Colombia’s presidential race is now a battlefield, literally. In Bogotá, the story of Edilma Martinez Flores—whose brother was murdered over a ransom she could not afford—highlights how the lingering war has turned entire city sectors into zones of terror and uncertainty.
Since the 1960s, the country has suffered a turbulent clash among the state, guerrilla factions and drug cartels. Illegal mining and coca cultivation have compounded the damage: violent disputes over these resources drive further displacement and, in turn, environmental degradation as mines fill rivers, lands collapse and forests disappear.
Over the last five years the membership of armed groups has roughly doubled. The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) refugees, the National Liberation Army (ELN) and the Clan del Golfo now control crucial rural areas that are coveted for illicit drug routes and mining assets. Their territorial claims often disrupt ecosystems that are vital for climate regulation.
Candidates in the fray present starkly different visions. Iván Cepeda, a veteran left‑wing senator, espouses continued negotiations with armed groups and a promise to re‑evaluate the 2016 peace accord by addressing root causes of poverty and inequality—factors that draw youth into violence. Cepeda is also a vocal opponent of fracking and advocates for investment in social programmes that reduce dependency on illicit economies.
Conversely, Abelardo de la Espriella, a businessman with ties to the US, pledges a decisive military crack‑down, 10 megaprisons, and a sharp end to negotiations. He argues that only force can quell criminal networks, a stance that has drawn criticism for ignoring structural drivers of insecurity while prioritising security over long‑term ecological resilience.
The conflict’s environmental toll is stark. Robust statistics show forced displacement rose 300% between 2024 and 2025, with rural communities ably proving that unchecked mining and coca cultivation are inextricably linked to ecological collapse. With coca fields once covering large swathes of eastern and southern Colombia, the ongoing war has perpetuated deforestation and water contamination.
International actors are also sounding the alarm. Donald Trump’s endorsement of De la Espriella underscores a pivot in US policy toward a hard‑state response to Latin American security, rather than collaborative peacebuilding that also encompasses environmental safeguards.
For many Colombians, the choice is not simply a matter of peace versus upheaval. It’s a question of what a post‑war society can look like when it also needs to protect forests, restore wetlands, and integrate climate‑smart agriculture into the economy. The upcoming election will decide whether national policy leans toward a militarised rule that risks further environmental loss or a negotiated peace that opens pathways to sustainable development and climate resilience.
