Analysis and Identification of Sustainable Public Policy for Management of Cultural and Natural Heritage in the Maya Region in Line with the Sustainable Development Goals

Abstract

The present study identifies suitable sustainable public policy for the administration of archaeological zones in Mexico, particularly in the states of Yucatán, Campeche and Quintana Roo (Maya region). Given the rapid economic growth of the Southeastern region of Mexico, it is necessary to implement a comprehensive and sustainable form of administration for the cultural and archaeological heritage. Key components of the ideal policy are aligned to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Data is based on researchers’ own experiences on how these SDGs can act as a base for the much needed change in the management of Mexico´s archaeological zones. We are looking at a policy that has clear goals, objectives, concrete strategies and actions including: (1) Comprehensive plan, (2) Regional plan, (3) Land use plan—master plan, (4) Cultural tourism plan which covers ecotourism and nature based tourism, art centers, museums and monuments. The resource management plan should cover aspects like: (1) disaster planning, (2) operations and marketing, (3) interpretation, (4) budgetary issues and (5) financing. Success in the implementation of such a policy requires the strengthening of regional and local federalism, transparency, accountability, corporate governance and planning for sustainable cultural tourism development.

1. Introduction

The United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs: 2015–2030) are the successors to the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs: 2000–2015). While the MDGs were largely focused on hunger, poverty and disease, the SDGs added a stronger ecological focus and emphasize that all countries have work to do to reach the goals in their territory. In this regard, cultural heritage management is an important component of the SDGs. The UN Agenda 2030 recognizes culture & heritage clearly in Target 11.4 to “protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage” in order to “make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable” (Goal 11), as well as in other Targets such as 4.7 (Education for a culture of peace and cultural diversity), 8.9 and 12.b (Sustainable Tourism that promotes local culture). Sustainability in tourism recognizes the need to conserve heritage, thus, maximizing benefits (economic, social and environmental) for the host communities, visitors, cultural heritage, and reducing negative impacts. Cultural heritage management plays a key role in the relationship between the SDGs and tourism, a global economic activity that heavily relies on cultural resources. Below is a summary of this relationships:

(a)

SDGs 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 17—Inclusive and sustainable economic growth

(b)

SDGs 1, 3, 4, 5, 8—Social inclusiveness, employment and poverty reduction

(c)

SDGs 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15—Resource efficiency, environmental protection and climate change

(d)

SDGs 8, 11, 12—Cultural values, diversity and heritage

(e)

SDGs 4, 16—Mutual understanding, peace and security

Under these goals, how heritage is perceived, conserved, administered, and the importance of the scope of research findings not only widens the public perception of the value of archaeological resources and their interpretation [1], but also, increases multinational socio-cultural exchange, activities and policies of countries within the multicultural nature of contemporary processes to develop more democratic and plural multicultural policies, as [2] has pointed out. The new paradigm in heritage management facilitates good practice founded on wider stakeholder participation (both national and international) in archaeological planning/administration: excavation, cataloging and inventory conservation and protection [3,4,5,6,7,8]. Therefore, best management for holistic practices for cultural administration not just should draw from the local, to state, regional, including corporate perspectives, influence the definition and legislation of the administration at federal level [9], but also, reviews legislative frameworks through the evolution of countries particular histories, places and people to current changes [10,11,12].

In regards to the cultural arena in Mexico three SDGs are relevant for discussion and well aligned with our article: promote decent work and economic growth, (goal eight), industry, innovation and infrastructure (goal nine), and reduce inequalities (goal ten). This is because heritage management in the country faces a number of challenges, archaeological heritage budget has actually been reduced and assigned to the federal institution that oversees it along with managerial limitations [13]. Jobs and sites management are only for those who work within the federal government under one institute which safeguards all kinds and epochs of heritage, including paleontological. The National Institute of Anthropology and History exists to protect the national goods, register remains while cities grow, maintain the sites for tourism and more importantly disseminate information for the people of the country. All of these tasks are performed under a very regimented and short budget resulting in a very poor registration process of national goods, lack of criteria implementation and short demand for hiring specialists. The second large problem is that archaeology in Mexico constitutes a dilemma as an instrument of material culture in Mexico justified as a Mexican nationalist project [14]. Not just because the public administration defends it as the country’s Mexican identity, up to the present time, but also, as opposed to a representation of the very existence of large cultural ethnic groups within Mexican territory. Their legal existence as ethnic groups came up to a legal recognition back in 2004 within the arrival of the Free Trade Agreement. In addition with lagging proper data collection on the archaeological field [15].

By 2004, there were already about three hundred decrees and resolutions declaring monuments that have been signed in Mexico [16], but none focused on how to promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, for full and productive employment and decent work with standardized social participation, archaeological practices, and/or reinvestment through sustainable economic development in the archaeological sites. In addition, the political platform presents a couple of paradigmatic problems at the federal level where narrow and centralized decisions are commanded from top to bottom, as opposed to gathering policies from a more horizontal or bottom-up constituency, creating current social unrest among those who claim control of their sites. This explains the decreasing value of archaeological heritage within the region, both in urban and rural areas [17].

The other dilemma we have observed in Mexico is that the culture has been in an arena of intense political controversy, but this happens in many parts of the world too [18]. Nonetheless, this phenomenon has shed light on the growth of cultural tourism [19,20], in the need for preservation and conservation, but more importantly on the fate of archaeological heritage [21]. In the early 1970’s, Cultural Tourism studies was recognized as “a non-renewable cultural resource” by the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act in the U.S., [22]. In the present day, key elements of discussions focus on tourism policies, strategies, plans and techniques. However, there is a significant role the administration and tourism planning process plays in the implementation of sustainable development principles. Some of these roles relate to public authorities, stakeholders, not just to preserve monuments, but also to become a successful key for the success of any development policy, including weaknesses [23,24]. We intend to use this plight as a visualizer on how a fine line of public policy identification can be implemented to narrow the gap between nation, individual, and identity, to improve the archaeological field gap between the Sustainable Development Goals of promoting, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, for full and productive employment and decent work, and apply a planning process to a non-renewable cultural resource in the legal arena.

This paper not only presents a strategic policy change proposal to address this old dilemma, but also a new perspective from an interdisciplinary academic group in the Yucatan peninsula. Several stakeholders, social organizations and specialists together with universities, have put forward a set of sequential steps and theoretical considerations that have the potential to overcome the archaeological heritage problem starting in the Maya region. The authors intend to insert a fine line of public policy for best practice in archaeological preservation and conservation, and help counterbalance the challenges faced by Mexico in managing its cultural heritage. The authors understand that in order to bring to the present the world of the past, it is necessary to align archaeological practices and standards uniformly to all sites, from the developed world to the developing world, or at least bridge the gap between the two, to increase professionalization, and ethical responsibility, like other organizations of the world, namely Society for American Archaeology, Register of Professional Archaeologists and World Archaeological Congress. Sharing of standards and best practice around the world has had a positive impact on the institutionalization of a variety of professional standards, training of preservation through the archaeological record and sustainable tourism [1,25].

2. Materials and Methods

Material culture, represented by cultural heritage, has been used as tangible representation of cultural notions of social and historical identity, such as a sense of place, community or belonging [26]. Such has been the experience in the world that governments use it as a tool to institutionalize state bureaucracies and agencies in charge of heritage during the 60’s and 70’s, in the world. In Mexico, it has not been any different, however it’s rate of change, a motor that drives cultural heritage, shows a quite different history of development towards a more holistic level of planning in this country. The sustainable development goals are an opportunity for Mexico to account for the hundreds of archaeological sites neglected in the Mayan area that can be incorporated in the geography of the territory, to give jobs to hundreds of jobless archaeologists and become economically viable for a comprehensive and sustainable management. Hence, we reflect on four areas of focus: where we are, where we are going, where we want to be, and how we want to get there.

The purely qualitative methodology used in this work is founded on evolutionary theories of change that focus on (a) historical context and (b) the evolution of the archaeological discipline itself [27]. But also in a relational approach among these two [28]. The first part departs from a historical context that has brought the country to higher level economic development, which accounts for the evolution of the Law of Ports of Mexico [29]. In our cultural arena, we apply a rationale used for this law to a comprehensive plan for sustainable development and management of archaeological sites under cultural expeditions. The second part is to compare this approach with the Law of Ports in Mexico to the evolution of cultural heritage as a good for the nation, as established in its constitution. We focused on a part of this evolution consisting in the design of an instrument (governing the legal framework) founded in the interest of the cultural material to attract responsible society to planning, programming, and developing other acts related to the assets and services of an archaeological site. Creating accountability for the diversity of stakeholders, communities, travelers and the cultural and environment material for the benefit of an administration with the moral quality of effective communication and transparency [30].

In relation to data collection and analysis, document analysis, interviews and focus group discussions during symposia were the dominant qualitative research techniques. As part of a multidisciplinary group “Archaeologists Without Borders of the Mayan World”, comprised of archaeologists, geographers, biologists, geologists, anthropologists and related fields, researchers have directly observed and analyzed the immeasurable challenges facing heritage management in the region since 2016 while implementing, workshops and symposia (4 in total including the 2021 virtual symposium during the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person and virtual meetings to promote standards, aligned to collaborative and organized professional objectives and combined efforts towards the needs of conserving and protecting Mexico’s heritage. These events are developed as a bottom-up effort that recognizes the importance of cultural heritage for sustainable development within Central America, and have attracted participants/speakers from more than 15 countries. The events provided an opportunity to make a step-change in this agenda by making it possible for international specialists to engage directly with local stakeholders, in a two-way learning process. Researchers believe that there is a strong relationship between the SDG’s and this comprehensive proposal of policy represents the group’s view based on information collected over time. Hoping to influence the will of officials and every stakeholder to move the country forward in terms of the multidimensionality of heritage, and to perceive archaeology as a valuable strategy for each stakeholder [31].

Interviews were semi-structured with open-ended questions, because they not only allow the use prepared questions that are necessary for collecting relevant data but also allow a certain level of flexibility, the interviewer can deviate and probe further if needed. Both snowball and purposive sampling techniques were used to identify 15 ideal interviewees (experts and opinion leaders in the field of archaeology—researchers from Universities and the National Institute of Anthropology and History—INAH, government representatives, leaders of nonprofits whose work is related to the discipline of archaeology among others). It was easier to start with snowball sampling where a first group of experts were identified and interviewed. Researchers strategically started with experts within the multidisciplinary group of researchers (Archaeologists Without Borders of the Mayan World) who then recommend others from among their acquaintances. Usually, this kind of studies relies on people (informants) who are adequately experienced in the phenomenon to be studied. So, the next level in sampling entailed maximum variation purposive sampling, where researchers carefully selected respondents who are competent enough to capture a wide range of opinions, issues and experiences. Interviews were conducted in two languages, either Spanish or English depending on the participant’s preference.

Focus group discussions were coordinated during the four symposia organized by the multidisciplinary group of researchers (Archaeologists Without Borders of the Mayan World) whose work is related to the archaeological discipline. The first symposium was held in 2016 on the 4th and 5th of June with over twenty five participants including speakers to highlight obstacles and problems that hindered effective management of archeological resources in the region. The second event was held in 2017 between August 22 and 24, under the theme of “Social participation using creative approaches for sustainable management of archaeological heritage”. It was organized in two working groups: 1. Sustainability and 2. Legislation where issues like sustainability indicators in heritage management, environmental legislation, cultural identity, education about natural resources, awareness, corruption were discussed. The 2019 symposium held from 6th to 8th of June under the theme of “Transference of sustainable technologies for the improvement of archaeology as a discipline” brought together 55 participants from more than 6 countries. The event was divided into two working groups, the first one focused on legal and political framework heritage management and the second one on sustainability related issues in heritage management. The fourth and most recent symposium “Cultural Heritage as a Driver for Meeting the Sustainable Development Goals” was held online between February 1st and 3rd 2021 with 28 speakers and participants from more than 20 countries. Themes covered include: 1. Global impact of cultural heritage management on local development. 2. Models of sustainable management of cultural heritage. 3. Methodologies for the management and protection of indigenous cultural heritage. 4. Rights of indigenous peoples to the management of their cultural heritage and 5. Viable and sustainable economic opportunities for cultural management for indigenous groups. Two key objectives of the 2021 symposium were to: (a) Develop a new culturally-informed model for using cultural heritage to facilitate the Sustainable Development Goals and, (b) Protocols to protect Indigenous cultural heritage and intellectual rights, as a basis for developing culturally-informed, viable and sustainable economic opportunities for Indigenous groups.

Qualitative analysis was based on the interviewee and focus group participants’ responses—description of their own experiences—insights and issues; researchers inductively identified and extracted central themes and common patterns/variations that reflected these descriptions (thematic analysis); similarities as well as differences were noted while taking care of the minority views. Researchers then classified major topics covered, re-read the text and highlighted key issues and topics and finally placed the information under major themes. It is important to mention that a theoretical approach of thematic analysis was used in this study; this means that coding was done to address specific areas of interest that researchers have outlined in the paragraphs above.

3. Results

3.1. Rationale for Archaeological Sustainable Plan

In the current Mexican legal framework, archaeological sites belong to the federation, just like water and land. This means that the president of Mexico can basically declare a required need for the cultural material, like archaeological sites, water and land to be used for development purposes. Secondly, cultural or archaeological heritage, being an asset of the nation in theory, has a process of registration or incorporation into the geography, but lacks standards within a legislative framework, paradigmatically in the same situation are recent surveys for the protection of heritage and sites at the beginning of the construction of the Maya train project, with the use of drone technologies and Geographic Information Systems [32]. In theory, regional planning led by specialist authorities in the field starts at the municipal level and through the planning departments that are aligned to the state and national development plan. Its regional perspective maintains the vision and tools for the short- and long-term development of all types of infrastructure in a territory, operating and linked to state and federal agencies, from which top-down policies are derived. However, being that public policies come from a new model, the identification of such policies in this paper, shows the need for a model that should go from the horizontal to the vertical (bottom-up), part of standard practice during a regional planning process in developed countries.

Big projects of national interest like the recent Maya train in the Yucatan Peninsula have raised a series of concerns related to heritage conservation and protection. It is important to acknowledge that such projects will bring new jobs to the southern region, which will put the region at a level of connectivity that is not only for travel between places but also for the arrival of goods, however, experts have raised concerns in relation to potential negative environmental and sociocultural impacts.

At local level, there are two values that makes the Yucatan Peninsula unique in the Mayan region, its cultural heritage and its natural heritage. Both are linked to its geography. In cultural landscape theory, it has to do with the form and sustainable meaning of the historical environmental protection of those spaces. So, ideally, planners who are decision makers at all three levels, federal, state and municipal, are faced with the need to design more comprehensive and sustainable policies for these geographic environments. At the moment, the Eastern coast of Mexico (including coastal areas of Cancun) is experiencing a fast-paced technological and economic evolution with a GDP of up to 5.9%.

These conditions necessitate a sustainable framework based on SDGs and aligned to the National Development Plan to manage the country’s cultural resources. This entails a comprehensive plan that includes, (1) a regional sustainable plan, (2) land use plans, (3) a master plan, (4) and a cultural tourism plan.

3.2. Public Policy Considerations: Sustainable Archaeological Sites Act

The basis of a public policy proposal that recognizes and grants a sustainable value to archaeological heritage must address the shortcomings of the current archaeological heritage administration in Mexico, which instead prioritizes benefits for archaeological sites. The first phase is a Sustainable Archaeological Sites Act, comprises three aspects: (a) a legal framework on the subject, (b) a structure, formed by the Ministry of Culture which establishes titles granted in concession for comprehensive archaeological management (and delimits the operation of terminals or visitor centers and facilities for the provision of services, as envisaged by SDG goal number eight. Services are operated and provided through third parties (c) establishes the general basis for the organization and operation of an administrative body, based on a Master Plan for Archaeological Development. Both actions relate to SDGs goals number nine and ten. The legal framework for the public policy in this area, which is the responsibility of the Ministry of Culture, comprises of several components:

(1)

On the one hand, the meaning of heritage is clearly and expressly defined, through the delimitation of archaeological sites, given that there is no clear arbitration by the academy. To that end, all these definitions are put to work by the Academic Body (which will be discussed later). On the other hand, public policies work together with this academic body in order to know the destination of new operations and services to be provided in a timely manner.

(2)

The holders, who assist in the administration, measures, mechanisms, actions and instruments of a sustainable management of operation and services are defined. The activities that will be subject to the arbitration procedure.

(3)

It is understood that, for the tasks of habilitating, classes and types of sites can be carried out once they have been classified as such and structuring them integrally under visitor centers, aligned to an axis of development of the national archaeological system, (if there is one, if not it must be created), use, name, location and classification of the same should be carried out by decree.

(4)

The formulation of policies and programs are carried out by the Ministries and institutions. Whose objectives are for the involvement of sustainable archeological site development through visitor facility areas with quality standards, parking areas, and facilities adjacent to the archaeological sites. Such policies serve the interests and benefits of the good of the nation. Key points to consider:

(a)

The formulation of a sustainable policy should clearly state that the object is the archaeological heritage of public utility, and under the responsibility of the Ministry of Culture, the National Institute of Anthropology and History, the National Institute of Fine Arts and the other cultural institutes of the country. On the other side, the legal framework of a sustainable policy formulation, worked from and within the academic world, discusses and defines the measures of Archaeological and Heritage Protection, management instruments and risk level, as well as the operation and services of archaeological sites. Also, allows for checks and balances established in international treaties or conventions to which Mexico is party in terms of the Protection of Archaeological Heritage. As well as defines which actors are part of public policy, such as the Federal Executive Branch.

(b)

Both the Ministry of Culture and the Academic Body of the National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH), are developing a site classification program based on the updated category and significance of the sites based on the updated Archaeological Atlas of the State of Yucatan [33] and of Quintana Roo.

(c)

The levels of Management and Significance of the sites are included in the Urban Development Program or other related programs at state or municipal level and are subdivided into specific phases of operation, reconciliation and connection with subsequent levels of protection or phases, that allow the characteristics of a site to be analyzed in terms of advantages and disadvantages, areas of reserves, and modification of projects or areas in agreement and reconciliation with sectors involved [31].

3.3. The Historical Context: The Mexican Ports Act

Researchers propose that it is not only the interpretation of a Sustainable Archaeological Site Act that is needed, which is subject to approval of an executive decree regarding the Federal Archaeological, Artistic and Historical Zones and Monuments Act and its Regulations, but also its concurrent analysis with the Mexican Ports Act. Why the Ports Act? Because the evolution of a historical phase in Mexico’s economic history was achieved through the creation of the Mexican Ports Act, which provoked the development of a master plan, and the Ports Act was enshrined in federal law in 1993. As a result of the free trade agreement, Mexico was able to access a new facet of historical and economic development through the ports [34]. Everything that enters and leaves the country is regulated through its ports and has legal validity in the master plans. Another similarity with the Ports Act is that ports, like archaeological heritage, are objects, or portions of land, which are legislatively considered national assets. Furthermore, archaeological sites would be sustainable as they would be regulated and legally valid as they would be supported by their master plans. One year after the decree of the Ports Act in 1993, the head of the State Executive Branch, in the city of Chetumal in 1994, in accordance with the Organic Law of the Public Administration of the State of Quintana Roo, established a decentralized agency, or enterprise with common ownership, and public trusts, which, considered as auxiliary agencies of the executive branch, are part of the State Administration. The state participates in the capital stock of these companies, the object of which includes government plans and programs, unlike in the approach of the state-owned companies, which do not consider the municipal level due to the weakness of the public authorities in the sense of the purchase of support per three-year period.

3.4. The Structure of the Comprehensive Archaeological Administration

The structure of archaeological property management: planning, development programming and other acts related to the assets and services of an archaeological site must be carried out comprehensively. To this end, an integral archaeological administrator, who carries out the planning, programming, development and other acts related to the assets and services of an archaeological site, must be organized under a master plan and secondly, it can be entrusted in its entirety to a trading corporation, through the concession for the sustainable use and exploitation of the assets and the provision of the respective services. That is to say, it is drafted under a master plan where the trading corporation is responsible for its integral planning. This means that the Comprehensive Archaeological Administration of a group of archaeological sites, installations and places of predominantly state influence, within a State’s Area is entrusted by means of a concession to a trading corporation constituted by the corresponding Federal or State Government. Therefore, such an administration may be autonomous in its operational and financial management, so that its governing bodies will establish their internal policies and rules, with no other limitations than those established by the applicable legal and administrative provisions. The archaeological administrators, as well as the other concession holders, shall pay, a benefit whose bases and periodicity of payment may be determined in the respective concession titles to the Federal Government as the only consideration for the sustainable use, benefit and sustainable exploitation of the public domain assets and the services under concession, taking into consideration the intrinsic “commercial” value of such assets.

For Comprehensive Archaeological Administrations, the economic potential of the site or group of sites and visitor centers and the terms of the concession are also considered. These uses are set by the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit at the proposal of the Ministry. As well as the concession holders referred to in this document will pay, as the only consideration, that which is fixed in the Federal Government Fees and Charges Act.

The regime for such activities, should include an act that considers:

(a)

Hiring personnel specialized in heritage, for a full and productive employment and decent work.

(b)

Having all the delegated powers required for these measures to be effective.

(c)

Strengthening the inventory with the implementation of an “Inventory of Assets”.

(d)

Developing specific policies and criteria on nomenclature at the National Institute of Anthropology and History shall be presented to the “Commission”. For promoting sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth. Forums for debate and exchange of proposals.

3.4.1. State and Private Equity Interest

In order to reorganize the national archaeological system under the terms established in a legislative initiative, the Federal Government may not only constitute trading corporations with majority state equity interest, which are awarded concessions for Comprehensive Archaeological Administration. It may also promote the constitution of trading corporations with the majority equity interest of federal governments to manage archaeological sites, visitor centers and facilities for public use whose influence is predominantly state-owned. In this case, concessions may be granted directly for the comprehensive archaeological administration of sites, as agreed upon.

To this end a formulation is created that is in accordance with the standard of a public policy product involving the academy for public decision making. Under the method of continuous and permanent “development” from the perspective of a strategic approach, similar to a scorecard and direction of public policy in development and/or promotion. The analysis of interdisciplinary and collaborative inter-country training and education of personnel is also currently at the application phase.

The capital of the trading corporations may be initially underwritten, in its entirety, by the federal government, state governments or their public entities. This will help the research to focus on the standardization and regularization of the federal zones where the archaeological sites are located that have not been delimited due to the lack of criteria and regulations and that have been completely abandoned beneath the jungle, due to the lack of federal budget. In this situation there are dozens of archaeological sites scattered throughout the five countries comprising the Maya World.

3.4.2. Integrated Management Is Based on Principles of Sustainable Use

The archaeological administrators, as well as the other concessionaires, may pay the Federal Government a benefit whose basis and periodicity of payment may be determined in the respective concession titles, taking into consideration the intrinsic “commercial” value of such assets, as the only consideration for the sustainable use, benefit and exploitation of the public domain assets and of the services under concession. For Comprehensive Archaeological Administrations, the economic potential of the site or group of sites, the visitor centers and the term of the concession are also considered. These uses are fixed by the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit at the proposal of the Ministry. As well as the concession holders will be able to pay, as the only consideration, which is established in the Federal Government Fees and Charges Act.

3.4.3. Instrument for Civil Society Involvement

The instrument for involving segments of society is the action of implementing a Master Plan for Archaeological Development through a consultative commission. The archaeological administrator is subject to this Plan. This plan is also integral to the concession title, which should contain:

(a)

The uses, purpose and modes of operation intended for the different zones of the site or groups of them, as well as their justification, and the measures and provisions necessary to guarantee an efficient but sustainable exploitation of the archaeological spaces, their future development, the facilities to receive visitors in spaces required for the properties, and the archaeological services required to serve them and to provide archaeological services.

(b)

The master program of archaeological development and its substantial modifications are determined by a regulation to be applied to the Sustainable Archaeological Sites Act, prepared by the archaeological administrator and authorized by the Ministry, based on the policies and programs for developing the national archaeological infrastructure, with a twenty-year vision, reviewable every five years.

(c)

The Ministry issues the resolution corresponding to the time periods, during which opinions are requested from the Ministry of Culture and other relevant institutions.

(d)

Any minor modification to the archaeological development master program must be registered with the Ministry. As well as, provided in view of the public interest, the uses, destinations and modes of operation specified in the archaeological development master program may be modified with respect to the different archaeological site zones or a group of them or visitor centers not yet in use.

3.4.4. The Advisory Committee and Its Composition

The consultative commission is formed by representatives of the state and municipal governments, as well as social organizations of the region, users, assignees, archaeological service providers, and archaeological administrator. The commission will be presided over by the representative of the corresponding state. The consultative commission aids in the promotion of the archaeological site and can issue recommendations in relation to any aspects that affect urban activity and the ecological balance of the zone. The archaeological administrator must therefore inform the commission about the master program for archaeological development and its modifications, as well as the main investment projects for the expansion and modernization of the archaeological site. Sustainable Archaeological Site Operation.

Activities that lead to the use of the property and the provision of archaeological services are considered for the operation of the sites. Such as:

(a)

Services to construction clients, to carry out their operations, such as archaeologists, engineers, civil engineers, architects, contractors, urban planners, and municipal and state urban development departments and institutions;

(d)

The consulting and training service shall be governed by the laws on the subject and applicable regulations.

(c)

General services to national and international educational and research institutions, such as heritage registration, databases, standardization of criteria, design of master programs for archaeological development, design of master plans for the city as well as for the states, and

(d)

Services to move, transfer or transport assets or artifacts, such as excavating, recording or cataloguing, transporting, restoring, exhibiting, analyzing, researching, promoting and exhibiting on and off site.

In the common use areas of archaeological sites and in visitor centers and public facilities, archaeological services are provided to all requesting users in a permanent, uniform and regular manner; under equitable conditions in terms of quality, opportunity and price; and on a strict rotation basis, which cannot be altered except for reasons of public interest or for reasons of priority established in the archaeological site’s rules of operation. The Ministry of Culture, based on technical, efficiency and safety considerations, determines in the concession titles under which cases, in the visitor centers and public facilities and common areas, it must admit all the service providers meeting the requirements set forth in the respective regulations and rules of operation. In these cases, the users will select the service provider that suits the archaeological object. When visitor centers and facilities for private use are in excess capacity, the Ministry, in view of the public interest, may arrange for their operators to provide service to the public under the terms of the law and under conditions that do not affect them operationally and financially.

It is important to include aspects such as indemnity corresponding to the public use of the respective facility, equipment operations, centers with companies, and subordination of workers for the performance of work as stipulated in the Archaeological Sites Act to be drafted. Also analyze the agreements of partial assignment of rights of the Integral Archaeological Administrators, AAI, through a planning committee, access fees, verification, infractions and penalties.

For the construction and operation of the facilities within the archaeological site, the AAI may acquire the services of third parties by means of a partial assignment of rights agreement. These partial assignments of rights agreements and those for the provision of services must be entered into under certain requirements of subjection, compliance, term and registration.

3.5. The Planning Committee as an Instrument for the Operability of the Administrators

A Planning Committee for the planning of the archaeological site must be formed and supported by the Archaeological Administrator, chaired by representatives appointed by the Secretary of Culture, representatives of the concessionaires and service providers at archaeological sites. The Planning Committee must know, among other matters, the archaeological development master program and its modifications; the allocation of areas, visitor centers and archaeological services agreements entered into by the archaeological administrator; as well as any other matter affecting the long-term operation of the archaeological site.

4. Conclusions

The proposed policy considerations in Mexico have a historical momentum to use the evidence of the evolution of the Ports of Mexico, as an example of how steps can be made towards achieving SDGs. We live in a time of research and collaboration and new systems allow for questioning, not only weaknesses of policies, failure or success, but also, archaeological dilemmas aside from the culturally politicized arena as per the discussion of [23]. In addition, in a globalized world of today, the participation of all stakeholders including the World Archaeological Congress, and other organizations allows for training, best practice, relationships between communities, individuals, and authorities for connecting planning in sustainable development as a requirement to walk in a non-biased path. Researchers believe that this comprehensive legal instrument brings two major opportunities, one, updating of the archaeological field with criteria and standards for protection and, two, development of sustainable projects to modernize the Mayan region using cultural expeditions, founded in the best interest of the cultural material to attract responsible society, organizations and individuals with skills to finance, manage and invest in sustainable sites.

The generation of a master plan for archaeological development is a necessary asset for the country, involving segments of society for social and capital investment, creating demand and subject to obligations and responsibilities to effectively meet the usefulness of a social asset. Therefore, the Management Plan considers the role of civil society organizations, which promote the Culture of the Maya World worldwide, is inspired by global organizations (such as the WAC, World Archaeological Congress), and focused exclusively on the Maya world (five countries).

The implications lie in the fact that the statutory application of a minority state-owned company not only strengthens regional federalism, but also local federalism, causing a synergy of actions and work on transparency, sustainable principles, investment certainty, accountability, anti-corruption and corporate governance under the guidelines of sustainable cultural expeditions development planning, on the grounds that the resources obtained are paid to the administrator and the balance is used to finance research and reintegration work at the same archaeological site. The exercise of the rights and the fulfillment of the obligations arising from the concession or concessions granted by the Federal Government for the sustainable bicultural use for the rational and sustainable exploitation of public property belonging to the federation, provide them with infrastructure to be able to incorporate into sustainable cultural tourism under a prototype of an integral sustainable administration of archaeological zones in Mexico from the SDG goals organized professional partnership and private initiative empowering decent work, industry, innovation, infrastructure, and reduced inequalities.