Minister of Cultural Affairs, Anne Enger Lahnstein

Statement on ”Safeguarding and developing the common cultural heritage in the Baltic Sea Region”

Gdansk – The fourth Conference of Ministers of Culture of the Baltic Sea states, 20. - 21. September 1999

Mr. Chairman

Norway took part in the working group that has presented the report “Safeguarding and developing the common cultural heritage in the Baltic Sea Region”. It is a report we give our full support, and we are thankful to the Swedish National Heritage Board for the responsibility they took on in carrying through this important work.

In the report cultural heritage is seen in a perspective together with the development of the local community, economic development in general and the question of democracy and public participation. In our opinion this is a constructive approach. With such a broader perspective our work will have a much wider and stronger societal impact.

Further, the report gives emphasis to the organisation and administration of cultural heritage, and the necessity of co-operation across national boarders. International co-operation relates to most of the themes mentioned in the report. For many of the themes such co-operation has already been established and Norway is an active partner. In particular this goes for wooden architecture, restoration of buildings, coastal culture and old fortresses. This co-operation could be further developed and intensified if we follow the recommendations of the report.

Co-operation in the field of maritime archaeology could also be fruitful, but let me here mention, for your information, that Norway has reserved her position with regard to the convention now under consideration within the framework of UNESCO. Norway has stressed that new international regulation in this field must be in conformity with the principles and jurisdictional structures of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

We are also pleased to see that the museums have found their place in the report and are considered as an integrated part of the cultural heritage sector.

Concerning the conclusions of the report we would have preferred them to be more operational. Recommendations are given, but it is difficult to see how they could be followed up in a constructive way. There is also the question of human and financial resources. In order to make sure that the work is continued, which we definitely hope it will be, these questions have to be addressed. It should also be mentioned that there is a risk of duplication of ongoing work.

In future work it would also be relevant to put more emphasis on the role of the craftsman himself. He has the skill and through him his knowledge could be brought further to coming generations. Here we have some good experience in Norway. When it comes to the so called “modern movement architecture” we have also contributions to offer based on our experience from our national programme for preserving the architecture of the 20th century.

In conclusion: We appreciate very much the work carried out by the expert group and find it recommendable that the work should be continued. The framework statements added to the report, indicates necessary steps that ought to be followed up. We support these statements but would also like to see a general support for future work included in the final declaration.

Thank you.