Peru reinstates full protection of Nazca Lines reserve after controversial cutback
The country's culture ministry on Sunday nullified last week's resolution that had reinstated the boundary map set in 2004. The switch followed severe backlash after the government approved a 42% reduction in the zone — about 2,400 square kilometers (926 square miles) — and to allow miners to seek formal permits in previously restricted areas.
The original protected zone — spanning 5,600 square kilometers (2,162 square miles) — will remain in effect. The ministry also ordered an update of the site's management plan within 10 days and the formation of a technical panel, which will include government representatives, academics, UNESCO, and civil society figures to define future use and conservation strategies.
The area in question forms part of a UNESCO-recognized World Heritage Site, home to the Nazca Lines — massive geoglyphs etched into the desert over 1,500 years ago — and one of Peru's most fragile desert ecosystems.
'Thanks to the strong rejection by national and international public opinion, the government revoked the reduction of the area of the Nazca Archaeological Reserve,' Mariano Castro, Peru's former vice minister of the environment, told The Associated Press.
Castro said the government justified its decision by saying it had not previously discussed its decision publicly.
'In other words, it (the government) does not go so far as to admit the measure was wrong, despite evidence of the presence of illegal mining, which seriously endangers and threatens the integrity of the Nazca Lines and petroglyphs,' he said.
The ministry said a new government entity will be created to oversee the site's management, and technical studies will be published to ensure transparency and accountability.
Peruvian environmental lawyer, César Ipenza, who follows the issue closely, welcomes the technical panel, which will include local authorities, but he still has concerns.
'The truth is that the local authority is actually the one that has been calling for the reduction of the boundaries of the Nazca Lines,' Ipenza told the AP. 'There will also be strong pressure from miners for this to go ahead."
Ipenza is concerned that informal mining has been steadily expanding in the area, even though all mining activity is officially banned.
'The government hasn't taken action to remove these miners and as a result, there has been pressure to officially open the area to allow informal and illegal miners to become formalized,' he said.
The AP contacted UNESCO for comment. The organization said it would aim to provide information on Tuesday, as Monday was a public holiday in France, where it is headquartered.
—-
The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
Unesco status is killing Bath
Last month, the Trump administration announced that the United States would once again withdraw from Unesco, the Paris-based UN cultural agency responsible for World Heritage Sites, education initiatives, and cultural programmes worldwide. The official line? Unesco promotes 'woke, divisive cultural and social causes' and its 'globalist, ideological agenda' clashes with America First policy. Predictably, the Trump administration framed it as a culture-war grievance. But, set aside the politics, and it soon becomes clear that Trump might not be entirely wrong. Unesco – founded in 1945 with the lofty mission of promoting peace and global cooperation through culture, education, and science – has devolved into something far less edifying. Once led by artists, architects, and scholars, Unesco's World Heritage Committee has become the Fifa of culture: a fiefdom of bureaucrats, political journeymen and international grifters who drift between departments, NGOs and consultancies with no accountability, while the list of sites has ballooned to 1,248. Its $1.5 billion annual budget fuels a self-perpetuating treadmill of capacity-building workshops, unread reports and relentless reputation polishing. The consequences are not merely abstract for Bath, a Unesco World Heritage Site since 1987. Some World Heritage Sites are a single chapel, a medieval bridge, or a protected ruin; Bath's listing covers the entire city – all 94,000 residents, its suburban sprawl, its industrial remnants, and its everyday working streets. The designation treats the Georgian crescents and Roman baths as inseparable from the supermarkets, car parks, and 1970s infill, meaning almost any change anywhere must be weighed against the city's 'Outstanding Universal Value.' At the same time, the city is grappling with a record housing crisis: house prices are more than 13 times annual earnings, social housing demand is soaring, and temporary accommodation has reached a 20-year high. Homelessness services like Julian House's Manvers Street hostel operate far beyond capacity, providing nearly 97,000 bed spaces last year alone while struggling to secure their own roof. But Bath's heritage status means it is almost impossible to get anything built. Although Unesco status carries no direct legal force in the UK, it is woven into planning policy through the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan, which bars development deemed harmful to the 'qualities justifying the inscription' or its setting. In practice, this gives opponents of change a powerful rhetorical weapon: they need only invoke 'Outstanding Universal Value' to wrap their case in the prestige of an international mandate. The result is a permanent, low-level threat – that almost any proposal, however modest, might be cast as an affront to world heritage and fought on those grounds. In 2024, residents were warned that the city's Unesco status was 'at risk' after the council approved the replacement of former industrial units on Wells Road with 77 'co-living' apartments. The planning committee split four to four, with the chair casting the tiebreaker vote in favour. Councillors raised concerns about the building's bulk and potential 'cumulative impact' on the World Heritage Site, with one declaring the city was 'sailing close to the wind with Unesco.' It is extraordinary: a city struggling to house its own people, yet officials can menace its international status over a modest block of flats. Meanwhile, residents in nearby Saltford – whose own Grade II* Saltford Manor dates to the 12th century and is thought to be Britain's oldest continuously inhabited house – watch as Bath's tight planning restrictions push the housing burden outwards. With 1,300 new homes proposed for its green belt, the village faces development on a scale it can't sustain, without the infrastructure or political protection to resist it. Phil Harding, head of the Saltford Environmental Group and a resident for more than 30 years, recently made headlines when he spoke out about the impact of Bath's World Heritage status on neighbouring communities. 'I'm not against new housing, I'm against putting housing in the wrong place,' he says. Bath, he notes, is already a fantastic city that draws tourists in its own right, and Unesco status 'makes no difference.' The real problem, he adds, is that World Heritage designation makes it 'incredibly hard to build in Bath,' pushing development into nearby villages. Much of the employment for new arrivals will still be in Bath, leaving Saltford to shoulder the burden – green belt land lost, congestion rising, local services stretched – without enjoying the benefits. 'Bath doesn't need World Heritage Status,' he concludes. 'It distorts planning priorities, forcing the city to preserve appearances while shifting the real costs onto neighbouring communities.' It may sound unthinkable, but losing that status is hardly fatal. Liverpool provides the example: once celebrated for its maritime mercantile cityscape, it was stripped of Unesco recognition in 2021 after the agency judged that recent and planned developments had caused an 'irreversible loss' of the site's Outstanding Universal Value. Among the contested projects was Everton FC's new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock, which required filling in part of the historic dock to accommodate a 52,000-seat arena. Even the Guardian acknowledged it as 'the most striking, ambitious addition to the waterfront since the Three Graces were built in the early 1900s.' The £800 million stadium formed part of a broader £1.3 billion regeneration plan, projected to create over 15,000 jobs and attract more than 1.4 million visitors annually. The city did not crumble: regeneration pressed ahead, docks were revitalised, neighbourhoods transformed and tourism continued to flourish. The lesson is plain – Unesco's imprimatur is not the secret ingredient of urban vitality, and its objections can just as easily hinder development as they can protect it. If Unesco were merely symbolic, that would be one thing. But the status is far from meaningless: it exerts moral and political pressure, informs planning guidance, and lends weight to the opinions of advisory bodies like Historic England. For Bath, this translates into a city where development proposals are scrutinised through the lens of 'Outstanding Universal Value,' with councillors warned that new flats or infrastructure might unsettle international sensibilities. The result is a city frozen in amber, preserved more for the approval of tourists rather than for the people who actually live and work there. So when the America First brigade lashes out at Unesco, it is tempting to roll our eyes. But there is a logic to that disdain. World Heritage labels are increasingly badges for the international jet set, not the local people. The US may be leaving for its own vanity, but the reasoning – that Unesco is corrupt, politicised, and more interested in theatre than preservation – hits the mark. For cities like Bath, the real question isn't whether Unesco might disapprove, but why on earth they should care.
The Guardian
8 hours ago
- The Guardian
Republicans who backed Trump's anti-environment bill have accepted over $105m from big oil
The Republican lawmakers who voted for Donald Trump's anti-environment tax and spending bill have accepted more than $105m in political donations from the fossil fuel industry, a new analysis has found, raising concerns about their relationship with big oil. Signed into law last month, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act includes billions of dollars in giveaways to oil and gas companies and their executives, alongside provisions to scale back credits for clean vehicles, wind and solar which were enshrined by Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). All but two GOP House members voted to support the budget bill, as did all but three GOP senators. That includes many Republicans from districts who benefited most from the IRA's green credits, and those who spent months attempting to defend renewable energy tax credits from the budget bill's provisions, such as Representative Andrew Garbarino of New York and Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and John Curtis of Utah. The new report from the environmental advocacy group Climate Power totalled up the funds the bill's backers have accepted from the fossil fuel industry over the course of their political careers, finding that House members accepted $54.4m and senators accepted $51.5m. 'These Republicans in Congress are caught red-handed taking massive donations from the oil and gas industry, and voting to give them billions and to destroy their competition from their own state's clean energy industries,' the analysis says. With House midterm elections scheduled for next year, Climate Power also looked at fossil fuel donations to the 15 House Republicans deemed most vulnerable to an electoral challenge, according to the Cook Political Report, which independently analyzes the political viability of elections and campaigns. All 15 backed the mega-bill, and together, they accepted more than $3m in donations from the fossil fuel industry, the authors found. Hailing from Colorado, Iowa, Arizona, New Jersey, California, Michigan and New York, the lawmakers on the list are from regions that have seen benefits from the IRA's credits for wind and solar energy, as well as battery manufacturing. The mega-bill puts more than 110,000 jobs from the three sectors at risk in the 15 lawmakers' districts, and is also expected to raise consumers' energy bills by up to $200 annually by 2030, according to the climate policy thinktank Energy Innovation. Some on the list had previously critiqued the bill: Congresswoman Mariannette Miller-Meeks of Iowa, who has accepted $229,179 in oil and gas contributions, pledged to support clean energy tax credits but backed the legislation anyway, while Colorado's Jeff Hurd, pledged to oppose the bill due to its cuts to Medicaid but ended up supporting it. 'These Republican members of Congress all represent moderate swing districts with close elections, where voters of both parties expect their representatives to look out for them, not to kill their jobs and raise their utility bills for the sake of out-of-state special interests,' said Pete Jones, a director at Climate Power. 'These members chose who to stand up for, and they picked their billionaire donors.' Big oil spent a stunning $445m throughout the last election cycle to influence Trump and Congress, Climate Power found in January. The industry also poured more than $19m into Trump's inaugural fund, accounting for nearly 8% of all donations it raised, a report found last month. 'We will be a rich nation again, and it is that liquid gold under our feet that will help to do it,' Trump said in his inaugural address. Since re-entering the White House, Trump has passed not only the anti-environmental One Big Beautiful Bill Act, but has also signed a slew of executive orders and policies aimed at cracking down on clean energy and boosting already-booming oil and gas.
Daily Mail
8 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Bid to reach world's first plastic pollution treaty ends in failure after 10-day UN conference
Negotiations to reach a major treaty to end growing plastic pollution around the world fell apart on Friday, with delegates in Switzerland adjourning with no immediate plans to resume. The consequence of the failed talks is devastating, as it leaves no clear path for nations to collectively address the mountains of plastic that are filling landfills, clogging oceans and showing up in chunks on beaches and other public places. 'Consensus is dead,' Bjorn Beeler, international coordinator for the International Pollutants Elimination Network, upon adjournment. Every year, the world makes more than 400 million tons of new plastic, and that could grow by about 70 per cent by 2040 without policy changes. About 100 countries want to limit production. Many have said it's also essential to address toxic chemicals used to make plastics. The final decision, or lack there of, underscored the influence of the United States and other oil-producing countries such as Saudi Arabia, which opposed any limit on the productions of plastics, made mostly from fuels like oil and gas. Nations had worked for 11 days at the United Nations office in Geneva. But they were deadlocked over whether the treaty should reduce exponential growth of plastic production and put global, legally binding controls on toxic chemicals used to make plastics. Environmentalists, waste pickers and Indigenous leaders and many business executives traveled to the talks to make their voices heard. Indigenous leaders sought a treaty that recognizes their rights and knowledge. The Youth Plastic Action Network was the only organisation that spoke at the closing meeting Friday. Comments from observers were cut off at the request of the US and Kuwait after 24 hours of meetings and negotiating. After the adjournment, some delegates tried to put a good face on the negotiations and expressed hope for future talks. Delegates did agree they would meet again at some point in the future. Inger Andersen, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme, said despite challenges, despite the disappointment, 'we have to accept that significant progress was made.' This process won't stop, she said, but it's too soon to say how long it will take to get a treaty now. The negotiations were supposed to be the last round and produce the first legally binding treaty on plastic pollution, including in the oceans. But just like at the meeting in South Korea last year, the talks ended with no agreement. Luis Vayas Valdivieso, the chair of the negotiating committee, wrote and presented two drafts of treaty text in Geneva based on the views expressed by the nations. The representatives from 184 countries did not agree to use either one as the basis for their negotiations. Valdivieso said Friday morning as the delegates reconvened in the assembly hall that no further action was being proposed at this stage on the latest draft. After a three-hour meeting, he banged a gavel made of recycled plastic bottle tops from a Nairobi landfill, one of many symbols of the plastic problem that were visible during the talks. European Commissioner Jessika Roswall said the European Union and its member states had higher expectations for this meeting and while the draft falls short on their demands, it's a good basis for another negotiating session. 'The Earth is not ours only. We are stewards for those who come after us. Let us fulfill that duty,' she said. Representatives of Norway, Australia, Tuvalu and others nations said they were 'deeply disappointed' to be leaving Geneva without a treaty. Madagascar's representative said the world is 'expecting action, not reports from us.' China's delegation said the fight against plastic pollution is a long marathon and that this temporary setback is a new starting point to forge consensus. For any proposal to make it into the treaty, every nation must agree. India, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, Vietnam and others have said that consensus is vital to an effective treaty. Some countries want to change the process so decisions may be made by a vote if necessary. Graham Forbes, head of the Greenpeace delegation in Geneva, urged delegates in that direction. 'We are going in circles. We cannot continue to do the same thing and expect a different result,' he said as Friday's meeting ended. The biggest issue of the talks has been whether the treaty should impose caps on producing new plastic or focus instead on things like better design, recycling and reuse. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the US opposed cutting plastic production or banning chemical additives in the treaty. The US supported provisions to improve waste collection and management, improve product design and drive recycling, reuse and other efforts to cut the plastic dumped into the environment. Luis Vayas Valdivieso, the chair of the negotiating committee, wrote and presented two drafts of treaty text in Geneva based on the views expressed by the nations Saudi Arabia said both drafts lacked balance, and Saudi and Kuwaiti negotiators said the latest proposal gave more weight to the views of other nations. That draft, released early Friday, did not include a limit on plastic production, but recognized that current levels of production and consumption are 'unsustainable' and global action is needed. New language had been added to say these levels exceeded current waste management capacities and are projected to increase further, 'thereby necessitating a coordinated global response to halt and reverse such trends.' The objective of the treaty was revamped to state that the accord would be based on a comprehensive approach that addresses the full lifecycle of plastics. It talked about reducing plastic products containing 'a chemical or chemicals of concern to human health or the environment,' as well as reducing of single-use or short-lived plastic products. It was a much better, more ambitious text, though not perfect. Each country came to Geneva with a lot of 'red lines,' said Magnus Heunicke, the Danish environment minister. Denmark holds the rotating presidency of the Council of Europe.
