These concerns require careful investigation and verification in each territory. They nevertheless point to an urgent policy challenge for Latin America: environmental protection cannot be separated from supply chain governance. A mineral extracted in a remote river basin may be connected to companies, financial flows and markets far beyond the region. Effective responses therefore need cooperation among environmental agencies, customs and justice institutions, security actors, local governments, Indigenous authorities and neighbouring states.

The panel also noted a troubling asymmetry. Criminal organisations already cooperate across borders, while public institutions often remain divided by mandates, information silos and changing political priorities. The Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization, community driven protection mechanisms and emerging regional initiatives provide important foundations, but they require sustained political support, operational coordination and resources.

Security must enable environmental governance, not replace it

Captain Mariana Prieto García described the growing recognition within the Colombian military that environmental degradation has strategic consequences. It can erode livelihoods, intensify local conflicts and create sources of financing for illegal groups. From this perspective, environmental security is not separate from territorial security.

At the same time, the discussion emphasised the limits of military action. The military can help create the security conditions that allow civilian authorities to operate, support efforts to disrupt illegal economies and maintain a presence in areas where other institutions cannot yet work. It should not, however, become the only face of the state, nor assume technical responsibilities that belong to environmental and civilian institutions.

A useful framework emerged around three stages. First, stabilise territories by reducing armed and criminal control. Second, enable civilian authorities and communities to exercise their roles. Third, sustain the conditions in which public services, environmental governance and sustainable development can take root. This approach places “do no harm” at the centre of security operations and calls for impact to be measured through changes in people’s lives, not only through the number of operations conducted or assets destroyed.

One example captured the challenge. Destroying illegal mining equipment may produce an immediate result, but it will not dismantle an illicit economy if criminal groups have the financial capacity to replace that equipment. Interdiction must therefore connect with intelligence, financial investigations, justice, alternative livelihoods, restoration and long-term public presence. Otherwise, enforcement risks becoming a revolving door.

Water as a diplomatic entry point

María Cecilia Roa brought the discussion back to water and to the experiences of fishing communities in Buenaventura and the lower Magdalena. These communities describe their territories as amphibious, linking urban and rural spaces, land and water, and social life to the seasonal movement of rivers, wetlands and floodplains.

Their proposal for the “restitution of waters” offers a powerful way to think about environmental peacebuilding. It begins with a simple but transformative idea: reconnect water systems, allow them to flow and restore the wetlands that sustain life. The benefits extend well beyond ecological repair. Restored wetlands can support livelihoods, reduce vulnerability, strengthen cultural practices and rebuild relationships between communities and public institutions.

Water is therefore more than a resource to be allocated. It is a shared system and a potential platform for cooperation. In contexts of tension, joint monitoring, information exchange and agreed rules for water management can create practical forms of trust. Across borders, river basins can provide a diplomatic entry point even when broader political relations remain difficult.

The same logic applies to the Amazon. Protecting forests and rivers produces regional benefits through water regulation, biodiversity and climate stability. It also requires states to recognise the costs of non cooperation. When illegal extraction expands in one part of a basin, the consequences can travel through waterways, markets, migration routes and security dynamics. 

A regional agenda for environmental peacebuilding

The Bogotá conversation points towards several priorities for governments, regional bodies, donors and practitioners working in Latin America. One main message was that environmental peace cannot be treated as an additional variable in peace processes. For many communities, all realities are environmental: livelihoods, identity, health, security and relationships are shaped by the condition of a particular place.

• Treat environmental protection as peace infrastructure. Forests, wetlands and rivers support livelihoods, reduce vulnerability and shape relationships between communities and institutions. Their protection should sit within peace and security strategies, not at the margins of them.
• Make co benefits an explicit policy objective. Environmental programmes should identify how they will improve governance, livelihoods, social cohesion and security. These outcomes need indicators, resources and conflict sensitive implementation rather than being assumed as automatic side effects.
• Close information gaps and share knowledge. Communities need access to the information that shapes decisions about land, minerals, water and ecosystems. States also need interoperable systems for intelligence, environmental monitoring, customs and justice. Information is not neutral: who holds it and who can use it affects who has power.
• Build community and state cooperation on the basis of trust. Indigenous and local organisations are often already protecting territories where the state has limited reach. Supporting community guards, local monitoring and women’s and youth networks can strengthen environmental governance. Such support must protect autonomy and avoid instrumentalising communities for political or security agendas.
• Coordinate across borders and institutions. Illegal markets exploit gaps between jurisdictions. Regional cooperation should link environmental authorities with police, military, prosecutors, customs, financial investigators and local governments. It should also address the legal and economic conditions that allow illicit resources to enter formal markets.
• Define a just transition in the territories where extraction occurs. The energy transition cannot simply replace one extractive frontier with another. Communities need meaningful participation, fair benefits, safeguards for water and land, and viable livelihoods that reduce dependence on illegal economies.
• Measure outcomes, not only activities. A successful intervention is not defined only by a number of seizures, destroyed dredgers or signed agreements. The test is whether communities are safer, ecosystems are recovering, public institutions are trusted and legal livelihoods can endure.