Letter
Need for conservation planning in postconflict
Colombia
More than 80% of recent major armed conflicts have taken
place in biodiversity hotspots, including the Tropical An-
des which is home to the world’s highest concentrations
of bird, mammal, and amphibian species and over 10% of
all vascular plant species (Mittermeier et al. 2004; Hanson
et al. 2009). Armed conflicts not only seriously impact
social and political systems but also have large effects on
biodiversity from the time preparations for conflict start
through the period of social reorganization (Machlis &
Hanson 2008) (hereafter postconflict period). Tropical
forests are particularly vulnerable during the postconflict
period, when areas made inaccessible during hostilities
become open to development (McNeely 2003).
Colombia, one of the most biologically rich coun-
tries on Earth (Franco & Ruiz 2014), is emerging from
50 years of internal armed conflict (Brodzinsky 2016). A
final version of a peace agreement between the oldest and
strongest illegally armed group in Colombia, FARC-EP,
and the Colombian government was signed on 12 Novem-
ber 2016 (Colombian National Government & FARC-EP
2016).
The Colombian 50-year civil war was tragic; over
270,000 people were killed and over 7 million were
displaced (Colombian Information Network 2016). Pri-
marily, people moved from rural to urban areas, which
caused significant socioeconomic problems, including lo-
cal decreases in agricultural production and increases in
poverty and crime in cities (Zafra 1997). This rural-to-
urban movement also resulted in forest regeneration in
some areas, mainly in the Andes (Sánchez-Cuervo et al.
2012). An important aspect of the peace agreement is
rural land reform that aims to encourage displaced people
to return to their homes and to boost local economies in
less-developed, rural regions (Colombian National Gov-
ernment & FARC-EP 2016). This land reform is likely
to drive rapid change in the development of agriculture
and extractive industries in regions that were previously
inaccessible due to the armed conflict, a phenomenon
observed in many countries that have emerged recently
from conflict (e.g., Cambodia [Brottem & Unruh 2009]
and Liberia [Loucks et al. 2009]).
In Colombia, without proactive planning, this rural
return and its associated development could have catas-
trophic consequences for its natural heritage. Many con-
flict regions that were beyond the reach of develop-
ment during hostilities harbor high levels of biodiversity
(Álvarez 2003). For example, the Serranı́a de la Macarena,
a mountainous region one-millionth the size of North
America but that contains a similar number of bird species
(Cadena et al. 2000), has been off-limits to development
because of the conflict, despite its large oil reserves and
timber-rich forests (Castro-Nunez et al. 2016). Across
Colombia there is a positive relationship between forest
cover and the intensity of armed conflict (Álvarez 2003),
and thousands of square kilometers of highly biodiverse
forested land once under FARC control are now becom-
ing accessible for extractive industries and agricultural
expansion. For example, there are already significant
agricultural and industrial projects being proposed in
Serranı́a de la Macarena and the Orinoco, Caribe, and
Choco regions (Cagan 2014; Castro-Nunez et al. 2016;
Wade 2016).
The end of such a long and tragic conflict is a cause
for celebration not just for Colombians but for the global
community. However, given the nation’s globally signif-
icant natural heritage, planning for economic develop-
ment in ways that are not just sensitive to its biodiversity
but use its natural resources sustainably by generating
green economies is urgently needed (Wunder 2000;
León-Rodrı́guez 2016). An environmental zoning plan
that delimits the agricultural frontier and controls the use
of areas that require special environmental management
has been proposed for development within the next
2 years as part of the peace agreement (Colombian
National Government & FARC-EP 2016). This zoning plan
has the potential to limit environmental damage and in-
crease formal protection of the most irreplaceable natural
areas. However, poorly informed zoning plans can result
in greatly increased deforestation, creation of inefficient
or residual protected areas, and loss of highly biodiverse
areas (Meir et al. 2004; Brottem & Unruh 2009). It is
too soon to say which way the planning process will
go, but much is at stake. The Colombian conservation-
science community must now actively engage in the
development of this environmental zoning plan and
other postconflict planning initiatives to ensure positive
and durable outcomes for the nation’s globally significant
biodiversity. Colombia has an incredible opportunity to
499
Conservation Biology, Volume 31, No. 3, 499–500

C 2017 Society for Conservation Biology
DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12935
500
implement a socially, economically, and environmentally
friendly postconflict development plan that could set
the benchmark for other nations overcoming internal
armed conflicts.
Pablo Jose Negret,1 James Allan,1 Alexander
Braczkowski,1 Martine Maron,1 and James E.M.
Watson1,2
1 The School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management,
The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Brisbane, Qld. 4072 Australia
email p.negret@uq.edu.au
2 Wildlife Conservation Society, Global Conservation Program, 2300
Southern Boulevard, Bronx, NY 10460–1068, U.S.A.
Literature Cited
Álvarez MD. 2003. Forests in the time of violence: conservation im-
plications of the Colombian War. Journal of Sustainable Forestry
16:137–166.
Brodzinsky S. 2016. Farc peace talks: Colombia nears historic deal after
agreement on justice and reparations. The Guardian 24 September.
Available from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/24/
farc-peace-talks-colombia-nears-historic-deal-after-agreement-on
-justice-and-reparations (accessed September 2016).
Brottem L, Unruh J. 2009. Territorial tensions: rainforest conservation,
postconflict recovery, and land tenure in Liberia. Annals of the As-
sociation of American Geographers 99:995–1002.
Cadena CD, et al. 2000. The birds of CIEM, Tinigua National Park,
Colombia: an overview of 13 years of ornithological research.
Cotinga 13:46–54.
Cagan S. 2014. Mining challenges in Colombia’s El Choco. ReVista:
Harvard Review of Latin America. David Rockefeller Center for
Latin American Studies, Boston. Available from http://revista.drclas.
harvard.edu/book/mining-challenges-colombia%E2%80%99s-el
-choco (accessed September 2016).
Castro-Nunez A, Mertz O, Quintero M. 2016. Propensity of farmers to
conserve forest within REDD+ projects in areas affected by armed-
conflict. Forest Policy and Economics 66:22–30.
Conservation Biology
Volume 31, No. 3, 2017
Letter
Colombian National Government and FARC-EP. 2016. Final agreement
for the ending of the conflict and the construction of a stable and last-
ing peace. Colombia National Government, Bogotá. Available from
https://www.mesadeconversaciones.com.co/sites/default/files/24-
1480106030.11-1480106030.2016nuevoacuerdofinal-1480106030.
pdf (accessed September 2016).
Colombian National Information Network (CNIN). 2016. Unique
victim record (RUV). CNIV, Bogotá. Available from http://rni.
unidadvictimas.gov.co/RUV (accessed September 2016).
Franco L, Ruiz JP. 2014. V National report on Colombian biodiversity.
Colombia National Government, Bogotá. Available from http://
www.co.undp.org/content/dam/colombia/docs/MedioAmbiente/
undp-co-informebiodiversidad-2014.pdf (accessed September
2016).
Hanson T, Brooks TM, Da Fonseca GAB, Hoffmann M, Lamoreux JF,
MacHlis G, Mittermeier CG, Mittermeier RA, Pilgrim JD. 2009. War-
fare in biodiversity hotspots. Conservation Biology 23:578–587.
León-Rodrı́guez N. 2016. Territory and environment: priority in the
peace agreements. Bitácora Urbano Territorio 26:91–94.
Loucks C, Mascia MB, Maxwell A, Huy K, Duong K, Chea N, Long B, Cox
N, Seng T. 2009. Wildlife decline in Cambodia, 1953-2005: exploring
the legacy of armed conflict. Conservation Letters 2:82–92.
Machlis GE, Hanson T. 2008. Warfare ecology. BioScience 58:729–736.
McNeely JA. 2003. Conserving forest biodiversity in times of violent
conflict. Oryx 37:142–152.
Meir E, Andelman S, Possingham HP. 2004. Does conservation planning
matter in a dynamic and uncertain world? Ecology Letters 7:615–
622.
Mittermeier RA, Robles-Gil P, Hoffmann M, Pilgrim J, Brooks T, Mitter-
meier CG, Lamoreux J, da Fonseca GA. 2004. Hotspots revisited.
Conservation International, Mexico.
Sánchez-Cuervo AM, Aide TM, Clark ML, Etter A. 2012. Land cover
change in Colombia: surprising forest recovery trends between
2001 and 2010. PLOS ONE 7(8) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0043943.
Wade L. 2016. An unhappy peace dividend. Science 352:129–130.
Wunder S. 2000. Ecotourism and economic incentives— an empirical
approach. Ecological Economics 32:465–479.
Zafra G. 1997. The internally displaced by violence: a fundamen-
tal problem in Colombia. Bogotá. Available from http://www.oas.
org/juridico/spanish/zafra.html#4 (accessed September 2016).