Oil Palm Expansion and Peasant Environmental Justice Struggles in Colombia

  • Victoria Marin-BurgosEmail author
Part of the Development, Justice and Citizenship book series (SIID)


There is a convergence of land access and environmental justice claims in many of the struggles against extractive activities in Latin America. Drawing on the notion of territory, this chapter explores the nexus between land access, environmental justice and extractivism. The analysis builds on empirical qualitative research on three case studies of peasant struggles for land in the context of the expansion of oil palm agro-industrial cultivation in Colombia since the year 2000. The chapter shows how extractive activities deprive rural populations of their territories through both land access dispossession and socio-environmental transformations. The effects of this territorial deprivation concern four key dimensions of environmental justice: distribution, recognition, participation and capabilities.


Environmental Justice Extractive Activity Livelihood Dimension Productive Alliance Land Access 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bebbington, A. (2004). Livelihood transitions, place transformations: Grounding globalization and modernity. In R. N. Gwynne & K. Cristobal (Eds.), Latin America transformed. Globalization and modernity (2nd ed., pp. 173–192). London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  2. Bebbington, A. (Ed.) (2012). Social conflict, economic development and extractive industry: Evidence from South America. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Bebbington, A., & Batterbury, S. P. J. (2001). Transnational livelihoods and landscapes: Political ecologies of globalization. Ecumene, 8(4), 369–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beltrán Ramírez, L. (2008). Parceleros de San Alberto. Un conflicto con Indupalma. Barrancabermeja: CDPMM (unpublished).Google Scholar
  5. Bryant, R. (1992). Political ecology: An emerging research agenda in third-world studies. Political Geography, 11(1), 12–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burchardt, H.-J., & Dietz, K. (2014). (Neo-)extractivism – A new challenge for development theory from Latin America. Third World Quarterl, 35(3), 468–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carruthers, D. V. (Ed.) (2008). Environmental justice in Latin America: Problems, promise, and practice. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Castiblanco, C., Etter, A., & Aide, T. M. (2013). Oil palm plantations in Colombia: A model of future expansion. Environmental Science & Policy, 27, 172–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Constitutional Court of Colombia. (2011). Sentencia T-267, 2011.Google Scholar
  10. Contreras, M. (Dir.) & Figueroa, R. (Prod.) (2010, November 12). La tierra y el territorio, online video clip. Accessed 15 Mar 2014.
  11. Defensoría del Pueblo (2011). Informe de Seguimiento 2011 a la Sentencia T-025 de 2004. Bogotá: Defensoría del Pueblo.Google Scholar
  12. El Tiempo. (2009, July 16). Polémica por desalojo de desplazados en sur de Bolívar. El Tiempo. Accessed 31 Aug 2013.
  13. Escobar, A. (2001). Culture sits in places: Reflections on globalism and subaltern strategies of localization. Political Geography, 20(2), 139–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Escobar, A. (2006). An ecology of difference: Equality and conflict in a glocalized world. Focaal-European Journal of Anthropology, 47, 120–137.Google Scholar
  15. Fadul Ortíz, M. (2001). Informe Alianzas por la Paz: El Modelo Indupalma. Bogotá: Indupalma.Google Scholar
  16. Fedepalma (2005). Statistical yearbook 2005. Bogotá: Fedepalma.Google Scholar
  17. Fedepalma (2011). Statistical yearbook 2011. Bogotá: Fedepalma.Google Scholar
  18. Forero-Álvarez, J. (2002). La Economía Campesina Colombiana 1990–2001, Cuadernos Tierra y Justicia No. 2. Bogotá: ILSA.Google Scholar
  19. Forero-Álvarez, J. (2013). The economy of family farming production. Cuadernos de Desarrollo Rural, 10(70), 27–45.Google Scholar
  20. Fundación Chasquis Comunicación, Fundación Contravía. (2011). Las Pavas, la hora del retorno, May 4, online video clip. Accessed 15 Mar 2014.
  21. Haarstad, H. (2012). Extracting justice? Critical themes and challenges in Latin American natural resource governance. In H. Haarstad (Ed.), New political spaces in Latin American natural resource management (pp. 1–16). New York: Palgrave Mcmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. INCODER. (2012a). Incoder identificó 10 predios baldíos de la nación en la hacienda ‘Las Pavas”, Boletín de prensa No. 133. Bogotá: Incoder Accessed 12 Sept 2013.Google Scholar
  23. INCODER. (2012b). Incoder pone punto final al emblématico caso de la hacienda ‘Las Pavas”, Boletín de prensa No. 156. Bogotá: IncoderónFinalLasPavas.pdf. Accessed 12 Sept 2013.Google Scholar
  24. Indupalma. (2011). Informe de Sostenibilidad 2010–2011. Bogotá: Indupalma Accessed 12 Sept 2013.Google Scholar
  25. Juzgado Promiscuo del Municipio de Aguachica-Cesar. (2010). Court Decision August 23, 2010 on the process Indupalma S.A. Vs Mariela Ayala Espitia. Aguachica/Cesar: Juzgado Promiscuo del Municipio de Aguachica-Cesar.Google Scholar
  26. La Silla Vacía. (2010, October 7). El caso de Indupalma. La Silla Vacía. Accessed 17 Sept 2013.
  27. Marin-Burgos, V. (2014) Access, Power and Justice in Commodity Frontiers. The political ecology of access to land and palm oil expansion in Colombia. PhD Thesis, Enschede: University of Twente. Accessed 13 Dec 2015.
  28. Martinez-Alier, J. (2002). The environmentalism of the poor: A study of ecological conflicts and valuation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Martinez-Alier, J. (2014). The environmentalism of the poor. Geoforum, 54, 239–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mesa Dishington, J. (2013). Fedepalma, un gremio mirando al futuro. Palmas, 34(1), 73–77.Google Scholar
  31. Muradian, R., Walter, M., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2012). Hegemonic transitions and global shifts in social metabolism: Implications for resource-rich countries. Introduction to the special section. Global Environmental Change, 22(3), 559–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Peluso, N. L., & Lund, C. (2011). New frontiers of land control: Introduction. Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(4), 667–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Prieto Méndez, A. (2008). Informe el Modelo de Gestión de Indupalma. Bogotá: Indupalma.Google Scholar
  34. Ramón Jácome, G. A. (2010). La Cooperación Internacional de la Unión Europea y los Desafíos Reales del Desplazamiento Forzado en Colombia: Análisis Crítico en el Magdalena Medio, Bachelor thesis. Bogotá: Pontificia Universidad Javeriana.Google Scholar
  35. Ribot, J. C., & Peluso, N. L. (2003). A theory of acces. Rural Sociology, 66(2), 153–181.Google Scholar
  36. Schlosberg, D. (2007). Defining environmental justice: Theories, movements, and nature. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sola Álvarez, M. (2011). Las valoraciones sobre los territorios en resistencia: explorando una tipología. Arena, 2(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
  38. Svampa, M. (2012a). Consenso de los commodities, giro ecoterritorial y pensamiento crítico en América Latina. Revista del Observatorio Social de América Latina, XIII(32), 15–38.Google Scholar
  39. Svampa, M. (2012b). Resource extractivism and alternatives: Latin American perspectives on development. Journal für Entwicklungspolitik, 28(3), 43–73.Google Scholar
  40. The Observer. (2009, September 13). Body shop ethics under fire after Colombian peasant evictions. The Observer online. Accessed 31 Aug 2013.
  41. Urkidi, L., & Walter, M. (2011). Dimensions of environmental justice in anti-gold mining movements in Latin America. Geoforum, 42(6), 683–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vargas, R., Mow, J. M., Pérez, M., & Rivas, A. (2010). Report independent commission land conflict – Las Pavas – Bolívar, Colombia. Bogotá: Body Shop and Christian Aid Accessed 12 Sept 2013.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations