State of Conservation (SOC)
Niokolo-Koba National Park (1986)
UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds
International Assistance granted to the property
Total Amount Ap proved:42,845USD
|1986||Additional cost of radios ordered in 1985 for Niokolo-Koba ...||6,196 USD|
|1985||Purchase of 4 portable radios for protection programme for ...||9,618 USD|
|1982||Vehicles, camping equipment and radio communication material for ...||27,031 USD|
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
Current conservation issues
A new road across this park has been proposed.
Already suffering from intensive poaching the road could open up the park to further depredations.
An alternative route has been suggested.
Link to the decision
14. As in previous years, IUCN reported on the conservation of natural properties inscribed on the World Heritage List and the List of World Heritage in Danger. An information document (CC-86/CONF.003/INF.4) prepared by IUCN presented up-to-date information on some 16 natural properties.
15. The Committee was glad to learn of improvements or of a stabilisation in the previously deteriorating situation of certain properties, notably Djoudj National Park (Senegal), Ngorongoro Conservation area (Tanzania) and Garamba National Park (Zaire) (all inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger). Improvements were also noted for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Australia), Pirin National Park (Bulgaria), Manas Tiger Reserve (India), Niokolo Koba National Park (Senegal) and Aldabra Atoll (Seychelles). The Committee requested IUCN to keep it informed of the conservation status of Iguazu and Los Glaciares National Parks (Argentina), Mt. Nimba (Guinea/Côte d'Ivoire) and Ichkeul National Park (Tunisia).
No draft decision proposed
View inscribed site documents, nomination file, reports, decisions, ...
SOC Reports2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2001 2000 1993 1992 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986
Detailed List of SOC reports
Inscription on the Danger ListYear: 2007
Threats to the Site:
b) Livestock grazing.
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”).