Rule 23. The CONCCLAB in APIQROO

According to the promoters of PROTUR, there were only two zones: low speed and restriction. That is, the triad said either you go at very low speed or you do not sail. This "regulation" indicated a total ignorance of the operation and dynamics of historical use of the Lagoon and nautical operation. The plan was only a collection of PROTUR which in turn was a copy of the previous proposals of Ordinances and proposals and Ramsar. We analyze this later, in the PROTUR section.

PROTUR's proposal was NOT a proposal for speed zones, and the plan was just a crude copy of the proposals for protected areas that had been cooked up by the triad since 2011. If it was a plane of navigation speeds and restricted navigation areas, why did the PROTUR plan that was included as a proposal for Geoalternative, SEMA and State Tourism include wetland areas where there were no canals or navigable areas? It did NOT make sense from the point of view of the object of Annex III and Rule 23, but it was logical if the intention was to validate your document to establish the bases of control and restriction type PNA, as it would result, using the existing valid apiQROO regulatory instrument for it, but APIQROO does NOT have authority over land areas and the object of Rule 23 was clear: Navigation Zones. By the time the representatives of the communities noticed this attempt and were dissatisfied with the direction of the APIQROO, it was already June 2020 and the directors of APIQROO observed that it was the only proposal that had been presented, the community did not know that proposals could be submitted, so they asked for the opportunity to build a document, from local ecological knowledge and participation, and the capacity of its community technologists.

Rule 23. The CONCCLAB in APIQROO

Since APIQROO argued that there was no other proposal for speed zones and navigation restriction areas, the representatives of the communities in the Community Council of the Bacalar Lagoon Basin (CONCCLAB), which was made up of local inhabitants, representatives and community technicians, who had been fighting the triad proposals almost from the beginning, and who

finally constituted a grassroots group, requested the opportunity to build a plan from the basis of local knowledge of the experts in the lagoon, the captains of boats and historical nautical users of the lagoon. They required the opportunity to demonstrate how a plan of the Lagoon was built from the basis of actual experience. They were given a period of two weeks to submit arguments and proposals. The CONCCLAB was organized to convene the most recognized boat captains in the different communities in order to locate those who emerged as recognized experts, that is, those most mentioned and recognized by their peers, as those who had more knowledge of the system.

It required key informants who knew about navigation, the lagoon, zoning, restrictive aspects to navigate, knowledge of the various types of boat that existed, variations of the lagoon over time and geography. It was decided to ask boatmen, members of cooperatives and historical users (because many of the owners of houses next to the lagoon own private boats and had toured the lagoon for generations).

Due to social distancing restrictions, it was decided to limit gatherings to a maximum of 5 people. 5 names were obtained from local experts in navigation of the Bacalar lagoon. They were informed of the intention to build a spoken map of the Lagoon, including: a) Navigation in the lagoon, b) Zoning of speeds, c) Restrictive aspects for navigation, d) Knowledge of the various types of existing boat, e) Zones and variations over time in the lagoon, f) Particular requirements in the geography of the body of water. Given that most of the informants were over 55 years of age and with the current epidemiological risks (June 2020) due to COVID19, two alternatives were suggested for the construction of the plan, they would be provided with material and would work individually with each one to build it. Then there would be a unified instrument and an individual validation would be carried out or a virtual event would be held with all of them to work the map together..

But all respondents admitted they were more comfortable with face-to-face interactive building exercises which allowed them richer and in-the-moment answers, validated among peers of experts at the time. The necessary measures were taken to protect the health of the attendees and over the course of a weekend the information was collected by combining the experience of 5 boat captains of which 3 were of public service for tours and two owned private boats. Information was also obtained from owners of properties adjacent to the body of water who have inhabited the area continuously for more than 30 years. A total of 8 key expert informants. We worked by creating a speed plane, superimposing a plane of the lagoon and letting local experts indicate the location and scope of these areas. The guidelines of information needs that had to be covered with the exercise so that they were present in the discussion and construction were placed in view. Aspects that were considered to construct the plan and rule included: Lagoon Navigation, Speed Zoning, Restrictive Aspects for Navigation, Knowledge of the various types of existing vessel, Zones and variations over time in the lagoon and particular requirements in the geography of the body of water. What was considered as navigation activities in the lagoon? Public navigation for nautical services and private navigation. In the first case they were considered Cooperatives, where there were private service providers that subleases docks or have agreements with local businesses and those who owned their docks and businesses.

Private navigation was considered owners who move for recreational purposes and those who move from one town or site to another, using the lagoon as a way of displacement. What was the use of the Lagoon? A complete characterization of the uses was carried out. Docks were found, private such as those of house room, business, spas and boats or only boats. Also community docks of spas and boats or only boats. There are spas only for swimming and those for swimming and boat transit. Another use is the maneuvering and approach areas, such as those adjacent to docks and spas and towns, those that are between areas of different speed and those that are at the entrance of cenotes, "lagoons" and springs. Finally there are the restricted navigation areas, such as the wetlands in the eastern portion adjacent to the lagoon, blanquizales and microbialitos.

The restrictive aspects for navigation that were considered to determine the zones included data from depths, areas with presence of people in smaller boats, presence of people in the water (swimming), infrastructure and areas with higher density of boats. In the end, a proposal for speed zoning was obtained. The zones were of 4 types: Low speed, Zones for very low speed activities, High speed and Nonnavigable zones. Regardless of the type of boat there were four types of speed for the engine: high, medium, low and approach. Sailing or human-powered vessels had their inherent limitation. It was sought to build speed parameters for the various types of boat and use (high speed), medium speed, which was divided into tour and transfer; low speed, which was divided into sail and human traction. And the speed of approach and maneuvers, which was the lowest.

The flow of the current, the direction of winds throughout the year and the geographical variations of substrate and water composition were identified. The shallow areas were located and with stone, white and microbial structures. Differences between areas that limited the use of one or another type of vessel were identified. The areas were grouped by their similar characteristics and by the shared conditions in terms of navigation. Once the information was obtained, the areas were located on the map and the approximate hectares were calculated. Who proposed the exercise was the Community Council of the Bacalar Lagoon Basin (CONCCLAB) which belongs to an Alliance of grassroots organizations and community technical assistance at the basin level. The resulting plan was placed in a KMZ file in a Google Earth stroke and then referred to community technologists from CONCCLAB's partner organizations, who georeferenced it in ArcInfo, made overlap corrections, delimited zoning types, and presented the plan in Autocad, kmz files, and shape, to present it. A glossary was also integrated. This exercise was done with community participation, without external funding and was ready in 10 days. The information was submitted to APIQROO for consideration.

Microbial structures were included in the section of non-navigable areas, by common sense of local experts, because they were areas of risk of stranding, and not because of the scandal and manipulated media information of the researchers and ONGA.