Suchergebnisse

In Lithuania like in the majority of other countries around the globe the need of investments and their improvement regarding public infrastructure and public services is growing at a fast pace. Limitations of the public sector concerning the possibilities to fund these objectives promote the search for new tools and opportunities to achieve these purposes. The co-operation of the public and private sectors is defined as any kind of agreement that involves both sectors, which allows private organizations to function within the field that previously was only governed by the public sector. In the international practice one of the co-operation types is the partnership of private and public sector (PPS) that creates opportunities to attract private funds in order to meet the needs of the public sector. Broadly this partnership can be defined as a co-operation of both public and private sectors in order to accomplish various projects involving infrastructure or public services. Thus, the co-operation between these two sectors is inevitable. As an alternative to traditional ways of supplementing public services, the partnership of public and private sector encompasses a wide spectrum of various forms and mechanisms. It could vary from agreements made by county with a private communal office in order to create a system for trash extermination to an establishment of a joint company, which would govern the building and exploitation of a new atomic power plant. These contracts are usually distinguished by establishing a clear partnership type regarding PPS terms; thus, it could be an agreement implemented on a contractual basis or an agreement based on an institutional basis. The European Commission distinguish two types of co-operation of the public and private sector: (1) institutional – when a company of mixed funds is required to be established in order to accomplish a goal; (2) contractual – when a certain goal is achieved by constructing agreements (consensuses, contracts based on a public purchases, joint practises, and other various agreements that are determined by the law). It has to be noted that certain concepts such as consensus, PPS projects, long-term lease, public purchases and others because they denote different ways of partnership of government and public sectors; in other words these concepts could be ineligible. Even though the contracts of purchases and consensuses are regulated by different laws, they in their essence involve similar legal correlations, which have similar aims of regulation. Consensus a try way agreement between the granting instruction, the provider of the service, and the customer. A public purchase is a two way agreement between a service provider and the organization that buys the service, which in consequence pays for the bought service and takes the economic risk of the purchase. The correlation of a consensus and a public purchase are different in the way and process of creating a contract. In case of a consensus provider of the service receives a right to use the service it provides as part of the payment. The concessionaire recognizes the risks of the purchase while the pay is usually arranged by the services user. Although, there is no singular definition of consensus there are certain attributes that allows to distinguish it from other partnerships or public and private sectors; these attributes involves such signs as a long time-span of arranging the contract, a clear allocation of possible liabilities to all the parties, a clear allocation of possible risk, while the majority of these risks are moved upon the private buyer, financial commitments. A major matter for the public sector regarding the co-operation of private and public sector is a selection of private party in a fair competition manner. Before making any kind of partnership contract it is essential to establish an effective and clear competition within the contestant participants within the market. This kind of competition allows the public sector to choose the most effective private partner. The competition allows the governmental institutions to select a partner in a most rational way; due to this information, it is possible to choose such a partner that would meet all the requirements and would fulfil the goal in question. In order to ensure the best selection of the partner it is important to oblige the principles of transparency and non-discrimination. It is important to act according to these principles in order to avoid violating the public and private interests, which are quintessentially different. The public sector seeks to receive the best possible service, while the private sector seeks profit. The equality of rights is important to every legal form that involves the co-operation of public and private sector. According to this principle the procedures of selection of a private party must be determined in an objective and clear way as well as they have to oblige to the rules and requirements. If certain predetermined rules do not exist the participating private parties must be selected according to objective criteria. The principal of non-discrimination defined the object of purchase; the technical specifications cannot defy the concrete process of making, the trade mark, patent, country of origin or production because these specifications might provide extra help for the participating parties or could even rule out some of the participants. The transparency principal is a principal that requires for the conditions of the contest to be clear and understandable; also, it requires that all the conditions that were set could not be changed. By obliging to the transparency principal allows to foresee the decision that should be made during the contest. It is quite natural to agree that the principal of partnership between the public and private sector is the essential part of the partnership concept because without clearly stating them it would be impossible to accomplish any kind of goal regarding such co-operation. The implementation of projects regarding co-operation between the public and private sector is a difficult and lengthily process, which is formed not only by the configuration of partnership but by the selection of partners, negotiations regarding the requirements of the contract, risk management, project management, and the surveillance of the project management. Taking into account the difficult specifics of the co-operation between public and private sector, often there is no singular way to formulate the technical requirements of an object, which would fulfil the public subject's needs and aims, or would defy the objects legal status or its financial consent. Whatever the form of co-operation regarding the partnership of private and public sector is employed, for the successful contest, some sort of negotiations will be required. Each form of such co-operation has a different kind of way to regulate the negotiation. For instance, according to the Public procurement law the negotiations are not mandatory during the public purchase. However, in the contest regarding the grant of the consensus once of the mandatory stages is the negotiation, which's aim is to come to a compromise between the participant of the contest and the institution that grants the consensus. It needs to be noted that the negotiation cannot be used as a tool to distort the technical, financial, or commercial criteria. While appointing the contractual conditions of the consensus, the conditions of the agreement and its main requirements cannot be an object of the negotiation. However this means that the initial agreement will be changed in a slight way. If negotiation takes place it is quite natural that the primary draft of the project changes. A change is fundamental if its implementation within the agreement would quintessentially change the outcomes that the participants would provide. It such change takes place a new contest must be organized. The legal provisions concerning public purchases and consensuses foresees such changes only if the principals of equal right, non-discrimination and transparency are taken into account.

Trumpai apžvelgus UNESCO apibrėžtas skirtingas paveldo tipologijas, dėmesys skiriamas įvairioms kul- tūros vertybėms, kurios, nors ir nepriskiriamos "pagrindinėms" paveldo kategorijoms, simbolizuoja reikšmingą paveldo turtą, siūlantį, be savo įprastos paskirties, daugybę galimybių, kaip jį būtų galima pritaikyti "netradi- cinėms" pridėtinę vertę kuriančioms paslaugoms. Įžanginiame skyriuje pateikiami pavyzdžiai, iliustruojantys netradicinį kultūros paveldą: istorinis maršrutas "Rytų ekspresas", mėlynasis tramvajus Tramvia Blau ar funi- kulierius Tibidabo Funicular Barselonoje; parkai, sodai ir žaliosios erdvės kaip išskirtinių renginių vietos; ypa- tingos ar nykstančios augalijos ir gyvūnijos buveinės; istoriniai piligrimų keliai Via Francigena, El Camino de Santiago de Compostela ir Camí de Cel de Barcelona; Italijos asociacijos Italian Alpine Club (CAI) organizuo- jami Dolomitų kelias ir kalnų žygiai; kruizai, istoriškai reikšmingi komerciniai ir kariniai maršrutai, pavyzdžiui, Viduržemio jūros ir Baltijos jūros turai, maršrutai į Indiją; tradiciniai šou, koncertai, operos, muzikos / šokių renginiai ir ritualai; sausumos ir jūros augalija bei gyvūnija, kuriai gresia išnykimo pavojus; pajūrio ir pakrančių paveldas, pavyzdžiui, švyturiai, istoriniai uostai ir pan. Daugelyje Europos šalių "kultūros paveldui" gali būti priskiriami ir artefaktai, žmonių atrasti daugiau nei prieš 50 metų. Taigi į paveldo apsaugą gali pretenduoti daug įvairių objektų – nuo pirmojo bakelitinio radijo imtuvo ir pokarinių automobilių iki elektroninės kompiuterių įrangos ir dizaino kūrinių. Jeigu etno- gra nės kolekcijos, daug kartų žiūrėtos kino juostos ir TV įrašai taip pat vertinami kaip papildomi elemen- tai (saugomi jau beveik 60 metų), tuomet visa tai sudaro nepakeičiamą ir saugotiną informacijos "šaltinį", kurį dera perduoti ateinančioms kartoms. Be materialiojo paveldo, derėtų saugoti ir nematerialųjį paveldą, pavyzdžiui, muziką, šokius, ritualus, pasakas ir pan., taip pat naujausią, bet ne mažiau svarbų "ateities" pa- veldą. Apsidairius aplink XXI a. ateities muziejus kuratoriaus akimis, gali iškilti pagrįstas klausimas: "Ar ateities kartos, net ir artimos ateities kartos, sugebės suprasti dabartinės kartos kuriamą turinį?" Trumpai panagrinėjus milžiniškus ir įvairialypius paveldo klodus galima užduoti vieną svarbiausių klausimų: "Kaip užtikrinti tinkamą paveldo naudojimą, valorizaciją ir valdymą?" Nepakanka vien tik vadovautis esamu scenarijumi. Būtina pasirengti susitikti su ateities paveldu, galinčiu tapti tikru iššūkiu būsimiems kolekcio- nieriams ar kuratoriams. Paveldas turi daugybę funkcijų ir daugybę vertybių, tad verta gerai ištyrinėti šiuos daugiamačius ir turtingus klodus, kad būtų galima pasinaudoti visais jų teikiamais privalumais. Šiai už- duočiai veiksmingai ir kokybiškai atlikti yra būtina metodologija. "Verčių" požiūrio taikymas analizuojant paveldą galėtų prisidėti sprendžiant problemas ir užtikrintai pagrįsti paveldo išsaugojimo, apsaugos ir val- dymo strategijos apibrėžimą. Šis straipsnis supažindina su logišku požiūriu, nustatant ir grupuojant platų paveldui priskiriamų vertybių spektrą. Nuodugniai išanalizavus vertybes (pradedant nuo akivaizdžiausių), nustatomos naujos vertybės, kurios yra (tiesiogiai) susijusios su inovacijomis ir technologijomis. Vertybių, kurias galima priskirti kultūros paveldui, kiekis didėja, daugėjant suinteresuotųjų šalių, kurios laikomos paveldo naudojimo, konservavimo ir valdymo proceso dalyvėmis. Priimant su paveldu susijusius spren- dimus ir reaguojant į skirtingų suinteresuotųjų šalių poreikius, šių vertybių apibrėžimas yra lemiamas iš esmės dėl to, kad šios vertybės padeda nustatyti konkrečios teritorijos patrauklumo lygį. Kultūros paveldo samprata remiasi įvairialype paklausa, kurią būtina atpažinti visose sudėtinėse kultūros paveldo dalyse, norint nuodugniai ištyrinėti vertybių klodus, kuriuos (kaip bus pristatoma toliau) riboja skirtingi diferen- cijuotos paklausos poreikiai. Norint pasiekti šį tikslą reikia apibrėžti įrankius bei metodus, padėsiančius nustatyti ir vertinti kultūros paveldą atsižvelgiant į skirtingas jam priskiriamų vertybių perspektyvas. Kie- kviena konkreti vertybė išsamiai aprašoma, kad būtų lengviau atlikti atskiro atvejo analizę. Nepaisant visų nukrypimų, plačiąja prasme aiškinama Europos kultūros paveldo idėja perteikia šias vertybes: istorines, atminties, pilietybės, civilizacijos, pripažinimo, tradicijų, meno, mokslo, konservavimo ir technologines. Suvokti vertybių ir kitų skirtingų dalių esmę yra įmanoma pripažįstant ir veiksmingai naudojant mūsų palikimą, vertinant jį kaip sistemą sąveikų tarp įvairių aspektų: paveldo tipologijos (gamtinės, kultūrinės, . nematerialios, . ateities); daugybės "verčių" (ekonominių, investicijų grąžos, socialinių, kultūrinių, išskirtinumo / unikalu- mo ir pan.); geogra nių ypatumų (vertingumo vietinių požiūriu, nacionalinių, regioninių, globalinių, daugiau- sia nevietinių ir pan.); potencialių naudotojų / galutinių naudotojų (ekspertų, specialistų, kolekcionierių, verslininkų, miesto gyventojų, tyrėjų, bendruomenės narių ir pan.). Didžioji dalis šių vertybių yra "potencialios"; kartais nėra galimybių ar poreikio nustatyti jų piniginę išraišką. Daugeliu atvejų išlaidas dengiantis subjektas nėra tas, kuris daug uždirba iš kultūros paveldo "naudojimo", čia susiduriama su savotišku asimetrinės rinkos modeliu. Visuomenės reikmėms skirto kul- tūros paveldo atveju "verčių" "rezultatais" dalijasi skirtingi vertybių grandinės dalyviai, o kultūros paveldą prižiūrinti valstybinė institucija tarp jų būna ne visada. Kartais visas vertybių spektras neatrodo akivaizdus (bent jau) vadovams arba nemanoma, kad būtų tinkama ar "išmintinga" šiomis vertybėmis pasinaudoti. Tokių vertybių naudojimas nebūtinai turi kelti pavojų mūsų paveldui – kultūros vertybės nesivaržo tar- pusavyje, išmintingai jas naudojant, jos nebus "suvartotos". Netgi priešingai, aiškiai apibrėžus vertybių "vertę", jas būtų lengviau atpažinti ir apsaugoti, suformuluojant bazines sąlygas jų tinkamam naudojimui užtikrinti. Toks scenarijus atrodo kaip visiems naudingas susitarimas: miesto gyventojai gali pasinaudoti visais efektyvaus paveldo naudojimo teikiamais privalumais, o suinteresuotosios šalys – džiaugtis didesniu matomu ir išaugusiomis pajamomis. Sėkmingai įdiegtoje sistemoje būtų numatytas struktūrinis vertinimo procesas, atsižvelgiantis ir į speci nes vertinimo procedūras bei rodiklius, ir į ekspertus, prisidedančius prie šios blokinės schemos kūrimo. Daugeliu atvejų šios vertybės iliustruoja, kaip įgyvendinami lankytojų ir naudotojų lūkesčiai. Raktiniai žodžiai: kultūros paveldas, ateities paveldas, išmanusis paveldas, netradicinės kultūros vertybės, paveldo vertinimas, paveldo valdymas. ; Starting from a quick overview of the di erent typologies of heritage as de ned by UNESCO, the focus is made on a wide range of cultural assets that, even not classi ed the 'main' heritage families, represent, however, a relevant heritage asset that apart from the typical use o ers great opportunities to be suitable for 'unconventional' added value services. The introduction provides a selection of examples concerning unconventional cultural assets such as the historical trans- portation means Orient Express, Tramvia Blau or the Tibidabo Funicular in Barcelona; parks, gardens and green areas as scenarios of particular events or peculiar or extinct habitats of ora and fauna; historic itineraries such as via Francigena, El Camino de Santiago de Compostela and the Camí de Cel de Barcelona; the Dolomites and mountain hiking trails of the Italian Alpine Club (CAI); cruises, commercial and military routes important in history such as Mediterranean and Baltic routes, routes to India; traditional shows, concerts, opera, music/dances and rituals; land and marine ora and fauna considered to be at risk of extinction; maritime-coastal heritage such as lighthouses, historical harbours, etc. In many European countries, artefacts realised by human beings more than fty years ago are also considered potential 'Cultural Heritage'. Therefore, a variety of objects might be enlis- ted for protection such as the rst bakelite radio-set, post-war period cars, the early electronic computer equipment and design products. Furthermore, if ethnographic collections, many times movies and TV recordings are considered the complement pictures (that have already been pro- tected for almost sixty years), all of them constitute an irreplaceable 'source' of information to be protected and handed down to posterity. In addition to the tangible heritage, the intangible heritage such as music, dances, rituals, tales, etc. and last but not least the 'future' heritage should be preserved. If we look around in the shoes of a curator of a future museum of the 21st c., it is reasonable to ask ourselves 'Will future generations, even those of the near future, be able to access the content produced by this generation?' Having brie y explored the vast and heteroge- neous universe of heritage, one of the key questions posed to ourselves is 'How can we ensure a proper use, valorisation and management of it?' Along with the current scenario, we should be ready to deal with the future heritage that may represent a real challenge for future collectors or curators. As the heritage represents a multi-function and multi-value domain, there is a need to explore this multidimensional space in order to fully bene t from its richness. Thus, a metho- 129 130 dology enabling to complete the task in an e cient and productive way is required. Application of the 'value' approach in analysing heritage may contribute to solving the problem and provide a valid support in de ning a strategy to preserve, promote and manage it. The present paper outlines the logical approach for identi cation and clustering of the broad range of the values associated with the heritage. The in-depth analysis of values, starting from the more evident ones, leads to identi cation of a set of new values due to or directly connected with innovation and technologies. The plurality of values that can be associated with a cultural asset widens with the variety of stakeholders considered to participate in the process of heritage use, conservation and management. Establishing the values upon making decisions about the heritage and there- fore meeting the needs of di erent stakeholders is crucial, mainly due to the reason that such values contribute to identi cation of the degree of attractiveness of a given territory. The cultural heritage should be considered a system based on the heterogeneous demand to be recognised in its many components in order to investigate the value space throughout its extension that, as it will be outlined later, is delimited by di erent needs of the di erentiated demand; in order to do this, we need to identify and de ne tools and methods of measuring and evaluating the cultural heritage in the di erent perspectives of the value attributable to it. Each speci c value is outlined in detail to facilitate the implementation of the approach to a single case study. The concept of the European cultural heritage, interpreted in the broad sense and with all its declinations, is the bearer of a multitude of values: historical value, testimony, citizenship, civilization, recognition, traditions, artistic, scienti c, conservation and technology. The matter of values and the other di erent elements actively contributing to the overall appreciation and fruitful exploitation of our legacy might be considered a complex of interactions among the following di erent aspects: • Heritage typology (natural, cultural,. intangible,. future) • Wide set of 'values' (economic value, return of investment, social, cultural, exceptionality/uniquely, etc.) • Geographic range (valuable for locals, national, regional, global, non-local mainly, etc.) • Potential users/end users (experts, specialists, collectors, businessmen, citizens, researchers, community members, etc.) Major parts of these values are 'potential'; sometimes there is no chance or need to monetize them. It happens frequently that the one who covers the expenses is not the one who earns much money from the 'use' of the cultural asset, i.e. a kind of asymmetric market model is observed. In case of public cul- tural assets, the 'e ects' of the 'values' are shared among di erent actors in the value-chain, sometimes not including the public body looking after the cultural assets at all. Moreover, sometimes the full set of values is not evident at least to the managers or it is not considered proper or 'wise' to take advantage of them. The exploitation of such values will not necessarily jeopardize our heritage, cultural assets are not rivalling and a wise exploitation will not 'consume' them. On the contrary, a clear identi cation of their 'values' will help to identify and protect them developing the basic conditions to ensure a proper exploitation. Such a scenario looks like a win-win agreement: citizens may bene t from the fruitful exploitation of their own heritage, whereas stakeholders may bene t from enhanced visibility and inco- mes. The full implementation of the system foresees a structured evaluation process taking into account both speci c evaluation procedures, metrics and a network of experts providing their contribution in a kind of block chain architecture. In most cases, these values represent the ful lment of the present expectations of visitors and users. Keywords: Cultural heritage, future heritage, smart heritage, unconventional cultural assets, heritage valorisation, heritage management.