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

Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu

Peru
Factors affecting the property in 1996*
  • Ground transport infrastructure
  • Management systems/ management plan
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
  • Dam construction;
  • Power line development;
  • Wild fires;
  • Encroachment;
  • Urbanization of the valley
  • Helicopters flights
International Assistance: requests for the property until 1996
Requests approved: 10 (from 1986-1992)
Total amount approved : 161,625 USD
Missions to the property until 1996**
Information presented to the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee in 1996

Early 1996, the Secretariat learned about plans to construct two suspended cable car systems (telepherique) to facilitate access to the ruins of Machu Picchu. As this could have a considerable environmental and visual impact within the World Heritage property, the Secretariat, by letter dated 22 February 1996, requested the Government of Peru for detailed information on this project. The Peruvian National Institute for Culture informed the Secretariat by letter dated 12 April 1996 that the project had been suspended awaiting the consideration by the Minster of Education of a proposal for the study and integral management of the Sanctuary.

Action Required

The Bureau welcomed the decision of the National Institute for Culture to suspend the plans to construct two suspended cable car systems to facilitate access to the ruins of Machu Picchu. It suggested that the access to Machu Picchu be studied in the context of integral planning for the whole of the area of the Sanctuary and that an assessment of its impact be undertaken. The Bureau requested the authorities of Peru to be kept informed on the progress made in the development of an integral management mechanism as well as on the plans for the cable car systems.

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 1996

At its twentieth session in June 1996, the Bureau was informed of the decision of the National Institute for Culture to suspend the plans to construct two suspended cable car systems to facilitate access to the ruins of Machu Picchu. The Bureau suggested that the alternative means of access to Machu Picchu be studied in the context of integral planning for the whole of the area of the Sanctuary and that an assessment of its impact be undertaken. The Bureau requested the authorities of Peru to inform the Committee on the progress made in the development of an integral management mechanism as well as on the plans for the access to the ruins of Machu Picchu.

To date, no reply has been received from the Peruvian authorities to the Bureau's suggestion and request. However, the Secretariat was informed by the UNESCO Representative in Peru that tenders had been invited for the cable car system.

 

Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 1996

The Bureau may wish to transmit the report on the state of conservation of Machu Picchu to the Committee for examination and to recommend the Committee to adopt the following:

"The Committee urges the Peruvian authorities to develop integral management mechanisms for the Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu and suggested that the alternative means of access to Machu Picchu be studied in the context of integral planning for the whole of the area of the Sanctuary and that an assessment of its impact be undertaken."

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 1996
20 BUR IV.7
Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu (Peru)

The Bureau was informed of the decision of the National Institute for Culture to suspend the plans to construct two suspended cable car systems to facilitate access to the ruins of Machu Picchu. The Bureau suggested that the alternative means of access to Machu Picchu be studied in the context of integral planning for the whole of the area of the Sanctuary and that an assessment of its impact be undertaken. The Bureau requested the authorities of Peru to inform the Committee on the progress made in the development of an integral management mechanism as well as on the plans for the access to the ruins of Machu Picchu.

20 COM VII.D.45
SOC: Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu (Peru)

VII.45 Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu (Peru)

The Secretariat recalled the suggestion of the Bureau at its twentieth session that alternative means of access to Machu Picchu should be studied in the context of integral planning for the whole of the area of the Sanctuary and that an assessment of the impact of a possible cable car system be undertaken, and the Bureau's request that the authorities of Peru inform the Committee on the progress made in the development of an integral management mechanism as well as on the plans for the access to the ruins of Machu Picchu. No response was received by the Secretariat since then, however, it was informed that tenders had been invited for the cable car system.

The Committee considered that the implementation of the cable car system could have a serious impact on the World Heritage site and that no action should be undertaken until a proper management plan is in force. Therefore, the Committee urged the Peruvian authorities to develop integral management mechanisms for the Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu and suggested that alternative means of access to Machu Picchu be studied in the context of integral planning for the whole of the area of the Sanctuary and that an assessment of its impact be undertaken. The Committee requested the Peruvian authorities to provide a full report on the state of conservation and the management mechanisms of Machu Picchu by 15 April 1997 for examination by the Bureau at its twenty-first session.

Report year: 1996
Peru
Date of Inscription: 1983
Category: Mixed
Criteria: (i)(iii)(vii)(ix)
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