Who benefits from PNAs?

of paradises beyond the reach of the savages, for the enjoyment and use of civilized (wealthy) people who require those paradisiacal places to replenish their spent energies of the stressful life of the cities and monotonous work ... and that they pay very good money for it, we see that we are still practically in the same place as 200 years ago.

I love the reflection that Diegues (2000) leaves us in his research where he says that this situation is due to an updated reproduction of the myth of paradise lost and sought by man after his expulsion from Eden. This neomyth, or modern myth, is, however, impregnated with rational thought represented by concepts such as ecosystem, biological diversity, etc. Technical-rational thinking parasitized by mythical and symbolic thought. For the proposal of PNA of Bacalar the communities defended themselves by making a technical, social and political analysis of the proposal and promoting a series of actions aimed at raising public awareness. On October 22, 2018, the authorities of the ejidos Pedro Antonio de los Santos, Buena Vista, Aarón Merino Fernández, Bacalar, Juan Sarabia, Santa Elena, Calderitas, Laguna Guerrero, La Península, Úrsula Galván, Tollocan, Calderas Barlovento, and the Civil Association Friends of the Lagoon of Xul Ha and Bacalar, on behalf of their ejido assemblies, sent an extensive letter, they established their position against and their technical reasons. This letter summarized all the arguments that we have been raising since the beginning of this document. With the media pressure exerted by the communities and the efforts made by their representatives before legislators and senior government officials, the attempt of the triad of decree of the PNA was stopped... momentarily.

Who benefits from PNAs?

“…For the Maya, the landscape in which they live, the k'aax (forest), has a moral ecology. It is the place where they feel "at home in the world", where they are situated in a daily commitment to their environment. It is also where their history, identity, spiritual beliefs, communion with other species, and ultimately their survival are rooted. The ethnic boundary they made with me, although it may seem funny or even trivial, is a marker of their identity as a group linked to a territory. While they continue to make a livelihood in the forest, a nature industry, led by gringos, debates what they should and should not do with their

land. Some of these outsiders include overnment bureaucrats, environmental NGOs, private entrepreneurs, conservation biologists, biosphere reserve managers, and even anthropologists.…” (Martínez-Reyes, 2016).

Perhaps the answer to this question lies in the origin of the most prominent Reserve model in Mexico: The Biosphere Reserve. This model was developed in 1974 by a working group of the Man and Biosphere (MAB) program. Since its foundation and to date, the MAB program promotes the establishment of Biosphere Reserves; at its core it is an intergovernmental scientific programme which, from the outset, aims to establish a proven basis for improving the relationship between humans and the environment. We emphasize that it has a scientific basis and involves numerous actors, but its approach is academic, from the exact and natural sciences, it combines research, education and training, includes demonstration sites and produces information for several constituencies but the social sciences that are dedicated to working with the concepts of heritage, human interaction and everything related to human populations, not included in the MAB program, ironically. To date there are 16 Biosphere Reserves in our country, at least the first registered: Mapimí (1977), La Michilía (1977), Montes Azules (1979), Sian Ka'an (1986) and El Cielo (1986) are attributed to the precursor of the biosphere reserves in Mexico: the Mexican entomologist Gonzalo Halffter, founder of the National Institute of Ecology in 1975. Halffter established the first two biosphere reserves in Mexico, with the support of the Governor of Durango, Dr. Héctor Mayagoitia, a bacteriologist chemist who was then appointed director of the National Polytechnic Institute in 1979, and in 1983 was appointed director of CONACYT, where Halftter was Deputy Director of Scientific Development at the same institution (1982-1986). Between these two scientists turned high-caliber bureaucrats, the first two biosphere reserves were established: Mapimí and La Michilía. One from the academy and another academic from his privileged position as governor of Durango. Both received recognitions and awards for their contribution from CONANP, several decades later.

The Mexican model of Biosphere Reserve developed by Halffter proposed to achieve compatibility between conservation and development, researching

and promoting ecologically sustainable and economically productive alternatives for local inhabitants, in addition to turning them into centers of scientific cooperation. Again, something like generating natural laboratories reserved for environmental science in situ. Human populations were not part of the equation, although concepts such as sustainable development or rational use were mentioned or they were seen as mere passive recipients of the wisdom generated by the academy so that they learned to produce and work in harmony with the environment, because the neoliberal academic encomenderos considered they needed to be saved from themselves. When halffter's curriculum is reviewed, it does not highlight the 97 pages of it, but the clear profile of scientist and academic of this Researcher emeritus of the National System of Researchers since 1995, and it is understood why the focus of the Biosphere Reserves in Mexico has been research. By the time he proposed and promoted the creation of the Sian Ka'an Biosphere Reserve in 1986, he was Deputy Director of Scientific Development of CONACYT (1982-1986) and as President of the International Council of the MABUNESCO Programme (1984-1986), even becoming An Advisory Partner of Friends of Sian Ka'an and a member of the Advisory Board of CIQROO, it was quite simple for him, since by this point he enjoyed an ideal position, as a high-ranking bureaucrat, very well related, to promote on a national scale his "Mexican" model of biosphere reserves, forging alliances with governors, and supporting the strengthening of scientific institutions related to biosphere reserves. Very much in the hegemonic style of the school of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) in the government; let's not lose sight of the fact that the decade of the 70s and even the 90s in Mexico not only gave rise to the neoliberal boom but in context, the country was subject to the totalitarian hegemony of the dictatorship, disguised as hard democracy, of the PRI. The reserves were created by and for researchers, if there is any doubt about it, it is enough to cite a fragment of the presentation of the book "Protected natural areas and scientific research in Mexico" that makes clear the vision and position of academics, mainly from the natural sciences. It states that

“…Just as the 1960s were truly prodigious because of the revolution it sparked in arts and culture, the 1970s were for Mexico a singular moment of explosive growth in science and technology, as well as the formation of some of the most outstanding cadres of modern Mexican ecology. At present, ecology and conservation science in Mexico are really cutting-edge areas worldwide...

Without fear of exaggeration, we can say that the work of Mexican scientists is at the basis of our environmental legislation, and were the central factor in the decision to create the National Commission of Protected Natural Areas CONANP.

But not all, fortunately, reason to congratulate ourselves. After years of efforts to achieve the professionalization of CONANP personnel, decades after having managed to introduce the criteria of science into the legislation on protected natural areas, the priorities of political decisions, and not technical, threatens again the management of protected natural areas in Mexico. While, on the one hand, our rulers promise us new protected areas, on the other hand the budget for the conservation of Mexico's natural capital is being rapidly reduced. We run the immense risk of returning once again, to the time of the "paper reserves", without personnel and budget, which only exist in official decrees but have no concrete manifestation in the countryside. … there is no - there should be no going back. Conservation based on rigorous science is Mexico's only alternative for a prosperous future and a viable economy … ” A clear vision of the inbred neoliberal stance of the academic sector, which sees protected natural areas not only as its creation, but as its right. Later we will analyze the strategy of academia, environmental organizations and the government to pressure the establishment of a NAP in the body of water of the Bacalar Lagoon, by manipulating not only data and research presented as scientific, without complying with the rigor of the method or with serious errors of perception or data collection, through media disinformation campaigns in which many prestigious media, such as the New York Times®, the BBC® and El País®, participated voluntarily or involuntarily and we will analyze the actors who take part in this well-organized simulation of neoliberal environmentalism, of "saving nature to negotiate with it", with serious conflicts of interest.

While increasing the urgency and yellowing of their speeches, NGOs, academics and environmental government institutions began to receive financial resources in large quantities, to "contribute" to their crusade.