Dissident guerrilla leader who goes by the name Aldemar (L), member of the First Front of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), and other rebels, patrol the jungle along the Inirida River in Guaviare Department, Colombia, on 26 Sept, 2017. AFP/Raul Arboleda
Report 63 / Latin America & Caribbean

Colombia’s Armed Groups Battle for the Spoils of Peace

Colombia’s 2016 peace accord has brought over 10,000 FARC fighters to the cusp of civilian life, but in their wake rival armed groups are battling for control of vacated territory and lucrative coca crops. In order to roll back booming drug production and expanding non-state groups, the Colombian government should provide local farmers with alternative livelihoods while developing grassroots security and local governance.

  • Share
  • Save
  • Print
  • Download PDF Full Report

Executive Summary

The peace process with Colombia’s largest and longest standing guerrilla group has defied its detractors and brought 11,200 ex-combatants to the cusp of civilian life, but the aftermath of war has not been safe for all. Since the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) withdrew from their rural heartlands to gather in cantonments in early 2017, rival armed actors have taken their place, waging a battle for spoils: control of isolated communities and territories, many rich in illicit business. In the Pacific cocaine hub of Tumaco, in hamlets of Chocó, or in contraband zones on the Venezuelan border, established armed groups and new insurgent breakaway factions have attacked state forces, intimidated communities and vied to become undisputed local overlords. Grassroots security is crucial to assure the success of the peace process with the FARC as it shifts from a UN-monitored weapons handover to deeper structural reforms of politics and society. Efforts to combat remaining armed outfits are essential, but in so doing the government must not alienate the population and exacerbate poverty in ways that would aggravate the conditions that propel these groups’ growth.

Most of these armed factions now cluster in coastal and border areas. Around 1,000 FARC dissidents, who disown the peace deal for various reasons, are de facto rulers of disparate territories, several of them dependent on the drug trade. Colombia’s second main guerrilla force, the National Liberation Army (ELN), has brokered a temporary ceasefire with the government despite looking to conquer new territories, especially along the Pacific coast. The Gaitanista Self-defence Force, currently the largest neo-paramilitary group in the country, combines a vertical military hierarchy centred in the country’s north west with a web of subcontracted local gangs. It is now the country’s leading drug trafficking organisation.

Thriving illicit businesses – booming coca plantations, illegal gold mines, extortion rackets and contraband – account for the survival and expansion of many of these groups. But economic interests alone do not explain their support within some communities. By resolving disputes and defending illicit livelihoods from law enforcement, these groups have crafted a rudimentary, authoritarian form of local political leadership. The Colombian state has responded through a nationwide “Victory Plan”, deploying 80,000 soldiers and police officers to occupy vacated FARC territory. Yet even if security forces could seize all disputed territory, coercion alone cannot establish bonds of trust between the state and local citizens; instead, they need to be persuaded that there is a better alternative to the summary justice and social discipline meted out by illegal groups.

The next phase of reforms under the peace accord aims precisely at building such trust between state and citizenry. It includes a more plural democratic system, reintegration of ex-FARC fighters, justice for conflict victims and a coca substitution program. But its implementation faces myriad difficulties. Comprehensive reintegration plans are on hold. Voluntary coca substitution, one of the accord’s flagship programs, will require a long-term commitment from the state and far more international political and financial backing. Corruption debilitates the government’s campaign against armed groups, and must be countered by stronger and more independent agencies operating within and outside the military and police. Urgent consideration also should be given to the design of new judicial approaches that might encourage other armed groups to lay down their weapons and follow the FARC’s path to peace.

The initial accord’s defeat in a 2016 plebiscite demonstrated the public’s mistrust of the peace process, raising the risk that the 2018 elections could bring a government to power that is intent on rewriting or gutting the agreement. Implementation of the accord is threatened both by an opposition that believes it pandered to FARC guerrillas, and by armed factions that regard the deal either as a fraud or an opportunity to expand. The combination of local armed activity and divisive national politics could decisively weaken public support for the accord unless the results of the peace process defy expectations once again. For that to happen, the government must aim its sights at both local insecurity and the broader weaknesses of local governance that underpin it.


To improve the security situation in Colombia and wrest territorial control
from other armed groups:

To the government of Colombia:

  1. Increase permanent presence of police and army in prioritised isolated hamlets, using the army as a stop-gap force in clearly identified areas that police cannot reach until later, but with specific timelines for handover to police.
  2. Increase navy control along key rivers and oceanic deltas, especially along the Pacific coast, creating a new “river force” in the region with members from the Infantry Marine shifted away from land forces.
  3. Strengthen local justice by both providing economic incentives to and improving training for conciliators, evaluating police mediation for possible future use in conflict-affected areas, and expanding systems of local justice.
  4. Continue crop substitution efforts, prioritising prompt payments and coordination with larger development efforts, especially the Territorial Development Plans (PDETs) for post-conflict rural areas.
  5. Allow members of organised armed groups and FARC dissidents to demobilise and take part in individual reintegration programs.
  6. Pass a law on judicial negotiations with organised armed groups that includes lowering sentences in exchange for the fulfilment of truth and reparations commitments, provision of information on illegal economies and handover of illegally obtained assets.

To the FARC:

  1. Continue efforts to bring dissident fronts back into the peace process, offering access to protection measures and inclusion in the reincorporation process while also providing information to the authorities regarding dissidents who reject these offers.

To the government and the FARC:

  1. Accelerate design and implementation of reincorporation projects for FARC fighters in cantonments, with differentiated gender, rank and ethnic approaches.

To the government and the ELN:

  1. Extend ceasefire agreement to last until after Congressional elections in March 2018.

To the international community:

  1. Continue funding key monitoring organisations such as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Organization of American States’ Mission to Support the Peace Process and humanitarian bodies; and explore avenues to fund coca substitution efforts.

To the UN mission:

  1. Improve coordination and information sharing among various state agencies charged with implementing security measures.

Bogotá/Brussels, 19 October 2017

I. Introduction

The Colombian government is suffering the backlash of successfully ending decades of war with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). With the signing of the peace agreement in November 2016, FARC fighters moved to 26 cantonments and in June 2017 handed over their weapons. While this has improved security in some conflict-affected regions, it has allowed armed groups in others to fill the void created by the FARC’s withdrawal, seizing the opportunity to reap illicit revenues and assert local political authority. This makes implementing the peace accords even more challenging since their success depends on tangible improvements in security.[fn]For previous analysis focusing specifically on security threats and policy, see Crisis Group Latin America Reports N°s 41, Dismantling Colombia’s New Illegal Armed Groups: Lessons from a Surrender, 8 June 2012; 40, Moving Beyond Easy Wins: Colombia’s Borders, 31 October 2011; 20, Colombia’s New Armed Groups, 10 May 2007. Crisis Group Latin America Briefings N°s 23, Improving Security Policy in Colombia, 29 June 2010; 21, The Virtuous Twins: Protecting Human Rights and Improving Security in Colombia, 25 May 2009.Hide Footnote

Colombia as a whole is experiencing its lowest homicide rates since the 1970s; in the areas most deeply affected by conflict, security conditions also improved during 2016. However, murder rates and forced displacement in these areas have risen again in 2017 (see Appendix D). Also, about 51 local social leaders were killed in the first half of the year, up from 26 during the same period in 2016.[fn]Conflict-affected areas are understood as the 170 municipalities of the Special Constituencies for Peace, with the first six months of 2017 compared to the same period in 2016. Katherine Aguirre, “Violencia y criminalidad tras la implementación de los acuerdos de paz”, Razón Pública, 16 July 2017. “Agúzate”, Somos Defensores, August 2017, p. 61. Crisis Group telephone interview, Norwegian Refugee Council representative, Bogotá, 7 October 2017.Hide Footnote Dissident FARC groups have established territorial control in some areas and are seeking to do so in others. Despite ongoing peace talks, the country’s remaining guerrilla force, the National Liberation Army (ELN), has increased violent attacks in its historic theatres of operation, while expanding elsewhere. Different organised crime groups are active across Colombia, and have established control over illicit economic activities while looking to infiltrate local politics.

The government has not been idle. It has begun to implement its “Victory” and “Safe Communities” plans, under the aegis of the army and police respectively. It plans to strengthen the rural police to protect post-conflict communities. It has also started to carry out strategies to “stabilise” priority territories, improve local justice and replace illegal with legal crops and other licit industries. These efforts, though, have had limited effect in most conflict-affected areas.

Political polarisation, meanwhile, continues to impinge on the peace process. Opposition leaders focus on the accord’s perceived failings and allegedly leftist ideology, while government officials downplay evidence of new security threats. This is reminiscent of what happened following the paramilitary demobilisation a decade ago, when the government failed to adequately recognise the emergence of new “criminal groups”, or bacrim. What is now Colombia’s largest neo-paramilitary organisation, the Gaitanistas, was born during that period.

This report examines security challenges in the Colombian periphery, strategies designed to confront them and how the international community could help cement the peace. It focuses primarily on FARC dissidents, the ELN and key drug trafficking organisations, which have gained local territorial control by offering dispute resolution mechanisms, providing a semblance of protection for local people and preserving local illegal economies. In some cases, civilians – trapped between clashing armed groups – are being exposed to alarming levels of violence.

In-depth fieldwork was carried out in Tumaco, Guaviare, Chocó, Norte de Santander and Putumayo, including more than 100 interviews with community leaders, local authorities, members of the international community, government and the Catholic Church officials, members of FARC dissident groups, and members of the FARC currently taking part in the peace process. Additional research in Bogotá included interviews with experts on security, justice and the drug trade. Ten meetings were held in communities to discuss coca crop substitution, local justice mechanisms, perceptions of the state and what would be necessary to improve those perceptions.

Senior Analyst for Colombia Kyle Johnson and Latin America Program Director Ivan Briscoe travel to the field to discuss the implementation of the peace agreement with locals. CRISIS GROUP

II. Armed Groups at the Grassroots

Armed groups with varying levels of internal organisation, military capacity, economic resources and political capital currently lay claim to parts of rural Colombia. Three stand out for their size and the threats they pose to peace: dissidents from the FARC, the ELN, and organised criminal groups. The Colombian government divides criminal groups into three sub-categories: those that meet the standards set by International Humanitarian Law (IHL) as parties to an internal armed conflict; organised crime groups, which have important roles in illegal economies but do not control territory; and common criminals. Those considered parties to the armed conflict are Colombia’s leading neo-paramilitary group, the Gaitanista Self-defence Forces of Colombia[fn]The Gaitanistas are called the Gulf Clan by the government and were popularly known as the Urabeños. “Directiva Permanente No. 0015 /2016”, Defence Ministry, 22 April 2016.Hide Footnote , the Popular Liberation Army (EPL) and the Puntilleros.

Each of these groups has different goals, but they share common methods for imposing territorial control, offering protection, resolving disputes among residents and preserving local illegal economies. They compete with a state perceived as distant and indifferent for the control of physically isolated regions, border areas and key rivers, which are seen as the highways of Colombia’s periphery.

A. FARC Dissident Groups

At least nine FARC dissident groups continue to carry out violent attacks, refusing to assemble in the 26 cantonments and hand over their weapons.[fn]Where the identity of a group leader is unclear, Crisis Group used information about violent actions to establish the existence of a dissident faction. This is the case of the Frente Che Guevara in Nariño. Crisis Group interview, humanitarian aid worker, Tumaco, 10 May 2017. See Appendix E for a list of the different groups, their leaders, areas of operation and their original FARC fronts.Hide Footnote Their numbers are estimated to range from 800 to 1,000 and they operate across the country, principally in the departments of Nariño, Cauca, Caquetá, Guaviare, Vaupés, Guainía and Meta. While differing considerably in size, origin and military muscle, they share four traits: they represent only a sub-set of their original FARC units (to date no complete front has left the FARC); they all are involved in illegal economic activities; they seek to consolidate territorial control; and they operate in areas where they were active during the armed conflict, often expanding outward.[fn]The FARC are organised into hierarchical units, including seven blocs covering regions of Colombia and 69 fronts controlling local areas, as well as mobile columns and companies. Dissident numbers are estimated at between 7 and 9 per cent of the total number of FARC fighters, based on the National University’s census of 11,200 registered FARC fighters. “‘No nos temblará la mano para sacar gente de las listas’: Rivera”, El Tiempo, 9 September 2017. Most urban militia members did not register in cantonments, making their numbers difficult to estimate. Crisis Group interviews, FARC commander, San José del Guaviare, 31 August 2017; FARC secretariat member, Havana, Cuba, 13 June 2016. “La incógnita de los milicianos”, La Silla Vacía, 17 March 2017.Hide Footnote

The motivations of these dissidents are difficult to establish, though evidence points to a variety of shifting interests. Remnants of the First Front in Guaviare are deeply involved in the cocaine trade, but also defend their activities by pointing to alleged flaws in the peace process: “the dialogues in Havana only look to demobilise the guerrillas …. These agreements do not represent real changes”.[fn]“Resistencia”, Frente Primero Armando Ríos FARC-EP, December 2016, pp. 6-7.Hide Footnote Gentil Duarte,[fn]Unless stated otherwise, all names of those involved in armed groups are aliases or noms de guerre.Hide Footnote commander of the Seventh Front in Meta, argued that the government could not be trusted to honour its commitments. The United Guerrillas of the Pacific (GUP, in Spanish) in Nariño, have an interest in controlling the drug trade, though they also seek to ensure a level of public order in the communities they dominate.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, FARC secretariat member, Cauca, 7 February 2017; conflict analyst, Bogotá, 7 September 2017; human rights defenders, Bogotá, 7 September 2017. While dissidents from the First and Seventh Front have held meetings on their reasons for continuing to fight, smaller groups have not. Former dissident leaders in Tumaco claimed that poor treatment by FARC leaders led to their schism. Crisis Group interviews, then-dissident leader Pollo, Tumaco, 9 March 2017; church official, Tumaco, 12 May 2017. “Comunicado desde la ZVTN “Ariel Aldana” La Variante – Tumaco”, FARC-EP, 29 March 2017.Hide Footnote

Both the dissidents and the communities where they operate depend on criminal revenues.

Both the dissidents and the communities where they operate depend on criminal revenues. In Guaviare and Meta, First and Seventh Front dissidents attack soldiers and police to protect the coca trade, actions that locals regard as protection for their livelihood from what they consider an insensitive state.[fn]The First Front imposes a fixed price for coca paste, which, according to locals, protects them from drug traffickers who would otherwise pay less. This control and regulation of the drug trade strengthens the dissidents’ argument that it defends the peasants. Crisis Group fieldwork, El Retorno, Guaviare, 11 April and 3 September 2017. Crisis Group interviews, community leaders, El Retorno and San José del Guaviare, 3 and 11 April 2017, and 3 September 2017.Hide Footnote In this way, the dissidents are simply continuing to operate as they did before the peace agreement: fighting coca eradication efforts, resolving disputes, controlling trafficking corridors, carrying out targeted attacks on security forces and generally ensuring local public order. For example, fighters with the dissident Seventh Front act both as political bosses and as a local economic power. Their leader, Gentil Duarte, still receives residents who want him to resolve problems in their communities. Elsewhere his group demands exorbitant extortion payments.[fn]Crisis Group field work, El Retorno, Guaviare, 14 May 2016; Miraflores, Guaviare, 6 April 2017; El Retorno, Guaviare, 3 September 2017. Crisis Group interviews, international organisation representatives, San José del Guaviare, 3 April and 30 August 2017; human rights activists, San José del Guaviare 1 September 2017; Campesino, El Retorno, Guaviare, 3 September 2017; church official, Tumaco, 12 May 2017; community leaders, Tumaco, 11, 12 and 16 May 2017; conflict analyst, Bogotá, 6 September 2017.Hide Footnote

Dissidents are also taking advantage of the support base they built during the conflict.[fn]This resembles the continuation of paramilitary blocs following their demobilisation between 2003 and 2006. See Sarah Zuckerman Daly, Organized Violence after Civil War: The Geography of Recruitment in Latin America (New York, 2016).Hide Footnote The First Front has expanded from its traditional strongholds in Guaviare toward the regional capital, San José del Guaviare, into south-east Meta and parts of Vichada and Caquetá. Seventh Front dissidents remain in their pre-accord areas of operations, however, as do the GUP in Nariño, the 40th front in Meta, and dissidents in Cauca and Putumayo.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, local residents, El Retorno, Guaviare, 11 April and 3 September 2017; international organisation representatives, San José del Guaviare, 3 April and 30 August 2017; Human rights defenders, San José del Guaviare, 3 April and 1 September 2017; international organisation representative, Bogotá, 7 June 2017; conflict analysts, Bogotá, 6 June and 7 September 2017; church official, Tumaco, 12 May 2017; community leaders, Tumaco, 12, 15 and 16 May, 2017; human rights activist, Bogotá, 7 September 2017.Hide Footnote

Despite their origins, many dissident groups are more abusive than their FARC predecessors as they compete among themselves, sometimes brutalising local communities to maintain control. In the city of Tumaco, a cocaine trafficking hub on the Pacific coast, two groups of dissident FARC militia fighters vied for control, leading to an increase in murders in the first six months of 2017. FARC breakaway commanders sowed so much terror in the rural hamlet of Pital de la Costa, on the Pacific coast of Nariño, that they lost control of the town, which is now under control of the navy, itself accused by the local population of tolerating the presence of a local neo-paramilitary outfit.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, community leaders, Tumaco, 12 and 16 May, and 14 June 2017.Hide Footnote Tensions have grown in Guaviare over the First Front’s recent selective killings of civilians.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, human rights activist, San José del Guaviare, 1 September 2017; international organisation representative, San José del Guaviare, 30 August 2017; church official, Tumaco, 12 May 2017.Hide Footnote

The dissidents undermine the peace process both nationally and locally.

The dissidents undermine the peace process both nationally and locally. Opposition leaders maintain that their existence proves the guerrillas never truly handed in their weapons or gave up their illicit assets, but instead use the breakaway fronts to pursue an armed campaign and criminal activity. These arguments are likely to intensify as elections approach in 2018.[fn]“Disidentes de las Farc siguen manejando 40 mil hectáreas de coca: CD”, El Heraldo, 2 January 2017. Four of the five richest fronts, according to the FARC’s statement of its assets – the 40th, First, 62nd, and 7th Fronts – have dissidents. “Documento No. 1 - Consolidado de bienes y Activos”, FARC-EP, n.d.Hide Footnote Their presence also undermines implementation of the peace agreement, which can only prosper under stable security conditions. Ongoing insecurity would deprive peripheral populations of any peace dividend while perversely confirming dissident claims that the state never intended to fulfil its promises to rural Colombians.

Insecurity also strengthens the appeal of these groups. The murders of 23 FARC members or relatives since the signing of the peace agreement may push some to join dissident forces out of fear or anger. Frustration at the slow progress of the peace agreement, especially the lack of a reincorporation program or opportunities for mid-level commanders to move up within the FARC, is alleged to have prompted Cadete, an important FARC commander, into joining the dissidents in September 2017.[fn]Vacío de poder de las FARC genera miedo y deserciones en sus combatientes”, El Universal, 27 August 2017. “Se recrudece la violencia contra excombatientes de las Farc y sus familias”, El Espectador, 24 August 2017. Eduardo Álvarez Vanegas, “Y después de ‘Cadete’…¿qué?”, El Espectador, 13 September 2017. As of mid-August 2017, the UN mission had registered 472 FARC deserters. Crisis Group interview, UN mission member, 18 August 2017.Hide Footnote

Since the start of the year, originally independent dissident factions have begun to unite, and will probably continue to do so in the near future in response to the central government’s captures or killings of dissident leaders, especially in Guaviare, Nariño and Caquetá. The 62nd and Fourteenth Fronts are now part of the Seventh. In Nariño, the GUP includes four different dissident groups created in July 2016. The First Front includes fighters from the First, Sixteenth and Acacio Medina fronts, as well as individual deserters from numerous other units. There is, however, no evidence to suggest that the largest dissidents have united yet. First, Seventh and 40th Front dissident groups, all of which operate in eastern Colombia, do not represent a single structure led by Gentil Duarte, although members from these groups did meet in June 2017 to discuss coordination around certain matters.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, international organisation representative, Bogotá, 7 June 2017; conflict analyst, Bogotá, 6 September 2017; human rights defender, San José del Guaviare, 1 September 2017; FARC commander, San José del Guaviare, 31 August 2017; international organisation representative, San José del Guaviare, 30 August 2017; community leader, Miraflores, Guaviare, 7 April 2017. Euclides Mora, second-in-command of the 7th Front dissident faction, was killed by the armed forces in September 2017 in a town under First Front control.Hide Footnote The FARC leadership has tried to maintain some contact with dissidents to convince them to return to the peace process. Alexander Mojoso, who led a dissident group in Caquetá, demobilised in March 2017 and was accepted back into the FARC in April.[fn]Reporte del MM&V sobre un proceso en verificación, tres incumplimientos y dos violaciones al CFHBD y DA”, UN mission Colombia, 6 February 2017. “Alexander Mojoso ex-comandante del 14 Frente, retorna a las FARC-EP”, FARC-EP, 5 April 2017. “La ‘estrategia Mojoso’ de las Farc”, La Silla Vacía, 23 May 2017.Hide Footnote

B. The ELN: Between Peace and War

Even while negotiating with the Colombian government in Quito, the National Liberation Army or ELN has solidified its control of traditional strongholds and expanded into new areas.[fn]The Colombian government and the ELN signed a three-month ceasefire agreement in September 2017 following six months of negotiations in Quito, Ecuador. Joshua Goodman, “Colombia signs cease-fire deal with last guerrilla group”, Associated Press, 4 September 2017.Hide Footnote Since the FARC’s demobilisation in early 2017, the 1,800-strong ELN has surfaced in areas where its previous presence had been negligible, such as northern Chocó, northern Cauca,[fn]Some observers believe that FARC dissidents in the region, led by Pija, have ties to the ELN and allowed it to enter areas previously under FARC control. “Un policía herido deja hostigamiento a patrulla en vía Toribío-Caloto”, El País de Cali, 18 March 2017. Crisis Group interviews, ELN expert and conflict analyst, Bogotá, 22 May and 7 June 2017. “Crimen organizado y saboteadores armados en tiempos de transición: radiografía necesaria”, Fundación Ideas para la Paz, 15 July 2017, p. 44.Hide Footnote  the Pacific coast of Nariño, Buenaventura and southern Córdoba. It also has strengthened its control in territories formerly shared with the FARC, such as Arauca, Bajo Cauca Antioqueño and southern Chocó. Since 2016, it has carried out attacks in 23 more municipalities than it did between 2012 and 2014; the armed forces have also carried out operations against the ELN in more municipalities than before.[fn]This data is based on a review of ELN and armed forces operations in the UN Colombia mission’s Information and Analysis Unit’s violent action databases. Results were validated by checking them against the Early Alert System from the Defensoría del Pueblo, plus reports, documents and maps by NGOs and the media. Negotiations between the FARC and ELN to transfer territory from the former to the latter reportedly occurred in Tumaco, Chocó, Cauca and Catatumbo. Crisis Group interviews, government officials, Bogotá, 9 December 2016; conflict analyst, 1 March 2016 and 5 May 2017. See also “Van 27 alertas de la Defensoría y aún nadie detiene el avance de los paras en Chocó”, La Silla Vacía, 17 April 2017. Laura Ardila Arrieta, “Los brazaletes del ELN llegaron al sur de Córdoba”, La Silla Vacía, 12 September 2016. Crisis Group interviews, international organisation representatives and human rights activist, Quibdó, 28 and 29 August 2017.Hide Footnote The ELN killed sixteen members of the armed forces or police in the first eight months of 2017.[fn]Ministro de Defensa celebra el cese bilateral con el Eln”, Caracol, 5 September 2017.Hide Footnote

The ELN remains ideologically committed to fighting against what it calls a repressive oligarchy that responds to foreign masters and multinational companies at the expense of poor rural communities. The group, whose membership has included Catholic priests, most notably Camilo Torres and former leader Manuel Pérez, retains an affinity for liberation theology and opposes the commercial exploitation of natural resources, especially oil production and large-scale mining. ELN sabotage of oil pipelines has caused major environmental damage over the past three decades.[fn]Camilo Torres was a Catholic priest and social leader in Colombia who joined the ELN in 1965. He was killed in February 1966. His story still inspires many social movements and the ELN today. Miltón Hernández, Rojo y Negro: Aproximación a la historia del ELN (Bogotá, 2004); Mario Aguilera Peña, “ELN: Entre armas y la política”, in Francisco Gutiérrez Sanín, and María Emma Wills and Gonzalo Sánchez Gómez (Eds.), Nuestra guerra sin nombre: Transformaciones del conflicto en Colombia (Bogotá, 2006), pp. 211-266; Carlos Medina Gallego, ELN: Notas para una historia de sus ideas políticas (Bogotá, n.d.), p. 424.Hide Footnote Incapable of amassing large contingents, it sends small bands to carry out most operations, but occasionally groups of ten to 25 fighters attack government forces or other armed groups.[fn]Van 27 alertas de la Defensoría y aún nadie detiene el avance de los paras en Chocó”, op. cit. Crisis Group interviews, international organisation representatives, Cúcuta, 14 and 16 August 2017; Quibdó, 29 August 2017.Hide Footnote

The National Liberation Army (ELN) looks to create “parallel political power” structures to compete with the state in areas where it has long operated, such as Arauca department on the Venezuelan border, where it applies its own justice, controls economic activity, and seeks to steer communities toward its political ideology. The group also believes in a strategy of local armed resistance, where winning the war is no longer the goal. Resisting suffices to justify its existence, the ELN argues.[fn]For more on the ELN’s political and military strategy, see Mario Aguilera Peña, “ELN: Entre armas y la política”, op. cit., p. 221. Mario Aguilera Peña, Contrapoder y justicia guerrillera: Fragmentación política y orden insurgente en Colombia (1952 – 2003) (Bogotá, 2014). Crisis Group interviews, ELN experts, Bogotá, 3 October 2016. Crisis Group interviews, ELN expert, Bogotá, 22 May 2017.Hide Footnote

Decisions imposed from above are not the norm in the ELN, which partly explains its reluctance to unilaterally halt kidnappings and the variable yet deepening involvement of certain units in drug trafficking.

Increasingly, the ELN acts as a federation of regional fighting units responding to general guidelines from the group’s leadership. Each regional war front commander enjoys substantial decision-making autonomy and the national leadership seeks majority support when making key decisions. Decisions imposed from above are not the norm in the ELN, which partly explains its reluctance to unilaterally halt kidnappings and the variable yet deepening involvement of certain units in drug trafficking, something the group used to prohibit.[fn]The ELN also did not want to halt kidnapping because it regarded this as a unilateral demand by the Colombian government. Crisis Group interview, ELN expert, Bogotá, 22 May 2017; senior diplomat, Bogotá, 25 August 2017. It eventually did so as part of the ceasefire agreement which came into effect on 1 October. “Gobierno y Eln logran acuerdo de cese bilateral del fuego”, El Tiempo, 4 September 2017.Hide Footnote Regional autonomy also means some units may reject the terms of a negotiated peace.

Different ELN units also exercise different levels of violence against the civilian population, despite claims to offer protection. Each regional commander acts according to strategic decisions based on his or her perception of the local military, political and economic context, as well as relationships with members of the central command. The ELN’s Western War Front in Chocó department, which is engaged in a bitter conflict for territory and resources with the neo-paramilitary Gaitanistas, has abused the civilian population by planting landmines and forcibly recruiting children. This front is also close to a member of the ELN central command known as Pablito, who reportedly opposes the peace process, and is seen as more economically motivated and lacking in ELN “identity”. Pablito also retains influence over the Eastern War Front, which he previously commanded. This front currently is carrying out an assassination campaign in Arauca against those accused of petty crimes or collaborating with the armed forces.[fn]Van 27 alertas de la Defensoría y aún nadie detiene el avance de los paras en Chocó”, op. cit. Crisis Group interviews, international organisation representatives; Quibdó, 29 August 2017; human rights activist, Quibdó, 28 August 2017; ELN expert, Bogotá, 22 May 2017; senior diplomat, Bogotá, 25 August 2017; conflict analyst, Bogotá, 7 June 2017. The Eastern War Front has a representative in Quito, albeit apparently in a “monitoring” role, while the Western War Front voted against peace talks but accepted the majority decision to negotiate. León Valencia, “Era un adolescente ahora es el comandante del ELN”, Semana, 29 January 2017. “Asesinan a campesino que había sido secuestrado en Arauquita, Arauca”, Caracol, 13 April 2017.Hide Footnote

But the ELN acts differently elsewhere. Despite the presence of Gaitanistas in southern Bolívar department, ELN units there engage in very little violence. The Darío Ramírez Castro War Front, close to both Gabino, the ELN leader, and Pablo Beltrán, its chief negotiator in Quito, is noticeably less violent toward the civilian population than other ELN units, despite facing a fierce military offensive. This front has not recently increased the use of landmines nor does it carry out economically motivated kidnappings, though it is still accused of forced recruitment.[fn]Crisis Group interview, ELN expert, Bogotá, 15 September 2017. “Ante ofensiva militar Eln recluta menores en el sur de Bolívar”, El Tiempo, 27 April 2016. “Informe de riesgo 029-16, para los municipios de Remedios y Segovia, departamento de Antioquia”, Defensoría del Pueblo, 2016. “Se dispara el secuestro en Norte de Santander”, El Tiempo, 30 July 2017.Hide Footnote

The ELN is more active in drug trafficking than in previous years, especially in Nariño, Chocó, Cauca and Catatumbo. While it previously taxed and purchased coca paste, the discovery and destruction of cocaine laboratories in ELN territory suggests the group is increasingly connected to trafficking networks for the more valuable, fully refined drug.[fn]El millonario complejo cocalero del ELN”, Semana, 6 February 2016; “Tonelada y media de cocaína del ELN enterrada en una playa del Pacífico”, Caracol Radio, 22 March 2017. “Desmantelan cristalizadero en el sur del Cauca”, Proclama del Cauca, 11 February 2016.Hide Footnote This enhanced role has led to clashes with other armed groups, especially in Chocó and Nariño.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, international organisation representatives, Bogotá, 7 June 2017 and Quibdó, 29 August 2017; human rights activist, Quibdó, 28 August 2017.Hide Footnote

C. Organised Armed Groups

The Colombian government has identified three “organised armed groups”, which it argues qualify as parties to an internal armed conflict under international standards: the Gaitanistas, EPL and Puntilleros.[fn]The Puntilleros will not be discussed here as Crisis Group believes that it is wrongly classified as an organised armed group based on those standards. The Puntilleros do not appear to carry out sustained operations against state forces, and do not have the territorial control necessary to do so. “Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II)”, 7 June 1977.Hide Footnote On this basis, the government assumes the legal right to target these groups with lethal force under the laws governing the conduct of war.

A. The Gaitanistas

Founded in the Urabá region of Antioquia department in 2006, the Gaitanistas have expanded along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and to a lesser extent into the eastern plains. It is by far the largest of the three armed groups, claiming some 8,000 members, though the government estimates there are about 2,000. More independent assessments put the figure at between 3,000 and 3,500, including subcontracted gang members.[fn]Crisis Group interview, government official, Bogotá, 11 August 2017. “Colombia’s largest neo-paramilitary group AGC claims to have 8,000 members”, Colombia Reports, 19 January 2017. “Crimen organizado y saboteadores armados en tiempos de transición: radiografía necesaria”, op. cit., p. 27.Hide Footnote

Gaitanistas fall into two categories: full-time fighters and subcontracted criminals. The armed, uniformed combatants operate in rural areas, such as Urabá, southern Córdoba, Bajo Cauca Antioqueño, Chocó and southern Bolívar, where they seek territorial control, and are organised in blocs and fronts led by regional and front commanders.[fn]Estatutos AGC”, Autodefensas Gaitanistas de Colombia, 27 February 2016. “Crimen organizado y saboteadores armados en tiempos de transición: radiografía necesaria”, op. cit., p. 27. “Autodefensas gaitanistas del sur de bolívar hacen duro señalamientos contra alcalde de Achí”, video, Youtube, 9 April 2015.Hide Footnote The subcontractors are members of local gangs who are hired by regional commanders and coordinators, allowing the organisation to gain indirect influence over territory. They operate in Nariño, Antioquia, and along the Atlantic coast and the Venezuelan border.[fn]Internal Gaitanista statutes allow for this practice, which it calls “decentralisation”. “Estatutos AGC”, op. cit. “Crimen organizado y saboteadores armados en tiempos de transición: radiografía necesaria”, op. cit., p. 27. Crisis Group interview, conflict analyst, Bogotá, 7 September 2017.Hide Footnote The organisation has a central high command, made up of regional commanders, and a political wing. Beneath the leadership stands a vertical hierarchy with various levels of control, including squadrons, sections, groups, companies, fronts and blocs. This hierarchy has allowed the Gaitanistas to survive and expand despite the loss of key leaders, such as its founder Don Mario who was captured in 2009, and his replacement Giovanni, killed in 2012, as well as withstand some internal divisions in Antioquia.[fn]Estatutos AGC”, op. cit. “Así cogieron a ‘Don Mario’”, Semana, 15 April 2009; “Cayó alias ‘Giovanny’, jefe de la banda criminal de ‘Los Urabeños’”, El Tiempo, 1 January 2012. Sofía León Oñate, “Se acabó la primera generación de neoparamilitares, ¿qué sigue?”, Fundación Paz y Reconciliación, op. cit., pp. 7-8. “Crimen organizado y saboteadores armados en tiempos de transición: radiografía necesaria”, op. cit., p. 55.Hide Footnote

The group claims it was “obliged” to take up arms given the “poorly done peace process”, in reference to the paramilitary demobilisation slightly more than ten years ago, and argues that it defends its territory from the ELN.[fn]Un gran ‘descubrimiento’”, Autodefensas Gaitanistas de Colombia (AGC), 13 March 2017.Hide Footnote The Gaitanistas also state they enjoy “legitimacy and political representation”, a claim that seems true in parts of north-west Colombia.[fn]In Chocó, the Gaitanistas appear to have offered to finance local economic projects to generate popular support. Ibid. “Editorial: La naturaleza de las Autodefensas Gaitanistas de Colombia”, AGC, 7 April 2017. Crisis Group interview, police intelligence official, Bogotá, 14 July 2017. “Informe de la visita humanitaria a las cuencas del Truandó, Domingodó, Cacarica y el municipio de Ríosuco”, ACNUR (UN High Commissioner for Refugees) and Defensoría del Pueblo, 13 October 2015, p. 12.Hide Footnote But in areas where the Gaitanistas compete with other armed groups, such as the ELN in Chocó or the GUP in Nariño, violence against civilians is common. The group has killed sixteen police officers so far this year, while the government claims the group is behind many recent killings of social leaders, although the evidence for this is not categorical.[fn]El ‘Clan del Golfo’ sigue con la mira en la Policía”, El Colombiano, 19 September 2017. Crisis Group interview, government official, Bogotá, 8 September 2017.Hide Footnote

The Gaitanistas are mainly interested in criminal rackets, principally drug trafficking, illegal gold mining and extortion. The group transports cocaine along the Atlantic coast and charges other traffickers for permission to cross areas under its control. It has also started to buy coca paste in a possible bid to dominate the whole of the drug trade in parts of the north west.[fn]Crisis Group interview, police intelligence official, Bogotá, 24 March 2017. James Bargent and Mat Charles, “Inside the BACRIM: Money”, Insight Crime, 13 July 2017. “La macabra alianza de los carteles de Colombia y México”, Semana, 16 January 2016.Hide Footnote Gaitanistas profit from criminal and informal mining in areas such as Bajo Cauca Antioqueño, Córdoba and Chocó, where they manage mines directly, demand fees from local minors or demand extortion payments from those who use backhoes to search for gold.[fn]Inside the BACRIM: Money”, op. cit. “LA MINERÍA SIN CONTROL: Un enfoque desde la vulneración de los Derechos Humanos”, Defensoría del Pueblo, October 2015, pp. 73-74. “Oficio dirigido al CIAT del Mininterior”, Defensoría del Pueblo, 21 February 2017, p. 6.Hide Footnote More broadly, they extort large sums from local businesses and farms.[fn]In southern Córdoba, the group reportedly brought in $140,000 per month from extortion; in Urabá, the situation is so severe that beer and soda trucks are escorted by police for protection. “Urabá, el nido de los nuevos paramilitares”, Semana, 25 April 2017. “Alias “Sergio”, recaudaba en extorsiones $400 millones para el Clan del Golfo”, La Razón, 26 July 2017. “Inside the BACRIM: Money”, op. cit.Hide Footnote

B. The EPL

The second organised armed group identified by the government, the Libardo Mora Toro Front of the EPL, with about 200 fighters, operates in Catatumbo, on the border with Venezuela.[fn]Here, as in general in Colombia, the group will be referred to simply as the EPL. Historically, it has operated in the so-called “EPL triangle” (Hacarí, San Calixto and La Playa municipalities in Norte de Santander).Hide Footnote Since 2016 the EPL has expanded out of its historical communities into areas formerly controlled by the FARC, such as parts of Tibú, El Tarra, Sardinata, Teorama, and Abrego, in Norte de Santander province, where it has announced its presence through pamphlets, attacks against state forces, and violence against civilians. The EPL has ratcheted up control over the local population, including prohibiting road travel at night, increased surveillance in urban areas, threats and selective killings.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, international organisation representatives, Bogotá and Cúcuta, 6 June and 12, 14 and 18 August 2017. “The EPL shoots first and asks questions later”. Crisis Group interview, local official, Tibú, 15 August 2017.Hide Footnote

Its leader for years was Victor Ramón Navarro, also known as Megateo, an enigmatic figure who, besides organising the drug trade in Catatumbo, built a sizeable civilian following. Since Megateo was killed in October 2015, the group has suffered the loss of two other top leaders.[fn]Murió un delincuente que no era sólo eso”, La Silla Vacía, 2 October 2015; “Capturan a alias ‘David León’, sucesor de ‘Megateo’ ”, Caracol Radio, 19 September 2016; “Murió ‘Caracho’, el sucesor de Megateo”, La Opinión, 24 October 2016. According to police intelligence, two figures are fighting for leadership: Pacora, a military leader, and Pepe, better known for political proselytising. Crisis Group interview, police intelligence official, 24 March 2017.Hide Footnote According to police intelligence, two leaders are now fighting for control, though local observers believe the group maintains its internal cohesion. The EPL is also likely incorporating FARC deserters, who are generally more disciplined than its own fighters.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, international organisation representatives, Cúcuta, 14 and 16 August 2017; Bogotá, 18 August 2017.Hide Footnote

Views differ as to whether the EPL is a guerrilla group, as locals in Catatumbo believe, or an organised crime syndicate, as the government contends. The group has some popular support, which it has tried to strengthen by arguing that, unlike the FARC and ELN, the EPL will not “betray” the people by handing themselves in to the government. Some communities in Catatumbo respect the EPL as the only force to have fought paramilitary groups in the early 2000s.[fn]Crisis Group interview, international organisation representative, Cúcuta, 14 August 2017.Hide Footnote The Marxist-Leninist Colombian Communist Party claims the EPL as its armed wing, and the latter still distributes the party’s newsletter. The group also compels farmers to grow coca rather than take part in crop substitution programs, which has helped it gain support from coca producers while also demonstrating its stakes in the coca trade.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, international organisation representatives, Cúcuta, 14 and 16 August 2017; local authorities, Tibú, 15 August 2017; drug trafficking expert, Cúcuta, 14 August 2017. “Revolución: No. 511”, Órgano Central del Partido Comunista de Colombia (Marxista-Leninista), February 2017. In an October 2016 communiqué, the EPL lays out its reasons for rejecting the FARC peace agreement. “¡Un pueblo y un ejército guerrillero que no se rinden! Carta al pueblo colombiano”, EPL – Mando Nacional, 16 October 2016.Hide Footnote

III. The Lure of Illicit Economies

The ability of Colombia’s armed groups to profit from criminal businesses has helped them survive a long asymmetrical conflict with state forces. As the FARC withdraws from its revenue-generating activities, various armed groups are vying to take its place, competing for control of drug production, illegal mining, contraband and extortion both in the interior and along the country’s weak borders, especially with Venezuela. In several areas, this competition has resulted in rising violence. Local communities that depend on illegal activities for their precarious livelihoods often see these armed groups as defending them from government forces. This relationship of exploitation and protection gives local armed actors considerable social support and political power.[fn]Protection, economic wellbeing and dispute resolution are three social demands that if satisfied create dependency relationships that can give any armed actor political power. Gustavo Duncan, Más que plata o plomo (Bogotá, 2014). Barrington Moore, Injustice: The Social Bases of Obedience and Revolt (New York, 1978). Richard M. Emerson, “Power-Dependence Relations”, American Sociological Review, vol. 7, no. 1 (1962), pp. 31-41.Hide Footnote

A. Drugs

Colombian coca cultivation and cocaine production have grown sharply since 2013. The UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) detected 146,000 hectares of coca crops in 2016, up from 48,000 hectares in 2013 (see Appendix F); the U.S. reports that these crops reached 188,000 hectares, up from 80,500 hectares.[fn]Potential cocaine production reached 866 metric tons in 2016, according to the UNODC, or 710 metric tons, according to the U.S. “Colombia: Monitoreo de territorios afectados por cultivos ilícitos 2016”, UNODC, July 2017, p. 11. “ONDCP Releases Data on Cocaine Cultivation and Production in Colombia”, ONDCP, 14 March 2017. Adam Isacson, “Confronting Colombia’s Coca Boom Requires Patience and a Commitment to the Peace Accords”, Washington Office on Latin America, 13 March 2017.Hide Footnote Much of this growth is explained by a reduction in eradication, perverse incentives created by the peace agreement, and increases in farm productivity. The government is now under intense domestic and international pressure to bring coca production down fast.[fn]Crisis Group interview, drug trafficking expert, Bogotá, 17 August 2017.Hide Footnote

Under point four of the peace agreement, the FARC withdrew from illegal drug trafficking. The guerrilla group had been directly or indirectly involved in the coca paste trade since at least the 1980s, participating in its purchase and trafficking, and regulating or taxing third parties. In some parts of Colombia, the FARC also was involved in cocaine trafficking.[fn]Coca crops are transformed or sold in three ways. First, coca leaves are harvested and sold in “arrobas” of 25 pounds. Second, coca paste or base is produced from the leaves by chemical processes (maceration). The third and final product is cocaine hydrochloride, derived from coca paste through additional chemical processes. The FARC claim to have taxed only coca paste transactions. Crisis Group interviews, FARC commanders, San Vicente del Caguán and San José del Guaviare, 15 to 25 September 2016 and 31 August 2017. For a general overview of the FARC role in the drug trade, see John Otis, “The FARC and Colombia’s Illegal Drug Trade”, Wilson Center, November 2014; John de Boer, Juan Carlos Garzón and Louise Bosetti, “Criminal Agendas and Peace Negotiations: The Case of Colombia”, UN University, April 2017.Hide Footnote

The effects of this withdrawal vary across regions. In Putumayo, where according to UN estimates 25,000 hectares of the crop were grown in 2016, the illicit market has undergone drastic changes. The FARC purchased coca paste and leaves directly while also charging taxes on transactions by other buyers. It also trafficked in coca, working with a local crime outfit known as the Constru. Now the Constru and a newer group, Los Comuneros, have moved into rural areas to take over the trade, though with limited success so far. FARC militia members were still buying coca paste in some towns in early 2017, while new buyers from outside the region have been killed by unknown perpetrators, according to local sources.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, community leaders, Puerto Asís, 27 February 2017; Valle del Guamuéz, 28 February 2017; Valle del Guamuéz, 3 March 2017; local government official, Valle del Guamuéz, 28 February 2017; international organisation representative, Valle del Guamuéz, 2 March 2017. Crisis Group telephone interview, government official, 20 June 2017.Hide Footnote In Guaviare and Meta, dissidents have increased their involvement in and control over the drug trade, whereas in Cauca the ELN has taken over most of the trade.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, human rights defenders, San José del Guaviare and Bogotá, 3 April and 7 September; international organisation representative, Bogotá, 6 June 2017.Hide Footnote

Contrary to much public and political opinion in Colombia and elsewhere, there is no direct, linear relationship between the volume of coca crops and the levels of violence suffered in any region.

Contrary to much public and political opinion in Colombia and elsewhere, there is no direct, linear relationship between the volume of coca crops and the levels of violence suffered in any region. Where only one armed group currently has hegemonic control, violence against civilians tends to be low: this is the case under the rule of FARC dissidents in Meta. At the other extreme, Chocó, perhaps Colombia’s most violent region, is devoid of coca crops though it is home to numerous trafficking routes.

However, where there is competition among various armed groups for control of territory used by the drug trade, along with the formation of new alliances between traffickers and armed groups, there are spikes in violence. A major reconfiguration of power has been underway in the municipality of Tumaco, a Pacific coast port and narcotics trafficking hub. FARC structures formerly taxed the drug trade while working with large-scale traffickers to move the product to international markets. The FARC’s old role is being filled by the GUP, enabling the drug trade to continue without major impediment. The Gaitanistas, through a local group led until recently by a figure called Cusumbo, have also expanded along the coast, leading to a three-way fight between the Gaitanistas, the GUP and ELN.[fn]All groups have announced their intentions of moving into Llorente, a key drug trafficking town in the region, for example. Crisis Group interviews, community leaders, international organisation representatives and church leaders, Tumaco, 10-19 May 2017; conflict analyst, Bogotá, 7 September 2017. Cusumbo was killed by security forces in early October. “Abatido alias Cusumbo, cabecilla de banda criminal del Pacífico”, El País de Cali, 6 October 2017.Hide Footnote

In Catatumbo, the threat of violence is latent as the EPL and ELN currently continue to cooperate in the drug trade, though the former remains largely in control of cocaine trafficking in alliance with armed groups on the other side of the Venezuelan border. Yet this cooperation is straining due to EPL expansion into ELN territories. In some areas where FARC guerrillas were strongest, their withdrawal caused a temporary hiatus in business and a drop in prices. In others, the EPL moved in quickly to buy coca paste, paying farmers immediately in cash.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, international organisation representatives, Cúcuta, 14 and 16 August 2017; local authorities and church official, Tibú, 15 August 2017.Hide Footnote

B. Criminal Mining

Illegal mining, mainly of gold, is another basic source of revenue for armed groups. Early evidence suggests homicides are higher in illegal gold mining areas, probably due to disputes among armed actors in regions once controlled by the FARC.[fn]Nicolás Idrobo, Daniel Mejía, and Ana María Tribin, “Illegal Gold Mining and Violence in Colombia”, Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, vol. 20, no. 1 (2014), pp. 83-111.Hide Footnote About 60 percent of the mines using heavy machinery to dredge river beds for gold had no license in 2014, according to the UNODC.[fn]Colombia: explotación de oro de aluvión”, UNODC, June 2016, pp. 56-57. In Chocó, 61 per cent of the gold mining operations detected, covering 22,142 hectares, were illegal; in Antioquia, the figures were 59 per cent and 15,600 hectares. These figures include only mines using heavy machinery, not panning or other artisanal forms of mining. Other affected provinces include Córdoba, Bolívar, Cauca and Nariño.Hide Footnote

Armed groups profit from illegal mining in various ways. Perhaps the most common is by forcing mine operators and miners to pay for permission to pan for gold or dredge it up from the river bed using heavy machinery. They also take a percentage of the gold produced by large-scale miners. Some armed groups directly invest in mining operations, import gold or buy and sell it through third parties.[fn]Angelika Rettberg and Juan Felipe Ortiz-Riomalo, “Conflicto dorado: Canales y mecanismos de la relación entre minería de oro, conflicto armado y criminalidad en Colombia”, 1 April 2014.Hide Footnote The territorial control exercised by illegal armed groups offers miners protection against government raids in return, although somewhat ineffectively since these operations have risen in number since 2014.[fn]Logros de la Política de Defensa y Seguridad Todos por un Nuevo País”, Mindefensa, June 2017, p. 60.Hide Footnote Furthermore, both armed groups and drug traffickers use illegally mined gold to launder money. Small-scale, artisanal miners can sell gold without proving it came from a licensed mine, making its real origins hard to detect. By producing or buying gold, an internationally traded commodity that is difficult to trace, drug traffickers and other criminals can turn illicit money into legal assets.[fn]Fréderic Massé and Johanna Camargo, “Actores Armados Ilegales y Sector Extractivo en Colombia”, CITPax, 2012. Angelika Rettberg and Juan Felipe Ortiz-Riomalo, “Conflicto dorado: Canales y mecanismos de la relación entre minería de oro, conflicto armado y criminalidad en Colombia”, op. cit. “Sentencia T-622/16”, Constitutional Court, 10 November 2016. Crisis Group interview, church official, Tibú, 15 August 2017.Hide Footnote

C. Contraband

The threadbare state presence on Colombia’s borders has allowed contraband to flourish since at least the 1850s. Historic smuggling routes later would be used by marijuana and cocaine traffickers.[fn]While contraband existed in Colombia under the Spanish empire, it was mainly confined to port cities. The country’s post-independence land borders have only existed since the 1830s. Muriel Laurent, Contrabando en Colombia en el siglo XIX: Prácticas y discursos de resistencia y reproducción, (Bogotá, 2008), pp. 349-387. Santiago González-Plazas, “Pasado y presente del contrabando en la Guajira aproximaciones al fenómeno de ilegalidad en la región”, Universidad del Rosario, March 2008. Carlos Medina Gallego, “Mafia y narcotráfico en Colombia: elementos para un estudio comparado”, in Alejo Vargas Velásquez (Coordinator), El prisma de las seguridades en América Latina (Buenos Aires, 2012), pp. 146-150.Hide Footnote The economic asymmetries between Colombia and its neighbours, above all Venezuela, create incentives for illegal trafficking and contraband, making borders a magnet for expansionary armed groups.[fn]Fernando Carrión M., “Introducción: De la frontera binacional al sistema fronterizo global”, in Fernando Carrión M. (Ed.), Asimetrías en la frontera Ecuador-Colombia: entre la complementariedad y el sistema, pp. 9-12.Hide Footnote

The border with Venezuela is the most problematic. In August, Colombian authorities estimated that about 1,000 Venezuelans emigrated each day across the official border crossing near Cúcuta.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, Colombian migration officials, Cúcuta, 16 August 2017.Hide Footnote The porous 2,200km-long frontier, much of it over rugged terrain, also has some 200 informal crossing points, many located in territories controlled by illegal armed groups. Coca paste and cocaine flow easily across the border, reportedly aided by corrupt officials on both sides. Venezuela’s expulsion of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration in 2005 (by the late President Hugo Chávez) and the government’s indifference to armed actors along the Colombian border are said to make it especially attractive to traffickers seeking to send drugs abroad.[fn]Crisis Group interview, international organisation representative, Bogotá, 18 August 2017. “International Narcotics Control Strategy Report: Volume 1”, U.S. Department of State, March 2017, pp. 286-290. It was reported that a Colombian businessman with connections to local authorities was arrested on the Colombian side of the border in August 2017 after a U.S. investigation into his alleged role in drug trafficking. “Narco capturado en Cúcuta tenía nexos con ‘Megateo’”, La Opinión, 16 August 2017.Hide Footnote

Gasoline costs pennies per gallon in Venezuela, but is worth USD$2-$3 per gallon in Colombia. Smuggled gasoline is sold in plain sight along the highway in border regions. Those participating range from individuals seeking to make a living to transnational criminal organisations.[fn]Santiago González-Plazas, “Pasado y presente del contrabando en la frontera colombo-venezolana”, Razón Pública, 20 September 2015.Hide Footnote In 2013, the Colombian government estimated that one million gallons of gasoline crossed the border every day. Corruption in both countries allows the trade to continue, though authorities are also reluctant to fight a business that has become so important to the population living along the border.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, international organisation representatives, Cúcuta, 14 August 2017; local officials, Tibú, 15 August 2017; NGO representatives, Cúcuta, 14 August 2017. “’Contrabando de gasolina por La Guajira es un cáncer’: Dian”, El Heraldo, 13 November 2013.Hide Footnote

Arms trafficking is also big business along the border. The FARC, ELN, EPL and organised crime groups have obtained weapons from Venezuela for years. Demand for weapons remains high as the EPL expands in north-eastern Colombia the ELN fortifies its military might to strengthen its leverage in peace negotiations. Between August and November 2016, Colombian authorities seized almost 500 weapons along the border.[fn]Katherine Aguirre, “El tráfico de armas en Colombia: una revisión desde los orígenes a los destinos”, Urvio, no. 10 (November 2011), pp. 36-59. Crisis Group interviews, local officials, Tibú, 15 August 2017. “Gestión del Gobierno colombiano en la frontera colombo-venezolana”, Colombian government, 19 December 2016, p. 13.Hide Footnote

The border between Colombia and Ecuador is another hive of illicit activity. With hundreds of informal border crossings, movement from one side to the other is fluid. Illegal armed groups in the region, such as La Constru and Los Comuneros, cross the border along the San Miguel river with relative ease. Coca paste from the regions of Nariño and Putumayo, which together accounted for almost half of all Colombia’s coca crops in 2016, is often transformed into cocaine in Ecuador and then trafficked to Central America. Ecuador has long been an important drug transit country; Mexican cartels since 2012 have increased their participation, working both with Colombians and Ecuadorians to ship cocaine north.[fn]Crisis Group interview, international organisation representative, Valle del Guamuéz, 2 March 2017; conflict analyst, Bogotá, 6 June 2017. “Colombia: Monitoreo de territorios afectados por cultivos ilícitos 2016”, op. cit., p. 24. “Huge ecuador cocaine seizures signal growing role in drug trade”, Insight Crime, 10 May 2017. “International Narcotics Control Strategy Report: vol. 1”, op. cit., p. 155.Hide Footnote

IV. Security Policy and State Presence

Colombia must consolidate security gains and thwart the expansion of armed groups to show a doubting public that the accord has been a success, and to build the conditions for lasting peace in its countryside. The Colombian government has tried before to extend its reach into the long-neglected periphery, however. In the late 1980s, the government launched a National Rehabilitation Plan to integrate the “poorest communities and strata of society”.[fn]Plan Nacional de Rehabilitación - política de inversión 1989”, Departamento Nacional de Planeación, 11 April 1989, p. 2.Hide Footnote And in 2006, then Defence Minister Juan Manuel Santos and his deputy Sergio Jaramillo embarked on what they called “Territorial Consolidation Plans”.[fn]Implementation of these plans started in the Macarena region. The aim was to clear the FARC out militarily and hold the territory, enabling the state to enter. The U.S., which was implementing this “clear-hold-build” model in Afghanistan at the time, provided “heavy … input”. See Adam Isacson, “Consolidating ‘Consolidation’: Colombia’s ‘security and development’ zones await a civilian handoff, while Washington backs away from the concept”, WOLA, December 2012, p. 5. Ucko, David H., “Beyond Clear-Hold-Build: Rethinking Local-Level Counterinsurgency after Afghanistan”, Contemporary Security Policy, vol. 34, no. 3 (2013), pp. 526-551.Hide Footnote

Current approaches are essentially the same as those in previous plans, with one main difference. The peace process with the FARC should (in theory) leave most territories open to an enhanced military and police presence, which in turn will allow the government to strengthen civilian institutions. Local economic development efforts, formally known as Territorial Development Plans (PDETs), should also help buttress state authority.[fn]The Consolidation Plan focused on areas that are almost all part of municipalities prioritised by the Victory Plan and the PDETs. Adam Isacson, “Consolidating ‘Consolidation’”, op. cit.Hide Footnote

Two sets of obstacles now stand in the way of these initiatives. First, the Colombian state needs to consolidate swiftly the rural presence of the various central institutions created to implement the peace process, above all in the field of security, reintegration of former fighters, rural development, coca substitution and local justice. The fragmentation of these bodies, and the slow progress of peace-related legislation through Congress, have frustrated implementation of the accord on the ground.[fn]Santos’ recent cabinet changes have not convinced those in Congress to continue to support peace legislation, for example. Crisis Group interview, senior diplomat, Bogotá, 11 August 2017. “El cambio de gabinete no surte efecto en el Congreso”, La Silla Vacía, 24 August 2017.Hide Footnote Second, even though a military and police presence are required to expand state authority in the short term, they risk provoking resentment among local populations further down the road. How security agencies relate to these communities – and whether the state can provide the services that armed groups purport to provide, above all protection, maintaining local economies and offering local dispute resolution – will determine the effectiveness of these latest efforts to bring public authority to its periphery.

A. Confronting Security Threats

Extending coercive control over conflict-affected territories is a central tenet of government strategy. The Defence Ministry’s budget has increased at a time of fiscal austerity because of the need to consolidate peace and security and fight organised crime with “all of the state forces’ capacities”.[fn]In Colombia, state forces include the army, police, navy and air force, all part of the Defence Ministry. Crisis Group interview, government official, Bogotá, 7 June 2017. “Plan Estratégico del Sector Defensa y Seguridad: Guía de Planeamiento Estratégico 2016-2018”, Defence Ministry, June 2016. “All of the state forces’ capacities” means that the army will be involved in the fight against Gaitanistas, EPL and Puntilleros, not just the police. The Defence Ministry states that international humanitarian law will be applied to FARC dissidents. Crisis Group interviews, government officials, Bogotá, 7 June and 17 August 2017. “Directiva Permanente No. 0015 /2016”, Defence Ministry, op. cit.Hide Footnote

The main strategy, which the military calls its “Victory Plan”, involves sending 65,000 soldiers and 15,000 police officers to 160 priority municipalities. Planning began two years before the peace accord was signed to ensure the state would be the first armed force to move into territories vacated by the FARC. The government publicly calls the strategy a success, but admits that in some places implementation has not been as “quick” as expected.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, government officials, Bogotá, 17 August 2017; Vice President Óscar Naranjo, Bogotá, 14 July 2017. Luis Carlos Villegas, interview on Semana en Vivo, 18 July 2017.Hide Footnote

Independent verification of the plan’s results is difficult. Some priority municipalities formerly under FARC control, including those in southern Tolima, Huila and parts of Caquetá, have not suffered incursions by new or different armed groups. In most, however, other armed groups have strengthened or expanded. In many conflict-affected rural areas, it is still rare to see military or security forces. Army officers in private concede progress is slow.[fn]Crisis Group interview, senior diplomat, Bogotá, 25 August 2017.Hide Footnote

Colombian and international officials offer multiple explanations for these mixed results. One is corruption: military officers allegedly accept bribes to allow illicit businesses to function and turn a blind eye to certain armed groups. Some senior officers maintain the military has not captured armed actors for fear criminally complicit local judges will free them, or that they themselves could face legal proceedings for alleged abuses or use of excessive force should they take strong action.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, international organisation representatives and church official, Tumaco, 10 and 12 May 2017; senior diplomat, Bogotá, 25 August 2017. Crisis Group telephone interview, humanitarian aid worker, Apartadó, 26 March 2017.Hide Footnote In addition, the army has been trained to mobilise, hit a specific target and leave, rather than establish a permanent presence.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, government official, Bogotá, 13 July 2017; Vice President Óscar Naranjo, Bogotá, 14 July 2017; military officer, Miraflores, Guaviare, 7 April 2017.Hide Footnote Finally, the army and police have dedicated most of their personnel to protecting areas around the 26 cantonment sites, remaining static to avoid incidents during the ceasefire with the FARC. Some regional commanders were reportedly concerned that other areas were still under clandestine FARC armed control, making them reluctant to go on the offensive due to the possible political and human costs.[fn]Crisis Group interview, military officer, Bogotá, 18 August 2017.Hide Footnote

The navy’s role in extending state authority is also critical. At present, it is focusing on strengthening its presence along rivers.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, navy officials, Bogotá, 18 July 2017.Hide Footnote A priority for the navy should be control over the rivers and deltas feeding into the Pacific Ocean, which could be achieved using existing marine forces focused on land operations in western Colombia, and equipping them with a coast guard unit.

Both the army and the navy nevertheless have mixed records of convincing war-weary communities that they can protect their interests. Information from various parts of the country suggests military efforts to win over locals have faltered, and that the armed forces still see many communities as “guerrilla towns”. In Chocó, for example, indigenous leaders have been detained for “rebellion” but were later released for lack of evidence. Indigenous communities there accuse state forces of working with the Gaitanistas in certain regions and have demanded the army and navy not enter their territory.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, international organisation representatives, Quibdó, 28 and 29 August 2017; human rights activist, Quibdó, 29 August 2017; community members, El Retorno, Guaviare, 14 May 2016 and 4 September 2017; Puerto Leguízamo, Putumayo, 10 March 2016. Crisis Group telephone interview, humanitarian aid worker, Apartadó, 26 March 2017.Hide Footnote

[T]he army will have to act as a temporary stopgap in rural areas, with clear timelines for handing over control to the police.

Greater police presence in rural areas is also essential to consolidate grassroots security.[fn]Due to the armed conflict, the police have tended to focus on urban areas whereas the army concentrates on rural ones.Hide Footnote The Defence Ministry plans to strengthen the rural police force known as the DICAR (Dirección de Carabineros y Seguridad Rural), which has roughly 10,000 members but lacks sufficient personnel and infrastructure to cover the entire countryside. The ministry is now focusing on basing more rural officers in urban centres and near former FARC cantonments.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, government and officials from the Dirección de Carabineros y Seguridad Rural or DICAR, Bogotá, 14 July 2017.Hide Footnote Police intend to recruit 50,000 new members over the next decade, but will not be able to cover all key territories immediately. In the meantime, the army will have to act as a temporary stopgap in rural areas, with clear timelines for handing over control to the police.

In addition, large-scale police-led operations, with military participation, have captured or killed criminal leaders, especially in Urabá. An elite police unit created by the peace agreement is now operating in Buenaventura and Tumaco.[fn]The unit includes 1,088 highly trained officers to fight armed groups in Tumaco and Buenaventura. “El piloto del general Naranjo”, La Silla Vacía, 22 June 2017. Crisis Group interview, government official, Bogotá, 17 August 2017.Hide Footnote But removing leaders does not necessarily affect a criminal group’s power or wealth, as subordinates have quickly taken over organisations with strong vertical hierarchies, such as the Gaitanistas or the EPL. Given that the drug trade still has huge economic incentives for those involved, and makes use of wealthy clandestine investors to fund drug runs, dismantling an armed group tends to produce only an ephemeral reduction in drug trafficking.[fn]Crisis Group interview, senior diplomat, Bogotá, 11 August 2017.Hide Footnote

Plans to strengthen the police, meanwhile, could be impeded by financial constraints and limited political commitment. The current national budget would only enable the rural police to build one station per year until 2018.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, government officials, Bogotá, 14 July 2017 and 17 August 2017. “Resolución No. 01258”, Defence Ministry: National Police, 28 March 2016.Hide Footnote In the short term, the Defence Ministry budget might need to remain comparatively high to reinforce security in the periphery and increase buy-in from mid-level military officials who have misgivings about the peace process.

Extending the state’s military and security presence [...] will also require addressing alleged official collusion with criminal actors and building trust with communities.

Extending the state’s military and security presence, whether through the Victory Plan or other police or naval initiatives, will also require addressing alleged official collusion with criminal actors and building trust with communities. Sources in Tumaco, for example, claimed the navy was linked to drug trafficking; in March 2017, fifteen employees of the attorney general’s office were arrested for suspected connections with drug traffickers in Tumaco.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, church official, Tumaco, 12 May 2015; community leaders, Tumaco, 8 March and 15 June 2017; international organisation representative, Tumaco, 10 May 2017. “Capturan a 15 funcionarios de la Fiscalía por corrupción”, El Tiempo, 28 March 2017. All fifteen suspects have been remanded in custody to await trial.Hide Footnote Tackling corruption will require continued high-level political pressure and oversight to avoid creating perverse incentives to abuse power or obtain false results, for example by detaining people without hard evidence of connections to illicit activity. The current approach of strengthening anti-corruption bodies that are part of the same armed or police forces whose wrongdoing they are meant to fight raises the risk of collusion between investigators and the targets of investigation. Oversight by independent anti-corruption bodies and civil society organisations is essential in such cases.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, military and police officials, Bogotá, 13 July and 16 August 2017.Hide Footnote

B. Reintegration and Justice

Coercion by itself is not sufficient. Other initiatives are needed to integrate former combatants back into civilian life, curb further recruitment, and generate long-term alternatives to crime and violence. The peace agreement with the FARC emphasises the “reincorporation” program to help former combatants adapt to civilian life, which began in August 2017 after the group handed over its weapons. The newly minted Agency for Reincorporation and Normalization (ARN), formerly the Colombian Reintegration Agency, is overseeing the process.[fn]La ACR fortalece su institucionalidad y pasa a ser la Agencia para la Reincorporación y la Normalización (ARN)”, Agencia para la Reincorporación y Normalización, 2 June 2017.Hide Footnote

Although the agency has built a solid reputation for reintegrating individual ex-combatants, including paramilitary members and FARC deserters, the current process poses a tougher test. Many former FARC combatants, now clustered in cantonments, want to remain in these isolated regions to engage in collective enterprises, especially farming, despite appalling infrastructure, limited access to markets, and the presence of illegal businesses. It will be difficult in this context to make the reincorporation program economically sustainable.[fn]In the cantonment in Mesetas, Meta, FARC members showed Crisis Group a massive hole dug for a fish farm. The closest market town was hours away and far too small to support profitable production. Crisis Group field work, Mesetas, Meta, 27 June 2017. Crisis Group interviews, government official, Bogotá, 27 July 2017; senior diplomat, Bogotá, 25 August 2017. Pastor Alape, “FARC perspective on reincorporation”, speech at “La Vida Después de las Armas”, Crisis Group conference, Bogotá, 29 June 2017. “La reincorporación de las Farc va a paso de tortuga”, Semana, 12 August 2017.Hide Footnote

Differences between the FARC and the government over whether such projects are viable have severely hindered progress. The National Reincorporation Committee, created by the peace agreement and which includes FARC and government representatives, has not been able to date to design a general FARC reincorporation plan.[fn]Under the peace accord a cooperative known as Ecomun will eventually handle FARC reincorporation projects.Hide Footnote The naming of María Lorena Gutiérrez, a close Santos ally, to coordinate the committee may give it more impetus. But it will be hard to overcome differences between the guerrillas, who are politically committed to cooperative projects, and government officials, who remain highly sceptical. Unless they reach to an agreement, reincorporation efforts could remain limited to ad hoc development and education projects, including literacy training, and the payment of monthly benefits.

Keeping ex-FARC fighters in their former cantonments to preserve the cohesion necessary for collective reintegration will be a challenge in these circumstances. Mid-level commanders, with experience in controlling territory and trafficking drugs, as well as certain rank-and-file FARC members, could abandon the organisation entirely. Some frustrated FARC members have reportedly already left cantonments in the wake of delays in framing the reincorporation plan. Many will be tempted to join the remaining FARC dissidents, the ELN or the EPL unless ex-fighters can look forward to an alternative livelihood.[fn]Crisis Group interview, government official, Bogotá, 27 July 2017. Eduardo Álvarez Vanegas, “Y después de ‘Cadete’…¿qué?”, op. cit.Hide Footnote Differential approaches based on gender, rank and ethnicity could help make reincorporation more attractive, given the FARC’s internal makeup.[fn]Caracterización comunidad FARC-EP: Resultados generales”, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, op. cit.Hide Footnote Furthermore, FARC leaders should continue trying to convince dissidents to rejoin the peace process, while providing the state with information on those who resist the offer.[fn]Alias Mojoso, after handing himself in, was allowed to join the FARC again. “Alexander Mojoso ex-comandante del 14 Frente, retorna a las FARC-EP”, op. cit. The FARC also provided information on a dissident faction of the 29th Front, leading to five arrests. “Detienen a cinco disidentes de las Farc en Nariño”, El Espectador, 25 July 2017. There are reports of meetings between FARC fronts and dissidents in which each side agreed to respect the other’s position. Crisis Group interviews, human rights activists, San José del Guaviare and Bogotá, 3 April and 7 September 2017; international organisation representative, Bogotá, 6 June 2017.Hide Footnote

Similar plans to demobilise Colombia’s other armed groups are also essential. The Gaitanista leader, Otoniel, recently stated that his forces would be willing to surrender to the judicial system, while demanding some guarantees of leniency.[fn]La historia detrás del sometimiento del Clan del Golfo”, Semana, 9 September 2017.Hide Footnote But the process is far from simple. It is also not clear how much of the organisation Otoniel controls, given internal divisions and the Gaitanistas’ use of both uniformed fighters and subcontracted gangs. The process would also need to be complemented by a strategy to ensure the Gaitanistas’ territory and illegal activities are not captured by other armed actors.

To speed the process, the Colombian government should fast track the passage of a law detailing what such armed actors can expect if they turn themselves into the justice system. Since the Gaitanistas are considered party to an internal armed conflict, commitments similar to those used in transitional and restorative justice processes would be appropriate, such as reduced prison sentences in exchange for handing over illicitly obtained assets, information on the drug trade and a commitment to truth-telling about and reparations for the group’s victims. None of these would mean giving the Gaitanistas political status.[fn]Gobierno estudiaría la no extradición de jefes del ‘clan Úsuga’”, El Tiempo, 9 September 2017.Hide Footnote

The case of the EPL is different. Given its political ideology and local reputation as a guerrilla organisation, the force is unlikely to submit to Colombia’s judicial system. Second-generation disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR) schemes, such as weapons for development, should be considered. An offer to the EPL to disarm, tell the truth, face reduced judicial punishment and contribute to reparations for victims, in exchange for economic and political development initiatives in Catatumbo, would put pressure on the group to prove it is not just a drug trafficking organisation. The government would also avoid direct political negotiations; it is adamant that it will not carry out a peace process like that with the FARC with either the EPL or Gaitanistas.[fn]On second generation DDR, see “Second generation disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR) practices in peace operations”, UN, 10 January 2010.Hide Footnote

Understanding how these groups interact with communities can strengthen plans by ensuring they fill any potential void in local economic and political power.

As a general rule, the government should base such strategies on the identity of each armed group, the territory where it operates, its relationship with local communities and internal cohesion. Focusing on armed groups’ identity and territorial footprint would allow the government to offer enticements tailored to each group, such as specific initiatives in areas where that group operates. Understanding how these groups interact with communities can strengthen plans by ensuring they fill any potential void in local economic and political power. Finally, ensuring plans are adapted to each group’s level of internal cohesion can help set more realistic expectations regarding potential security gains from a submission to justice initiative.

C. Taking on Illegal Economies

Colombia’s fight against illegal economies is integral to its stability. The success or failure of efforts to combat both coca production and illegal mining, therefore, will have major security implications. In principle, both should enable local populations to shift from illegal activities protected by non-state armed actors to legal work and increased dependence on the state.

A. Crop substitution

The Colombian government intends to substitute legal crops for 50,000 hectares of coca this year. Under close scrutiny from the political opposition and the U.S. government, which has threatened to decertify Colombia for failing to combat drug supply, the government also has promised to forcibly eradicate another 50,000 hectares.[fn]Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of State”, 13 September 2017. The consequences of decertification vary, but generally include the withdrawal of most U.S. foreign assistance to the country.Hide Footnote In August 2017, speaking alongside U.S. Vice President Mike Pence, President Santos stated that 27,000 hectares had been forcibly eradicated since January and 12,000 hectares removed through voluntary crop substitution.

The crop substitution program offers farmers who grow coca, marijuana or poppy two-year voluntary agreements. Signatories will receive around $12,000 for immediate needs as well as technical support for long-term farming projects and short-term initiatives if they uproot their illegal crops between the first and second stipend payments. Officials are pushing to increase the number of families who receive payments to reach the goals for coca reduction before the end of 2017.[fn]Declaración del Presidente Juan Manuel Santos al término de su encuentro con el Vicepresidente de Estados Unidos, Mike Pence”, Cancillería de Colombia, 13 August 2017. Crisis Group interviews, expert on U.S.-Colombia relations, Washington DC, 11 August 2017; crop substitution expert, Bogotá, 17 August 2017.Hide Footnote

But the program faces several hurdles. First, there is a mismatch between the short timeline for coca reduction and the longer timeline needed for rural reform. The peace accord stipulates that the success of the two-year coca substitution program partially depends on a ten-to-fifteen-year reform plan aimed at transforming Colombia’s rural economy, especially initiatives to improve infrastructure, assure market access and provide better public services.[fn]That said, the government’s “50 for 51” plan seeks to improve road conditions along 50km in 51 municipalities during 2017 and 2018.Hide Footnote Dissatisfied farmers could return to coca cultivation before these changes materialise. The government elected in 2018 may face frustrated former coca growers and respond by choosing to simply starve the substitution program financially and politically.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, coca cultivation experts, Cúcuta and Bogotá, 14 and 17 August 2017.Hide Footnote

Second, implementing the program has generated high tensions in coca growing areas. Poor coordination between forced eradication and substitution efforts has led to conflicts between state forces, who claim to be eradicating industrial-size crops not eligible for substitution programs, and communities claiming the crops belong to small-scale growers who have expressed an interest in taking part in crop substitution. In one ominous recent incident in rural Tumaco, security forces were reported to have killed between six and fourteen coca growers and wounded dozens more during eradication efforts.[fn]Coca growers in the affected region were reported to have requested participation in the substitution program, but without success. The police have argued that FARC dissidents engaged in the defence of the coca farmers. “Un problema duro de erradicar”, El Espectador, 8 October 2017.Hide Footnote There are still no clear criteria to distinguish between the two sorts of coca crops, although a government committee involving various state agencies has been working on the issue.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, government officials, Bogotá, 28 April and 17 August 2017; international organisation representative, San José del Guaviare, 3 April 2017; coca growers, San José del Guaviare, 3 April 2017; drug trafficking expert, 17 August 2017.Hide Footnote

Third, coca eradication in areas under the control of armed groups could strengthen them politically. Forcible removal would corroborate their anti-government discourse, encouraging coca farmers to seek their protection. In Meta and Guaviare, where the dissident First and Seventh Fronts operate, some coca growers whose crops have been destroyed or are under threat of eradication have displayed precisely this reaction.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, community leader, San José del Guaviare and El Retorno, 3 April and 2 September 2017; human rights activist, Bogotá, 7 September 2017.Hide Footnote Armed groups also have pressured local leaders to oppose crop substitution, sometimes threatening reprisals. In Catatumbo and Tumaco, for example, armed groups have menaced whole communities.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, community leader, Tumaco, 10 May 2017; coca cultivation expert, Cúcuta, 14 August 2017.Hide Footnote The FARC, meanwhile, is using its role as co-sponsor of the program to carry out patronage politics, promising crop substitution benefits in exchange for joining its favoured local organisations.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, community leaders, Puerto Asís, 27 February 2017; international community representative, Valle del Guamuéz, 2 March 2017; community leader, Tumaco, 15 May 2017; community leaders, San José del Guaviare, 3 April 2017; Miraflores, Guaviare, 6 April 2017. “La política detrás de la sustitución de cultivos”, La Silla Vacía, 18 June 2017.Hide Footnote

Finally, financial constraints could limit the program. The government estimates that 170,000 families may sign substitution agreements, entailing an outlay of some $2 billion over two years. Very little of that money is available under current budgets. Nor has the international community provided financial support, either because this is not regarded as a priority or because of legal restrictions on giving money to farmers who still have coca, or concerns that resources could end up in the hands of the FARC.[fn]Consumo en EE.UU. también llevó al alza de cultivos de coca”, Semana, 15 June 2017. Crisis Group interview, crop substitution expert, Bogotá, 17 August 2017.Hide Footnote Colombia’s success in seizing a record amount of cocaine in 2016 should at least help persuade the international community, above all the U.S., to show patience in allowing for the coca substitution program to generate lasting effects in rural zones.[fn]In 2016, Colombia reported seizing a record 300 metric tons of cocaine. How much of the total crop this represents is a matter of debate. See Mimi Yagoub, “Challenging the Cocaine Figures, Part II: Colombia”, Insight Crime, 17 November 2016.Hide Footnote In particular, donors should look for ways to fund technical support projects that support post-conflict development goals in rural areas; this would allow them to avoid contributing to direct payments for former coca growers.[fn]Colombia: Monitoreo de territorios afectados por cultivos ilícitos 2016”, op. cit., p. 11. “Costa Rica officials warn of growing maritime drug trade amid cocaine surge”, Insight Crime, 16 May 2017. Daniel Rico, Juan Carlos Garzón and Julián Wilches, “Cómo afectar el narcotráfico sin concentrarse en la mata de coca”, La Silla Vacía, 6 March 2017. Crisis Group interview, navy officer, Bogotá, 18 July 2017; drug trafficking expert, Bogotá, 17 August 2017.Hide Footnote

Despite these challenges, crop substitution is progressing. As of August, some 3,500 families had received their first monthly stipend, and the government is looking to lift these numbers rapidly. Additional measures, such as providing land titles for coca farmers, could help change the way farmers view their property and place in society.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, coca cultivation experts, Cúcuta and Bogotá, 14 and 17 August 2017.Hide Footnote But to achieve these goals, the government as a whole needs to make a firm and lasting commitment to goals beyond immediate crop reduction – including broader rural reform – and to secure further international support in the process.

B. Illegal mining

The fight against illegal mining poses a different set of problems. Led by the rural police force, DICAR, and its illegal mining unit, which includes 450 people, the campaign depends on cooperation by other government bodies, including the army’s Anti-illegal Mining Brigade. Civilian authorities must be present whenever the police destroy illegal mining machinery.[fn]Crisis Group interview, DICAR official, Bogotá, 26 April 2017. “Normatividad General Para El Control a La Explotación Ilícita De Minerales”, Mining and Energy Ministry, April 2017. “Decreto Número 2235 de 2012”, Defence Ministry, 30 October 2012.Hide Footnote

There are various proposals to grant authorities wider powers to charge and penalise those taking part in criminal mining, either directly or by, for example, renting land for such purposes. Statistics show that police are making more arrests related to illegal mining and destroying more machinery. But there is a flip side: communities that depend on illegal mines could be further estranged from the state, turning to armed groups for protection. To avoid this, the government should accelerate the current process to register and formalise small-scale miners, which would protect them from state actions against criminal mining and undermine illegal actors’ ability to use informal miners as a conduit for money laundering.[fn]See proposed laws: 169 of 2016 (Senate), 137 of 2016 (Senate), and 111 of 2016 (House). The latter two have been strongly criticised by the High Council of Criminal Policy. Estudio a los proyectos de ley no. 111 de 2016 (Cámara) and y no. 137 de 2016 (Senado), High Council of Criminal Policy, 6 October 2016. “Logros de la Política de Defensa y Seguridad Todos por un Nuevo País”, Defence Ministry, July 2017, pp. 60-63. Crisis Group interview, DICAR official, Bogotá, 26 April 2017.Hide Footnote

Also, local authorities are responsible for taking certain punitive actions against illegal mining. However, in many cases they do not have the resources or the political will to do so, often due to corruption.[fn]Corrupción: la aliada de la minería ilegal”, El Espectador, 17 February 2017.Hide Footnote To force regional and local authorities’ hands, the Constitutional Court recently ordered the government to define its strategy against illegal gold mining in Chocó; it calls on different government institutions to create a “plan to give regional entities sufficient tools, in terms of institutional capacity, financial resources and personnel” to fight illegal mining.[fn]Sentencia T-622/16”, Colombian Constitutional Court, 10 November 2016.Hide Footnote If the Chocó plan shows results, it should be studied and adjusted for application elsewhere.

D. Responding to Local Social Demands

Local dispute resolution is one of the most effective ways for Colombia’s armed groups to gain community support and legitimacy. All the groups studied here resolve disputes in territories under their control, though generally with a highly authoritarian style of justice.[fn]Crisis Group fieldwork, Barranquillita, Miraflores, Guaviare, 6 April 2017. Crisis Group interviews, local resident, El Retorno, Guaviare, 10 April 2017; human rights activist and international organisation representative, Quidbó, 29 August 2017. Mario Águilera Peña, Contrapoder y justicia guerrillera, fragmentación política y orden insurgente en Colombia (1952-2003) (Bogotá, 2014).Hide Footnote To win local legitimacy, the state needs to offer or improve its own mechanisms.

Local access to state judicial mechanisms is insufficient and in some areas non-existent. The public prosecutor has offices in only 453 municipalities (out of 1,101) in 2014; most are in urban centres that rural inhabitants find hard to reach. Alternatives to the court system are needed, and models already exist in some places. In roughly 90 municipalities, 108 Justice Houses bring together national and local bodies as well as formal and informal judicial actors to offer services and information. These Justice Houses promote “alternative mechanisms of conflict resolution”, though their efforts are undermined by uncertain local funding and lack of coordination between the national-level institutions involved.[fn]Mauricio Vargas, José Rafael Espinosa Restrepo, Sebastián Lalinde Ordóñez, Lina Arroyave Velásquez, and Carolina Villadiego Burbando, Casas de justicia: Una buena idea mal administrada, Dejusticia, (Bogotá, 2015). Crisis Group interviews, judicial experts, Bogotá, 25 May and 12 July 2017. “Responsabilidades”, Ministerio de Justicia: Casas de Justicia, n.d.Hide Footnote A process known as “conciliation” is also used throughout Colombia, allowing parties to resolve small problems without a formal judicial process.[fn]Crisis Group interview, government official, Bogotá, 14 July 2017.Hide Footnote Once an agreement is reached, trained conciliators write a legally binding act with commitments from each side. Police inspectors also can mediate, are often respected by locals, and can take punitive measures in certain cases.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, community leaders, Tumaco, 12, 17, 18 May 2017; mediator, government official and Church official, Tibú, 15 August 2017. The police inspectors’ mandate is defined in various laws and decrees, the most recent of which is the new police code. “Ley 1801 de 2016”, Colombian Congress, 29 July 2016.Hide Footnote

Some agreements reached through conciliation suffer from enforcement problems in conflict-affected areas because no state body can swiftly coerce the parties into compliance. If a person does not fulfil his or her commitments, the case can be sent to the formal judicial system where enforcement tends to be exceptionally slow. While the police have begun a mediation program in twelve big cities, their ability to convince people to fulfil their commitments might not extend to conflict-affected areas, where the force is often lacking in legitimacy.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, community leaders, Tumaco, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18 May 2017; conciliator, Tibú, 15 August 2017; judicial system experts, Bogotá, 25 May and 12 July 2017. “Sedes de los Centros de Conciliación y Mediación de la Policía Nacional”, Policía Nacional, n.d.Hide Footnote

In Tibú, Norte de Santander, only one of the 92 community leaders trained as conciliators in 2005 is still working, and relies on income from other jobs to make ends meet. This situation is repeated throughout much of Colombia’s rural periphery.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, community leaders, Tumaco, 12, 17, 18 May 2017; conciliator, government official and church official, Tibú, 15 August 2017; international organisation representatives, Cúcuta, 14 August 2017 and Quibdó, 29 August 2017.Hide Footnote Better training and economic incentives, such as scholarships, stipends for transportation or improvements in housing, could help. But for this to happen, government officials will have to start treating conciliators not merely as a cost-saving device that can reduce pressure on the formal justice system, but as a model for satisfying communities’ demands where the state is weak.[fn]Crisis Group interview, government official, Bogotá, 23 August 2017. DNP, Análisis Conceptual del Sistema Nacional de Conciliación en Colombia en sus 25 años: Construyendo diálogo y paz para el futuro, (Bogotá, 2015).Hide Footnote

E. Negotiations with the ELN

Negotiations between the government and ELN in Quito have been mired in mutual mistrust, ongoing violence, and disunity within the guerrilla movement. The agenda remains ill defined, despite pressure to reach an agreement before the 2018 elections since there is no guarantee the next president will continue the talks. The negotiations nevertheless received a boost when both sides reached agreement on a temporary ceasefire, which began on 1 October and will last until 9 January, and will be verified by the second UN mission.[fn]Under the terms of the ceasefire, the ELN will have to cease kidnappings, attacks against infrastructure, including oil pipelines, child recruitment and use of antipersonnel mines. The government will strengthen measures to protect social leaders, carry out a humanitarian program with jailed ELN members, hasten application of new laws on protests, and carry out meetings with civil society leaders related to the ELN peace process. “Acuerdo y comunicado sobre el cese al fuego bilateral y temporal entre el Gobierno y el ELN”, Colombian government, 4 September 2017. There is also apparently a private, more technical document with specific military commitments.Hide Footnote

The ELN peace talks face the same challenges as those with the FARC: they need to achieve sufficient progress to make the political cost of changing course in 2018 prohibitively high. This means reducing the conflict’s intensity and ending violations of international humanitarian law. The ceasefire, although temporary, is an important step in this direction; now agreement is needed on point 5.f regarding “humanitarian actions and dynamics”, which looks to reduce conflict intensity and its effect on victims in the longer run. Extending the ceasefire and making progress on humanitarian issues before upcoming Congressional elections in March 2018 could provide political incentives to continue the talks, and help persuade the public to support further negotiations.

The ceasefire will be most difficult to guarantee in areas where the ELN is in open conflict with other armed groups, such as Chocó and Nariño. Violent ELN reactions to other armed actors may not violate the ceasefire, but will stir mistrust toward the ELN in Colombia’s urban population. The ELN leadership states it will carry out internal discussions to explain the ceasefire, but its federal structure and high degree of internal autonomy may limit the effect of these talks.[fn]“‘Eln hará pedagogía sobre el cese en todos sus frentes’: Restrepo”, El Espectador, 5 September 2017. The ELN has justified kidnapping outsiders, for example, as necessary to protect communities where the group operates, falsely alleging it is part of their fulfilment of international humanitarian law. Crisis Group electronic communication, Radio Nacional – Patria Libre, 20 June 2017.Hide Footnote Critically, the Western War Front, based in Chocó, should honour its commitment to send a representative to the negotiating table during ceasefire implementation; this should increase the likelihood that it will remain in compliance despite conflict with the Gaitanistas.

V. A Role for the International Community

Only recently has the international community begun to focus on addressing the security challenges still facing Colombia, though international organisations have already played a key role in the peace process. The UN mission is especially important, serving as the central political actor charged with verifying and monitoring progress on security in post-conflict communities.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, senior diplomats, Bogotá, 18 and 25 August 2017. “United Nations Security Council Resolution 2366 (2017)”, UN, 10 July 2017.Hide Footnote While the UN mission risks being exposed to internal and external political pressure over its reporting on security conditions, it must continue to provide the Colombian government and public with a candid, evidence-based assessment of realities on the ground.

The 2003-2006 paramilitary demobilisation demonstrated that international organisations such as the Mission to Support the Peace Process of the Organisation of American States (MAPP-OEA) and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights also can help promote frank debate on these issues and pressure the government to recognise the true scale of security threats, exactly as they did a decade ago when they publicly reported the presence and growth of armed groups that arose in the wake of the demobilisation.[fn]La nueva guerra de Uribe”, Semana, 16 March 2009.Hide Footnote Thanks to their robust presence in Colombia’s outlying regions, these organisations can do the same again, while also supporting the UN mission through information sharing.

The international community is strikingly absent in the area of crop substitution.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, senior diplomats, Bogotá, 11 and 25 August 2017.Hide Footnote While the issue is politically and legally troublesome for some international actors, all agree that high levels of coca production hinder the consolidation of peace. Additionally, since the early 2000s, many international actors have been pushing for a development-based approach to coca cultivation, which is essentially what the peace agreement and crop substitution program delineate. As discussed, the program suffers from underfunding and would benefit from financial assistance to help coca growers engage in productive projects, receive technical support and implement household food security projects.

VI. Conclusion

Colombia has made progress on security since the FARC gathered its fighters in camps and began handing over its weapons. Yet these improvements are neither uniform nor stable. In some conflict-affected regions little has changed. Political polarisation over the merits of the peace deal, coupled with pressure on the government to broadcast consistently positive results, has undermined impartial coverage of emerging security threats within Colombian society and inside the government. Yet the evidence now shows that FARC dissident groups, organised crime groups of differing scales and the ELN still control territory or are looking to do so in the face of selective state resistance.

Still, the state response is taking shape. The Defence Ministry has crafted sophisticated plans to occupy territory vacated by the FARC and combat organised crime, even though they are progressing more slowly than anticipated or hoped for. Accelerating implementation of these plans, and adapting them to the specific challenges posed by each territory and armed group, will help ensure that other parts of the peace accord, notably coca crop substitution, rural development programs and reincorporation of FARC fighters, can be undertaken in more peaceful conditions. This is vital to ensure that the government to be elected in 2018 continues to honour the agreement.

Security, though, is not only a product of state coercion. The Colombian government is in a fight for territorial control, especially over border regions and river deltas. It finds itself continually hampered by the huge monetary incentives of illegal economic activity and the difficulties of curbing corruption. Armed groups flourish wherever they can claim to provide protection and justice for communities, and they tend to find their most willing partners and subjects in areas where locals fear the state and depend on illicit economic activity for their livelihoods. As the government looks to expand its control, it will need to focus not just on the use of coercion, but on providing protection for communities, substituting illicit economies with alternative means of development and resolving local disputes. Failure to meet any of these undertakings will open the door for illegal armed groups. The deployment of military and police units in post-conflict territories provides a window of opportunity that the state should not squander.

Bogotá/Brussels, 19 October 2017

Appendix A: Map of Colombia

Map of Colombia

Appendix B: Maps of Key Post-conflict Regions

Map of Chocó Mike Shand/International Crisis Group, 2017.
Map of Caquetá Mike Shand/International Crisis Group, 2017.
Map of Guaviare Mike Shand/International Crisis Group, 2017.
Map of Meta Mike Shand/International Crisis Group, 2017.
Map of Nariño Mike Shand/International Crisis Group, 2017.
Map of Norte de Santander Mike Shand/International Crisis Group, 2017.

Appendix C: Map of Armed Groups and Coca Crops in Colombia, 2017

Map of Armed Groups and Coca Crops in Colombia, 2017 Mike Shand/International Crisis Group, 2017.

Appendix D: Reported Crimes in Colombia, 2016-2017

Reported Crimes in Colombia, 2016-2017 Data from National Police, in Katherine Aguirre, “Violencia y criminalidad tras la implementación de los acuerdos de paz”, Razón Pública, 16 July 2017.

Appendix E: Confirmed and Alleged FARC Dissident Groups, 2017

Confirmed and Alleged FARC Dissident Groups, 2017 Crisis Group, 2017.

Appendix F: Coca Cultivation in Colombia by Region, 2001-2016 (in hectares)

Coca Cultivation in Colombia by Region, 2001-2016 (in hectares) United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, “Colombia: Monitoreo de territorios afectados por cultivos ilícitos 2016”, July 2017, p. 214.
A member of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) sits in his tent in the “Alfonso Artiaga” Front 29 FARC encampment in a rural area of Policarpa, Narino, in southwestern Colombia on 16 January 2017. AFP/Luis Robayo
Report 60 / Latin America & Caribbean

In the Shadow of “No”: Peace after Colombia’s Plebiscite

Revised and ratified after its shock rejection in October 2016’s referendum, Colombia’s peace agreement still lacks sustainable political support. Reversing public distrust will need swift and effective implementation of the accord – including full apologies for past crimes and the visible handover of weapons by insurgents.

  • Share
  • Save
  • Print
  • Download PDF Full Report

Executive Summary

Defeat by a wafer-thin margin in the October 2016 plebiscite on the peace agreement between the government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) insurgency shocked Colombia’s society and political establishment, as well as the accord’s international backers. With the signed document suspended while rebel combatants tentatively gathered in sites across the country, prospects for an end to 52 years of armed conflict initially darkened. A revised accord, with numerous changes demanded by opposition leaders, was unveiled less than two months later, but the illusion of consensus was short-lived. Indignant that it was not able to review the new text and incensed that though many of its proposals were included, a few key ones were not, the opposition decried the agreement and its ratification in Congress. Peace with the guerrillas is again set to polarise parties and candidates in elections in 2018. A swift, effective start to implementation of the accord is needed to reverse public wariness and political resistance.

Victory in those elections for opponents of the peace agreement would be the harbinger of major challenges to the deal’s sustainability. Concentration of FARC combatants is underway, albeit problematically and with delays, and the six-month timetable for the handover of weapons has been set in motion. However, funding gaps, administrative delays and the political balance of power ahead of 2018 threaten to curtail transitional arrangements and structural reforms aimed at remedying the root grievances of the conflict. The opposition could financially starve institutions, programs or policies in the peace agreement if it comes to power. The terms of transitional justice, measures on rural reform and land access, and community-based approaches to removing coca crops and establishing alternative income-generating activities could all be in danger.

Defending the agreement will be an intrinsic part of the political battle ahead. Persuading a distrustful, urbanised public to give its backing depends in the immediate term on what happens in and around FARC cantonments. Over the next year, successful implementation will be the best way to bolster popular and political support and make it politically costly for opponents to reverse the peace process. Transparency in handover of weapons, full apologies for past crimes, continued progress on humanitarian actions such as de-mining, increased results in the search for victims of forced disappearance and eventual cooperation with the Special Jurisdiction for Peace would underline the insurgents’ commitment to peace and the dangers of reneging on the agreement.

Violence on the ground will also affect support for the agreement in the short term. FARC leaders and troops fear betrayal by the state, and some may seek to hedge their bets in face of the visible opposition from significant political forces. Promised peace talks with the country’s second insurgency, the National Liberation Army (ELN), have not begun, and various armed groups appear to be behind dozens of killings of social leaders that constitute a new wave of terror in remote rural communities. Only resolute commitment by the state to prevent battles for control of illicit economies and protect civilians and ex-combatants will give peace real local-level meaning.

The international community should continue its political support, using its delegates and special envoys to maintain dialogue with all sides and exerting discrete pressure when necessary on opposition leaders to preserve crucial parts of the agreement that could be in jeopardy. It should refrain from making calls for renewed aerial fumigation of coca crops and instead give the agreement on illicit drug substitution a real chance to have effect. It must also use its financial assistance to establish mechanisms for moving resources quickly on behalf of effective implementation on the ground, helping resolve and learn from problems as they arise.

Rebuilding Colombia's Trust in the Peace Process

In this video, our Senior Analyst for Colombia, Kyle Johnson, highlights the main findings of Crisis Group’s report “In the Shadow of “No”: Peace after Colombia’s Plebiscite”. Crisis Group


To build political support for sustainable implementation of the new peace agreement

To the government of Colombia:

  1. Strengthen dissemination of the peace agreement in both rural and urban areas, while increasing protection rapidly for social leaders under threat until the agreement on security guarantees can be implemented.
  2. Establish and fund new institutions and commissions tasked with key roles to implement the peace agreement quickly, while strengthening nascent and galvanising existing bodies to generate early peace dividends for victims and conflict-zone communities.

To the government of Colombia and the FARC:

  1. Continue with the established weapons handover schedule despite delays in FARC arrival at cantonment sites, while adopting a proactive communication strategy, including documenting evidence of the FARC laying down weapons and engaging in reinsertion and of progress on other aspects of implementation.
  2. Keep victims at the centre of the process as implementation begins, increasing cooperation in the search for victims of forced disappearance, releasing all children age fifteen and under in FARC ranks and continuing public apologies for notorious crimes committed in the war.
  3. Explore space for dialogue with the opposition on implementation.
  4. Prioritise improving security for local leaders in the short term with preventive measures, training and strengthened security schemes, while also setting up institutions for protection of FARC members.
  5. Include local and regional authorities more directly during the arms abandonment process and planning of other implementation aspects.

To the opposition:

  1. Reinitiate dialogue with the government on implementation and increase the frequency, strength and level of its denunciations of violence against social leaders.

To the international community:

  1. Continue peace process support by maintaining delegates and special envoys during implementation, supporting citizen security and sustaining funding for international actors with important post-conflict roles, such as the UN High Commissioners for Human Rights and Refugees among other key players.
  2. Press the government and FARC to keep their commitments on time and to involve local actors more extensively.
  3. Continue dialogue with the opposition so as to press for support especially of at-risk parts of the peace agreement, such as rural development, political participation, transitional justice and humanitarian measures.
  4. Make more frequent public statements showing concern for the killing of social leaders and demanding progress in protection and justice.
  5. Support new agreements for major alternative development investments to tackle illicit drug production before pressing for more direct eradication.

To the UN mission:

  1. Finish deployment as quickly as possible, including of the civilian component, to prepare for and receive FARC fighters as they gather in cantonments for weapons handover.
  2. Adopt a proactive communications strategy, publishing frequent updates on FARC concentration and weapons handover, using media beyond regular official reports.
  3. Press the government and FARC to follow the schedule for weapons handover in the peace agreement, despite early and likely future delays.

Bogotá/Brussels, 31 January 2017

I. Introduction

When Colombians voted in October 2016 on the peace agreement between the government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the “no” vote edged the “yes” by less than half of one per cent, with a 37 per cent turnout.[fn]For previous Crisis Group work on the peace process, see Latin America Reports N°s 58, Colombia’s Final Steps to the End of War, 7 September 2016; 53, The Day after Tomorrow: Colombia’s FARC and the End of the Conflict, 11 December 2014; 51, Left in the Cold? The ELN and Colombia’s Peace Talks, 26 February 2014; 49, Transitional Justice and Colombia’s Peace Talks, 29 August 2013; 45, Colombia: Peace at Last?, 25 September 2012; and Briefing N°32, On Thinner Ice: The Final Phase of Colombia’s Peace Talks, 3 July 2015.Hide Footnote  An intense process of high-level political dialogue ensued, leading to a new agreement that the government, FARC and many in civil society defend. Voicing dismay at the government, which it accuses of undermining democracy, the opposition has also united, but with the aim of rejecting the new agreement.

Congress has ratified the accord, and the start of the calendar for the insurgency’s weapons handover was set for 1 December, initiating the countdown for the 15,000 FARC combatants and militia members to gather in 26 cantonments across the country. The opposition, despite the Constitutional Court having allowed the congressional ratification procedure, has argued that by relying on the previously established pro-government majorities in both houses of the legislature, President Juan Manuel Santos cheated the people. Attempts to persuade it to support the new agreement have failed.

The context in which peace is to be implemented is far from hospitable. The government will struggle, even with international aid, to fund all the activities envisaged. New institutions the accord requires – some already created – are skeletal, sorely understaffed and unable to undertake the programs they are designed for, such as the Agency for Territorial Renovation; other official bodies, including the attorney general’s office, have proposed policies contrary to those in the agreement.[fn]Crisis Group telephone interview, high-level diplomat, Bogotá, 28 November 2016; interview, government official, 9 December 2016.Hide Footnote Violence against local social leaders has increased, raising doubts about peace benefits and leading to further polarisation between supporters and opponents. The peace process with the National Liberation Army (ELN), Colombia’s second largest insurgency, is yet to begin.

Political support for the peace agreement is weak and will most likely flag as the presidential election campaign begins later this year that will bring a new leader to office in 2018. Full implementation is thus far from guaranteed. Even so, the government and FARC have a window of opportunity to build support via implementation over the next eighteen months that would raise the political cost of not continuing the process from mid-2018 onwards.

The research for this approach included extensive interviews with members of the opposition, FARC and government negotiating teams, members of the Tripartite Mechanism to monitor and verify the ceasefire, pro-peace agreement leaders and politicians, political and legal experts and members of the international community close to the peace talks.

II. Getting to a New Agreement

The journey from plebiscite to new peace agreement hinged on various decisive moments. The starting point was the document’s narrow defeat on 2 October, leading to a complex shift in the balance of political power. Neither government nor opposition could claim a clear mandate. Tensions worsened as renegotiation began on a new text, ending with the crafting of an accord that lacked the stable, sustainable political base that opposition support would have added to that of pro-peace political parties, many victims’ organisations and civil society.

A. What Explains the Plebiscite Result?

The surprise result stemmed from the diversity and levels of commitment of voter bases in the opposition and pro-accord movements. A combination of ex-President Álvaro Uribe’s devoted support, anti-“gender ideology” churchgoers and the most right-wing elements of the divided Conservative party made up the majority of those who rejected the agreement.[fn]“Gender ideology” is the phrase used by groups who claim the accord looks to convert children into homosexuals, attacks the traditional family and seeks to take away parents’ right to educate their children in traditional ways. They say the ideology is in those parts of the agreement that promote special treatment for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) victims of the conflict. Crisis Group interview, pastor opposed to peace accord, Bogotá, 3 November 2016.Hide Footnote Though he remains extremely divisive, Uribe’s support is stable and high. His followers tend to be more active in promoting their views and encouraging others to vote than those who favour the accords. Uribe backers are in general also more inclined to vote than other groups. The plebiscite was ideal for mobilising his committed base, as it loathes the FARC, rejects its participation in politics and fears Colombia turning into chavista Venezuela. The “religious vote”, primarily concerned about an alleged “gender ideology” smuggled into the agreement, is assumed to have been higher than in previous elections and fundamental to the result. Finally, an unknown part of the “no” vote derived from disinformation targeted at voters according to their region and income level.[fn]‘La estrategia del Sí tuvo muchos desaciertos’: Francisco Gutiérrez”, Semana, 8 October 2016. Jennifer Cyr and Carlos Meléndez, “Colombia’s right-wing populist movement defeated the peace deal. Here’s how we know”, The Washington Post, 4 October 2016. The director of the “no” campaign said different messages were used for distinct population sectors to encourage anger-based voting. These included claims the FARC would receive impunity; images of Santos and FARC leader Timochenko together; that subsidies and pensions for the poor and elderly would be cut; and Colombia would turn into Venezuela. Juliana Ramírez, “El No ha sido la campaña más barata y más efectiva de la historia”, La República, 5 October 2016.Hide Footnote

The high-level battle also favoured the opposition. Ex-President César Gaviria, leading the “yes” campaign, was unable to counter opposition arguments effectively, and no strong, unifying figure similar to Uribe emerged. Vice President Germán Vargas Lleras, a candidate for the role given his power and direct experience of guerrilla violence, was almost completely silent and, if anything, gave indirect support to the opposition.[fn]Vargas Lleras said he supported the agreement, with misgivings on certain issues. The Uribe argument of supporting peace but with changes was conceptually similar, and Vargas Lleras’s lack of campaigning, plus some ideological similarities with Uribe, may have led part of his base to vote “no”. He is due to step down in March 2017 to begin campaigning for the presidency.Hide Footnote “Yes” campaign strategies were also questionable. President Santos’s and other establishment-based parties focused on regional and local politicians, depending mainly on political machines, powerful families and coalition-building, which proved less effective in a single-issue plebiscite than in regular elections and were not even fully activated. Civil society, while vocal, again showed its historical weakness at mobilising votes. Finally, some pro-accord voters may have been complacent due to polls pointing to a big victory.

Areas of higher poverty tended to vote for the accord, except in Bogotá where lower-income groups were strongly “no”. The periphery – defined by measures of typical rural attributes or state capacity – also tended to back the agreement. It has been argued that areas with higher victimisation levels in the armed conflict tended to vote “yes”, but that argument hinges on how victimisation is measured.[fn]Leopoldo Fergusson and Carlos Molina, “Un vistazo a los resultados del plebiscito”, La Silla Vacía, 4 October 2016. If victimisation is measured solely by displacement, there is a clear correlation with “yes” votes, but not when it is measured more generally.Hide Footnote

The opposition’s victory meant its proposals for a new agreement had to be taken into account if the process was to be saved. Early on, some opposition leaders argued that any new accord required their approval. But the close result also allowed the politically-weakened government to divide the opposition (or isolate Uribe) by absorbing some concerns, while maintaining the risky option of a new plebiscite, a tactic that deprived foes of an absolute veto. Moreover, at various stages, the opposition showed itself to be divided. It was not until a new agreement was reached and ratified in Congress, despite the omission of certain of its key concerns, that the opposition could unite in indignation.

B. Positions for a New Agreement

Shortly after the plebiscite, the political and social actors who actively opposed the original agreement handed in their proposed changes. The first document with the entirety of their proposals presented in Havana to the FARC contained more than 260 items from at least ten sources.[fn]Santos no recibe más propuestas sobre el acuerdo de paz”, El Espectador, 20 October 2016. “Propuestas de Gobierno”, Government of Colombia (GOC), 23 October 2016.Hide Footnote Part, especially those touching on rural reform, reflected political interests rather than the concerns of many “no” voters. Despite the diverse, in some cases contradictory universe of proposals, there was a handful the opposition considered indispensable.

The most politically important were unmistakeable. There was a consensus that punishments in the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (SPJ) – the system devised to mete out transitional justice for serious crimes committed during the conflict – must be harsher, especially (in some cases exclusively) for the FARC. The SPJ, the opposition argued, should become part of the normal judicial system. There was near agreement that the Armed Forces must receive preferential treatment, though what that entailed differed between factions. The opposition shifted from demanding permanent prohibition from political office for those convicted of crimes against humanity and war crimes to a ban until sentences were completed.

All opposition groups agreed that there should be no amnesty for drug trafficking, the FARC should hand over its assets to be used as reparations to victims, and FARC use of such resources for political activity should be explicitly prohibited. The opposition was also united in demanding the agreement not have constitutional rank.[fn]The constitutional rank, or bloc, is the series of norms not in the constitution but used as parameters for constitutional control of law, such as treaties. “Sentencia C-067/03”, Constitutional Court, 2003.Hide Footnote Private property, it insisted, must be explicitly respected. Finally, concerns were expressed over “gender ideology” and its alleged effects on what was argued to be traditionally defined family and society.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, opposition representative and negotiators, Bogotá, 19, 20 October, 8, 11 November; Christian pastor, Bogotá, 3 November; senior diplomat, 11 November, all 2016. “Propuestas de Gobierno”, op. cit.Hide Footnote

The government responded by identifying those it considered easy to resolve, those that were difficult but not impossible and those that were held to be completely unviable. The opposition then argued that ruling out anything meant Santos was opening the door to “cheating” “no” voters by discarding key proposals that were inconvenient. Nonetheless, Santos sent his negotiators to Cuba with orders to take tougher stances on certain points, leading to friction with the FARC on the political participation issue, for example.[fn]Santos dice que algunas propuestas para acuerdo de paz son inviables”, El Tiempo, 20 October 2016. “Santos quiere hacer conejo con el acuerdo: Alejandro Ordóñez”, El Espectador, 3 November 2016. Crisis Group interview, senior diplomat, Bogotá, 4 November 2016; opposition negotiator, Bogotá, 8 November 2016; FARC negotiator, Havana, 28 October 2016.Hide Footnote

Once renegotiations began in Cuba, attention turned to the FARC’s reaction. Soon after the plebiscite, the group announced it was committed to peace and, in a 7 October communiqué, to adjusting the agreement so that it could earn broad-based political backing.[fn]Comunicado conjunto: Acuerdo Final, plebiscito y cese al fuego”, GOC and FARC-EP, 7 October 2016.Hide Footnote But it also said it could not yield on eligibility for office, which it considered the essence of the negotiations: converting an armed insurgency into a peaceful political force. It also continued to reject prison sentences, insisting that any harsher punishment must be applied to all actors in the conflict, and opposed including the SPJ within the ordinary justice system. The FARC (and government) disagreed with the proposal to give landowners a permanent assumption of good faith in all land purchases, thus allowing them to avoid prosecution if the land had been stolen without their direct participation. Lastly, it pushed hard for the accord to have constitutional force, but eventually gave way.[fn]Crisis Group interview, FARC negotiator, Havana, 28 October 2016.Hide Footnote

C. Three Renegotiations

A new agreement depended on three negotiation processes. The first was between the opposition and government. In public, both spoke of productive talks; in reality, there was a mutual lack of confidence. The government believed the opposition wanted to drag talks on into the 2018 presidential election, while the opposition was unsure the government would genuinely represent its positions in Havana. After an early back-and-forth, the opposition handed in a document with all its original proposals, some of which were watered down to show flexibility.[fn]Crisis Group interview, opposition negotiator, Bogotá, 8 November 2016.Hide Footnote

The second track involved civil society supporters of the peace agreement and the government, as well as on occasion the FARC. Not so much a negotiation as a defensive move by the pro-agreement camp, organisations, movements and leaders met with Santos to urge him to find a new accord quickly and to retain the original principles. A series of marches across the country and creation of a Peace Camp in Bogotá’s central Bolívar Plaza kept pressure on all sides.[fn]Crisis Group interview, organiser of the Peace Camp in Bolívar Plaza, Bogotá, 12 October 2016.Hide Footnote Some movements travelled to Havana to urge the FARC to persevere in its search for peace.

The third and final negotiation was between the government and the FARC. The government negotiators returned to Havana on 21 October and began a first round of talks, each one lasting roughly twelve hours. After these, the team returned to Bogotá to update the opposition. On 29 October, a new round began with the FARC, eventually leading to the announcement of a revised accord on 12 November. The latter talks had their difficult moments, particularly over FARC’s future political participation.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, high-level diplomat, Bogotá, 4 November 2016; FARC negotiator, Havana, 28 October 2016.Hide Footnote

During the negotiations with the FARC, a stable line of communication was established to keep opposition leaders up to date. However, concern that the government was not properly representing opposition positions was never fully dissipated. The “no” leaders expected further discussion on the new agreement before it was signed, but this never happened. With a few key concerns not addressed and amid politically motivated allegations that the revisions were little more than cosmetic, the opposition finally united against the document.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, opposition negotiators, Bogotá, 8, 11 and 30 November 2016.Hide Footnote

Throughout the renegotiation, the government and FARC felt under great time pressure due to concern the bilateral ceasefire could fall apart, despite an early consensus between them and the opposition that it was necessary. A new, detailed protocol included the pre-grouping of FARC fighters. With the government paying for FARC sustenance after 30 days, maintenance of the cessation of hostilities was possible, but the ceasefire was designed to last only three months.[fn]Crisis Group interview, member, UN mission, Bogotá, 9 November 2016. “protocolo para el cese al fuego y de hostilidades bilateral y definitivo (CFHBD) entre el gobierno nacional y las FARC-EP”, GOC, FARC-EP and UN mission, 13 October 2016.Hide Footnote On 13 November, the army killed two FARC fighters carrying out extortion activities on pretext of being ELN in Santa Rosa del Sur, a southern Bolívar province municipality.[fn]“GOC and FARC-EP violated ceasefire in south Bolivar incident”, Tripartite Mechanism communiqué, 30 November 2016.Hide Footnote While this event highlighted the ceasefire’s fragility, it also showed the robustness of the Tripartite Mechanism.[fn]The Tripartite Mechanism, which includes the government, FARC and UN mission, is to monitor and verify the ceasefire and weapons handover process. The UN mission is charged with investigating possible violations, helping agree protocols when necessary, assuring the parties fulfil their roles and providing recommendations after violations, among other tasks.Hide Footnote Both parties immediately turned to it to investigate, and it found violations by both sides. Government and FARC language then softened, and no further violent actions took place between them.

D. The New Agreement

The new agreement announced on 12 November included numerous changes based on opposition proposals. Some 58 per cent of the opposition’s original public proposals were included completely or partially. Some 58 proposals posited complete changes in form and underlying justification, of which 21 were included completely and six partially.[fn]See “Radiografía del plebiscito y el posplebiscito”, and “Radiografía del nuevo acuerdo: ¿Qué tanto se renegoció?”, both Fundación Ideas para la Paz, n.d.Hide Footnote Contrary to opposition charges, the revisions were beyond cosmetic.

Most of the opposition’s proposals and wording on Comprehensive Rural Reform were included and/or addressed, such as the rural tax system and legal protection for those who bought land in good faith. The same can be said for proposals and wording on political participation, for example on the role of political parties in designing a new statute for the political opposition.[fn]Many of victims’ leader Herbin Hoyos’s original proposals on victims’ participation in politics did not make it into the agreement, as they were either already implicitly there or proposed automatic seats in Congress for victims and a party with the same rights as the FARC, among others. The statute for political opposition is a legal measure to outline the special “guarantees for political parties and movements that declare themselves to be in opposition”. “Acuerdo final para la terminación del conflicto y la construcción de una paz estable y duradera”, GOC and FARC-EP, 24 November 2016, p. 37.Hide Footnote Some proposals on procedures for ending the conflict and on guarantees for ex-combatants’ security were accepted, though the conditions under which ex-combatants could hold office, including automatic allocation of congressional seats, were not altered. Several proposals on illegal drug cultivation were also incorporated, including a FARC legal commitment to hand over all relevant information about the drug trade, and the state’s right to aerially fumigate coca crops, despite suspension of this method in 2015.

Regarding victims and justice, the FARC is to hand over its whole war economy to provide victims reparations. The SPJ system is to be connected to the penal code and judicial system and not have foreign judges nor give NGO reports the same weight in evidence as information from the state authorities. SPJ courts may rule that FARC drug-trafficking can be interpreted as having been for personal gain, not merely to fund armed political activity. Perhaps most importantly in light of “no” campaign rhetoric, the new accord defines the restriction of liberty of convicted guerrilla combatants as obliging them to reside throughout their sentences within a village, under UN surveillance, while doing reparations-oriented work.[fn]Ibid.Hide Footnote

Numerous implementation proposals were added, including clauses on the accord’s financial stability; definition of “gender focus” as the “recognition of the equal rights between men and women, the special circumstances of each …”; and explicit respect for religious liberty.[fn]Ibid, p. 193.Hide Footnote Nor will the agreement have constitutional rank.[fn]Sources for this information include a comparison of the new accord, GOC and FARC-EP, op. cit., and the first document used in Havana to discuss opposition proposals, “Propuestas de Gobierno”, op. cit.; and “Sistematización opciones y propuestas voceros del no y lo acordado en el nuevo acuerdo”, Oficina del Alto Comisionado para la Paz, 22 November 2016. For just changes, see “Documento de trabajo: cambios, precisiones y ajustes”, Office of the High Commissioner for Peace, 12 November 2016. Pablo Abitbol, “Comparación anterior y nuevo Acuerdo Final Gobierno de Colombia – FARC-EP”, n.d.Hide Footnote The government and FARC argued they made changes to 56 of 57 topics discussed with the opposition; FARC political participation was the exception.[fn]“‘Logramos precisiones y cambios en 56 de los 57 temas abordados en nuevo acuerdo’: Santos”, El Espectador, 12 November 2016.Hide Footnote

III. Peace Toward 2018

All opposition leaders and the government negotiating team met the evening of 21 November in Bogotá.[fn]On the morning of 21 November, the presidential candidates of the Democratic Centre Party met with government negotiators to cordially discuss agreement on implementation. But poor communication from the opposition and differences of opinion on the government side, as well as procedural disagreements, set the tone for the evening meeting. Crisis Group interviews, opposition negotiator, Bogotá, 29 November 2016; political expert, Bogotá, 2 December 2016.Hide Footnote It started poorly, and ended worse. Perceptions differed on whether changes had been made to key parts of the accord; whether the new agreement was to be discussed with “no” leaders before signing; and over the way forward. They settled for complete disagreement: the opposition publicly rejected the accord, backtracking on some of its offers of greater flexibility. The polarisation created by the plebiscite, after being briefly camouflaged during the renegotiation process, resurfaced intact during the new ratification process.[fn]No es No”, La Silla Vacía, 22 November 2016; “Comunicado de representantes del No y de las víctimas”, 21 November 2016; Crisis Group interview, opposition negotiator, Bogotá, 30 November 2016.Hide Footnote

A. The Politics of Congressional Ratification

On 29 November, the Senate approved the peace agreement, 75-0; 25 from the opposition took part in debate but abstained, arguing Congress had no legal mandate to approve the accord. The same occurred in the House of Representatives the next day, where the vote was 130-0 (out of 166 taking part). The votes were controversial for reasons that will continue to impair support for the agreement.

Using Congress gave the government and FARC a clear route to ratification, while putting the opposition at a patent disadvantage. The pro-government coalition has a clear majority in both houses, especially on issues relating to the peace process. With Congressional elections not due until 2018, there is no immediate way for the “no” movement to translate its support base into legislative power.

This has led the opposition to argue that the government is undemocratically “imposing” the same peace deal, but the assertion that the congressional ratification is “undemocratic” depends on two claims. The first is that the new accord has only cosmetic changes, which fails to recognise the opposition’s success in getting key proposals into the text. The second contests the government view as to what can be defined legally as a “popular referendum”. The opposition argues that a special congressional vote is not a valid “popular referendum”; the pro-agreement side, including Santos, insists it is. Forced to adjudicate, the Constitutional Court ruled in December that Congress could itself decide on the ratification process.[fn]The Legislative Act for Peace’s fifth article required any peace agreement to go through a “popular referendum”, which at the time included the options of local committees, Congress or a new plebiscite. When the act was passed, the “popular referendum” language referred to the plebiscite. The Constitutional Court’s ruling on the Legislative Act avoided answering if Congress was a valid option, letting that body decide. The response in effect was “yes” as Congress activated the fast-track in December. “Comunicado No. 52”, Constitutional Court, 13 December 2016, p. 2.Hide Footnote The result of these differences is that the opposition has begun to use more extreme language, ratcheting up political polarisation by questioning not just the terms of peace but also the government’s respect for basic democratic tenets.[fn]See the speeches made by the Democratic Centre Party (DCP) Senators Iván Duque, Carlos Holmes Trujillo and Óscar Iván Zuluaga during the referendum debate in the Senate on 29 November 2016.Hide Footnote

The Constitutional Court also allowed Congress to activate the fast-track system laid out in the Legislative Act for Peace for approving the more than 50 laws needed to implement the peace agreement while avoiding the standard four or eight congressional readings of each bill. Considered essential – the FARC even said it would otherwise return to war – fast-track enabled Congress to approve key legislation, including the amnesty law passed at the end of December.[fn]“‘Sin ‘fast track’ volveríamos al monte’”, Semana Video, n.d.Hide Footnote

Avoiding a second plebiscite and securing fast-track procedures for peace agreement legislation have been essential to rapid recovery of the peace process. However, the way in which the government has acted makes rejection of the peace accord and its implementation – partially or wholly – a profitable political platform for 2018, as the opposition will continue to argue there has been no new peace agreement, and that the 2 October plebiscite was thwarted. Implementation in the medium- and long-term thus is at serious risk.

B. To 2018 and Beyond

As in the 2014 elections, peace will be at the heart of the national vote in 2018. The peace agreement will be central in the opposition’s congressional and presidential platforms.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, opposition negotiators, Bogotá, 11 and 30 November 2016.Hide Footnote With Uribe and other leading opposition figures set against the peace agreement and portraying themselves as the saviours of democracy, and with Vice President Vargas Lleras another contender, the likelihood of an anti-agreement candidate winning the presidency is high.[fn]Colombian presidential politics is a mix of traditional patronage networks and political identities, powerful families and opinion-based voting. Uribe will be able to mobilise perhaps around four million supporters for his preferred candidate. Vargas Lleras has the highest favourability of any politician (61 per cent), followed by Uribe (57 per cent), though recent scandals in his Radical Change party, may weaken him. Nonetheless, his patronage networks are unmatched. Marta Lucía Ramírez, Conservative party, had a good first round in 2014, and has a favourable rating of 41 per cent, but her party is regionally weak. On the pro-agreement side, the likely Liberal party candidate, Humberto de la Calle, has a 54 per cent rating. His party, though, can no longer count on votes from its 2014 alliance with Cambio Radical and is still weakened by old divisions. The Greens and Democratic Pole are relatively weak. “Gallup Colombia Poll #116”, December 2016. “Elecciones Presidenciales: Resultados”, Registraduría Nacional del Estado Civil, s.f.Hide Footnote Full implementation of the accord would then be in jeopardy.

Coalition-building will be crucial for the next president and Congress.[fn]Alliances are a constant in presidential elections, as parties make agreements after the first round to support one of two remaining candidates. In 2018, many coalitions will likely already exist due to shared positions on the peace agreement. After the plebiscite, the power of various actors within those coalitions is hard to judge and not static.Hide Footnote The numerous possible presidential candidates within the “no” movement, including Marta Lucía Ramírez, Óscar Iván Zuluaga, Iván Duque, Carlos Holmes Trujillo, and Alejandro Ordóñez, as well as Vargas Lleras, will make competition within and between parties fiercer than normal. In general, the Democratic Centre Party (DCP) starts with an edge, as its vote threshold is high, and Uribe, though barred from a new term, enjoys a certain cult of personality.[fn]“‘La estrategia del Sí tuvo muchos desaciertos’: Francisco Gutiérrez”, Semana, 8 October 2016; Crisis Group interview, political expert, 10 November 2016.Hide Footnote It is difficult to imagine a realistic scenario in which the DCP candidate does not make it to the second round of voting. As other opposition contenders look to increase their vote share, they have tended to portray themselves more radically as saviours of democracy and security.[fn]Alejandro Ordóñez has charged that because of how the peace accord was handled, Santos is consolidating a “dictatorship”. “En Colombia estamos ‘desde hace rato en una dictadura’: Alejandro Ordóñez”, Oiga Noticias, 26 October 2016. Marta Lucía Ramírez has called for a Constitutional Assembly to “redefine the functioning of established state organs, such as the presidency, Congress and the Courts”. “Colombia se está adentrando en una crisis de legitimidad institucional”, Ramírez, 22 December 2016.Hide Footnote

Vargas Lleras will be something of a wildcard. Though he keeps a low profile on the peace issue, the influence of his Radical Change party and the extent of his political patronage networks mean he commands many votes. He regards as his main opponent Humberto de la Calle, the most likely Liberal Party candidate, who, as the government’s chief negotiator with the FARC, is a staunch defender of the peace agreement. However, Vargas Lleras and Uribe have a poor relationship, despite certain gestures from the latter that could be interpreted as an invitation to an alliance.[fn]Tatiana Duque, “La estrategia disidente de Vargas”, La Silla Vacía, 28 November 2016; Crisis Group interview, high-level diplomat, Bogotá, 4 November 2016.Hide Footnote A possible outcome is a second round in the presidential election pitting the DCP against Vargas Lleras, with neither candidate strongly for implementing the whole peace agreement.[fn]Crisis Group interview, pro-accord senator, Bogotá, 30 November 2016. Vargas Lleras never had a strong position on the accord; recent information suggests he may oppose. Tatiana Duque, “Así se prepara Vargas Lleras para cuando le llegue su hora”, La Silla Vacía, 15 January 2017.Hide Footnote If he does not reach the second round, Vargas Lleras’s support would likely be decisive for the winner. He currently appears inclined more toward the DCP than pro-peace agreement parties.

Evangelical Christian churches will also be another major player in the run-up to the election. They are believed to have provided between one and two million votes to the “no” camp, and various religious leaders expect to play a central part in 2018.[fn]Natalio Cosoy, “El rol de las iglesias cristianas evangélicas en la victoria del “No” en el plebiscito de Colombia”, BBC Mundo, 5 October 2016; “El voto evangélico, clave en la victoria del ‘no’ en el plebiscito de Colombia”, El País de España, 13 October 2016. There is no way of knowing how many votes the churches provided, though they are widely credited with contributing two million to the “no” campaign. Some church actors did favour “yes”, but they are perceived as a minority.Hide Footnote The Christian “no” vote, however, is not homogeneous. While references to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) issues in the peace agreement were ripped out of context and used to anger most Evangelical voters, there is less consensus among these Christian communities on other issues, such as justice, the truth commission and land ownership. Some pastors and followers but not all seem interested in political influence.[fn]Cristianos: ¿el poder decisorio en la política?”, Semana, 29 October 2016; Crisis Group interview, Christian pastor involved in post-plebiscite negotiations, 3 November 2016.Hide Footnote

Crafting coalitions will also be a priority for parties looking to defend the peace agreement. Numerous parties favour peace but by themselves do not provide enough votes to secure a second-round candidacy, as their support is scattered. Creating a pro-agreement alliance would be a step toward assuring that a candidate willing to implement the accord reaches the second round. But such a coalition would feature a wide array of groups that disagree strongly on other issues.[fn]Crisis Group interview, pro-agreement senator, Bogotá, 30 November 2016. For example, Jorge Robledo, Democratic Pole party senator and its possible presidential candidate, favours the accord but strongly opposes the government’s new tax bill, which parties that also support the deal back. “La peor reforma tributaria imaginable: Robledo”, Jorge Robledo, official website, 20 October 2016.Hide Footnote

The pro-agreement coalition would feature the Green Party, a force whose ability to mobilise votes is likely larger than its current representation in Congress; the Liberal and U parties, in which Santos has his roots and currently belongs respectively, and which are unlikely to make it to the second round, having done so in 2014 only because of their alliance with the Radical Change party in the first round; and what remains of the divided, left-leaning Democratic Pole party. Pro-agreement candidates will also have to find the right balance between supporting the accord and distancing themselves from Santos. The tax reform passed toward the end of 2016, which hiked value-added tax by three percentage points, the troubled economic conditions due to declining oil revenues and the president’s unpopularity make it essential that candidates who favour the peace process differentiate themselves from him and his government on other issues.[fn]President Santos’s 60 per cent disapproval rating, “Gallup Colombia Poll #116”, December 2016, is likely to worsen after a very unpopular tax reform in December. In 30 November Bolívar Plaza protests, when the House of Representatives voted on the new peace agreement, some accord protesters also held signs and chanted against the tax reform, believing it was connected to paying for peace and FARC reincorporation.Hide Footnote

Coalitions will also be decisive for forming a majority in Congress.[fn]Eighteen parties are in Congress; five parties competed in the first round of the last presidential election. Regionally-based small parties can amass just enough votes to enter Congress but not enough to be on the presidential ballot. See “Partidos y Bancadas”, Congreso Visible, s.f. “Elección de presidente y vicepresidente – primera vuelta”, Registraduría Nacional de Colombia, s.f.Hide Footnote The plebiscite result suggests the DCP could well increase its Senate representation. In the House of Representatives, however, it may find the going harder. Others tend to have greater regional success, including the Conservative, Liberal and U parties.[fn]Crisis Group interview, political expert, Bogotá, 10 November 2016. In the House of Representatives, the DCP has nineteen seats, six from Antioquia, five from Bogotá and eight from different departments. It has only one governor (Casanare). All but one of 27 Conservative party deputies are from outside Bogotá, as are 36 of 39 Liberals and 35 of 37 U party deputies. See “Elegidos Congreso de la República 2014-2018”, Registraduría Nacional, s.f.Hide Footnote To form congressional majorities, the DCP must count on other parties, making preservation of opposition unity vital for it. Pro-agreement parties will also seek to stay united on the issue to keep their congressional numbers.[fn]Crisis Group interview, opposition negotiator and senator, Bogotá, 30 November 2016.Hide Footnote

If the opposition does take power with a mandate against at least part of the peace agreement, implementation of the most contested areas could end. One option would be to modify laws that were impossible to change when they were originally passed due to the fast-track. Another would be to starve politically and financially key institutions, programs or policies. By underfunding them or undercutting their political importance, it could quickly make the accord an irrelevance.

The government has tried to prevent this by tabling a bill that would oblige future governments to implement the peace agreement, but this could be repealed or ignored after a shift in the balance of power.[fn]Proyecto de acto legislativo 01 de 2016 senado“, law proposed by Interior Minister Juan Fernando Cristo, 19 December 2016.Hide Footnote Pressure from abroad and vocal parts of Colombian society, however, might make it prohibitively costly to jettison the agreement. In that case, a commitment to continue implementing key parts of the agreement, such as transitional justice and humanitarian mechanisms, and not undo progress on other points, could be a viable goal for renewed dialogue between the government and opposition throughout 2017.

IV. Implementation and its Effect on Political Support

During 2017, congressional and presidential support for the agreement will be strong and stable. But popular support for its implementation is fragile and uncertain beyond the short term, putting full application of the accord at risk. A small window exists during which implementation could decisively shift backing in either direction, depending on success in carrying out fundamental parts of the pact and altering conditions in conflict-affected territories.

A. FARC Concerns

The effect on the FARC of political opposition to the peace agreement is likely to become more pronounced in coming months. Throughout the ceasefire, and particularly since the plebiscite, it has faced the risk of increased internal strains. The ceasefire violation in southern Bolívar is telling: the front operating there was unable to control its fighters or had simply continued extortion. A later expulsion of five mid-level commanders in the eastern plains, including Gentil Duarte, who had been put in charge of the faction of the First Front that supported the peace agreement, shows the strains at that level, whether due to political uncertainty, connections to lucrative illegal economies or both.[fn]Crisis Group interview, Tripartite Mechanism member, Bogotá, 9 November 2016. “FARC-EP separa a 5 mandos de sus filas”, FARC-EP, 16 December 2016. In June 2016, a First Front faction in Guaviare announced it would not be part of the agreement. FARC leadership then selected Duarte, a Central High Command member, to lead the part that still supported the peace accord.Hide Footnote

The political climate fosters one concern above all within the FARC: that the government will not fulfil its part of the accord. While the group, in its tenth conference in September 2016, ratified the whole peace agreement by consensus, the possibility of returning to the battlefield resurfaced in December, when Timochenko reminded fighters they might have to prepare for “plan B”: resumption of war. Such threats could increase if implementation is jeopardised.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, FARC members, Yarí plains, 15-25 September 2016. “Timochenko alerta a la tropa de las Farc: preparemos el plan B”, Las 2 Orillas, 8 December 2016.Hide Footnote

FARC dissidents could cause violence, which would produce a chain reaction on implementation and national political support for the agreement. There have already been reports of First Front violence in Guaviare and Vaupés.[fn]Defensoría alerta sobre reclutamiento forzado y extorsiones de bloque disidente de las Farc en Vaupés”, El Espectador, 11 November 2016.Hide Footnote Dissidence in the ranks of the Daniel Aldana Front has been confirmed in Tumaco, though it is not clear whether this is related to the peace process or a schism caused by the character of the front (formerly a mobile column). The death of Don Y, a leader of the dissident faction, at the hands of the FARC in November showed how infighting can lead to violence.[fn]‘Don Y’, el disidente de las Farc que azota a Tumaco”, La Silla Pacífica, 31 October 2016; “Las Farc mataron a ‘Don Y’”, La Silla Pacífica, 16 November 2016. Eduardo Álvarez, “Disidencias de las FARC: ¿Por qué lo hacen? ¿Qué tan peligrosas son?”, Razón Pública, 14 November 2016.Hide Footnote With other armed groups looking to take over Tumaco, home to a dense concentration of coca crops, increased violence there is probable. The removal of five commanders, plus a skirmish between eight dissident members of the 14th front and pro-agreement members of the Teófilo Forero mobile column, provide further examples.

After the weapons handover finishes, the possibility of FARC members returning to violence could grow, through dissidence or individual desertion from the reincorporation program. That program for ex-fighters is notably weak when it comes to a specific approach for mid-level commanders, who are used to handling large sums of money and enjoying political and military power. Many key details of the reincorporation process will only be decided after the census of FARC combatants is finished and Ecomun – the cooperative business the FARC is to run for their reintegration – is created. The political and humanitarian costs of fighters leaving the process to return to violence would be extremely high.[fn]“Lo que tiene que pasar este año para aterrizar los acuerdos”, La Silla Vacía, 10 January 2017. For more on FARC reincorporation, see Crisis Group Report, Colombia’s Final Steps, op. cit.Hide Footnote The already-established National Reincorporation Council and Ecomun will have key roles in keeping fighters involved.

In the immediate future, the first, most critical part of the timetable for both guerrillas and government is the weapons handover to the UN mission.[fn]On D-Day +90, FARC combatants will have to hand over 30 per cent of their weapons; on D-Day +120, another 30 per cent; and on D-Day +150, the remaining 40 per cent. By D-Day +60, the FARC will have had to hand over all light weapons, grenades, munitions and militia arms.Hide Footnote The end of FARC existence as an armed organisation is the crux of the peace agreement and was the government’s principal argument to muster support for quick renegotiation after the plebiscite. Typically, many challenges arise in such processes, including delays, logistical issues and incomplete handover of weapons, and these have already affected FARC concentration. Arms abandonment by the FARC will likely face other problems that the opposition could easily highlight to argue the process is faltering. Discovery of hidden arms, for example, would fuel a wary public’s mistrust. At the same time, lack of medium- and long-term political support for the agreement increases the possibility parts of the FARC will hedge their bets on peace and so risk further undermining public backing.[fn]Crisis Group interview, opposition negotiator, Bogotá, 30 November 2016; Pro-agreement senator, Bogotá, 30 November 2016. For more on the arms handover process, see Crisis Group Report, Colombia’s Final Steps, op. cit.Hide Footnote

A pressing reason for the FARC to prevaricate in this way is the killing of and threats against local social leaders. At least 90 killings and more than 230 threats were recorded in 2016.[fn]Armando Neira, “Asesinatos de líderes sociales, el lunar que deja el 2016”, El Tiempo, 28 December 2016. Eduardo Álvarez, “Quién sigue matando a los líderes sociales en Colombia?”, Razón Pública, 28 November 2016.Hide Footnote It is imperative that the government protect civilians in targeted communities, irrespective of who is doing the killings or whether paramilitaries are behind the wave of violence. If the hypothesis that armed groups moving into new territory and seizing control over illicit economies explains part of the killings, the government must make substantial progress on filling the power vacuum left by the FARC.[fn]Crisis Group interview, high-level diplomat, Bogotá, 28 November 2016.Hide Footnote Until then, the continued killing heightens the risk of fragmentation within the FARC and undermines the perceived benefits of peace locally.

The agreement on security guarantees, for the FARC and other activists and political actors locally, needs to be enforced quickly and effectively. The government should start by strengthening existing individual and collective protection schemes and work with local leaders on steps they can take to mitigate risks. This can be done while the FARC security system is set up during the weapons handover process. Opposition leaders should also increase the frequency and volume of their condemnations of such violence and clearly distinguish their arguments against the peace deal from the actions of violent saboteurs at the local level.[fn]This is not to say there is a connection between the opposition and this violence, but rather that perpetrators might be using opposition arguments to justify their actions.Hide Footnote The international community, already highly concerned by the violence, could raise the international visibility of these attacks by more frequent public condemnations and calls for justice.

B. Planning Successful Implementation

Weapons handover began poorly. Shockingly little had been done to install adequate infrastructure in the cantonment sites, causing delays in the first steps of the process.[fn]“Comunicado Conjunto Nº 10”, GOC and FARC-EP, 28 December 2016.Hide Footnote FARC fighters will gradually move from the pre-grouping sites as the 26 cantonments are finalised. By mid-January, land to house combatants had been rented in only seventeen. Only in two, Putumayo and Policarpa, Nariño, were FARC fighters able to stay and build the facilities they need to live. According to the government, preparation of cantonment infrastructure is moving fast.[fn]Gobierno acelera el paso para dejar listas las zonas veredales de Farc”, El Tiempo, 10 January 2017; “El 90% de los miembros de las Farc está a 10 km de zonas de desarme”, El Tiempo, 10 January 2017.Hide Footnote A renegotiated protocol has established that delivery of the materials needed to finish construction and the complete concentration of the FARC are to be accomplished by 31 January.[fn]“Acta de acuerdos de trabajo entre el gobierno nacional y las FARC-EP”, GOC and FARC-EP, 17 January 2017.Hide Footnote

While the first three deadlines – FARC concentration, destruction of unstable weapons and transfer of personal and militia-members’ small weapons to the cantonments – were not met, the government has insisted the rest of the handover process will go as scheduled. These targets could easily encounter problems, but it is essential they are met according to the accord’s terms to prevent feeding public mistrust of the group. To avoid this, fighters who arrive first in cantonments could be part of the 30 per cent to hand over their weapons at D-Day +90.

The UN mission and the Tripartite Mechanism to verify and monitor the ceasefire and weapons handover have key roles.[fn]UN: First 2 Deadlines in Colombia Cease-Fire Can’t Be Met”, The New York Times, 11 January 2017. “Ya tenemos 17 zonas arrendadas y 8 en trámite’: Carlos Córdoba”, Semana, 10 January 2017. “Para evitar más muertes, Sergio Jaramillo propone acelerar implementación de acuerdos”, El Espectador, 16 November 2016; “Intervención del Presidente Juan Manuel Santos en el acto de la Firma del Nuevo Acuerdo de Paz con las Farc”, Presidencia, 24 November 2016.Hide Footnote The former has already been engaged in verifying ceasefire violations but has also become entangled to some degree in a few incidents of improper behaviour. Though they were not directly involved, the governor of Antioquia’s accusations that under-age prostitution and heavy drinking by many FARC members in town centres suggested lack of clear information on the ceasefire process. The Tripartite Mechanism later confirmed there was no prostitution but verified a case in which a FARC member violated protocol, leaving the cantonment without permission and drinking and arguing with a civilian in a small hamlet. The governor toured the cantonments after the DCP openly supported him and subsequently backtracked on his original accusations. Still, the Tripartite Mechanism, including the UN mission, in effect became the arbiter between political rivals.[fn]La pelea entre las FARC y el gobernador de Antioquia”, Semana, 28 December 2016. “Mecanismo de monitoreo y verificación communicado de prensa”, Misión de la ONU en Colombia, 30 December 2016. “Uribe dice estar dispuesto a acompañar al gobernador de Antioquia a sitios de preconcentración”, RCN, 29 December 2016. “Así avanza la polémica revisión de las zonas de concentración en Antioquia“, Semana, 7 January 2016.Hide Footnote

More publicly, images of UN mission staff dancing with FARC members on New Years’ Eve led to an opposition outcry and claims that the mission’s credibility and impartiality had been impaired. The members involved were removed, though some questioned whether the incident had not been overblown.[fn]Misión de la onu en colombia separa a observadores de su servicio”, Misión de la ONU en Colombia, 5 January 2016. Marta Ruiz, “El episodio de los verificadores: un escándalo desproporcionado”, Semana, 6 January 2017.Hide Footnote

In its first report, which gained limited media and public attention due to the focus on the alleged scandals, the UN mission stated that 280 observers were in the country, with the number to increase to 450 in January, though the civilian component has lagged behind deployment of the military. A balance between the civilian and military parts of the mission is essential, especially in maintaining strong relationships between the mission, local authorities and communities. By 7 December, the mission had also successfully monitored 183 movements of FARC fighters and dealt with 27 requests for verification, only nine of which could be investigated as eighteen were not within its mandate.[fn]Primer informe de actividades del MM&V”, Mecanismo y Monitoreo y Verificación, 30 December 2016.Hide Footnote

The troubled start to concentration of FARC forces should not obscure the importance of the mission’s role in the future handover of weapons. Complete deployment of personnel across all cantonment sites and regular release of updates to the media beyond its regular reports, with consent of the government and FARC, would help enhance the mission’s effectiveness and public standing, as well as the public’s perception of progress. The mission should also work closely with the government and FARC to push them to follow the weapons handover schedule laid out in the peace agreement, despite early delays.

A robust communications strategy for when the FARC hands over weapons is crucial to gain support for the process. The opposition has not made the early delays the focal point of its complaints, concentrating instead on the relationship between the UN, the government and FARC. Its grievances have been based on mistrust of the guerrillas, which would only be fuelled by an insufficiently transparent weapons handover. To overcome scepticism, the FARC would be well advised to drop its long-held misgivings and allow publication of photos of fighters handing over weapons to the UN mission. Its new media savviness, which has bolstered its poor public image, and its interest in generating political capital suggest it may do so.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, FARC negotiator, Havana, 9 June 2016; high-level diplomat, Bogotá, 28 November 2016. “Nueva estética de las Farc, ¿Estrategia mediática o cambio verdadero?”, Semana, 12 November 2016.Hide Footnote The cost of not doing so could be proliferation of claims that the FARC have held back some weapons.

The handover is due to end six months after D-Day, but the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (SPJ) will not be operating by then. Given that justice was one of most controversial items in the peace accord, opposition scrutiny of the transitional justice system and misgivings about the SPJ will be prominent in the year’s debate. That benefits for FARC fighters, such as amnesties, security measures and reincorporation money will be provided early on, while SPJ sentences will be handed down much later, could create an impression that the FARC is being rewarded without having fulfilled any judicial or truth obligations.[fn]Crisis Group interview, member, international community, Bogotá, 14 December 2016.Hide Footnote As Congressional and presidential campaigns enter their final stretch, the SPJ will likely be hearing its first cases. How it handles them and how the accused behave toward the courts, will surely be closely scrutinised by the opposition and voters.

The FARC should cooperate as much as possible with transitional justice mechanisms, including the SPJ, the truth commission and efforts to find remains of victims of forced disappearance. By proving commitment to fulfilling their obligations even at personal cost, FARC leaders could sway opinions on peace and undercut opposition arguments. Not doing so or using the new judicial mechanisms to defend its war effort, point fingers and/or deny responsibility in high-profile cases would strengthen opinion against the guerrillas and the peace agreement. Members of the Armed Forces must also appear before the SPJ so as not to fuel a perception it is a mechanism aimed only against the FARC and protects state officials.

Public apologies for major war crimes should also remain part of FARC and government approaches to building support for the deal. FARC has apologised for killing eleven deputies in 2007; it should do the same for bombing the Nogal club in Bogotá in 2003. But these should not be public shows of remorse for political purposes.[fn]The public apology in La Chinita for a 1994 massacre had much show and little substance according to an attendee. Crisis Group interview, diplomat, Bogotá, 21 October 2016.Hide Footnote More generally, the focus on and participation of victims in early implementation and other peace activities should remain central, including efforts to find victims of forced disappearance and cooperation with the truth commission. Not doing so would undermine the argument that victims were central to the negotiation and the agreement’s legitimacy. Matters have been made more complicated since the plebiscite by disputes between different opposition and pro-agreement actors over the right to represent victims, a contest that will inevitably continue into the election season.[fn]Opposition actors claimed to speak for FARC victims, including Sofía Gaviria and Herbin Hoyos, as did government and pro-peace agreement leaders.Hide Footnote

The government also needs to continue educational work to create ownership of the accord by local and regional communities, as well as urbanites. Generating that sense would increase the political cost of non-implementation or diluting content. The opposition showed in the plebiscite that connecting the accord to people’s everyday lives, accurately or not, was an effective strategy.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, political activist and university professor, Bogotá, 16 November 2016; opposition negotiator, Bogotá, 30 November 2016. “El No ha sido la campaña más barata y más efectiva de la historia”, La República, 5 October 2016.Hide Footnote Proactive communication to show progress in implementation would be equally important.

A number of other important efforts related to the agreement, especially de-mining, will also be measures of tangible progress. It was recently announced that after 46 devices were destroyed over more than a year, Orejón, in Briceño, Antioquia, no longer has any landmines.[fn]Deicy Johana Pareja M., “El Orejón, la vereda que es ejemplo del desminado humanitario”, El Tiempo, 22 December 2016; “Vereda Orejón, municipio de Briceño (Antioquia)”, Dirección Contra Minas, n.d.Hide Footnote Such efforts, as well as coca crop substitution pilots and other quick-impact projects by different institutions, can help communities feel that peace has brought a major material change in their daily lives and create an expectation of economic and institutional development to come. The 700 projects that the post-conflict ministry recently announced it will begin or carry out in the first 100 days of peace, in addition to its Rapid Response Plan, will be crucial, but there is still a lack of financial and political backing within the government. Adequately managing local communities’ expectations will thus be essential.

Lastly, creation of a space to reinitiate and maintain political dialogue with the opposition on implementation should also be explored. This might begin by inviting “no” leaders to meetings on verification and/or implementation issues and help channel political debate toward serving the stability of the peace process rather than undermining it.[fn]Crisis Group interview, opposition negotiators, Bogotá, 8 and 30 November 2016.Hide Footnote

C. Peace and Other Armed Groups

Implementation of the renegotiated peace agreement faces major challenges at the regional and local levels due to the presence of other armed groups, which will in turn influence national support for the process. Foremost among these groups is the ELN, whose own putative peace process was not aligned with the FARC’s. Negotiations have not begun, though they are scheduled to start on 7 February.[fn]Fase pública de diálogos con el ELN se inicia el 8 de febrero”, El Espectador, 18 January 2017.Hide Footnote Trying to implement the FARC accord where the ELN is active poses acute dilemmas.

ELN violence will affect the government’s ability to implement the peace, especially as the group is expanding its presence and still operates in many priority conflict-affected areas, such as Catatumbo and Arauca (both on the Venezuelan border), as well as Cauca, Nariño and Chocó. Even aspects of the deal that have broad support are affected by the ELN presence, as shown in the Santa Rosa del Sur incident.[fn]“Tripartite Mechanism Communiqué: Government of Colombia and FARC-EP violated ceasefire in south Bolívar incident”, Tripartite Mechanism, 30 November 2016. The FARC fighters involved in the incident had presented themselves as ELN combatants, leading the army to attack them in the belief it would not be violating the ceasefire.Hide Footnote Establishing an effective state presence where control is still contested by armed groups will be costly in lives and resources. The integrity of peace with the FARC will also be at stake in areas where little is likely to change in terms of violence, such as Arauca, Cauca and Catatumbo.[fn]Some recent murders in Cauca, where killings have increased, have been attributed to the ELN. “Tres hombres asesinados en zona rural de Silvia, en el norte del Cauca”, El Tiempo, 20 September 2016. The ELN has also been accused of “killing communists” in Arauca. Carlos A. Lozano Guillén, “Mirador: Carta a Gabino (I)”, Periódico Voz, 2 September 2016.Hide Footnote The situation is aggravated where the FARC and ELN have made agreed or coordinated a transfer of territorial control, such as Cauca and Nariño.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, high-level diplomat, Bogotá, 2 August 2016; government official, Bogotà, 9 December 2016.Hide Footnote

Effective implementation of the FARC accord is also important to convince the ELN it can trust the government to fulfil agreements it signs with insurgents. After the plebiscite, the group internally questioned the merits of trusting the government to deliver on its promises, exacerbating mutual wariness that in any case has tended to be worse than what existed between government and FARC at the start of their negotiation.[fn]During secret government-FARC talks, the latter concluded that Santos was serious about peace. The ELN, years later and during talks to define a negotiation agenda, argued that Santos represented the same old political elite. This, for some in the ELN, has led to a view that negotiations with the government are the correct path, but not now. See Víctor de Currea-Lugo, “Eln dice estar listo para la paz, entrevista con Antonio García”, El Espectador, 9 December 2016. Crisis Group interview, ELN experts, Bogotá, 3 October 2016; Yarí plains, 23 September 2016.Hide Footnote Any further deterioration in ELN confidence in the state would imperil the possibility of a peace accord with it in the near future. It would also be calamitous with regard to public support if ELN presence became a reason for failure to implement the FARC agreement, which in turn would lead the ELN to continue to mistrust the government’s ability to deliver on peace.

Other armed groups, such as neo-paramilitaries and the remnants of the Popular Liberation Army (EPL) will also create difficulties for implementation on a local level.[fn]This report uses the term “neo-paramilitary” instead of criminal bands or Bacrim, per Soledad Granada, Jorge A. Restrepo and Alonso Tobón García, “Neoparamilitarismo en Colombia: una herramienta conceptual para la interpretación de dinámicas recientes del conflicto armado colombiano”, in Restrepo and David Aponte (eds.), Guerra y violencias en Colombia Herramientas e interpretaciones (Bogotá, 2009), pp. 467-499. The Libardo Mora Toro front, the remains of the EPL, operates in the Catatumbo region. It is the only dissident front from the 1991 EPL peace process that still exists.Hide Footnote Both have been moving into areas of former FARC control for some time and will continue to do so unless stronger judicial, political and law-enforcement action is taken against them. Colombia is witnessing a resurgence in coca cultivation, and crop substitution programs designed by the peace accord will take time to have an effect.[fn]According to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), coca cultivation in 2015 increased by almost 40 per cent, to 96,000 hectares. “Colombia: Monitoreo de territorios afectados por cultivos ilícitos 2015”, UNODC, July 2016.Hide Footnote If other armed groups take control of areas with illicit crops before the state can, they could directly stimulate new dynamics of violence and influence the success or failure of crop substitution.

Many social movements believe the neo-paramilitaries – mainly the Gaitán Self-defence Forces (AGC) – are behind the recent increase in killings of local activists, whether for political or economic reasons.[fn]The AGC, also known as the Gulf Cartel, Úsuga Clan or Urabeños, was created and became heavily involved in drug trafficking after the paramilitary demobilisations that ended in 2006.Hide Footnote Evidence for this is patchy, however, and there does not appear to be one specific phenomenon or organisation responsible.[fn]Some interpret the killings as done by paramilitaries under the direct influence of high-level political opposition, though there has been no evidence connecting the two. See Oto Higuita, “¿Por qué están asesinando a los voceros e integrantes del Marcha Patriótica?”, Prensa Rural, 2 December 2016. “¿Quién está ordenando matar a los líderes sociales en Colombia?”, El Colombiano, 27 November 2016. Eduardo González, “¿Quién sigue matando a los líderes sociales en Colombia?”, Razón Pública, 28 November 2016. Crisis Group telephone interview, high-level diplomat, 28 November 2016.Hide Footnote The ELN is behind some killings, as in Arauca; local armed groups connected to local political elites play roles in others, such as in Urabá; and in yet other areas, such as Caguán, the possible arrival of new armed groups might be the main factor.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, government official, Bogotá, 2 December 2016; political analyst, Bogotá, 9 Jul 2016; high-level diplomat, Bogotá, 28 November 2016. Eduardo González, “¿Quién sigue matando a los líderes sociales en Colombia?”, Razón Pública, 28 November 2016.Hide Footnote Even so, the sense that political violence is on the rise makes implementation more difficult, not only because of its effect on FARC’s transition to civilian life, but also because community leaders may come to see participation in peace mechanisms as personally risky.[fn]This is already a risk, as the renegotiated accord weakens community participation. Juanita León, “La gran diferencia entre el Acuerdo I y el Acuerdo II”, La Silla Vacía, 15 November 2016.Hide Footnote

While the agreement includes various initiatives aimed against these groups, including the new investigative unit in the attorney general’s office, and calls for international support to the initiatives, these will be necessary but likely insufficient to constrain new patterns of coercion on the ground. A clear risk exists that implementation of the peace agreement could lead to greater violence in certain areas if the state does not move quickly enough to protect local populations and also to combat neo-paramilitary groups.

There are various explanations for the prospect of a spike in criminal and political violence once the peace accord gets underway. First, armed groups could clash over control of areas the FARC leave, as has occurred between the ELN and AGC. These will be areas with strong illegal economies, trafficking routes and militarily strategic points, such as Tumaco, Chocó and the Nudo de Paramillo, for example. Other reasons are more political. While some concerns of local land-holding elites regarding rural reform aspects were addressed in the new accord, others remain and have led some of those landholders to reject the renegotiated deal.[fn]Crisis Group interview, government official, Bogotá, 9 December 2016.Hide Footnote If the relationship between some of these elites and illegal armed groups and/or actors stays in place but is targeted toward the accord’s land distribution terms, violence could well increase, including in areas traditionally vulnerable to land conflict such as Urabá.[fn]James Bargent, “BACRIM Vuelve a sus Raíces Paramilitares en la Lucha por la Tierra en Colombia”, Insight Crime, 19 July 2013.Hide Footnote

Another possible source of violence prompted by the peace accord’s implementation is continuation of attacks against social leaders due to the perceived imminent opening of the political system regionally and locally, including the sixteen special circumscriptions in Congress for conflict-affected areas.[fn]The peace agreement creates sixteen special constituencies in Congress so that conflict-affected regions can have a stronger voice in legislation and policymaking. The idea is that those who run for these seats not be part of established political parties (including that to be established by the FARC), represent isolated regions and give a voice to victims. See “Acuerdo final para la terminación del conflicto y la construcción de una paz estable y duradera”, GOC and FARC-EP, 24 November 2016, p. 54.Hide Footnote Such local, conservatively-minded political violence has history in Colombia and explains how the paramilitaries gained so much power in the 1980s and 1990s.[fn]Mauricio Romero, Paramilitares y Autodefensas (1982-2003), IEPRI (Bogotá, 2003).Hide Footnote A spike of violence in this spirit would be qualitatively similar to that against the Patriotic Union (UP) in those decades, though it is very unlikely to reach the same level. Too many international actors are already concerned and attentive, thus raising its cost.

D. Institution Building

Violence and security on the ground are not the only issues that could dent political support for the agreement in 2017. Much of the problem for smooth implementation stems from the institutions meant to manage the war-peace transition. Some national-level ones barely exist beyond paper, with little staff or capacity to execute budgets or projects: these include the National Land Agency, the Territorial Renovation Agency and the Agency for Rural Development.[fn]Crisis Group telephone interview, high-level diplomat, Bogotá, 28 November 2016.Hide Footnote If unable to execute on the ground, the state will risk losing the chance to gain local legitimacy. Since they are coming into existence at a time of tight caps on public spending, their financial and political support is also very fragile, especially given the current and historical resistance to rural reform. Facing the threat of being starved of resources or steered toward invisibility over time, as has happened with previous rural-focused institutions, they badly need an injection of high-level support, money and staff.[fn]For a quick review of land reform and institutional issue literature, see La política de reforma agraria y tierras en Colombia Esbozo de una memoria institucional, Centro Nacional de Memoria Histórica (Bogotá, 2013).Hide Footnote

Institutional fragmentation at different levels poses additional dilemmas. Political pressure to combat increasing coca cultivation has led various state actors to adopt rival strategies, some of which could be contrary to the accord’s spirit. This risk will grow if the opposition comes to power in 2018. Local political actors also have insufficient institutional and technical capacity to implement many parts of the agreement, and in some cases, their willingness will be fragile, unless they feel they can obtain financial resources for their regions.[fn]Crisis Group interview, political analyst, Bogotá, 3 December 2016.Hide Footnote

The Rapid Response Plan (RRP), designed by the post-conflict ministry (MPC) but to be implemented with and by various other institutions, needs both political and financial support. The friction between implementing institutions, the MPC and the High Commissioner for Peace’s Office remains a problem, as some institutions feel the latter two overstep their bounds and are too influential. Lack of a clear transition from the RRP to implementation of longer-term aspects of the peace agreement also raises broader concerns.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, government official, Bogotá, 9 December 2016; political analyst, Bogotá, 2 December 2016.Hide Footnote Stronger leadership from above, complemented by international community pressure, is needed.

V. A Role for the International Community

The international community has focused on supporting the peace process and ensuring it concludes with a feasible, robust agreement. It has done so by providing economic resources for state institutions and civil society actors working on peace issues; political backing for the process; delegates from the guarantor and accompanying nations and special envoys from the U.S., European Union and Germany; and technical support on implementation issues, such as support for local justice mechanisms and formalisation of land titles. Such backing remains essential.

A. Implementation and Political Support

In the current political context, a quick start to implementation, with early victories, is ever more required. Though the plebiscite suggested that high-level international support was less effective than anticipated, the delegates and envoys who aided the negotiations should continue to press for the agreement to be carried out. Not only could they be helpful in resolving disputes and influencing the government and FARC, but they will also be able to highlight the broad foreign commitment to peace in Colombia.[fn]The U.S. special envoy to the peace talks, Bernie Aronson, no longer plays this role, and no replacement is in sight. The U.S. Secretary of State nominee, Rex Tillerson, stated in a written response to questions as part of his confirmation process, that the U.S. would have to “review” the new peace agreement to determine which parts it would support. “Trump’s state nominee raises doubts on Colombia peace pact”, The Washington Post, 22 January 2017.Hide Footnote The rural reform pact in particular will face political resistance on different levels, and the international community can play a vital role in raising the cost of obstructing or ignoring it. Financial aid and pushing the government to get key institutions functioning would be major contributions.

International support can also influence FARC decisions, especially if an opposition government proposes changes to, rejects or is unwilling to implement parts of the accord. Given the group’s concerns with full implementation, a change in government could undermine its commitment to peace, leading to fragmentation as some of the organisation return to organised violence. Pressing the FARC to maintain its commitment to peace will be vital. Here the second UN mission, requested in the peace accord to monitor FARC political participation, reincorporation and security guarantees, will have a vital role in maintaining trust between the guerrillas and government. It will also be politically contentious, as its mandate covers the most controversial issue in the new agreement, namely the FARC’s participation in politics. It will need to be functioning quite soon in order to respond to its mandate; early preparation to take advantage of the period before its mandate begins is essential.

Financial aid will also be vital, especially beyond 2017. Colombia is currently unable to fully afford its post-conflict pledges, something that the international community has committed to make good. In the longer term, financial support might help persuade a new government to honour disputed aspects of the accord. Partners could also work directly with local governments, providing financial and technical assistance and ensuring that political differences between local, regional and national levels do not impede implementation.[fn]Crisis Group interview, political analyst, Bogotá, 3 December 2016.Hide Footnote Finally, international non-state actors will also need funding, such as the UN High Commissioners for Refugees and Human Rights, among others, who have important post-conflict roles on displacement, border issues and violence, all risks to a successful transition from war to peace.

B. The Special Issue of Drugs

It is unlikely that a decrease in coca cultivation resulting from application of the peace agreement will occur before 2018. New programs need time and will be largely emasculated if support wavers. Recent coca production increases have made the drug issue important again to preventing violence, but also politically critical. The opposition points to rising hectarage to argue that drug policy is not working due to concessions made to the FARC, including prohibition of aerial fumigation. Drug policy also is a source of tension within the government and between Bogotá and local communities.[fn]“Procurador colombiano acusa a Santos de proteger cultivos de las FARC”, El Nuevo Heraldo, 18 April 2016; “Uribe considera que fin de aspersiones con glifosato es exigencia de las Farc”, El Nuevo Heraldo, 10 May 2015. Between July and September 2016, protests by coca growers, mainly in Putumayo, lasted 39 days, as peasants rejected the use of fumigation chemicals applied on the ground during manual eradication. Peasants in Putumayo also have voiced concerns over drug policy and implementation of the peace agreements on crop substitution. See “Razones del paro cocalero en Putumayo”, El Espectador, 19 August 2016; “Levantan protesta cocalera en Putumayo”, El País de Cali, 7 September 2016; Crisis Group interviews, local leaders and coca growers, 20-24 March 2016. Within the government, new Attorney General Néstor Martínez has called for fumigation to be reinstated but with new chemicals. “Fiscal pide volver a la fumigación aérea contra los cultivos ilícitos”, El Tiempo, 4 September 2016.Hide Footnote When published this year, cultivation data will show another increase in 2016, before crop substitution programs derived from the peace deal begin. This may increase calls for traditional policy, including forced eradication. The government plan to substitute and forcefully eradicate 50,000 hectares each in 2017 is probably unreachable and will also create serious tensions on the ground. The forced eradication will also produce unnecessary tension with the FARC and close the state’s window to gain legitimacy in areas highly affected by coca cultivation.

The international community, especially the U.S., should give the agreement on illicit drugs a chance to prove itself and not expect immediate decreases in illicit crop cultivation. The focus should instead be on strengthening interdiction within and outside Colombia and supporting the rapid and effective implementation of the relevant points of the peace agreement. Prioritising such implementation over national and international political interests related to traditional counter-narcotics policy will be critical, not least because returning to costly forced manual eradication, the results of which are easily reversible, is no guarantee of success.

VI. Conclusion

Colombia has signed and ratified the peace agreement, and the whole of the FARC will soon be in cantonment sites, where they will hand over their weapons and begin transition to civilian life. While this is cause for celebration, how peace was signed and approved was highly controversial, and the agreement appears to lack broad, stable, sustainable political support. Implementation is threatened on several fronts, and with a united and strengthened opposition, the future looks somewhat bleak for pro-agreement leaders. The peace deal is likely to be a target for multiple grievances in the 2018 presidential election, which may produce a result not unlike that of the 2 October 2016 plebiscite.

Substantial and rapid progress on implementing crucial aspects of the agreement is needed in 2017 to shift the balance in favour of the accord. The difficult national and local contexts – a financial shortfall, a stuttering peace process with the ELN, weak institutions and internal government rivalries and high levels of targeted killings in rural areas – mean implementation faces concrete threats that have been partly aggravated by political disputes over the peace agreement. If efforts to apply the accord do not overcome these initial hurdles, parts of it may be condemned to failure before they have a chance to succeed. If that happens, FARC commitment to peace, the possibility of a similar negotiation with the ELN and prospects for addressing the root issues in the long armed conflict will all be in doubt. The immediate political battle to finalise the agreement has been won, but it is premature to declare victory for peace.

Bogotá/Brussels, 31 January 2017

Appendix A: Map of Colombia

Map of Colombia AB Carto/International Crisis Group

Subscribe to Crisis Group’s Email Updates

Receive the best source of conflict analysis right in your inbox.