June 23, 2005

Honorable Members of the United States Congress,

We respectfully request that you not permit aerial eradication to occur in Colombian National Parks as part of the Plan Colombia Illicit Crop Eradication Program. Instead, we ask that the U.S. Congress direct greater funding to support and expand the alternative development programs that are being carried out in Colombia, and to implement alternatives to aerial eradication, including manual crop eradication programs such as those implemented in Bolivia, Peru and Guatemala.

Our request is based on the fact that aerial spraying has not proven effective as a means of destroying coca and poppy crops, and is causing adverse impacts to indigenous, Afro-Colombian, and farming communities, as well as key ecosystems in Colombia. Instead of eliminating illicit crops, evidence suggests that the spraying program has only caused the displacement of these crops to different regions and isolated zones. Meanwhile, the spraying program has intensified internal displacement of Colombian families, destroyed food crops, contaminated water sources needed by communities for survival, and caused direct and indirect environmental impacts. Finally, the aerial eradication policy has been carried out in contravention of applicable national and international laws, thus weakening the rule of law in Colombia.

Lack of Effectiveness
Even after five years of intensive aerial eradication, the program has not proven successful. The United States government has spent more than US $ 4 billion on Plan Colombia, in addition to amounts invested by the Colombian government and other international sources. At the beginning of Plan Colombia there were more than 171,000 hectares of illicit crops in Colombia. Four years later, and after having sprayed more than four times that amount of land, (752,327 hectares); more than 116,000 hectares of illegal crops remain (as of December 2004).

Displacement of Crops
It is well documented that aerial eradication has displaced coca crops to new areas, and that this displacement causes an increase in deforestation and biodiversity loss. At the start of Plan Colombia, coca and poppy crops were present in 12 Colombian departments; today illicit crops are found in 23 of Colombia’s 32 departments. This spread of coca cultivation and subsequent eradication efforts clearly causes great environmental harm to sensitive ecological zones, including Colombia’s Amazon Basin.

Impact on the environment and human health
Throughout 2004 and 2005, communities from the Chocó, Magdalena, and Norte de Santander departments blamed the spraying program for causing negative health impacts, the destruction of food crops, and water contamination. The indigenous community of Eperara Siapidaara, for example, reported the death and illness of children, as well as forced displacement of the community after a spraying campaign in April of 2005. These complaints come in addition to those voiced by diverse communities since the beginning of the aerial eradication program in December of 2000. Colombian authorities have received more than 8,000 complaints of damages, most of which have been shelved without appropriate investigation because the government asserts that the chemical mixture is harmless and that logistical and security concerns impede the investigations. This is particularly troublesome given that recent scientific studies show that Roundup, glyphosate, and the surfactants used in Colombia can cause adverse health impacts in human beings, as well as in amphibians and other aquatic animals.

The United States and Colombian governments still do not have credible studies on which to base a conclusion that the spraying does not harm the environment or human health. A recent study carried out by the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD) of the Organization of American States (OAS) concluded that the human exposure to glyphosate and Cosmoflux (substances used in the spraying program), under the conditions of use, does “not present a significant risk to human health” and that the environmental risks were small or negligible. Nevertheless, the study also recognized that “exposure of human to glyphosate… could not be measured directly in the growers of illicit crops.” Further, regarding the exposure of aquatic organisms, CICAD admitted that “the frequency of occurrence and extent to which this happens are unknown as data on the proximity of surface waters to coca fields were not available.” Thus, CICAD did not actually have sufficient information on which to base a conclusion of no risk.

The Weakening of the Rule of Law
Colombian court decisions pertaining to the eradication program have been ignored. For example, the government has failed to comply with a court order to fully implement the 2001 Environmental Management Plan requiring mitigation and assessment of impacts, as well as a Constitutional Court decision that indigenous and tribal communities must be consulted when aerial spraying affects their territories. Territories of the indigenous communities of the Kankuamo in the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, the Esperara Siapidaara on the Pacific coast of Nariño, and afro-Colombian communities in the Chocó, have recently been sprayed without any consultation. An announcement that aerial spraying will begin in the Colombian National Parks, in spite of a law that specifically prohibits such activities, is the most glaring example of the weakening of the rule of law.

Alternative programs hold potential but are threatened by the spraying program
Because alternative development programs provide another form of economic sustenance for coca and poppy farmers, such programs have proven more effective at eradicating illegal crops. Moreover, these programs can help protect key ecosystems located in areas at risk. For example, Colombia’s “Sustainable Systems for Conservation” strategy implemented by the National Natural Parks Office has benefited more than 11,000 families over the past four years, and in so doing has created buffer zones around 18 Colombian Parks. The manual eradication projects in the parks of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta and the Rio Guayabero basin, (northern Colombia) funded by the Dutch government, also provide an alternative to aerial spraying in the parks.

Support for these successful projects is in jeopardy if national parks are sprayed, as several foreign governments have threatened to withdraw their support. In addition, various alternative development projects have been accidentally destroyed by the aerial spraying program, both reducing the chances for success of these projects and demonstrating the incompatibility of aerial spraying with sustainable development initiatives in rural Colombia. Finally, though a few alternative development projects have been implemented as part of Plan Colombia, these have not received consistent or adequate support. If long-term stability and economic self-sufficiency without reliance on illicit crops are to be achieved in Colombia, the US government must provide consistent support for alternative development projects in both the medium and long term, and discontinue the activities that threaten the viability of such projects.

Thus, we request that rather than support the aerial eradication program in Colombia, the Honorable United States Congress designate funds to be used more efficiently for alternative development and manual eradication programs. The consistent funding of alternatives to aerial crop eradication would prevent further effects on human health and the environment while achieving the goals of reducing coca production and bringing peace and stability to rural Colombia. We also appeal especially to Members of Congress to prevent irreparable damage to biodiversity in Colombia by explicitly prohibiting the proposed fumigation of Colombian National Parks.

We have faith in the commitment of the United States Congress to support Colombia in effective and sustainable ways, and to not promote policies that will cause environmental destruction and adverse health impacts to the Colombian people.

Sincerely,

ASOCIACION COLOMBIA SIN FRONTERAS
Sevilla España

ASOCIACIÓN INTERAMERICANA PARA LA DEFENSA DEL AMBIENTE, AIDA
Astrid Puentes Riaño, Directora Legal

CORPORACIÓN APOYO
Humberto Sánchez Verano, Director

CENSAT-AGUA VIVA, AMIGOS DE LA TIERRA, COLOMBIA
Tatiana Roa

ECOFONDO
Rafael Colmenares, Director

GRUPO SEMILLAS
Germán Vélez

INSTITUTO LATINOAMERICANA DE SERVICIOS ALTERNATIVOS, ILSA
Margarita Florez

INSTITUTO DE ESTUDIOS AMBIENTALES (IDEA) - UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DE COLOMBIA
Tomás Enrique León Sicard, Profesor Asociado

PLANETA PAZ
Hernán Darío Correa

ORGANIZACIÓN NACIONAL INDIGENA DE COLOMBIA - ONIC
Luis Evelis Andrade Casama, Presidente

RAPALMIRA, RAP-AL, COLOMBIA
Elsa Nivia

RED NACIONAL DE MUJERES – REGIONAL VALLE DEL CAUCA
Jeannette Rojas Silva

RED DEPARTAMENTAL DE MUJERES CHOCOANAS
Nérvita Moreno López

UNIÓN TERRITORIAL INTERÉTNICA DEL NAYA, UTINAYA

Axel Alejandro Rojas
Profesor Licenciatura en Etnoeducación
UNIVERSIDAD DEL CAUCA – COLOMBIA

Gladys Jimeno Santoyo
Consultora externa – DDHH