The federal government has rejected the complaint admitted by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America (CEC) on alleged environmental violations in the construction of the Sonora Train, arguing that the work complies with environmental regulations and that its execution will strengthen the commercial relationship between Mexico and the US.
Why was the complaint filed?
The environmental organizations Defensa Ambiental del Noroeste (Mexico) and the Center for Biological Diversity (US) filed the complaint alleging that the railway megaproject, in charge of the Ministry of National Defense (Sedena), would affect protected natural areas and that it was started without complying with all environmental permits.
However, the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (Semarnat) responded to the trinational organization assuring that:
The environmental impacts are not serious or irreparable.
Mitigation and compensation measures were implemented in the final authorization of the project. Some protected natural areas no longer have this classification, so the work is no longer subject to environmental restrictions applicable to those areas.
Use of AMLO’s “provisional authorization”
One of the most controversial points is that the Sonora Train was started with a “provisional authorization” granted under the agreement of Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) that declared the strategic projects of his administration to be of national security and public interest.
This agreement, published in November 2021, allowed works such as the Mayan Train to start without the prior Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Although the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation declared it invalid in May 2023, the Sonora Train had already obtained its provisional authorization days before, on May 12, 2023.
Government response to the CCA
Claudia Sheinbaum’s government maintains that the CCA should not have accepted the complaint because:
Environmental regulations were not breached and a definitive authorization was granted after a formal review.
The petition is unfounded because the areas allegedly affected no longer have protected area status.
The USMCA complaint mechanism loses validity if cases without legal basis are admitted.
Despite these explanations, the controversy continues, as the use of the provisional authorization and the reclassification of protected areas have raised questions about the transparency and environmental compliance of the project.
Source: elimparcial
