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

Manovo-Gounda St Floris National Park

Central African Republic
Factors affecting the property in 2012*
  • Civil unrest
  • Identity, social cohesion, changes in local population and community
  • Illegal activities
  • Livestock farming / grazing of domesticated animals
  • Mining
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
  • Insecurity;
  • Poaching;
  • Mining;
  • Transhumance and illegal grazing;
  • Illegal fishing;
  • Illegal occupation of the property.
Threats for which the property was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger
  • Illegal grazing;
  • Uncontrolled poaching by heavily armed groups and subsequent loss of up to 80% of the Park’s wildlife;
  • Deteriorating security situation and a halt to tourism.
Corrective Measures for the property
Timeframe for the implementation of the corrective measures
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2012
Requests approved: 4 (from 2001-2012)
Total amount approved : 225,488 USD
Missions to the property until 2012**

May 2001 and April 2009: joint World Heritage Centre/IUCN reactive monitoring missions. 

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2012

The State Party submitted a brief report on the state of conservation of the property on 1 February 2012. The report emphasized the willingness and political commitment for the restoration of the site, but mentions that implementation of the corrective measures is difficult due to the collateral effects of the Darfour conflict in Sudan and the recent positioning of the Ugandan rebels of the “Lord Resistance Army” (LRA) in the region. It also notes that the implementation of the project North-east Wildlife Ecosystems of the DRC (ECOFAUNE), funded by the European Union is underway and that a new project is included in the framework of the ECOFAC V programme dedicated to the protection of protected areas, covering the property and its boundaries, is soon to commence. Unfortunately, the report does not indicate if these different projects have foreseen activities intended to implement the corrective measures for the restoration of the property.

a) Restructuring of the Park management, for a simple and effective organization specifically dedicated to the property

The report makes no mention of a restructuration of the management of the Park. It simply indicates that the updating procedure of the Wildlife Protection Code commenced in 2009 is on course and notes that a network of local management associations of the Village Hunting Zones (VHZ) has been established since 2010.

b) Strengthening of supervisory staff to ensure the main management missions (planning, surveillance, ecological monitoring, administration, logistics)

The report makes no mention of the strengthening of supervisory staff.

c) Increase in number and training of operational staff, essentially concerned with surveillance during this transition period, with support at the outstart from the armed forces

The report makes no mention of support to surveillance staff. It underlines insufficient means for air surveillance. It indicates that the Central African Armed Forces intervened in support of the tracker guards and that equipment was provided to the teams in the protected areas in the north-east.

d) Functional zoning of the Park with a priority intervention zone to conserve to the maximum the components conveying the Outstanding Universal Value of the Park (mileu and fauna)

The report mentions that a mapping of the Park was carried out in 2010 and has determined a new configuration. The World Heritage Centre and IUCN regret that no information has been provided on the eventual effects of this new configuration on the management of the property. The World Heritage Centre and IUCN recall that the management strategy for the protected areas of the north-east call for a zoning of the property with a central core surrounded by a belt of VHZ. It would therefore have been useful that the State Party report include the map of this zoning, without which it is difficult to assess its impact on the status of protection of the property.

e) An action plan targeting the restoration of security and tranquility in this priority zone

No information is provided on the Action Plan aiming to restore security and tranquility. Nevertheless, the report mentions the conduct of joint armed/guard missions as well as the provision of military equipment. The report also notes that a Disarmament, Demobilisaton and Reinsertion Programme (DDR) has been implemented in the northern region, but does not give any details regarding its impact on the security situation of the property. It also mentions the organization of a workshop on rural conflicts linked to the exploitation of natural resources in the northern region, without giving other details. As mentioned above, the report indicates the continuation of insecurity problems and the new threat linked to the presence of the LRA rebels.

f) A provisional budget adapted to these priorities, limited to the most necessary, to initiate at the outset of this phase a reflection on sustainable management

The report gives no information on this subject.

g) A plan to counteract the crisis to be initiated in parallel, through concertation with the different protogonists, in particular from Chad and Sudan

The report gives no information on this subject. Moreover, the State Party mentions the report of the Chad Republic-Central Africa-Sudan Mixed Commissions as being among the difficulties encountered in the implementation of the corrective measures.

The World Heritage Centre and IUCN indicate however that the State Party has made a request for International Assistance to hold a workshop to prepare an emergency plan for the property. This International Assistance request is currently being studied by the World Heritage Centre and IUCN and comments shall be transmitted to the State Party in order to process this request.

Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 2012

As mentioned in the preceding report, the World Heritage Centre and IUCN consider that based on the ECOFAC/MIKE aerial inventories of 2010, the property has lost its Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) and integrity, and therefore meets the criteria for removal from the World Heritage List. However, there still remains a potential for the regeneration of the OUV of the property based on the relict pockets of biodiversity and exchanges with neighbouring zones and that this potential is very fragile. Therefore, they note that this should be confirmed by a detailed inventory followed by a reactive monitoring mission.

The World Heritage Centre and IUCN note that based on the report submitted, it is not possible to conclude whether progress has been achieved in the implementation of the corrective measures. They draw the World Heritage Committee’s attention to the information gathered by IUCN from various experts who agree in describing an extremely critical situation in the state of conservation of the property (illegal activities, uncontrolled transhumance, corruption, poverty, insecurity).

The World Heritage Centre and IUCN reiterate the importance of the urgent implementation of the corrective measures and recommendations contained in Decisions 34 COM 7A.1 and 35 COM 7A.1, notably the preparation of an emergency action plan to safeguard the OUV of the property within a priority zone of reduced size, and seek funding for its establishment. They welcome the request for International Assistance to organize the workshop to develop this action plan and consider that this workshop should be organized without delay. They recommend that during the workshop, discussions should include the feasibility of regenerating the OUV of the property under the present conditions of insecurity.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2012
36 COM 7A.1
Manovo Gounda St. Floris National Park (Central African Republic) (N 475)

The World Heritage Committee,

1.  Having examined Document WHC-12/36.COM/7A,

2.  Recalling Decision 35 COM 7A.1, adopted at its 35th session (UNESCO, 2011),

3.  Thanks the State Party for the confirmation of its political willingness to restore the property, but notes the absence of concrete information in the State Party report, on the implementation of the corrective measures and their impact on the safeguarding of the property;

4.   Expresses its strong concern regarding the continuation of insecurity problems in the property due to the collateral effects of the Darfour conflict in Sudan, but also the recent positioning of the Ugandan rebels of the “Lord Resistance Army” (LRA);

5.  Reiterates its extreme concern with regard to the probable disappearance of almost all the flagship species of large mammals in the property due to poaching and the impact of transhumance cattle, which could bring to question the Outstanding Universal Value for which the property was inscribed;

6.  Takes note of the fact that there remains a potential, but a very fragile one, for regeneration of the populations of wildlife from the relic pockets of biodiversity adjacent to the property;

7.  Strongly urges the State Party to prepare an emergency action plan based on the corrective measures adopted by the Committee at its 33rd session (Seville, 2009) and the orientations described in the conclusion of the present report;

8.  Warmly welcomes the request for International Assistance to organize a workshop to develop an action plan and considers that the workshop should discuss the feasibility of regenerating the Outstanding Universal Value of the property under the present conditions of insecurity and should be urgently organized in cooperation with the World Heritage Centre and IUCN;

9.  Calls upon the States Parties of Chad and Sudan to cooperate in the preparation of a common conservation strategy, combat poaching and the management of transhumance;

10.  Requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2013, a detailed report on the results of the workshop and preparation, funding and implementation of the management emergency plan for the safeguarding of the Outstanding Universal Value of the property, as well as a report on the implementation of the corrective measures adopted, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 37th session in 2013;

11.  Decides to continue to apply the Reinforced monitoring mechanism to the property;

12.  Also decides to retain the Manovo-Gounda St Floris National Park (Central African Republic) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

36 COM 8C.2
Establishment of the World Heritage List in Danger (Maintained Properties)

The World Heritage Committee,

1.   Following the examination of the state of conservation reports of properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger (WHC-12/36.COM/7A and WHC-12/36.COM/7A.Add),

2.   Decides to maintain the following properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger:

    • Afghanistan, Minaret and Archaeological Remains of Jam (Decision 36 COM 7A.25)
    • Afghanistan, Cultural Landscape and Archaeological Remains of the Bamiyan Valley (Decision 36 COM 7A.26)
    • Belize, Belize Barrier Reef Reserve System (Decision 36 COM 7A.15)
    • Central African Republic, Manovo-Gounda St Floris National Park (Decision 36 COM 7A.1)
    • Chile, Humberstone and Santa Laura Saltpeter Works (Decision 36 COM 7A.33)
    • Colombia, Los Katíos National Park (Decision 36 COM 7A.16)
    • Côte d'Ivoire, Comoé National Park (Decision 36 COM 7A.2)
    • Côte d'Ivoire / Guinea, Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Decision 36 COM 7A.3)
    • Democratic Rep. of the Congo, Virunga National Park (Decision 36 COM 7A.4)
    • Democratic Rep. of the Congo, Kahuzi-Biega National Park (Decision 36 COM 7A.5)
    • Democratic Rep. of the Congo, Garamba National Park (Decision 36 COM 7A.6)
    • Democratic Rep. of the Congo, Salonga National Park (Decision 36 COM 7A.7)
    • Democratic Rep. of the Congo, Okapi Wildlife Reserve (Decision 36 COM 7A.8)
    • Egypt, Abu Mena (Decision 36 COM 7A.20)
    • Ethiopia, Simien National Park (Decision 36 COM 7A.9)
    • Georgia, Bagrati Cathedral and Gelati Monastery (Decision 36 COM 7A.30)
    • Georgia, Historical Monuments of Mtskheta (Decision 36 COM 7A.31)
    • Honduras, Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve (Decision 36 COM 7A.17)
    • Indonesia, Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra (Decision 36 COM 7A.13)
    • Iraq, Ashur (Qal'at Sherqat) (Decision 36 COM 7A.21)
    • Iraq, Samarra Archaeological City (Decision 36 COM 7A.22)
    • Islamic Republic of Iran, Bam and its Cultural Landscape (Decision 36 COM 7A.27)
    • Jerusalem, Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls (Decision 36 COM 7A.23.I)
    • Madagascar, Rainforests of the Atsinanana (Decision 36 COM 7A.10)
    • Niger, Air and Ténéré Natural Reserves (Decision 36 COM 7A.11)
    • Peru, Chan Chan Archaelogical Zone (Decision 36 COM 7A.34)
    • Senegal, Niokolo-Koba National Park (Decision 36 COM 7A.12)
    • Serbia, Medieval Monuments in Kosovo (Decision 36 COM 7A.32)
    • United Rep. of Tanzania, Ruins of Kilwa Kisiwani and Ruins of Songo Mnara (Decision 36 COM 7A.19)
    • Uganda, Tombs of Buganda Kings at Kasubi (Decision 36 COM 7A.18)
    • United States of America, Everglades National Park (Decision 36 COM 7A.14)
    • Venezuela, Coro and its Port (Decision 36 COM 7A.35)
    • Yemen, Historic Town of Zabid (Decision 36 COM 7A.24)
Draft Decision: 36 COM 7A.1

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-12/36.COM/7A,

2. Recalling Decision 35 COM 7A.1, adopted at its 35th session (UNESCO, 2011),

3. Thanks the State Party for the confirmation of its political willingness to restore the property, but notes the absence of concrete information in the State Party report, on the implementation of the corrective measures and their impact on the safeguarding of the property;

4. Expresses its strong concern regarding the continuation of insecurity problems in the property due to the colateral effects of the Darfour conflict in Sudan, but also the recent positioning of the Ugandan rebels of the “Lord Resistance Army” (LRA);

5. Reiterates its extreme concern with regard to the probable disappearance of almost all the flagship species of large animals in the property due to poaching and the impact of transhumance cattle, which could bring to question the Outstanding Universal Value for which the property was inscribed;

6. Takes note of the fact that there remains a potential, but a very fragilde one, for regeneration of the populations of wildlife from the relic pockets of biodiversity adjacent to the property;

7. Strongly urges the State Party to prepare an emergency action plan based on the corrective measures adopted by the Committee at its 33rd session (Seville, 2009) and the orientations described in the conclusion of the present report;

8. Warmly welcomes the request for International Assistance to organize a workshop to develop an action plan and considers that the workshop should discuss the feasibility of regenerating the Outstanding Universal Value of the property under the present conditions of insecurity and should be urgently organized in cooperation with the World Heritage Centre and IUCN;

9. Calls upon the States Parties of Chad and Sudan to cooperate in the preparation of a common conservation strategy, combat poaching and the management of transhumance;

10. Requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2013, a detailed report on the results of the workshop and preparation, funding and implementation of the management emergency plan for the safeguarding of the Outstanding Universal Value of the property, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 37th session in 2013;

11. Decides to continue to apply the reinforced monitoring mechanism to the property;

12. Also decides to retain the Manovo-Gounda St Floris National Park (Central African Republic) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Report year: 2012
Central African Republic
Date of Inscription: 1988
Category: Natural
Criteria: (ix)(x)
Danger List (dates): 1997-present
Documents examined by the Committee
arrow_circle_right 36COM (2012)
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