State of Conservation (SOC)

Garamba National Park (1986)

Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger
UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds
International Assistance granted to the property

Requests Approved: 0 (from1980-1986)
Total Amount Ap proved: 124,120USD

1986 Purchase of equipment for the project to protect the rhinoceros ...   20,000  USD
1985 Equipment for the project to protect the rhinoceros population in ...   20,000  USD
1985 Contribution to the project for to rescue the white rhinoceros, ...   25,000  USD
1983 Equipment for rescue programme for white rhino and elephants in ...   40,000  USD
1980 Equipment for Garamba National Park   19,120  USD
Missions**
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports

Poaching

Corrective Measures
Current conservation issues

Progress reports have been received from the project officers and the Zaire representative will provide further details at the Committee meeting.

The rhino population has stabilised at 17 animals, but there remain serious problems in management (for example, late payments of staff salaries).

Conclusion
Decision
  • Adopted

  • Draft Decision

10COMIX.A.14-15
Link to the decision

14. As in previous years, IUCN reported on the conservation of natural properties inscribed on the World Heritage List and the List of World Heritage in Danger. An information document (CC-86/CONF.003/INF.4) prepared by IUCN presented up-to-date information on some 16 natural properties.

15. The Committee was glad to learn of improvements or of a stabilisation in the previously deteriorating situation of certain properties, notably Djoudj National Park (Senegal), Ngorongoro Conservation area (Tanzania) and Garamba National Park (Zaire) (all inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger). Improvements were also noted for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Australia), Pirin National Park (Bulgaria), Manas Tiger Reserve (India), Niokolo Koba National Park (Senegal) and Aldabra Atoll (Seychelles). The Committee requested IUCN to keep it informed of the conservation status of Iguazu and Los Glaciares National Parks (Argentina), Mt. Nimba (Guinea/Côte d'Ivoire) and Ichkeul National Park (Tunisia).

 

10BURIX..27
Link to the decision

Bulgaria

Provision of a photogrammetric camera and two additional items for the photometer already supplied for the surveying of Bulgarian World Heritage properties. The Bureau recommended that the Committee grant $25,000 under the technical cooperation budget for 1987.

 

Malawi - Lake Malawi National Park

Purchase of equipment (boats, radios, tents) to strengthen the protection of the park. The Bureau was informed that this request had been reviewed and was to be submitted to the Chairman of the World Heritage Committee as a 'small-scale' technical cooperation request for $19,800 under the 1986 budget. The Bureau also took note that this amount is added to a national counterpart contribution and to support from IUCN/WWF.

 

Turkey - Istanbul

The Bureau recommended that the Committee approve the requests for $12,000 for training activities in wood stone conservation and for $10,000 for the creation of a laboratory for wood conservation. The Bureau requested that the Turkish authorities supply a detailed list of the equipment component with clear indications of priorities.

 

Yugoslavia - Monuments of Ohrid

The Bureau recommended that the Committee approve the request for $20,000 for equipment for the control of microclimatic conditions and for the conservation of paintings of the monuments of Ohrid.

 

ICCROM

The Bureau recommended the allocation of $24,500 under the 1987 technical cooperation budget as a contribution to the organization of the 7th International Course on the Technology on Stone Conservation to be held in Venice from 28 April to 27 June 1987. This contribution would in particular enable fellows from developing countries to participate.

 

Zaire - Garamba National Park

The Bureau recalled that, at its ninth session, the Committee approved a request for US$20,000 under 'Emergency assistance' for Garamba National Park. It had furthermore authorized the Bureau to approve an additional amount of US$20,000 under technical cooperation for this property subject to the receipt of an appropriate request. On 28 May 1986, the Zairain authorities submitted such a request for the purchase of equipment up to an amount of US$20,000 for the continuation of this project.

The Bureau therefore approved the allocation of US$20,000 under 'small-scale' technical co-operation.

No draft decision proposed

Garamba National Park
State Party:
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Date of Inscription: 1980
Nomination records (Year): 1979
Category: Natural
Criteria: (vii)(x)
Danger List: Yes
Threats*
Illegal activities
Management systems/ management plan
Inscription on the Danger List
Year: 1996
Threats to the Site:

The Garamba National Park was inscribed again on the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1996 for the following reasons: 

a)         Increased poaching;

b)         Pressure linked to the civil war, thereby threatening the flagship species of the property.

Year: 1984 -1992
Threats to the Site:

The Garamba National Park was listed for the first time on the List of World Heritage in Danger between 1984 and 1992 due to a serious decline in the population of white rhinos. With the success of the measures taken by the World Heritage Committee, IUCN, WWF, the Frankfurt Zoological Society and the national authorities, the rhino population has increased from an alarming  total of five specimens to thirty-five animals and the site was removed from the List of World Heritage in danger at the sixteenth session of the Committee in 1992.



* : 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.