1.         Chan Chan Archaeological Zone (Peru) (C 366)

Year of inscription on the World Heritage List  1986

Criteria  (i)(iii)

Year(s) of inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger   1986-present

Threats for which the property was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger

Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger

The State Party is preparing a proposed Desired state of conservation that will be submitted to the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies.

Corrective measures identified

a) Full and systematic implementation of the management plan: Secure sustainable funding, abide by prescribed courses of action and policies, adhere to prescribed institutional arrangements, for the conservation, presentation and revalorization of the property;

b) Enforce legislative and regulatory frameworks already passed by the State Party to address the issues of illegal occupations and activities at the property. Collaborate with pertinent authorities for the relocation of settlers;

c) Broad dissemination of the management plan amongst interest groups to strengthen public and private support in its implementation;

d) Collaboration with allied entities in defining regulatory measures for the management of the buffer zone and of the World Heritage Property. Precise plans of the property and its zoning need to be circulated amongst stakeholders;

e) Physical delineation of the property: vegetation barriers, perimeter walls, etc.;

f) Priority conservation measures: control and mitigation of water table levels, conservation of perimeter walls, backfilling of fragile areas with decorated surfaces;

g) Development of an emergency and disaster preparedness plan.

Timeframe for the implementation of the corrective measures

a) Secured funding for the implementation of the management plan in 2008;

b) Functioning institutional arrangements in 2008 (as per management plan);

c) Illegal occupations addressed and activities at the site regulated in 2009 and beyond;

d) Emergency and risk preparedness plan in 2008;

e) Drainage works completed by the end of 2007;

f) Priority conservation works in 2009;

g) Other conservation and maintenance works 2008 and beyond;

h) Management and coordination of works carried out by other sectors in the buffer zone in 2008 and beyond.

Previous Committee Decisions  see page http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/366/documents/

International Assistance

Requests approved: 0 (from 1987-1998)
Total amount approved: USD 118,700
For details, see page http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/366/assistance/

UNESCO Extra-budgetary Funds

N/A

Previous monitoring missions

1997: ICOMOS mission; 2007: World Heritage Centre / ICOMOS and ICCROM mission 

Factors affecting the property identified in previous reports

a) Continuous deterioration of earthen architecture structures and decorated surfaces from lack of conservation and maintenance practices;

b) Illegal occupation of the property;

c) Unregulated farming activities;

d) Rising water table levels;

e) Delay in implementing protective measures (legislation and regulations already passed by the National Authorities).

Illustrative material  see page http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/366/

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2008

The World Heritage Centre received the State Party’s report on 7 February 2008, which details the progress made in implementing part of the decision taken by the World Heritage Committee at its 31st session (Christchurch, 2007) and some of the recommendations of the 2007 reactive monitoring mission . These are:

a) Full and systematic implementation of the management plan: Secure sustainable funding, abide by prescribed courses of action and policies, adhere to prescribed institutional arrangements, for the conservation, presentation and revalorization of the property:

The State Party has created a specific unit (Unidad Ejecutora 110) for the implementation of the management plan. It has allocated USD 3,300,000 in 2007 for the emergency phase and has secured a budget of USD 1,667,000 for 2008. It is foreseen that this considerable budget will continue for the next five years, so if adequately implemented it should allow a better state of conservation to be achieved.

b) Enforce legislative and regulatory frameworks already passed by the State Party to address the issues of illegal occupations and activities at the property. Collaborate with pertinent authorities for the relocation of settlers:

The National Institute of Culture (INC) has continued with defence actions and coordinated with partner agencies for the recovery of the site. Regulatory measures prescribed in Law No. 28261 have yet to be approved (they have been pending for several years). Until the Law is in force, it is not possible to proceed with the relocation of illegal occupants at the property.

c) Broad dissemination of the management plan amongst interest groups to strengthen public and private support in its implementation:

The State Party reports that the implementation unit has carried out a series of exhibitions and conferences to disseminate conservation endeavours. The National Institute of Culture has widely distributed the master plan´s executive summary and the full text in digital format and has also set into its context every activity implemented at the site.

d) Collaboration with allied entities in defining regulatory measures for the management of the buffer zone and of the World Heritage property. Precise plans of the property and its zoning need to be circulated amongst stakeholders:

The National Institute of Culture has worked on strengthening collaboration with different municipalities associated to the site. Progress has been made in coordinating regulatory measures for the buffer zone, in accordance with objectives and principles set out in the master plan. This will be included in the updated version of the Metropolitan Development Plan for Trujillo. The boundaries for the property have been revised and a new georeferenced plan is now in final revision stages.

e) Physical delineation of the World Heritage property: vegetation barriers, perimeter walls, etc.:

Progress has been made in this respect, particularly the restoration of the perimeter walls.

f) Priority conservation measures: control and mitigation of water table levels, conservation of perimeter walls, backfilling of fragile areas with decorated surfaces:

Interventions have been carried out in two phases: an emergency one where most pressing matters were addressed, including mitigation of water table levels, vegetation cleaning, amongst others, and a post–emergency phase, currently taking place, where actions prescribed in the management plan are now being implemented. This is expected to improve the situation assessed during the 2007 reactive monitoring mission where inappropriate projects were being implemented, including the excavation and exposure of new areas.

g) Development of an emergency and disaster preparedness plan:

No progress has been reported on this recommendation.

 

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies remain concerned at the extent and degree of the interventions and the limited numbers of specialized technical personnel to supervise widespread conservation activities. It is critical that capacity building and technical training is considered inherently in the implementation of projects. The implementation unit should also consider a broad technical participatory decision-making process, particularly enforcing collaboration between archaeologists, conservators and architects.

Analysis and Conclusions of the World Heritage Centre, ICOMOS and ICCROM

N/A

Decision Adopted: 32 COM 7A.29

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-08/32.COM/7A,

2. Recalling Decision 31 COM 7A.30, adopted at its 31st session (Christchurch, 2007),

3. Notes the progress made by the State Party in implementing some of the corrective measures identified;

4. Remains concerned that protective legislation for the property is still not officially approved and in force and that the management plan has not been fully implemented;

5. Requests the State Party, in light of the new tourism pressures, to incorporate into the management plan, an approach to public use and visitor management;

6. Reiterates its request to the State Party to develop, in consultation with the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies, a draft Statement of Outstanding Universal Value including the conditions of integrity and authenticity, and a proposal for the Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 33rd session in 2009;

7. Also requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2009, a report on the progress made in implementing the corrective measures for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 33rd session in 2009;

8. Decides to retain Chan Chan Archaeological Zone (Peru) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.