OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Colombia 2026

Report

28 January 2026

Chapter 2. Biodiversity conservation and sustainable use

Copy link to Chapter 2. Biodiversity conservation and sustainable use

Abstract

This chapter reviews Colombia’s progress to conserve and sustainably manage its rich ecosystems and species. It reviews the key trends and progress towards targets. It assesses the legal, strategic and institutional framework, as well as policy instruments and financing for biodiversity. Finally, the chapter examines how biodiversity considerations have been mainstreamed into agriculture, mining and energy and land-use planning.

2.1. Status, trends and pressures

Copy link to 2.1. Status, trends and pressures

Colombia, one of the most biodiverse countries in the world, harbours roughly 10% of global biodiversity (Correa Ayram et al., 2020[1]), with over 200 000 species estimated across 314 continental and marine ecosystems. It has the highest diversity of birds, orchids and butterflies, ranking second in amphibians, freshwater fish, palms and bats, and sixth in mammals.

However, ecosystem degradation is accelerating, driven by structural pressures such as land-use conflicts, agricultural and urban expansion, timber harvesting, extractive industries and infrastructure development, as well as invasive species. A baseline study for the 2023-2026 National Restoration Strategy estimates that more than half of the territory (GoC, 2022[2]) has lost ecological integrity,1 with 80‑100% of threatened ecosystems affected (UNDP et al., 2023[3]). Overall, more than two-thirds of the country’s ecosystems are threatened, with severe degradation observed in coral reefs, mangroves, wetlands, dry forests and deserts, especially in regions historically central to national development (Figure 2.1). In particular, the Andean region has experienced persistent human impacts and ecological stress over time. Between 2015 and 2022, pressures increased in localised hotspots in the Amazon, while some reductions were observed in the Caribbean and Orinoquía (Figure 2.1).

High mountain ecosystems, such as páramos,2 play a strategic role in water regulation and carbon storage, providing around 70% of the country’s freshwater and supporting high levels of endemism. Although 51% of páramo areas are under some form of protection, pressures from agriculture, grazing and mining persist, threatening their ecological functions. Similarly, wetlands are critical for regulating eco-hydrological processes and reducing community vulnerability to extreme climate events. Wetlands cover about 23% of the continental territory yet remain highly unprotected. Based on a 2015 assessment, about 24% of wetlands, nearly 6.2 million hectares (ha), had been transformed by human activity, particularly cattle ranching. This transformation often coincides with high poverty levels, as the most degraded wetlands are near low-income populations in major cities (IaVH, 2021[4]).

Highly exposed and vulnerable to climate-related hazards, Colombia faces intensified pressures, including altered hydrological regimes, accelerated glacier retreat and more frequent extreme weather events. Nearly half of the territory faces high climate risk, threatening ecosystems and communities with biodiversity loss, water insecurity and food system vulnerabilities (GoC, 2022[2]). In the Amazon and coastal zones, particularly in coral reefs (Section 2.1.2), climate-related tipping points could trigger irreversible ecological shifts. Projections indicate that 78% of Colombia’s bird species may become highly vulnerable to climate change. High-altitude regions – including the Andes, Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta and parts of the Amazon – are expected to face the greatest risks for endemic species (IaVH, 2021[4]).

Systematic research on the direct and indirect impacts of climate change on biodiversity is essential to guide timely adaptation measures for highly exposed and vulnerable ecosystems and species. Climate risk assessments by the Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology and Environmental Studies (IDEAM), and studies such as Biodiversidad y Cambio Climático, offer a strong foundation to inform adaptation planning across sectors. However, improved data are needed to support biodiversity and ecosystem resilience, with nationwide coverage that reflects regional particularities and the ecological diversity of the country (Gomez et al., 2021[5]).

Figure 2.1. Over two-thirds of ecosystems remain threatened despite some localised declines in the human footprint
Copy link to Figure 2.1. Over two-thirds of ecosystems remain threatened despite some localised declines in the human footprint

Species diversity is also under significant pressure, with amphibians and vascular plants being among the most threatened taxa (OECD, 2025[6]). Under Resolution 126 (2024), 2 104 species are officially classified as threatened,3 representing a 62% increase compared to Resolution 1912 (2017) (MinAmbiente, 2024[7]). The Andes, Amazon and Pacific regions host most endemic species, requiring conservation strategies tailored to the specific ecological and landscape characteristics. Despite ongoing efforts by institutions and civil society, monitoring remains limited given the country’s vast biodiversity, which includes over 79 800 recorded species (SiB, n.d.[8]). In addition, there are 32 national conservation plans for fauna and flora, and around 155 at the regional level. While the Ministry of Environment (MinAmbiente) monitors implementation and updating of these plans, systematic assessments of their effectiveness are lacking. Moreover, the large number of species and instruments complicates monitoring and evaluation, creating technical and financial challenges that limit the ability to identify gaps and guide future updates. Internal approval delays of Colombia’s official list of threatened species further contribute to lagged implementation of conservation actions.

Invasive species pose a growing risk (GBIF, 2022[9]) with an expected increase between 2030 and 2050, particularly in high Andean zones (IaVH, 2021[4]). Although Colombia adopted a National Plan for Invasive Species in 2012, limited technical and financial capacity, as well as weak enforcement, have hindered its implementation. The plan is being updated, including a revision of the official list of exotic species with high invasive potential, with a new strategy expected by the end of 2025.

Illegal wildlife trafficking continues to threaten Colombia’s biodiversity. Between January 2023 and March 2024, authorities seized nearly 38 000 animals, primarily reptiles (60%), birds (25%) and mammals (15%), with felids such as jaguars among the most targeted (Paz Cardona, 2024[10]). This trafficking for food, pets or ornamental use contributes to species decline, and causes significant alterations to ecosystems. For example, the harvest of wild palm foliage for bouquets disrupts the habitat of yellow-eared parrots. National authorities face institutional and logistical barriers that limit effective control (GoC, 2024[11]).

The armed conflict has exacerbated pressures on biodiversity in some regions. Its impacts include deforestation, loss of biological diversity and water degradation, driven by illicit activities, aerial fumigation with pesticides and attacks on oil infrastructure. Over the past two decades, more than 3 million ha of forest have been lost, releasing 1.3 billion tonnes of CO₂, expanding the agricultural frontier by 780 000 ha and affecting over 60% of key water sources (Bárcenas, Torres and Muñoz Ávila, 2021[12]). At the same time, in some areas, the presence of armed groups restricted access or regulated hunting, fishing and logging, with unintended conservation benefits. In post-conflict areas, improved access to previously isolated territories following the 2016 Peace Agreement has accelerated land-use change and deforestation (Correa Ayram et al., 2020[1]). Territorial control by different armed groups continues to influence deforestation patterns, posing challenges for implementing national policies and motivating the inclusion of environmental issues in peace negotiations.

2.1.1. Terrestrial ecosystems

Colombia’s forests and other globally significant terrestrial ecosystems need more protection

Colombia ranks among the world’s top 12 countries for forest cover, and the conservation and sustainable use of forests are central to achieving both biodiversity and climate goals. Over 59 million ha, or about 52% of the territory, are covered in natural forest4, representing around 1.5% of global forest area (Mendoza et al., 2024[13]). This reflects a slight decrease from 2010 estimates, when forest cover was about 55% (OECD and ECLAC, 2014[14]). Colombia has the third-largest area of tropical forest in the Americas, with the Amazon region alone representing 67% (GoC, n.d.[15]). The Pacific Region – including the Chocó-Darién subregion – is a recognised biodiversity hotspot and critical biological corridor (Correa Ayram et al., 2020[1]). With exceptionally high levels of endemism, this region is a priority for biodiversity conservation and carbon storage (Meyer et al., 2019[16]). Forests within Indigenous reserves (64%), protected areas (PAs) (19%) and Afro-descendant territories (5%) together store 88% of Colombia’s total carbon stocks (UNDP et al., 2023[3]). These stocks are estimated at 112.9 tonnes of biomass carbon per hectare (FAO, 2020[17]), highlighting the critical role in achieving biodiversity and climate targets.

Figure 2.2. Deforestation declined to a historic low in 2023 but risks of rebound remain
Copy link to Figure 2.2. Deforestation declined to a historic low in 2023 but risks of rebound remain

Deforested natural forest area, projections, and NDC and NDP targets

Deforestation has been generally trending downward since its peak in 2017. Between 2013 and 2023, Colombia lost approximately 1.7 million ha of natural forest – roughly 3% of its total forest area – concentrated primarily along a deforestation arch in the northern Amazon (IDEAM, 2024[18]). Deforestation accelerated between 2015 and 2017, during the negotiation and early stages of implementation of the 2016 Peace Agreement with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) (Box 2.4). Since its peak in 2017, deforestation has generally trended downward, marking a significant achievement. In 2023, it reached its lowest level since 2000 – below the 2025 target in the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) submitted in December 2020 (NDC 2.0) and the 2026 target in the National Development Plan (NDP) (Figure 2.2).

Deforestation has slowed due to a combination of factors, including stronger enforcement, more co‑ordination and greater engagement with civil society. Progress in slowing deforestation has been attributed to strengthened enforcement against illegal activities, greater inter-ministerial co‑ordination, programmes under the Peace Agreement (Box 2.4) and conservation agreements with Indigenous and Traditional Territories (ITTs), and ethnic, peasant and local communities. The latter include programmes for payments for ecosystem services, such as REM Visión Amazonia and “Conservar Pagar” (Section 2.3.4). Colombia has identified 44 active deforestation hotspots – areas where forest loss has been most persistent and severe over the past two decades. Under the Integral Strategy for Deforestation Control, it has prioritised efforts in 28 of these hotspots (including 22 in the Amazon) to transform them into Forestry Development and Biodiversity Hotspots (Figure 2.3).

Figure 2.3. Forestry and biodiversity development hotspots target key deforestation arcs, but additional regions remain vulnerable
Copy link to Figure 2.3. Forestry and biodiversity development hotspots target key deforestation arcs, but additional regions remain vulnerable

Preliminary data for 2024 indicate a potential resurgence of deforestation, highlighting intensifying pressures that threaten Colombia’s biodiversity and climate goals (MinAmbiente, 2024[19]) (Figure 2.2). Drivers of deforestation include land grabbing and uncontrolled expansion of agriculture activities (such as cattle ranching, especially in PAs, Indigenous reserves and lands under the Second Law).5 Equally important are illicit activities (such as illegal mining and cultivation of illicit crops) and expansion of infrastructure, notably for transport (GoC, 2024[11]). These are shaped by structural factors such as persistent poverty; limited access to alternative opportunities and incentives for vulnerable populations; armed conflict and rural settlement patterns (GoC, 2024[11]). Tensions with armed groups, combined with a rise in coca cultivation (IPSOS, 2023[20]), are driving the recent increase and undermining conservation strategies.

While the National Programme for the Substitution of Illicit Crops (PNIS) has aimed to provide livelihood alternatives to illicit crop cultivation, the programme has faced challenges of targeting, co‑ordination and resource allocation (IPSOS, 2023[20]). Weak governance and socio-environmental conflicts, particularly in frontier regions or with limited state presence, further compound these pressures. Addressing this resurgence requires a dual strategy: tackling immediate drivers, especially extensive cattle ranching, while strengthening long-term governance, rural development and incentives that align local livelihoods with conservation goals.

2.1.2. Coastal, marine and freshwater ecosystems

Climate change, invasive species, overfishing and pollution continue to exert pressure on Colombia’s exceptional marine and freshwater biodiversity

Colombia’s maritime territory, roughly equal in size to its continental landmass, hosts marine and coastal ecosystems that provide vital services and exceptional biodiversity in both the Caribbean and Pacific regions (INVEMAR, 2024[21]). However, they face increasing pressure from anthropogenic stressors, including climate change. In the Ocean Health Index,6 Colombia’s score declined slightly from 67 to 65 between 2014 and 2024 (Figure 2.4) – below the global average of 69. This score suggests a moderate overall condition of marine ecosystem health but also points to persistent pressures and the need to strengthen management. Key areas showing decline are artisanal fishing opportunities, biodiversity (habitat condition and species), natural products and tourism (Ocean Health Index, 2024[22]).

Despite positive ecological conditions in some coastal sites, other areas require urgent action. In the Caribbean, recent assessments show that 60% of monitored sites were in excellent ecological condition, while 23% required intervention. In the Pacific, half of the sites were in good ecological condition, but nearly one-third (32%) needed measures to improve their status (INVEMAR, 2024[21]).

Coral reefs are among the most affected and climate-sensitive ecosystems. Live coral cover in key Caribbean sites – including the Seaflower Reserve in the San Andrés Archipelago, and the San Bernardo and Rosario Islands – has declined to below 30% (MinAmbiente, 2025[23]). The situation deteriorated further in mid-2023 when sea surface temperatures reached 32.5°C, triggering widespread coral bleaching across coastal and oceanic areas. These temperatures remained elevated through 2024, surpassing biological thresholds for coral survival (INVEMAR, 2024[21]; Mendoza et al., 2024[13]). The rapid spread of Stony Coral Tissue Loss Disease, detected in the Seaflower Reserve in late 2022, has intensified pressures on Caribbean reefs, with prevalence rising from 5.5% to over 25% within a year and causing severe declines in susceptible species (Pizarro, 2023[24]). Additional stressors such as macroalgae proliferation, invasive lionfish and sponge overgrowth, further disrupt the structure and function of reef ecosystems, compromising benthic biodiversity, and their capacity to sustain fisheries, tourism and coastal protection (Mendoza et al., 2024[13]). In this context, Colombia’s coral reef restoration initiatives, increasingly led by coastal communities, provide valuable models for aligning governance and conservation objectives with local livelihoods and traditional knowledge.

Figure 2.4. Colombia's ocean health is deteriorating
Copy link to Figure 2.4. Colombia's ocean health is deteriorating

Overfishing exerts critical pressure on marine and inland ecosystems, with an estimated 81% of marine and 90% of continental fish stocks exploited beyond sustainable levels (UNDP et al., 2023[3]). As a result, capture fisheries production has declined sharply over the past decade, compounded by pollution and climate change (CONPES, 2020[25]). Bycatch of non-target species (such as sea turtles, sharks, seabirds and marine mammals), combined with non-selective fishing techniques (like bottom trawling) accelerates biodiversity loss, increases mortality and further degrades habitats. This, in turn, undermines species recovery and ecosystem resilience. Aquaculture expansion adds pressure through nutrient loading, sedimentation and the spread of invasive species (MinAmbiente, 2025[23]). To mitigate these pressures and promote sustainable fishing, stronger collaboration with local communities, improved inter-institutional co‑ordination and adoption of more selective fishing gear are needed. The fisheries’ legal framework (Law 13 of 1990 and Decree 2256 of 1991) should be updated to better reflect recent environmental and biological changes, as well as institutional and sectoral developments (CONPES, 2020[25]), and to support long-term ecosystem recovery. Regulation of navigation and port activities based on biodiversity criteria should likewise be considered to address rising pressures from river and maritime transport.

Exotic and invasive species require greater priority in Colombia’s marine and coastal management, given their significant negative impacts on biodiversity and ecological balance. Colombia is updating the National Plan for the Prevention, Control and Management of Introduced, Transplanted and Invasive Species, to align with the National Policy for the Integral Management of Biodiversity and its Ecosystem Services (PNGIBSE), target 6 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) and the 2024 Biodiversity Action Plan. In 2022-2023, MinAmbiente consulted environmental authorities on the plan’s implementation. These findings should inform efforts to enhance its effectiveness and develop a roadmap to address remaining gaps. These steps will be essential to strengthen the management of biological invasions, while safeguarding the biodiversity and ecosystem services of Colombia’s marine, coastal and insular ecosystems.

Marine and coastal pollution continue to undermine ecosystem integrity. Around 65% of solid waste generated in coastal municipalities reaches the sea, often accumulating in mangroves and beaches due to poor disposal services (GoC, 2022[26]). Plastics account for 86% of marine debris on priority beaches (INVEMAR, 2024[21]), with tourism exacerbating the issue during peak seasons. Disparities in service provision between urban and remote beaches reflect broader governance challenges, while upstream mismanagement contributes to downstream litter accumulation (Garcés-Ordóñez et al., 2020[27]; INVEMAR, 2024[21]). Recent alerts have detected potentially pathogenic bacteria in microplastics from the Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta’s water, sediments and fish digestive tracts, posing growing risks to both ecosystems and public health (Donato-Rondón, 2022[28]). Moreover, both treated and untreated discharges, from point and diffuse sources, significantly degrade water and sediment quality, impairing the ecological functioning of associated ecosystems. Despite increased investment in mangrove restoration and urban plastic reduction campaigns, Colombia lacks robust monitoring indicators, integrated waste management strategies and adequate wastewater treatment systems (Section 1.2.6 and Section 1.2.7). Promoting circular economy policies, improving wastewater management and enhancing community engagement are essential to strengthen ecological resilience and reduce pollution loads.

Infrastructure development, particularly road construction, has significantly altered hydrological dynamics in Colombia’s wetlands (Jaramillo et al., 2018[29]; Quimbayo Ruiz et al., 2024[30]). Cumulative impacts from upstream activities, including dam construction and agricultural expansion, have reduced freshwater inflows, and increased sedimentation and nutrient pollution (Box 2.1) (Gallo-Vélez, Restrepo and Newton, 2022[31]; INVEMAR, 2024[21]). Uncontrolled urban expansion in coastal areas further exacerbates environmental degradation, contributing to coastal erosion and ecosystem fragmentation. Islands, marine and coastal areas lack a dedicated legal planning regime and are poorly integrated into territorial instruments, with maritime spatial planning excluded from the Organic Law on Territorial Planning (CONPES, 2020[25]). An integrated territorial planning approach is needed to reconcile infrastructure development, productive land and water uses with natural resource protection, address cumulative pressures, promote sustainable development and ensure better-regulated urban expansion in marine-coastal environments (INVEMAR, 2024[21]).

Mangroves play a critical role in reducing disaster risk, protecting shorelines and supporting local livelihoods. Ongoing efforts include the 2024 Identification of Ecosystem-Based Adaptation Actions and the Resilient Mangroves Initiative. These initiatives promote restoration, community-based adaptation and replicable action models that could be further expanded (INVEMAR, 2024[21]) to strengthen the integration of traditional knowledge and to better link conservation efforts with local livelihoods. Such ecosystem‑based approaches should be scaled up in accordance with the Programme for the Sustainable Use, Management and Conservation of Mangrove Ecosystems in Colombia and the 2023 Eco-reduction guideline, which promotes implementation of nature-based solutions for risk reduction and climate change adaptation. They should also foster inter-institutional co‑ordination and improve monitoring of high-risk areas, as these actions are critical for halting coastal degradation and safeguarding marine biodiversity.

Box 2.1. Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta is collapsing under cumulative environmental pressures

Copy link to Box 2.1. Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta is collapsing under cumulative environmental pressures

The Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta, one of the world’s most productive tropical wetlands, is undergoing severe ecological degradation due to cumulative human impacts. Infrastructure development, including roads and artificial channels, have disrupted hydrological connectivity and altered freshwater and saltwater flows. These changes have triggered widespread mangrove die-offs and a sharp decline in fishery resources, severely affecting the livelihoods of local communities that depend on fishing and wetland ecosystems.

Pressures are compounded by sedimentation, nutrient pollution and upstream land-use changes along the Magdalena River Basin. Poorly maintained canals and diffuse pollution sources have further degraded water quality, while invasive aquatic plants and sediment accumulation reduce its depth and ecological function. Despite its designation as a Ramsar site, UNESCO biosphere reserve and national park, protective measures remain insufficient. The wetland’s inclusion in the Montreux Record reflects the severity of its decline and the urgency of co‑ordinated recovery efforts. Although some projects have been initiated, long-term success depends on basin-scale planning that addresses cumulative pressures, ensures minimum environmental flows and integrates climate projections. Strengthening governance and adopting adaptive management strategies will be essential to prevent irreversible ecological collapse.

Source: Jaramillo et al. (2018[29]), Assessment of hydrologic connectivity in an ungauged wetland with InSAR observations, https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9d23/pdf; Ibarra et al. (2024[32]), Monitoreo de las condiciones ambientales y los cambios estructurales y funcionales de las comunidades vegetales y los recursos pesqueros durante la rehabilitación de la CGSM 2023, www.invemar.org.co; Landis (2024[33]), One of Colombia's largest estuary ecosystems is drying up, communities warn, https://news.mongabay.com/2024/04/one-of-colombias-largest-estuary-ecosystems-is-drying-up-communities-warn/.

Governance is stronger for continental territories than for islands, oceanic and coastal areas where policies, regulations and management instruments remain limited. Coastal communities have developed initiatives to manage their territories and sustainably use resources, such as the Exclusive Zone of Artisanal Fishing (SPA) and the Community Interinstitutional Group of Artisanal Fisheries of the Colombian Pacific (GICPA). However, weak environmental governance at the national level continues to undermine efforts to conserve and sustainably manage marine and coastal ecosystems. Progress is hindered by underused co‑ordination bodies, such as the Consejo Nacional Ambiental, gaps between regulatory frameworks and their implementation, and limited enforcement. Other key structural challenges include insufficient maritime security, limited knowledge and innovation on ocean issues, and underdeveloped maritime economic activities (CONPES, 2020[25]). Strengthening participation in multilevel governance will be critical to enhancing sustainable management.

To address these challenges, the Colombia Sustainable Bio-Oceanic Power 2030 Policy (CONPES 3990) was established in 2020. As of 2024, nearly two-thirds of its objectives have been achieved, including the creation of the National Bio-oceanic System (SBBN) and the related strategy to align it with national administrative systems linked to marine and coastal management. However, progress has been slower on objectives related to updating scientific and technical knowledge of fishery resources; assessing the impacts of fishing gear and methods on biodiversity; launching a new cycle of expeditions; and adjusting management plans for National Integrated Management Districts administered by the SPNN in line with national conservation objectives.

Although recent strategies and action plans have expanded scope for stakeholder participation and promoted a plurality of knowledge systems, weak co‑ordination still hampers timely responses to emerging conflicts, which often escalate faster than institutional capacities can handle. Monitoring continues to draw on voluntary civil society efforts (UNDP et al., 2023[3]), underscoring the need for stronger state-led systems to safeguard natural resources. To maximise the impact of the Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP), meet NDC commitments and advance other national strategies around these ecosystems, governance and capacity constraints must be addressed effectively.

2.1.3. Data, monitoring and economic valuation of ecosystem services

Data and information systems should be further consolidated and strengthened

Data limitations and uneven monitoring capacity continue to hinder evidence-based conservation decisions. Less than 10% of species have genetic data available, and critical biodiversity databases remain fragmented and incomplete, leaving no formal mechanisms to transmit or integrate monitoring data (UNDP et al., 2023[3]). Gaps are most acute in biodiversity-rich areas, where institutional capacity is weakest. Colombia has strengthened its Biodiversity Information System, but data collection is largely focused on single-time observations, limiting the ability to track long-term ecological trends.

The ambition to position itself as a leader in the sustainable ocean bioeconomy by 2030 is supported by academic programmes, vocational training and scientific expeditions that aim to promote blue innovation and marine research. The National Scientific Expeditions Plan has further advanced understanding through initiatives such as the Seaflower and Pacific expeditions. These efforts, together with regional co‑operation and diagnostic tools developed by the National Planning Department (DNP), provide a solid foundation to further expand monitoring systems and integrate ecosystem valuation into territorial planning (OECD, 2024[34]). However, data remain fragmented, underused in decision making and limited in scope, with persistent research gaps on vulnerable species. Funding constraints and the absence of a Caribbean programme continue to limit comprehensive coverage (CONPES, 2020[25]). Community-based monitoring, traditional knowledge and voluntary civil society initiatives have expanded, yet remain insufficient for a comprehensive national coverage (Gomez et al., 2021[5]).

Colombia has made important progress in valuing nature’s contributions but lacks an integrated approach. The country conducted its first National Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Assessment in 2021, which informed the NDP 2022-2026. It also developed natural capital accounts for forests and freshwater ecosystems through its participation in the World Bank’s Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services. However, a systematic national valuation of ecosystem services has yet to be established. To address these challenges, Colombia should invest in regular biodiversity assessments (particularly in underrepresented ecosystems and biodiversity hotspots), strengthen regional data capacity and ensure sustained funding. This foundation is essential for the tailored conservation and restoration of both terrestrial and marine ecosystems.

2.2. Policy framework and governance

Copy link to 2.2. Policy framework and governance

2.2.1. Policy framework

Colombia’s policy framework for biodiversity has advanced significantly

Since 2014, Colombia has made notable progress in implementing the PNGIBSE. The National BAP 2030, updated in 2024, is comprehensive with clear targets, lines of action and indicators to monitor progress. The update incorporated KMGBF targets and aligned them with six overarching national goals related to participatory planning; promoting territories with ecosystem integrity; enhancing the bioeconomy (Box 2.2); addressing pollution, informality and containment of crimes; governance; and finance. Meanwhile, Colombia incorporated green growth and natural capital objectives into successive NDPs and has begun to integrate biodiversity and climate goals into territorial planning. Overall, a solid, high-level policy framework positions biodiversity as a national priority for sustainable development. In 2024, Colombia hosted the 16th Conference of the Parties of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

The national goals in the BAP go beyond traditional environmental policy, linking actions to broader social and economic objectives. Among others, the updated BAP set ambitious goals for the conservation and management of terrestrial, freshwater and marine-coastal areas (Section 2.3.2), as well as a target to restore 5 million ha by 2030, raising the ambition of the NDC 2.0 by roughly five-fold (GoC, 2024[11]). Regional Biodiversity Action Plans (PRAB), led by the Autonomous Regional Corporations (CARs), set out strategies, objectives, timelines and specific actions to support implementation of the BAP at the territorial level. However, these plans are not mandatory, unlike the Territorial and Sectoral Climate Change Management Plans (PIGCCT and PIGCCS) (Chapter 1) and have only been developed for a few regions.

The country surpassed some 2020 Aichi targets under the CBD but fell short on others (GoC, 2019[35]). In 2020, Colombia exceeded the target for PAs for marine and coastal zones with 13.5% of areas protected (compared to the goal of 10%) and narrowly missed the 17% target for territorial PAs (CBD, 2021[36]). It also made progress in raising awareness (Aichi Target 1) and integrating biodiversity values into development policies and strategies (Aichi Target 2). Despite progress, major challenges persist, especially related to the root causes of biodiversity loss. These include unplanned land-use changes, largely driven by agriculture and urban expansion, land-use conflicts and weak inter-institutional co‑ordination that hinder mainstreaming biodiversity into productive sectors. Aichi Target 3, on incentives, was also partially achieved by 2020, with a wide range of positive incentives in place and some measures to mitigate negative incentives. However, insufficient measuring and monitoring systems hinder proper assessment of the impact of positive incentives and elimination of harmful ones (GoC, 2019[35]).

While the updated BAP is a positive development, its implementation could be stronger. The development of the updated BAP resulted from impressive levels of engagement of ITTs, and ethnic, peasant and local communities. An extensive participatory process at local and regional levels identified specific priorities and actions tailored to the unique context of the country’s five regions. This grounded the national strategy in diverse territorial contexts. The update is a positive development and reflects strong commitment from the government on biodiversity. To strengthen implementation, BAP targets could be made legally binding and regulations updated to incorporate measures required to meet the 2030 goals.

Box 2.2. Efforts to promote the bioeconomy are promising and should be scaled up

Copy link to Box 2.2. Efforts to promote the bioeconomy are promising and should be scaled up

Promoting the bioeconomy is one of the six main national goals of the BAP 2030. The plan aims to contribute 3% to the national gross domestic product (GDP) and generate 552 000 jobs from high-value-added products and services based on the sustainable use of biodiversity. To advance this agenda, the Colombia Bio Programme is developing policies and regulatory measures designed to mobilise science, technology and innovation to strengthen value chains of sustainable bio-based products and services, such as pharmaceuticals and ecotourism opportunities. This includes a focus on cultivating and curating local knowledge through scientific expeditions to identify new sustainable uses of biodiversity. A National Bioeconomy Observatory is under development to provide an information platform aimed at increasing public and private investment in bioeconomy value chains. Nevertheless, investment in science and technology remains low at only 0.2% of GDP, limiting research and innovation in biodiversity-related fields and highlighting significant scope for additional investment.

Source: GoC (2024[11]), Plan de Acción de Biodiversidad de Colombia al 2030; MinAmbiente (2025[23]), Review Mission Presentation: Biodiversity State, Pressures and Trends.

The Climate Action Law of 2021, the National Plan for Ecological Restoration (PNRE) and the 2023-2026 National Restoration Strategy advance progress towards Colombia’s BAP by restoring degraded ecosystems and promoting climate resilience, nature-based solutions, ecological connectivity and sustainable livelihoods. The PNRE initially identified 23 million ha as suitable for restoration. Of these, the National System of Protected Areas (SINAP) prioritised 6.1 million ha through the National Restoration Portfolio (GoC, 2022[2]). The 2023-2026 Strategy further refined priorities using the Alexander von Humboldt Institute’s landscape integrity analysis, which considers ecosystem composition, transformation, structural condition and ecosystem services. This analysis identified a long-term restoration need of 36 million ha nationwide. As of 2024, the 2023-2026 Strategy had reached 9.4% of its restoration target (75 789 ha).

2.2.2. Enforcement against environmental crime

Colombia has strengthened enforcement targeting root causes of biodiversity loss

Enforcement against illegal activities driving deforestation and other forms of environmental degradation has been strengthened. Combatting environmental crime, a major driver of biodiversity loss, is one of the national targets of the BAP 2030 and the NDP 2022-2026. In a key development, the National Council to Combat Deforestation and Other Associated Environmental Crimes (CONALDEF) was established in 2019 as a high-level inter-ministerial body under Law 1955. CONALDEF was founded in response to a landmark ruling of the Colombian Supreme Court of Justice related to deforestation in the Amazon.7 The Council is responsible for the strategic and operational co‑ordination against environmental crimes in the country. It also advances the deforestation strategy and strengthens monitoring, with a focus on deforestation hotspots, including the Amazon and PAs. Under CONALDEF, the traceability of environmental crimes has been strengthened through the shared use of satellite data, environmental forensics, field reports and prosecution. In parallel, national indicators on informality and environmental crimes, developed under the BAP, will support territorial mapping of biodiversity impacts, liabilities and institutional responses.

Colombia has also been actively engaged in regional co‑operation to address transnational environmental crime. In 2025, Colombia assumed the pro tempore presidency of the Sub-Commission on Public Security and Transnational and Transboundary Crime of the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization (ACTO). Through operations like “Green Shield” in June-July 2025, ACTO has achieved operational successes in enforcing cross-border laws. The operation targeted illegal mining, logging and wildlife trafficking and resulted in over 90 arrests, the seizure of USD 64 million of assets and the rescue of thousands of live animals (Hoejris Dahl, 2025[37]). Nevertheless, structural challenges remain related to the formalisation of economic activities on the mining and agricultural frontier, and interoperability of monitoring systems.

The judiciary has grown more prominent in environmental governance. In 2021, the legal framework on environmental crimes in the Colombian Penal Code was strengthened, incorporating new types of crimes (such as deforestation) and imposing stronger penalties for serious environmental damage, irreversible modification of ecological balance or extinction of species. Colombian courts have also delivered several other landmark rulings, declaring eight rivers8 as a subject of rights and mandating government action to restore water quality and ecosystem health. Such rulings have resulted in the removal of mining titles in certain areas and the development of inter-institutional action plans. Nevertheless, the implementation of such rulings faces challenges due to insufficient financing, judicial oversight and co‑ordination with territories. Colombia also has strict laws against wildlife trafficking and has increased enforcement since 2014, including specialised environmental police units. These efforts have improved inter-institutional co‑ordination in response to environmental emergencies and strengthened intelligence and prosecution actions.

Legal recognition of the rights of ITTs, and of ethnic, peasant and local communities, has strengthened the integration of traditional knowledge into environmental governance. The ratification of the Escazú Agreement in 2024 reinforces Colombia’s commitment to strengthen access to environmental information, public participation in decisions and access to justice, while safeguarding the rights of Indigenous Peoples, and Afro-Colombian, peasant and other communities. Despite some advances, frequent violence against environmental defenders remains a pressing concern (Box 2.3).

Box 2.3. Protecting environmental defenders remains a critical challenge in Colombia

Copy link to Box 2.3. Protecting environmental defenders remains a critical challenge in Colombia

The defence of environmental and territorial rights has become one of the most dangerous activities in the country. Between 2012 and 2023, around 461 land and environmental defenders were assassinated. In 2023 alone, 79 defenders were killed – representing 40% of all reported cases worldwide; this was the highest annual total ever recorded for a single country. Violence is concentrated in Cauca, Antioquia, Nariño and Valle del Cauca.

Environmental defenders are exposed to systematic threats, harassment, extortion, criminalisation and judicial persecution by both state and non-state actors. In 2019, 47% of aggressions were attributed to paramilitary groups, 13% to FARC dissidents, 4% to the National Liberation Army (ELN), 3.5% to public security forces and the remainder to unidentified actors. Attacks are frequently linked to disputes over land use and tenure in rural or strategically valuable areas for economic development.

Impunity remains a decisive factor sustaining the high levels of violence, while institutional protection efforts are limited. The National Protection Unit relies mainly on material measures – bodyguards, armoured vehicles and bulletproof vests – providing short-term physical security but rarely addressing underlying risks. These arrangements are often impractical in rural areas and insufficient for collective protection, while institutional co‑ordination and resources remain weak. Defenders in remote areas are especially vulnerable due to poor access to legal assistance and support networks.

The Escazú Agreement, in force in Colombia since December 2024, provides a landmark opportunity to strengthen protection. In 2024, a new Institutional Response Protocol handled 59 defender cases, and the Human Rights Network for the Amazon was created to expand early warning and protection in high-risk ecoregions. Effective implementation of the environmental provisions of the Escazú Agreement and the Peace Agreement will be critical to safeguarding defenders and addressing underlying socio-environmental conflicts.

Source: Bárcenas, Torres and Muñoz Ávila (2021[12]), El Acuerdo de Escazú: sobre democracia ambiental y su relación con la Agenda 2030 para el Desarrollo Sostenible; IDEPAZ (2023[38]), Violencia en Colombia: Informe annual; Global Witness (2024[39]), Missing voices: The violent erasure of land and environmental defenders; MinAmbiente (2025[23]), Review Mission Presentation: Biodiversity State, Pressures and Trends.

While Colombia has strengthened enforcement against illegal activities, some regions and many local authorities still face insufficient technical capacity, lack of co‑ordinated land-use planning and limited state control. The technical capacity and resources of Corporations for Sustainable Development, the CARs and Urban Environmental Authorities, which are key actors in environmental governance, vary considerably. This is especially the case in vast territories like Chocó and Amazonia where there are notable deficiencies (GoC, 2019[35]). The National Environmental System (SINA), which manages the country’s environmental policy and natural resources, has structural and operational limitations in territories where environmental and social conflicts persist. Frequently, in these regions, state presence is limited. Illegal armed groups and organised criminals impose de facto environmental regimes, regulating the exploitation of natural resources to finance and perpetuate conflict. Assessments of the Comptroller General have found that land-use planning is another area of concern. National, regional and local plans overlap and sometimes conflict. This complicates enforcement, as different agencies may have divergent territorial designations of PAs, forest reserves, Indigenous reserves and land available for agricultural exploitation (GoC, 2019[35]).

2.3. Policy instruments for biodiversity

Copy link to 2.3. Policy instruments for biodiversity

2.3.1. Policy mix

Colombia has a diverse and innovative policy mix for biodiversity

Colombia has expanded the range of policies for biodiversity and has a diverse and innovative policy mix. Area-based measures, such as the expansion of PAs and zoning regulations, remain the cornerstone of biodiversity policies in the country (Echeverri et al., 2023[40]). Economic instruments have expanded, including payments for ecosystem services (PES), biodiversity offsets, positive incentives for environmentally related investments and newer instruments such as voluntary biodiversity credits. Yet, consistent with its general approach to environmentally related taxation, Colombia only has a few taxes and charges on biodiversity-harmful activities; tax expenditures for environmentally beneficial investments are more prevalent. Although tax benefits (income tax and property tax deductions for conservation efforts) aim to encourage investment in biodiversity, they reduce revenue, entail higher administrative costs and distort resource allocation (Chapter 1). Voluntary and community-led initiatives, including zero-deforestation agreements, Indigenous-led conservation and community-managed reserves, have grown in number, recognition and importance.

2.3.2. Extension and ecological representativeness of protected areas

Colombia has reinforced conservation through PAs and OECMs but should improve their governance, connectivity and ecological representativeness

Colombia reached its 30x30 target for marine protection and conservation ahead of schedule (Figure 2.5), covering 47.4% of its marine exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Marine protected areas expanded from 12.7 million ha in 2018 to around 30.6 million ha in 2025. This was largely done through new designations and expansions in the Pacific (RUNAP, 2025[41]), with most designated under low-protection categories (IUCN V and VI). In addition, 5.5% of the EEZ is conserved through Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECMs). On land, protection and conservation measures cover 26% of the national territory (PAs and OECMs). Of this, terrestrial protected areas accounted for 19.6 million ha in 2025, up from 18.5 million ha in 2018, equivalent to 17% of total land area (RUNAP, 2025[41]). Most terrestrial PAs fall under strict protection categories (IUCN I and II), while the remaining 9% is conserved through OECMs (Figure 2.5). This expansion puts the country on track to meet its terrestrial 30x30 goal. Building on this progress, the BAP update raised national ambition to protect and conserve 34% of the country’s territory by 2030. Achieving this goal is expected to rely on the recognition and inclusion of conservation areas within ITTs, and within ethnic, peasant and local communities, as well as on the sustainability of these governance arrangements.

While Colombia has advanced in conserving PAs, some ecosystems are underrepresented. Colombia has made significant progress over the past two decades in addressing conservation gaps within SINAP. In 2022, representativity in the Andean biotic units improved significantly. Meanwhile, multiple previously unrepresented marine ecosystems were incorporated between 2007 and 2018, achieving full representativity across marine units with over half well- or over-represented (PNNC, 2022[42]). Despite these advances, SINAP remains ecologically incomplete. To strengthen ecological representativity, environmental authorities should i) maintain efforts to designate and expand PAs, OECMs and ITTs for ecosystems that have been underrepresented or previously omitted; and ii) advance identification of conservation priorities within SINAP and beyond.

Figure 2.5. Colombia has met its 2030 target for marine areas and is on track for terrestrial areas
Copy link to Figure 2.5. Colombia has met its 2030 target for marine areas and is on track for terrestrial areas

Protected area extent by IUCN category, top ten OECD and OECD LAC countries, 2024

Landscape connectivity remains insufficient to support key ecological processes such as species migration and gene flow. Only 42% of PAs are structurally connected, with just 21% of this connectivity secured by formal PAs (CBD, 2021[36]). Connectivity is strongest in the Amazon, where the National Natural Parks System (SPNN) accounts for 86.5% of regional linkages. For their part, biogeographic corridors in the Andes and Orinoquía remain fragmented (Mendoza et al., 2024[13]). Meanwhile, the Caribbean is highly vulnerable to loss of ecosystem services due to landscape fragmentation (IaVH, 2021[4]). ITTs occupy areas spanning over 26 million ha, encompassing roughly 46% of Colombia’s natural forest (WWF, 2024[43]). These territories present substantial opportunities to strengthen landscape connectivity through OECMs, particularly as 63% of SPNN-PAs are associated with them, with approximately 24% overlap.

Building on these opportunities, the country should expand initiatives, such as the Orinoquía Integrated Sustainable Landscapes Project, that enhance ecological connectivity and biodiversity conservation across landscapes. It could also draw on lessons from Costa Rica’s National Biological Corridors Programme and Productive Landscapes Project. These practices should be adapted to Colombia’s ecological and institutional context to facilitate the eventual creation of a national multi-actor governance system connecting PAs, OECMs, ITTs and productive landscapes, while providing a framework for joint incentive programmes.

The recently approved Green Cities Law establishes mandates to promote development of urban green infrastructure. To align with this law, municipal territorial planning instruments should be updated to define the Main Ecological Structure as a primary planning layer, consolidating ecological connectivity between urban and rural areas, and strengthening nature-based approaches to enhance climate resilience and sustainable development.

Forests, as well as marine and coastal ecosystems, are at the heart of Colombia’s climate and biodiversity objectives, providing vital carbon storage and ecosystem services. The SPNN protects 20% of natural forests, avoiding an estimated 6.3 billion tonnes of CO₂ emissions (CBD, 2021[36]). Seagrasses sequester 7.6-18.6 billion tonnes of CO₂ annually. With a total area of 275 397 ha, mangroves have a carbon storage potential of approximately 1.0 million tonnes of CO₂ (Mendoza et al., 2024[13]). Beyond carbon storage, these ecosystems provide essential services, notably water regulation, and contribute around 1% of the country’s GDP.

Colombia is scaling up mangrove protection. With 45% of mangroves included in formal PAs (MinAmbiente, 2025[23]), they benefit from a high level of legal protection compared with other ecosystems. Under Law 2243 of 2022, mangroves are subjected to continuous studies covering their characterisation, assessment and zoning for preservation, sustainable use and restoration. This further helps reduce vulnerabilities in areas outside PAs. Colombia has also strengthened the role of mangroves as a nature-based solution for climate change mitigation and adaptation through its NDC commitments and BAP targets. To that end, it is updating and implementing the National Programme for the Sustainable Use, Management and Conservation of Mangrove Ecosystems by 2030; implementing at least six climate adaptation initiatives for mangroves; and updating the Coastal Erosion Master Plan, including a Caribbean shoreline restoration programme. These efforts are expected to further support integrated coastal planning that aligns biodiversity conservation with water resources management.

Anthropogenic pressures continue to undermine conservation outcomes in PAs. Illegal activities, including mining and illicit crop cultivation, affect 40% of national parks, particularly those in remote, difficult‑to‑monitor areas (Mendoza et al., 2024[13]). Climate threats further compound these pressures: droughts are perceived as the most severe risk, followed by rising surface temperatures, landslides and coastal erosion (Mendoza et al., 2024[13]). In all, 342 exotic species have been recorded in PAs, including 9 officially classified as invasive. The number of threatened species in PAs increased by 52% between 2022 and 2024. Although forest loss in PAs has declined by 78% since 2018, enforcement and forest management remain insufficient to fully prevent deforestation (Mendoza et al., 2024[13]). National Integrated Management Districts also lack adequate instruments to balance conservation with sustainable use. Meanwhile, systems for monitoring, control and surveillance of fishing and other economic activities in marine and coastal protected areas remain weak (CONPES, 2020[25]).

2.3.3. Management and effectiveness of protected areas

Management effectiveness across Colombia’s PAs remains uneven. Of the 327 PAs assessed in 2024, 42.5% were in a strong state, benefitting from robust planning, adequate resources and a strengthened governance framework. Another 47% were rated intermediate, where objectives have not yet been fully met due to both internal and external challenges. The remaining 10% were rated weak, with contextual constraints hindering management and progress towards conservation goals. Addressing this heterogeneity in management capacity will require targeted improvements in governance, planning and resource allocation, alongside capacity building and peer learning from well-performing PAs.

Another major constraint is the lack of consistent biodiversity monitoring: around 54% of PAs lack biological records or remain unsampled (Mendoza et al., 2024[13]), undermining adaptive management. Strengthening partnerships with ITTs, and with ethnic, peasant and local communities, across areas contributing to conservation could improve data collection and inform decisions. This process could extend beyond areas where these groups and communities hold territorial rights. To support this, co-management arrangements, notably in overlapping areas, need to be enhanced to ensure their recognition, legal security, equitable benefit sharing and provision of technical support. In parallel, improving institutional co‑ordination and integrating climate objectives across biodiversity governance systems will be crucial.

Funding for SPNN-managed areas remains well below estimated needs, posing challenges for effective conservation and sustainable financing. SPNN-managed areas received only USD 1.15 per hectare in 2020, far below the estimated USD 5-8 needed (Mendoza et al., 2024[13]). Budget allocations often overlook PA size, and international development co‑operation support has been critical for sustaining operations. Bridging this funding gap – estimated at up to USD 373 million annually – requires a long-term financing strategy that leverages diversified revenue streams and multi-stakeholder mechanisms for sustained biodiversity funding (Parques Nacionales Naturales de Colombia, 2021[44]; Mendoza et al., 2024[13]). Developing ecotourism around national parks could generate valuable revenue, provided that potential environmental impacts are carefully assessed and managed through effective monitoring and zoning (Mendoza et al., 2024[13]). Ongoing analyses of harmful incentives for biodiversity in the tourism sector can help identify barriers and opportunities, directly supporting the sustainable development of nature-based tourism in highly biodiverse ecosystems, including protected and conservation areas.

In 2024, Colombia strengthened the governance of ITTs, as well as of ethnic, peasant and local communities, by reinforcing Indigenous autonomy in environmental management and their authority within SINA through Decree 1275. It also updated Decree 1777 to recognise organised peasant communities in forest reserve areas as custodians of biodiversity, water and sustainable land management. Under the Policy for Social Participation in the Conservation of National Natural Parks, the government has signed a wide range of agreements with ITTs, and with ethnic, peasant and local communities living near or within Areas of Special Environmental Interest. These cover joint management, use and access, regional co‑operation and prior consultation. These agreements aim to strengthen governance in PAs, reduce socio-environmental conflicts and balance the rights of these communities with environmental protection. Yet, progress remains threatened in conflict-affected regions, as armed groups continue to hinder both the work of park authorities and community self-governance.

2.3.4. Payments for ecosystem services and biodiversity offsets

Payments for ecosystem services have mobilised significant funding for biodiversity, but their effectiveness and efficiency should be assessed

PES have significantly expanded over the last decade, taking on a more strategic role in supporting biodiversity conservation, climate action, peacebuilding and rural development. PES arrangements now target different environmental and social objectives, and types of ecosystem services. They also mobilise various sources of public and private funding. The experience from such programmes could be leveraged, expanding them to projects such as promoting carbon sequestration in coastal and marine systems.

In 2022, the National Programme of Payments for Environmental Services (PNPSA) was set up to provide more coherence and guidance. The PNPSA set a national goal to conserve 1 million ha under PES arrangements by 2030. In 2023, 163 PES projects were implemented across 18 departments and 152 municipalities, including 37 municipalities in high deforestation zones, 57 in high deforestation influence areas, 57 in páramo zones and 31 in municipalities with Programmes with a Territorial Focus (PDETs) (MinAmbiente, 2024[45]). The number of beneficiaries increased more than five-fold from the previous year, reaching over 36 000 individuals, notably from peasant communities, Indigenous Peoples and Afro-descendants. In 2023, USD 16.74 million was mobilised and more than 580 000 ha was under PES by the end of the year, an increase of over 140 000 new ha from 2022.

The flagship initiative REM Visión Amazonia funded by international donors is a key example of a performance-based payments arrangement to prevent deforestation and degradation (Section 2.4.1). It supports the country’s deforestation strategy in two main ways; first, by improving governance, institutions and land-use planning; and second, by promoting sustainable productive activities for affected communities. At the end of the first phase in 2023, donors had disbursed around EUR 78 million for emission reductions of approximately 18 MtCO₂e due to prevented deforestation (USD 5 per tonne) (KfW, 2025[46]).

A mid-term evaluation of Visión Amazonia in 2020 highlighted both the programme’s successes and shortcomings. The programme has reduced emissions caused by deforestation, providing benefits for local communities and improving forest governance. Shortcomings included delays in fund disbursement and project implementation (Mancala Consultores, 2020[47]). While the programme has demonstrated a positive impact on reducing deforestation, it does not address some of its key root causes, namely land grabbing for extensive cattle ranching and speculation (Rodríguez-de-Francisco et al., 2021[48]).

While PES have successfully expanded the area under sustainable use, there is still room for improvement. PES have mobilised significant levels of funding and helped align local livelihoods with conservation. Initiatives under the Comprehensive Rural Reform, for example, highlight the potential of PES to deliver both conservation and social benefits, while advancing implementation of the Peace Agreement. By 2024, projects in municipalities in PDETs and Zones Most Affected by the Armed Conflict (ZOMAC) had supported more than 6 300 families and preserved 11.4 million ha. Meanwhile, the Conservar Paga Amazonia programme had engaged 2 700 families in protecting 100 000 ha. Nonetheless, the effectiveness, monitoring and long-term stability of PES could be improved.

A recent government assessment of PES programmes reports a high level of effectiveness, as measured by the low rate of deforestation alerts in areas under conservation (MinAmbiente, 2024[45]); however, only half of environmental authorities reported data for this assessment. The government should apply a consistent methodology for estimating the value of projects and determining levels of payment. Persistent issues such as land grabbing and armed conflict continue to undermine PES benefits. A comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of PES would identify opportunities to better target funding, align funding levels with local opportunity costs, and ensure the environmental integrity of conservation efforts and their permanence over time. The assessment could also include analysis on how they contribute to achieving the goals set out in the Peace Agreement’s Implementation Framework Plan (Box 2.4). A robust reporting and monitoring system that consolidates accurate, verified information is a prerequisite for such an assessment.

Colombia could also strengthen the technical and operational integration between PES programmes and REDD+ strategies, including promoting uptake of the guidance developed to support the articulation between the two mechanisms. In Costa Rica, for example, both mechanisms operate under a unified legal framework and consolidated institutional leadership. Other measures have also enhanced the quality of projects, improved environmental performance and avoided duplication. These include use of standardised technical criteria; prioritisation of strategic areas; the requirement for certified forest engineers; and integrated monitoring systems with traceability through geographic information systems. Colombia could adopt similar practices to reinforce transparency, consistency and effectiveness across its incentive programmes.

Biodiversity offsets are well established in Colombia but face several barriers that limit effective implementation

Biodiversity offsets are well established in Colombia, although project execution by private companies and oversight of government authorities to ensure environmental benefits needs to be stronger. The government updated regulations on mandatory biodiversity offsets in 2018 and recognised and regulated habitat banks in the years that followed (OECD, 2025[49]). Most offset obligations arise from activities requiring an environmental licence, especially in sectors such hydrocarbons, mining and infrastructure. Licensees deliver the offset, while the government guides the strategic siting and aggregation of projects. The methodology for selecting areas for offsets considers criteria such as remnant, rarity, representativeness and transformation rate, in line with the overarching principle of ecological equivalence and the mitigation hierarchy. Several barriers limit effective implementation and have created a backlog of unexecuted offsets (UNDP BIOFIN, 2025[50]). These include low awareness of habitat banking among potential buyers, a shortage of suitable areas for offsets, complex regulatory approval processes and a limited supply of biodiversity credits (Green Finance Institute, 2024[51]; UNDP BIOFIN, 2025[50]). Stronger oversight by government authorities and sanctions for non-compliance are needed to ensure offsets are ecologically equivalent and long term.

Biodiversity credits9 could be further expanded, creating opportunities to mobilise additional private funding to purchase credits for both compliance and voluntary purposes (OECD, 2025[49]). Some private initiatives that promote voluntary biodiversity conservation are using blockchain to strengthen the integrity, credibility and effectiveness of the market. Distributed ledger technology makes project data publicly available and unalterable, providing public access to real-time, verified project information. The use of such digital technologies can improve transparency and accountability of credit markets (OECD, 2025[49]) and could be more broadly applied. Colombia should strengthen the regulatory basis for biodiversity credits to provide a clear and coherent framework. Such a framework would include clear legal definitions, streamlined approval processes, clear guidelines to evaluate additionality and minimum duration for habitat banks. Transparency, traceability and monitoring should also be improved (Green Finance Institute, 2024[51]).

2.4. Integrating biodiversity with broader environmental and social objectives

Copy link to 2.4. Integrating biodiversity with broader environmental and social objectives

2.4.1. Integrating biodiversity with climate goals

Biodiversity has been increasingly integrated with climate and other environmental and social policies

Colombia’s national strategies and policies increasingly recognise that biodiversity underpins many other environmental, social and economic objectives. Such objectives include climate mitigation and adaptation; food and water security; cultural protection of ITTs, and ethnic, peasant and local communities; economic diversification; and poverty reduction. Between 2015 and 2020, the policy mix for biodiversity mostly expanded through integration with sectors and policy priorities such as poverty reduction, climate change and pollution (Echeverri et al., 2023[40]). The NDC 2.0 and NDC 3.0 include targets to reduce annual deforestation and promote restoration by 2030 and 2035 (Chapter 1). The NDCs also emphasise the role of nature-based solutions, such as protecting páramos, and restoring marine and coastal ecosystems as a key strategy for climate change adaptation and mitigation. Financing for biodiversity is increasingly linked with poverty reduction and sustainable development of communities. Campaigns (such as “Peace with Nature”) and high-level initiatives (such as the Coalition for Nature and Peace) seek to anchor biodiversity restoration in the post-conflict peacebuilding agenda.

Despite numerous co‑ordination mechanisms, climate change and biodiversity policies and programmes still operate in a fragmented way and lack an integrated approach in territorial and sectoral planning, as well as financing. Challenges include lack of alignment in the timing and cycles for formulating and updating key policy instruments, lack of integrated analysis and decision making, insufficient and fragmented financing, and lack of interoperable monitoring systems, which all limit an integrated evaluation of policy impact.

Colombia could achieve a more integrated approach through stronger connection between the BAP, the NDCs and the National Action Plan to Combat Desertification and Drought; alignment of targets, indicators and reporting; integration of climate and biodiversity into land-use plans; and expanded financing and prioritisation of nature-based solutions. The Regional Action Plans for Biodiversity should be closely co‑ordinated with those for climate change (PIGCCTS and PIGCCS) to identify and enhance synergies. Efforts to strengthen the monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions should include integrating biodiversity variables to help align financing flows with climate and biodiversity objectives. This, in turn, would help avoid double counting and account more comprehensively for investments (Chapter 1).

Tackling deforestation is a key lever to achieve biodiversity and climate goals

Over the past decade, Colombia has developed a range of frameworks to address deforestation while advancing rural development, and efforts have delivered results. Key frameworks include the Integral Strategy for Deforestation Control and Forest Management (ENREDD+) and the National Policy for Deforestation Control and Sustainable Forest Management (CONPES 4021) adopted in 2021. ENREDD+ is embedded in Colombia’s national climate strategy, its commitments under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the international REDD+ mechanism. Since 2015, Colombia has been part of the REDD Early Movers Programme (REM), which provides performance-based payments for verified emission reductions related to prevention of deforestation and degradation. The programme is implemented though the flagship initiative REM Visión Amazonia funded by Germany, Norway and the United Kingdom (Section 2.3.4).

New laws create legal obligations to align with international environmental standards and protect the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs), but enforcement mechanisms are lacking. REDD+ projects contribute to the supply of verified emission reductions and the development of the market for carbon credits. Domestic demand for carbon credits has been driven in part by the carbon tax “non-accrual mechanism” (mecanismo de no causación). This allows regulated parties to reduce their tax liability by offsetting CO₂ emissions through verified domestic emission mitigation projects and surrendering the corresponding carbon credits (Chapter 1). The government has taken steps to strengthen environmental and social safeguards for projects generating carbon credits. Notably, Article 230 of Law 2294 establishing the NDP 2022-2026 requires that all Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use mitigation initiatives in the country must comply with REDD+ safeguards. This creates a legal obligation for Colombian forest and land-use projects to align with internationally recognised standards for environmental protection and respect for the rights of IPLCs (Ovalle, Darío Valencia and Brown, 2023[52]). Still, mechanisms to enforce that obligation are lacking.

Colombia faces a number of challenges related to lack of transparency, ensuring environmental integrity and securing free, prior and informed consent of communities (GFI, Transparency for Colombia and CEALDES, 2025[53]). Complete information on the number, scale and impact of REDD+ projects in the country is lacking. This undermines the credibility of emission reductions and accentuates the risk of double counting and double financing. There are also regulatory gaps relating to certification standards, additionality, market oversight and reporting (Ovalle, Darío Valencia and Brown, 2023[52]) and specific measures for the application of environmental and social safeguards (SINCHI and Ruiz-Nieto, 2023[54]).

While Colombia has set up an information system to track projects reducing emissions, it has significant limitations. In 2015, the government established RENARE, a system to centralise and manage information on GHG mitigation projects. However, it was only operational from October 2020 until December 2022 when it was suspended; operations resumed in June 2024 (GFI, Transparency for Colombia and CEALDES, 2025[53]). As a further limitation, RENARE functions as an information repository without government verification. The large number of projects and lack of transparency impede effective implementation of REDD+ at scale nationally. This also hinders efforts to avoid overlaps, as well as carbon leakage – where deforestation and degradation are prevented in one area but occur in another. There have also been violations of Resolution 1447 (2018), which is the official system for MRV of GHG mitigation actions at the national level. The regulatory basis for REDD+ should be strengthened to adopt common standards aligned with international best practice, improve oversight of projects and verified reporting, and allow for sanctions to be imposed for non-compliance.

While the government has engaged the private sector in the fight against deforestation, more work is needed to assess its impact. The government has established four public-private partnerships for zero‑deforestation commitments in agricultural supply chains: palm oil, cacao, milk, meat, wood, coffee and Hass avocado variety. However, these agreements are voluntary, lack explicit policy backing, and face weak monitoring and traceability.

Colombia community-based approaches have shown promise. The Comprehensive Deforestation Containment Plan (2022-2026) seeks to convert 28 Active Deforestation Hotspots into Forest and Biodiversity Development Hotspots through formal agreements with ITTs, and ethnic, peasant and local communities. These efforts build on the proven success of community-led conservation in protecting biodiversity and safeguarding forest carbon stocks. For instance, collective land titling has strengthened community governance systems, contributing to a 4-12% reduction in deforestation (Mendoza et al., 2024[13]).

Stronger enforcement and conservation incentives have helped reduced deforestation, but greater integration of ITTs, and ethnic, peasant and local communities, is needed. The cultural values and traditional knowledge of these communities have not been systematically integrated into land-use planning and conservation efforts. Although self-governed territories cover more than half of Colombia’s land area (Alianza Colombia TFA, 2021[55]), nearly 44% of their leaders report insufficient participation in territorial decisions (Mendoza et al., 2024[13]). Decree 1998 of 2023 seeks to address this gap by strengthening conservation incentives through differentiated arrangements. These include “payment for conservation” approaches linked to ethno-development plans and requiring that at least 5% of General Participation System (SGP)10 allocations support these efforts. To be effective, participation mechanisms – including public consultations – should be revitalised and expanded to guarantee community involvement in biodiversity and climate decisions (Gomez et al., 2021[5]). Concerns raised by communities about REDD+ projects further highlight the need for more transparent and inclusive processes. These concerns include incomplete project information; confidentiality clauses in contracts with project developers; and lack of access to legal documents supporting the projects and means to oversee compliance with safeguards (SINCHI and Ruiz-Nieto, 2023[54]; GFI, Transparency for Colombia and CEALDES, 2025[53]).

The country has committed to ambitious reforestation goals but risks falling short of meeting them. Reforestation initiatives have targeted both planted and natural forests. Most of the area – 94% –corresponds to commercial forest plantations, and the remainder to natural forest restoration (DNP, 2024[56]). The NDP (2022-2026) targets the establishment of 40 000 ha of commercial forest plantations during this government term, equivalent to 10 000 ha per year. In 2023, it achieved around 75% of the annual target, a significant improvement from 19% in 2022 (MADR, 2024[57]). Efforts were mainly carried out through projects under the Forest Incentive Certificate (Certificado de Incentivo Forestal, CIF). However, most commercial plantations consist of exotic species, raising concerns about their contribution to biodiversity conservation and ecosystem resilience. Moreover, there is a need for stronger technical, financial and institutional support to achieve reforestation objectives (DNP, 2024[56]), especially as funding for the CIF programme has dropped significantly in recent years.

2.5. Mainstreaming

Copy link to 2.5. Mainstreaming

2.5.1. Agriculture

Progress to mainstream biodiversity into agriculture requires accelerated action on multiple fronts

Agriculture is the major direct cause of deforestation and habitat loss in Colombia, driving about 75% of Colombia’s deforestation, with cattle ranching occupying 36-38% of the national territory (Mendoza et al., 2024[13]). This expansion often occurs in areas unsuitable for agriculture, resulting in low productivity activities, water overuse, soil degradation and erosion. In addition, extensive use of agrochemicals also places high pressures on the environment. The intensity of fertiliser and pesticide use in Colombia is among the highest in the OECD (Figure 2.6).

Figure 2.6. Intensity of pesticide and fertiliser use is one of the highest among OECD Members
Copy link to Figure 2.6. Intensity of pesticide and fertiliser use is one of the highest among OECD Members

Land tenure insecurity remains a major obstacle to sustainable land use. The country’s legal and institutional frameworks for land management have yet to resolve persistent land-use conflicts. These are deeply rooted conflicts exacerbated by the gap between formal planning and on-the-ground implementation (MinAmbiente, 2017[58]). About half of the national territory reportedly faces land-use conflicts, largely driven by livestock and agriculture in zones better suited for conservation or sustainable use (MinAmbiente, 2017[58]). Informality of land tenure undermines enforcement, discourages investment and drives socio-environmental conflict. It also provides perverse incentives for clearing and occupying land. Extensive livestock production, for example, has been used as a means to claim ownership. A draft law to strengthen cattle traceability systems aims to improve digital tracking, environmental certification, supply chain transparency and co‑ordination across institutions. Previous draft bills in 2021, 2022 and 2024 failed to pass (Radwin, 2025[59]). Adoption of the law would be an important step forward to combat a key root cause of deforestation and biodiversity loss.

The Comprehensive Rural Reform, a high priority of the 2016 Peace Agreement (Box 2.4) and a foundation of the NDP 2022-2026, seeks to address some of the core challenges relating to land tenure, agriculture and rural development. The reform aims to improve access to land, address entrenched inequalities and promote rural development. Among other goals, the reform seeks to secure more than 3 million ha of agricultural land to allocate to landless rural inhabitants and formalise land titles covering an additional 7 million ha. Implementation is behind schedule but has accelerated in recent years. The Fondo de Tierras has acquired 354 569 ha, with 65% added in 2024. Of this, about 20% have been fully transferred and 30% provisionally allocated (GoC, 2025[60]). Between 2022-2024, 1.48 million ha has been formalised – nearly 45% of the total formalised since the Agreement. This brings the overall total to over 3.2 million ha, close to halfway to the target (GoC, 2025[60]).

Box 2.4. Progress towards lasting peace in Colombia continues

Copy link to Box 2.4. Progress towards lasting peace in Colombia continues

Colombia’s peace process follows more than five decades of conflict with the FARC-EP, culminating in the 2012-2016 Havana dialogues and the Final Agreement for the Termination of the Conflict and the Construction of a Stable and Lasting Peace. The Agreement is a roadmap to consolidate peace, reduce rural-urban disparities and promote an inclusive society by addressing historical neglect of rural and marginalised communities.

Its implementation, set under the Peace Agreement’s Implementation Framework Plan (PMI) 2016-2031, integrates territorial, historical, social and environmental dimensions and will guide public policies over the next 15 years. Central instruments include the 16 National Plans for Comprehensive Rural Reform (PNRRI), the Development Programmes with a Territorial Focus (PDET), the National Programme for the Substitution of Illicit Crops (PNIS), the multi-purpose land cadastre and the Agrarian Jurisdiction, which aim to improve land access, use and management. The Commission for the Clarification of Truth, Coexistence and Non-Repetition provides victims with the right to truth through territorial investigations of patterns of violence. In parallel, for the first time in Colombian history, the Agreement set up a national accountability system to investigate, judge and sanction serious crimes committed during the conflict.

Colombia has made progress in implementing the Peace Agreement. So far, 217 000 ha of newly adjudicated land has been transferred to peasants, women in rural areas and victims, although 67% of titles remain pending. Land restitution has returned 815 474 ha, with 392 602 ha formally transferred or compensated. Former FARC-EP members continue transitioning to civilian life, with 95% completing their reintegration plans. Completion of the 16 PNRRI averages 30%, led by rural connectivity and solidarity economy initiatives. In transitional justice, the Special Jurisdiction for Peace has begun hearings and recognised key victims, including the Magdalena River, paving the way for forthcoming sanctions.

However, progress remains mixed. Legislative gaps, limited resources and persistent security risks hinder implementation. Some armed groups continue to expand illicit economies, with regions such as Catatumbo experiencing sustained violence. Indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities face threats that undermine PDET governance. Land redistribution and restitution are delayed by administrative and judicial bottlenecks, and the Agrarian Jurisdiction – essential for resolving disputes and preventing conflict recurrence – awaits enabling legislation. Implementation of the 16 PNRRI and PDET continues to be uneven, constrained by technical, political and budgetary limitations. Co‑ordination and territorial challenges have also limited the effectiveness of the PNIS.

Adequate funding is essential. The Medium-Term Fiscal Framework estimates that COP 72.7 trillion will be required over the 15-year implementation period. The National Development Plan 2022-2026 allocated roughly COP 57.9 trillion for peace-related investments, drawing from multiple national, territorial and international sources. In 2024, COP 13.4 trillion was allocated, with the Comprehensive Rural Reform receiving the largest share. However, initial allocations underestimated needs, particularly after extension of the implementation period. In addition, the fragmented institutional design has dispersed responsibilities, complicating co‑ordination and execution.

Source: GoC (2016[61]), Cartilla Pedagógica: ABC del Acuerdo Final para la terminación del conflicto y la construcción de una paz estable y duradera; Bárcenas, Torres and Muñoz Ávila (2021[12]), El Acuerdo de Escazú: sobre democracia ambiental y su relación con la Agenda 2030 para el Desarrollo Sostenible; GoC (2025[60]), Informe de ejecución y cumplimiento a las metas del Plan Plurianual de Inversiones para la Paz 2024; United Nations (2025[62]), Misión de Verificación de las Naciones Unidas en Colombia: Informe del Secretario General.

The multi-purpose cadastre (Catastro Multipropósito) is a key tool to support rural reform. The cadastre covered 180 municipalities and 27% of national territory as of 2024, but this progress falls short of the 70% coverage target by 2026 (DNP, 2024[56]). A complete and functional rural cadastre is foundational to promote better land use; resolve ambiguities about land ownership and zoning; and reduce conflicts. Strengthening land information systems and formalising untitled public lands (baldíos) are crucial and should be linked to rural development and environmental policies addressing deforestation, poverty and violence (OECD, 2022[63]).

In a promising development, the government is developing Zonas de Reservas Campesinas as a new instrument to address untenured land use close to PAs. Key challenges to further advance implementation of rural reform include lack of sufficient financial resources; institutional fragmentation and persistent conflict; and lack of state presence in some areas (GoC, 2025[60]). The allocation of funds to implement the Peace Agreement to better align with local needs could be improved (OECD, 2024[64]).

Another key component of rural reform articulated in the Peace Agreement is the government’s commitment to formulate an environmental zoning plan. Such a plan would delimit the agricultural frontier and characterise Areas of Special Environmental Interest. The Environmental Zoning Plan was adopted through Resolution 1608 of 2021 and aims to harmonise environmental, social and productive land use by stabilising the agricultural frontier and protecting Areas of Special Environmental Interest.

The Environmental Zoning Plan has made more progress in some areas than in others. A recent assessment of the Environmental Zoning Plan shows slow progress in implementation across several indicators. These include the number of hectares entering the agricultural frontier; the number of participatory plans for environmental zoning in PDET areas; and the preparation of technical documents to support implementation. Conversely, the government has made more progress on defining the Areas of Special Environmental Interest, identifying about 30% of the target of 250 000 ha. In addition, it has formulated or implemented 40 projects with sustainable productive alternatives (MinAmbiente, 2025[65]). The principal reasons for slow progress are budget constraints and security issues. Less than 2% of the funds required through 2031 have been invested to date. Meanwhile, PDET subregions lack security due to ongoing conflicts and the presence of illegal armed groups (MinAmbiente, 2025[65]).

Unlocking the full potential of sustainable land-use practices requires stronger policy support and better alignment with local realities. Agroforestry and sustainable land management are essential to reducing deforestation and restoring degraded ecosystems. Silvopastoral systems, promoted through “productive reconversion” programmes, offer promising alternatives to extensive cattle ranching. However, they remain underused due to weak incentives, limited technical assistance and fragmented planning (OECD, 2022[63]; FINAGRO, 2025[66]). PES and the Forestry Incentive Certificate provide economic opportunities for rural communities. Still, their uptake has been modest, hindered by administrative hurdles, low awareness and funding, and weak alignment with local contexts (OECD, 2022[63]). Strengthening these instruments – by linking incentives to ecosystem functions and adapting them to local conditions and ecological dynamics – could significantly improve their effectiveness.

Since 2014, support to agricultural producers has generally declined and, in 2023, was lower than the OECD average (Figure 2.7). Producer support as a share of total gross farm receipts reached a low of 3.7% in 2021 before increasing to 9.4% in 2023 (OECD, 2024[67]). However, distorting support tied to production, namely for market price, accounts for the largest share. Colombia is pioneering reforms to reduce harmful incentives in the agricultural sector and redirect financial instruments that may negatively affect biodiversity (UNDP BIOFIN, 2025[50]).

The first national study of harmful incentives in the agricultural and rural development sectors in 2021‑2022 identified public expenditure and financial incentives that contribute to biodiversity loss, ecosystem degradation and unsustainable land use. As a result, a roadmap to “green” agricultural finance was developed in partnership with the Agricultural Sector Financing Fund (FINAGRO) to eliminate and redirect credit subsidies granted by the National Agricultural Credit Commission (UNDP BIOFIN, 2025[50]). In addition to the agricultural sector, the government, as part of the updated BAP, is also analysing harmful incentives in industry, tourism, transportation, and mining and energy. These are encouraging developments that should be pursued with the engagement of all productive sectors (public and private) and which other countries can learn from.

Figure 2.7. Support to farmers has declined, but most remains potentially distorting
Copy link to Figure 2.7. Support to farmers has declined, but most remains potentially distorting

Level and composition of Producer Support Estimates by support categories, % of gross farm receipts

2.5.2. Mining and energy

Mainstreaming biodiversity into mining and energy requires stronger action

Some progress has been made to mainstream biodiversity and environmental concerns in the mining sector. Mining companies are required to create environmental management plans that include biodiversity offsets and contributions to local environmental projects.11 Mining is strictly prohibited in coral reef and mangrove ecosystems and Law 1930 of 2018 prohibits mining in páramos and other protected areas. Seagrass ecosystems are subject to partial or total restrictions, depending on technical, social and environmental assessments. Renewable energy development (such as investment in solar and wind in the Guajira region) also needs biodiversity mainstreaming. Recent guidelines call for wind projects to avoid bird migration corridors and respect Indigenous land-use plans, while offshore hydrocarbon projects require greater alignment with national sustainable development strategies.

Illegal gold mining is a major driver of deforestation, ecosystem degradation and public health risks in Colombia. Illegal mining is closely tied to other illicit economies such as coca cultivation, illegal logging and wildlife trafficking. This relationship further threatens biodiversity and intensifies socio-environmental conflicts. In 2022, 73% of alluvial gold extraction was illegal, affecting nearly 95 000 ha. This led to the loss of 11 014 ha of high-value ecosystems, including primary and secondary vegetation. About half of this loss occurred in the Chocó Biogeographic region, much of it within PAs and ITTs, including zones under legal environmental restrictions such as the Pacific Forest Reserve (UNODC, 2022[68]). The Colombian Amazon is also affected. This is especially the case in border areas (with Brazil, Venezuela, Peru, Ecuador) where organised transnational crime has become an increasing challenge. Mercury contamination from mining has been found in the blood, urine and hair of local populations (Donato-Rondón, 2022[28]), having entered food chains and affected water bodies. The pollution on the latter flows into marine-coastal areas, introducing harmful substances into trophic chains.

Regions and local communities are more involved in environmental compliance but need more capacity to be effective. Colombia is strengthening local and regional control, particularly in protected and border areas, using structures such as CONALDEF, which provides formal mechanisms for the participation of institutional, social and community actors. While environmental compliance measures have been introduced, their enforcement remains limited. This requires engaging community members more effectively, strengthening inter-institutional dialogue, aligning policy and enforcement responses, and addressing governance challenges related to organised crime and deforestation.

Control efforts are further hampered by entrenched criminal networks and the high profitability of gold (OAS, 2022[69]; UNODC, 2022[68]). Policy measures, such as Law 2250 of 2022, have sought to formalise small-scale mining and establish environmental compliance frameworks. However, formalisation is voluntary, and bureaucratic hurdles have discouraged participation (Veiga and Marshall, 2019[70]).

A more effective response to compliance will require stronger local enforcement capacity and a more streamlined licensing framework, alongside expanded access to credit and technical support. Community-based monitoring and alternative livelihoods also offer scalable solutions but demand greater investment, inter-institutional co‑ordination and closer alignment with local governance structures.

Internationally, Colombia is also advancing initiatives to strengthen due diligence and gold traceability, while enhancing co‑ordination with neighbouring countries to combat transnational environmental crime. It also proposed a resolution for the 7th UN Environment Assembly in December 2025 to establish an intergovernmental negotiating committee to develop a binding global instrument for the environmentally sustainable management of minerals and metals (excluding fossil fuels) through lifecycle and due diligence approaches.

2.5.3. Urban and land-use planning

Mainstreaming biodiversity into urban and land-use planning is limited, but recent developments are promising

Mainstreaming of biodiversity into both urban and rural territorial planning is limited. Fewer than half of cities with populations above 100 000 consider biodiversity in urban planning, revealing significant shortcomings in biodiversity governance in urban areas (Gomez et al., 2021[5]). In rural contexts, institutional fragmentation and weak inter-agency co‑ordination undermine the interoperability of biodiversity and information systems, limiting integrated policymaking (OECD, 2022[63]). Addressing these gaps by embedding biodiversity in both urban and rural planning, and improving institutional co‑ordination, is essential for effective and coherent biodiversity governance across Colombia. Making Regional Biodiversity Action Plans mandatory and linking them with land-use plans would support the effective integration of biodiversity into territorial planning. Sufficient technical capacity and resources (human and financial) are needed. This is especially true for municipalities – the competent authorities for land-use planning.

The government has made progress in developing the legal framework, operational strategies and guidance to support greater integration of biodiversity and other environmental considerations into urban planning. In a major development, the Green Cities Law was adopted in April 2025. It requires municipalities with more than 100 000 inhabitants to incorporate green infrastructure and protection of urban ecosystems into urban planning. Specifically, this includes creating ecological corridors to connect green spaces; prioritising native species in urban reforestation; protecting rivers, wetlands and green spaces; and promoting nature-based solutions. In response, MinAmbiente and the Humboldt Institute have developed “BiodiverCities by 2030”. This framework supports mainstreaming biodiversity and ecosystem services into urban planning and defines specific criteria to guide and monitor that process. In addition, mechanisms such as the Environmental Unified Command Posts support compliance with environmental laws. They also promote co‑ordination among national and local authorities, CARs and communities to encourage alignment of land-use planning and infrastructure with biodiversity objectives.

2.6. Scaling up finance for biodiversity

Copy link to 2.6. Scaling up finance for biodiversity

Colombia’s ambitious BAP 2030 requires a robust financing strategy. The estimated budget for the plan is COP 76.5 trillion (approximately USD 19.4 billion) for 2023-2030, requiring an annual expenditure of COP 10.9 trillion (USD 2.77 billion). This is more than four times the average annual expenditure on biodiversity from all sources over 2014-2023. The national goal on “Territories with ecosystem integrity and regenerative models” accounts for the largest share (80.7%) of funding needs. The BAP 2030 financing strategy focuses on mobilising resources from a diverse range of public and private sources, both domestic and international. These include reform of harmful subsidies; debt instruments (such as green bonds); positive incentives (such as PES); international co‑operation; blended finance; and using the green taxonomy to align financing flows with environmental goals. Building on targets in the BAP 2030, the financial strategy could be further elaborated to guide development of a broad suite of financing instruments to meet national goals. Financing the restoration of strategic ecosystems and addressing climate change contributes to Colombia’s economic growth by boosting productivity and well-being while reducing economic risks (MFCP, 2025[71]).

While expenditure on biodiversity increased by nearly 60% (in nominal terms) between 2014 and 2023 (UNDP BIOFIN, 2024[72]), it was insufficient to meet financial needs. According to a 2018 assessment, average spending levels over 2007-2017 only covered about two-thirds of the funding required to fully implement the National Plan for the Integrated Management of Biodiversity and its Ecosystem Services until 2030 (UNDP BIOFIN, 2018[73]). The assessment called for measures to address inefficient resource management (due to a low cost-opportunity ratio in incorporating conservation initiatives); poor institutional co‑ordination in planning and execution of environmental spending; and a need to diversify financing sources (UNDP BIOFIN, 2018[73]).

Over 2014-2023, public expenditure averaged USD 620 million, international development co‑operation USD 35 million and the private sector USD 5 million (UNDP BIOFIN, 2024[72]). A high share of public expenditure (57%) was under the responsibility of institutions outside of SINA, such as the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development or the Attorney General’s Office. Decentralised authorities accounted for 45% of the total (UNDP BIOFIN, 2024[72]).

The high share of public expenditure managed by national authorities outside of SINA and by decentralised authorities calls for greater co‑ordinated tracking and comprehensive oversight of biodiversity spending. Data management systems are fragmented and lack interoperability, hindering efficient data analysis, and limiting transparency and public access. More granular data, including at territorial level, would support more accurate analysis of the efficiency and impact of investments in biodiversity conservation (UNDP BIOFIN, 2024[72]).

Public spending on biodiversity comes from several fiscal sources, including earmarked revenue from the carbon tax and water-related fees. Between 2017 and 2022, half of the revenues from the carbon tax were channelled through the National Environmental Trust Fund to support projects related to climate, biodiversity and other environmental objectives. Since 2023, 80% of carbon tax revenues have been channelled through the Fund for Life and Biodiversity, providing resources for “Conservar Paga”, community restoration and environmental monitoring in the Amazon. The Fund’s structure and governance aim to ensure transparency, budget co‑ordination and execution efficiency. However, like all earmarking mechanisms, such arrangements can reduce fiscal flexibility and efficiency of public spending, while further fragmenting the country’s budget (Chapter 1).

Carbon tax revenue has provided resources for biodiversity, but public spending will need more stability for the long term. Revenue from carbon tax has increased resource mobilisation for biodiversity in the near term. However, reliance on carbon tax revenue should be phased out as the net-zero transition advances and replaced with stable, long-term funding (Chapter 1). The timely execution of biodiversity offset projects and compulsory investments under the 1% scheme for water resources (Chapter 1) would further mobilise funding.

Support from international donors has provided considerable resources to reduce deforestation and to enhance biodiversity conservation in environmentally significant PAs. These included páramo and other ecosystems, national parks, and flora and fauna sanctuaries (APC Colombia, 2025[74]). These funds were provided by bilateral development co‑operation partners (68%); private sector and philanthropic sources (19%); and multilateral agencies (13%) (APC Colombia, 2025[74]). Germany, Norway, the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union were the top five bilateral donors.

Colombia’s financial sector has started to engage in biodiversity finance through green bonds and corporate sustainability commitments (Chapter 1). The green taxonomy, launched in 2022, targets biodiversity conservation, along with climate change, water management and other environmental objectives. Several banks offer “green credit lines” for sustainable agriculture and reforestation projects, supported by guarantees from FINAGRO. An MRV system to track all sources of finance for biodiversity, climate change and sustainable land use should guide investments to maximise their impact, and avoid overlaps and inefficient use of resources.

References

[55] Alianza Colombia TFA (2021), Cero deforestación en Colombia: ABC de las cadenas cero deforestación de palma, cacao, carne y leche en Colombia, [Zero deforestation in Colombia: ABC of the zero deforestation chains of palm, cocoa, meat and milk in Colombia], Alianza Colombia TFA.

[74] APC Colombia (2025), International Cooperation Information System (CYCLOPE), APC Colombia.

[12] Bárcenas, A., V. Torres and L. Muñoz Ávila (2021), El Acuerdo de Escazú: sobre democracia ambiental y su relación con la Agenda 2030 para el Desarrollo Sostenible, [The Escazú Agreement: On environmental democracy and its relationship with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development], ECLAC & Universidad del Rosario.

[36] CBD (2021), Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 Country Dossier: Colombia, Convention on Biological Diversity.

[25] CONPES (2020), Documento CONPES 3990: Colombia Potencia Bioceánica Sostenible 2030, [CONPES Document 3990: Colombia, a Sustainable Bioceanic World Power 2030], Consejo Nacional De Política Económica y Social.

[1] Correa Ayram, C. et al. (2020), “Spatiotemporal evaluation of the human footprint in Colombia: Four decades of anthropic impact in highly biodiverse ecosystems”, Ecological Indicators, Vol. 117/106330, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106630.

[56] DNP (2024), Balance de Resultados 2024: Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2022-2026, [Taking Stock of Results 2024: National Development Plan 2022-2026], National Development Plan, Colombia.

[28] Donato-Rondón, J. (2022), Decálogo de impactos ambientales: Geografía de las transformaciones en sistemas acuáticos de Colombia, [Decalogue of environmental impacts: Geography of transformations in Colombia’s aquatic systems], Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogota.

[40] Echeverri, A. et al. (2023), “Colombian biodiversity is governed by a rich and diverse policy mix”, Nature Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 7/3, pp. 382-392, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-01983-4.

[17] FAO (2020), Global Forest Resources Assessment, (dataset), https://fra-data.fao.org/assessments/fra/2020/COL/home/overview (accessed on 25 August 2025).

[66] FINAGRO (2025), La ganadería bovina en Colombia: ¿Qué incentivas está realizando FINAGRO para promover una gandería más sostenible?, [Cattle ranching in Colombia: What incentives is FINAGRO providing to promote more sustainable cattle ranching?] Gerencia de Investigaciones Económicas, Gerencia de Investigaciones Económicas, The Fund for the Financing of the Agricultural Sector, Bogotá.

[31] Gallo-Vélez, D., J. Restrepo and A. Newton (2022), “A socio-ecological assessment of land-based contamination and pollution: The Magdalena delta, Colombia”, Frontiers in Marine Science, Vol. 9, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.1057426.

[27] Garcés-Ordóñez, O. et al. (2020), “The impact of tourism on marine litter pollution on Santa Marta beaches, Colombian Caribbean”, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 160, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111558.

[9] GBIF (2022), Global Register of Introduced and Invasive Species – Colombia, (dataset), https://www.gbif.org/dataset/168568e7-eb5f-4ef6-8c59-f73ceaf57e91#description (accessed on 23 June 2025).

[53] GFI, Transparency for Colombia and CEALDES (2025), Voluntary Carbon Credit Market in Colombia: An Analysis in Light of Transparency and Integrity, Global Financial Integrity (GFI), Transparency for Colombia, and the Center for Development Alternatives (CEALDES), https://gfintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Voluntary-Carbon-Credit-Market-in-Colombia-To-publish.pdf.

[39] Global Witness (2024), “Missing voices: The violent erasure of land and environmental defenders”, 10 September, Investigation, Global Witness, https://globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/land-and-environmental-defenders/missing-voices/ (accessed on 18 August 2025).

[60] GoC (2025), Informe de ejecución y cumplimiento a las metas del Plan Plurianual de Inversiones para la Paz 2024, [Report on the implementation and fulfilment of the targets of the Multi-Year Investment Plan for Peace 2024], Government of Colombia.

[11] GoC (2024), Plan de Acción de Biodiversidad de Colombia al 2030, [Colombia Biodiversity Action Plan to 2030], Government of Colombia.

[26] GoC (2022), Colombia’s Contribution to the 2022 UN Ocean Conference: Addressing Marine Pollution.

[2] GoC (2022), Estrategia Nacional de Restauración 2023-2026: Juntos para recuperar la naturaleza perdida, [National Restoration Strategy 2023-2026: Together to reclaim lost nature], Government of Colombia.

[35] GoC (2019), Sixth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, Colombia.

[61] GoC (2016), Cartilla Pedagógica: ABC del Acuerdo Final para la terminación del conflicto y la cosntrucción de una paz estable y duradera, [Educational Guide: ABCs of the Final Agreement for ending the conflict and building a stable and lasting peace], Government of Colombia.

[15] GoC (n.d.), Bosques Territorios de Vida: Estrategia Integral de Control a la Deforestación y Gestión delos Bosques, [Forests Territories of Life: A Comprehensive Strategy to Control Deforestation and Manage Forests], Government of Colombia.

[5] Gomez, S. et al. (2021), Evaluación Nacional de Biodiversidad y Servicios Ecosistémicos de Colombia, [National Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Assessment of Colombia].

[51] Green Finance Institute (2024), Habitat Banks, Colombia, Green Finance Institute Hive, BIOFIN and UNEP Finance Initiative.

[37] Hoejris Dahl, M. (2025), “Cross-border operation cracks down on environmental crimes in the Amazon”, 6 August, Mongabay, https://news.mongabay.com/2025/08/cross-border-operation-cracks-down-on-environmental-crimes-in-the-amazon/ (accessed on 18 August 20025).

[4] IaVH (2021), Biodiversidad y cambio climático: estado y tendencias de la biodiversidad continental de Colombia, [Biodiversity and climate change: Status and trends of continental biodiversity of Colombia], Instituto Alexander von Humboldt Colombia, https://reporte.humboldt.org.co/biodiversidad/2021/.

[32] Ibarra, K. et al. (2024), Monitoreo de las condiciones ambientales y los cambios estructurales y funcionales de las comunidades vegetales y los recursos pesqueros durante la rehabilitación de la CGSM 2023, [Monitoring of environmental conditions and structural and functional changes in plant communities and fishery resources during the rehabilitation of the CGSM 2023], INVEMAR, http://www.invemar.org.co.

[18] IDEAM (2024), Indicadores Ambientales [Environment Indicators], (dataset), https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/568ddab184334f6b81a04d2fe9aac262/page/Indicadores-Ambientales/ (accessed on 23 June 2025).

[38] IDEPAZ (2023), Violencia en Colombia: Informe anual, [Violence in Colombia: Annual Report], Observatorio de DDHH y conflictividades.

[21] INVEMAR (2024), Informe del Estado de los Ambientes Marinos y Costeros en Colombia, [Report on the State of the Marine and Coastal Environment in Colombia], Institute for Marine and Coastal Research, Gaira, http://www.invemar.org.co.

[20] IPSOS (2023), Evaluación institucional y de resultados del programa nacional integral de sustitución de cultivos de uso ilícito (PNIS), [Institutional and results assessment of the National Comprehensive Programme for the Substitution of Illicit Crops (PNIS)], Universidad de los Andes.

[29] Jaramillo, F. et al. (2018), “Assessment of hydrologic connectivity in an ungauged wetland with InSAR observations”, Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 13/2, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9d23.

[46] KfW (2025), “Preserving the Amazon rainforest and protecting the climate”, https://www.kfw-entwicklungsbank.de/SDG-portal/SDG-15/REM-Colombia/ (accessed on 12 August 2025).

[33] Landis, A. (2024), “One of Colombia’s largest estuary ecosystems is drying up, communities warn”, Mongabay, https://news.mongabay.com/2024/04/one-of-colombias-largest-estuary-ecosystems-is-drying-up-communities-warn/ (accessed on 20 October 2025).

[57] MADR (2024), Boletin Estadistico Forestal – 9 Edicion, [Forestry Statistical Bulletin – 9th Edition], Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Bogotá.

[47] Mancala Consultores (2020), Evalución de medio término del Programa REM-Colombia, [Mid-term evaluation of the REM-Colombia Programme].

[13] Mendoza, J. et al. (2024), Parques Nacionales Como Vamos - PNC: Parques Nacionales Naturales Colombianos y su aporte a la paz con la naturaleza Informe 2024, [Parques Nacionales Como Vamos – PNC: Colombian National Parks and their contribution to Peace with Nature Report 2024], Fundacion Natura, Bogotá, https://parquescomovamos.com.

[16] Meyer, V. et al. (2019), “Forest degradation and biomass loss along the Chocó region of Colombia”, Carbon Balance and Management, Vol. 14/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-019-0117-9.

[71] MFCP (2025), Marco Fiscal de Mediano Plazo (MFMP) 2025 (Medium-Term Fiscal Framework 2025), Ministerio de Hacienda y Crédito Público, Bogotá.

[65] MinAmbiente (2025), Informe de Rendición de Cuentas de Paz 2024: Plan Marco de Implementación, [Peace Accountability Report 2024: Implementation Framework Plan], Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development.

[23] MinAmbiente (2025), Review Mission Presentation: Biodiversity State, Pressures and Trends, Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, Bogotá.

[45] MinAmbiente (2024), Implementation Report on the Conservation Incentive Payments for Environmental Services, Office for Green and Sustainable Business, Bogotá.

[19] MinAmbiente (2024), “La deforestación baja en 2023 y en 2024 enfrenta amenazas”, Noticias, [Deforestation declines in 2023 and faces threats in 2024], News, 8 April, Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, Bogotá, https://www.minambiente.gov.co/la-deforestacion-baja-en-2023-y-en-2024-enfrenta-amenazas/ (accessed on 23 June 2025).

[7] MinAmbiente (2024), Resolution No. 0126, Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, Bogotá.

[58] MinAmbiente (2017), Biodiversity Action Plan: For the implementation of the National Policy for the Integral Management of Biodiversity and its Ecosystem Services 2016-2030, Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, Bogotá.

[69] OAS (2022), On the Trail of Illicit Gold Proceeds: Strengthening the Fight Against Illegal Mining Finances Colombia, Organization of American States, Department against Transnational Organized Crime, Washington, DC, https://read-me.org/more-global-crime/2022/9/30/on-the-trail-of-illicit-gold-proceeds-strengthening-the-fight-against-illegal-mining-finances-colombias-case.

[22] Ocean Health Index (2024), Global scores: Colombia, https://oceanhealthindex.org/regions/colombia/ (accessed on 23 June 2025).

[49] OECD (2025), Scaling Up Biodiversity-Positive Incentives: Delivering on Target 18 of the Global Biodiversity Framework, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/19b859ce-en.

[6] OECD (2025), Threatened species, (indicator), https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/threatened-species.html (accessed on 12 April 2025).

[64] OECD (2024), OECD Economic Surveys: Colombia 2024, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a1a22cd6-en.

[67] OECD (2024), Producer Support Estimate, (dataset), https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/agricultural-financial-support.html (accessed on 6 August 2025).

[34] OECD (2024), The Blue Economy in Cities and Regions: A Territorial Approach, OECD Urban Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bd929b7d-en.

[63] OECD (2022), Rural Policy Review of Colombia 2022, OECD Rural Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c26abeb4-en.

[14] OECD and ECLAC (2014), OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Colombia 2014, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264208292-en.

[52] Ovalle, K., I. Darío Valencia and M. Brown (2023), “Assessing the readiness and needs for Colombia’s participation in Article 6 of the Paris Agreement”, Technical Brief November 2023, Global Green Growth Institute, Seoul.

[44] Parques Nacionales Naturales de Colombia (2021), Estimación de la Brecha Financiera de las Areas Protegidas del Sistema de Parques Nacionales Naturales, [Estimation of the Financial Gap of the Protected Areas of the National Natural Park System], Parques Nacionales Naturales de Colombia.

[10] Paz Cardona, A. (2024), “Lucha contra el tráfico de animales en Colombia: lanzan guía para detectar partes de félidos en el mercado ilegal”, [Fight against animal trafficking in Colombia: Guide launched to detect feline parts on the illegal market], 11 April, Mongabay, https://es.mongabay.com/2024/04/lucha-contra-trafico-animales-colombia-guia-detectar-partes-felidos/ (accessed on 18 August 2025).

[24] Pizarro, V. (2023), Reporte: Estado de la enfermedad de pérdida de tejido en la isla de San Andrés, distribución y posibles implicaciones, [Report: Status of tissue loss disease on San Andrés Island, distribution and possible implications], CAR/SAW RAC Short-term small projects.

[42] PNNC (2022), Representatividad y prioridades de conservación en el SINAP, [Representativeness and conservation priorities in SINAP], Parques Nacionales Naturales de Colombia, https://old.parquesnacionales.gov.co/portal/es/sistema-nacional-de-areas-protegidas-sinap/representatividad-y-prioridades-de-conservacion/ (accessed on 1 July 2025).

[30] Quimbayo Ruiz, G. et al. (2024), “Form and function in ecologizing spatial planning: Learnings from Bogotá, Colombia”, Ecology and Society, Vol. 29/4, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-15664-290433.

[59] Radwin, M. (2025), “Colombia’s cattle traceability bill awaits approval as deforestation spikes”, 25 February, Mongabay, https://news.mongabay.com/2025/02/colombias-cattle-traceability-bill-awaits-approval-as-deforestation-spikes/ (accessed on 14 August 2025).

[48] Rodríguez-de-Francisco, J. et al. (2021), “Post-conflict transition and REDD+ in Colombia: Challenges to reducing deforestation in the Amazon”, Forest Policy and Economics, Vol. 127, p. 102450, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FORPOL.2021.102450.

[41] RUNAP (2025), Clasificación Áreas Protegidas, [Protected Areas Classification], https://runap.parquesnacionales.gov.co/cifras (accessed on 23 June 2025).

[8] SiB (n.d.), Biodiversidad en cifras, [Biodiversity in figures], https://cifras.biodiversidad.co/ (accessed on 8 September 2025).

[54] SINCHI, D. and O. Ruiz-Nieto (2023), Diagnóstico de proyectos REDD+ en la Amazonía colombiana (Diagnosis of REDD+ Projects in the Colombian Amazon), Amazonian Institute of Scientific Research, SINCHI.

[50] UNDP BIOFIN (2025), “Colombia”, https://www.biofin.org/colombia (accessed on 30 June 2025).

[72] UNDP BIOFIN (2024), La revisión del gasto en biodiversidad, [Biodiversity Spending Review], United Nations Development Programme Biodiversity Finance Initiative.

[73] UNDP BIOFIN (2018), Movilizando recursos para la biodiversidad en Colombia Plan Financiero, [Mobilising Resources for Biodiversity in Colombia Financial Plan], United Nations Development Programme Biodiversity Finance Initiative, https://www.biofin.org/sites/default/files/content/knowledge_products/Plan%20Financiero%20Movilizando%20recursos%20para%20la%20biodiversidad%20en%20Colombia.pdf.

[3] UNDP et al. (2023), Evaluación Nacional sobre Biodiversida y Servicios Ecosistémicos, [National Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services], United Nations Development Programme, New York.

[62] United Nations (2025), “Misión de Verificación de las Naciones Unidas en Colombia: Informe del Secretario General”, United Nations Verification Mission in Colombia: Report of the Secretary-General.

[68] UNODC (2022), Colombia Explotación de Ordo de Aluvión (EVOA), [Colombia Alluvial Ordo Mining (EVOA)], United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Vienna, https://www.unodc.org/documents/colombia/2022/Junio/Informe_Colombia_Explotacion_de_Oro_de_Aluvion_Evidencias_a_Partir_de_Percepcion_Remota_2021_SP_.pdf.

[70] Veiga, M. and B. Marshall (2019), “The Colombian artisanal mining sector: Formalization is a heavy burden”, The Extractive Industries and Society, Vol. 6/1.

[43] WWF (2024), El aporte de los pueblos indígenas al país es invaluable, [The contribution of Indigenous Peoples to the country is invaluable], https://www.wwf.org.co/?364960/El-aporte-de-los-pueblos-indigenas-al-pais-es-invaluable (accessed on 1 July 2025).

Notes

Copy link to Notes

← 1. The term ecological integrity is frequently used to assess the condition or health of ecosystems or ecological reference units, notably within a protected area. Most definitions agree that a healthy ecosystem is stable, sustainable and active. It maintains its organisation and autonomy over time, its ability to recover from disturbances, and the flows of matter, energy and biotic components with other ecosystems.

← 2. Páramos are unique high-altitude ecosystems found primarily in the northern Andes, located between the upper forest line and the permanent snowline. They consist of humid grasslands, shrublands and specialised vegetation adapted to cold, wet conditions. Páramos play a crucial role in water regulation and carbon storage, acting as natural water towers that supply fresh water to downstream communities.

← 3. A threatened species is considered to be one classified as Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN), or Vulnerable (VU) according to the categories of the Red List proposed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, and that has been officially declared threatened by the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development. These categories correspond to species facing a high (VU), very high (EN) or extremely high (CR) risk of extinction in the wild.

← 4. Natural forest is defined as land mainly covered by trees, including shrubs, palms, bamboos, grasses and lianas, with at least 30% canopy density, a canopy height of 5 metres and a minimum area of 1 hectare. Commercial plantations, palm crops and trees for agriculture are excluded.

← 5. The Second Law of 1959 regulates certain aspects of Colombia's forestry economy, forest reserve areas, national natural parks and other related issues.

← 6. The Ocean Health Index is a global assessment tool that measures the overall health of the world’s oceans by evaluating how well they sustainably provide a range of benefits to people, including food provision, biodiversity, coastal protection and cultural values. The Index integrates ecological, social, economic and governance factors to generate a comprehensive ocean sustainability score ranging from 0 to 100.

← 7. Judgement 4360-208 from the Colombian Supreme Court of Justice responded to a constitutional lawsuit brought by 25 children and youth who argued that deforestation in the Amazon violated their rights to life, health and a healthy environment. The ruling declared the Colombia Amazon a “subject of rights” entitlement to protection, conservation, maintenance and restoration.

← 8. Eight court rulings recognise rivers as subjects of rights: the Atrato, Cauca, Magdalena, Otún, Pance, La Plata, Fortalecillas and Guáitara Rivers; as well as one law recognizing the rights of the Ranchería River (Law 2415 of 2024).

← 9. In the regulatory regime in Colombia, the concept is referred to as “biodiversity quotas”, which describes tradeable units representing conservation actions implemented through habitat banks, enabling the mobilisation of resources for both compliance purposes and on a voluntary basis,

← 10. The SGP is the mechanism through which the central government transfers resources to municipalities, districts and departments to provide basic services in education, health, water and sanitation.

← 11. For example, the country’s largest coal companies fund conservation of dry forest fragments to offset mining impacts. For its part, Ecopetrol has pledged to achieve net positive biodiversity impact by investing in conservation projects beyond compliance. It has also supported the declaration of new PAs in areas where it operates.

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment

Governance

Health

Industry, business and entrepreneurship

Regional, rural and urban development

Science, technology and innovation

Society

Taxation

Trade

Energy

Nuclear energy

Transport

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment

Governance

Health

Industry, business and entrepreneurship

Regional, rural and urban development

Science, technology and innovation

Society

Taxation

Trade

Energy

Nuclear energy

Transport

Countries A - C

Countries D - I

Countries J - M

Countries N - R

Countries S - T

Countries U - Z

Regional and global engagement

Countries

Countries A - C

Countries D - I

Countries J - M

Countries N - R

Countries S - T

Countries U - Z

Regional and global engagement

Publications

Publications

Featured publications

Data

Data

Featured data

News & events

News & events

Featured events

About OECD

About

Engage with us

Work with us

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment