Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu
Factors affecting the property in 2001*
- 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);
- Urbanization of the valley;
- Helicopters flights
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2001
Total amount approved : 166,625 USD
|2001||Request for a stone specialist for the assessment of ... (Approved)||5,000 USD|
|1992||Financial contribution for a training workshop on ... (Approved)||19,325 USD|
|1992||Organization of a training course for technicians, ... (Approved)||19,500 USD|
|1991||Preparation of a Master Plan for Machu Picchu (Approved)||40,000 USD|
|1991||Additional costs for technical consultancy for the ... (Approved)||6,000 USD|
|1991||Contribution to a monitoring exercise of the following ... (Approved)||3,300 USD|
|1991||Additional cost for technical consultancy for the ... (Approved)||4,000 USD|
|1989||Preparation of a technical cooperation project for a ... (Approved)||15,000 USD|
|1988||Contribution to purchase of fire-fighting equipment and ... (Approved)||20,000 USD|
|1986||Support for associated training activities related to ... (Approved)||8,000 USD|
|1986||Financial support for the implementation of the ... (Approved)||26,500 USD|
Missions to the property until 2001**
Information presented to the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee in 2001
Twenty-fourth session of the Bureau - paragraph number IV.49
Twenty-fourth session of the Committee - paragraph number VIII.29; Annex X page 120
Main Issues: Need to strengthen management structures in order to implement the Management Plan and to protect this fragile site from environmental and development pressures.
New information: The State Party informed the Secretariat that a new director had been named for the Management Unit of Machu Picchu and that arrangements had been made on the distribution of the income through the use of the Inca Trail. No information was provided on the implementation of the recommendations of the 1999 UNESCO-IUCN-ICOMOS mission or on the review of the policy of the use for commercial purposes of the site, as requested by the Bureau at its twenty-fourth extraordinary session.
In January 2001, a seminar took place at the Disaster Prevention Research Institute of the Kyoto University, Japan, on a research programme on slope instability and landslide risks at Machu Picchu. While press reports incorrectly suggested that the ruins at Machu Picchu are about to disappear, it has become clear from preliminary investigations that further and more in-depth study is required.
IUCN has noted reports that the new regulations for the Inca Trail under the Master Plan were due to come into effect on December 31, 2000. These rules included an increase in entry charges to the trail, a ban on independent walking without a guide, and a limit of 500 walkers per day. Reports note that the exploitation of porters continues. However, the new rules should limit the loads that porters can carry to 44lb. Litter and piles of toilet paper also continue to be a problem on the trail although some is collected. IUCN notes from one report, however, that rubbish collected from the trail is dumped beside the Urubamba river outside the site and left untreated. There is concern that the new rules will not be enforced, as previous bans on cutting wood in ecologically sensitive areas are still ignored. Porters are often not provided with means to cook their own food and, therefore, search fire-wood in these areas.
The Bureau stresses, again, the need to implement the recommendations made by the UNESCO-IUCN-ICOMOS mission of 1999 that were fully endorsed by the Committee at its twenty-third session. It recognises that progress has been made on the implementation of some of them. The Bureau requests UNESCO-IUCN-ICOMOS to field a mission to the site in order to obtain a clear view of the level of implementation of all of the recommendations. The mission should also look into (a) the policy for the use of the site for commercial purposes, (b) the restoration of the Intihuantana sundial and (c) the research that is being or to be undertaken on the landslide risks. The report of the mission should be submitted to the twenty-fifth extraordinary session of the Bureau.
Summary of the interventions
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2001
25 BUR V.195-197
Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu (Peru)
V.195 The Bureau was informed that no substantive report on the state of conservation of the property was submitted by the State Party as requested at the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau. However, the Bureau was informed that the Peruvian Government had suspended the cable car project, although final confirmation from the Government was still pending.
V.196 The Bureau stressed once again the need to implement the recommendations made by the UNESCO-IUCN-ICOMOS mission of 1999 that were fully endorsed by the Committee at its twenty-third session. It recognised that progress has been made on the implementation of some recommendations and welcomed, in particular, the decision of the Government of Peru to suspend the cable car project. This decision should, according to the Bureau, facilitate the undertaking of studies to define the carrying capacity of the site and develop a well-considered approach to the management of an ever-increasing flow of visitors.
V.197 The Bureau requested UNESCO-IUCN-ICOMOS to field a mission to the site in order to obtain a clear view of the level of implementation of all the recommendations of the 1999 mission. The mission should also look into (a) the policy for the use of the site for commercial purposes, (b) the restoration of the Intihuantana sundial, and (c) the research that is being or is to be undertaken on the landslide risks. The report of the mission should be submitted to the twenty-sixth session of the Bureau.
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”).