Factors affecting the property in 1994*
- Management systems/ management plan
- Other Threats:
Risk of uncontrolled property development
International Assistance: requests for the property until 1994
Total amount approved : 0 USD
Missions to the property until 1994**
Information presented to the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee in 1994
In 1993, in collaboration with ICOMOS-Norway and ICCROM, the national authorities monitored the sites of Bryggen and Roros, both situated in an urban context where the risk of uncontrolled property development is high.
ICOMOS evaluated: the development of the sites to see if their qualities are still preserved; present local and national plans which might affect the future evolution of the sites, to see if they strengthen or weaken the qualities of the site; the need for and possibility of enlarging the World Heritage sites; in Bryggen to create a buffer zone around the existing site and enclose parts of the harbour and cityscape significant for the understanding of the historical context of Bryggen; in Roros to create a site which also may include the surrounding landscape, referring to the World Heritage Committee's emphasis on the cultural landscape aspect.
The resulting reports emphasized the need: i) to integrate the cultural heritage dimension in the planning process and local decision-making; ii) to strengthen the division of responsibilities between central and local governments and private owners; iii) for systematic monitoring as a part of the day-to-day management of the sites, with regular inspections and a coherent maintenance strategy. All treatments and changes to the monuments should be carefully documented and systematically stored.
As a result, the recommendations of the ICOMOS-Norway review will form a basis for the future management of the two sites. Measures have already been taken to allocate larger financial resources to ensure improved management of the sites.
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 1994
The threats indicated are listed in alphabetical order; their order does not constitute a classification according to the importance of their impact on the property.
Furthermore, they are presented irrespective of the type of threat faced by the property, i.e. with specific and proven imminent danger (“ascertained danger”) or with threats which could have deleterious effects on the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (“potential danger”).