jump to the content

State of Conservation (SOC)

Niokolo-Koba National Park (1987)

UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds
International Assistance granted to the property

Requests Approved: 0 (from1982-1986)
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
Missions**
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports

Road project; Poaching

Corrective Measures
Current conservation issues

IUCN's Regional Representative for West Africa recently conducted a field review of management of the park.

A report on requirements to strengthen the management and to prepare a proper plan has been forwarded to the Minister of Nature Protection. 

Conclusion

The Committee may wish to request that the Senegal Government inform the Secretariat on follow-up to this report.

Decision
  • Adopted

  • Draft Decision

11COMVIII.18
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).

 

No draft Decision

Niokolo-Koba National Park
State Party:
Senegal
Date of Inscription: 1981
Nomination records (Year): 1980
Category: Natural
Criteria: (x)
Threats*
Ground transport infrastructure
Illegal activities
Management systems/ management plan
Inscription on the Danger List
Year: 2007
Threats to the Site:

a)         Poaching;

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”).

** : All mission reports are not always available electronically.