At the beginning of 2008, about 144 400 square kilometres or 45 per cent of mainland Norway (excluding Svalbard and Jan Mayen) was defined as being without major infrastructure development. Remaining areas without major infrastructure development in all parts of the country are shrinking and being split up, but losses have been greatest in South and Central Norway. Much of the remainder consists of areas above the treeline, glaciers and other unproductive areas.

The map shows areas without major infrastructure development and hydropower-related infrastructure (reservoirs, power plants, etc) around the Hardangervidda mountain plateau. You can zoom in or out to explore further.

Barely 12 per cent of Norway is wilderness-like

There has been a dramatic reduction in the extent of wilderness-like areas (those lying furthest from infrastructure developments) since the beginning of the 20th century, when about half of Norway could be classified as wilderness-like. By January 2008, this figure had dropped to about 12 per cent, and to only 5 per cent in the southern half of the country.

Undeveloped areas are in short supply both in Norway and internationally, and they form an important part of the Norwegian natural heritage. They play a vital role for many species and give us irreplaceable opportunities to enjoy undisturbed nature. We should ensure that future generations can also experience the wild.

As developments encroach on more and more of the Norwegian countryside, we are losing many landscape and ecological qualities. Many developments are in practice irreversible – it would be very difficult to restore the landscape or plant and animal communities. This process reduces the value of areas for outdoor recreation, tourism and research, and in some cases biodiversity is lost as well.

There is hardly anywhere in Norway that is truly untouched by human activity, but you can find everything from urban or intensively-farmed areas to wilderness-like forests and mountains.

The most important causes of the loss of areas without major infrastructure in the period 2003–08 were:

• energy production and transport, including the construction of power lines;
• road construction, particularly forest roads.

The Government’s goal is to safeguard the remaining larger areas without major infrastructure development. This has been discussed in a number of white papers published in the past 15 years, which have focused on the importance of managing these areas as an important part of Norway’s natural heritage.

Both the Government and the Storting have also recognised how important these areas are, both for outdoor recreation and because they give people the opportunity to experience an undisturbed environment. Some species, for example wild reindeer, are largely dependent on the remaining areas without infrastructure development.

The Planning and Building Act

The Planning and Building Act and legislation for specific sectors, such as the Forestry Act and the Water Resources Act, are the most important tools for regulating land use to minimise development and fragmentation of areas without major infrastructure development. The planning part of the new Planning and Building Act entered into force on 1 July 2009.

Mapping areas without major infrastructure development

The Directorate for Nature Management has been mapping areas without major infrastructure development at intervals, and figures are available for 1988, 1994, 1998, 2003 and 2008. The maps give a clear picture of where developments are fragmenting these areas. Statistics have also been compiled showing which sectors are responsible for the loss of such areas. A simplified mapping system is being developed that will make it possible to update and correct the maps more continuously.

The maps do not provide any information on other qualities or the value of areas without major infrastructure. These areas vary widely, and many of them are influenced by human activities such as timber felling, grazing and haying, even though there is no major infrastructure development.

Mapping the remaining areas without major infrastructure development is also a useful tool for achieving the political goal of maintaining as much as possible of these areas for future generations.