State of Conservation
Ngorongoro Conservation Area
(United Republic of Tanzania)
Factors affecting the property in 1988*
- Financial resources
- Management systems/ management plan
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
Shortcomings in the management
International Assistance: requests for the property until 1988
Requests approved: 10
Total amount approved : 158,850 USD
|1988||Purchase of 2 vehicles (one tipper truck and one 4x4 ... (Approved)||50,000 USD|
|1988||Contribution to the purchase of associated spare parts ... (Approved)||10,000 USD|
|1987||Purchase of a Land Rover for anti-poaching activities ... (Approved)||17,500 USD|
|1987||Participation of a specialist from Ngorongoro ... (Approved)||4,000 USD|
|1987||Additional costs of equipment for Ngorongoro ... (Approved)||2,000 USD|
|1986||Equipment to strengthen the protection of Ngorongoro ... (Approved)||20,000 USD|
|1980||Additional financial assistance for the preparation of ... (Approved)||7,000 USD|
|1979||Financial grant for establishment of a management plan ... (Approved)||24,950 USD|
|1979||12-month fellowship in law/administration for ... (Approved)||18,000 USD|
|1979||Drawing up by an architect-museologist of a project for ... (Approved)||5,400 USD|
Missions to the property until 1988**
Information presented to the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee in 1988
The general situation of this site had greatly improved. Equipment had been made available through the World Heritage Fund and IUCN was working to strengthen policy, planning and training activities for the site with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism of Tanzania. The Bureau requested the Secretariat to contact the Tanzanian authorities with a view to removing this site from the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 1988
First of all, the Committee's attention is drawn to the fact that the Tanzanian authorities, by letter of 27 September 1988, have requested that the Ngorongoro Conservation Area be maintained on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Conditions under which this area was threatened are now greatly improved. Equipment has been made available through the World Heritage Fund and IUCN is working to strengthen policy, planning and training activities with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism.
Steps to remove the area from the Danger list have been initiated.
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 1988
12 BUR VII.14
State of conservation
14. The representative of IUCN reported on the status of three natural sites, two of which are inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, as follows:
Manu National Park (Peru): A commercial discovery of natural gas had beenmade next to the park and further exploration work was imminent. This work would bring in many workers and settlers next to the western boundary of the park and could result in encroachments and associated problems. The Bureau requested the Secretariat to contact the Peruvian authorities and to seek* further explanation.
Djoudj National Park (Senegal): The water supply to this park which wasmodified by dam construction was now being assured by a sluice which had been built with the support of the World Heritage Fund. A management plan was also under preparation with funds from WWF. Although there was still a need to improve the management of this site, the Bureau recognized that the main threats were under control and requested the Secretariat to contact the Senegalese authorities with a view to removing this site from the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Ngorongoro Conservation Area (Tanzania): The general situation of this sitehad greatly improved. Equipment had been made available through the World Heritage Fund and IUCN was working to strengthen policy, planning and training activities for the site with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism of Tanzania. The Bureau requested the Secretariat to contact the Tanzanian authorities with a view to removing this site from the List of World Heritage in Danger.
12 COM X.A
SOC: Ngorongoro Conservation Area (Tanzania)
1) Ngorongoro Conservation Area (Tanzania)
The Committee was glad to be informed that the conservation status of this property had greatly improved but that the Tanzanian authorities had requested that it be maintained on the List of World Heritage in Danger, particularly in view of the continued threat of poaching. The Committee agreed to maintain this property on the List of World Heritage in Danger but expressed the wish that it be removed from this List in 1989.
12 COM XIII.58-59
Requests for International Assistance
58. The Committee
noted that the Bureau had examined in detail the requests presented in document SC-88/CONF.001/6 and /6.Add ;
noted that a number of modifications for certain requests had been received by the Secretariat since the document had been prepared;
also noted that the requests from Algeria, Ecuador, Sri Lanka and Zaire had already been recommended for approval by the previous Bureau at its twelfth session in June 1988.
59. In accordance with the procedures for granting international assistance set out in the Operational Guidelines adopted by the Committee (WHC/2 Revised, December 1988), the Committee approved the following requests:
A. Technical cooperation
1) Tassili N'Ajjer (Algeria)
Equipment and a financial contribution to improve visitors' services and protection of the cultural and natural heritage: $53,000
2) Sao Miguel das Missoes (Brazil)
Financial contribution for the inventory of the documentation on the site: $10,000
3) Talamanca-La Amistad (Costa Rica)
Equipment and financial contribution for strengthening the conservation of the Pacific sector of the site: $30,000
4) Galapagos Island (Ecuador)
Purchase of 2 boats for strengthening the protection of the site: $54,000
5) Temple of Apollo Epicurius at Bassae (Greece)
Purchase of a portable micro-earthquake monitoring system for the Temple of Apollo Epicurius at Bassae (also for use at other Greek World Heritage properties): $30,000
6) Bahla Fort (Oman)
Financial contribution to works and training for safeguarding the property: $50,000
7) Anuradhapura, Polonnaruva and Sigiraya (Sri Lanka)
Equipment for conservation and restoration of monuments (see also training below): $25,500
8) Ngorongoro Conservation Area (Tanzania)
2 vehicles (one tipper truck and one 4x4 pick-up) for constructions aimed at strengthening anti-poaching measures: $50,000
9) Durmitor National Park (Yugoslavia)
Purchase of equipment to investigate the causes of the decline in the size of population of some birds species and tree death (N.B. the Yugoslav authorities are encouraged to undertake this work as appropriate in cooperation with WMO concerning research on air pollutants. Following the work in Durmitor, all efforts should be made by the Yugoslav authorities to make the specialized equipment purchased under the Fund available for other World Heritage properties in the region. Finally, the Yugoslav authorities are requested to provide a report to the Secretariat on the use of all the research equipment provided under the Fund for this project): $38,000
10) Garamba National Park (Zaire)
2 vehicles to continue the activities of the WWF/Frankfurt Zoological Society/World Heritage consortium to combat poaching: $50,000
11) Virunga National Park (Zaire)
Equipment to improve protective measures in the Park: $40,000
B. Training activities
Training component of the technical cooperation request for the cultural triangle (n°7 above): $33,500
International Course on the Technology of Stone Conservation (ICCROM)
Financial contribution to cover costs of the participation of fellows from developing countries which are States Parties to the Convention: $37,500
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”).