Prague - The new law on the protection of the cultural heritage fund, being prepared by the Ministry of Culture, is supported by heritage experts, museum professionals, archaeologists, and regions. However, they also have reservations about its form. This emerged from their statements at a public hearing held today in the Senate.
    "The proposed draft law is so far the best attempt to adopt a heritage law," stated Naděžda Goryczková, the general director of the National Heritage Institute (NPÚ).
    She highlighted the effort for a comprehensive approach to the care of cultural heritage, the possibility of compensating property owners in heritage-protected areas for the application of public interest, a greater role for local governments regarding the introduction of the category of locally significant monuments, and the participation of the civic sector in caring for cultural heritage, especially through associations.
    On the other hand, she deemed the planned transfer of expropriated monuments to the administration of the NPÚ as "unacceptable," as it would likely not receive funding for them and would not have the capacity to make them accessible. Such monuments should be managed by the Office for the Representation of the State in Property Affairs or the relevant local authorities, Goryczková believes.
    Central Bohemian councilor Zdeněk Štefek praised the law for, among other things, enshrining state financial support for the management of monuments and legalizing the rights, not just the obligations, of monument owners. However, the planned involvement of the civic sector could, according to some regions, complicate efforts to preserve cultural heritage.
    Regions also fear an increase in agenda, while on the other hand, they would like to have the right to express their opinions similarly to municipalities regarding proposals for land-use plans in areas where there is a monument or a heritage zone, and the declaration of cultural monuments. They want to involve municipalities in the concept of heritage care in the region, Štefek stated.
    The subject of discussion was also the planned designation of found objects older than 70 years, which have been preserved "outside the environment of contemporary life," as archaeological finds. Zdeněk Kuchyňka from the Association of Museums and Galleries opposed this quoted definition. According to him, this term is not precisely defined anywhere in the law and could complicate the work of archaeologists.
    Archaeologists would welcome more precise enshrinement of the protection of archaeological finds, which should involve not only their professional retrieval but also subsequent expert safeguarding. The uniform maximum fine of five million for violation of the heritage law for both ordinary citizens and companies was also a target of criticism.