Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu
Factors affecting the property in 1987*
- Land conversion
- Major linear utilities
- Management systems/ management plan
- Water infrastructure
- Other Threats:
International Assistance: requests for the property until 1987
Total amount approved : 34,500 USD
|1986||Support for associated training activities related to ... (Approved)||8,000 USD|
|1986||Financial support for the implementation of the ... (Approved)||26,500 USD|
Missions to the property until 1987**
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 1987
A field review of the site was conducted by IUCN in cooperation with the Director of National Parks. Very serious impacts on the natural resources of this park were identified.These included dam construction, power line development, wild fires, agricultural encroachment and urbanization of valley bottom habitat.
Priority need is for a management plan which should be a cooperative effort of those responsible for both the natural and cultural heritage. World Heritage Funds for a park office and for training have been approved and the project has now commenced.
Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 1987
The Government of Peru should be informed of concern of the Committee regarding management of this site and encouraged to submit a follow-up request for assistance from the World Heritage Fund if further support is required.
Summary of the interventions
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 1987
11 COM VIII.18
Requested Progress Reports
18. The Committee requested its Chairman to write to the authorities concerned for the following natural sites mentioned in the IUCN document in order that progress reports could be submitted to the Committee at its next session: Western Tasmania National Parks (Australia); Mt.Nimba (Cote d'Ivoire/Guinea); Machu Picchu Historic Sanctuary (Peru); Niokolo-Koba National Park (Senegal); Selous Game Reserve (Tanzania).
No draft Decision
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”).