sign in sign up
<<
Home , County governor (Norway), UNESCO, West Norwegian Fjords

IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ West Norwegian – and Nærøyfjord - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

West Norwegian Fjords – Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord

2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

SITE INFORMATION Country: Inscribed in: 2005 Criteria: (vii) (viii)

Situated in south-, north-east of , Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord, set 120 km from one another, are part of the west Norwegian landscape, which stretches from Stavanger in the south to Andalsnes, 500 km to the north-east. The two fjords, among the world’s longest and deepest, are considered as archetypical fjord landscapes and among the most scenically outstanding anywhere. Their exceptional natural beauty is derived from their narrow and steep-sided crystalline rock walls that rise up to 1,400 m from the Norwegian Sea and extend 500 m below sea level. The sheer walls of the fjords have numerous waterfalls while free-flowing rivers cross their deciduous and coniferous to glacial lakes, glaciers and rugged mountains. The landscape features a range of supporting natural phenomena, both terrestrial and marine, such as submarine moraines and marine mammals. © UNESCO

SUMMARY

2020 Conservation Outlook Finalised on 02 Dec 2020

GOOD

The conservation outlook of the property is good, thanks to the robustness of its values, limited threats and effective management. However, coordination between different management authorities involved in the management of the property could be improved. Some concerns also exist regarding addressing some of the threats, particularly those from cruise ships. IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ West Norwegian Fjords – Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

FULL ASSESSMENT

Description of values

Values

World Heritage values

▶ Classic, superbly developed fjords Criterion:(viii)

The West Norwegian Fjords are archetypical, exceptionally developed fjords, considered as the most typical example of this geological phenomenon in the world. They are comparable in scale and quality to other existing fjords on the World Heritage List and are distinguished by the climate and geological setting. The property displays a full range of the inner segments of two of the world’s longest and deepest fjords, and provides well-developed examples of young, active glaciation during the Pleistocene ice age (, 2014, UNEP-WCMC, 2011).

▶ Exceptional fjord landscapes Criterion:(vii)

The two fjords that make up this property are considered to be among the most scenically outstanding fjord complexes worldwide. They display narrow and steep-sided crystalline rock walls that rise up to 1,400 m from the sea surface and extend 500 m below sea level. Along the sheer walls of the fjords are numerous waterfalls while free-flowing rivers run through deciduous and coniferous to glacial lakes, glaciers and rugged mountains. There is a great range of supporting natural phenomena, both terrestrial and marine such as submarine moraines and marine mammals (World Heritage Committee, 2014, UNEP-WCMC, 2011).

Other important values

▶ Full range of marine, freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems of this area with their associated biota

There is a great range of supporting natural phenomena, including terrestrial, freshwater and marine. Vegetation is typical of West Norway, with both deciduous (mainly Betula spp.) and coniferous (mainly Pinus sylvestris) forest, as well as alpine formations with dwarf birch Betula spp. and polar willow (Salix Polaris). Noteworthy are the natural free-flowing river systems with their associated biota, including emblematic species such as Eurasian Otter (Lutra lutra) and Dipper (Cinclus cinclus). The terrestrial mammal fauna comprises a wide range of ungulates and carnivores typical of the region; while both harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) and porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) and several other species of cetaceans are inhabiting the sea. Ichthyofauna such as Salmon (Salmo salar) and Sea trout (S. trutta) and avifauna such as White tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) and Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) are also rich and typical of this geographical setting (UNEP-WCMC, 2011).

Assessment information

Threats

Current Threats Very Low Threat

Current threats include mining and , as well as cruise ship travel, harbour infrastructure development and air/ . However, all these threats are localized and their impact on the geological and scenic features that constitute the OUV of the property appears well controlled and limited. IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ West Norwegian Fjords – Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

Some of the biodiversity values of the property might, however, be more affected.

▶ / visitors/ recreation Low Threat (Increasing level of cruise ship visitation and tourism ) Inside site, widespread(15-50%) Outside site Increasing cruise ship traffic and visitation noted as a concern by environmental groups ( in English.no, 2009). The level of boat traffic (including rib-boats and kayaking) in the Nærøyfjord, may negatively affect the seal population through disturbing.

▶ Marine/ Freshwater Aquaculture Very Low Threat (Marine aquaculture development in the vicinity of the property ) Outside site

Salmon aquaculture in the wider fjord systems around the property reportedly threatening local salmon and sea trout stocks has previously been reported. Some limitations on aquaculture production are now in place (Manzetti, 2011).

▶ Changes in traditional ways of life and knowledge systems Low Threat that result in negative impact Inside site, extent of threat not known (Abandonment of traditional but unprofitable farms, with risk of Outside site loss of associated biodiversity )

Some farmland dependent biodiversity reportedly threatened by abandonment of traditional farming (UNEP-WCMC, 2011). This is an ongoing threat but solutions from to maintain traditional farming and , are now under consideration for the (Thuen et.al., 2019).

▶ Invasive Non-Native/ Alien Species Very Low Threat (Invasive species ) Inside site, extent of threat not known Outside site Spruce (Picea abies), a non-natural species occurs in the area. It is spreading from plantations, threatening biodiversity values of the site (IUCN Consultation, 2014). Sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), also occurs in the Geirangerfjord area.

▶ Water Pollution, Air Pollution Low Threat (Pollution from cruise ships ) Inside site, extent of threat not known Outside site At least one localized significant incident of water pollution from cruise ship fuel was recorded in 2009 (News in English.no, 2009). Concerns exist around sewage and grey water. Some air pollution is also caused by cruise ships. Water and air pollution from cruise ships remains the most significant threat to the property (IUCN Consultation, 2017).

▶ Mining/ Quarrying Low Threat (Mineral mining at/near both components ) Outside site

A peridotite quarry is located near the Geirangerfjord component has terminated/ ceased (IUCN Consultation, 2020). The impacts are localized and a restoration is planned. Underground extraction of anorthosite takes place in the Nærøyfjord area, and this may expand in the future. (World Heritage Committee, 2014).

Potential Threats Very Low Threat

Potential threats to the property are mainly from natural disasters (rock falls, avalanches), which are part of the natural dynamics of the system and do not pose a significant threat to the site’s values. Increasing shipping traffic of large vessels along the Norwegian coast can be potential threats to the fjords marine environment if an accident at sea occurs, however the distance between these shipping routes and the property are large. IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ West Norwegian Fjords – Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

▶ Earthquakes/ , Avalanches/ Landslides Very Low Threat (Avalanches, rock falls and potentially landslides in both Inside site, scattered(5-15%) component areas and around ) Outside site

Persistent risk of avalanches, rock falls and landslides exists in several parts of the property, but this is part of the natural dynamics of the area and is not seriously threatening the OUV of the property (UNEP- WCMC, 2011). This is expected to increase due to climate change.

▶ Water Pollution Low Threat (Ship accidents leading to oil spills and marine pollution) Outside site

Shipping traffic along the Norwegian coast is increasing and potential ship accidents leading to oil spills and marine pollution could threated the West Norwegian Fjords World Heritage site. Of concern is the threat of oil transport from the Barents Sea, along the Norwegian coast to markets in . In 2008, 10.8 million tonnes of oil were shipped westward through the Barents Sea and forecast for 2025 estimate a 60% increase in the oil transport. Since 2000 Norway has experienced several adverse events that could have resulted in major environmental crises. In 2008, 103 groundings were registered in the Norwegian sea (Akhtar et.al., 2012).

Overall assessment of threats Very Low Threat

Current threats include mining and aquaculture, as well as cruise ship travel, harbour infrastructure development and pollution. However, all these threats are localized and their impact on the geological and scenic features that constitute the OUV of the property appears well controlled and limited. Some of the biodiversity values of the property might, however, be more affected. Potential threats to the property are mainly from natural disasters (rock falls, avalanches), which are part of the natural dynamics of the system and do not pose a significant threat to the site’s values. Increasing shipping traffic of large vessels along the Norwegian coast can be potential threats to the fjords' environment.

Protection and management

Assessing Protection and Management

▶ Management system Mostly Effective

Valid management plans are in force for both components of the property (Møre and Romsdal County Government, 2008, County Governor of , 2008). However, the overall management system is considered only partially effective to maintain the OUV of the property by the State Party of Norway, 2013. A revised management plan is in preparation in 2020 (IUCN Consultation, 2020).

▶ Effectiveness of management system Mostly Effective

No systematic management effectiveness assessment has been undertaken. Management effectiveness was considered generally sufficient, but implementation and effectiveness gaps were noted in the Periodic Report. Shortcomings appear to exist in the area of tourism (particularly cruise ship) management and inter-institutional coordination (Brendehaug, 2014, State Party of Norway, 2013, News in English.no, 2009).

▶ Boundaries Highly Effective

The boundaries of the property are considered adequate (UNEP-WCMC, 2011, State Party of Norway, 2013). They are known to all relevant parties. There is no as it is not considered necessary by the State Party (State Party of Norway, 2013), IUCN (IUCN, 2005) or the World Heritage Committee IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ West Norwegian Fjords – Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

(WHC, 2005).

▶ Integration into regional and national planning systems Mostly Effective

There is a range of planning and development mechanisms at different levels (national. county, municipal, local). Coordination between different management authorities could, however, be improved (State Party of Norway, 2013).

▶ Relationships with local people Mostly Effective

There are more than 500 people living within the property, engaged in tourism, agriculture and also natural resource use (UNEP-WCMC, 2011). 82% of land is privately owned. Separate advisory committees for both component areas are foreseen in management plans (Møre and Romsdal County Government, 2008, County Governor of Sogn og Fjordane, 2008). Relationship with local people, landowners and tourism sector was characterized as "fair" by State Party (State Party of Norway, 2013).

▶ Legal framework Mostly Effective

The terrestrial and limnic parts of the site are legally protected as county-governed Protected Landscapes and Nature Reserves. The marine part is not protected presently but the County Governor of (new region from January, 2020) has started a process to protect larger parts of the , including the World Heritage area (IUCN Consultation, 2014). There are also legally binding local development plans and additional legal safeguards for specific parts of the areas (e.g. banning hydropower development along rivers) (UNEP-WCMC, 2011). Presently the marine part is regulated by the EU Water framework directive in addition to many other laws and regulations. Two important national authorities manage marine activity within the site; the Norwegian Coastal Administration and the Norwegian Maritime Authority. Legal framework for protection of the OUV was characterized as adequate, but weaknesses in its implementation were noted by State Party (State Party of Norway, 2013). Fragmented management system was noted as one challenge to effective implementation of legal framework (Brendehaug, 2014).

▶ Law enforcement Mostly Effective

Enforcement of relevant regulations is considered effective (IUCN Consultation, 2017). In 2018 the Norwegian parliament adopted zero-emission regulations in World Heritage fjords. The regulation requires that all new ferry tenders to have low or zero emission on board the ships. (UNESCO -News, 2018). In 2019 a new environmental requirement with the aim of reducing emissions and discharges from ships in the World Heritage fjords entered into force. The new rules will gradually become stricter over the next years (Norwegian Maritime Authority-News, 2019).

▶ Implementation of Committee decisions and Highly Effective recommendations

Request from Decision 29 COM 8B.7 to monitor and report on plans to further expand mining in the area (WHC, 2005) was fulfilled (UNEP-WCMC, 2011).

▶ Sustainable use Mostly Effective

There are 56 small farms at Nærøyfjord area (12 main farms and 24 smaller holdings still active). At Geirangerfjord there are 12 small working farms and 24 with grazing. Grazing, mainly by goats and sheep, occurs in the marginal upland valleys. Hunting is undertaken to cull deer; local fishing is now mostly recreational (UNEP-WCMC, 2011). Use appears to be sustainable and not to cause any conflicts. However, in the past years traditional farming practices inside the world heritage site have been reducing. The agriculture and the inside the property is important for the society, economy and to maintain the biological diversity. To support and increase traditional farming in the world heritage areas some good experiences from Switzerland, that have dealt with similar issues, are being evaluated (Thuen et.al., 2019). IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ West Norwegian Fjords – Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

▶ Sustainable finance Mostly Effective

Funding is sourced from national (60%), provincial (20%) and local government (10%) as well as other sources. It has been assessed as acceptable and secure but suboptimal by the State Party of Norway, 2013. Levels of funding continue to be considered below optimum (IUCN Consultation, 2017).

▶ Staff capacity, training, and development Mostly Effective

The property is managed by staff from various institutions (UNEP-WCMC, 2011). Staff qualification generally rated as good or fair by State Party, but deficits in the field of visitor management and risk preparedness have been noted. Availability of training opportunities for all relevant areas apart from the latter is sufficient (State Party of Norway, 2013).

▶ and interpretation programs Mostly Effective

Education and interpretation programmes as well as infrastructure exist as part of the management plans of component sites (Møre and Romsdal County Government, 2008, County Governor of Sogn og Fjordane, 2008), but could be improved according to the Periodic report (State Party of Norway, 2013). Several printed materials are available for visitors (e.g. Directorate for Cultural Heritage and Directorate for Nature Management, 2008).

▶ Tourism and visitation management Some Concern

Fragmented management responsibilities were considered a challenge to effective visitor management (Brendehaug, 2014). A dedicated visitor management strategy is needed but missing and the standard of both the visitor centre and guided educational tours was considered poor in the Periodic Report, but its information booths and trail network considered adequate (State Party of Norway, 2013). A new visitor management plan was being developed (IUCN Consultation, 2014), and in 2018 the principle for "The Visitor Manangement and in the West Norwegian Fjords” was adopted (Dybedal & Haukeland, 2017; Lykkja, n.d.).

▶ Monitoring Mostly Effective

There are monitoring programmes in place for geological activity, flora and fauna, , buildings and landscapes, farmland, tourism and land use has been reported (UNEP-WCMC, 2011). Monitoring was, however, considered insufficient to meet all information needs for effective management (State Party of Norway, 2013). Particularly, monitoring of the marine are is insufficient.

▶ Research Mostly Effective

A wide range of research on aspects of geology, biodiversity, ichthyology, ecology and other aspects of both components of the property has been conducted since the 18th Century (Norwegian Ministry of the Environment, 2004). The recently established International Centre for Geohazards financed by the Norwegian Research Council also has this among its focus areas. Research could be focused more strongly on the management of the OUV, according to the Periodic report (State Party of Norway, 2013).

Overall assessment of protection and management Mostly Effective

Protection and management of the property are effective. However, coordination between different management authorities involved in the management of the property could be improved. Some concerns also exist regarding addressing some of the threats, particularly from cruise ships. The adoption of new and stricter rules in 2019, on reducing emissions and discharges from ships, will have benefits for the marine environment. There is a long history of research and monitoring within the property, however these could be more focused on the site’s OUV.

▶ Assessment of the effectiveness of protection and Mostly Effective management in addressing threats outside the site

Among relevant threats outside the property are mining and marine pollution in its vicinity, as well IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ West Norwegian Fjords – Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

as potentially aquaculture which could have an impact on the biota of the property. In the absence of more specific information on this matter, it is assumed that these threats are controlled.

▶ Best practice examples

Participation of local people, municipalities, landowners and resource users in the decision making, management and benefit sharing of the property - as developed throughout the nomination and foreseen in the management plans of the component sites - is exemplary and could be replicated elsewhere.

In 2019, the two World Heritage marine site West Norwegian Fjord and Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve signed an official Partnership Agreement to share ideas and best practices. Both protected areas feature scenic fjords that are popular destinations on cruise ship itineraries (UNESCO World Heritage Centre-News 2019).

As of the ’s decision of May 2018, only zero-emissions cruiseships and ferries are to enter the World Heritage Fjords from 2026.

State and trend of values

Assessing the current state and trend of values

World Heritage values

▶ Classic, superbly developed fjords Good Trend:Stable

The geological formations of the site remain very well preserved and are very robust against any possible impacts.

▶ Exceptional fjord landscapes Low Concern Trend:Stable

The exceptional scenic values of the site are relatively robust against anthropogenic impacts and are not under threat (UNEP-WCMC; 2011), although this might change if mining is further developed at or near the property.

Summary of the Values

▶ Assessment of the current state and trend of World Good Heritage values Trend: Stable

Reflecting their relatively robust nature, limited threats and overall effective management, the conservation status of the geological and scenic values of the property is good and stable.

▶ Assessment of the current state and trend of other Low Concern important biodiversity values Trend: Data Deficient

Biodiversity values of the site remain in good condition and stable, but some concerns exist regarding fish species abundance and richness.

Additional information

Benefits IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ West Norwegian Fjords – Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

Understanding Benefits

▶ Food, Fishing areas and conservation of fish stocks

There are small-scale traditional fisheries operating in the area which benefit from the property's marine biodiversity.

▶ Traditional agriculture, Livestock grazing areas

There are 56 small farms at Nærøyfjord area (12 main farms and 24 smaller holdings still active). At Geirangerfjord there are 12 small working farms and 24 with grazing. Grazing, mainly for goats and sheep, occurs in the marginal upland valleys (UNEP-WCMC, 2011). Factors negatively affecting provision of this benefit : - Habitat change : Impact level - Moderate, Trend - Increasing

Abandoned farmland of traditional farming will cause decrease in biological diversity in the area

▶ Health and recreation, Outdoor recreation and tourism

The property received more than a million visitors in 2002 overall, two fifth of which arrived on cruise ships. There were about 150 cruise ship visits to each component property in the same year (UNEP- WCMC, 2011).

▶ Knowledge, Importance for research

The site has been an important source of scientific knowledge since the 18th Century, and has also been a source of local traditional knowledge (UNEP-WCMC, 2011).

▶ Knowledge, Contribution to education

Many of the numerous visitors to the property from both its vicinity and further afield use their visits to learn about the geological history of the fjord landscape, its geology and ecology, as well as associated cultural .

Summary of benefits

Although it is situated in a relatively sparsely populated part of Europe, the property provides a wide range of benefits to local people, as well as to more than a million visitors from all over Norway and beyond who go there each year.

Projects

Compilation of active conservation projects

№ Organization Brief description Website of Active Projects

1 Nærøyfjorden Protected Area Various projects Visitor Management and Local Community Development in Management Board and on management the West Norwegian Fjords World Heritage Site: Geirangerfjorden Protected and monitoring of https://www.toi.no/getfile.php/1346881/Publikasjoner/T%C3% Area Management Board the property. 98I%20rapporter/2017/1585-2017/1585-2017-sum.pdf IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ West Norwegian Fjords – Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

REFERENCES

№ References

1 Akhtar, Juned, Torkel Bjørnskau, and Viggo Jean-Hansen (2012). Oil spill risk analysis of routeing heavy ship traffic in Norwegian . WMU J Marit Affairs, 11, pp.233–247.

2 Brendehaug, E. (2014). 'The challenge of fragmented resource management in the UNESCO site West Norwegian Fjords'. [online] Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257942227_The_chal… 5 June 2014].

3 County Governor of Sogn og Fjordane (2008). 'Management Plan for Nærøyfjord'. Leikanger: County Governor of Sogn og Fjordane. (In Norwegian)

4 Dybedal, P. & Haukeland, J.V. (2017). Visitor Management and Local Community Development in the West Norwegian Fjords World Heritage Site. [online] , Norway: Institute of Transport Economics, Norwegian Centre for Transport Research. Available at: https://www.toi.no/publications/visitor- management-and-loca… [Accessed 1 December 2020].

5 Geirangerfjord Cruise Port (2013). 'Seawalk I Geiranger 2013'. [Electronic reference] . [Accessed 5 June 2014].

6 IUCN (2005). ‘World Heritage Nomination – IUCN Technical Evaluation: West Norwegian Fjords – Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord – ID No. 1195’. In: IUCN World Heritage Evaluations 2005, IUCN Evaluations of nominations of natural and mixed properties to the World Heritage List. [online] Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1195/documents/ [Accessed 5 June 2014].

7 IUCN Consultation (2020). IUCN Confidential Consultation- West Norwegian Fjords – Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord, Norway

8 Lykkja, H. (n.d.). Visitor Management in UNESCO Sites Applied R&D – meeting local reality. [online] Naerøyfjord World Heritage Park (Regional Park). Available at: https://www.nmbu.no/download/file/fid/14384 [Accessed 1 December 2020].

9 Manzetti, S. (2011). Research and Environmental Protection of Norwegian fjords: a standstill. J Mar Sci Res Dev, 1, S2-001.

10 Ministry of the Environment (2004). 'Nomination "West Norwegian Fjords – Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord" for inscription on the UNESCO World Cultural and List. Oslo: Ministry of the Environment of Norway. [Electronic reference] . [Accessed 5 June 2014].

11 Møre and Romsdal County Government (2008). 'Management Plan for Geirangerfjord'. Molde: Møre and Romsdal County Government. (In Norwegian)

12 News in English.no (2009). 'Cruiseship spill in Geiranger raises environmental concerns'. [online] News in English, 13 July. Available at: https://www.newsinenglish.no/2009/07/13/cruiseship-spill-in… [Accessed 5 June 2014].

13 Norwegian Maritime Authority-News (2019). New environmental requirements in the world heritage fjords. [online] Available at: [Accessed 20 2020]

14 State Party of Norway (2013). 'Periodic Report - Second Cycle. Section II - West Norwegian Fjords – Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord'. [online] , : UNESCO. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1195/documents/ [Accessed 5 June 2014].

15 Thuen, Astrid Een, Torbjørn Tufte, Margaret Eide Hillestad, Christian Anton Smedshaug, and Hanne Eldby (2019). Vestnorsk fjordlandskap. Inspirasjon fra Sveits for økt aktivitet. Agri analyse, Rapport 10-2019. Pp.1-72. [in Norwegian] IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ West Norwegian Fjords – Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

№ References

16 UNEP-WCMC (2011). 'West Norwegian Fjords – Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord'. UNEP-WCMC World Heritage Information Sheets. [online] Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC. Available at: https://yichuans.github.io/datasheet/output/site/west-norwe…. [Accessed 5 June 2014].

17 UNESCO WHC Publication (2016). The Future of the World Heritage Convention for Marine Conservation. Celebrating 10 years of the World Heritage Marine Programme. pp.1-143.

18 UNESCO World Heritage Centre-News (2018). Norwegian parliament adopts zero-emission regulations in World Heritage fjords. [online] Paris, France: UNESCO. Available at: < https://whc.unesco.org/en/news/1824/>; [Accessed 20 April 2020]

19 UNESCO World Heritage Centre-News (2019). Glacier Bay and West Norwegian Fjords sign Partnership Agreement. [online] Paris, France: UNESCO. Available at: ; [Accessed 20 April 2020]

20 World Heritage Committee (2005). Decision 29 COM 8B.7. Nominations of Natural Properties to the World Heritage List (West Norwegian Fjords - Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord, Norway). [online] Paris, France: UNESCO. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/469 [Accessed 5 June 2014].

21 World Heritage Committee (2014). Decision 38 COM 8E. Adoption of Retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value'- West Norwegian Fjords – Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord' (Norway). [online] Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/6149 [Accessed 5 June 2014].