Chavin (Archaeological Site)
Factors affecting the property in 2000*
- Financial resources
- Human resources
- Management systems/ management plan
- Other climate change impacts
- Other Threats:
Deterioration of the site
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
- Lack of sufficient human and financial resources
- Lack of a Management Plan
- Deterioration of the site
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2000
Total amount approved : 48,750 USD
| 1998 | Emergency assistance - Chavin Archeological site, Peru (Approved) | 37,250 USD |
| 1994 | Protection plan for the site of Chavin (Approved) | 4,000 USD |
| 1988 | Expert mission to prepare a technical assistance ... (Approved) | 7,500 USD |
Missions to the property until 2000**
Information presented to the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee in 2000
Previous deliberations:
Twenty-third session of the Committee - paragraph X.46 and Annex VIII.
New information: The Peruvian Delegation informed the Secretariat that:
- protective measures against the impact of rain have been undertaken;
- a Commission for the Elaboration of a Master Plan for Chavin has been set up under the direction of a distinguished Peruvian archaeologist;
- a detailed request for emergency assistance from the World Heritage Fund for the conservation of the internal galleries is under preparation.
Action Required
Summary of the interventions
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2000
24 BUR IV.B.78
State of conservation
The Bureau took note of the information provided in the working document on the state of conservation of the following properties:
NATURAL HERITAGE
Comoe National Park (Côte d’Ivoire)
Caves of the Aggtelek and Slovak Karst (Hungary/Slovakia)
The Delegate of Morocco pointed out that the protection of surface water is important in karst systems.
Kaziranga National Park (India)
Lorentz National Park (Indonesia)
Kamchatka Volcanoes (Russian Federation)
Sinharaja Forest Reserve (Sri Lanka)
Bwindi Impenetrable Forest (Uganda)
CULTURAL HERITAGE
Rock-hewn Churches, Lalibela (Ethiopia)
Vilnius Historic Centre (Lithuania)
City of Cuzco (Peru)
Chavin (Archaeological Site) (Peru)
Lines and Geoglyphs of Nasca and Pampas de Jumana (Peru)
24 COM VIII.iii.35-43
State of conservation reports of cultural properties which the Committee noted
VIII.35 Brasilia (Brazil)
Peking Man Site at Zhoukoudian (China)
The Potala Palace, Lhasa (China)
VIII.36 Islamic Cairo (Egypt)
VIII.37 Roman Monuments, Cathedral St Peter and Liebfrauen-Church in Trier (Germany)
Palaces and Parks of Potsdam and Berlin (Germany)
Classical Weimar (Germany)
Hortabagy National Park (Hungary)
VIII.38 Khajuraho Group of Monuments (India) Sun Temple of Konarak (India) Petra (Jordan) Luang Prabang (Lao People's Democratic Republic) Byblos (Lebanon) Ksar Ait Ben Haddou (Morocco) VIII.39 Island of Mozambique (Mozambique) Lumbini, the Birthplace of the Lord Buddha (Nepal) Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama: Portobelo - San Lorenzo (Panama) Archaeological Site of Chavin (Peru) VIII.40 Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras (Philippines)
VIII.41 Baroque Churches of the Philippines (Philippines)
VIII.42 Cultural Landscape of Sintra (Portugal)
VIII.43 Istanbul (Turkey)
Complex of Hué Monuments (Vietnam)
Peru
* :
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.
