FUMIGATION
INDUCES FURTHER PLANTING OF ILLICIT CROPS IN COLOMBIA
Aerial fumigation over
areas planted with crops used for illicit purposes began in
These fumigation measures
where harshly criticized by US citizens due to concerns regarding contamination
of marihuana by residues of paraquat, a highly toxic
herbicide which causes pulmonary fibrosis. This pressure is probably the reason
why the use of this herbicide was banned for use in eradication of crops used
for illicit purposes. Paraquat is, however,
apparently still being used on marihuana crops in
In
Colombia, the only American
country where forced eradication strategies with aerial fumigation of Roundup
and other surfactants such as CosmoFlux and CosmoInD has been permitted, is the country where crop
cultivation has spread the most, particularly, in 1999 the year that President Pastrana announced the Plan Colombia.
It would be pertinent to establish a comparison between the market of agro toxic substances, which are extremely hazardous to our health, environment and economies, but which have government licenses everywhere under the reigning profit rationality; and their makers are not treated as criminals.
Fumigation induces further
planting
Upon analyzing the dynamics
of the areas planted and the areas eradicated from 1992-2001, one can conclude
that, under fumigation, yearly plantings have increased since, sooner or later,
the number of hectares eradicated has been substituted or even surpassed.
In order to estimate new plantings throughout a certain decade, we have assumed that each year begins with the net number of hectares carried over from the previous year (planted minus eradicated) to which are added the newly cultivated areas which substitute those eradicated plus those hectares which, when added, give us the total sum for the year studied. The possible impact of fumigation measures on new coca plantings is shown in the following table and graphic:
New hypothetical yearly coca plantings and new
theoretical plantings without eradication
Año |
Identified Coca (hectares) |
Eradicated Coca (hectares) |
Carried over to the following year* |
New yearly plantings with fumigation** |
New theoretical plantings without eradication *** |
1992 |
37.100 |
944 |
36.156 |
|
|
1993 |
39.700 |
846 |
38.854 |
3.544 |
2.600 |
1994 |
45.000 |
4.904 |
40.096 |
6.146 |
5.300 |
1995 |
50.900 |
25.402 |
25.498 |
10.804 |
5.900 |
1996 |
67.200 |
23.025 |
44.175 |
41.702 |
16.300 |
1997 |
79.500 |
44.123 |
35.377 |
35.325 |
12.300 |
1998 |
78.200 |
66.289 |
11.911 |
42.823 |
-1.300 |
1999 |
160.119 |
43.111 |
117.008 |
148.208 |
81.919 |
2000 |
163.289 |
58.074 |
105.215 |
46.281 |
3.170 |
2001 |
144.807 |
94.152 |
50.655 |
39.592 |
-18.482 |
* Planted minus eradicated.
** Difference between total number
of hectares identified during the year and those that carry over from the previous
year
*** Difference between identified hectares for one
year and for the previous year.
New hypothetical yearly coca plantings under fumigation
and new theoretical plantings without eradication
The tendency observed is that
increased fumigation for one year coincides with increases in planted areas identified
for the following year —or years— probably due to the time required
for displacement, the search for new lands, felling of trees, and the growth required
for plants to be detected by satellites.
If this preliminary analysis
is correct, impact on new coca crops of fumigation carried out during 2000 and 2001
can only be assessed after 2002 and 2003. This might mean that, if the new government
does not suspend fumigation in order to urgently implement a strategy different
from that which has been applied for the past 20 years, it will lose the opportunity
to innovate as regards this old, painful and growing problem; and it will not have
the time needed to carry out effective sustainable alternative development programs,
which do not prosper under fumigation and do not show results in the short term.
These suppositions hope to contribute
elements so that a more profound analysis and debate might be carried out in
Directives of the Controller General
(Contraloría) and Ombudsman (Defensoría)
In response to growing concern
regarding program effectiveness and the severe health and environmental impact remarked,
the Colombian Controller General, through its Environmental Delegate, assessed eradication
policies and the Plan Colombia's implementation for the period ranging from 1992
– 2000. The
report begins by clearly summing up the issue: “In
Complaints lodged with the Municipal
Authorities (Personerías Municipales)
and other entities, and which have been channeled to the Bogotá Ombudsman (Defensoría del Pueblo), indicate that
fumigation with glyphosate formally geared at eliminating
coca and poppy plantations have been highly destructive for the people of these
regions and their environment. Thousands of persons and hectares of subsistence
crops have been destroyed. These people's health has been sorely impaired. Furthermore,
there might be long-term effects which are unpredictable and of which we have no
inkling..
As concerns the Plan Colombia, it has been remarked that funding destined for alternative development is insignificant (8% of US funds). This makes stated objectives rhetorical and the measures taken mere welfare and, thereby, not sustainable and limited to an emergency aid which does not generate long-term income. Furthermore, up until now, forced eradication has not stemmed the expansion of crops for illicit purposes, quite the opposite, it has stimulated them. As refers to the environmental component of the Plan Colombia, the report quoted concludes that it has not “been duly taken into consideration.”
Embezzlement
of funds destined for fumigation
In May of 2002, the
Monies destined for useless
chemical eradication and corruption, even if they don't mean much to the
[1] Engineer in agronomy. Degree in Biology & Chemistry.
Executive Director of RAPALMIRA. PAN-Colombia.
[2] The commercial
brand Roundup covers a family of Monsanto herbicides, based on the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant POEA. The difference between
the product formulas lies in the concentration of glyphosate
and/or of POEA, or in the proportion of amines. Other surfactants may even be included
without any warning, and are considered a business secret.
[3] POEA is the acronym for surfactant polyoxyethylamine, included in all formulas of Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides. POEA is a mixture of etoxyled amines derived from animal fat, with a toxicity five times greater than that of glyphosate.
Home
Initiatives
Conferences
Documents
Mama Coca
©2003 Mama Coca.
Please share this information and help us to
circulate it quoting Mama Coca.