Amazonia: How to Interrupt the Trajectory Toward Collapse

By Juan Carlos Garzón

English translation by Yenni Castro (Valestra Editorial)

Security in Amazonia is neither a uniform nor a closed concept; it is a field of dispute marked by conceptual tensions, institutional priorities, and political differences. Governments, security agencies, and multilateral organizations have tried different approaches, sometimes contradictory, with disagreements about what should be protected, how, and for whom. Underlying some of these approaches, more or less explicitly, is the idea that security must be exerted by the state over the territory, that order is established from the outside, and that the ultimate goal is to establish a stable form of governance over the largest tropical forest on the planet, often described as "ungovernable" or "captured".

But what happens when the state is unable to impose this order, when institutions lack capacity, when criminal ecosystems consolidate, and when environmental destruction accelerates beyond any pretension of control? In contemporary Amazonia, the classic security paradigm, centered on territorial control, is insufficient.

Security as Territorial Capacity

In this context, it may be interesting  is to reconsider security in Amazonia from an operational perspective, with a realistic approach geared toward viable decisions aligned with the territory's conditions. Security in Amazonia should not be understood as a function granted by the State to the territory, but rather as the territory’s own capacity to resist, adapt, and sustain minimum living conditions in the face of environmental collapse, institutional weakness, and expanding criminality.

This entails a conceptual inversion: security is not something that is imposed, but a capacity built and sustained through the territory's own dynamics. It is not measured by the number of troops, bases, destroyed equipment, or seized goods, but through other indicators: 

1. Resistance to capture: How vulnerable is this territory to the establishment of forms of de facto control by criminal networks, illegal economies, or extractive actors that replace or co-opt local authorities and transform the use of space?

2. Adaptive capacity: What is the capacity of a community, ecosystem, or institutional network to reorganize itself in the face of a threat, shock, or imposed transformation, without losing its viability or cohesion?

3. Sustaining livelihoods: What livelihoods does the territory preserve, and is it capable of maintaining legal practices, ecological relations, economic circuits, or social alliances that give it continuity?

From this perspective, security in Amazonia cannot be reduced to military or police presence. It needs to be understood as the institutional and community capacity to exercise legitimate authority over the use of the territory and its natural resources. This entails ensuring ecological integrity, the permanence of local communities, the enforceability of territorial rights, and the effective implementation of environmental and territorial planning regulations.

The absence of solid civil institutions, the weakness of environmental control systems, and the fragmentation of state competencies favor the consolidation of illegality and criminality, which impose parallel forms of regulation. Talking about security requires recognizing that the dispute is no longer limited to presence, but also to the legitimacy of normative and operational power in the territory.

What Does this Means for Decision-Making

From this approach, the central question is no longer "How do we achieve total control of territory?" but "Where and how can we reinforce existing capabilities to interrupt the trajectory toward collapse?"

This allows for smarter, more selective, and contextual decision-making. Some examples would be:

• Instead of deploying armed forces to occupy large tracts of territory on a transient basis, prioritize strategic nodes where state presence can enable other functions: ecological corridors, border crossings, and community centers.

• Instead of thinking of security as a military map, use ecosystem maps to prioritize areas where intervention can avoid irreversible damage: watersheds at risk, natural barriers, and areas of high biodiversity.

• Instead of measuring security solely through crime-reduction indicators, it should be assessed by the reduction of dependence on criminal networks, the autonomy of communities vis-à-vis external actors, and the capacity to disrupt illicit economic flows ―such as illegal gold― through traceability systems, oversight mechanisms, and the closing of regulatory gaps.

This approach also changes the role of the police and the military. It is not about eliminating it but rather redefining its function: not imposing an abstract order but enabling conditions for the territory to sustain itself. This means, for example, protecting environmental defenders, containing armed threats against communities at risk, and protecting points where some form of legitimate governance can be consolidated.

From Presence to Persistence

Rethinking security in Amazonia requires overcoming the obsession with "state presence" as an end. It is not a matter of being, but of persisting in a functional and legitimate manner. A state that arrives by helicopter, executes an operation, and leaves does not produce security: security emerges when institutions and communities can perform concrete functions in critical points of the territory ―an open school, an active health post, a market that operates without coercion.

Persistence is also built from community networks, alert systems, territorial pacts, and platforms that share useful information. The essential point is that not all the territory is available for capture: that there are zones that resist, nodes that can absorb shocks, and spaces where the trajectory toward collapse is interrupted.

This definition is not rooted in idealizations about Amazonia, nor does it promise definitive and complete solutions. Its value lies in providing an operational framework for determining what is feasible amid institutional fragmentation and criminal pressures. It does not seek to solve everything through security, but rather to contain the worst and enable what is possible.

Rethinking security is a political imperative: not to repeat the old script of order, but to gain time, space, and the minimum conditions necessary for life to continue.

About the Author

Juan Carlos Garzón Vergara is a researcher and consultant specializing in security, illegal economies, and drug policy, with more than two decades of experience in Latin America and the Caribbean. His work focuses on the dynamics of security and governance in highly fragile ecosystems, where illegal economies, environmental pressures, and territorial disputes converge. He has extensive experience in the design, analysis, and monitoring of public policies, advising multilateral organizations, governments, and research centers in complex contexts. He has contributed to international institutions in understanding the environmental impacts of illegal economies and in developing research methodologies and mechanisms aimed at strengthening the state's response. His academic output includes numerous books, reports, and articles on organized crime, illegal economies, and governance. He holds a Master's degree in Latin American Studies from Georgetown University, a degree in Political Science from the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, and is a member of the Science Panel for the Amazon.

Join our Newsletter

This article is included in the 23th edition of our newsletter. To receive the next issue in your email, click here.