coloniality, peace, nature, conflict, capitalism, extractivism
This contribution examines how peace and conflict studies remain deeply entangled with the coloniality of nature, perpetuating a worldview that reduces nature to an economic resource for driving economic growth, development and peacebuilding. I argue that the coloniality of nature operates through three interconnected mechanisms: the imposition of a dualist human-nature ontology, the degradation of life and territory through resource exploitation, and epistemic violence against Indigenous knowledge systems. By confronting these colonial underpinnings, this contribution calls for a reimagining of the relationship between nature, conflict and peace in order to address the colonial roots of environmental conflicts and advocate for decolonial futures built on reciprocity, care and ecological justice instead.
“May the peace be like a feather… Beautiful, soft and resistant.”
The artwork was provided by (Un)Stiching gazes. The group is an interdisciplinary collective of reflection, research and praxis, which tells and collects stories of peace and encounters in Colombia, especially after the signing of the 2016 Peace Agreement. They do so through textile narrative, that is to say through threads, needles and fabrics.
Barbara Magalhães Teixeira is a a peace and conflict scholar and educator. Her research touches on issues of nature, peace, and development, with a focus on environmental conflicts and the socio-ecological transition.
“If we think that we can treat the water, the air that we breathe, the food, the land from which we come from, all of these blessings in a superficial way, then we also treat our own existence in a superficial way.”
Ailton Krenak ()
The Coloniality of Nature in Peace and Conflict
The concept of the coloniality of nature refers to how colonial processes have shaped our understanding and treatment of the natural world, often reducing it to an economic resource for extraction, commodification and control (Alimonda, ). Building on the broader concept of coloniality (Quijano, ; Maldonado-Torres, ), this idea highlights the lingering effects of colonialism on modern systems of power, knowledge and social relations, even after ‘formal’ colonisation has ended. In the case of nature, coloniality shapes the ways in which environments are exploited, managed and understood, framing them as tools for economic growth, development and peacebuilding. Indeed, in their contribution to this encyclopaedia () discuss how the field of peace studies has been permeated by a coloniality of peace, wherein theories, strategies and discourses have served to support and reinforce modern/colonial projects of domination and oppression, especially in the Global South.
DEFINING COLONIALITY
Coloniality refers to the ongoing systems of power, knowledge and social relations that persist long after formal colonisation has ended. This concept has been introduced and shaped by different scholars and intellectuals from the Global South, who have argued that coloniality operates as a pervasive system that structures inequalities across multiple dimensions, such as , , , , , and . Each of these dimensions is interrelated, working together to maintain hierarchies that privilege certain groups (primarily those in the Global North) over others (primarily those in the Global South).
Coloniality of nature describes the colonial framework that reduces nature to an economic resource, perpetuating epistemic violence, environmental degradation, and a hierarchical human-nature relationship. This concept highlights the enduring legacy of colonial power in shaping extractivist logics that structure how life is ordered and valued.
In order to understand the coloniality of nature specifically, it is essential to reflect on what is meant by nature, environment, and even ecosystems. While nature often evokes a broader symbolic or philosophical connection to the non-human world, environment focuses on physical surroundings, and ecosystem emphasises networks of interdependence. These distinctions matter because colonial frameworks have historically blurred and instrumentalised these concepts to justify domination and resource extraction.
This instrumentalisation is evident in peace and conflict studies, where the field has often treated nature as a stockpile of resources. Much of the literature has focused on the role that natural resources play in both fuelling and resolving conflicts. Scholars examining the link between natural resources and conflict have extensively analysed how high-value, non-renewable resources like oil, diamonds and minerals contribute to the onset of civil wars due to their economic potential (Collier & Hoeffler, ; Wennmann, ; Mildner, Lauster, & Wodni, ). Additionally, the environmental peacebuilding literature emphasises the role of extractive industries in post-conflict settings, advocating for their reactivation to stimulate economic recovery (Johnson, ; Bruch, Muffett, & Nichols, ; Conca & Beevers, ). Despite differing emphases, both bodies of literature often conceptualise nature primarily as a stockpile of resources, either raw materials or ecosystem services, thereby subordinating it to human wants and needs (Hickel, ). In this framework nature is valued for its economic potential, and environmental degradation, waste and pollution are seen as economic externalities of human activities.
This perspective abuses ecosystems, treating nature as both a resource pool and a waste bin, expecting it to provide resources for wealth generation as well as absorbing our waste and pollution (Patel & Moore, ). Such a view reflects an extractivist mindset that not only degrades life and territory through resource exploitation, but also sustains deeper structural injustices. Specifically, it relies on a dualist human-nature ontology that separates humans from the environment and views nature as a passive entity to be controlled and used. Additionally, this perspective perpetuates epistemic violence by marginalising Indigenous and other knowledges that understand nature as an interconnected system rather than a subordinate object. Both the ontological and epistemic dimensions are crucial to understanding the coloniality of nature in peace and conflict, as they shape how peacebuilding approaches engage with ecosystems and communities. This notion of nature as serving a purpose for peace and stability sustains a modernity that is inherently colonial. The coloniality of nature thus involves three mechanisms: the imposition of a dualist human-nature ontology, the degradation of life and territory through resource exploitation, and epistemic violence against Indigenous knowledge (Cubillos, Quintero, & Perea, ).
Colonialism, Capitalism and Patriarchy: Tracing the Coloniality of Nature
Carolyn Merchant’s () seminal work ‘The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution’ traces the historical transformation of human relationships with the environment, emphasising how different societies have understood and engaged with nature over time. She argues that for much of human history different societies maintained an organic theory of the earth as a living being, shaping relationships between self, society and cosmos though principles of interdependence and reciprocity. Human activities such as fishing, hunting, gathering and farming were embedded within cultural practices of respect and gratitude (see also Shiva & Mies, ; Federici, ). However, it was the mechanisation of nature during the Scientific Revolution in Europe that marked a shift toward instrumental and extractivist relations with the living world, and these relationships still characterise Western societies today.
Building on this historical shift, Merchant () demonstrates that prior to the Renaissance European cosmologies depicted nature as a caring and nurturing mother who provided for the needs of humans in an ordered universe (Merchant, ). For instance, Seneca saw earth as ‘a living organism with springs and rivers flowing through her like blood through veins, with metals and minerals forming slowly in her womb, and morning dew like perspiration on her skin’ (cited in Hickel, , p. 65). However, another common image portrayed it as ‘wild and uncontrollable nature that could render violence, storms, droughts, and general chaos’ (Merchant, ), p. 2). These dual images of nature as both caring and disorderly were central to pre-modern European thought, but they underwent a radical transformation during the Scientific Revolution. Nevertheless, while shifting perceptions of nature were significant in shaping modern Western thought, they were neither uniform across Europe nor universally adopted, since alternative ecological worldviews persisted and coexisted alongside emerging mechanistic and rational perspectives.
With the rise of mechanistic and rational thought, however, the relationship between humans and nature changed from focusing on interdependence and reverence towards domination and mastery. This transition was not merely philosophical; it was also deeply tied to the increasing commercialisation and industrialisation of European societies. The expansion of Europeans into new territories and markets and the origins of both capitalism and colonialism reinforced and legitimised exploitative relationships with the natural environment. As Carolyn Merchant (, p. 3) puts it:
‘the image of the earth as a living organism and nurturing mother had served as a cultural constraint restricting the actions of human beings. One does not readily slay a mother, dig into her entrails for gold or mutilate her body, although commercial mining would soon require that. As long as the earth was considered to be alive and sensitive, it could be considered a breach of human ethical behavior to carry out destructive acts against it.’
As capitalist and colonial investments became more dominant, so too did the need to transform the societal view of nature as a living being into a characterisation that justified possession, extraction and commodification. The Scientific Revolution provided a crucial intellectual framework for this transformation. Carolyn Merchant (, p. 3) explains how the earlier image of the earth as a nurturing mother acted as a cultural and ethical constraint, making destructive acts against nature morally unacceptable. However, this worldview was replaced by mechanistic and exploitative perspectives that aligned with the demands of capitalist and colonial expansion.
In this context, the ideas of Renée Descartes became profoundly influential, setting out what Patel and Moore (, p. 9) describe as the first two laws of capitalist ecology. First, Descartes distinguished between mind and body, enforcing an ontological dualism that classified humans – specifically White European men – as ‘thinking things’ and nature as ‘extended things’. Second, Descartes asserted that European civilisation should strive to become ‘the masters and possessors of nature’. These philosophical abstractions were not mere theoretical musings; they soon became practical instruments of domination. By categorising nature as an object devoid of thought or agency, Descartes’ framework justified not only the exploitation of the environment but also the subjugation of women, people of colour and Indigenous peoples, who were systematically framed as part of nature and therefore as objects of domination.
DEFINING MODERNITY
Modernity refers to a historical period and a set of ideas that emerged in Europe between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries, especially following the Enlightenment and the . It is characterised by belief in progress, rationality, science, and the idea that humans can control and improve their environments through reason and technology. The ideals of emphasise individualism, secularism, industrialisation, and the pursuit of economic growth and technological innovation. Central to modernity is the notion that human societies can evolve and develop over time, moving from , often associated with industrial and capitalist economies.
However, while modernity is often celebrated for advances in science, technology and political thought, it is also inseparably tied to coloniality. The material wealth and infrastructure that form the backbone of modernity were built upon systems of subjugation and exploitation established through colonial power structures. . These power structures also introduced a hierarchy of human value, categorising European, White, and male identities as ‘civilised’ and superior while framing colonised peoples as . This hierarchisation justified domination and exploitation in the name of progress and .
Thus, modernity cannot and should not be thought of without its constituting condition: coloniality. The two are inherently linked, since colonialism was not simply a byproduct of modernity but an essential foundation for its material and ideological advancement. Modernity’s ideals of progress, rationality and development must therefore be understood in relation to the systems of inequality and domination that made them possible.
During the rise of capitalism and colonisation nature was reinvented, remade and rethought many times, aligning with the imperatives of profit, wealth accumulation and economic expansion. The so called ‘death of nature’ (Merchant, ) describes how these imperatives restructured human metabolism within the web of life, shifting humanity’s relationship with nature from one of interdependence to one of extraction (Moore, ). This logic was evident from the very onset of European expansion; when Columbus first arrived in the Caribbean he immediately recognised the economic potential of the New World’s ecosystem, but lamented his inability to assess or quantify its monetary value (Patel & Moore, ). His observations exemplify how colonial expansion was not only about territorial conquest, but also about imposing a new framework in which nature was no longer understood through its intrinsic or relational significance but rather through its capacity to be measured, controlled and commodified.
As Europeans empires expanded they applied the same logic of domination to colonised lands and peoples, treating them as extensions of the natural world to be controlled and exploited. This process of turning living beings and territories into objects of extraction and control – a phenomenon Cesáire () called ‘thingification’ – underscored the violent restructuring of human-nature relationships under colonial rule. Crucially, the universalisation of Cartesian scientific reason and the concept of modernity played a fundamental role in this process. Colonial classification systems, rooted in European epistemologies, categorised nature and peoples into hierarchies of value and utility, legitimising European control (Alimonda, ); Escobar, ). This epistemic shift laid the groundwork not only for economic exploitation but also for colonial control, rendering the natural world and colonised peoples knowable, manageable and ultimately subordinate to European power.
This emphasis on knowledge production as a tool for domination points to the foundational role of epistemicide – the systematic erasure of Indigenous and non-European ways of knowing – in the colonial project. The coloniality in the appropriation of nature not only justified territorial expropriation but also annihilated subaltern ways of coexisting with nature, including Indigenous beliefs, practices and knowledge systems (Porto-Gonçalves, ; Assis & Franco, ). As Alimonda () argues, this loss of knowledges and ecosystem interactions was not incidental; rather, it was accompanied by systematic genocide and the subalternisation of native populations.
At the same time, colonial powers selectively appropriated certain Indigenous knowledges, particularly in relation to agricultural techniques, medicinal plants and species cultivation, extracting economic value while dismissing the broader cosmologies in which these practices were embedded. Crops such as maize, cassava and potatoes became critical to European societies but were stripped from their cultural and ecological contexts. Bispo () frames this process within a Euro-Christian-Monotheistic perspective, which played a central role in suppressing Indigenous ways of life. Rooted in a hierarchical worldview that emphasised a singular divine authority, this perspective contrasted sharply with Indigenous cosmologies that saw humans as interdependent with the natural world. By framing nature and Indigenous cultures as subordinate, this worldview justified their domination and exploitation, reinforcing racial, gendered, cultural and environmental oppression.
Here it is important to highlight that this appreciation for how native communities organise themselves in ways that are ontologically different from industrialised Western societies does not imply a romanticisation or naïve understanding of Indigenous relationships with nature. As Indigenous and quilombola scholars emphasise, relationality with nature has always been shaped by diverse ontologies and practices, some more or less colonial and extractive than others. For example, the Yanomami shaman Davi Kopenawa challenges the assumption that Indigenous peoples possess an inherently ‘magical’ relationship with nature by virtue of their identity. Instead, he describes their relationship as one structured around listening, learning and maintaining balance in alignment with natural cycles – a process he describes as ‘holding up the sky’ (Kopenawa & Albert, ). In contrast, many Western societies, shaped by extractivism and industrialisation, have become increasingly disconnected from these reciprocal practices, leading to a loss of the cultural frameworks necessary for maintaining harmony with nature or keeping the sky from falling (Porto, ). While Indigenous practices highlight the potential of such connections, they are not relics of the past but living examples of alternative ontologies that continue to offer vital insights into how our societies might repair our relationship with nature (Krenak, ).
This epistemic violence erased alternative ways of relating to the environment that emphasised balance, reciprocity and sustainability. It also entrenched the colonial project by undermining Indigenous claims to sovereignty and legitimising the expropriation of their lands and resources. The suppression of Indigenous cosmologies and the selective extraction of their knowledge demonstrate how coloniality operates not only through physical violence, but also through the systematic restructuring of thought and knowledge production.
Sustainable Development: A Continuation of the Coloniality of Nature and Peace
Rooted in the first colonial encounters, the coloniality of nature has continued to shape not only our ecological past but also our ecological futures in what Francis () calls the ‘tyranny of the coloniality of nature’. This process persists by shaping contemporary discourses on environmental ethics and sustainability, manifesting most recently in the framework of sustainable development, which reproduces colonial patterns of domination and exploitation of nature (Porto-Gonçalves, ).
At the core of sustainable development lies a binary ontology that externalises nature, framing it as something separate from human economic and social spheres. This separation allows ecological concerns to be treated as discrete, technical issues that can be ‘fixed’ through targeted interventions, without altering the underlying economic structures that perpetuate environmental degradation and inequality. This is particularly evident in the way that sustainable development elevates economic goals to the same level as social and environmental goals, suggesting that resource extraction and economic expansion can coexist with ecological and social well-being. However, this economy-centric model frequently prioritises market-based solutions and technological innovations over structural change (Hickel, ). By failing to challenge the root causes of ecological harm – extractivism, capitalism and colonial power structures – sustainable development perpetuates the commodification of natural resources, treating ecosystems as assets for economic gain rather than integral parts of a balanced human-nature relationship. Consequently, development projects and environmental policies often benefit powerful Global North actors at the expense of marginalised communities, especially in the Global South.
This model of sustainable development is closely linked to sustainable peace, since peacebuilding strategies often seek to create stable conditions for economic development (Magalhães Teixeira, ). Environmental peacebuilding in particular extends the logic of commodification by framing natural resources and ecosystems as economic drivers of peace and development. However, this framing raises critical questions about the definition and ownership over the concepts of peace and nature. Whose definition of peace is privileged, and which elements are emphasised or marginalised in this discourse? The dominant approaches often reproduce the coloniality of nature, not only through the commodification and appropriation of resources but also through the assumption that local communities are incapable of managing and caring for their own resources effectively and sustainably. This perspective devalues Indigenous knowledge systems and practices while asserting the necessity of external, Eurocentric interventions in achieving sustainable development and peace. In doing so, it reinforces historical patterns of epistemic and ecological domination, rather than fostering genuine community-led pathways toward sustainability and justice.
Toward Decolonial Futures: Rethinking Nature, Conflict and Peace
To move toward decolonial futures, we must critically confront how the coloniality of nature is embedded not only in how we conceptualise peace but also in the policies and practices of governance. Extractivist solutions framed as peacebuilding normalise the commodification of nature while marginalising alternative approaches rooted in care, reciprocity and ecological balance. The recognition of ecosystems as legal subjects, as seen in movements advocating for the rights of rivers and forests, offers a powerful counterpoint to this logic by challenging anthropocentric views and reframing nature as an agent within the process of building peace. Similarly, recognising nature as a victim of violence and war, as explored in Colombia’s peace and reconciliation process, underscores the interconnectedness of environmental restoration and social healing.
In her book ‘Making Peace with the Earth’, Vandana Shiva () pushes us to interrogate the very meaning of peace in this context. Is peace merely about reconciling humanity with nature, or does it require dismantling the hierarchies of power among people, challenging the exploitative nature of capitalism, and healing the violent rift between society and an externalised nature? ‘Making peace with nature’ may ultimately demand a deeper reckoning – not only with ourselves, but also with the systems of oppression that perpetuate both environmental and social injustices.
By embracing decolonial and feminist approaches, we can reimagine peace and conflict as processes rooted in mutual respect, care and interdependence. These critical perspectives challenge the dominance of economic-driven paradigms, advocating instead for frameworks that recognise the intrinsic value of ecosystems and prioritise just and reciprocal relationships. Decolonial futures require more than ecological and social restoration; they necessitate an acknowledgement of historical injustices and a commitment to repairing them. By confronting the colonial roots of how we understand and engage with nature, we can work toward more inclusive and ecologically sound futures of peace.
References
Alimonda, H. (2011). La Colonialidad de La Naturaleza: Una Aproximación a La Ecología Política Latinoamericana. In La Naturaleza Colonizada: Ecología Política y Minería En América Latina, edited by H. Alimonda. CLACSO.
Assis, W. F. T., & Franco, S. R. F. (2018). Coloniality in the Appropriation of Nature: Agrofueld Production, Dependency, and Constant Primitive Accumulation in the Periphery of Capitalism. Latin American Perspectives, 5, 222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582X17707924
Azarmandi, M., & Pauls, C. (2024). Coloniality of Peace. Rewriting Peace and Conflict Virtual Encyclopaedia. https://rewritingpeaceandconflict.net/coloniality-of-peace/
Bispo, N. (2021). Antônio Bispo: Interações Com a Natureza e Produçäo de Significados. Edited by P. Castro, & V. Camargo de Mello. 2o Ciclo Formativa.
Bruch, C., Muffett, C., & Nichols, S. S. (2016). Natural Resources and Post-Conflict Governance: Building a Sustainable Peace. In Governance, Natural Resources, and Post-Conflict Peacebuilding, edited by C. Bruch, C. Muffett, & S. S. Nichols. Routledge.
Cesáire, A. (1972). Discourse on Colonialism. Monthly Review Press.
Collier, P., & Hoeffler, A. (2000). Greed and Grievance in Civil War. Policy Research Working Paper 2355. World Bank Development Research Group.
Conca, K., & Beevers, M. D. (2018). Environmental Pathways to Peace. In Routledge Handbook on Environmental Conflict and Peacebuilding, edited by A. Swain & J. Öjendal. Routledge.
Cubillos, J. J. L., Quintero, H. F. T., & Perea, L. J. L. (2023). Extractive Logic of the Coloniality of Nature: Feeling-Thinking Through Agroecology as a Decolonial Project. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 34(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2022.2127416.
Curiel, O. (2007). Crítica poscolonial desde las prácticas políticas del feminismo Antirracista. Nómadas, 26, 92–101. https://nomadas.ucentral.edu.co/nomadas/pdf/nomadas_26/26_9C_Criticaposcolonialdesdelaspracticas.pdf
Dussel, E. (1995). The Invention of the Americas: Eclipse of „the Other“ and the Myth of Modernity. Continuum.
Escobar, A. (2011). Epistemologías de La Naturaleza y Colonialidad de La Naturaleza. Variedades de Realismo y Constructivismo. In Cultura y Naturaleza: Aproximaciones a Propósito Del Bicentenario de La Independencia de Colombia, edited by L. M. Martínez. Jardín Botánico de Bogotá José Celestino Mutis.
Federici, S. (2018). Re-Enchanting the World: Feminism and the Politics of the Commons. PM Press.
Francis, R. (2020). The Tyranny of the Coloniality of Nature and the Elusive Question of Justice. In Reimagining Justice, Human Rights and Leadership in Africa: Challenging Discourse and Searching for Alternative Paths, edited by E. Benyera. Springer.
Hickel, J. (2017). The Divide: A Brief Gide to Global Inequality and Its Solutions. Windmill Books.
Hickel, J. (2020). Less Is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World. William Heinemann/Penguin Random House UK.
Johnson, M. (2017). Strong Institutions in Weak States: Institution Building, Natural Resource Governance, and Conflict in Ghana and Sierra Leone. Dissertation, Duke University.
Kopenawa, D., & Albert, B. (2015). A Queda Do Céu: Palavras de Um Xamã Yanomami. Companhia das Letras.
Krenak, A. (2015). Ailton Krenak: ‘A Natureza Não é Uma Fonte Inesgotável.’ YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzV5xFWZdy0
Lander, E. (Ed.). (2000). La colonialidad del saber: eurocentrismo y ciencias sociales : perspectivas latinoamericanas. CLACSO.
Lugones, M. (2016). The Coloniality of Gender. In: Harcourt, W. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Gender and Development. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-38273-3_2
Magalhães Teixeira, B. (2024). Room to Grow and the Right to Say No: Theorizing the Liberatory Power of Peace in the Global South. Geopolitics, 29(5). https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2023.2286287
Maldonado-Torres, N. (2007). On the Coloniality of Being: Contributions to the Development of a Concept. Cultural Studies, 21(2–3), 240–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380601162548
Merchant, C. (1980). The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution. HarperOne.
Mignolo, W. D. (2011). The Darker Side of Western Modernity. In Duke University Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822394501
Mildner, S.-A., Lauster, G., & Wodni, W. (2011). Scarcity and Abundance Revisited: A Literature Review on Natural Resources and Conflict. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 5(1), 155–72. https://doi.org/10.4119/ijcv-2852
Moore, J. W. (2015). Capitalism in the Web of Life: Ecology and the Accummulation of Capital. Verso Books.
Patel, R., & Moore, J. W. (2018). A History of the World in Seven Cheap Things: A Guide to Capitalism, Nature, and the Future of the Planet. Verso.
Porto, R. N. (2023). Ecology under the Falling Sky: Nature, Ecology and Entropy in Yanomami Cosmology. The Anthropocene Review, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/20530196231211849
Porto-Gonçalves, C. W. (2012). A Ecologia Política Na América Latina: Reapropriação Social Da Natureza e Reinvenção Dos Territórios. Revista Interthesis, 9(1), 16–50.
Quijano, A. (2000). Coloniality of Power and Eurocentrism in Latin America. International Sociology, 15(2), 215–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580900015002005
Rodney, W. (1972). How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Black Classic Press.
Shiva, V. (2013). Making Peace with the Earth. Pluto Press.
Shiva, V., & Mies, M. (1993). Ecofeminism. Bloomsbury Academic.
Sultana, F. (2022). The unbearable heaviness of climate coloniality. Political Geography, 99, 102638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2022.102638
Wennmann, A. (2012). Sharing Natural Resource Wealth During War-to-Peace Transitions. In High-Value Natural Resources and Post-Conflict Peacebuilding, edited by P. Lujala & S. A. Rustad. Earthscan.
Wynter, S. (1996). Is’ Development’ a Purely Empirical Concept or also Teleological?: A Perspective from’ We the Underdeveloped’. Contributions In Afroamerican And African Studies, 169, 299-311.
“Mainstream […] strategic adaptation narrows the attention of researchers and practitioners to managing future risks and immediate problem-solving solutions, with limited potential for the holistic transformation required for political and social change.”
How to cite this entry:
Magalhães Teixeira, B. (2025): “Coloniality of Nature” Virtual Encyclopaedia – Rewriting Peace and Conflict. 18.03.2025. https://rewritingpeaceandconflict.net/coloniality-of-nature/.
Video-Interview
Prof. Dr. Cecilia Roa in dialogue with Miriam Bartelmann
Podcast
Layla Brown and Filiberto Penados in conversation with Fabricio Rodríguez and Viviana García Pinzón
