Nanda Devi and Valley of Flowers National Parks
Factors affecting the property in 1998*
- Impacts of tourism / visitor / recreation
- Management systems/ management plan
- Other Threats:
Conflicts between the management and local people
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
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
At its twenty-first session, the Bureau noted that the management of this site is based on enforcing a policy of strict protection. An Indian Supreme Court ruling of 1996 suspended, until further review by concerned authorities, rights of the local people to collect forest produce in protected areas, including in their buffer zones. This ruling has been applied to the “Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve”, including in its buffer zone surrounding the Nanda Devi National Park and World Heritage area. The enactment of the Supreme Court ruling has led to a rise in conflicts between the management and local people. Co-ordination between the Ministry of Tourism and site management also needs to be improved; site-staff had to apprehend tourists who had entered the Park with permits issued by tourism authorities without informing site management. Furthermore, the Deputy Director of the Park was of the view that the boundaries of the World Heritage site could be extended to include the Valley of Flowers National Park and the Khedamath Wildlife Sanctuary.
The Bureau invited the State Party to review site management policy with a view to minimising conflicts between management and local people and to seek the cooperation of local people in the protection of the site. Co-operation between conservation and tourism authorities also needs to be strengthened in order to define a policy for visitor entry and use of the site. The Bureau suggested that the Indian authorities study the feasibility for enlarging the World Heritage area by including the Valley of Flowers National Park and the Khedamath Wildlife Sanctuary.
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)
No draft Decision
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”).