On the cover: Members of the Yaquí people, in Sonora, have resisted the construction of a gas pipeline that they consider a high risk to their community. February, 2019. Photo: Santiago Navarro F.
Translated by Schools for Chiapas in collaboration with Avispa Midia.
In 2026, the federal government boasts a cumulative investment of more than 55 billion pesos in 21 Regional Justice and Development Plans to address a long-standing demand for redress by the Mexican State regarding the dispossession, structural discrimination, and social exclusion suffered by the country’s indigenous peoples. In addition, progress is being made on 15 Economic Development Hubs for Well-being (PODECOBI).
According to the National Institute of Indigenous Peoples (INPI), these actions fall under Article 2 of the Mexican Constitution, which establishes the State’s responsibility to promote development for these communities, recognizing them as “subjects of political rights” and guaranteeing “their direct participation in decision-making in the exercise of self-determination and autonomy.”
Claudia Sheinbaum’s administration is promoting five new Justice and Regional Development Plans to address the demands of Indigenous and Afro-Mexican peoples regarding their lands, territories, water, language, culture, traditional governance, and collective welfare. These new plans are in addition to those already initiated by the administration of Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO), for a total of 21 plans that are currently in effect. In total, approximately 55 billion pesos have been invested, primarily in local roads and the Contribution Fund for Social Infrastructure for Indigenous and Afro-Mexican Peoples and Communities (FAISPIAM), which provides direct funding to the peoples’ assemblies.
Among Sheinbaum’s five new plans are: The P’urhépecha People’s Justice Plan; the Justice Plan for the Mazahua, Otomí, and Matlatzinca Peoples, or Pirinda, of Eastern Michoacán; the Justice Plan for the Nahua People of the Coast of Michoacan; the Justice and Regional Development Plan for the Afro-Mexican People of the Costa Chica of Guerrero and Oaxaca; and the Justice Plan for the Mountains of Guerrero.
For Mayvelin Flores Villagómez, a researcher and professor in the School of Economics at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), these Justice Plans seek to address the historic demands of the communities through road paving, the creation of schools, and the resolution of boundary disputes, but politically, “they are part of a strategy and serve a purpose, which is to reestablish the State’s presence as a mediator and negotiator between peoples. This approach had already run its course by the beginning of Enrique Peña Nieto’s administration. The State was viewed very negatively—by the peoples,” she notes.
Meanwhile, the INPI, in its press release 20/26, clarifies that these Plans fall within the framework of compliance with Article 2, which establishes the State’s obligation to promote the community and regional development of indigenous peoples and communities, recognizing their status as subjects of public law and guaranteeing their direct participation in decision-making in the exercise of the self-determination and autonomy of indigenous peoples.
“We must add another front to this strategy: reforms regarding indigenous rights and, of course, land rights,” asserts the UNAM researcher. “With these reforms, the goal is for the State to determine who is and who is not indigenous, in terms of legal status. In other words, indigenous peoples depend on the State’s recognition. If you are not recognized as an indigenous people by the State, you cannot file legal appeals to protect yourself against any kind of megaproject,” adds Professor Flores.
Thus, Flores warns, among the State’s unfulfilled obligations lies precisely the scope of what the self-determination and autonomy of these peoples truly entail. “There has been so much talk about the historical demands of indigenous peoples in the Justice Plans. But one of these demands, dating back to 1996—following the EZLN (Zapatista National Liberation Army) uprising—concerns the recognition of the peoples’ self-determination. This is something that has been and continues to be betrayed by the State.”
The point raised by the UNAM professor refers to one of the reforms promoted since 2001—specifically, Article 2—which was a response to the historic demands that arose from the Zapatista armed uprising through the so-called Accords of San Andrés Larráinzar of 1996. These accords originally proposed amending the Constitution to legally recognize indigenous peoples as “subjects of law” .
Specifically, the Accords aimed to recognize communities as legal entities with political autonomy. As a “subject of law,” an indigenous community acquires the legal capacity to govern itself, enact its own internal laws, administer its own courts, and possess legal standing to sue the State or corporations. However, in the 2001 constitutional reform, the concept of “subjects of public interest” was used; that is, the State classified indigenous peoples under a logic of guardianship, subject to receiving assistance and development from the government, rather than recognizing them as political and legal entities with the capacity for self-government.
Twenty-three years later, under the government of the so-called Fourth Transformation—during AMLO’s term—in 2024, Article 2 was amended once again, stipulating that Mexico is a multicultural and multiethnic nation and recognizing indigenous peoples as: subjects of public law; with the right to autonomy and self-government; direct budgeting; mandatory consultation, and gender equality.
However, the National Indigenous Congress (CNI) and advocates for collective rights maintain that this reform retains critical loopholes and technical barriers compared to the original spirit of the Accords of San Andrés Larráinzar. For example, the concept of “territory”—which is currently at the center of disputes over large-scale megaprojects throughout the country—is omitted. Furthermore, “consultation” does not carry the power to veto these projects but rather functions as a mere bureaucratic requirement.
The 1996 Agreements also proposed creating an autonomous federal political structure where communities could govern themselves at the municipal level or even above it, but the latest reform of 2024 subordinates them to the authority of the municipalities, which are subject to state intervention. For this reason, both the EZLN and the CNI have denounced on more than one occasion that this reform is “incomplete and serves as a sham, while the government uses the budget to legitimize federal projects and infrastructure.”
Lawyer Carlos Gonzáles of the CNI stated in an interview with Avispa Mídia that “this reform carries more weight for what it fails to recognize than for what it does recognize.” Furthermore, the concept of “Territory”—“as a legal concept with clear and precise content, as provided for in international law, conventions, and treaties—is left out of the wording of the constitutional reform. “As long as the rights and territories of indigenous peoples are not recognized, it is very difficult to speak of the full exercise of autonomy.”
The lawyer dismisses the idea that this actually responds to those Accords; rather, it is a different moment, and these agreements are no longer in effect. “If we look at this country’s constitution before the agreements and compare it to today, they are completely different things,” he says.
Professor Flores elaborates for Avispa Mídia: “There is a dual purpose behind these Justice Plans and the reforms; in addition to re-legitimizing the State as a mediating institution, it is positioning itself as an actor that is reorganizing the communal life of the people. Thus, where these justice plans have already been implemented—and where they are about to be implemented—is also where some of the Development Hubs planned for this administration’s term converge. The aim is to secure their acceptance without any resistance.”
PODECOBIs and Consultations
The initiative of the 21 Justice Plans goes hand in hand with the first 25 Economic Development Hubs for Well-being (PODECOBI) planned during President Claudia Sheinbaum’s administration. Another 16 are currently under review for approval. At the start of her term, as part of her 100 government commitments, she announced the creation of 100 new industrial parks across the country. Many of them in indigenous territories.
Flores, who is also an activist on indigenous issues in Mexico, warns that the community reorganization driven by the government takes place, among other things, “as a simulation and exercise of consultations under the Justice Plans, which are then replicated for projects centered on the PODECOBI.”
“Furthermore, coercion is already present from the moment the state, through these Justice Plans, pressures communities to give their support, since it has met some of their demands. In other words, these consultations are no longer entirely free or informed, since many of them are contingent on the social benefits provided by these plans,” notes the professor from the School of Economics.
Regarding the consultation processes, according to attorney Nataniel Hernández Núñez, director of the Digna Ochoa Human Rights Center (CDH Digna Ochoa), located on the coast of Chiapas, “what we have observed in the southern part of the country is that these consultations have been manipulated. Above all, there is a process of co-optation that occurs even through the use of social programs or direct aid. This also involves the co-optation of community leaders and agrarian structures. Instead of providing comprehensive information about the projects, they arrive in the communities with false promises, and people have been persuaded in this way to accept the implementation of one project or another.”
Sheinbaum officially announced 15 new PODECOBIs at a public event in Huamantla, Tlaxcala, last April. These are part of the so-called Plan México, a strategy that aims to industrialize the country and position it among the world’s leading economies. The rest of these industrial hubs were inherited from her predecessor, AMLO, and were previously known as Polos de Desarrollo del Bienestar (PODEBI).
The 15 new hubs will be located in: Seybaplaya, Campeche; Juárez, Chihuahua; Durango, Durango; Nezahualcóyotl, State of Mexico; Celaya, Guanajuato; a hub dedicated to the circular economy in Hidalgo; AIFA, Hidalgo; Morelia, Michoacán; Ciudad Modelo, Puebla; Chetumal, Quintana Roo; Topolobampo, Sinaloa; Altamira, Tamaulipas; Huamantla, Tlaxcala; Tuxpan, Veracruz; and Hermosillo, Sonora.
At the event in Tlaxcala, the President stated that these complexes are intended to “promote regional development,” adding that investments—both domestic and foreign—had previously been concentrated in the north of the country but are now expanding to other regions, such as the south and southeast of the country, and are expected to generate 300,000 jobs.
The Sheinbaum administration’s strategy is to capitalize on the phenomenon known as “nearshoring” —a business strategy that involves moving factories and production centers as close as possible to the products’ final destination—so that it is not just a matter of isolated industrial parks, but rather a reorganization of production and consumption spaces. This is what they call “productive ecosystems” and “microsystem cities,” which integrate urban complexes comprising housing, schools, hospitals, and industrial zones.
The PODECOBIs are intended to host high-tech and manufacturing complexes in sectors such as electronics and semiconductors; automotive components; aerospace; pharmaceuticals; chemicals and petrochemicals; as well as renewable energy and agribusiness complexes, where indigenous peoples are unlikely to find employment.
One of the most emblematic cases is where the Yoreme-Mayo People’s Justice Plan intersects with the port of Topolobampo, Sinaloa—one of the 15 PODECOBIs. It is currently one of the most contentious cases, particularly due to the planned construction of a massive ammonia plant, which serves as the backbone and economic driver of this Development Hub. It includes massive petrochemical plants for fertilizer production and gas liquefaction located next to Ohuira Bay, a vital fishing area and a sacred biocultural site for the Yoreme-Mayo people.
The communities living around the Port of Topolobampo and its surrounding area are also affected by attacks and persecution resulting from their ongoing resistance to defend their territory. This resistance movement views the ammonia project by Gas y Petroquímica de Occidente—a subsidiary of the Swiss company PROMAN—and the Vista Pacífico Liquefied Natural Gas plant by Sempra Energy, both of which will invest in the Topolobampo PODECOBI, as an “imposition.”
“There in Topolobampo, the president’s government has designated it as a Development Hub, and the agreement is set to be signed in early March, because there was a minor issue regarding land tenure—specifically, a small plot of land—but that has now been resolved,” announced Sinaloa Governor Rubén Rocha Moya last February.
For attorney Hernández of the Digna Ochoa Human Rights Center (CDH), the perception is that these development plans “are out of touch with the needs and reality of the communities. In addition, the communities have not been taken into account when drafting these plans—another shortcoming of the reform and part of the historical injustices.”
On the contrary, adds attorney Hernández, “these projects, rather than improving the living conditions of the people and communities, will exacerbate dispossession and displacement.”
The Mexican government’s strategy for securing land for the PODECOBI initiatives was based on prior land acquisitions and public land reserves, through which it is safeguarding and providing legal certainty to investors for designated public zones with priority access to water, energy, and logistics connectivity in 14 states across the country.
Of the 15 Economic Development Hubs for Well-being with which the Sheinbaum administration has launched its initiative, 11 hubs have already been completed or are in the final stages of their international public bidding processes.
Renewing Old Objectives
From Chihuahua and Sonora in the north to Quintana Roo in the southeast, the development of these industrial complexes builds on the projects of the previous administration, which focused primarily on highway and rail infrastructure, ports, airports, and power plants related to the Maya Train and the Interoceanic Corridor of the Tehuantepec Isthmus. One of the incentives to attract investors is an unprecedented tax package. The presidential decree allows for an immediate 100% deduction from income tax (ISR) on investments in new fixed assets, in addition to additional 25% deductions for training and innovation expenses.
For researcher Flores of the School of Economics, what is happening with these investment incentives is nothing more than the “continuation and deepening of certain plans for the country’s territorial reconfiguration that had already been proposed since the 1990s and that past governments were unable to advance due to resistance from the people.” “But today, we see that social support programs for communities are being used to contain this resistance in some cases, such as in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, where there were several attempts to implement the so-called Puebla-Panama Plan, which is only now beginning to take shape with these so-called Development Hubs.”
Similarly, attorney Hernández tells Avispa Mídia that this process of territorial reorganization responds “to geopolitical interests. So territorial and economic reorganization is not a new development under the government of the Fourth Transformation; it responds to long-standing interests, such as the Puebla-Panama Plan. It is also accompanied by a security strategy, but not for the people—rather, to ensure the security of capital accumulation. That is why the projects are being coordinated and carried out by the Armed Forces. This involves ensuring that investment can proceed without opposition or resistance from any party.”
Furthermore, the UNAM professor adds, “we must pay attention to one thing: this territorial reconfiguration is not intended for domestic economic growth, much less for the benefit of Indigenous peoples—the rightful owners of the land—but rather to facilitate access to raw materials and cheap labor available in these areas. All of this is aimed at supplying cheaper products primarily to our neighboring country, the United States.”
The researcher points out, then, that there is a contradiction between the rhetoric of “shared prosperity” and, on the other hand, “the Justice Plans, which, in theory or in rhetoric, tell us that they will address the historical demands of the peoples, while these mega-development complexes will once again dispossess these communities.” “Therefore, with the Justice Plans, they seek to preempt the social conflict that may arise following the implementation of these larger-scale megaprojects,” adds researcher Flores.
The lawyer from CDH Digna Ochoa, concludes that what remains is “not to expect that these so-called Justice Plans, nor the indigenous reforms, will bring us justice. On the contrary, we must maintain our organization, resistance, and coordination in order to propose a different alternative from within our communities—one based on our needs, not the needs of capital.”
