World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers



Forum: Start | Profile | Search |         Website: Start | The List | Community |
Countries www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / Countries /  
 

Norway

 
Author Solivagant
Partaker
#1 | Posted: 20 May 2013 14:58 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Whilst searching for more information on the Svalbard nomination I found this Norwegian government paper which contains statements about progress on a number of Norwegian T List sites.
"TILDELINGSBREV 2013 FOR RIK SANTIKVAREN" ("AWARD LETTER 2013 FOR Cultural Heritage"). This document is described as "a one-year contract between the ministry and agency" -presumably the "Agency" is a non ministerial organisational unit charged with pursuing various Heritage matters of which UNESCO World Heritage is a part. The original PDF (in Norwegain of course) is here
http://www.regjeringen.no/pages/38227184/RA_Tildelingsbrev_2013.pdf

Pages 12/13 includes these paras (translated from Norwegian by Google!)
"28. Follow the schedules for each project in the work of the Norwegian nomination applications to UNESCO. .........
29. Promote increased technical cooperation through bilateral funds in heritage programs where the RA's partner program and other cultural programs in RA subjects under the EEA Grants.
30. Continue work on the nomination of Rjukan / Notodden and Odda / Tyssedal so that the application process can be promoted as a serial nomination and divided into two phases:
Phase I: complete and submit / promote application of Rjukan / Notodden to UNESCO in January 2014
Phase II: continue working on enlargement of nomination to include Odda / Tyssedal with submission to UNESCO in January 2016.
31 After further order from DN MD assist in the nomination process Svalbard world as it is planned to start in 2013.
32. After further order from DN MD assist in efforts Lofoten nomination as World if it becomes necessary to resume the nomination process in 2013.

Missions List 2013
Missions - documents to be sent to the Ministry of Environment Schedule
Report: Arctic heritage sites of exceptional international significance on 01/05/2013
Complete the work on the nomination of "Vikingsarv" for UNESCO in collaboration with the other partners."


From this I gather that
a. It is planned to nominate Rjukan/Notodden in Jan 2014 (so for the 2015 WHC) and then follow on with Odda/Tyssedal (the second part of this single T List entry) in Jan 2016 (for the 2017 WHC) - a rather strange approach which I might have thought ICOMOS might not be happy with? It would appear however that this is likely to be Norway's next nomination?
b. Work on the Svalbard nomination only really started this year (2013) despite earlier indications that it would be prepared in time for the 2014 WHC. See discussion and background under "2014 WHC " http://www.worldheritagesite.org/forums/index.php?action=vthread&forum=8&topic=1543&p age=7
Interestingly NO target date is given for this nomination!!
c. The Lofoten T List site is being actively worked upon but, again with no target identified
d. Norway's part of the "Viking Monuments and Sites" transnational nomination is nearing completion -but no date given.

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#2 | Posted: 26 May 2013 00:07 
Holdup on the Viking Serial Nomination. Perhaps, because of Sweden's lack of support?

http://theforeigner.no/pages/news/swedish-viking-heritage-withdrawal-stymies-norway-e fforts/

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#3 | Posted: 26 May 2013 04:01 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Quote from the link provided above by winterkjm (The report also indicates problems with another "active" Norwegain T List site "Norway's new contenders for the World Heritage List, industry places Rjukan/Notodden and Odda/Tyssedal, are also postponed due to complex conservation issues in both, especially in Odda").

"Sweden has dropped out because the candidate was trading center Birka, which is already on the World Heritage List."
How remarkably "unhelpful" of Sweden! Those Forum contributors who are non-native English speakers might not know the (slightly passé) English colloquialism which seems appropriate here - "I'm alright Jack!".

But it does raise a new Connection possibility!!
"Transnational sites which are extensions from a single National inscription"
Frontiers of the Roman Empire - Originally Hadrian's Wall (UK)
High Coast/Kvarken Archipelago - Originally High Coast (Sweden) - so Sweden can help out a neighbour!
Belfries of Belgium and France - Originally Flemish Belfries (Belgium)
Mt Nimba - originally only Guinea

There may be others! It will have required a degree of willingness to assist a neighbour and identification with the true aims of the "World Heritage" scheme for a country to "lose" its own identifiable WHS and allow it to be subsumed within a wider entity. The same point doesn't of course apply to sites inscribed as "Transnational" from the start since they are presumably improving their chances by joining together - Slovakia for instance originally tried to "go it alone" on its beech forests but was only successful when it joined with Ukraine having been told by IUCN that it should do so!

That such actions are not that common is shown by the number of sites which could/should have been joined together as single transnational sites but whose countries refuse/are apparently incapable of doing so (since it also requires a degree of continuing cooperation on joint management etc). See some among http://www.worldheritagesite.org/tag.php?id=59

Author elsslots
Admin
#4 | Posted: 14 Mar 2015 14:46 
Solivagant:
"Sweden has dropped out because the candidate was trading center Birka, which is already on the World Heritage List."


While we're cleaning the T Lists, the disappearance of the Swedish Viking Site of Birka (would have been a renomination anyway) came to my attention again.

I found this document that describes WHY Sweden pulled out:
http://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC 4QFjACOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.raa.se%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F02%2FText-om-serienomi neringen-English.doc&ei=y4AEVd78D4nwUPyog6AD&usg=AFQjCNGonKu1AEi7H9N00m9Tb0qZFBkalg&s ig2=UZydQVjQDv2wGb_xWBCwOw

"we see crucial problems in nominating a culture or a period for the World Heritage List. The sites are unique but together they do not give a representative picture of Viking Age culture, either geographically, socially, culturally or economically. We are also anxious to contribute to Unesco's global strategy for better geographical balance and to keep administrative expenses low."

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#5 | Posted: 14 Mar 2015 22:36 
Pretty difficult to inscribe a representative "picture of the Viking Age" when they primarily built with wood and thatch more than 1,000 years ago.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#6 | Posted: 15 Mar 2015 04:07 | Edited by: Solivagant 
winterkjm:
We are also anxious to contribute to Unesco's global strategy for better geographical balance


There is a fuller explanation of this aspect of the decision here -
"In addition to this, there is a heavy geographical imbalance in the World Heritage List, where Europe, for example, is greatly over-represented. Unesco has adopted a global strategy for a more balanced and representative World Heritage List. If the nomination were to be successful, this imbalance would be further reinforced, which is not compatible either with Unesco's global strategy or with the position of the Swedish government on this issue. "

I note that the decision to withdraw from support of the "Viking Age" transnational nomination was made in Sep 2012, just under 3 months after Sweden gained inscription for its "Decorated Farmhouses of Hälsingland" site!! I presume also that we won't be seeing Sweden's only T List site ("The Rise of systematic biology") being progressed.

Another argument used was the extra cost of setting up a "coordinated" trans-boundary administration system. Perhaps Sweden has seen problems/costs in trying to administer its existing 2 transnational sites Struve Arc and High Coast? The argument seems rather "thin".

Which leaves the 3rd argument - ie the fact that the collection of sites has no other connection than the fact that they are all "Viking" in some way. This alone does seem to have some validity to me. On this forum we have previously criticised the growing tendency to pull together sites, whether from one country or more, on what appears to be a "more the merrier" basis. On the other hand it is also true that the Viking culture is not as well represented as it might be (L'Anse Aux Meadows, Jelling, Birka/Hovgarden, Thnigvellir ......?). The "Viking monuments and sites" T List entry does seem to be rather too "all encompassing" - perhaps it does need to be pared down a bit and targeted at a particular aspect of Viking culture?

Author Assif
Partaker
#7 | Posted: 15 Mar 2015 05:20 | Edited by: Assif 
Solivagant:
Another argument used was the extra cost of setting up a "coordinated" trans-boundary administration system. Perhaps Sweden has seen problems/costs in trying to administer its existing 2 transnational sites Struve Arc and High Coast? The argument seems rather "thin".

I think what they meant with extra administrative cost is the additional expenses linked to the new transnational nomination whereby the same sites are already inscribed. This by the way is a strong argument.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#8 | Posted: 15 Mar 2015 07:11 
Assif:
I think what they meant with extra administrative cost is the additional expenses linked to the new transnational nomination whereby the same sites are already inscribed


That's what i thought they meant too - "If the serial nomination were successful it would have administrative and economic consequences. It would entail increased administration and higher costs" - Can it be that large? A mere fleabite if they had wanted to be "communautaire" with their fellow Nordic countries sharing a Viking past!! I don't remember UK saying to Germany "We don't want to join you with our already inscribed Hadrian's Wall for you to add the Roman Limes as it will make our administrative costs higher if it becomes transnational" !!!

Countries www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / Countries /
 Norway

Your Reply Click this icon to move up to the quoted message


 ?
Only registered users are allowed to post here. Please, enter your username/password details upon posting a message, or register first.

 
 
www.worldheritagesite.org Forum Powered by Chat Forum Software miniBB ®
 ⇑