The Ethnic Chapter in the Colombian Peace Agreement: A Perspective from Women and Indigenous and Afro-Colombian Organizations

Resurgence of ethnicity: from defending territory to defending life

Latin America, in the 1970s, experienced an “indigenous awakening” inspired by organizations such as Ecuarunari in Ecuador, Katarism in Bolivia and the Shuar Federation in the Amazon (Albó, 1991) (Stavenhagen, 1997). In Colombia, the Regional Indigenous Council of Cauca (CRIC) originated in 1971 to promote the rights of indigenous reservations and councils and to protect language and history (Peñaranda, 2015, p. 143). In 1982, the National Indigenous Organization of Colombia (ONIC) was created, which, to date, has 50 zonal and regional organizations^[2] to promote the principles of “unity, land, culture and autonomy”. The creation of Afro-Colombian organizations began in the 1970s in an intellectual, urban environment, inspired by the Afro-American movement in the United States and the Caribbean. Other smaller groups more acquainted with the Colombian experience were inspired by fugitive slaves, cimarronismo, and palenquero communities (Wade, 1996, p. 286). In 1987, the Pacific saw the creation of the Integrated Peasant Association of Atrato (ACIA) and other interethnic organizations such as the Peasant Organization of Lower Atrato (OCABA), the Peasant Association of the Municipality of Riosucio (ACAMURI), the Peasant Association of Baudó (ACABA),  ( Wabgou, Arocha Rodríguez, Salgado Cassiani, & Carabalí Ospina, 2012, p. 141). ACIA is considered a ground-breaking organization in Colombia (and the continent) in appealing to the notion of ancestrality to reclaim the land and identity rights of the Black population (Restrepo, 2013, p. 37).

“Do not bring war to the territories of our communities”

It seems paradoxical that the peace proposals of indigenous organizations were intended to stop FARC incursions into their territories. As noted by researcher Peñaranda (2015, pp. 96-97), in the 1970s and 1980s the FARC moved from a “militarily precarious status, but with relative political presence” to a military force without “a voice in the political sphere”, while indigenous communities went from a marginal status to “becoming important actors in local and national politics”. Operating according to a strategy of military domination, the FARC frequently invaded indigenous territories. They ignored and pressured authorities, even eliminating their  leaders as they did in 1981 with the murder of seven community members, one of them the community leader, José María Ulcué (Peñaranda, 2015, p. 167) (Villa & Houghton, 2004, p. 97). These attacks triggered the indigenous defence of autonomy and self-government, considered conditions for peace. This principle of autonomy was understood as the right to control social and political life on the reserves (resguardos), as stated in the Vitoncó Resolution, signed by the ONIC and the CRIC (Villa & Houghton, 2004, p. 102) (Vega Luquez, 2019). The Ambaló Declaration, signed in 1985, is even more forceful in its proposal to protect its communities from war while not ruling out cooperation within the principles of equity and respect:

Indigenous organizations suffered from the effects of the “political closure” that characterized the presidency of Julio César Turbay Ayala (1978-1982). The proclaimed  “Security Statute” criminalized political organizations, labelling them as “enemies of order”, subjecting them to public order measures that included the imprisonment and repression of union leaders, leftist political parties and charging and imprisoning CRIC leaders accused of belonging to guerrilla groups, measures that were denounced in the First National Human Rights Forum of March 1979 (Archila & García, 2015, p. 32) (Villa & Houghton, 2004, pp. 30-31). 

The Quintín Lame Armed Movement (MAQL) was created in 1985, the only instance of an armed organization of indigenous origin. However, the MAQL differentiated itself from the guerrilla groups in its effort to find solutions that “respected basic guarantees for communities” (Villarraga Sarmiento, 2014) (Villa, 1997, p. 33). The MAQL demobilized as part of an offer of peace during the Constituent Assembly in 1991 (Peñaranda, 2015, p. 98 y 287) (Villarraga Sarmiento, 2014, p. 98).

The Pacific: from “borderless” to “lands of black communities”

In the 1970s and 1980s, the Pacific region was considered  a “haven of peace”, not because there were no conflicts, but because these conflicts were negotiated within the territory, allowing the coexistence between the dominated   (Romero, 2001, p. 760). ACIA was the first organization to articulate demands for territorial rights of the Black population in response the 2^nd Law of 1959 that declared Pacific lands “empty land”, thus inviting timber companies to exploit forest resources, which led to the destruction of ecosystems that were crucial for their survival (Villa, 1997, pp. 347-348). This legislation changed the perception of the territory from “borderless” to a territory “defined on a map and where a census of landowners could be done” (Villa, 1997, pp. 347-349). Prior to the 1991 Constitution, ACIA proposed to President Belisario Betancur (1982-1986) that the “territoriality of Black communities” be recognized, applying ILO Convention 107 of 1957, arguing that the population was distinct (Arocha, 2004, p. 635). ACIA represented Black communities in negotiations with the State. In 1987, it succeeded in achieving the demarcation of 600,000 hectares of land which would be converted into 800,000 hectares titled to the organization at a time when many of the beneficiaries had abandoned the area, fleeing the violence of armed groups (Escobar, 2010).  

ACIA’s proposal to recognize the relationship between land, ancestrality and traditional production practices would influence the writing of Article 55 of the Constitution of 1991, supported by ILO Convention 169 of 1989, as well as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples of 2007 (Restrepo, 2002, p. 40) (Villa, 1997, p. 352). 

In the 1990s, the conflict spread to most of the territories of the country, including the Pacific, in a war led by powerful “war entrepreneurs” (Romero, 2001, p. 765) that included paramilitary forces, drug traffickers, and guerrillas. This “war against society” (Pécaut, 2001) was waged against journalists, judges, ministers, presidential candidates, local governments, trade unions, peasants, and indigenous and Afro-Colombian populations. The strategy of “deterritorialization” was used so that “war machines” could operate unobstructed (Almario, 2004, p. 657). Widespread terror that included forced disappearances, massacres, and sexual violence against women was used as a strategy for land dispossession (Céspedes-Báez, 2010). Uprooting people from their land resulted in the displacement of approximately two million people between 1996 and 2002 (CNMH Centro Nacional de Memoria Histórica, 2013, p. 71), a large majority of them indigenous, Afro-Colombian, women, and children.

From homogenous to multiethnic and multicultural nation: Political Constitution of 1991

The widespread violence was the result of a prevailing political system that was “exclusive, illegitimate and extremely hostile to the inclusion of new parties representing new interests and demands” (Segura & Bejarano, 2004, p. 220). This perception led to the call for a Constituent Assembly that opened in February 1991 with the election of seventy members, which, in addition to traditional political parties, included demobilized guerrillas, representatives of non-Catholic religious groups—Catholicism being the official religion since 1896—, women’s groups and three indigenous representatives: Alfonso Peña Chepe from the Paez group, who attended on behalf of the demobilized MAQL, Francisco Rojas Birry from the Embera group of the Pacific coast, an ONIC representative, and Lorenzo Muelas from the Guambiano group of the Indigenous Authorities of Colombia (AICO). The sight of indigenous representatives alongside demobilized guerrillas was viewed as an example of coexistence, dialogue and respect (Gros, 1993, p. 9) (Jackson, 2003, p. 142) (Peñaranda, 2015, p. 338). More than just adding to the impressive number of representatives, this indigenous participation changed the view of Colombia as a homogeneous nation, as did indigenous groups, later, in Bolivia and Ecuador, recovering fragments of an ancestral past to reinvent new forms of coexistence. (Schavelzon, 2016, p. 120). The Political Constitution of 1991, together with Brazil’s, was ground-breaking in that it created a space for indigenous and Afro-Colombian groups in the country. In addition to the recognition of ethnic and cultural diversity, their protection became an obligation of the State (Articles 7, 8 and 70) (Gros, 1993, p. 8); it recognized indigenous reservations as collective and inalienable property (Article 329), legalizing 28 million hectares—approximately 30% of the national territory—for indigenous populations who inhabited 460 indigenous territories (Jackson, 2003, p. 138); it granted them the right to elect their own authorities according to their own uses and customs (Article 330), and it recognized indigenous territories as territorial entities (Article 286). The fact that they were made up of several reservations provided a unique possibility of being organized into vast indigenous provinces (Gros, 1993, pp. 18-19). Special constituencies were created for indigenous organizations to guarantee indigenous participation in the State’s decision-making bodies, with three seats reserved in the Senate and two seats in the House of Representatives (Articles 171 and 176). Table 1 includes a summary of the rights of indigenous and Black communities in the Political Constitution of Colombia (1991).  

Since a representative was not elected by the Afro-Colombian communities to the Constituent Assembly, their demands were presented by the indigenous representatives and other constituents close to their cause, including the demobilized M-19 and the Patriotic Union party UP. Black communities backed up their demands with massive pressure campaigns that included occupying offices, sending telegrams from all over the country and lobbying with other constituents ( Wabgou, Arocha Rodríguez, Salgado Cassiani, & Carabalí Ospina, 2012, p. 161) (Grueso, Rosero, & Escobar, 1997, p. 50).

Transitional Article 55 of the Constitution, AT 55, recognized the collective property and cultural identity of the Black population, an achievement described by Jaime Arocha (2004, p. 635) as “historical reparation” made permanent by Law 70 of 1993, meaning that they were “subject to the rights comparable with those defined in ILO Convention 169 for ethnic populations worldwide”. Law 70 of 1993 recognized Black communities as an ethnic group with the collective right to land and cultural identity. It called their territories “lands of Black communities” and mandated the formation of community councils to access collective land ownership (Articles 5 and 46).

Other constitutional mechanisms, such as writ of protection (acción de tutela) and prior consultation mechanism (Article 330), benefitted both populations by allowing them to file claims for rights violations with the Constitutional Court, which is known for favouring the protection of their rights  (Laurent V. , 2018, p. 9).  

The Constitution was a time of political opening, which allowed indigenous and Afro-Colombian populations to claim new rights and expand the limits of what was thought possible, fostering a resurgence of political organizations that supported their life projects.

Claiming the rights of Black populations in the post-constitutional period

After AT 55, new narratives of the life project of Black communities were shaped, some of which were adopted in the National Assembly of Black Communities in 1993. As summarized by Grueso, Rosero y Escobar (1997, pp. 53-54), being black was defined as a “particular way of seeing the world, from our view point of life”; territory was defined  as a “space for  living in accordance with what we think and desire as a form of life”, and autonomy, as the  “right to the exercise of being”. This narrative defined a project and a political subject with a range that would be definitive in the negotiation of the Peace Agreement signed in 2016. 

The right to territory granted by Law 70 allowed community organizations to articulate their political demands, and it strengthened their authority to make decisions about their territory  and resources (Ruiz-Serna, 2018, p. 13). For Hernán Cortés, one of the authors of AT 55, this “led to the largest social and political mobilization of the Black population of Colombia in recent history” (Cortés, 2008), as cited in Restrepo (2002, p. 39). Óscar Almario (2004, p. 664) describes the making of  territory after Law 70 as an “agrarian, ethnic and social reform” occurring without resorting to violence during one of Colombia’s most violent decades. For Eduardo Restrepo, AT 55 not only defined the organizational processes by which Black communities set up hundreds of community councils, but it also served as a mechanism to defend their land in a period of dispossession and a “closing of the border”, and it even helped some urban communities reclaim “black culture” (Restrepo, 2002, pp. 48-49). (Restrepo, 2013).

“We will not let the earth be taken from us, because the earth is our mother”, Mamá Cuama

For Betty Ruth Lozano (2010, p. 18), Law 70 and the creation of community councils offered an opportunity for black women to practice their leadership, since “we were the ones who reached out to the community the most” (Beatriz Mosquera). Frequently, this action came at the expense of dealing with their struggles as women, but it also carved out a type of feminism that is black and decolonial, the demands of which are tied to the “defense of land and nature” as a condition to reproduce life and community. As an example of this type of feminism, Lozano cites the case of Mamá Cuama, vice president of the community council, who, using Law 70 as grounds, forced a bulldozer out of the river area:

This feminismo propio  challenges the universal approaches of Eurocentric and Andean-centric feminism, adding new categories arising from local experiences, recognizing multiple types of power, and incorporating collective rights linked to the defence of land and nature (ibidem p. 22).

Creating new audiences to claim the rights of indigenous populations

To achieve their political aims, indigenous organizations relied on non-violent strategies such as assemblies, mingas and the Indigenous Guard. They also created a territory of peace in La María, Piendamó (Villa & Houghton, 2004, p. 106). The indigenous guard was born from the old indigenous civic guards that collaborated in the recovery of land in the seventies. It was made permanent with functions of control and territorial surveillance, carrying walking sticks made of chonta wood as symbols of their authority. Other mechanisms like assemblies and “mingas”—also ancestral practices—helped them make their demands public, denounce rights violations, and reject violence. Laurent (2018, p. 11) describes how the outcome of occupying the Episcopal Conference headquarters in Bogotá in 1996 was the creation of the Indigenous Permanent Concertation Table; and how the Pan-American Highway blockade, in June 1999, led to the signing of Decree 982 of the same year, “by which the National Government created a Commission for comprehensive development of indigenous policy [and] adopted measures to acquire the necessary resources”.

Against violence,  the defence of  life

The breakdown of peace negotiations between Andrés Pastrana’s government and the FARC led to the presidency of Álvaro Uribe Vélez (2002-2006 and 2006-2010) whose platform included the “democratic security” doctrine. Uribe refused to recognize the existence of conflict in Colombia, instead calling it a war of “terrorists against democracy” and closing the door to any political negotiation: facing the enemy, “there can be only one answer: defeat them” (República de Colombia, 2003, p. 6). As a result, security won out over democracy, leading to the stigmatization and criminalization of union protests, leftist parties and demonstrations of peasant, indigenous and Afro-Colombian organizations (Rojas, 2009). Between 2000 and 2004, when Colombia recorded one of the highest violent death rates per 100,000 inhabitants (63.7), the murder rate among some indigenous villages were higher still (Villa & Houghton, 2004, pp. 63-65). According to the ONIC, between 2003 and 2012, 1,063 indigenous people were murdered (Lozano N. , 2013). High rates of displacement were recorded in indigenous and Afro-Colombian regions. Figures show that three out of every ten displaced people are of Afro-Colombian descent (CONPA, 2016, p. 13). Aurora Vergara-Figueroa (2018, p. xxxi) refers to these communities as uprooted persons or people who are “stripped of their land” after being driven from their territory, which is taken over by armed groups. 

Following the implementation of Plan Colombia, the conflict and displacement of ethnic peoples from their territories increased, as did aerial fumigations that led to deforestation, the destruction of subsistence crops, and environmental pollution; and  they fostered alliances of the military and illegal economies with the paramilitaries (CONPA, 2016, p. 32). (Asher, 2009, pp. 166-173).

In response to this violence, in June 2001, indigenous communities organized the “Great Minga for Life and Against Violence”. The objective was to “build paths to peace in our resistance process: to do it in a minga; to do it before the problems grow worse; to do it from the point of view of our own cultural and territorial reality; to do it in the name of justice, peace and for nature”, as cited in Villarraga (2014, p. 213). 
The demonstration, held in September 2004, in which 65,000 indigenous people and peasants marched for five days, and which culminated in the Indigenous and Popular Congress, is described by Villa y Houghton (2004, p. 109) as “an act against war”, against the free trade agreement and against the dismantling of the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution. The “Social and Community Resistance Minga” of 2009 called on guilds, churches, multilateral organizations, unions, political parties and the media to create an inclusive peace agenda, built up from the community level, an agenda that recognizes diversity, “peace is not decreed, it should be a social process arising from communities, from victims and it should include all the sectors of society committed to this right. We want a peace that recognizes diversity, that is inclusive and comprehensive, that is lived in everyday life, one that is founded on social justice”, as cited in Villarraga (2014, p. 215).

“Armed conflict has existed in Colombia for a while”: president Juan Manuel Santos

With these words in response to a journalist’s question, recently-elected President Santos (2010-2018) opened the door to political negotiation with the FARC to put an end to the conflict that had endured for over 60 years, and which had, by that date, resulted in 262,197 deaths, 82 percent of which were civilians (El Tiempo, 2018) (El Universal, 2011). Not only did this openness to political negotiation offer an opportunity for the FARC to “exchange arms for politics”, but to eight million victims of the conflict, it offered, among other things, the right to truth, symbolic reparation, and the non-recurrence of damages suffered “as a result of the internal armed conflict” (emphasis added). These promises were enshrined in the Victims Law, Law 1448 of December 20, 2011, becoming the central objective of the Peace Agreement (Bermúdez, 2018, p. 28 y 296). For ethnic populations, overrepresented in the number of victims of the conflict and with a long history of colonial and patriarchal oppression, Decree Law 4633 and Decree Law 3645 were created for victims from indigenous villages and communities, and for Black, Afro-Colombian, raizal and palenque communities. Both laws were passed in 2011.

Ethnic peoples and organizations responded with mixed feelings to the announcement by President Santos that peace negotiations would be limited to the two main actors of the conflict—the Government and the FARC—with limitations on the number of negotiation topics, and that talks would be held  in Havana (Cuba). While both groups welcomed talks and reaffirmed their commitment to peace, they demanded to be included in negotiations. Indigenous communities expressed their “political intention to directly participate in the dialogue and negotiations as fundamental political actors, making our voices heard in order to move forward to build peace in our territories and in the country” (CRIC, 2012). In 2013, Black communities created the National Afro-Colombian Peace Council (CONPA) to contribute to the peace process and to influence negotiations (CONPA, 2016, p. 23). Francia Márquez, then a black peace activist, and today Vice President of Colombia (2022-2026) explains why the women and men of these communities support the peace process:

Para Márquez (ibidem p. 145), el proceso de paz no puede avanzar sin la garantía de participación de los pueblos afrocolombianos y las mujeres, “si se continúa excluyendo y aplicando prácticas racistas por parte del Estado, sin tFor Márquez (ibidem p. 145), the peace process cannot move forward without the guaranteed participation of Afro-Colombian peoples and women, “if the State continues excluding them and using racist practices without changing the economic and political model; and even less so if territories and spaces for Being are destroyed”. Neither can the peace process move forward  “if Afro-Colombian women continue being subjected to cruel and degrading treatment, if we do not have the guarantees required for real participation in the peace process, if there is no guarantee of a differentiated gender and ethnic approach”.

We are not who we were before: ONIC

In an open letter sent to the FARC (ONIC, 2013), almost thirty indigenous organizations affiliated with the ONIC describe how they have gone from being in a colonial condition, deprived of their own knowledge  and forms of government, and viewed as “soulless savages, objects to be studied or pre-Colombian museum artifacts” to the current moment of recognition as “political actors, collective subjects with rights”, acknowledged not only in national and international laws but with  their “own customary law”. They also offer a reminder of having been victims of “physical and cultural extermination at the hands of the FARC”, inviting them to talk as equals about matters that affect them and asserting that they can count on “us for peace but never for war”.

For a peace beyond armed actors: you do not represent us

Assembled at the 7^th ONIC Conference in La María (Cauca) in October 2012, the communities reiterated their objective of building peace from their  diversity. For Jesús Chávez, a senior CRIC advisor (CRIC, 2012), “the time of others speaking for us is over; today, we are expressing the desire to build a collective peace, that would  recognize and understand us in our  diversity and to weave [our]  true social fabric” (emphasis added). Indigenous leader, Aída Marina Quilcué (El Espectador, 2012) explained that negotiation talks will take place in their territory, “we want talks to involve those of us who have been victims of the war in the territory”. 

The 7^th Conference emphasized that the war being waged against them is a colonial war in which their territories are at stake: “ever since the Spaniards arrived, the aim of war waged against us has been to dispossess us of our ancestral territory”. They also point out that it is a fight “over natural resources and the intrusion of large-scale mining operations and macro-projects, which are causing one of the greatest humanitarian crises among our peoples”.

They argue that “the attendees at the Negotiation Table in Havana do not represent us; we call on them not to take the right to make decisions out of the hands of civil society” (ONIC, CRIC et al, 2012). They cited the colonial history that attempted to destroy their way of life, a time when the voices of communities were not heard. They made the same argument in 2000 when they were excluded from the peace talks of President Andrés Pastrana (1998-2002). For the CRIC (2000) the choice was between “having a truly democratic and participatory state, a guarantor of a diverse, multiethnic and multicultural nation”, and having a homogeneous state, “developmentalist and enemy of diversity” (emphasis added). Furthermore, for them, limiting negotiations to the FARC and the State was choosing the second option because “both actors have a top-down developmentalist perspective”. They proposed an indigenous, Black and mestizo, and regional approach for “ethnic and environmental diversity”, including them as “actors with power in the process to find a political solution to social and armed conflict”. They also proposed replacing bilateral negotiations with trilateral negotiations (CRIC, 2000). Both conditions would become a reality on August 23, 2016 (CRIC, 2016) when the Negotiation Table heard the peace proposals of both communities; thus, they became the “Third Actor in Negotiations” (Vega Luquez, 2019).

“Not without us  again”, CONPA

In 2013, eight Afro-Colombian organizations^[3] created the National Afro-Colombian Peace Council (CONPA) to contribute to peacebuilding and peace consolidation efforts and to influence the Havana talks (CONPA, 2016, p. 5). The First Congress of Community Councils ratified the political desire and willingness to advance joint actions to respond to the internal agenda of the Afro-Ethnic Movement and the Government’s legislative initiatives (PCN , 2013). CONPA proposed that Afro-Colombian authorities, under its coordination, be heard at the Negotiation Table in Havana. (CONPA, 2016, p. 24).

Their claims arose from an ethnicity defined by common origin, traditional production practices, their own culture, collective territories  and an ethnically distinct rural habitat (ibidem 13). Among the recent causes of armed conflict, they identified the positioning of the Pacific^[4] as a strategic corridor for drug trafficking, arms smuggling and  illicit activities, the collusion of local governments with armed groups and the impoverishment of and control over different populations and communities (ibidem p. 16).

Expanding the agenda and audiences to negotiate peace

Ethnic organizations expanded their base to promote peace, calling on peasant and urban populations and young people, and introducing issues related to economic development models, the environment, land, and gender and generational issues. In October 2013, the Social, Indigenous and Popular Minga for Life, Territory, Autonomy and Sovereignty was held, which saw the participation of a broad range of social sectors. The call included a number of issues: i) Territory, ii) Human rights; political, legal and administrative autonomy; iii) Economic and agricultural policy; iv) Armed conflict and peace; and v) Mining and energy policy in the country (ONIC – Autoridades Indigenas, 2013). After a month of protests, the Government and indigenous organizations agreed to measures to protect Ancestral Indigenous Territories as well as other issues related to economic, agricultural and mining energy policy. In the agreement with the Government, it was accepted that three representatives from the ONIC Minga would attend a meeting with Humberto de la Calle (head of the Central Government’s negotiation team) and Sergio Jaramillo (senior presidential advisor for peace), to arrange for the ONIC Minga representatives to travel to Havana (Vega Luquez, 2019, p. 27). 

Luis Fernando Arias, chief CRIC advisor, describes the conversation that prompted peace advisor, Sergio Jaramillo, to change his mind about including indigenous people in peace talks. For the peace advisor, “Havana was not some kind of pilgrimage that everyone goes to […]; instead, this was a process between two enemies who had been killing each other for 50 years”. In short, it was a dialogue between two actors of equal power (in their use of arms) that undervalued the indigenous voice by likening it to a pilgrimage. Arias recalls that “we counterargued and he finally uttered three words that I will never forget: that he found it convenient, necessary and pertinent that we send a delegation to Havana to talk with them”, as cited in (Vega Luquez, 2019, p. 27). This was a moment when ethnic groups were accepted as equals, capable of speaking in the negotiations and representing their own realities. Simply put, the political world opened the door to those who claimed that “neither the State nor the FARC represents us”. As the thinker Jacques Rancière (1999, p. 30), maintains, political moments are those that  “shifts a body from the place assigned to it or changes a place’s destination. It makes visible what had no business being seen, and makes heard a discourse where once there was only place for noise”.

Another moment when the public  and negotiation agenda expanded was at the Popular Agrarian, Peasant and Ethnic Summit that took place from March 15 to 17, 2014 in Bogotá. There were 30,000 attendees from across all regions of the country, representing peasant, indigenous and Afro-Colombian organizations who were united around a single platform: Mandates for living well, for structural agrarian reform, sovereignty, democracy, and peace with social justice. Importantly, new political actors and common visions emerged, such as connections between concepts of solidarity  economy and family that  linked community, solidarity, and reciprocity (García A. & Mantilla M., 2018, p. 382). However, as Laura Quintana (2016, pp. 111-113), argues, their petitions  were  not limited to preserve  their identity, or  to be included in the established order; rather, they seek to transform the order that marginalized them in the first place, as is the case of petitioning for the right to organize land use according to one’s own world views or principles of justice.

In the National Peace Forum of Indigenous Peoples called, “Count on us for peace,  never for war!” held on February 12 and 13, 2015, the National Peace Agenda was presented, and the campaign coordinated by the ONIC, “I carry the baton of command” ”, was launched with the goal of having one million people carry the baton  for peace (Vega Luquez, 2019, p. 31). The Agenda ratified the call to open dialogue to hear indigenous peoples, Afro-Colombians, peasants, intellectuals, journalists, all social actors   as “interculturality weaves together men and women, among all of us who are different, for we cannot do it alone”. (ONIC, 2015).

CONPA, ONIC, and, later, the Ethnic Commission for Peace and the Defence of Territorial Rights embarked on a campaign of “ethnic diplomacy” to shore up the support of international organizations for their efforts to apply pressure to be included as participants in the negotiations. Their campaign included visits to the U.S. Congress, State Department, the White House, and several civil society organizations, including WOLA (Washington Office on Latin America). The ONIC led diplomacy talks with international agencies of the United Nations and several embassies (Vega Luquez, 2019, pp. 43-44).

Black women for the protection of life and ancestral territories

The report, Cries of Women for Freedom, Reparation and Memory (Varios) describes and analyzes the impacts of the armed conflict on communities and on women and black children, in particular,  and on the political constitution as peace actors. In 1986, women from the municipality of Suárez demanded reparation for damages caused by the construction of the La Salvjina Dam. In 1997, they mobilized to stop the diversion of the Ovejas River, arguing that “the river is non-negotiable” and were met with harassment from armed groups. In 2014, they denounced the presence of backhoes in their communities, and  the loss of sustainability of community life due to illegal mining, the armed conflict, coca cultivation and the dam.  

The mobilization of Afro-Colombian women highlights the emerging political subjectivity that raises awareness and recounts experiences of patriarchal, capitalist, and colonial domination over their bodies and territories. Experiences such as not being able to walk freely in public, the fear of being murdered, and not being able to enjoy the rivers, are part of  the continuum of the experience of domination , which, as they recount, starts with the presence of backhoes in their territories. It is made worse by the lack of prior consultation, and ends with daily life being controlled by paramilitary groups. Yet despite everything, they rise up as political actors (Mujeres Negras Caminan, 2014):

In this feminism of Black women, described by Mina-Rojas et al. (2015), political action ties ancestrality to the future, the care  of life to territory, capitalism to community, gender to generations (our daughters and sons also walk with us), and oppression to emancipation. At the same time, the world is not entirely colonized by the global capitalist system, but it is not a stranger to it. And political action is not a stranger to the emotions that operate to sustain a patriarchal system based on fear while at the same time contributing to the flourishing of life (Gómez Correal, 2021, p. 294). 

Interethnic alliances for peace: the ethnic commission and the National Minga

The Ethnic Commission for Peace and Defence of Territorial Rights was created on March 7, 2016 with the participation of the ONIC, CONPA and the Traditional Indigenous Authorities of Colombia. A guiding principle of the Commission is that “the key to peace is also the instrument of our territorial security. Mother Earth, as the victim, demands intercultural dialogue as a way to expand and guarantee the agreements and their implementation” (ONIC – CONPA, 2016). The Commission (ONIC – CONPA, 2016) is the body that represents peoples and organizations in peace negotiation activities, invoking the rights guaranteed in the Constitution of 1991, which include rights to identity, autonomy, participation, territoriality, the exercise of self-government, and peace. The Commission adopted the principle of parity and complementarity of men and women, and committed itself to strengthening strategies for the protection and territorial control of communities, among them the Indigenous Guard and the Cimarrona Guard. In addition, the Commission formed a delegation to travel to Havana to meet with the two negotiating parties. (Vega Luquez, 2019, pp. 46-47). 

The National Popular Agrarian, Peasant, Ethnic Minga for Living Well, held in June 2016, was key to securing the participation of the Ethnic Commission in peace negotiations. The women of the Ethnic Commission (CNOA, 2016) issued a statement during the National Minga claiming that not only have they been the most affected, forgotten, marginalized and silenced group in the history of the country, and within the context of the armed conflict, but they have also been excluded from the decision-making process to  negotiate the conflict. They recount that from 2012 to the present, they have always expressed their desire to be heard, and to be peacebuilding actors, but without much success. They demand formal involvement and participation in the Technical Gender Sub-Commission to suggest ways to implement and verify the Agreements in their own territories and communities. While the Technical Gender Sub-Commission^[5] was, indeed, successful in including women’s voices and gender issues in the Havana talks—setting an example for other peace treaties—Afro-Colombian and indigenous women were absent, and the scope of issues addressed was limited to violence, territory, displacement, or discrimination (Gruner & Mina Rojas, 2018, p. 215). 

As documented by Rodolfo Vega (2019, p. 47), during the National Minga the proposal for ethnic peoples to be heard at the Negotiation Table was accepted as per joint statement #73, which announced that on June 20 and 21, twenty representatives of ethnic peoples would be welcomed to the talks.

The Ethnic Commission goes to Havana and successfully negotiates the Ethnic Chapter

On July 14, an Agreement was signed between the Ethnic Commission and the Government to create the Technical Committee, as  a permanent delegation in Havana. The Commission  met between July 26 and August 5 with the objective of including the Ethnic Chapter in the Final Agreement. An account of what occurred in the days leading up to the Chapter negotiations is outlined in the text written by Rodolfo Vega (2019, pp. 51-62), a CRIC peace advisor who was a member of the commission that travelled to Havana.  

Once the special protocol was established for the points requiring prior consultation for inclusion in the Agreement, a working day was arranged with the Gender Sub-Commission. Then, the work began to integrate the Ethnic Chapter into each one of the points in the Agreement. The Technical Commission submitted the first 20-page Ethnic Chapter Proposal, which was delivered to the Negotiation Table on August 16 and supported by the FARC.

After President Santos unexpectedly announced that negotiations would conclude before August 24, the bilateral sub-commission was suspended, and the text of the Ethnic Chapter was reduced to one paragraph. In response, the ONIC released a statement on August 23, 2016 warning of the risk that the Ethnic Chapter would be  excluded from the Final Agreement and declared themselves in permanent assembly. The Technical Commission supported the statement, and the FARC also applied pressure, even threatening to not sign the agreement without the Ethnic Chapter. On August 23, the Government invited the ethnic organizations to Havana. After their arrival, they were asked to reduce the text from twenty pages down to five pages. Commission attendees, mostly women, included representatives of ethnic peoples, Patricia Tobón, Alejandra Llanos and Charo Rojas Mina; representatives of the Government, Elena Ambrosi and Andree Viana; and FARC-EP members, Jesús Santrich and Iván Márquez. The tripartite negotiation on the ethnic chapter  wrapped up one hour before the first signing of the Final Agreement, “and we became  the third actor of the negotiation with the ethnic peoples”, (2019, p. 60).

Proposals from ethnic organizations included in the ethnic chapter

The purpose of this chapter is to highlight the expectations and goals of ethnic organizations and how they were adopted  in the Ethnic Chapter of the Final Agreement. The section is divided into three parts: (3.1) a brief summary of the guidelines that were proposed and agreed by the Government and the FARC. The second part (3.2) includes a summary of visions of peace articulated by the organizations (ONIC and CONPA) and the women of the Ethnic Commission for Peace, declarations that were made before the Ethnic Chapter was written. The third part (3.3) focuses on the Ethnic Chapter, its principles, scope, and safeguards to protect the rights of ethnic communities. The Ethnic Chapter was prepared in two steps: a draft prepared by the Ethnic Commission for Peace and the Defence of Territorial Rights, a 20-page draft of the Ethnic Chapter  (Comisión Étnica para la Paz y la Defensa de los Derechos Territoriales, 2016-08-11), and the final 4-page version, which appears as Chapter 6.2, the Ethnic Chapter in the Final Agreement  (Gobierno Nacional y FARC-EP, 2016, pp. 206-209).

General guidelines of the Final Agreement

The government of President Santos proposed two objectives in the negotiation of the Final Agreement: the first was to end the conflict with the FARC, which had lasted 60 years and left eight million victims. As the president specified, “we are not discussing the political system or economic model but the conditions under which the guerrilla forces can demobilize and integrate into democratic life. That [the FARC] exchange bullets for votes”, as cited in (González Muñoz, 2015, p. 254 n. 20). The second objective was to achieve a “stable and lasting” peace characterized by the integration of parties who were previously in conflict, thus allowing society “to undertake joint projects that avoid any recurrence of violence and to preserve this coexistence”. The peace negotiation process was designed to follow three consecutive phases, the first a phase of exploration in which the agenda and rules of the game were established. This phase began in February 2012. In August, the Government and the FARC agree to begin negotiations and sign an Agenda. The dialogue phase began in November 2012 between the Government and the FARC and concluded in August 2016 when negotiations officially ended and the Agreement was signed in September. The peacebuilding phase began with the signing of the Agreement. At this stage, the participation of all Colombians was expected. (Bermúdez, 2018, p. 40). 

Negotiations would address six points in the Agreement: 1) Rural development policy, 2) Political participation, 3) Ending the conflict, 4) Solving the drug trafficking problem, 5) Victims, and 6) Implementation, verification, and ratification.

What kind of peace can be achieved?

Las comunidades étnicas, desde el primer minuto hasta el último, apoyaron las negociaciones de paz. Su desacuerdo From the first to the final minute, ethnic communities supported the peace negotiations. Their disagreement focused on addressing what was meant by a “stable and lasting” peace, particularly when it comes to guaranteeing the survival of their communities, with their  own worldviews and life projects. The following is a summary of the arguments articulating what these communities believed was at stake in peace negotiations, based on the proposals contained in these four documents:

• ONIC, Proposal of indigenous peoples and ONIC organizations to build peace at the Negotiation Table in Havana, June 26, 2016.
• CONPA, Afro-Colombian Peace Agenda, 2016. 
• National Conference of Afro-Colombian Organizations, Declaration of Women of the Ethnic Commission for Peace and the Defence of Territorial Rights at the National Minga, June 7, 2016. 
• CNOA, Declaration of Women of the Ethnic Commission for Peace and the Defence of Territorial Rights at the National Minga, June 6, 2016.

As the ONIC (2016) states, violence and indigenous resistance dates back to colonial times “ours is a history of resistance, from the arrival of the Spaniards to the present day… We have resisted European invasion, the period of conquests, the republic, civil wars such as the war in 1948 and the armed conflict of recent decades… but in the end we have been excluded and benefitted little from any political agreements that are the product of war”. Despite the struggle to “maintain and secure the legacy of our peoples”, as the Constitutional Court has stated on several occasions, indigenous peoples are at “risk of physical and cultural disappearance and on the verge of genocide”, citing the vulnerability and risk of physical and cultural extermination of 67 indigenous groups, or 68.3% of the 102 existing groups. They demand a peace that allows for coexistence, a harmonious existence with Mother Earth, and territorial peace.

Peace is living together in diversity

For the ONIC, sustainable and lasting peace must “create conditions for indigenous peoples to survive.” The economic model of land destruction and dispossession has created an “acute humanitarian crisis and massive human rights violations of indigenous peoples”. To put an end to the effects of these conditions on indigenous peoples, what is required is their inclusion as actors to “bring together this diversity of thinking, of cultures, and of perspectives in a territory where we all have a place”. For the ONIC, there are different visions of the State and its economic model at the Negotiation Table. However, these are not the only visions, and “leaving out other perspectives does not contribute to real and effective peace”.   

CONPA believes the Peace Agreement will be legitimate and accepted if discussions are held with ethnic groups, their leaders, and traditional authorities. This is particularly true because Black communities have contributed to the building of this country, and they have suffered from great injustices as a result of the armed conflict, being subjected to looting, displacement, genocide and ecocide, the consequences of the pressure applied by armed actors in their territories (CONPA, 2016, p. 15).

The women of the Ethnic Commission (CNOA, 2016) state that not only have they been the most “marginalized and silenced group in the history of the country”, but they have also been excluded from peace negotiations. For them, recognizing and respecting diversity is “the path to establishing real, restorative peace for Colombian society as a whole, particularly for those communities most affected by being excluded, our Black and indigenous communities”. For women, their victimization is the result of patriarchal structures framing a “conflict that is understood, led and sustained by men using patriarchal and macho judgment” (CONPA, n.d., pp. 25-26). It is also related to the practices of perpetrators of war who exercise domination over their bodies with sexual and domestic enslavement, torture, and political persecution, which forces them to abandon their lands (C.N.O.A., 2015). Finally, there is also a connection to how traditional production systems have been weakened by war. Therefore, recovery for the countryside requires the recovery and strengthening of traditional practices such as traditional farming, rooftop farming, and production of their own products using the knowledge and collective decisions of their communities, applying the right to prior consultation (CONPA, n.d., p. 28). They conclude that as peacebuilders, what women bring to the peace process are “ancestral conflict resolution practices, our desire to be recognized in difference and the will to approach decision-making and political advocacy scenarios in a different way” (C.N.O.A., 2015).

Peace is living in harmony with Mother Earth

According to the ONIC, the experience of conflict and vulnerability of communities is the “effect of excessive accumulation, but it is also attributed to the exploration and irresponsible exploitation of natural resources, placing private interests over community interests”. Furthermore, for the ONIC, “there is no point to laying down arms today if we destroy the planet tomorrow. We must address issues such as global warming, mining and environmental protection, State indifference, and territorial dispossession. It is the only way to build peace that is broad, real, and sustainable”.  

CONPA calls for the structural causes of the conflict to be addressed, specifically mentioning the increase in the number of mining concessions in ethnic territories—without consultation and prior consent—the exploration and illegal exploitation of the ancestral mines of Black and indigenous communities, aerial fumigation in territories that destroys biodiversity and poisons rivers; state militarization of territories and the development of macro-projects (CONPA, 2016, p. 50).

The women of the Ethnic Commission believe that they are  “emissaries of their own and millenary proposals for living well, care for  life and creating a dignified present and honourable future for our daughters and sons”. Their political proposals include mobilizing to “protect our ancestral territories, water and the whole of Mother Earth, we mobilize against illegal and unconstitutional mining, against the myriad forms of physical and structural violence that impact women in particular, our sons/daughters and our communities”.

Peace is territorial

The Government (Jaramillo, 2014), women and ethnic organizations all agree on the notion of the territoriality of peace, but the problem, as suggested by CONPA, (2016, pp. 57-61), is the “almost irreconcilable” ways each group understands for territory. Such misunderstandings affect peace proposals. Thus, what the State calls “unused or unexploited land” is “protected territory” to Black communities. Furthermore, “territory is vital space, the place where we are and where we Exist as human beings and as peoples, which means that territory is the foundational element of our identity as a people”. CONPA encourages discussion and collaboration around the logic and life systems that should go into territorial  planning. They propose “thinking of territory as existential space”, which means that “any consideration of land use requires rethinking the country, since it will not be the same after the end of the conflict”. (ibidem p. 59). Women see territory as a space for living where human beings and nature coexist, so they question any proposals that do consider a harmonious and respectful relationship with nature (ibidem p. 28). 

Expectations and accomplishments of the Ethnic Chapter

The draft of the Ethnic Chapter mentions the historical conditions that violate the rights of ethnic peoples to live in freedom, peace and as distinct peoples , as well as the contributions of  the ethnic communities  to the peace  and the wellbeing of the country. Organizations expect actions and measures that guarantee “non-recurrence and peacebuilding based on diversity, collective rights, and full and differential reparations” (ONIC, 2016). The considerations of the Ethnic Chapter recognize that ethnic peoples have contributed to peacebuilding, progress, and the economic and social development of the country. Also mentioned are the conditions for which maximum guarantees need to be fomented for the full exercise of their human and collective rights, namely the historical conditions of injustice resulting from colonialism and slavery, having been dispossessed of their land, territories, and resources, as well as being disproportionately affected by the internal armed conflict.

Principles 

The following principles appear in the first draft of the Ethnic Chapter (Comisión Étnica para la Paz y la Defensa de los Derechos Territoriales, 2016):

• Self-determination, unity, and self-government of ethnic peoples: implemented with unrestricted respect for the right to autonomy, self-determination, and unity of ethnic peoples, guaranteeing free exercise of territorial rights, systems of government, justice, and their own organizational and cultural dynamics. 
• Non-regression and no violations of the collective rights of ethnic peoples: the commitments and developments that arise from the Agreement cannot be regressive, restrictive, nor can they violate the territorial, individual, and collective rights of ethnic peoples and communities within the framework of Customary  Law, , and national and international legislation.  
• Cultural integrity, identity, spirituality, and affirmation of Self: the worldview, identity, spirituality, self-awareness, sense and practice of collective and ancestral territoriality, cultural and spiritual objection, and the consent of ethnic peoples must be fully respected, restored, reinforced, and protected.  
• Territory and territoriality: property and territorial possession among ethnic peoples is viewed as spiritual, ancestral, collective, and holistic. 
• Truth, justice, reparation, and non-recurrence: prioritizing the people and territories most in need, having suffered historical conditions of injustice resulting from colonialism and slavery, exclusion and from having been dispossessed of their land, territories, and resources.  
• Participation of ethnic peoples in making decisions that affect them and the country: in exercising the right to self-determination, ethnic peoples and communities have the right to make decisions about their own destiny, to set their own priorities for development and/or living well. 
• Ethnic and cultural perspective: recognizing the existence of different worldviews of ethnic peoples within the national territory, expressed in their own and different ways in terms of spirituality, authorities and traditional governments, family, social and political organization, relationships with the land and environment, production and economic practices for living well, their own views of development, relationships between men and women based on parity and complementarity and fraternal relationships between peoples.   
• Parity, duality, and complementarity: women will be granted specific measures to strengthen their autonomy, organization, and identity, with guarantees of respect for individual and collective rights and their full participation in the Agreement.
• Integrality: agreements must contribute to a balanced and harmonious relationship between all beings in nature and all processes of ethnic peoples, and include transformative, fair, and appropriate measures and actions intended to support self-determination and their own authorities, thereby guaranteeing full development of life plans, ethno-development, and the equivalents in their territories

The final version of the Ethnic Chapter summarizes these principles and recognizes that they should be enshrined in legislation at the international and constitutional levels, in case law and legal regulations, making specific reference to the principle of non-regression, eliminating all forms of discrimination against women and racial discrimination, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. The principles of free determination, autonomy and self-government are also recognized, as well as participation, consultation and prior free and informed consent; social, economic and cultural identity and integrity; rights over land, territories and resources, which involve the recognition of their ancestral territorial practices, the right to Restitution and strengthening of territoriality, the current mechanisms for legal protection and security of the land and territories occupied or owned ancestrally and/or territorially.

Safeguards and guarantees

The Ethnic Chapter provides safeguards to protect the physical and cultural survival of peoples, which contribute to the strengthening of collective rights. These safeguards act as parameters to interpret the implementation of the Peace Agreements in the territories of ethnic peoples and communities. They demand that “free prior and informed consultation be respected as principal and non-subsidiary in nature”. 

The Ethnic Chapter provides two new safeguards:

• The right to cultural objection as a guarantee of non-recurrence, whenever appropriate. This right takes conscientious objection as its reference point. According to Vega (2019, p. 88) “this means that ethnic peoples may disregard Western laws and mandates if they believe that they are contrary to their cultural and spiritual fundamentals”. 
• A cross-cutting approach to ethnicity, gender, women, family, and generation. Unfortunately, this safeguard is not well-developed in the Chapter. These principles were approved in Statement 001 of March 8, 2016, which “extols complementarity, balance, harmony between women and men and respect for worldviews and the dynamics of each ethnic group”, as cited in (Comisión Étnica para la Paz, 2017).

It is established that in no case will the implementation of the agreements be detrimental to the rights of ethnic peoples.

Safeguards for different points in the Agreement

The Ethnic Chapter is transversal in that it includes safeguards for each one of the points in the Final Agreement (Gobierno de Colombia, 2016) (Caballero-Fula, 2016).

Point 1. Towards a New Colombian Countryside: Comprehensive Rural Reform – CRR

The implementation of the CRR will guarantee the application of an ethnic and cultural perspective, the current legal conditions of collective ownership, and the mechanisms for the legal protection and security of land and territories occupied or owned ancestrally and/or traditionally. The holistic nature of territoriality and its cultural and spiritual dimensions, and the heightened protection for peoples at risk of extinction and their safeguard plans, will also be observed.

• The ethnic and cultural perspective, the current legal conditions of collective ownership, and the mechanisms for the legal protection and security of land and territories occupied or owned ancestrally and/or traditionally will be guaranteed. 
• The holistic nature of territoriality and its cultural and spiritual dimensions, and the heightened protection for peoples at risk of extinction and their safeguard plans, will also be observed. 
• Ethnic peoples will be included in land access measures. Adjudication and formalization will be performed with a view to the constitution, creation, consolidation, expansion, entitlement, demarcation, restitution, and resolution of disputes over land use and tenure. 
• It shall be understood that in the case of ethnic peoples, the ecological function of property and their own ancestral forms of relationship with the territory take precedence over the notion of non-exploitation.   
• Participation of ethnic peoples and communities with their representative organizations in creating mechanisms to resolve disputes over land use and tenure. 
• Development Programs with a Territorial-Based Focus (DPTFs): special consultation mechanism for the implementation of DPTFs in indigenous territories in order to incorporate life plans and ethno-development, environmental management plans and land-use planning, or the equivalents of ethnic peoples.

Point 2. Political Participation: A democratic opportunity to build peace

• The full and effective participation of representatives of ethnic authorities and their representative organizations in the different forums created within the framework of the implementation of the Final Agreement, in particular those enshrined in Point 2 and the participatory planning forums.   
• Measures will be taken to guarantee that ethnic peoples are included in lists of Special Transitory Territorial Districts for Peace, when their district coincides with their territories.

Point 3. Security guarantees

• An ethnic and cultural perspective will be incorporated in the design and implementation of the Security and Protection Program for communities and organizations in territories.  
• The strengthening of ethnic peoples’ own security systems, recognized nationally and internationally, such as the Indigenous Guard and the Cimarrona Guard will be guaranteed. 

Point 4. Solution to the Illicit Drug Problem

• The participation and consultation of representative ethnic communities and organizations will be guaranteed in the design and execution of the National Comprehensive Program for the Substitution of Crops Used for Illicit Purposes (NCPS), as well as in the Immediate Action Plans (IAP).  
• The NCPS will respect and protect the cultural use, customs and consumption of traditional plants that are classified as illicit. In no event will policies on the use of territory and the natural resources present in it be imposed.  
• Territorial prioritization will take into account the territories of ethnic peoples at risk of  physical and cultural extermination or at risk of extinction that are affected by crops used for illicit purposes, or the territories of ethnic peoples in a situation of confinement or displacement. 
• Regions of the country, such as the territories of Embera, Jiw, Nukak and Awá Peoples will be identified as priority cases for de-mining and clearing. 
• With the participation of representative organizations of ethnic peoples, a program will be developed for the settlement, return, restoration and restitution of territories of the Nukak people, the Embara Katío people of the Cañaveral Reservation in Alto San Jorge, as well as the territory of the Community Council of Alto Mira and Frontera, and Curvaradó and Jiguamiandó.

Point 5. Agreement regarding the Victims of the Conflict

• The design of this system will respect the exercise of the jurisdictional functions of indigenous peoples within their territories. 
• The ethnic and cultural perspective will be incorporated in the design of judicial and non-judicial mechanisms.
• The right to participation and consultation in defining these mechanisms will be guaranteed, when appropriate.
• Mechanisms will be created for liaison and coordination of the Special Jurisdiction for Peace with the Special Indigenous Jurisdiction and, when appropriate, with the Afro-Colombian ancestral authorities. 
• A special harmonization program will be agreed with the representative organizations of the ethnic peoples to reincorporate demobilized individuals belonging to such peoples.
• An educational and communicative strategy will be agreed for the dissemination of principles of non-racial and ethnic discrimination against women, young people, and girls demobilized from the conflict.

Point 6. Implementation and Verification

• A High-Level Special Body (Instancia Especial) will be created with Ethnic Peoples to monitor the implementation of the agreements, which will be agreed between the National Government, the FARC-EP and the representative organizations of the ethnic peoples. 
• The functions of this agency will be to act as the primary consultative, representative and liaison body to the Commission for Monitoring, Promoting and Verifying the Implementation of the Final Agreement (CMPVI). 
• Participation of indigenous organizations in the agency will be carried out without prejudice to the functions and duties of existing government and participatory agencies.
• The sources to fund the implementation of agreements will not involve those agreements on budgetary matters that have already been made between the National Government and indigenous and Afro-Colombian peoples, set out in the current National Development Plan and other consulted and agreed policies.

In a Referendum held on October 2, 2016, 50.2 percent of Colombian citizens rejected the Agreement. At this time, the ethnic communities participated in a protest in Bogotá of over 50,000 demonstrators, shouting to Colombia and the world, “Indigenous peoples want peace”, “For peace to flourish, Agreement Now!”, “Agreement signed, Agreement respected”. During the renegotiation process committed to the creation of a new Peace Agreement, the FARC and the Government met again in Havana and made adjustments and clarifications on different points of the agreement, except for the Ethnic Chapter, the text of which remained intact and would be reflected in the new agreement which was signed by the parties and passed in Congress in November 2016.

In view of what is described above, the Ethnic Chapter has provided an opportunity to recognize the differentiated impacts of the armed conflict on ethnic peoples, thus allowing for the consolidation of a framework  of guarantees for ethnic  peoples. These guarantees enable the full exercise of their rights according to their own interests and worldviews in a post-agreement reality, and as active subjects in the building of peace and in the development of the country. A separate chapter is warranted to address and analyze the progress and challenges to the implementation of this chapter of the Peace Agreement in order to assess the central dimensions of this implementation, which would include: (i) the progress of the work of the High-Level Special Body of Ethnic Peoples to understand compliance with the provisions of the Ethnic Chapter, (ii) the balance of the verification and monitoring mechanisms regarding the scope and level of compliance in the implementation of the Agreement, and (iii) the work undertaken by ethnic leaders and organizations in the implementation of the Chapter and its follow-up, among other components.