1.         Chan Chan Archaeological Zone (Peru) (C 366)

Year of inscription on the World Heritage List  1986

Criteria  (i)(iii)

Year(s) of inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger    1986-present

Threats for which the property was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger

Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger

The State Party reports on the preparation of the proposed Desired state of conservation that will be submitted to the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies. 

Corrective measures identified

a) Full and systematic implementation of the Master Plan: secure sustainable funding, abide by prescribed courses of action and policies, adhere to prescribed institutional arrangements, for the conservation, presentation and revalorization of the property;

b) Enforce legislative and regulatory frameworks already passed by the State Party to address the issues of illegal occupations and activities at the property. Collaborate with pertinent authorities for the relocation of settlers;

c) Broad dissemination of the Master Plan amongst interest groups to strengthen public and private support in its implementation;

d) Collaboration with entities in defining regulatory measures for the management of the buffer zone and of the World Heritage property. Precise plans of the property and its zoning need to be circulated amongst stakeholders;

e) Physical delineation of the property: vegetation barriers, perimeter walls, etc.;

f) Priority conservation measures: control and mitigation of water table levels, conservation of perimeter walls, backfilling of fragile areas with decorated surfaces;

g) Development of an emergency and disaster preparedness plan.

Timeframe for the implementation of the corrective measures

a) Secured funding for the implementation of the Master Plan in 2008;

b) Functioning institutional arrangements in 2008 (as per Master Plan);

c) Illegal occupations addressed and activities at the site regulated in 2009 and beyond;

d) Emergency and risk preparedness plan in 2008;

e) Drainage works completed by the end of 2007;

f) Priority conservation works in 2009;

g) Other conservation and maintenance works 2008 and beyond;

h) Management and coordination of works carried out by other sectors in the buffer zone in 2008 and beyond.

Previous Committee Decisions  see page https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/366/documents/

International Assistance

Requests approved: 0 (from 1987-1998)
Total amount approved: USD 118,700
For details, see page https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/366/assistance/

UNESCO Extra-budgetary Funds


Previous monitoring missions

1997: ICOMOS mission; February 2007: Joint World Heritage Centre / ICOMOS and ICCROM mission; November 2010: Joint World Heritage Centre / ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission. 

Factors affecting the property identified in previous reports

Illustrative material  see page https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/366/

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2011

A report on the state of conservation of the property was submitted by the State Party on 2 February 2011. From 8 to 12 November 2010, a joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission was carried out, as requested by the World Heritage Committee at its 34th session (Brasilia, 2010). The mission report is available online athttps://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/35COM/documents


a) Implementation of the Master Plan

The implementation of the Master Plan has continued through the work of the Executing Unit 110, which has undertaken several conservation and outreach projects to enhance public participation. In 2010, the review of the Master Plan was started, however no indication is provided on how the process will be carried out or the expected timeframe for its completion.

The November 2010 mission noted that the current situation where there is a dual decision making structure has in fact hindered the implementation of the Master Plan. It underscores that since the Executing Unit was not involved in the establishment of the Master Plan, there have been conflicts with priorities for implementation. It also noted that in spite of efforts made, the management system is not fully operational. It recalled that the authority to update the Plan was given to the Executing Unit 110 in 2007 (Emergency Decree No. 001-2007) but that, however, how and when this revision will take place is not yet clear. Conflicting interests concerning the revision process and the new priorities presented by the Executing Unit 110 complicate the situation even further.

b) Regulatory framework and legislation

The State Party’s report indicates that the Multisectorial Commission established by Law No. 28261 for its enforcement, has requested that representatives of the Ministry of Housing be included in the Commission, as they deal with the registration of properties (in particular as regards the removal of illegal occupants from the buffer zone). The Commission has also requested that a Technical Secretariat be established under the Ministry of Culture (formerly the National Institue of Culture - INC) to review the process and enforce the application of Law No. 28261. The report indicates that the Supreme Resolution necessary to approve the regulations to enforce Law No. 28261 is being processed at the highest levels of government. No indication was provided on when it is expected to be passed.

The mission verified the current status of this process, and noted that since the file was transferred from the Ministry of Education to the newly created Ministry of Culture, a timelier follow-up is probable. It also underscored that the actual removal of the farmers from the site will take time as property claims will need to be investigated and land for their relocation will have to be set aside.

c) Buffer zone

Work has continued with the Provincial Municipality of Trujillo, through the Office of Land Development and Planning to finalize regulations for the buffer zone which will be approved by a Municipal Ordinance. No timeframe is provided for when this process is expected to be concluded.

The mission noted that the legal process had started by the approval of the technical file for the buffer zone (National Directorial Resolution No. 1383/INC, June 2010) and verified that the draft regulation for the buffer zone was being discussed, so that it will eventually be included in the Territorial Development Plan (PLANDET) of the Municipality.

d) State of conservation of the property

The report indicates that several projects have been implemented to address conservation concerns at the property. These have included efforts to protect the inscribed property such as monitoring of activities to stop unauthorized farming, control of vehicular traffic within the archaeological site, cleaning and maintenance of the property and maintenance of drains 10 to 14. As for conservation projects, with public investment funds, interventions continued on the perimeter walls of the Palaces, as well as on some walls of funeral platforms, along with protective sheltering for the decorated surfaces and/or installation of fibreglass replicas to protect the original reliefs. Maintenance works were also carried out at the Huacas to prevent conditions derived from the El Niño phenomena. Budgets have already been allocated for the continuation of these interventions through to 2012. Work has also continued with the Istituto per le Tecnologie Applicata ai Beni Culturali del Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche for the development of a Territorial Information System.

The mission assessed the current state of the property and the interventions and expressed concerns regarding the differentiation of interventions, issues with the structural design of protective shelters and drainage to mitigate the impacts of El Niño and the need to establish a monitoring system for the decorated surfaces that have been covered by replicas. It also noted that considerable problems continue to exist regarding garbage and rubble accumulation at the site’s perimeter, largely related to the vegetation barrier not being maintained. It also noted the visual impact caused by the animal processing plant which could potentially be demolished once regulations for the buffer zone are approved.

e) Emergency and disaster preparedness plan

The report indicates that the plan which was prepared in 2009 was used as the basis for contingency activities related to the storms of February 2010. No additional information is provided regarding the revision of this plan to address concerns highlighted by the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies, that further development was necessary to create a comprehensive risk Master Plan that would include provisions for natural and man made disasters, not only for emergencies derived from El Niño phenomenon.

f) Other issues

The State Party reports that a project for preparing Chan Chan for Tourism is currently being implemented under an agreement with the Provincial Municipality of Trujillo, which includes the potential improvement of infrastructure. No proposals were submitted for review.

Activities have also continued in respect to awareness raising and outreach, focusing both on local and regional authorities as well as educational institutions. Projects have also been implemented to promote handicraft production given its importance as a cultural and creative industry.

The mission raised concerns regarding a potential project for the construction of a new museum, Museo Nacional del Gran Chimú which already has a museological proposal. The Presidential Law no. 29529, dated 7 May 2010, authorizes the Executing Unit 110 to execute the preinvestment, investment and postinvestment phases of the construction of the Museo Nacional del Gran Chimú. Also unclear is the status of the project for a theme park proposed by the Executing Unit 110 (February 2009) to be built within the property’s northern limits, that would include an interactive museum, convention centre, theatre and concert halls, botanical garden, mini zoo, and other facilities. The project was rejected by the INC in the past, but at the time of the mission, the status of this project was not clear therefore official information needs to be requested from the State Party. 

Analysis and Conclusions of the World Heritage Centre, ICOMOS and ICCROM

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies note that efforts have been made to implement some of the corrective measures and that these are reflected in progress made regarding the conservation of the palaces, the installation of the drainage system, among others. However, significant progress, stronger stance, political will and continuity are still required to address the vulnerability of the property. They consider that a precise timeframe and revised corrective measures should be determined to remove the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger. 

Decision Adopted: 35 COM 7A.33

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-11/35.COM/7A,

2. Recalling Decision 34 COM 7A.30, adopted at its 34th session (Brasilia, 2010),

3. Acknowledges the efforts made by the State Party to implement some of the corrective measures;

4. Notes the results of the November 2010 joint World Heritage Centre / ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission, endorses its recommendations and requests the State Party to:

a) Secure regular funding for the protection, conservation, restoration, maintenance and management of the property,

b) Install a clear institutional structure that allows for effective decision-making and the implementation of the Master Plan,

c) Review and update the Master Plan, including a public use plan and a comprehensive risk preparedness plan,

d) Continue its work to prepare the property for strong rains connected to the El Niño phenomenon,

e) Approve and apply all pertinent legislation and its regulations, mainly Law No. 28261 and regulations related to the buffer zone,

f) Design and install a monitoring system with clear indicators for the state of conservation of the property, the effectiveness of the conservation interventions and the management efficiency,

g) Submit, in accordance with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines, information on the proposed Museo Nacional del Gran Chimú and the project for a theme park, for consideration and review by the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies prior to approval and implementation;

5. Also requests the State Party, in consultation with the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies, to develop a proposal for the Desired state of conservation and updated corrective measures for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 36th session in 2012;

6. Further requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2012, an updated report on the state of conservation of the property and the implementation of the above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 36th session in 2012;

7. Decides to retain Chan Chan Archaeological Zone (Peru) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Decision Adopted: 35 COM 8C.2

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Following the examination of the state of conservation reports of properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger (WHC-11/35.COM/7A, WHC-11/35.COM/7A.Add and WHC-11/35.COM/7A.Add.Corr),

2. Decides to maintain the following properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger:

Decision Adopted: 35 COM 8E

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-11/35.COM/8E,

2. Adopts the retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value, as presented in the Annex I of Document WHC-11/35.COM/8E, for the following World Heritage properties:

3. Decides that retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value for World Heritage properties in Danger will be reviewed in priority;

4. 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 will follow the Second Cycle of Periodic Reporting, namely: