The Guggenheim Effect in Urdaibai: Can culture justify the destruction of nature?
Environment
The ecologist campaign against the new Guggenheim Urdaibai project features in one of the most important art review magazines (hau aldatu behar da ez baikara Bilboko museoaren aurak baizik eta bere handitze proiektuaren aurka)
The journalist Erik Harvey interviews Eider Gotxi about the Guggenheim project, a clear example of a controversial project being imposed without consultation
The Guggenheim Effect in Urdaibai: Can Culture Justify the Destruction of Nature?
The Guggenheim’s expansion into Urdaibai directly contradicts international conservation commitments made by Spain.
Among these commitments are the European Birds and Habitats Directives, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs 14 and 15), the 2030 Biodiversity Strategy, and the new European Nature Restoration Law. It also violates fundamental principles of European environmental law, such as the precautionary principle and the principle of non-regression in nature conservation and protection.
Prioritizing culture over nature conservation, in this context, represents a step backward in protecting biodiversity and the integrity of ecosystems. This should prompt a detailed reconsideration of possible alternatives to the project, including its potential cancellation.
Article from “The Conversation”
The international Guggenheim museum network is a global reference in contemporary culture. With locations in four countries and more than a million visitors annually, these museums not only attract tourism but also economically revitalize the areas in which they are built.
Bilbao is a prime example: the Guggenheim’s opening in 1997 transformed a declining industrial city into a top-tier cultural destination. However, the success of the so-called “Bilbao effect” is now at the heart of an intense social and environmental debate, due to the museum’s expansion plan into the Urdaibai Biosphere Reserve—one of northern Spain’s most valuable and fragile natural spaces.
Urdaibai: An Ecological Treasure Under Threat
Urdaibai is much more than a beautiful landscape. This estuary and its wetlands, recognized as a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve since 1984, are home to more than 300 species of migratory birds and serve as a refuge for critically endangered species like the European mink.
Its ecosystem, part of an internationally important wetland network, is essential for biodiversity, water and carbon cycle regulation, and protection against floods and storms. Yet wetlands are among the most threatened habitats on the planet: since 1900, 50% of their surface area has been lost worldwide—three times faster than forest loss.
The Expansion Project: Progress or Backward Step?
The proposal for Urdaibai involves an investment of €127 million and the construction of new infrastructure—roads, parking lots, buildings—that would fragment the habitat and increase human pressure on an already vulnerable environment. The plan itself anticipates nearly 150,000 visitors per year.
Environmental organizations like WWF, Greenpeace, and SEO/BirdLife have warned that the project could “erase the reserve as a protected space,” turning the area into a tourist and commercial hub incompatible with the values that justify its protection.
Urdaibai is not an isolated case. Other large-scale cultural initiatives have previously generated similar conflicts, such as the failed “Monument to Tolerance” by Eduardo Chillida in Fuerteventura, which would have required intervention in a mountain sacred to the local population.
This and other precedents show that culture is not always a driver of responsibility, awareness, and conservation of natural and historical heritage. It can become a threat if not managed with sustainability principles.
Legal and Ethical Contradictions
The expansion of the Guggenheim into Urdaibai directly contradicts international conservation commitments made by Spain.
Among these commitments are the European Birds and Habitats Directives, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs 14 and 15), the 2030 Biodiversity Strategy, and the new European Nature Restoration Law. It also violates fundamental principles of European environmental law, such as the precautionary principle and the principle of non-regression in nature conservation and protection.
Prioritizing culture over nature conservation, in this context, represents a step backward in protecting biodiversity and the integrity of ecosystems. This should prompt a detailed reconsideration of possible alternatives to the project, including its potential cancellation.
Is Another Kind of Culture Possible?
The underlying debate goes beyond Urdaibai: Can culture justify the destruction of nature? From a sustainability and intergenerational justice perspective, the answer is clear: no.
The coexistence of culture and conservation is possible, but it requires that cultural projects be designed with strict environmental criteria and social participation. There are viable alternatives to expanding cultural offerings without sacrificing irreplaceable spaces.
Urdaibai, due to its ecological and symbolic value, is in a unique position to serve as an example of how culture can contribute to protecting nature rather than competing with it.
The decision on Urdaibai’s future will set a precedent for Europe and the world. Now is the time to show that true progress isn’t about increasing visitor numbers at any cost, but about preserving our natural and cultural heritage for future generations.
