Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu

• Delays in reviewing the Master Plan and developing detailed yearly operational plans, and inadequate budgetary support for effective implementation;
• No evaluation of transport options, related geological studies, or the impact of bus traffic on increasing the risk of landslides;
• Lack of impact studies related to the carrying capacity of the Citadel and Inca Trail;
• Delays in the development and implementation of a public use plan;
• Delays in implementing urban planning and control measures for Machu Picchu Village, the main point of entry to the property, which has impacted on the visual values of the property;
• Lack of effective management of the property;
• Lack of risk management plans related to natural disasters;
• Inadequate governance arrangements including lack of adequate coordination of activities between different institutions and stakeholders involved in site management;
• Uncontrolled visitor access to the western part of the Sanctuary, related to the construction of the Carrilluchayoc Bridge.

Total amount granted: USD 15,000 Extra-Budgetary Spanish FIT support for the social participation workshop requested by the World Heritage Committee (Decision 30 COM 7B.35). 

A report on the state of conservation of the property was submitted by the State Party on 31 January 2013. The report includes information about the actions taken in response to the recommendations made by the World Heritage Committee, as well as annexes that provide additional technical information on the studies and interventions carried out to date.

a)  International Support Panel

In 2010, the World Heritage Committee recommended that the State Party establish an International Support Panel to provide technical advice and support to the State Party, in order to address governance concerns and sustainable finance issues, to guide effective stakeholder involvement, to seek support for the implementation of the 2009 Emergency Action Plan, and to address the backlog of unaddressed management issues (Decision 34 COM 7B.42).

The International Support Panel was only established during the advisory mission to the property in May 2012. The 2012 Advisory mission to the property produced a detailed report on the assessment of conditions and identified recommendations and priority actions for interventions that, as with the 2009 Emergency Action Plan, are centred on these main aspects: participatory evaluation of management effectiveness, governance, planning of the western access, and risk management.

The State Party reports that several actions are being coordinated to implement the recommendations made by the 2012 Advisory mission. These include the updating of the Master Plan, the preparation of a Contingency Plan, the final approval of the new regulation of the Management Unit, improvements at the security check point in the western access of the Sanctuary, the finalization of the risk preparedness plan as well as the improvement of public information regarding risks in Machu Picchu Village and the updating and approval of tourist regulations. However, there are no indications in the report on the proposed timeframe for implementation or on budgetary provisions made to comprehensively implement them.

b)  Emergency Action Plan

The 2009 Action Plan, recommended by the Reinforced monitoring mission of January 2009, was agreed on and recommended for implementation in Decision 33 COM 7B.42. Since 2010, the State Party has not provided, in its state of conservation reports, an annotated report on the progress made in the implementation of the 2009 Action Plan. The 2012 Advisory mission noted that three key issues were not substantially addressed: the evaluation of management effectiveness, the planning of the western access and the touristic regulations. The priority intervention actions noted by the 2012 Advisory mission are consistent with those identified in 2009 for urgent implementation.

c)  Public use and urban planning

The State Party reports that the formulation of both planning tools is foreseen as part of the updating of the Management Plan, with terms of reference approved in September 2012. The updating will include 5 thematic roundtables including ones on public use, visitor management and Machu Picchu Integral and load capacities. The results from these will be integrated in the updated Plan.  Urban planning will be addressed jointly with the District Municipality of Machu Picchu.

The Advisory Mission noted that the 2000 Urban Plan was not implemented and that the lack of enforcement of existing regulations has allowed for chaotic developments to continue at Machu Picchu village which strongly contrasts with the natural values of the setting. 

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies note that updating the Management Plan for the property was also reported as a proposed action in 2011 and in 2012.  As in past years, there are no indications on how different tools will be articulated, how the proposed evaluation of management effectiveness will be used or the actual timeframe for the completion of the different processes to fully formulate the proposed planning tools.

d)  Western access to the property

The State Party reports that plans are being made to establish a full checkpoint to control the access of visitors, circulation of inhabitants and the creation of visitor facilities at the km 122-Hydroelectrical power plant. The State Party reports that these plans will allow for suitable premises for housing workers and offices for visitor control, with basic services and up to date communication technology. It reports that facilities should be operational within the coming months. It also reports that DRC-Cusco and SERNANP are scheduled to implement an improved controlled access system until the comprehensive strategy is developed and enforced to guarantee controlled entry on the western side, by virtue of an electronic ticket system and where information on the potential risks of the area will be available. In addition, three roundtable discussions have been undertaken to assess the potential extension of the railway line and the construction of a station outside the boundaries of the property that would include infrastructure for visitor services.

The Advisory Mission noted that the World Heritage Committee was not notified of new concessions for the hydroelectric installations in spite of their location within the buffer zone, which will affect the area in the immediate proximity of the property. This area is the most affected by landslides and by uncontrolled traffic and irregular access, issues that have increased alarmingly in the area. The mission further noted that, although the western access had been illegally opened in 2007, to date authorities have not closed the road nor have they planned or regulated its use for tourism nor for the hydroelectric installations. Measures implemented have provided patchwork solutions and the current situation is largely chaotic, with a variety of incompatible uses, and continues to pose a potential danger for visitors to the property. 

e)  Risk reduction and disaster recovery plans

The State Party reports that training courses on operational planning for disasters and risk management sites were carried out in December 2012. An assessment of current operational capacities has also been developed and the definition of basic content for the comprehensive risk management plan has been outlined. An emergency plan for the historic sanctuary, developed in 2012 by SERNANP, is included in the report which also has provisions concerning activity protocols for park rangers according to risks identified in different sectors with the objective of ensuring visitor safety and mitigating potential impacts in case of emergencies. As in past years, the State Party reports that brochures and posters have been printed for residents and visitors which indicate safety areas. The Municipality has been asked to ensure that the early warning system that was implemented in 2011 is fully operational, which was not the case when the 2012 Advisory mission visited the property. The report also mentions that studies on geological hazards have been updated, which will serve to develop a Monitoring Plan for risk areas.

The 2012 Advisory Mission noted that the vulnerability of the Machu Picchu village has notably increased in the past 20 years, particularly with the increase of construction in areas highly exposed to natural hazards. The mission considered that, although there is information on what to do in case of emergency, most escape routes do not lead to adequately prepared areas and some are even exposed to landslides themselves, evacuation routes are complicated and not clearly marked, and most of the safety areas marked on the ground do not match those indicated in the provided maps. The mission also analysed the different documents that had been produced to date and underscored that while there are many plans to mitigate and diminish threats and to guide responses in case of disaster risk, with varied conclusions and even contradictory recommendations, in practice there is limited implementation, as was illustrated by the 2010 floods and landslides. This confirms what was underscored in 2012 by the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies that to date no comprehensive disaster risk management plan has been fully developed or is currently in place.

f)  Governance, harmonization of legislative frameworks and enforcement of regulatory measures

The State Party reports that actions were undertaken to approve the modification and operation of the Management Unit for Machu Picchu (UGM) so as to have a clear regulatory framework for harmonisation of activities and for effective decision making. It is not clear if the proposal for regulations has been approved or when the UGM will be fully operational.

g)  Inventory of land ownership and regulatory measures for land use zones

In 2012, rural land registry was finalised and the State Party reports that there has been no increase in settlements and that subsistence agriculture continues to be the main landuse activity; the expansion of large settlements at the Huayllabamba sector has been controlled. Actions are foreseen to address pending land titles to ensure that critical areas become property of the State.

h)  Carrying capacity studies and guidelines for the Public Use Plan

The State Party reports that further studies are needed to establish a clear and unambiguous carrying capacity. The State Party stated that the 2,500 visitor number is respected although it recognises that the number is exceeded by 10 to 15% during holidays and other special dates. It should be recalled that the 2012 Advisory mission had access to the visitation statistics and reported that the figure of 2500 is very often exceeded, counting the Inca Trail visitors and other special visits. It is expected that within the update process for the management plan, an appropriate load capacity will be established and respected.

i)  Interventions related to the maintenance and conservation at the Citadel

Finally, the State Party also reports on maintenance and conservation activities implemented at the archaeological component of the property, in consideration of the institutional Operational Plan. A detailed report on research and conservation activities at the Citadel, including research on stone bio deterioration, structural consolidation of architectural structures, maintenance of Inca roads within the Sanctuary, and 3D topographic inventory of the archaeological monuments at the Citadel as a tool for conservation purposes, was provided. 

Since 1999, the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies have expressed their concern about the conditions that pose a threat to the Outstanding Universal Value of the property, and which have remained, for the past 14 years, largely unaddressed, with many proposed activities still at the planning stages or only partially implemented.

In 2009, the World Heritage Committee acknowledged these threats and adopted the Emergency Action Plan. In 2010, the Committee further reiterated the major natural and structural threats facing the property and recommended the establishment of an International Support Panel. It considered that both of these measures would provide a strong focus for action to address the threats to the Outstanding Universal Value of the property. The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies note that these two measures have so far not had the effect of reducing the threats to the property, as only a few of the Actions within the Emergency Plan have been implemented over the past six years.

The Advisory Bodies have analysed overall progress made with the implementation of the 2009 Action Plan, adopted as a crucial measure to systematically undertake actions to the backlog of pressing conservation and management concerns. It was envisaged that the 2009 Action Plan would be implemented over a period of three years to address the overall situation at the property and its vulnerabilities that collectively were seen to pose considerable threats that could impact irreversibly on the Outstanding Universal Value of the property and might also threaten the safety of visitors. Of the proposed five main issues to address (Statement of Outstanding Universal Value, management effectiveness, western access, risk management and governance) limited progress has been demonstrated and this pertains only to the development of the Retrospective Statement of Outstanding Universal Value and work for the establishment of the Management Unit for Machu Picchu (UGM) that, as noted beforehand, has yet to become fully operational and does not yet have the adequate regulatory framework for efficient decision-making.

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies further note that although the Advisory Mission of May 2012 made prioritised and budgeted recommendations, in line with the 2009 Emergency Plan, no precise action plan, with timeframes or costs, has been provided by the State Party so it is not clear when improvement of existing conditions can be anticipated. The International Support Panel was expected to assist the State Party in addressing unresolved issues, however to date its work has been limited and no indication is provided on how effective the collaboration mechanism has been.

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies also note that certain threats have increased since 2009. For instance, the growth of construction in areas highly exposed to natural hazards significantly increases the risk of landslides, unnatural erosion patterns and deterioration of the remarkable habitats for which the property was inscribed. Similarly, increasing visitor numbers are leading to an unsustainable situation. Other increasing negative factors are the lack of implementation of the 2000 Urban Plan, the lack of enforcement of existing regulations, and the resulting chaotic development at Machu Picchu village.

The Advisory Bodies consider that strong and decisive actions to address long-standing and persistent threats to the property, identified when the Emergency Plan was developed and the International Support Group was initiated, have yet to be implemented. The impacts of these factors have led to the deterioration of the natural environment and to the erosion of the conditions of integrity. It has also impacted on the longstanding harmonious and aesthetically stunning relationship between human culture and nature for which the property was inscribed, on the understanding of the visual ensemble that links the archaeological site with its setting, and on the land use planning that existed at pre-hispanic times. Together the underscored factors represent a clear potential danger to the integrity and Outstanding Universal Value of the property, in line with paragraphs 179 and 180 of the Operational Guidelines.

In view of the above considerations, the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies recommend that the World Heritage Committee request that the implementation of the identified measures is undertaken within the proposed timeframe. In the absence of compliance with this request within the proposed timeframe, the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies recommend the World Heritage Committee inscribe the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger at its 38th session.