Table 17: Environmental Impacts by Alternative Type of Type of Activity Alternative A Alternative B Impact Standardize criteria needed to Reduced risk of identify where overlaps may possibly aiding the URT exist between restitution claims when restituting land and public lands with to beneficiaries which environmental restrictions. are in special The characterization studies gather management areas. information to develop cases that target the reparation of damages Positive related to environmental degradation and the misuse of natural resources. The case clinics supported by the 1. Support the LRDP addressed restitution cases GOC that were difficult to resolve, Administratin including those involving g Land environmental restrictions or Restitution prohibitions. Claims and Restitution claims overlapping No funding for Implementing with environmentally protected methodologies to Restitution areas or areas with restricted land find overlaps Rulings uses. between restitution Changes to the soil’s claims and areas with physical and chemical environmental composition. (Cumulative) restrictions. Soil and water resource Negative No funding for contamination due to the characterization improper management of studies on land waste. (Cumulative) conditions. Depletion of water resources No specific guidelines for for human consumption and for land restitution in special the preservation of aquatic management areas ecosystems (Cumulative) other than those set forth by Decree 440 of 2016.
Table 17: Environmental Impacts by Alternative Type of Activity Type of Impact Alternative A Alternative B 1. Support the GOC Administratin g Land Restitution Claims and Implementing Restitution Rulings Positive Standardize criteria needed to identify where overlaps may exist between restitution claims and public lands with environmental restrictions. The characterization studies gather information to develop cases that target the reparation of damages related to environmental degradation and the misuse of natural resources. The case clinics supported by the LRDP addressed restitution cases that were difficult to resolve, including those involving environmental restrictions or prohibitions. Reduced risk of possibly aiding the URT when restituting land to beneficiaries which are in special management areas. Negative Restitution claims overlapping with environmentally protected areas or areas with restricted land uses. Changes to the soil’s physical and chemical composition. (Cumulative) Soil and water resource contamination due to the improper management of waste. (Cumulative) Depletion of water resources for human consumption and for the preservation of aquatic ecosystems (Cumulative) No funding for methodologies to find overlaps between restitution claims and areas with environmental restrictions. No funding for characterization studies on land conditions. No specific guidelines for land restitution in special management areas other than those set forth by Decree 440 of 2016.
50319.docx