Landscape act

as such usually requires being drawn up with participation of experts.

The above results in additional costs that are frequently beyond financial means of local communities, that cannot count on costs’

reimbursement from central level.

As for another problem, these are unclear differences between cultural park and other means of protecting landscape, introduced both by the Act of 23 July 2003 (e.g. other spatial heritage protection forms as historic urban arrangement) or other acts – for example, local spatial development plans may in themselves impose some similar restrictions (Smertyha, Burski, 2015). Consequently, complex character of cultural park may be perceived just as combination of other mechanisms and as such is not considered to be applied in addition to or in place of mentioned other means.

society, also opinion or approval given by authorities (e.g. voivode-ship monument conservator) is required.

The above may sound similar to some protective elements func-tioning in cultural parks. Indeed, both mechanisms can serve as a mean to sort out chaotic elements of particular space. However, as regards main differences, they are as follows:

 cultural parks are as a rule connected with more types of restrictions, while landscape acts may cover only some kinds of them,

 cultural parks are targeted strictly for cultural landscape protection and generally shall cover areas where immovable historic monuments take places; it is not obligatory in case of landscape acts (they may be enacted both for contemporary and historic sites),

 adoption of landscape act may seem to be easier than creation of cultural park as it does not result in additional duties for local community such as preparation of protection plan or local spatial development act.

3.2. Landscape acts in practice

Similarly to cultural parks, also landscape acts are not introduced frequently. In fact, less than 1% of local communities have decided to enact them.

It seems that landscape acts shall be more popular in large cities, which is justified taking into consideration that such sites are mostly exposed to advertisement chaos. Indeed, in majority of the biggest Polish cities landscape acts have been already passed or are just in the process.

Unfortunately, procedures connected with enacting landscape act are very long-lasting. What is more, following worrying phenomenon can be observed: lots of local communities seem to abandon their plans as regards landscape act at some stage. Furthermore, even if particular act is successfully adopted, it is almost a rule that it is subject to action in the court due to its supposed deficiencies (such problem took place e.g. in case of Opole, Łódź and Gdańsk).

3.3. Pros and cons of landscape acts

As it takes place in case of cultural parks, also landscape acts could have a great potential in the field of reduction of chaotic space management threatening esthetic of particular place. Owing to

given completely new look – for instance, it sometimes turns out that before introducing landscape act valuable monuments facades had been covered with large advertisement boards.

However, despite obviously legitimate aim of landscape acts, their implementation often runs into serious obstacles. Just as in cultural parks case, approach of entrepreneurs seem to be problematic. In this scope, concerns are raised that implementation of landscape act may result in the bankruptcy of local advertisement companies. More-over, entrepreneurs from other sectors are worried that they will be devoid of visual identification. Having in mind that mentioned object-tions are widely signaled during consultaobject-tions preceding enacting landscape act, lots of local communities prefer to resign from this initiative just not to be considered as hostile to business activities and investments.

Additionally, it has to be noted that landscape act is not confined to simple prohibition of locating particular objects. In fact, detailed determination of situating particular objects conditions often is above local clerks’ competences and requires cooperation with experts in the area of urbanism, architecture, historic preservation, etc. It gen-erates costs that are often substantial from local communities perspective. In addition, taking into account long-lasting procedures connected with preparing landscape act, requiring amendments being a result of consultations made both with society and other authorities, this expense is not one-off cost.

Furthermore, attention shall be paid to the risk of annulations of landscape act by the court. As it has been mentioned before, land-scapes acts arise controversies and as such are questioned via legal actions. Indeed, according to current approach of jurispru-dence, landscape acts, despite their worthy purposes, may be based on unconstitutional provisions. Doubts in this context are con-nected mostly with the rule of securing previously acquired right.

According to current intentions of the Act of 27 March 2003 and landscape acts enacted pursuant to its provisions, possessors of objects being subject to restrictions or prohibitions can be legally forced to remove or adjust them to new conditions within transitional period. What is important, existing regulation does not provide any financial compensation for performing these activities. This fact has been questioned by Supreme Administrative Court (see judgment of 6 June 2019, no. II OSK 166/18). Among other grounds of landscape act’s annulations procedural mistakes and incoherence between scopes of the Act of 27 March 2003 and landscape act are common.

4. Selected non-legislative means

As it has been signalled before, many practical problems both with cultural parks and landscape acts may result from the fact that complicated matter of cultural landscape protection is sometimes beyond local communities’ knowledge and skills. The awareness of the problem of landscape values is still at quite low level. Local com-munities themselves prefer to deal with less controversial issues, considering harmonization of particular elements of local space as unnecessary in comparison with more practical tasks such as investments in local infrastructure etc.

In order to solve abovementioned problems, it is essential to pro-mote legal regulations in scope of cultural landscape, just to make its protection sui generis ”fashionable”. To reach this aim, special campaign was launched in 2016 by National Heritage Board of Poland in cooperation with Ministry of Culture and National Heritage.

The aim of the campaign has been defined as drawing attentions of local authorities, companies, institutions and society to problem of advertising chaos and suitable planning of urban space. Under the campaign, some educational movies and spots have been prepared.

Their presentation has been combined with meetings with local authorities’ representatives that took additional opportunity of having some training in this scope; some of them were also presented in public television, which made them more available for average recipient. Coming back to local governments’ perspective, it is of great importance that within the framework of campaign some prac-tical guides have been prepared as regards e.g. creation of cultural park or enaction of landscape act. Written in more plain language that legal acts provisions, full of synthetic summing-ups and graph-ics, such texts shall be appreciated as accessible sets of guidelines.

4.2. “Well-maintaned monument” award

Another initative that may motivate entities responsible for cultural landspace protection to fulfill well their duties is contest organized under the slogan “Well-maintaned monument”. Organized by National Heritage Board of Poland under supervision of General Monument Conservator, contest is divided into several categories – one of them concerns revaluation of cultural space and landscape. Mentioned category may include not only cultural parks, but also other spatial monuments. So far, following sites have been appreciated with the

Ed. 2019: open-air museum in Markowa, Ed. 2018: park-arboretum in Gołuchów,

Ed. 2017: palace and park complex in Dobrzyca, Ed. 2016: palace and park complex in Kłóbka,

Ed. 2015: monument houses built on defensive walls in Dobre Miasto.

It shall be supposed that perspective of being awarded may act as a motivator for monument’s owners to take care of them in appro-priate way. Even if material prizes for laureates are rather symbolic (including diploma and special board to be placed on the monu-ment), it is promotional aspect that seem to be the most important in such competition.