Peruvian food in Buenos Aires has been traditionally asociated to a cheap alternative, usually available in neighborhoods such as Abasto, where many peruvians live since the 90’s. To transform this peruvian food into an attractive option for the gourmet market is a complex task, one that implies separating from the “cheap food” imaginarium and fighting the racist prejudices against Peru which are easy to find in Buenos Aires.

In this sense, peruvian food -which, at least in Buenos Aires, consists basically of creole coast and andean dishes, but practically none of the forest region food- starts with a disadvantage facing other culinary traditions. And peruvian food is one of the most attractive and interesting foods of this area of the world, and quite a reason of pride for those who live in Peru.

And to insert itself in the gourmet tradition, peruvian food has to transform itself and adapt to the form plates are served in the haute cuisine tradition. On one side, it has to stop looking like “cheap, popular and aboundant food”; on the other side, adapt its preparation and presentation ways to a haute cuisine tradition.

Do you think this is not happening? In the last number of Luz magazine that comes with Perfil newspaper on sundays (july 3 issue), the peruvian chef Marco Espinoza, owner of Moche restaurant, said about he behavior of the first customers of his restaurant:

“When they realized we had peruvian food, some customers wanted to leave. We offered them not pay for anything if they didn’t like the food. Now, they’re our clients!”

Now, well, it’s important not to exaggerate with a certain purist defense that would say “peruvian food, when adapted to the gourmet market, loses its essence”. First, because the culinary tradition in this country is in fact a product of multiple hybrids with chinese, spanish and other places’ cuisines. So there’s no much place for purism. Second, because within Lima, and not only in Buenos Aires, “cocina novoandina” (nouvelle andean food), a marketing-derived name used to designate the gourmetization of traditional peruvian cuisine, has grown considerably. So, in the end, andean cuisine is separated from the imaginarium of “cheap, popular and aboundant food” and taken to the more expensive restaurants territory.

And here’s another important issue that we could take as a hypothesis: where do prejudices over a culinary tradition meet negative imaginaries on a particular social group? Many people from Lima have little positive preconceptions about everything from the highlands. To what instance does this “novoandina” representation is not trying to eliminate these negative imaginarium about the products that are historically related to the highlands?

I must remark this is just a hypothesis and part of a discussion proposal.

At least in Buenos Aires, the movement to trace a distinction between peruvian food of a more economic background, and a more expensive tradition, begins several years back. The fist step was made by places like Contigo Peru, but now it has more expensive exponents such as Moche (apparently, still doesn’t have its own website) and Cilantro. Note: we’re not talking about highly expensive restaurants on the base of prices, but we’re on a cost level quite above the average supply of peruvian restaurants in Buenos Aires in the 90’s.

I might have left out some restaurants, so you feel free to leave your contributions on the subject in the comments area to cover those historic holes I’ve left.

There are interesting references about the restaurants mentioned here at El Cuerpo de Cristo (spanish), an argentinean wiki about cuisine and culinary issues. Links, spanish only:

Contigo Peru
Cilantro
Moche. There’s also a note about this restaurant in La Nacion newspaper, although it’s pretty light.

These days a series of advertising spots about Peru, that seek to build a country-brand through the slogan “Peru. The Inkas country”, are being broadcasted in local television. This cut is an interesting one; first, because it privileges an area of this country that is precisely the one that gets most tourism. Of the three spots that I could watch, two are in the highlands -Puno and Cuzco/Machu Picchu- and one in the forest -and that one I barely saw it once, I don’t even remember what it was about. I wonder if this decision linked to the topic of country-brand is at all right, even when I assume there’s a good market study under these spots. Shoulden’t they emphasize other regions of Peru that have great tourism potential? I’m thinking Trujillo, with Chan Chan and the different huacas in the area; Kuelap; Lambayeque, with the Lord of Sipan tomb; Iquitos; Pucallpa; Mancora; Nazca; among other destinations. I know some will say: but, aren’t these destinations well known? The truth is, at least here in Argentina, only those of us who have visited these places have an idea of how interesting the north of Peru is. The problem is: is “The Inkas country” a slogan wide enough to include destinations that we associate to other precolombine cultures such as Chimu, Mochica, or Nazca and Paracas? It is clear that most of the tourists who think of Peru, they associate it with Cuzco and Machu Picchu. Now, well, is it necessary to advertise to reinforce this image? or should we make our bet to diversify the supply and help tourism in Peru lose its dependency on Cuzco?

By the way, the spots are frequently seen at National Geographic channel, on cable tv. If it’s going on any other channel, let us know.

Note: this entry is based on my travel experience around South America. In some cases, there are elements that can be applied to other destinations, but I can’t guarantee it

Are there ways to save money in our trips and, hence, to be able to broaden our visit with less expenses? Here, some of the backpackers’ usual practices when travelling around South America.

Spend the night in a bus. The distances between Latin American cities are usually big, in many cases over 8 hours. So, one of the ways to save money is by travelling by bus during the night, every other day. Obviously, you’ll have to take the bus somewhere around 10pm. so that you’ll arrive to your destination early in the morning, around 6 am (not earlier, if possible). The con: you’ll have to walk around the city the whole day without counting on a place where to rest or take a shower. At least in Bolivia, this last issue is not a big problem, since there are public showers (not free, but they’re cheap) in all the bus terminals. Just don’t exceed your savings impulses and do spend a night in a hotel every other day; otherwise you’ll be so tired, you won’t be able to enjoy your trip. By the way, in Bolivia it’s possible to bargain for the price of bus tickets, particularly when there are not enough passengers to fill the bus. In these cases, you can get substantial savings.

The cheapest hotels are located nearby train stations. In Latin America, trains have been an object of a long process of uninvestment and, in fact, have stopped working in many places. But even in areas where abandoned (or not) train stations are located you can usually find most of the cheapest hotels and lodges of the town. Don’t look for single rooms nor with private bathroom, you won’t save as much. The con: it’s not unusual for these locations to be unsafe. By the way: in countries like Peru or Bolivia the development of camping is minimal, and doesn’t make much sense to carry a tent around these places. Besides, in high altitude places it gets so cold at night that you’ll hardly like it to sleep outside.

Eat in the streets. Ok, maybe someone concerned about hygiene and bromatology will strongly disagree with this advice, but you have to admit that you won’t find anything cheaper, at least not in Latin America. Unfortunately, it’s not uncommon to gain some digestive problems and, in the case these are really bad, you’ll end up spending more money in medications than in food. Not to mention the two or three days you’ll waste by staying in the bathroom.

Buy in groups. Particularly in countries like Bolivia, Peru and Equator, it’s not hard to bargain for the prices of crafts. But it’s even better to buy in groups, and talk the price of every piece down, until you get a greater discount for the whole package. Remember, bargaining is a social relation between the buyer and the seller, not a talk between a swindler and his victim. I clear this up because I’m tired of seeing european tourists yelling at the sellers “I’ve said 20!!!!”, as if they were ordering the price. The funniest thing is that these same tourists might have already been overcharged by taxi drivers and restaurants, and they didn’t say anything…

Got any more advice? Leave it on the comments area.

It’s quite usual for me to receive email o blog comments inquiring about the Inca Trail, the famous two to four days trekking experience to get to Machu Picchu. There are several issues where many questions arise. This entry consists of an arbitrary FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) about the topic:

1) Can you do the Inca Trail without hiring a tour? No, you can’t. If you go without a hired guided tour, you won’t be able to get in. The four days trail starts in US$190 during the low season, and can go up to US$600 at high season. The price includes the train fare to the location from where the trekking begins, the service of guides, carriers and food. If you want to do the two days trail, you should consider spending around US$140. Useful tip: some agencies sell the tour for US$145, but it doesn’t include the train fare back to Cuzco from Aguas Calientes, the train station closest to Machu Picchu. Since the cheapest train tickets are sold with three days of anticipation only, you’ll have to buy the more expensive Backpacker fare, which costs US$33. Considering you’ll have to spend the night at Aguas Calientes and spend in food (more expensive at this location), you’ll notice you’ll save almost nothing. You’re better off paying for the complete tour.

2) But wasn’t it cheaper to do the Inca Trail not so long ago? Yes, of course. I did it in 1999 and cost me US$17. At that time, you could enter the place by yourself, without guides or anything. Since 2001, the peruvian government has promoted an environmet preservation policy together with a strategy to position Cuzco as an exclusive destination. On this context, nowadays only 500 people are allowed to do the trail every day, and the cost has rised considerably by demanding people to pay for the complete tour. In this way, they ensure a higher collection and more people are employed. Of course, those who want to do the trail are not quite happy about paying more, but that’s how it is.

3) How much does the train that goes from Cuzco to Aguas Calientes cost? There are two versions. The Backpacker train ticket that departs from Cuzco and costs US$66, round trip. The Cerrojo Backpacker round trip train ticket costs US$40, but you have to go to Ollantaytambo to buy it. The best thing you can do is take the Valle Sagrado tour, and stop at Ollantaytambo to buy the train tickets.

4) Can I walk my way up to Machu Picchu from Aguas Calientes? Yes, you can, but it’s a long way up (steep). The transportation is sort of expensive: a less than 30 minutes bus ride that costs US$12.

5) Are there any interesting archaelogical ruins on the way? Not many. The most interesting thing is the spectacular landscape. Anyways, a few minutes of walking distance from the third day stop -in which many load up in beer- there’s Huayña Wayra, beautiful inca constructions. Below, a picture:

6) Is it too dificult to do the trail? It demands a lot of physical efforts. If you’re not in good shape and want to do the trail, I’d recommend to start walking. But, to be honest, the real dare is the fact that part of the trail consists of trekking steep trails located at over 3000 m. (10000 feet) above sea level altitude. Some parts of the trail consists of climbing upstairs, which turns the trekking, into a torture -it’s much easier to walk on a flat steep surface than going upstairs. The worst thing is to start the next day; after the first 24 hour walk, your legs are crying and screaming. I’d recommend to get used to the height first; if you’re coming from Bolivia, that won’t be a problem; but if you just landed from a plane 12 hours ago, you’ll probably need two or three days to be ready.

7) How much does the entrance to Machu Picchu cost? US$20; peruvians pay half of that. You can hire guides for an extra $10, if my memory doesn’t lie to me.

By the way, as soon as I can, I’ll work on the FAQ’s about Cuzco and Bolivia.

Gadling publish a list of resources about the world’s navel: Cuzco. Of course, here in Zirma I published some months ago an article about this beatiful (and expensive) city.

How does the growing arrival of tourists affect a rather small community? There are many ways. We can let travel agencies, who quickly try to take over the growth in visits to certain destinations, monopolize the field and impose their conditions. Or we can try to manage this growth in tourism from the community itself, through its usual government mechanisms.

The case of Taquile island in Puno, Peru, is an interesting one. Since mid 70s, the number of visitors are increasingly rising, up to 50 thousands per year; barely 13% of them are peruvian. Obviously, such market has attracted many interests. The island’s community has tried to manage the subject. For instance, they’ve built their own ships and host tourists in their homes. But travel agencies try to get their share, and have negotiated with some island’s natives some agreements that benefit only a few, allowing to distribute among less. Even so, the inhabitants of Taquile insist on managing tourism, as you can read at this work made by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (on PDF format, spanish).

The case can be opposed to a close one: the Uros island. There, travel agencies have imposed their power a lot more effectively, and visits to each island are not defined by tourists themselves. It depends on the arrangements between tourism operators and natives. Since the islands are a lot closer to Puno and, hence, more visited, it has propelled a huge growth in the supply of handcrafts, which support most of the artificial island’s inhabitants living.

Anyways, and despite the fact that Taquiles island community itself has tried to manage tourism, certain inhabitants have received more than others, specially those whose homes are better located o have boats. However, the result is better than if agencies managed the whole market.

One thing, the UNDP paper has some argueable affirmations about the posibility of the increase in tourism making the inhabitants of the islands “lose their culture”, as if this one was independent of social and economic processes.

Some months ago I went to Cuzco and wrote a couple entries about it (which can be reached here and here). Now, Agustin, who has a blog dedicated to South America, is there. Guess what he complains about? The obvious: high prices.

To make things worse, now the Cerrojo Backpacker train, the cheapest one to get to Machu Picchu, has gone up from 24 to 40 dollars. Apparently, the regular Backpacker train ticket still costs 66 dollars. You can read Agustin’s complaints about PeruRail at this link, and about prices in Aguas Calientes at this entry.

By the way, I just found, through Del.Icio.Us, an interesting resource with maps of Cuzco and its surroundings. You can check it out at this link.

When you travel by places like Peru or Bolivia, it’s quite usual to run into protests and manifestations, that in many cases include road blockings that last for days. Inevitably, when explaining this, many natives and tourists resort to genes evaluation, represented by the figure of the “stubborn indian” or “obstinated kolla”. Facing the protests of a marginated part of the society, the first thing said, to take into acount the extension of the protests, is that this is about “people who don’t understand reasons” or that “demand something, and won’t leave until they get it”. The idea , of course, is that the representation of the “obstinated kolla” is essentialistic: for some “genetic” or “cultural” reason , the entire group lacks -according to these explanations- negotiation abilities.

But the essentialistic explanation is, of course, a form to give genes a historic responsibility. If governing elites in Bolivia and Peru have to face now a closed opposition in some areas of their country -in a way, this is more grave in Bolivia- it’s because they have built a similar enemy. For decades, dominant classes in these countries have sat protesting people down to negotiate to finally give them nothing. At the end, these “stubborn kollas / indian” have learned that they can’t trust their governors; that they take advantage of these negotiation process to dilate everything; to put tangle them in legal issues that only lawyers understand; to give them nothing, in last instance. The “obstination” of bolivian popular classes, for example, is not the product of a genetic or cultural particular configuration; it’s the result of long years of betrayals of a governing elite that concentrates economic power but at the same time remains a minority.

Something similar happens with another figure that usually appears in touristic descriptions: the laconism of the “inhabitants of the Puna or Altiplano (Highlands)”. There, another “natural” relation tends to be established: one that compares the silence of those vast areas with the few words its inhabitants say in our presence. We’d rather ask for other things. For example, how historically those who are represented as “whites” have brutally exploited the inhabitants of those zones of the world, from the spanish colonization until today. Why would they talk to us, who at the end, and to their eyes, belong more to the group that has exploited them than to presumed “friends”? That they don’t talk much has nothing to do with genetics; it’s a long historic process of speech repression.

The explanation by genes are always an easy card to use; in a very simple way, they pretend to explain everything. Of course, such ideologic operation tend to lose sight of history; that is, of how social and historic processes have become particular products, specific forms of domination, determined identities. We better not fall on such simplifications of reality: social issues are not usually anchored in the genes but rather in our explanations on reality.

For all those who are interested in doing the Inca Trail in the following months, Cuzco’s regional Instituto Nacional de Cultura has a website where you can check the availability of vacancies for tourists who wish to do the trail. Since there are only 500 positions available per day, these run out quickly on high season. You can check the list in this link. In fact, if you check the list for july and august, you’ll see there are no positions left, the same goes for this month. A certain number of vacancies are still open starting from september. No wonder they don’t stop raising the entry price to the trail; which such demand, there’s not much to worry about. Remember that to do the trail you must go in a guided tour, with carriers and tour guide. And the price has gone up a lot in the latest years; in low season it costs around US$ 290 and it can go up to US$ 600 during high season. You can see more about Cuzco at this and this entry. The information about the vacancies availability was originally seen at El Sur.

A couple of months ago I wrote a few entries about Cuzco and the peruvian state policy of converting this place into a less massified and more exclusive tourism center. The idea is to combine a policy that protects the environment with a raise in prices which allows to maintain profitability despite the less afluence of tourists. Such policy priviledges higher income people, and provides a discouraging scenerey for latin americans who want to visit Machu Picchu. Now, I find interesting to make a brief review of the declarations made by Peru’s Economics Minister, Pedro Pablo Kuczynsky, to the Lima newspaper El Comercio. I cite:

Journalist: You are of those people who take time to travel around the country with their family. Is there any proposal for tourism?
Kuczynsky: Yes. I’ve always thought Peru, has a unique culture and environment system, shouldn’t have massive tourism. It has to be selective, for people who is interested in the environment, in history. They will be less, but they pay more.

J: Selective ?
K: Because they leave more. But we still have to encourage backpackers because they are tomorrow’s businessmen and opinion leaders. We’ve all been 20. When I was young I didn’t have a penny and I made it through college with the help of scholarships. That’s why I think we have to be tolerant. But the strategy of tourism development to open Kuelap or preserve Machu Picchu should be selective.

Kuczinsky declarations reaffirm what I wrote in a previous entry about Cuzco, a few months ago, which is that it has a clear direction: to favor international tourism with the highest spending capacity. I always had a critical look (spanish only) against common senses that believe that first class travelers always spend more than backpackers. Several studies show that in fact tourists that spend more leave most of their money in their home countries and not the nation they visit, a phenomenom known as leakage. The only way, in fact, to make first class tourism favor the country is by making them use airlines, hotels and services of the country they visit; in this case, of peruvian flag. In Cuzco this is half-way accomplished: the government’s regulations have stimulated a demand for tour guides, carriers, etc. At the same time, city hotels are usually of national capital. The point is, that it will be of little help to make Cuzco transformate into an “ecxclusive city” if foreign visitors buy tours and airplane tickets in their hometowns.

On the other side, I wonder if the peruvian government counts with statistics that allow to analyze the impact of backpackers on the economy of Cuzco. It’s known that this kind of travelers usually have a higher consumption of local services, while first class tourists usually demand many imported or “world class” goods. If the peruvian minister of economics is only based in the size of tips, I don’t think it’s too serious. There have been previous attempts to create “first class” destinations in some other places. For example, Bali. But the government’s attempts hit a point: the local inhabitants also begun to offer lodging services for those who couldn’t afford the five stars hotels. Don’t they think that something like this might happen in Peru? I admit there’s a big difference: in Cuzco, the state has a great capacity to regulate the market, in good part because to get to Machu Picchu one has to use the monopolic transportation services, where they can charge you whatever they want for a mediocre service. But this disadvantage dissappears in destinations like the forest.

This a passionate topic to discuss. And if you’re thinking about visiting Cuzco in the future, get your wallet ready.