The Aerial Eradication of Illicit Crops

The Aerial Eradication of Illicit Crops
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions
Counter-Fact Sheet
TNI/Acción Andina/Rapalmira, 2 September 2001

See also Forced Aerial Eradication of Illicit Crops
A Reply to the State Department Communiqué, 2 September 2001

QUESTION: What is the aerial eradication program?

ANSWER: Aerial spraying of illicit crops has taken place in Colombia since the seventies, as part of a supply-reduction strategy. Marijuana was the first crop fumigated; coca and poppy followed. Various herbicides have been used in the process. Over 200,000 hectares of coca and 60,000 hectares of poppy were sprayed in the last decade, using more than three million liters of glyphosate. Nearly 25 years of aerial spraying amply demonstrate that the strategy is not effective, though. In fact, aerial fumigation contributed to significantly increasing illicit crop acreage, not the opposite. The supply-reduction strategy and the way in which spraying is carried out in Colombia have only served to unleash a vicious cycle of destruction. This cycle causes pollution, also driving crops deeper and deeper into the jungle and thus causing drastic deforestation. Displaced crops are, in turn, sprayed again and the cycle repeats itself.

Aerial fumigation also forms part of a war structure in Colombia. There are not only technical factors related to herbicides, environmental impact and so on involved. Fumigation in itself calls for war logistics and security measures. Spraying craft tend to be accompanied by helicopters and at times this involves firing machine guns on areas adjacent to crops, causing panic among the communities.

QUESTION: How are spray targets selected?

ANSWER: In spite of the highly sophisticated precision instruments currently available to select spray targets (aerial photographs and satellite images; the Global Positioning System for charting flight courses, etc), many cases involving the destruction of legal crops and alternative development projects can be documented. Aerial fumigation has targeted home patches, ponds and water sources that should never have been the object of this policy. This seriously questions the effectiveness of the techniques or the selection criteria used, which do not stop at the intentional destruction of subsistence economies.

QUESTION: What is the role of the US government in the aerial eradication program?

ANSWER: The US government sets the eradication goals for the Colombian Anti-Narcotics Police. It trains fumigation personnel or hires private enterprises to undertake spray operations directly. NAS (Narcotics Affairs Section) supplies the herbicide Roundup (active ingredient glyphosate), aircraft, training and communication equipment. The Colombian Police controls spraying in the designated areas, using air bases staffed by the NAS personnel in charge of follow-up activities. The US government certifies Colombia each year, or refuses to certify it, for its anti-drugs efforts.

QUESTION: What type of environmental monitoring and oversight is there?

ANSWER: In Colombia, monitoring the effects of fumigation on the environment involves a structural problem. Related studies are not made independently. Due to the nature of the contractual agreements reached until now, such evaluations have a priori defended the interests of contractors. In all 25 years, an independent, and thus credible and impartial supervision has never taken place. Such a study should be convened with a body designed to exert control, like the People's Ombudsman, the Attorney General or the General Accounting Office, not with the same entity that is to be supervised, in this case the anti-drugs authorities.

QUESTION: What chemicals are being used in Colombia for the eradication of illicit crops?

ANSWER: The State Department's response to this question is that only glyphosate is being used. This answer is not satisfactory, however, since the sprays applied not only contain
glyphosate but a mixture of other ingredients. It is common knowledge, for example, that Roundup, a commercial formula registered by the Monsanto Company, contains a surfactant called polyoxyethylamine (POEA), which is much more toxic than glyphosate. Roundup has very different toxic properties from glyphosate in its pure form. A modified formula based on Roundup has been applied since 1999. It is called Roundup Ultra and is spiked with the antifoaming Cosmo-In-D, and the adjuvant Cosmo-Flux 411F , both found on the Colombian market. These substances greatly enhance the action of agrochemicals, making them more powerful at lower dosages. This change in the commercial preparation was decided arbitrarily, ignoring national legislation and institutional procedures.

On the other hand, although little is known about the danger of introducing mycoherbicides into the ecosystem until now, lately the US has been insisting on the use of biological agents. The Fusarium oxysporum fungus was developed in laboratories in the United States
for the purpose of attacking the coca bush. Fortunately, environmental authorities from Colombia and other Andean countries have recently taken a strong stand against this measure.

QUESTION: Has glyphosate been tested for environmental safety?

ANSWER: Insofar as glyphosate is not the problem, strictly speaking, any debate limited to the chemical is a sham, completely ignoring the serious doubts raised by the commercial sprays currently in use. As stated, glyphosate is not used alone. The studies on glyphosate´s environmental safety are incomplete if they do not consider its action combined with other ingredients, which at present are not even mentioned on formula labels. The habit of using the word ´glyphosate´ to avoid naming the added ingredients serves to deceive public opinion and society as a whole about the potential dangers for the environment and for the population exposed to the toxic effects of these substances. Another aspect that the US government fails to mention is the concentration of Roundup used. Failing to guarantee the herbicide's safety and violating the norms based on technical trials, the concentration now employed for coca is 10 liters/hectare, which means 2.7 gallons of herbicide for each 2.5 acres of coca.

QUESTION: Does glyphosate harm cattle, chickens or other farm animals?

ANSWER: Hair loss is the most visible symptom in cattle affected by fumigation, especially among calves and breeding cows. Hair loss is caused by moderate exposure and gradually disappears as the cattle are moved to non-fumigated pastures. Abortion is frequent among pregnant cows, possibly affected by the noise of overhead helicopters, which startles them causing stampedes. Death of fowl affected by spraying or drinking contaminated water has been confirmed, as well as the death of fish in sprayed rivers, and the totality of the pond fish bred by settlers for their own consumption or to supply local inhabitants.

QUESTION: Is glyphosate harmful to human beings?

ANSWER: The State Department assures us that glyphosate is less harmful than common salt, aspirin, caffeine, nicotine and even Vitamin A. However, studies carried out on the effects of commercial preparations containing glyphosate reveal a very different panorama. In various countries, Roundup is classified among the first pesticides to cause poisoning in humans. Most cases involve skin and eye irritations in workers after exposure during the mixing, transportation or application of the product. Nausea, respiratory difficulty, alterations in blood pressure and allergic reactions have also been reported. Doctors in Japan have certified cases of poisoning, mainly through accidental swallowing of Roundup, but also through occupational exposure. The symptoms of acute poisoning include gastrointestinal pain, massive loss of gastrointestinal fluid, vomit, excess lung fluid, pulmonary congestion or failure, loss of consciousness, destruction of red blood corpuscles and kidney damage or failure. Following repeated fumigation, the Yanacona Indians in Cauca are suffering many of these symptoms. The dwellings in this community have been sprayed indiscriminately, children being the most affected. The People's Ombudsman documents countless cases of complaints filed by peasants exposed to spraying. Though many questions remain unanswered on the use of commercial preparations, especially with regard to Roundup Ultra + Cosmoflux, it is worth pointing out that both children and adults in sprayed areas are suffering from severe skin disorders nowadays.

QUESTION: Does glyphosate destroy the soil and prevent plant growth?

ANSWER: Information regarding glyphosate mobility and persistence in the soil varies. It is known to be almost static in soils. It remains in the upper soil layers, with little propensity for percolation and a low runoff potential. Other studies, however, conclude that glyphosate can easily be leached from some types of soil; that is, glyphosate particles may be released, thus becoming quite mobile. Sub-lethal glyphosate doses carried by the wind (drift) damage wild flowers and can affect certain species more than 20 meters away from the site fumigated.

Analyzing glyphosate residue is costly and cumbersome. For this reason, the US government does not routinely carry out such studies. Some research does exist, though, demonstrating that glyphosate can be carried by plants to the parts used for food. For example,
glyphosate has been found in strawberries, blueberries, raspberries, lettuce, carrots and barley after its application. According to the World Health Organization, using glyphosate to dry the grain before wheat is harvested results in "significant residues" in the grain.

And once again: Why does the State Department not say anything about the impact on soil and plants of the other ingredients being used in the commercial formulas with glyphosate?

QUESTION: Does glyphosate contaminate the water where it is sprayed?

ANSWER: Glyphosate is highly soluble in water. According to EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency), it can enter aquatic systems through accidental spraying, drift or surface runoff. It is considered to disappear rapidly in water, as a result of adsorption to particles in suspension such as organic and mineral particles, to sediments and probably by microbial decomposition. If we accept that glyphosate is easily adsorbed into soil particles, it will have little potential to contaminate surface and ground waters. But if it is de-adsorbed
or easily leached from soil particles, as it has been proven already, the situation changes. What is known is that glyphosate has contaminated ground and surface waters in various countries.

QUESTION: Is glyphosate dangerous for the environment?

ANSWER: Glyphosate is toxic for some beneficial organisms such as parasitic wasps and other arthropod predators, and soil arthropods that are important for soil aeration and humus formation. Some fish varieties are susceptible to Roundup, which is approximately 30 times more toxic to fish than glyphosate used alone. A study of rainbow trout and tilapia fish found that the chemical caused erratic swimming and respiratory difficulties among them. These behavioral changes altered their feeding, migration and reproduction capacity and they also lost the ability to defend themselves. As to how glyphosate affects birds, a study of exposed bird populations showed that the product is moderately toxic for birds; the changes it causes in plants affect birds, because they depend on such plants for food, protection and nestling. Field studies have demonstrated that some groups of small mammals have also been affected by glyphosate, due to death of the vegetation that either they or their prey use for foodstuff and protection. A study made in New Zealand showed that glyphosate substantially affected the growth and survival of one of the most common worms found in its farming soil.

Fumigation severely affects one of the most vital components of the Amazon ecosystem, known as the cananguchales. Clusters of canangucha palms form oases in the Amazon, inhabited by a great variety of animals and birds. Water constantly surrounds the palms in each oasis. Many cananguchales have been affected beyond salvation by spraying, when glyphosate has been transported by the wind or through the soil. The cananguchales are found on low terrains, which makes it easier for the water from fields sprayed nearby to reach them.

QUESTION: If glyphosate is so benign – like the State Department claims – why are there complaints of damage from its use in Colombia?

ANSWER: The State Department says that it does not have reliable sources on which to ground complaints against glyphosate. Armed groups financed by drugs file these complaints, it claims. However, just glancing through the files of the People's Ombudsman in Colombia, it is possible to confirm the existence of many complaints presented by individuals or by communities suffering the consequences of aerial spraying directly. There are also numerous studies and analyses carried out by prestigious scientific institutions in Colombia (such as the Andes
University), or abroad, whose results produce evidence of how harmful the pesticides in question really are. Fumigation and its catastrophic impact at every level has been the subject of many articles, interviews, editorials and press releases in the media, in Colombia and other parts of
the world.

QUESTION: How are complaints about glyphosate investigated?

ANSWER: Unfortunately, the Colombian state and the entities in charge of investigating reports dealing with the effects of fumigation on human health and legitimate crops do not carry out thorough inspections or studies. This is true in spite of the fact that the Ombudsman has clearly expressed that enough serious suspicions exist to warrant making serious, exhaustive investigations. The Ombudsman has processed hundreds of complaints and conducted verification missions to investigate such claims independently and on the ground. The People's
Ombudsman published "Illicit Crops: World Policy and Reality in Colombia" recently, a book specifically referring to health problems, particularly skin, respiratory and digestive disorders and irritation of the membranes and eyes among those inhabiting the areas fumigated. The
Ombudsman's Office is currently investigating human casualties that have been denounced recently, deaths taking place in the Putumayo after the introduction of the new Roundup Ultra + Cosmoflux formula in the area. The Health and Environment Ministries and other government bodies remain passive, insisting that the complaints made by the population serve the interests of the insurgency. They often state that the peasants are allies of the guerrilla, thus invalidating claims of any kind and even ignoring the evidence of illnesses.

QUESTION: Is spraying contributing to the deforestation of Colombia?

ANSWER: An argument often used to legitimate spraying is that illicit crops and drug processing affect the environment and contribute more to deforestation than aerial spraying. Although surely both illicit crops and their processing cause serious harm to the environment, the same is no less true for fumigation. If their plots are sprayed, coca farmers see the need to go deeper into the jungle to plant new crops. The deforestation and pollution this causes will have been indirectly motivated by the spraying of their plots. For simple reasons of survival, while the Amazon basin exists as a potential cultivation area, each hectare fumigated will be substituted by another hectare further inside the jungle. Chemical spraying continuously displaces the cultivated
areas towards ecologically more vulnerable territories, multiplying the effects of deforestation on the Amazon and the Andean mountains.

QUESTION: Why doesn't the United States government fund alternative development programs instead of spraying illegal crops?

ANSWER: One of the most drastic arguments wielded by the US anti-drugs authorities is that they refuse to finance alternative development programs in areas not under the control of the Colombian government, or in which the state is not fully sovereign, which is the case of areas under insurgent control. Defining territorial control as a basic premise of alternative development inserts North American aid into the very frame of the armed conflict. Without a guarantee of control, the US government simply does not support this type of activity.

In the North American model, the dissuasion represented by fumigation is a pre-condition to pressure peasants into undertaking alternative development programs. This starting point not only limits alternative programs but also generates a war context as a pre-condition for the development of social and economic programs.

As a result of this attitude, aerial spraying has seriously affected licit alternative programs in the Bota Caucana, Medio and Bajo Caguán, reforestation programs in various parts of the Department of Nariño, and alternative crop programs in the Colombian Pacific Coast. Spraying is not compatible with the search for legal alternatives to illicit crops, war much less.

QUESTION: Doesn't the spray program hurt the small farmer who has no other way of earning a living?

ANSWER: To answer this question, the State Department begins by acknowledging that many Colombians are going through a very difficult situation, yet this is no reason for them to turn to illegal activities. The illegal farming sector is for a good part inscribed into the context of a survival economy. Part of this economy is in the hands of the big drug barons, usually anonymous and absentee large landowners. The other part consists of the many small and medium-scale
farmers whose coca or poppy fields are their only means of support. During the eighties and nineties, due to a fall in prices of Colombian export products on the international market, and to circumstances peculiar to the internal conflict that fostered a new land concentration (a genuine
process of agrarian counter-reform), rural conditions, which were already bad to begin with, deteriorated even more. Floods of peasants displaced by absolute poverty or by the ongoing military conflict, and forced to seek economic alternatives, found refuge in the production of illicit farming. Aerial spraying destroys this survival and security web. This was amply demonstrated when 240,000 coca farmers took part in protest marches held between July and September 1996.

Aerial spraying indiscriminately destroys the few serious attempts to provide legal alternatives for coca farmers through alternative development programs. Together with coca hectares, their homes, families and legal crops are also fumigated. Testimonies abound concerning the physical destruction of alternative development projects caused by spraying. Asides from the material damage, this policy completely eliminates any possibility of reaching a climate of trust and cooperation in the participating communities, something that is indispensable for the adequate implementation of development programs. This widely illustrates that spraying and alternative development strategies are simply incompatible.