State of Conservation (SOC)
Huascarán National Park
UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds
International Assistance granted to the property
Requests Approved: 0
Total Amount Ap proved: 75,400USD
|1993||Training and awareness-raising activities for Huascaran National ...||20,000 USD|
|1989||Elaboration of a Master Plan for the Management of Huascaran ...||20,000 USD|
|1986||Support for associated training activities for park wardens of ...||5,300 USD|
|1986||Financial support for the implementation of the management plan ...||30,100 USD|
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
- Possible Bill in Congress to reduce the level of legal protection (issue resolved)
- Inappropriate tourism development proposals (issue resolved)
- Overgrazing by domestic sheep (issue resolved)
- Excessive burning (issue resolved)
- Poaching by the military (issue resolved)
- Low financial resources (issue resolved)
- Cultural resources inventory of the site needed (issue resolved)
- New road proposal connected to mining activities
Current conservation issues
Twenty-second session of the Committee – pages 98 and 99 of Annex IV.
Twenty-third ordinary session of the Bureau – Chapter IV.37
New information: At its twenty-third session, the Bureau encouraged the State Party to give high priority to the preparation and implementation of a restoration programme and to submit a request for technical assistance. The Bureau further encouraged the State Party to give priority attention to implement key actions as proposed by IUCN and to provide regular progress reports on its implementation, including progress achieved in the implementation of key priorities identified by the working group established on the use of the Pachacoto-Yanashallay road. The Bureau requested the State Party to submit the first of these reports by 15 September 1999 and IUCN and the Centre to prepare a mission to be carried out in 2000. IUCN commends the State Party for seeking solutions to minimise the impacts on the Park from the temporary use of the central road, but considers that further review of this issue should await the provision of information from the State Party. No further information was provided by the State Party at the time of the preparation of this document.
Analysis and Conclusion
Link to the decision
X.28 The Committee noted the decisions of the twenty-third extraordinary session of the Bureau as reflected in the Report of the Bureau session (Working Document WHC-99/CONF.209/6) included as Annex VIII to this report. Additional observations made during the Committee session are reflected below.
Shark Bay, Western Australia (Australia)
Wet Tropics of Queensland (Australia)
Heard and McDonald Islands (Australia)
The Delegate of Australia thanked IUCN for the consultative process started, which could be a model for other State Parties. He also informed the Committee that the area of marine protection around Macquerie Island had been extended and now comprises 16 million ha, the world's largest highly protected marine zone.
Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest (Belarus/Poland)
Dja Faunal Reserve (Cameroon)
Los Katios National Park (Colombia)
The Delegate of Colombia informed the Committee that a visit by a delegation from the Ministry for Environment to Los Katios was recently carried out. The visit included areas that were previously not accessible. He emphasized that the proposal to grant collective land ownership over 100,000ha would be outside the Park in the buffer zone. He commented that his Government would be pleased to receive the visit of the monitoring mission to this site in 2000. The Colombian authorities have enhanced transboundary co-operation with Darien National Park (Panama) and strengthened the protected area system.
Morne Trois Pitons National Park (Dominica)
Galapagos Islands (Ecuador)
The Observer of the United States underlined his Government's role in safeguarding Galapagos Islands and congratulated the Government of Ecuador on progress made. He noted the landmark decision of the Galapagos Law and questioned whether it had been implemented, in particular concerning the forty-mile zone. The Secretariat informed the Committee that some threats related to illegal fishing have been reported. IUCN noted the implementation of this pioneering legislation is vital and specific regulations need to be developed and implemented as soon as possible. The Delegate of Ecuador provided information from the Ministry of Environment noting progress concerning control of introduced species and general improvements in relation to biodiversity conservation at the site. Concerning the control of the 40-mile zone, she stated that the law has not yet been implemented, but that the basis for the conservation and environmental control is there. She thanked the Committee for all its efforts to safeguard the Galapagos.
Kaziranga National Park (India)
Komodo National Park (Indonesia)
Mount Kenya National Park (Kenya)
Sagarmatha National Park (Nepal)
The Observer of Nepal expressed his gratitude for the international support for the important project on tourism carried out at Sagarmatha National Park. The Observer of the United Kingdom noted that it is a ground-breaking project.
Te Wahipounamu - South West New Zealand (New Zealand)
Arabian Oryx Sanctuary (Oman)
The Delegate of Thailand noted the raised serious concerns raised by the Bureau regarding the management of this site, given the decline in numbers of the Arabian Oryx and the fact that the boundary marking and management planning is long overdue for completion. He recalled that the Committee inscribed the site without legislation and management plan in December 1994. He highlighted the Operational Guidelines in relation to the deletion of properties. The Delegate of Benin noted that rigour was not always applied in the past years and that a number of sites would not have been accepted if they were presented today. Concerning the question of deletion, a site would be put first on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Delegate of Thailand made it clear that he had not proposed the deletion of the site from the World Heritage List and that he was totally aware of the modalities in that respect. The Observer of the United Kingdom noted that similar problems concerned a number of sites and that these issues would certainly be dealt with by the periodic reporting process. IUCN pointed out that it had consistently raised concerns about this site. IUCN noted that legislation does not have effect if there is not sufficient resources for its implementation. The Chairperson reminded the Committee members about the rarity of Arab natural sites on the List. In concluding, the Chairperson thanked the Committee for the debate and noted that awareness needs to be raised in countries about the World Heritage Convention, its obligations and World Heritage values to be preserved for future generations, in particular among decision-makers. He thanked the Delegate of Thailand for his statement and encouraged the Committee to further reflect on how to enhance the protection of World Heritage sites.
Huascaran National Park (Peru)
Lake Baikal (Russian Federation)
The Observer of Russia requested that the information provided during the adoption of the report of the twenty-third extraordinary session of the Bureau on this site be included in the Bureau report.
Bwindi Impenetrable Forest (Uganda)
Gough Island (United Kingdom)
Ngorongoro Conservation Area and the Serengeti National Park (United Republic of Tanzania)
Canaima National Park (Venezuela)
Ha Long Bay (Vietnam)
Mosi-oa-Tunya/Victoria Falls (Zambia/Zimbabwe)
The Bureau, in the light of up-to-date information on the situation to be provided at the time of its twenty-third extraordinary session, may take decisions and make recommendations as appropriate. It may wish to encourage the State Party to invite a mission to the site in 2000 to prepare a report for the twenty-fourth session of the World Heritage Bureau.
Huascarán National Park
- Effects arising from use of transportation infrastructure
- Ground transport infrastructure
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”).