Take advantage of the search to browse through the World Heritage Centre information.

Chan Chan Archaeological Zone

Peru
Factors affecting the property in 2005*
  • Legal framework
  • Relative humidity
  • Water (rain/water table)
  • Other Threats:

    Risk of desintegration and destruction of structures, surfaces and decorative art

Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports

Urban development pressure through high-rise building project impacting on the visual integrity of the Cathedral as a landmark.

International Assistance: requests for the property until 2005
Requests approved: 5 (from 1987-1998)
Total amount approved : 118,700 USD
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2005

On 31 January 2005, the World Heritage Centre received from the State Party the state of conservation report describing the actions taken since 1999 by the Government and the National Institute of Culture (INC) to resettle the squatters in the archaeological zone of Chan Chan.  On 1 July 2004 Resolution No.  518 of 14 June 1967, which delimitates the protection zone of the archaeological site of Chan Chan, became National Law.  Furthermore, on 1 July 2004 Draft Legislation No.  3807 was approved and became Law No.  28261, which officially established the formation of a multi-sectorial Commission presided by the INC and comprising of the Regional Government of La Libertad, the Municipal Government of Trujillo and other stakeholders.  Its main objective is to take the necessary actions to relocate the farmers from the archaeological site.  The commission officially substitutes the previous task force created for the same purpose.  It was further explained that the constant vigilance of the police has avoided new invasions in this area.

On 9 November 2004, the World Heritage Centre received an Emergency Assistance request for US$ 100,000 for the site, which included a demand for funds to complete the emergency works started by the State Party in the previous year.  It also included a request for developing an international seminar and expert meeting concerning techniques to control the rise of the water level.  After evaluation, and on the advice of ICOMOS, it was decided to postpone the seminar for later re-consideration and give priority to the emergency works with a grant of US$ 30,000.

Additionally, the World Heritage Centre received an extended report explaining the results of the first phase of emergency actions undertaken in the archaeological complex.  These include a reduction of the water level inside the Huachaque of Tshudi Ceremonial Palace from 1.70m to 1.48m.  Today the water level continues to decrease.  The works also included the reinforcement and stabilization of the foundations and structures for the main buildings and the architecture surrounding the Huachaque of the Tshudi Ceremonial Palace.  All works were carried out combining the use of traditional materials and techniques, as well as new engineering skills.

ICOMOS also reviewed a progress report on the actions taken for the conservation of the property and commented that the hydrological problems at Chan Chan are now being tackled in a positive and systematic fashion.  It commended the State Party for the vigorous action that it is taking to protect and rehabilitate this World Heritage site.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2005
29 COM 7A.30
Chan Chan Archaeological Zone (Peru)

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-05/29.COM/7A,

2. Recalling its Decision 28 COM 15A.30, adopted at its 28th session (Suzhou, 2004),

3. Noting the comprehensive information on the state of conservation provided by the State Party,

4. Commends the State Party of Peru for the actions taken to protect and preserve the World Heritage property of Chan Chan Archaeological Zone, in particular the progress made with regard to reducing the water level at the property,

5. Requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2006, a report on the process of resettlement of illegal occupants and farmers from the property, as well as on the results obtained within the framework of the International Assistance provided under the World Heritage Fund, for examination by the Committee at its 30th session (Vilnius, 2006);

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

29 COM 8C.2
New World Heritage List in Danger

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined the of state of conservation reports of properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger (WHC-05/29.COM/7A and WHC-05/29.COM/7A.Add),

2. Decides to maintain the following properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger:

  • Minaret and Archaeological Remains of Jam (Afghanistan)(Decision 29 COM 7A.20)
  • Cultural Landscape and Archaeological Remains of the Bamiyan Valley (Afghanistan)(Decision 29 COM 7A.21)
  • Tipasa (Algeria) (Decision 29 COM 7A.16)
  • Walled City of Baku with the Shirvanshah's Palace and Maiden Tower (Azerbaijan) (Decision 29 COM 7A.28)
  • Royal Palaces of Abomey (Benin) (Decision 29 COM 7A.13)
  • Manovo-Gounda St Floris National Park (Central African Republic)(Decision 29 COM 7A.1)
  • Comoé National Park (Côte d'Ivoire) (Decision 29 COM 7A.2)
  • Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Côte d'Ivoire/Guinea) (Decision 29 COM 7A.3)
  • Okapi Wildlife Reserve (Democratic Rep. of the Congo) (Decision 29 COM 7A.5)
  • Kahuzi-Biega National Park (Democratic Rep. of the Congo) (Decision 29 COM 7A.5)
  • Virunga National Park (Democratic Rep. of the Congo) (Decision 29 COM 7A.5)
  • Garamba National Park (Democratic Rep. of the Congo) (Decision 29 COM 7A.5)
  • Salonga National Park (Democratic Rep. of the Congo) (Decision 29 COM 7A.5)
  • Abu Mena (Egypt) (Decision 29 COM 7A.17)
  • Simien National Park (Ethiopia) (Decision 29 COM 7A.4)
  • Cologne Cathedral (Germany) (Decision 28 COM 7A.29)
  • Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve (Honduras) (Decision 29 COM 7A.12)
  • Group of Monuments at Hampi (India) (Decision 29 COM 7A.22)
  • Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India) (Decision 29 COM 7A.9)
  • Bam and its Cultural Landscape (Islamic Republic of Iran) (Decision 29 COM 7A.23)
  • Ashur (Qal'at Sherqat) (Iraq) (Decision 29 COM 7A.18)
  • Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls (Jerusalem) (Decision 29 COM 7A.31)
  • Kathmandu Valley (Nepal ) (Decision 29 COM 7A.24)
  • Air and Ténéré Natural Reserves (Niger) (Decision 29 COM 7A.6)
  • Fort and Shalamar Gardens in Lahore (Pakistan) (Decision 29 COM 7A.25)
  • Chan Chan Archaeological Zone (Peru) (Decision 29 COM 7A.30)
  • Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras (Philippines) (Decision 29 COM 7A.26)
  • Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary (Senegal) (Decision 29 COM 7A.7)
  • Ichkeul National Park (Tunisia) (Decision 29 COM 7A.8)
  • Ruins of Kilwa Kisiwani and Ruins of Songo Mnara (United Republic of Tanzania) (Decision 28 COM 7A.15)
  • Everglades National Park (United States of America) (Decision 29 COM 7A.10)
  • Historic Town of Zabid (Yemen) (Decision 29 COM 7A.19)

Draft Decision: 29 COM 7A.30

The World Heritage Committee,

1.  Having examined Document WHC-05/29.COM/7A,

2.  Recalling its Decision 28 COM 15A.30,  adopted at its 28th session (Suzhou, 2004),

3.  Noting the comprehensive information on the state of conservation provided by the State Party,

4.  Commends the State Party for the actions taken to protect and preserve the World Heritage site of Chan Chan Archaeological Zone, in particular the progress made with regard to reducing the water level at the property,

5.  Requeststhe State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2006, a report on the process of resettlement of illegal occupants and farmers from the property, as well as on the results obtained within the framework of the International Assistance provided under the World Heritage Fund, for examination by the Committee at its 30th session in 2006;

6.  Decides to retain the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Report year: 2005
Peru
Date of Inscription: 1986
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (i)(iii)
Danger List (dates): 1986-present
Documents examined by the Committee
arrow_circle_right 29COM (2005)
Exports

* : 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”).

** : All mission reports are not always available electronically.


top