The Secretary of the Navy and APIQROO

The high-speed zones were located in the central portion of the lagoon, where there is greater depth, and the presence of people swimming or with low-speed boats or human traction was limited (this is found in the areas near the shores or in the areas limiting with the high-speed areas). Later it was clarified what was considered high, medium or low speed, from the common sense of the capacity of use, zoning and activities carried out in the Lagoon. The CONCCLAB proposal was submitted to the proposed Operating Rules, but to date (2021) the Secretary of Communications and Transportation has not validated the update of the document, and we do not know what was the final version of Rule 23 that was incorporated into the document sent for authorization. And the triad insists that local actors and technicians lack capacity..

The Secretary of the Navy and APIQROO

As part of the fight against corruption, the federal government established the strategy of control of ports and coasts by the Secretariat of the Navy (SEMAR), on December 7, 2020, the Official Gazette of the Federation (DOF) published the Decree by which various provisions of the Organic Law of the Federal Public Administration were reformed, added and repealed, the Maritime Navigation and Trade Act and the Ports Act. This decree highlighted that the human, financial and material resources that the Secretariat of Communications and Transport (SCT) had for the General Coordination of Ports and Merchant Marine (CGPMM), including the Integral Port Administrations (API) – as in the case of Bacalar – and in general, all those resources necessary for the execution of their attributions were transferred to the Secretariat of the Navy (SEMAR). From the entry into force, 180 days from the date of the decree, SEMAR will be responsible for regulating communications and water transport, formulating and conducting policies and programs for their development, according to the needs of the country; Direct military naval education and merchant nautical education; Regulate, promote and organize the merchant navy; Establish the requirements to be met by the technical personnel of the merchant navy; Grant the respective licenses and authorizations; Build, rebuild and conserve the port works required by the Navy and the Secretariat of the Navy, as well

as the maritime, port and dredging works required by the country; Award and grant contracts, concessions and permits for the establishment and operation of services related to communications and water transport with vessels or naval devices; Coordinate maritime and port activities and services in sea and river ports; Coordinate the means of transport that operate in them and the main, auxiliary and related services of the general communication routes; Manage the centralized ports and coordinate those of the parastatal administration; Grant concessions and permits for the occupation of federal zones within port areas and set rates. This meant that as of June 6, 2021, the Secretariat of the Navy-Navy of Mexico is responsible for acting as a national maritime authority in coasts, ports, port enclosures and facilities, terminals, marinas, among others.. Since “…The National Maritime Authority will work shoulder to shoulder with those who develop activities in Mexican marine areas to achieve a management of the sector, which benefits users in terms of safety, protection and preservation of the marine environment ..." and that this change is being generated at the time this document was written, we will have to wait for SEMAR to begin to manage the port area in a fair, equitable manner and listening to all voices to issue an opinion on its approach or performance..

60

PROTECTED NATURAL AREAS

In 2017, when a controversial former regional director of CONANP was at the head of the environmental sector in the state of Quintana Roo, the proposal arose to establish a Protected Natural Area on the Bacalar Lagoon. The communities had not finished breathing because of the fatigue involved fighting against the triad and public opinion manipulated by the triad when they already had an PNA about to be mounted on the Lagoon. This proposal was promoted unilaterally by Luisa Falcón, again, of the Institute of Ecology of the UNAM, as she herself established in a journalistic interview, given that she had already failed in her attempt to lead the Ramsar site proposal between 2011 and 2014. This proposal was even more ambitious than that of the Ramsar site, which was ambitious in itself. The ambition of the proposals to place territory under the protected natural area scheme, proposals that began at 5,893 hectares as a Ramsar site, by 2017 had become 219,000 hectares in PNA, with community and private territories included. Lodger Brenner, in his 2010 article, "Environmental Governance, Social Actors and Conflicts in Mexican Natural Protected Areas" exemplified the way in which communities and local actors are not considered as actors capable of deciding, analyzed from what happened with the establishment and administration of the Sian Ka'an Biosphere Reserve, but applicable to all other Mexican PNAs. In their research, the actors of the triad consider that the solution of a socio-environmental problem, such as the effective management of a Biosphere Reserve, is the exclusive and preponderant responsibility of one or more particular actors – members of one of its groups – who must achieve certain objectives, relying on a range of resources of political power, economic, social and moral at your fingertips. For them "the rest of society" is considered as a set of influenceable actors, without capacity or legitimacy to evaluate the nature or severity of environmental problems; and much less

to solve them, which not only diminishes the legitimacy of the Mexican PNA, but also affects their efficiency. If we talk about tourism as the guiding axis to create PNA, it will be enough to read the documents coordinated or written by Gustavo Marín Guardado (2012 and 2015) to realize that tourism as the guiding axis of the establishment of an PNA has proven to be harmful to local communities because the revaluation of the land and natural resources that remain within the PNA has of course important economic repercussions, social and ecological in the life of the communities involved, since these spaces become the object of greed by big capital and governments. In his research, he explains how in recent decades, in developing countries, large areas of territory that previously belonged to indigenous communities, peasant societies or groups of fishermen, have become the property of investors, commercial companies, or have become spaces managed by international organizations or government agencies. This largely has to do with the implementation of development, tourism and environmental conservation policies and programs, through which world organizations, state institutions and individuals manage to have control of these territories. I'm not the only one who realized this, you see? Zizumbo-Villarreal, in 2012, state that the creation of Natural Protected Areas in Mexico is the result of the process of refunctionalization of rural areas, from which it seeks to end the production of food, to give way to economic activities that apparently use sustainability as a principle, with which capitalism is painted green and the process of dispossession of resources and expulsion of original rural settlers is justified, arguing that they are restricted from traditional use in favor of the conservation of the territory and natural resources to then be able to pass it into the hands of investors with large amounts of funds.

Natural Protected Areas (PNA) have been for decades the most comfortable and convenient solution for those who champion forced and tendentious sustainability towards the ecological, without considering or respecting the other two pillars of sustainability, the social and the economic for the communities they restrict. Because the social and economic benefits are reserved for the proponents, promoters and the instances that stay with the administration of the areas, which is an excellent business for them. Worse, in proposing an PNA, institutions partner with environmental NGOs,

research centres and educational institutions, and turn a deaf ear to the inhabitants and traditional users whose heritage is curtailed.

In Mexico, the PNA are located in territories where human populations have coexisted for generations, where there is historical, biocultural and economic heritage of the historical settlers, but they are proposed, proposed and decreed as if they were uninhabited spaces. In his research Robles-Zavala, he describes it clearly emphasizing that protected areas are not an isolated entity, established in a vacuum, but on the contrary, they are included in an environmental, socio-economic, political and institutional and community setting.

From the beginning of the explosion of environmental protectionism and reserves, some social science researchers began to observe that there was a combination of factors that explained the increase in "global concern for wild spaces" that arose from ethical concerns about the loss of natural ecosystems and biodiversity, but that were also encouraged by the increasing availability of international funds for conservation and the possibility of generate income from activities that took advantage of protected areas, such as tourism in protected areas. Other incentives for establishing PNAs were to transform them into political weapons for the ruling elites or as a channel for foreign financial aid.

With the creation of an international structure with many millions of dollars in stimulus, and studies such as the economic value of wetland environmental services – in international dollars – the risk of voluntarily or involuntarily introducing perverse incentives became real, under which projects, instruments or policies were created to help solve a problem in a comprehensive way, but instead generating an additional problem or worsening the existing environmental, social or economic problem(s). The generation of perverse incentives forged by the growing market for green business, ecological, conservation, sustainable development, compensatory funds to mitigate environmental impacts and the entire market of funds that arise around, includes not only direct payment to producers or owners of territories, but also the financing of researchers, NGOs and government agencies that force instruments, territories and environmental policies in exchange for direct or indirect economic benefit for their "contribution", "achievement", "work" or "research".

In this scenario of perverse incentives, PNAs were born from neoliberal environmental strategies where the processes of privatization, such as ditization (transforming something into a priced thing), deregulation and reregulation, characteristic of neoliberalism, manifested themselves in the field of conservation through phenomena such as the growth of international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and researchers who received many benefits in exchange for proposing them. and to support them; the creation of new goods in situ and economic activities that replaced the lack of access to resources (ecotourism, payment for environmental services, bioprospecting, certification, non-timber forest products); the contribution of capital to ONGA for the purchase of land to put it at the "service" of conservation in private natural areas; the incorporation of private land into protected areas owned by the State without the consent of the owners; the creation of private funds and trusts for conservation; the establishment of financial products and the horde of carbon market developers who take a part – sometimes huge – of bonds, shares, offset credits – and the decrease in the presence of the State in the practice of conservation benefiting particular groups of relatives who took advantage of the incentives promoted by the institutions, as well as its alliance with NGOs, private companies, communities and multilateral institutions for the execution of conservation projects (Igoe and Brockington, 2007).

In Mexico, the members of the communities had not only the anger of the abuse of power of the authorities who wanted to unilaterally dispose of their territories, without respect for the historical possession that the Nation, represented by the government, had granted them by decree in some cases since the 1930s; the lack of respect of the promoters for their biocultural legacies, coupled with concerns about the bureaucratic inefficiency and corruption of the agencies responsible for the PNAs, their network of "influential" actors and their true intentions. For the latter it was only enough to review some dates in the reserves decreed in the state, many PNAs of the entity were left in a regulatory limbo due to the lack of Management Programs, some of which took decades to build, such was the case of the Sian Ka'an Biosphere Reserve, decreed on January 20, 1986, whose Management Program was decreed on January 23, 2015. 29 years after his decree; Sian Ka'an Reefs, decreed in 1998, whose Management Program was decreed in 2011, 13 years later; Isla Contoy, decreed on February 2, 1998, and its Management Program on July 9, 2015, 17 years later; Yum Balam, decreed on