1.
Maya Site of Copan (Honduras) (C 129)
Year of inscription on the World Heritage List 1980
Criteria (iv)(vi)
Year(s) of inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger N/A
Previous Committee Decisions see page http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/129/documents/
International Assistance
Requests approved: 0 (from 1979-1999)
Total amount approved: USD 226,513
For details, see page http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/129/assistance/
UNESCO Extra-budgetary Funds
N/A
Previous monitoring missions
2003: World Heritage Centre / ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission; 2005: ICOMOS reactive monitoring
mission.
Factors affecting the property identified in previous reports
a) The foreseen construction of an airport in the vicinity of the World Heritage property, in a national
protected area;
b) Deterioration of construction materials due to natural decay phenomena;
c) Risk of structural failure of archaeological complexes resulting from the excavated tunnels for
archaeological purposes;
d) Deterioration derived from uncontrolled visitation and potential to exceed carrying capacity at specific
time periods;
e) Legal issues concerning the ownership of the land in the property and its buffer zone and the
delimitation of the property and its buffer zone
Illustrative material see page http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/129/
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2011
The state of conservation report of the Maya Site of Copan was received by the World Heritage Centre
on 1 February 2011. Additional information was received on 24 February 2011, as requested by the
World Heritage Centre on 3 February 2011 (letter WHC/74/217.1/NS/na/40).
a) Submission of further details on the implementation of the management plan
The report indicates that no further steps have been taken since the last state of conservation report.
The State Party has previously submitted a management strategy which does not address conservation
policies, disaster preparedness, involvement of the local communities and visitor management.
However an official management plan has never been submitted.
It was reported that a Public Use Plan which has been pending since 2005 and financed by the InterAmerican Development Bank (IBD), is being commissioned to monitor the carrying capacity of the site;
It was stated that this plan will be drafted between May and September 2011. No terms of reference for
the plan have been submitted.
b) Implementation of the conservation interventions at the property
Conservation measures in the form of protective shelters have been implemented for three steles. As
for the hieroglyphic stairway, interventions have continued for the last three years for surface
stabilization and mortar repairs, as well as preventive measures and monitoring. The State Party
indicates that the protective shelter that exists since 1987, a canvas tarpaulin, has been replaced several
times and a larger one installed in April 2010. Based on the report done in 2007 by the Getty
Conservation Institute (GCI), which was not submitted, it has now been approved to substitute this with
a long term sustainable shelter which will be financed by the Santander Bank of Spain. No technical
information on the proposed new alternative design has been submitted for review.
A conservation laboratory for sculptures is also scheduled to be opened in the Sculpture Museum by
the end of 2011. This will also be funded by the Santander Bank of Spain. No technical details or maps
for the location of the approved project were submitted.
c) Issues related to the tunnels
The State Party reports that conservation issues persist at the tunnels. Although there are regular
inspections and no serious damage has been registered so far, there is still the need to create a
comprehensive programme of preventive and corrective measures to improve their conservation. As
part of the documents later received by the World Heritage Centre in February 2011, the State Party
sent a report on the Consolidation and the Waterproofing of the Weak Areas of the Acropolis, which was
prepared in response to the heavy rains of 2010. This report provides limited information on the
implementation of the institution’s activities, timeframes and funding. The World Heritage Centre and
the Advisory Bodies wish to draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that for the past three years, this
issue has been a point of focus. They consider that this report from the State Party may be an emergency
measure rather than a suitable long-term conservation strategy.
d) Official submission of the boundaries of the World Heritage property and its potential buffer zone, in
light of the requirements of the Retrospective Inventory
The report states that the World Heritage area comprises 3 different zones: zone 1 – the property, zone
2 – the El Bosque residential area and zone 3 – an adaptation area used for tourist facilities. Four maps
were submitted with the report and will be considered under the item corresponding to minor boundary
modifications.
The report states that some of the land in the buffer zone is under the control of the Honduran Institute
of Anthropology and History (IHAH) and that the long term goal is to purchase all the land in the buffer
zone. Specific indications on when and how this goal will be achieved have not been provided.
e) Definitive decision on the location for the construction of the airport and related tourism management
issues
The 2003 and 2005 joint World Heritage Centre / ICOMOS reactive monitoring missions to the property
made several objections to the construction of the airport at the Rio Amarillo site, and identified
alternative locations. In 2006 the World Heritage Centre congratulated the State Party for the decision
to halt the construction of the airport at the Rio Amarillo area. However in 2007, the State Party informed
the Committee of plans to construct an alternate airport at the old air strip in the village of Concepción.
The 2009 state of conservation report indicated that a final decision on the construction of an airport in
La Concepción was still pending and that IHAH was reviewing the Environmental Impact Assessment
to make an official statement. No further information was received on its decision. On 30 September
2010, the World Heritage Centre sent a letter to the Honduran Delegation indicating its concerns
regarding the reconsideration of the construction of the airport at the Rio Amarillo site after reviewing
information from the published press. The 2011 state of conservation report submitted by the State Party
indicates that the Ministry of Tourism had cancelled the option of La Conception for financial reasons
and that it is once again evaluating the Rio Amarillo option. It also reported that prior to making further
decisions the IHAH will analyze by October 2011, an updated assessment of impact on cultural heritage
and the Public Use Plan, which will include the potential impact of the airport, particularly as it relates to
the visitor management programme.
The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies consider that sufficient information has been
provided to the World Heritage Committee over the past 5 years, and Decisions of the World Heritage
Committee have indicated clearly that the construction of an airport atRio Amarillo, could have an
adverse impact on the Outstanding Universal Value of the property.
f) Other conservation issues
Conservation measures foreseen by the IHAH include training in risk management in cooperation with
the Fire Department of San Pedro Sula, the construction of a new roof over the visitors’ centre and of a
small booth close to the Nuñez Chinchilla group for the exhibition of interpretive material. IHAH is
monitoring land use at the buffer zone and is showing concern regarding the land use of the areas just
outside the buffer zone, with possible threats being the likely construction of telecommunication
antennas.
Analysis and Conclusions of the World Heritage Centre, ICOMOS and ICCROM
The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies consider that the state of conservation report
received in February 2011 from the State Party is not exhaustive, and does not provide all the
information requested by the World Heritage Commitee. Important information on the airport, tunnels,
boundaries of the site and the ownership and regulations for the buffer zone are still missing. They note
the insufficient information submitted for the management plan, particularly as it relates to conservation
and practices; and that important projects, such as the construction of infrastructure for the conservation
laboratory and the new design for the protective shelter for the hieroglyphic stairway, have been
approved without being submitted, as required by Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines, to the
World Heritage Centre and Advisory Bodies for consideration and review.
They further note that the site of Rio Amarillo is still being considered for the construction of the airport.
Previous Decisions of the World Heritage Committee have made it clear that an airport in this location
could have an adverse impact on the Outstanding Universal Value of the property.
Decision Adopted: 35 COM 7B.126
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined Document WHC-11/35.COM/7B,
2. Recalling Decision 33 COM 7B.137, adopted at its 33rd session (Seville, 2009),
3. Acknowledges the information provided by the State Party regarding the measures implemented to
address the recommendations made by the World Heritage Committee, and urges it to submit an official
management plan, including provisions for public use and risk management and to secure the necessary
resources to ensure its full implementation;
4. Also urges the State Party to develop and implement a comprehensive conservation programme for
the tunnels and to establish conservation guidelines for interventions at the property;
5. Reiterates its concern that the site of Rio Amarillo is being considered for the construction of the
airfield, in spite of previous World Heritage Committee decisions, yet acknowledges that additional
information has been gathered and new studies have been produced after the 2005 reactive monitoring
mission conducted by ICOMOS, which requires further analysis;
6. Accepts the State Party's invitation for a joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS reactive monitoring
mission in 2011 to assess the state of conservation of the property and particularly review all the
information produced up to this date regarding the project of building an airfield in the site of Rio Amarillo,
including environmental impact assessments, and a heritage impact assessment, in order to update the
analysis for consideration and review by the World Heritage Committee;
7. Requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre for review by the Advisory Bodies,
in accordance with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines, the related technical information for
the new protective shelter for the hieroglyphic stairway and for the conservation laboratory for
sculptures, prior to approval and implementation;
8. Further urges the State Party to officially submit information on regulatory measures, land tenure,
related cartography for the protection and management of the property and the buffer zone by 30
November 2011;
9. Also requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2012, a detailed
report on the state of conservation of the property and on the progress made in the implementation of
the above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 36th session in 2012.
Decision Adopted: 35 COM 8B.59
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined Documents WHC-11/35.COM/8B.Add and WHC-11/35.COM/INF.8B1.Add,
2. Refers the examination of the proposed buffer zone for the Maya Site of Copan, Honduras, back to
the State Party in order to allow it to:
a) Re-submit map No. 1 showing the nominated property and its immediate surroundings. This map
should be either topographic or cadastral, presented at a scale which is appropriate to the size in
hectares of the property, include title and legend in English and bear a labelled coordinate grid,
b) Re-submit map No. 3 showing the proposed buffer zone and the nominated area with the same
standards as the ones required for map No. 1,
c) Provide justification for the extent of the buffer zone, its delineation and its exact area,
d) Provide information on regulatory measures for the protection and management of the property and
its buffer zone.