In the Brussels Region (and in Belgium in part and in Luxembourg I think as well) natural and cultural heritage are merged into one administration. I am in charge of the Cultural Heritage Department of the Brussels Region, which is responsible for the development of the natural and cultural heritage:

– The immovable heritage, which concerns both the monuments and the sites. I am in charge of the restoration of listed buildings (around 4,000) as well as listed parks (1,800 hectares). We also have a speciality that concerns the inventory of remarkable trees (about 6000 individuals) and semi-natural sites. I work with agronomists and botanists…

– Movable heritage with art objects, archaeological objects, sculptures, public monuments … including the management of exports (outside Schengen)

– Intangible heritage (tradition, food, culture, …)

But also the management of town planning permits for protected properties and the granting of subsidies for the restoration of movable and immovable properties. This is accompanied by our awareness-raising policy (publications, exhibitions, training for schools, etc.) and our entire archaeological policy.

I understand that it is not easy to bring together specialists in buildings and those in natural heritage because these are two very different world. In practice, however, it is an asset because one sector brings greater scientific rigour (but also a certain fundamentalism or militancy that is sometimes disturbing) and the other a more sensitive and humanistic approach. For my part, I can only welcome this mix. It should also be noted that my administration is not a manager as such. The work is always done by third parties under our supervision.

As for Flanders, the situation is in fact that there is an agency responsible for immovable heritage (>> Flanders Heritage), and an agency responsible for nature and forestry (>> ANF). So two separate entities.

But natural heritage is the responsibility  of Flanders Heritage (protected landscapes, parks, …). Which does not mean ANF might not have a say, since these places that are protected from a natural heritage perspective may also be protected from a purely nature/forestry perspective.

So in practice, when we’re dealing with natural heritage, both agencies often have to work together. But it is not always easy as we sometimes have conflicting interests. We look at a landscape from a heritage perspective (cultural, historical, landscape, … values), whereas our nature colleagues start from an ecological, biodiversity, … point of view. These two perspectives are not necessarily the same. A landscaped park with exotic plants & trees can be protected particularly because of these exotic features, whereas our nature colleagues may say that these need to be replaced with native species (for biodiversity reasons). So it would be difficult to unite these two differing management objectives in one agency. In practice, it is often easier to find a compromise when a third party is involved (e.g. municipality).

The situation is not as clear-cut as that in Wallonia and probably in the other Regions of Belgium. We do have two different services: the Walloon Heritage Agency for cultural heritage and a “Nature and Forest” department, but with areas of convergence between the two.

At the level of cultural heritage, the Agency is competent for immovable heritage.  The movable and immovable heritage is the responsibility of the Wallonia-Brussels Federation (note that the Brussels Capital Region and the German-speaking Community do not have these distinctions).
The heritage code therefore applies to the protection of immovable property because of its (their) archaeological, historical, architectural, scientific, artistic, social, memorial, aesthetic, technical, landscape or urbanistic interest(s)…This includes all aspects of the environment resulting from the interaction in time between people and places.  The protection of cultural property can be done with the qualification of site.  A site is defined as “any work of nature or any combined work of man and nature.

We therefore know of classified forest massifs (Forêt de Soignes), geological sites (Durbuy anticline, meanders of the Semois, caves, marshes, etc.) or sites of biological interest (limestone lawns).
The Department of Nature and Forests implements the forestry code, the laws on nature conservation, on natural parks, on hunting and on fishing.

According to the information available to me, this overlap has historical roots.  Heritage concerns were expressed very soon after the foundation of Belgium with the creation of the monument commission in 1835.  In 1912, it became the commission for monuments and sites.  The first law on the protection of heritage dates from 1931, whereas the law on the protection of nature dates from 1973.

It is indeed the case at the level of the highest specialized authorities of the 16 German States that there is a separation of cultural heritage and monument protection on the one hand and nature conservation and environmental protection on the other.

However, this separation principle is softened at the level of the supreme protection authorities, i.e. the ministerial level. In still a few, increasingly more German States, the field of cultural heritage comes to environmental protection on this political-administrative level.

In Slovenia, the protection of nature and cultural heritage was united until 1999:  a single national agency for the protection of natural and cultural heritage existed, and also seven regional agencies. Each of these agencies was responsible both for the protection of natural and cultural heritage. In 1999, these integrated agencies were separated. Since then we have two national agencies: The Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for Nature Conservation with its own seven regional offices, and The Institute for the Protection of Cultural heritage of Slovenia with its own seven regional offices.

According to the experience of Jernej Hudolin, the current Director General of our Institute for the Protection of Cultural heritage, the previous organisation of integrated agencies was better for the protection purposes than is the current system of separate agencies. In many instances, the protection of nature and cultural heritage are intertwined, for example in national parks, protected landscapes, protected buildings which are also habitats for protected species etc. In the pre-1999 integrated agencies, the coordination of protection interests was much easier and more effective than it is now where two separate agencies are responsible for the protection of nature and cultural heritage. The coordination between the two agencies would also be easier if both would be placed under a single ministrie. However, the Institute for Nature Conservation is placed under the Ministry of the Environment, whereas the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage is placed under the Ministry of Culture.

In Sweden we have since decades a close cooperation with Swedish Environmental Protection Agency but we have never been organisatory united – a question that have never been discussed. As well we have always been under different governmental departments.

In Ireland architectural, archaeological, and natural heritage protection are located within the same Ministry and have been since the mid-1990s.

In Norway, we also have separate directorates. But in recent years, in legalization, natural elements have been included in the Cultural Heritage Act. I have not heard of any attempt to merge the two directorates here. However, we are headed by the Ministry of Climate and Environment. And the Directorate for Nature Management is a sister directorate to us.

In more details :

The office of the Governor of Svalbard (the Norwegian government’s highest-ranking representative on the archipelago) acts as both the chief of police and county governor. Administratively, The Governor falls under the Norwegian Ministry of Justice and Public Security, but it also performs tasks for a number of other ministries. Protection of both natural and cultural heritage in Svalbard is laid out in the Svalbard Environmental Protection Act.

Instructions have been prepared for environmental management in Svalbard, which concerns the division of labour between the Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment and its administrative agencies, The Governor of Svalbard and Longyearbyen lokalstyre.

The Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment has the overall responsibility for environmental protection management in Svalbard and a separate responsibility for coordinating environmental management.

The Norwegian Directorate for Cultural Heritage is the authority responsible for cultural heritage management in Svalbard and has overall responsibility in the cultural heritage area. The Norwegian Directorate for Cultural Heritage decides on exemptions for protected cultural monuments in Svalbard. This means that the Norwegian Directorate for Cultural Heritage has the authority to grant exemptions from protection orders for automatically protected cultural monuments and associated protection zones.

The Norwegian Directorate for Cultural Heritage can decide to protect cultural monuments from after 1945 that have a particular historical or cultural value. The Norwegian Directorate for Cultural Heritage is an advisory body to the office of the Governor of Svalbard and is the appeal body for cultural heritage decisions made by The Governor of Svalbard.

The Governor is the regional cultural heritage authority in Svalbard and is responsible for the day-to-day administrative work. The Governor of Svalbard prepares protection and exemption cases for the Norwegian Directorate for Cultural Heritage.

The Governor can decide on reducing protection zones for automatically protected cultural monuments. The Governor is also responsible for carrying out necessary projects on protected cultural monuments and, among other things, carries out maintenance work on protected buildings and archaeological excavations.

We confirm that in Portugal Cultural Heritage Management and Natural Heritage management are separate  directorates from different ministries: the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of the Environment.

More details : in Portugal the management of cultural heritage and the management of natural heritage have always been the responsibility of two different bodies.

Currently, the General Directorate of Cultural Heritage, of the Ministry of Culture, manages the cultural heritage, and the Institute for the Conservation of Nature and Forests, of the Ministry of Environment and Climate Action manages the natural heritage.

Naturally, the two domains are closely related in the territory, and many heritage assets are mixed, requiring a technical and political articulation between the two sectors.

I believe that the characterization of the bodies and competences of the different European countries will be updated on the HEREIN platform.