SOC: Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu (Peru)
VII.29 Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu (Peru)
The Committee recalled that over the last three years the Committee and the Bureau examined the state of conservation of the Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu at several occasions, particularly with reference to adequate management arrangements and comprehensive master planning. It also recalled that the Committee and the Bureau had reiterated that no actions should be undertaken on the implementation of a cable car system, or to that effect any other major works, until an adequate master plan is in place.
In response to the concerns expressed by the Committee and the Bureau, the Government of Peru prepared, as a joint effort between several institutions, a Master Plan for the Sanctuary of Machu Picchu. This was adopted by the National Institute for Natural Resources (INRENA) and the National Institute for Culture (INC) at the end of October 1998 and received at the World Heritage Centre on 17 November 1998.
The Committee commended the Government of Peru for the actions it had taken to respond to the concerns expressed by the Committee and its Bureau, particularly the adoption of the Master Plan for the Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu. It requested IUCN and ICOMOS to undertake an in-depth examination of the Master Plan and to submit its findings to the twenty-third session of the Bureau in June/July 1999.
It requested the Peruvian authorities to transmit all relevant documentation and provisions with regard to the management structure and Master Plan for the Sanctuary, the cable car system (Environmental Impact Study, detailed plans etc.), as well as other works or projects that are or will be considered for implementation within the boundaries of the World Heritage site as soon as they become available, to the World Heritage Centre. This information will be reviewed by ICOMOS and IUCN and examined by the Bureau and/or the Committee.
The Committee furthermore requested the Bureau to consider at its twenty-third session whether it is appropriate for IUCN and ICOMOS to undertake a second mission to Peru to assess the implementation and effectiveness of the Master Plan, the project of the cable car system, the eventual hotel extension and other major works that may be planned. The Committee urged the Government of Peru not to take any decision on projects that could have considerable impact on the World Heritage values of the Park prior to a possible IUCN/ICOMOS mission. Prior consultations with the World Heritage Committee as recommended in paragraph 56 of the Operational Guidelines should also be envisaged.
Finally, the Committee commended the Finnish Government for its interest in the preservation of the Park and the implementation of a major debt-swap project to this effect.