Response to interpellation 2023/24:742 on the development of our Swedish World Heritage sites
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns how Sweden should ensure a sustainable and long-term management, coordination, and financing of the country's 15 world heritage sites. M argues that the national world heritage strategy and its action plans provide good conditions for management through clear roles and responsibilities 1 2 3. M emphasizes that the government has invested in grants for world heritage coordination and that there are several opportunities for actors to apply for funds 4. S argues that long-term financing is lacking and that current grants are insufficient and conditional 5 6. S calls for a state management and stable economic conditions to meet UNESCO's requirements for education and information 5 6 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)
Mr. Speaker! Louise Thunström has asked me what I and the government intend to do to ensure a sustainable and long-term management and coordination of Sweden's world heritage.
Initially, I want to emphasize that I share Louise Thunström's commitment to the Swedish World Heritage sites. The work with the World Heritage sites involves many actors. Even here, it is the Swedish National Heritage Board (Riksantikvarieämbetet) that has the overall responsibility for the application in Sweden of UNESCO's Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage and for the coordination of the national World Heritage work. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (Naturvårdsverket) has the responsibility for those World Heritage sites that are natural heritage. At the regional level, the County Administrative Boards (länsstyrelserna) are responsible for issues regarding cultural and natural environments, which also includes World Heritage sites. The World Heritage sites are owned and managed by both private and public actors.
The very basis for the work with the World Heritage sites during 2020-2030 is the national World Heritage strategy. It has been developed by the Swedish National Heritage Board on the government's assignment and in cooperation with relevant authorities, municipalities, and various actors in the World Heritage work. The strategy includes, among other things, a vision and an overall goal for the actors in the World Heritage work, clarification of responsibilities and roles, as well as areas for development. The implementation of the strategy is divided into two periods with associated action plans that the Swedish National Heritage Board has developed with relevant actors. The first action plan applies to the years 2021-2024 and concerns all 15 World Heritage sites in Sweden with a focus on the common needs of the World Heritage sites.
The Government has also decided for the period 2021-2024 that the Swedish National Heritage Board may allocate grants of at most 4 million kronor per year for world heritage coordination for those world heritages that are cultural heritage. The purpose is to strengthen the local and regional implementation during the first implementation period of the world heritage strategy.
It is my and the government's assessment that the current strategy and the ongoing implementation of the strategy contribute to securing a sustainable and long-term management and coordination of Sweden's world heritage.
Louise Thunström (S)
Mr. Speaker! In order to protect, preserve and inform about the world's most valuable cultural and natural environments, Unesco adopted a convention in 1972, the so-called World Heritage Convention.
All countries that have signed the convention can nominate natural and cultural environments within their own country to UNESCO's World Heritage List. Sweden has 15 World Heritage sites. These are among the country's and some of the world's most unique cultural and natural heritages. It is the Swedish state that applies to UNESCO, which then designates World Heritage sites. The application and selection are carried out based on the convention, which Sweden signed in 1985. With that signature follows a number of commitments.
In Article 27 of the World Heritage Convention, they are described as follows:
"The States Parties to this Convention shall, by all appropriate means, and in particular through educational and information programmes, strive to enhance their peoples' appreciation of and respect for the cultural and natural heritage concerned."
Furthermore, it appears that the states "shall undertake to keep the public informed about the dangers that threaten this heritage and about the activities carried out in accordance with this convention".
Sweden has thus committed itself to communicating the value of our Swedish world heritage, but no resources are allocated to carry out that type of activity. The assignment goes from the government to Riksantikvarieämbetet and Naturvårdsverket, where Riksantikvarieämbetet handles the 13 cultural world heritages and Naturvårdsverket handles the two natural world heritages, Laponia and Höga kusten.
The two, that is Laponia and Höga kusten, receive both a world heritage center via Naturum and operational funds. The other 13 receive nothing. The county administrative boards, the regions and in some cases the municipalities must fund coordinators themselves. For operations, i.e. that which falls under Article 27, no funding is issued.
In 2017, the then government commissioned the Swedish National Heritage Board to develop a national world heritage strategy. The strategy was completed, and it points the way for future work in a good and constructive way in many respects.
In connection with the implementation of the strategy, a coordination grant is indeed issued from the Swedish National Heritage Board. These funds have been available for 13 of the 15 World Heritage sites to apply for, and it has provided approximately 300,000 SEK per World Heritage site per year. The funds are, however, conditional upon non-routine activities. It should nevertheless be said that the money has been useful, which is mentioned from several sides. The year 2024 is however the last year for these funds, and at the turn of the year, the World Heritage sites will be left without any operational funds whatsoever.
Sweden signed the World Heritage Convention in 1985, as mentioned. It has almost been 40 years, and there is still no long-term sustainable management, coordination, or financing. Since 1985, the world heritage sites have fallen between the cracks and, with that, have become everyone's and no one's responsibility.
Both the strategy and the subsequent action plan have high ambitions, but they are ambitions that have not been realized as there is no funding linked to the action plan. Therefore, much of what is stated in the action plan has not been able to be implemented.
My question to the Minister for Culture is whether she can ensure that, after 40 years, a long-term funding is secured for our 15 world heritage sites.
Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)
Mr. Speaker! As I have mentioned, for the years 2021-2024, the government has decided on 4 million kronor per year in support for World Heritage coordination. The funds have, among other things, gone to those World Heritages that are cultural heritage and to the association Världsarv i Sverige. The grant has strengthened both the role of the World Heritage coordinators and the possibility to perform high-quality work. It has also created added value and space for development at both local and regional levels.
There is an opportunity to apply for funds also from the Swedish National Heritage Board in the form of grants for heritage work, as well as from the County Administrative Boards for the care, maintenance, and accessibility of cultural environments through grants for cultural heritage conservation. Funding is also possible via the cultural cooperation model.
For world heritage sites that are natural heritage, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has, during the years 2021-2022, invested approximately 30 million kronor on specifically the management and maintenance of the world heritage sites that the agency is responsible for. There are also several other grants that several world heritage sites have the opportunity to apply for.
According to the national world heritage strategy which the member also mentions, the Swedish National Heritage Board and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency shall provide information about these opportunities and also facilitate for local and regional actors to apply for grants for continued world heritage work.
Louise Thunström (S)
Mr. Speaker! These 300,000 or a total of 4 million kronor that the Minister for Culture mentions is not an investment, but they are actually taken from existing appropriations. They also cannot be used for activities.
Mr. Speaker! How we in Sweden manage our world heritage can be compared with, for example, Norway. The Norwegian state gives the eight Norwegian world heritage sites - that is, almost half as many as in Sweden - approximately 100 million kroner per year plus funding for a world heritage center at each world heritage site plus a national coordinator at 100 percent.
The other day I read that the Norwegian World Heritage site Vega Islands is also being awarded an additional grant of 10 million kroner to work on business development.
In Norway, I understand several departments disagree on the financing. It is perhaps not a bad idea, since the world heritage sites look so different.
The Icelandic World Heritage site Vatnajökull has 40 full-time employed guides, and in the summer many more than that. This can be compared with the World Heritage site Hälsingegårdar, where the private farm owners themselves provide the guiding.
As the Minister for Culture writes in his response, ownership looks different. That is precisely why a state administration must be established. Private owners cannot be responsible for carrying out the parts of the World Heritage Convention that the state signed 40 years ago. There is an enormous difference between a farm owner in Hälsingland and Statens fastighetsverk, which is responsible for the World Heritage site Drottningholm. Here, the Swedish state must take its responsibility.
Despite difficult economic conditions, very good work is still being done in our world heritage sites. Sweden's world heritage sites are all living and engaging. But the activities carried out are dependent on temporary project funds, some regional funds, some municipal funds, and a large amount of voluntary work.
In the economic situation that municipalities and regions are currently in, world heritage sites cannot be prioritized. This is noticeable, not least in my home municipality Tanum, where Tanum's petroglyphs are on the world heritage list but where the economic resources from the municipality are decreasing.
In difficult times when so-called non-essential activities are prioritized away in municipalities and regions, there is no one to hold the hand of the Swedish world heritage sites.
The World Heritage Strategy points to the importance of strengthening general awareness and understanding of the unique values of the World Heritage. This cannot be achieved without stable and long-term financial conditions.
Sweden has committed to not only preserving but actively using its world heritage as resources for education and sustainable development. This is something that also requires funding.
Furthermore, we must not forget that it is not municipalities or regions that have applied for world heritage status, but it is the Swedish state.
With the right conditions, world heritage sites contribute to society's development, to knowledge, to cooperation and to tax revenues. Research on world heritage shows that 1 euro invested yields 10 back to the treasury from guest nights, food, local businesses, etc.
How does the Minister for Culture view the fact that our Swedish world heritage sites have such different conditions compared to the other Nordic ones? And does the Minister for Culture believe that the cultural cooperation model can be an instrument for funding and lead to greater engagement?
Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)
Mr. Speaker! I become a bit thoughtful and actually a bit full of laughter when I compare my two interpellation debates here.
Just a moment ago, we had a debate about a cultural heritage, namely Sätra Brunn. There, the government has made a decision to increase the appropriations for cultural heritage conservation. Then the Social Democratic member and the interpellator says that money is not everything, but here one must look at the fact that it is cooperation that is required.
In this case, we are debating the world heritage sites in Sweden, the 15 that we have. There is a well-established cooperation here, but then the Social Democratic member and the interpellator say that it is not cooperation that is needed, but rather that the money must be here.
I wonder a bit how S will fare.
With that said, there is actually a long-term world heritage strategy that involves a wide range of actors when it comes to implementation, where the focus lies on clarifying roles and responsibilities and pointing out important areas for development. I believe this provides good conditions to secure long-term management and achieve coordination for our world heritage sites.
When it comes to the financing of the world heritage sites, I can only state that there are appropriations given until 2024. When it comes to what will happen before the upcoming budget process, the members know just as well as I do that it is not something that I can take here and now in the rostrum, but we have a specific process for that.
Louise Thunström (S)
Mr. Speaker! It is a pity, I think, that the Minister for Culture could not listen more to what I said. This is also what the 15 Swedish World Heritage sites testify to. It looks like this.
I also did not receive an answer to the question of why the conditions look so different compared to the rest of the Nordic countries.
Regarding the financing and the fact that we are asking for money, I just want to say that there are often big words in the political debates here in the chamber. We talk about historical investments, and we talk about paradigm shifts. I do not believe in either that rhetoric or those results. I believe that it is very rarely that people notice any large, revolutionary changes.
However, I am interested in seeing what is low-hanging fruit and what can yield noticeable results and create added value with relatively small means.
I assert that the world heritage sites, with relatively modest economic means, can provide exactly what we all consider important: knowledge of our history, education, cohesion, local development, tax revenues and, not least, joy and pride.
World heritage is also an important resource for schools. In its report *The School and Cultural Heritage*, the Swedish National Heritage Board highlights how world heritage can be used in the school's democratic mission and for teachers' professional development.
Furthermore, the world heritage sites can contribute to sustainability and international cooperation, which is extra important in a time like this. We must not forget that the world heritage sites actually came into being as a peace effort.
I would like to once again ask the Minister for Culture to secure long-term and sustainable funding for the world heritage sites so that, among other things, the intentions in the national strategy and UNESCO's Article 27 can be fulfilled. As mentioned, it is a relatively small amount of money that is required.
Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank the member for the opportunity to highlight the important work being done for the Swedish cultural heritages and the world heritage sites.
World heritage, as well as cultural heritage, has great significance for knowledge, identity, and cohesion in a society. I believe that the insight into this has become painfully clear, not least against the background of what is happening in our global environment, where we can witness how historical sites are intentionally destroyed and how historical bonds between people and societies and identity are sought to be eradicated. The lesson from these tragic events has made us aware of the importance of working preventatively and strategically to protect and preserve our world heritage and other important cultural heritage.
That there is now ongoing work within the framework of the world heritage strategy and its implementation involving many actors, I think is very positive, and I will work to safeguard that.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.