Jiuzhaigou Valley Scenic and Historic Interest Area
Factors affecting the property in 1998*
- Impacts of tourism / visitor / recreation
- Major visitor accommodation and associated infrastructure
International Assistance: requests for the property until 1998
Total amount approved : 0 USD
Missions to the property until 1998**
September 1998: WHC/IUCN mission
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 1998
The Bureau was informed of the findings of a Centre/IUCN mission to this site undertaken in September 1998. The mission found that the management authorities of this site has been effective in restricting hotel construction to areas outside of the property. Within the site, visitors have no option other than staying in small-scale tourist facilities established in the homes of the Tibetan villagers resident there. The mission found that the management authorities and the local people have entered into an effective partnership, material and social conditions of the villagers have considerably improved, and economic benefits accrued through tourism has eliminated the need for natural resources exploitation. The State Council of China has issued a directive to completely halt illegal logging in the site. Despite these positive features, the mission team found the site to be congested with tourists; the management has made it too easy for the visitors to enter the site en-masse and in vehicles that drive through the core area. Increasing visitation appears to be leading to mushrooming of several new hotels immediately outside the boundaries of the site.
The Bureau commended the Chinese authorities for their effective management of the site and encouraged them to establish a “park-and-drive” system and to limit travel within the site to smaller, environment-friendly vehicles. Visitors should be accompanied by trained guides who have the capacity to interpret the natural and World Heritage values of the site. The Bureau drew the attention of the Chinese authorities to the need to improve training of site staff so that they can better monitor and mitigate tourism impacts on the site. The Bureau recommended that the report of the Centre/IUCN mission be transmitted to the relevant Chinese authorities.
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”).