Government policies and practices of land restitution may impede Colombia's peace process. Given the rural origin of the contemporary Colombian armed conflict, peacebuilding and land restitution policies are linked. Based on a qualitative study undertaken by the author, this article analyses regional challenges to the implementation of land restitution policies in Colombia. The study site was the Lower Atrato region, in the Curbaradó and Jiguamiandó river basins. The study's thesis maintains that regional challenges to restitution relate to processes of regional state formation and an end to strife that includes at least five dimensions. First, land claimants face insecurity due to ongoing struggles among armed groups. Second, restitution has a contested nature that includes disputes among regional and national elites. Third, restitution expands ethnic-based land rights but is challenged to identify the rights' beneficiaries. Fourth, restitution relates to techniques of governmentality. Last, contradictions exist between development policies and restitution policies. Restitution during the ongoing war is largely infeasible given violent opposition to its processes, thereby increasing the risk of conflict reproduction.
AFRODES & Global Rights2008, Informe sobre la Situación de los Derechos Humanos de las Mujeres Afrocolombianas en Situación de Desplazamiento Forzado, Washington, DC: Global Rights.
2.
Alonso-FradejasA.2012, ‘Land Control-Grabbing in Guatemala: The Political Economy of Contemporary Agrarian Change’ in Canadian Journal of Development Studies33: 4: 509–528.
3.
ASCOBA2010, ‘Territorio: Palmo a Palmo’ in ASCOBABoletín No. 5, Riosucio, Colombia: CINEP: 1–10.
4.
BallvéT.2012, ‘Everyday State Formation: Territory, Decentralization, and the Narco Landgrab in Colombia’ in Environment and Planning D: Society and Space30: 4: 603–622.
5.
BallvéT.2013, ‘Grassroots Masquerades: Development, Paramilitaries, and Land Laundering in Colombia’ in Geoforum50: 62–75.
6.
BanisterJ.M.2007, ‘Stating Space in Modern Mexico’ in Political Geography26: 4: 455–473.
7.
BaqueroJ.2015, ‘The Intersection of Class, Race and Ethnicity in Agrarian Inequalities, Identities and the Social Resistance of Peasants in Colombia’ in Current Sociology, doi:10.1177/0011392115586801.
8.
BernsteinH. & ByresT.2001, ‘From Peasant Studies to Agrarian Change’ in Journal of Agrarian Change1: 1: 1–56.
9.
BerryR.A.1972, ‘Farm Size Distribution, Income Distribution, and the Efficiency of Agricultural Production: Colombia’ in The American Economic Review62: 403–408.
10.
BorrasS.M.Jr, FrancoJ.C., GómezS., KayC. & SpoorM.2012, ‘Land Grabbing in Latin America and the Caribbean’ in Journal of Peasant Studies39: 3–4: 845–872.
11.
BorrasS.M.2007, Pro-Poor Land Reform: A Critique, Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
12.
BorrowsJ.2000, ‘Landed Citizenship: Narratives of Aboriginal Political Participation’ in KymlickaW. & NormanW. eds, Citizenship in Diverse Societies, Oxford: Oxford University Press: 326–342.
13.
CNMH2014, ¡Basta ya! Colombia: Memorias de Guerra y Dignidad, Bogotá: CNMH.
14.
Constitutional Court2013, Auto 096 of 2013, Bogotá: Colombian Government.
15.
Departamento Nacional de Planeación2006, Plan Integral de Largo Plazo para Población Negra o Afrocolombiana. Documento Final de Contexto y Recomendaciones de Política Pública, Derechos Humanos — Género, Bogotá: DNP.
16.
DomínguezM.I.2015, ‘Comunidades negras rurales de Antioquia: discursos de ancestralidad, titulación colectiva y procesos de “aprendizaje” del Estado’ in Estudios Políticos46: 101–123.
EscobarA.2001, ‘Culture Sits in Places: Reflections on Globalism and Subaltern Strategies of Localization’ in Political Geography20: 2: 139–174.
21.
EveringhamM. & JanneckeC.2006, ‘Land Restitution and Democratic Citizenship in South Africa’ in Journal of Southern African Studies32: 3: 545–562.
22.
FayD. & JamesD.2010, ‘Giving Land Back or Righting Wrongs? Comparative Issues in the Study of Land Restitution’ in WalkerC., BohlinA., HallR. & KepeT. eds, Land, Memory, Reconstruction, and Justice: Perspectives on Land Claims in South Africa, Athens, OH: Ohio University Press: 41–60.
23.
FrenchJ.H.2009, Legalizing Identities: Becoming Black or Indian in the Brazil's North-East, Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
24.
GarciaE.1997, ‘Filipino Zones of Peace’ in Peace Review9: 2: 221–224.
25.
HallR.2010, ‘Reconciling the Past, Present and Future: The Parameters and Practices of Land Restitution in South Africa’ in WalkerC., BohlinA., HallR. & KepeT. eds, Land, Memory, Reconstruction, and Justice: Perspectives on Land Claims in South Africa, Athens, OH: Ohio University Press: 17–40.
26.
HarveyD.2003, The New Imperialism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27.
HyltonF.2006, Evil Hour in Colombia, London: Verso.
28.
INCODER2005, Los Cultivos de Palma de Aceite en los Territorios Colectivos de las Comunidades Negras de los Ríos Curbaradó y Jiguamiandó, en el Departamento del Chocó, Bogotá: INCODER.
29.
INCODER2012, Caracterización Jurídica y Saneamiento de los Territorios Colectivos de Curvaradó y Jiguamiand, by Colombian GovernmentBogotá: INCODER.
30.
JosephG.M. & NugentD.1994 eds, Everyday Forms of State Formation: Revolution and the Negotiation of Rule in Modern Mexico, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
31.
MartínezP.2013, Ley de Víctimas y Restitución de Tierras en Colombia en Contexto, Berlin and Amsterdam: FDCL and TNI.
32.
MogopeK.2000, ‘Community and Diversity: The Complexity of Interests in Land Reform: A Case Study of Gallawater A Farm in the Eastern Cape’ in CousinsB. eds, At the Crossroads: Land and Agrarian Reform in South Africa into the 21st Century, Bellville: PLAAS, University of the Western Cape, and NLC: 107–110.
33.
Ng'wenoB.2007, ‘Can Ethnicity Replace Race? Afro-Colombians, Indigeneity and the Colombian Multicultural State’ in Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology12: 414–440.
34.
PearceJ.2010, ‘Perverse State Formation and Securitized Democracy in Latin America’ in Democratization17: 286–306.
QuijanoA.2000, ‘Coloniality of Power and Eurocentrism in Latin America’ in International Sociology15: 2: 215–232.
37.
ReyesA.2009, Guerreros y Campesinos: El Despojo de la Tierra en Colombia, Bogotá: Norma/Fescol.
38.
RichmondO.P.2014, ‘The Impact of Socioeconomic Inequality on Peacebuilding and State Building’ in Civil Wars16: 4: 449–467.
39.
RobinsonJ.2013, ‘Colombia, una Democracia de Orangutanes con Sacoleva’ in Semana, 5 October: http://tinyurl.com/kunfasq, accessed 30 November 2013.
40.
RoldánM.2002, Blood and Fire: La Violencia in Antioquia, Colombia, 1946–1953, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
41.
Ruiz-SernaD.2006, ‘Nuevas Formas de ser Negro. Consideraciones sobre las Identidades entre la Gente Chilapa y Negra del Bajo Atrato Chocoano’ in BolivarI. ed., Identidades Culturales y Formación del Estado en Colombia, Bogotá: Universidad de los Andes: 211–248.
42.
Semana.com2012, ‘La Historia de Juan de Dios Úsuga, Cabecilla de “los Urabeños”’ in Semana, 2 January: http://tinyurl.com/kgjpf5m, accessed 30 November 2013.
43.
SiederR.1999, ‘Rethinking Democratisation and Citizenship: Legal Pluralism and Institutional Reform in Guatemala’ in Citizenship Studies3: 1: 103–118.
44.
SiederR.2001, ‘Rethinking Citizenship: Reforming the Law in Postwar Guatemala’ in HansenT.B. & StepputatF. eds, States of Imagination: Ethnographic Explorations of the Postcolonial State, Durham, NC: Duke University Press: 203–220.
45.
TillyC.1995, Durable Inequality, New York: NSSR.
46.
UNDP2012, Colombia Rural: Razones para la esperanza. Informe Nacional de Desarrollo Humano 2011, Bogotá: PNUD.
47.
UribeM.T.1992, Urabá: ¿Región o Territorio?, Medellín, Colombia: Corpourabá and INER-Universidad de Antioquia.
48.
VisserO., MamonovaN. & SpoorM.2012, ‘Oligarchs, Megafarms and Land Reserves: Understanding Land Grabbing in Russia’ in Journal of Peasant Studies39: 899–931.
49.
WadeP.2006, ‘Etnicidad, multiculturalismo y políticas sociales en Latinoamérica: poblaciones afrolatinas (e indígenas)’ in Tabula rasa4: 59–82.
50.
WalkerC.2008, Landmarked: Land Claims and Land Restitution in South Africa, Johannesburg: Jacana Media; Athens: Ohio University Press.
