State of Conservation (SOC)
Niokolo-Koba National Park (1987)
UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds
International Assistance granted to the property
Requests Approved: 0
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
Road project; Poaching
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.
The Committee may wish to request that the Senegal Government inform the Secretariat on follow-up to this report.
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
- Ground transport infrastructure
- Illegal activities
- Management systems/ management plan
- Other Threats:
Other Documents:View inscribed site documents, nomination file, reports, decisions, ...
SOC ID: 1570
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”).