The Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development activated a plan to curb the spread of the hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius) in Colombia. These are descendants of the animals that Pablo Escobar brought to his private zoo at Hacienda Nápoles in Antioquia (see related article-EHN). On April 13, 2026, euthanasia of at least 80 individuals was approved as a last resort.[1] If no measures are implemented, an accelerated and uncontrolled increase is projected, exceeding 500 individuals in 2030 and 1,000 in 2035.[2]
Far from being a cause for celebration, this represents an administrative and ethical failure.
In 2022, the hippos were declared an “exotic invasive species” due to their increasingly negative impact on ecosystems and native species.[3] Among those affected are the manatee (Trichechus manatus), the capybara (Hydrochoerus isthmius), and the neotropical river otter (Lontra longicaudis).
That damage is perceived differently from the riverbanks. Some communities have found a means of livelihood in tourism: “the hippos have also become a tourist attraction, with residents of the villages surrounding Hacienda Nápoles now offering hippo-spotting tours and selling hippo-themed souvenirs.”[4] However, for other communities, the presence of these animals generates fear. The Humboldt Institute has documented direct attacks on people, damage to livestock and livelihoods, as well as restrictions on the free movement of adults and children. Other impacts include reductions in native biodiversity, modifications to aquatic ecosystems, and serious risks to local community safety and public health.[5]
Yet this controversy deepens when the power to designate a species as “invasive” is questioned, and with it, who bears the consequences. From this standpoint, other perspectives have noted that this framing implies a hierarchy of life, portraying nature as “pure” and idyllic. The dilemma is evident when other species with economic value (eg, trout, tilapia, cattle) are introduced but are not considered “invasive”; instead, they become a resource.[6] As Chakrabarty highlights, in the twentieth century humankind began to “play dice with the planet.”[7] But humankind is not an abstract entity. As Hornborg argues, ecological and social costs are unequally distributed—absorbed by the periphery while the center accumulates.[8]
The hippos in the Magdalena basin are a manifestation of that inequality. This case reveals the power alliances, whims, and eccentricities of private interests that produced enduring ecological and social damage rooted in the state’s complicity with drug trafficking from the 1980s in Colombia. A legacy that still resonates not only in the country’s history of violence but also in its ecosystems and the communities that inhabit them.
Proposed euthanasia came after decades of failed attempts and institutional negligence. Other measures considered included sterilization, which required enormous costs for sedation and posed high operational and anatomical risks. Translocation has also been explored, without success, to at least Ecuador, Peru, the Philippines, India, Mexico, the Dominican Republic, and South Africa, but has been blocked by technical, legal, and budgetary barriers.[9] Additionally, relocation is further complicated by the population’s severely limited genetic diversity. Descending from only four individuals introduced illegally at the time, the Colombian hippos already exhibit visible deformities associated with inbreeding.
The culling measure raises an ethical dilemma about which species should live or die due to human actions. It has a painful, specific face in Colombia’s history of drug trafficking and institutional omission. Euthanasia, however necessary, cannot resolve this complex dilemma. It must be complemented by a broader contingency plan grounded in a socio-ecological perspective.
The damage is the state’s responsibility, aggravated by complicit inaction. Acknowledging this failure means accepting its consequences. It is an open wound—a reminder of power’s extravagance and of human actions and their effects. This is an example of what gets pushed into oblivion—as if ignoring it, forgetting it, and not talking about it could somehow make it disappear. Assuming responsibility is the first step to making recognition meaningful. And the non-repetition of what happened is a horizon of socioecological justice.
[1] Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible, “Gobierno activa plan de choque para frenar expansión y crecimiento poblacional de hipopótamos,” April 13, 2026.
[2] Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt, “Los Institutos de Investigación respaldan medidas establecidas en el Plan de Manejo de los hipopótamos en Colombia,” April 14, 2026.
[3] Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible, Resolución No. 0346 de 2022: “Por la cual se modifica el artículo 1º de la Resolución No. 848 de 2008, adicionando la especie Hippopotamus amphibius (Hipopótamo común) y se toman otras determinaciones,” March 24, 2022. Instituto Humboldt, “Los Institutos de Investigación respaldan medidas.”
[4] Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible, “Plan de choque para frenar expansión.”
[5] Instituto Humboldt, “Los Institutos de Investigación respaldan medidas.”
[6] Quintero Venegas, Gino Jafet, ”Las vidas que estorban: hipopótamos, necropolítica y el ecofascismo de la conservación ambiental,” April 15, 2026. https://archive.ph/eX9ZT.
[7] Dipesh Chakrabarty, ”Anthropocene Time,” History and Theory 57, no. 1 (March 2018): 8.
[8] Alf Hornborg, ”Towards an Ecological Theory of Unequal Exchange: Articulating World System Theory and Ecological Economics,” Ecological Economics 25, no. 1 (1998): 127–136.
[9] Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible, “Plan de choque para frenar expansión.”
*Cover Image: Photo of an hippopotamus. Source: Wikimedia Commons.
[Cover Image Description: A large hippopotamus partially submerged in river water, lifting its head above the surface with its mouth wide open.]
