Factors affecting the property in 1998*
- Forestry /wood production
- Management systems/ management plan
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
- Logging operations;
- Need for a management plan
International Assistance: requests for the property until 1998
Total amount approved : 0 USD
Missions to the property until 1998**
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 1998
The Bureau at its twenty-first extraordinary session was informed that sustainable forestry operations in the Polish side of this trans-border site were restricted to forests outside of the World Heritage area. The Bureau had invited the Polish authorities to inform the Centre as to whether they plan to extend the World Heritage area to conform to the new boundaries of the 10,500 ha Bialowieza National Park, as established in 1996.
The Polish authorities submitted, on 10 September 1998, an extension of the Bialowieza Forest. The proposed extension is substantial and will be evaluated by IUCN in 1999 in accordance with paragraph 64 of the Operational Guidelines and recommendations submitted to the twenty-third ordinary session of the Bureau. The Bureau noted the publication entitled “Belovezhskaya Pushcha Forest Biodiversity Conservation” produced by the Belarus authorities which focuses on strengthening forest and wildlife conservation and improving land-use management. The publication is based on results of the “Belarus Forest Biodiversity Protection Project” financed by the Global Environment Facility (GEF).
Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 1998
The Bureau commended the Polish authorities for nominating an extension to their part of the World Heritage site. The Bureau reiterated its previous request that the two States Parties co-operate to prepare a management plan for the Belarus part and consider removing the fence separating the two parts.
Summary of the interventions
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 1998
22 COM VII.27
Reports on the State of Conservation of Natural Properties Noted by the Committee
VII.27 The Committee noted the decisions of the twenty-second extraordinary session of the Bureau as reflected in the Report of the Bureau session (Working Document WHC-98/CONF.203/5) and included in Annex IV on the following properties:
- Heard and McDonald Islands (Australia)
- Shark Bay, Western Australia (Australia)
- Wet Tropics of Queensland (Australia)
- Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest (Belarus/Poland)
- Iguacu National Park (Brazil)
- Dja Faunal Reserve (Cameroon)
- Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks (Canada)
- Jiuzhaigou Valley Scenic and Historic Interest Area (China)
- Huanglong Scenic and Historic Interest Area (China)
- Wulingyuan Scenic and Historic Interest Area (China)
- Los Katios National Park (Colombia)
- Morne Trois Pitons National Park (Dominica)
- Nanda Devi National Park (India)
- Whale Sanctuary of El Viscaino (Mexico)
- Royal Chitwan National Park (Nepal)
- Sagarmatha National Park (Nepal)
- Arabian Oryx Sanctuary (Oman)
- Huascaran National Park (Peru)
The Committee noted that the Bureau's decision reflected the suggestion to establish an informal contact group on mining and World Heritage and that the IUCN "Draft Policy on Mining and Protected Areas" will be circulated.
- Kamchatka Volcanoes (Russian Federation)
- Virgin Komi Forests (Russian Federation)
- Skocjan Caves (Slovenia)
- Thung Yai-Huay Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuaries (Thailand)
- St. Kilda (United Kingdom)
- Ha Long Bay (Vietnam)
- Durmitor National Park (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia)
The Committee noted the UN official name for the State Party: Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
- Mosi-oa-Tunya/Victoria Falls (Zambia/Zimbabwe)
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”).