Part 1
Status and development trends

4 The status of the existing national targets

The existing national targets for cultural monuments, sites and environments were presented in the white paper on the management of cultural heritage in 2005 (St.meld. nr. 16 (2004–2005)). The Storting unanimously adopted three national targets for the cultural heritage policy in 2005. The deadline for attainment of the targets was set to 2020.

A separate target has since been defined for automatically protected monuments and sites and other archaeological heritage.

The existing national targets for cultural monuments, sites environments are as follows:

• Environmental target 2.1 – The Loss of cultural monuments and sites worthy of preservation will be minimised

• Environmental target 2.2 – By 2020, a standard of repair requiring only normal maintenance will be achieved for a prioritised selection of automatically protected and other archaeological monuments and sites

• Environmental target 2.3 – By 2020, a representative selection of cultural monuments, sites and environments will be protected by individual protection orders

• Environmental target 2.4 – By 2020, a standard of repair requiring only normal maintenance will be achieved for protected buildings, other structures and vessels

The white paper on the management of cultural heritage in 2005 (St.meld. nr. 16 (2004–2005)) built on the report on challenges for a new cultural heritage policy in 2002 (Official Norwegian Report (NOU) 2002:1) and the broad consultation held in connection with this report. The ambitions in the white paper were upheld, and the plan of action was operationalised through ten conservation programmes presented in the white paper The Government’s Environmental Policy and the State of the Environment in Norway (St.meld. nr. 26 (2006–2007)). This has laid the foundation for the management of the cultural environment for the past 15 years.

In 2008–2009, the Office of the Auditor General of Norway conducted a performance audit (Document 3:9 (2008–2009)) of the Ministry’s follow-up in connection with protected buildings and buildings deemed worthy of preservation pursuant to the white paper on the management of cultural heritage in 2005 (St.meld. nr. 16 (2004–2005)). The Office of the Auditor General concluded that important prerequisites for the management to be able to meet the targets in these areas were not in place and that this entailed a significant risk that the targets will not be met by the 2020 deadline. Among other things, it was pointed out that the management authorities did not have an overview of cultural monuments and sites considered worthy of preservation.

The Office of the Auditor General’s performance audit was followed up through an initiative Increasing knowledge for the management of cultural heritage in the period 2011–2017. This initiative consisted of five sub-projects: Tools and integration development in Askeladden, the Cultural Heritage Portal, Strengthening municipal competencies, Registration of automatically protected Sami Buildings, and Establishing an environmental monitoring programme for cultural heritage deemed worthy of preservation.

Against the backdrop of the Office of the Auditor General’s performance audit and the Private Members’ Bill on a review of Norway’s cultural heritage policy in 2011 (no. 129 (2010–2011)), a white paper on cultural heritage policy was presented in 2013 (Meld. St. 35 (2012–2013)). This white paper contained a status update, indicating what still remained to be done in order to achieve the national targets.

The State of the Environment Norway website provides up-to-date information about the state of the environment and developments. Below is a status update as per 2018 for the existing four national targets in the cultural environment sector. The figures are mainly taken from the State of the Environment Norway website. Where more recent figures are available, these figures are also indicated.

Environmental target 2.1

The loss of cultural monuments and sites worthy of preservation will be minimised

Developments for this goal have been positive and losses have decreased in recent years. Assessment in this area is based on data from eight indicators:

• Percentage annual loss of cultural monuments and sites considered worthy of preservation in selected areas

• Percentage annual loss of buildings on the SEFRAK register in selected areas

• Total area of zones where special considerations under the Planning and Building Act apply to protecting cultural monuments, sites and environments

• Percentage of annual loss of cultural monuments, sites and environments in the agricultural landscape

• Number of municipalities that have an updated overview of cultural monuments, sites and environments worthy of preservation

• Number of municipalities that have drawn up cultural heritage plans under the Planning and Building Act

• Number of municipalities that have employees with cultural heritage expertise

• Number of cultural monuments, sites and environments worthy of preservation registered in Askeladden, the official national database for cultural monuments, sites and environments

“Cultural monuments and sites worthy of preservation” means cultural monuments and sites where a cultural-historical assessment has been performed. The term also covers cultural monuments and sites that are formally protected, through individual municipal decisions or decisions under the Planning and Building Act, including municipal cultural heritage plans.

Collected data show, among other things, that the annual loss of cultural monuments and sites worthy of preservation is now just under 1 per cent. An overview from the environmental monitoring programme Cultural monuments and sites worthy of preservation in selected municipalities, which measures developments in selected municipalities in five-year intervals, indicates that the annual rate of loss has decreased in recent years, from 1 per cent in the period 2000–2014 to 0.8 per cent in the current five-year period (2015–2019). The survey shows that there is little difference in the loss of buildings linked to farming, fishing and trapping, compared with other sectors. Boathouses and fishing sheds are the category of building that have had the greatest losses. In terms of condition, the percentage of endangered buildings is by far the highest in the primary industries, where 18 per cent of buildings are assessed as at risk, compared with 5 per cent in other sectors.

The figure shows the losses in certain categories of building in the period 2015–2019. Boathouses and fishing sheds have the highest rate of loss, at 6.7 per cent. Farm buildings are being lost at a rate of almost 5 per cent, while smaller outbuildings and mountain summer grazing farms / buildings in uncultivated areas have had a loss rate of well over 4 per cent in the last five years. In 2005–2010, farm buildings and mountain summer grazing farms / buildings in uncultivated areas had the highest loss rate, at 6.3 per cent and 6.8 per cent, respectively.

Source Source: The Directorate for Cultural Heritage and the Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research (NIKU)

The Directorate for Cultural Heritage’s project Kulturminner i kommunen[Cultural heritage in the municipalities] is part of the initiative Increasing knowledge for the management of cultural heritage. Through this initiative, grants are provided to municipalities that want to draw up their own cultural heritage plan. As of 1 January 2020, the Directorate for Cultural Heritage has provided funding to more than 370 municipalities to draw up cultural heritage plans. This, in addition to various courses and seminars, has helped strengthen the municipal authorities’ management of cultural monuments and sites. This initiative has ensured that cultural heritage has increasingly been put on the local political agenda and has fostered involvement in the municipalities. Some 150 municipalities have adopted cultural heritage plans.

There are insufficient data in respect of the other indicators. In anticipation of new national goals, all the indicators have been retained and are shown in the target structure on the State of the Environment Norway website.

Environmental target 2.2

By 2020, a standard of repair requiring only normal maintenance will be achieved for a prioritised selection of automatically protected and other archaeological monuments and sites

Performance towards this target is positive, but the target cannot be considered achieved. Assessment in this area is based on six indicators:

• Annual losses and damage to automatically protected archaeological monuments and sites in selected areas, split by cause of loss or damage

• Number of automatically protected archaeological monuments and sites removed in accordance with exemptions under the Cultural Heritage Act

• Number of automatically protected monuments and sites that have been investigated to secure the scientific value

• Number of automatically protected monuments and sites where improvements or arrangements for access have been made

• Number of automatically protected monuments and sites that have satisfactory conservation status and are satisfactorily maintained

• Number of automatically protected monuments and sites that have satisfactory conservation status and are satisfactorily maintained and where arrangements for public access have been made

In the period 2000–2014, inspections of automatically protected archaeological monuments and sites were carried out in 16 municipalities. The registrations were part of the environmental monitoring programme Prehistoric monuments in the present-day landscape – Status of automatically protected cultural monuments and sites in selected municipalities. Figures from these inspections show that the loss of automatically protected archaeological sites decreased significantly during the period. In the last few years up to 2014, the rate of loss was less than 0.5 per cent per year. The figures show that the main causes of damage to archaeological sites are activities linked to farming, housing construction and leisure activities.

From 2015, inspections have been carried out in ten selected municipalities through the environmental monitoring programme Status and monitoring of the condition of automatically protected archaeological sites in selected municipalities (cf. box 11.2). This programme has shifted the focus from inspections and control measurements of individual cultural monuments and sites to focusing on changes in the status for entire locations. Registrations will be carried out at five-year intervals, and the results from the period 2015–2019 will be published in 2020.

Two of the Directorate for Cultural Heritage’s conservation programmes have been important in the work to achieve this target: Selected archaeological monuments, sites and environments and Rock art. Work to ensure a satisfactory level of preservation and maintenance are an important part of both these conservation programmes. Figures from 1 January 2020 show that 420 out of the 450 selected archaeological monuments and sites have a standard of repair requiring only normal maintenance. In addition, arrangements for public access have been made at 309 of these sites. The decrease after 2018 is primarily due to reorganisation of projects. Similarly, 481 out of 500 rock art sites have a standard of repair requiring only normal maintenance as of 1 January 2020. Arrangements for public access have been made at 109 of these sites.

Some of the indicators for environmental target 2.2 have proven difficult to measure. All the old indicators are being continued until the new national goals have been adopted, and performance information will be published on the State of the Environment Norway website.

Developments in the conservation programmes Selected archaeological monuments, sites and environments (BARK) and Rock art (BERG) from 2013–2019.

Source Source: The Directorate for Cultural Heritage

Environmental target 2.3

By 2020, a representative selection of cultural monuments, sites and environments will be protected by individual protection orders

Performance towards the target is positive. Assessment in this area is based on the following indicator:

The overview includes individual historical monuments and sites such as buildings, vessels, churches, technical and industrial sites of cultural heritage value, and outdoor areas.

Source Source: The Directorate for Cultural Heritage

• Number of protected buildings and other structures, split by geographical location, social class, ethnicity, industrial and commercial use and historical period

The Directorate for Cultural Heritage’s protection strategy from 2015 has formed the basis for work on granting protected status. The purpose of the strategy is to ensure a more representative selection of protected monuments and sites. To this end, priority has been given to completing the processing of ongoing applications for protected status. An overview of approved and initiated applications for protected status since 2015 shows that the geographical spread has improved. Improvements have also been seen in several categories of cultural monuments, sites and environments that have been given priority in the strategy, and which have previously been underrepresented. Stricter prioritisation of which applications for protected status are initiated and more efficient processes, including owner involvement, better guidance, and follow-up of cases, have yielded results.

Figures as of 1 January 2020 show that approximately 8,500 buildings and structures are currently protected by individual protection orders or by regulation, of which about 3,400 are in private ownership.

Environmental target 2.4

By 2020, a standard of repair requiring only normal maintenance will be achieved for protected buildings, other structures and vessels

The progress towards this target is positive, but not sufficient for the goal to be attained by 2020. Assessment in this area is based on two indicators:

• Percentage of buildings protected by individual protection orders or by regulation, other structures and vessels for which a standard of repair requiring only normal maintenance has been achieved

• Number of vessels protected by law and vessels that are included in the national preservation plan for historical vessels that have been restored

The figures from 2018 show a positive development in the standard of repair of protected buildings and other structures. The indicator is related to the conservation programme Protected buildings in private ownership, which contributes both grant funds and expertise to ensure that privately owned protected buildings and structures have a standard of repair requiring only normal maintenance. High priority has been given to following up this conservation programme. The conservation programme encompasses approximately 3,400 buildings. Some 40 per cent of the registered buildings have a standard of repair requiring only normal maintenance. This is an improvement from 2017. Around 15 per cent still need extensive improvements.

Furthermore, in 2019, 11 of the 15 sites included in the conservation programme Technical and industrial cultural heritage have the status of restored but will need more funding to maintain their good condition. As of 1 January 2020, the number of historical technical and industrial facilities with a standard of repair requiring only normal maintenance has been reduced to ten.

All the stave churches in Norway have been restored through the stave church preservation programme, which ended in 2015. The programme included work on structures and foundations, in addition to the preservation of church art. The condition of the churches is checked each year, and the owners can apply for grants for maintenance work. The Directorate for Cultural Heritage, in collaboration with the owners, is responsible for fire protection of the stave churches.

Sjølingstad Uldvarefabrik, a wool factory from 1894, is one of 15 facilities included in the conservation programme Technical and industrial cultural heritage. Together, these facilities represent a national cross-section of cultural monuments, sites and environments related to industrial development in Norway. The wool factory Sjølingstad Uldvarefabrik has been selected as a representative example of the wool and textile industry from the latter part of the 19th century and into the 20th century.

Source Photo: Øystein Hagland, the Directorate for Cultural Heritage

All eight World Heritage properties in Norway have a World Heritage Coordinator and a World Heritage Council with political representation. As of 1 January 2020, World Heritage Centres have been established for six of the properties. All the properties have a management plan. Importance has been attached to restoration and maintenance in the conservation programme World heritage properties and the other conservation programmes that include the World Heritage properties. In general, their condition has improved. Many buildings have been repaired, and their maintenance and dissemination have improved, but major investments are still needed to preserve the World Heritage assets.

Approximately 250 vessels of historical value have the status of “protected by other measures” through voluntary agreements with the Directorate for Cultural Heritage. As of 1 January 2020, 14 of these are protected by law, and one vessel has been given temporary protection. In addition, 19 per cent of the vessels have a standard of repair requiring only normal maintenance. This means that the vessel is either certified and has not received a repair order, or that it is not going to be certified and has a standard of repair requiring only normal maintenance. Of the remainder, 25 per cent have a moderate need for repairs. The rest of the vessels, i.e., 56 per cent, have a significant need for repairs and renovation.

The target of a standard of repair requiring only normal maintenance by 2020 will not be reached for protected buildings in private ownership and vessels of historical value.

5 Challenges facing society in 2020

In autumn 2015, the UN Member States adopted Agenda 2030 and 17 Sustainable Development Goals towards 2030. The Sustainable Development Goals recognise that environmental, social and economic development are mutually interdependent. The goals apply to all countries and are a roadmap for the global effort to achieve sustainable development. The Sustainable Development Goals are universal and set constraints for all policy areas, including the policy for the cultural environment. Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs1.

Efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage are discussed in a separate target under Sustainable Development Goal 11 Sustainable cities and communities, but the cultural environment also contributes to the achievement of several other Sustainable Development Goals. Agenda 2030 highlights that culture, cultural heritage and creativity are important for humanity and have great potential to contribute to environmental, social and economic objectives within several of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. In addition to Sustainable Development Goal 11 Sustainable cities and communities, this also applies to Goal 8 Decent work and economic growth, Goal 12 Responsible consumption and production, Goal 13 Climate action, and Goal 16 Peace, justice and strong institutions, among others.

The reasons why cultural environments are destroyed or lost are numerous and complex. Many of the causes coincide with the major drivers in society, such as climate change and structural changes related to settlement patterns and demographics. Changes in land use, which according to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) are the main driver of biodiversity loss, may also pose a major threat to the cultural environment.

Zoom in on image

Source Source: The United Nations Association of Norway

Up to the year 2100, the climate will become warmer, with more precipitation, shorter snow seasons, shrinking glaciers, more frequent floods caused by heavy rains, and rising sea levels. Such changes in climate are increasing pressure on the cultural environment. A wetter, warmer climate will increase the risk of rot and insect damage. Acute events such as floods, landslides, fires and heavy rainfall can endanger cultural-historical assets. In Svalbard, for example, the coastal zone is particularly at risk of increased erosion and faster degradation of organic matter as a result of the permafrost thawing. In some cases, measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may also have negative consequences for cultural-historical assets. Examples of this are power generation plants and measures to enhance energy efficiency.

Demographic changes occur differently and have varying impacts. The largest towns and cities are experiencing population growth, mainly due to excess births and immigration. According to figures from Statistics Norway, 82 per cent of the Norwegian population lived in towns and densely populated areas in 2019. Urban growth, densification, and compact urban development can put pressure on historical urban environments and landscapes of cultural-historical value. By contrast, many less densely populated areas are experiencing depopulation.

In some parts of Norway, demographic changes have resulted in farming ceasing and former agricultural landscapes becoming overgrown, with farmhouses, farm buildings, boathouses and other buildings falling into disuse. In other parts of the country, there is high pressure on land. With regard to buildings, structures and landscapes of cultural-historical value, changes in settlement patterns and industry can make it challenging to preserve and manage the cultural environment in a good way.

5.1 The green shift

Cultural environment policy is based on an underlying view that the cultural environment represents environmental, cultural, social and economic assets. It has implications for individuals’ identity, well-being and self-understanding. It lends places a distinctive character and unique appearance and is a resource for the development of local communities and the business sector. When assessing the preservation value of each individual cultural monument, site and environment, the cultural environment authorities in Norway classify cultural environment assets into three main categories: knowledge, experience and use.

Cultural environment management has evolved from focusing primarily on the protection of individual cultural monuments, sites and environments to focusing on people and the significance of the cultural environment for society as a whole in a long-term perspective.

In terms of climate change, resource use and economics, it will be beneficial for society as a whole to facilitate the reuse and restoration of cultural monuments, sites and environments, as part of the commitment to the circular economy.

Increased emphasis on reuse of the existing building stock, including protected buildings and historic buildings and facilities, is an important part of the work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Production of knowledge about human adaptation to the ecosystem has been an important topic in cultural history research since the mid-19th century. In recent decades, there has been growing awareness of humanity’s impact on landscapes and the environment. Cultural environment research can generate knowledge and perspectives related to the mutual interaction among humans, the environment, culture, and nature through the ages, and insight into human adaptability in the face of climate challenges and various pivotal historical choices.

5.2 Democracy

Norway has a rich, diverse cultural heritage, which bears testimony to and is an expression of a wide range of values, cultures and histories from people’s adaptation to and use of the environment for more than 11,000 years. Cultural heritage embraces the whole of history, good and bad, and tells us about wise and less-wise choices that have been made. Cultural monuments, sites and environments can provide a sense of belonging to a community and a feeling of coherence and cohesion across time and space. They can also provide new perspectives through querying and reflection.

Cultural heritage serves as a bridge between the past, the present and the future by highlighting cultural, social and geographical diversity from different epochs, and by presenting different histories and points of view.

Over the past hundred years, cultural environment management has evolved from focusing on cultural monuments and sites that reflect only a small part of history and are primarily associated with one social class, to highlighting a much greater diversity of cultural environments. Examples of this are cultural environments related to everyday life, local communities, social inequalities, and different ethnic and cultural groups.

Every single place, village and town has its own qualities and distinctive characteristics. The cultural environment authorities will work to showcase and safeguard their cultural-historical value. The municipal authorities’ responsibility for identifying and managing the local cultural environment is essential to achieving the goal of maintaining a diversity of cultural heritage.

Cultural environment management shall contribute to the preservation and dissemination of awareness and knowledge about all aspects of our history, including those parts that may be uncomfortable to remember or that challenge today’s norms and values. Examples of this include prisoner-of-war camps, and cultural monuments, sites and environments related to psychiatric care, the prison system, Norway’s Norwegianisation policy towards the minority populations, and the state’s treatment of orphanage children. It is important that painful heritage is not excluded, so that future generations also have the opportunity to interpret history in their own way.

Democracy and democratisation are largely about citizen participation and opportunities for influence. Every person has a right to engage with the cultural heritage of their choice, while respecting the rights and freedoms of others. In this way, cultural heritage creates an arena for building democracy, participation, and a culture of expression. Cultural heritage concerns everyone.

Democratisation in the sense of “governance by the people” involves strengthening local autonomy. The Regional Reform and the reorganisation of the management of the cultural environment in Norway (cf. chapter 9) attaches great importance to strengthening the role of local democracy in issues concerning the use and protection of cultural heritage. Democratisation of the cultural heritage sphere also entails recognising and being open to wide variations in what is regarded as important and relevant.

Local communities have come to play an increasingly significant role in the cultural environment sector in recent years. The municipal authorities, the county authorities and the Sami Parliament are not merely implementing the central government’s cultural environment policies; they are independent agents with their own goals. In The European cultural heritage strategy for the 21st century,2 the Council of Europe’s member states and relevant stakeholders are encouraged to promote active citizen participation based on good governance. It also goes a step further, placing people and democratic values at the centre of a broad-based, interdisciplinary, cross-sectoral understanding of cultural heritage. The strategy stresses the importance of promoting ownership of local cultural heritage among the population.

Broad participation in all parts of civil society is important for democracy and for individuals. The goal that everyone shall have the opportunity to get involved in and assume responsibility for the cultural environment expresses a wish for increased citizen participation and greater democratisation of the cultural environment sector. Participation can be exercised individually through individual, non-organised involvement, or through organisations and regulated participatory processes (cf. chapter 8).

An increasing proportion of the population has either grown up in a country other than Norway or has parents who have done so. Cultural heritage can be used to create dialogue and contribute positively to a society undergoing demographic changes. Cultural heritage can also contribute to social and cultural integration, help strengthen the community spirit, be an arena for participation, and be an incentive for learning based on diversity and variety.

Indigenous cultural heritage

The Sami have been recognised as an indigenous people in Norway. Section 108 of the Norwegian Constitution states:

It is the responsibility of the authorities of the state to create conditions enabling the Sami people to preserve and develop its language, culture and way of life.

Norway also has obligations under international law that define constraints for Sami policy, including ILO Convention no. 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries and Article 27 of the United Nations’ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) also contains guiding provisions on minorities and indigenous peoples.

Sami cultural environments are an important source of knowledge about Sami ways of life, use of the landscape, and presence throughout the ages. All Sami monuments and sites from 1917 or earlier are automatically protected under the Cultural Heritage Act. The white paper on Sami language, culture and society from 2019 (Meld. St. 31 (2018–2019)) contains both a description of the current situation and a discussion of future challenges for the management of Sami cultural environments. The role of the Sami Parliament in the management of the cultural environment is described in more detail in chapter 6.

Minorities’ cultural heritage

According to the Norwegian Centre for Holocaust and Minority Studies (the HL Centre), there is no international consensus on the definition of the term “minorities”. Nevertheless, it is usual to refer to minority groups on the basis of occupation, views, sexuality, language, nationality, religion or ethnicity. The largest diversity of minorities in Norway is among the immigrant population. According to an overview from the Directorate of Integration and Diversity, in 2019 the population of Norway comprised people with a background from a total of 221 countries. All these groups will play a part in shaping Norway’s cultural heritage – in tangible and intangible forms.

Norway has five national minorities: Forest Finns, Jews, Kvens or Norwegian Finns, Roma (and Romani people or Tater). Through its ratification of the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, Norway has committed to ensure the preservation and development of these groups’ cultural heritage. The national minorities have moved across national borders, and their culture and cultural heritage is therefore also found beyond Norway’s borders.

Tater-Milla’s House, in the municipality of Våler, was built in around 1940. The house, along with the outbuildings and garden, belonged to Jenny Emilie Pettersen (1886–1976).

Source Photo: Berit Rønsen, the Directorate for Cultural Heritage

5.3 Digitalisation

Advances in technology have progressed at a much faster pace than most people could have predicted. Over the past 20 years, the Internet and digitalisation have transformed society fundamentally. It is stated in the white paper on a digital agenda for Norway in 2016 (Meld. St. 27 (2015–2016)) that while the technological revolution entails challenges in terms of organisation and governance, it also brings many new opportunities. Technological advances and the digitalisation of the public sector are a major driver in the development of the public administration and services. Digitalisation is changing the relationship between public service providers and citizens in several ways, including enabling new forms of interaction.

Digitalisation is improving the efficiency of the government administration through good digital services for partners and users. The administration of and activities affecting the cultural environment are spread across multiple sectors and administrative levels. This creates a complexity that must be taken into account when developing digital services.

Continuously improving technology is providing new opportunities for mapping, documentation and dissemination. Although digital documentation will never be a complete substitute for tangible cultural heritage, digital documentation methods and various digital solutions can be important tools in the dissemination of information about cultural heritage and ensuring accessibility. The cultural environment authorities already use a variety of digital tools, but there is major potential for increased use of these kinds of tools.

Increased sharing of data and new technology for data collection and analysis are creating unprecedented opportunities but not without challenges. It is critical that data-based digital services are based on up-to-date, correct information. In theory, digital information will be able to create a better basis for decision-making, and it is therefore important that users can be confident that the digital information is correct.

6 Cultural environment management in Norway in 2020

6.1 A brief history

Norway’s first organised effort to preserve physical traces of people from earlier times took place through the establishment of historical museums in Trondheim (the Royal Norwegian Society of Sciences and Letters, 1760), Bergen (the Historical Museum, 1825), Oslo (the University’s Collection of National Antiquities, 1829), Tromsø (Tromsø Museum, 1872) and Stavanger (Stavanger Museum, 1875). Together with the Society for the Preservation of Ancient Norwegian Monuments, which was founded in 1844, these institutions are the precursors to the current system for management of the cultural environment.

From an early stage in the preservation work, decisive importance was attached to antiquarian value, i.e. age. The Protection and Preservation of Antiquities Act from 1905 drew a line at the Middle Ages for administration purposes, making the regional archaeological museums in Oslo, Stavanger, Bergen, Trondheim and Tromsø responsible for the management of the oldest traces of human activity, while responsibility for buildings was assigned to the Society for the Preservation of Ancient Norwegian Monuments (“Fortidsminneforeningen”, which later changed its English name to the National Trust of Norway). This distinction has characterised the management of the cultural environment in Norway ever since.

Establishment of the post as National Antiquarian in 1912

The members of the Society for the Preservation of Ancient Norwegian Monuments lobbied actively for the establishment of a formal National Antiquarian post. This position was established in 1912, with responsibility for preserving Norway’s cultural heritage from the Middle Ages and more recent times. Originally, the National Antiquarian, as opposed to the museums, was responsible for ruins, buildings and movable objects. The office evolved and was strengthened until the major reorganisation of the cultural heritage administration in the 1980s. Building on the white paper on the protection of historical buildings and cultural heritage in 1987 (St.meld. nr. 39 (1986–87)) and the Storting’s treatment of it, the Directorate for Cultural Heritage was established as a full-fledged directorate with effect from 1 July 1988. The Directorate for Cultural Heritage was then also given responsibility for the management of archaeological monuments and sites from before the Reformation (1537), which had previously been ascribed to the five regional archaeological museums in Oslo, Stavanger, Bergen, Trondheim and Tromsø.

Increased regional responsibility

From 1 January 1990, authority to enforce the Cultural Heritage Act and a number of administrative tasks were transferred from the Directorate for Cultural Heritage to the county authorities. The Sami Cultural Heritage Council, and later the Sami Parliament of Norway, were given the same powers for Sami cultural heritage from 1 September 1994. Since then, the county authorities and the Sami Parliament of Norway have built up and developed expertise in cultural environment management and have had even more tasks transferred to them. Developments have occurred at different paces and according to different models. From 1 January 2020, as part of the Regional Reform, a number of new tasks and front-line responsibilities were transferred to the county authorities. Similarly, corresponding powers and tasks related to Sami cultural monuments, sites and environments were transferred to the Sami Parliament of Norway from 1 January 2020, as part of the Regional Reform.

6.2 The Regional Reform

The government’s proposed regional reform was presented in the white paper regarding the new democratically elected regions and their role, structure and tasks in 2016 (Meld. St. 22 (2015–2016)). The white paper was followed by a draft proposition on a new division of the regional democratic level (Prop. 84 S (2016–2017)) and the white paper on the tasks of the new regions in 2018 (Meld. St. 6 (2018–2019)). The purpose of the Regional Reform is to establish a division into counties that is better suited to societal challenges and gives the county and municipal authorities more power in community development. The reform is intended to pave the way for a more integrated approach to tasks and increased coordination of sectors and priorities in the counties. With effect from 1 January 2020, Norway has 11 counties including Oslo.

Source Source: The Norwegian Mapping Authority

The Regional Reform entails a number of changes in the management of the cultural environment. The county authorities have been given more powers and generally have the first-line responsibility for dealing with matters that fall under the Cultural Heritage Act.

The county authorities have been given a stronger role in implementing national policies and managing national assets. In order for the new county authorities to succeed, they need resources, framework conditions and instruments to be able to strengthen the potential of cultural heritage as a resource for good local and regional development.

The Directorate for Cultural Heritage’s role has also changed as a result of the Regional Reform. The Directorate for Cultural Heritage shall further develop its role as a sector directorate and still has overarching responsibility for the implementation of Norway’s national cultural environment policy.

6.3 Organisation of the management of the cultural environment

The Ministry of Climate and Environment has the ultimate responsibility for policy development and the management of the cultural environment in Norway. In accordance with the sector principle, the individual ministries and their underlying agencies have an independent responsibility for matters concerning the cultural environment within their own sector.

Preserving the nation’s cultural heritage, and working to ensure it is managed in a good way, is a shared responsibility. Owners of cultural monuments, sites and environments, as well as NGOs and other private players, make an invaluable contribution in this respect, as do a number of foundations, museums and other public agencies.

Public instruments shall contribute to ensuring that owners of cultural monuments, sites and environments are able to fulfil their responsibilities for these assets on their property.

The Directorate for Cultural Heritage

The Directorate for Cultural Heritage is the Ministry of Climate and Environment’s advisory body and is responsible for implementing the government’s cultural environment policy. The Directorate for Cultural Heritage is also responsible for developing guidance materials, information, digital services, etc., that will ensure more uniform management of the cultural environment. It is also responsible for managing key data on the cultural environment in the public administration.

Although some elements of the Directorate’s authority have been transferred to the regional cultural environment authorities, as part of the Regional Reform, the Directorate for Cultural Heritage remains in charge of protection orders, objections and the consideration of appeals and is also responsible for the national distribution of grant funds to the counties. The Directorate for Cultural Heritage is responsible for the management of selected cultural environments of national value. These include the four major medieval towns of Oslo, Bergen, Trondheim and Tønsberg and a number of protected state-owned properties. The Directorate for Cultural Heritage is an adviser to the Royal Palace on matters concerning royal properties. The Directorate for Cultural Heritage is also currently responsible for the management of protected and listed church buildings.

The Cultural Heritage Fund

The Norwegian Cultural Heritage Fund is a grant scheme that provides support for the preservation of privately owned cultural monuments, sites and environments deemed worthy of preservation. The purpose of the Cultural Heritage Fund is to help strengthen efforts to preserve historic cultural monuments, sites and environments deemed worthy of preservation, and to help ensure that a diversity of cultural monuments, sites and environments can be used as a basis for future enjoyment, knowledge, development, and value creation.

The Cultural Heritage Fund receives its funding via the National Budget through a separate letter of allocation from the Ministry of Climate and Environment.

The county authorities

The county authorities have a number of roles related to the cultural environment: they are the decision-making authority, the planning authority, and are in charge of regional development. The county authority is in charge of the regional management of the cultural environment and is responsible for managing the cultural environments in the county.

With the Regional Reform, which came into force on 1 January 2020, the county authorities have been given first-line responsibility for more cultural monuments, sites and environments. They are now responsible for the management of most automatically protected cultural monuments and sites, ship finds, vessels with the status of protected by law or other measures, most of the properties protected through regulations, several technical and industrial facilities, and non-ecclesiastical medieval buildings. From autumn 2020, the county authorities will also take over the processing of applications for several grant schemes, including grants for technical and industrial heritage sites, grants for medieval buildings and structures, funding for fire protection, and grants for ship preservation.

Among other things, the county authorities are responsible for ensuring that the cultural environment is taken into account in connection with urban and land-use planning. This means they are responsible for the work on the regional planning strategy, regional master plans, and regional planning provisions. The county authorities shall ensure that cultural environment interests are taken into account in planning, including at the municipal level.

The Sami Parliament

The Sami Parliament of Norway (“Sámediggi”) is an independent, democratically elected body that represents people of Sami heritage and the Sami as an indigenous people in Norway. The business of the Sami Parliament concerns all matters that particularly relate to the Sami people. By virtue of its status and role, the Sami Parliament is the leading contributor to the drafting of the Norwegian government’s Sami policy and serves as an advisory body on Sami policy issues.

Since 2001, the Sami Parliament has been the administrative authority for Sami cultural environments throughout the whole of Norway. The Sami Parliament has a role and authority in the management of the cultural environment similar to what the county authorities have for the non-Sami cultural environment in their respective counties. Since 2020, the Sami Parliament has been given authority for and tasks linked to management of the Sami cultural environment, on par with the county authorities.

As an indigenous people, the Sami have the right to be consulted in matters that may affect them directly (cf. Article 6 of ILO Convention no. 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries). The Norwegian government and the Sami Parliament have entered into an agreement on procedures for these kinds of consultations. The agreement applies to the entire central government apparatus.

The municipal authorities

Through their long-term land-use planning and processing of building applications, the municipal authorities have a significant responsibility for ensuring the preservation of the cultural environment. This also entails an important duty to safeguard and facilitate the use of the cultural environment in land-use and social planning. The Planning and Building Act is the main legal policy instrument, but the municipal authorities also have other instruments at their disposal, such as various grant schemes. The municipal authorities can also grant exemption from property tax for buildings of historic value. Several municipalities have a dedicated local office or director of cultural heritage management or positions with similar tasks. In 2019, 90 per cent of the municipalities in Norway had received support to draw up their own cultural heritage plan (cf. box 9.8).

The archaeological museums

The five university museums in Norway – in Oslo, Stavanger, Bergen, Trondheim and Tromsø – perform excavations and are expert advisers to the county authorities, the Sami Parliament and the Directorate for Cultural Heritage regarding automatically protected archaeological monuments and sites on land and investigation of these kinds of sites. By contrast, the museums are not responsible for medieval church sites, monasteries, fortresses and fortified sites, and the eight medieval towns: Bergen, Hamar, Oslo, Sarpsborg, Skien, Stavanger, Trondheim and Tønsberg (cf. chapter 11). The maritime museums in Oslo, Stavanger and Bergen and the university museums in Trondheim and Tromsø are responsible for both the registration and the investigation of automatically protected cultural monuments and sites under water and work related to boats, ship finds, cargo, etc. They also advise the county authorities, the Sami Parliament and the Directorate for Cultural Heritage on matters in these areas. In addition, the museums are responsible for the management of collections, knowledge production, and dissemination.

The Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research (NIKU)

The Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research (NIKU) is one of the environmental institutes that receives its basic funding from the Ministry of Climate and Environment. NIKU is responsible for carrying out excavations of archaeological cultural environments from the Middle Ages on behalf of the Directorate for Cultural Heritage and the county authorities. This applies to church sites and graveyards, monasteries, fortresses and fortified sites, and the eight medieval towns (Bergen, Hamar, Oslo, Sarpsborg, Skien, Stavanger, Trondheim and Tønsberg). See the more detailed discussion in section 11.4.

The Governor of Svalbard

The Governor of Svalbard is responsible for the day-to-day management and supervision of the cultural environment in Svalbard, as stipulated in the Svalbard Environmental Protection Act.

Textbox 6.1 The cultural environment in Svalbard

Norway is responsible for managing an important national and international cultural heritage that represents many nations’ activities in Svalbard. It is stated in the white paper Svalbard in 2016 (Meld. St. 32 (2015–2016)) that Svalbard shall be one of the world’s best-managed wilderness areas, and that flora, fauna and cultural monuments, sites and environments that warrant protection should be preserved virtually intact and undisturbed by human activity. Within the framework set by the treaties and considerations of sovereignty, environmental considerations shall prevail in the event of conflicts between environmental protection and other interests.

In Svalbard, all fixed and movable cultural heritage originating from before 1946 is automatically protected. In addition, some fixed cultural monuments and sites are automatically protected regardless of their age. The Directorate for Cultural Heritage can protect post-1945 monuments and sites that have special cultural-historical value. The management of the cultural environment in Svalbard requires a robust knowledge base. Climate change is happening faster and entailing greater challenges in Svalbard than on mainland Norway. The warmer climate and retreating sea ice in Svalbard mean that coastal erosion is happening faster than before. For example, the cableways and pithead installations from mining operations in and around Longyearbyen are exposed to rot and landslides, the airship mooring mast in Ny-Ålesund is exposed to rust, and the hunting and trapping cabins are decaying at a faster rate. Global climate change is exacerbating this. It is pertinent to implement preventive measures for some cultural monuments, sites and environments of particular cultural-historical and/or experiential value.

Box 6.1 (continue)

Clean-up after coal mining in Svea and Lunckefjell

In 2017, the government decided to discontinue the mining operations in Svea and Lunckefjell.

In connection with the clean-up operation, the environmental authorities have registered the cultural environment assets in the area. The registration work was carried out in summer 2019 in collaboration with the Svalbard Museum. The objective was to chart and document automatically protected cultural monuments, sites, environments and those cultural monuments, sites, and environments deemed worthy of preservation that may be affected by the clean-up operation.

This work has resulted in new, more detailed knowledge about the cultural environment at the Sveagruva mine. The results show an increase in the number of individual cultural monuments and sites of more than 50 per cent, compared with previous registrations. The new knowledge that has been gathered will provide an important basis for the environmental authorities’ assessments of what should be preserved and how the cultural-historical assets should be safeguarded during the clean-up operation. Decisions regarding what to preserve must also be weighed up against other environmental considerations in the area around the Sveagruva mine, including restoration of the natural landscapes and pollution.

The clean-up work is estimated to last until 2024–2025.

Mining was discontinued by Storting resolution in 2018. By 2024, all infrastructure shall have been dismantled and removed. Only protected cultural monuments, sites and environments shall be preserved.

Source Photo: Ronny Henriksen, the Ministry of Climate and Environment

7 Overarching guidelines and frameworks

7.1 Principles of environmental law and environmental policy

The objective of sustainable development was proposed by the World Commission on Environment and Development, also known as the Brundtland Commission, in 1987, along with a set of principles to achieve this aim. The white paper on environment and development in 1989 (St.meld. nr. 46 (1988–89)) laid the foundation for Norway’s response to the Commission’s report. In the subsequent years, the principles were refined and expanded. The main principles were the precautionary principle, environmental protection as a cross-sectoral, national priority, the sector principle, and the polluter pays principle. These principles were adapted for use in the cultural heritage sector in Norway in an action plan for cultural heritage management in 19923.

The precautionary principle

The precautionary principle means avoiding actions that might have potentially significant adverse environmental impacts in cases where there is a lack of scientific knowledge. The principle also entails that if there is a risk of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as an excuse for delaying or failing to take actions to prevent environmental degradation. The precautionary principle is included in a number of treaties that Norway has adopted. The principle is also implicitly prescribed in section 112 of the Norwegian Constitution. The principle is enshrined in Norwegian law through, among others, section 9 of the Nature Diversity Act of 2009 and section 7 of the Svalbard Environmental Protection Act of 2001.

Overarching cross-sectoral responsibility and sectoral responsibilities

The Ministry of Climate and Environment has a national, cross-sectoral responsibility for environmental issues. This responsibility involves coordinating policies, measures and management to safeguard the climate and the environment across the various sectors. In addition, the other ministries have a sectoral responsibility that also involves safeguarding the climate and environmental considerations within their own sector. In respect of the cultural environment, this means that the individual ministries and their underlying agencies have an independent responsibility to create overviews of their sector’s cultural environments with high cultural-historical value and ensure that these are preserved. The sectors are also responsible for ensuring that cultural environment considerations are taken into account in their own policies, both in terms of the exercise of authority and the use of relevant policy instruments.

The polluter pays principle

This is a well-established principle within environmental management whereby whoever is responsible for damage to or degradation of the environment must bear the costs associated with the necessary preventive or remedial measures. In the cultural environment sphere, this means that if someone contributes to the loss of a cultural monument, site or environment, they must pay the costs of securing the scientific value of the site for posterity and the community. Within cultural environment management, this means, among other things, archaeological excavations to secure the scientific value of the cultural environment that will otherwise be lost as a result of a development project. This principle is enshrined in the Council of Europe’s Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (the Valletta Convention), which has been incorporated into Norwegian law through section 10 of the Cultural Heritage Act of 1978. This type of provision is also found in the Nature Diversity Act, the Pollution Control Act, and the Svalbard Environmental Protection Act.

7.2 International frameworks and agreements

International developments have implications for Norway’s cultural environment policy. In addition to the constraints and obligations ensuing from international conventions, global challenges and developments in cultural environment policy in the Council of Europe and the EU also have an impact on Norway. This is discussed in more detail in chapter 12.

International environmental law is being developed in response to global and regional challenges, often taking the form of agreements between states. These kinds of agreements are usually entered into as conventions and can be adopted at the global level and at the regional level. International conventions are of great importance in ensuring the preservation of important cultural-historical assets, important natural areas, and flora and fauna.

Below is a brief presentation of some of the main conventions pertaining to the cultural environment and the guidelines they lay down for Norwegian cultural environment policy.

7.2.1 UN conventions

Global cooperation on cultural heritage is mainly done within the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). UNESCO is the only United Nations organisation that has culture as part of its mandate. UNESCO has an important role in the development and implementation of various legal and standard-setting instruments, such as conventions, recommendations and declarations. Several important conventions have global relevance for the management of the cultural heritage and are important for industrialised countries and developing countries alike.

Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict

UNESCO’s Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, also called the Hague Convention, stresses that the protection of cultural heritage in connection with armed conflicts is the responsibility of not merely the states involved, but also the world community. The Hague Convention was the first multilateral treaty to focus exclusively on the protection of cultural heritage during armed conflicts, and the Convention has become highly relevant in recent decades, with a growing number of armed conflicts taking place between groups of peoples and across state borders. A later addition to the Convention, the Second Protocol to the Hague Convention, clarifies duties and responsibilities in connection with armed conflicts and sets requirements for the protection of cultural property.

The Convention was adopted on 14 May 1954 and was ratified by Norway on 19 September 1961. The Second Protocol was adopted on 26 March 1999 and was ratified by Norway on 23 May 2016.

The Ministry of Climate and Environment is responsible for implementing the Convention in Norway.

Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property

UNESCO’s Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property states that the illegal trade of cultural heritage items is one of the main causes of the impoverishment of the cultural heritage of the countries of origin of such property. It stresses that international cooperation constitutes one of the most efficient means of protecting each country’s cultural heritage against the consequences of these kinds of practices. All the states that have ratified the Convention undertake to implement measures that may prevent the illegal trade in cultural objects. It is the individual state that defines which cultural objects need special protection, the export of which shall be subject to a requirement for authorisation from the authorities.

The Convention was adopted on 14 November 1970 and was ratified by Norway on 16 February 2007.

The Ministry of Culture is responsible for implementing the Convention in Norway.

Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage

UNESCO’s Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, also known as the World Heritage Convention, aims to protect cultural and natural heritage that are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science. States that have ratified the Convention undertake to cooperate internationally, identify world heritage situated on their own territory, protect and conserve world heritage, and transmit world heritage through educational programmes and information. Norway has been elected to the UNESCO World Heritage Committee for the period 2017–2021.

The Convention was adopted on 16 November 1972 and was ratified by Norway on 12 May 1977.

The Ministry of Climate and Environment is responsible for implementing the Convention in Norway.

Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries

ILO Convention no. 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries deals with the right of indigenous peoples to preserve and develop their own culture, and the authorities’ duty to implement measures to support this work. This implies a recognition of indigenous peoples’ desire to maintain and develop their own identity, language and religion, within the framework of the states in which they live. The Convention also contains provisions on land rights, employment and work, education, social security and health. The Convention has had and continues to have a major impact on and relevance for the management of Sami cultural environments.

The Convention was adopted on 27 June 1989 and was ratified by Norway on 20 June 1990.

The Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation is responsible for implementing the Convention in Norway.

Convention on Biological Diversity

The UN Convention on Biological Diversity requires the member states to work together on the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of resources, and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilisation of genetic resources. The Convention also contains provisions concerning indigenous peoples and local communities. A separate working group has been established to work on these provisions, where cultural heritage is an important issue. The Nagoya Protocol, which is a protocol under the Convention, deals with, among other things, the way in which genetic resources in flora and fauna may be accessed, and how the benefits that result from their use are shared between the people or countries using the resources (users) and the people or countries that provide them (providers). It also contains provisions on traditional knowledge and the importance of this kind of knowledge for the conservation of biodiversity and sustainable ways of life. At the meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Nagoya in 2010, a strategic plan was adopted to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2020 and ensure that the world’s ecosystems will continue to be able to deliver important services in the future.

The Convention was adopted on 5 June 1992 and was ratified by Norway on 9 July 1993. The Nagoya Protocol was adopted on 29 October 2010 and was ratified by Norway on 1 October 2013.

The Ministry of Climate and Environment is responsible for implementing the Convention in Norway.

Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage

The UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage was adopted in 2001. Norway and several other countries voted against the Convention. The reason for this was that it does not comply with the principles of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Norway has subsequently reassessed whether to ratify the Convention but found no grounds to change its stance. Norway is nevertheless an active participant in the international cooperation on underwater archaeology. Norway also supports the provisions in an annex to the Convention containing rules concerning activities directed at underwater cultural heritage. These provisions are in line with the provisions laid down in the Cultural Heritage Act.

The Convention was adopted on 2 November 2001 but has not been ratified by Norway.

Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage

The purpose of the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage is to ensure respect for and raise awareness of the importance of intangible cultural heritage. The Convention defines intangible cultural heritage as oral traditions and expressions, including language as a vehicle of intangible culture, performing arts, social customs, rituals and festive events, knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe, and traditional artisanship. The Convention attaches importance to respect for and recognition of practitioners and tradition bearers. The Storting has decided that Norway will focus on the intangible cultural heritage of indigenous and national minorities, particularly in its implementation of this Convention.

The Convention was adopted on 17 October 2003 and was ratified by Norway on 17 January 2007.

The Ministry of Culture is responsible for implementing the Convention in Norway.

7.2.2 Conventions of the Council of Europe

Over the past 70 years, the Council of Europe has evolved to become the most prominent forum for the development of regulations and standards in the area of human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Europe. Regulations and standards are primarily developed in specialised, intergovernmental committees, and in many areas, this work has been and continues to be innovative and forward-looking. Several of the Council of Europe’s conventions concern the protection and management of cultural heritage and landscapes in Europe.

Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe

The Council of Europe’s Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe, often referred to as the Granada Convention, sets standards for the preservation of architectural heritage through work to identify buildings and structures that are to be protected. The Convention provides a requirement for this type of assessment to be included as an integral element in land planning processes. The Granada Convention also requires that the public authorities provide financial support for the maintenance and restoration of architectural heritage. This burden is not to be borne by public authorities alone, but also by society at large, including the owners of cultural heritage.

The Convention was adopted on 3 October 1985 and was ratified by Norway on 6 September 1996.

The Ministry of Climate and Environment is responsible for implementing the Convention in Norway.

Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities

The Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities obliges member states to promote the conditions necessary for persons and institutions belonging to national minorities to be able to actively maintain and develop their culture, and to preserve the essential elements of their identity. Some of the obligations in the Convention aim to ensure equality between the majority and minorities in a common social arena.

The Convention was adopted on 1 February 1995 and was ratified by Norway on 17 March 1999.

The Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation is responsible for implementing the Convention in Norway.

Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage

The Council of Europe’s Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage, often referred to as the Valletta Convention, sets standards for the protection of the archaeological heritage as a source of the European collective memory and as an instrument for historical and scientific study. The Convention provides guidelines for the conservation and maintenance of the archaeological heritage, preferably in situ. It also provides guidelines on the integration of conservation into land planning processes, the financing of excavations and research, the collection and dissemination of scientific information, and promotion of public awareness. Necessary archaeological works are funded according to the polluter pays principle in connection with major public and private development projects.

The Convention was adopted on 16 January 1992 and was ratified by Norway on 20 September 1995.

The Ministry of Climate and Environment is responsible for implementing the Convention in Norway.

The European Landscape Convention does not place any restrictions on the use of the landscape. However, the Convention stresses the importance of taking note of changes and steering the changes in the desired direction. These two photographs of Høyland-Bogafjell in the municipality of Sandnes demonstrate how the landscape can change dramatically in a relatively short period of time. These two photographs were taken only 18 years apart.

Source Photo: Arne Lyshol (2000) and Oskar Puschmann, the Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research – NIBIO (2018)

European Landscape Convention

The purpose of the European Landscape Convention, also known as the Florence Convention, is to promote landscape protection, management and planning, and to organise European co-operation on landscape issues. The Convention includes all types of landscapes: urban and rural, coastal and inland. It concerns landscapes that might be considered outstanding as well as everyday and degraded landscapes. The Convention states clearly that landscapes are constantly changing and that it is not a goal to prevent change but to steer the changes in the desired direction. According to the Convention, the concept of landscape includes both cultural and natural elements. The Convention also attaches importance to strengthening the participation of local communities in the work of making decisions, planning, protecting and managing landscapes.

The Convention was adopted on 20 October 2000 and approved by Norway on 23 October 2001.

The Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation is responsible for implementing the Convention in Norway.

Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society

The Council of Europe’s Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society, often referred to as the Faro Convention, was very innovative at its time in that it highlights important aspects of cultural heritage and how they relate to human rights and democracy. It promotes a wider understanding of cultural heritage and its relationship to communities and society. The Convention also attaches great importance to people’s right to have a cultural heritage, the right to interpret their own history, and the right to define their own cultural environment. The Convention highlights a number of important issues at stake, general objectives, and possible fields of intervention for member states to progress.

The Convention was adopted on 27 October 2005 and was ratified by Norway on 27 October 2008.

The Ministry of Climate and Environment is responsible for implementing the Convention in Norway.

Convention on Offences relating to Cultural Property

The Council of Europe’s Convention on Offences relating to Cultural Property, also referred to as the Nicosia Convention, draws attention to the criminality of certain acts related to the illicit trafficking and destruction of cultural property, and presents various preventive measures and guidelines based on ethical and moral standards. The development of online sales platforms and looting and excavation in war-torn areas in recent years has shown that norms and practices must continuously be further developed. The Nicosia Convention set special requirements for due diligence in various professions related to the management of collections and the purchase and sale of cultural objects.

The Convention was adopted on 19 May 2017 but has not been ratified by Norway.