R A L M AT T A

Food incursions into global heritage:

Peruvian cuisines slippery road to
UNESCO

This article provides critical engagement with cultural heritage-making processes conducted by stakeholders
and interest groups within the UNESCOs intangible heritage paradigm. By tracking the road of Perus cuisine
to the Representative List of Intangible Cultural Heritage (the ICH List) and focusing on the turning points
during foods shift from culinary to heritage status, the aim is to shed light on the political and economic forces
that shape the meanings of food heritage. This article draws on recent research conducted at the intersection of
globalisation with cultural and food politics in Peru. The empirical evidence, collected between 2011 and 2014
from individuals directly implicated in Perus food heritage-making, allows for a discussion of how, despite a
discursive emphasis on cultural continuity and intercultural dialogue, food incursions into the UNESCO
intangible cultural paradigm operate more as an elite-driven competitive global concept than as a tool for
cultural safeguarding and inclusive development. To do so, a description of the backgrounds that led to the rise
of food heritage awareness in Peru and an account of the evolution of the candidature of Peruvian cuisine to
the UNESCOs ICH List are provided.
Key words food heritage, stakeholders, intangible heritage, UNESCO, Peru

Introduction
An increasing number of strategies of cultural preservation acknowledge local particularities by including them in political and economic programmes. The motivations that
drive these actions may vary, but in general they are subordinated to the fact that
objects to be preserved oscillate between the poles of multiple opportunities of commodication and the enhancement of the human activities that constitute them. These
processes, currently at work in many expressions of culture, boost awareness among
actors involved in food production and preparation. Indeed, the increase of global
commercial integration and food circulation raises questions regarding the ownership
and control of food and culinary products in many countries. Recent research has demonstrated how governmental and private institutions from Ministries and business
brokers to farmers consortia and food entrepreneurs work to stabilise, promote
and manage the particularities of national foods and cuisines and the image of the
countries themselves (Caldwell 2002; Karaosmanolu 2007; Hiroko 2008; DeSoucey
2010). Food heritage emerges in this context. The concept of heritage not only unpacks
the social demarcating power of food, both inclusionary and exclusionary. It also sets new
agendas in which food embodies values and opens up space for contemporary claims on
people, whether in terms of beliefs, social structures and traditions, or in terms of political
and economic strengths (see Brulotte and Di Giovine 2014).
I adopt a broad working denition of food heritage encompassing all sets of food
knowledge and skills considered by groups as shared legacies or common goods
338

Social Anthropology (2016) 24, 3 338352. 2016 European Association of Social Anthropologists.
doi:10.1111/1469-8676.12300

F O O D I N C U R S I O N S I N T O G L O B A L H E R I TA G E

339

(Bessire and Tibre 2010). Food heritage includes agricultural products, ingredients,
dishes and cooking artefacts. It also comprises the symbolic dimension of food (table
manners, rituals), techniques, recipes, eating practices and food-related behaviours
and beliefs; and it extends to processes of selection, decontextualisation, adaptation
and reinterpretation. It is, therefore, a historical, cultural and social construction that
combines conservation and innovation, stability and dynamism, reproduction and
creation (Bessire 1998: 27). As such, one can only understand food heritage by the
role it has been granted and the interests it serves (Espeitx 2004).
Against this background, a great number of projects that put food at the centre of a
triangulation between culture, identity and market have come to light. The leisure and
tourism sector takes full advantage of this conguration. The novel trend of eating-out
is driven by the explosion of ethnic restaurants and by a gentrication of national
cuisines based on the use of local, rare and high-quality ingredients distinguished by
their origin and methods of production.
Private, public and non-prot sectors also engage in strategies of food
particularisation falling into the realm of cultural heritage. The mechanisms at stake reveal
an understanding of heritage based on the development and sustained use of traditional
local foods. Examples include the export of native crops, the creation of gastronomic
routes for tourists, the implementation of geographical indications of origin (Parasecoli
and Tasaki 2011), and the restructuration of agricultural production systems to promote
competitiveness of niche products (Ilbery and Kneafsey 1999).
Food heritage is also an area of contestation. It has been argued that nostalgic
interest in traditional agricultural products is a reaction to the mass introduction of
junk food in homes and restaurants (Contreras and Gracia 2005; Poulain 2002). Resistance and contestation also appear to be fruitful routes for food heritage-making in the
countries of the Global South. Such is the case in Latin America, where the valorisation
of long-forgotten indigenous food practices strengthens identity in terms of cultural
differences and self-determined development (Graddy 2014).
The increasing use of food as a power resource in the framework of international
relations should nally be mentioned. Gastrodiplomacy, a facet of cultural diplomacy
that connects historical narratives with current gastronomic practices, showcases upto-date food traditions with the aim of improving countries reputations and fostering
global cultural and business relationships (Rockower 2012). On a similar scale, but on a
different ideological basis, the United Nations Educational, Scientic and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) plays a major role in this regard. Through inscriptions into the
Representative List of Intangible Cultural Heritage (hereinafter the ICH List),
UNESCO champions a community-oriented and sustainable approach for the preservation and promotion of culture that is reframing the ways food is conceptualised,
communicated and commoditised. Although formal inscriptions of food as UNESCO
heritage have received wide attention in news media, interest in academia remains little
developed, with a few notable exceptions (Cang 2015; Tornatore 2012; Medina 2009).
In Peru, obtaining UNESCO distinction for Peruvian cuisine is seen as the corollary of an ambitious developmentalist discourse promoted for a decade by governmental and private actors (Matta 2011). The idea is that Peruvian culinary culture, if based
on a balance between tradition and adaptation to market forces, could bring positive
economic impact to the country and lead to social reconciliation in a nation shaped
by inequalities of race, class and gender. In its history as a republic, Peru has dealt with
fragile institutions ruled by dominant groups descended from Spanish conquerors. The
2016 European Association of Social Anthropologists.

340

R A L M AT TA

white coastal areas of the country became integrated rst into the capitalist economy,
thus establishing their political and economic domination over the Indian Andean and
jungle regions, which were branded as underdeveloped and traditional (Cotler 1967).
Little has been achieved to date in respect to this situation. Indigenous and peasant
communities continue to suffer political marginalisation and social/racial discrimination (Poole and Rnique 2012).
Surprisingly, and more than any other state programme, recent discursive formations around food address the possibility of reducing the countrys structural dualism.
Such a prospect has been suggested in the aftermath of Perus recent achievements in
gastronomic business at the international level (Fraser 2006; McLaughlin 2011). Rapidly appropriated by politics, the countrys culinary triumphs lay at the core of a project of national unity, and are celebrated as results and sources of horizontal
partnerships, social inclusivity and harmony (Fan 2013; Matta 2011). National consensus has been built on this idea and with the following assumption: Peruvian cuisine has
the potential to connect the urban with the rural, the male chef with the female peasant,
the traditional with the modern, the past with the present. Granting Peruvian cuisine
the UNESCO label becomes a major opportunity to uphold the countrys unity and
capitalise on the gastronomic boom in both monetary and imagistic terms.
This article critically engages with cultural heritage-making processes conducted
by stakeholders and interest groups within UNESCOs intangible heritage paradigm.
By tracking the path of Perus cuisine to the ICH List and focusing on turning points
during foods shift from culinary to heritage status, I shed light on the political and economic forces that shape the meanings of food heritage. The article draws on research
conducted recently at the intersection of globalisation with cultural and food politics
in Peru (Garca 2013; Matta 2013). It derives its empirical basis from a variety of documents (from news articles to ofcial documents), eighteen interviews and correspondence exchanges conducted between 2011 and 2014 with individuals directly implicated
in Perus food heritage-making as well as with individuals implicated in the consequences of this process (Peruvian government and UNESCO ofcials, social scientists
and food scholars, chefs, peasant and indigenous organisations representatives). Including all these voices is beyond the length and scope of this study, which focuses
on the bureaucratic fabric of global heritage and the reasons and mechanisms through
which authoritative actors seek to administer cultural resources. In this sense and as an
example, grassroots and indigenous actors views which, as this work shows, were excluded from ofcial debates on food heritage, will be the subject of separate papers to
do justice to their complexity and the interests they represent. The voices included here
are those of actors involved in producing the content of the documents supporting the
nomination of Peruvian Cuisine as UNESCO intangible heritage: one representative of
the Ministry of Culture, one anthropology professor, two diplomatic representatives
and one researcher specialised in the protection of natural resources.1 Their perspectives are particularly useful in showing how, despite a discursive emphasis on cultural
continuity and intercultural dialogue, food incursions into the UNESCO intangible
heritage paradigm may operate as an elite-driven global competitive asset far more so
than as a tool for cultural safeguarding and inclusive development. To do so, the
following sections provide a description of the background that led to the rise of food
1

As the majority of these informants are still holding public servant positions or working closely
with state institutions, I chose to anonymise their names.
2016 European Association of Social Anthropologists.

F O O D I N C U R S I O N S I N T O G L O B A L H E R I TA G E

341

heritage awareness in Peru and an account of the evolution of the candidature of

Peruvian cuisine to UNESCOs ICH List.

Premises of food heritage in Peru

Food enters UNESCOs ICH List
After the ratication of the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural
Heritage (CSICH), nation-states for whom food was already relevant to their heritage
and tourism began constructing narratives about their cuisines with the help of social
scientists, tourism promoters, chefs and culinary experts. The culinary candidatures
to the ICH List led to UNESCOs decision to interpret the CSICH to include food
practices. However, food heritage additions to the list were only made after a period
of lobbying. Until 2009, it seemed indeed that food cultures would not t into the
intangible heritage categories. This was mainly due to UNESCO ofcials uncertainties
in interpreting food as cultural heritage, and to local stakeholders misconceptions
about what intangible heritage is, to whom, and how it should be addressed.
The CSICH was conceived as a legally binding instrument, which allowed for
stronger representation of heritage expressions of the South, which placed communities
and grass-roots initiatives at the centre of its activities, and which would strengthen the
recognition of, and support for, heritage practitioners (Rudolff and Raymond 2013:
154). According to this, the criteria for inclusion in the ICH List focus on the locality
of the heritage under consideration. Formulations of food as heritage, however, clearly
exceeded the intentions of the Convention. The earliest food-related candidatures to
the ICH List showed that stakeholders focus was mainly on uniqueness, excellence
and superiority on the global scale (Samuel 2008; Sammells 2014). Former president
Nicolas Sarkozy and renowned French chefs indicated that a World Heritage inscription would conrm the place of French cuisine as the best gastronomy in the world
(Sciolino 2008). The strong focus on maize as a symbol of national identity within
the People of Maize dossier the rst-ever (unsuccessful) food-related candidature,
submitted by Mexico in 2005 revealed not only the risk of producing reied heritage
susceptible to being easily appropriated by the food industry, but also Mexican cuisines tendency to conceal ethnic heterogeneity by promoting a ctional homogenous
nation-state (Moncus and Santamarina 2008). In Peru, it has never been a secret that
the inclusion of Peruvian cuisine on the ICH List promises to increase its growing international prestige (Matta 2011). Visibly, early formulations of food heritage attached
great importance to international standing and market development rather than to principles of typicality and representativeness, which are more in line with UNESCOs
interpretation of intangible cultural heritage (UNESCO 2003).
To summarise the above, we can say that UNESCOs reluctance to considering
food-related applications was due to the following: (1) the penchant of confusing food
cultures with highbrow gastronomy; (2) the selection of a broad heritage corpus
rather than specic ones; (3) the overall climate of competition between nations; (4)
the fear of dealing with as many culinary inscriptions as the number of state parties,
or becoming a gastronomic court of adjudication (Pilcher 2008: 542). However,
during the third session of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguarding of
Intangible Heritage (Istanbul, November 2008), the delegations of Peru, Mexico and
2016 European Association of Social Anthropologists.

342

R A L M AT TA

France pushed for an external expert meeting in order to dispel any doubts and fears.
This event, held in April 2009, paved the way for food heritage nominations (Hottin
2009). In November 2010, France, a collective of Mediterranean nations (Spain, Greece,
Italy and Morocco), Mexico recovered from the failed 2005 attempt and Croatia
succeeded in their respective endeavours. More recently, it was Turkey, Japan and
Korea that succeeded.2 Taking into account the increasing importance of food in
constellations of cultural, social and creative-productive activities, more nominations
in this eld are to be expected in the coming years.

Food heritage awareness in Peru

Food heritage awareness in Peru resulted from recent changes in Perus society and politics. Between 1980 and the 1992, the country was overwhelmed by a devastating economic crisis and extreme levels of political violence (actions of the triad Shining Path,
MRTA and the Peruvian Army). From being isolated from international trade and investment, Peru engaged in a new start by adopting neoliberal policies that reduced the
scope of the public sector to meet the expectations of international money markets
(Arce 2005). Now the war is over, tourism is strong, and so is the economy. Fifteen
consecutive years of economic growth and opening-up increased purchasing power
in the main cities, principally in the capital Lima, and infused the idea that well-being
depends on the accomplishment of aspirations and desires, rather than rights and obligations. Also, the arrival of global cultural patterns prompted processes of class differentiation through new tastes and consumption trends (Matta 2009). In such a context,
the interest in gastronomy, one expanding aspect of urban economies, not only grew
but became an instrument of choice for Peru to face the challenge of re-inventing itself
within a world of nations.
Peruvian cuisine transcended the domestic culinary sphere by undergoing a
process of rhetorical and technical development. This process is called the Peruvian
gastronomic boom and should be considered to be the cornerstone of a strategic push
by political and entrepreneurial sectors into the elds of heritage and public diplomacy.
The boom originates in the early 1990s, and has developed further since 2000. It congured Peruvian cuisine as a formal order to consolidate its prominence as a legitimate
cultural eld and a protable activity. This is made possible by Peruvian chefs with
European training who displace and translate rural, indigenous or remote food
knowledge into cosmopolitan canons and speak with authority about their interpretations of Peruvian cuisine. They constantly re-appropriate and re-signify rural food long
seen as backward and un-modern by upper classes by using haute cuisine techniques
and aesthetics. Therefore, items kept away from elite tables, such as guinea pig, paiche
(Arapaima gigas Cuvier), arracacha (Arracacia xanthorrhiza Bancroft) or cushuro
(Nostoc sphaericum Vaucher) obtain a higher status. This upgrade involves, of course,
ne-dining restaurants as receptacles of distinguished practices but stresses, rst of
all, the chefs performing within them. Indeed, Peruvian chefs self-promotion and the
2

Nominated were the Traditional Mexican cuisine the Michoacn paradigm, the Gastronomic
meal of the French, The Mediterranean diet, the Gingerbread craft from Northern Croatia
(2010), the Turkish Ceremonial Kekek tradition (2011), the Kimjang, making and sharing kimchi
in the Republic of Korea, and the Washoku, traditional dietary cultures of the Japanese (2013).
2016 European Association of Social Anthropologists.

F O O D I N C U R S I O N S I N T O G L O B A L H E R I TA G E

343

media coverage about successful gastronomic entrepreneurship overemphasise a sense

of (food) community that manifests in everyday expressions of national pride (Garca
2013).
Even though these gastronomic innovations correspond primarily to the cultural
settings of privileged groups, the growing signicance of food fostered top-down communication about its potential as a vector of economic development, cultural recognition and social inclusion. Actors from both government and the private sector now
take an active part in initiatives linking food cultures to development issues. Public
agencies and business rms currently promote gastronomic tourism, the opening of
Peruvian restaurants worldwide, and support the modernisation of agricultural production, while some celebrity chefs and NGOs show commitment to valorise peasant
culinary knowledge and native ingredients (Graddy 2014; Matta 2013; Nicholls 2006).
Food heritage arose then as a prism reecting a series of economic and development
concerns with respect to the countrys future.

The slippery road to UNESCO

Peruvian foods rst incursion into the heritage eld happened in 2007. Based on a
Ministry of Culture report highlighting its roots in traditional knowledge and beliefs,
its contribution to the worlds diet and its high potential to attract tourism, Peruvian
cuisine was declared Cultural Heritage of the Nation. The denitive step to granting
it global heritage recognition was undertaken shortly thereafter. In 2008, one year
before foodways were agreed to be worthy of UNESCO endorsement, a nomination
le for Peruvian cuisine to enter the ICH List was already in preparation. Although
the Peruvian government has not made available any document stating the goals and
strategies behind this initiative, key informants from the stakeholders community
informed me that the candidature should have met the following conditions: rst, to
develop a cross-cutting, holistic approach in order to ensure the national representativeness of the element and, second, to be submitted before the end of President Alan
Garcas mandate (July 2011).3
Unlike other inscription processes, in which UNESCO State Parties ensured that
government and private actors linked to food production and consumption were
represented (Cang 2015; Tornatore 2012), the task of inscribing Peruvian cuisine fell
on a small number of actors. Following the standard diplomatic procedures of heritage
nominations, the Ministry of Culture was responsible for the management of the
nomination le. A rst version of the document was ready in mid-2008, and thereafter
sent for validation to the Permanent Delegation of Peru to UNESCO, the only valid
interlocutor between the Peruvian State and the international organisation. After examination, the delegation did not agree to the proposal, and consequently opposed it
reaching UNESCOs ofce. In 2010 and 2011, a second document was prepared but,
as we will see, the responsibility for this version was entrusted to different actors. This
situation, which is one of the possible outcomes of complex deliberative processes such
3

This information was provided by a member of the Peruvian diplomatic delegation at UNESCO
through an email exchange on 23 January 2014 (the same person mentioned when referring to the
interview from 7 July 2011), and by the ofcer of the Division of Intangible Heritage of the Ministry
of Culture during the interview of 8 August 2011.

2016 European Association of Social Anthropologists.

344

R A L M AT TA

as heritage denitions, will be examined in detail with a view to elucidating contrasting

conceptions of cultural heritage.

The first candidature to the ICH List: balancing cultural conservation and
development
The rst nomination le was instructed by the Division of Intangible Heritage of the
Ministry of Culture. It mobilised its research staff, formed by anthropologists, and
named one external researcher as the head of writing team, an anthropology professor
from the Universidad Catlica del Per. Her appointment raised controversy among
prominent cooks and food scholars, who considered themselves more qualied to
complete the task. The complaints did not produce results: despite not having previous
research experience on food cultures, the professor was conrmed in her role due to
former collaborations with UNESCO in matters of cultural heritage nominations.
Yet, when the Ministry called for her expertise, she was not particularly willing to
accept the task. As she explained to me, she would have preferred not to be involved in
the making of a technical dossier [which] would unavoidably culminate in an invention
of traditions.4 The broad scope of the element to be inscribed (Perus national cuisine),
the vagueness of the notion of communities within UNESCOs participatory
approach (Hertz 2015) and the subsequent difculties in providing written proof of
the involvement of these communities as heritage practitioners and tradition bearers,
a mandatory requirement for inclusion in the ICH List, were challenges that justied
her worries. The very question was how many signatures shall we collect and from
whom?, revealing a concern regarding heritage ownership. The professor nally
accepted the Ministrys proposal but, as she afrmed, she still had serious reservations
about building national culinary heritage from scratch.
With the aim of dispelling every form of ethical malaise, the writing team sought to
introduce depth and complexity into the candidatures statements. Several pages were
produced to reect both the dimension of the commonality of Peruvian cuisine and
its role in the production of categories, hierarchies and social distinctions. In other
words, this nomination le was an academic document that, beyond highlighting the
shared meaning within the countrys existing foodways (Andean cosmology, food
rituals and food knowledge transmission patterns), also raised issues of power and hegemony, mechanisms at the root of social relations in societies with colonial histories.
The main ideas in the rst version of the dossier suggest a search for balance between the valorisation strategies of Peruvian cuisine and the preservation of traditional
features of local food cultures.5 Indeed, the document stresses the need to promote traditional Peruvian food in accordance with the interests of the custodians of traditional
and indigenous knowledge, namely, Andean and Amazonian peasants however, no
particular community was mentioned as the main heritage practitioner: the strategy
to justify community participation consisted only in asking regional governments,
Perus Ecological Peasants Association and members of the food productive chain to
sign supportive documentation for the candidature.
4
5

Interview, 17 March 2014 in Berlin, Germany.

The main content of the rst dossier has been published in Cnepa et al. (2011).
2016 European Association of Social Anthropologists.

F O O D I N C U R S I O N S I N T O G L O B A L H E R I TA G E

345

In the same vein and in order to prevent knowledge displacement, the dossier suggests
that any emergent culinary trend or activity claiming to be derived from Peruvian food heritage must somehow be consonant with the existing cultural food patterns, as they are part
of the living memory of the communities. Finally, the expected enhancement of gastronomic activities via UNESCO recognition is also contemplated: the document argues that
the rewards from the nomination should not only strengthen market mechanisms, but also
enable intercultural dialogue with traditional farmers and contribute to food security.
The candidacy was, however, suspended. As I was told by an ofcer of the Intangible
Heritage Department of the Ministry of Culture, the Peruvian diplomatic delegation at
UNESCO requested not to submit the nomination le. The reasons for the interruption
were manifold. First, the debate on the suitability of culinary heritage at UNESCO had
not yet concluded moreover, rumours spread that the French application would fail.6
Thus, in order to avoid rejection, the delegation recommended waiting for the results of
the candidatures of France, Mexico and the Mediterranean countries. Second, according
to the delegations preliminary report from 26 June 2008, the le was too anthropological
and cultural in its orientation, as well as being disconnected from practical issues related to
heritage safeguarding. Third, the same report argued that the le contained many references to the internationalisation of upscale features of Peruvian cuisine, which could have
been detrimental to the candidature. Finally, the delegation pointed out that the scope and
contour of the element to be inscribed were not sufciently delineated: Peruvian cuisine
appeared like an all-inclusive element difcult to be measured as representative of a
group. In this respect, the diplomatic delegation (possibly overlooking the governments
willingness to inscribe the national cuisine) expected the focus to be on one specic
food-related practice, knowledge or technique.

The second candidature: the conservation-through-development approach

Candidature resumed two years later. By that time, the gastronomic boom was in full
swing: Peruvian restaurants had opened in major world cities and the increasing admiration of Peruvian cuisine by nationals and foreigners alike made the news almost every day.
Such a context might have motivated the government to take advantage of it on many
fronts. On one hand, circumstances were favourable for promoting food culture as a
conveyor of meaning, identity and national imagery, thus providing new drive to the
countrys cultural policy and diplomacy. On the other hand, the widespread infatuation
with Peruvian cuisine would have taken attention away from heated debates about transgenic agriculture in Peru, for which Garcas neoliberal government was quite positive.
The governments attempt to nominate star-chef Gastn Acurio as Minister of Culture supports these hypotheses. Acurio, the leading spokesperson of the gastronomic
boom, has since the mid-2000s diffused a development-oriented discourse about the potentialities of Perus agro-biodiversity. Building on his success as a celebrity chef, Acurio
promotes an idea of Peru that overcomes representations depicting the country as mystical, indigenous, exotic and backward. To do so, he puts Peruvian cuisine into a cosmopolitan vision that promotes pride in traditions and native food resources, while attracting the
attention and money of the world (Garca 2010). Given Acurios capability to formulate a
discourse that interweaves entrepreneurial, cultural and political agendas, the government
6

Interview, Ministry of Culture, 8 August 2011.

2016 European Association of Social Anthropologists.

346

R A L M AT TA

hoped for him to lead the Ministry of Culture.7 However, independent journalists and
critical public opinion interpreted this as an attempt to silence the chef during the negotiation of the moratorium against the entry of transgenic seeds into Peru.8 In any case, the
chef declined President Garcas offer, arguing that he was not interested in politics.
It was then that anthropologist Juan Ossio was named head of the Ministry of
Culture, on 4 September 2010 (almost one year before the end of President Garcas mandate). He was seconded by journalist Bernardo Roca-Rey as Vice-Minister of Cultural
Heritage and Cultural Industries. Judging by the number of Roca-Reys ofcial and media appearances, during which he stressed connections between Peruvian gastronomy,
gross domestic product and the environment, one could say that Roca-Rey was the real
Minister. An example of his inuence is that he was the rst and yet the only ViceMinister to be sworn in during an ofcial ceremony. His prominence was not only due
to the position he was assigned: Roca-Rey belongs to one of the most inuential families
in the country, los Mir-Quesada, which owns Perus largest media group, El Comercio.
Additionally, the Vice-Minister has long enjoyed a reputation as gastronome and cook; he
is particularly known for being the creator of Novo Andean cuisine, a mix of Andean
ingredients and European techniques. Last, but not least, he is founder of APEGA (the
Peruvian Society of Gastronomy), a lobby and think-tank on food issues, formed by
restaurant owners, experts in development studies, heads of culinary schools and chefs.
It would denitely be fair to say that Roca-Rey had many credentials to run and promote
the candidature project successfully.
Since then, the execution of the project was transferred to other actors. If the Ministry
of Culture was still decisive in the process, as it is an unavoidable institution within cultural
diplomacy, the Department of Intangible Heritage was dispossessed of the dossier. The
task of writing a new nomination le for inscription in 2012 was entrusted to members
of the diplomatic delegation at UNESCO, while APEGA would act as consultant. However, APEGA did far more than just support the delegation; it provided the candidature
with a new rationale that prioritised safeguarding. APEGA and the Ministry actually
ended up sharing equal leadership status in the candidacy process before public opinion.
APEGA is a non-governmental organisation founded in 2007, which sees Peruvian
food and foodways as vehicles for fostering national identity, social inclusion and
economic development all across the country. Despite its goals, APEGAs direction is
only composed by top-down professionals; there are no representatives of peasant
communities or of small-scale food traders. On the organisations website (www.
apega.pe) it says the mission has to be accomplished by promoting the excellence of
local agricultural inputs, safeguarding Perus biodiversity and reassigning value to the
role of small agricultural producers within food chains. Yet closer inspection reveals
that it is primarily about promoting Peruvian cuisine internationally, attracting tourism
and producing value-added food products grounded on alleged sustainable principles.
APEGAs rationale can be summarised as equating Peruvian gastronomy with
Peruvian foodways. Foodways are the activities, attitudes and behaviours associated
with food in our daily life. They include all the ways of food production, preservation,
presentation, marketing and trade. In Peru, foodways are best known as the sector
gastronmico (gastronomic sector). APEGAs approach introduced a considerable shift
7
8

See http://elcomercio.pe/politica/gobierno/alan-garcia-le-ofrecio-gaston-acurio-ministro-cultura2010-noticia-1673645 (accessed 10 March 2015).

Indeed, Acurio was very visible in a multi-sectoral mobilisation that forced government to suspend
the introduction of genetically engineered seeds.
2016 European Association of Social Anthropologists.

F O O D I N C U R S I O N S I N T O G L O B A L H E R I TA G E

347

in the nature of the application. If the associations ideological line allowed for the possibility to insist in listing food heritage with national scope, then the exchangeability of
the concepts of gastronomy and foodways moved the focus from cultural commonality
to foodways management, which includes the safeguarding of traditional food biodiversity. The notion of safeguarding was therefore related to sustainability, a notion
that until recently did not belong in Peru to the domain or rhetoric of culture,
but to the domains of ecology, biological sciences and development.9 As one of the
nomination les writers explained to me, the position of APEGA and chef Acurio
(the former and rst APEGAs president) was preferred for dening the heritage object
and safeguarding measures to be included in the document.10
The second le remains inaccessible, hence I cannot offer a precise analysis; I was
told that the document still belongs to Peruvian diplomacy, and that it is therefore condential. The two main APEGA ofcers never replied to my requests for interview, but
I had the opportunity to interview other decision-makers in the nomination project.
The data I collected, coupled with data provided by anthropologist Mara Elena Garca
(2013), who succeeded in interviewing APEGAs director, can appropriately infer as to
the reasoning behind the Peruvian food heritage project.
In February 2012, Mara Elena Garca met APEGAs Executive Director, Mariano
Valderrama, to speak about the associations role in Perus gastronomic boom. But as
she explains (Garca 2013: 510), highlights of the conversation were APEGAs work
on promoting culinary tourism and a recurrent problem of hygiene among the different foodways stages. Valderrama put the issue simply: the international appeal of
Peruvian cuisine will suffer unless hygiene standards in restaurants and markets drastically improve. Valderramas worries brought me to the interview I carried out on 15
July 2011 with an ofcer of the Centre for Environmental Sustainability of the University Cayetano Heredia (CES), which supports APEGA in matters of sustainable development, as I wanted to know more about the safeguarding measures that were included
in the argument for the listing of Peruvian cuisine as UNESCO heritage. On that occasion I also learned that agricultural producers, mostly Andean, were not complying
with hygiene and presentation requirements during the gastronomic fairs in which they
showcase the fruits of their traditional knowledge. Dirty hands and nails, passivity
and dilettante-like attitudes were reasons for criticism. The remarks of Valderrama
and of the CES ofcer offer signicant information about the stakeholders concept
of food heritage. First, we observe a deep disposition of compliance with international
and urban market standards. Then, it is also noticeable that the only cultural dimensions they identied in local foodways are incompatible with their concept of cultural
heritage, and are subsequently seen as challenges to overcome. I want them to maintain
their culture, but they should also be careful with the forms, afrmed the CES ofcer.
When it came to the particularities on which Peruvian cuisine might obtain heritage
recognition, arguments resting on cultural dichotomies clearly manifested themselves.
The CES ofcer explained that Peruvian cuisine as a heritage object should rely on its
9

I use here a denition of sustainability inspired by critical readings of development which suggest
that sustainability, as it bases on agendas of sustainable development, economic development and
growth, does not imply fundamental changes to society, patterns of decision-making or power relations (Escobar 1995; Ferguson 1990; Hopwood et al. 2005). In this context, sustainability is a tool
of capitalistic development attempting to link the periphery to the core by food niche markets as
a solution to poverty and backwardness.
10 Interview, 7 July 2011, in Lima.

2016 European Association of Social Anthropologists.

348

R A L M AT TA

niche products, on traditional agriculture, on taking advantage of the diversity of products and on its many agricultural techniques. Her appreciation of the local/traditional
was, however, followed by an interpretation that embraces the global/modern: her very
idea was to add value to the diversity that makes us [Peruvians] unique, and sell it as
boutique products. She then specied that the process of adding value should be
accomplished by introducing a certain level of standardisation in agricultural production. She was not arguing for high levels of standardisation, such as those in use in mass
and transgenic-based agriculture (to which the CES and the tenants of gastronomic
boom are frankly opposed). Her concern was to ensure a minimum of predictability;
otherwise, you dont know if you are going to harvest 100 yellow potatoes, 200 red,
300 green. Production estimation would be just impossible, because the way these
crops are produced is hazardous; they are the result of lets say, a very traditional
management.
During our meeting in Paris, a member of the Peruvian delegation at UNESCO
expressed a similar concern when he referred to the shery activities, and particularly
to prawn farming, which provides the crucial ingredient of the cuisine of the region
of Arequipa in South-western Peru. He was surprised at the lack of technology in
prawn farming methods. Actually, he found it incomprehensible how the University
of San Agustin in Arequipa has not yet made investments to develop a super system
to multiply by ten the number of prawns in Arequipas rivers; a very productive system that additionally, does not pollute the rivers.11 In this vision, science and technology should not only concur to the preservation of one or more species, but also to an
exponential reproduction of prawns, in line with export-oriented aims.
Following these considerations, we can observe that what are seen as the traditional
dimensions of Perus foodways are merely considered impediments to development and
modernisation. The importance accorded to the introduction of predictability in traditional (and hazardous) agricultural management, along with expectations on the increasing of productivity, although sustainable, makes clear that the nature of the heritage
project changed substantially. Far from initial demands of intercultural dialogue and inclusive development, Peruvian cuisines road to the ICH List nally favoured commitment to
international markets. It is not my intention to advocate any particular approach to heritage, be it market or culture oriented. However, what is salient in the new stakeholders
idea of heritage is the presence of a linear notion of progress inseparable from distinctive
performances in the global economy. Less evident, but equally signicant, are the representations of alterity in the discourse of heritage agents. For instance, the hygiene considerations with regard to peasants market performances reactivate cultural cleavages derived
from colonial representations that infantilise and delegitimise the rural population. I
should clarify that, in many cases, these representations are expressed unconsciously, as
they have been internalised across generations; consequently, they must be considered independently from the good intentions professed by many development experts.
The time has come for [Peruvian] gastronomy to be recognised by UNESCO as an intangible heritage of the humanity. And we do not have the slightest doubt that it will,
said Gastn Acurio in March 2011 during the press conference announcing the candidature. Among the commentators present that day were Minister of Culture Juan
11

Interview, Peruvian Embassy in Paris, 16 June 2011.

2016 European Association of Social Anthropologists.

F O O D I N C U R S I O N S I N T O G L O B A L H E R I TA G E

349

Ossio, Vice-Minister Roca-Rey, APEGAs director Mariano Valderrama and journalist

Ral Vargas. Social inclusion, food chains and the international renown of Peruvian
gastronomy were the topics addressed. The event not only aimed to inform the public
about the submission of the le entitled Peruvian cuisine, but also to invite citizens to
participate in the online signature campaign Cocina Peruana para el Mundo Peruvian
Cuisine to the World in order to provide the nomination with additional support.
Indigenous women wearing traditional polleras colourful ared skirts performed
a dance to open the gathering. Optimism was at its height.12
One year later, 5 March 2012, the Secretariat of the CSICH sent a preliminary
report to the Ministry of Culture. I obtained this internal, non-public document from
one of my informants, in early 2014. The report provided technical advice on putting
together the dossier and pointed out some of the issues above. The rst was the lack
of focus in the denition of the heritage object. Actually, the Secretariat indicated that
the vast scope of the object makes it difcult to deliver a clear, vivid and simple
description of it. For UNESCO ofcers it was also challenging to understand how
Peruvian national identity might be represented by Peruvian cuisine, if the latter was
dened as a sum of regional cuisines. The inaccurate delimitation of heritage practitioners was mentioned as a direct consequence of this contradiction: if the inclusivity
argument and the scope of the nomination were more clearly dened, the practitioners
could perhaps be more restricted. In the opinion of the Secretariat, the safeguarding
dimension also required revision. First, it was noted that the safeguarding measures
appeared overwhelmingly centred on the restaurant industry and on the mediatisation
of popular chefs. Second, the description of current efforts on safeguarding foodways
and agricultural production was pointed out as having little relevance, as it was asked to
provide information about the safeguarding plans that would require UNESCO
support. Finally, the online campaign Cocina Peruana para el Mundo was regarded
as irrelevant, as it seems to be promoting a marketing and branding campaign for the
Peruvian food industry. The Secretariat invited the diplomatic delegation to revise
the manuscript but so far a new version has not been submitted.

Conclusion
Ideological bias and decision-making based on favourable circumstances have diverted
Peruvian food heritages focus from cultural diversity to sustainability strategies driven
by market competition. Such an approach envisions the safeguarding of food heritage
by means of mechanisms of reproduction framed within the logics of the commodity.
The path of Peruvian cuisine to the UNESCO ICH List has indeed shown how cultural
and anthropological concerns delineated in the rst application vanished to leave room for
developmentalist objectives. More precisely, the initial willingness to recognise local and
traditional food knowledge as the basis of Peruvian cuisine was replaced by a businessoriented programme aiming rst at propelling Peruvian food into world-class gastronomic circuits, and then at selling it as cultural heritage. Under this premise, the presence
of local communities as custodians of heritage has become practically unnoticeable just
as indigenous knowledge fades from the creations of high-skilled chefs. The inescapable
materiality of food, its many connections with the concepts of cultural economy, identity
12

Sequences of this event are available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_FMJ9cQZgM

(accessed 13 March 2015).

2016 European Association of Social Anthropologists.

350

R A L M AT TA

and belonging, along with the increasing use of foodways in international relations, have
provided strong evidence of this shift in orientation. Submerged in such a variety of interests, food heritage appears to be timely and challenging to the assessment of national
understandings of global heritage and cultural policies, as the cultural dimensions of
foodways may act as solid bridges between local and global benets.
I would like to nish with a more general comment about the relevance of cultural
heritage building in particular contexts. The objections against Perus candidature are central to this purpose. In the light of the foregoing evidence, it would be fair to say that the
failure of the Peruvian cuisine nomination was basically due to the inability of stakeholders
to abandon claims of outstanding value, rather than severity at the examination stage. Apparently, successful les are mostly a matter of training (Rudolff and Raymond 2013). By
this, I mean that with a better-formulated argument, one hiding the real intentions of
stakeholders, the listing of Peruvian cuisine in the ICH List would have been successful.
Consequently, it is pertinent to ask if it is possible to do anything fundamentally different in regard to effective grassroots participation and ownership within cultural heritage
projects when stakeholders work is predominantly sponsored by state and private agencies agendas where functional responses require functional questions. It is not my
intention here to idealise anthropologically oriented concepts of heritage indeed, an anthropological UNESCO le does not necessarily ensure outcomes that benet communities and local economies. Instead, I argue to further explore to what extent on-the-ground
actors can actually be included in heritage management and decision-making. This concern
is, of course, not new (Watson and Waterton 2010); however, despite UNESCOs particular attention to communities in the CSICH, it remains far from being resolved.

Acknowledgements
I gratefully acknowledge that this article is based on research that was supported, at different stages, by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research in the framework of desiguALdades.net, the French National Research Agency (ANR-13-CULT0003-1) and the German Research Foundation (DFG) in the framework of the project
Food as Cultural Heritage (20142017). I would also like to thank all research participants, the anonymous referees of Social Anthropology/Anthropologie Sociale for their
useful comments, and Regina Bendix, Chiara Bortolotto, Fabio Parasecoli, milie
Massot, Charles-douard de Suremain and Harriet Deacon for their insights on the
current and previous versions of this paper.
Ral Matta
Institut fr Kulturanthropologie/Europische Ethnologie
University of Gttingen
Heinrich-Dker-Weg 14
37073 Gttingen
Germany
matta_raul@yahoo.com

References
Arce, M. 2005. Market reform in society: post-crisis politics and economic change in authoritarian Peru.
University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
2016 European Association of Social Anthropologists.

F O O D I N C U R S I O N S I N T O G L O B A L H E R I TA G E

351

Bessire, J. 1998. Local development and heritage: traditional food and cuisine as tourist attractions in
rural areas, Sociologia Ruralis 38: 2134.
Bessire, J. and L. Tibre 2010. Innovation et patrimonialisation alimentaire: quels rapports la tradition?
(http://www.lemangeurocha.com/leadmin/images/sciences_humaines/Texte_exclusif_BESSIERE_et_
TIBERE__innovation_et_patrimonialisation.pdf) Accessed 11 December 2014.
Brulotte, R. and M. Di Giovine. 2014. Edible identities: food as cultural heritage. Surrey: Ashgate.
Caldwell, M. 2002. The taste of nationalism: food politics in post-Socialist Moscow, Ethnos 67: 295319.
Cnepa, G., M. Hernndez, V. Bif and M. Zuleta 2011. Cocina e identidad. Lima: Ministerio de Cultura.
Cang, V. 2015. Unmaking Japanese food. Washoku and intangible heritage designation, Food Studies 5:
4958.
Contreras, J. and M. Gracia 2005. Alimentacin y cultura: perspectivas antropolgicas. Barcelona: Ariel.
Cotler, J. 1967. The mechanics of internal domination and social change in Peru, Studies in Comparative International Development 12: 22946.
DeSoucey, M. 2010. Gastronationalism: food traditions and authenticity politics in the European
Union, American Journal of Sociology 75: 43255.
Escobar, A. 1995. Encountering development: the making and unmaking of the Third World. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Espeitx, E. 2004. Patrimonio alimentario y turismo: una relacin singular, PASOS 2: 193213.
Fan, J. 2013. Can ideas about food inspire real social change? The case of Peruvian gastronomy,
Gastronomica 13: 2940.
Ferguson, J. 1990. The anti-politics machine: development, depolitization and bureaucratic power in
Lesotho. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fraser, L. 2006. Next stop Lima, Gourmet August. (http://www.gourmet.com/magazine/2000s/2006/
08/nextstoplima) Accessed 12 November 2014.
Garca, M. E. 2010. Super guinea pigs?, Anthropology Now 2: 2232.
Garca, M. E. 2013. The taste of conquest: colonialism, cosmopolitics, and the dark side of Perus gastronomic boom, The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology 18: 50524.
Graddy, T. G. 2014. Situating in situ: a critical geography of agricultural biodiversity conservation in
the Peruvian Andes and beyond, Antipode 46: 426 54.
Hertz, E. 2015. Bottoms, genuine and spurious, in N. Adell, R. Bendix, C. Bortolotto and M. Tauschek
(eds.), Between imagined communities and communities of practice: participation, territory and the
making of heritage, 2557. Gttingen: Universittsverlag Gttingen.
Hiroko, T. 2008. Delicious food in a beautiful country: nationhood and nationalism in discourses on
food in contemporary Japan, Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism 8: 530.
Hopwood, B., M. Mellor and G. OBrien 2005. Sustainable development: mapping different
approaches, Sustainable Development 13: 3852.
Hottin, C. 2009. Compte-rendu des journes de Vitr sur les pratiques alimentaires, 3 April (http://www.
iiac.cnrs.fr/lahic/article946.html) Accessed 13 November 2014.
Ilbery, B. and M. Kneafsey 1999. Niche markets and regional speciality food products in Europe:
towards a research agenda, Environment and Planning A 31: 220722.
Karaosmanolu, D. 2007. Surviving the global market: Turkish cuisine under construction, Food,
Culture and Society 10: 42548.
Matta, R. 2009. Enjeux sociaux dune consommation haut de gamme. tude sur les logiques
marchandes et sociales au cur de deux expressions culturelles dans la ville de Lima: lexprience
gastronomique et les ftes de musique lectronique. PhD thesis, Sorbonne Nouvelle University.
Matta, R. 2011. Posibilidades y lmites del desarrollo en el patrimonio inmaterial. El caso de la cocina
peruana, Apuntes 24: 196207.
Matta, R. 2013. Valuing native eating. The modern roots of Peruvian food heritage, Anthropology of
Food S8 (http://aof.revues.org/7361).
McLaughlin, K. 2011. The next big thing: Peruvian food, The Wall Street Journal September (http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111904199404576540970634332968) Accessed 11 November
2014).
Medina, F. X. 2009. Mediterranean diet, culture and heritage: challenges for a new conception, Public
Health Nutrition 12: 161820.

2016 European Association of Social Anthropologists.

352

R A L M AT TA

Moncus, A. and B. Santamarina 2008. Bueno para comer, bueno para patrimonializar, in M. Alvarez and
F. X. Medina (eds.), Identidades en el plato, 12742. Barcelona: Icaria.
Nicholls, W. 2006. High on Peru, The Washington Post May (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050900337.html) Accessed 6 March 2015.
Parasecoli, F. and A. Tasaki 2011. Shared meals and food ghts. Geographical indications, rural
development, and the environment, Environment and Society: Advances in Research 2: 10623.
Pilcher, J. 2008. The globalization of Mexican cuisine, History Compass 6: 52951.
Poole, D. and G. Rnique 2012. Peru: Humala takes off his gloves, NACLA 45: 45.
Poulain, J.-P. 2002. Sociologies de lalimentation. Paris: PUF.
Rockower, P. 2012. Recipes for gastrodiplomacy, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 8: 23546.
Rudolff, B. and S. Raymond 2013. A community convention? An analysis of free, prior and informed
consent given under the 2003 convention, International Journal of Intangible Heritage 8: 1534.
Sammells, C. 2014. Haute traditional cuisines: how UNESCOs list of intangible heritage links the
cosmopolitan to the local, in R. Brulotte and M. Di Giovine (eds.), Edible identities: food as
cultural heritage, 14158. Surrey: Ashgate.
Samuel, H. 2008. French cuisine not a world treasure, says UN, The Telegraph July (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/2257965/French-cuisine-not-a-world-treasure-saysUN.html) Accessed 13 November 2014.
Sciolino, E. 2008. French cuisine, exalted by chefs as a world heritage treasure, The New York Times September
(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/style/24iht-24heritage.16435644.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&)
Accessed 12 November 2014.
Tornatore, J.-L. 2012. Anthropologys payback: the gastronomic meal of the French. The ethnographic
elements of a heritage distinction, in R. Bendix, A. Eggert and A. Peselmann (eds.), Heritage regimes and the state, 34165. Gttingen: Universittsverlag Gttingen.
UNESCO 2003. Convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage (http://unesdoc.
unesco.org/images/0013/001325/132540e.pdf) Accessed 14 November 2014.
Watson, S. and E. Waterton 2010. Heritage and community engagement, International Journal of
Heritage Studies 16: 13.

Incursions alimentaires dans le patrimoine

global: le difcile parcours de la cuisine
pruvienne vers lUNESCO
Cet article dveloppe un regard critique sur les processus du patrimonialisation au sein du paradigme du
patrimoine immatriel tabli par lUNESCO. En retraant le parcours de la cuisine pruvienne vers la Liste
Reprsentative du Patrimoine Culturel Immatriel, il met en lumire les forces politiques et conomiques
qui faonnent les signications multiples du patrimoine alimentaire. Les donnes empiriques qui servent de
base cet article ont t recueillies auprs dindividus directement impliqus dans la construction du
patrimoine alimentaire pruvien. Elles permettent une discussion sur comment, en dpit dun discours ax
sur la continuit culturelle et le dialogue interculturel, les patrimoines alimentaires dans le cadre de lUNESCO
simposent plus comme des concepts de concurrence au niveau global que comme des outils de sauvegarde
culturelle et de dveloppement inclusif.
Mots-cls patrimoine alimentaire, porteurs de patrimoine, patrimoine immatriel, UNESCO, Prou

2016 European Association of Social Anthropologists.