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
At its twenty-second session, the Bureau was informed that a Canadian/Peruvian mining consortium was in the final stages of obtaining approval to develop one of the world's largest copper and zinc deposits found at Antamina, located 20 km east of this Park. Mining will commence in 2001 and proceed for 20 years. The Bureau noted that the concentrates may be transported from the mining site to the coast, either via a Central Road that traverses the Park, or an alternative Southern Road encircling the Park. The mining company had agreed to use the Southern Road, which is outside the Park, but traverses the buffer zone of the Huascaran World Heritage site and the Biosphere Reserve. No EIA has been carried out for the use of the Southern Road so far. The Central Road would, however, be used for bringing heavy equipment to the mining area for approximately one year, until the construction of a by-pass along the Southern Road is completed to allow for the transport of such equipment along that road. IUCN underlined the importance of monitoring all impacts of the use of the Central Road during the one-year period. The Bureau took note of the different options for accessing the mining area and the preference of INRENA to use the Southern Road. The Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to collaborate with the State Party to control impacts of the temporary use of the Central Road through the Park until the Southern Road becomes fully operational.
In November 1998 the Bureau was informed that a «Working Group» on the management of the site had been established by INRENA and representatives from the IUCN Office in Peru had participated in its meetings. This «Working Group» on the management of the site, particularly to oversee the use of the Central Road, will work independently from the Antamina Mining Company and will invite local participation. Antamina has confirmed that it will complete the construction of the bypass along the Southern Road by July 1999, provide traffic estimates and expressed an interest in the use of the Central and Northern Roads for vehicles transporting personnel.
The Bureau, while commending the Government of Peru for establishing a «Working Group», was however concerned over the permanent use of the Central and Northern Road for the transport of the mine personnel.
IUCN noted that the Antamina Mining Project is progressing rapidly and that there is renewed discussion of developing a pipeline for mineral transport. No specific route has been chosen for the pipeline. However, it poses another serious potential environmental threat to the Park. NGOs have raised their strong concerns with IUCN about the effectiveness of the «Working Group» and have encouraged the fielding of an IUCN/UNESCO mission to the site to ascertain current status and to derive clear recommendations to the Committee and the Bureau. IUCN informed the Bureau of the efforts of the State Party in examining solutions to minimise impacts of the road through the Park. The key issue is increased visitation associated with the road and IUCN recommended the preparation of a visitor management plan for the Park. The reports from the State Party indicate areas for immediate restoration and also key issues that need attention. These provide an excellent basis for a prioritised action plan. Considering uncertainties expressed recently about the impact and the use of the Central Road, IUCN recommended a joint IUCN/Centre mission to the site, noting at the same time that not all missions recommended by the Bureau could be carried out in 1999.
The Director of INRENA provided, via letter of 9 June 1999, two information documents: (a) on the temporary use of the Pachacoto-Yanashallay Route across Huascaran National Park (November 1998 to May 1999) and (b) information on the Working Group, prepared by the Mountain Institute (1 June 1999). Both have been transmitted to IUCN for review.
The Observer of Peru stated that her Government is trying to minimize all impacts related to the use of the Central Road and that by the end of the month the new road may be in use. She welcomed the proposal of the Bureau to field a mission and reiterated her Government’s will to work closely with UNESCO and IUCN to protect the very special natural resources of the site. She also informed the Bureau that a glaciology unit has been created in INRENA, to prevent any threat to the highest mountains, which have permanent snow.
Following the review of the new information provided, the Bureau acknowledged the efforts by the State Party and recognised the willingness of authorities in seeking solutions to minimise the impacts on the Park from the temporary use of the Central Road. 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 furthermore 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 1999/2000.
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”).