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 Andes 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 countries 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 November 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). Primarily, people moved from rural to urban areas, which caused significant socioeconomic problems, including local decreases in agricultural production and increases in poverty and crime in cities (Zafra 1997). This rural-tourban movement also resulted in forest regeneration in some areas, mainly in the Andes (S´anchez-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 Government & 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 catastrophic consequences for its natural heritage. Many con-
flict regions that were beyond the reach of development during hostilities harbor high levels of biodiversity ´ lvarez 2003). For example, the Serran´ıa de la Macarena, (A 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 ´ lvarez 2003), cover and the intensity of armed conflict (A and thousands of square kilometers of highly biodiverse forested land once under FARC control are now becoming accessible for extractive industries and agricultural expansion. For example, there are already significant agricultural and industrial projects being proposed in Serran´ıa 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 significant natural heritage, planning for economic development 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; Le´ on-Rodr´ıguez 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 increase 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 conservationscience 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
[email protected] 2 Wildlife Conservation Society, Global Conservation Program, 2300 Southern Boulevard, Bronx, NY 10460–1068, U.S.A.
Literature Cited ´ lvarez MD. 2003. Forests in the time of violence: conservation imA 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 Association 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 armedconflict. 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 lasting peace. Colombia National Government, Bogot´a. Available from https://www.mesadeconversaciones.com.co/sites/default/files/241480106030.11-1480106030.2016nuevoacuerdofinal-1480106030. pdf (accessed September 2016). Colombian National Information Network (CNIN). 2016. Unique victim record (RUV). CNIV, Bogot´a. 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, Bogot´a. 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. Warfare in biodiversity hotspots. Conservation Biology 23:578–587. Le´ on-Rodr´ıguez N. 2016. Territory and environment: priority in the peace agreements. Bit´acora 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, Mittermeier CG, Lamoreux J, da Fonseca GA. 2004. Hotspots revisited. Conservation International, Mexico. S´anchez-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 fundamental problem in Colombia. Bogot´a. Available from http://www.oas. org/juridico/spanish/zafra.html#4 (accessed September 2016).
