|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COLOMBIA:
Anti-Drug
Herbicide to Be Sprayed Again in
Nature Reserves
Yadira
Ferrer*
BOGOTA, (Tierramérica) -
The Colombian government plans
to renew fumigation in nature
reserves using the herbicide
glyphosate to wipe out illicit
drug crops. The practice was
suspended in March 2004 in those
areas as a result of protests by
activists who argued that it
violated international treaties,
national laws, and agreements
with local indigenous and
peasant farming communities.
Aerial spraying is slated for
the nature reserves of Sierra
Nevada de Santa Marta, a
northern park declared a
biosphere in 1986 by UNESCO
(United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural
Organisation); La Macarena in
the central-east; and Catatumbo,
in the northwest.
Defenders of the use of
glyphosate in the anti-drug
fight say the herbicide is as
harmless as common table salt,
but there are studies and
denunciations about the threat
it poses to pastureland, crops,
water resources, and the health
of humans and cattle.
Furthermore, environmentalists
argue that the ''broad
spectrum'' nature of this
herbicide, produced by the
agribusiness transnational
Monsanto, makes it particularly
inappropriate for areas set
aside to protect species because
it can kill more than just the
targeted crops of coca (used to
make cocaine), marijuana and
opium poppies.
The U.S. Congress approved in
December 2003 the use of funds
for spraying illicit crops in
Colombia's nature parks, and in
February 2004 reported that
aerial fumigation with
glyphosate had begun in the
protected areas of the Colombian
Sierra Nevada and Chiribiquete
(southeast).
Deputy Interior Minister Mario
Iguarán told Tierramérica that
the renewed spraying, to take
effect in the coming weeks, is
protected by the 2003 Resolution
No. 0013, which authorised the
Colombian National Narcotics
Council, CNE (an office of the
Interior Ministry), to fumigate
areas of nature reserves where
there is evidence of illicit
crops and little possibility of
eradicating the drug plants by
hand.
Non-governmental organisations
(NGOs) filed a motion to annul
the resolution before the
Council of State, the highest
juridical instance for
administrative decisions, but
Iguarán argued that it does not
have the power to suspend
operations.
According to the official, the
government has taken into
account ''all the parameters
dictated by the United Nations
and the recent study by the
Inter-American Drug Abuse
Control Commission (CICAD) that
says that glyphosate does not
have significant environmental
impacts.''
The study from CICAD, which is
part of the Organisation of
American States, was conducted
at Colombia's behest by a team
of international scientists,
headed by Canadian Keith
Solomon.
Those experts said the herbicide
has ''moderate effects'' on
aquatic organisms and that its
risks for the environment and
land animals ''are few or nearly
none.''
The CICAD report indicates that
the risk ''is not significant,''
but the authors do not explain
what they consider
''significant'', says Santiago
Salazar Córdova, coordinator of
a commission of Ecuador's
Environment Ministry that
advises the Foreign Ministry on
drug fumigation policy.
Spraying with glyphosate in
Colombian areas near the Ecuador
border has been a source of
conflict with Quito, and the
practice was halted at the
Ecuadorian government's request.
In late April, Ecuador
reiterated that it would not
allow Colombia to fumigate in
border areas until a scientific
study certifies that it is
innocuous for the local
population.
The study was conducted between
September and March, ''too
little time to talk in terms of
cancer causing effects, for
example, and if they are
geneticists, they should know
that,'' Salazar said in a
Tierramérica interview.
Iguarán admitted that the ideal
would be manual eradication of
drug crops, a method the
government hopes to use on some
3,000 hectares of protected
areas. But he added that it is
necessary to fumigate around
75,000 hectares, which include
parts of the national parks
where the civil war or presence
of drug traffickers impedes
access by land.
A government source, requesting
anonymity, told Tierramérica
that the CNE decided to fumigate
in protected areas despite the
fact that the National Parks
Division of the Environment
Ministry had recommended against
it.
According to the division's
report, in the Sierra Nevada
Park, with a total area of
230,000 hectares, drug crops
increased just 18 hectares last
year, from 212 to 230. In
Catatumbo, with an area of
178,000 hectares, drug crops
decreased from 129 to 107
hectares, while in La Macarena,
630,000 hectares, drug crops
increased from 1,152 to 2,630
hectares.
The size of the areas planted
with drug crops in the nature
reserves do not justify the
environmental and health costs
of fumigation with glyphosate,
according to Ricardo Vargas, of
Acción Andina, an NGO that
investigates the illicit drug
trade in the Andean region.
In 2004, 136,000 hectares of
coca bush were sprayed, but the
area planted with drug crops was
not reduced, and only 6,000
hectares of drugs are found in
protected areas, a very small
proportion of the overall
problem, he said.
Vargas noted that the
administrative court of
Cundinamarca issued a ruling in
late 2003 to suspend aerial
spraying of glyphosate and other
substances throughout the
country until the requirements
of the Environmental Management
Plan, established in 2001 by the
Environment Ministry, were met,
and until the Ministry of Social
Security studied the effects of
the chemicals on human health.
It is not known if those studies
have been carried out, said the
activist.
According to the National Parks
Division, aerial spraying would
also affect the existing
agreements with the indigenous
communities of Sierra Nevada for
the manual eradication of drug
crops.
It would also undermine
cooperation projects like one
under way with the Netherlands
for drug crop substitution and
social development in Sierra
Nevada and Catatumbo.
The Colombian daily El
Espectador reported on Apr. 28
that the Netherlands asked the
parks director, Julia Miranda,
to confirm whether the decision
to fumigate in the protected
areas was definitive, because if
it were so, ''it could be motive
to request the suspension of
activities financed by this
Embassy.''
Other analysts point out that
the country's Natural Resources
Code expressly prohibits
fumigation in national parks and
indigenous territory, and that
spraying with glyphosate would
violate the Convention on
Biological Diversity, ratified
by Colombia in 1994, and
Convention 169 of the
International Labour
Organisation, which protects
indigenous peoples.
Juan Mayr, a former environment
minister, says the 2003
resolution that authorised the
fumigation has created ''one of
the gravest situations that can
happen in regards to the
environment in Colombia'' and is
''an attack against the
collective heritage of the
Colombian people.''
(* Yadira Ferrer is a
Tierramérica contributor. With
reporting by Juan Carlos Frías
in Ecuador. Originally published
May 14 by Latin American
newspapers that are part of the
Tierramérica network.
Tierramérica is a specialised
news service produced by IPS
with the backing of the United
Nations Development Programme
and the United Nations
Environment Programme.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
