Historical Centre of the City of Arequipa
Factors affecting the property in 2012*
- Deliberate destruction of heritage
- Ground transport infrastructure
- Housing
- Management systems/ management plan
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
a) Lack of a Disaster Preparedness Plan;
b) Ongoing planned development projects which impact the Historic Centre, such as the planned construction of the ChilinaBridge;
c) Illegal demolitions involving historical buildings;
d) Urban sprawl.
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2012
Total amount approved : 75,000 USD
| 2001 | Consolidation and restoration of the Cathedral of ... (Approved) | 75,000 USD |
Missions to the property until 2012**
February 2000: ICOMOS Expert Mission; April/May 2008: World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS joint reactive monitoring mission.
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2012
The State Party submitted a report on the state of conservation of the property on 22 March 2012 that responds to the Decisions made by the World Heritage Committee.
a) Risk preparedness plan (RPP)
The report notes that the new administration of the Provincial Municipality of Arequipa which took office in January 2011 concluded that the developed document which was submitted in 2010 did not meet methodological standards. It therefore considered it necessary to update the document to include aspects pertaining to natural risks, as was requested by the World Heritage Committee at its 35th session (UNESCO, 2011). The Plan is in the process of being developed under the responsibility of the Urban Planning Management Unit of the Historical Centre Management Office, taking into consideration the legal framework established by the National System of Disaster Risk Management (SINAGERO) of 19 February 2011 and its related regulations of May 2011. The Plan is expected to be concluded July 2012.
b) Heritage Inventory
Work carried out until 2010 was evaluated and a decision was made to integrate new variables so that this can serve as baseline documentation for the Risk Management Plan and for updating the new Master Plan for the property. Thirty percent of data has been collected and processed (out of 10,000 buildings) and the catalogue of urban and architectural heritage will be undertaken in the second semester of 2012.
c) Boundaries of the property and buffer zone
The State Party indicates that there will be a new delimitation for the Historical Centre which will have only two polygons: the Historical Centre of the City of Arequipa, which will comprise the Historical Centre and the monuments area; and the monuments area of the District of Yanahuara, and the buffer zone. The report includes a draft ordinance for the new delimitation of the Historical Centre and the buffer zone. No timeframe for the expected approval of this ordinance is mentioned. Regarding the declaration of the ChilinaValley, the report notes that the Provincial Municipality of Arequipa has prepared an ordinance for the protection of the urban basin of the ChiliRiver, which will include the protection of the Andean Terraces of Chilina, Vallecito, Sachada and Tingo. The proposal has to be evaluated by the Ministry of Culture and regulated with specific zoning. No timeframe on the expected date for completion of this process was indicated.
d) Environmental Impact assessment for the Via Troncal Interconectora and Chilina Bridge
The State Party mentions that a Statement of Environmental Impact of the ChilinaBridge was prepared by the Regional Government of Arequipa. No updated information was included regarding the requests made by the World Heritage Committee at its 35th session. As for the evaluation of the ChilinaBridge by the Architectural Regional Technical Committee, the report notes that the current organization for the Ministry of Culture no longer incorporates this entity and that their functions now fall under the Direction of Colonial and Republican Historical Heritage. The report does not provide additional information on whether the proposals for the ChilinaBridge have been formally evaluated by the appropriate bodies.
e) Regulatory framework
The report notes the current legislations and measures applicable for the property and that a new Master Plan is being prepared. As noted above, no timeframe has been provided for the expected completion of this work.
Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 2012
The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies recommend that the Committee express its concern that no significant progress has been achieved by the State Party in the implementation of the recommendations of the 2008 reactive monitoring mission to the property and of the Decisions made by the World Heritage Committee at its past sessions. Although actions have been implemented on the conservation and restoration of some historical buildings, most requests remain at the planning stages and no timeframe for expected conclusion is provided. This situation hinders the possibility of holistically addressing pressing issues that have been highlighted since 2008. As for the ChilinaBridge, the Environmental Impact Assessment submitted is the same as that previously evaluated by ICOMOS in 2011. The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies also recommend that the Committee reiterate the need to carry out Environmental and Heritage Impact Assessments for all component parts that pertain to the Via Troncal Interconectora and that these should take into account not only the boundaries of the proposed buffer zone but also the defined setting and views, particularly considering elements that serve to convey the Outstanding Universal Value of the property.
Summary of the interventions
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2012
36 COM 7B.104
Historic Centre of the City of Arequipa (Peru) (C 1016)
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined Document WHC-12/36.COM/7B.Add,
2. Recalling Decision 35 COM 7B.132, adopted at its 35th session (UNESCO, 2011),
3. Takes note of the information provided by the State Party regarding work carried out at the property and expresses its concern that many of the required actions to ensure the holistic conservation and protection of the property have remained in planning stages since 2008;
4. Urges the State Party to implement the following activities:
a) Finalize the risk preparedness plan for the property and submit three printed and electronic copies to the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies for review by 1 February 2013,
b) Finalize the approval process for the delimitation of the property and its buffer zone, including the definition of adequate regulatory measures, such as Municipal Ordinances and zoning, to ensure its protection,
c) Finalize the process for updating the Master Plan for the property,
d) Submit the technical evaluation of the Chilina Bridge by the appropriate body at the Ministry of Culture;
5. Requests the State Party to officially submit to the World Heritage Centre by 1 February 2013, a request for the revised boundaries and proposed buffer zone of the property in accordance to Paragraphs 163-165 of the Operational Guidelines;
6. Reiterates its request to the State Party to conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment for the Via Troncal Interconectora project as a whole, including the assessment and potential mitigation measures for the landscape areas of Lari Lari, Los Tucos, Cayma and Yanahuara, and submit the assessment for review by the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies prior to the approval and implementation of the project;
7. Also requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2013, 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 37th session in 2013.
Draft Decision: 36 COM 7B.104
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined Document WHC-12/36.COM/7B.Add,
2. Recalling Decision 35 COM 7B.132, adopted at its 35th session (UNESCO, 2011),
3. Takes note of the information provided by the State Party regarding work carried out at the property and expresses its concern that many of the required actions to ensure the holistic conservation and protection of the property have remained in planning stages since 2008;
4. Urges the State Party to implement the following activities:
a) Finalize the risk preparedness plan for the property and submit three printed and electronic copies to the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies for review by 1 February 2013,
b) Finalize the approval process for the delimitation of the property and its buffer zone, including the definition of adequate regulatory measures, such as Municipal Ordinances and zoning, to ensure its protection,
c) Finalize the process for updating the Master Plan for the property,
d) Submit the technical evaluation of the ChilinaBridge by the appropriate body at the Ministry of Culture;
5. Requests the State Party to officially submit to the World Heritage Centre by 1 February 2013, a request for the revised boundaries and proposed buffer zone of the property in accordance to Paragraphs 163-165 of the Operational Guidelines;
6. Reiterates its request to the State Party to conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment for the Via Troncal Interconectora project as a whole, including the assessment and potential mitigation measures for the landscape areas of Lari Lari, Los Tucos, Cayma and Yanahuara, and submit the assessment for review by the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies prior to the approval and implementation of the project;
7. Also requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2013, 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 37th session in 2013.
Peru
* :
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.
