Across Latin America, infrastructure projects face a persistent commercial obstacle: securing community support that lasts beyond the signing of an agreement.

Capital, engineering and government approvals may bring a project to the starting line, but they do not guarantee land access, uninterrupted construction or revenue on schedule. Poor community relations can delay works, raise costs, trigger legal action and weaken returns. In Mexico, that exposure is acute where infrastructure intersects with ejidos, indigenous territories and complex local power structures.

Ejidos are a form of communal land tenure created through post-Revolution agrarian reform. Mexico’s 1992 reforms introduced greater flexibility for leasing and private ownership, but important decisions remain subject to collective governance.

Land-use or ownership decisions may require enhanced attendance, supermajority approval, oversight and notarisation. An agreement reached with the wrong representative or without the correct process, may prove challengeable, unenforceable or impossible to implement.

Yet formal approval does not necessarily mean a project can proceed. Traditional leaders, indigenous authorities, activists and NGOs may still determine what happens on the ground.

“Within the community there are many different leaderships because there are also internal groups that fight over issues,” explained a community liaison from a private infrastructure company, “But that is normal.”

Internal rivalries can affect access, compensation and the durability of an agreement. “Sometimes you can tell that a person is doing it deliberately, whether to advance in their career or to gain visibility,” the community liason noted. “When there are interests at stake, especially during election periods, things tend to heat up and more people start getting involved.”

“WHEN THERE ARE INTERESTS AT STAKE, ESPECIALLY DURING ELECTION PERIODS, THINGS TEND TO HEAT UP, AND MORE PEOPLE START GETTING INVOLVED.”

Community liaison, Mexico

Election cycles can strengthen opposition and reopen issues developers believed were settled, extending timelines, increasing costs and weakening risk-adjusted returns. Companies should not dismiss such opposition as opportunistic, as environmental and social concerns can carry decisive legal weight even where the stated objection does not reflect the underlying dispute. “Issues around water and the environment are very valid arguments for a district judge to grant a suspension on an injunction, even if that is not necessarily the real reason in practice,” observed the liaison.

For investors, the motive behind an objection may matter less than its ability to stop work. Disputes involving water, land, pollution or consultation failures can become legal, operational, financial and reputational problems simultaneously. “Another mistake is the lack of engagement with indigenous peoples to conduct prior consultations,” commented a former senior legal official in Mexico’s transport ministry.

“ISSUES AROUND WATER AND THE ENVIRONMENT ARE VERY VALID ARGUMENTS FOR A DISTRICT JUDGE TO GRANT A SUSPENSION ON AN INJUNCTION, EVEN IF THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE REAL REASON IN PRACTICE.”

Community liaison, Mexico

Missed risks can lead to injunctions, blockades, compensation claims, delays and lost revenue. By construction, routes may be fixed, capital committed and deadlines running, leaving developers with less leverage and fewer affordable solutions.

Reactive problem-solving will still be necessary. “As construction progresses, issues arise,” the community liaison acknowledged. “They are addressed immediately, and studies are undertaken to resolve them.” But resolving problems during construction is no substitute for early due diligence on land rights, local governance, social impacts and consultation requirements. Once machinery arrives, every interruption has a direct cost and every delay affects financing, contractor obligations and revenue.

Community strategy must begin before routes and sites are fixed. It should identify who has formal authority, who can influence access and consent, and which benefits will make an agreement durable. Representatives of two ejido communities in the State of Mexico said communities are more likely to negotiate where solutions address water, roads, access, bridges, mobility and agricultural impacts. Properly structured, these measures can reduce execution risk, protect schedules and strengthen agreements. Their cost should be built into budgets and valuations from the outset.

This is not solely a Mexican problem. Across Latin America, national infrastructure priorities may be set centrally, but projects are built on land governed, used and valued locally. That tension remains one of the region’s most persistent gaps between ambition and delivery.

Community trust may not appear on a balance sheet, but it has a direct impact on the value of a project. In Mexico, it can determine whether permits lead to access, agreements hold, construction stays on track and capital starts generating returns. In Mexico, a project can be fully financed, fully permitted and still go nowhere without local commitment.