Mexico City | Desinformémonos. Maya peoples and organizations from the Yucatán Peninsula challenged the proposed General Law on Indigenous and Afro-Mexican Peoples and Communities, arguing that it maintains mechanisms of state control over the peoples’ self-determination, autonomy, territory, consultation, and consent. The communities demanded that the recognition of their rights not be contingent on administrative procedures or validation by government institutions.
The organizations appreciated that the bill recognizes indigenous peoples as legal subjects and incorporates measures related to gender, future generations, migrants, and people with disabilities. However, they pointed out that the proposal would allow the National Institute of Indigenous Peoples (INPI) to determine which communities meet the requirements to be recognized and included in the National Catalog, which, from their perspective, would transfer to the State a decision that belongs to the peoples themselves. They also criticized the fact that the bill restricts access to natural resources considered strategic and establishes a list of indigenous authorities that does not take into account the unique forms of organization of the peoples of the Peninsula.
One of the main grievances concerns the right to consultation, as the proposal makes its implementation contingent on the existence of a “significant impact” as determined by state authorities. The Maya peoples argued that consultation must take place whenever a measure could affect their rights and should not be subject to the assessment of government institutions. They also demanded explicit recognition of indigenous stewardship and the role of the peoples in protecting natural and biocultural resources such as bees and meliponiculture, seeds and native corn, water, cenotes, the rainforest, and the scrubland.
The communities also challenged the restrictions placed on access to indigenous legal protection and requested that any community member be able to resort to this mechanism in the face of acts or omissions that violate collective rights, even when community authorities themselves are involved. Furthermore, they proposed that in cases of environmental damage, legal protection be available for as long as the damage persists. The Maya peoples of Homún, Kinchil, Chablekal, Yaxcopoil, San José Tzal, Tebec, Tekit, Chocholá, Baca, Sitilpech, and other communities in Yucatán, Quintana Roo, and Campeche called for their proposals to be incorporated into the bill and for guarantees that the lack of registration in the National Catalog not be used to deny or limit their rights.
The full statement follows:
- The proposed Law is contradictory in that it does not depart from perspectives that uphold indigenous self-determination, autonomy, territory, consultation, and consent.
- There is a need for recognition of indigenous peoples’ territory from the perspective of the peoples themselves, as well as for the affirmation of indigenous peoples’ decision-making authority over their natural resources and biocultural heritage.
As part of the meetings to be held in the Yucatán Peninsula to raise awareness about the General Law on Indigenous and Afro-descendant Peoples and Communities, various collectives and organizations of Maya peoples—signatories to the Declaration of a Socio-Environmental Emergency in the Yucatán Peninsula, presented in October 2024— gathered in the city of Mérida, Yucatán, express our concerns and demands regarding various aspects of the proposed General Law on Indigenous and Afro-Mexican Peoples and Communities.
In principle, we appreciate that the proposed law aims to put into practice our recognition as subjects of law and incorporates, across the board, the perspectives of gender, future generations, migrants, and people with disabilities. We consider it important that the initiative establishes measures to strengthen the protection of our traditional knowledge, language, thought, and culture, as well as our traditional ownership of lands and territories, as this represents a crucial step toward protecting historic communities that, due to various circumstances, have not yet been able to secure recognition and title to their ancestral lands and territories.
However, from our particular historical, cultural, and territorial context, we view with concern the fact that the bill maintains state oversight over the exercise of indigenous rights, leading to bureaucratization and failing to take into account the diverse realities of each indigenous people—a situation that could hinder the effective exercise of our rights.
In this regard, the determination of who constitutes an indigenous community cannot be subject to validation by the INPI, nor to inclusion in the national registry, nor to procedures that render that possibility null and void, since these requirements limit the effective exercise of the right to self-determination and autonomy; therefore, Articles 30 and 31 must be amended to remove obstacles that create bureaucratic hurdles and shift the decision regarding which communities qualify to state entities.
Some of the main concerns we have identified are:
1. While it is acknowledged that communities can be recognized as subjects of public law, there are two limiting factors: a) the National Institute of Indigenous Peoples (INPI) will have the final say in determining which communities meet the requirements established by the Law itself and in proceeding with their registration in the National Catalog and publication in the Official Gazette of the Federation; thus, in practice, the determination of which entities may be considered communities is left to the discretion of the State; and b) the procedure established is overly complex, which in practice could render ineffective the possibility for communities to actually access the benefits and privileges that come with being recognized as legal entities.
2.- Although Article 33 of the proposed law guarantees that indigenous peoples may dispose of their natural resources, this access is limited to areas considered strategic by the State. Consequently, the actual ability to access these natural resources is left to the discretion of the authorities, which in practice would render the peoples’ substantive right to manage their natural resources null and void.
3.- It is a cause for concern that the recognition of the various indigenous authorities listed in the Law does not take into account the realities of the peninsula. Compiling a list of recognized authorities limits the diverse forms of self-governance enjoyed by Indigenous Peoples.
4.- Regarding the issue of consultation, it is a serious concern that it is contingent upon the existence of a “significant impact,” which, according to the bill, will be determined by the Ministry of the Interior and the INPI. This is contrary to international law, which stipulates that consultation must take place whenever their rights may be affected; therefore, it should be sufficient for a people to consider the impact caused by an administrative or legislative act in order to initiate a consultation and obtain consent.
5.- Although Article 124 provides for the right to preserve the environment and biodiversity, we believe that this must involve the express recognition of indigenous stewardship, since the issue is not one of participating in decision-making, but rather of recognizing the role that indigenous peoples have historically played in the care and protection of their territories and, therefore, based on the right to make decisions regarding the territory and natural resources, such as bees and meliponiculture, seeds and native corn, water and cenotes, the rainforest and the scrubland.
6.- Nor should there be a restrictive interpretation of “legitimate interest” for accessing indigenous legal protection, since it is illogical that such protection can only be sought through indigenous authorities or twenty percent of the community, when this protection is a mechanism to defend against acts, omissions, or regulations by authorities that violate rights. This is especially true in places where community authorities have been co-opted by powerful groups, including the State itself. Indigenous legal protection for the defense of our rights as indigenous peoples must be a right available to everyone, without intermediaries that could become obstacles to accessing justice. Furthermore, self-determination also implies the possibility of challenging and contesting in court the decisions of our own authorities when they act in violation of the collective rights of the people.
Similarly, indigenous injunctions cannot be subject to a time limit specifically tied to an administrative act when environmental impacts are involved, as the potential harm is not limited to that moment but is ongoing, cumulative, and may even be irreparable or have become invisible. Therefore, we believe that the law should establish that an amparo action may be filed as long as the effects of the environmental damage persist, in accordance with the principles of prevention, precaution, progressiveness, no environmental degradation, and intergenerational equity.
Finally, we believe that the organizational diversity of indigenous peoples must be expressly recognized and that recognition of these peoples cannot be contingent upon administrative procedures; therefore, we believe it is important to state unequivocally that failure to be listed in the National Catalog may not be used as grounds to deny, suspend, or limit rights.
We trust that our voice as Peninsular Maya in defense of our territory will be taken into account.
For the life, territory, and dignity of the Maya People. On the Yucatán Peninsula, August 14, 2026.
Maya residents of Homún, Kinchil, Chablekal, Yaxcopoil, San José Tzal, Tebec, Tekit, Chocholá, Baca, Sitilpech, Mérida, Candelaria (Quintana Roo), Cancabchen, Komchen, IchEk, Bolonchen, Huechil, El Poste, San Antonio Yaxche, the Maya Collective of Los Chenes, MuuchKambal, and the Utsil Kuxtal Human Rights Center
Original text published at Desinformémonos on August 15th, 2026.
Translation by Schools for Chiapas.