Fumigation and Conflict in Colombia

In the Heat of the Debate
Virginia Montañés
September 2001

The second issue of our series is dedicated to the controversial topic of Colombia’s aerial fumigation of coca and opium poppy fields.

Colombia began an intensive campaign of massive aerial spraying in December 2000, under the aegis of Plan Colombia. The programme has set in motion strong opposition by the peasant communities involved and national and international civil society organisations. The number of voices speaking out against using chemical herbicides to eradicate illicit coca and opium poppy crops has grown spectacularly this year, fostering an even broader debate about this Latin American country’s entire drug policy.

Right now, the debate focuses on the consequences of fumigation for health and the environment. The various positions taken range from questioning the technical aspects of how fumigations are being handled, to the frontal rejection of aerial spraying combined with alternatives such as decriminalising small peasants and undertaking manual eradication procedures in a gradual, negotiated and voluntary manner.

Colombia has enjoyed little autonomy with respect to the management of illicit crops, as a strong link exists between aerial spraying and the war dynamics. A decision to suspend fumigation, therefore, is not likely to be based on technical arguments but depends largely on policy considerations with respect to the course the armed conflict is taking. On the other hand, escalation of the conflict will not be avoided simply by suspending aerial spraying. It will also depend on other factors involved in the crisis that Colombia’s peace process is reaching.

The peace talks, though tenuous, still form part of Colombia’s present panorama. The direction that these conversations take will be of paramount importance for the immediate future. Either the efforts to find a political solution to the conflict can be continued or a generalized intensification of war will occur. The search for peace and the need to re-evaluate current antidrugs policies have thus become inseparable.

Pages: 
16pages
Edition: 
Transnational Institute
Series: 
Drugs & Conflict Debate Paper 2

Assistant researcher with focus on Colombia

Amira Armenta (Colombia/Netherlands) has a degree in Latin American history from the Université de Jussieu (Paris).

TNI Drugs and Democracy Programme Coordinator

Martin Jelsma is a political scientist who has specialised in Latin America and international drugs policy.  In 2005, he received the Alfred R. Lindesmith Award for Achievement in the Field of Scholarship, which stated that Jelsma "is increasingly recognized as one of, if not the, outstanding strategists in terms of how international institutions deal with drugs and drug policy."

In 1995 he initiated and has since co-oordinated TNI's Drugs & Democracy Programme which focuses on drugs and conflict studies with a focus on the Andean/Amazon region, Burma/Myanmar and Afghanistan, and on the analysis and dialogues around international drug policy making processes (with a special focus on the UN drug control system). Martin is a regular speaker at international policy conferences and advises various NGOs and government officials on developments in the drugs field. He is co-editor of the TNI Drugs & Conflict debate papers and the Drug Policy Briefing series.

Director of Acción Andina Colombia

Ricardo Vargas Meza is a Colombian sociologist and author of several books, reports and articles on illicit cultivation of drug crops, alternative development and their relation with the internal conflict in Colombia.

Ricardo was previously a researcher at the Centro de Investigacion y Educacion Popular (CINEP) in Bogota, where he coordinated the Drugs and Violence project. He frequently writes for publications in Brazil, Venezuela, Chile, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. He earned his Master degree in Social Philosophy from the Universidad Nacional in Colombia.

TNI projects