When Cologne Cathedral becomes an emergency shelter

A new draft law from the NRW Ministry of Construction massively weakens monument protection – theoretically, even UNESCO World Heritage Sites such as Cologne Cathedral or the Brühl Palaces could lose their protected status. Under the pretext of “overall defense”, North Rhine-Westphalia is threatening to give up its cultural heritage.

Ina Scharrenbach, Minister for Home Affairs, Municipal Affairs, Building and Digitization in North Rhine-Westphalia, had actually promised a sober task for this year: the evaluation of the then controversial Monument Protection Act, which was introduced in 2022. Three years after the controversial reform, the aim was to review how the innovations have proven themselves in practice. But instead of an honest assessment, a draft law is now on the table that does not improve monument protection in the state, but dangerously undermines it – and almost unnoticed, hidden in the small print of the state building regulations (BauO NRW).

Officially, it’s about implementing the “Total Defense Framework Directive”. Sounds like a technocratic necessity, almost like a mandatory bureaucratic program. The bill bears the sober title “Third Act to Amend the State Building Code 2018 and Other Regulations in the State of North Rhine-Westphalia”. It only becomes clear at second glance that it also affects the Monument Protection Act. Because what the state government pushed through the cabinet in the summer is quite something: from now on, all facilities that could somehow be used for national or alliance defense purposes are to be exempt from monument protection. The spectrum could extend far beyond barracks. Bridges, railroad stations, airports, waterways, schools or meeting rooms – and in the worst case even churches or UNESCO World Heritage Sites – could also lose their protection. Theoretically, this would also mean that Cologne Cathedral would only be a “functional property” that could be converted into emergency accommodation in an emergency. The federal government’s framework directive calls for exactly the opposite, namely the upgrading of monuments. Although this could conflict with monument protection in some places, solutions could be found, as monument experts point out. Especially as there will be special federal regulations in the event of a crisis anyway.

Experts are sounding the alarm – and resistance is forming in the form of the NRW Monument Protection Alliance. Experts say that the already existing enforcement deficits in monument protection have not improved and that the new amendment to the law will exacerbate these problems. The 2022 amendment had already weakened professionalism by withdrawing participation rights. Now they are going even further by withdrawing the right of specialist offices to apply for the protection of state and federal buildings as well as buildings owned by the state. The fact that this intervention in cultural heritage does not come across as an open draft law on monument protection, but is hidden in an amendment to the building regulations, has critics such as the German Foundation for Monument Protection talking about “backdoor legislation”. Specialist authorities, monument associations and the German Foundation for Monument Protection warn that the cultural memory of North Rhine-Westphalia is being sacrificed under the guise of security.
The Rheinische Verein für Denkmalpflege und Landesschutz (RVDL) has also voiced massive criticism: the reference to the “overall defense framework directive” is misleading. This is because the international guidelines require something completely different: the Hague Convention expressly stipulates that cultural property must be specially protected, inventoried and marked in the event of a crisis. The federal government emphasizes that the Hague Convention should be complied with – the federal states are therefore actually required to protect, mark and document monuments. In NRW, however, the opposite conclusion is being drawn – they prefer to remove them from the protection catalog.

For many, the calculation seems transparent. Many of the potentially affected buildings belong to the state or federal government anyway, often with decades of renovation backlog. Instead of investing money in their preservation, special rights are being created and responsibility is being shirked. At the same time, they also ensure that as few new monuments as possible are added.
A signal that not only offends private monument owners, but also undermines the credibility of the state. “The federal and state governments in particular should be role models in monument protection,” say experts. Instead, we are seeing the opposite: public buildings that are being released from protection in order to avoid their maintenance obligations. This weakens the overall acceptance of monument protection.

The constitutional dimension is even more serious. The state constitution expressly guarantees the protection of monuments. By now excluding entire categories – and indeed an unlimited number of them – through a vague reference to defense, this protection is de facto revoked. What remains is legal uncertainty, which opens the door to political influence. This is because the draft also allows the Ministry to usurp responsibilities at any time by means of regulations – even against the assessment of experts and without parliamentary scrutiny. This is also possible without the occurrence of a crisis. Decisions on what is or is not a monument could thus degenerate into political opportunism. Overall, the impression is that the protection of monuments in NRW is under greater threat than ever before, because the state is currently getting rid of its monuments.

It is a cultural policy revelation that is unparalleled in Germany. No other federal state has so far attempted to implement the “overall defense framework directive” in this way to undermine monument protection. Instead of relying on precautionary plans for the protection of cultural assets – as would be usual for flood protection or disaster prevention, for example – NRW is simply withdrawing the legal basis from its professionally recognized monuments. The result would be fatal: a state that is home to world heritage sites such as Cologne Cathedral or the palaces of Brühl threatens to be at the bottom of the league when it comes to monument protection. The fact that the bill was introduced in the summer without a public debate adds to the criticism. Many professional associations were not even officially involved. In the meantime, however, numerous statements have been submitted to the state parliament and the parliamentary groups – in the hope that parliament will stop or fundamentally change the proposal.
Cologne Cathedral will probably never be declared an emergency location. But the fact that such a scenario is legally conceivable says everything about the spirit of this amendment. What comes across as a technical adjustment is actually an attack on the country’s cultural memory, which will also have an impact on future generations.

Read more: Does monument protection need to be rethought?