Unexplained zoning criteria

of the Mesamerican Reef System (SAM) although it could not be found in the reference literature provided in PROTUR to verify. With all the above and again questioning the ability of the office and its person in charge to work with this type of instrument and with the local population, the incapacity, neglect or total cynicism of the researchers and "experts" of the triad who did not even have the criteria or principles to ensure that the calculations were not only founded, but coherence, it was logical that local people and actors outside the triad severely questioned PROTUR and its promoters, some of whom had already been participating in the previous attempts since 2011.

Unexplained zoning criteria

Parallel to the "participatory stage" what was obtained was a mapping of zoning of the Lagoon, proposing a division of uses not at all understandable, if what was sought was the conservation of the various ecosystems of the lagoon, the stromatolites and microbialites of the Lagoon and even ensure the scenic beauty so that tourists continued to enjoy the site. The base plan of PROTUR consisted of a representation of the main body of water of Laguna Bacalar, Laguna Mariscal, a portion of Estero de Chac and the connection zone between the northern part of the Lagoon of Bacalar and Laguna Chile Verde. The area was divided into five types of use (Geolternativa et al, 2020), which according to the PROTUR document were category 0 areas or Conservation areas, or areas without access to tourists; I. Exclusive areas, in which the tourist can have a quality experience in a place of high ecological integrity; Type II zones. Areas that are natural, however signs of tourist impacts can be detected by a greater frequency of tourists; Type III zones. Areas that have the greatest Impact and Type IV Zones. Urban areas. The first thing that catches the eye on PROTUR's zoning plan is how much its zoning resembles a PNA. The plan, if it had been built in a participatory, really participatory way, would have been difficult to repeat the same criteria of the previous instruments that were openly planned and designed from outside the community, created by institutional agents "from outside", who were only consulted, not built, with the population. It is a plan that keeps many similarities and criteria based on, for example, the base proposal plan of

ramsar site of 2011, proposed by Luisa Falcón, of the Institute of Ecology of the UNAM, and both coincided with the plans and base zonings of the Ecological Ordinances of Bacalar (2005) and Othón P. Blanco (2015). Here we must clarify two things, from the PLAN of PROTUR: The plan in the document said one thing and the interactive plan detailed by zones told a very different story. As a technical advisor to several members of the Bacalar lagoon operations committee before APIQROO, I was provided with the link to review the interactive plan proposed by the consultant. This link is not currently working but we reviewed it, downloaded the kmz file and had the opportunity to make observations at the time. One thing is what was presented in the document that was so much defended in all the support groups and another thing is what appeared on the interactive map that was presented to the authorities, who were the main cause of the real potential conflict that the community detected. I leave some examples, of the many that were found as inexplicable zoning criteria.

Magical Bacalar ejido swimming facility in the non-existent zone 9.9 When one reads the PROTUR document and finds the magical Ejidal Spa Bacalar, at the scale that can be seen in the plane, it is located within zone 9. Biocultural landscape. The PROTUR document states that it is a kind of opportunity III. And quote: "...This is the unit of greatest tourist activity and is located in front of the urban center of Bacalar. It consists of various natural and induced elements that show social and historical events related to pirates and struggles of the Mayan peoples for their territory. West Coast is covered by hotels, restaurants and rental homes. Seven subunits within the lagoon and three outside them in which it is desirable to install a visitor reception and monitoring center (section of impact reduction strategies), where the tourist is received with high quality focused on a message of contextualization of the special of the site that is visited and the ways to take care of the previous to the entrance to the lagoon...” It must be taken into consideration that this interactive plan that we review and that is currently no longer available, was the plan that was submitted to the consideration of the Integral Port Administration of Quintana Roo, it cannot be argued that it was any plan, it was a plan that was submitted to the

consideration of the legal administrative entity of the body of water, with the possible hope that it would be reviewed, included and validated during the annual review process of the operating rules.

From the outset it seemed that the criteria and restrictions applied equally for the entire polygon, but when placing the cursor over the area it was a subzoning that appeared as 9.9 Microbialitos Bacalar. However, when the PROTUR document of the same date is reviewed, in the subzoning table it only reached 9.7 established as Cenote Cocalitos, the version of June 2020, and that of August 18 and one of November that reaches up to subzone 9.8 (Geoalternativa, et al, 2020). The subzone where the Ejido Spa was was was 9.9 in the interactive plan, it only bordered with land in the polygon of the Ejidal swimming facility. The established uses were: Stromatolite corralitos (little fenced stromatolites), snorkeling and swimming. Why didn't it appear in the document? Fortunately I took a screenshot of everything, in case they later argued that it never existed, and more importantly, what was the criteria to determine that only the ejido spa "Mágico Bacalar" owned by the Ejido Bacalar, was left with a lagoon front restricted only for Corralitos for stromatolites, snorkeling and swimming? Coincidentally the most successful spa in the area, the oldest, which has been operating since the late 1940s, and which involves the families of the 155 ejidatarios and their families, approximately 3000 people, an area of almost 5 hectares, central, with services, basically privileged, and a spa that has one of the largest fleets of boats for tours, restaurant and activities, and that with the PROTUR it was placed in a restricted area that of course was going to place it at a competitive disadvantage against those who were as functional tourist units and did not have any PROTUR restrictions. What was the criteria for placing the 9.9 Microbialitos Bacalar zone, which did not propose navigation, in the area just outside the docks of the spa and all the coastal businesses in the city, before the navigation area? There are islets and stromatolites on the shore, but it only affected the aquatic area adjacent to the ejido balneario. We made clear our assumption that it was not related to the ejido's outspoken opposition to the instrument. If the instrument was built with representation of the ejido Bacalar, as advertised by the consultant and the state, why did they approve this restrictive use for their own area adjacent to