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

Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu

Peru
Factors affecting the property in 1998*
  • Fire (widlfires)
  • Ground transport infrastructure
  • Management systems/ management plan
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
  • Dam construction;
  • Power line development;
  • Wild fires (issue resolved); 
  • Encroachment;
  • Urbanization of the valley;
  • Helicopters flights
International Assistance: requests for the property until 1998
Requests approved: 10 (from 1986-1992)
Total amount approved : 161,625 USD
Missions to the property until 1998**

1997: joint ICOMOS/IUCN mission

Information presented to the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee in 1998

The Committee at its twenty-first session, having examined the report of a joint IUCN and ICOMOS mission to Machu Picchu, expressed its concern about the deficient management arrangements for the Sanctuary and urged the Peruvian authorities to establish an adequate management structure for the site. It furthermore recommended them to prepare a comprehensive master plan as an overall guiding instrument for conservation, planning, infra-structural interventions, tourism development, etc.

In response to the Committee’s request, the Government of Peru submitted on 24 April 1998 a response, prepared by the National Institute for Culture, to report on the IUCN-ICOMOS mission. The response includes a description of the site, a description of the conservation works undertaken by the Institute for Culture and replies to matters raised in the mission report.

The report was transmitted to IUCN and ICOMOS for review with the request to present its views during the Bureau session.

Action Required

The Bureau, based on the reports to be presented by IUCN and ICOMOS during the session of the Bureau, may recommend appropriate actions to the consideration of the State Party and the Committee.

22nd extraordinary session of the Bureau in 1998:

Following the examination of the state of conservation of Machu Picchu by the Committee at its twentieth and twenty-first sessions and considering the report of the joint IUCN /ICOMOS mission of October 1997, the Bureau at its twenty-second session, reiterated the concerns regarding adequate management arrangements and a comprehensive master plan for the Sanctuary. It also reiterated that no actions should be undertaken on the implementation of a cable car system until an adequate master plan is in place.

In response to the concerns expressed by the Committee and the Bureau, the Government of Peru is taking decisive measures. Through a report dated 8 September 1998, the National Institute for Natural Resources (INRENA) and the National Institute for Culture (INC) informed that :
  • immediately after the Bureau session a work plan was established to respond to the main concerns expressed by the Committee, the Bureau and the IUCN /ICOMOS mission, i.e. management arrangements and planning mechanisms ;
  • a working group was established from INRENA and INC to elaborate, on the basis of a draft prepared by the Region Inka in 1996, a comprehensive Master Plan. A workshop was held in August 1998 to define the results that should be obtained by the year 2008. Another workshop was scheduled for September 1998 on the management of the Sanctuary ;
  • recent national legislation foresees (i) a clear co-ordinating responsibility of INRENA in the management of protected areas in Peru, particularly in matters as Environmental Impact Studies, and (ii) the participation of all institutions involved in the management of protected areas through the creation of Management Committees ;
  • there is a consensus that all projects in the Sanctuary necessarily need to be considered in the context of a long-term vision for the site.

As to the cable car system to access the ruins of Machu Picchu, it should be noted that point 1.15 of the desired results by the year 2008 includes the following: « there exists a cable car system with minimal environmental, social and landscape impact. » IUCN informed the Secretariat that recent information received from IUCN from WCPA members is that Peru are encouraging on measures taken by the Peruvian Government in order to implement the recommendations of the IUCN/ICOMOS mission as well as those coming from the Bureau. Main actions underway are:
a) The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is playing an active role to oversee the State Party’s response; an inter-sectoral commission has been established to this effect;
b) INRENA established a technical group between INRENA, INC and external experts to finalise the Master Plan for Machu;
c) As to the cable car, the company that won the bidding process commissioned an Environmental Impact Study to an internationally well known consulting firm.

IUCN would like to recommend that the Bureau in its twenty-second extraordinary session recognize the interest and actions taken by the Peruvian Government and that support from Finnish International Co-operation be acknowledged. The WHC and IUCN should follow-up on the development of these actions providing technical assistance as required. The Master Plan for the site should be available for review by WHC, IUCN and ICOMOS.


Decision required: The Bureau may wish to transmit the above report to the Committee for examination and recommend the following for adoption:

"The Committee commends the Government of Peru for the actions it has taken to respond to the concerns expressed by the Committee and its Bureau.
It encourages the Government to continue this process which should lead to adequate management arrangements and a comprehensive master plan for the Sanctuary.
It requests the Peruvian authorities to transmit all relevant documentation and decisions with regard to the management structure and Master Plan for the Sanctuary, the cable car system (Environmental Impact Study, detailed plans etc.), as well as other works or projects that are or will be considered for implementation within the boundaries of the World Heritage site as soon as they become available, to the World Heritage Centre for review by ICOMOS and IUCN.
The Committee request the Peruvian authorities to submit, by 15 April 1999 at the latest a progress report on the actions for examination by the Bureau at its twenty-third session.”
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 1998

The Bureau at its twenty-second extraordinary session recalled that over the last three years the Committee and the Bureau examined the state of conservation of the Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu at several occasions, particularly with reference to adequate management arrangements and comprehensive master planning. It also recalled that the Committee and the Bureau had reiterated that no actions should be undertaken on the implementation of a cable car system, or to that effect any other major works, until an adequate master plan is in place.

In response to the concerns expressed by the Committee and the Bureau, the Government of Peru has prepared, as a joint effort between several institutions, a Master Plan for the Sanctuary of Machu Picchu. This was adopted by the National Institute for Natural Resources (INRENA) and the National Institute for Culture (INC) at the end of October 1998 and received at the World Heritage Centre on 17 November 1998.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 1998
22 BUR V.B.39
Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu (Peru)

The Bureau recalled that the World Heritage Committee examined the state of conservation of Machu Picchu at earlier occasions and that it had made specific recommendations to the State Party on the basis of the recommendations of a joint ICOMOS/IUCN mission on the management, preservation and planning for the Sanctuary. These recommendations and the report of the IUCN/ICOMOS mission were transmitted to the Peruvian authorities for response.

The Secretariat stressed that Machu Picchu is a mixed World Heritage site that includes the well-known ruins of the Inca City, as well as an extremely high level of bio-diversity. It should be noted that a special programme for the preservation of the natural values of Machu Picchu is in implementation under a debt-swap agreement with Finland. The Secretariat informed the Bureau that:

  • A report had been received from the National Institute for Culture, but that no substantive and complete response had been received in response to the recommendations of the IUCN/ICOMOS mission;
  • No decisions had been taken by the Government of Peru with regards to the management structure for Machu Picchu;
  • No master plan had been adopted but that it had been informed through a joint letter from INC and INRENA dated 16 June 1998 and a resolution of INRENA dated 19 June 1998 that an existing draft of a master plan would be revised and completed before the end of the year;
  • The concession had been given for the undertaking of studies and design of the cable car system between the village of Aguas Calientes and the ruins of Machu Picchu and that the Peruvian authorities had assured that construction would not be undertaken if environmental impact studies would not confirm its feasibility within the context of a master plan for the Park.

Both IUCN and ICOMOS confirmed the above information and reiterated their concerns with reference to management and co-ordination issues and stressed that a master plan as well as environmental impact studies would have to be studied in detail when they become available.

The Bureau took note of the information provided by the Secretariat and the Advisory Bodies. It reiterated the concerns expressed by the World Heritage Committee at its twentieth and twenty-first sessions about the need for adequate management arrangements and a comprehensive master plan. It also reiterated the view of the Committee that no action should be undertaken on the implementation of the cable car system until an adequate master plan is in place.

The Bureau took note of the assurance from the Peruvian authorities that a master plan would be prepared and adopted before the end of the year and that the cable car system would be examined in the context of such a plan.

The Bureau requested the Peruvian authorities to submit by 15 September 1998 a report that should include:

  • a response to each of the recommendations made by the ICOMOS/IUCN mission,
  • the progress made in establishing adequate management arrangements,
  • the progress made in the preparation of the master plan for the sanctuary, including the consideration of the access to the ruins of Machu Picchu. The master plan should also address the issue of the proposed extension of the boundaries of the Sanctuary to incorporate adjacent habitat that is important to endangered species.

On the basis of this report, the Bureau at its twenty-second extraordinary session will examine if the concerns about the state of conservation of the property persist and make the appropriate recommendations to the World Heritage Committee at its twenty-second session.

22 COM VII.29
SOC: Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu (Peru)

VII.29 Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu (Peru)

The Committee recalled that over the last three years the Committee and the Bureau examined the state of conservation of the Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu at several occasions, particularly with reference to adequate management arrangements and comprehensive master planning. It also recalled that the Committee and the Bureau had reiterated that no actions should be undertaken on the implementation of a cable car system, or to that effect any other major works, until an adequate master plan is in place.

In response to the concerns expressed by the Committee and the Bureau, the Government of Peru prepared, as a joint effort between several institutions, a Master Plan for the Sanctuary of Machu Picchu. This was adopted by the National Institute for Natural Resources (INRENA) and the National Institute for Culture (INC) at the end of October 1998 and received at the World Heritage Centre on 17 November 1998.

The Committee commended the Government of Peru for the actions it had taken to respond to the concerns expressed by the Committee and its Bureau, particularly the adoption of the Master Plan for the Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu. It requested IUCN and ICOMOS to undertake an in-depth examination of the Master Plan and to submit its findings to the twenty-third session of the Bureau in June/July 1999.

It requested the Peruvian authorities to transmit all relevant documentation and provisions with regard to the management structure and Master Plan for the Sanctuary, the cable car system (Environmental Impact Study, detailed plans etc.), as well as other works or projects that are or will be considered for implementation within the boundaries of the World Heritage site as soon as they become available, to the World Heritage Centre. This information will be reviewed by ICOMOS and IUCN and examined by the Bureau and/or the Committee.

The Committee furthermore requested the Bureau to consider at its twenty-third session whether it is appropriate for IUCN and ICOMOS to undertake a second mission to Peru to assess the implementation and effectiveness of the Master Plan, the project of the cable car system, the eventual hotel extension and other major works that may be planned. The Committee urged the Government of Peru not to take any decision on projects that could have considerable impact on the World Heritage values of the Park prior to a possible IUCN/ICOMOS mission. Prior consultations with the World Heritage Committee as recommended in paragraph 56 of the Operational Guidelines should also be envisaged.

Finally, the Committee commended the Finnish Government for its interest in the preservation of the Park and the implementation of a major debt-swap project to this effect.

The Bureau recommended the Committee to adopt the following:

“The Committee commends the Government of Peru for the actions it has taken to respond to the concerns expressed by the Committee and its Bureau, particularly the adoption of the Master Plan for the Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu. It requests IUCN and ICOMOS to undertake an in-depth examination of the Master Plan and to submit its findings to the twenty-third session of the Bureau in June/July 1999.

It requests the Peruvian authorities to transmit all relevant documentation and provisions with regard to the management structure and Master Plan for the Sanctuary, the cable car system (Environmental Impact Study, detailed plans etc.), as well as other works or projects that are or will be considered for implementation within the boundaries of the World Heritage site as soon as they become available, to the World Heritage Centre for review by ICOMOS and IUCN and examination by the Bureau and/or the Committee.

The Committee furthermore requests the Bureau at its twenty-third session to consider whether it is appropriate for IUCN and ICOMOS to undertake a second mission to Peru to assess the implementation and effectiveness of the Master Plan, the project of the cable car system, the eventual hotel extension and other major works that may be planned. The Committee urges the Government of Peru not to take any decision on projects that could have considerable impact on the World Heritage values of the Park prior to a possible IUCN/ICOMOS mission. Prior consultations with the World Heritage Committee as recommended in paragraph 56 of the Operational Guidelines should also be envisaged.

Finally, the Committee commends the Finnish Government for its interest in the preservation of the park and the implementation of a major debt-swap project to this effect.”

 

Report year: 1998
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