1.
Pre-Hispanic City of Teotihuacan (Mexico) (C 414)
Year of inscription on the World Heritage List 1987
Criteria (i)(ii)(iii)(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/414/documents/
International Assistance
Requests approved: 0
Total amount approved: USD 0
For details, see page http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/414/assistance/
UNESCO Extra-budgetary Funds
N/A
Previous monitoring missions
Monitoring mission in 2004
Factors affecting the property identified in previous reports
Urban development pressures in areas surrounding the property.
Illustrative material see page http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/414/
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2007
The State Party did not submit the design, adoption and implementation of the integrated Archaeological
Site Management Plan as requested by the World Heritage Committee in 2005. Over the last two years,
the State Party has undertaken several initiatives to update the existing Management Plan that was
declared insufficient to address the recommendations of the reactive monitoring mission that took place
in from 28 November – 4 December 2004.
The State Party submitted a State of conservation report that clearly stated the background of the
problem, however, less detailed information was supplied in relation to the process of social participation
within the framework of the management plan, and little information was submitted on the official
agreements for territorial planning. A large, general chapter was included to explain the philosophy and
the theoretical process followed in developing a management plan in Mexico.
The State Party confirmed its interest in providing a long term framework for the future, updated
management plan. No specifications, nor detailed information, were submitted, either in terms of the
processes or the methodology applied to enhance the participation process. No detailed information
was given concerning the agents/institutions involved in the participatory process, and no calendar of
actions or distributions of responsibilities between actors were received. The report mentioned the
identification of values in the process of the preparation of the Management Plan, but did not develop
the processes that had been followed to arrive at the conclusions made.
The State Party has set up both a planning and a follow up group to establish management priorities for
the future Management Plan. The planning group, in charge of the coordination and follow up of the
planning process, as well as the organization of the different workshops (research, conservation, legal
and technical protection, public visits, administration, etc.) is composed of technical representatives from
the Direction of Planning and Management of the national coordination of INAH (Instituto Nacional de
Antropología e Historia), the Director of the site and a representative from the regional INAH.
Two planning workshops were organized, one devoted to awareness raising, as a preliminary phase to
the participation process, to collectively define the models of organization and participation for the
integrated conservation purposes. 38 organizations participated in the workshop, in which preliminary
and general priorities were defined. The second was devoted to development projects within the
archaeological area. A Protection Campaign was specially designed to face the challenges and risks on
days with excessive visitation, such as during the spring equinox, and guidelines for visitors were
published in electronic version.
The Campaign was designed to fulfil the following objectives:
a) To elucidate the profiles of visitors to the site,
b) To analyse the social meaning of large-scale visitation,
c) To evaluate the visitors’ perception of the previously foreseen security measures,
d) To analyse the visitors’ perception of new access ways, timetables, new potential itineraries and
tourist facilities.
The World Heritage Centre did not receive the final report on the results of the survey. No decision to
close the entrance to the Area A, as requested since 1994, has been taken. No news concerning the
strategy to reduce the number of itinerant unauthorised vendors in the protected area was given.
As mentioned, within the framework of the preparation of the management plan, the State Party
submitted a long introduction, including general information about the geographical or geomorphologic
factors affecting the site, as well as on the evolution of landscape and the diachronic advances of the
history of the excavations. This report includes a chapter devoted to the juridical framework that
mentions the current regulations on protection, site visits, labour contracting, services, as well as a
chapter devoted to the historic background of the protection and delimitation of the protected areas of
the ZMAT (Zona de Monumentos Arqueologicos de Teotihuacan). The State Party declares the difficulty
of coordinated action between local, national and federal authorities, within the framework of the
protected areas defined by the ZMAT. The report includes a list of archaeological, social, legal and
institutional impacts detected in the ZMAT area that originate from the environment of the area, which
have generated various social, political and economic conflicts. In 2000, the population tripled to 70,000
inhabitants, constituting an urgent issue to be dealt with. Estimations state that in 2020 the periphery of
the protected perimeter will be occupied. Moreover, the surroundings of the ZMAT area are also affected
by the development of the metropolitan area of Mexico City and the Valley of Teotihuacan. In the
Regional Plan for National Development, there is no mention of how archaeological sites within these
territorial reserves will be protected. Protection Area B registered invasions and no longer functions as
an adequate buffer zone. The State Party stated its concern for the demographic growth of the
Teotihuacan Valley and the urgency to develop an urban development plan for the valley, in coordination with the Ministry of Public Works, all the municipalities implicated and with the Department of
technical and legal protection of the archaeological area.
The State Party stated that there is a lack of intersectorial policies to protect heritage properties at the
federal level; the development plans did not require the institutional technical advice of archaeologists
at national level, and at local level, municipalities continue to grant construction permits without the
approval of INAH. No updated information was received on the inter-institutional rules of procedure
before issuing permission for construction in the archaeological protected area for possible future major
urban developments or single constructions.
Other works were mentioned:
e) Maintenance work: clearing of vegetation from the archaeological monuments and the surroundings
against fire risk. The restoration of the archaeological area of San Juan has been undertaken ;
f) Archaeological research works in La Ventilla, mainly focused on laboratory analyses on the
archaeological records ;
g) Restoration of the Temple of Quetzalcoaltl, mainly focused on humidity control and the formation of
salts.
Analysis and Conclusions of the World Heritage Centre, ICOMOS and ICCROM
N/A
Decision Adopted: 31 COM 7B.127
The World Heritage Committee,
1.
Having examined Document WHC-07/31.COM/7B,
2.
Recalling Decision 29 COM 7B.91, adopted at its 29th session (Durban, 2005),
3.
Requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Committee a detailed progress report
of the state of progress of the participation process within the framework of the development of the
Management Plan by 30 October 2007, with pertinent information on the institutions and agents
involved, as well as the methodology applied in the process;
4.
Invites the State Party to integrate the outcomes of the activities undertaken within the framework
of the Awareness Raising Campaign and the tourism planning activities designed for the spring equinox,
as a basis for the development of a Public Use Plan of the property, and to take into consideration these
aspects in the preparation of the Management Plan;
5.
Expresses its concern at the apparent uncontrolled urban development in and around the
protected area and urges the State Party to set up an intersectorial working group at local, federal and
national levels to analyze the archaeological, environmental and social impacts related to uncontrolled
urban development, as well as the developments in the Valley of Teotihuacan;
6.
Also requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre a progress report on the
urban development plan for the Valley, as well as on the progress in the preparation of the Management
Plan by 1 February 2008 for examination by the Committee at its 32nd session in 2008.