Gibrán Lule-Hurtado
Mexico’s Pueblos Mágicos (Magical Villages) Program was launched by the nation’s Secretariat of Tourism (SECTUR) in 2001. It continues to operate under this agency, primarily as a program to promote tourism through the preservation and promotion of noteworthy natural and built environments in towns and small cities identified as having valuable cultural resources and an intangible unique element, or magic. The guidelines of the Program describe its intention to promote sustainable economic development and tourism through the protection and economic activation of historic, environmental, and cultural resources for the benefit of the residents of the magical villages. Mixed results have led to the restructuring of the program, and further analysis of these effects can inform this and other programs on effective planning for preservation.
Criteria and Goals
Mexico’s most comprehensive preservation legislation at the national level is the 1972 Federal Monuments and Archaeological Sites Law, which is executed and administered through the National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH). SECTUR consulted with this and other federal agencies in determining their guidelines for inclusion for Pueblos Mágicos (Pueblos Mágicos de México, 2005). The Program allows localities not recognized under the 1972 law to apply for inscription and access preservation funds, provided they adopt measures for preserving the cataloged character of the locality, promote tourism, and create an administrative committee formed by elected officials and community representatives. These measures must be in place at the site by the time of the application for inscription is submitted—a great achievement of the Program, as it leads to documentation and regulatory protection of the towns’ built heritage. By calling for the formation of a government-resident committee to consider, apply, and administer the town’s participation in the Program, SECTUR further promotes public awareness of preservation government (Pueblos Mágicos, 2014).
The Program—identified by the Tourism Secretariat as one of its most successful—provides funds for preservation, infrastructure investments, aesthetic improvements, and publicity. Inscription in the Program also spurs public investment in the form of infrastructure improvements and state fund allocations to participating municipalities (Destinan 221 mdp, 2011; La ambición por los Pueblos Mágicos, 2014; Martínez Rascón, 2013).
While the funds allocated to each village and to each component of the program are not publicly available, news articles confirm that funding for the Program has increased over the last five years, and a congressional bulletin states that, as of 2014, the Program will receive special funding separate from the Tourism Secretariat. In this same year, federal funding for Pueblos Mágicos more than doubled from $13.9 million USD to $34.9 million USD, as shown in Figure 1 (on opposing page) (Destinan 221 mdp, 2011; Presupuesto para Pueblos Mágicos, 2014; Programa Pueblos Mágicos, 2014; Boletín N° 4583, 2014).
Results and Criticism
While no comprehensive analysis of the Program’s effects has been conducted, the Financiero and Valdez Muñoz have found that the economies of smaller, more isolated towns have not greatly benefited from inscription, while larger towns near-source markets have. The most widespread benefit of the Program is the funding that it directly provides and attracts to “restoring historic centers, monuments, and churches” (SECTUR som-eterá a revisión a los Pueblos Mágicos, 2014; Valdez Muñoz, 2014). This makes the program an important instrument in historic preservation in Mexico. Its success and visibility have called attention to the importance and potential benefits of historic preservation, including in small towns which might remain unreached by federal protection and funds under the 1972 Monuments and Archaeological Sites Law. Funds provided by the program have been used for the preservation of significant structures including churches, bridges, and marketplaces. In addition to this awareness and funding, the Program has incited rewriting of local preservation codes and state laws, as well as the cataloging of historic sites (Martínez Rascón, 2013; Sólo tres de 83 Pueblos Mágicos, 2014).
Despite some preservation success stories, the program has been criticized for lacking stringent standards with respect to the rehabilitation of historic structures. While the guidelines stress the importance of preserving character through preservation of significant buildings, the lack of rehabilitation standards has led some recipients to invest preservation funds in projects that focus on appealing to tourists by earlying up structures—modifying them to make them appear older—or making them more grandiose than they were originally. While this might further the Program’s mission to increase tourism, it goes against its stated purpose to do so through preserving a town’s built environment and overall character (Rojo Quintero, 2009; Rodríguez Chumillas, 2013).
Another criticism arising from this is that the Program shifts the narrative and focus of historic preservation from measures taken as a result of civic pride to calculated actions undertaken with the end goal of reaping financial rewards. This is of concern as it transforms the goal of conservation into maximization of the profitability of these spaces, possibly forsaking sound preservation practices by emphasizing appearance rather than adhering to authenticity (Pueblos Mágicos de México, 2005; Valdez Muñoz, 2014). Inadequate monitoring of inscribed villages’ participation in the Program and adherence to its guidelines is a major concern. However, according to a 2014 report, only three of the eighty-three villages continue to meet ninety percent or more of guidelines for inscription; only three have lost Pueblo Mágico status: Mexcaltitlán, Papantla, and Tepoztlán, all in 2009. Of these three, only one—Mexcaltitlán—has failed to regain recognition (Pueblos Mágicos, 2014).
As the end goal is to spur economic development through initial investments in places that will appeal to tourists, funds tend to be spent in central areas of the towns, meaning historic structures that are not located in the heart of town and are not tourist attractions in their own right are unlikely to be allocated funds for preservation. Churches, especially, are said to absorb a large amount of rehabilitation funds which could otherwise be distributed to rehabilitate various smaller structures (Sólo tres de 83 Pueblos Mágicos, 2014; SECTUR someterá, 2014).
Although the program sets clear criteria for inscription, mismanagement—and possibly politically motivated inscriptions—by the Secretary of Tourism who served from 2011 to 2012 caused the number of participating villages to more than double from 38 to 83 in those two years (Figure 2, see page 106), while funding for the program decreased (Figure 1, see page 106).
Restructuring
Following the increased rate of inscriptions in 2011 and 2012, SECTUR paused inscriptions and reviewed the program guidelines. As of 2013, the program has been capped at one hundred magical villages, with seventy towns vying for the coveted seventeen remaining spots.
In September of 2014, SECTUR conducted an investigation reassessing the eligibility of the eighty-three towns currently inscribed as Pueblos Mágicos. It found that an alarming seventy percent of the villages do not meet inscription criteria and acknowledged that mis-administration of the program in 2011 and 2012 led to the addition of towns that may not have been ready for the Program. Inadequate monitoring of these villages and those previously inscribed also contributed to this poor rate of compliance. As a result, SECTUR created new policies for inscription and criteria to be met in order to remain in the Program. Participating villages will be reevaluated to ensure they meet inscription criteria and be subject to yearly reviews to ensure continued adherence to guidelines (Sólo tres de 83 Pueblos Mágicos, 2014).
Recommendations
What SECTUR has accomplished through the Pueblos Mágicos Program is in some respects laudable: awareness of historic buildings as cultural riches and of the power of preservation to generate economic development has increased. Furthermore, funds have been provided to towns with significant historic buildings that might have been unable to otherwise secure funding for historic preservation.
With no clear standards for preservation, however, there is a risk—one which has already manifested in some of these localities—of funds intended for preservation being spent on renovation that is unfaithful to the original character or even era of a building. The Program’s vision acknowledges the value of not only colonial or independence-era buildings but also twentieth century constructions. As such, it should discourage the addition of inauthentic elements and adopt rehabilitation standards to protect the character of all older buildings, colonial or post-Porfirian, grandiose or modest.
In order to ensure that funds for preservation are in fact used for preservation, SECTUR can strengthen the power of the government-resident committees as oversight and steering bodies. This would also result in greater supervision of funds by community members and property owners, potentially reducing the incidence of corrupt practices.
To prevent the Program from becoming a promoter of the commodification of heritage, preservation training and certification should be offered for committee members and required for those administering the funds allocated to a town. The Program should once again collaborate with the INAH or another preservation organization to establish and impart this training. Public meetings, already a requirement, should emphasize the importance of a town’s unique character and authenticity.
The Pueblos Mágicos Program presents a powerful instrument to express the importance and value of preserving built heritage. Program funds have been used to rehabilitate aging structures in areas where other private or public funding is unavailable due to stagnant economies and lack of access to state and federal preservation monies. Other Latin American countries, including Chile, Peru, El Salvador, Colombia, and Ecuador, have replicated or expressed interest in replicating the program. Should the program steadfastly incorporate the preservation of character it touts as its mainstay into its conditions for continued inscription, it could have a much greater, perhaps nearly magical effect on preservation in the country.
References
Boletín N° 4583. (2014, November 6). Diario Cámara de Diputados. Destinan 221 mdp al Programa de Pueblos Mágicos. (2011, December 22). Diario Intolerancia.
La ambición por los Pueblos Mágicos. (2014, October 1). El Financiero.
Martínez Rascón, C. (2013, December 21). Pueblos mágicos y nuevas ruralidades. El caso de Álamos, Sonora. Diálogos Latinoamericanos.
Nuevos Lineamientos para incorporación y permanencia al Programa Pueblos Mágicos. (2014, September 26). Diario Congresional Oficial.
Paz Arellano, Pedro. (2005). Conservación de la Autenticidad. Revista INAH.
Presupuesto para Pueblos Mágicos será de más de 500 mdp. (2014, September 26). El Economista.
Programa Pueblos Mágicos. (2014). Retrieved November 29, 2014, from http://www.sectur.gob.mx/pueblos-magicos/Pueblos Mágicos. (2014, September 26). Secretaría de Turismo Diario Oficial.
Pueblos Mágicos de México. (2005). Revista Archipiélago, 47.
Replicarán programa de Pueblos Mágicos en el extranjero. (2012, September 26). El Economista.
Rodríguez Chumillas, I. (2013). Desafío y dilema en la política pública del “pueb lo mágico” mexicano. Revista de Arquitectura, Urbanismo y Cie cias So- ciales, 4(3).
Rojo Quintero, S. (2009, April). Patrimonio y turismo: el caso del Programa Pueb los Mágicos. Revista de Arquitectura, Urbanismo y Ciencias Sociales, 1(3).
SECTUR someterá a revisión a los Pueblos Mágicos. (2014, February 12). El Financiero.
Sólo tres de 83 Pueblos Mágicos cumplen con 90 o 100% de reglas. (2014, September 1). Milenio Noticias.
Valdez Muñoz, R. (2014). Funcionamiento de los programas del turismo cultural en México: algunas observaciones críticas. Patrimonio Cultural y Turismo.