Present and Future of Cultural Heritage Policies in Central America
中米諸国における文化遺産政策の現状と今後

Imme Arce Hüttmann

アルセ ヒュットマン イメ
1. Introduction

2. Methodology, Structure, and Delimitations

In the contemporary global society, regionalization is

Qualitative research with the case study approach wasbecoming an increasingly important managing and trade

found to be the most suitable and effective methodology

tool, and cultural heritage is no exception to this tendency.

for this research topic.

Transnational heritage properties and transnational

Chapter 1 of the dissertation contains the introduction, theintangible heritage have become the middle groundbasic characteristics of the research, and some theoreticalbetween global and national heritage.

considerations. Chapter 2 addresses the regional context,

The region of Central America is an important passageway

chapters 3-8 are case studies for each individual country,with rich and diverse cultural heritage. This heritage tells

and chapter 9 is a comparative analysis of the selected

the story of many important events for mankind, from thecountries.

pre-Columbian history, going over the colonization ofaddressed in chapter 10.

Latin America, until current relevant topics such as theFor practicality, only the 6 officially Spanish-speaking

migration to the U.S. that resulted out of civil conflicts.

countries located between Mexico and Colombia areHowever, like many developing countries, Central

addressed: Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua,America faces serious gaps in its cultural heritage policies.

Costa Rica and Panama. The main timeframe used inAs changes and threats continue growing quickly, regional

chapters 3-8 dates from the republican period (after thestrategies can help develop and safeguard these importantindependence) until today. The work focuses onassets. Latin American cultural policies have been

constitutions and laws directly regarding tangible heritage

explored by scholars such as Harvey1 and García Canclini,2(movable and immovable), intangible heritage, andand through its periodic reporting exercise in Latinmuseums. When deemed necessary, more general

America and the Caribbean, the United Nations

instruments such as general cultural policies, penal codes,

Organization for Education, Science and Culture

education laws, and so forth are addressed.

(UNESCO)has providedareThis summary will only refer to the regional context, thecomparative analysis, the comparison parameters, andHowever,general conclusions and proposals

isextremelyon

recommendations

theinformation

dataandimplementation of the World Heritage Convention.3
thisvaluable

Conclusions

limited,generalized, and lacks analysis. Furthermore, it addresses
Latin America as a whole, while Central America can be

3. Regional Context

regarded as a region with its own characteristics.

Central America is composed of seven countries in theThe need to have an in-depth understanding of thecontinent and its surrounding islands. Archeologists divide

conditions and reasons for shortcomings in Central

the area at the time of the conquest roughly into two

American cultural heritage policies has to be addressed, toregions: the Mesoamerican region and the Isthmo-provide realistic long-term, regional strategies.

Colombian Area. During the Spanish colonial times, all theFor my research, I aimed at filling this gap by analyzing

countries from Guatemala to Costa Rica were administered

the development and the mechanisms of cultural heritage

as the Captaincy General of Guatemala, while Panama waspolicies in Central American countries from a regionalpart of the Viceroyalty of Peru and later New Granada.

perspective, in order to provide new and useful information

After independence from Spain, the Captaincy fragmented

on these issues.

into independent republics, and later Panama separated andbecame independent as well. In the following years, civil

学位論文梗概集 2017

turmoil plagued Central America through dictatorships and4. Comparative Analysis

military governments. These were followed by long civil(1) Organization

wars that were fought in Guatemala (1960-1996), El

All Central American countries have one or more

Salvador (1980-1992), and Nicaragua (1960-1990).

institutions that handle culture and cultural heritage, but

Although most of the heavy civil conflicts ended in theonly Guatemala and Costa Rica have a ministry of culture.

1990s, they still have great influence in the development ofThe other countries have specialized, lower cultural

Central America and consequently in its cultural heritageorganizations: a secretary, an institute or an executivepolicies.

section.
As Table 1 shows, the years of establishment and numberof staff in the cultural institutions vary greatly. It is
important to note that these numbers do not represent“better” or “worse” conditions. For example, the lowamount of staff in the Nicaraguan Institute of Culture isowed to decentralization strategies that delegate heritage
functions to the municipalities and local communities.
From my analysis of these institutions, I observed three
special characteristics:(i)Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua’s
cultural institutions were created for political reasons.
This is due to the civil wars and revolutions, which

Figure 1: Central America

created opportunities to use culture to express or oppose
In the global context, Central American countries are partof several multilateral organizations. SICA, the Central
American Integration System, is the strongest regionalnetwork. These countries are also part of wider networks
such as the ACS, CELAC, ECLAC, and naturally theUnited Nations and its adjacent organizations.
Strong US influence is exerted through the Organization ofAmerican States, and Spanish influence through IberoAmerican organizations, most notably SEGIB and the OEI.

ideologies. The cultural institutions of these countries
keep these political roles.
(ii)As Central America is a region where diverse groupsof people coexist, important events such as theGuatemalan civil war are strongly related to the clash ofethnicities. Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua havebeen especially active in trying to assign a social role totheir cultural sector. In terms of heritage, social inclusion
shifted the focus from tangible heritage protection tointangible and popular heritage.

Table 1: main cultural organizations in Central America
1. COUNTRY

2. MAIN ORGANIZATION

3. YEAR

4. STAFF AMOUNTGUATEMALA

Ministry of Culture and Sports of Guatemala

19863524 (2015)*

EL SALVADOR

Secretary of Culture20091209 (2016)**

Executive Section for Culture and Arts, Honduran Institute of

DECAD: 314 (2017), IHAH: 121
2014, 1952

HONDURAS

Anthropology and History

NICARAGUA

Nicaraguan Institute of Culture1989

363 (2015)****COSTA RICA

Ministry of Culture and Youth of Costa Rica1971

622 (2015)*****

National Culture Institute1974

987 (2017)******

PANAMA(2017)****calculated from payrolls of the transparency portal, http://mcd.gob.gt ; **http://publica.gobiernoabierto.gob.sv/institution_organizational_structures/7581; ***http://portalunico.iaip.gob.hn/portal/index.php?portal=417 (DECAD), http://portalunico.iaip.gob.hn/portal/index.php?portal=410 (IHAH) ; ****permanent positions, http://legislacion.asamblea.gob.ni/Iniciativas/2*****http://www.mcj.go.cr/ministerio/organizacion/administrativo/recursoshumanos/evaluacion_desempeno/Estadisticas%200148391/CD1PF/INC_PEPUA.pdf ; ****** https://www.contraloria.gob.pa/assets/informe-planilla-del-sector-público--abril--2017.pdf
Summaries of Academic Theses 2017

(iii) El Salvador and Costa Rica delegated important

Ibero-American Conference of Culture. Central American

heritage functions to the national museums. In bothcountries have not reached this minimum, as column 4countries, the lack of monumental sites and the earlyshows. Honduras and Nicaragua are especially far fromimportance of museums explain this phenomenon.

this target.

(2) Budget(3) Programs

Table 2 shows the budgets for the cultural institutions, forOn heritage programs, my analysis led me to theheritage, and the proportion of the budget for culture tofollowing 5 conclusions:the general expense budget of each country.

(i) Specific pre-Columbian sites and colonial cities

Because data is from different years and was calculated incentralize heritage programs, such as restoration anddifferent ways, the numbers are only meant as a guideline,communication projects. The historical importance andbut they provide useful information.

appeal for tourism of these type of sites explain thisColumn 2 shows that budgets are very different in eachcentralization.

country, ranging from 3 to 84 million dollars. Again, more(ii) Heritage programs that were implemented uniformly

money does not mean better conditions, as nationalin the region had different outcomes. This was the case ofprices, decentralization, and performance must be

the “Houses of Culture”, pushed by UNESCO in theconsidered.

1970s, and the “Culture Information Systems”, launched

As column 3 shows, Guatemala and Panama spend ain the 2000s with Spanish aid.

large part of their culture budget in heritage.

(iii) Throughout the region, numerous programs

In general, a 1% has been regarded as the minimum forsupported civic participation, transferring government

cultural expenditure in documents such as the Valparaiso

resources to individuals and private organizations,

Declaration of 2007 and the 2014 Declaration of theconnecting civilians with their heritage.

Table 2: spending in culture and cultural heritage in Central America
2. BUDGET FOR
1. COUNTRY

CULTURE

4. % OF THE GENERAL
3. BUDGET FOR HERITAGE

EXPENSE BUDGETGUATEMALA (2013, MCD MINUS

28,564,800 USD

12,437,100 USD or

THE BUDGET FOR SPORTS)*(221,006,585 GTQ )99717109 GTQ

18,476,024 USD

80,990 USD (2013)

0.383-0.1720.33
EL SALVADOR (2014-2015,SECULTURA)**HONDURAS (2017, GCC, IHAH,9,540,270 USD

AND DECAD)***

224,482,464 HNL
3,163,190 USD

492,659 USD(96,309,729 NIO)

(15,000,000 NIO)

0.120
NICARAGUA (2017, INC)****COSTA RICA

84,206,900 USD

18,599,900 USD

2017, MCJ)*****(49,325,883,904 CRC)

10,895,292,000 CRC

0.552
PANAMA(2016, INAC)******

1,681,900 USD and 18,729,000 for
41,379,000 USD

0.206
investments* MCD, http://mcd.gob.gt/coordinacion-de-presupuesto/, Finances Ministry: http://www.min n.gob.gt/index.php/presupuestos-aprobados**SECULTURA, http://publica.gobiernoabierto.gob.sv/institutions/presidencia-de-la-republica/information_ standards/mecanismos-departicipacion-ciudadana-y-rendicion-de-cuentas ***Finances Secretary, http://www.se n.gob.hn/?page_id=349 ****
http://www.hacienda.gob.ni/documentos/presupuesto/presupuesto-gral.-de-la-republica *****http://www.hacienda.go.cr/contenido/424-leyes-depresupuestos ******MEF, http://www.mef.gob.pa/es/direcciones/presupuestonacion/paginas/presupuestos.aspx
Exchange rates calculated with the rates from December 31 or July 1 for 2017, OANDA, https://www.oanda.com/currency/converter/

学位論文梗概集 2017

(iv) Not all Central American countries are following theall countries except El Salvador, which developed its

international trend of developing intangible heritage

institutions until after the civil war ended.

programs.

The end of the civil wars and dictatorships led to a re-(v) With the establishment of peace in the 1990s, tourism

emergence of heritage in the 1990s and 2000s.

has been growing exponentially, so that cultural heritage
programs have adopted the role of attracting foreign(ii) Constitutions

visitors.

All countries make mention of cultural heritage protectionin their current constitutions. Guatemala was the earliest in(4) Legislation

the region to do so, possibly because it adopted Spain’s(i) Development

1931 constitutional articles which call for the protection ofThroughout its development, two types of heritage shaped

cultural heritage.

modern cultural heritage policies in Central America:

Notably, Guatemala calls for the special protection of three-archaeological, or pre-Columbian, because of thespecific sites because they are World Heritage Sites,

necessity of protecting it from looters and explorers, andshowing the importance that World Heritage can have in-colonial, what the Spanish made, because of thethe region.

symbolic connection that it maintained with Spain, thechurch, and the civilized, “European” world.

(iii) Heritage Laws

One of the earliest heritage protection laws dates back toAs Table 3 shows, all countries of the region address

1845, and aimed at protecting Copán, in Honduras, fromheritage with one general law, except for Costa Rica, whichlooters. Heritage laws usually were for specific buildings

has three. Most of them were drafted in the 1980s andand sites, but museums also had an important role, as they

1990s. and were amended in later years. Because they arelegitimized the new republics and helped create an official

relatively contemporary, they reflect recent heritage

national identity.

concepts.

Heritage laws were site-specific and scattered, but theIn the six countries, cultural heritage belongs to the state by“cultural constitutionalism” of the 1930s spreadlaw, but ownership is granted. The laws also share athroughout the region and more general, encompassing

mandatory registry, in which all owners must inscribe theirlaws started to appear, sometimes supported by dictators,

cultural assets. The region is a bridge susceptible to illicit

sometimes by social reforms.

trade, which may have inspired these strict precautionary

Mexico and Spain were great influences for thesemeasures.

policies, as was the presence of foreign archaeologists.

Intangible heritage is addressed in Guatemala, El Salvador,

With the internationalization of heritage, Centraland Honduras directly in the law. Concrete decentralization

American institutions saw a “golden age” in the 1970s

measures are only provided in Guatemala and Nicaragua.

and 1980, sometimes starting in the 1960s. This is true forStrong influence of multilateral conventions was observed

Table 3: main heritage laws in Central America
1. COUNTRY

2. NAMEGUATEMALA

Law for the Protection of the Cultural Heritage of the Nation

EL

3. YEAR

4. REGULATIONS

1997 (amended in 1998)

No1993

Yes (1996)

Special Protection Law for the Cultural Heritage of El

SALVADOR

Salvador

HONDURAS

Law for the Protection of the Cultural Heritage of the Nation

1984 (amended in 1997)

No

NICARAGUA

Law for the Protection of the Cultural Heritage of the Nation

1979 (amended in 1982)

No

Law 7 and Law 6703 (archeologic heritage), Law 7555 for

For the Law 7555 (2005,1938, 1981, 1995

COSTA RICAthe Historic-Architectonic Heritage of Costa Rica

amended in 2007)

Measures on the Custody, Conservation, and Management of1982 (amended in 2003)
PANAMANothe Historical Heritage of the Nation

Summaries of Academic Theses 2017

in all, but less so in Panama.

which accounted for many development factors such as theWhile all countries provide sanctions, only Guatemala, El

arrival of archaeologists, centralization, and tourism.

Salvador, and Costa Rica provide specific incentives for

The division between Costa Rica and Panama can becitizens to participate in heritage protection.

explained by the colonial past, as Panama developed
differently because of its later independence and its

5. Comparison Parameters and Sub-Regional

closeness to South America.

Characteristics
Because cultural heritage policies are inherently complex,
and the region presented great diversity in its
characteristics, comparison parameters were established tolocate each country within these parameters and makecomparisons easier. The following four parameters wereestablished:(1) “Politization”, meaning the use of cultural heritage forpolitical purposes or the special vulnerability of the cultural
sector to political changes. It was especially strong in thefour northern countries.
(2) Social inclusion and intangible heritage development,
which were closely related and especially strong in
Guatemala and Nicaragua.

Figure 2: common characteristics of the sub-regions(3) Centralization of immovable heritage, which wasobserved in two forms. Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua,and Panama centralized specific immovable sites. El
Salvador and Costa Rica centralized their heritage inmuseums.
(4) Stability and increased spending, which werepronounced in Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama.

Placing sub-regional differences apart, the following threecommon and characteristic challenges of the region wereidentified:(1) Securing Autonomy for the cultural sector: gaining
autonomy is one of the biggest and most important
challenges because weakness to external influence harms
long-term planning, cooperation, and management

Based on these parameters, the region was divided into
three sub-regions, shown in Figure 2. The first groupshares “politization,” instability, social roles for heritage,stricter protection laws, inclusion of intangible heritage,
and a stronger influence from organizations such as
UNESCO.
Costa Rica stands alone because of its divided heritagelegislation, its unique legislative development, and its
neutral cultural heritage policies.
Meanwhile, Panama also stands alone because its heritage
protection law addresses research, and international
cooperation, strong infrastructure development, andrelative independence.
These divisions partly match geopolitical divisions of thepast. Group 1 is related to the Mesoamerican region, in
which the Mayans left monumental pyramids and sites,
学位論文梗概集 2017(2) Going beyond pre-Columbian and colonial heritage:
while the concept of heritage is still very much tied to preColumbian and Colonial expressions, the evidence of more
recent events -notably civil wars and massacres- that arecloser to the people is being lost.
(3) Establishing cultural heritage policies that respond tothenationalrealities:

internationalpressure

andcooperation have helped develop cultural heritage policies,
but they have also standardized legislation to a point that it
sometimes does not relate to the national realities. In
relation to this, projects must be assessed on whether they
will actually help meet national goals or they will overload
the cultural sector.

6. General Conclusions
The following five general conclusions were drawn:(1) Central America is a highly diverse and complex region.
Many common characteristics are owed to the Spanish
colonization, but great differences also exist, so that “onesize fits all” strategies should be avoided.
(2) the region can be divided into the three groups shownin Figure 2. These divisions can be traced back to pastcultures and limits. Sub-regional programs can bedeveloped taking these divisions into account.
(3) there is a strong presence of pre-Columbian andcolonial heritage, which dominates the concept that Central
Americans have of their culture. Fostering research andcivic participation can help widen the concept of cultural
heritage in Central America.
(4) in recent years, rapid political changes, theestablishment of peace, and the rise from poor to middleincome countries brought about new opportunities andnew challenges to the region. Because of the constantchanges in the higher levels of administration, mid-level
administrative staff should be targeted for cooperation
projects.
(5) despite great differences, all countries share a basic
legal framework for heritage protection. Main differencesare rather perceived in the levels of consolidation in eachcountry than in the legislation itself. A priority systemshould be created for the long-term based on a needs
assessment, since a basic framework for heritage
protection is already laid out. Priorities should match theactual assets found in each country and the interests of thepeople.
References:
1) Políticas culturales en América Latina: evolución
histórica, instituciones públicas, experiencias, Edwin R.
Harvey, Madrid :Fundación SGAE, 2014
2) Políticas culturales en América Latina, Néstor García
Canclini, Mexico: Grijalbo, 19873) Final Report on the results of the second cycle of thePeriodic Reporting Exercise for Latin American and theCaribbean, UNESCO, WHC-13/37.COM/10A, 2013,
http://whc.unesco.org/en/soc/1975

Summaries of Academic Theses 2017