West Norwegian Fjords – Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord
Country
Norway
Inscribed in
2005
Criteria
(vii)
(viii)
The conservation outlook for this site has been assessed as "good with some concerns" in the latest assessment cycle. Explore the Conservation Outlook Assessment for the site below. You have the option to access the summary, or the detailed assessment.
Situated in south-western Norway, north-east of Bergen, Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord, set 120 km from one another, are part of the west Norwegian fjord 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 forests 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
2025 Conservation Outlook
Finalised on
11 Oct 2025
Good with some concerns
Current state and trend of VALUES
Low Concern
Overall THREATS
Overall PROTECTION and MANAGEMENT
Full assessment
Description of 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 (World Heritage Committee, 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 forest 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).
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).
Important contribution to the Nordic Blue Carbon Ecosystems
Vegetated coastal and marine habitats in the Nordic region include salt marshes, eelgrass meadows and, in particular, brown macroalgae (kelp forests and rockweed beds). Such habitats contribute to storage of organic carbon (Blue Carbon – BC) and support coastal protection, biodiversity and water quality. Protection and restoration of these habitats therefore have the potential to deliver climate change mitigation and co-benefits. The area extent of BC habitats in the region is incompletely assessed, but available information sums up to 1,440 km2 salt marshes, 1,861 (potentially 2,735) km2 seagrass meadows, and 16,532 km2 (potentially 130,735 km2 , including coarse Greenland estimates) brown macroalgae, yielding a total of 19,833 (potentially 134,910) km2 (Krause-Jensen et al., 2022). The Norwegian kelp forest alone contributes 46% of the total long-term carbon storage by blue forests in the Nordic region, demonstrating that Norwegian kelp forests dominate the Nordic blue carbon budget in terms of the mass of carbon sequestered annually (Frigstad et al. 2021).
Assessment information
Current threats include mining and aquaculture, as well as cruise ship travel, harbour infrastructure development and air/water pollution. Although 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, the cumulative impacts can be considered a high threat to the property's OUV and additional impacts on the site's biodiversity need to be considered. Furthermore, plans to extend existing mining facilities and develop an aquaculture facility need to be carefully assessed for their potential impacts on the OUV. The developments are likely to impact both the property and it's wider setting due to the operational concept, size and location along the fjord. The threat from invasive alien species on local biodiversity, particularly plant and marine, is also notable. Northern pike (Esox lucius) and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) are both spreading and have been recorded in the property along with other invasive species. Climate change is another current threat that affects the key attributes of the site, especially the overall landscape aesthetic and functioning of the fjord systems.
Recreational Activities
(Increasing level of cruise ship visitation and tourism )
Inside site
, Widespread(15-50%)
Outside site
Tourism and particularly cruise ship passengers have been increasing with 308 cruise ships and 265,585 passengers in 2002 compared to 328 ships and 617,545 passengers in 2019 (IUCN, 2022). According to the State Party, visitation overall is returning to pre-COVID19 levels with visitor numbers recorded between 200,000 in 2021 and 1 million in 2023 (State Party of Norway, 2024). Pre-COVID, the total number of tourists visiting the Geiranger centre in 2018 was almost 1 million visitors already. The most popular accesses to the property are through the local roads (north and south) and by cruises. Similar to other cold-climate destinations, the area suffers from seasonality problems, as tourists in the peak season represent more than 80% of the total (Díez-Gutiérrez and Babri, 2022). Local port authorities have set a limit of 6000 cruise passengers per day in Geiranger and Hellesylt (Norwegian Maritime Authority, 2017). In addition to cruise ships, many tourists arrive by land in caravans, vans, and cars. Some stay overnight in one of the five hotels or ten campsites in the village, while others opt for wild camping or park their vehicles along the roadside (Poiret, 2024). As a result, the two narrow village roads are regularly congested on days with high arrivals. Nuisances, such as road and parking congestion or noise and air pollution, raise the issue of over-tourism (Mihalic, 2020) in Geiranger.
Although there is a visitor management strategy for the Nærøyfjord Protected Areas (Nornes et al. 2020) and local and regional management actors continue to actively engage in visitor management, there is no strategic tourism plan for the property as a whole (IUCN, 2022). The level of boat traffic (including rib-boats and kayaking) in the Nærøyfjord, may negatively affect the seal population through direct disturbance.
Although there is a visitor management strategy for the Nærøyfjord Protected Areas (Nornes et al. 2020) and local and regional management actors continue to actively engage in visitor management, there is no strategic tourism plan for the property as a whole (IUCN, 2022). The level of boat traffic (including rib-boats and kayaking) in the Nærøyfjord, may negatively affect the seal population through direct disturbance.
Marine & Freshwater Aquaculture
(Marine aquaculture development )
Inside site
, Localised(<5%)
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), however an aquaculture facility is being proposed for development within a decommissioned mine. The project’s planning area is located partly inside the property and its immediate vicinity at a decommissioned mining area and at a nearby village Eidsdal. The project entails the construction of sea-side buildings, a tunnel for transport, parking space, a dock and underground halls. The aqua-culture facility would be land-based situated inside the old mine and new underground halls would need to be excavated for this purpose. The aquaculture facility if realized according to current plans would add an industrial activity (around 300 employees) in the property’s north entrance area. All boat traffic to and from the Geiranger village would pass the aqua-culture facility. The project plan including an EIA was submitted for public consultation in the winter 2021/2022, and the State Party requested early technical advice in a letter to the World Heritage Centre (dated 15 December 2021). In response, IUCN provided a short technical review of the project with answers to specific questions from the proponent (World Heritage Salmon), which was transmitted to the State Party in May 2022. The review stated that it is essential that any proposed activities are first assessed specifically for their potential impacts on the OUV and that any negative impacts on the property should be avoided. The project plan and EIA were revised based on the response received from various authorities and stakeholders during the public consultation. Due to the proposed aqua-culture facility’s operational concept, size and location along the fjord it is likely to have an impact on both the property and its wider setting (IUCN, 2022). Nordplan applied on behalf of World Heritage Salmon on 20 October 2023 regarding a dispensation for interventions and activities that include digging, blasting, drilling, and building within the boundaries of the landscape protection area. The conservation area board for the Geiranger-Herdalen landscape conservation area decided on 8 November 2023 to grant a dispensation under section 48 of the Natural Diversity Act on all accounts reasoning that the board believes the revised and adjusted plan for the land-based farming facility in Raudbergvika can now be realised without the conservation values being significantly negatively affected, cf. section 48 of the Natural Diversity Act. However, in 2024, the Norwegian Environment Agency revoked the decision of the Protected Area Board for Geiranger-Herdalen (Raudbergvika, 2024).
Changes in traditional ways of life and knowledge systems that result in negative impact
(Abandonment of traditional but unprofitable farms, with risk of loss of associated biodiversity )
Inside site
, Extent of threat not known
Outside site
The open landscapes produced over centuries by small-scale farming in Norwegian coastal and fjord areas are threatened by agricultural abandonment, raising public concern for maintenance of the species-rich and valuable coastal grasslands. In spite of comprehensive structural changes, the changes in land use practices are threatening the farming landscapes with shrub encroachment and loss of biodiversity, raising concern (Beyene et al. 2024). The current Agriculture and Cultural Landscape (ACL) subsidy payment places a higher value on arable land compared to the more biodiverse farm pastures, resulting in weaker incentives for keeping farm pasture in production (Asheim et al. 2020). This is an ongoing threat but solutions from Switzerland to maintain traditional farming and cultural landscape, are under consideration for the World Heritage site (Thuen et.al., 2019).
Invasive / Other Problematic Species, Genes & Pathogens, Invasive Non-Native/ Alien Species
(Invasive species )
Invasive/problematic species
Pinus contorta
Picea abies
Acer pseudoplatanus
Other invasive species names
Esox lucius,
Inside site
, Extent of threat not known
Outside site
Various invasive alien species threaten Norway's coastal, terrestrial and fjord estuary ecosystems, particularly marine and tree species pose a threat to the property.
Due to its relatively cold climate, the Norwegian coast still holds a low number of marine alien species, but several species have arrived in the recent decades. A total of 43 species have been established and another four species are recorded but not with documented reproducing populations. Most of the species are recorded from the southern and mid part of Norway, while only a few are present in the north (Husa et al. 2022). Northern pike (Esox lucius) is regionally alien in several counties including Møre og Romsdal and has a strong ability to disperse, which can influence the natural environment by, among other things, causing the trout Salmo trutta stocks in smaller lakes to become extinct. It therefore poses a severe risk (severe impact) for biodiversity (Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre, 2020).
According to the most recent invasive alien species assessment for Norway, one of the 25 species that has been upgraded by two levels is lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta). This tree species from North America has gone from having a potentially high impact in 2012 to an extreme impact in 2018. This pine tree can grow to around 25 metres high in Norway, and for several decades has been planted in connection with forestry. Lodgepole pine is often planted in many small stands in the montane birch forest and grasslands ecoregion, as well as the birch forests in the north. It can change the environmental conditions so that deciduous trees are replaced with conifers. The majority of planted stands are in eastern Norway but it has also been documented that the species has spread and is established, with stands in the wild in 10 counties, with several occurrences in Hedmark, Møre og Romsdal, Trøndelag and Nordland. The potential for dispersal is assessed as large (Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre, 2020).
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.
A National Action Plan to combat invasive species (2020-2025) was developed in 2020 (Ministry of Climate and Environment, 2020) setting out goals and measures to reduce the negative effects of alien harmful organisms in Norway through cross-sectoral collaboration. There is a specific recommendation to develop an overall strategy to reduce the negative effects of foreign tree species. A multi-year project has been initiated to remove alien and foreign tree species from protected areas in Western Norway. The environmental administration uses funds annually to remove alien species, including foreign tree species, in protected areas. A grant of NOK 17 million was awarded for the removal of alien tree species in protected areas in the period 2015-2019. From 2019, grants for environmental measures in forestry can also be used for the removal of foreign tree species. Outside the protected areas, the directorates believe that coordinating instruments in agricultural and environmental management will help to optimize society's use of resources. In 2020, the directorates started joint work on an appropriate approach to the removal of undesirable spread from foreign tree species outside protected areas.
Due to its relatively cold climate, the Norwegian coast still holds a low number of marine alien species, but several species have arrived in the recent decades. A total of 43 species have been established and another four species are recorded but not with documented reproducing populations. Most of the species are recorded from the southern and mid part of Norway, while only a few are present in the north (Husa et al. 2022). Northern pike (Esox lucius) is regionally alien in several counties including Møre og Romsdal and has a strong ability to disperse, which can influence the natural environment by, among other things, causing the trout Salmo trutta stocks in smaller lakes to become extinct. It therefore poses a severe risk (severe impact) for biodiversity (Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre, 2020).
According to the most recent invasive alien species assessment for Norway, one of the 25 species that has been upgraded by two levels is lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta). This tree species from North America has gone from having a potentially high impact in 2012 to an extreme impact in 2018. This pine tree can grow to around 25 metres high in Norway, and for several decades has been planted in connection with forestry. Lodgepole pine is often planted in many small stands in the montane birch forest and grasslands ecoregion, as well as the birch forests in the north. It can change the environmental conditions so that deciduous trees are replaced with conifers. The majority of planted stands are in eastern Norway but it has also been documented that the species has spread and is established, with stands in the wild in 10 counties, with several occurrences in Hedmark, Møre og Romsdal, Trøndelag and Nordland. The potential for dispersal is assessed as large (Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre, 2020).
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.
A National Action Plan to combat invasive species (2020-2025) was developed in 2020 (Ministry of Climate and Environment, 2020) setting out goals and measures to reduce the negative effects of alien harmful organisms in Norway through cross-sectoral collaboration. There is a specific recommendation to develop an overall strategy to reduce the negative effects of foreign tree species. A multi-year project has been initiated to remove alien and foreign tree species from protected areas in Western Norway. The environmental administration uses funds annually to remove alien species, including foreign tree species, in protected areas. A grant of NOK 17 million was awarded for the removal of alien tree species in protected areas in the period 2015-2019. From 2019, grants for environmental measures in forestry can also be used for the removal of foreign tree species. Outside the protected areas, the directorates believe that coordinating instruments in agricultural and environmental management will help to optimize society's use of resources. In 2020, the directorates started joint work on an appropriate approach to the removal of undesirable spread from foreign tree species outside protected areas.
Water-borne & other effluent Pollution, Garbage & Solid Waste
(Pollution from cruise ships )
Inside site
, Extent of threat not known
Outside site
Water and air pollution from cruise ships remains a significant threat to the property (IUCN Consultation, 2017). 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. In 2018, the Storting adopted a requirement for zero emissions for tourist ships and ferries in the World Heritage fjords from 2026. The implementation of the new regulations may lead to a reduction in cruise ships, however, may in turn lead to an increase in road traffic as visitors switch transportation means (Handberg et al. 2022; IUCN, 2022). To address solid waste, an annual day for waste collection throughout the property in collaboration with many stakeholders and partners is organised (State Party of Norway, 2024).
Although shipping accidents could lead to oil spills, it is unlikely such spills would penetrate far enough in the fjord system to impact the property.
Although shipping accidents could lead to oil spills, it is unlikely such spills would penetrate far enough in the fjord system to impact the property.
Mining & Quarrying
(Mineral mining at/near both components )
Inside site
, Localised(<5%)
Outside site
A peridotite quarry is located near the Geirangerfjord component has terminated/ ceased (IUCN Consultation, 2020). The impacts are localized and restoration measures are planned. Underground extraction of anorthosite takes place in the Nærøyfjord area - The Holmen mine is an existing underground excavation of anorthosite for commercial purpose (mainly used for the production of rockwool insulation) located within the Nærøyfjord component, which existed at the time of inscription. In 2020 the State Party of Norway informed the World Heritage Centre of the planned development of the mine to a combined mine and hazardous waste disposal facility and the construction of a cargo terminal for mining products and hazardous waste at the harbour of Gudvangen located within the same component 8 km from the mine. In response, the World Heritage Centre requested the State Party to ensure that the OUV is considered in the EIA process and that the EIA is submitted for review and comments by the WHC and IUCN before any decision is taken. Holmen mine has doubled its yearly underground extraction of anorthosite from around 250,000 tonnes in 2005 to around 500,000 tonnes in 2021, and the mining company is planning to further increase the yearly extraction. Two separate planning “programmes” have now been finalised and approved by the municipality in 2020-21, one for the developments in the Holmen mine and one for the relocation and development of the cargo terminal in the harbour of Gudvangen. The IUCN mission in 2022 received detailed information from the stakeholders and had the opportunity to visit both locations, the Holmen mine and the harbour of Gudvangen. The proponents are Gudvangen Stein (mine company) and Norsk Gjenvinning (waste disposal company). The approved planning programmes include the requirement for an EIA and an assessment of potential impacts on the OUV in line with the IUCN World Heritage Advice Note on Environmental Assessment. The impact assessments are ongoing and will include a public consultation process (IUCN, 2022).
Changes in Temperature Regimes, Changes in Precipitation & Hydrological Regime
(Glacier loss)
Inside site
, Localised(<5%)
Outside site
The property contains a low proportion of glaciers relative to its surroundings. Research studies performed with satellite data highlight that glaciers in WH sites have been retreating at an accelerating rate since 2000. The mass loss relative to 2000 for the West Norwegian Fjords – Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord has been reported as 33.2% (Carvalho Resende et al. 2022). In a business-as-usual high-emission scenario (RCP8.5), glaciers in at least 10 other sites (mainly sites with a glacierized area ranging from 10 to 100 km²), mostly outside the property, but including the West Norwegian Fjords – Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord could almost completely disappear by 2100, and ice mass loss may reach more than 8,000 Gt58 in total (or around 20 mm sea-level rise equivalent) (Carvalho Resende et al. 2022). This is confirmed by detailed studies of Norwegian glaciers (Nesje 2023). Glacial melting increases the discharge of freshwater and terrestrial material into fjords, which can affect both nutrient inputs and cycling within the fjord systems.
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 a potential threat to the fjords marine environment if an accident at sea occurs due to the potential resulting pollution, however the distance between these shipping routes and the property are large. Further threats stem from various development projects, including relating to tourism and transport infrastructure. The impacts from these proposed projects remain as yet to be fully assessed, however the IUCN mission in 2022 already highlighted that a new road and tunnel proposal in Geiranger village has potentially significant impacts on the visual, geological and geomorphological integrity of the property, the drainage of the wetland and the increased accessibility to a part of the property that already has high tourism pressures and associated cumulative impacts.
Geological Events
(Avalanches, rock falls and potentially landslides in both component areas and around)
Inside site
, Scattered(5-15%)
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-borne & other effluent Pollution, Garbage & Solid Waste
(Dumping of mining waste)
Outside site
Norway’s Government is set to allow the dumping of mining waste into its fjords after it won a long court battle against two environmental organisations. The private mining company Nordic Mining has been given the go-ahead to drop 170 million tonnes of mining waste at the bottom of the Førde fjord, after a 15-year dispute with environmental groups Friends of the Earth Norway and Nature and Youth. Although not within the property, this may set a dangerous precedent and could affect the site in the future if such practice was to occur in other fjords (Cossins-Smith, 2024).
Earth & Sediment Management
(Geohazard prevention)
Inside site
, Scattered(5-15%)
According to the municipality of Stranda there is a geohazard situation in the Åkerneset mountain within the Geirangerfjord component, due to a fracture in the mountain that is widening by 2-8cm per year and may eventually slide into the fjord. The municipality of Stranda had received information regarding a new technique that may make it possible to further postpone or even prevent an avalanche by draining the mountain of water by drilling several long vertical tunnels through the mountain, creating an octopus-shaped tunnel system inside the mountain. The potential impacts for the OUV of such a project is unclear, however the recent IUCN mission recommended that any drilling works be adequately assessed for their potential impacts on the OUV (IUCN, 2022).
Roads, Trails & Railroads
(Underground parking and road construction)
Inside site
, Scattered(5-15%)
The village of Geiranger is one of the most popular tourism sites within the property and has challenges with tourism traffic and seasonal over-crowding. There is an initiative to build an underground parking space and sidewalk in the Geiranger village. The aim is to have less vehicles along the narrow roads and provide a safer environment for pedestrians. No detailed plans were presented to the recent IUCN mission and the current status in the planning system of the Stranda municipality is unclear (IUCN, 2022). Regarding the construction of an underground parking space, it will be important to consider factors such as a potential weakening of the intactness of the property related to criterion (viii) and the geological and geomorphological integrity, as well as impacts (both positive and negative) for tourism management. The road accessibility to the village of Geiranger is limited during the wintertime due to the high risk of avalanches. A new road tunnel has recently been built north of Geiranger to allow road access from the north, however the only road access from the south crosses the mountains at high altitude. According to the site manager, the limited accessibility has a range of socio-economic effects on the inhabitants and negatively affects the tourism industry. The Stranda municipality informed the mission of initial plans to build a new road and tunnel in the Flydalen-Dalsnibba area, located partly within the property, which would make the Geiranger village accessible by car from the south also during the winter. According to the information received, the new road cannot be built without drainage of a wetland in Opplendskedalen. A new road and tunnel project of this magnitude has the potential to impact on the OUV. Specifically, concerns such as the visual, the geological and geomorphological integrity of the property, the drainage of the wetland and the increased accessibility to a part of the property that already has high tourism pressures and associated cumulative impacts (IUCN, 2022).
Shipping Lanes
(Deepening of the fjord for boat route)
Inside site
, Localised(<5%)
An initiative by the municipality of Aurland to deepen a shallower part of the Aurlandsfjord within the property was approved for further assessments in 2017, however the current status is unclear. Deepening the sea floor could weaken the property’s intactness and may affect several key attributes due to dredging and blasting of sea floor bedrock (IUCN, 2022).
Recreation & Tourism Areas
(Hotel expansion in Flåm)
Outside site
There is a proposal by the municipality of Aurland to extend the existing hotel Fretheim located in the immediate vicinity of the Nærøyfjord component, with a 90-meter-high building. The municipality has decided to proceed with the proposal within its planning system, which will include an assessment of potential impacts on the OUV. Considering the size and location of the hotel extension as well as the current tourism pressure and associated cumulative impacts it will be important to ensure that any potential negative impact on the OUV is adequately assessed. Recalling that the property is inscribed for its aesthetic values, the visual integrity of the property, as well as potential impacts from increased visitation are important issues to be thoroughly assessed (IUCN, 2022).
Recreational Activities
(Cable car development in Flåm)
Inside site
, Localised(<5%)
Outside site
There is a proposal by the municipality of Aurland to build a cable-car in the Flåm area with at least one end station at a mountain top within the property. No detailed plans were presented to the mission and the current status in the planning system of the municipality is unclear. Considering the inscription of the property for its aesthetic values, there is potential for a cable car in the Flåm area to impact on the OUV (IUCN, 2022).
Involvement of stakeholders and rightsholders, including indigenous peoples and local communities, in decision-making processes
There are more than 500 people living within the property, engaged in tourism, agriculture and natural resource use (UNEP-WCMC, 2011) and 85% of the land is privately owned. Relationship with local people, landowners and the tourism sector was characterized as "fair" by the State Party in the last two periodic reports (State Party of Norway, 2013; 2024). The management framework for the property includes many actors. There is a local World Heritage Council, which aims to facilitate the cooperation between the two Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord components as well as promote issues of importance for the property. This Advisory Council consists of members from the County Governors, the County councils and the municipalities, as well as several observers from both national authorities and local stakeholders. However, inclusive participation of local stakeholders in management could be improved (IUCN, 2022). Local organisations also play an important role in implementing various actions on the ground. The Geirangerfjord World Heritage Foundation is a charitable foundation established by the municipalities of Norddal (now Fjord) and Stranda in partnership with Møre og Romsdal County. Their headquarters are at the Norwegian Fjord Centre in Geiranger. Key tasks include public education about the natural heritage of the West Norwegian Fjords, partnership working for sustainable and green development, conservation (e.g. through restoration projects), world heritage competence-building, and providing an arena for scientific research (West Norwegian Fjords, n.d.). Nærøyfjorden World Heritage Park is a foundation established by the municipalities of Aurland, Vik, Lærdal and Voss in partnership with Sogn og Fjordane County (now Vestland County). The partners are local people with a keen interest in the place where they live: individuals, businesses, clubs and associations. The partnership agreement makes them part of a network to which they bring great initiative and drive. This enables them to secure their own investments while protecting and developing their unique local area (West Norwegian Fjords, n.d.).
Legal framework
Around 96% of the property is comprised of nature conservation areas, protected by the Nature Diversity Act (2009). Large parts of the World Heritage site are designated landscape protection areas or nature reserves governed locally by management councils that work within the framework of Norway’s Nature Diversity Act, conservation regulations and local management plans. Each area has a co-ordinator who is tasked with day-to-day management (West Norwegian Fjords, n.d.).
The marine part is not protected presently but the County Governor of Vestland (new region from January, 2020) has started a process to protect larger parts of the Sognefjord, 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. The 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; 2024). A fragmented management system was noted as one challenge to the effective implementation of the legal framework (Brendehaug, 2014; IUCN, 2022).
The marine part is not protected presently but the County Governor of Vestland (new region from January, 2020) has started a process to protect larger parts of the Sognefjord, 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. The 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; 2024). A fragmented management system was noted as one challenge to the effective implementation of the legal framework (Brendehaug, 2014; IUCN, 2022).
Governance arrangements
There is coordination between the range of administrative bodies involved in the management of the property, but it could be improved (State Party of Norway, 2024). The management framework for the property includes many actors. On a national level, it is the Ministry of Climate and Environment, the Directorate for Cultural Heritage and the Norwegian Environment Agency that are responsible for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention. On a regional level, it is the County Governor and the County council in Møre and Romsdal (the Geiranger component) and the County Governor and the County council in Vestland (the Nærøyfjord component) who are the central actors. The County Governors are responsible for the overall implementation of national policy and decisions. Each county has a protected area council and protected area managers employed by the County Governor, who are responsible for the management plan of the property. The two County councils are responsible for the regional management and development, and within the World Heritage context especially cultural heritage. On a local level, it is the municipalities of Vik, Voss, Aurland, Lærdal, Fjord and Stranda that are responsible for the overall management and development. Additionally, the property has a local World Heritage Council, which aims to facilitate the cooperation between the two Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord components as well as promote issues of importance for the property. This advisory Council consists of members from the County Governors, the County councils and the municipalities, as well as several observers from both national authorities and local stakeholders. Each component has a World Heritage site coordinator, and they function as a secretariat for the World Heritage Council. The coordinators are not responsible for the management, but they serve as a link between the local, regional and national level, and have a special task to monitor the status of the property (IUCN, 2022). Certain aspects, such as the current division of tasks between the protected area managers and the World Heritage site coordinators employed by different bodies, combined with the separation into two components, could be improved to ensure effective management.
Integration into local, regional and national planning systems (including sea/landscape connectivity)
There are 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; 2024).
The most recent designations occur through the National Nature Conservation Act in October, 2004. Private lands make up 85% of the site and inhabited portions of the area are carefully controlled under the Planning and Building Act as well as other mechanisms such as County, Municipal and Local Development Plans. In addition, the Ministry of the Environment coordinated the signing of a "Declaration of Intent" signed by the relevant national agencies as well as all the affected six Borough Councils and County Governors. This outlines the cooperative measures to be taken as well as "…guarantees that the values in the area will endure." (State Party of Norway, 2024).
The Planning and Building Act is their most important tool, and the legislation applies to all sectors. According to the Meld. St. 35 (2012–2013) white paper, World Heritage responsibilities should be highlighted in all relevant plans produced by regional and local authorities. These plans should seek to fulfil international commitments, including the World Heritage Convention. Municipal authorities play a key role because they decide on planning applications under the Planning and Building Act. Developments outside the World Heritage property can impact on World Heritage values, so municipal authorities carry significant responsibility for seeing the full picture and making decisions that protect the outstanding natural and cultural heritage.
The most recent designations occur through the National Nature Conservation Act in October, 2004. Private lands make up 85% of the site and inhabited portions of the area are carefully controlled under the Planning and Building Act as well as other mechanisms such as County, Municipal and Local Development Plans. In addition, the Ministry of the Environment coordinated the signing of a "Declaration of Intent" signed by the relevant national agencies as well as all the affected six Borough Councils and County Governors. This outlines the cooperative measures to be taken as well as "…guarantees that the values in the area will endure." (State Party of Norway, 2024).
The Planning and Building Act is their most important tool, and the legislation applies to all sectors. According to the Meld. St. 35 (2012–2013) white paper, World Heritage responsibilities should be highlighted in all relevant plans produced by regional and local authorities. These plans should seek to fulfil international commitments, including the World Heritage Convention. Municipal authorities play a key role because they decide on planning applications under the Planning and Building Act. Developments outside the World Heritage property can impact on World Heritage values, so municipal authorities carry significant responsibility for seeing the full picture and making decisions that protect the outstanding natural and cultural heritage.
Boundaries
The boundaries of the property are considered adequate (UNEP-WCMC, 2011, State Party of Norway, 2013), however the most recent periodic report indicates they are not known by all local stakeholders (State Party of Norway, 2024).There is no buffer zone as it is not considered necessary by the State Party (State Party of Norway, 2013), IUCN (IUCN, 2005) or the World Heritage Committee (WHC, 2005).
Overlapping international designations
N/A
Implementation of World Heritage Committee decisions and recommendations
No recent Committee decisions.
Climate action
The government is introducing zero-emission requirements in the World Heritage Fjords starting from January 1, 2026, for tourist ships and ferries. The goal is to preserve these spectacular fjords and promote sustainable tourism. The zero-emission requirement will drive technological development, reduce emissions, and ensure that the World Heritage fjords remain attractive tourist destinations. The zero-emission requirement will initially apply to tourist ships and ferries under 10,000 gross tons. For larger ships, the requirement will apply from January 1, 2032 (Ministry of Climate and Environment, 2024).
Management plan and overall management system
Currently the property has two management plans that were adopted in 2008, one for the Geirangerfjord component and one for the Nærøyfjord component. Around 96% of the property is comprised of nature conservation areas, and the protected area managers (from each component) are coordinating the revision of the management plan with stakeholders and local communities, including the World Heritage Council and the two World Heritage site coordinators. A joint management plan for the two components has so far not been completed. The IUCN mission in 2022 noted that the revision of the management plans was initiated separately in each component in 2020-21, and has proceeded independently and with different timeframes, which reflects a relatively limited level of cooperation between the components (IUCN, 2022). A revised management plan is in preparation for each component according to the latest periodic report (State Party of Norway, 2024) and information shared during the latest IUCN advisory mission (IUCN, 2022).
Law enforcement
Enforcement of relevant regulations is considered effective (IUCN Consultation, 2017). In 2018 the Norwegian parliament adopted zero-emission regulations in World Heritage fjords by 2026. The regulation requires that all new ferry tenders to have low or zero emission technology on board the ships. (UNESCO World Heritage Centre-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).
Sustainable finance
Funding is sourced from national (60%), provincial (20%) and local government (30%) as well as other sources. It has been assessed as acceptable and secure but suboptimal by the State Party (State Party of Norway 2013; 2024). The Norwegian Environment Agency distributes capital funding to the West Norwegian Fjords. The funds cover the work of the site co-ordinators and the local World Heritage councils. Additional funding is granted for education and conservation activities (West Norwegian Fjords, n.d.). There are ongoing efforts to increase overall funding for activities to present and interpret the OUV of the property, including funding of a World Heritage educational information centre in the Nærøyfjord area and the Fjord Ranger programs (State Party of Norway, 2024).
Staff capacity, training and development
According to the latest periodic report, human resources partly meet the management needs of the property and training opportunities are rated as poor or fair for all disciplines (State Party of Norway, 2024). There are dedicated co-ordinators in place for the Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord areas tasked with looking after the World Heritage. They have an independent role and a special responsibility for reporting any threats to World Heritage values. Although they have no management responsibility but serve as a link between local, regional and central government. They know their local area well and monitor status and threats (West Norwegian Fjords, n.d.).
World Heritage foundations focus on keeping/ recruiting relevant competence, while other stakeholders, landowners and volunteers are invited to carry out various site level actions (State Party of Norway, 2024).
World Heritage foundations focus on keeping/ recruiting relevant competence, while other stakeholders, landowners and volunteers are invited to carry out various site level actions (State Party of Norway, 2024).
Education and interpretation programmes
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 (State Party of Norway, 2013; 2024). Several printed materials are available for visitors (e.g. Directorate for Cultural Heritage and Directorate for Nature Management, 2008). An awareness programme for children and/youth has been developed but funds are lacking to roll the programme out to a larger audience and more target groups. The Nærøyfjord area are also lacking an educational information centre for the activities (State Party of Norway, 2024).
Tourism and visitation management
The local and regional management actors continue to actively engage in visitor management, however the property lacks a strategic tourism plan with the overall aim to strengthen the protection of the OUV. Such a plan with a detailed action plan is needed to address the identified visitor management challenges. Combined with the zoning mechanisms already implemented in the property’s management plans it would enhance the protection of the OUV. The IUCN mission in 2022 recommended that the management authorities, in consultation with the tourism operators and local communities, assess the carrying capacity of different parts, routes and popular sites within the property to begin developing such a plan (IUCN, 2022). According to the State Party, as part of a new regional plan, a common strategy to manage visitors, tourism activity and its derived impacts on the World Heritage property is being developed but the site currently lacks a comprehensive monitoring of visitation (State Party of Norway). The Norwegian Fjord Centre is an accredited visitor and education centre for the World Heritage Site and provides an arena for the Geirangerfjord World Heritage Foundation to showcase the various aspects of their work.
Sustainable use
There are small farms throughout the property, with grazing, mainly by goats and sheep 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, however, in the past years traditional farming practices inside the site have been reducing. The agriculture and the cultural heritage 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).
Relevant recent developments to address this issue include a subsidy scheme managed in accordance with the "Regulations on subsidies for measures in selected cultural landscapes in agriculture and the World Heritage areas Vegaøyan and West Norwegian Fjord Landscape", and the "Action Plan West Norwegian Fjord Landscape – Cultural Landscape". The subsidy scheme has been established to strengthen agriculture in the West Norwegian Fjord Landscape and is very important for having an active agriculture in the area. It is positive that national authorities prioritize funds for agriculture in the World Heritage Area. Nevertheless, there is a need for an increased framework to support planned investments in addition to supporting annual operations. In 2023 NOK 2,959,200 was available for annual operations, and NOK 1,508,428 for investments. This makes a total of NOK 4,467,628 for agriculture in the World Heritage Area in Nærøyfjorden (Nærøyfjorden World Heritage Park, 2023).
Relevant recent developments to address this issue include a subsidy scheme managed in accordance with the "Regulations on subsidies for measures in selected cultural landscapes in agriculture and the World Heritage areas Vegaøyan and West Norwegian Fjord Landscape", and the "Action Plan West Norwegian Fjord Landscape – Cultural Landscape". The subsidy scheme has been established to strengthen agriculture in the West Norwegian Fjord Landscape and is very important for having an active agriculture in the area. It is positive that national authorities prioritize funds for agriculture in the World Heritage Area. Nevertheless, there is a need for an increased framework to support planned investments in addition to supporting annual operations. In 2023 NOK 2,959,200 was available for annual operations, and NOK 1,508,428 for investments. This makes a total of NOK 4,467,628 for agriculture in the World Heritage Area in Nærøyfjorden (Nærøyfjorden World Heritage Park, 2023).
Monitoring
The Norwegian Nature Inspectorate is responsible for monitoring protected areas on behalf of the nation’s environmental authorities. They have the power to introduce management interventions like tree felling to prevent fields from becoming overgrown and undesirable species from spreading. They can also improve public access to areas. The Nature Inspectorate has dedicated staff assigned to the protected areas around the Geirangerfjord and the Nærøyfjord. According to the latest periodic report, efforts are underway between 2023-2025 to finance and implement a comprehensive and common World Heritage Monitoring Programme for the OUV of the West Norwegian Fjords, working closely with the local management authorities of the property (State Party of Norway, 2024). Currently, there are monitoring programmes in place for geological activity, flora and fauna, monuments, buildings and landscapes, farmland, tourism and land use (UNEP-WCMC, 2011), however, it was considered insufficient to meet all information needs for effective management (State Party of Norway, 2013; 2024).
Research
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 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, and cooperation with researchers was assessed as poor in the latest periodic report (State Party of Norway, 2024).
Effectiveness of management system and governance in addressing threats outside the site
Among relevant threats outside the property are mining and marine pollution in its vicinity, as well as potentially aquaculture which could have an impact on the biota of the property. With numerous development projects planned or proposed, there is some concern as to the potential negative impacts on the OUV. It is critical that environmental impact assessments comprehensively assess potential impacts and prioritise the protection of key attributes compared to tourism, transport and aquaculture priorities.
Effectiveness of management system and governance in addressing threats inside the site
The management plan revision process provides the opportunity to further strengthen collaboration and ensure a harmonization of the two management plans, as well as ensuring a strategic approach to the management of the whole property. A stronger level of collaboration between the two components on the management and protection of the shared OUV would allow for increased synergy and efficiency (IUCN, 2022).
There are management challenges with increased traffic and visitors as well as conflicts between different activities and user groups. The zoning mechanism in the current management plans is a good framework for dealing with these issues. In the revision of the management zones, the aim should be to enhance a sustainable carrying capacity throughout the property and especially in areas with tensions between user groups. It would be beneficial to have a more harmonized approach to management overall, for example by developing one management plan for the whole property or at least a joint vision and strategic goals. Nevertheless, overall the current protection and management is mostly effective.
Classic, superbly developed fjords
Good
Trend
Stable
The geological formations of the site remain well preserved and are robust against any possible impacts (IUCN, 2022).
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 and other development projects are further developed at or near the property (IUCN, 2022).
Assessment of the current state and trend of World Heritage values
Stable
The 2022 IUCN mission found the property to be in good condition. In general, the state of conservation has not deteriorated since the time of inscription on the World Heritage List in 2005. This is mostly due to a well-implemented legal protection, an adequate management system and the fact that a large part of the property is less accessible mountainous terrain. However, there are concerns that the state of conservation is facing increased pressure and may already be weakened due to developments in the more accessible parts of the property. The reason for this concern is the increase in mining activity, traffic, visitors and associated built infrastructure reported by the site managers, representatives from the municipalities, regional authorities and the mining company.
Assessment of the current state and trend of other important biodiversity values
Low Concern
Stable
Biodiversity values of the site remain overall in good condition and stable, but some concerns exist regarding fish species abundance and richness.
Mammals: Harbour seals assessments were carried out along the entire mainland Norwegian coast during molt in 1996-1999, 2003-2006, 2008-2015 and 2016-2021. The total minimum numbers of harbor seals were ca 6960 along the Norwegian coast in 2016-2021, which is close to the Target Level of 7000 harbor seals, however harbor seals have decreased in numbers in the counties Møre and Romsdal, Trøndelag and Nordland compared with results in 1996-1999 (Haug & Henden, 2022). According to the Red List of Species for Norway from 2021, the harbour seal has been downgraded to Least Concern from Vulnerable in 2010 (Eldegard et al. 2021b), although extensive bycatch in norweigan waters is worrying (Eldegard et al. 2021c). Eurasian otter (Lutra lutra) has been downgraded on the Norwegian Red List of Species from vulnerable in 2015 to low concern in 2021 demonstrating a recovery of the national population, estimated to currently be stable (Eldegard et al. 2021).
Fish: The Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) population has been decreasing in Norway and has been listed as Near Threatened in the 2021 Red List assessment for Norway upgraded since being Least Concern in 2015. Based on a calculation of the number of adult salmon that return from the sea each year, this has been reduced by 51 % for the period 1983 to 2019. If the decline rate in the period 1983-2019 is taken as a basis, the decline over the course of three generations will be between 21 % and 25 % (Hesthagen et al. 2021). Although rated as Least Concern, a classification of the condition of 430 Norwegian sea trout populations has now been made, based on data as of 2017 (Anon. 2019). Only 20% of the populations were classified as having good or very good condition. Almost half (48%) were in poor or very poor condition, while the other 137 stocks were in moderate condition. Also as of 2017, the sea trout populations in Western Norway and Central Norway were in the worst condition. By far the largest negative impact on sea trout populations was sea lice, which result in reduced sea survival (Anon. 2019). Hydropower regulation and agriculture also had a major negative effect on many populations (Hesthagen et al. 2021b).
Birds: The dipper (Cinclus cinclus) has been assessed as Low Concern since 2010. In 2015, the Norwegian breeding population was estimated to be in the interval 20,000-80,000 individuals (Shimmings & Øien 2015) and there has been no quantitative update of this since, however milder winters are expected to result in an increase in the population (Stokke et al. 2021). White-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) has increased its distribution in Norway, and the population is increasing. In 2015, the Norwegian breeding population was estimated at between 5600 and 8400 individuals (Stokke et al. 2021b). Golden eagle: In 2015, the Norwegian breeding population was estimated at between 1207 and 1537 breeding pairs (Shimmings & Øien 2015). Based on data from Rovbase, Mattisson et al. (2020) estimated the population at 1027 (914–1145) breeding pairs in the period 2015–2019. This is somewhat higher than the estimate by Dahl et al. (2015) of 963 (652–1139) breeding pairs for the period 2010–2014, but lower than the estimate by Shimmings & Øien (2015). The assessment period for golden eagles is 48 years (due to the species' generation length of 16 years (Bird et al. 2020)). The population has increased since the species was protected in 1971, and reports indicate that it is probably more or less stable (Shimmings & Øien 2015; Mattisson et al. 2020) (Stokke et al. 2021c).
Forests: While Norwegian forests retain strong capacity to deliver provisioning services, the overall ecological condition is relatively poor (Helseth et al. 2022). Wetland shrinkage dominated land cover changes in Norway (5,870 km2, −18%), followed by forest and grassland with a net gain of 3,441 km2 (3%) and 3, 435 km2 (10%), respectively (Zhou et al., 2021).
Mammals: Harbour seals assessments were carried out along the entire mainland Norwegian coast during molt in 1996-1999, 2003-2006, 2008-2015 and 2016-2021. The total minimum numbers of harbor seals were ca 6960 along the Norwegian coast in 2016-2021, which is close to the Target Level of 7000 harbor seals, however harbor seals have decreased in numbers in the counties Møre and Romsdal, Trøndelag and Nordland compared with results in 1996-1999 (Haug & Henden, 2022). According to the Red List of Species for Norway from 2021, the harbour seal has been downgraded to Least Concern from Vulnerable in 2010 (Eldegard et al. 2021b), although extensive bycatch in norweigan waters is worrying (Eldegard et al. 2021c). Eurasian otter (Lutra lutra) has been downgraded on the Norwegian Red List of Species from vulnerable in 2015 to low concern in 2021 demonstrating a recovery of the national population, estimated to currently be stable (Eldegard et al. 2021).
Fish: The Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) population has been decreasing in Norway and has been listed as Near Threatened in the 2021 Red List assessment for Norway upgraded since being Least Concern in 2015. Based on a calculation of the number of adult salmon that return from the sea each year, this has been reduced by 51 % for the period 1983 to 2019. If the decline rate in the period 1983-2019 is taken as a basis, the decline over the course of three generations will be between 21 % and 25 % (Hesthagen et al. 2021). Although rated as Least Concern, a classification of the condition of 430 Norwegian sea trout populations has now been made, based on data as of 2017 (Anon. 2019). Only 20% of the populations were classified as having good or very good condition. Almost half (48%) were in poor or very poor condition, while the other 137 stocks were in moderate condition. Also as of 2017, the sea trout populations in Western Norway and Central Norway were in the worst condition. By far the largest negative impact on sea trout populations was sea lice, which result in reduced sea survival (Anon. 2019). Hydropower regulation and agriculture also had a major negative effect on many populations (Hesthagen et al. 2021b).
Birds: The dipper (Cinclus cinclus) has been assessed as Low Concern since 2010. In 2015, the Norwegian breeding population was estimated to be in the interval 20,000-80,000 individuals (Shimmings & Øien 2015) and there has been no quantitative update of this since, however milder winters are expected to result in an increase in the population (Stokke et al. 2021). White-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) has increased its distribution in Norway, and the population is increasing. In 2015, the Norwegian breeding population was estimated at between 5600 and 8400 individuals (Stokke et al. 2021b). Golden eagle: In 2015, the Norwegian breeding population was estimated at between 1207 and 1537 breeding pairs (Shimmings & Øien 2015). Based on data from Rovbase, Mattisson et al. (2020) estimated the population at 1027 (914–1145) breeding pairs in the period 2015–2019. This is somewhat higher than the estimate by Dahl et al. (2015) of 963 (652–1139) breeding pairs for the period 2010–2014, but lower than the estimate by Shimmings & Øien (2015). The assessment period for golden eagles is 48 years (due to the species' generation length of 16 years (Bird et al. 2020)). The population has increased since the species was protected in 1971, and reports indicate that it is probably more or less stable (Shimmings & Øien 2015; Mattisson et al. 2020) (Stokke et al. 2021c).
Forests: While Norwegian forests retain strong capacity to deliver provisioning services, the overall ecological condition is relatively poor (Helseth et al. 2022). Wetland shrinkage dominated land cover changes in Norway (5,870 km2, −18%), followed by forest and grassland with a net gain of 3,441 km2 (3%) and 3, 435 km2 (10%), respectively (Zhou et al., 2021).
Assessment of the current state and trend of other important values
Low Concern
Data Deficient
Saltmarshes and seagrass meadows have experienced major declines over the past century, while macroalgal trends are more diverse. Based on limited salt marsh data, sediment C-stocks average 3,311 g Corg m-2 (top 40-100 cm) and sequestration rates average 142 g Corg m-2 yr-1. Eelgrass C-stocks average 2,414 g Corg m-2 (top 25 cm) and initial data for sequestration rates range 5-33 g Corg m-2, quantified for one Greenland site and one short term restoration. For Nordic brown macroalgae, peerreviewed estimates of sediment C-stock and sequestration are lacking. Overall, there are substantial Nordic BC-stocks, but evidence is still insufficient to provide a robust estimate of all Nordic BC-stocks and sequestration rates. Needed are better quantification of habitat area, C-stocks and fluxes, particularly for macroalgae, as well as identification of target areas for BC management. Increased coordination at national and Nordic scales and across sectors is necessary (Krause-Jensen et al. 2022).
Frigstad et al. 2021 estimated the long-term storage of blue carbon to 3.9 million tonnes CO2 equivalents per year (1 087 Gigagram carbon per year) for the Nordic region excluding Greenland (due to insufficient data). This represents an estimate of carbon permanently removed from the atmosphere each year by kelp forests, eelgrass meadows and rockweed beds in the Nordic region, and thereby the ability of these blue forest habitats to act as natural carbon sinks. The largest contributor to the Nordic long-term carbon storage was kelp forests, with 69% (2.7 million tonne CO2 equivalents), followed by rockweed beds with 19% (0.8 million tonne CO2 equivalents) and then seagrass meadows, with 12% (0.5 million tonne CO2 equivalents, Figure 32). The Norwegian kelp forest alone contributed 46% of the total long-term carbon storage by blue forests in the Nordic region, demonstrating that Norwegian kelp forests dominate the Nordic blue carbon budget in terms of the mass of carbon sequestered annually. In Norway alone, the kelp forest contributed ~80% to carbon sequestration of the blue forest habitats, as kelp forests cover large areas, with a high annual production and large carbon export. Rockweed beds and seagrass meadows contributed 19% and < 1%, respectively (Frigstad et al. 2021).
Frigstad et al. 2021 estimated the long-term storage of blue carbon to 3.9 million tonnes CO2 equivalents per year (1 087 Gigagram carbon per year) for the Nordic region excluding Greenland (due to insufficient data). This represents an estimate of carbon permanently removed from the atmosphere each year by kelp forests, eelgrass meadows and rockweed beds in the Nordic region, and thereby the ability of these blue forest habitats to act as natural carbon sinks. The largest contributor to the Nordic long-term carbon storage was kelp forests, with 69% (2.7 million tonne CO2 equivalents), followed by rockweed beds with 19% (0.8 million tonne CO2 equivalents) and then seagrass meadows, with 12% (0.5 million tonne CO2 equivalents, Figure 32). The Norwegian kelp forest alone contributed 46% of the total long-term carbon storage by blue forests in the Nordic region, demonstrating that Norwegian kelp forests dominate the Nordic blue carbon budget in terms of the mass of carbon sequestered annually. In Norway alone, the kelp forest contributed ~80% to carbon sequestration of the blue forest habitats, as kelp forests cover large areas, with a high annual production and large carbon export. Rockweed beds and seagrass meadows contributed 19% and < 1%, respectively (Frigstad et al. 2021).
Additional information
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).
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 traditions.
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.
| № | Organization | Brief description of Active Projects | Website |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Fish farmers, researchers, industry actors, and high-level EU institutions from Finland, Sweden, Belgium, and the Netherlands | The Horizon Europe AQUAPHOENIX project, which started in January 2025, aims to capture and reuse aquaculture waste by collecting sludge (excess feed and feces) beneath fish farms in Hardangerfjord (Norway) and the Åland Islands (Finland). Fish farmers, researchers, industry actors, and high-level EU institutions from Finland, Sweden, Belgium, and the Netherlands will learn how to use aquaculture waste for renewable energy, sustainably sourced fertilizers, and new feed ingredients. |
https://aquaphoenix.eu/about/
|
| 2 | Norce | To learn about how sensitive microbial communities are to environmental change, we will look back in time and investigate their responses to changes in the past. In particular, we are interested in how marine microbial communities in the western Norwegian Masfjorden and the Arctic Kongsfjorden changed over the last centuries from a preindustrial to a modern state in response to climate change and anthropogenic pressures. We make use of sediment cores that store information about past environmental conditions and biodiversity. We apply a novel, innovative approach for looking at past biodiversity by using traces of genetic material from the entire ecosystem, preserved in the sediment for thousands of years. The information obtained from this sedimentary ancient DNA will be combined with reconstructions of past environmental conditions, such as water temperature, oxygen levels, sea ice conditions and freshwater inflow, which we obtain through traditional paleontological proxies. In this way we can directly observe the response of marine microbial communities to environmental changes in the past, which is an important step towards improving predictions about future ecosystem changes in Norwegian fjords. |
https://www.norceresearch.no/en/projects/present-and-past-climate-change-impacts-on-norwegian-fjord-ecosystems-pastime
|
References
| № | References |
|---|---|
| 1 |
Akhtar, Juned, Torkel Bjørnskau, and Viggo Jean-Hansen (2012). Oil spill risk analysis of routeing heavy ship traffic in Norwegian waters. WMU J Marit Affairs, 11, pp.233–247.
|
| 2 |
Asheim, L. J., Thorvaldsen, P., & Rivedal, S. (2020). Policy measures to preserve Norwegian coastal and fjord landscapes in small-scale farming systems. Environmental science & policy, 104, 43-51.
|
| 3 |
Beyene, S. M., Naumov, V., & Angelstam, P. (2024). Long-term dynamics of grasslands and livestock in Norwegian cultural landscapes: implications for a sustainable transition of rural livelihoods. Landscape Ecology, 39(9), 171.
|
| 4 |
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].
|
| 5 |
Carvalho Resende, T., Stepanov, M., Bosson, JB., Emslie-Smith, M., Farinotti, D., Hugonnet, R., Huss, M., Berthier, E. (2022). World Heritage Glaciers: Sentinels of climate change, Paris, UNESCO; Gland, IUCN. Available at: https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch/bitstream/handle/20…
|
| 6 |
Cossins-Smith, A. (2024). Norway set to allow mining waste to be dumped in fjords. Mining Technology. Published online 16 January 2024. Available at: https://www.mining-technology.com/news/norway-approves-dump…
|
| 7 |
County Governor of Sogn og Fjordane (2008). 'Management Plan for Nærøyfjord'. Leikanger: County Governor of Sogn og Fjordane. (In Norwegian)
|
| 8 |
Dybedal, P. & Haukeland, J.V. (2017). Visitor Management and Local Community Development in the West Norwegian Fjords World Heritage Site. [online] Oslo, 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].
|
| 9 |
Eldegard K, Syvertsen PO, Bjørge A, Kovacs K, Støen O-G and van der Kooij J (24.11.2021). Mammals: Assessment of otters Lutra lutra for Norway. Red List of species 2021. The Swedish Biodiversity Information Centre. https://lister.artsdatabanken.no/rodlisteforarter/2021/3729. Downloaded 06.05.2025
|
| 10 |
Eldegard K, Syvertsen PO, Bjørge A, Kovacs K, Støen O-G and van der Kooij J (24.11.2021b). Mammals: Rating of harbor seal Phoca vitulina for Norway. Red List of species 2021. The Swedish Biodiversity Information Centre. https://lister.artsdatabanken.no/rodlisteforarter/2021/4136. Downloaded 06.05.2025
|
| 11 |
Eldegard K, Syvertsen PO, Bjørge A, Kovacs K, Støen O-G and van der Kooij J (24.11.2021c). Mammals: Rating of porpoise Phocoena phocoena for Norway. Red List of species 2021. The Swedish Biodiversity Information Centre. https://lister.artsdatabanken.no/rodlisteforarter/2021/30540. Downloaded 06.05.2025
|
| 12 |
Frigstad, H., Gundersen, H., Andersen, G. S., Borgersen, G., Kvile, K. Ø., Krause-Jensen, D., ... & Hancke, K. (2021). Blue Carbon–climate adaptation, CO2 uptake and sequestration of carbon in Nordic blue forests: Results from the Nordic Blue Carbon Project. Nordic Council of Ministers.
|
| 13 |
Geirangerfjord Cruise Port (2013). 'Seawalk I Geiranger 2013'. [Electronic reference] . [Accessed 5 June 2014].
|
| 14 |
Handberg, Ø., Haug, K., Nerdrum, L., Abrahamoglu, S., Aslesen, S., & Pedersen, S. (2022). Cost-benefit analysis of zero-emission requirements for tourist ships and ferries in the world heritage fjords. Menon Publication, 102(2022), 67.
|
| 15 |
Haug, T., & Henden, J.A. (2022). Norway – Progress report on marine mammals 2022. NAMMCO. Available at: https://nammco.no/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/progressreport…
|
| 16 |
Helseth, E. V., Vedeld, P., Framstad, E., & Gómez-Baggethun, E. (2022). Forest ecosystem services in Norway: Trends, condition, and drivers of change (1950–2020). Ecosystem Services, 58, 101491.
|
| 17 |
Hesthagen T, Wienerroither R, Bjelland O, Byrkjedal I, Fiske P, Lynghammar A, Nedreaas K and Straube N (24.11.2021). Fisherman: Rating of salmon Salmo salar for Norway. Red List of species 2021. The Swedish Biodiversity Information Centre. https://lister.artsdatabanken.no/rodlisteforarter/2021/8149. Downloaded 06.05.2025
|
| 18 |
Hesthagen T, Wienerroither R, Bjelland O, Byrkjedal I, Fiske P, Lynghammar A, Nedreaas K and Straube N (24.11.2021b). Fisherman: Rating of trout Salmo trutta for Norway. Red List of species 2021. The Swedish Biodiversity Information Centre. https://lister.artsdatabanken.no/rodlisteforarter/2021/15990. Downloaded 06.05.2025
|
| 19 |
Husa V, Agnalt A-L, Falkenhaug T, Fossøy F, Forsgren E, Grefsrud ES, Hansen F, Jelmert A, Mortensen S. (2022). Alien marine species in Norway. Mapping, monitoring and assessment of vectors for introductions. Rapport fra Havforskningen.
|
| 20 |
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].
|
| 21 |
IUCN (2022). Report of the IUCN Advisory mission to the West Norwegian Fjords, Norway (29 June-01 July 2022). IUCN. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1195/documents/
|
| 22 |
IUCN Consultation (2020). IUCN Confidential Consultation- West Norwegian Fjords – Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord, Norway
|
| 23 |
Krause-Jensen, D., Gundersen, H., Björk, M., Gullström, M., Dahl, M., Asplund, M. E., ... & Hancke, K. (2022). Nordic blue carbon ecosystems: Status and outlook. Frontiers in Marine Science, 9, 847544.
|
| 24 |
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].
|
| 25 |
Manzetti, S. (2011). Research and Environmental Protection of Norwegian fjords: a standstill. J Mar Sci Res Dev, 1, S2-001.
|
| 26 |
Mihalic T. (2020)."Conceptualising overtourism: A sustainability approach", Annals of Tourism Research, volume 84.
|
| 27 |
Ministry of Climate and Environment (2020). Control of alien harmful organisms Action Plan 2020-2025. Ministry of climate and Environment Norway. ISBN (PDF) 978-82-457-0520-1. Available at: https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/bekjempelse-av-fre…
|
| 28 |
Ministry of Climate and Environment (2024). Introducing Zero-Emission Requirements in the World Heritage Fjords. Norwegian Government, Section for Marine Management. Available at: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/introducing-zero-emis…
|
| 29 |
Ministry of the Environment (2004). 'Nomination "West Norwegian Fjords – Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord" for inscription on the UNESCO World Cultural and Natural Heritage List. Oslo: Ministry of the Environment of Norway. [Electronic reference] . [Accessed 5 June 2014].
|
| 30 |
Møre and Romsdal County Government (2008). 'Management Plan for Geirangerfjord'. Molde: Møre and Romsdal County Government. (In Norwegian)
|
| 31 |
Nesje, A., (2023). Future state of Norwegian glaciers: Estimating glacier mass balance and equilibrium line responses to projected 21st century climate change, The Holocene, 33, 1257-1271, https://doi.org/10.1177/09596836231183069
|
| 32 |
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].
|
| 33 |
Nornes, A., Vallestad, J.O., Johansen, G. (2020). Besøksstrategi Verneområde i Nærøyfjordområdet. Nærøyfjorden protected area board. Rapportnr. 01-2020. Available at: https://www.nasjonalparkstyre.no/uploads/files_naeroyfjorde…
|
| 34 |
Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre (2020). Species with increased risk, Alien Species List of Norway 2018. Om Artsdatabanken. Trondheim, Norway. Published online 21 January 2020. Available at: https://biodiversity.no/Pages/286686/
|
| 35 |
Norwegian Maritime Authority-News (2019). New environmental requirements in the world heritage fjords. [online] Available at: <https://www.sdir.no/en/news/news-from-the-nma/new-environme… > [Accessed 20 April 2020]
|
| 36 |
Norwegian Maritime Autority. (2017). Pollution from ships in fjord areas with heavy cruise traffic, Report 5 May 2017. Rev. 1, 40 p.
|
| 37 |
Nærøyfjorden World Heritage Park (2023). West Norwegian fjord landscape - Nærøyfjord area - handling of applications 2023. Nærøyfjorden World Heritage Park. Published online 23 November 2023. Available at: https://en.naroyfjorden.no/nyhende/vestnorsk-fjordlandskap-…
|
| 38 |
Poiret, A. (2024). The Long-Term Growth of Tourism at a Site Now Designated as a World Heritage Site, the Geirangerfjord in Norway. Ressources de géographie pour les enseignants. Published online 7 June 2024. Available at: https://geoconfluences.ens-lyon.fr/programmes/dnl/dnl-hg-an…
|
| 39 |
Raudbergvika (2024). The Norwegian Environment Agency revokes the decision of the Protected Area board for Geiranger-Herdalen. Raudbergvika. Published online 15 June 2024. Available at: https://raudbergvika.no/en/nyheiter/the-norwegian-environme…
|
| 40 |
Staalesen, A. (2021). Oil shipments through Barents Sea could skyrocket with Rosneft’s new Arctic field. Arctic Today. Publsihed online 28 October 2021. Available at: https://www.arctictoday.com/oil-shipments-through-barents-s…
|
| 41 |
State Party of Norway (2013). 'Periodic Report - Second Cycle. Section II - West Norwegian Fjords – Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord'. [online] Paris, France: UNESCO. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1195/documents/ [Accessed 5 June 2014].
|
| 42 |
State Party of Norway (2024). Periodic Reporting Cycle 3, Section II: West Norwegian Fjords – Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1195/documents/
|
| 43 |
Stokke BG, Dale S, Jacobsen K-O, Lislevand T, Solvang R and Strøm H (24.11.2021). Birds: Rating of golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos for Norway. Red List of species 2021. The Swedish Biodiversity Information Centre. https://lister.artsdatabanken.no/rodlisteforarter/2021/31899. Downloaded 06.05.2025
|
| 44 |
Stokke BG, Dale S, Jacobsen K-O, Lislevand T, Solvang R and Strøm H (24.11.2021). Birds: Rating of waterfall call Cinclus cinclus for Norway. Red List of species 2021. The Swedish Biodiversity Information Centre. https://lister.artsdatabanken.no/rodlisteforarter/2021/12335. Downloaded 06.05.2025
|
| 45 |
Stokke BG, Dale S, Jacobsen K-O, Lislevand T, Solvang R and Strøm H (24.11.2021b). Birds: Rating of white-tailed eagle Haliaeetus albicilla for Norway. Red List of species 2021. The Swedish Biodiversity Information Centre. https://lister.artsdatabanken.no/rodlisteforarter/2021/7196. Downloaded 06.05.2025
|
| 46 |
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]
|
| 47 |
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].
|
| 48 |
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.
|
| 49 |
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]
|
| 50 |
UNESCO World Heritage Centre-News (2019). Glacier Bay and West Norwegian Fjords sign Partnership Agreement. [online] Paris, France: UNESCO. Available at: <https://whc.unesco.org/en/news/2051/>; [Accessed 20 April 2020]
|
| 51 |
West Norwegian Fjords (n.d.). Who makes decisions about the World Heritage? The West Norwegian Fjords World Heirtage sites. Available at: https://vestnorskfjordlandskap.no/en/who-makes-decisions-ab…
|
| 52 |
World Heritage Centre (2005). ‘Decision 29 COM 8B.7’. [Electronic reference] . Accessed 5 June 2014.
|
| 53 |
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].
|
| 54 |
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].
|
| 55 |
Zhou, N., Hu, X., Byskov, I., Næss, J. S., Wu, Q., Zhao, W., & Cherubini, F. (2021). Overview of recent land cover changes, forest harvest areas, and soil erosion trends in Nordic countries. Geography and Sustainability, 2(3), 163-174.
|