Croatian Coast Within the Transitional Condition

The Croatian coast is, economically and in the terms of the development capacities of its institutional structures, an unequally developed territory, comprehended through five administrative units – Counties (Istrian County, Primorsko-Goranska County, Zadar County, Splitsko-Dalmatinska and Dubrovnik County). The developemnt of urban centers and the coastal zone in Croatia is characterised by what may be called “wild developemnt”.

However, the Croatian coast as a whole has always been recognized as one of her. As natural wealth, as the meeting point of historical and cultural heritage, as economic potential, as a social resource and as Croatia’s strategic contribution to international relations, the Adriatic and the coastal policy moves into the centre of the Croatian government’s policies. As stated in “The Croatian Program of the Government of the Republic of Croatia for the 2003-2007 Mandate,” the Government considers the Croatian sea to be essential in determining the responsibilities and content of the work of the Government and each ministry. The Government will take special care in harmonising, coordinating and jointly planning activities of each department precisely for the promotion of the Croatian sea, as the starting point in the consideration of development, the economy, culture, tourism and other areas.

The question of exploration of the Croatian coast, as the land’s true great resource, has found itself at the centre of interest with the wider public which has suddenly become aware of the limitations and value of the coastal space and the ways in which it is being developed. Special attention has been given to the process of building on the coast. This process is not in any way different from building in any other part of Croatia, but this space, which is currently under the marked strain of building, shows the clearest manifestation of all the problems of space management. There are numerous of questions to be answered without reliance on previous experiences to which the country can look: How to protect the coast while at the same time direct, curb, and occasionally redefine it so as not to lose the financial benefits accompanying large projects which are being spurred by foreign capital? How to prevent the islands from becoming tourist theme parks and retain the complex diversity of their functioning and way of life? The key problems that this project addresses are related to reconstruction of socialist heritage into new sustainable structures.

In addressing these issues there is a significant lack of sound concepts for spatial planning and management. Even though there was a developed tradition of this type in the not so distant past, it has focused specifically on the question of organization of the system and the search for regulation to resolve spatial development contestations. Regional and urban plans do not respond to the unstable transitional condition as a result of constant social, political and economic changes. Recent spatial planning practice do not develop new methods and techniques necessary for successful urban management and planning, needed for strong influence on coastal development policies. In addition, what has also been lost is the notion of actors who directly shape the space in question, ranging from local community and non-governmental organizations, to investor and government officials.

The key aspects of such unstable conditions are manifested in the absence of a long-term role by the state and by towns within a wider geo-political environment; the absence of long-term development strategies for individual sectors of the economy with an essential influence on urban changes (industry, tourism, transport, agriculture, etc.); the poorly defined public sector role in the policy of urban development (public standards and public services); the unreliability of the legal system and political responsibility; lack of knowledge with regard to the way the instruments of planning function in conditions of market economy, combined with weak political will, in inferior training in professional institutions in acting in conditions of instability, and uncertainty and rapidly changing situations (inability to comprehend a situation, a lack of preparedness to adjust, and the uncritical adoption of models).

Furthermore, there is barely anything remaining of the aspect of “public”. Led by the weak-willed, public interest has been erased from all operations in which private capital is involved. Regardless of the volume of investment, private capital is, paradoxically, being serviced by public institutions – as if public services exist only to meet the demands of private interest. Mixed public / private business operations are beyond anyone’s comprehension.