Quintana Roo’s $1B Tourist Fee: Where Does the Money Go?

Quintana Roo, Mexico — For the past six years, tourists visiting Cancún, Playa del Carmen, Tulum, and other destinations in Quintana Roo have paid an additional environmental fee for each night of their stay. This is not a federal tax or an optional charge but a mandatory municipal contribution known as the Environmental Sanitation Fee, designed to fund environmental initiatives.

What Is the Fee and How Much Is Charged?

Officially, the Environmental Sanitation Fee is calculated as a percentage of the daily Unit of Measurement and Update (UMA). Initially, Cancún set the rate at 30% of one UMA per room per night (approximately $25 pesos in 2019). However, starting in 2023, the municipality increased the rate to 70% of the UMA per night, raising the charge to around $73 pesos in 2023 and $76 pesos in 2024 per occupied room.

In other tourist destinations in Quintana Roo, the fee has remained at 30% of the UMA (about $34 pesos per night in 2025), though with variations. For example, in Tulum and recently in Playa del Carmen, the fee is charged per person: 30% of the UMA for the first guest, 20% for the second, 15% for the third, and 10% for the fourth, scaling the amount based on occupancy.

In total, the environmental fee typically ranges between $30 and $80 pesos per night (equivalent to approximately $1.5 to $4 USD), depending on the municipality and the billing method. However, many hotels and booking platforms apply charges that far exceed this amount. In Cancún, for instance, some hotels have been documented charging up to $15 USD per night under the label of “environmental sanitation” or as part of a mandatory “resort fee” or “City Tax,” as many call center vendors refer to it.

While these additional fees often bundle other hotel services, tourists rarely distinguish what portion corresponds to the official municipal fee and what is the hotel’s internal policy. In practice, the charge has become a widespread practice that few question, though many travelers pay without fully understanding what they are funding.

Stated Objectives: What Is the Fee For?

Authorities have justified the Environmental Sanitation Fee as a measure to mitigate the ecological impact of mass tourism in the region. In theory, the funds collected would finance programs such as beach cleanups, wastewater treatment, solid waste management, sargassum mitigation along the coast, conservation of ecosystems (wetlands, mangroves, reefs), and emission reduction efforts (e.g., replacing public lighting with LED technology).

The premise, as explained by the Cancún municipal government when introducing the fee in 2019, is that “the number of visitors and population growth exceed public services,” necessitating new funding sources to ensure the environmental sustainability of the destination. In short, the philosophy is that tourism success should translate into a return for the local environment—that each tourist contributes a small fee to help offset the ecological footprint of their visit.

In practice, however, the permitted uses of the funds have been broad. The Quintana Roo Congress and municipal governments have authorized directing the money not only to environmental projects but also to urban infrastructure and public safety, arguing that these services also bear the brunt of tourism pressure.

For example, in Cancún in 2024, it was formalized that only 30% of the revenue would go directly to environmental programs (beaches, sargassum, etc.), while 16% would fund public safety and civil protection, 4% to a police retirement fund, and the remaining 50% to public works and urban infrastructure. This flexibility in application has drawn criticism, as it dilutes the original “green” purpose of the fee.

Million-Dollar Revenue: Rising Figures

Despite its low per-unit amount, the sanitation fee has generated significant income due to the enormous volume of tourists. Fitch Ratings estimated in 2019 that the potential revenue in Quintana Roo’s main destinations ranged between $878 million and $1.053 billion pesos annually. In other words, from the outset, the fee was projected to collect nearly a billion pesos per year to “improve beaches, safety, and infrastructure.”

After a partial start in 2019 (Cancún budgeted approximately $113 million that year, and Playa del Carmen around $227 million), the tourism collapse of 2020 due to the pandemic reduced revenue by about 30%. However, Quintana Roo’s rapid recovery in 2021–2022 reactivated these earnings.

In Cancún alone, nearly $150 million pesos were collected in 2019 (exceeding the initial target of $113 million), followed by $105 million in 2020 (approximately, after the pandemic drop) and over $180 million in 2021. By 2022, with tourism nearly normalized, Cancún reported $249 million pesos in revenue from this fee.

Adding other municipalities (Playa del Carmen, Tulum, Cozumel, etc.), an estimated $800 million pesos were collected statewide in 2022—a figure that continued to rise. With the fee increase in Cancún (from 30% to 70% of the UMA) starting in 2023 and the inclusion of platforms like Airbnb and other vacation rentals, revenue surged.

Hoteliers estimated that Cancún could double its income to over $500 million pesos in 2023 with the new rate, and preliminary figures suggest it was even higher. In the first five months of 2024, Cancún had already collected $332.9 million pesos—nearly $59 million above projections—thanks to record occupancy rates. By the end of 2024, the Benito Juárez municipality announced a historic figure of approximately $800 million pesos collected from the sanitation fee, surpassing the projected target by $100 million, largely due to a successful holiday season and the inclusion of vacation rentals (Airbnb, Booking, etc.) in the levy.

This suggests that, statewide, total revenue in 2024 could approach or exceed $1.2 billion pesos in a single year—very close to the ceiling initially estimated by Fitch.

Lack of Transparency and Questionable Results

Despite the millions accumulated, many question how the money is actually being used. Formally, the sanitation fee revenue does not enter the municipal general budget but is earmarked in trusts managed by a technical committee involving authorities, tourism sector representatives, and, in theory, citizen members. These committees are supposed to oversee and ensure transparency in the use of funds, with periodic reports available for public review.

In practice, however, available information is scarce or unclear. The Riviera Maya Hotel Association (AHRM) has publicly criticized the lack of transparency and visible results. For example, in 2022, the AHRM—along with the Tulum Hotel Association—filed a federal injunction to compel the Tulum City Council to disclose how the collected funds were being used and what actions had been taken (such as sargassum collection and disposal).

A judge ordered the Tulum mayor to explain why the promised trust had not been established and to respond to hoteliers’ requests, who had been asking for months to know the amounts collected, how they had been spent, and under what criteria. This opacity is not unique to Tulum; similar cases have occurred in other municipalities.

Hotel representatives argue that, although visitors continue paying the fee promptly, they see no tangible improvements in the destination commensurate with the millions collected. Beaches still littered, streetlights still malfunctioning, unresolved urban infrastructure issues (potholes, drainage, sidewalks) in tourist areas—these are examples they cite to illustrate the gap between revenue and expenditure.

In the words of Toni Chaves, president of the AHRM, it seems the sanitation fee has strayed from its original purpose, becoming just another revenue stream.

“If hotels collect and hand over this money, we demand to know if it is truly deposited in a special account and how it is being used. We don’t want it spent on other purposes unrelated to the environmental goal,” Chaves declared, demanding clarity.

Municipal authorities insist the funds are being applied correctly. The Cancún administration, for example, established a Citizen Oversight Committee for the Sanitation Fee in January 2023 and reports that, starting in 2024, projects funded by this fee have been approved—from sargassum containment and beach recovery programs to road maintenance, public lighting, garbage truck purchases, and equipment for police and firefighters.

In fact, during the second session of the Benito Juárez Technical Committee (January 2025), the first projects financed by the fee were approved: repaving roads in the hotel zone, purchasing urban maintenance machinery, strengthening tourism infrastructure, and a public safety modernization program (including body cameras for police).

However, no detailed public audits have been presented, nor has there been precise reporting on how much trust money has been spent per project and with what results. The prevailing perception among both the private sector and citizens is that accountability has been insufficient.

Tourist and Hotel Industry Dissatisfaction

From another perspective, the visitor experience has also been affected by this issue. Social media is rife with comments from tourists surprised to find the extra charge on their hotel bills. Many confuse it with a federal tax or even the recently created Visitax state fee for foreign tourists—or assume it is a specific policy of “their” hotel. Rarely are they clearly informed that it is a municipal fee applied to all guests in the area.

This lack of uniform, mandatory communication from authorities and hotels has led to the sanitation fee being perceived simply as “another charge” for tourists, with little awareness of its supposed environmental purpose.

Hoteliers, meanwhile, have expressed mixed feelings. While most comply with the fee and include it in their checkout processes (no one wants legal trouble with the municipality), they have also criticized certain aspects. The Cancún, Puerto Morelos, and Isla Mujeres Hotel Association openly protested the 2023 fee increase to 70% of the UMA, arguing that “conditions do not exist” to double the cost to tourists without first demonstrating results. They urged the state Congress to reject the hike—unsuccessfully—but made their dissatisfaction clear.

“Currently, hotels pay $2 USD per night (30% UMA)… If it rises to $4 USD, it will discourage tourism,” warned the hotel association. Representatives like Jesús Almaguer (from the Cancún Hotel Association) also noted that the destination had collected about $250 million pesos in 2022 under the old rate and that aiming for over $500 million the following year with the new one was excessive without transparency in its use.

Indeed, the fee has sparked complaints from both tourists and service providers. Many see it as a disincentive to tourism, especially after recent increases. It’s not that a few dollars will deter the average traveler (as even some PVEM legislators acknowledge, “no one cancels a vacation over $5 or $10 USD”), but in a highly competitive market, every extra charge adds up.

Cancún and the Riviera Maya are now slightly more expensive than a few years ago due to this fee—adding to the list of tips, taxes, and “fees” that sometimes surprise tourists in Mexico. Hoteliers fear that if the perception of “unjustified charges” persists, visitor satisfaction could decline or travelers might opt for alternative destinations.

For now, Quintana Roo continues breaking tourism records despite the environmental fee, but the issue remains a point of friction between the private sector and authorities.

Other Destinations: From Words to Actions

Quintana Roo is not the only place in Mexico (or the world) to implement a tourism surcharge for environmental purposes. Destinations like Los Cabos, Baja California Sur, and recently Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco, have approved similar schemes. For example, Los Cabos began applying a 35% UMA Environmental Sanitation Fee per room/night in 2022, generating around $100 million pesos in 2023.

After some initial resistance, Cabo San Lucas has already funded concrete projects with these funds, such as street paving and a water treatment plant. In Puerto Vallarta, the Jalisco Congress authorized a $141-peso tax per foreign visitor arriving in 2025, promising to invest it in tourism maintenance and infrastructure.

The key difference, according to observers, lies in oversight and public debate. In Jalisco, the creation of the tourism tax was accompanied by robust discussions on ensuring proper application (business participation in the trust, legal safeguards to prevent diversion of funds, etc.). In Baja California Sur, the private sector demanded a technical committee with citizen oversight.

In Quintana Roo, by contrast, the fee was approved relatively easily in 2018, and since then, accountability has relied more on hoteliers’ persistence than on a government culture of transparency.

The paradox of Quintana Roo’s sanitation fee is evident: the more tourists arrive, the more money is collected—but environmental degradation also intensifies if that money is not used correctly. The measure is legal and grounded in municipal regulations, yes, but its execution and ultimate destination remain opaque, eroding trust.

In a state where tourism is the primary income source and its natural beauty the main attraction, the efficient and transparent use of every peso earmarked for environmental protection should be an unquestionable priority. Otherwise, the sanitation fee risks becoming merely a revenue pretext—a “failed levy” divorced from its original purpose.

Only through accountability, citizen participation, and concrete results on the ground (clean beaches, resilient ecosystems, sustainable cities) can this green watershed truly fulfill its promise of balancing tourism success with the preservation of the paradise that makes it possible.