State of Conservation (SOC)
Garamba National Park (1989)
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
Total Amount Ap proved: 174,120USD
|1988||Purchase of 2 vehicles to continue the activities of the ...||50,000 USD|
|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|
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
Poaching; Management issues
Current conservation issues
The joint project to rehabilitate this Park run by the Frankfurt Zoological Society/WWF/World Heritage Fund with IUCN cooperation has met with considerable success since no more rhinoceros have been poached in the last five years, the rhinoceros population has increased by 50% and a better management regime has been established.
The Park recently celebrated the 50th anniversary since its foundation.
The Bureau noted this situation with satisfaction and recommended that the property be re-examined in 1990: if the situation continued to show improvement, steps should be taken to initiate the removal of the site from the List of World Heritage in Danger.
IUCN, WWF and the Frankfurt Zoological Society are now looking at the next phase of the rehabilitation project maintaining vigilance on the poaching situation, preparing a management plan and looking into work outside the park along the lines of the MAB model. There may well be a request for further support from the World Heritage Fund. The situation will need close attention as the park contains the last viable natural population of square-lipped or northern rhinoceros whose population in 1988 was estimated at 21, up from 15 in 1984.
Link to the decision
Garamba National Park (Zaire)
The representative of Zaire thanked the Committee for its continued support for improving the protection and management of this site, which was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1984 due to the alarming reduction in the northern white rhinoceros population. The joint project by the Frankfurt Zoological Society, WWF and the World Heritage Committee had resulted in a promising recovery of these animals. The Committee accordingly recommended that the Zairois authorities should formally request the removal of this site from the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1990.
No draft Decision
Garamba National Park
Democratic Republic of the Congo
SOC Reports (year)2012
- Illegal activities
- Management systems/ management plan
- Other Threats:
Other Documents:View inscribed site documents, nomination file, reports, decisions, ...
SOC ID: 1590
Inscription on the Danger ListYear: 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”).