Proprietary fragmentation and public-private management of UNESCO sites owned by the Italian state

Antonio L. Tarasco

doi:10.21638/spbu25.2020.115

Authors

Antonio L. Tarasco Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities and tourism

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu25.2020.115

Abstract

This article is intended to develop the topic of the relationship between UNESCO sites owned by the Italian state and the profiles of their profitability and sustainability. If it is true that a common characteristic of Italian (and not only) UNESCO sites is the heterogeneity of the legal titles of ownership of such objects, then at the same time, for UNESCO sites belonging to the Italian state (25 out of 55: 45,55 %), the heterogeneity of management models is added to the multiplicity of legal regimes. In this case, the plurality of these properties affects both the valorization of the object and the quality of its management. The negative consequences of the fragmentation of the management of a UNESCO state site can be grouped as follows: 1) differences in recruitment approaches; 2) differences in management models; 3) qualitative differences in work experience; 4) differences in economic profitability; 5) differences in the accounting system. If such diversity is hardly understandable even when objects belong to different institutions, it is even less understandable when they belong to the state. The consequence of the absolute heterogeneity of the legal and organizational framework is the heterogeneity of economic results. The gap is huge and unacceptable: The Etruscan tombs of Tarquinia and Cerveteri bring in the following revenue: € 38 964,84 (2018) and € 57 127,00 (2019). At the same time, the income of the Archaeological Park Colosseum is: € 46 347 249,57 (2018) and € 48 465 096,71 (2019). If it is true that the award of UNESCO site status to a cultural monument is independent, as it should be, of its economic capabilities, then it is also true that increasing its economic profitability contributes to the achievement of the objectives of the UNESCO Convention: the protection and valorization of the cultural heritage object. Hence it is necessary to conduct autonomous financial reporting of UNESCO sites, which is currently absent in many state-owned UNESCO sites or they do not have their own accounting and financial autonomy. In conclusion, the topic of the fragmentation of ownership of the 55 Italian UNESCO sites and its impact on governance and financial returns allows us to explore the actual attention that the national legal system actually attaches to UNESCO sites, that is, the importance that, in addition to official declarations, UNESCO sites have in the domestic legal system.

Keywords:

UNESCO, proprietary fragmentation, management plans, property rights, management of cultural heritage, valorization of the cultural heritage object, UNESCO sites

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Armao, Gaetano. 2018. Tutela e valorizzazione integrata del patrimonio culturale dei siti UNESCO. Il caso del sito seriale “Palermo arabo-normanna e le Cattedrali di Cefalu e Monreale”. Aedon 1: 1–13.

Camerini, Xenia. 2018. L’attuale quadro normativo internazionale della tutela del patrimonio culturale mondiale. Rivista di Diritto delle Arti e dello Spettacolo 2: 7–29.

Casini, Lorenzo (a cura di) 2010. La globalizzazione dei beni culturali. Bologna, Il Mulino Frigo, Manlio. 2018. Approaches Taken by the Security Council to the Global Protection of Cultural Heritage: An Evolving Role in Preventing Unlawful Traffic of Cultural Property. Rivista di diritto internazionale 4: 1164–1181.

Garzia, Giuseppe. 2013. La valorizzazione dei beni e degli spazi pubblici di interesse culturale attraverso la diffusione delle moderne tecnologie informatiche: il caso della c. d. “Piazzetta degli Ariani” di Ravenna. Aedon 3: 1–7.

Guerrieri, Angela. 2019. La tutela dei siti UNESCO nell’ordinamento italiano, tra prospettiva interna e comparata. Il Diritto dell’economia 1: 461–491.

Macchia, Marco. 2010. La tutela del patrimonio culturale mondiale: strumenti, procedure, controlli. La globalizzazione dei beni culturali, a cura di L. Casini, 57–85. Bologna, Il Mulino.

Marchetti, Simona. 2011. La gestione dei Siti UNESCO di Villa Adriana e di Villa D’Este a Tivoli. Aedon 1: 1–15.

Migliorati, Claudia. 2013. Il sito archeologico di Pompei a rischio di cancellazione dalla lista del patrimonio mondiale. Diritto comunitario e degli scambi internazionali 4: 723–747.

Tarasco, Antonio L. 2019. Il patrimonio culturale. Concetto, problemi, confini. Napoli, Editoriale scientifica. Tarasco, Antonio L. 2020. Diritto e gestione del patrimonio culturale. Bari, Roma, Laterza.

Tarasco, Antonio L. 2020. Patrimonio culturale. Enciclopedia italiana di scienze, lettere ed arti, vol. II, Appendice X. Roma, Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana fondato da Giovanni Treccani.

Tarasco, Antonio L. 2020. Sostenibilita del debito pubblico e gestione del patrimonio culturale (prima e dopo il coronavirus). Cura e tutela dei beni culturali, eds Gianluca Esposito, Francesco Fasolino 299–315. Padova, Wolters Kluwer, Cedam.

Uccello Barretta, Laura. 2016. Quale tutela per i siti patrimonio dell’UNESCO? Osservatorio AIC 1: 1–15.