1.         Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu (Peru) (C/N 274)

Year of inscription on the World Heritage List  1983

Criteria  (i)(iii)(vii)(ix)

Year(s) of inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger  N/A

Previous Committee Decisions  see page http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/274/documents/

International Assistance

Requests approved: 0 (from 1986-2001)
Total amount approved: USD 166,625
For details, see page http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/274/assistance/

UNESCO Extra-budgetary Funds

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). 

Previous monitoring missions

April, 2007: World Heritage Centre/IUCN/ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring mission; January 2009: World Heritage Centre/IUCN/ICOMOS reinforced monitoring mission; February 2010: World Heritage Centre technical emergency mission; May 2012: World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS/IUCN technical Advisory mission.

Factors affecting the property identified in previous reports

Illustrative material  see page http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/274/

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2015

On 16 May 2014, the State Party submitted a progress report and on 6 February 2015, a report on the state of conservation of the property, a summary of the latter is available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/274/documents. On 17 April 2015, the State Party submitted additional information on the updated progress on the implementation of the recommendations requested by the Committee. The following information is provided in the reports:

Analysis and Conclusions of the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies

Although significant progress is reported by the State Party, most of the deadlines requested by the Committee in Decision 37 COM 7B.35 have not been met and the results of the reported actions on the effectiveness of the management and the conservation of the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) remain to be demonstrated.

Despite the Committee’s request to harmonize legislative frameworks, the State Party considers that existing legislation is appropriate and emphasizes that the Executive order 003-2011-MC provides for the integrated management of the property. The matter of sanctions for damage both to the cultural and the natural heritage has been appropriately addressed by the State Party.

The update of the Master Plan was concluded in December 2014, approved by the UGM and approved by the Ministry of Culture. However, this was done without previously conducting a management effectiveness assessment, which was requested by the Committee.

The operation of the Western Access is foreseen in the updated Master Plan. Although there are some advances in the development of a Site Plan, several other actions are still in the planning phase, including the elaboration of a comprehensive strategy for the Western Access.

While the Carrying Capacity Study and the Public Use Plan have only partially been completed, other concrete actions are progressing and may not be in synergy with the future Public Use Plan, specifically: the call for the “Architectural Ideas Competition for Interventions in Machu Picchu National Archaeological Park” and the study of the exit ramp that would run parallel to the entry and control ramp. The reported expansion of the Hydroelectric Power Plant requires an in-depth analysis of potential impact, including on the OUV of the property.

Although the State Party has made notable efforts in addressing the requests of the Committee, and has stressed its commitment to finalize some key issues, more work is needed to ensure that adequate processes are in place to address the considerable challenges and threats facing the property.  Progress remains piecemeal with no robust over-arching structure that has the capacity to draw stakeholders together in a concerted way.

It is unclear what obstacles have so far prevented adequate progress being made – in spite of a clear Action plan, many missions and clear guidance by the Committee. Considering that there has been some progress, but that the requests of the Committee have not been met, the Committee could consider inscription of the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger at its 39th session.  However the World Heritage Centre and Advisory Bodies consider that one further year of coordinated effort, with particular support from ICOMOS and ICCROM regarding cultural attributes, should be requested to seek to achieve implementation of the Committee’s decisions.  In view of the above considerations, and the still remaining potential threats to the integrity and OUV of the property, it is suggested that focused technical support should be offered to the State Party, in order to consider how obstacles might be overcome, and foster a momentum that might lead to a sustainable outcome. It is further suggested that the State Party put in place a workshop before the end of October 2015, via an Advisory mission, to assist this process. It is further suggested that a joint World Heritage Centre/Advisory Bodies Reactive Monitoring mission be undertaken in 2016 to review progress.

It is recommended that the Committee request the State Party to submit a report on the state of conservation of the property, for examination by the Committee at its 41st session in 2017, at which time the Committee might address whether satisfactory progress has been made to address the concerns raised, or whether consideration of inscription of the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger is warranted.

Decision Adopted: 39 COM 7B.36

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Document WHC-15/39.COM/7B,
  2. Recalling Decision 37 COM 7B.35 adopted at its 37th session (Phnom Penh, 2013),
  3. Welcomes the efforts made by the State Party towards the implementation of a number of recommendations of the Committee but considers that insufficient progress has been made over the past six years to address the considerable challenges and threats facing the property;
  4. Also considers that further technical support is needed in order to consider how obstacles might be overcome, and foster a momentum that might lead to a sustainable outcome;
  5. Urges the State Party to implement, in line with the proposals of the Emergency Plan 2009 and the Revised Action Plan 2012, all pending actions defined in previous Committee decisions, as a matter of priority, including:
    1. Harmonize legislative frameworks and strengthen governance arrangements for the property,
    2. Develop a comprehensive strategy for the Western Access before implementing actions that lead to the consolidation of this access,
    3. Undertake the Management Effectiveness Assessment in the framework of the approval process of the Management Plan,
    4. Finalize the Public Use Plan in line with the provisions of the Master Plan, including the definition of the carrying capacity for the Sanctuary and its components, and Machu Picchu Village,
    5. Finalize the Urban Plan Scheme for Machu Picchu Village;
  6. Recommends the State Party to invite, as a matter of priority, an Advisory mission with the participation of the World Heritage Centre and Advisory Bodies, in the form of a workshop with national and local authorities, to seek finalization of pending actions mentioned above, and recommends that this mission takes place before the end of October 2015;
  7. Requests the State Party to invite a joint World Heritage Centre/Advisory Bodies Reactive Monitoring mission, early in 2016, to assess the progress made in the implementation of pending measures as noted above;
  8. Also requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2016 a progress report on the implementation of the above measures and by 1 December 2016, an updated report, including a 1-page executive summary, on the state of conservation of the property and the implementation of the above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 41st session in 2017, with a view to considering, in the case of the absence of substantial progress in the implementation of the above, the inscription of the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.