State of Conservation
Huascarán National Park
Factors affecting the property in 2000*
- Effects arising from use of transportation infrastructure
- Ground transport infrastructure
- Illegal activities
- Impacts of tourism / visitor / recreation
- Legal framework
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
- Possible Bill in Congress to reduce the level of legal protection (issue resolved)
- Inappropriate tourism development proposals (issue resolved)
- Overgrazing by domestic sheep (issue resolved)
- Excessive burning (issue resolved)
- Poaching by the military (issue resolved)
- Low financial resources (issue resolved)
- Cultural resources inventory of the site needed (issue resolved)
- New road proposal connected to mining activities
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2000
Requests approved: 4
Total amount approved : 75,400 USD
|1993||Training and awareness-raising activities for Huascaran ... (Approved)||20,000 USD|
|1989||Elaboration of a Master Plan for the Management of ... (Approved)||20,000 USD|
|1986||Support for associated training activities for park ... (Approved)||5,300 USD|
|1986||Financial support for the implementation of the ... (Approved)||30,100 USD|
Missions to the property until 2000**
|2000||IUCN Mission Report, Huascarán National Park, May 2000|
|1998||WHC Mission to Peru, June 1998|
|1995||IUCN Mission Report, Huascarán National Park|
Information presented to the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee in 2000
Twenty-second session of the Committee – paragraph VII.27 and Annex IV.
Twenty-third ordinary session of the Bureau – paragraph IV.37
New information: The States Party invited a mission to the site during the second week of May and INRENA provided a programme for the visit. The mission aims to assess the impact of mining activities on the World Heritage values of this site and to assess the suitability of this site for a case study for presentation at a meeting on mining and World Heritage sites to be held at IUCN Headquarters in September, 2000. IUCN will present a verbal report of its mission at the time of the Bureau session.
The Bureau, based on new information likely to be available at the time of its session, may wish to take appropriate decisions thereupon.
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2000
Following the mission to the site in May 2000, the draft report had been forwarded to the authorities in June 2000 for comments. The mission responded to concerns related to the impact on the integrity of the Park concerning the temporary use of the Pachacoto-Yanashallay road (Central Road). Concerns were also raised relating to opening up new areas along the road and associated resource extraction as well as in relation to increased traffic on this road.
The recommendations of the mission include the following:
· to commend State Party efforts to develop co-operative institutional options to monitor the temporary use and restoration of the Central Road;
· to commend the Antamina Mining Company for their co-operation in developing the Southern Road as an alternative to access directly through the World Heritage site.
· to recognise the support provided by all actors involved in this case: INRENA, Huascarán National Park administration, Antamina Mining Co., The Mountain Institute and the Working Group on Huascarán, while encouraging them to explore new ways and means to strengthen co-ordination and develop long-term partnerships, based on well defined and agreed Terms of Reference. Priority should be given to establish an agreement between INRENA and the Ministry of Energy and Mining to control and monitor mining activities that could affect the Park and its buffer zone, particularly in relation to small mining operations;
· to commend the Governments of The Netherlands, Germany, and others for the support provided for the conservation of Huascarán National Park;
· to encourage the State Party to provide support for the development and implementation of a new Management Plan for Huascarán National Park. In relation to tourism development it would be helpful for the new Management Plan to revise and incorporate key recommendations from the Huascarán National Park Recreation and Tourism Plan. In this regard, and considering the successful experience of the Working Group in relation to mining, it is particularly important to implement the recommendations of this plan concerning inter-institutional co-ordination in the tourism sector. The World Heritage Committee may also wish to recommend the State Party request support from the World Heritage Fund to prepare a new Management Plan for Huascarán National Park;
· to encourage the State Party to assess institutional and legal gaps that exist in relation to regulating and monitoring mining and tourism in protected areas. The Committee may also wish to recommend to the State Party that, in relation to tourism, a similar exercise as that for Machu Picchu to adopt a Regulation on Tourism Use, be prepared for Huascarán National Park;
· to encourage the State Party, through INRENA and the Ministry of Public Transportation, to enhance enforcement activities to control and mitigate direct or indirect impacts related to the use of the Southern Road. The Southern Road, which is a public road located in the buffer zone of the Park, will be completed in September 2000. This road will facilitate a higher level of visitation to the Park and its buffer zone, with potential associated impacts such as fires and illegal poaching, among others.
Issues related to the temporary use of the Central Road are soon to be solved. However the overall issue related to small mining operations within the National Park and its buffer zone requires further attention and follow-up as a potential important threat to the integrity of the Park. This is particularly important in relation to the impacts of such operations on the water quality of existing rivers and lakes. Support of UNESCO’s International Hydrological Programme concerning monitoring of water quality in this World Heritage site and its buffer zone may be sought. The Working Group of Huascarán has almost completed its work in relation to the Central Road. This has proved to be a good initiative to co-ordinate activities of various actors involved in the temporary use of this road. However, considering that the mining activities continue to be a potential threat to the integrity of the Park, it would be helpful to maintain the Working Group under revised Terms of Reference to consider this issue. These should also consider follow-up and monitoring of indirect impacts that may occur related to the use of the Southern Road. The State Party may also wish to assess the possibility to re-nominate Huascarán National Park for World Heritage Listing under cultural criteria. During the mission it was evident that this area has important cultural values and on-going cultural traditions typical of the Andes that might be of outstanding universal value. Support from the World Heritage Fund to undertake such an exercise may be requested.
Furthermore, the site had been selected as one of the case studies at the technical workshop on World Heritage and mining held at IUCN from 21 to 23 September 2000. The recommendations of the workshop are presented in the first section of this document.
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2000
24 BUR IV.B.35
Huascaran National Park (Peru)
The Centre informed the Bureau that a mission to the site took place from 8 to 12 May 2000 and that the mission report is currently being finalized by IUCN.
IUCN commented that it had carried out the mission and that an initial draft report had been submitted to the Centre. IUCN highlighted the following preliminary points: (a) the site is assessed as not being in danger; (b) there is a positive co-operation with the mining industry and the site will be one of the case studies at the forthcoming World Heritage and Mining Workshop; and (c) there are a range of other site specific issues that should be discussed at the November session of the Bureau.
The Observer of Peru indicated that the draft report had been forwarded to his authorities for comments. He informed the Bureau that the Directorate of Cultural Heritage of Peru is currently examining the protection of the cultural values of the site.
The Bureau took note of the preliminary report of the mission to the site presented by IUCN and noted that this report had been provided to the authorities for comments. The Bureau requested the State Party, the Centre and IUCN to collaborate so that any responses and comments be transmitted to the forthcoming meeting on World Heritage and Mining to be held in September 2000. The Bureau requested that the outcome be reported to the twenty-fourth session of the World Heritage Committee.
24 COM VIII.iii
State of conservation reports of natural properties noted by the Committee
State of conservation reports of natural properties noted by the Committee
Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest (Belarus/Poland)
Pirin National Park (Bulgaria)
Dja Faunal Reserve (Cameroon)
Gros Morne National Park (Canada)
Canadian Rocky Mountains Parks (Canada)
Comoe National Park (Côte d'Ivoire)
Galapagos Islands (Ecuador)
Komodo National Park (Indonesia)
Lorenz National Park (Indonesia)
Mount Kenya National Park/Natural Forest (Kenya)
Te Wahipounamu - South West New Zealand (New Zealand)
Arabian Oryx Sanctuary (Oman)
Huascarán National Park (Peru)
Danube Delta (Romania)
Lake Baikal (Russian Federation)
Niokolo-Koba National Park (Senegal)
Doñana National Park (Spain)
Sinharaja Forest Reserve (Sri Lanka)
Bwindi Impenetrable Forest (Uganda)
Gough Island (United Kingdom)
Ngorongoro Conservation Area and the Serengeti National Park (United Republic of Tanzania)
Ha Long Bay (Vietnam)
Mosi-oa-Tunya/Victoria Falls (Zambia/Zimbabwe)
The Bureau may wish to adopt the following decision and transmit it to the Committee for noting:
“The Bureau encourages the State Party to implement the recommendations of the mission report and to regularly report on the status of the implementation of these recommendations.”
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”).