The Don Diego project was intended to dredge the seabed in Ulloa Bay, located in the municipality of Comondú, in order to extract phosphates, a mineral used in the production of fertilizers. However, from the beginning, the project was the subject of strong criticism from civil and environmental organizations.
Environmental groups warned of the potential irreversible damage to the marine ecosystem of the area, home to protected species such as the gray whale and the sea turtle. These organizations argued that mining operations could seriously alter the migratory cycles of these animals, in addition to affecting other forms of marine life crucial to the biodiversity of the region. In response to these concerns, SEMARNAT repeatedly denied the environmental authorizations necessary for the project.
Impact of the ruling on Mexico’s environmental and economic policy
This ruling in favor of Odyssey Marine Exploration raises important questions about the balance between environmental protection and foreign investment in Mexico. SEMARNAT’s decision to block the Don Diego project was seen as a victory for environmental activists. However, the economic cost of the arbitration puts pressure on the country, especially in the context of international agreements such as the Treaty between Mexico, the United States and Canada (T-MEC), which includes provisions on the protection of foreign investments.
The Mexican government has argued that the cancellation of the project was a sovereign decision to protect its natural resources and biodiversity, but this type of international ruling could generate greater caution in future regulatory decisions involving large investment projects.
Pressure for future regulatory decisions
The case of the “Don Diego” mine also puts on the table the need for a thorough review of the regulatory and legal procedures related to foreign investments in Mexico. While environmental protection is a priority, these types of financial sanctions could make the authorities face a crossroads between protecting natural resources and complying with international commitments to attract and retain foreign investment.
The compensation of 37.1 million dollars is relatively small compared to the figure demanded by Odyssey Marine Exploration, but the symbolic and legal impact is profound. This case is likely to be cited in future arbitrations and government decisions, especially in key sectors such as energy and mining, where state intervention and decisions by regulatory agencies play a key role.
Source: peninsulardigital
