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

Lines and Geoglyphs of Nasca and Palpa

Peru
Factors affecting the property in 2013*
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
  • Damage caused by illegal mining and farming activities;
  • Continued vehicle traffic through the geoglyphs;
  • Lack of systematic monitoring of the property;
  • Insufficient air traffic security measures;
  • Lack of a management plan;
  • Planned infrastructure projects (i.e. Interoceanic highway, new airport construction).
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2013
Requests approved: 1 (from 1998-1998)
Total amount approved : 50,000 USD
Missions to the property until 2013**
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2013

In response to the requests made by the World Heritage Committee at its 35th session (Decision 35 COM 7B.131), the State Party has submitted the Management Plan containing a complete diagnosis of the current conservation issues and a comprehensive management system, as well as the related financial, legal and institutional instruments for its implementation. The State Party has also submitted new designs and technical specifications of an alternative project for a touristic lookout tower, which was revised according to the evaluation made by ICOMOS. The new proposal will be assessed as per Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines and the technical review submitted to the State Party to further assist the final decision to improve visitor facilities. The State Party has further submitted information on the progress of the removal of illegal settlements and mining quarries at the property, according to the Administrative Sanction Processes carried out in 2012, and the new 2012 Legislative Decrees, establishing the supplementary provisions to implement the formalization process of informal mining activities of small-scale and artisanal mining exercised in zones where not prohibited.

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

For those reasons, the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies are of the view that the state of conservation of the property is being adequately addressed and that no further reporting to the World Heritage Committee is required. However, the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies will continue working closely with the State Party in monitoring the state of conservation of the property, by periodically requesting information on the effective control of the agricultural expansion, the ongoing results of the implementation of the new legal instruments, as well as the indicators of the level and efficacy of implementation of the Management Plan.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2013
37 COM 7B.103
Omnibus Decision

 World Heritage Committee,

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

2.  Recalling Decisions 34 COM 8B.6, 35 COM 7B.42, 35 COM 7B.63, 35 COM 7B.67, 35 COM 7B.68, 35 COM 7B.69, 35 COM 7B.73, 35 COM 7B.88, 35 COM 7B.94, 35 COM 7B.98, 35 COM 7B.102, 35 COM 7B.106, 35 COM 7B.109, 35 COM 7B.122, 35 COM 7B.127, 35 COM 7B.128, 35 COM 7B.131 and 35 COM 7B.133 , adopted at its 34th (Brasilia, 2010) and 35th (UNESCO, 2011) sessions respectively,

3.  Takes note with satisfaction  of the measures taken by the States Parties concerned to address its previous requests to mitigate the threats on the Outstanding Universal Value of the following World Heritage properties :

  • Old Town of Lijiang (China)
  • Historic Ensemble of the Potala Palace, Lhasa (China)
  • San Augustin Arhcaeological Park (Colombia)
  • Historic Centre of Český Krumlov (Czech Republic)
  • Tokaj Wine Region Historic Cultural Landscape (Hungary)
  • Taj Mahal (India)
  • Agra Fort (India)
  • Fatehpur Sikri (India)
  • Champaner-Pavagadh Archaeological Park (India)
  • Prambanan Temple Compounds (Indonesia)
  • Monte San Giorgio (Italy / Switzerland)
  • Vilnius Historic centre (Lithuania)
  • Melaka and George Town, Historic Cities of the Straits of Malacca (Malaysia)
  • Historic centre of Mexico City and Xochimilco (Mexico)
  • Camino real de Tierra Adentro (Mexico)
  • Lines and Geoglyphs of Nasca and Pampas de Jumana (Peru)
  • City of Cuzco (Peru)
  • Churches of Moldavia (Romania)
  • Ensemble of the Ferrapontov Monastery (Russian Federation)
  • Island of Gorée (Senegal)
  • Works of Antoni Gaudi (Spain)

4.  Encourages the States Parties concerned to pursue their efforts to ensure the conservation of World Heritage properties;

5.  Reminds the States Parties concerned to inform the World Heritage Centre in due course about any major development project which may affect the Outstanding Universal Value of a property, before any irreversible commitments are made, in line with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines .

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.

Draft Decision:  37 COM 7B.103

The World Heritage Committee,

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

2.  Recalling Decisions 34 COM 8B.6, 35 COM 7B.42, 35 COM 7B.63, 35 COM 7B.67, 35 COM 7B.68, 35 COM 7B.69, 35 COM 7B.73, 35 COM 7B.88, 35 COM 7B.94, 35 COM 7B.98, 35 COM 7B.102, 35 COM 7B.106, 35 COM 7B.109, 35 COM 7B.122, 35 COM 7B.127, 35 COM 7B.128, 35 COM 7B.131 and 35 COM 7B.133,adopted at its 34th (Brasilia, 2010) and 35th (UNESCO, 2011) sessions respectively,

3.  Takes note with satisfaction of the measures taken by the States Parties concerned to address its previous requests to mitigate the threats on the Outstanding Universal Value of the following World Heritage properties :

·  Old Town of Lijiang (China)

·  Historic Ensemble of the Potala Palace, Lhasa (China)

·  San Augustin Arhcaeological Park (Colombia)

·  Historic Centre of Český Krumlov (Czech Republic)

·  Tokaj Wine Region Historic Cultural Landscape (Hungary)

·  Taj Mahal (India)

·  Agra Fort (India)

·  Fatehpur Sikri (India)

·  Champaner-Pavagadh Archaeological Park (India)

·  Prambanan Temple Compounds (Indonesia)

·  Monte San Giorgio (Italy / Switzerland)

·  Vilnius Historic centre (Lithuania)

·  Melaka and George Town, Historic Cities of the Straits of Malacca (Malaysia)

·  Historic centre of Mexico City and Xochimilco (Mexico)

·  Camino real de Tierra Adentro (Mexico)

·  Lines and Geoglyphs of Nasca and Pampas de Jumana (Peru)

·  City of Cuzco (Peru)

·  Churches of Moldavia (Romania)

·  Ensemble of the Ferrapontov Monastery (Russian Federation)

·  Island of Gorée (Senegal)

·  Works of Antoni Gaudi (Spain)

4.  Encourages the States Parties concerned to pursue their efforts to ensure the conservation of World Heritage properties;

5.  Reminds the States Parties concerned to inform the World Heritage Centre in due course about any major development project that may negatively impact the Outstanding Universal Value of a property, before any irreversible commitments are made, in line with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines.

 

Report year: 2013
Peru
Date of Inscription: 1994
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (i)(iii)(iv)
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