Kluane / Wrangell-St. Elias / Glacier Bay / Tatshenshini-Alsek
Factors affecting the property in 1993*
- Management systems/ management plan
International Assistance: requests for the property until 1993
Total amount approved : 0 USD
Missions to the property until 1993**
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 1993
The Bureau recalled that the Committee at its sixteenth session, while approving the extension of this transfrontier site to include the Glacier Bay National Park (USA), urged the American and the Canadian authorities to incorporate additional areas to the World Heritage property.
On 30 September 1993, a nomination was received for the extension of this site by the addition of the Tashanshini-Alsek area in the province of British Columbia, Canada. The Committee may wish to welcome this addition since it responses to its request and reinforces the integrity of the entire site. IUCN has made a field visit to the site and the representative of IUCN will provide additional information.
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 1993
17 BUR VIII.2
Wrangell-St. Elias-Kluane-Glacier Bay National Parks (Canada/United States of America)
The Bureau recalled that the Committee, while approving the extension of this transfrontier site to include the Glacier Bay National Park (USA), at its last session, urged the American and the Canadian authorities to incorporate additional areas to the World Heritage property.
In this regard, the Bureau was pleased to be informed ty the Observer for Canada that the Provincial Government of British Columbia has decided to propose to the World Heritage Centre to establish a new provincial park in the Alsek Tatshenshint region and nominate this park as part of the transfrontier world Heritage property. The Bureau commended the Canadian authorities for having taken this initiative and urged them to proceed according to the Operational Guidelines.
No draft Decision
Documents examined by the Committee17COM (1993)
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.