a rent is collected, which goes to a special account and is spent by it exclusively on measures to ensure the safety of cultural heritage objects.
A security agreement is concluded between a religious organization, for the use of which a cultural heritage object is provided for the performance of religious rites in it, and the corresponding regional body for the protection of cultural heritage objects, on whose balance sheet this object is included. No rent is charged for the use of religious monuments to perform religious rites in them. When religious organizations use objects of cultural heritage, their individual premises, as well as territories and structures associated with them for economic or other purposes, security and lease agreements are concluded on a general basis.
A security obligation for an immovable historical and cultural monument is issued to the relevant regional body for the protection of cultural heritage objects:
1) an individual or legal entity using a cultural heritage site for residential, scientific, cultural, educational, tourist and other purposes;
2) an individual or legal entity for whose use a state-owned land plot with cultural heritage objects located on it is provided, with the exception of objects used on the basis of security-lease or security agreements;
3) an individual or legal entity whose ownership of a cultural heritage object arose before the entry into force of the Federal Law of December 21, 2001 No. 178-FZ “On the Privatization of State and Municipal Property” (hereinafter referred to as the Federal Law of December 21, 2001 No. 178-FZ ),
For objects of cultural heritage alienated from state ownership in accordance with Federal Law dated December 21, 2001 No. 178-FZ, a security obligation is issued during the privatization of a cultural heritage object, the conditions of which are determined in accordance with the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated December 16, 2002 No. 894 “On the procedure preparation and fulfillment of security obligations during the privatization of cultural heritage sites":
Currently, the privatization of cultural heritage sites of federal significance is suspended in accordance with paragraph 2 of Art. 63 FZ-73 before adoption federal law, which distinguishes state-owned cultural heritage objects into federal property, property of constituent entities of the Russian Federation and municipal property.
In accordance with the transitional provisions of Federal Law No. 73, until registration in the prescribed manner of a cultural heritage object in the unified state register of cultural heritage objects (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation, security lease agreements, security agreements and security obligations for an immovable historical and cultural monument are applied, established by Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR dated September 16, 1982 No. 865.
After this registration, the provision of cultural heritage objects for use must be carried out in accordance with Art. 55 and 56 FZ-73 by concluding on behalf of the relevant owner a lease agreement for a cultural heritage object or an agreement for the free use of a cultural heritage object, containing information about the features that constitute the subject of protection of the object, as well as established requirements for the preservation of the cultural heritage object.
The absence of a legally defined owner of a cultural heritage object will in many cases lead to legal uncertainty as to who exactly is authorized to enter into a lease agreement for a cultural heritage object or an agreement for the free use of a cultural heritage object.
Thus, registration of a cultural heritage object in the unified state register of cultural heritage objects (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation is formally the basis for terminating the validity of existing security-lease and security agreements and, in conditions of uncertainty of the owner of the cultural heritage object, can create legal uncertainty in eligibility concluding lease agreements for cultural heritage objects and agreements for the free use of cultural heritage objects.
Main restrictions on the use of cultural heritage sites
In accordance with Federal Law-73, a cultural heritage site is used with mandatory compliance with the following requirements:
1) ensuring the unchanged appearance and interior of a cultural heritage object in accordance with the characteristics of this object, which served as the basis for its inclusion in the Register and are the subject of protection of this object, described in its passport;
2) approval in the manner established by clause 4 of Art. 35 FZ-73, designing and carrying out land management, excavation, construction, reclamation, economic and other work on the territory of a cultural heritage site or on a land plot or area of a water body within which the archaeological heritage site is located;
3) ensuring the maintenance regime for lands of historical and cultural significance;
4) ensuring access to a cultural heritage object, the conditions of which are established by the owner of the cultural heritage object in agreement with the relevant body for the protection of cultural heritage objects.
Restrictions on the use of a cultural heritage object are included in the passport of the cultural heritage object, which is issued to its owner and is one of the mandatory documents for state registration of rights and restrictions (encumbrances) associated with the cultural heritage object.
Upon state registration of lease or gratuitous use rights arising on the basis of a security lease agreement, a security agreement, a security obligation for an immovable historical and cultural monument, a lease agreement for a cultural heritage object, an agreement for the gratuitous use of a cultural heritage object, a security obligation during the privatization of a cultural heritage object, containing the necessary information to ensure the safety of the cultural heritage object, state registration of restrictions (encumbrances) associated with the cultural heritage object is carried out.
Conditions for the effective use of cultural heritage sites
The total number of cultural heritage objects currently included in the state lists of immovable historical and cultural monuments is about 90 thousand objects (without specifying their object and property composition).
To carry out the procedure for registering a cultural heritage object in the Register, it is necessary to conduct a state historical and cultural examination to justify the inclusion of these objects in the Register.
This procedure requires significant financial investments. The total amount of funds required for work related to registration is, according to expert assessments, not less than 9.5 billion rubles.
In accordance with Federal Law-73, registration must be completed by 2010. Considering the volume and duration of registration work in the near future, the financial need for funds for registration and the associated historical and cultural examination should be considered as a priority in the implementation of continuous financing.
Costs for state protection also include funds for monitoring compliance with legislation, development of urban planning and design documentation, development and approval of projects for protection zones of cultural heritage objects, monitoring the condition of cultural heritage objects and a number of other activities. These costs are provided for by the federal budget and the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.
The largest portion of the costs of ensuring the safety of cultural heritage sites is the cost of preserving cultural heritage sites. For example, restoration costs account for 68% (4.395 billion rubles) of the total amount of funding for 2001-05, stated in Section III “Cultural Heritage of Russia” of the Federal Target Program “Culture of Russia”.
5. Financial support for state protection, preservation and popularization of cultural heritage sites
According to expert estimates, the average cost of 1 m 2 of restoration work is currently at least 31 thousand rubles.
According to a survey of state bodies for the protection of cultural heritage sites in 52 constituent entities of the Russian Federation, the total area of buildings and structures classified as cultural heritage sites and requiring restoration is more than 9 million m2.
Thus, only for these regions we can talk about the need to finance restoration work in the amount of at least 290 billion rubles.
Promising sources of generating financial resources to ensure the safety of cultural heritage sites include:
1) legislative delimitation of ownership rights to cultural heritage objects as a means of determining the real owners capable of bearing the burden of costs for the maintenance of cultural heritage objects;
2) privatization of cultural heritage objects as a way to diversify the burden of costs for maintaining a certain part of cultural heritage objects on a wide range of owners;
3) attraction as additional sources financing the costs of ensuring the safety of cultural heritage sites, rent for the use of land plots within the boundaries of the territories of cultural heritage sites;
4) creation of the most effective mechanisms for accumulating and spending funds in the field of state protection, conservation, use and popularization of cultural heritage objects.
Organization privatization of cultural heritage objects, which should be carried out after the legislative delimitation of property rights to them, requires the preliminary creation necessary conditions.
If the necessary conditions are met, the privatization of even an investment-attractive part of cultural heritage objects can bring significant funds.
The transfer of 1 million m 2 of monument buildings into private ownership, subject to the fulfillment of their protective obligations by their new owners, stimulates restoration work on these sites in the amount of approximately 2.5-3 billion rubles, the activation of the restoration industry, an increase in the production of building materials, and the creation of an additional 50 thousand jobs. At the same time, the total volume of tax deductions to the budget for various reasons can range from 500 to 1000 million rubles.
When assessing the results of privatization of cultural heritage objects, it is advisable to also take into account the income from the possible privatization of land plots associated with them.
However, despite the economic benefits from the privatization of cultural heritage objects, it should not be considered as the main means for ensuring the safety of cultural heritage objects.
Firstly, most of objects of cultural heritage do not have investment attractiveness for potential owners, which is due to the impossibility of using these objects for their needs (these include buildings and structures occupied by government and administrative bodies, cultural, educational, health and scientific organizations, religious and other non-profit organizations; works of monumental sculpture, burials, objects of archaeological heritage and other objects of cultural heritage of public use), as well as their technical condition, underdeveloped infrastructure, remoteness and other factors.
There is no doubt that in relation to ruined or in disrepair cultural heritage sites and the lack of funds for their restoration in the Russian Federation, a constituent entity of the Russian Federation or a municipality, the privatization of such cultural heritage sites at minimal prices (virtually free) may be one of the effective measures to save these cultural heritage objects from the threat of physical loss.
Secondly, given the investment attractiveness of a cultural heritage object, the possible income from its privatization should be correlated with the benefits from leasing this object, the mandatory costs of creating conditions for privatization and the subsequent costs of paying compensation to the owner for carrying out work to preserve the cultural heritage object.
6. Legal support in the field of cultural heritage objects
Cultural heritage sites are special kind property, the handling of which imposes certain obligations on their owners and users.
Features of the ownership, use and disposal of cultural heritage objects are reflected not only in the basic Federal Law-73, but also in the Land Code of the Russian Federation, the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, in the federal laws "On state registration of rights to real estate and transactions with it ", "About licensing individual species activities", "On the privatization of state and municipal property", other federal laws.
Features of design and construction on the territory of the Russian Federation are determined by the Town Planning Code of the Russian Federation, in which territories occupied by cultural heritage sites are subject to special regulation. In January 2005, a new Town Planning Code was adopted, in which the features of town planning activities on the territory of ancient Russian cities with a large number of cultural heritage sites were not properly reflected.
The competence of government bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and municipalities in relation to cultural heritage sites of the Russian Federation is established in the federal laws "On general principles organizations of legislative (representative) and executive bodies of state power of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation" and "On the general principles of the organization of local self-government in the Russian Federation".
However, despite such serious legal framework, ensuring the protection, preservation and use of cultural heritage objects, there is a need for its additions and changes.
To implement federal laws in full, it is necessary to have relevant by-laws, which have not yet been approved.
The Ministry of Culture and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation is completing the approval in federal ministries of by-laws, the adoption of which is provided for by Federal Law-73, in order to submit them in the prescribed manner to the Government of the Russian Federation for approval.
Without provisions on the Unified State Register of Cultural Heritage Objects and the State Historical and Cultural Expertise, activities to protect and preserve cultural heritage objects are difficult.
In addition, the absence of the above by-laws prevents the preservation of a cultural heritage object during its sale or transfer for use, since without defining the subject of protection and the boundaries of the territory of the cultural heritage object, it is impossible to establish encumbrances on this object, on the land within the boundaries of its territory and register the object in Land Registry.
There is no Regulation on the procedure for submitting to justice institutions for state registration of rights information about real estate classified as objects of cultural heritage and identified objects of cultural heritage (prepared by the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation), which must be approved simultaneously with the Regulation on the unified state register of objects of cultural heritage ( historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation.
In the absence of this by-law, justice authorities can register transactions with cultural heritage objects without having information about the features and encumbrances of these objects.
There is no Regulation on the estimated value of a cultural heritage object, on the basis of which it is possible to determine the value of the object during privatization and establish the insurable value of the heritage object.
It is necessary to develop a Regulation on classifying lands of cultural heritage sites as lands of historical and cultural significance.
Practice has shown that in addition to by-laws to federal laws, it is also necessary to develop new legislative acts and make additions to the current legislation.
It is necessary to develop a draft federal law on the delimitation of ownership rights to objects of cultural heritage, the adoption of which will allow the existing moratorium on the privatization of objects of cultural heritage of federal significance to be lifted. If adopted, the ban on the privatization of cultural heritage sites of federal significance will be lifted and the registration of federal property rights, property rights of constituent entities of the Russian Federation and municipal property rights will be lifted, and historical and cultural monuments will be included in civil circulation.
Main features of cultural heritage sites (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation
Structure of subjects in the field of state protection, conservation, use and popularization of cultural heritage objects
Necessary conditions for organizing the process of privatization of cultural heritage objects
1. Adoption of a federal law on the delimitation of property rights to cultural heritage objects and the prompt formation, coordination and approval of delimiting lists of cultural heritage objects.
2. Approval of methods for determining the subject of protection of cultural heritage objects and the boundaries of their territories.
3. Registration of objects of cultural heritage in the unified state register of objects of cultural heritage (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation, indicating the owners of objects of cultural heritage based on information from delimitation lists.
4.1. Determination of a mechanism for delayed entry into ownership, taking into account the mandatory fulfillment of the security obligation by the future owner.
4.2. Determination of the procedure for forced (including gratuitous) confiscation from an unscrupulous owner of an object of cultural heritage who is in danger of complete physical loss or loss of its object of protection.
5. Establishment of the procedure and features of registration in the unified state register of rights to real estate and transactions with it restrictions (encumbrances) associated with cultural heritage objects.
6. Issuance of passports of cultural heritage objects to their owners.
7. State registration of ownership rights to objects of cultural heritage and restrictions (encumbrances) associated with objects of cultural heritage, based on the passport of the cultural heritage object.
8. Providing access to a privately owned object for the implementation of inspection activities of state bodies for the protection of cultural heritage sites.
9.1. Approval of a methodology for assessing the value of cultural heritage objects.
9.2. Approval of a methodology for assessing the insured value of a cultural heritage object to determine the amount of damage that may be caused to the cultural heritage object.
In general, the privatization of cultural heritage objects is one of the possible ways to ensure their safety only for investment-attractive cultural heritage objects (primarily buildings and land plots), which make up less than 15% of the total cultural heritage.
Possible options for registering the legal status of lands of cultural heritage sites
Option 1. When registering in the Unified State Register of Rights to Real Estate and Transactions with It (USRP) land plots on which cultural heritage objects are located, owned, operationally managed, economically managed, leased or used free of charge by legal entities or individuals.
*Land can be registered as ownership, permanent (perpetual) use, fixed-term use or lease.
* The basis for registration is the availability of title documents for cultural heritage sites and other real estate located within the boundaries of the land plot.
* Registration of a land plot in the Unified State Register of Land Registers is carried out after registration of the land plot in the Unified State Register of Lands (USRZ) and assignment to it of the corresponding cadastral number with the obligatory indication of the location, boundaries and area of the plot.
Option 2. When registering (re-registering) transactions with cultural heritage objects in the Unified State Register (purchase and sale, rights of operational management or economic management, lease agreements or agreements for free use, assigning legal orby individuals relevant cultural heritage objects).
*Simultaneously with the registration of the transaction, registration of restrictions (encumbrances) on the use of cultural heritage objects and their territories is carried out.
*Restrictions on the use of the territory registered in the Unified State Register can be included in the Unified State Register according to the existing form of the land cadastre, either in the form of restrictions on the use of a land plot, or in the form of maintenance regimes for the corresponding territorial zone.
Option 3. Inclusion of information in the state land cadastre (GLC) in the event of a change in the current category of land to lands of historical and cultural significance when registering real estate in the unified state register of objects of cultural heritage of the peoples of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Register).
*The SLC provides information about the boundaries of the territory of a cultural heritage site (land plots located within the boundaries of its territory) and the modes of its maintenance based on an extract from the Register.
* The procedure for registering cultural heritage objects in the Register requires determining the subject of protection for each object, as well as marking the boundaries of the territories of cultural heritage objects.
Option 4. Inclusion of information about historical and cultural restrictions associated with land plots, in the State Land Reserve Committee when approving, in accordance with the established procedure, zones for the protection of cultural heritage objects.
*Within the boundaries of the territories of each of the approved protection zones, a special territorial zone may be formed in which restrictions are established on land management, excavation, urban planning, construction or other activities.
* The official source of information about the territorial zone is the executive authority of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation.
Option 5. Direct change in the category of land to lands of historical and cultural significance (it is advisable to use for places of interest classified as historical and cultural reserves).
*Is carried out by regulatory legal documents of the Government of the Russian Federation, the executive body of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation or the administration of a municipal entity within their competence.
* This is possible only after the delimitation of state ownership of land has been carried out in the prescribed manner.
*Regulatory requirement is required legal act on changing the category of land.
Problem legislative definition ownership rights to state-owned cultural heritage objects
Related questions With lack of legislative delimitation of property rights:
1. Who should be indicated as the owner when registering cultural heritage objects in the unified state register of cultural heritage objects (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation?
2. To whom is a passport of a cultural heritage object registered in the Register issued?
3. Who is obliged to provide documents for state registration of restrictions (encumbrances) associated with a cultural heritage object?
4. Who bears the burden of maintaining (including preserving) a cultural heritage site and is responsible for ensuring its safety?
5. On whose behalf will the privatization of state-owned cultural heritage objects be carried out?
6. Who has the right to use cultural heritage objects and receive income from their use after registration of the cultural heritage object in the Register?
Federal Law of June 25, 2002 No. 73-FZ “On objects of cultural heritage (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation”:
1. Determined the need to adopt a federal law that distinguishes state-owned cultural heritage objects into federal property, property of constituent entities of the Russian Federation and municipal property.
2. Suspended the privatization of cultural heritage sites of federal significance.
3. Suspended the registration of federal property rights, property rights of constituent entities of the Russian Federation or local government bodies for objects of cultural heritage that are in state ownership.
We invite you to take part in the work of our magazine! Send proposals for cooperation, on the subject of materials, your articles and comments to. We also invite you to take part in events organized by the magazine (conferences, round tables, discussions).
