State of Conservation (SOC)
Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu (1987)
UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds
International Assistance granted to the property
Total Amount Ap proved:34,500USD
|1986||Support for associated training activities related to Machu Picchu||8,000 USD|
|1986||Financial support for the implementation of the management plan ...||26,500 USD|
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
Current conservation issues
A field review of the site was conducted by IUCN in cooperation with the Director of National Parks. Very serious impacts on the natural resources of this park were identified.These included dam construction, power line development, wild fires, agricultural encroachment and urbanization of valley bottom habitat.
Priority need is for a management plan which should be a cooperative effort of those responsible for both the natural and cultural heritage. World Heritage Funds for a park office and for training have been approved and the project has now commenced.
Analysis and Conclusion
The Government of Peru should be informed of concern of the Committee regarding management of this site and encouraged to submit a follow-up request for assistance from the World Heritage Fund if further support is required.
Link to the decision
18. The Committee requested its Chairman to write to the authorities concerned for the following natural sites mentioned in the IUCN document in order that progress reports could be submitted to the Committee at its next session: Western Tasmania National Parks (Australia); Mt.Nimba (Cote d'Ivoire/Guinea); Machu Picchu Historic Sanctuary (Peru); Niokolo-Koba National Park (Senegal); Selous Game Reserve (Tanzania).
No draft Decision
View inscribed site documents, nomination file, reports, decisions, ...
SOC Reports2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1994 1993 1987
Detailed List of SOC reports
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”).