Take advantage of the search to browse through the World Heritage Centre information.

Niokolo-Koba National Park

Senegal
Factors affecting the property in 2016*
  • Drought
  • Ground transport infrastructure
  • Illegal activities
  • Invasive/alien terrestrial species
  • Livestock farming / grazing of domesticated animals
  • Mining
  • Translocated species
  • Water infrastructure
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
  • Poaching, capture and relocation of wildlife
  • Drying up of ponds and invasive species
  • Illegal logging
  • Livestock grazing
  • Road construction project
  • Potential dam construction
  • Potential mining exploration and exploitation
Threats for which the property was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger
  • Poaching
  • Livestock grazing
  • Dam construction project at Sambangalou
Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger

Adopted, see page https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/4087

Corrective Measures for the property

Adopted, see page https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/6232 

Timeframe for the implementation of the corrective measures

Adopted, see page https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/6232

International Assistance: requests for the property until 2016
Requests approved: 8 (from 1982-2015)
Total amount approved : 177,125 USD
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2016

On 4 February 2016, the State Party submitted a report on the state of conservation of the property, available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/153/documents/. The report contained the following information:

  • The surveillance mechanism has been reinforced with the recruitment of 25 technical agents. The capacity building of staff has been focused on training in the use of GPS and wildlife census;
  • Rehabilitation work continues to open up the network of trails including their signage, the repair of campsites and the updating of information boards. The opening up of trails in the area around Mount Assirik, that provides shelter to an important number of large wildlife is foreseen for 2016;
  • In 2015, the surveillance mechanism enabled control of all the strategic points of the property in the combat against illegal activities. 35 delinquents were arrested, including eight poachers and 22 gold prospectors;
  • The restoration of the ponds continues in the framework of the combat against the invasive species Mimosa pigra;
  • Four additional types of ecological monitoring have been introduced, including photographic traps, monthly monitoring using a vehicle, a monthly counting of mammals and birdlife at fixed locations and twice yearly censuses of off-road pedestrian trails. Observations made by the agents and visitors are also recorded;
  • The control of vehicles using the N°7 national road (N7) was maintained and reinforced with the increase of staff at the control posts of Niokolo and Diénoudiala;
  • The guard post at Mako benefited from an increase in staff from 5 to 10 agents and the allocation of three new motorcycles to strengthen the combat against gold prospecting in this sector;
  • The extraction of basalt in the Mansadala quarry inside the property continues;
  • Funding for the Sambangalou dam project has been settled. At the current stage of the project, the State Party does not foresee a specific impact study on the dam as regards the Outstanding Universal Value of the property. Other studies will take into account the compensatory measures of the property, if need be.

On 27 October 2015, the State Party submitted the report of the environmental and social impact study (ESIS) on the Mako gold prospection project.   

Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 2016

The efforts undertaken by the State Party in the implementation of the updated corrective measures adopted by the Committee at its 39th session (Bonn, 2015) should be warmly welcomed. However, the State Party report lacks detailed information regarding the implementation of some of these corrective measures, in particular the strengthening of the anti-poaching mechanism based on aerial measures (according to the means available), implementation of alternative measures for the ponds as watering points in the property, the development of grazing land and watering points in the village territories to minimize encroachment of livestock inside the property and the improvement of boundary marking of the property.

More details are still necessary concerning the ecological monitoring programme of the Park, to ensure suitability for the monitoring of indicators for the Desired State of Conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger (DSOCR).  Furthermore, this ecological monitoring programme must be integrated into the management plan of the Park, to be urgently updated and implemented. It is therefore recommended that the Committee request the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre the updated management plan, including a detailed ecological monitoring programme for examination by IUCN.

At the time of the 2015 mission, the State Party indicated that the permanent closure of the Mansadala basalt quarry, foreseen for September 2015, was delayed. Extraction activities continue today.  It is recommended that the Committee request the State Party to ensure the permanent closure of the quarry in conformity with the Committee request in its Decision 39 COM 7A.13 and the commitment undertaken by the State Party during the 2015 monitoring mission.

With regard to the Sambangalou dam project, the environmental impact studies (EIS) provided in 2010 indicate that this project would have important negative impacts on the OUV of the property including reduction of areas of forest galleries and Ronier Palm stands, fording of the river by large animals and the insufficient alimentation of water to the flood basins and ponds, as already noted by the 2010 mission. In view of the observation made by the 2015 mission concerning the continued drying up of the ponds, it is recommended that the Committee express its deep concern regarding the potential impacts of the said project and it reiterates its request to the State Party to assess the potential impacts of this project on the OUV of the property, and to submit a report of this study to the World Heritage Centre for examination by IUCN, prior to any decision regarding its implementation.

It is most regrettable that the State Party has provided no information on the current status of the gold prospection project at Mako. The ESIS of this project notes that no direct impact on the habitat inside the property is expected because the installation area of the project does not encroach on the property. However, IUCN reiterates the conclusion of the 2015 mission that the earlier studies carried out by the Society and its partners indicate that if the research permit is converted into an exploitation license, it could have direct important impacts on the OUV of the property, notably on the chimpanzees, lions, elephants and the Derby eland that have all been observed in the property, in the immediate vicinity of the project. It must be recalled that the chimpanzee uses the eastern part of the property as well as the area of the proposed project. As such, all loss of habitat in the area of the project would have a direct impact on these chimpanzees and therefore on the OUV of the property. The ESIS of the project wrongly classifies the permanent loss of the chimpanzee as an indirect impact. Moreover, indirect impacts of moderate importance are expected, notably the increase in the risk of poaching, gold prospection and fragmentation of habitats due to migration. The commitment of the Society to avoid, minimize and mitigate all impact of the project on the OUV of the property is commendable. However, it should be noted that any loss of OUV cannot be compensated. In the ESIS it is evident that the permanent loss of habitat of the chimpanzee is unavoidable if the research permit is converted into an exploitation license. The permanent loss of habitat of the chimpanzee, even outside the property, would therefore represent an additional degradation of its OUV, specifically concerning the conditions of integrity. It is thus recommended that the Committee request the State Party not to approve the project in its current conception, in conformity with the corrective measure adopted by the Committee at its 39th session, which requests the “prohibition of any extractive activity (…..) within the property, as well as outside of the property insofar as such an activity could have a negative impact on the Outstanding Universal Value of the property (OUV), including conditions of integrity”

Finally, it is recommended that the property be retained on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2016
40 COM 7A.46
Niokolo-Koba National Park (Senegal) (N 153)

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Document WHC/16/40.COM/7A.Add.2,
  2. Recalling Decision 39 COM 7A.13, adopted at its 39th session (Bonn, 2015),
  3. Warmly welcomes the efforts undertaken by the State Party in the implementation of the corrective measures, but considers that further efforts should be made to implement all the corrective measures updated at its 39th session;
  4. Also warmly welcomes the efforts undertaken with the realization of the environmental and social impact study (ESIS) of the gold prospection project at Mako, and takes note of the mitigation measures proposed for the identified negative impacts of the project;
  5. Notes with concern that the ESIS of the Mako project indicates that indirect impacts of moderate importance are expected, which may exacerbate existing issues such as poaching, illegal gold prospection and the fragmentation of habitat, and that the loss of the chimpanzee habitat outside the property will be permanent, for which no mitigation measures have yet been identified;
  6. Requests the State Party to provide information on the current status of the Mako gold prospection project;
  7. Also considers that the loss of chimpanzee habitat in the areas adjacent to the boundaries of the property represents a direct impact on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property, particularly with regard to conditions of integrity and would therefore risk further degradation of the recovering but fragile OUV;
  8. Noting the conclusions of the ESIS regarding the impacts of the Mako gold prospection project on the OUV of the property, in particular the permanent loss of chimpanzee habitat in areas near the boundaries of the property, also requests the State Party not to grant approval to the project in its current conception, in conformity with its Decision 39 COM 7A.13, which requests the prohibition of any extractive activity outside of the property insofar as such an activity could have a negative impact on the OUV of the property, including its conditions of integrity;
  9. Strongly urges the State Party to ensure that the ESIS is revised to take into account the above concerns, in order to identify an alternative design and location for the Mako project that will not have an impact on the OUV of the property;
  10. Also urges the State Party to ensure the permanent closure of the Mansadala basalt quarry by 2018, in accordance with the request of the Committee in its Decision 39 COM 7A.13;
  11. Expresses its deep concern as regards the potential impacts of the Sambangalou dam project on the OUV of the property, in particular the reduction of the areas of forest galleries and Ronier Palm stands in the property, river fording by large wildlife and insufficient water supply to the flood basins and ponds in the property, especially with regard to the continuing drying up of the ponds, and reiterates its request to the State Party to submit a specific study of the impacts of the Sambangalou dam project on the OUV of the property, in accordance with the “IUCN Advisory Note on World Heritage: an environmental assessment” prior to any decision on its construction, in conformity with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines;
  12. Further requests the State Party to urgently update and implement the management plan for the property, integrating the updated and detailed ecological monitoring programme, to enable monitoring of the indicators for the Desired state of conservation for removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger (DSOCR), and requests furthermore the State Party to provide an electronic version and three printed copies of the revised management plan to the World Heritage Centre and IUCN;
  13. Requests moreover the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2017, an updated report on the state of conservation of the property and the implementation of the above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 41st session in 2017;
  14. Decides to retain Niokolo-Koba National Park (Senegal) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
40 COM 8C.2
Update of the list of World Heritage in Danger (retained sites)

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined the state of conservation reports of properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger (WHC/16/40.COM/7A, WHC/16/40.COM/7A.Add and WHC/16/40.COM/7A.Add.2),
  2. Decides to retain the following properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger:
  • Afghanistan, Cultural Landscape and Archaeological Remains of the Bamiyan Valley (Decision 40 COM 7A.26)
  • Afghanistan, Minaret and Archaeological Remains of Jam (Decision 40 COM 7A.27)
  • Belize, Belize Barrier Reef Reserve System (Decision 40 COM 7A.32)
  • Bolivia (Plurinational State of), City of Potosí (Decision 40 COM 7A.1)
  • Central African Republic, Manovo-Gounda St Floris National Park (Decision 40 COM 7A.34)
  • Chile, Humberstone and Santa Laura Saltpeter Works (Decision 40 COM 7A.2)
  • Côte d'Ivoire, Comoé National Park (Decision 40 COM 7A.35)
  • Côte d'Ivoire / Guinea, Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Decision 40 COM 7A.36)
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo, Garamba National Park (Decision 40 COM 7A.37)
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kahuzi-Biega National Park (Decision 40 COM 7A.38)
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo, Okapi Wildlife Reserve (Decision 40 COM 7A.39)
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo, Salonga National Park (Decision 40 COM 7A.40)
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo, Virunga National Park (Decision 40 COM 7A.41)
  • Egypt, Abu Mena (Decision 40 COM 7A.9)
  • Ethiopia, Simien National Park (Decision 40 COM 7A.43)
  • Georgia, Bagrati Cathedral and Gelati Monastery (Decision 40 COM 7A.28)
  • Honduras, Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve (Decision 40 COM 7A.33)
  • Indonesia, Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra (Decision 40 COM 7A.48)
  • Iraq, Ashur (Qal'at Sherqat) (Decision 40 COM 7A.10)
  • Iraq, Hatra (Decision 40 COM 7A.11)
  • Iraq, Samarra Archaeological City (Decision 40 COM 7A.12)
  • Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls (site proposed by Jordan) (Decision 40 COM 7A.13)
  • Madagascar, Rainforests of the Atsinanana (Decision 40 COM 7A.44)
  • Mali, Timbuktu (Decision 40 COM 7A.6)
  • Mali, Tomb of Askia (Decision 40 COM 7A.7)
  • Niger, Air and Ténéré Natural Reserves (Decision 40 COM 7A.45)
  • Palestine, Birthplace of Jesus: Church of the Nativity and the Pilgrimage Route, Bethlehem (Decision 40 COM 7A.14)
  • Palestine, Palestine: Land of Olives and Vines – Cultural Landscape of Southern Jerusalem, Battir (Decision 40 COM 7A.15)
  • Panama, Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama: Portobelo-San Lorenzo (Decision 40 COM 7A.3)
  • Peru, Chan Chan Archaelogical Zone (Decision 40 COM 7A.4)
  • Senegal, Niokolo-Koba National Park (Decision 40 COM 7A.46)
  • Serbia, Medieval Monuments in Kosovo (Decision 40 COM 7A. 30)
  • Solomon Islands, East Rennell (Decision 40 COM 7A.49)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Ancient City of Aleppo (Decision 40 COM 7A.16)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Ancient City of Bosra (Decision 40 COM 7A.17)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Ancient City of Damascus (Decision 40 COM 7A.18)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Ancient Villages of Northern Syria (Decision 40 COM 7A.19)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Crac des Chevaliers and Qal’at Salah El-Din (Decision 40 COM 7A.20)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Site of Palmyra (Decision 40 COM 7A.21)
  • Uganda, Tombs of Buganda Kings at Kasubi (Decision 40 COM 7A.8)
  • United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City (Decision 40 COM 7A.31)
  • United Republic of Tanzania, Selous Game Reserve (Decision 40 COM 7A.47)
  • United States of America, Everglades National Park (Decision 40 COM 7A.50)
  • Venezuela, Coro and its Port (Decision 40 COM 7A.5)
  • Yemen, Historic Town of Zabid (Decision 40 COM 7A.23)
  • Yemen, Old City of Sana’a (Decision 40 COM 7A.24)
  • Yemen, Old Walled City of Shibam (Decision 40 COM 7A.25).
Draft Decision: 40 COM 7A.46

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Document WHC/16/40.COM/7A.Add,
  2. Recalling Decision 39 COM 7A.13, adopted at its 39th session (Bonn, 2015),
  3. Warmly welcomes the efforts undertaken by the State Party in the implementation of the corrective measures, but considers that further efforts should be made to implement all the corrective measures updated at its 39th session;
  4. Strongly regrets that the State Party has provided no information on the current status of the gold prospection project at Mako and notes with concern that the environmental and social impact study (ESIS) of the project indicates that indirect impacts of moderate importance are expected, such as the increase in the risk of poaching, gold prospection and the fragmentation of habitat, as well as the permanent loss of the chimpanzee habitat outside the property;
  5. Considers that the loss of chimpanzee habitat, even outside the property, represents a direct impact on the Outstanding universal value (OUV) of the property, particularly with regard to conditions of integrity and would therefore risk further degradation of the already fragile OUV;
  6. Requests the State Party not to grant approval to the gold prospection project at Mako in its current conception, in conformity with its Decision 39 COM 7A.13, which requests the prohibition of any extractive activity outside of the property insofar as such an activity could have a negative impact on the OUV of the property;
  7. Urges the State Party to ensure the permanent closure of the Mansadala basalt quarry by 2018, in accordance with the request of the Committee in its Decision 39 COM 7A.13;
  8. Expresses its deep concern as regards the potential impacts of the Sambangalou dam project on the OUV of the property, in particular the reduction of the areas of forest galleries and Ronier Palm stands in the property, river fording by large wildlife and insufficient water supply to the flood basins and ponds in the property, especially with regard to the continuing drying up of the ponds, and reiterates its request to the State Party to submit a specific study of the impacts of the Sambangalou dam project on the OUV of the property, in accordance with the “IUCN Advisory Note on World Heritage: an environmental assessment” prior to any decision on its construction, conformity with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines;
  9. Also requests the State Party to urgently update and implement the management plan for the property, integrating the updated and detailed ecological monitoring programme, to enable monitoring of the indicators for the Desired state of conservation for removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger (DSOCR), and further requests the State Party to provide an electronic version and three printed copies of the revised management plan for examination by the World Heritage Centre and IUCN;
  10. Requests furthermore the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2017, an updated report on the state of conservation of the property and the implementation of the above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 41st session in 2017;
  11. Decides to retain Niokolo-Koba National Park (Senegal) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Report year: 2016
Senegal
Date of Inscription: 1981
Category: Natural
Criteria: (x)
Danger List (dates): 2007-present
Documents examined by the Committee
SOC Report by the State Party
Report (2016) .pdf
arrow_circle_right 40COM (2016)
Exports

* : 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.


top