New Rules Result in Significant Shift for DGIRA

On March 15, the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources published its new internal regulations in the Official Gazette of the Federation, updating the 2022 regulations. The vision of environmental care and protection during the Obradorato administration was completely dysfunctional, ranging from an autistic attitude reflected in the fact that it was virtually impossible to meet with officials in charge of project evaluations, to a demented bipolarity, issuing environmental impact authorizations in record time for presidential projects and, at the same time, paralyzing private investment with evaluations that took more than three years and still remain unresolved (see key SEMARNAT project 32ZA2021M0039).

President Claudia Sheinbaum's Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) () begins with a glimmer of hope, as its officials begin to appear in public forums with conciliatory attitudes, abandoning the extremely paternalistic stance toward Indigenous communities of officials González Blanco, Toledo Manzur, and Albores González. The administration is composed of a mix of experienced officials, such as the head of SEMARNAT and the head of the Commission of Natural Protected Areas, Álvarez Icaza, supported by officials with experience in local issues in Mexico City.

The challenge posed by the delay in resolving thousands of authorization requests related to environmental impact, federal maritime-terrestrial zones, and even wildlife is significant.

The General Directorate of Environmental Impact and Risk (DGIRA) of 2025 will see little change in its functions compared to the 2022 version, reducing its powers from 20 to 18; however, it significantly shifts from being solely responsible for implementing policy on the matter to becoming a relevant actor, by assigning it responsibility for designing and proposing public policies to the deputy minister of environmental regulation, who will be responsible for approving their implementation.

The recognized task is not small; it implies that officials cease to be mere executors of instructions, as they were during the 2018-2024 period, and become agents of change, which we all need.

Furthermore, the new 2025 ordinance establishes that Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in the Regional category, as well as those that include highly risky activities, as well as technical studies justifying land use changes in forest lands, in Category B, will continue to be the responsibility of the DGIRA as will projects promoted by agencies and entities of the Federal Public Administration, and by state and municipal governments.

Starting this year, the DGIRA will have exclusive authority to evaluate, under any category, projects related to treatment, containment, reuse, recycling, or disposal of hazardous, radioactive, or biologically infectious waste. Therefore, if EIAs are submitted for projects related to works and activities in this sector, they must be sent to SEMARNAT's central offices in Mexico City.

While DGIRA's obligation to mandate the weekly publication of the list of projects submitted to the Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure in the Ecological Gazette remains in place, it will continue to be important to ensure timely compliance with this mandate. This is relevant because, in the past, we have seen how state representations fail to notify in a timely manner when EIAs are submitted in their states, much less when they issue resolutions. Furthermore, EIAs and resolutions are not uploaded in a timely manner to the "Consult your procedure" system, so SEMARNAT violates the principle of transparency enshrined in the Constitution.

The publication of the guidelines for preparing environmental impact assessments in the Official Gazette of the Federation is still pending, to the point of scandal due to its delay. This is mandated by the final paragraph of Article 9 of the Regulations of the General Law on Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection, regarding Environmental Impact Assessments (REIA), which, a quarter of a century after its publication, remains unfulfilled.

The same applies to the obligation to set the amounts of insurance and guarantees for the repair of damages that may be caused by noncompliance with the conditions imposed in authorizations, established in Article 52 of the REIA since 2000. This obligation has been evaded by the DGIRA, leaving it up to the petitioners to determine the amount and the insurance or guarantee based on an invention not even considered in the regulations, called a Technical Economic Study.

Ideally, SEMARNAT should also strive to fulfill its obligation to help establish the Trust Fund for funds obtained from the collection of insurance or guarantees (Article 54 of the REIA); as well as the National Environmental Risk Insurance System mandated by Article 147 BIS of the General Law on Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection. Failing that, SEMARNAT should promote adjustments to the regulations so that what is stipulated is effectively implemented or what is actually done is stipulated.

I would not like to conclude this article without mentioning another group of reforms published on March 18 of this year. The Official Gazette of the Federation of that date includes, along with seven other regulations, the New Electricity Sector Law, which will require a Social Impact Statement for the Energy Sector (SIS), which must include at least four chapters: I. Description of the project stages and activities, as well as the delimitation of the core area and its direct and indirect influence; II. Identification and characterization of communities and peoples; III. Identification, characterization, and prediction of potential social impacts; and IV. Prevention and mitigation measures, as well as social action plans.

The creation of this new entity, the SIS, is no minor issue, as it involves an exercise that runs the risk of being duplicated with the LGEEPA's MIA, given the temptation for consultants to explain technical aspects of the project that are not relevant in the social sphere and omit meaningful descriptions for the communities.

It is not trivial to note that social science specialists failed to agree on such a basic concept as the zone of influence, and that it was defined using a criterion as vague as distance.

It seems that a great opportunity to unify the assessment of environmental, social, health, and human rights impacts into a single integrative instrument is being missed. We will have to wait a few years for the authority to dare to analyze its possible integration. Let us remember that we have been using the Strategic Environmental Assessment for 10 years now, also proposed in the regulation of the electricity sector, but it never achieved more than mere mention.

The Mexican state requires what was once called "High Aims" to truly have instruments that guide us toward the long-awaited sustainable development.

Beyond the aforementioned historical issues, SEMARNAT today has a great opportunity to address historical debts that will undoubtedly improve environmental management.