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

Historical Centre of the City of Arequipa

Peru
Factors affecting the property in 2010*
  • Deliberate destruction of heritage
  • Ground transport infrastructure
  • Housing
  • Management systems/ management plan
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports

a) Lack of a Disaster Preparedness Plan

b) Ongoing planned development projects which impact the historic centre, such as the planned construction of the Chilina Bridge

c) Illegal demolitions involving historical buildings

International Assistance: requests for the property until 2010
Requests approved: 1 (from 2001-2001)
Total amount approved : 75,000 USD
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2010

The World Heritage Centre received a state of conservation report on 2 February 2010. The report provides a brief summary of the property and responses to the World Heritage Committee’s decisions at its 32nd (Quebec City, 2008) and 33rd (Seville, 2009) sessions.

a) Buffer zone

The State Party reports that actions have been undertaken to declare the Chilina valley and its prehispanic terraces as a protected area. Actions include the development of the declaration files one to recognise the area as an environmental reserve and a second one geared toward the recognition as an archaeological landscape. This measure will help aid in the inclusion of the Valley as part of the buffer zone for the historic centre.

The World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS welcome the step taken towards enhancing the conservation of the historic centre and its setting when first reported. It is important to finalise the process to establish the legislative framework so that regulatory measures can be fully operational to address pressing concerns at the area.

b) Strengthening of institutional frameworks

The report provides the background on the process that has been implemented to set management arrangements and the current responsibilities and governance for the property. The State Party reports that the Management Plan and the Master Plan for the historic centre have been finalized and over 56 projects have been implemented for the conservation of historic buildings and public spaces. The Plans have not been submitted and is not clear when they have been officially adopted. In addition, several regulatory instruments have been discussed at the municipal level to support protection of heritage places. Notwithstanding, there are still challenges that need to be faced including real estate speculation and limited awareness in some sectors about the importance of historic buildings. The existing arrangements have promoted a management model that includes broad participation and open and transparent decision-making processes. Nevertheless it is not clear if there is secure funding for staff and to implement future activities.

The World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS take note of the progress made by the State Party in regard to the institutional arrangements; they encourage it to continue its work towards securing the financial, technical and human resources to effectively operate.

 

c) Regulatory measures for the protection of the property and the control of demolitions

The State Party reports that no significant demolitions occurred in 2009, only minor occurrences were reported and this affected elements with no architectural values. It also reports that these derived in sanctions to infringers of regulatory measures currently in place. They report that these sanctioning processes have diminished in relation to 2008. Progress can be attributed to actions implemented at all levels to raise awareness on the significance of the place and with direct action with property owners to promote conservation.

The Management Unit of the Municipality in coordination with the INC (Instituto Nacional de Cultura), has launched a proactive inventory process to register 150 heritage buildings currently unregistered which reinforces the already existing Law 28296, demanding owners to register their historic properties at the INC.

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies take note of the information provided and reiterate the importance of having adequate capacity to respond to the number of interventions that occur at the property. They also encourage the State Party to continue its efforts on awareness raising as means to enhancing social responsibility in the conservation of the property.

d) Risk Preparedness Plan

The state of conservation report includes a revised draft of the initial proposal for a Risk Management Plan which includes a preliminary risk map that identifies vulnerable areas. Advances have been made in relation to the elaboration of the diagnosis of the threats to archaeological heritage.

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies acknowledge progress made but reiterate their concern that this plan has not been finalised, as requested since 2003 by the World Heritage Committee, in light of the vulnerability of the property.

e) Statement of Outstanding Universal Value

In the framework of the Periodic Reporting exercise for the Region, the “Workshop on the preparation Retrospective Inventory, retrospective Statement of Outstanding Universal Value of the properties included on the World Heritage List and an introduction to the Second Cycle of the Periodic Reporting for the Latin America and Caribbean Region” took place in November 2009 in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The focal point for Arequipa participated and was trained on how to produce the retrospective Statement of Outstanding Universal Value which should be submitted to the World Heritage Centre by 31 July 2010.

f) Other issues: Construction of the Chilina Bridge

In March 2009 the UNESCO office in Lima received information concerning the project to build a bridge that would affect the Chilina valley and the property. Information highlighted the concerns about the project, including the lack of provisions for articulating other transportation concerns, its lack of integration in urban development plans and lack of technical studies, in particular the Environmental Impact Assessment and the impact on areas already identified as threatened by the Reactive Monitoring mission carried out in 2008. This was also underscored in light of the Chilina Valley being declared as a protected area for the conservation of the Yanahuara, Cayma and Cerro Colorado. Subsequent information submitted to the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies indicated that in July 2009 it was decided by the Regional Government to reformulate the project and to create a technical commission to articulate it to provisions made in the urban development plan. However, the location of the bridge itself was not put under question.

On 13 July and in September 2009, the World Heritage Centre requested to the State Party additional technical information on the construction of the Chilina Bridge. The State Party submitted the requested information consisting of technical plans and projects for the bridge and the Environmental Impact Assessment commissioned by the Regional Government of Arequipa and carried out by SGM Ingenieros EIRL that were received by the World Heritage Centre in October 2009. The latter however only focuses on the Chilina Bridge, one of the components of the large scale development of infrastructure and does not include a comprehensive impact assessment on the landscape qualities which are currently intended to be protected as an essential component that sustains the Outstanding Universal Value of the property.

The National Institute of Culture in Arequipa considered the project would affect agricultural areas in the district of Cerro Colorado and the andenes (prehispanic terraces) eand landscapes of the Chilina valley in the districts of Yanahuara and Cayma, which are considered cultural heritage and contradict the efforts made by the Municipality of Arequipa started work to delimit and declare the Chilina Valley as an environmental reserve and as national cultural heritage to deter further urban development.

In 22 March 2010, the World Heritage Centre requested additional information to the State Party as the project appears to have been modified. Upon receipt of the demanded information, the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies will evaluate it to ascertain the potential impact on the Outstanding Universal Value, the integrity and authenticity of the property.

To conclude, the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies recognise the efforts made by the State Party in establishing functioning institutional arrangements and in strengthening legislative and regulatory frameworks. Demolitions in the protected area continue even if they have decreased, the insufficiency of resources to comprehensively address issues at the property is a concern. They also reiterate the pressing need to finalise and put in place a comprehensive disaster preparedness plan that will need to take into account different vulnerability factors.

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies also underscore the potential threat that projected infrastructure works could entail for the property. No clear advances on other recommendations of the 2008 reactive monitoring mission regarding traffic solutions, the creation of a World Heritage working group, and the submission of an International Assistance request for developing a community participation programme based on the progress of Los Tambos project.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2010
34 COM 7B.114
Historical Centre of the City of Arequipa (Peru) (C 1016)

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-10/34.COM/7B,

2. Recalling Decision 33 COM 7B.142, adopted at its 33rd session (Seville, 2009),

3. Regrets that no substantial progress has been made in the implementation of the recommendations of the 2008 World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS joint reactive monitoring mission;

4. Takes note of the progress made by the State Party in establishing institutional arrangements and encourages it to secure the resources required for their sustained operation;

5. Requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies the following information:

a) The finalized Master Plan and Management Plan,

b) An advanced report on the registration and inventorying of built heritage in the property;

6. Acknowledges the efforts made to enhance the protection of the property by declaring the Chilina Valley and the Pre-hispanic terraces as a protected area and urges the State Party to fully implement regulatory measures to prevent further urban sprawl and impacts on the setting;

7. Also regrets that the State Party did not submit a finalized risk preparedness plan as requested by the World Heritage Committee since 2003 and reiterates its request to complete the process and submit the plan for review by the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS;

8. Also requests the State Party to submit updated information on the construction of the Chilina Bridge and projected infrastructure works, in accordance with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines to the World Heritage Centre for review by the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies and also urges the State Party to stop infrastructure works until the potential impact of these works on the Outstanding Universal Value, including integrity and authenticity of the property can be ascertained;

9. Further requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2011, a detailed report on the state of conservation of the property and on the progress made in the implementation of the above recommendations, for the examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 35th session in 2011.

Draft Decision: 34 COM 7B.114

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-10/34.COM/7B,

2. Recalling Decision 33 COM 7B.142, adopted at its 33rd session (Seville, 2009),

3. Regrets that no substantial advances have been made in the implementation of the recommendations of the 2008 World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS joint reactive monitoring mission;

4. Takes note of the progress made by the State Party in setting functioning institutional arrangements and encourages it to secure the resources required for their sustained operation;

5. Requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies the following information:

a) The finalized Master Plan and Management Plan,

b) An advanced report of the registration and cataloguing of built heritage in the property;

6. Acknowledges the efforts made to enhance the protection of the property by declaring the Chilina Valley and the Pre-hispanic terraces as a protected area and urges the State Party to fully implement regulatory measures to prevent further urban sprawl and impacts on the setting;

7. Also regrets that the State Party did not submit a finalised Risk Preparedness plan as requested by the World Heritage Committee since 2003 and reiterates its request to complete the process and submit the plan for review by the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS;

8. Also requests the State Party to submit updated information on the construction of the Chilina bridge and projected infrastructure works, in accordance with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines to the World Heritage Centre for review by the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies and also urges the State Party to stop infrastructure works until the potential impact of these works on the Outstanding Universal Value, including integrity and authenticity of the property can be ascertained;

9. Further requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2011, a detailed report on the state of conservation of the property and on the progress made in the implementation of the above recommendations, for the examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 35th session in 2011.

Report year: 2010
Peru
Date of Inscription: 2000
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (i)(iv)
Documents examined by the Committee
arrow_circle_right 34COM (2010)
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