The object of cultural policy is preservation and development. Preservation of cultural heritage is the most important factor in the development of Russia

Text search

current

Document's name:
Document Number:	20-RP
Document type:
Host body:	The government of Moscow
Status:	current
Published:
Acceptance date:	January 14, 2008
Effective start date:	January 14, 2008

On approval of the Concept of the Medium-term Target Program for the Preservation of Cultural Heritage Sites and Development of the Territory of the Moscow State United Museum-Reserve for 2008-2010

THE GOVERNMENT OF MOSCOW

ORDER

In accordance with the Decrees of the Government of Moscow dated January 17, 2006 N 33-PP "On the Procedure for the Development, Approval, Financing and Control over the Implementation of City Target Programs in the City of Moscow", dated January 11, 2005 N 3-PP "On Improving the Practice of Development and the implementation of urban targeted programs in the city of Moscow ", dated December 13, 2005 N 1005-PP" On the transfer to the State Institution of the City of Moscow "Moscow State United Art Historical, Architectural and Natural Landscape Museum-Reserve" of the historical estate "Lublino" (South- Vostochny administrative district)", Decree of the Government of Moscow dated August 15, 2005 N 1544-RP "On the Moscow State United Art Historical, Architectural and Natural Landscape Museum-Reserve", Law of the City of Moscow dated March 12, 2003 N 18 "On the Long-term Target program for the preservation of objects of historical and cultural heritage and the development of the territory of the State Art of the National Historical, Architectural and Natural Landscape Museum-Reserve "Kolomenskoye" for 2003-2007":

1. Approve the Concept of the Medium-Term Target Program for the Preservation of Cultural Heritage Sites and Development of the Territory of the Moscow State United Museum-Reserve for 2008-2010 (Appendix).

2. The state institution of the city of Moscow "Moscow State United Art Historical, Architectural and Natural Landscape Museum-Reserve" to develop a Medium-term target program for the preservation of cultural heritage and development of the territory of the Moscow State United Museum-Reserve for 2008-2010 and submit it to the Department of Economic policy and development of the city of Moscow.

3. Submit the Medium-Term Target Program for the Preservation of Cultural Heritage Sites and Development of the Moscow State United Museum-Reserve for 2008-2010 to the Department of Economic Policy and Development of the City of Moscow for approval by the Government of Moscow in the 1st quarter of 2008.

4. Control over the implementation of this order shall be entrusted to Yu.V. Roslyak, First Deputy Mayor of Moscow in the Government of Moscow.

Acting
Mayor of Moscow
V.I. Resin

Application. The Concept of the Medium-Term Target Program for the Preservation of Cultural Heritage Sites and Development of the Territory of the Moscow State United Museum-Reserve for 2008-2010

1. Introduction (substantiation of the compliance of the problem being solved and the goals of the program with the priority tasks of the socio-economic development of the city of Moscow)

One of the priority areas of socio-economic development of the city of Moscow is the preservation of the historical and cultural heritage of the capital, the restoration of the lost elements of architectural and natural complexes, including such significant ensembles as the royal country residence in Kolomenskoye, the imperial palace and park ensemble in Lefortovo and the noble estate in Lublin.

The basis for the development of the Concept of the Medium-Term Target Program for the Preservation of Cultural Heritage Sites and the Development of the Territory of the Moscow State United Museum-Reserve for 2008-2010 are the following legal acts of the city of Moscow:

- Law of the city of Moscow of July 11, 2001 N 34 "On state targeted programs in the city of Moscow";

- Law of the city of Moscow dated March 12, 2003 N 18 "On the Long-term Target Program for the Preservation of Historical and Cultural Heritage and Development of the Territory of the State Artistic Historical-Architectural and Natural Landscape Museum-Reserve "Kolomenskoye" for 2003-2007";

- Decree of the Government of Moscow of January 17, 2006 N 33-PP "On the Procedure for the Development, Approval, Financing and Control over the Implementation of City Target Programs in the City of Moscow";

Decree of the Government of Moscow dated December 13, 2005 N 1005-PP "On the transfer to the State Institution of the City of Moscow" Moscow State United Art Historical, Architectural and Natural Landscape Museum-Reserve "of the historical estate "Lublino" (South-Eastern Administrative District)";

- Decree of the Government of Moscow dated November 13, 2007 N 996-PP "On the General scheme of planting greenery in the city of Moscow for the period up to 2020";

- Decree of the Government of Moscow dated August 15, 2005 N 1544-RP "On the Moscow State United Art Historical, Architectural and Natural Landscape Museum-Reserve".

Reconstruction and development of these historical and cultural territories included in the Moscow State United Art Historical, Architectural and Natural Landscape Museum-Reserve (hereinafter referred to as the Museum-Reserve) will make it possible to turn the recreational areas of the capital into unique display objects used in educational, upbringing and tourism purposes.

2. Substantiation of the expediency of solving the problem by the program-target method

Historical and cultural ensembles are complex objects, which include lands of historical and cultural purpose, monuments of history, architecture, archeology, geology, nature. The modern use of these territories involves the solution of a complex of tasks related to the issues of gardening and park art, the organization of infrastructure for servicing visitors, food facilities, energy and transport supply, communications between territories, the creation of an integrated security system for territories and objects, etc.

The solution of the tasks set is impossible without the application of the program-target method, which allows developing and implementing a set of program activities aimed at recreating, developing and using historical and cultural ensembles.

The main objectives of the developed program are:

Preservation, restoration and reconstruction of historical and cultural monuments;

Preservation and maintenance of natural monuments, unique natural objects and monuments of garden and park art;

Integrated landscaping of territories based on the reconstruction of the historical landscape;

Creation of thematic museum expositions and exhibitions;

Creation of a modern restoration, scientific, informational and educational center;

Creation of infrastructure for recreation of Muscovites and guests of the capital.

The implementation of the program will effectively develop inbound and domestic tourism, taking into account the urban areas adjacent to the museum-reserve that have preserved monuments of historical and cultural heritage, and will provide assistance in the implementation of urban cultural, sports and educational programs.

An integrated approach to the preservation and restoration of the historical, cultural and natural heritage of the museum-reserve, envisaged by the program, will systematically solve urgent problems and preserve the heritage of the country.

At the same time, within the framework of limited funding, priority tasks are set within the program.

For example, the priority direction in the reconstruction of the Lefortovo palace and park ensemble is the restoration of the ensemble's water system.

In the historical estate "Lyublino" - the reconstruction of the historical park, as well as the conduct of research, design and restoration work throughout the architectural ensemble of the estate.

In the royal estate "Kolomenskoye" the priority is the reconstruction of the Palace of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and the development of the historical protected area of ​​Dyakovo.

The program-target method used in the development of the Long-term target program for the preservation of historical and cultural heritage sites and the development of the territory of the State Museum-Reserve "Kolomenskoye" for 2003-2007 gave a positive result.

The territory is developing according to the approved general plans, taking into account the preserved monuments of history, architecture, geology, archeology, and nature. The created public service infrastructure takes into account all the features of this territory and is organized on the basis of urban planning regulation regimes, subordinating all aspects of the museum-reserve's diverse activities.

3. Characteristics and forecast of the development of the current problem situation without using the program-target method. Risk assessment when solving a problem by other methods

The development of territories without the use of an integrated program-target method will lead to the loss of the integrity of historical ensembles, to the work on separate objects that are not related to each other. In addition, such an approach will complicate the creation of the infrastructure of objects and may lead to a violation of the legislation of the Russian Federation in the field of the use of territories where objects of cultural heritage are located.

The main risk of not using the program-target method in solving this problem is the loss of a holistic perception, and, consequently, the historical appearance of the ensembles. If the reconstruction of a separate building or structure is possible in the context of the current modern urban environment, then the reconstruction of historical and cultural complexes must be carried out without interruption from its history, development and modern use. The lack of an integrated approach will lead to the risk of losing the preserved elements of the historical environment, historical and cultural monuments, archeology, nature, etc., as well as to the possible loss of historical and cultural heritage.

At the same time, the positive experience of implementing the Long-term Target Program for the Preservation of Cultural Heritage Objects and the Development of the Territory of the State Museum-Reserve "Kolomenskoye" for 2003-2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Program) confirmed the expediency of using the program-target method when conducting work on historical and cultural complexes.

In the period from 2003 to 2007, program activities were carried out within the framework of the allocated funding, approved by the laws of the city of Moscow on the budget of the city of Moscow for the corresponding years.

Of the 10 sections of the Program envisaged, activities were carried out in 8. Sections No. 5, 8 (organization of car parking and an integrated security system) did not receive financial resources under the Program.

As a result of the implementation of the Program, the following tasks were completed:

As part of the formation of the territory of the museum-reserve in accordance with the main directions of its activity as one of the Centers of Russian culture, the main set of works was completed on the restoration of historical and architectural monuments (to be completed in 2008);

An ethnographic zone was singled out in the restored structure of the former village of Kolomenskoye, with the Museum of Wooden Architecture of Fortification Monuments of the Russian North of the 17th century located within its boundaries;

The lost historical three-dimensional structure of the northern part of the territory of the museum-reserve has been partially restored (continuation of work is required);

Work was carried out on the reconstruction of existing and arrangement of new exposition premises and areas;

The storage facility was expanded;

To ensure excursion inspection of the territory, work was carried out to create a road and footpath network in the newly developed territories of the museum-reserve;

As part of the implementation of a set of environmental measures, the following was carried out:

- identification, preservation, restoration and maintenance of unique, valuable and characteristic elements of the natural environment;

- capturing of springs and drainage;

- cleaning of anthropogenic waste;

- decontamination of areas with increased radioactivity;

- strict zoning of the territory, taking into account anthropogenic loads;

Partially completed reconstruction of the embankment of the Moscow River (southern part of the territory of the museum-reserve, continuation of work is required);

In order to create a tourist service complex, a tourist service center was created on the territory of the former village of Kolomenskoye.

Also, during the implementation of the Program, pre-project and design studies of the following tasks were carried out, requiring further work, including: restoration of the lost historical volume-spatial structure of the partially northern and completely southern parts of the territory of the museum-reserve; creation of a repair and restoration center in the southern part of the territory; organization of an economic zone in the southern part of the territory; organization of the system of protection and security of the territory and objects of the museum-reserve; organization of parking lots for temporary parking of cars; placement of public toilets; organization of public catering; creation of a hotel complex; development of economic structures.

In accordance with the Program in the period from 2003 to June 2007, the customer, the museum-reserve, carried out work on 98 objects of budget financing.

In accordance with the Program, in the period from 2003 to May 2007, the customer JSC "Moskapstroy" carried out work on 12 objects of budget financing.

The customer - the Committee for Cultural Heritage of the city of Moscow in accordance with the Program in the period from 2003 to 2007 carried out work on 1 object of budget financing.

Implementation of program activities by sections of the Program

Section I. Emergency work (customer - museum-reserve)

The section provided for work on 5 objects. In fact, design and survey and construction and installation work was carried out on 9 objects.

In addition to the approved list of facilities, emergency response measures were taken at the following facilities: Church of the Ascension of the Lord, Fence of the Sovereign's Courtyard (Fodder Yard Wall), Fryazhsky Cellar, Sytny Yard (an increase in the number of objects in the section is due to the discovery of the emergency state of the monuments).

The work was carried out in accordance with the procedure approved for the city of Moscow.

The section is complete.

Section II. Restoration (customer - museum-reserve)

The section provided for work on 12 objects.

In fact, during the reporting period, design and survey and construction and installation work was carried out on 19 objects, including 3 objects not provided for by Section II: the refectory of the 19th century, the Pavilion of 1825, the filling of icon cases of monuments of the Museum-Reserve.

Section III. Engineering communications (customer - JSC "Moskapstroy")

The section provided for work on 11 objects.

In fact, during the reporting period, design and survey and construction and installation work was carried out at 7 facilities.

Section IV. Ethnography (customers - museum-reserve, JSC "Moskapstroy")

The section provided for work on 88 objects.

In fact, during the reporting period, design and survey and construction and installation works (major repairs, capital investments) were carried out by the museum-reserve for 44 objects, JSC "Moskapstroy" - for 3 objects.

Section V. Organization of parking of vehicles at the approaches to the territory of the Museum-Reserve (customer - Department of Urban Planning Policy, Development and Reconstruction of the City of Moscow)

The section included work on 8 objects.

Design and survey work was carried out on one object.

Section VI. Landscaping and museumification (customer - museum-reserve)

The section included work on 13 objects.

In fact, for the reporting period:

Works were carried out on the museumification of two objects (archaeology of Dyakovo settlement, Kormovoi yard);

Landscaping work was carried out on 17 objects (improvement of the territory of the Museum-Reserve (stages 1 and 2 of the project), improvement of the territory of the village of Dyakovo, reconstruction of the Moskva River embankment (stages 1 and 2 of the project), clearing the bed of the Zhuzha River, clearing the floodplain part of the river Moscow, sanitary felling, reconstruction of the pond in the Dyakovskiy garden, capturing of springs, improvement of natural monuments in the Golosovoy ravine, strengthening of the landslide slopes of the banks of the Moscow River, reconstruction of the bridge and stairways).

Section VII. Museum construction objects (customers - the museum-reserve and JSC "Moskapstroy")

The section included work on 15 objects.

In fact, during the reporting period, design and survey and construction and installation works (major repairs, capital investments) were carried out by the museum-reserve for 6 objects, JSC "Moskapstroy" - for two objects.

Section VIII. Integrated security system (customer - JSC "Moskapstroy")

The section included work on 6 objects.

In fact, during the reporting period, work was carried out to coordinate and approve in the prescribed manner the Concept of the project for organizing an integrated security system for the Museum-Reserve and the Project for organizing an integrated security system for the facilities of the Sovereign's Court (the central part of the Museum-Reserve).

Section IX. Integrated visitor service system (customers - the museum-reserve and JSC "Moskapstroy")

The section included work on 55 objects.

In fact, during the reporting period, work was carried out on the design of one object - a tavern for 150 seats (museum-reserve).

Section X. Planning and development project for the left bank of the Moscow River on the territory of the museum-reserve (customer - museum-reserve)

The section provided for work on one object.

The section was completed in full within the approved funding volumes.

4. Goals and tasks of the work (proposals on the goals and objectives of the Program, target indicators and indicators that allow evaluating the progress of the Program implementation by years)

The goal of the Program is the creation of a modern multidisciplinary museum-reserve based on the authentic palace and park and manor ensembles of the city of Moscow of the 17th-19th centuries "Kolomenskoye", "Lublino", "Lefortovo".

In accordance with the main directions of the authorized activity of the museum-reserve for sociocultural, scientific, educational, recreational purposes and for the development of inbound and domestic tourism in the city of Moscow, a single complex of management and use of these historical and cultural territories is being formed, taking into account the historical features of each of them, in including:

Creation on the territory of the museum-reserve "Kolomenskoye" of the largest historical, cultural and ethnographic complex in the city of Moscow, as a suburban royal residence;

Formation of the territory of the historical estate "Lyublino", as an example of Russian estate life of the XIX century, with the creation of a multifunctional museum center within its boundaries;

Formation of the territory of the Lefortovo palace and park ensemble as a Russian imperial residence.

Program Objectives:

Preservation, reconstruction and restoration of historical and cultural monuments, including religious sites;

Restoration within the historical boundaries of the lost historical volume-spatial structure of historical and cultural territories;

Comprehensive landscaping, focused on the reconstruction of the historical landscape, conservation, restoration and reconstruction of green spaces;

A significant increase in the volume of museum expositions on the basis of the reconstruction of existing and arrangement of additional exhibition areas, the expansion of opportunities for sightseeing tours of the territories of the museum-reserve;

Ensuring the safety and security of funds, objects (including architectural monuments) and territories of the museum-reserve;

Creation of infrastructure for tourist services of the territories of the museum-reserve, multifunctional museum and cultural centers.

The program should provide for the need to complete the implementation of activities provided for by the Long-term Target Program for the Preservation of Historical and Cultural Heritage Sites and the Development of the Territory of the State Artistic Historical-Architectural and Natural-Landscape Museum-Reserve "Kolomenskoye" for 2003-2007.

Targets

		Name of the event			2010 year
		Acquisition of museum funds (number of items)
		Display objects
		New expositions
		Introduced new service facilities included in the infrastructure of tourist services
		Exposition attendance (persons per year)
		Permanent entertainment events

5. Sources of funding for the target Program

Funding for the implementation of program activities is provided at the expense of the budget of the city of Moscow and extrabudgetary sources of funding.

Allocation of city budget funds for the implementation of the tasks set by the Concept, including the preservation, restoration and reconstruction of historical and cultural monuments; preservation and maintenance of natural monuments and unique natural objects; complex improvement of the territory, focused on the reconstruction of the historical landscape; creation of infrastructure for the recreation of Muscovites and guests of the capital, etc. provided for the following sectors:

- "Culture, cinematography and mass media" (funding items "overhaul", "capital investments");

- "Communal construction" (financing item "capital investments").

6. Program Management Mechanism

The functions of the state customer - the coordinator of the Program are supposed to be assigned to the Department of Economic Policy and Development of the City of Moscow. To appoint as the personal head of the Program, respectively, the head of the Department of Economic Policy and Development of the City of Moscow Ogloblina Marina Evgenievna.

The State Customer of the Program for Capital Construction and Reconstruction of the Museum-Reserve Objects is supposed to be the Department of the City Order for Capital Construction of the City of Moscow.

In connection with the specifics of work on the reconstruction of historical and cultural complexes and territories, as well as taking into account the positive experience of implementing the Long-term Target Program for the Preservation of Historical and Cultural Heritage Sites and the Development of the Museum-Reserve for 2003-2007, the functions of the customer for the main activities of the program (scientific and research and repair and restoration work, work on the improvement of the territory and the reconstruction of historical buildings) to be assigned to the museum-reserve.

Also entrust the museum-reserve with the current management and monitoring of the implementation of program activities.

The implementation of the Program is ensured by a set of measures for legal, organizational, financial, informational and methodological support. To ensure a unified approach to the implementation of the system of program activities, as well as the targeted and efficient use of the allocated financial resources, coordination of the actions of federal state authorities in the field of culture, structural divisions of the Moscow Government, state and non-state scientific, design, production enterprises and institutions participating in activities for the implementation of the Program.

Due to the intersectoral nature of the Program, it is proposed to create a Coordinating Council under the head of the Program with the participation of all interested parties, including a representative of the Department of Culture of the City of Moscow.

The implementation of the Program is carried out on the basis of state contracts (contracts) concluded in the prescribed manner with the executors of program activities.

Mechanisms for adjusting the activities of the Program and their resource provision

The Program is adjusted on the basis of proposals prepared by the state customer and customers and submitted to the Department of Economic Policy and Development of the City of Moscow.

The mechanism for adjusting the Program, which requires the issuance of a relevant legal act of the Government of Moscow, is determined in the manner established for the implementation of targeted programs.

Adjustment of the activities of the Program, which does not require the issuance of relevant legal acts of the Government of Moscow, is carried out through the proposals of the museum-reserve to change the plan of activities and their submission to the Department of Economic Policy and Development of the City of Moscow.

Proposed changes must contain an explanatory note explaining the reasons for the adjustment of program activities and be submitted by April 1 of the relevant financial year.

To ensure monitoring and analysis of the implementation of the Program, the museum-reserve annually coordinates with the Department of Economic Policy and Development of the City of Moscow the updated performance indicators of the Program for the corresponding year.

To ensure monitoring and analysis of the progress of the Program implementation, the state customer of the Program and the museum-reserve submit reports on the supervised areas to the state customer - the coordinator of the Program within the following terms:

Until October 31 - on the actual implementation of the Program for 9 months and on the expected implementation for the current year.

The state customer - coordinator submits summary reports to the Department of Economic Policy and Development of the City of Moscow:

Until November 15 - on the actual implementation of the Program for 9 months and on the expected implementation for the current year.

Electronic text of the document
prepared by CJSC "Kodeks" and checked against:
Moscow City Hall mailing list

On approval of the Concept of the Medium-term Target Program for the Preservation of Cultural Heritage Sites and Development of the Territory of the Moscow State United Museum-Reserve for 2008-2010

Document's name:	On approval of the Concept of the Medium-term Target Program for the Preservation of Cultural Heritage Sites and Development of the Territory of the Moscow State United Museum-Reserve for 2008-2010
Document Number:	20-RP
Document type:	Order of the Government of Moscow
Host body:	The government of Moscow
Status:	current
Published:	Bulletin of the Mayor and Government of Moscow, N 10, 15.02.2008
Acceptance date:	January 14, 2008
Effective start date:	January 14, 2008

Today, a large amount of Russia's cultural heritage is under threat. As a result of the growth of cities, the development of economic activity, part of the cultural heritage has lost its former value, and part has simply been destroyed irretrievably.

In the modern post-industrial era, humanity began to think about its future. Today, all the fragility of the situation is realized, the total dependence on the cultural and natural heritage, which acts as a resource for the further successful development of society.

The coming era puts forward new requirements for a person, his awareness, his special attitude to the environment and national heritage. Therefore, such global structures for the protection of cultural and natural heritage as UNESCO are being created. In every country today there are organizations that protect the national cultural heritage. Russia is no exception. But the efforts that Russia is making today to protect cultural heritage are not enough.

The current state of cultural and historical monuments of Russia

According to experts of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the state of cultural and historical monuments, which are under state protection, is extremely unsatisfactory. Approximately 70% of them need urgent restoration work to prevent their destruction. Among them are famous architectural complexes:

• Kremlins of Veliky Novgorod, Nizhny Novgorod and Astrakhan;
• monuments of white-stone architecture of the Vladimir region;
• Kirillo-Belozersky monastery in the Vologda region and many others.

Monuments of wooden architecture cause serious concern because of the fragility of their material. In the period from 1996 to 2001 alone, approximately 700 immovable objects of the cultural heritage of the peoples of Russia were irretrievably destroyed.

The state of monuments of the cultural and historical heritage of Russia can be represented as a percentage as follows:

• 15% of monuments are in good condition;
• 20% of the monuments are in satisfactory condition;
• 25% of the monuments are in poor condition;
• 30% of the monuments are in disrepair;
• 10% of monuments are ruined.

The demolition of historical sites and the erection of modern buildings in their places is a problem of modern society. Therefore, the architectural, urban heritage of Russia is literally in a catastrophic state. For example, in Tobolsk, almost all the wooden and stone buildings of the Lower City are already in the last stages of destruction.

Here you can name many cities in Russia where historical monuments and cultural monuments are specially demolished, destroyed from time to time or restored in a modern manner, even those that are under state protection as architectural monuments.

First of all, this is due to the commercial side of the issue. In the second - with a lack of funds for their restoration and other necessary work to preserve them.

Remark 1

It should be especially noted here that the historical and cultural (architecture, urban planning) heritage of Russia is still very poorly studied. This is especially true for provincial building complexes, individual architectural monuments in the outback of Russia.

Also, entire epochs of the development of domestic architecture have not been studied at all, in particular the architecture of the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries, and entire areas of construction: places of worship, individual residential buildings, noble and merchant estates, and more. This state of affairs leads to the irretrievable loss of unique monuments of history and culture.

Modern problems of protection of the cultural and historical heritage of Russia

Today, a number of problems have been identified in the field of protection of the natural and cultural heritage of Russia. Consider the most significant:

1. It is necessary to amend the Russian legislation in order to improve it in the field of protection and use of Russia's natural and cultural heritage.
2. It is necessary to determine the boundaries of the territories and the mode of use of lands that have objects of cultural and historical heritage.
3. It is necessary to approve the list of objects and protection zones by the legislation of the Russian Federation.
4. A significant number of objects of natural and cultural
5. heritage do not have a registered owner.
6. It is necessary to include objects of natural and cultural heritage
7. to the state cadastral register.
8. Objects of archaeological, historical, ethnographic value are subjected to unauthorized excavations.

At the same time, numerous violations of the current legislation on the protection and protection of the historical and cultural heritage of the Russian Federation have been recorded today. Here are the most common ones:

1. Violation of laws regulating relations related to the identification, accounting, conservation and use of natural and cultural heritage objects (on registering cultural heritage objects; on establishing the boundaries of territories, zones of protection of natural and cultural heritage objects; failure to formalize and fail to fulfill security obligations; failure to provide information about cultural heritage sites, etc.).
2. Violation of laws is recorded in various activities aimed at financing natural and cultural heritage sites.
3. Violation of laws on the protection of natural and cultural heritage in the process of urban planning and landscaping.
4. Violation of the legislation of the Russian Federation regulating relations related to the use of objects of natural and cultural heritage.

The low level of compliance with the legislation of the Russian Federation in this area is primarily due to the intersectoral management structure, which leads to interdepartmental friction, inconsistency in the actions of various subjects of government.

This idea is discussed in the Government of the Russian Federation. The decision should be made before the end of 2016.

"Guardians of the Legacy"

The preservation of cultural heritage can become a priority national project of 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 the 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 government support (it is expected that a decision should be made before the end of 2016), the issue will be submitted for discussion by the Council under the President of the Russian Federation for Strategic Development and Priority Projects.

Tasks 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.

Basic principle priority project "Preservation of cultural heritage" declared "Preservation through development": "Improving the accessibility of cultural heritage, cultural and economic development of territories, education and spiritual development of citizens based on cultural heritage."

The project is intended, according to the idea of ​​the initiators, to solve the following tasks:

Identification, inclusion in the state register and cataloging of objects of cultural heritage;

Improving the state protection of cultural heritage sites;

Conducting scientific research in the field of heritage conservation and development of scientific and project documentation;

Restoration, conservation and adaptation of cultural heritage sites based on comprehensive programs using foreign experience and best practice;

Creation of a modern domestic restoration industry;

Organization of service and profitable use of cultural heritage, increasing its accessibility for the population;

Popularization of cultural heritage, including with the use of modern information technologies;

Development of cultural tourism based on the use of restored and put into cultural circulation objects of cultural heritage;

Assistance in the development of a mass volunteer and volunteer 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 - Q1 2018; Q2 2018 - 2024; 2025 - 2030

According to the concept, at the first stage, additional state budget expenditures will not be required, and at the 2nd and 3rd stages in the field of cultural heritage preservation, additional funding in the amount of 30 billion rubles is planned (including from income from restored and put into cultural and economic circulation of monuments - " with a total area of ​​400,000 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 specialized industry. The project developers have 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 promote cultural diversity, develop tourism, attract additional investment, introduce new management models and increase the economic potential of the territories, but also to form and “promote” a “common 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 South Siberia. According to our information, the role of "pilot regions" is prepared by experts for the Tver and Kostroma regions.

Particular attention should be paid - in order to preserve not only heritage sites, but also the cities and settlements themselves, which, according to the fair assessment of the authors of the project, is in itself a national strategic task. The territorial planning of the project implementation 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 - 400 thousand square meters. m annually.

Volume extrabudgetary funding“Measures for the preservation of cultural heritage sites” are planned to be increased by 60 times over 15 years. In 2016, it should amount to 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

Indeed, the project also additional, starting from 2019, financing 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 urgent prospects with the initiators of the project.

For the "Heritage Keepers" the idea of ​​the priority project "Preservation of cultural heritage" is commented

Alexander Zhuravsky, Deputy Minister of Culture of Russia:

Preservation of heritage must be recognized as a priority for 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 area in which Russia globally competitive.

The sphere of culture in Russia needs not just investment, it needs strategic development and competent project management. If this is not done, it will gradually lose its competitiveness.

Any country, its citizens are distinguished by a special cultural, civilizational type. If the preservation and development of culture, its competitiveness does not become a strategic priority for the state, then sooner or later the country, civilization loses its identity, eroded by more competitive civilizations. Today we are witnessing how the European civilization is experiencing difficulties with the socio-cultural adaptation of the arriving migratory 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 an 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 regains (or attempts to acquire) 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 and Europe have a lot in common, and, above all, in a cultural sense, in terms of cultural heritage. Let us recall at least Aristotle Fioravanti, let us recall the Italian architects of Russian classicism. Even commonplace historical comparisons - "Russian Venice", "Russian Switzerland", etc. – talk about how much of our culture is rooted in the 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. Literature, theatre, ballet, performing arts. And even in architecture, especially if we talk about the contribution of the Russian avant-garde. Therefore, we also need to realize culture, the preservation of cultural heritage as a priority for 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 many problems that have formed over two decades in the foreseeable future. This also 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 the economics of culture, urbanism, and modern adaptive technologies.

Everywhere in the world we observe the 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 the work with historical buildings. And in our country, monuments are still perceived as a "unprofitable asset." The status of an object of cultural heritage reduces the investment attractiveness of the object of restoration. Until now, conditions have not been created, including tax ones, for large-scale attraction of investors and patrons to the restoration sphere, as is done in a number of foreign countries with a comparable cultural heritage.

According to experts, the total investment required to bring tens of thousands of Russian cultural heritage sites to a satisfactory condition is about 10 trillion rubles. It is clear that there are no such funds. And even if they magically suddenly appeared, then there are no restoration capacities and such a number of restorers to effectively use these funds. Thousands of monuments simply can't wait until their turn comes or when the appropriate funds and capacities appear.

Hence, it is necessary to change the system of heritage management. We need systemic actions that can radically change the situation. It is not normal when 160,000 monuments “hang” on the state budget, it is not normal when expensive real estate, which 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, entrepreneur. We often like to compare ourselves to the USA. 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 spending 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 are also formed from private or corporate income. I am not calling for a reduction in state support for culture, on the contrary. But I believe, following the experts in this field, that it is necessary to form a multi-channel system for financing culture in general and the preservation of cultural heritage, in particular, at a more systematic level.

At the same time, it is necessary not to mechanically increase funding for the sphere of heritage conservation, but to properly manage resources and regroup them. There is a need for public consolidation in the matter of preserving the national heritage, combining the efforts of the state with public organizations, with volunteer movements through which young people can be involved in the preservation of heritage, explaining to them its significance. And, of course, fundamental work is needed to popularize the cultural heritage, which puts before us all 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 AUIPIC, which will both generate projects in the field of cultural heritage preservation and organize their implementation. It is necessary to show the effectiveness of this approach, to carry out pilot projects related to heritage in a number of regions, and to create a model for 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 design activities, as well as to monitor the 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 a decision to be made by the end of 2016.

Oleg Ryzhkov, Head of the Agency for the Management and Use of Historical and Cultural Monuments (AUIPIK):

Why do we have the Academy of the FSB, but not the Academy of Heritage Keepers?

The national project "Preservation of cultural heritage" from the very beginning should rely on specific projects implemented in the regions. The idea to make the preservation of cultural heritage the driving force behind the economic and social development of several regions of Russia was suggested to us by experts consulted by the Ministry of Culture. There are regions with an extremely high concentration of cultural heritage sites, and this resource must be exploited. The involvement of monuments in the 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 recommend 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 purpose of the project is to the preservation of cultural heritage has taken a worthy place in the economic system of the country. Now everyone “uses” the heritage resource, but does not adequately invest in it in return. For example, the tourism industry actively exploits heritage resources - but does it invest in it? The 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, create a situation where regions and local communities will not passively wait for someone to come and start saving their monuments, creating points of economic growth - and they themselves will start doing it. It is necessary to invest in the basic resource, in heritage and not to the businesses that operate it.

Of course, the project has an ideological component: it is necessary to change people's attitude to the heritage of their region, their small homeland, their country - as to their heritage. This, from my point of view, is the education of patriotism, not abstract appeals, but real projects in which local communities should be involved.

Undoubtedly, the popularization of the architectural heritage, work on its preservation - as a scientific, innovative, creative activity - should be a significant part of the information policy of the federal media, primarily television.

From our point of view, a certain restructuring of the heritage administration system will also be required. Emphasis should be shifted from the "protection" of the heritage to its "preservation". Naturally, not by weakening security and state control as such, but by embedding these tools in a systemic state policy.

It is necessary, of course, to create professional personnel 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 Academy of the Federal Security Service, but no Higher School or the Academy of Heritage Keepers? Abroad to train such professionals - in France, for example, out of 600 applicants for places in state heritage protection agencies, only 20 people are selected. And then after that they have to undergo special training for another 18 months, and only then they are “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.

AUIPIK we consider as a kind of polygon of the national project. Already today, projects are being implemented and developed at our facilities, in which approaches to the preservation of heritage are being worked out as part of the strategy for the development of territories and regions.

We have begun, for example, to work 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 a very interesting project in Uglich, where on the basis of the historical Zimin mansion and the adjacent territory, we expect to create a Handicrafts Center with Fair Square, which will combine museum and educational functions with shopping and entertainment in its activities. And at the same time, to increase the tourist attractiveness of the city in various ways, up to recreating the technology for the production 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 the specialists of the French Equestrian Heritage Council - they are 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 preserved buildings, but to revive this estate as a functioning economic complex, which will give impetus to the development of the entire territory.

Top photo: Volunteer work day to rescue the flooded church of the Krokhinsky churchyard (XVIII century) in the Vologda region.

Cultural and historical heritage largely forms the mentality, the continuity of humanitarian values ​​and preserves traditions. The objects of cultural heritage of the peoples of the Russian Federation are a unique value for the entire multinational people of the Russian Federation and are an integral part of the world cultural heritage. At the same time, the cultural and historical heritage of cities is one of the resources for the spiritual and economic development of Russia. The preservation of cultural and historical heritage is the basis for the further development of society, it is the constitutional duty of every citizen of the country. “Everyone is obliged to take care of the preservation of historical and cultural heritage, to protect historical and cultural monuments,” the Constitution of the Russian Federation says (Article 44.3). However, the physical condition of more than half of the monuments of history and culture of Russia under state protection continues to deteriorate and is characterized in our time as unsatisfactory. Monuments of nature, history and culture of Russia make up a significant share in the cultural and natural heritage of the world, make an important contribution to the sustainable development of our country and human civilization as a whole, which predetermines the highest responsibility of the Russian people and the state for preserving their heritage and passing it on to future generations. Currently, there is a problem of both the preservation of cultural heritage and its relevance. The cultural heritage of the peoples of Russia is in a difficult state. Today, the destruction of historical and cultural monuments is observed, only about 35% is in good or satisfactory condition. All this leads to the loss of cultural interaction between generations and the destruction of national culture. In this regard, the reconstruction of historical monuments, the support of local traditions and customs, and the preservation of the historical and cultural heritage of Russian cities is a necessary requirement for their revival and demand. And the use of cultural heritage as a priority resource will contribute to the socio-economic development of these cities. At present, the low level of tourist attractiveness of the cultural and historical heritage of Russian cities does not contribute to the formation of conditions for their conservation and sustainable development. State protection of cultural heritage objects is one of the important branches of the socio-economic development of cities. The loss of cultural values ​​is irreplaceable and irreversible. The accumulation and preservation of cultural values ​​is the basis for the development of civilization. One of the urgent tasks of the national policy in the field of cultural heritage is to overcome the backlog of the Russian Federation in the field of using heritage from many countries of the world, its wide inclusion in the concept of sustainable development of both individual regions and the country as a whole, improving organizational, economic and legal mechanisms for preserving and use of cultural heritage sites. The basis of the historical, cultural and natural potential of Russia is made up of objects of cultural and historical heritage, for example, such as historical settlements, estate museums, museum reserves, national and natural parks, nature reserves and others located in different parts of Russia and attracting tourists. It is in such cities that traditions, cultural and historical values ​​and sights are preserved, there are the most favorable organizational, managerial and other prerequisites for the preservation, adaptation, development and use of objects of cultural and historical heritage for tourism purposes and, as a result, giving them a new impetus in the social - economic development. Therefore, the use of the tourist potential of cultural and historical heritage sites will contribute to the sustainable development of Russian cities. All over the world, cultural heritage sites and cities rich in architectural, historical and cultural monuments are becoming places of active visits for an increasing number of tourists. Accordingly, it is necessary to combine the tourism business with the preservation and restoration of numerous objects of cultural and historical heritage, while at the same time getting rid of destroyed and abandoned historical buildings, monuments, etc. The Western world has accumulated a very extensive experience in regulating the relationship between the tourism industry and objects of cultural and natural heritage at the national (state) and local levels, as a result of which objects are not only preserved, but also revived, acquiring new aspects of their existence, use and development. This is achieved through the application of a set of legislative, organizational and information measures, as well as new technologies, as a result of which parties interested in preserving heritage sites receive the necessary incentives and support in organizing tourist and recreational and sightseeing and educational activities. As a result, an increasing number of cities and cultural sites are benefiting economically from tourism and directing the proceeds to the preservation of cultural and historical heritage sites, while increasing the number of jobs and expanding opportunities for additional income generation for the local population. The development of the tourism industry in the Russian Federation is closely related to the active policy of preserving the cultural heritage of the peoples of our country, which acts as a significant economic resource. Orientation to historical and cultural wealth is becoming one of the real opportunities for the long-term social and economic development of a number of regions and cities of the country. The complex of cultural and historical heritage is a specific and very important economic resource of the region, it can and should become the basis of a special branch of specialization, one of the promising areas for the implementation of social policy and the development of the local economy, an important factor in spiritual life. Thus, on the basis of the use of cultural heritage, it is possible to build effective social strategies aimed at overcoming poverty and ensuring the sustainable development of Russian cities. At the same time, the trends of globalization have clearly manifested themselves in the field of cultural heritage. The modern world creates a whole system of threats and challenges in relation to cultural heritage. In the context of dynamic and ever more accelerating development, physical cultural resources are in danger of complete or partial destruction if they are not included in these processes. Even such a positive trend as the development of tourism, in the absence of proper control by the authorities, can cause significant harm to heritage sites. Threats to heritage also lurk in the results of economic development, industrial development of new territories, new urban development programs in which entire neighborhoods are reconstructed or rebuilt, military conflicts, environmental pollution. Therefore, we can conclude that the preservation of cultural and historical heritage is a condition for the sustainable development of cities. One of the mechanisms of socio-economic development of Russian cities is the development of the tourism industry in cities with cultural and historical heritage, since the development of tourism will lead to the preservation and updating of these objects. However, an important condition for the implementation of these activities is the presence of control by the authorities and the public to preserve objects of cultural and historical heritage, and not their exploitation for the sake of achieving only economic benefits.

Introduction

Today comes the understanding that the sustainable development of the city cannot be realized only through the further preservation of existing structures. It becomes clear that many historical buildings meet the new requirements relatively easily and, at the same time, can purposefully change the structure in short periods of time.

The objectives of the protection of monuments are the conservation and documentation of the historically valuable state of the building, which is preserved with a historical, artistic, scientific or urban justification. However, conservation, in the sense of preserving the original state of the monument, is inevitably applied with its renewal. To preserve monuments, they must be used, while they are not lost or depreciated, but are part of a structure that must be developed further. The museum world, filled with unused monuments, perishes as long as the interests of society are directed only at their protection. Renovation associated with historical aspects is the value of the monument, which gives it a special emotional significance, corresponding to the interests of society.

A compromise must be found between conservation, restoration and renovation, as well as between conservation and modern architectural requirements.

If earlier the protection of cultural and historical heritage was limited to the protection of individual outstanding material monuments, then new approaches to the definition of the concept of cultural and historical heritage and its protection suggest:

. transition from the protection of individual objects to the protection of urban landscapes, including both outstanding heritage monuments and row buildings, as well as natural landscapes, historical routes, etc.;

Transition from the protection of only outstanding monuments to the protection of historical buildings that reflect the lifestyle of ordinary citizens;

Transition from the protection of only ancient monuments to the protection of monuments of the XX century;

Active participation of society, and above all local residents, in the preservation of cultural heritage and its integration into the social and economic life of the city (“vitalization”);

Integrating heritage into the daily life of the city and making it an integral and indispensable element.

However, in developed countries, the policy in the field of heritage conservation and regeneration is based precisely on these principles. Moreover, in a number of countries, especially in countries

Europe, the regeneration and integration of cultural and historical heritage is increasingly seen as the driving force behind the development of historic cities in general (heritage-led regeneration).

The main conflict associated with the use of a broad understanding of the term "object of cultural and historical heritage" is the need, on the one hand, to find funds for the maintenance and restoration of numerous monuments (it is an impossible task for any state to maintain all heritage objects at its own expense), and on the other hand, the other is to integrate heritage objects into the economic life of the city and introduce them into economic circulation.

Given the relevance of this topic today, it would be reasonable to analyze the existing policy in the field of conservation and regeneration of cultural heritage, which is the purpose of this work. In order to carry out the analysis, the following tasks must be performed:

• analyze existing work on this topic
• consider the main economic models
• consider the main ways to preserve cultural heritage sites
• consider, using the example of different countries, the methodology for preserving and regenerating objects of cultural heritage
• consider the model of management of historical and cultural heritage in Russia

This topic is very relevant for research in our time. Zheravina O.A. is actively working on issues related to the preservation of cultural heritage. , Klimov L.A. , Borodkin L.I. , Uryutova Yu.A. . Foreign scientists and researchers also actively publish their works on this topic, such as: Christoph Brumann, Soraya Boudia, Sébastien Soubiran, Mateja Šmid Hribar. David Bole. Primoz Pipan.

Galkova O.V. considers that fundamental in defining modern ideas about cultural heritage is the understanding of the importance and immutability of maintaining in a rapidly developing society such an environment for a person in which he will maintain a connection with nature and cultural heritage objects, the realization that cultural heritage is an important condition for sustainable development, acquisition of national identity, harmonious development of personality . But all monuments of history and culture are also objects of property rights (often state or municipal), which determines their involvement in property relations, as well as the need for their effective use. In some cases, this leads to the fact that individual business entities and officials perceive the territory of the monument as nothing more than a potential construction site, and the cultural heritage site itself as an obstacle to the implementation of bold urban planning decisions.

As a result, we can observe the facts of partial or complete demolition of monuments with the preservation of only one of the facades of the building and the construction of modern objects (usually made of glass and concrete), the addition of additional floors, extensions of large-scale structures, etc., which is inevitable leads to a significant change in the historical development of cities.

Thus, here we are dealing with an extremely conflicting sphere, where there is a clash, on the one hand, of public interests in the preservation of cultural heritage sites, and on the other hand, private interests of owners (other owners) in the most profitable use of monuments and their active inclusion in urban development. activity .

According to Dzhandzhugazov E.A. . carrying out the reconstruction of historical buildings, and then maintaining their condition is not only a significant cost, but also a serious responsibility, since private owners, along with the right of ownership, will have to bear obligations for the preservation of the building and its historical appearance. They will have to restore their new property, maintain it in a certain condition and provide free access to tourists. All this will allow to preserve the cultural heritage, rationally using historical monuments of architecture. .

Zhunich I.I. in his work notes that the very fact of the existence of cultural heritage gives rise to cultural and educational tourism. The development of this type of tourism is an important direction in the life of the state. This is the development of regions, and the cultural interaction of peoples, and the influx of financial resources, which go mainly to the development of infrastructure, the creation of new jobs and the active involvement of young people in the labor market, support for monuments of material culture, and the preservation of intangible heritage. Travel and tourism has become one of the largest business sectors in the world. According to UNESCO forecasts, by 2020 the number of travels around the world will increase three times. Currently, all regions of the Russian Federation are aimed at the development of the tourism industry. The tourism business stimulates the development of other sectors of the economy, contributes to the creation of new jobs, the preservation of traditions and customs, and ensures the filling of regional and federal budgets. The protection of cultural heritage sites is one of the priority tasks of the state authorities of the Russian Federation, the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local self-government - at present, the Federal Law “On cultural heritage sites (monuments of history and culture) of the peoples of the Russian Federation” is in force in Russia. The Russian region is a region in which unique monuments of religion, history and culture are concentrated. This makes Russia a zone favorable for the development of such a direction as religious tourism. Cathedrals, mosques, religious museums and spiritual centers are tourist sites that are in increasing demand, that is, religious tourism is literally becoming part of the modern tourism industry.

But the excellent location of suburban monument buildings (ensembles), as a rule, requires large-scale investments in reconstruction, repair and restoration. In order to involve such objects in the market turnover (purchase and sale, insurance, collateral in a bank, etc.), their assessment is necessary, but so far the corresponding methods have not been developed.

Yaskevich E.E. considers the main difficulties in assessing monument buildings on the territory of the Russian Federation in his work. :

• with the presence of federal, regional or local status, imposing certain easements on the building (individual structural elements);
• with the lack of a developed segment of the market for the sale of similar objects;
• with high operating costs;
• with a ban on reconstruction (only restoration work is allowed within the framework of maintaining integrity and visual perception), etc.

Materials and methods

The effective use of cultural heritage sites is an essential criterion for ensuring their safety. For a long time, the most familiar and understandable way to ensure the safety of cultural heritage objects was the organization of their museum use. For example, a restored manor complex or an old building usually became an architectural, artistic or memorial museum. Such activities almost always did not pay even the current costs, and the main support for such museums was constant budget subsidies.

At present, a fundamentally different approach is needed to cultural heritage objects, first of all, as objects that not only have a special historical and cultural potential, but also contain a significant economic component. For this, it is expedient to develop modern economic programs for the development of territories where cultural heritage sites are located.

According to the results of identifying the historical and cultural potential of the territory, it is advisable to form various economic models.

The model of the scientific and educational complex is created in the form of a scientific testing ground. attractive to various scientific communities, the economic effect of which is manifested in scientific results from the involvement of scientists and specialists in the study of a given object of cultural heritage or its historical environment.

The model of a historical and cultural reserve is created on the basis of a place of interest, which is an outstanding integral historical, cultural or natural complex that needs a special regime of maintenance. Currently, on average, the museum-reserve provides work for 60-80 people employed in the main state. In addition, during the summer period, the staff of employees is temporarily increased to ensure the implementation of the entire volume of museum work, excursion and tourist services. Calculations show that the implementation of the program for the creation of a museum-reserve in the region contributes to the creation of additional jobs in various industries for about 250-300 people. New jobs are significant enough for the economy of a small historical settlement or administrative region and are in fact equal to the introduction of a new large manufacturing enterprise or even the formation of a new industry.

The model of the tourist complex is created in the form of a set of interconnected tourist and excursion objects. At present, only a small number of cultural heritage sites in the cities of Moscow and St. visited by tourists and sightseers. In general, the tourism potential of cultural heritage sites is not in full demand, which is determined by the underdevelopment of domestic cultural tourism, the incompatibility of real incomes of the population with the price / quality ratio of domestic tourism services, the lack of the necessary specialized infrastructure, and orientation to foreign tourism products.

In the world today, four main ways of preserving cultural heritage are used:

. privatization of monuments with the imposition of encumbrances on private owners;

. development of heritage sites;

. development of cultural and educational tourism and creation of tourism products and brands on the basis of heritage sites;

. sale of the "aura" of historical and cultural heritage, when the attractiveness of historicalgenera and selected historic districts are used to increase the value of new real estate.

None of these methods can be considered ideal, each of them has its own significant drawbacks. Therefore, if we talk about successful examples of the regeneration of heritage sites, as a rule, these methods are used in combination. Privatization of historical and cultural monuments is one of the most common ways to capitalize heritage sites and attract private investment for their restoration and maintenance.

It is important to note that the main objective of the privatization of monuments in the EU countries is not to generate additional revenues for the state budget, but to free the state from the burden of restoration and maintenance of monuments and transfer the corresponding obligations to private owners. Restoration around the world costs an order of magnitude more expensive than new construction. Therefore, in addition to numerous restrictions on the use of privatized heritage sites, a number of tools for economic incentives for owners of monuments are used here - subsidies and benefits. This is the reason for the fact that the monuments are attractive objects for private investment here, and these investments themselves not only do not harm them, but also allow them to be kept in good condition.

In world practice, another tool is used to support private owners of monuments - incentives. The most effective tool for stimulating private owners of heritage objects are real estate tax incentives, which in the EU countries, as well as in the Russian Federation, are calculated on the basis of the cadastral value of real estate, the rates of which are high everywhere here.

In addition, tax deferrals, accelerated depreciation, tax deductions, exemptions from certain taxes, preferential terms for granting loans are applied. It is also used to reduce the established rent by the amount of costs associated with the restoration and maintenance of the monument, or to collect rent at the minimum rate.

Development is used to capitalize heritage sites. Development companies are engaged in changing the existing appearance of the building and land, leading to an increase in their value, specializing in the reconstruction of cultural heritage sites. It should be noted that development is the least sparing way of regenerating a heritage object, which carries significant risks of losing the authenticity of the monument. Therefore, in order to preserve the authenticity of cultural heritage objects, the state needs to create and process electronic databases, historical geographic information systems, three-dimensional reconstruction and visualization of historical monuments and museum items.

Another effective way of commercialization of objects of cultural and historical heritage - tourism - is developing in Russia very slowly and unsystematically. Today, tourism income does not exceed 3-4% of the total income of Russian cities. For comparison, in the income structure of such European capitals as Paris and London, tourism revenues exceed 50%. To level the weaknesses of the tourism industry, not individual improvements are needed, but the implementation of comprehensive and systemic solutions aimed at creating a modern tourism industry on the territory of the Russian Federation.

Such a specialization in the field of public administration as “heritage management” has appeared and has become generally recognized, the task of which is to create competitive development and tourism products, develop and implement regeneration projects while maintaining the preservation of original monuments and ordinary historical buildings, as well as taking into account the interests of local residents and business. To form a developed organizational infrastructure for the conservation and regeneration of heritage sites, it is necessary to create a "connecting branch" between non-profit public organizations and the state.

The study of foreign experience of heritage conservation at the present stage of development of urban spaces is very important to identify all the positive and negative aspects of this activity. Most countries are characterized by a comprehensive approach to the preservation and revival of cultural and historical heritage, the existence of effective legislation regulating this area. There are basic laws on the protection of cultural heritage, federal, regional and local programs for the preservation of heritage and the protection of monuments have been adopted and are being implemented.

A special place in the world experience in the preservation of historical and cultural heritage is occupied by states from the European group, which have a similar model of heritage conservation management. The most successful countries in heritage conservation, where all the basic elements necessary for successful activity are present, are Great Britain, France and Germany. The state system of executive power in European countries has similar features, which consist in the branching of the vertical of executive authorities at the local level, and in the delegation of basic powers not only to municipal authorities, but also to public non-profit organizations.

The most popular are economic stimulus programs, which are fundamentally different in each country. All types of incentives can be divided into three main groups:

• tax breaks,
• subsidies
• grants

results

Consider the example of France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy and Russia, the method of preserving and regenerating objects of cultural heritage.

Table 1. Methodology for the preservation and regeneration of objects of cultural heritage.

A country	Regulatory documents	Incentive methods
France	-Law "On Historical Monuments" of December 31, 1913, -Law "On the Reorganization of the Protection of Natural Monuments and Landscapes of an Artistic, Historical, Scientific, Legendary and Picturesque Character" of May 2, 1930 (with subsequent amendments), Law "On Regulation of Archaeological Excavations" of September 27, 1941, Law No. 68-1251 "On the Promotion of the Preservation of National Artistic Heritage of December 31, 1968, Law No. 87-8" On the Distribution of Competence among Communes, Departments, Regions and the State" of 7 January 1983, Program Law No. 88-12 "On monumental heritage" of January 5, 1988 - decrees	- reduction of general income tax for the owner of historic property in return for the costs incurred for the repair, operation and rehabilitation of the heritage site - a system of grants aimed at encouraging restoration and reconstruction projects
Germany	- the fundamental law of the Federal Republic of Germany (clause 5, article 74) - instructions - "On the implementation of the Law on the Protection of Monuments" (September 24, 1976), "On the implementation of the Law on the Protection of Monuments with Local Features and the Inclusion of the Area in the Protection of Monuments" (14 July 1978), "On the Implementation of the Law on the Protection of Monuments - Characteristics of the Instructions" (February 20, 1980). - federal law on the protection of cultural heritage	expenditure items for the maintenance of heritage sites and their rehabilitation
Great Britain	-Local Government Rights in Historic Buildings Act 1962 -Vacant Churches and Other Places of Religious Buildings Act 1969 -Urban and Rural Planning Acts 1971, 1972 and 1974 -National Heritage Act 1980, 1983 And 1985 (with subsequent changes)	-Huge amounts of subsidies for historical heritage sites that are not focused into tax credits and income deductions. -tax incentives through relief of value added tax and main taxes
Italy	By Law No. 352 of October 8, 1997 "Regulation on Cultural Property", Legislative Decree No. 490 "Unified Text of the Legislative Regulation on Cultural and Environmental Property" was adopted on October 29, 1999.	- decentralization of management in the sphere of culture - democratization - creation of effective mechanisms of public-private partnership in order to ensure effective protection of the national heritage
Russia	-Federal Law "On objects of cultural heritage (monuments of history and culture) of the peoples of the Russian Federation" dated June 25, 2002 No. 73-FZ; - Federal Law "On the privatization of state and municipal property" dated December 21, 2001 No. 178-FZ, which establishes the procedure for the privatization of historical and cultural monuments (including with the mandatory registration of security obligations) - RF Code of December 29, 2004 No. 190 -FZ (Urban Planning Code of the Russian Federation)	- a rigid system of executive power - centralized state financing of the restoration and maintenance of objects of cultural and historical heritage

Analyzing the experience and activities of foreign countries that have been the most successful in the field of preserving historical and cultural heritage, a single organizational model for managing historical heritage has been identified for all states.

Picture 1. Organizational model of historical heritage management.

The organizational model has a core, which is determined by the presence of a solid legal framework that allows direct interaction between the four main segments, without which it is impossible to form a common economic basis:

• state heritage management system;
• research institutes;
• structures of civil society;
• individuals.

Let us consider in more detail the model of management of historical and cultural heritage in Russia.

To date, in the Russian Federation, the share of non-budgetary sources in the financing of work on the preservation of cultural heritage sites is small. In 2012, it was 12.1%, but tends to increase (in 2011, less than 10% came from extrabudgetary sources).

Examples of successful fundraising efforts include:

Restoration of St. Nicholas Naval Cathedral in Kronstadt, which was supported by the International Charitable Foundation "Kronstadt Naval Cathedral in the name of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker";

The restoration of the Church of the Feodorovskaya Icon of the Mother of God supported the charitable project "Let's Assemble the Temple", where everyone could take part by paying for the manufacture of a specific element of the temple decoration - an icon or other piece of utensils or furniture.

The restoration of New Jerusalem is taking place with the assistance of the Charitable Foundation for the Restoration of the Resurrection New Jerusalem Stauropegial Monastery.

In the context of insufficient budget funding for cultural heritage sites, attracting funds from the private sector of the economy is becoming increasingly relevant and in the future may become the main financial lever for ensuring the preservation and protection of historical and cultural monuments. In this connection, I would like to dwell on such a concept as a public-private partnership (PPP). This concept is used in many regulatory legal acts of the federal level (BC RF, Federal Law "On the Development Bank", etc.).

PPP in the field of culture can be defined as the involvement of the authorities on a contractual basis and on the terms of cost compensation, risk sharing, obligations and competence of the private sector for more efficient and high-quality performance of the tasks of public authorities in the field of development, conservation, restoration and popularization of historical monuments and culture, the preservation and development of the cultural and national identity of the peoples of the Russian Federation, the creation of favorable conditions for the development of tourism, as well as the promotion of an increase in the attractiveness of visiting Russia for tourism purposes in the world community.

There are the following forms of public-private partnership, the use of which is possible in the field of culture in the Russian Federation:

• Privatization of immovable objects of cultural heritage.

Privatization is carried out with an encumbrance, the new owner of real estate assumes obligations to preserve the cultural heritage object, which are indicated in the security obligation. The exceptions are cultural heritage sites classified as especially valuable cultural heritage sites of the peoples of the Russian Federation, monuments and ensembles included in the World Heritage List, historical and cultural reserves and archaeological heritage sites that are not subject to privatization.

• Rent and gratuitous use of a cultural heritage site.

A mandatory condition for concluding a contract for the lease of a cultural heritage object / gratuitous use of a cultural heritage object is a security obligation. The Federal Law on Cultural Heritage Objects (Parts 1.2, Article 14) grants the Russian Government the right to establish benefits in terms of rent for a tenant who has invested his funds in the preservation of cultural heritage objects. In addition, the law on cultural heritage objects (part 3, article 14) provides for the right of the user of a cultural heritage object to compensation for the costs incurred by him, provided that such work is performed in accordance with this Federal Law. However, this provision is currently suspended until 2016.

• Free transfer of ownership of cultural heritage objects (in particular, religious buildings and structures with land plots related to them and other religious property to religious organizations)

• Trust management of cultural objects;
• Concession;
• Outsourcing (performance of work and provision of services);
• investment agreements.

The main measures to enhance public-private partnerships that contribute to attracting funds from economic entities of private ownership to socially significant projects are: preferential taxation; tax refund; refund of part or all of the costs associated with capital construction, modernization of fixed production assets, operation of cultural facilities; joint direct funding of cultural projects; concessional lending on commercial loans for organizations, through the payment of part or all interest on loans by government bodies; ensuring the minimum profitability of economic entities in the form of subsidies; state guarantees to financial and credit organizations for loans issued for the purposes of implementing public-private partnership projects; socio-psychological support for public-private partnership.

In the Russian Federation, some constituent entities of the Russian Federation have already adopted laws on PPP: Law of St. Petersburg "On the participation of St. Petersburg in public-private partnerships", Law of the Tomsk Region dated December 17, 2012 No. Tomsk region.

Thus, in Russia, public-private partnership is currently at the stage of formation and development of relevant tools. It seems expedient to develop in the near future a concept for the development of PPP in Russia, including, among other things, a unified methodology for its organization and implementation, taking into account the experience of Russian regions and foreign countries. However, it should be noted that the funds of entrepreneurial structures will not be able to solve the whole problem of ensuring the preservation of historical and cultural monuments. In this connection, it is possible to qualitatively implement a policy in the field of preserving cultural heritage objects only through the joint efforts of the state and business, and the initiative should first of all come from public authorities.

Discussion and conclusion

Analyzing the experience of foreign countries and current socio-economic conditions, we see a direct relationship between the cultural heritage and the economy of the state. If an object of history and culture is used and generates income, then it will exist. It is clear that for a unified model of heritage conservation and the formation of its economic basis in Russia, a developed regulatory and legal framework is needed, which will allow creating programs for the sustainable development of objects of history and culture. This will provide an opportunity to include individuals in heritage conservation work, as well as attract the private and commercial investment sector. Changes are needed in the system of distribution of powers between the branches of executive power, public organizations and research institutes.

Bibliography

1. Zheravina O. A., Libraries of Florence in the cultural heritage of Italy, Bulletin of the Tomsk State University. Culturology and Art History, 1 (2011), p. 52-62.

2. Klimov L. A., Cultural heritage as a system, St. Petersburg State University. Questions of museology, 1 (2011), p. 42-46.

3. Borodkin L.I., Rumyantsev M.V., Lapteva M.A., The Virtual Reconstruction of the Objects of Historical and Cultural Heritage in the Format of the Scientific Research and Educational Process, Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Science, 7 (2016), pp. 1682-1689.

4. Uryutova Yu. A., Preservation of the national cultural heritage in the context of the development of the information society (social and philosophical aspect), Society: philosophy, history, culture, 2 (2012), p. 17-20.

5. Brumann C., Cultural Heritage, International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition) 2015, pp. 414–419

6. Soraya Boudia, Sébastien Soubiran, Scientists and their cultural heritage: Knowledge, politics and ambivalent relationships, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 44(4) (2013), pp. 643-651.

7. Mateja Šmid Hribar. David Bole. Primož Pipan, Sustainable Heritage Management: Social, Economic and Other Potentials of Culture in Local Development, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 188 (2015), pp. 103-110

8. Galkova O. V., Theoretical foundations of cultural heritage, Bulletin of the Volgograd State University, 3 (2011), p. 110-114.

9. Vinnitsky A. V., Monuments of history and culture: must be preserved or can be reconstructed?, Laws of Russia: experience, analysis, practice, ¬7 (2009), p. 65-69.

10. Dzhandzhugazova E. A., Conceptual hotels as a means of preserving cultural and historical heritage, Modern problems of service and tourism, 4 (2008), p. 68-72.

11. Zhunich I. I., The use of UNESCO cultural heritage in the system of tourism education, Secondary vocational education, 9 (2009), p. 7-9.

12. Tutur Lussetyowati, Preservation and Conservation through Cultural Heritage Tourism, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 184 (2015), pp. 401-406.

13. Nagornaya M.S., The architecture of the social city as an object of cultural heritage: European experience and Russian perspectives, Management in modern systems, 4 (2014), p. 16-26.

14. Yakunin V.N., The development of religious tourism as an integral part of the historical and cultural heritage at the present stage, Vestnik SSTU, 4(60) (2011), p. 280-286.

15. Yaskevich E.E., Theory and practice of assessing cultural heritage buildings, Property Relations in the Russian Federation, 6 (93) (2009), p. 70-88.

16. Litvinova O. G., Foreign and domestic experience in the preservation of historical and cultural heritage at the end of the 20th - beginning of the 21st centuries, Vestnik TGASU, 4 (2010), p. 46-62

17. Smirnova T. B., Issues of preserving cultural heritage in the activities of the International Union of German Culture, Bulletin of the Novosibirsk State University, 3 (2012), p. 123-133.

18. Davliev I. G., Valeev R. M., The system of preservation of cultural heritage in England, Bulletin of the Kazan State University of Culture and Arts, 2-1 (2015), p. 1-6.

19. Mironova T. N., Preservation of cultural and natural heritage as the main feature of the cultural policy of the countries of the European region: Italy, Knowledge. Understanding. Skill, 2 (2009), p. 41-48.

20. Bogolyubova N. M., Nikolaeva Yu. V., Protection of cultural heritage: international and Russian experience, Bulletin of the St. Petersburg State University of Culture and Arts, 4(21) (2014), pp. 6-13.