jump to the content
Advanced search

State of Conservation (SOC)

Chitwan National Park (1991)

UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds
International Assistance granted to the property

Requests Approved: 0 (from1988-1989)
Total Amount Ap proved: 80,000USD

1989   Public awareness programmes and development of an educational and ...   50,000  USD
1988   Consultancy services for the preparation of a plan for Royal ...   30,000  USD
Missions**
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports

Proposed irrigation project to divert the Rapti river

Corrective Measures
Current conservation issues

[Oral report by IUCN and the Secretariat]  

Conclusion
Decision

  • Adopted

  • Draft Decision

15COMVIII
Link to the decision

Royal Chitwan National Park (Nepal)

The Committee was pleased to note that the Irrigation Department and the Nepal Planning Commission have formally dropped their plans for a US$30 million irrigation project to divert the Rapti River which would have seriously threatened the integrity of this Park. A study undertaken by the Government of Nepal and the Asian Development Bank, following the intervention of the Committee, showed the project was environmentally unacceptable and its economic benefits to be doubtful. The Committee commended the Nepalese authorities for taking decisive action for the conservation of this site.

 

No draft Decision

Chitwan National Park
State Party:
Nepal
Date of Inscription: 1984
Nomination records (Year): 1983
Category: Natural
Criteria: (vii)(ix)(x)
Exports
Word File
SOC Reports (year)
2004
1993
1991
1990
Threats*
  • Water
  • Other Threats:
Documents
SC.91/CONF.002/15
Other Documents:
View inscribed site documents, nomination file, reports, decisions, ...
SOC ID: 1665

* : The threats indicated are listed in alphabetical order; their order does not constitute a classification according to the importance of their impact on the property.
Furthermore, they are presented irrespective of the type of threat faced by the property, i.e. with specific and proven imminent danger (“ascertained danger”) or with threats which could have deleterious effects on the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (“potential danger”).

** : All mission reports are not always available electronically.