Advanced search

State of Conservation (SOC)

Chitwan National Park (1993)

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 (issue resolved)

Corrective Measures
Current conservation issues

[Oral report by IUCN and the Secretariat]   

Conclusion
Decision

  • Adopted

  • Draft Decision

17COMX
Link to the decision

Royal Chitwan National Park (Nepal)

On the basis of a detailed report provided by the IUCN Office in Nepal, a state of conservation report on this site was presented. A number of threats were noted including poaching of the rhinoceros and tiger populations in the Park. It was further noted that the 1976 Management Plan does not address many of the current management issues and thus urgently requires updating. The new legislation providing for a buffer zone around the Park is, however, a commendable step and should be implemented as soon as possible. The Committee requested the Centre to contact the appropriate authorities to encourage them to continue the process underway with regard to the buffer zone concept and to begin the preparation of a new Management Plan.

 

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*
  • Illegal activities
  • Management systems/ management plan
  • Other Threats:
Documents
WHC.93/CONF.002/14
Other Documents:
View inscribed site documents, nomination file, reports, decisions, ...
SOC ID: 1748

* : 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.