Indigenous, rural, urban, and coastal communities of Campeche, Yucatan, and Quintana Roo, along with civil society organizations, have secured a judicial suspension for the construction of sections 5 North (Cancun-Playa del Carmen), 5 South (Playa del Carmen-Tulum), and 7 (Escárcega-Chetumal) of the Mayan Train projects.
A Yucatan Court issued the ruling after determining that the environmental principles necessary to guarantee the right to a healthy environment and address the multiple effects caused by this megaproject have not been met.
The suspension results from an injunction filed by communities and civil organizations since July 2020, against the environmental impacts of the Mayan Train in the Yucatan Peninsula. These impacts include the devastation of the Mayan jungle, the drilling and contamination of cenotes, and damage to the cave system caused by the construction works.
“The Court based its decision on recent criteria from the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN), which emphasize the need to guarantee the principles of prevention, precaution, and in Dubio pro natura (when in doubt, in favor of nature). In this context, it was considered that the mere existence of authorizations for environmental impact and land use change is not enough to comply with these principles,” explained the organizations, including the Mexican Center for Environmental Law (CEMDA) and Kanan Human Rights.
For section 7, the Court identified that the authorization for the environmental impact assessment (EIA) was issued conditionally, requiring compliance with more than 12 conditions before starting the works. These conditions include the Technical Economic Study, the Rescue and Relocation Program for Flora and Wildlife, and the Prevention, Mitigation, and Management of Environmental Contingencies and Conservation of the Karst Landscape Program. However, there is no evidence that these conditions have been met.
Although the suspension aimed to completely halt the works on section 7 of the Mayan Train, its issuance is late, raising concerns about the effectiveness of the injunction trial as a protection mechanism. Nevertheless, the organizations recognized the importance of thoroughly analyzing human rights violations in the main trial, which is pending without a set date. They also welcomed the acknowledgment that the mere existence of environmental impact and land use change authorizations is insufficient to comply with environmental principles or guarantee the right to a healthy environment.
