State of Conservation (SOC)
Selous Game Reserve (1987)
UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds
International Assistance granted to the property
Total Amount Ap proved:60,480USD
|1987||Equipment for anti-poaching measures at Selous Game Reserve||50,000 USD|
|1984||Purchase of a vehicle for Selous Game Reserve||10,480 USD|
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
Current conservation issues
An aerial census has now confirmed the alarming decrease in rhino (almost exterminated) and elephant numbers (down by 50% to 55,000). A detailed recovery plan has been prepared and submitted to Government who has allocated substantial extra funds for operating costs.
The Federal Republic of Germany has also approved a large grant to re-build the infrastructure of the park. The World Heritage Fund should be used to complement efforts of other donors to support management of the site on the basis of a formal proposal from the Government of Tanzania.
The Committee, during its tenth session, expressed concern regarding the increase in poaching on some wildlife species in the Selous Game Reserve of the United Republic of Tanzania and recommended that the State Party submit a request for inscribing this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
By letter of 15 July 1987 the authorities of Tanzania forwarded such a request together with a technical cooperation request for US$50,000. Details pertaining to the use of this sum of money in anti-poaching measures are provided in working document SC-87/CONF.005/7, concerning agenda item 11 on requests for technical cooperation.
Link to the decision
18. The Committee requested its Chairman to write to the authorities concerned for the following natural sites mentioned in the IUCN document in order that progress reports could be submitted to the Committee at its next session: Western Tasmania National Parks (Australia); Mt.Nimba (Cote d'Ivoire/Guinea); Machu Picchu Historic Sanctuary (Peru); Niokolo-Koba National Park (Senegal); Selous Game Reserve (Tanzania).
Link to the decision
25. The Committee,
- examined the requests presented in document SC-87/CONF.005/7;
- noted that the Bureau had met on 09 December 1987 to consider these requests and, in accordance with the procedure set out in paragraphs 69 to 91 of the Operational Guidelines, had approved the requests amounting to no more than $30,000;
- decided to approve the other requests taking into account of the Bureau's recommendations. The requests approved are as follows:
China (People's Rep. of) for drawing up safeguarding plans for the cultural sites inscribed on the World Heritage List: $25,000
- Tassili N'Ajjer (Algeria) for equipment and consultant services to prepare a large scale project to implement the management plan: $17,000
- Dja Faunal Reserve (Cameroon) as a contribution to the adoption and implementation of the draft management plan: $30,000
- Petra (Jordan) as a contribution towards research work on weathering and subsequent protection of the property: $50,000
- Selous Game Reserve (Tanzania) for equipment for anti-poaching measures: $50,000
- Istanbul (Turkey) for equipment: $30,000
- Durmitor National Park (Yugoslavia) for equipment for research on forest die-back and related conservation problems: $50,000
- Khami Ruins National Monument (Zimbabwe) for safeguarding work: $25,000
- Brazil: for training in the conservation and restoration of historic areas: $40,000
- China: as a contribution to the programme for the training of natural heritage conservation specialists: $30,000
- For a study tour in Côte d'Ivoire for African francophone students at the Montpellier training course on forest and fauna protection: $30,000
- Haiti: for training courses at the National History Park-Citadel, Sans Souci, Ramiers: $25,000
- Mexico: for the training of specialists responsible for the conservation of cultural sites included in the World Heritage List: $42,000
Ecuador, Quito: for the urgent work required for the consolidation of monuments damaged by the earthquake: $70,000
No draft Decision
Tanzania, United Republic of
View inscribed site documents, nomination file, reports, decisions, ...
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”).