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

Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu

Peru
Factors affecting the property in 2013*
  • Avalanche/ landslide
  • Flooding
  • Governance
  • Impacts of tourism / visitor / recreation
  • Legal framework
  • Management systems/ management plan
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
  • Delays in reviewing the Master Plan and developing detailed yearly operational plans, and inadequate budgetary support for effective implementation;
  • No evaluation of transport options, related geological studies, or the impact of bus traffic on increasing the risk of landslides;
  • Lack of impact studies related to the carrying capacity of the Citadel and Inca Trail;
  • Delays in the development and implementation of a public use plan;
  • Delays in implementing urban planning and control measures for Machu Picchu Village, the main point of entry to the property, which has impacted on the visual values of the property;
  • Lack of effective management of the property;
  • Lack of risk management plans related to natural disasters;
  • Inadequate governance arrangements including lack of adequate coordination of activities between different institutions and stakeholders involved in site management;
  • Uncontrolled visitor access to the western part of the Sanctuary, related to the construction of the Carrilluchayoc Bridge.
UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds until 2013

Total amount granted: USD 15,000 Extra-Budgetary Spanish FIT support for the social participation workshop requested by the World Heritage Committee (Decision 30 COM 7B.35). 

International Assistance: requests for the property until 2013
Requests approved: 11 (from 1986-2001)
Total amount approved : 166,625 USD
Missions to the property until 2013**

April, 2007: World Heritage Centre/IUCN/ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission; January 2009: World Heritage Centre/IUCN/ICOMOS reinforced monitoring mission; February 2010: World Heritage Centre technical emergency mission; May 2012: World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS/IUCN technical advisory mission.

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2013

A report on the state of conservation of the property was submitted by the State Party on 31 January 2013. The report includes information about the actions taken in response to the recommendations made by the World Heritage Committee, as well as annexes that provide additional technical information on the studies and interventions carried out to date.

a)  International Support Panel

In 2010, the World Heritage Committee recommended that the State Party establish an International Support Panel to provide technical advice and support to the State Party, in order to address governance concerns and sustainable finance issues, to guide effective stakeholder involvement, to seek support for the implementation of the 2009 Emergency Action Plan, and to address the backlog of unaddressed management issues (Decision 34 COM 7B.42).

The International Support Panel was only established during the advisory mission to the property in May 2012. The 2012 Advisory mission to the property produced a detailed report on the assessment of conditions and identified recommendations and priority actions for interventions that, as with the 2009 Emergency Action Plan, are centred on these main aspects: participatory evaluation of management effectiveness, governance, planning of the western access, and risk management.

The State Party reports that several actions are being coordinated to implement the recommendations made by the 2012 Advisory mission. These include the updating of the Master Plan, the preparation of a Contingency Plan, the final approval of the new regulation of the Management Unit, improvements at the security check point in the western access of the Sanctuary, the finalization of the risk preparedness plan as well as the improvement of public information regarding risks in Machu Picchu Village and the updating and approval of tourist regulations. However, there are no indications in the report on the proposed timeframe for implementation or on budgetary provisions made to comprehensively implement them.

b)  Emergency Action Plan

The 2009 Action Plan, recommended by the Reinforced monitoring mission of January 2009, was agreed on and recommended for implementation in Decision 33 COM 7B.42. Since 2010, the State Party has not provided, in its state of conservation reports, an annotated report on the progress made in the implementation of the 2009 Action Plan. The 2012 Advisory mission noted that three key issues were not substantially addressed: the evaluation of management effectiveness, the planning of the western access and the touristic regulations. The priority intervention actions noted by the 2012 Advisory mission are consistent with those identified in 2009 for urgent implementation.

c)  Public use and urban planning

The State Party reports that the formulation of both planning tools is foreseen as part of the updating of the Management Plan, with terms of reference approved in September 2012. The updating will include 5 thematic roundtables including ones on public use, visitor management and Machu Picchu Integral and load capacities. The results from these will be integrated in the updated Plan.  Urban planning will be addressed jointly with the District Municipality of Machu Picchu.

The Advisory Mission noted that the 2000 Urban Plan was not implemented and that the lack of enforcement of existing regulations has allowed for chaotic developments to continue at Machu Picchu village which strongly contrasts with the natural values of the setting. 

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies note that updating the Management Plan for the property was also reported as a proposed action in 2011 and in 2012.  As in past years, there are no indications on how different tools will be articulated, how the proposed evaluation of management effectiveness will be used or the actual timeframe for the completion of the different processes to fully formulate the proposed planning tools.

d)  Western access to the property

The State Party reports that plans are being made to establish a full checkpoint to control the access of visitors, circulation of inhabitants and the creation of visitor facilities at the km 122-Hydroelectrical power plant. The State Party reports that these plans will allow for suitable premises for housing workers and offices for visitor control, with basic services and up to date communication technology. It reports that facilities should be operational within the coming months. It also reports that DRC-Cusco and SERNANP are scheduled to implement an improved controlled access system until the comprehensive strategy is developed and enforced to guarantee controlled entry on the western side, by virtue of an electronic ticket system and where information on the potential risks of the area will be available. In addition, three roundtable discussions have been undertaken to assess the potential extension of the railway line and the construction of a station outside the boundaries of the property that would include infrastructure for visitor services.

The Advisory Mission noted that the World Heritage Committee was not notified of new concessions for the hydroelectric installations in spite of their location within the buffer zone, which will affect the area in the immediate proximity of the property. This area is the most affected by landslides and by uncontrolled traffic and irregular access, issues that have increased alarmingly in the area. The mission further noted that, although the western access had been illegally opened in 2007, to date authorities have not closed the road nor have they planned or regulated its use for tourism nor for the hydroelectric installations. Measures implemented have provided patchwork solutions and the current situation is largely chaotic, with a variety of incompatible uses, and continues to pose a potential danger for visitors to the property. 

e)  Risk reduction and disaster recovery plans

The State Party reports that training courses on operational planning for disasters and risk management sites were carried out in December 2012. An assessment of current operational capacities has also been developed and the definition of basic content for the comprehensive risk management plan has been outlined. An emergency plan for the historic sanctuary, developed in 2012 by SERNANP, is included in the report which also has provisions concerning activity protocols for park rangers according to risks identified in different sectors with the objective of ensuring visitor safety and mitigating potential impacts in case of emergencies. As in past years, the State Party reports that brochures and posters have been printed for residents and visitors which indicate safety areas. The Municipality has been asked to ensure that the early warning system that was implemented in 2011 is fully operational, which was not the case when the 2012 Advisory mission visited the property. The report also mentions that studies on geological hazards have been updated, which will serve to develop a Monitoring Plan for risk areas.

The 2012 Advisory Mission noted that the vulnerability of the Machu Picchu village has notably increased in the past 20 years, particularly with the increase of construction in areas highly exposed to natural hazards. The mission considered that, although there is information on what to do in case of emergency, most escape routes do not lead to adequately prepared areas and some are even exposed to landslides themselves, evacuation routes are complicated and not clearly marked, and most of the safety areas marked on the ground do not match those indicated in the provided maps. The mission also analysed the different documents that had been produced to date and underscored that while there are many plans to mitigate and diminish threats and to guide responses in case of disaster risk, with varied conclusions and even contradictory recommendations, in practice there is limited implementation, as was illustrated by the 2010 floods and landslides. This confirms what was underscored in 2012 by the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies that to date no comprehensive disaster risk management plan has been fully developed or is currently in place.

f)  Governance, harmonization of legislative frameworks and enforcement of regulatory measures

The State Party reports that actions were undertaken to approve the modification and operation of the Management Unit for Machu Picchu (UGM) so as to have a clear regulatory framework for harmonisation of activities and for effective decision making. It is not clear if the proposal for regulations has been approved or when the UGM will be fully operational.

g)  Inventory of land ownership and regulatory measures for land use zones

In 2012, rural land registry was finalised and the State Party reports that there has been no increase in settlements and that subsistence agriculture continues to be the main landuse activity; the expansion of large settlements at the Huayllabamba sector has been controlled. Actions are foreseen to address pending land titles to ensure that critical areas become property of the State.

h)  Carrying capacity studies and guidelines for the Public Use Plan

The State Party reports that further studies are needed to establish a clear and unambiguous carrying capacity. The State Party stated that the 2,500 visitor number is respected although it recognises that the number is exceeded by 10 to 15% during holidays and other special dates. It should be recalled that the 2012 Advisory mission had access to the visitation statistics and reported that the figure of 2500 is very often exceeded, counting the Inca Trail visitors and other special visits. It is expected that within the update process for the management plan, an appropriate load capacity will be established and respected.

i)  Interventions related to the maintenance and conservation at the Citadel

Finally, the State Party also reports on maintenance and conservation activities implemented at the archaeological component of the property, in consideration of the institutional Operational Plan. A detailed report on research and conservation activities at the Citadel, including research on stone bio deterioration, structural consolidation of architectural structures, maintenance of Inca roads within the Sanctuary, and 3D topographic inventory of the archaeological monuments at the Citadel as a tool for conservation purposes, was provided. 

Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 2013

Since 1999, the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies have expressed their concern about the conditions that pose a threat to the Outstanding Universal Value of the property, and which have remained, for the past 14 years, largely unaddressed, with many proposed activities still at the planning stages or only partially implemented.

In 2009, the World Heritage Committee acknowledged these threats and adopted the Emergency Action Plan. In 2010, the Committee further reiterated the major natural and structural threats facing the property and recommended the establishment of an International Support Panel. It considered that both of these measures would provide a strong focus for action to address the threats to the Outstanding Universal Value of the property. The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies note that these two measures have so far not had the effect of reducing the threats to the property, as only a few of the Actions within the Emergency Plan have been implemented over the past six years.

The Advisory Bodies have analysed overall progress made with the implementation of the 2009 Action Plan, adopted as a crucial measure to systematically undertake actions to the backlog of pressing conservation and management concerns. It was envisaged that the 2009 Action Plan would be implemented over a period of three years to address the overall situation at the property and its vulnerabilities that collectively were seen to pose considerable threats that could impact irreversibly on the Outstanding Universal Value of the property and might also threaten the safety of visitors. Of the proposed five main issues to address (Statement of Outstanding Universal Value, management effectiveness, western access, risk management and governance) limited progress has been demonstrated and this pertains only to the development of the Retrospective Statement of Outstanding Universal Value and work for the establishment of the Management Unit for Machu Picchu (UGM) that, as noted beforehand, has yet to become fully operational and does not yet have the adequate regulatory framework for efficient decision-making.

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies further note that although the Advisory Mission of May 2012 made prioritised and budgeted recommendations, in line with the 2009 Emergency Plan, no precise action plan, with timeframes or costs, has been provided by the State Party so it is not clear when improvement of existing conditions can be anticipated. The International Support Panel was expected to assist the State Party in addressing unresolved issues, however to date its work has been limited and no indication is provided on how effective the collaboration mechanism has been.

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies also note that certain threats have increased since 2009. For instance, the growth of construction in areas highly exposed to natural hazards significantly increases the risk of landslides, unnatural erosion patterns and deterioration of the remarkable habitats for which the property was inscribed. Similarly, increasing visitor numbers are leading to an unsustainable situation. Other increasing negative factors are the lack of implementation of the 2000 Urban Plan, the lack of enforcement of existing regulations, and the resulting chaotic development at Machu Picchu village.

The Advisory Bodies consider that strong and decisive actions to address long-standing and persistent threats to the property, identified when the Emergency Plan was developed and the International Support Group was initiated, have yet to be implemented. The impacts of these factors have led to the deterioration of the natural environment and to the erosion of the conditions of integrity. It has also impacted on the longstanding harmonious and aesthetically stunning relationship between human culture and nature for which the property was inscribed, on the understanding of the visual ensemble that links the archaeological site with its setting, and on the land use planning that existed at pre-hispanic times. Together the underscored factors represent a clear potential danger to the integrity and Outstanding Universal Value of the property, in line with paragraphs 179 and 180 of the Operational Guidelines.

In view of the above considerations, the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies recommend that the World Heritage Committee request that the implementation of the identified measures is undertaken within the proposed timeframe. In the absence of compliance with this request within the proposed timeframe, the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies recommend the World Heritage Committee inscribe the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger at its 38th session.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2013
37 COM 7B.35
Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu (Peru) (C/N 274)

The World Heritage Committee,

1.  Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/7B.Add,

2.  Recalling Decisions 33 COM 7B.42, 34 COM 7B.42, 35 COM 7B.38 and 36 COM 7B.39 , adopted at its 33rd (Seville, 2009), 34th (Brasilia, 2010), 35th (UNESCO, 2011) and 36th (Saint-Petersburg, 2012) sessions respectively,

3.  Expresses its deep concern that no strong and decisive action has been taken to implement the Emergency Action Plan drawn up in 2009 or the Revised Action Plan developed by the Advisory Mission of 2012, as a means of addressing threats to the property that have been underscored for more than ten years and which have increased since 2009;

4.  Notes that the International Support Panel has not had a dynamic impact in terms of fostering action to address the acknowledged threats to the property and also n otes that the State Party did not submit a technical and financial proposal to continue supporting the collaboration with the International Support Panel;

5.  Considers that the long-standing threats to the property derived from increased public use, deficiencies in decision-making and governance mechanisms, uncontrolled development at Machu Picchu Village, among others, have not been comprehensively addressed and its effects have been further exacerbated;

6.  Urges the State Party to confirm, by 30 July 2013 , that the International Support Panel will assist national authorities in addressing, as a matter of urgency, all the unresolved issues, and requests that said confirmation includes an explicit course of action to implement the recommendations made in 2012 with a clear indication on the financial and technical resources available;

7.  Also requests the State Party, in line with the proposals made in the 2009 Emergency Action Plan, the recommendations of the 2012 advisory mission and previous decisions of the World Heritage Committee, to implement the following measures within the noted timeframe:

a)  Harmonize legislative frameworks and enforce regulatory measures and related sanctions for violations by 1 April 2014 ,

b)  Develop a comprehensive strategy for the Western access to the property by 1 April 2014 ,

c)  Undertake the Management effectiveness assessment to assist in the review and update of the Management Plan for the property by 1 April 2014 ,

d)  Finalize and adopt public use plan, in line with the provisions of the Management Plan for the property, including the definition of carrying capacity for the Historic Sanctuary and Machu Picchu village and the measures anticipated in respect to the visitation limits by 1 April 2014,

e)  Finalize risk reduction and disaster recovery plans, including all parts of the disaster risk cycle, not only the response to emergency situations, by 1 April 2014 ,

f)   Finalize and approve the Urban Plan for Machu Picchu Village, containing the definition of regulatory measures, including building codes and processes for approval of new construction in the village and adjacent areas at the property and its buffer zone by 1 April 2014 ;

8.  Also considers that if the absence of the implementation of the above-mentioned actions is noted by the Committee at its 39th session in 2015, the cumulative impacts of the identified and long-standing threats would irreversibly impact the property, which could lead to the consideration of the inscription of the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger by the Committee at its 39th session in 2015;

9.  Further requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2014 , an updated report on the state of conservation of the property and the implementation of the above and the final reports on the requested measures by 1 April 2014 , for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 39th session in 2015.

37 COM 8D
Clarifications of property boundaries and areas by States Parties in response to the Retrospective Inventory

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/8D,

2. Recalling Decision 36 COM 8D, adopted at its 36th session (Saint Petersburg, 2012),

3. Acknowledges the excellent work accomplished by States Parties in the clarification of the delimitation of their World Heritage properties and thanks them for their efforts to improve the credibility of the World Heritage List;

4. Recalls that the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies will not be able to examine proposals for minor or significant modifications to boundaries of World Heritage properties whenever the delimitation of such properties as inscribed is unclear;

5. Takes note of the clarifications of property boundaries and areas provided by the following States Parties in response to the Retrospective Inventory, as presented in the Annexes of Document WHC-13/37.COM/8D:

  • Algeria: Kasbah of Algiers;
  • Brazil: Sanctuary of Bom Jesus do Congonhas; Brasilia; Historic Centre of São Luís;
  • Cuba: San Pedro de la Roca Castle, Santiago de Cuba;
  • Dominican Republic: Colonial City of Santo Domingo;
  • Germany: Hanseatic City of Lübeck; Völklingen Ironworks;
  • Jordan: Petra;
  • Mexico: Sian Ka’an; Pre-Hispanic City and National Park of Palenque; Historic Centre of Puebla; Historic Town of Guanajuato and Adjacent Mines; Historic Centre of Morelia; Whale Sanctuary of El Vizcaino; Historic Centre of Zacatecas; Rock Paintings of the Sierra de San Francisco; Archaeological Zone of Paquimé, Casas Grandes; Historic Monuments Zone of Tlacotalpan;
  • Panama: Darien National Park;
  • Paraguay: Jesuit Missions of La Santísima Trinidad de Paraná and Jesús de Tavarangue;
  • Peru: City of Cuzco; Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu; Chavin (Archaeological Property); Chan Chan Archaeological Zone; Historic Centre of Lima; Río Abiseo National Park; Lines and Geoglyphs of Nasca and Pampas de Jumana;
  • Russian Federation: Historic Centre of Saint Petersburg and Related Groups of Monuments; Kizhi Pogost;
  • Spain: Old Town of Ávila with its Extra-Muros Churches; Historic City of Toledo; Historic Walled Town of Cuenca; Palau de la Música Catalana and Hospital de Sant Pau, Barcelona;
  • Viet Nam: Complex of Hué Monuments;

6. Requests the States Parties which have not yet answered the questions raised in the framework of the Retrospective Inventory to provide all clarifications and documentation as soon as possible and by 1 December 2013 at the latest.

37 COM 8E
Adoption of retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value
The World Heritage Committee,

1.  Having examined Documents WHC-13/37.COM/8E and WHC-13/37.COM/8E.Add,

2.  Congratulates States Parties for the excellent work accomplished in the elaboration of retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value for World Heritage properties in their territories;

3.  Adopts the retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value, as presented in the Annex of Document WHC-13/37.COM/8E, for the following World Heritage properties:

  • Andorra: Madriu-Perafita-Claror Valley;
  • Argentina: Cueva de las Manos, Río Pinturas; Jesuit Block and Estancias of Córdoba; Quebrada de Humahuaca; Iguazu National Park;
  • Australia: Shark Bay, Western Australia; Greater Blue Mountains Area; Royal Exhibition Building and Carlton Gardens; Willandra Lakes Region; Kakadu National Park;
  • Austria / Hungary: Fertö / Neusiedlersee Cultural Landscape;
  • Bangladesh: The Sundarbans; Ruins of the Buddhist Vihara at Paharpur;
  • Belgium : La Grand-Place, Brussels;
  • Belgium / France: Belfries of Belgium and France;
  • Bolivia: Fuerte de Samaipata; Tiwanaku: Spiritual and Political Centre of the Tiwanaku Culture; Historic City of Sucre; Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos;
  • Brazil: Serra da Capivara National Park;
  • Chile: Humberstone and Santa Laura Saltpeter Works; Rapa Nui National Park; Churches of Chiloé; Sewell Mining Town; Historic quarter of the Seaport City of Valparaiso;
  • China: Huanglong Scenic and Historic Interest Area; Mount Huangshan; Mountain Resort and its Outlying Temples, Chengde; Ancient City of Ping Yao; Classical Gardens of Suzhou; Summer Palace, an Imperial Garden in Beijing; Ancient Villages in Southern Anhui – Xidi and Hongcun; Longmen Grottoes; Yungang Grottoes; Yin Xu; Imperial Tombs of the Ming and Qing Dynasties; Historic center of Macao; Mausoleum of the First Qin Emperor;
  • Colombia: Port, Fortresses and Group of Monuments, Cartagena; Historic Centre of Santa Cruz de Mompox; San Agustín Archaeological Park; National Archeological Park of Tierradentro;
  • Costa Rica: Area de Conservación Guanacaste;
  • Cuba: Trinidad and the Valley de los Ingenios; Desembarco del Granma National Park; Alejandro de Humboldt National Park; Old Havana;
  • Cyprus: Choirokoitia; Painted Churches in the Troodos Region;
  • Denmark: Kronborg Castle;
  • Ecuador: City of Quito; Historic Centre of Santa Ana de los Ríos de Cuenca; Galápagos Islands;
  • El Salvador: Joya de Cerén Archaeological Site;
  • Ethiopia: Aksum; Fasil Ghebbi;
  • Finland / Sweden: High Coast / Kvarken Archipelago;
  • Guatemala: Archeological Park and Ruins of Quirigua; Antigua Guatemala;
  • Germany: Classical Weimar; Messel Pit Fossil Site; Roman Monuments, Cathedral of St Peter and Church of Our Lady in Trier; Aachen Cathedral; Cologne Cathedral; Hanseatic City of Lübeck; Historic Centres of Stralsund and Wismar; Museumsinsel (Museum Island), Berlin; Old town of Regensburg with Stadtamhof; Speyer Cathedral; Town Hall and Roland on the Marketplace of Bremen; Town of Bamberg;
  • Greece: Mount Athos;
  • Honduras: Maya Site of Copan;
  • Hungary: Old Village of Hollókő and its Surroundings; Millenary Benedictine Abbey of Pannonhalma and its Natural Environment; Early Christian Necropolis of Pécs (Sopianae); Tokaj Wine Region Historic Cultural Landscape; Hortobágy National Park - the Puszta; Budapest, including the Banks of the Danube, the Buda Castle Quarter and Andrássy Avenue;
  • Hungary / Slovakia: Caves of Aggtelek Karst and Slovak Karst;
  • India: Sun Temple, Konârak; Group of Monuments at Hampi; Mahabodhi Temple Complex at Bodh Gaya; Elephanta Caves; Great Living Chola Temples; Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus (formerly Victoria Terminus); Mountain Railways of India;
  • Indonesia: Ujung Kulon National Park; Komodo National Park; Lorentz National Park; Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra; Sangiran Early Man Site;
  • Iran (Islamic Republic of): Pasargadae; Takht-e Soleyman;
  • Ireland: Archaeological Ensemble of the Bend of the Boyne;
  • Italy: Venice and its Lagoon;
  • Japan: Yakushima; Shirakami-Sanchi; Buddhist Monuments in the Horyu-ji Area; Shiretoko; Historic Monuments of Ancient Kyoto (Kyoto, Uji and Otsu Cities); Shrines and Temples of Nikko; Sacred Sites and Pilgrimage Routes in the Kii Mountain Range; Itsukushima Shinto Shrine; Himeji-jo;
  • Latvia: Historic Centre of Riga;
  • Lao People’s Democratic Republic: Town of Luang Prabang;
  • Lithuania: Vilnius Historic Centre;
  • Luxembourg: City of Luxembourg: its Old Quarters and Fortifications;
  • Malaysia: Kinabalu Park;
  • Mauritius: Aapravasi Ghat;
  • Mexico: Pre-Hispanic City of Teotihuacan; Historic Centre of Morelia; Earliest 16th-Century Monasteries on the Slopes of Popocatepetl; Historic Monuments Zone of Querétaro; Historic Fortified Town of Campeche; Franciscan Missions in the Sierra Gorda of Querétaro; Agave Landscape and the Ancient Industrial Facilities of Tequila; Whale Sanctuary of El Vizcaino; Ancient Maya City of Calakmul, Campeche; Archaeological Monuments Zone of Xochicalco; Historic Monuments Zone of Tlacotalpan; Pre-Hispanic City of Chichen-Itza; Historic Centre of Zacatecas; Historic Centre of Oaxaca and Archaeological Site of Monte Albán; Sian Ka’an; Luis Barragán House and Studio; Rock Paintings of the Sierra de San Francisco; Archaeological Zone of Paquimé, Casas Grandes; Historic Centre of Puebla; Historic Town of Guanajuato and Adjacent Mines; Pre-hispanic town of Uxmal; Hospicio Cabañas, Guadalajara; Islands and Protected Areas of the Gulf of California; Historic Centre of Mexico City and Xochimilco; Pre-Hispanic City and National Park of Palenque; El Tajin, Pre-Hispanic City;
  • Netherlands: Ir.D.F. Woudagemaal (D.F. Wouda Steam Pumping Station); Schokland and Surroundings; Droogmakerij de Beemster (Beemster Polder); Rietveld Schröderhuis (Rietveld Schröder House);
  • Nicaragua: Ruins of León Viejo;
  • Nigeria: Sukur Cultural Landscape;
  • Norway: Rock Art of Alta; Urnes Stave Church; Bryggen;
  • Oman: Archaeological Sites of Bat, Al-Khutm and Al-Ayn;
  • Pakistan: Taxila; Historical Monuments at Makli, Thatta; Rohtas Fort; Buddhist Ruins of Takht-i-Bahi and Neighbouring City Remains at Sahr-i-Bahlol;
  • Panama: Darien National Park; Archaeological Site of Panamá Viejo and Historic District of Panamá;
  • Paraguay: Jesuit Missions of La Santísima Trinidad de Paraná and Jesús de Tavarangue;
  • Peru: City of Cuzco; Chavin (Archaeological Site); Historic Centre of Lima; Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu;
  • Philippines: Historic town of Vigan;
  • South Africa: uKhahlamba / Drakensberg Park;
  • Switzerland: Abbey of St Gall; Benedictine Convent of St John at Müstair; Old City of Berne; Three Castles, Defensive Wall and Ramparts of the Market-Town of Bellinzona;
  • Thailand: Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Forest Complex; Thungyai-Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuaries; Historic Town of Sukhothai and Associated Historic Towns; Ban Chiang Archaeological Site;
  • Turkey: Göreme National Park and the Rock Sites of Cappadocia; Nemrut Dağ; Great Mosque and Hospital of Divriği; Hierapolis-Pamukkale;
  • United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Blaenavon Industrial Landscape; Blenheim Palace; Canterbury Cathedral, St Augustine's Abbey, and St Martin's Church; Castles and Town Walls of King Edward in Gwynedd; City of Bath; Durham Castle and Cathedral; Giant's Causeway and Causeway Coast; Heart of Neolithic Orkney; Ironbridge Gorge; Maritime Greenwich; New Lanark; Old and New Towns of Edinburgh; Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites; Studley Royal Park including the Ruins of Fountains Abbey; Tower of London; St Kilda; Westminster Palace, Westminster Abbey and Saint Margaret's Church;
  • Uruguay: Historic Quarter of the City of Colonia del Sacramento;
  • Uzbekistan: Itchan Kala;
  • Venezuela : Coro and its Port; Ciudad Universitaria de Caracas;

4.  Decides that retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value for World Heritage properties in Danger will be reviewed by the Advisory Bodies in priority;

5.  Further decides that, considering the high number of retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value to be examined, the order in which they will be reviewed by the Advisory Bodies will follow the Second Cycle of Periodic Reporting, namely:

  • World Heritage properties in the Arab States;
  • World Heritage properties in Africa;
  • World Heritage properties in Asia and the Pacific;
  • World Heritage properties in Latin America and the Caribbean;
  • World Heritage properties in Europe and North America;

6.  Requests the World Heritage Centre to harmonise all sub-headings in the adopted Statements of Outstanding Universal Value where appropriate and when resources and staff time allow to carry out this work;

7.  Also requests the State Parties, Advisory Bodies and World Heritage Centre to ensure the use of gender-neutral language in the Statements proposed for adoption to the World Heritage Committee;

8.  Further requests the World Heritage Centre to keep the adopted Statements in line with subsequent decisions by the World Heritage Committee concerning name changes of World Heritage properties, and to reflect them throughout the text of the Statements, in consultation with States Parties and Advisory Bodies;

9.  Finally requests the States Parties to provide support to the World Heritage Centre for translation of the adopted Statements of Outstanding Universal Value into English or French respectively, and finally requests the Centre to upload these onto its web-pages.

Draft Decision:  37 COM 7B.35

The World Heritage Committee,

1.  Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/7B.Add,

2.  Recalling Decisions 33 COM 7B.42, 34 COM 7B.42, 35 COM 7B.38 and 36 COM 7B.39, adopted at its 33rd (Seville, 2009), 34th (Brasilia, 2010), 35th (UNESCO, 2011) and 36th (Saint-Petersburg, 2012) sessions respectively,

3.  Expresses its deep concern that no strong and decisive action has been taken to implement the Emergency Action Plan drawn up in 2009 or the Revised Action Plan developed by the Advisory Mission of 2012, as a means of addressing threats to the property that have been underscored for more than ten years and which have increased since 2009;

4.  Notes that the International Support Panel has not had a dynamic impact in terms of fostering action to address the acknowledged threats to the property and also notes that the State Party did not submit a technical and financial proposal to continue supporting the collaboration with the International Support Panel;

5.  Considers that the long-standing threats to the property derived from increased public use, deficiencies in decision-making and governance mechanisms, uncontrolled development at Machu Picchu Village, among others, have not been comprehensively addressed and its effects have been further exacerbated;

6.  Urges the State Party to confirm, by 30 July 2013, that the International Support Panel will assist national authorities in addressing, as a matter of urgency, all the unresolved issues, and requests that said confirmation includes an explicit course of action to implement the recommendations made in 2012 with a clear indication on the financial and technical resources available;

7.  Also requests the State Party, in line with the proposals made in the 2009 Emergency Action Plan, the recommendations of the 2012 advisory mission and previous decisions of the World Heritage Committee, to implement the following measures within the noted timeframe:

a)  Harmonize legislative frameworks and enforce regulatory measures and related sanctions for violations by 1 April 2014,

b)  Develop a comprehensive strategy for the Western access to the property by 1 April 2014,

c)  Undertake the Management effectiveness assessment to assist in the review and update of the Management Plan for the property by 1 April 2014,

d)  Finalize and adopt public use, in line with the provisions of the Management Plan for the property, including the definition of carrying capacity for the Historic Sanctuary and Machu Picchu village and the measures anticipated in respect to the visitation limits by 1 April 2014,

e)  Finalize risk reduction and disaster recovery plans, including all parts of the disaster risk cycle, not only the response to emergency situations, by 1 April 2014,

f)  Finalize and approve the Urban Plan for Machu Picchu Village, containing the definition of regulatory measures, including building codes and processes for approval of new construction in the village and adjacent areas at the property and its buffer zone by 1 April 2014;

8.  Also considers that in the absence of the implementation of the above actions by the Committee’s 38th session in 2014, the cumulative impacts of the identified and long-standing threats would irreversibly impact the property, which will result in the inscription of the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger by the Committee at its 38th session in 2014;

9.  Further requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2014, an updated report on the state of conservation of the property and the implementation of the above and the final reports on the requested measures by 1 April 2014, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 38th session in 2014.

 

Report year: 2013
Peru
Date of Inscription: 1983
Category: Mixed
Criteria: (i)(iii)(vii)(ix)
Documents examined by the Committee
arrow_circle_right 37COM (2013)
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