State of Conservation
Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary
Factors affecting the property in 2007*
- Financial resources
- Human resources
- Invasive / alien freshwater species
- Livestock farming / grazing of domesticated animals
- Management systems/ management plan
- Subsistence hunting
- Water (rain/water table)
- Other Threats:
Salinisation of soils
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
a) Invasive species;
b) Systematic water management system not operational;
c) Lack of hydrological monitoring;
d) Salinisation of soils;
e) Cattle grazing;
g) Lack of management plan and sustained funding;
h) Poor management capacity and constant changes in staff;
i) Poor visitor management.
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2007
Requests approved: 7
Total amount approved : 249,607 USD
|2001||Support to African countries to attend Regional ... (Approved)||20,000 USD|
|2000||Lutte contre le Salvinia molesta dans le delta du ... (Approved)||130,475 USD|
|1998||2nd International Conference on Wetlands and ... (Approved)||20,000 USD|
|1992||Purchase of redwood and other materials for repairing ... (Approved)||10,000 USD|
|1988||Financial contribution to repair sluices in Djoudj ... (Approved)||20,000 USD|
|1982||Equipment for biological research and surveillance at ... (Approved)||29,132 USD|
|1980||Joint mission to draw up a plan of protection for ... (Approved)||20,000 USD|
Missions to the property until 2007**
UNESCO/IUCN/Ramsar mission in 2000 and 2001; UNESCO/IUCN mission in 2005; UNESCO and IUCN participation in multi-stakeholder workshop, April 2006.
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2007
On 17 February 2007, the State Party submitted a report on progress made in the implementation of the recommendations of the 2005 monitoring mission. The report covered the following areas:
a) Management Plan
The 2006-2008 Action Plan was completed in 2006 and includes a three-year budget. The State Party has received funding from the government of the Netherlands to improve the property’s southern track, for which topographic surveying has already taken place. The private company “Sahel Group” is waiting for the finalisation of the contract with the Ministry of the Environment to begin the restoration of the pelican nesting area. The State Party has also incorporated the priority actions of the Action Plan into the annual work plan and the Management and Scientific Committees have met in March 2007.
b) Park Management
Changes to personnel include three new guards, a new warden/curator, and plans to recruit more staff from the National Parks Administration to be involved in surveillance funded through the Ministry of the Environment. The biological station is increasing its research capacity with the increase of monitoring equipment and has organised a tagging campaign for aquatic warblers. GEF (Global Environment Facility) funded Park volunteers from the surrounding villages conducting patrols with Park officers. The warden coordinates and supervises these patrols, which are carried out regularly. The warden also organises, with the support of the Park volunteers, bird counts on the 15th of every month to monitor and identify seasonal bird variations.
c) Control of invasive species
The report noted that since May 2006, activities have been ongoing to control invasive vegetation in particular Tamarix senegalensis with a focus on unblocking the main waterways, particularly those flowing into the property. The focus for clearing invasive vegetation has been on the central waterways of the Djoudj, Thieguel, Khoyoye, and the water bodies of the Lacs Gainth, Khar and Grand Lac. The Park management carried out the removal of invasive plants with the support of local villagers who were supervised by the Park officers and funded through GIRMAC (Integrated Coastal and Marine Resource Management), an integrated marine and coastal ecosystem management programme, and strategic partner of the Park. GIVAQUE, an integrated invasive aquatic vegetation management project, funded by the African Development Bank, has identified Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary as one of its new intervention sites. The project is scheduled to start during the first quarter of 2007. In addition, a research project on Typha is planned to begin during 2007.
d) Water supply
The Park has produced a calendar for managing the water supply of the Sanctuary. The release of water through the sluices will be carried out with the assistance of the fishermen using an alert system to warn on the flood periods. It will be timed to coincide with the flood waters of the Senegal River. This water management mechanism should improve the migration of fish for breeding, and the availability of food for piscivorous birds. The water supply in the park has improved since the implementation of the water management initiatives particularly since the clearing of rushes having blocked the channels.
The World Heritage Centre and IUCN note that the State Party has made good progress in establishing management priorities and in addressing invasive species and water supply problems. However, as the invasive species Typha was one of the key reasons for listing on the List of World Heritage in Danger, the World Heritage Centre and IUCN request the State Party to provide more information on the status of managing Typha. The World Heritage Centre and IUCN urge the State Party to continue to provide financial support and seek additional funding for the ongoing management activities. The World Heritage Centre and IUCN also note that the State Party is working with GEF and that this partnership offers an opportunity for greater community engagement, particularly with regards to anti-poaching activities and raising public awareness. The RENPEM, Northern Network for the Protection of the Global Environment, helps to better coordinate the management and the activities in the protected area.
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2007
State of conservation of World Heritage Properties - Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary
The World Heritage Committee,
1.Having examined Document WHC-07/31.COM/7B,
2.Recalling Decision 30 COM 7A.11, adopted at its 30th session (Vilnius, 2006),
3.Welcomes the progress achieved by the State Party in implementing the priority actions requested by the Committee, particularly relating to water supply and invasive species;
4.Urges the State Party to continue to fund and seek additional funding to support the property, and to work closely with the GEF to promote good practices in management and in conservation activities;
5.Requests the State Party to provide the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2009, with an updated report on the state of conservation of the property, in particular on further progress made in the implementation of the Action Plan and in addressing the threats to the property for examination by the Committee at its 33rd session in 2009.
Draft Decision: 31 COM 7B.7
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined Document WHC-07/31.COM/7B,
2. Recalling Decision 30 COM 7A.11, adopted at its 30th session (Vilnius, 2006),
3. Welcomes the progress achieved by the State Party in implementing the priority actions requested by the Committee, particularly relating to water supply and invasive species;
4. Urges the State Party to continue to fund and seek additional funding to support the property, and to work closely with the GEF to promote good practices in management and in conservation activities;
5. Requests the State Party to provide the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2009, with an updated report on the state of conservation of the property, in particular on further progress made in the implementation of the Action Plan and in addressing the threats to the property for examination by the Committee at its 33rd session in 2009.
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”).