Our common accoutability

By Siri Bjerke

The important European conference on the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in preserving cultural heritage, now being held in Oslo, is Norway's contribution to the Council of Europe's campaign, "Europe - a common heritage". The aim of the conference is to encourage the work of such NGOs in the wider European context.

Conservation is an international issue. Pollution spreads across national frontiers, and there is nothing that Schengen or any other border agreement can do to stop it. Perhaps it is a little less obvious that cultural heritage is similarly a responsibility held in common, with obligations that transcend national frontiers. In fact, culture and cultural heritage have often been used to justify the foundation of nation states and, consequently, the erection of new frontier barriers against others. But such one-sided emphasis on cultural heritage as a force for nationalism is now seen as narrow-minded and old-fashioned.

Our understanding of cultural heritage has become more comprehensive. We know that buildings and sites can be worthy of protection even if they are devoid of strictly national significance. History leaves its imprint at regional and local levels, and these traces are valuable in their own right. Accordingly, there are provisions in the Planning and Building Act for local and regional authorities to protect areas in their jurisdiction on grounds of historic and cultural importance. Globalization, both cultural and economic, means that the frameworks within which we must operate are increasingly determined by extra-national authorities. This makes international cooperation all the more important if we are to ensure that such frameworks can sustain and protect cultural diversity, which is increasingly under threat of homogenization.

Mutual understanding

Our history shows that a culture which has evolved in a geographic region is not always compatible with that represented by the political powers of the day. We have seen this demonstrated dramatically in Europe during the last decade. Culture has been the basis for armed conflicts of a kind few thought possible after the Second World War. Such developments show us that the national approach to the preservation of cultural heritage must be extended and refined. We must accept that the values embodied in cultural heritage - houses, landscapes, monuments, sites - can be assessed in different ways. And the responsibility for protection lies with those who define these things as valuable. At the same time we have no right to destroy something that is important to others, even if they do not recognize its value. Television pictures of toppled minarets in the Balkan war zones should make further argument along these lines unnecessary.

All this poses a huge challenge, however. On the one hand we must support the preservation of cultural heritage in those European countries which have recently regained their independence, and accept that culture is important in consolidating the reconstruction of nations long disadvantaged by political and cultural oppression. On the other hand, we must not tolerate the destruction of cultural heritage as an element of warfare, or its use as justification for destructive nationalism. In order to achieve this balance we shall need a great deal of mutual awareness and understanding of each other's problems.

Norway's contribution

I am pleased to see the vigorous international engagement demonstrated by the Society for the Preservation of Norwegian Ancient Monuments. This is evident in this issue of the journal of the Society and in its cooperation with the Council of Europe, the Directorate for Cultural Heritage and the Ministry of Environment in this important European conference on the role of NGOs in preserving cultural heritage, which is being held in Oslo 21-24 September. This is Norway's contribution to the Council of Europe's campaign, "Europe - a common heritage".

It is important to encourage voluntary involvement in the preservation of cultural heritage. There will always be limits to public funding: some responsibility must rest with the private sector. Additionally, a lively voluntary sector is a precondition for a living democracy - for acquiring direct and concrete experience in our daily life of fundamental democratic principles such as freedom of choice and of expression. A sense of responsibility to the membership is of great significance in maintaining democracy as a political force. Residents' associations, music groups, cultural heritage bodies and other organizations are a platform for the many disparate elements of the stable democratic system which we enjoy in Norway today.

20.09.00