1.         ManĂº National Park (Peru) (N 402bis)

Year of inscription on the World Heritage List  1987

Criteria  (ix)(x)

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/402/documents/

International Assistance

Requests approved: 0 (from 1987-1993)
Total amount approved: USD 80,000
For details, see page http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/402/assistance/

UNESCO Extra-budgetary Funds

Total amount provided to the property: USD 28,750 (Rapid Response Facility - RRF)

Previous monitoring missions

N/A

Factors affecting the property identified in previous reports

a) Agricultural encroachment;

b) Cattle ranching;

c) Deforestation/ Illegal logging;

d) Hydrocarbon concesssions. 

Illustrative material  see page http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/402/

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2008

The State Party submitted its report with maps on 30 April 2008 (in Spanish).  The report argues that pressures within the park are minor, as are those emanating from human activities located near the south western and south eastern park boundaries. It indicates that management effort has been strategically directed at those areas in greatest need (Ajcanaco-Boca Manu and Tayacome-Yomibato inside Manu National Park, and Mapacho-Yavero and Pilcopata-Alto Madre de Dios in the buffer zone of the Biosphere Reserve). Activities include over flights, patrols, land use plans, and sustainable development and environmental education projects, though no information is provided in relation to how these activities have helped control the threats.

The State Party report does not provide information on any potential or real threats that may be associated with nearby hydrocarbon concessions, though it does provide a map which clarifies that concession number 76, previously suspected of overlapping with property boundaries, does not in fact do so. IUCN has received reports that hydrocarbon concessions and infrastructure developments in the region have affected the livelihoods of indigenous people and rural communities, pushing some of these to migrate to the Manu National Park, leading to increased pressure on the property.

The State Party submitted an updated map of the property to the World Heritage Centre, as the one in the original nomination (1987) was of low resolution and imprecise. However, the report makes reference to the Manu National Park and the Biosphere Reserve, but in the map, the latter’s boundaries are not clearly indicated, and as a result, there remains room for doubt as to the location of exact property boundaries.

In 2002, the State Party extended the National Park, indicating that it had increased its surface area by over 14% (from 1,500,757 ha to 1,716,292 ha). The original nomination file indicated a total surface area of 1,532,802 ha. Although it appears likely that this discrepancy is due to the application of better technologies in measuring surface areas, formal confirmation from the State Party is required. The map provided by the State Party does not indicate the location of the extensions, and though the report provides an overall description of the property’s values and management, it does not clearly differentiate between the part inscribed in 1987, and the proposed extension.

The State Party also notes that plans are in place for managing the property: management plan (plan maestro); plan of tourism use – regulations in the sector of the Manu river; plan of the tourist area of the Manu river; anthropological plan (under revision); and a proposed contingency plan to deal with indigenous peoples living in voluntary isolation. However copies of these plans were not submitted with the report.

The property benefits from significant international assistance – including from the Frankfurt Zoological Society (FZS), the German KfW (Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau) and the European Union. The FZS has supported the preparation of a work plan to improve protection of the National Park. This effort has been complemented with USD 28,750 of the UNESCO – WHC / Fauna and Flora International Rapid Response Facility, which have been used for over flights, capacity building and emergency actions to address cases of illegal logging, workshops and special patrols. An aerial inspection in 2007 noted that indigenous people have crossed the river and opened up new cultivations within the south-eastern limit of the park. Incursions along the eastern boundary have been in dispute until recently due to imprecise delimitation of the boundary.

IUCN has learned that chainsaws have been distributed by community leaders and used for illegal logging and land clearing within the property, underlining a need for increased awareness raising, community outreach and collaborative management. Incidents of illegally extracted wood have been reported around Tono, Palotoa, and Diamante. Lumber felled inside the park has been reported to be transported on waterways, to Shintuya and other points along the road Pilcopata-Shintuya, and from there by trucks to Cuzco.

Increased presence of strangers and assaults of tourists have been reported to IUCN, coinciding with a reported increase of coca plantations in the buffer zone in the southeast of the park. It has become dangerous for outsiders to venture into the area of the Cosñipata Valley, especially around the village of Patria.

Analysis and Conclusions of the World Heritage Centre and IUCN

N/A

Decision Adopted: 32 COM 7B.39

The World Heritage Committee,

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

2. Recalling Decision 31 COM 7B.41, adopted at its 31st session (Christchurch, 2007),

3. Regrets that the State Party did not submit its state of conservation report in one of the two languages of the Convention (French and English);

4. Requests that the State Party provide an updated high resolution map of the World Heritage property clearly indicating the original boundaries as per the 1987 nomination dossier, and explaining the discrepancy between the surface area indicated in the original nomination dossier, and the current value of the property's surface area and the area being proposed for extension;

5. Invites the State Party to submit a request for boundary modification, including a precise map illustrating lands proposed for extension, and encourages the State Party to consult with the World Heritage Centre on statutory requirements for preparing and submitting such request;

6. Notes with concern continued reports of threats to the conservation and integrity of the property, including incidents of deforestation, agricultural encroachment, invasion and insecurity;

7. Requeststhe State Party, in consultation with the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies, to develop a draft Statement of Outstanding Universal Value including the conditions of integrity, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 33rd session in 2009;

8. Also requests the State Party to provide the World Heritage Centre by 1 February 2010 with a report on the state of conservation, including full details on the reported threats and any other potential threats directly and indirectly affecting the integrity of the property, along with management's response to these threats, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 34th session in 2010.