Colombia

  • Advocacy priorities at 47th Session of UN Human Rights Council

    The 47th Session is set to run from 21 June to 15 July, and will cover a number of critical thematic and country issues. Like all Sessions held over the course of the pandemic, it will present challenges and opportunities for civil society engagement. CIVICUS encourages States to continue to raise the importance of civil society participation, which makes the Human Rights Council stronger, more informed and more effective.
  • Alerta de Solidaridad: Colombia

    Alerta de Solidaridad Colombia: la obstrucción de participantes en la marcha Rise for Climate muestra un patrón de violaciones contra los defensores del medio ambiente

    Activistas y campesinos del "Movimiento Ríos Vivos" fueron detenidos ilegalmente por la policía en Ituango, Colombia, el 8 de septiembre de 2018, mientras participaban en la movilización "Rise for Climate". La acción en Ituango fue parte de una movilización global organizada por el grupo de derechos ambientales 350.org. Las movilizaciones reunieron a miles de personas en las calles de ciudades de todo el mundo que participaron en 900 acciones en 95 países. Las movilizaciones pidieron la protección del medio ambiente e instaron a los gobiernos a comprometerse con las energías limpias. Ríos Vivos es un movimiento de derechos humanos integrado por comunidades afectadas por los impactos de "Hidroituango", uno de los mayores proyectos hidroeléctricos en América Latina, actualmente en construcción en el río Cauca.

    El 8 de septiembre de 2018, más de 400 personas viajaron desde diferentes pueblos de la región de Antioquia hasta la ciudad de Ituango, donde habían planeado una acción para exigir la protección del clima mundial. En el camino a Ituango fueron temporalmente retenidos por la Policía Nacional, que comenzó a hacer una lista de las personas que participan en la movilización. Esta acción fue denunciada por la oficina regional de 350.org para América Latina. Los miembros de la policía que retenían a los manifestantes también se negaron a mostrar su identidad y cubrieron sus nombres en sus uniformes.

    Después de que la caravana de Ríos Vivos llegó a la ciudad de Ituango, la policía no permitió que los manifestantes realizaran una actuación planificada que pedía la protección del río Cauca y el clima mundial. Según Isabel Zuleta, una de las voceras de Ríos Vivos, la policía detuvo a los manifestantes por orden del Alcalde de Ituango.

    El domingo 9 de septiembre, cuando la caravana de autobuses y autos con los manifestantes regresaba a sus lugares de origen, nuevamente fueron retenidos por un grupo de empleados de las Empresas Públicas de Medellín, la empresa que está construyendo el proyecto Hidroituango. La caravana eventualmente pudo continuar su viaje alrededor de las 6 p.m. después de haber sido retenida desde las 6 a. M.

    " No tiene justificación que en la actualidad una empresa pública comprometa los derechos al libre tránsito de grupos comunitarios defensores del ambiente. Lo que hizo EPM con Rios Vivos Antioquia sobrepasa el deber ser del Estado que es garantizar la protección de la ciudadanía", dijo Xiomy Acevedo, de 350.org Colombia.

    Las restricciones impuestas a la marcha de los activistas climáticos violan su derecho de reunión pacífica y refleja el ambiente hostil para los defensores del medio ambiente en Colombia. Según lo informado por el Monitor CIVICUS, el ambiente para los defensores de los derechos humanos y del medio ambiente en Colombia ha empeorado en los últimos meses.

    "Es extremadamente preocupante que los manifestantes pacíficos que participan en una campaña mundial contra el cambio climático en Colombia sean estigmatizados y hostigados por las autoridades como sucedió este fin de semana en Ituango", dijo Natalia Gomez, directora de promoción y compromiso de CIVICUS.

    Durante años, los miembros del Movimiento Ríos Vivos han sido objeto de amenazas, intimidación y estigmatización por oponerse a megaproyectos que amenazan a los ríos. Especialmente han sido blanco de su oposición a la construcción del proyecto “Hidroituango”, un proyecto que ha estado sumido en crisis durante meses y ha dejado cientos de personas afectadas.

    CIVICUS hace un llamamiento a las autoridades colombianas para garantizar un entorno seguro para los activistas medioambientales y respetar su derecho a plantear inquietudes y reunirse pacíficamente.

    CIVICUS es una alianza global de organizaciones de la sociedad civil y activistas dedicados a fortalecer la acción ciudadana y la sociedad civil en todo el mundo. Fundado en 1993, promocionamos con orgullo las voces marginadas, especialmente del Sur Global, y tenemos miembros en más de 160 países en todo el mundo.


    Para más información o consultas de los medios:

    Comunicaciones –

    Natalia Gomez:

    https://www.facebook.com/CIVICUS/ 
    @CIVICUSalliance
    @CIVICUSMonitor
  • As the climate crisis intensifies, so does the crackdown on environmental activism, finds new report

    New research brief from the CIVICUS Monitor examines the crackdown of environmental activism and profiles important victories civil society has scored in the fight for climate justice.

    • Environmental protests are being criminalised and met with repression on all continents
    • State authorities and private companies are common perpetrators of violations to civic freedoms
    • Despite the risks and restrictions, activist groups continue to score important victories to advance climate justice.

    As world leaders meet in Glasgow for the UN Climate Change Negotiations (COP26), peaceful environmental activists are being threatened, silenced and criminalised around the world. The host of this year's meeting is one of many countries where activists are regularly facing rights violations.

    New research from the CIVICUS Monitor looks at the common tactics and restrictions being used by governments and private companies to suppress environmental movements. The research brief “Defenders of our planet: Resilience in the face of restrictions” focuses on three worrying trends: Bans and restrictions on protests; Judicial harassment and legal persecution; and the use of violence, including targeted killings.

    As the climate crisis intensifies, activists and civil society groups continue to mobilise to hold policymakers and corporate leaders to account. From Brazil to South Africa, activists are putting their lives on the line to protect lands and to halt the activities of high-polluting industries. The most severe rights abuses are often experienced by civil society groups that are standing up to the logging, mining and energy giants who are exploiting natural resources and fueling global warming.

    As people take to the streets, governments have been instituting bans that criminalise environmental protests. Recently governments have used COVID-19 as a pretext to disrupt and break up demonstrations. Data from the CIVICUS Monitor indicates that the detention of protesters and the use of excessive force by authorities are becoming more prevalent.

    In Cambodia in May 2021, three environmental defenders were sentenced to 18 to 20 months in prison for planning a protest  against the filling of a lake in the capital. While in Finland this past June, over 100 activists were arrested for participating in a protest calling for the government to take urgent action on climate change. From authoritarian countries to  mature democracies, the research also profiles those who have been put behind bars for peacefully protesting.

    “Silencing activists and denying them of their fundamental civic rights is another tactic being used by leaders to evade and delay action on climate change” said Marianna Belalba Barreto, Research Lead for the CIVICUS Monitor. “Criminalising nonviolent protests has become a troubling indicator that governments are not committed to saving the planet .”

    The report shows that many of the measures being deployed by governments to restrict rights are not compatible with international law. Examples of courts and legislative bodies reversing attempts to criminalise nonviolent climate protests are few and far between.

    Despite the increased risks and restrictions facing environmental campaigners, the report also shows that a wide range of campaigns have scored important victories, including the closure of mines and numerous hazardous construction projects. Equally significant has been the rise of climate litigation by activist groups. Ironically, as authorities take activists to court for exercising their fundamental right to protest, activist groups have successfully filed lawsuits against governments and companies in over 25 countries for failing to act on climate change.

    DOWNLOAD REPORT
  • Attacks against human rights defenders in Colombia, Guatemala and Honduras

     

    Statement at the 40th Session of the UN Human Rights Council
    Response to country reports from the High Commissioner and Secretary General

    CIVICUS is extremely concerned about attacks against human rights defenders across Colombia, Honduras and Guatemala, of which governments of these counties show little sign of adequately addressing.

    In Colombia, increased violence against human rights defenders took the lives of 110 people in 2018. 20 were members of indigenous or afro-Colombia communities. Delays in implementing the peace agreement has fueled further risk, especially in rural areas which have been most affected by conflict.  We are concerned by the alarming increase in the number of threats and attacks against journalists, and we call on the government of Colombia to accelerate implementation of the peace agreement which would expand civic space.

    In Honduras human rights defenders are routinely attacked, criminalized, harassed and targeted by smear campaigns. We are also deeply concerned by the excessive use of force by law enforcement officials, particularly in contexts of protests. We call on the government of Honduras to adopt a comprehensive, rights-based and gender-responsive policy for the protection of human rights defenders and to reform laws which criminalise them, including the overly-broad law on terrorism.

    In Guatemala, too, the environment for human rights defenders continues to be hostile. Local organisation UDEFEGUA reported that at least 24 human rights defenders were killed in 2018. And since the beginning of 2019, there have been two further murders. Human rights defenders, especially indigenous leaders and land defenders, are subject to judicial harassment and intimidation. CIVICUS is concerned that in the approach to the June 2019 general elections, violence against defenders may increase.

    In all three cases, lack of investigations into crimes against human rights defenders has created a climate of impunity and increased risk. We call on all three governments to conduct investigations into attacks and ensure perpetrators are brought to justice, and to develop effective protection mechanisms and policies so that human rights can be defended without fear of reprisal.

    The CIVICUS Monitor rates the state of civicspace in Colombia as Repressed, Honduras as Repressed, Guatemala as Obstructed
  • Carta colectiva sobre Colombia: La COVID-19 no puede servir de tapadera para atacar a líderes sociales

    El Estado colombiano debe acoger las recomendaciones de la CIDH en materia de líderes sociales incluso durante la pandemia COVID-19

    En su informe reciente, la CIDH destaca de manera crucial  la importancia de reconocer el derecho a defender derechos y el rol fundamental de líderes y lideresas sociales en Colombia, especialmente en el contexto actual de emergencia generalizada

    El informe Personas Defensoras de Derechos Humanos y Líderes Sociales en Colombia, presentado recientemente por la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH), tras su visita en noviembre de 2018 al país, destaca que la labor realizada por estas personas es fundamental para la existencia plena del Estado de Derecho y constituye un pilar indispensable para el fortalecimiento y consolidación de la democracia. Cuando se impide la defensa de los derechos humanos, no sólo se afecta una vida o comunidad particular; las agresiones contra líderes y lideresas sociales afectan la cohesión y continuidad de la organización social a una escala mayor. 

    Los líderes y lideresas sociales cumplen un rol fundamental en el mantenimiento del tejido social en sus comunidades, a menudo bajo condiciones precarias de seguridad. En el actual escenario de la pandemia por COVID-19, las recomendaciones de la CIDH cobran especial relevancia para salvaguardar su trabajo. Cómo aseguró Erlendy Cuero, lideresa social y Vicepresidenta de la Asociación Nacional de Afrocolombianos Desplazados (AFRODES),en la serie de Dejusticia sobre pandemia y desigualdad, #DelMiedoALaAcción, “los homicidios, las amenazas y la persecución han aumentado porque estamos en una situación en la que el acompañamiento para algunos líderes con medidas de protección se ha minimizado y quienes no tienen medidas de seguridad están desprotegidos”. A esto último se suma que los líderes, quienes deben permanecer en su residencia por causa del coronavirus, se enfrentan a un mayor riesgo pues son ubicados con mayor facilidad.

    La vulnerabilidad es más alta para líderes y lideresas en zonas alejadas de los centros urbanos. En este escenario, la adopción de las recomendaciones de la CIDH por parte del Estado colombiano en estas zonas es aún más indispensable. 

    Las recomendaciones claves de la Comisión Interamericana para Colombia incluyen: 

    • “Redoblar sus esfuerzos en la implementación del Acuerdo de Paz para que en todo el territorio estén dadas las condiciones para el ejercicio de la defensa de los derechos y de las comunidades”
    • “Convocar a las organizaciones sociales para la construcción de una política pública integral de prevención y protección de personas defensoras de derechos humanos y líderes sociales, retomando las mesas de diálogo como la Mesa Nacional de Garantías y la Comisión Nacional de Garantías de Seguridad, en la que existían acuerdos pactados previamente”
    • “Implementar debidamente las medidas cautelares otorgadas por la Comisión Interamericana y mantener los esquemas de protección respecto de las personas beneficiarias mientras estén vigentes”
    • “Adoptar todas las medidas necesarias para evitar que las autoridades o terceras personas manipulen el poder punitivo del Estado y sus órganos de justicia con el fin de hostigarles y perjudicar la labor de personas defensoras; y asegurar la aplicación de las debidas sanciones en caso que ocurra”
    • “Continuar adoptando medidas para investigar con debida diligencia y hacer frente a la situación de impunidad respecto de los crímenes cometidos contra personas defensoras de derechos humanos y líderes sociales en el país, determinando autores materiales e intelectuales”
    • “aumentar el nivel de coordinación entre las autoridades a nivel nacional y local para que las medidas de protección sean adecuadas para resguardar los derechos de las personas defensoras y líderes y asegurando su efectividad en zonas rurales alejadas”;  y 
    • “acordar las medidas de protección para enfrentar la situación de riesgo escuchando y consultando con las personas defensoras a fin de concretar una intervención oportuna, especializada y proporcional al riesgo que se pudiera enfrentar y con un enfoque diferencial”. 
    • “fortalecer la coordinación con organismos internacionales de derechos humanos”

    Las organizaciones firmantes hacemos especial énfasis en el reconocimiento por parte de la Comisión Interamericana del derecho a defender derechos humanos y su llamado al cumplimiento de las disposiciones contenidas en el Acuerdo Final de Paz, tal como lo han ordenado los jueces constitucionales en las sentencias de tutela confirmando #ElDerechoADefenderDerechos presentada por diversos líderes y organizaciones sociales del país, a finales de 2019. 

    ARTICLE 19
    Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente (AIDA)
    Asociación Minga
    Amnesty International
    Business & Human Rights Resource Centre 
    CIVICUS
    Colectivo de Abogados José Alvear Restrepo - Cajar
    Comisión Colombiana de Juristas (CCJ)
    Dejusticia 
    Espacio Público
    Front Line Defenders (FLD)
    Fundación Comité de Solidaridad con los Presos Políticos (FCSPP)
    International Land Coalition - LAC (ILC LAC)
    International Service for Human RIghts (ISHR)
    International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA)
    Latin America Working Group (LAWG)
    Not1More (N1M)
    Presbyterian Peace Fellowship
    Red Latinoamericana y del Caribe por la Democracia (REDLAD)
    Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights 
    Unión Nacional de Instituciones para el Trabajo de Acción Social (UNITAS)
    Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA)
  • CIVICUS and Colombian Confederation of NGOs concerned about aggressions and impending restrictions on civil society

    Click here to read a Spanish language version of this release

    CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance, and the Colombian Confederation of NGOs (CCONG) are deeply worried about the growing challenges faced by civil society in Colombia. Several activists have been attacked while potentially restrictive legislation is underway and would curtail civil society organisations’ ability to contribute to the implementation of the peace agreements.
  • CIVICUS stands with indigenous peoples and calls for a new social contract

    Global civil society society alliance, CIVICUS, stands in solidarity with  indigenous peoples in celebrating the International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples on 9 August, which this year is calling for a new social contract that puts the voices, needs and concerns of indigenous peoples at the forefront. 

    Since 1994, the International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples marks an opportunity to celebrate Indigenous Peoples, and provide an opportunity to raise awareness on critical issues relevant to indigenous peoples.

    Across the world, indigenous peoples marginalised and excluded by governments from participating in public affairs. They routinely face evictions from their lands without compensation, and are currently impacted by the harshest consequences of climate change. Moreover, human rights defenders seeking to protect and promote the human rights of indigenous peoples continue to be killed, intimidated, and harassed for defending their indigenous land and natural resources, and for advocating for the rights of indigenous communities.  

    On 20 April 2021, Liliana Pena Chocue was killed by unidentified individuals in Colombia. In February 2021, two other indigenous rights defenders. Yenes Ríos Bonsano and Herasmo García Grau were killed in Peru. All three were members of Indigenous patrol and forest control groups.

    Across the world, indigenous peoples communities have had their lands appropriated for development projects without their consent. These include the Himba community in Namibia, Biafra Indigenous People of Nigeria, Basarwa in Botswana, Benet and Batwa in Uganda, Ogiek and Endorois in Kenya, to name just a few. 

    The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples gives indigenous peoples the right “to maintain, protect and have access to their ancestral lands, religious and cultural sites. 

    CIVICUS stands in solidarity with indigenous communities across the world that continue to experience human rights violations from state and non-state actors. In this regard CIVICUS supports the demands of Sengwer indigenous people of Kenya to regain their ancestral lands at Embobut. CIVICUS stands with Batwa indigenous peoples in the Great Lakes region, the Baka and Bagyelis in Cameroon who remain vulnerable, marginalised, and landless with no compensation following the eviction from their ancestral lands by their governments.

    “In this period of the United Nations 2030 Agenda, focusing on Sustainable Development, and specifically, its pledge of “leave no one behind”, every stakeholder must ensure that indigenous peoples are not left behind in every process of development, including promoting and protecting their rights, if SDGs are to be effectively achieved,” said Paul Mulindwa CIVICUS’ Advocacy and Campaign’s Lead for Africa.

    As we celebrate the International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples, CIVICUS calls on state and non-state actors to 

    1. Carry out independent investigations into the killings of all indigenous rights activists this year and hold the culprits to account. 
    2. Ensure that the rights and identities of indigenous peoples are recognised and respected at all times 
    3. Ensure that the benefits from commercial or development projects done in their ancestral lands are shared with affected communities 
    4. Empower indigenous peoples and their future generations to break the social, legal, political, and economic barriers that have kept their communities from the benefits of development and transformation taking place in Africa
    5. Guarantee effective consultations with Indigenous Peoples to obtain their free, prior and informed consent for decisions that affect them.
    6. Ensure effective participation and inclusion of indigenous peoples in public spheres.
    7. Promote and protect the land rights of indigenous peoples by ensuring clear land tenure systems that promotes communal ownership.
  • Civil Society “Contested and Under Pressure”, says new report

    Read this press release in Arabic, French, Portuguese and Spanish

    Civil society around the globe is “contested and under pressure” according to a 22-country research findings report released by CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance, and The International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL). The report, Contested and Under Pressure: A Snapshot of the Enabling Environment of Civil Society in 22 Countries, brings together insights from Enabling Environment National Assessments (EENA) conducted around the world between 2013 and 2016.
  • COLOMBIA: ‘Citizens are outraged and tired of the policies that have plunged them into poverty’

    CIVICUS speaks with Alexandra González Zapata, coordinator for democracy and social protest at the Solidarity Committee with Political Prisoners Foundation, and a member of the Campaign to Defend Freedom. The Solidarity Committee Foundation is a Colombian civil society organisation that works to defend the rights to life, freedom, physical and moral integrity, decent, fair and impartial treatment and other rights of people deprived of liberty, prosecuted for political crimes and criminalised for participating in social protest. The Solidarity Committee Foundation is a member of the Campaign to Defend Freedom, which focuses on denouncing arbitrary detentions, judicial persecution and the criminalisation of social protest in Colombia. A network made up of social, student, cultural, community and human rights organisations, Defend Freedom works in a coordinated manner to challenge the illegal use of force as a mechanism of persecution against those who, individually or collectively, demand and promote human rights through social mobilisation in Colombia.

    alexandra gonzalez zapata

    What triggered the 2019 protests in Colombia, and why did they escalate?

    Outrage has been building up little by little in Colombia. Even as it was inaugurated in August 2018, President Iván Duque's government did not enjoy wide margins of legitimacy and support. The electoral results showed that a broad segment of the citizenry rejected traditional power and all that it represented: policies in favour of war, privatisation and indebtedness. This discontent increased as the government announced a series of policy measures, including among those who had voted for Duque.

    The government's proposals were aimed at eliminating the state pension fund Colpensiones, raising the retirement age and lowering the salary for young people to 75 per cent of the minimum wage, among other measures. A widespread atmosphere of indignation emerged as a result, yielding a unified call for mobilisation on 21 November 2019.

    What few expected by then was that the mobilisation would continue over the days that followed 21 November. On that day some acts of vandalism were committed, which the national government tried to use as an excuse to criminalise social protest and adopt measures to restrict freedoms, including a curfew. In response to this, citizens went out to demonstrate freely. We really do not know which was the first neighbourhood or the first block to start banging pots and pans on 22 November, but what we do know is that this dynamic expanded throughout the capital city, Bogotá, as well as other cities around Colombia, shifting the narrative that had prevailed on the media, which was all about vandalism, towards a public discourse that highlighted citizen outrage and social demands.

    How have these mobilisations managed to be sustained over time? How are they different from others in Colombia in the past?

    From 2013 onwards, social mobilisation in Colombia has been on the rise. In 2013 there was an agricultural strike that lasted for more than 20 days and managed to keep several major national roads closed. Then came the agricultural strikes of 2015 and 2016, and the so-called ‘mingas for life’, marches and protests of tens of thousands of Indigenous peoples, and the student strikes of 2018 and 2019.

    In other words, we’ve seen numerous massive and sustained mobilisations over the past few years. What is different about the ongoing national protests in comparison to past mobilisations is that they have been characterised by a majority participation of urban citizens and mainly middle-class people. This caused them to be viewed not as the actions of a particular group of people – Indigenous peoples, peasants, or students – but instead as the work of outraged citizens who are tired of the policies that have increasingly plunged them into poverty, even though the country keeps flaunting positive economic growth indicators. Hence its massive and sustained character.

    What do the protesters demand, and what response do they expect from the government?

    The National Strike Committee has submitted a list of petitions around 13 major issues: guarantees for the exercise of the right to social protest; social rights; economic rights; anti-corruption; peace; human rights; the rights of Mother Earth; political rights and guarantees; agricultural and fishery issues; compliance with agreements between government and social organisations; withdrawal of legislation; the repeal of specific laws; and reform of the law-making process.

    On the first item, guarantees for the right to social protest, protesters urge the government to dismantle the Mobile Anti-Riot Squadron (ESMAD) and refrain from establishing any other similar force. They demand that those responsible for the death of Dylan Cruz, an 18-year-old who was shot dead in the head while running unarmed to escape ESMAD in the early days of the protest in Bogotá, be brought to justice and held accountable.

    On the second item, social rights, protesters demand an end to labour subcontracting, the establishment of an interest rate for mortgage loans that is fair and correlated to people’s real incomes and the repeal of the tax that is currently used to finance the electricity company Electricaribe.

    So far the government has shown no willingness to enter into any real dialogue and negotiation; instead, it insists on beginning ‘exploratory dialogues.’ Protesters expect the government to convene a negotiating table as soon as possible to address the substantial issues that have been raised.

    How did the government react to the protests? What human rights violations were committed by the security forces?

    On 15 November 2019, six days before the first protest was scheduled to take place, the national government made the decision to involve the army in control and security operations in Bogotá. Nine Brigade XIII contingents were deployed and more than 350 soldiers took part in monitoring, patrolling and security controls in Bogotá. This militarisation still persists in the city. The presence of a ‘riot squad’ of the national army, according to information released by the authorities, is particularly concerning. It should be noted that, except in exceptional circumstances, military forces should not intervene in operations to control, contain or even guarantee the celebration of social mobilisations.

    In addition, as confirmed by the authorities, starting at 6am on 19 November, 37 raids were carried out in the residences and workplaces of media professionals throughout Colombia. To date, 21 of those raids have been declared illegal after undergoing judicial scrutiny, because they did not comply with legally established requirements, including being based on reasonable suspicion. According to information provided by the authorities, the raids involved people who were thought to be prone to committing acts of vandalism during the protest. However, it was mainly people linked to artistic groups, alternative media and social movements. Among the items seized were posters, brushes and paintings.

    Also on 19 November, the Ministry of the Interior issued Decree 2087/2019, establishing new measures for the maintenance of public order. Article 3 made “a very special call to district and municipal mayors, so that in their duty to preserve public order in their respective territories, they comply [with the provisions of the Law] in matters of public order.” This call prompted the authorities of at least eight cities – Bogotá, Buenaventura, Cali, Candelaria, Chía, Facatativá, Jamundí and Popayán – to declare curfews. These affected the exercise of the rights to free movement and social protest for all citizens, even though acts affecting public order had been extremely localised.

    Throughout the protests, the authorities made an improper and disproportionate use of force. Although Resolution 1190/2018 states that “the use of force must be considered the last resort of intervention by the National Police,” in most cases ESMAD has intervened without any apparent reason to do so. On 22 November it intervened in Plaza de Bolívar, where more than 5,000 people had assembled, although the demonstration was completely peaceful. On 23 November, Dylan Cruz was killed as a result of an unjustified intervention by ESMAD during a peaceful mobilisation. Although the weapon uses was among those authorised, the ammunition fired by ESMAD caused the death of this young man because of improper use, since according to international standards this type of weapon can only be fired at a distance greater than 60 metres, and only against lower extremities; otherwise, it is deemed to entail lethal risk. Strikingly, on a video recorded live by the Defend Freedom Campaign, an ESMAD agent can be heard encouraging another one to shoot, saying: “Shoot anyone, just anyone, come on daddy.”

    During the protests more than 300 people were injured, including 12 who had eye injuries. Some young people were injured by firearms shot by the police, including Duvan Villegas, who might remain paralysed as a result of a bullet hitting him in the back. Another young man lost his right eye in Bogotá after being hit by a rubber bullet fired by the ESMAD, and two other people could face the loss of their legs due to the impact of teargas canisters thrown by the police from close range.

    Overall, there were 1,514 arrests during the protests, 1,109 of them in Bogotá. Out of 914 people who were arrested, 103 (6.8 per cent) were prosecuted for allegedly being caught in the act of committing violence against a public official; however, arrest procedures were declared illegal in a high number of cases, both because there were not enough grounds for conducting them and because they were accompanied by physical violence against detainees.

    The rest of the people who were detained (93.2 per cent) were transferred for protection or by police procedure. According to the law, detention in these cases is justified when the life or integrity of the person or a third party is at risk or danger. However, in practice an abusive use of this power was made, since these were mostly administrative detentions, used as a mechanism of intimidation and punishment against citizens who were exercising their right to protest. Therefore, these were mostly arbitrary detentions.

    In some of these cases, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment was documented during detention, particularly in Immediate Attention Commands or police stations. Cases came to our attention of people who were forced to undress, others who received electric shocks through electrical control devices and some who had broken bones in their hands as a result of baton charges or being kicked.

    Additionally, in Bogotá, more than 620 people who were transferred to the Protection Transfer Centre were punished with police appearance orders, in many cases for the crime of disruption, for having obstructed transport. This mechanism, which results in fines amounting to around 200,000 Colombian pesos (approx. US$60), was used indiscriminately and has affected the exercise of social protest.

    How has civil society organised in the face of these abuses?

    In 2012, the Defend Freedom Campaign was established. Through its Verification and Intervention Commissions, recognised in Resolution 1190 of 2018, the campaign does on-site monitoring of social mobilisation, documents cases of arbitrary and excessive use of force by police authorities, arbitrary detention and transfer for protection and various forms of repression and abusive use of police power against protesters and human rights defenders, and it systematises the information collected. The campaign also promotes the creation of a National Network of Civil Society Commissions for Verification and Intervention in situations of social mobilisation.

    Likewise, through a joint demand, the National Process of Guarantees, the Agrarian, Peasant, Ethnic and Popular Summit and the Defend Freedom Campaign have obtained verifiable commitments from the national government and the government of Bogotá to establish public policies aimed at enforcing respect for the freedoms of individuals, communities and social organisations that promote and defend rights. The most important of these were Decree 563/2015 (Protocol of Action for Social Mobilisations in Bogotá: For the Right to Mobilisation and Peaceful Protest) issued by the Office of Bogotá’s Mayor and Resolution 1190/2018 (Protocol for the coordination of actions to respect and guarantee peaceful protest) issued by the Ministry of the Interior.

    What immediate measures should the Colombian government adopt in response to the protests?

    First, the government should convene the monitoring mechanism (‘Mesa de Seguimiento’) to respect and guarantee peaceful protest, as a space for negotiation and dialogue that should define mechanisms to guarantee the right to protest, as envisaged in Resolution 1190. Likewise, the government should immediately suspend the use of 12-calibre shotguns by ESMAD members, due to their high impact on people’s physical integrity and life. Second, it should refrain from pursuing stigmatisation and criminalisation campaigns against those who engage in social protest. Third, the government should initiate a negotiation process with the National Strike Committee to address its demands. And in response to the substantive demands made by the National Strike Committee, the government should start by withdrawing its proposals for labour and pension reform that are due for congressional debate, and initiate a broad and participatory process towards the formulation of new laws concerning those issues.

    Do you think the response of the international community has been adequate? How could international groups and organisations support Colombian civil society and contribute to safeguarding civic space in the country?

    I believe that the international community and the United Nations system were able to issue a timely warning regarding the risks of repression of social protest. The call made by human rights organisations in the USA to urge their government to start a moratorium on the sale of US riot weapons to Colombia was also timely.

    However, it would also be important for Colombian civil society to receive longer-term support to undertake medium-term strategies that allow for a deeper and more detailed follow-up of the human rights situation, and particularly to help make progress in judicial investigations for the human rights violations allegedly committed during the protests.

    Civic space in Colombia is rated as ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
    Get in touch with the Solidarity Committee Foundation through itswebsite andFacebook page, or follow@CSPP_ on Twitter.
    Get in touch with the Defend Freedom Campaign through itswebsite andFacebook page, or

     
  • COLOMBIA: ‘Civil society is an important pillar in work with the migrant population’

    CarmenAidaFariaCIVICUS speaks with Carmen Aida Faria, director of Fundación Manitas Amarillas (Little Yellow Hands Foundation), about the difficulties faced by Venezuelan migrants in Colombia and the work being done by civil society to facilitate their access to rights.

    Manitas Amarillas is a Colombian civil society organisation (CSO) formed in 2018, in the context of mass Venezuelan migration to Colombia, to provide humanitarian assistance, access to health services and counselling to migrants and refugees.

    How has the situation of Venezuelan migrants in Colombia changed in recent years?

    Migration flows into Colombia have changed over time. The 2015 wave of Venezuelan migration was very important, but the number of migrants increased over the following years, peaking in 2017. Compared to the previous wave, this one included a lot more people in vulnerable situation.

    The new arrivals needed immediate healthcare and access to other fundamental rights that the system could not provide. Colombia did not have the infrastructure or the financial resources to respond, particularly in border areas, where local populations also experience deficits in access to education and healthcare, among other rights.

    Migrants in vulnerable situations were also unable to receive monetary aid through the Colombian government’s social assistance programmes or enter the subsidised health system. To access social programmes, people must have a regular migration status.

    In addition to a permanent migrant population, there is also the population in border areas that constantly crosses the border back and forth to access certain services. For instance, many children who live in Venezuela go to school in Colombia and are not included in school food programmes. There are organisations working specifically to ensure these children have access to food, as they arrive with significant nutritional problems.

    These processes created a demand for the community, but above all for the Colombian state, to respond to. And the country began to operate under a logic of solidarity and gratitude: Colombians remember that in the past it was Venezuela that received Colombian migrants. Thus, the government began to grant special residence permits to regularise this population in some way. But the definite milestone was the Temporary Statute of Protection for Venezuelan Migrants (ETPMV), approved in 2021 under an essentially humanitarian logic.

    What did the implementation of this new policy entail?

    The ETPMV implied temporary regularisation so that Venezuelans could benefit from the same rights and have the same duties as Colombian nationals. Upon receiving an identity document called a Temporary Protection Permit, migrants have the possibility of accessing the health system and the labour market, among other rights.

    Theoretically, the mechanism is well thought out. However, putting it into practice has been hard. Many people have been left out: more than 2.4 million migrants have registered in the Single Registry for Venezuelan Migrants, but there are still more than a million who, having completed the full process, have not received their permit.

    Some people applied for the permit in September 2021, more than a year ago, and have consulted Migración Colombia, the authority for migration control and monitoring, but still do not know what has happened to their application. Some have not received their permits due to logistical problems: this is a highly mobile population and when they change addresses it is often not possible to locate them to deliver the documentation.

    But it is also the case that difficulties continue once the permit has been obtained. This is an indication of deeper problems. When Venezuelans go with their permit to open a bank account or register with the health system, they are often rejected. The Temporary Protection Permit is a new document and many institutions, both public and private, are not yet familiar with it. A lot of education is needed to make these rights effectively accessible.

    The ETPMV was supposed to prioritise the most vulnerable population groups. The first to receive their permits were supposed to be people in need of immediate medical attention and children and adolescents who needed them to enter the education system due to lack of identity papers. This ultimately did not happen, to such an extent that legal appeals have had to be filed to ensure access to healthcare for people with chronic illnesses or other conditions in need of immediate attention.

    How is Colombian civil society supporting Venezuelan migrants?

    Since the last big wave of migration in 2017, many CSOs have emerged. It was the migrant community itself that first began to get together to help other migrants. We started giving food out on the street and providing humanitarian assistance to walkers, as we call the people moving on foot through Colombian territory, who did not have basic information or even warm enough clothing to withstand Colombia’s climate.

    CSOs have become an important pillar in work with the migrant population, because we are on the ground and we know the problems migrants have.

    Currently, many CSOs are working together in coordination with the Mayor’s Office of Bogotá and promoting several joint initiatives. We have launched public campaigns and signed a symbolic pact to promote integration, because Venezuelan migrants in Colombia continue to suffer from xenophobia and discrimination as a result of their poverty. We have asked the media to stop mentioning the nationality of crime perpetrators, because they only do so when the person involved is a foreigner, thus overstating the problem and contributing to discrimination against Venezuelans.

    We are also participating, in collaboration with the Colombian government and international cooperation agencies, in the first ‘Entregatón’, a massive permit delivery operation aimed at distributing 40,000 permits in five days. Migración Colombia has sent messages via mobile phone to migrants whose documents are ready, notifying them of the date and place where they can pick them up.

    But in addition to handing out the documents, as part of the operation, enrolment and biometric registration services are being provided for those who have not yet completed these stages of the process. People who have already received their permits are also offered vaccination services, access to healthcare providers, registration with the social assistance system, legal support and information on various other issues, from the transportation system to school access to programmes targeted at migrant women.

    There is so much work and CSOs are contributing enormously. The government and international cooperation agencies should take us into account not only as sources of diagnoses of migration issues, but also as partners when it comes to jointly implementing public policies arising from those diagnoses.

    Civic space in Colombia is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

    Get in touch with Manitas Amarillas through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@MANITASAMARI on Twitter.
  • COLOMBIA: ‘La ciudadanía está indignada y cansada de las políticas que la han sumido en la pobreza’

    CIVICUS conversa con Alexandra González Zapata, coordinadora del área de democracia y protesta social de la Fundación Comité de Solidaridad con los Presos Políticos e integrante de la Campaña Defender la Libertad: Asunto de Todas. La Fundación Comité de Solidaridad es una organización de la sociedad civil colombiana que trabaja en la defensa de los derechos a la vida, la libertad, la integridad física y moral, el trato digno, justo e imparcial y demás derechos de las personas privadas de la libertad, procesadas por delitos políticos y judicializadas por participar en la protesta social. La Fundación Comité de Solidaridad es parte de la Campaña Defender la Libertad, que trabaja para denunciar las detenciones arbitrarias, la persecución judicial y la criminalización de la protesta social en Colombia. Integrada por organizaciones sociales, estudiantiles, culturales, comunales y de derechos humanos, Defender la Libertad trabaja en forma coordinada para enfrentar el uso ilegal de la fuerza como mecanismo de persecución contra las personas que, individual o colectivamente, reclaman y promueven derechos humanos en Colombia a través de la movilización social.

    alexandra gonzalez zapata

    ¿Por qué estalló y escaló la movilización en Colombia en 2019?

    En Colombia existe una indignación que ha venido creciendo poco a poco. El gobierno del presidente Iván Duque, iniciado en agosto de 2018, no comenzó con un amplio margen de legitimidad y apoyo. Los resultados electorales demostraron que un segmento amplio de la ciudadanía rechazaba el poder tradicional y lo que éste representaba: políticas favorables a la guerra, la privatización y el endeudamiento. Este descontento aumentó ante algunas medidas anunciadas por el gobierno, alcanzando incluso a muchos que lo habían votado.

    Las propuestas del gobierno apuntaban a eliminar el fondo estatal de pensiones Colpensiones, a aumentar la edad de jubilación y a reducir el salario para los jóvenes hasta ubicarlo en el 75% del salario mínimo, entre otras medidas. En reacción se generó un ambiente generalizado de indignación, que se tradujo en una convocatoria unificada a una movilización el 21 de noviembre de 2019.

    Lo que pocos esperaban es que la movilización continuara en los días posteriores al 21 de noviembre. Ese día se produjeron hechos de vandalismo, que el gobierno nacional quiso utilizar para deslegitimar la protesta social, adoptando medidas restrictivas de la libertad que incluyeron un toque de queda. En respuesta a ello, la ciudadanía salió a manifestarse libremente. Al día de hoy no sabemos cuál fue el primer barrio o la primera cuadra que inició el cacerolazo del 22 de noviembre, pero lo cierto es que esa dinámica se expandió por toda Bogotá, la ciudad capital, y otras ciudades del país, transformando la narrativa que se había instalado en los medios acerca del vandalismo y posicionando en cambio un discurso público que puso de relieve la indignación ciudadana y los reclamos sociales.

    ¿Cómo lograron estas movilizaciones sostenerse en el tiempo? ¿En qué se diferencian de otras que hubo en Colombia en el pasado?

    Desde el año 2013 en adelante, la movilización social en Colombia ha venido en aumento. En ese año hubo un paro agrario que se extendió por más de 20 días y mantuvo cerradas varias carreteras principales del país. Luego vinieron los paros agrarios de 2015 y 2016, y las “mingas por la vida”, marchas y protestas de decenas de miles de indígenas, y el paro estudiantil de 2018 y 2019.

    Es decir, en los últimos años hemos tenido numerosas movilizaciones masivas y sostenidas. Lo que el actual paro nacional tiene de diferente en relación con las movilizaciones pasadas es la participación mayoritaria de la población que vive en las ciudades, principalmente de clase media. Esto motivó que no el paro fuera visto no como resultado del accionar de un grupo específico- indígenas, campesinos o estudiantes - sino en cambio como obra de una ciudadanía indignada y cansada de las políticas que poco a poco la han sumido en la pobreza, a pesar de que el país exhibe indicadores de crecimiento económico positivos. De ahí su carácter masivo y sostenido.

    ¿Qué reclaman los manifestantes, y qué respuesta esperan del gobierno?

    El Comité de Paro Nacional ha presentado un pliego de peticiones divididas en 13 grandes temas: garantías para el ejercicio del derecho a la protesta social; derechos sociales; derechos económicos; anticorrupción; paz; derechos humanos; derechos de la Madre Tierra; derechos políticos y garantías; temas agrarios, agropecuarios y pesqueros; cumplimiento de acuerdos entre gobierno y organizaciones; retiro de proyectos de ley; derogación de normas; y construcción normativa.

    En el primer punto, relativo a las garantías para el derecho de la protesta social, el reclamo es que se desmonte el Escuadrón Móvil Antidisturbios (ESMAD) y que no se creen otros cuerpos similares. También se solicita el juicio y castigo a los responsables del fallecimiento de Dylan Cruz, el joven de 18 años que fue asesinado de un tiro en la cabeza cuando corría desarmado para escapar del ESMAD en los primeros días de la protesta en Bogotá.

    En el segundo punto, sobre derechos sociales, se solicita el fin de la tercerización laboral, la definición de una tasa de interés para los créditos de vivienda que sea justa y acorde a los ingresos reales de las personas, y a derogación del impuesto que se usa para financiar a la compañía de electricidad Electricaribe.

    Hasta el momento no ha habido voluntad de diálogo y negociación por parte del gobierno, que en cambio insiste en hacer “diálogos exploratorios”. Se espera que el gobierno convoque a la mayor brevedad a una mesa de negociación para abordar en profundidad los puntos planteados.

    ¿Cómo reaccionó el gobierno ante las protestas? ¿Se observaron violaciones de derechos humanos por parte de las fuerzas de seguridad?

    El 15 de noviembre de 2019, seis días antes de que iniciara la jornada de paro, el gobierno nacional tomó la decisión de involucrar al Ejército en los operativos de control y seguridad en la capital del país. Se desplegaron nueve contingentes de la Brigada XIII y más de 350 soldados intervinieron en acciones de monitoreo, patrullaje y controles de seguridad en Bogotá. Esta militarización persiste en la ciudad y preocupa de manera fundamental la acción de un “pelotón antidisturbios” del Ejército Nacional, según información difundida por las autoridades. Es importante recordar que, salvo en circunstancias excepcionales, las fuerzas militares no deberían intervenir en operativos de control, contención o garantía de la realización de las movilizaciones sociales.

    Además, según lo confirmaron las autoridades, desde las 6 de la mañana del día 19 de noviembre se llevaron a cabo 37 allanamientos a residencias y lugares de trabajo de profesionales de los medios de comunicación en todo el país. Hasta la fecha, 21 de ellos han sido declarados ilegales luego de su control judicial, debido a que no cumplieron con los requisitos legalmente establecidos, entre ellos una inferencia razonable que los legitimara. Según la información suministrada por las autoridades, los allanamientos involucraban a personas que se estimaba que podrían cometer actos de vandalismo en la protesta. Sin embargo, se trató principalmente de personas vinculadas a colectivos artísticos, medios de comunicación alternativos y personas pertenecientes a los movimientos sociales. Entre los elementos incautados se contaban afiches, pinceles y pinturas.

    El mismo 19 de noviembre el Ministerio del Interior expidió el Decreto 2087/2019, que establecía medidas para el mantenimiento del orden público. Su artículo 3 hizo “un llamado muy especial a los alcaldes distritales y municipales, para que, en su deber de conservar el orden público en sus respectivos territorios, den cumplimiento [a lo establecido en la Ley] en materia de orden público”. Este llamado sentó las condiciones para que las autoridades de por lo menos ocho ciudades - Bogotá, Buenaventura, Cali, Candelaria, Chía, Facatativá, Jamundí y Popayán - decretaran toques de queda. Estos afectaron el ejercicio de los derechos a la libre circulación y a la protesta social de toda la ciudadanía, aunque los hechos de alteración del orden público fueron muy focalizados.

    Durante las protestas, las autoridades hicieron un uso indebido y desproporcionado de la fuerza. Si bien la Resolución 1190 de 2018 establece “el uso de la fuerza debe ser considerado el último recurso de la intervención de la Policía Nacional”, en la mayoría de los casos el ESMAD ha intervenido sin que hubiera una razón evidente para ello. El 22 de noviembre intervino en la Plaza de Bolívar, donde había más de 5.000 personas, pese a que la concentración era totalmente pacífica. El 23 de noviembre, como resultado de la intervención injustificada del ESMAD en una movilización pacífica fue asesinado Dylan Cruz. Aunque se encontraba entre las armas permitidas, la munición disparada por el ESMAD ocasionó la muerte del joven a causa de su uso indebido, ya que según normas internacionales este tipo de armas solo pueden utilizarse a una distancia mayor a los 60 metros y sólo contra las extremidades inferiores; caso contrario, pasan a conllevar un riesgo letal. Llama la atención que en un video grabado en vivo por la Campaña Defender la Libertad se escucha a un agente del ESMAD alentando a otro a disparar: “Al que sea, al que sea, dele papi dele”.

    Durante el período de las protestas se registraron más de 300 heridos, entre ellos 12 con lesiones oculares. Algunos jóvenes fueron heridos con arma de fuego por parte de la policía, como fue el caso de Duvan Villegas, quien podría quedar parapléjico por un impacto de bala en la espalda. Otro joven perdió su ojo derecho en Bogotá producto de una bala de goma del ESMAD, y otras dos personas tienen su pierna en riesgo por impacto de un gas lacrimógeno lanzado por el cuerpo policial a poca distancia.

    En total, se produjeron en el país 1.514 detenciones, 1.109 de ellas en Bogotá. De las 914 personas detenidas, 103 (6,8%) fueron judicializadas por haber sido capturadas en supuesta flagrancia en el delito de violencia contra servidor público; sin embargo, el procedimiento de captura fue decretado ilegal en un alto de casos, tanto por no haber elementos que lo justificaran como por ir acompañado de agresiones físicas contra los detenidos.

    El resto de las personas detenidas (93,2%) fueron trasladas por protección o por procedimiento policivo. Según la ley, la detención en estos casos se justifica si la vida o integridad de una persona o de terceros esté en riesgo o peligro. Sin embargo, en la práctica se hizo un uso abusivo de esta facultad, ya que se trató de detenciones administrativas, utilizadas como mecanismo de amedrentamiento y castigo a la ciudadanía que ejercía su derecho a la protesta. En ese sentido, se trató en la mayoría de los casos de detenciones arbitrarias.

    En algunos de estos casos se documentaron tratos crueles, inhumanos o degradantes durante la detención, particularmente en Comandos de Atención Inmediata o estaciones de policía. Hemos tenido conocimiento de personas que fueron obligadas a desnudarse, otras recibieron descargas eléctricas a través de dispositivos de control eléctrico y algunas experimentaron fracturas en sus manos como resultado de bastonazos o patadas.

    Adicionalmente, en Bogotá, más de 620 personas trasladas al Centro de Traslado por Protección fueron sancionadas con un comparendo policial, en muchos casos por alteración a la convivencia, por haber efectuado obstrucción al transporte. Este mecanismo de multa, que ronda los 200.000 pesos colombianos (unos 60 dólares estadounidenses), es usado de manera indiscriminada y afecta el ejercicio de la protesta social.

    ¿Cómo se ha organizado la sociedad civil frente a estos abusos?

    En el año 2012 se creó la Campaña Defender la Libertad. A través de sus Comisiones de Verificación e Intervención, reconocidas en la Resolución 1190 de 2018, la campaña hace acompañamiento in situ de la movilización social, documenta casos de uso arbitrario y excesivo de la fuerza por parte de las autoridades policiales, retención y traslado por protección de manera arbitraria, y diversas modalidades de represión y uso abusivo del poder policial contra manifestantes y personas defensoras de derechos humanos, y sistematiza la información recogida. La campaña también promueve la conformación de una Red Nacional de Comisiones de Verificación e Intervención de la Sociedad Civil en escenarios de movilización social.

    Asimismo, a través de un ejercicio de exigibilidad realizado conjuntamente, el Proceso Nacional de Garantías, la Cumbre Agraria, Campesina, Étnica y Popular, y la Campaña Defender la Libertad han obtenido compromisos verificables de las autoridades capitalinas y nacionales de establecer políticas públicas para el respeto de las libertades de las personas, comunidades y organizaciones sociales que exigen y defienden derechos. Los más importantes de ellos son el Decreto 563/2015 (“Protocolo de Actuación para Las Movilizaciones Sociales en Bogotá: Por El Derecho a la Movilización y la Protesta Pacífica”) promulgado por la Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá; y la Resolución 1190/2018 (“Protocolo para la coordinación de las acciones de respeto y garantía a la protesta pacífica”), promulgada por el Ministerio del Interior.

    ¿Qué medidas inmediatas debería adoptar el gobierno de Colombia en respuesta a las movilizaciones?

    Lo mínimo que debería hacer el gobierno es, primero, convocar a la Mesa de Seguimiento al respeto y garantía de la protesta pacífica, como espacio de articulación y diálogo para definir mecanismos que garanticen el derecho a la protesta, como lo contempla la Resolución 1190. Asimismo, debería suspender de inmediato el uso de la escopeta calibre 12 por parte de los miembros del ESMAD, por su alto impacto en la integridad y vida de las personas. Segundo, debería abstenerse de continuar con las campañas de estigmatización y criminalización de la protesta social. Tercero, el gobierno debería iniciar un proceso de negociación con el Comité Nacional del Paro para abordar las demandas señaladas. Y en respuesta a las demandas sustantivas del Comité Nacional del Paro, debería empezar por frenar las propuestas de reforma laboral y pensional que se van a tramitar en el Congreso, e iniciar un proceso amplio y participativo para la definición de nuevas leyes sobre esos temas.

    ¿Piensas que la respuesta de la comunidad internacional ha sido adecuada? ¿Cómo podría en lo sucesivo apoyar a la sociedad civil colombiana y contribuir a salvaguardar el espacio cívico en el país?

    Creo que hubo de parte de la comunidad internacional y del sistema de Naciones Unidas una alerta oportuna frente a los riesgos que presentaba la represión de la protesta social. El llamado que hicieron organizaciones de derechos humanos en Estados Unidos para pedirle al gobierno de ese país una moratoria de la venta de armas antidisturbios estadounidenses a Colombia también fue oportuno.

    Sin embargo, también sería importante que la sociedad civil colombiana recibiera apoyo de más largo aliento para emprender estrategias de mediano plazo que permitan hacer un seguimiento más profundo y detallado a la situación de derechos humanos, y particularmente para contribuir a que haya avances judiciales en las investigaciones por presuntas violaciones a los derechos humanos ocurridas durante las protestas.

    El espacio cívico en Colombia es clasificado como ‘represivo’ por elCIVICUS Monitor.
    Contáctese con la Fundación Comité de Solidaridad a través de susitio web y su perfil deFacebook, o siga a@CSPP_ en Twitter.
    Contáctese con la campaña Defender la Libertad a través de susitio web y su perfil deFacebook, o siga a@DefenderLiberta en Twitter.
  • COLOMBIA: ‘La protección del medio ambiente es inseparable del éxito del proceso de paz’

    Al cabo de un año signado por la movilización masiva en torno de la emergencia climática, CIVICUS está entrevistando a activistas, líderes y expertos de la sociedad civil acerca de los principales desafíos ambientales que enfrentan en sus respectivos contextos y las acciones que han emprendido para hacerles frente. CIVICUS conversa con un joven estudiante colombiano, activo en el movimiento climático, que por razones de seguridad prefirió mantener el anonimato. Además de movilizarse en el marco de movimiento #FridaysForFuture, el entrevistado forma parte de Hijos del Postconflicto, un colectivo creado recientemente para visibilizar las experiencias de la gente en los territorios y defender el proceso de paz en Colombia. En la convergencia entre diversas luchas, el entrevistado enfatiza la defensa del proceso de paz como clave para preservar el medio ambiente y la biodiversidad en Colombia.

    colombia protests

    ¿Cuál es, desde tu perspectiva, el problema ambiental más urgente en Colombia?

    El problema ambiental más urgente es la deforestación. Las tasas de deforestación en Colombia son altísimas, y la situación no ha mejorado desde la firma de los acuerdos de paz. Eso se debe a que, en tiempos de conflicto armado, las guerrillas colombianas, principalmente las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), tenían dominio de gran parte del territorio selvático de Colombia. Por supuesto que nadie se metía en ese territorio: no llegaban las multinacionales ni las petroleras; tampoco llegaba la ganadería. Con la firma de los acuerdos de paz y la retirada de las guerrillas se acentuó el problema que ha tenido Colombia desde la década del ’50: la distribución de las tierras.

    Colombia tiene una distribución de la tierra extremadamente regresiva; la propiedad está concentrada en muy pocas manos. Con la retirada de la guerrilla y la llegada de las multinacionales el acaparamiento de tierras se ha acentuado. Muchas tierras son apropiadas, deforestadas y utilizadas para la cría de ganado, y la población local continúa siendo desplazada.

    Al mismo tiempo sigue habiendo grupos armados al margen de la ley que continúan activos, sobre todo grupos paramilitares de extrema derecha, aunque también queda la guerrilla, más pequeña, del Ejército de Liberación Nacional (ELN) y algunas disidencias de las FARC que decidieron no acoplarse al proceso de paz. Estos grupos armados están disputando el territorio para hacerse del dominio de los cultivos de coca y expandirlos, provocando mayor deforestación.

    En consecuencia, tanto la continuidad del conflicto en algunos territorios como su finalización en otros influyen directamente sobre la deforestación. El proceso de paz contiene una serie de mecanismos para contrarrestar la deforestación, pero sus efectos dependerán de que efectivamente se lo implemente. En ese sentido, la protección del medio ambiente es inseparable del éxito del proceso de paz.

    ¿Qué mecanismos contemplados en los acuerdos de paz permitirían detener la deforestación?

    Los acuerdos de paz incluyen dos puntos específicos para frenar la deforestación. El primero es la reforma rural integral, que pretende distribuir el campo colombiano y respetar los usos asignados al suelo – por ejemplo, que si es para uso agrícola, no sea utilizado para ganadería. El segundo punto es el Programa de Sustitución de Cultivos de Uso Ilícito, que apunta a resolver el problema de las drogas. Es importante entender que muchas familias campesinas pobres se han visto obligadas a cultivar coca para sobrevivir; a través de este programa el Estado les ofrece incentivos económicos para que hagan una transición hacia otros cultivos sustentables. 

    ¿De qué modo colabora el activismo juvenil con la efectiva implementación de los acuerdos de paz?

    La lucha por la paz se da en todos los frentes. Nosotros hacemos tres cosas: nos movilizamos en las calles en defensa del proceso de paz; hacemos pedagogía para que la gente entienda porqué el proceso de paz es tan importante; y trabajamos en distintos espacios haciendo incidencia política.

    El contexto para este trabajo es bastante difícil. Ni bien asumió el poder, el presidente Iván Duque objetó el proceso de paz e intentó modificar todos los aspectos con los que no estaba de acuerdo o que según él no eran justos, lo cual en definitiva supondría desactivar el proceso que resultó de los acuerdos y volver a comenzar desde cero. Esto no fue una sorpresa: toda su campaña giró en torno del proceso de paz y se basó en la difusión de mentiras acerca del proceso de paz. Ganó las elecciones manipulando el temor de la gente, a la que le aseguró que los acuerdos consagraban la impunidad. Trató de asustarnos diciéndonos que si ganaba la izquierda nos íbamos a convertir en una segunda Venezuela. También mintió en relación con sus planes para las industrias extractivas: llegó a asegurar que no se autorizaría la exploración y explotación petroleras por medio de fracking, pero a fines de diciembre de 2019 hizo púbico un proyecto de decreto para habilitar el fracking.

    En tanto que activista por la paz y el medio ambiente en Colombia ¿has tenido alguna participación en el movimiento global por la justicia climática?

    Sí, con un pequeño grupo nos sumamos a la iniciativa Fridays for Future. Nuestra participación se limitó a una serie de acciones y plantones para dar inicio al movimiento climático en el país.

    Nos ha sido bastante difícil generar movilización en torno de la crisis climática global. Ante todo, hay mucha ignorancia. En Colombia la mayoría de las personas no tiene idea de lo que les están haciendo; de hecho, el actual presidente se aprovechó de ello para difundir mentiras, hacer una campaña de desinformación y ganar las elecciones. En un país donde la educación pública es muy mala y solamente la gente rica puede estudiar es muy fácil mentir y que te crean. Entonces, el primer problema es la ignorancia. A eso se suma el miedo: en Colombia a la gente le da miedo hablar, organizarse y manifestarse. Los colombianos vivimos una increíble zozobra debido a los asesinatos sistemáticos de líderes sociales y ambientales. Colombia es uno de los países más peligrosos del mundo para las personas defensoras de derechos humanos en general, y para los líderes ambientalistas en particular.

    Todo esto ha limitado la movilización por el clima. Hubo algunas acciones sueltas, pero no una gran marcha nacional de alto impacto. Por eso nos sorprendió que se produjera una movilización escolar masiva en el sur del país, en el departamento del Huila, donde menos esperábamos una movilización debido a las dinámicas complejas de seguridad que se viven en esos territorios. Logramos ponernos en contacto con los jóvenes que se movilizaron en Huila y juntos participamos de un encuentro nacional que realizamos en el departamento del Caquetá, también conocido como la puerta de oro de la Amazonía colombiana. Allí logramos articular el trabajo con las comunidades que viven en territorio amazónico y hasta el momento seguimos en el proceso para elevar las consignas amazónicas e iniciar una resistencia en defensa de nuestra selva.

    Actualmente estamos empezando a sumarnos todos los colectivos ambientales en un mismo frente climático. Esperamos que esto inspire a los que tienen miedo para que también se sumen.

    ¿Han tenido alguna participación en foros internacionales sobre el clima?

    Hemos estado en un encuentro latinoamericano de Fridays for Future que se hizo en Chile con el apoyo de 350.org. Fue un encuentro de defensores del clima para generar lazos latinoamericanos e impulsar el movimiento a nivel regional. Nos ayudó bastante encontrar jóvenes de otras partes de la región que también estaban movilizándose, ver que podíamos unirnos y sentir que teníamos apoyos internacionales para hacer nuestro trabajo. Esto nos dio algo de esperanza.

    Fue después de esa reunión que empezamos a tratar de formar una red ambientalista nacional, viajando a la mayor cantidad de territorios y sumando a jóvenes de otras regiones del país. Todavía nos falta mucho por construir, pero estamos creciendo exponencialmente, porque cuando sumamos a un colectivo, ese mismo colectivo tiene llegada a otros tres o otros cuatro colectivos más. Todo el año 2019 nos hemos centrado en este proceso, recorriendo territorios, comunicando nuestro mensaje a la gente y haciendo lazos. Creemos que la próxima vez tal vez sí podamos movilizarnos a nivel nacional. Lo haremos el 24 de abril de 2020, cuando se realice la próxima huelga global.

    ¿Qué clase de apoyos necesitarían para poder hacer en 2020 la movilización que no pudieron hacer en 2019?

    Nuestra oportunidad en este momento es el paro nacional, la serie de manifestaciones que se han desarrollado en varias ciudades colombianas a partir de noviembre de 2019. En un país donde a la gente le da miedo hablar, el 21 de noviembre del año pasado salieron a la calle millones de personas, en una de las movilizaciones más grandes que ha tenido Colombia en los últimos 40 años. Esta es una oportunidad única. En el marco de estas protestas, el movimiento ambientalista también ha puesto sus propuestas y demandas. Tal vez no podamos movilizar a la gente específicamente por el clima, pero podemos aprovechar estas movilizaciones masivas y sumar nuestros temas. Si hay gente dispuesta a movilizarse, podemos acercarnos para contarles lo que está pasando en relación con el medio ambiente y comunicarles nuestras demandas para que vean que también les conciernen y se movilicen por ellas. Así es como logramos que el comité de paro incluyera entre sus demandas la declaración de la emergencia climática en Colombia. Este ha sido un avance muy grande.

    El espacio cívico en Colombia es clasificado como ‘represivo’ por elCIVICUS Monitor.
    Contáctese conFridays for Future a través de susitio web y con la campaña en Colombia poremail o a través de su perfil deFacebook, y siga a@FutureColombia en Twitter.
  • COLOMBIA: ‘Lack of regular migration status imposes barriers to accessing rights’

    Jessica Corredor Villamil and Lina ArroyaveCIVICUS speaks with Jessica Corredor Villamil and Lina Arroyave about the situation of Venezuelan migrants and refugees in Colombia. Jessica is the director of and Lina a researcher in Dejusticia’s international team.

    Dejusticia is a centre for legal and social studies based in Bogotá, Colombia, dedicated to promoting human rights in Colombia and the global south. It promotes social change through action-research, developing public policy proposals, advocacy campaigns and strategic litigation.

    How has Colombia changed its legal framework to accommodate Venezuelan migration?

    There are currently three ways in which Venezuelan nationals can obtain the status that allows them to stay in Colombia for extended periods: visas, refugee status and the Temporary Protection Status for Venezuelan Migrants (ETPMV).

    The ETPMV was established in 2021 to address the situation of mass migration from Venezuela. It has two main objectives: to identify the Venezuelan migrant population and regularise their migratory situation. To this end, two mechanisms are envisaged. The first is the Single Registry of Venezuelan Migrants, which collects personal and socio-economic data of those who register, administered by Migración Colombia, the authority in charge of migration control and surveillance. The second is the Temporary Protection Permit, which authorises its holders to stay in Colombia for 10 years and allows them to access the health, social security, education and financial systems, validate their diplomas, work and leave and re-enter the country.

    Those in Colombia who have regular status, who have requested refuge but have not yet received a response, who entered the country irregularly before 31 January 2021, who have entered the country regularly after May 2021, or do so before late May 2023 are all eligible for temporary protected status. After that cut-off date, it will only be available to children and adolescents.

    Even so, people are not guaranteed temporary protected status if they meet all the requirements, since it is granted at the discretion of Migración Colombia.

    How has the ETPMV system worked during its first year?

    The process has takenlonger than expected, falling short of the goal set by the previous government of delivering 1.8 million identification documents by 2022.

    According to data from Migración Colombia, as of November 2022 about 2.5 million people have entered their data in the Single Registry for Venezuelan Migrants and 1.6 million permits have been approved.

    This gap is worrying because lack of regular migration status imposes barriers to accessing fundamental rights and hinders the socio-economic integration of migrants.

    In addition, many people did not register because they were unable to regularise their migration status. The ETPMV was only available to those in an irregular situation who had entered Colombia before 31 January 2021. This time limitation ignores the fact that irregular migration continues, largely because of the impossibility of obtaining official documents in Venezuela. Irregular status is assumed to be the result of individual decisions, when it is usually results from the impossibility of complying with the requirements imposed.

    What integration barriers do Venezuelan migrants face in Colombia?

    In a recentreport we identified multiple barriers to accessing and remaining in the formal labour market, as well as for setting up a business.

    The main legal barrier is lack of regular migration status. The thousands of people who continue to enter Colombia through informal border crossings are denied access to temporary protected status. This has an impact on both formalising their employment and access to entrepreneurship support funds, particularly from the state, but also from the private sector. A majority of self-employed migrant workers work in the informal sector.

    Widespread ignorance among employers of migration legislation imposes additional barriers. For instance, many are unaware that the validation of university degrees is only required for professions that involve high social risk, such as medicine, or that are regulated by the state, such as architecture or law, for which all applicants must follow a process to validate their diplomas and have professional cards issued. This procedure requires an official certificate that must be obtained in Venezuela, and those who are already in Colombia face immense difficulties in securing this.

    There are also social and cultural factors that can affect the employment situation. Negative perceptions of the Venezuelan migrant population affect recruitment processes. Xenophobia and discrimination deepen in situations of insecurity, although there is no evidence of links between migration and increased crime.

    Lack of social capital – such as well-placed contacts and job references – is also a problem for migrants.

    Additional obstacles make it difficult for migrant workers to remain in the formal economy. For example, many banks refuse to open savings accounts for Venezuelan migrants. They not only require them to prove their regular migration status but also demand an up-to-date passport, which they usually don’t have. Similar challenges come with some health insurers, pension funds and occupational risk insurance companies.

    As a result, to earn an income many migrants are forced into precarious jobs and exploitative working conditions, including extremely long working hours, sub-minimum wages, mistreatment and changes in agreed working conditions. In 2019, the average monthly income of a Venezuelan migrant was less than the legal minimum wage, and the wage gap compared to Colombian nationals was more than 30 percentage points.

    What is Dejusticia doing to promote migrants’ rights?

    As a civil society organisation, we carry out research on migrants’ access to rights that we use to influence decision-making processes on migration policy and formulate public policy recommendations. In the research process leading to ourreport on the labour inclusion of Venezuelan migrants, for example, we organised an event to which we invited various stakeholders, including government agencies, to work on recommendations. Also, when anew government took office in August 2022, we produced a series of recommendations, in partnership with other organisations.

    We also develop strategic litigation and communications campaigns, and work with other organisations, both nationally, regionally and in other regions of the global south, to address the migration phenomenon from a broader perspective.

    What support from the international community do organisations defending the rights of migrants in Colombia need?

    It is important for the international community to shed visibility on and support the processes that are taking place in relation to the rights of Venezuelan migrants. But it is also very important that the support of the international community covers other migratory flows and takes into account the problems happening on the Colombia-Panama border, crossed by migrants of various nationalities trying to head towards the USA.

    It is also important for the international community to remind the Colombian government of the commitments it has made by ratifying treaties and adopting international standards on migration and refugees.

    Civic space in Colombia is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

    Get in touch with Dejusticia through itswebsite orFacebook page and follow@DeJusticia and@JessCorredorV on Twitter.
  • COLOMBIA: ‘People are tired of the long hegemony of political elites who are also economic elites’

    Gina RomeroCIVICUS speaks about the recent presidential election in Colombia with Gina Romero, executive director of the Latin American and Caribbean Network for Democracy (RedLad).

    Founded in 2008, RedLad promotes the full exercise of democracy as a way of life for the common good in the Americas. It undertakes advocacy in the inter-American human rights system; research through the Citizen Observatory on Corruption, Observatory on Freedom of Religion and Belief, reporting on 11 countries for the CIVICUS Monitor; work to open democratic dialogue within civil society and among civil society and international bodies, governments, the private sector and others; action to strengthen the capacities of Latin American civil society through leadership training; and advocacy in defence of the rights of vulnerable populations.

    How would you assess the choice available between the two candidates in the second round of Colombia’s presidential election?

    It was very revealing that both candidates called themselves ‘anti-system’, positioned themselves against traditional politics and ran outside traditional political parties. Colombian citizens are tired of the long hegemony of traditional parties and of political elites who are also economic elites.

    The defeated candidate, Rodolfo Hernández, represents a right-wing political sector, although his campaign sought to emphasise his closeness to the people by championing the fight against corruption, despite the fact that he is under investigation for corruption. The winning candidate, Gustavo Petro, represents a left-wing position. The fact that a leftist option was elected for the first time in history says a lot about citizens’ social demands, the same ones that have been expressed publicly on the streets since 2019.

    I believe that the second round was not a polarised confrontation between an extreme right and an extreme left, but rather a confrontation between innovative – one could say populist – proposals outside traditional politics, and particularly against the legacy of former president Álvaro Uribe, which is also embodied by the outgoing incumbent, Iván Duque.

    A citizenry fed up with politics and social inequality, which has intensified as a result of the pandemic, made for a ticking bomb that manifested itself in the elections. It is great that this found expression through democratic channels, rather than through political violence, as used to be the case in the past.

    How do you interpret the fact that Hernández made it into the second round?

    Hernández’s presence in the runoff was quite surprising, since the candidates that were thought to have a chance were Federico Gutiérrez and Gustavo Petro. His discourse was one of closeness to citizens. He campaigned hard on social media, especially TikTok, and focused on the problems people systematically prioritise in the polls, such as corruption.

    Hernández was seen as a simple person, who speaks very simply to ordinary citizens, while other candidates’ discourse sounded too lofty. He convinced many people with the argument that, as a millionaire, he would not steal like the others, and would even refuse the president’s salary. He also mobilised many people who do not understand what it means for Colombia to be going through a peace process, who voted ‘no’ in the 2016 referendum on the peace deal, and who had previously elected right-wing presidents such as Duque and Uribe.

    Added to Hernández’s attractiveness were the big mistakes of centre parties and the fear elicited by Petro, both for being from the left and for being accompanied by a Black vice-presidential candidate, Francia Márquez, who had been a domestic worker and graduated from college at the age of 39. All this contributed to Hernández’s success in the first round, despite the fact that he is completely unfamiliar with politics and is neither fit to govern nor to do a good job as an opposition leader.

    What was the campaign for the runoffs like?

    It was a campaign of strong emotions, more than any other in the past. Political emotions are what ultimately determine the course of an election.

    Fear played a big role. Many people in Colombia are afraid of any left-wing project. Moreover, Colombia is a racist, classist and misogynist country, so a candidate like Márquez also caused fear. I met few people who would vote for Hernández because they liked him rather than because they were afraid of Petro. These people described Hernández as ‘the cute old man who fights corruption and has a lot of money’. This is how right-wing populism gets close to the people.

    The anti-Petro campaign circulated disinformation with the sole objective of generating fear, much as had happened in the campaign for the peace referendum. Among these unfounded fears was that Colombia would become a new Venezuela, as Petro would want to stay in power forever, as Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez once did. People repeated this uncritically without realising that, in Colombia, the one who wanted to do this was Uribe, through a constitutional change in 2004 that allowed him to renew his mandate and stay in office for eight years, after which he tried to do it again.

    Another idea associated with Venezuela’s fate was that of impoverishment, currency devaluation and hyperinflation. There was also much talk of the possible business reaction sector to a left-wing government and the supposed large outflow of companies from the Colombian market that would follow. It is true that the dollar rose the week after the election – as it did in Chile when Gabriel Boric won – but the dollar has been rising in recent years and the initial increase has not been catastrophic.

    Fear was also instilled among the public with the irresponsible use of the term ‘guerrilla’ in reference to Petro, who had in the past been a militant in the M19, a now-deactivated guerrilla group. Petro has had a long civilian political career since, and for decades has had nothing to do with any group outside the law. But the stigma remains, which shows how far Colombia still has to go in its reconciliation process.

    Disinformation and digital violence also targeted the two female candidates who ran in this election, Ingrid Betancourt – who stood in the first round of the presidential election – and Márquez. Much research on digital violence argues that when women are in politics, personal information about them is used and facts are misrepresented. But in the case of Márquez, there was real racialised hate speech. Horrible things were said about her, both because of her personal history and her past as a very poor woman, and because she is a Black woman. The worst racist and misogynist jokes were told.

    Colombia needs a profound reflection on how we construct the identity of the other and how we recognise ourselves as a multicultural country. Cali is the city with the second largest Afro-descendant population on the continent, and the entire Colombian Pacific is full of Afro and Indigenous people. But there is a systemic racism that was very apparent in the campaign.

    For the most part, mainstream media have done much wrong by echoing hate speech. A week before the second round, for example, Semana magazine ran a sensationalist cover story wondering who would get elected, the engineer or the former guerrilla fighter. The ex-guerrilla fighter is also an economist, but this was not about the candidates’ professions, but rather about giving a frightening message. In the last months of the campaign, Petro was forced to deny many things, while Hernández hid and refused to participate in any debate.

    Thus, we were sold the idea that we were ‘between a rock and a hard place’ and had to choose the ‘least worst’ candidate. A public narrative was mounted that since the political elite was not represented in this election, all that was on offer was simply bad.

    What kind of voter backed the candidates?

    There was a fairly close overlap between the Colombia that voted ‘no’ in the referendum on the peace accords, the Colombia that in the past elected Duque and the Colombia that now voted for Hernández. It is made up of culturally conservative citizens who fear change, have identified with traditional political elites and have not been drawn to the peace process or felt the appeal of political progressivism. Hernández’s voters in the cities and other parts of the country fear processes of inclusion of vulnerable populations and hardly include Indigenous or Afro-descendant parts of the population. In places with the largest Indigenous populations Petro won with unprecedented numbers.

    The Colombia that voted ‘yes’ in the referendum coincides with the Colombia that voted for Petro. This is the Colombia of the margins, which brings together the least developed regions of the country. Big cities, with the exception of Medellín, also voted for Petro. This is an urban bloc, which Márquez defines as a citizenry made up of ‘nobodies’. The people who voted for Petro are largely a frustrated citizenry that has been affected by corruption like no other, who are not part of the political elite and who have been historically relegated by development processes. These are people who have little, who see in Petro a promise of improvement. Previous candidates have offered no real solutions to their problems – not even a chance of feeling involved.

    The country is divided, but this is not a new division. Past governments have failed to reconcile these differences. We have two Colombias, with immense polarisation: in the elections with the highest participation in the past 20 years, Petro won by just 800,000 votes. That means there are 10 million people who oppose Petro and 11 million who support him. Petro will have to learn how to speak to these two facets of Colombia and ensure that the Colombia that did not vote for him does not feel left behind.

    What are civil society’s expectations or fears following the result?

    Whoever wins, our work as civil society will always remain the same. But personally, seeing what happened when Petro was mayor of Bogotá, I fear that revanchism could hinder the government’s progress. Polarisation, hate speech and the manipulation of institutions can have very serious effects. The potential reaction of the markets to a left-wing government is also a source of fear.

    There is also the fact that Petro is a very passionate person, and often does not communicate in the best possible way; both his and Hernández’s campaigns attacked the press when media criticised them. The press has a fundamental role, and this can be very annoying for any government, but it is essential that it has sufficient guarantees to do its job. There are fears that Petro could be very hostile to the press that is critical of his government.

    Organisations that, like RedLad, engage in international advocacy, are concerned about how Petro will position himself in relation to other Latin American leftists. Currently Latin America has a left that is the source of a lot of hope, that proposes change and is different from the traditional left; this is the left represented by Boric in Chile. But there is also the left of Andrés Manuel López Obrador in Mexico, not to mention the lefts of Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela, which have caused serious civic space crises. I think Petro is somewhere in the middle and faces the dilemma of who to side with. I think he should go along a more proactive and development-friendly left.

    Although Petro’s party, Pacto Histórico, achieved good legislative representation in the March 2022 parliamentary election, the transformations he has put on the table are quite broad and deep, and their success they will require a wide political agreement, something that is complex to achieve in Colombia. If this is not achieved, the people who voted for Petro and believed his promises will be frustrated. It will be interesting to see how this government, elected under the banner of the 2019 mobilisations, will respond to people if they happen to mobilise again.

    For the great expectations it has created not to wane, Petro’s government will need to score some early victories, showing progress in advancing the peace process and decreasing the number of assassinations of social leaders. I hope that Petro makes progress on international commitments, that civic space is not further reduced but expanded, and that the freedoms of assembly and expression are guaranteed.

    Civic space in Colombia is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
    Get in touch with RedLad through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@REDLADoficial on Twitter.
  • COLOMBIA: ‘The protection of the environment is inseparable from the success of the peace process’

    Following a year marked by massive mobilisation on the climate emergency, CIVICUS is interviewing civil society activists, leaders and experts about the main environmental challenges they face in their contexts and the actions they are taking. CIVICUS speaks with a young Colombian student, active in the climate movement, who for security reasons asked to remain anonymous. In addition to mobilising in the context of the #FridaysForFuture movement, the interviewee is part of Post-Conflict Children (Hijos del Posconflicto), a recently created group that seeks to render the experiences of people on the ground visible and defend the peace process in Colombia. On the crossroads of various struggles, the interviewee emphasises the defence of the peace process as a key to preserving Colombia’s environment and biodiversity.

    colombia protests

    From your perspective, what is the most urgent environmental problem in Colombia?

    The most urgent environmental problem is deforestation. Deforestation rates in Colombia are very high, and the situation has not improved following the signing of the peace agreements. That is because, in times of armed conflict, the Colombian guerrillas, mainly the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), controlled much of the jungle territory of Colombia. Of course, no one dared get into that territory: multinationals and oil companies did not have a presence there; nor did the industry of cattle-raising. After the peace agreements were signed and the guerrillas withdrew, the problem that has plagued Colombia since the 1950s – land distribution – increased.

    Colombia has extremely regressive land distribution, with land property concentrated in very few hands. With the withdrawal of the guerrillas and the arrival of multinational corporations, land grabbing has increased. Lands are privately appropriated, deforested and used for raising livestock, while the local population continues to be displaced.

    At the same time, there are still active armed groups operating outside the law, particularly far-right paramilitary groups, alongside the smaller guerrilla force of the National Liberation Army (ELN) and some FARC dissidents who refused to engage with the peace process. These armed groups are fighting over the territory with the aim of taking control of coca crops and expanding them, causing greater deforestation.

    Therefore, both the continuation of the conflict in some territories and its termination in others are having a direct influence on deforestation. The peace process contains a series of mechanisms to counteract deforestation, but its effects will depend on whether it is effectively implemented. In that sense, the protection of the environment is inseparable from the success of the peace process.

    What mechanisms in the peace agreements would help stop deforestation?

    The peace agreements include two specific mechanisms to stop deforestation. The first one is comprehensive rural reform, aimed at distributing land in the Colombian countryside and enforcing respect for the uses assigned to the land – for example, by ensuring that if land is for agricultural use, it is not used for raising livestock. The second mechanism is the Programme of Substitution of Crops for Illicit Use, aimed at tackling the drug problem. It is important to understand that many poor peasant families have had to grow coca in order to survive; through this programme, the state is offering them economic incentives to transition towards other sustainable crops.

    How does youth activism contribute to the effective implementation of the peace agreements?

    The struggle for peace is taking place on all fronts. We do three things: we mobilise on the streets in defence of the peace process; we do educational work so that people understand why the peace process is so important; and we do advocacy in various spaces.

    The context in which we do this work is quite difficult. As soon as he took office, President Iván Duque objected to the peace process and tried to modify all aspects that he did not agree with or that he claimed were not fair. If he succeeds, this would ultimately mean a deactivation of the process that resulted from the agreements and the need to start over from scratch. This was no surprise: his entire campaign revolved around the peace process and was based on the dissemination of lies about it. He won the elections by manipulating people’s fears; he told people that the agreements would enshrine impunity. He tried to scare us by telling us that if the left won, we would become a second Venezuela. He also lied regarding his plans for extractive industries: he stated that oil exploration and exploitation through fracking would not be authorised, but in late December 2019 he drafted a decree that would allow fracking.

    As an activist for peace and the environment in Colombia, have you had any participation in the global movement for climate justice?

    Yes, along with a small group, I joined the Fridays for Future initiative. But our participation was limited to a series of actions and strikes aimed at launching the climate movement in our country.

    It has been quite difficult for us to elicit mobilisation around the global climate crisis. First of all, there is much ignorance. In Colombia, most people have no idea what it is being done to them; the current president took advantage of this to spread lies, run a disinformation campaign and win the elections. In a country where public education is of very low quality and only rich people are able to further their studies, it is very easy to lie to people and make them believe you. So, the first problem is ignorance. Add to that fear: in Colombia people are afraid to speak, organise and protest. Colombians live in a state of incredible anxiety due to the systematic murders of social and environmental leaders. Colombia is one of the most dangerous countries in the world for human rights defenders in general and for environmental leaders in particular.

    All of this has limited climate mobilisation. Some isolated actions have been held, but there has not been a big national, high-impact demonstration. That is why we were surprised to find out that a massive school mobilisation took place in the south of the country, in the department of Huila, where we least expected it to happen due to the complex security dynamics in those territories. We managed to get in touch with the young people who mobilised in Huila and together we took part in a national meeting held in the department of Caquetá, also known as the golden door to the Colombian Amazon. At that meeting we managed to coordinate our work with the communities that live in Amazonian territory and so far we are in the process of raising the cause of the Amazon and initiating a resistance to defend our forest.

    We are currently starting to bring all the environmental groups together into a single climate front. We hope this will inspire those who are afraid to join as well.

    Have you had any participation in international climate forums?

    We have been to a Latin American meeting of Fridays for Future that was held in Chile with the support of 350.org. It was a meeting of climate advocates to build a Latin American network and take the movement to the regional level. It helped us a lot to meet other young people from other parts of the region who were also mobilising, to discover that we could get together and feel that we had international support to do our job. It gave us some hope.

    Right after that meeting, we began to try to form a national environmental network, travelling to as many territories as possible and enlisting young people from other Colombian regions. There is still a lot to be done, but we are growing exponentially because when a new group joins in, they reach out to three or four other groups. Throughout 2019 we focused on this process, touring territories, communicating our message to people and creating links. We believe that the next time we may be able to mobilise at the national level. We will do so on 24 April 2020, on the occasion of the next global strike.

    What kind of support would you need to be able to hold in 2020 the mobilisation that was not possible in 2019?

    Right now our window of opportunity is the national strike, the series of protests that have taken place in several Colombian cities since November 2019. In a country where people are afraid to speak, on 21 November last year millions of people took to the streets. It was one of the largest mobilisations Colombia has witnessed over the past 40 years. This is a unique opportunity. Within the framework of these protests, the environmental movement has also put forward its proposals and demands. We may not be able to mobilise people specifically around climate, but we can take advantage of these mass mobilisations and put our issues out there. If there are people willing to mobilise, we can approach them, tell them what is happening to the environment and communicate our demands so that they understand that our issues also concern them and they start mobilising for them as well. By doing this, we succeeded in getting the national strike committee to include the declaration of a climate emergency in Colombia among its demands. This has been a very big breakthrough.

    Civic space in Colombia is rated as ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
    Get in touch with Fridays for Future through itswebsite, and with the Colombian campaign byemail or through itsFacebook page, and follow @FutureColombia on Twitter.
  • COLOMBIA: ‘Those who demonstrate put their integrity and their lives at risk’

    CIVICUS speaks about recent protests in Colombia with a group of members of the Committee for Solidarity with Political Prisoners Foundation (FCSPP) and the Defend Freedom: Everyone’s Business Campaign, who responded collectively to our questions. FCSPP is an organisation that promotes respect and enforcement of the human rights of all people in Colombia, with a focus on the rights to life, liberty, physical and moral integrity, dignified treatment, fair and impartial trial and other rights of persons deprived of their liberty, prosecuted for political crimes and tried for participating in protests. The Defend Freedom Campaign is a network of social, student, cultural, community and human rights organisations working to denounce arbitrary detentions, judicial persecution and the criminalisation of social protest in Colombia.

    What are the main causes of recent protests in Colombia?

    From our perspective, the reasons behind the protests in Colombia are diverse. In addition to tax injustice, reflected in the proposal submitted by the national government to collect more taxes, the government's poor handling of the health crisis and the economic, ecological and socio-environmental crises exacerbated by the pandemic is also a cause. In the context of the pandemic, a key demand was related to the inefficient management of the Colombian health system and the need for a reform focused on protecting those working in the health sector and providing comprehensive and preventive care to the general population. The inefficient management of the public pension system and the lack of public policies to promote equitable access by Colombia’s young people to free, quality education and quality employment also came to the fore.

    In addition to the socio-ecological injustices caused by a mining and energy policy promoting predatory extractive megaprojects, the lack of commitment by the national government to sign the Escazú Agreement on environmental rights has been accompanied by an unabated wave of murders and other attacks against social, community, environmental, territorial, community and human rights leaders. This violence is perpetuated by the impunity guaranteed by the judicial system to those within the security forces and more generally the state apparatus responsible for human rights violations.

    The protests have also highlighted the absence of guarantees for the exercise of the right to social protest, which instead of being protected is being stigmatised and attacked by the state.

    How do these protests connect to those that took place in previous years?

    The current protests are in direct continuity with the protests of 2020, given that the pandemic resulted in an extended hiatus during which social protest was prevented from taking place physically. During this period, however, the structural issues that motivate social protests were not forgotten, let alone did they disappear, but on the contrary they often deepened and worsened.

    How have the authorities responded to the protests?

    The National Police have responded with a violent, disproportionate and often unlawful reaction against protesters. According to data collected by the Defend Freedom Campaign, between 28 April and 21 July 2021 this violence resulted in 87 deaths of civilians in the context of protests, 28 of them attributable to the security forces, seven to unidentified civilians and 46 to unidentified perpetrators. During this time, 1,905 people were injured as a result of the disproportionate actions of the National Police, the Mobile Anti-Riot Squads (ESMAD) and unidentified civilians. In addition, 326 human rights defenders were attacked in the context of their work accompanying social protests, 106 were victims of gender-based violence and 3,365 people were detained, many of them arbitrarily, resulting in 1,603 complaints of abuse of power and police violence. These figures are evidence of the unwillingness of the authorities to engage in dialogue and of the way in which the right to social protest is being violated in Colombia. Those who demonstrate put their integrity and their lives at risk.

    Rights violations not only occur during protest itself, but are also compounded when it comes to the institutions that are supposed to pay attention, gather data and follow up on violations. We have documented cases of injured people who have not been attended to in hospitals and medical centres. Likewise, the records of missing persons kept by the Ombudsman’s Office and the Prosecutor's Office diverge widely; as of 5 June, the Ombudsman’s Office recorded 89 people missing in the context of the protests, while the Prosecutor’s Office recorded 129. This shows a lack of clarity and coordination between the state institutions that should play a key role in documenting, attending to and providing efficient and timely follow-up to human rights violations.

    What were the effects of repression on protesters?

    After the media publicised some cases, especially of killings and sexual violence allegedly committed by the security forces, citizens continued to demonstrate in acts of solidarity and collective memory. Further, with the aim of coordinating actions, informing citizens, debating and establishing clear common demands, three National Popular Assemblies were held, two in person – one in Bogotá, from 6 to 8 June, and another in Cali, from 17 to 20 July – and a third virtually, on 15 August. All of them were widely attended by popular organisations and social movements. Discussions were also held in localities, municipalities and cities to build an understanding of interests, needs and proposals. This demonstrated the willingness of citizens who had been protesting to engage in permanent dialogue with government bodies to put forward their demands.

    How was it possible to sustain mobilisation for several months, and are protests expected to continue?

    In some territories, protesters found a series of conditions that allowed them to meet peacefully and originate new organisational processes through the exercise of their right to the freedom of association. These processes were based on previously established relationships of solidarity, not only among organisations but also within less formal civil society, which mobilised in peaceful marches and by donating non-perishable goods, basic medical supplies, items for protection and other forms of support to the young people who mobilised on what is now known as ‘the frontlines’.

    The mobilisation was sustained thanks to new and creative forms of organisation that helped distribute roles in the midst of intense days of police repression, with some people in charge of holding up defensive barriers with improvised or relatively elaborate shields, others in charge of returning teargas canisters and mitigating deterrence tools used by the police, others in charge of providing medical, psychosocial, emotional and legal first aid to those who needed it, and others playing care roles, providing food and hydration to protesters. The result was the emergence of spaces such as ‘Puerto Resistencia’ (Resistance Port) in Cali and ‘Espacio Humanitario al Calor de la Olla’ (Humanitarian Space at the Heat of the Pot) in Bogotá, which were replicated at other resistance hotspots around the country. These spaces bring together inter-organisational and inter-generational networks which, through dialogue and assembly meetings, build consensus and prioritise actions adaptable to each territory’s context.

    It is to be expected that the protests will continue, given that they have not only arisen from historic centres of protests, such as workers’ confederations and teachers’ unions, but there are also now multiple protest hubs in cities and highways around the country where people mobilise a diverse range of organised, organising and unorganised citizens with different motivations and people take to the streets due to a variety of situations. Commemorative dates are coming that will surely generate mobilisation, perhaps not on a daily basis as happened between April and July, but with actions that will keep alive the demands made visible both by the National Roundtables of the National Strike Committee and by other spaces promoted by civil society at the local and municipal levels.

    How have attacks by armed civilian groups affected demonstrations?

    The Campaign has documented multiple situations in which armed civilians attacked protesters, mainly in the departments of Cundinamarca, Risaralda, Norte de Santander, Tolima and Valle del Cauca, and the city of Bogotá. Several of the aggressions recorded were committed by civilians accompanied by members of the security forces, who did not take any action to stop them but rather supported them. Many of these civilians call themselves ‘defenders of private property’.

    A clear example of this, taken from the records of the Campaign’s Information System of Aggressions against Social Protest (SIAP), occurred in Cali on the afternoon of 9 May, when agents of the National Police, together with several civilians mobilised in pick-up trucks, attacked the Indigenous Guard, a civil resistance group mobilised in defence of the territory and the life plan of the Indigenous communities. The attack left 10 people injured, one of them in serious condition with a double bullet wound to the stomach. Another case recorded by SIAP occurred in Cali on 6 May; on this occasion, armed persons in civilian clothes got out of a truck and shot at protesters. As a result of citizens’ demands that the army stop them, the interior of the truck was searched and a police jacket was found, and when its number plates were checked, the vehicle was identified as police property.

    In other cases, armed civilians act without police being present. It is important to mention the presence of paramilitary groups: in places where mobilisation increased, graffiti and pamphlets from paramilitary groups such as the Black Eagles and the United Self-Defence Forces of Colombia were found, aimed at intimidating the population to dissuade people from participating in protests.

    How has the government responded to the recommendations issued by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR)?

    In public statements referring to the IACHR recommendations, President Iván Duque once again stigmatised the exercise of the right to social protest and highlighted the effects of protest roadblocks on the rights to free movement and work. The government invoked the constitution to reject the proposal to separate the National Police from the Ministry of Defence and was defensive about the possibility of creating a mechanism to monitor human rights.

    Despite the recommendations, human rights violations continued unabated. As of 7 July 2021, the day the IACHR recommendations were made public, the Campaign registered 152 detentions, most of them arbitrary, 92 people injured by the actions of ESMAD, the National Police and armed civilians, four cases of gender-based violence, 29 attacks on human rights defenders, 72 complaints of police abuse and violence, and 29 raids. This occurred despite the fact that mobilisations had decreased in intensity and frequency; a large part of these violations happened on a single day, 20 July. But a change in repressive strategy was observed, as the number of raids increased dramatically.

    How can international civil society support Colombian civil society?

    International civil society can support us through campaigns such as SOS Colombia, but on a more permanent basis, and not limited to peak moments of repression. They could also help us by assisting the countries that act as guarantors of Colombia’s 2016 Peace Accord in doing an exhaustive review of the execution of peacebuilding resources, and by supporting those organisations that have denounced police and state abuses through investigative, communicative and political advocacy strategies in international human rights forums and advocacy spaces, thus giving more visibility to the social, humanitarian and ecological crisis facing Colombia.

    Civic space in Colombia is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

    Get in touch with the Committee for Solidarity with Political Prisoners through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@CSPP_ on Twitter. Contact the Defend Freedom Campaign through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@DefenderLiberta on Twitter.
  • COLOMBIA: ‘Young people experience a feeling of wanting to change everything’

    CIVICUS speaks about the protests that began in Colombia in April 2021, triggered by proposed tax increases, with a young social and human rights activist who chose to remain anonymous for security reasons. The interviewee belongs to a network of youth organisations and young activists that promotes solidarity, organisation and the struggle of excluded groups and that works in the capital, Bogotá, and in the city of Medellín.

    What were the causes of the protests, and what are protesters’ demands?

    The tax reform was just the straw that broke the camel’s back, as it added to a host of problems. In the assemblies in which we participated, hundreds of demands, and demands of all kinds, were collected, from filling holes in neighbourhood streets to overthrowing the government led by President Iván Duque and seeking justice for the so-called ‘false positives’, that is, cases of civilians killed by the military and presented as casualties of the armed conflict. What young people are experiencing is a feeling of wanting to change everything, of not wanting to continue living as before.

    But despite the diversity of demands, there are some that unite young people from the lower classes the most. I think that, in economic matters, young people from the lower classes are demanding employment and opportunities to get ahead, and in political matters these young people, particularly those who were on the protest frontlines, are demanding dignity, to not be humiliated anymore. Nothing unites these young people more than their deep hatred of the police, as the main representative of the outrages and humiliations they experience on a daily basis. They feel like outcasts with no economic future, with no hope of getting a job beyond the daily grind to survive, rejected by society and persecuted like criminals by the police just because they are young and poor.

    Students – also young people but more intellectual, some from the middle class – were also a significant force in the protests, but tended to emphasise demands against political repression and human rights violations, the issue of the ‘false positives’, the assassinations of social leaders and the criminalisation of protest.

    How do these protests differ from those of previous years, and are there any lines of continuity with them?

    Basically, motives are the same as those of the 2019 and 2020 protests. In the 2019 protests, the crisis of unemployment and hunger weighed more heavily, while in the 2020 protests, the issue of repression, not wanting to continue to be humiliated and killed, became more important. Those that broke out in April 2021 combined the motives of the two previous waves, because not only had neither of the two problems been tackled at the root, but not even palliatives had been offered; on the contrary, the economic crisis worsened and political repression continued.

    Perhaps one difference is that the latest protests have received greater international attention, which reflects the strength with which the Colombian people took to the streets. The protest had broad legitimacy among social groups that do not usually mobilise. The economic and political crisis and suffocation was such that groups such as medium-size and even large business owners supported the protests. The massive character of the protests also forced everyone, from artists to congresspeople, to take sides.

    There were Colombians abroad who protested in their respective countries, speaking up about what their relatives back home were telling them. Some may think that this increased international attention was due to the repression, but I tend to believe that what magnified the message was the size of the middle-class groups that mobilised. Repression has been very present in previous cycles as well as in the face of protests by groups of peasants. I think what was decisive in this case was the diversity of social strata that supported the protest.

    How has the government reacted to the protests?

    Generally speaking, it reacted first by violently repressing them, then by delegitimising them by using the media to attack some groups, and in particular young people, and finally by trying to divide them in order to demobilise some social groups and isolate young people from the lower classes. For the latter, the government engaged in several negotiations with a self-proclaimed National Strike Committee, and also carried out negotiations at the local level to try to contain or calm down some social groups.

    Particularly at the local level, even in localities with so-called centrist and independent governments, the government set up dialogue roundtables that do not solve anything, where demands are listened to but nothing specific is offered in response to those demands. Many local governments washed their hands of the repression, blaming it on the central government alone, but they did everything in their power to demobilise the protests, sending representatives to calm down protesters and promising people that if they stopped protesting they would listen to their demands, something they had not done during the whole previous year.

    Violence by some groups seems to have become a problem. How did activists and civil society organisations deal with this?

    Violence has often been a spontaneous reaction to repression. Confronting the young person who is throwing a rock with judgement and scolding serves no purpose except to radicalise them further and earn their distrust. In order to change this violence, we must begin by understanding it and distinguishing it from the violence that comes from the state, rather than putting them on the same level. This is not to say that violence is desirable; indeed, it diverts the initiative of many young people. But getting between them and the Immediate Response Command (Comando de Atención Inmediata) – the police unit that operates in urban perimeters – to try and stop them ends up having more of a reverse psychological effect than a deterrence or educational one.

    In my experience, civil society organisations that do not reach out to these young people and offer them alternative spaces for politicisation and awareness-raising end up isolating them and losing the ability to influence them. Our organisation has dealt with this through the strategy of avoiding negative judgement and, instead, approaching them with understanding and trying to create alternative spaces for political participation and the organisation of young people.

    What roles has your organisation played in the protests?

    Our organisation played an active role: we organised the participation in the protests of young people and families in the neighbourhoods where we carry out community work and promoted a solidarity campaign with protesters to collect economic support and other resources, such as first aid, support through community kitchens and human rights advocacy, to help various protest points in the cities of Bogotá and Medellín.

    In Bogotá, we provided support to find information on missing persons and participated in solidarity campaigns with people who had been injured. In Medellín we established community kitchens and repaired roofs and other damage caused by protests in neighbourhoods close to the major protest hotspots in the city. Finally, throughout the protests we developed awareness-raising activities and promoted the involvement of young protesters in more lasting processes of social and community building.

    What impacts do you think this cycle of protests and repression will have on the upcoming elections?

    In my opinion, the protests increased the political capital of the former mayor of Bogotá and former presidential candidate for the left, Gustavo Petro. The government did not give any real response to protesters’ demands and people are still looking for alternatives, and – although our organisation has no interest in campaigning for him or intention to do so – I think Petro is the only available option. In the next elections I would expect a higher rate of youth participation, and I would not be surprised at all if Petro wins.

    Civic space in Colombia is rated ‘repressed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.
  • COLOMBIA: “La carencia de estatus migratorio regular impone barreras de acceso a derechos”

    Jessica Corredor Villamil and Lina ArroyaveCIVICUS conversa con Jessica Corredor Villamil y Lina Arroyave sobre la situación de las personas migrantes y refugiadas venezolanas en Colombia. Jessica esdirectora y Lina es investigadora del área internacional de Dejusticia.

    Dejusticia es un centro de estudios jurídicos y sociales localizado en Bogotá, Colombia, y dedicado a promover los derechos humanos en Colombia y en el sur global. Promueve el cambio social a través de la investigación-acción, desarrollando propuestas de políticas públicas, campañas de incidencia y litigios estratégicos.

    ¿Cómo ha reformado Colombia su marco legal para acoger a la migración venezolana?

    Actualmente hay tres vías mediante las cuales las personas nacionales de Venezuela pueden obtener el estatus migratorio que les permite permanecer en Colombia por períodos prolongados: las visas, la solicitud de la condición de refugiado y el Estatuto Temporal de Protección para Migrantes Venezolanos(ETPMV). 

    Este último fue establecido en 2021 para atender la migración masiva procedente de Venezuela. Tiene dos grandes objetivos: identificar a la población migrante venezolana y regularizar su situación migratoria. Para esto prevé dos mecanismos. El primero es el Registro Único de Migrantes Venezolanos, que recoge los datos personales y socioeconómicos de quienes deciden registrarse y es administrado por Migración Colombia, la autoridad de vigilancia y control migratorio. El segundo es el Permiso por Protección Temporal, que autoriza a su portador a permanecer en Colombia por 10 años y le permite acceder a los sistemas de salud y seguridad social, educativo y financiero, convalidar títulos, trabajar y salir del país y reingresar.

    Pueden acogerse al ETPMV quienes se encuentren en Colombia de manera regular, quienes han solicitado refugio pero aún no han recibido respuesta, quienes ingresaron al país de manera irregular antes del 31 de enero de 2021, y quienes lo hicieron de manera regular desde finales de mayo de 2021 o lo hagan antes de finales de mayo de 2023. Luego de esa fecha, solo será una opción para niños, niñas y adolescentes.

    Aun así, el cumplir con todos los requisitos no es garantía de obtención del ETPMV, ya que su otorgamiento es facultad discrecional de Migración Colombia.

    ¿Cómo ha funcionado el ETPMV durante su primer año? 

    El proceso se hademorado más de lo previsto, lo cual impidió cumplir la meta del gobierno anterior de entregar 1.8 millones de documentos de identificación en 2022.

    Según datos de Migración Colombia, hasta noviembre de 2022 cerca de 2,5 millones de personas han ingresado sus datos en el Registro Único para Migrantes Venezolanos, y se han aprobado 1,6 millones de permisos.

    Esta brecha es preocupante porque la carencia de estatus migratorio regular impone barreras de acceso a derechos fundamentales y obstaculiza la integración socioeconómica de la población migrante.

    Además, muchas personas no se inscribieron en el registro por no haber podido regularizar su situación migratoria. El ETPMV solamente estaba disponible para las personas en situación irregular que hubieran ingresado a Colombia hasta el 31 de enero de 2021. Esta limitación temporal ignora el hecho de que la migración irregular continúa, en gran medida a causa de la imposibilidad de acceder a documentos oficiales en Venezuela. Se asume que la situación de irregularidad obedece a una decisión individual, cuando por lo general es el resultado de la imposibilidad de cumplir con los requisitos exigidos.

    ¿Qué barreras de integración enfrentan las personas migrantes venezolanas en Colombia?

    En un recienteinforme identificamos las múltiples barreras de acceso y permanencia en el mercado laboral formal, así como para el desarrollo de emprendimientos.

    La principal barrera legal es la carencia de estatus migratorio regular. Las miles de personas que continúan ingresando a Colombia por pasos fronterizos informales tienen vedado el acceso al ETPMV. Esto tiene impactos tanto para la formalización laboral como para el acceso a fondos de apoyo al emprendimiento, en particular estatales, pero también privados. La mayoría de los trabajadores migrantes independientes trabaja en el sector informal.

    El desconocimiento generalizado de la legislación migratoria por parte de los empleadores impone barreras adicionales. Por ejemplo, muchos desconocen que la convalidación de títulos universitarios solo es imprescindible para profesiones cuyo ejercicio implica altos riesgos sociales, como la medicina, o cuyo ejercicio es regulado por el Estado, como el derecho o la arquitectura, y exigen a todos los postulantes la realización del trámite de convalidación de títulos y expedición de tarjetas profesionales. Este trámite requiere de una apostilla que debe ser obtenida en Venezuela antes de migrar, y quienes ya se encuentran en Colombia enfrentan enormes dificultades para conseguirla.

    También existen factores sociales y culturales que pueden afectar la situación laboral. Las percepciones negativas de la población migrante venezolana afectan los procesos de selección de personal. La xenofobia y la discriminación se profundizan cuando ocurren hechos de inseguridad, pese a que no hay evidencia de vínculos entre el aumento de la criminalidad y el de la migración.

    La falta de capital social, es decir, de contactos bien posicionados y referencias laborales, también es un problema para las personas migrantes.

    Algunos obstáculos adicionales dificultan la permanencia en la economía formal. Por ejemplo, muchos bancos se niegan a abrir cuentas de ahorros a personas migrantes venezolanas ya que les exigen no solamente acreditar estatus migratorio regular sino también presentar su pasaporte actualizado, con el que habitualmente no cuentan. Algo similar ocurre con algunas aseguradoras de salud, fondos de pensiones y aseguradoras de riesgos de trabajo.

    De ahí que muchas personas migrantes con tal de conseguir algún ingreso acepten empleos precarios y se sometan a condiciones de explotación laboral que incluyen jornadas de trabajo extremadamente largas, salarios por debajo del mínimo, malos tratos y cambios en las condiciones laborales acordadas. En 2019, los ingresos mensuales promedio de una persona migrante venezolana fueron inferiores al salario mínimo legal vigente, y la brecha salarial frente a los nacionales colombianos fue de más de 30 puntos porcentuales.

    ¿Qué trabajo hace Dejusticia para promover los derechos de las personas migrantes? 

    En tanto que organización de la sociedad civil, hacemos investigaciones sobre el acceso a derechos de las personas migrantes para sobre esa base hacer incidencia en los procesos de toma de decisiones en materia de política migratoria y formular recomendaciones de política pública. En el proceso de investigación para nuestroinforme sobre la inclusión laboral de las y los migrantes venezolanos, por ejemplo, organizamos un evento al cual invitamos a los diferentes sectores involucrados, incluidas varias agencias gubernamentales, para trabajar en las recomendaciones. Asimismo, al iniciarse unnuevo gobierno en agosto de 2022 elaboramos un documento con recomendaciones, en alianza con otras organizaciones.

    También desarrollamos litigios estratégicos y campañas de comunicación, y trabajamos con otras organizaciones, a nivel tanto nacional como regional y de otras regiones del sur global, para abordar el fenómeno de las migraciones desde una mirada más amplia.

    ¿Qué apoyo de la comunidad internacional necesitan las organizaciones que defienden los derechos de las personas migrantes en Colombia?

    Es importante que la comunidad internacional dé visibilidad y apoye los procesos que se están dando en relación con los derechos de las personas migrantes venezolanas. Pero también es muy importante que el apoyo de la comunidad internacional abarque otros flujos migratorios y dé cuenta de la problemática en la frontera colombo-panameña, paso obligado para personas migrantes de distintas nacionalidades que quieren llegar a los Estados Unidos.

    También es importante que la comunidad internacional le recuerde al gobierno de Colombia los compromisos que ha adquirido a partir de la ratificación de tratados y la adopción de estándares internacionales en materia de migración y refugio.

    El espacio cívico en Colombia es calificado como ‘represivo’ por elCIVICUS Monitor.

    Contáctese con Dejusticia a través de susitio web o su página deFacebook y siga a@DeJusticia y a@JessCorredorV en Twitter.
  • COLOMBIA: “La gente está cansada de la larga hegemonía de élites políticas que son también élites económicas”

    Gina RomeroCIVICUS conversa acerca de las recientes elecciones presidenciales en Colombia con Gina Romero, directora ejecutiva de la Red Latinoamericana y del Caribe para la Democracia (RedLad).

    Fundada en 2008, RedLad promueve el ejercicio pleno de la democracia como una forma de vida en pos del bien común en las Américas. Lo hace mediante acciones de incidencia política en el sistema interamericano de derechos humanos, investigación (Observatorio Ciudadano de Corrupción, Observatorio de Libertad de Religión y Creencia, reporte de 11 países en el CIVICUS Monitor),  apertura de diálogos democráticos al interior de la sociedad civil y de ésta con órganos internacionales, gobiernos, sector privado y otros, fortalecimiento de capacidades de la sociedad civil latinoamericana mediante formación de liderazgos e incidencia en defensa de los derechos de poblaciones en condición de vulnerabilidad.

    ¿Cómo evalúas las opciones disponibles en la segunda vuelta de las elecciones presidenciales de Colombia?

    Fue muy revelador que los dos candidatos se autodenominaran “antisistema”, se posicionaran contra la política tradicional y fueran ajenos a los partidos políticos tradicionales. La ciudadanía colombiana está cansada de la larga hegemonía de los partidos tradicionales y de ciertas élites políticas que son también élites económicas.

    El candidato derrotado, Rodolfo Hernández, representa a un sector político de derecha, aunque su campaña buscó enfatizar su cercanía con el pueblo abanderándose en la lucha contra la corrupción, pese a que él mismo está siendo investigado por esta causa. El candidato ganador, Gustavo Petro, representa una opción de izquierda. El hecho de que una propuesta de este signo fuera escogida por primera vez en la historia dice mucho sobre las demandas sociales de la ciudadanía, las mismas que se hicieron públicas en la calle desde el 2019.

    Creo que la segunda vuelta no fue un enfrentamiento polarizado entre una extrema derecha y una extrema izquierda, sino más bien un enfrentamiento entre propuestas novedosas (podría decirse populistas) por fuera de la política tradicional, y particularmente en contra de la herencia del expresidente Álvaro Uribe, encarnada en el actual presidente, Iván Duque.

    El hartazgo con la política y con la inequidad social, intensificada por los efectos de la pandemia, hizo una bomba explosiva que se manifestó en las elecciones. Es muy bueno que se haya manifestado por vías democráticas, y no como solía suceder en el pasado, a través de la violencia política.

    ¿Cómo interpretas la llegada de Hernández a la segunda vuelta?

    La llegada de Hernández fue bastante sorpresiva, ya que los candidatos considerados con chances eran Federico Gutiérrez y Gustavo Petro. Su discurso fue de cercanía con la ciudadanía. Hizo una gran campaña en redes sociales, sobre todo TikTok, y se enfocó en los problemas que la gente prioriza sistemáticamente en las encuestas, como la corrupción.

    Hernández era visto como una persona sencilla, que habla de manera muy simple al ciudadano común, mientras que los discursos de otros candidatos sonaban demasiado elevados. Convenció mucho con el argumento de que, por ser millonario, él no robaría como los demás, e incluso rechazaría el pago del salario de presidente. También movilizó a mucha gente que no entiende lo que significa que Colombia se encuentre en un proceso de paz, que votó “no” en el plebiscito de 2016, y que anteriormente había votado por presidentes de derecha como Duque o Uribe.

    A este atractivo se agregaron los grandes errores de las propuestas de centro y al miedo que generaba la figura de Petro, tanto por ser de izquierda como por ir acompañado de una candidata vicepresidencial negra, Francia Márquez, que fue empleada doméstica y se graduó de la universidad a los 39 años. Todo ello contribuyó al éxito de Hernández en la primera vuelta, a pesar de que desconoce completamente la política y no está en condiciones ni de gobernar ni hacer un buen trabajo de oposición.

    ¿Cómo fue la campaña por la segunda vuelta?

    Fue una campaña de emociones fuertes, más que cualquier otra del pasado. Las emociones políticas son lo que finalmente marca el curso de una elección.

    El miedo jugó un gran rol. Mucha gente en Colombia teme a todo proyecto de izquierda. Además, Colombia es un país racista, clasista y misógino, por lo que una figura como la de Márquez también generaba miedo. Conocí pocas personas que votaran a Hernández por él mismo y no por el miedo a Petro. Estas personas describían a Hernández como “el viejito lindo que lucha contra la corrupción y tiene mucho dinero”. Así es como estos populismos de derecha se acercan a la gente.

    La campaña anti-Petro hizo circular desinformación con el único objetivo de generar temor, en forma muy similar a lo que ocurrió en la campaña para el plebiscito por la paz. Entre estos temores infundados se destacó el de que Colombia se convertiría en una nueva Venezuela, ya que Petro querría quedarse eternamente en el poder, como lo hizo en su momento el venezolano Hugo Chávez. La gente lo repetía acríticamente sin caer en la cuenta de que, en Colombia, quien quiso hacer eso fue Uribe, mediante un cambio constitucional en 2004 que le permitió renovar su mandato y quedarse ocho años, tras lo cual intentó hacerlo nuevamente.

    Otra idea asociada al destino de Venezuela fue la del empobrecimiento, la devaluación de la moneda y la hiperinflación. También se habló mucho de la posible reacción empresarial frente a un eventual gobierno de izquierda y de la gran salida de empresas del mercado colombiano que ocurriría en ese caso. Es cierto que el dólar subió la semana posterior a la elección –como ocurrió en Chile cuando ganó Gabriel Boric–, pero el dólar ha venido en aumento en los últimos años y el incremento inicial no ha sido catastrófico.

    También se infundió miedo a la ciudadanía con el uso irresponsable del calificativo “guerrillero” en referencia a Petro, que en el pasado fue militante del M19, una guerrilla hoy desmovilizada. Petro tiene ya una larga carrera política civil y desde hace décadas no tiene nada que ver con ningún grupo al margen de la ley. Pero el estigma sigue instalado, lo cual demuestra lo mucho que Colombia todavía debe avanzar en su proceso de reconciliación.

    La desinformación y la violencia digital también se ensañaron con las dos candidatas mujeres que hubo en esta elección: Ingrid Betancourt, quien compitió en la primera vuelta presidencial, y Márquez. Muchas investigaciones sobre violencia digital sostienen que cuando hay mujeres en política, se utiliza información personal sobre ellas y se tergiversan los datos. Pero en el caso de Márquez hubo un verdadero discurso de odio racializado. Se dijeron cosas horribles sobre ella, tanto por su historia personal y su pasado como mujer muy pobre, como por ser una mujer negra. Se escucharon los peores chistes racistas y misóginos.

    Colombia necesita una profunda reflexión sobre cómo construimos la identidad del otro y sobre cómo reconocernos como un país pluricultural. Cali es la segunda ciudad con mayor población afrodescendiente del continente, y todo el Pacífico colombiano está repleto de población afro e indígena. Pero hay un racismo sistémico que se hizo muy evidente en la campaña.

    En su mayoría, los medios de comunicación tradicionales han hecho mucho mal ya que se hicieron eco del discurso de odio. Una semana antes de la segunda vuelta, por ejemplo, la Revista Semana sacó una portada sensacionalista que preguntaba quién sería electo, si el ingeniero o el exguerrillero. El exguerrillero también es economista, pero allí no se trataba de las profesiones de los candidatos, sino de un mensaje atemorizante. En los últimos meses de campaña Petro debió desmentir muchísimas cosas, mientras Hernández se escondió y se negó a participar en debates. 

    Así, se nos quiso vender la idea de que estábamos “entre la espada y la pared” y debíamos escoger al candidato “menos peor”. Se montó una narrativa pública que decía que como aquí la élite política no estaba representada, toda la oferta disponible era simplemente mala.

    ¿Qué tipo de electorado se volcó hacia cada uno de estos candidatos?

    Existe una superposición bastante cercana entre la Colombia que votó “no” en el plebiscito sobre los acuerdos de paz, la Colombia que en el pasado eligió a Duque, y la Colombia que ahora votó por Hernández. Es una ciudadanía culturalmente conservadora, que teme al cambio, se ha identificado con élites políticas tradicionales y a la que no han sabido hablarle los procesos de paz y los progresismos políticos. Los votantes de Hernández en las grandes ciudades y otras zonas del país temen a procesos de inclusión de poblaciones vulnerables y casi no incluyen sectores indígenas o afro. De hecho, en los corredores con más población indígena del país ganó Petro con números sin precedentes.

    La Colombia que votó “sí” en el plebiscito coincide con la Colombia que votó por Petro. Se trata de la Colombia de “los márgenes”, que reúne las regiones menos desarrolladas del país. Las grandes ciudades, excepto Medellín, también votaron por Petro. Se trata de una ciudadanía urbana, a la que Márquez define como ciudadanía “de los nadies y las nadies”. La gente que voto a Petro es en gran medida una ciudadanía frustrada, que ha sido afectada como ninguna otra por la corrupción, que no forma parte las élites políticas, y que ha sido históricamente relegada en términos de desarrollo. Son personas tienen poco, que con Petro ven una promesa de mejora. Anteriores candidatos no les habían ofrecido soluciones ciertas a sus problemas, ni siquiera la posibilidad de sentirse involucrados.

    El país está dividido, pero esta no es una división nueva. Los gobiernos pasados no han logrado conciliar las diferencias. Tenemos dos Colombias, con una polarización inmensa: en las elecciones con mayor participación en los últimos 20 años, Petro ganó por apenas 800.000 votos. Eso significa que hay 10 millones de personas que se oponen a los 11 millones de Petro. Petro deberá saber hablarles a estas dos facetas de Colombia y hacer que la Colombia que no lo votó no se sienta relegada.

    ¿Qué expectativas o temores genera el resultado en la sociedad civil?

    Gane quien gane, nuestro trabajo como sociedad civil siempre sigue siendo el mismo. Pero en lo personal, viendo lo que ocurrió cuando Petro fue alcalde de Bogotá, temo que el revanchismo pueda obstaculizar el avance del gobierno. La polarización, el discurso de odio y la manipulación de la institucionalidad pueden tener efectos muy graves. También provoca temor la posible reacción de los mercados ante un gobierno de izquierda. 

    También está el hecho de que Petro es una persona muy pasional, y muchas veces no se comunica de la mejor manera posible; tanto su campaña como la de Hernández atacaron a la prensa cuando les fue crítica. La prensa tiene un rol fundamental, y esto puede ser muy fastidioso para cualquier gobierno, pero es indispensable que tenga garantías suficientes para hacer su labor. Hay temor de que Petro pueda ser muy hostil con la prensa crítica de su gobierno. 

    A las organizaciones que, como RedLad, hacemos incidencia internacional, nos preocupa cómo se posicionará Petro frente a las izquierdas del continente. Actualmente América Latina tiene una izquierda que genera mucha esperanza, que propone cambios, y que es distinta a la izquierda tradicional; esta es la izquierda de Boric en Chile. Pero también está la izquierda de Andrés Manuel López Obrador en México, por no hablar de las izquierdas de Cuba, Nicaragua y Venezuela, que han generado graves crisis de espacio cívico. Creo que Petro está en algún lugar en el medio, y enfrenta el dilema de cómo alinearse. Creo que debe alinearse a una izquierda más propositiva y amigable con el desarrollo.

    A pesar de que el partido de Petro, Pacto Histórico, obtuvo buena representación en las elecciones legislativas de marzo de 2022, las transformaciones que ha puesto sobre la mesa son bastante amplias y profundas, y para tener éxito necesitarán un gran acuerdo político, algo que es complejo en Colombia. Si no se logra, la ciudadanía que votó por Petro y sus promesas se vería frustrada. Será interesante ver cómo este gobierno, elegido bajo la bandera de las movilizaciones de 2019, responderá a la ciudadanía si se moviliza nuevamente.

    Para que la gran expectativa generada en la ciudadanía no decaiga, el gobierno de Petro deberá marcar algunas victorias tempranas en relación con el avance del proceso de paz y la disminución de asesinatos de líderes sociales. Espero que Petro avance en los compromisos internacionales, que el espacio cívico no se siga reduciendo sino que se amplíe, y que se garanticen las libertades de manifestación y expresión.

    El espacio cívico en Colombia es calificado como “represivo” por elCIVICUS Monitor.
    Póngase en contacto con RedLad a través de supágina web o su perfil deFacebook, y siga a@REDLADoficial en Twitter.
  • COLOMBIA: “La juventud vive un sentimiento de querer cambiarlo todo”

    CIVICUS conversa acerca de las protestas que comenzaron en Colombia en abril de 2021, en reacción a un alza de impuestos, con una joven activista social y de derechos humanos que por razones de seguridad prefirió mantener el anonimato. La entrevistada pertenece a una red de organizaciones y activistas jóvenes que promueve la solidaridad, la organización y la lucha de los sectores excluidos y tiene presencia en la capital, Bogotá, y en la ciudad de Medellín.

    ¿Cuáles fueron las causas de las protestas? ¿Qué reclaman los manifestantes?

    La reforma tributaria fue apenas la gota que derramó el vaso, ya que se sumó a un cúmulo de problemas. En las asambleas en que participamos se recogieron cientos de reivindicaciones y reclamos de toda índole, desde tapar huecos en las calles de un barrio hasta tumbar el gobierno del presidente Iván Duque y hacer justicia frente a los llamados “falsos positivos”, es decir, casos de civiles asesinados por las fuerzas militares y presentados como parte del conflicto armado. Lo que vivía la juventud era un sentimiento de querer cambiarlo todo, de no querer seguir viviendo como antes.

    Pero a pesar de la diversidad de demandas, algunas aglutinan más a los jóvenes populares. Pienso que, en materia económica, la juventud de los sectores populares reclama empleo y oportunidades de salir adelante, y en materia política estos jóvenes, en particular los que conformaron algunas de las primeras líneas de las protestas, reclaman dignidad, dejar de ser humillados. Nada agrupa más a estos jóvenes que su odio profundo a la policía, como representante principal de los ultrajes y humillaciones que viven a diario. Se sienten como parias sin futuro económico, sin esperanzas de conseguir un trabajo más allá del rebusque diario para sobrevivir, rechazados por la sociedad y perseguidos como delincuentes por la policía por el hecho de ser jóvenes y pobres.

    Los sectores estudiantiles, también jóvenes pero más intelectuales, algunos de clase media, también fueron una fuerza significativa en las protestas, pero tendieron a enfatizar demandas contra la represión política y la violación de los derechos humanos, los “falsos positivos”, los asesinatos de líderes sociales y la criminalización de la protesta.

    ¿En qué se diferencian estas protestas de las ocurridas en años precedentes? ¿Guardan alguna línea de continuidad con aquéllas?

    En el fondo, los móviles son los mismos de las protestas de 2019 y 2020. En las protestas de 2019 pesó más la crisis del desempleo y el hambre, mientras que en las de 2020 se impuso más el tema de la represión, el no querer seguir siendo humillados y asesinados. Las que estallaron en abril de 2021 combinaron los móviles de las dos oleadas precedentes, porque no solamente ninguno de los dos problemas había sido atacado de raíz, sino que ni siquiera se habían ofrecido paliativos; al contrario, la crisis económica se agudizó y la represión política se mantuvo.

    Tal vez una diferencia sea que las últimas protestas han recibido mayor atención internacional, lo cual responde a la fuerza con que el pueblo colombiano salió a las calles. La protesta tuvo una amplia legitimidad en sectores que generalmente no se movilizan. La crisis y la asfixia económica y política era tal que sectores como el de los comerciantes medianos e incluso grandes apoyaron las protestas. La masividad de las protestas también obligó a todos, desde artistas hasta congresistas, a tomar partido.

    Hubo colombianos en el exterior que hicieron protestas en sus respectivos países planteando lo que les contaban sus familiares en el país. Tal vez algunos piensen que la mayor atención internacional se debió a la represión, pero yo soy más de la idea de que fue la cantidad de sectores medios que se movilizaron lo que magnificó el mensaje. La represión ha estado muy presente en ciclos anteriores y también frente a las protestas del sector campesino. Creo que lo determinante en este caso ha sido la diversidad de capas sociales que apoyaron la protesta.

    ¿Cómo ha reaccionado el gobierno a las protestas?

    En general, primero reprimiéndolas violentamente, luego deslegitimándolas utilizando los medios de comunicación para atacar a algunos sectores, y en particular a la juventud, y finalmente intentando dividirlas para desmovilizar a algunos sectores y dejar aislada a la juventud popular. Para esto último el gobierno entabló varias negociaciones con un autoproclamado Comité Nacional del Paro, y también llevó a cabo negociaciones a nivel local intentando contener o calmar a algunos sectores.

    Particularmente a nivel local, incluso en localidades con gobiernos que se dicen de centro e independientes, el gobierno conformó mesas de diálogo que no solucionan nada, donde se escuchan los reclamos pero no se ofrece nada concreto para responder a las demandas. Muchos gobiernos locales se lavaron las manos de la represión, culpando de ella solo al gobierno central, pero hicieron todo lo que estuvo a su alcance para desmovilizar las protestas, enviando representantes para calmar a los manifestantes y prometiendo a la gente que si dejaba de protestar escucharían sus demandas, cosa que no habían hecho durante todo el año precedente.

    La violencia de algunos grupos parece haberse vuelto un problema. ¿Cómo lidiaron con esto las organizaciones y activistas de la sociedad civil?

    La violencia ha sido una reacción muchas veces espontanea frente a la represión. Enfrentar con el juicio y el regaño al joven que está tirando una piedra no sirve para nada, excepto para radicalizarlo más y ganarse su desconfianza. Para poder cambiar esta violencia hay que empezar por entenderla y por distinguirla y no ponerla en el mismo nivel que la violencia del Estado. No se trata de que la violencia sea deseable; de hecho, desvíe la iniciativa de buena parte de los jóvenes. Pero interponerse entre ellos y el Comando de Atención Inmediata - la unidad policial que actúa en los perímetros urbanos – para tratar de detenerlos acaba teniendo un efecto más de psicología inversa que de disuasión o educación.

    En mi experiencia, las organizaciones de la sociedad civil que no extienden la mano a esos jóvenes ni les ofrecen espacios alternativos de politización y concientización, los aíslan y pierden la capacidad de influir sobre ellos. Nuestra organización ha lidiado con esto mediante la estrategia de evitar partir del juicio negativo y, en cambio, aproximarnos desde el entendimiento y procurar ir generando espacios alternativos para la participación política y la organización de los jóvenes.

    ¿Qué roles ha desempeñado tu organización en el marco de las protestas?

    Nuestra organización tuvo un rol activo: organizó la participación en las protestas de jóvenes y familias en los barrios donde desarrolla trabajo comunitario y promovió una campaña de solidaridad con los manifestantes para recoger apoyo económico y otros recursos, tales como primeros auxilios, apoyo en las ollas comunitarias e incidencia en derechos humanos para auxiliar a diferentes focos de protesta en las ciudades de Bogotá y de Medellín.

    En Bogotá dio apoyo para reclamar información sobre personas desaparecidas y participó en campañas de solidaridad con los heridos. En Medellín realizó jornadas de ollas comunitarias y reparación de techos y otros daños causados por las protestas en los barrios cercanos a los mayores puntos de protestas en la ciudad. Finalmente, durante las protestas desarrolló actividades de concientización y promovió el involucramiento de jóvenes manifestantes en procesos más duraderos de construcción social y comunitaria.

    ¿Qué impactos consideran que tendrá este ciclo de protestas y represión sobre las próximas elecciones?

    A mi forma de ver, las protestas aumentaron el capital político del ex alcalde de Bogotá y excandidato a presidente por la izquierda, Gustavo Petro. El gobierno no dio ninguna respuesta real a las demandas de las protestas y la gente sigue buscando alternativas, y – aunque nuestra organización no tiene ningún interés ni intención de hacerle campaña - creo que Petro es la única opción disponible. Para las próximas elecciones esperaría un mayor índice de participación juvenil, y no me extrañaría para nada el triunfo de Petro.

    El espacio cívico en Colombia es calificado como “represivo” por el CIVICUS Monitor.

Página 1 de 2

CONTACTA CON NOSOTROS

CANALES DIGITALES

SUDÁFRICA
25  Owl Street, 6th Floor
Johannesburgo,
Sudáfrica,
2092
Tel: +27 (0)11 833 5959
Fax: +27 (0)11 833 7997

UN HUB: GINEBRA
11 Avenue de la Paix
Ginebra
Suiza
CH-1202
Tel: +41.79.910.34.28

UN HUB: NUEVA YORK
CIVICUS, c/o We Work
450 Lexington Ave
Nueva York
NY 10017
Estados Unidos