Introduction

The biologically important territories that still exist on the planet are associated, in most cases, with ecosystems with a high presence of indigenous peoples or native peoples with traditional practices in the use of their natural resources, generally ancestral [1].

These areas of high biodiversity and ecological integrity are intended to be protected through national or even international environmental policies. In our country, protected natural areas (ANP) constitute the public policy instrument with the greatest legal certainty for the protection of “portions of the national territory whose original environments have not been significantly altered by human activity or those that, due to their integral functions, must be protected or restored”..., a definition established in the General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection [2].

In each six-year term, the current government establishes the guidelines to be followed in environmental matters within the National Development Plan (PND). The 2019-2024 NDP establishes as one of its objectives: “To guarantee the right to a healthy environment with a focus on sustainability of ecosystems, biodiversity, heritage and biocultural landscapes”... [3].

Protected natural areas and those territories that safeguard the greatest biodiversity can contribute to the fulfillment of this objective, since they are where rural populations, communities and indigenous peoples live, who maintain traditional land uses and conserve biodiversity and agrodiversity, that is, the genetic resources that represent the great natural capital of our country [4].

In Mexico, the institutions responsible for creating ANPs have shown some interest in involving the local population in the management and management of these sites. Some ANP management categories, such as biosphere reserves and flora and fauna protection areas, consider, in theory, local communities as indispensable actors to achieve conservation objectives [5]. However, there is still a need to guarantee the substantive participation of the population that lives in these territories through management programs (PdM).

The National Commission for Protected Natural Areas (Conanp), responsible for the management and management of the 185 ANPs that exist in our country, has specific regulations for submitting management programs (in the process of being developed) to public consultation, with the interested population that lives in and around protected areas. It mentions that the corresponding authorities of the ANP will determine the need to carry out a “differentiated public consultation for indigenous peoples”, with the purpose of informing the content of the management program and collecting their opinions.

Despite having specific regulations in this area, Conanp has lagged behind in the development and reformulation of management programs and, consequently, in the implementation of social participation mechanisms stipulated in current regulations, such as public consultations and differentiated indigenous consultations.

^{Faced with this situation, in 2016, the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH) issued General Recommendation No. 26, which deals “with the lack and/or updating of management programs in federally protected natural areas and their relationship with the enjoyment and enjoyment of various human rights”, and was addressed to the Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (Semarnat) and to Conanp.}

This Recommendation was aimed at highlighting the importance for the enjoyment and enjoyment of human rights, “the formulation and publication of federal programs for the management of protected natural areas; as a management instrument focused on guaranteeing the right to a healthy environment, in addition to constituting a public policy mechanism aimed at the promotion, respect, protection and guarantee of human rights to legal security and legality, as well as to the rights of indigenous peoples and communities [6]”.

The objective of this research is to identify the changes made in the development of management programs, by the National Commission for Protected Natural Areas, Conanp, following General Recommendation No. 26. To this end, we consider that, after their publication in April 2016 and up to the first half of 2022, the management programs of 20 ANP have been prepared and published in the Official Gazette of the Federation (DOF). Of these, only six have localities with an indigenous population that would be able to implement a differentiated indigenous consultation ², to present the draft of the management program to the communities and collect opinions on it.

^{In this regard, the research specifically investigates: a) the criteria by which the responsible authorities decided to carry out, or not, a differentiated consultation in the indigenous communities and peoples of the six selected ANPs; and b) whether the ANP management programs consider, in their objectives, diagnosis and conservation subprograms, the indigenous population living in these protected areas.}

To address these points, the management programs of the six ANP were analyzed and the official information obtained through 10 requests for access to information made (in February and March 2022) to the National Commission for Protected Natural Areas, Conanp (eight), the National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Informatics, INEGI (one) and, to the National Institute of Indigenous Peoples, INPI (one).

The research is organized in three sections. The first explains the origins and importance of the right to indigenous consultation in the development of ANP management programs. The second one reviews the ANP management programs developed after 2016, whose inhabitants are part of indigenous peoples and communities. The most relevant findings from the analysis carried out on management programs and from the official responses that present the criteria for developing differentiated consultations or not are presented. The third section sets out the final reflections and some recommendations to guarantee the right to indigenous consultation throughout the process of developing ANP management programs; as mentioned in the Constitution and various international treaties ratified by the Mexican State.

1. The right to indigenous consultation in the development of programs for the management of protected natural areas

Approximately 70% of indigenous territories in Mexico coincide with areas important for conservation. ^{Of these, 26.3% correspond to protected natural areas (ANP) inhabited by 44 indigenous peoples, who participate in the conservation of natural resources and have oriented part of their territories as areas voluntarily destined for conservation 4.}

The coincidence between indigenous settlements and environmentally relevant areas can be explained by the concept of “symbiotic conservation”, which states that “biological and cultural wealth are mutually dependent and geographically coexisting” [4]...

Therefore, it is not possible to leave out original peoples from conservation schemes and policies. Quite the contrary, several specialists mention that the lack of consultation with local actors that make use of natural resources and water is the reason, in many cases, for the failures in the establishment of conservation areas [5], [7] and [8].

The effective integration of the local population in the use, management and conservation of natural resources in protected natural areas of Mexico, the most biodiverse sites in the country, is the only guarantee for sustainable development [9].

The needs and interests of indigenous peoples and communities must be integrated into the management programs of protected natural areas, giving effect to their right to consultation, and their full participation in the development of programs, laws or initiatives that affect their well-being and territory.

ANP management programs

Management programs (PdM) are the governing planning and regulatory instruments that establish the activities, actions and basic guidelines for the management and administration of an ANP (LGEEPA Regulation) [10].

Through these, the objectives, strategies, zoning and activities that will be carried out in the ANPs are proposed. In other words, they define and articulate the way in which the conservation strategy will be technically and legally executed, and because of their legal nature, they are published in the Official Gazette of the Federation (DOF).

According to article 65 of the LGEEPA, one year after publishing the declaration of a protected natural area, Semarnat must prepare its respective management program, involving communities, owners and owners of land, other competent government agencies, governments of federal entities and municipalities, as well as social, public or private organizations, and other interested persons.

The main mechanism for open participation is public consultation of management programs. According to Conanp, there are two documents that explain the processes for developing Management Programs (PM): 1) the Terms of Reference (TdR), and 2) the Internal Guidelines for the formulation, revision and modification of PdM.

The objective of the TdR is to “facilitate and guide the development of management programs”. They mention that the PdM “will incorporate thematic components of a social, economic, ecological nature and a legal framework... that promote an increase in the quality of life or well-being of the population with an emphasis on rural and indigenous communities settled in or near protected areas.”

In addition, it mentions that “the elaboration of the Management Program must invariably include a participatory process through which a base group or planning committee is integrated to compile the information, analyze and evaluate it, carrying out field checks and validations to build the necessary consensus that allow its applicability to the realities of each protected area”.

According to the “Internal guidelines for the formulation, review and modification of management programs for protected natural areas under the competence of the federation” (2016), public consultation is a process designed to promote the participation of society and its competent authorities, establishing communication between them and the Conanp, in relation to the content of the management programs of the federal ANP.

The “Guidelines” only mention that, in order to organize such public consultation, Conanp must consider a map of actors who must be convened, carry out scheduled planning, record attendance at the public consultation, generate a minutes, as well as keep a photographic record of it. According to this document, once the management program has been prepared, the General Directorate of Conservation for Development of Conanp and the management of the protected area will determine the need to carry out a “differentiated public consultation for indigenous peoples”. Therefore, the decision to carry it out is at the discretion of the directors of the ANP and officials of the Conanp.

It should be mentioned that none of the above-mentioned documents indicate the methodology to be implemented or the actions to be taken to carry out public consultation or differentiated consultation with indigenous communities and peoples.

Indigenous peoples' right to consultation

^{In the first instance, the Constitution of the United Mexican States [11] in articles 1 and 2 recognizes the multiethnic, multicultural and multilingual nature of the country based on the presence and diversity of the indigenous and Afro-Mexican peoples that make it up 5 [12].} In particular, it mentions that “they are communities that are members of an indigenous people, those that form a social, economic and cultural unit established in a territory and that recognize their own authorities in accordance with their uses and customs”.

The regulatory framework defines indigenous peoples and communities as the holders of collective rights necessary to protect the fundamental elements of their lives, according to their own institutions and territory [12].

The right to consultation of indigenous peoples and communities recognizes their right to take part in State decisions related to the design, approval and implementation of public policies on their development and well-being.

This right has its origin in Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization (ILO) of 1989, which, starting in 1992, became mandatory in Mexico when it was enshrined in article 2 of the Constitution.

The right to prior consultation and free and informed consent, which emanates from Convention 169, establishes that “The government has the obligation to consult indigenous peoples and communities through appropriate procedures, whenever legislative or administrative measures are envisaged that may directly affect them or, whenever the possibility of peoples to dispose of their lands is considered”.

It should be said that the consultation must cover all recognized rights, and therefore the topics of your interest, that is: territorial, social, cultural, political and jurisdictional. However, to date there is no law to consult indigenous peoples and communities at the federal level, and at the state level only the states of San Luis Potosí, Durango and Oaxaca have laws in this area [13].

In the same way, and as mentioned above, the right to consultation of indigenous peoples in management programs is considered partially and ambiguously in the “Guidelines”, leaving a regulatory gap to give effect to the right that indigenous peoples and communities have.

The recommendation of the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH) regarding ANP and human rights

General Recommendation 26/2016 prepared by the CNDH, “On the lack and/or updating of management programs in federally protected natural areas and their relationship with the enjoyment and enjoyment of various human rights”, contains several sections from which very relevant findings and recommendations emerge.

First, the analysis carried out by the CNDH found that several ANPs did not have their management programs. As of March 31, 2016, out of 177 federal ANPs, only 103 management programs had been published. In addition, 20 ANP had their program, but it had not yet been published, and a total of 55 did not have this instrument.

The CNDH points out in the Recommendation that: “The relevance of management programs lies not only in being an essential tool for the protection and conservation of biodiversity, but they are, in turn, a mechanism that guarantees human rights, such as the right to a healthy environment, those relating to legal security and legality, and in a special way, the rights of indigenous peoples and communities.”

In particular, section 152 mentions: “given that a significant number of protected natural areas are located within or near lands, ejidos, agrarian communities or territories inhabited by indigenous peoples”. He adds that “these peoples exercise their governance [...] contributing substantially to the conservation of ecosystems and cultural diversity”. However, “in many cases the establishment of protected areas, or their management and administration without their active participation, has affected their rights, interests and means of livelihood”.

The Recommendation establishes in several of its sections the need to guarantee the participation of these groups in the planning and management of the natural resources existing in the territories they inhabit, in accordance with article 2 of the Constitution and the international obligations that the Mexican State has committed itself to in the field of human rights. A point that needs to be emphasized is that this Recommendation concludes that:

“In ANPs located on lands and territories inhabited or traditionally used by indigenous peoples or communities, or communities assimilated to them, it is necessary to incorporate their participation in the planning, management and administration processes of existing natural resources in those territories and to carry out consultations during the discussion, formulation and development of management programs.”

2. What has happened after the recommendation of the CNDH in the process of developing ANP management programs?

There are currently 185 federally protected natural areas. ⁶ These territories are home to just over 276,000 indigenous people, who are concentrated in 81 ANP, according to data from the last Population and Housing Census, 2020. There are 44 of the 68 indigenous peoples of Mexico, including: Nahuas, Mazahuas, Maya, Otomí, Mixteco, Tzotzil, Huichol (wirrarika), Popoluca, Popoloca, Mazateco, Tzeltal, Chol Chontal, Totonaca [14].

Of the 81 ANP with the presence of an indigenous population, within or in their area of influence, 49 of these areas have indigenous localities; which, according to the criteria established by the National Institute of Indigenous Population (INPI), are localities that have 40% or more of the indigenous population; seven have localities with a population of indigenous interest, that is, the concentration of indigenous population in these localities is less than 40% but are inhabited by more than 150 indigenous people. Finally, 25 ANP have localities with a dispersed indigenous population, that is, with an indigenous population of less than 40% and inhabited by less than 150 indigenous people. ⁷

According to the INPI, in order to carry out differentiated consultation, as part of the process of developing ANP management programs, indigenous localities must be taken into account; specifically those with a population greater than 40% or with a population of indigenous interest of less than 40% and with more than 150 indigenous people. However, as we will see below, in practice this has not been implemented.

After the recommendation of the CNDH, a total of 6 ANP were identified with localities with an indigenous population and, with a population of indigenous interest whose management programs were developed and published in the DOF, these are:

1) Blue Water Falls Flora and Fauna Protection Area [15], 2) Cerro Mohinora Flora and Fauna Protection Area [16], 3) Papigochic Flora and Fauna Protection Area [17], 4) Yum Balam Flora and Fauna Protection Area [18], 5) Natural Resources Protection Area Valle de Bravo, Malacatepec, Tilostoc and Temascaltepec River Basin [19] and, 6) La Frailescana Natural Resources Protection Area [20].

The review of the management programs of these ANPs found that:

The implementation of General Recommendation 26/2016 of the CNDH, regarding the rights of indigenous peoples, was not fully integrated into the formulation and construction of management programs developed and published after April 2016.

In general, the lack of consideration of indigenous communities and peoples can be seen in all the content of management programs. Both in the central parts, such as the description and objectives of the ANP, and within the six conservation subprograms: protection, management, restoration, knowledge, culture and management. And, at these points, the absence of indigenous communities and peoples as active subjects that can provide knowledge and knowledge for the conservation of the territory is notorious.

In this regard, it should be noted that:

• In just two PM, the Valle de Bravo, Malacatepec, Tilostoc and Temascaltepec river basins and, in Yum Balam, indigenous populations are explicitly mentioned as subjects of attention in the objectives of the ANP.
• The six PMs give a brief description of the indigenous population settled there, but none of them describe the conflicts that could arise between the ancestral interests and customs of the indigenous peoples with the conservation objectives of the ANP.
  
• Only in one PM, that of Cerro Mohinora, is there a section on Indigenous Population, in the chapter “Description of the protected natural area”, within the “Demographic, Economic and Social Context”.
  
• Only one PM, that of Yum Balam, proposes the participation of rural and indigenous communities in ANP conservation actions, specifically within the component of transversality and regional and sectoral consultation of the Management Subprogram (see Annex I).

However, with regard to the process of developing management programs for these ANPs, information was requested from Conanp to know the criteria used to implement or not implement differentiated consultation with indigenous communities and peoples living in the six protected areas.

In the review of the official responses, it was possible to verify that, with the exception of the Cerro Mohinora ANP, in five ANP, no differentiated consultations were carried out with the indigenous population of those territories despite the significant presence of indigenous inhabitants according to the considerations of the INPI (formerly the National Commission for the Development of Indigenous Peoples, CNPI).

^{There are several arguments made by the corresponding authorities for not implementing differentiated consultation 8}

One of the most mentioned is: “the low presence of the indigenous population”. Thus, there is “free interpretation” by the authorities of the criteria mentioned by the INPI regarding the localities with an indigenous population mentioned above.

In the case of Cascadas de Agua Azul, whose inhabitants are indigenous people belonging to the Tzeltal and Ch'ol ethnic groups, the ANP management argued that a differentiated consultation was not carried out due to the “absence of traditional authorities”.

The responses of the ANP leaders mention that there was no violation of the rights of indigenous peoples, since public consultations were carried out with the entire population to submit the drafts of the management programs. However, in the light of the rights of indigenous peoples established in the constitution, it can be said that public consultations carried out in the ANP do not fully guarantee the right to free and informed prior consultation of these peoples (see Annex II).

Below are the cases of two ANPs that better illustrate the decisions and actions implemented by the authorities to carry out a differentiated indigenous consultation.

A. Cerro Mohinora, Chihuahua

The development of the management program for the Cerro Mohinora flora and fauna protection area (APFF) takes on special relevance in the light of the recommendations made by the CNDH.

First of all, this protected area is inhabited by just over 100 indigenous people and, to date (August 2022), it is the only case in which a differentiated consultation has been carried out with indigenous communities and peoples to present the draft of a management program and gather opinions on it.

According to the responsible authorities, in the design and implementation of differentiated consultation, elements of ILO Convention 169 on the prior, free and informed participation of the population were taken as a basis in the formulation of programs likely to affect them directly.

In this case, the management of the ANP Cerro Mohinora “in coordination with the then Commission for the Development of Indigenous Peoples, developed a differentiated consultation scheme, issued invitations to indigenous governors with messages in the communities' own languages, and held face-to-face meetings to explain the scope of the protected area management program.” ⁹

The implementation of this consultation with the indigenous Raramuris of the South (or Tarahumaras) and the O'Dame of the North (or Tepehuanos) took place from August 12 to September 16, 2016. The objective was to present the draft of the management program for Cerro Mohinora, so the management staff of the area held several meetings with people from indigenous communities in various localities. ¹⁰ In these, they presented the activities that can be carried out within the area and answered specific questions from the attendees regarding the collection of food (fruits, herbs and mushrooms) and medicinal plants, as well as the hunting of some animals for their own consumption. In addition, their opinions on the management program were captured. ¹¹

When reviewing the public documents on this differentiated consultation in Cerro Mohinora, it was possible to verify, on the one hand, the political will and the activities carried out by the ANP management and, on the other, the interest and proactivity of people in attending meetings, stating their doubts and giving opinions about the management program.

Despite the efforts made to carry out a differentiated consultation, where information was exchanged with people from the Raramuris and O'dame peoples, in the final document, the Cerro Mohinora Management Program, neither in the objectives of the ANP, nor in the objectives of the program, nor in the subprograms, that indigenous communities and peoples are subjects of interest or special attention.

In this case, the question remains as to how they integrated the contributions made by the indigenous population that participated in the differentiated consultation of Cerro Mohinora into the management program.

B. Agua Azul Waterfalls, Chiapas

The process of developing the management program for the flora and fauna protection area (APFF) Blue Water Falls attracts special attention, since all the inhabitants of the area are indigenous people who belong to the Tzeltal and Ch'ol ethnic groups. According to the 2010 Population and Housing Census, the indigenous population numbered 1937. However, the authorities did not consider it necessary to implement a differentiated consultation to make the draft of the management program known to these peoples. According to the authorities, the reason why it was not carried out was the following: “The ejidos and ranches found in the Agua Azul Waterfalls region belong entirely to the Chol and Tzetal ethnic groups and are identified as indigenous localities, which preserve cultural traits such as their language, traditions and partly their worldview. However, some forms of representation, such as their spiritual leaders and councils of elders, have been lost due to strong pressure from religious groups, municipal organization mechanisms and land tenure. For this reason, currently in consultation mechanisms, communities are represented by the commissioner in the case of ejidos and municipal agents and rural judges in the case of ranches, all of them recognized by the community assembly and elected through traditional election mechanisms”.
(Response to request for information no. 330008322000199).

The justification for discarding differentiated consultation is based, on the one hand, on the absence of spiritual leaders or councils of elders within indigenous communities; and on the other, because in public consultation processes, indigenous representatives of municipal agencies, ejido commissions and rural judges are considered, that is, institutionalized spaces recognized by government authorities.

It is worth mentioning that the management of the ANP Cascadas de Agua Azul did hold a public consultation of the draft management program in February 2012, according to official records. ¹² However, this is not comparable to a differentiated consultation even if it has been implemented with the indigenous population of the protected area. This is because decision-making spaces, such as ejido commissions or rural judges, leave out many people from communities; primarily women, young people and even older adults. Most of them, since they do not have land, cannot be integrated into these spaces. In this way, the public consultation mechanism used to publicize the ANP management program left out a large part of the population that lives in the ANP, as stated in official records; ¹³ so people who also have extensive knowledge about the use, use and conservation of the territory were excluded.

This case is very significant because it is an ANP inhabited only by indigenous people. As mentioned, the public consultation process was not represented by its inhabitants, which shows that the design and elaboration of the management program excluded the population, leaving out their vision of the environment, their knowledge and, also, their contributions to the resolution of conflicts that could arise from the management and conservation of the protected area.

With regard to the analysis of the APFF management program, Blue Water Waterfalls, published in May 2017, there is only one mention of the indigenous population in the Cultural Context section, which literally states: “The communities that live within the protected natural area are indigenous to the Tseltal and Ch'ol peoples, who preserve their language, clothing, customs and forms of traditional organization. They do not celebrate traditional festivities, since currently the majority of the population professes a religion other than the Catholic one” [15].

In general terms, the management program of this ANP does not consider the indigenous communities and peoples that live in and around them. The document completely ignores the use and management that its inhabitants have had and have over that territory, and the practices they deploy in favor of the conservation or management of the area. It is worth mentioning that this is an important ANP for tourism, so it is of special economic interest for the local population and for the regional economy.

The Blue Water Falls management program does not account for the complexity of managing a protected area that is in turn a tourist site, in which its inhabitants actively participate in the provision of products and services. In short, the PdM dictates what should be done according to the vision of the authorities, with the objectives and activities they identified for the management and management of the area, which is characterized by a very active economic and social dynamic. This aspect is especially important for the management and management of a protected area, and Conanp authorities must involve the local population to formulate programs that take into account their rights and needs, as well as those related to its management and conservation.

Reflections and general recommendations

The above-mentioned points are consistent with the broader evaluation carried out by the UNAM, on the Compliance and impact of the General Recommendations, Special Information and Pronouncements of the CNDH 2001 - 2017, in which it is stated that “the actions implemented by Conanp cannot be considered sufficient and adequate in the context of the extensive statement presented by the CNDH regarding the scope and content of the State's obligations that must be observed to effectively respect, protect and guarantee the rights of indigenous people and communities, or communities similar to them, to participate in decision-making processes that are likely to affect their livelihoods”.

The analysis of the management programs developed since 2016, and the review of the information requested from the authorities, yielded the following findings:

1. There is a systematic exclusion of indigenous peoples and communities in the design and development of management programs.

   This structural exclusion is born from government bodies and is reflected in public policy instruments. This is evident, on the one hand, in the justification given by the authorities for not carrying out differentiated consultations in the process of developing management programs. In the responses to the requests for information, they state that “there is little presence of indigenous people” or that “there are no traditional authorities”. And also, in the absence of clear guidelines and/or regulations that guarantee the implementation of differentiated consultations, which violates the rights of the indigenous communities and peoples that live within the ANP. This coincides with what has been mentioned by several authors regarding the fact that local communities are not only excluded from the design of programs, but that they are often not even consulted and informed or are aware that this process is taking place. ¹⁴
   

2. Absence of specific criteria on the part of Conanp to carry out differentiated consultations, and of mechanisms that guarantee the effective participation of communities and indigenous peoples in the development of management programs.

   There are currently no clear rules that guide and direct Conanp's policy and its relationship with indigenous communities. This point is also set out in the evaluation carried out by the UNAM in 2019, which reveals “the absence of a consistent and stable institutional policy to guide relations between Conanp and indigenous people and communities in the ANP”. ¹⁵

3. The public policy instruments of the Conanp that refer to differentiated indigenous consultation leave their implementation to the will of the authorities.

   The current Conanp Guidelines that guide the formulation of management programs determine that the appropriateness of carrying out a differentiated consultation with indigenous communities and peoples will be decided on a case-by-case basis and will not be a general rule. In addition, “The internal guidelines for the formulation, revision and modification of management programs for protected natural areas within the competence of the federation” ¹⁶ and the Terms of Reference for the development of management programs” are internal documents that are not legally binding on third parties or with Conanp itself. In fact, these are not published in the Official Gazette of the Federation (DOF), so their implementation tends to be voluntary (ad libitum).

4. The differentiated consultation with communities and indigenous peoples carried out by the management of the ANP Cerro Mohinora is a precedent of good practice.

   This consultation, although limited, represents a valuable exercise to advance the construction of instruments that consider the participation of indigenous communities and peoples in the design, elaboration and implementation of management programs, and not only in the final stage, in which the draft of the management program is consulted.

Finally, it should be mentioned that the analysis, together with the findings presented here, were written days before the publication of the new SEMARNAT regulation on July 27 in the Official Gazette of the Federation. This could entail changes to the LGEEPA and its regulations, as far as this matter is concerned. ¹⁷

Recommendations

With the purpose of advancing the fulfillment of the rights of indigenous peoples and communities established in the Mexican Constitution, as well as in the construction of mechanisms that guarantee their substantive, prior, free and informed participation in the process of developing ANP management programs, we propose the following recommendations:

1. Consider the rights of indigenous peoples and communities in conservation policies and, in particular, in the entire process of developing ANP management programs.

   The rights of indigenous peoples must be the basis for the formulation of ANP management plans, and other policies related to their operation. In this regard, it is essential that differentiated public consultation be conceived as an instrument to incorporate the knowledge, wisdom and conservation practices of indigenous communities and peoples into the management of ANP. Currently, these instruments embody a vision that dictates the implementation of certain rules by environmental authorities, violating the rights that communities and indigenous peoples have to participate in decision-making that affects their territory and well-being.

2. Explain in the regulatory documents for the development of management programs (TdR and Guidelines) the obligation to carry out a differentiated consultation.

   This is through the amendment of the LGEEPA Regulations on protected natural areas, to guarantee the development of indigenous peoples and communities as entities governed by law.
   

3. Move towards substantive social participation schemes, for the development of the management program.

   That it allows the collaboration of the population to identify problems and generate solutions to address them and to get involved in decision-making and in the formulation of proposals for the efficient management of protected areas; as mentioned in chapter five of the Conanp TdR. In particular, the participation of local people, communities and indigenous peoples should be considered as a necessary step to build zoning, sub-zoning and administrative rules in the development of management programs. This must be explicitly stated in the “Guidelines”.

4. Include a section on the public consultation process in management programs.

   This is in compliance with ILO Convention 169.
   

5. Incorporate into management programs a section that refers to the indigenous peoples and communities that live within the ANP and its surroundings.

   This must contain the vision of the indigenous population about their territory, the use and exploitation of natural resources, as well as the cultural conservation practices implemented prior to the decree or elaboration of the management program. For its development, it is necessary to collaborate closely with the local population and with the INPI, who has the capacity and responsibility to accompany processes of this nature.
   

ANNEXES

References

[1] Bogue, E. (2008). The biocultural heritage of the indigenous peoples of Mexico. Towards the in situ conservation of biodiversity and agrobiodiversity in indigenous territories. National Institute of Anthropology and History. National Commission for the Development of Indigenous Peoples. 342 pp.

[2] Semarnat (1988). General Law on Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection. Current text. Latest reform published in the DOF 11-04-2022.

[3] Presidency of the Republic (2019). National Development Plan 2019-2024. Official Gazette of the Federation. July 12, 2019.

[4] Haro Encinas, J.A. and Martínez Coria, R. (2019). Biocultural heritage and territorial dispossession in the Mayo River. Los Guarijíos de Sonora and the Los Pilares-Bicentenario dam project. The Colegio de Sonora-PUIC UNAM. 334 pp.

[5] Garcia-Fapolli (2015). Exclusion in protected natural areas: an approach from management programs. 221-236 pp. In Durand, L., Figueroa, F., Guzmán, M., Editores. Nature in context. Towards a Mexican Political Ecology. UNAM, The College of San Luis. Mexico.

[6] National Human Rights Commission (2016). General Recommendation No. 26 On the lack and/or updating of management programs in federally protected natural areas and their relationship with the enjoyment and enjoyment of various human rights. Mexico City, April 13, 2016.

[7] Margules, C.R. and Sahotra, S. (2009). Systematic conservation planning. (Trad. Sánchez-Cordero, V. and Figueroa, F.). National Autonomous University of Mexico, National Commission for Protected Natural Areas and National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity. Mexico, D.F. 304 pp.

[8] Alarcon- Chaires, P. (2018). Bioculturality. Theoretical framework for the management of relevant public policies in Mexico's Protected Natural Areas 2018-2024. Morelia, Michoacán, Mexico.

[9] Lagunas-Vázques, M., Beltran-Morales, L.F., Bobadilla-Jiménez, M. and Ortega-Rubio, A. (2016). Human population, socioeconomic activities and socio-environmental problems in Mexico's Protected Natural Areas (ANP).

[10] SEMARNAT (2000). Regulations of the General Law on Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection in the field of Protected Natural Areas. Latest reform published in the DOF 21-05-2014.

[11] Presidency of the Republic (2021). Political Constitution of the United Mexican States. Mexico. Current Text. Last reform published in the DOF 28-05-2021.

[12] National Institute of Indigenous Peoples (2022). Database obtained by means of a request for information.

[13] Gonzalez, Jose Alberto (2015). Indigenous law: Consultation and citizen participation.

[14] CONANP (2022). Indigenous Peoples in Protected Natural Areas.

[15] Conanp (2017). Management program for the Blue Water Waterfalls Flora and Fauna Protection Area.

[16] Conanp (2017). Management program for the Cerro Mohinora Flora and Fauna Protection Area.

[17] Conanp (2017). Papigochic Flora and Fauna Protection Area management program.

[18] Conanp (2018). Management program for the Yum Balam Flora and Fauna Protection Area.

[19] Conanp (2018). Management program for the Natural Resources Protection Area and basins of the Valle de Bravo, Malacatepec, Tilostoc and Temascaltepec rivers.

[20] Conanp (2019). Management program for the La Frailscana Natural Resources Protection Area.