Cultural Heritage Protection Study (2001)

This study has been prepared as a resource for the Republic of Armenia (“RA”) Government and the RA Ministry of Culture, Youth Affairs and Sports, under a contract with the Hayastan All-Armenian Fund as part of a World Bank Study of Cultural Heritage Protection in Armenia. The key issues addressed in this study are the legal, policy and administrative framework for cultural heritage protection in Armenia in light of international practices. The study surveys the current laws and institutions, international standards, and national practices of comparable countries, with a view to making recommendations on ways to harmonize Armenia’s framework with the best international practices, in particular the Council of Europe (“CoE”) framework to which Armenia acceded in 2001. Armenia has also acceded to several international treaties in this field (see Appendix). Several of these, in particular the CoE Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe (October 3, 1985, “Granada Convention”) and CoE Convention on the Protection of the Archeological Heritage (revised January 16, 1992, “Malta Convention”) place an affirmative duty on member states to bring their laws into conformity with the standards set forth in those treaties.

Cultural heritage policy plays an important role in economic development, cultural tourism, urban redevelopment, and cultural and national identity. As Armenia enters the second decade of its transition to independence and integration into the global economy and community, particularly in light of the scarcity of resources for maintenance and development, cultural heritage protection demands urgent attention lest this hiatus permanently affect the long-term viability and vitality of Armenian culture. Limited resources call for prioritization to prevent deterioration and destruction of cultural heritage and to assure continuity of institutions, collections, folk traditions and professional schools, which, once disrupted, will be difficult or impossible to restore.

In general, Armenia, because of dedicated and well-trained specialists, has managed in practice to protect its cultural heritage despite lack of resources. It has also adopted a number of laws, regulations, and other legal protections supporting cultural heritage protection that either meet or approximate international norms. The main issues based on our interview and analysis of the administrative and legal practices are

lack of resources that threaten the physical preservation of cultural property and undermine the continuity of training and preparation of cultural specialists,
inefficiencies and redtape,
lack of clear policies tailored to Armenia’s needs,
prioritization,

which in turn are in part attributable to

gaps, conflict and ambiguities in the laws,
lack of transparency, accountability and due process sufficient to convey the impression that the system works and is fundable,
misfit between the laws and local institutions, conditions, and legal culture,
various transitional phenomenon, including (a) governmental downsizing, (b) unemployment, (c) privatization-related uncertainties, (d) unclear church-state relations, (e) over-regulation and over-inclusive prohibitions that unnecessarily burden users, creators and preservers of cultural heritage, (f) lack of resources, salaries, career paths for cultural preservation specialists
various structural issues:

insufficient separation of

- policy-making function
- legislative function
- oversight/enforcement function, and
- implementation function leading to
- over-involvement of government or government affiliates in implementation and provision of non-regulatory services.

Because this report and its methodology are based on the premise that laws need to be developed based on clarification of policy, this report does not attempt to provide specific legislative proposals. This report aims to provide the framework for discussions and decision-making regarding cultural heritage policy that will lead to improved laws and regulations. It is expected that this framework will be used by policy-makers, administrators, legislators, specialists, donors, and other stakeholders to engage in an evaluation of the current situation and build a consensus around solutions and laws that are designed for Armenia’s specific needs at this time and its development in the short- and longer-term in the field of cultural heritage protection.

Next Steps:

This report can be used to assist in cultural policy clarification, legal- administrative reform and adoption of new laws that are specifically tailored to Armenia’s needs. The Recommendations throughout the report, and the Checklists in Part II can serve as an agenda for a public debate on cultural heritage policy in which all of the stakeholders can take part, bringing their perspectives to the discussion. One approach is to take the specific situations (performance criteria) and use those as a starting point for discussion of how the current system works, what its goals are, and how it might be improved, using as a guiding principle the international standard included in the RA Constitution, Art. 44, that laws should be no more restrictive than necessary to achieve a legitimate state purpose or societal interest. The highest priority should be to identify and assure the protection of “at risk” cultural heritage. Other issues should include: (1) how to create fundable institutions – what are the needs of the market and the donors, in particular international organizations and diasporan donors, (2) how to create the confidence in the institutions, legal and administrative system to facilitate the promotion and protection of Armenia’s cultural heritage. This discussion could take place at meetings, in the press, and on-line, through e-governance, or internet bulletin boards. The on-line option is particularly useful for creating a public record and facilitating broader participation than is possible at meetings or in the media. Thus, a first step may be to create an on-line bulletin board for public discussion of cultural heritage policy and legal reform.

1.2. Methodology: Legislative and Administrative Guidelines, Models, Performance and Quality Control Criteria

The CoE has produced legislative guidelines for cultural heritage laws that summarize the key issues and experience of European countries. The CoE also has a legislative support unit for harmonization of national laws with CoE standards. As the most developed and most relevant set of international standards for Armenia currently, these guidelines are recommended as a starting point for policy, administrative, and legal reform.

Like software code, laws are designed to work on a certain system and to produce certain results. It is not possible to patch together software code designed for different systems or for different functions without causing significant incompatibilities and unexpected results. For this reason, Armenian laws need to be designed for Armenia taking the following into account at a minimum:

Armenia’s policy goals and the state of Armenian cultural heritage
International performance standards
Armenia’s current administrative and legal system generally that provides the context within which the cultural heritage laws must operate
localized performance standards
quality control to assure that laws, regulations and administrative structures produce results consistence with (1) and (2) given (3) and (4).
debugging of the laws before adoption to eliminate, to the extent possible, unexpected or undesirable results, opportunities for misapplication or corruption of the law.

We have reviewed a number of foreign laws, models, and reports and assessments of legal and administrative frameworks, copies of which are attached as reference material in the appendix. These include surveys by the CoE of European laws and practices and materials from the Commonwealth of Independent States (“CIS”) and former soviet and East European countries.

Since soviet times, Armenian laws have tended to be based on soviet and Russian models. This trend continues with the draft Fundamentals on Culture, circulating during the summer and fall of 2001. This approach has pros and cons. The main advantages are (1) common provenance, making compatibility with the Armenian legal and administrative system and legal culture and practices more likely than laws from other sources, (2) quality control, since these Russian models have been developed for a larger country with more resources for law development. The main disadvantages are that these laws are (1) designed for a multiethnic federation with more resources and many problems and policy objectives that may not be appropriate for Armenia, (2) the Armenian legal and administrative system and policies are now sufficiently different from the Russian system that compatibility is now a problem, especially since other laws have been adapted in such a way through editing and revision that compatibility is not possible, (3) Russia like Armenia is going through a transition and the laws are a reflection of Russia’s transitional needs and compromises which may not coincide with Armenia’s needs.

Other Foreign Models. Various foreign models, especially European and Baltic models have been reviewed. No set of foreign laws is directly applicable to Armenia, because the local conditions, institutions, and policy goals are different. They may be used as a reference point, but not more. They are not ready-made “software modules” that can be plugged in as patches or slightly modified and expected to run in the Armenian context. While such measures may be justified in the short-term because of the urgent need for regulation or lack of resources, in the longer-term Armenian cultural heritage laws need to be thought through and produced with the performance criteria and policy clarification set forth above.

Of the models reviewed, Cyprus and the Baltics appear to be the most directly applicable. They are relatively modern laws for countries similar in size, recent history of independence, and ethnic/national composing within CoE framework of standards. The laws of European countries with larger, more diverse populations, federative systems, and longer histories of independent legislative development tend to have unique approaches that are the result of historic compromises that are not applicable to the Armenian context and therefore cannot be directly transposed or would need serious adaptation for the Armenian context.

The Cyprus and Baltic models, however, do not provide much guidance for the unique role of the national church and its large share in cultural heritage. Nor do the laws of Roman Catholic countries where, for the most part, church-state relations were handled differently, nor those of most soviet countries, including Russia, where because of differences in scale and resources and less diffuse diaspora, the Russian Church is in a different situation from the Armenian Church. The countries with national churches, such as England, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and Greece, provide closer analogies; however, in each case unique historic-cultural factors (e.g., special antiquities laws in Greece, national trust in England), national wealth and size, and the unique course of the development of their legal systems precludes direct application of their policy solutions to the Armenian context.

Performance Criteria, Quality Control, Abuse-Proofing

To help assist in the policy clarification, development of performance and quality control criteria for Armenia’s cultural heritage laws, as well as the debugging and performance testing of those laws, a set of checklists and criteria, set forth in Part II hereof, have been prepared based on interviews and analysis of the legal and administrative framework in light of international standards and unique local needs and situations.

These checklists and criteria can help guide policy makers and legislative drafters, including consultants, in their development of a new generation of cultural heritage laws for Armenia. Serious consideration should be given to including these criteria in terms of references for future law development and consulting projects and for internal use by the relevant legislative or government oversight for law development in this field.

Any new law should facilitate the design and execution of certain basic transactions essential in Armenia in an internationally accepted manner:

Quality Assurance – Assure that all common and essential transactions are easily performed. All essential transactions should be at least as easy and enforceable under the Armenian Law as under the best international practice.
Test Performance in Context. To ensure this, the draft law should be tested against certain performance criteria taking into account the actual legal framework, institutions and practices in Armenia
Abuse Proof. “Abuse proof” the law, that is, for the most typical transactions the provisions of the law must be examined from the point of view of how a less than honest and diligent individual might misuse the law to extract bribes, cause delay or undermine fair and predictable outcome.

Any recommended new law should be accompanied by “proof” or “a written demonstration” that it meets these three criteria.

1.3. E-Governance

The essence of the rule of law is due process and equal protection. Due process requires (1) notice, (2) an opportunity to be heard, (3) rational/reasoned decision making, (4) meaningful appeal. Equal protection requires consistent application of rules and equal access, both of which are grounded in access to information. The legal and administrative framework has proved to be one of the most intractable impediments to economic development and effective cultural heritage management in many emerging economies, including post-soviet countries like Armenia. E-governance aims to empower individuals, attorneys, and public interest groups by promoting transparency, equal access to information, and meaningful opportunities to engage the legal and administrative system in a system-changing way. It is a non-controversial, non-intrusive measure that public and private sectors can work to develop together, fostering confidence while making a concrete contribution to developing the tools and processes required for a sustainable business climate and good governance.

It is the easiest and cheapest way to get information out to the public, in particular that segment of the public that is in a position to engage the system and engage in systemic reform. It is easy to up-date. It is easier to search. Information can be accessed everywhere, whereas printed material is costly to prepare and disseminate, becomes out of date quickly, is difficult and costly to index, and quickly disappears from public circulation. E-governance measures include on-line inventories of cultural property, e-museums and libraries, e-applications for permits, on-line notice and comment mechanisms for new laws and regulations.

2. Definition of Cultural Heritage

One of the first issues faced by any legal, policy and administrative framework in this field is the evolving terminology and changing scope of cultural heritage. As part of the harmonization process, many countries, particularly those of Europe, are adopting the CoE terminology. While intangible cultural heritage is no less important or endangered, this study will focus on tangible property, both immovable and movable, since at the time of this assessment of Armenia’s Cultural Heritage Laws, tangible property is the primary sphere covered by regulation.

The new Draft Fundamentals for the Law of Culture (no date – in circulation July 2001) give a broad and comprehensive definition of “cultural values” that includes “works of cultural and art, creations of fine and folk art and crafts, folklore, moral and aesthetic concepts, ways of life, languages, dialects and sayings, national customs and traditions, historical place names, research on cultural activities and methodology, cultural heritage.” It also gives a definition of cultural heritage as “the totality of the cultural property and values created in the past which for the preservation and development of the RA and the Armenian people as a contribution to world culture have archeological, historical, artistic, or socio-cultural significance.” Neither of these definitions corresponds exactly to the definitions in CoE or international instruments.

Since the CoE incorporates international standards and is more frequently and actively up-dated with interpretation and recommendations, and more directly and immediately applicable to Armenia’s legislative development, the CoE approach is more relevant and will be followed in this report.

2.1. Immovable

There are several internationally accepted standards for definitions of immovable property. The two main sources of international standards directly applicable to RA law are the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (“UNESCO”) Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (UNESCO Convention of 1972), which created the World Heritage List and related programs, and the CoE Conventions of 1985 (Granada) and 1992 (Malta), on architectural and archeological monuments respectively. The trend is toward integration of man-made and natural sites and toward integration of preservation with general town and country planning (zoning). Such organizations as International Council of Monuments and Sites (“ICOMOS”) and International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (“IUCN”) have additional guidance on both terminology and integrated approaches to the legal framework. CoE also stresses an integrated approach in its guidance on legislation in the field of culture, see e.g., Recommendation No. R (95) 9 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the integrated conservation of cultural landscape areas as part of landscape policies (adopted by the Committee on 11 September 1995 at the 543rd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies).

After intervention to prevent destruction and deterioration, the first priority identified by these international instruments is creating and maintaining an inventory of immovable cultural property. This requires an internationally accepted definition of the property to be inventoried. The definition in the RA Law No. 261, “On the Protection and Use of Immovable Historical and Cultural Monuments and Sites” is similar but not identical to the international standard.

Definitions from the UNESCO Convention of 1972

monuments: architectural works, works of monumental sculpture and painting, elements or structures of an archeological nature, inscriptions, cave dwellings and combinations of features, which are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science;
groups of buildings: groups of separate or connected buildings which, because of their architecture, their homogeneity or their place in the landscape, are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science;
sites: works of man or the combined works of nature and man, and areas including archaeological sites which are of outstanding

universal value from the historical, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological point of view.

Definitions from the CoE Granada Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe (1985)

monuments: all buildings and structures of conspicuous historical, archaeological, artistic, scientific, social or technical interest, including their fixtures and fittings;
groups of buildings: homogeneous groups of urban or rural buildings conspicuous for their historical, archaeological, artistic, scientific, social or technical interest which are sufficiently coherent to form topographically definable units;
sites: the combined works of man and nature, being areas which are partially built upon and sufficiently distinctive and homogeneous to be topographically definable and are of conspicuous historical, archaeological, artistic, scientific, social

2.2. Movable Cultural Property

Movable cultural property is defined most fully in the Paris Convention of 1970, which has been followed in the RA Law on Import and Export of Cultural Property.

Rare collections and specimens of fauna, flora, minerals and anatomy, and objects of paleontological interest;
property relating to history, including the history of science and technology and military and social history, to the life of national leaders, thinkers, scientists and artists and to events of national importance;
products of archaeological excavations (including regular and clandestine) or of archaeological discoveries;
elements of artistic or historical monuments or archaeological sites which have been dismembered;
antiquities more than one hundred years old, such as inscriptions, coins and engraved seals;
objects of ethnological interest;
property of artistic interest, such as:
1. pictures, paintings and drawings produced entirely by hand on any support and in any material (excluding industrial designs and manufactured articles decorated by hand);
2. original works of statuary art and sculpture in any material;
3. original engravings, prints and lithographs;
4. original artistic assemblages and montages in any material;
rare manuscripts and incunabula, old books, documents and publications of special interest (historical, artistic, scientific, literary, etc.) singly or in collections
postage, revenue and similar stamps, singly or in collections;
archives, including sound, photographic and cinematographic archives;
articles of furniture more than one hundred years old and old musical instruments.

Movable cultural property is also covered in the most recent CoE guidelines as one of the two major categories of cultural heritage. Movable cultural property-related issues fall into five primary issues: (1) types, (2) institutions and policies for preservation, (3) circulation, including import and export, (4) recovery by rightful owners, (5) protection of the intellectual property contained in the movable property. An additional trend has been the integration of movable and immovable property preservation and presentation, particularly at archeological sites and in architectural settings where fixtures and other objects associated with a building are considered an integral part of the historical or cultural significance of the building or site.

(1) The types of movable property include books, manuscripts, works of art, fine and applied, handicrafts, textiles, and artifacts, recordings, film, as well as the property associated with living arts, such as musical instruments, costumes, theater props, film, ethnographic notes, and other media.

(2) Institutions include libraries, archives, museums, research institutes, educational institutions, churches, and other public and private collections, publishing houses, internet sites – virtual libraries and museums.

(3) circulation, including import and export, is a key component of movable property policy and regulation, including inventory, maintaining the cultural heritage stock of the country, which is particularly vulnerable in times of economic hardship and great disparities in wealth and underfinancing of institutions, regulation of commercial dealers, transborder transfers, permanent or temporary import and export,

(4) recovery of property by rightful owners, which is a norm of international law and CoE conventions and treaties.

(5) protection of the intellectual property contained in the movable property – e.g., copyright, protection against illicit reproduction, assuring fair compensation to owners/authors to encourage continued creation of cultural property, turnover royalties for re-sales.

2.3. Intangible/living culture, which has been defined in a number of ways to include all performing arts, such as theatre, music, dance, and cinema as well as folk art and folk ways, crafts, and traditional life and customs.

UNESCO defines it as follows: “The intangible heritage might be defined as embracing all forms of traditional and popular or folk culture, i.e. collective works originating in a given community and based on tradition. These creations are transmitted orally or by gesture, and are modified over a period of time through process of collective recreation. They include oral traditions, customs, languages, music, dance, rituals, festivities, traditional medicine and pharmacopoeia, the culinary arts and all kinds of special skills connected with the material aspects of culture, such as tools and the habitat.”

Institutions involved in intangible culture preservation include museums, libraries, research institutions, educational institutions, churches, theatres, orchestras, choirs, dance groups, crafts guilds and workshops, ateliers, conservatories, film studios, recording studios, mass media organizations and outlets, internet, and other formal and informal institutions where such culture is created, transmitted (taught) or presented (displayed).

3. General Policy Objectives

3.1. Protection and Preservation, Inventory and Classification

Protection and preservation of cultural heritage is an end itself as well as a means to a number of important societal goals. Cultural heritage is an inheritance that each generation holds as a trustee for the next generation, preserving, protecting and adding to it. The reasons for preservation and protection of cultural heritage are wide ranging as are the philosophies for preservation, conservation, adaptation, and protection – sometimes preserving unique things of intrinsic beauty and worth, sometimes common but characteristic, but now rare, sometimes historically significant, sometimes for economic or tourist reasons. At some level, cultural heritage is tied to national identity. The philosophy of cultural heritage preservation also includes different approaches from conservation “as is,” to prevention of deterioration, to restoration, to reuse and renovation for new purposes.

The first priority after prevention of destruction or deterioration is inventory and classification of cultural property in a publicly accessible manner in accordance with objective criteria.

3.2. National Identity

National identity is an important motivation for cultural preservation, both for the nation itself and for other nations and cultures. Culture provides common ground for mutual appreciation and understanding. Contemporary respect for other cultures can serve as a salve for past historical wounds. In the absence of tangible objects, culture becomes an abstraction that is difficult to experience, and when the transmission and reproduction of intangible culture is cut off, the culture becomes lifeless and is on its way to extinction. No less than natural diversity, cultural diversity is part of humanity’s wealth and each loss diminishes our humanity and the world’s cultural heritage.

3.3. Cultural Tourism

Tourism is a form of cultural exchange and international contact that promotes understanding and appreciation of cultural diversity. As a special form of tourism based on man-made artifacts and activities, it adds an economic component and incentive to protection of cultural heritage and its proper presentation, while also posing a threat to that heritage through commercialization, especially when the lowest common denominator of touristic demands and tastes is permitted to intrude upon or change the character of the site, turning the serene and sacred atmosphere of church into the irreverent din of crowds of chattering tourists. For a country like Armenia that needs to find a differentiated form of cultural tourism, special care must be taken to assure that in an effort to increase quantity, it does not undermine its quality and special niche as a land of serene, pristine and mystical Eastern Christianity in the mountains.

Cultural route tourism is particularly well suited to Armenia and Armenian culture, since so much of Armenia’s historic lands lies outside the current state borders and so much of Armenian history is tied to larger historical events and currents outside of Armenia. The Christian/religious theme ties it to the Holy Land and many of the early Christian holy sites and apostolic pilgrimage routes, which were further developed by Crusader ties through Cilicia and the Armenian Quarter in Jerusalem. Other cultural routes lead from Europe through to the Far East, such as Marco Polo and the silk routes, there are north-south routes from Russia through Iran into the Middle East and the Holy Land. Indo-European homeland themes and archeological site tie it to both East and West, as well as to the Caucasus and Middle East.

3.4. Issues of Special Concern for Armenia

3.4.1. Small Scale and Sustainability. Armenia faces a number of unique issues in the field of cultural heritage protection. Although an ancient nation with a large cultural heritage, its small size and population makes Armenian culture vulnerable in global competition with larger cultures that have larger markets to support them. As in other aspects of its economy and state, small scale results in fewer resources which in turn impacts revenues, marketing, overhead and management in the field of cultural heritage protection. Armenia has a large cultural heritage in terms of depth and breadth of fields of excellence. The high value that the population places on culture makes demands, particularly financial demands, that are considerably greater than other countries of its size or GDP per capita.

3.4.2. Diaspora. Another salient aspect of Armenian cultural heritage is its centuries’ old diaspora, which has fostered Armenian cultural diffusion globally, creating important centers of cultural life outside of the homeland. This centrifugal phenomenon adds to the difficulty of inventorying and tracking Armenian cultural heritage, particularly moveable heritage, such as artwork and archives, as well as intangible heritage, such as folkways, dance, oral literature, etc. If institutions, laws and policies are properly designed, the diaspora, because of its relative wealth, can be a source of support for Armenian cultural heritage and promotion of Armenian culture globally, as well as early movers and market leaders for Armenian cultural tourism and cultural routes.

3.4.3. Extraterritoriality. Armenia has significant immovable cultural property in Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Iran. Because so much of Armenia’s cultural heritage, like its population, is outside of the current state boundaries, extraterritoriality is a major issue for Armenian culture, in particular, immovable culture. The major part of Armenia’s historical homeland, the Armenian highlands around Mount Ararat, is now outside its borders, in Eastern Turkey, from which Armenians were ethnically cleansed during the Armenian Genocide beginning in 1915. A significant part of Armenian medieval civilization in Cilicia, which intersects with the European crusader culture, is now in Turkey, the Mediterranean islands, and the Middle East as well. Cross-border cooperation for the protection of Armenia’s cultural heritage is essential. Protection of cultural properties through international treaties and programs is urgent, particularly in Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan, where Armenian monuments are being intentionally disfigured and destroyed.

At a recent session, the CoE Culture, Science and Education Commission expressed its concern about the condition of Armenian cultural heritage outside of the RA. In particular it stressed that in 1912 there were in Western Armenia (in the territory of current-day Turkey) there were 2,260 churches and monasteries, of which 2,150 were destroyed in 1915 during the Armenian Genocide. According to the 1974 UNESCO report, after the Armenian Genocide, of the 913 remaining Armenian monuments, 464 were completely destroyed, 254 were leveled to the ground, and 197 urgently require rehabilitation. Armenian monuments in Azerbaijan are in the same condition. This data further emphasizes the need to take urgent measures within the CoE framework to protect Armenian cultural heritage outside the borders of the RA. Moreover, because of the centuries of dispersion, Armenian immovable culture is found throughout Western Europe, Russia, India, Egypt, the Holy Land, the Middle and Far East, which places a yet larger burden on the cultural heritage administration of a small state like Armenia.

3.4.4. Home and Cross Roads of Ancient and Modern Civilizations. The Armenian Highlands are one of the earliest sites of human civilization, where the Indo-European languages had their roots, in close proximity to ancient Semitic and Caucasian cultures. Some of the earliest archeological traces of human life have been found in and around the Armenian Highlands. The Hittites, Urarteans, Hurrians, Assyrians, Medes, Persians, Macedonian Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Parthians, Arabs, Georgians, Caucasian Albanians, European Crusaders, and later Turks, Mongols and Russians have at various times been in contact with Armenian Culture and Armenian territory. Thus, Armenia is an important piece in the puzzle of world-culture, but once again, because of its small size this burden is quite great.

3.4.5. Lack of Financial Resources. As noted above, Armenia has a large and varied culture for its relatively small country and population of today. In addition, the transition from a soviet economy and integration into the global economy has left it strapped for resources. Cultural heritage while high on the scale of Armenian values has not been able to secure adequate financing, by any standards, which adds to the sense of frustration with the transition for both the local population and Armenians world-wide. To date, institutions, such as cultural funds, or heritage trusts, have not be created or achieved the level of support necessary to address the needs of Armenian cultural heritage promotion and protection.

3.4.6. Transition from Soviet State. Transition from the soviet state has left much of Armenia’s cultural heritage, like its soviet economic legacy, stranded. This is particularly true of the specialists in cultural studies and applied arts who are still struggling to find their place in the market economy and whose career paths have virtually disappeared, affecting not only this generation, but also future generations who are deterred from pursuing these careers, thus attenuating the transmission of important expertise and skills. At the same time, independence has breathed new life into Armenian national culture, which is gradually shedding soviet and Russian overlays and regaining its own identity. In the process, it faces heavy competition with better financed, more widely available, and cheaper/subsidized global cultures. Moreover, certain aspects of Armenian culture and history, particularly church and religious culture, which was suppressed or subverted, have been cast into the fray without resources to heal their wounds from the soviet era and with inadequate resources to meet the pressures of modernization, the free market, and better financed global cultures. The newer media and popular culture, such as cinema, music and dance, are especially vulnerable, as are language and literature.

3.4.7. Church-State. As demonstrated and underscored by the 1700th Anniversary Celebration of Christianity as Armenia’s state religion, the Church has played a central role in Armenian culture. It is a key institution in the creation, management and preservation of Armenia’s cultural heritage. It is hard to overestimate the role that this institution, as the overarching Armenian institution has played and continues to play, both in Armenia and especially in the diaspora. At the same time, the church is just beginning to recover from the losses of the Genocide and soviet repression. Despite its great contribution to Armenian culture and the large amount of Armenian cultural property, tangible and intangible, that it has heroically protected and preserved, only a decade into its recovery from the soviet era, the Church has not yet built up the human and financial resources or administrative structures to reclaim and manage all of its legacy world-wide. Nevertheless, to avoid friction between church and state and to honor the constitutional and international legal norms calling for separation of church and state, resolution of church property claims has become more urgent. The reawakening of the church in Armenia after soviet repression has created a demand to put more of Armenia’s ancient houses of worship, churches and monasteries, into active use as parish churches, seminaries, pilgrimage and religious education centers. A perennial attraction for tourists, balance needs to be sought among a number of factors, including functionality, historical conservancy, and maintaining the sacred atmosphere that makes these attractive sites. For at-risk cultural properties outside of Armenia, one urgent method of intervention would be restoration to church ownership and control, since in most jurisdictions church properties enjoy greater protections than secular properties. For cultural properties inside Armenia ownership and use must be clarified in such a way that friction between church and state is kept to a minimum, while assuring that the state and public at large have access and that the state has the ability to intervene to protect cultural properties in emergencies.

4. Summary of Recommendations

4.1. Risk Assessment

After ten years of economic transition with the attending scarcity of resources, the prior decades of Soviet, pro-Russian policies, the generation change taking place in much of the diaspora, much of Armenia’s cultural heritage, movable, immovable, and intangible is at risk. The most urgent needs are a coherent preservation and maintenance program

to address deferred maintenance,
to prioritize endangered heritage both from the point of view of (1) cultural significance (2) imminence of loss or damage,
to rationally allocate resources to prevent unnecessary, irremediable losses of property and trained personnel
to assure that there is the capacity and expertise to handle cross-border matters, given that much of Armenian cultural heritage is outside the boundaries of the current state and, while some instances it may be well-maintained, in general, there is a serious risk of hostile or unfavorable treatment abroad.
to be aware of the danger of depredation of archeological sites or museum collections in light of the lack of resources in Armenia for their proper study and protection and take measures to prevent irremediable losses.

4.2. Inventory and Classification

The basis for any cultural heritage management, preservation and maintenance system is a centralized database of essential information about each item of cultural heritage, classified on an objective criteria, with clear legal rights and obligations for each category, widely accessible to all regulators (e.g., town planning, preservation and expert boards, customs, law enforcement, academic and research institutions, private foundations). An integrated inventory for natural, immovable, movable and intangible cultural heritage has many advantages from the point of view of efficiency, consistency, predictability, coordinated policies across inter-related areas of cultural heritage and international information exchanges.

Norms and systems for inventories have been developed by CoE, International Council of Museums (“ICOM”), International Council on Archives (“ICA”), Museum Documentation Association (“MDA”) and others. Efforts should be made to bring Armenia’s inventory and classification systems into line with internationally established systems to facilitate information exchanges, as required by the Granada Convention, Art. 17-20; Recommendation R(95) 3 on Coordinating Document and Methods and Systems related to historic buildings and monuments of architectural heritage, adopted January 11, 1995.

4.3. Harmonization and Integration with CoE International Norms

In connection with Armenia’s accession to the Council of Europe and its accession to a number of international treaties and organizations, Armenia has an obligation to harmonize its national laws with the requirements of CoE and international treaties. These norms are based on tested international practice and at a minimum provide guidance on the key issues and best international practice. Specific areas that deserve attention are:

terminology and conformity to standards and procedures,
establishment of effective protection of Armenian cultural heritage abroad,
checks and balances/separation of powers within the system:
policymaking,
ownership,
regulation/legislation, and
oversight (enforcement),

need to be vested in different institutions and need to engage the public and experts in a transparent way, to assure that there is sufficient public awareness and support for policies. Armenia also has reporting and monitoring requirement to the CoE in accordance with the Granada Convention, Art. 20.

4.4. Efficiency and Productivity, Effective Resource Allocation

Finding and allocating resources are two of the main issues facing Armenia cultural heritage after 10 years of independence. As noted above, much of Armenia’s cultural heritage is endangered by deferred maintenance and lack of efficient oversight. The system is diffuse and places most of the burden on the user to obtain a series of decisions from a variety of bodies in order to assure compliance with Armenia’s cultural laws. Thus, even where legal norms are sufficient, implementation is inefficient. The CoE and UNESCO both recommend integrated systems for cultural heritage management, and certain comparable countries, such as Cyprus, have achieved high levels of integration and efficiency that may be worth examining for models or ideas on how to restructure the regulatory bodies in this field.

Another important consideration is the costs and benefits of centralized and decentralized systems and in particular which functions are more efficiently handled centrally and which locally or regionally. Given Armenia’s relatively small size and population, provided adequate communication, transportation and oversight is available, many aspects of inventory, classification, and expertise could be coordinated and unified to achieve economies of scale, uniformity and quality assurance. The goal is a more service-oriented, streamlined system, where responsibility and accountability are clear and there is less chance that matters will fall through the cracks or become stalemated because of inconsistency between regulatory bodies. Centralization can have negative effects, e.g., the danger that that a single mistake will impact the entire system; therefore, special mechanisms, such as e-governance and public participation, must be established to assure circumspect policy development to avoid unintended negative impact, and to facilitate accountability and prompt correction of mistakes. Some measures to promote efficiency that are common in international practice, include:

point of sale certification for export (e.g., shop owners tied to a central computerized system issue certificates permit export, which are checked once again at the border for authenticity and proper recordation).
point of export certification (e.g., a unified on-line inventory is at the disposal of the customs officer, who may not be an expert, but is trained to identify potential problems, consult the computer inventory, call on an expert from the Ministry of Culture, Youth Affairs and Sports, or if necessary, deny the right to export until it can be determined that export or import is permissible).
integrated information infrastructure, internet accessible databases of all cultural property, uniform cataloging and data records in conformity with international standards to facilitate exchange of information
simplification of redundant institutions,
single system of authorization and processing,
creation of unified institutions, reducing redundancies and overlapping jurisdiction, e.g., Ministry of Culture/Customs could have a single unit that is specially trained in import-export issues.

4.5. Fundable Institutions – Public-Private Partnership, Tax Policy

Most of Armenia’s cultural heritage is owned or possessed by either the church or state. Some is held privately either by individuals or organizations, particularly movable property and archives. A large part of intangible culture is privately maintained and transmitted, although both church and state support certain institutions, e.g. theatres, concert halls, schools, that transmit intangible culture. Church funding is largely from donations and grants. State funding is largely from tax revenues, loans and grants. Neither church nor state currently have large endowment funds to assure the perpetual maintenance of Armenia’s cultural heritage. Fundable institutions must be transparent, accountable and participatory. Since tax revenues will likely be insufficient to meet the needs of cultural heritage preservation for the foreseeable future, vehicles and mechanisms need to be established to attract the necessary resources to avoid irremediable loss from deferred maintenance and lapses in the transmission of culture and culture-related expertise. Sources of funding need to be surveyed and Armenian legislation has to assure that the church and state have the range of public and private institutions to effectively attract and use those funds. One or more publicly sanctioned, privately managed Cultural Heritage Endowment or Trust Fund, could be a vehicle to attract private, diasporan and international funding, on the model of English Heritage. In addition to support for formal institutions, intangible culture requires grant funding for educational programs, public awareness, and support for individuals and groups who are bearers and transmitters of the intangible culture. The diaspora has a special interest in supporting Armenian cultural heritage and some may find this kind of support and engagement more rewarding and better suited to their values and time-constraints than involvement in economic development or commerce. Tax policy is an important tool for subsidizing and providing incentives for cultural heritage protection and non-profit work generally that is underdeveloped in Armenia and may warrant reassessment.

4.6. Clarify Ownership – Especially Church-State

The largest single category of immovable cultural property in Armenia and around the world are churches and church-related property. The transfer of church property to the Church is underway, but there remain a number of issues regarding the methods of oversight and legal documentation of those transfers that can cause friction between church and state and give rise to unnecessary entanglement between church and state in the management of properties once they are transferred to the Church. Within the CoE there are a number of countries that have national churches with long histories. In England, for example, most churches and immovable cultural property belong to the church, and churches actively used for worship are largely exempt from state oversight except in the most extreme situations and are supported by the quasi-public English Heritage endowment. Denmark and Greece, where the church is granted special status in the Constitution, the state has a more active role in the financing and preservation of church properties. Sweden has an Endowment Fund and manages church property on a diocesan basis through a church tax. Finland also has a church tax collected by the state to support the church.

Given that Armenia’s tax base is currently, and likely to remain for the foreseeable future, too small to expect state support for the church and since the largest potential support for church properties and cultural heritage is outside of the state and the state’s taxing power, the English model may warrant closer examination for Armenia’s situation. The English model is described more fully in Section 6.4 below. The situation in Roman Catholic countries, such as France, Italy and Spain, has been shaped by the unique relationship between an international/ supernational church and the local states, and is not directly relevant to the situation of the Armenian Church in Armenia. On the other hand, the relationship between the Armenian Church and foreign states is quite analogous to that of the Roman Catholic church and may provide insight into the manner in which the Armenian Church handles cultural heritage issues outside of Armenia, recognizing that in each country it will need to have a policy tailored to the local laws and customs, and especially recognizing that the cultural heritage policies of its nearest neighbors may be hostile to preservation of Armenia’s cultural heritage.

4.7. E-Governance

One of the key components of cultural heritage protection and awareness is inventory and access to information and data, which can be addressed by a variety of e-governance solutions, that is, computer databases, internet and CD-ROM solutions. Given Armenia’s strong tradition of information technologies and the current emphasis on developing information technologies as a leading sector of Armenia’s economy, e-governance is a logical method for streamlining the administrative system and sharing information across agencies and ministries, e.g., Historical Monument Preservation Administration, Cultural Property Protection Administration, Customs, Civil Construction, Archives, Ministry of State Revenues, etc., and fostering consistency and uniformity, in line with CoE Recommendations and the Granada and Malta Conventions. Such e-governance solutions can also provide more efficient submission and tracking of applications and requests regarding cultural heritage issues, such as import and export certification at the point of sale, facilitate customs clearance, put property owners on notice of zoning and other restrictions, and promote international cooperation in the field of cultural heritage. E-governance can also promote uniformity across regions in Armenia and facilitate oversight. The main constraints are financial resources and internet infrastructure; however, it is unlikely that the present paper-based methods are more cost-effective even in the short run and serious consideration should be given to leap-frogging the older paper based systems and putting the entire inventory and other governmental applications and services directly on the internet in Armenian and English. This transparency is likely to increase the confidence of donors in the overall system of cultural heritage protection in Armenia and facilitate fund-raising for cultural heritage protection.

4.8. Integrated Conservation of Man-made and Natural Environments, City Planning and Preservation, Immovable, Movable and Intangible Culture Policies

One of the most important international trends in cultural heritage protection is the integration of various aspects of preservation and planning in a single process. This is justified by the interlocking and overlapping concerns of man-made and natural environments, city planning, and immovable property, which serves as the setting for both movable and intangible property, in many instances. The trend toward integration not only fosters a more coherent policy, but it also promotes efficiency.

4.9. Integration of Culture and Education Policies

Cultural heritage protection is ultimately for the benefit of the general public. Protection, in particular refraining from vandalism or waste, depends upon the goodwill and support of the population, who self-regulate their actions and who contribute to the tax and donation base for cultural heritage and voluntarily or through compulsory measures refrain from certain uses of property, whether public or private, in deference to cultural heritage. As both the beneficiaries and the benefactors of cultural heritage protection, it is important that the general population understand the policies, espouse them as their own, and see them as fair and justifiable. Integration of education and cultural policies and programs helps to ensure that there is a well-informed public to support cultural heritage preservation and that cultural heritage does not become and is not viewed as the special province of experts and curators, but is everyone’s responsibility. This can be achieve through NGOs and other public awareness campaigns, as well as by working with journalists and the media on presenting cultural heritage as the people’s common heritage and responsibility. Finally, it is important not to lose sight of the ultimate purpose of cultural heritage preservation, namely, the enrichment of everyone’s lives through self-understanding, historical appreciation, and artistic beauty.

4.10. Performance Test Legal and Institutional Framework

The law-making effort cannot be separated from the clarification of policy goals for cultural heritage and administrative efficiency of the system in achieving those goals. Laws cannot be patched together from different sources or imposed on the local institutional base and expected to work together coherently or effectively. For this reason, performance criteria and quality control should be mandatory part of any legal reform effort. Some sample test cases for the performance testing of the legal system are set forth in Part II hereof. Finally, the entire system needs to be abuse-proofed or debugged to assure that it works as a whole and produces good results for most of the common issues and problems that Armenia faces in cultural heritage preservation and development.

4.11. Cultural Property Abroad

Since so much of Armenia’s cultural property is located abroad, especially in the neighboring countries or diasporan communities, many of which are now depopulated, there are a special policy and administrative issues.

Recommendations on Cultural Property Abroad:

a special policy and administrative body, either in the Ministry of Culture, Youth Affairs and Sports or Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in conjunction with the Church, since so much of Armenian cultural property abroad is church-related, should be created to study the legal protections for cultural property in countries where Armenian cultural property is located, inventory and assess the properties.
efforts should be made to work within those systems, and also through international and regional cultural property protection systems, including nominating Armenian cultural properties for the World Heritage List, Endangered Monuments List of the World Monument Fund, and other lists;
public-private coordinated efforts should be mounted with local Armenian communities and non-Armenian “Friends of Armenian Culture” groups, to protect Armenian cultural property abroad;
to the extent possible, church properties abroad and in Armenia should be restored to church ownership, since religious properties tend to enjoy higher protections than other properties in most legal systems, while maintaining unintrusive state oversight to assure a double level of protection and a right of intervention in case of emergency.

You may also like