Coca cultivation in the Andean region - June 2006

COCA CULTIVATION IN THE ANDEAN REGION

June

200

6

A survey of Bolivia, Colombia and Peru

Government of PeruGovernment of Bolivia Government of Colombia

UNODC's Illicit Crop Monitoring Programme (ICMP) promotes the development and maintenance of a global network of illicit crop monitoring systems in the context of the illicit crop elimination objective set by the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Drugs. It provides overall coordination and direct technical support and supervision to UNODC supported annual illicit crop surveys at the country level.

This reports presents the results of the annual coca cultivation surveys in Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru, which were conducted jointly by UNODC (ICMP) and the respective Governments with a regional perspective.

The implementation of UNODC's Illicit Crop Monitoring Programme in the Andean countries was made possible thanks to financial contributions from the Governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, France and Austria.

This report and other ICMP survey reports can be downloaded from:

www.unodc.org/unodc/en/crop_monitoring.html

The boundaries, names and designations used in all maps in this document do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.

This document has not been formally edited.

i

CONTENTS

Preface......................................................................................................................................iii

Part 1. Regional Overview .......................................................................................................1

Introduction .............................................................................................................................1

Coca cultivation in the Andean region....................................................................................7

Eradication........................................................................................................................... 10

Production of coca leaf and derivatives............................................................................... 10

Cocaine seizures and seized coca processing laboratories................................................ 12

Farm-gate values and farm-gate prices............................................................................... 13

Cocaine abuse in Latin America.......................................................................................... 15

Poverty and development.................................................................................................... 15

Part 2. Environmental effects of illicit drug cultivation and processing ......................... 17

Deforestation and illicit crops............................................................................................... 19

Illicit drug cultivation and processing impacts on soils and water sources.......................... 30

The effects of illicit drugs on protected areas...................................................................... 32

Effects of illicit crops on biodiversity .................................................................................... 37

Effects of illicit drug cultivation on local people ................................................................... 43

Effects of illicit drug eradication on the environment and local people................................ 43

Issues for analysis of the environmental effects of illicit drug cultivation in the Andes ....... 44

Part 3. Bolivia Coca Cultivation Survey ...............................................................................49

Introduction ...........................................................................................................................55

Findings ................................................................................................................................57

Part 4. Colombia Coca Cultivation Survey.........................................................................103

Introduction .........................................................................................................................108

Findings ..............................................................................................................................110

Part 5. Peru Coca Cultivation Survey .................................................................................183

Introduction .........................................................................................................................189

Findings ..............................................................................................................................190

iii

PREFACE

Coca cultivation remained stable in the Andean region in 2005. There were slight decreases in Bolivia and Peru, offset by an increase in Colombia.

This year, when carrying out the Colombia coca crop survey, UNODC – in co-operation with the Colombian Government – did new field research that measured the yield of coca leaf harvested and how much cocaine base farmers get from the leaves. This research compliments the annual monitoring of the amount of land under cultivation. These new field studies show that there is a higher yield of cocaine from the coca crop than previously estimated. A similar review can be expected in Bolivia and Peru. UNODC has reflected this new evidence in its 2004 and 2005 coca production figures. The resultant higher bars in the histograms reflect the new estimation method and should not be read as a change in the trend.

The fact that there are higher than expected average annual yields for pure cocaine hydrochloride may help to explain why the price and purity of cocaine have remained steady on the streets of consuming countries despite the overall reduction in world supply and a dramatic increase in cocaine seizures.

At the same time, there is evidence that giving farmers alternative sources of income so they do not have to grow coca can work. Products such as coffee resulting from alternative development projects are competing on the open market. However, the scale is still very small and needs to be multiplied at least tenfold in order to reach all impoverished farmers who need support. This is a major undertaking, but it could reduce poverty and the world supply of cocaine at the same time.

Otherwise, further reductions in supply may be resisted by farmers who oppose forced eradication. Ideally, farmers would see for themselves the merits of alternative development, pull up their illicit crops and switch to licit, sustainable livelihoods.

To further reduce the world supply of cocaine, a number of points should be considered:

Richer countries – the consumers of cocaine – need to invest more in alternative development in the countries that produce cocaine in order to enable farmers to have viable alternatives to illicit crops. Crop eradication will not work over the long term if there is no legal economy to replace it;

Rural communities in Bolivia, Colombia and Peru are among the poorest in the world. Eradicating illicit crops – grown by some of the poorest and most vulnerable members of these poor societies – needs to be considered in the broader context of social and economic development;

Inter-agency and international law enforcement is improving, manifested by an increase in cocaine seizures. The same efficiency and enthusiasm should be shown to tackling corruption and organized crime in order to go after the billions of dollars that are being made through the narco-economy – money that is empowering cartels, funding insurgency and even financing terrorism;

Illegal cocaine laboratories are becoming more effective in their production techniques, but represent a weak link since coca can not be converted into cocaine without them. More attention needs to be placed on intercepting precursor chemicals and targeting the labs;

Demand for cocaine remains high and is growing in Europe. This is a trend that Europe ignores at its peril. The West needs to curb its appetite for cocaine, or be prepared for increased health, social, and crime problems.

The drug control balance in the Andean region is fragile. Governments are trying to hold the line on the significant reductions that have been made in the past five years – overall figures remain

iv

one third below their peak of 2000. But this can only be done through a social contract at home, based on significant international assistance. This should provide farmers with tangible benefits as well as hope for a better future based on sustainable livelihoods.

There also needs to be a stronger commitment from wealthier countries – the main consumers of cocaine – to reduce demand for a product that fuels addiction, illness, social disorder, and organized crime. This is a shared responsibility.

We need to redouble our efforts, not only to avoid an unravelling of the significant progress that has been made in reducing the world’s supply of cocaine, but to provide sustainable long-term strategies to eradicate poverty and improve security in countries and communities blighted by the threat posed by drug cartels, traffickers and dealers.

This is more than a short-term process that can be measured through annual surveys. Both sound domestic policies and steady international engagement are required to address the root causes of the problem and seek sustainable solutions that will build safer, more prosperous, and healthier communities.

Antonio Maria Costa Executive Director

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

PART 1. REGIONAL OVERVIEW

Regional Overview

1

REGIONAL OVERVIEW

Introduction

In 1998, the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Drugs (UNGASS) convened in New York. At that meeting, Members States pledged to work towards achieving significant reductions in illicit crop cultivation by the year 2008. To this end, UNODC established an Illicit Crop Monitoring Programme (ICMP) to assist countries assess their progress in meeting UNGASS targets. Through ICMP, UNODC supports the Governments of Bolivia, Colombia and Peru in the implementation of national coca monitoring systems. While these monitoring systems primarily focus on assessing the extend of coca cultivation, over the years they have gradually integrated other important aspects related to the production and trafficking of coca leaf and its derivates, such as prices or yields.

This report presents the results of the surveys on coca cultivation in the Andean region in 2005, which were conducted jointly by the governments and UNODC. The regional overview in part one summarizes the three country surveys, and discusses their results in a regional context. Part two reviews environmental issues, which play an important role in the discussion on coca cultivation in recent years. The following parts present the detailed results from Bolivia, Colombia and Peru.

Regional Overview

2

FACT SHEET - ANDEAN COCA SURVEYS FOR 2005

2004 2005 Variation Global coca cultivation 158,000 ha 159,600 ha +1%

Colombia 80,000 ha 86,000 ha +8%

Peru 50,300 ha 48,200 ha -4%

Bolivia 27,700 ha 25,400 ha -8%

Farm-gate value of coca cultivation US$ 1,330 million

Colombia (coca products)1 US$ 843 million

Peru (coca leaf) US$ 304 million US$ 307 million +1%

Bolivia (coca leaf) US$ 240 million US$ 180 million -25%

Farmgate value of coca cultivation in % of GDP Colombia 0.7%

Peru 0.4% 0.4%

Bolivia 3.0% 2.1%

Global cocaine production 937 mt 910 mt -3%

Colombia 6401 mt 640 mt 0%

Peru 190 mt 180 mt -5%

Bolivia 107 mt 90 mt -16%

Average wholesale price of cocaine

Colombia (in main cities) US$ 1,710/kg US$ 1,860/kg +9%

Peru (in producing regions) US$ 890/kg US$ 890/kg 0%

Bolivia (in main cities) US$ 1,800/kg US$ 1,800/kg 0%

Europe US$ 45,830/kg US$ 47,690/kg +2%

United States US$ 22,070/kg n.a.

Reported eradication of coca cultivation Colombia 142,786 ha 170,042 ha +19%

Peru 10,399 ha 12,232 ha +18%

Bolivia 8,437 ha 6,073 ha -28%

Reported seizure of cocaine (HCl) in South America

264 mt n.a.

Colombia 188 mt 173 mt

Peru 7,3 mt 2,2 mt

Bolivia 0.5 mt 1.3 mt

Reported seizure of cocaine in West and Central Europe 79 mt n.a. North America 196 mt n.a.

Note: Figures in italics are preliminary.

1 Colombian cocaine production for 2004 has been revised following the field findings obtained in 2005. Farm-gate values for 2004 are not available due to a change in methodology.

Regional Overview

3

Map 1: Coca cultivation density in the Andean Region, 2005

80°W

80°W

70°W

70°W

60°W

60°W20

°S

20°S

10°S

10°S

0° 0°

10°N

10°N

Sources: Governments of Bolivia, Colombia y Peru, National monitoring systems supported by UNODCThe boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations

ECUADOR

COLOMBIA

BRAZIL

BOLIVIA

CHILE

Cultivation density(ha/km )2

0.1 - 1.01.1 - 4.0> 4.0InternationalboundariesDepartmentboundaries

PacificOcean

Amazon

Huallaga

Marañon U

cayaliEne

Urubamba

Purus

Apurimac

MadredeDios

LakeTiticaca

^Lima

Geographic coordinates WGS 84

Putumayo

ARGENTINA

PARAGUAY

VENEZUELA

GUYANA

PERU

^Bogota

^La Paz

km0 250 500

Caribbean Sea

Beni

Mamore

Pilcomayo

Caqueta

Guaviare

Vichada

Meta

Magdalena

Atrato

Cauca

Guapare

Chapare

Yungas

La Convencionand LaresApurimac

Ene

AltoHuallaga

NariñoPutumayo -Caqueta

Meta -Guaviare

Norte deAntioquia

CatatumboPANAMA

South America

Peru

Colombia

Bolivia

Regional Overview

4

Map 2: Coca cultivation by region in Bolivia, 2001 – 2005

!

!

^

!

!

!

!

!

!

Rio Pilcomayo

Madera

Madre de Dios

RioMamore

Rio Itenez

Rio Beni

Beni

Santa Cruz

Potosi

La Paz

Pando

Oruro

Tarija

Chuquisaca

Cochabamba

B R A Z I L

A R G E N T I N A

C H I L EPA R A G U AY

PE

RU

Sucre

Oruro

Tarija

Potosi

La Paz

Cobija

Trinidad

Santa Cruz

Cochabamba

65°W

65°W

60°W

60°W

25°S

25°S

20°S

20°S

15°S

15°S

10°S

10°S

Source: Government of Bolivia - National monitoring system supported by UNODCThe boundaries and names shown and the designation used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations

Chapare

1:8,012,898Geographic coordinates, WGS 1984

0 300150km

Yungas

Titicaca lake

Apolo

n.ap

.30

0ha

300

ha

n.av

.

13,8

00ha

16,2

00ha

17,3

00ha

18,1

00ha

7,30

0ha

10,1

00ha

n.av

.

7,01

1ha

Coca cultivation (ha)

Interpreted coca fieldsCoca fields 2005

2002

2003

2004

2005

n.av.Department boundariesInternational boundaries

Growing areasYun...

Not availableNot applicablen.ap.

Bolivia

SOUTH AMERICA

Regional Overview

5

Map 3: Coca cultivation by region in Colombia, 2001 – 2005

PacificOcean

Caribbean Sea

PANAMA

Central

Meta -Guaviare

Putumayo -Caquetá Amazonia

Orinoco

Pacific

Sierra Nevada

Vichada

Vaupés

Valle

Tolima

Sucre

Santander

RisaraldaQuindío

Putumayo

Norte deSantander

Nariño

Meta

Magdalena

La Guajira

Huila

Guaviare

Guainía

Cundinamarca

Córdoba

Chocó

Cesar

Cauca

Casanare

Caquetá

Caldas

Boyacá

Bolívar

Atlántico

AraucaAntioquia

Amazonas

VENEZUELA

PERU

ECUADOR

BRAZIL

Tumaco

Neiva

PuertoAsís

Popayán

Cucutá

Cartagena

Pasto

Cali

Florencia

Medellín

Barranquilla

Bogotá

Mitú

Leticia

Arauca

PuertoCarreño

75°W

75°W 70°W

70°W

5°S

5°S

0° 0°

5°N

5°N

10°N

10°N

South America

Source: Government of Colombia - National monitoring system supported by UNODCThe boundaries and names shown and the designations used in this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations

Colombia

International boundariesDepartment boundaries


17,6

30

25,9

60

15,6

3013

,950

9,71

0

540

2,32

0


1500 300km

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Regional Overview

6

Map 4: Coca cultivation by region in Peru, 2001 – 2005

Loreto

Ucayali

Puno

Cusco

JuninLima

Arequipa

Ica

Piura

Madre de Dios

Ancash

San Martin

Ayacucho

Huanuco

Pasco

Amazonas

Cajamarca

Tacna

Apurimac

La Libertad

Moquegua

Lambayeque

Huancavelica

Tumbes

80°W

80°W

75°W

75°W

70°W

70°W

15°S

15°S

10°S

10°S

5°S

5°S

0° 0°

COLOMBIA

BOLIVIA

CHILE

Amazonas

Huallaga

Huallaga

Marañon

Ucayali

Ene

Urubamba

Purus

Apurimac

Madre de Dios

AltoHuallaga

Aguaytia

Palcazú - PichisPachitea

ApurimacEne

La Convencióny Lares

San Gabán

InambariTambopata

Lima

0 150 300km

Putumayo

BRAZIL

Marañón

Putumayo

16,0

39

15,5

30

12,5

03

ECUADORSouth America

Peru

PacificOcean


Source: Government of Peru - National of monitoring system supported by UNODCThe boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations

TiticacaLake

292

2,25

0

211

917

430

70

200220032004

2001Coca cultivation (ha)

Coca growing areas 2005International boundariesDepartment boundaries

2005

Regional Overview

7

Coca cultivation in the Andean region

In 2005, coca cultivation in the Andean region increased by only one percent from 158,000 in 2004 to 159,600 hectares. This small hike reflects an 8% increase of cultivation in Colombia, while coca cultivation in Bolivia and Peru fell by 8% and 4% respectively.

The majority of all coca cultivation, 54 percent, continues to take place in Colombia, Peru remains second with 30 %, and Bolivia, with 16 %, is in third place. There was no indication of large levels of coca cultivation outside Colombia, Peru and Bolivia.

Figure 1: Coca cultivation in the Andean region (ha), 1994 - 2005

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

hect

ares

Bolivia Colombia Peru

Table 1: Coca cultivation in the Andean Region (ha), 1994-2005

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 % change 2004-2005

Bolivia 48,100 48,600 48,100 45,800 38,000 21,800 14,600 19,900 21,600 23,600 27,700 25,400 -8%Peru 108,600 115,300 94,400 68,800 51,000 38,700 43,400 46,200 46,700 44,200 50,300 48,200 -4%Colombia 44,700 50,900 67,200 79,400 101,800 160,100 163,300 144,800 102,000 86,000 80,000 86,000 8%Total 201,400 214,800 209,700 194,000 190,800 220,600 221,300 210,900 170,300 153,800 158,000 159,600 1%

Sources United States Department of States National Monitoring Systems Supported by UNODC

Regional Overview

8

In 2005, the total area under coca cultivation in Colombia increased by 6,000 hectares to 86,000 hectares, a 8% increase compared to late year’s estimate of 80,000 hectares, despite the continued eradication effort of the Government of Colombia. This is the first increase following four consecutive years of decrease in Colombia. In 2005, a total of 170,780 hectares were eradicated, including 138,780 hectares through aerial spraying and 32,000 hectares manual eradication. The area under coca cultivation in 2005 was still 47% lower compared to the peak annual estimate of 163,300 ha in 2000. The survey covered the whole country and detected coca cultivation in 23 departments out of 32.

The most important increases between 2004 and 2005 were observed in the departments of Putumayo (bordering Ecuador) and Vichada (bordering Venezuela). Most of the new coca fields in Putumayo were established on the foot hills close to the border with Narino and Cauca Departments, where spraying is particularly difficult. The largest decrease took place in the Department of Norte de Santander at the border with Venezuela where some important alternative development projects have been implemented.

Figure 2: Coca cultivation in Colombia (ha), 1995-2005

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Sources: US Department of State National Monitoring System supported by UNODC

hect

ares

In 2005, the total area under coca cultivation in Peru was estimated at 48,200 ha. This represents a decrease of 4% over the estimate of 50,300 ha for 2004. The decrease was mainly due to the eradication campaigns implemented in the department of San Martin in Alto Huallaga region and San Gaban valley. In these two regions alone, coca cultivation decreased from 4,000 ha in 2004 to 670 ha in 2005. This decrease was slightly offset by increases in others regions of Alto Huallaga, and by relatively small increases in Apurimac-Ene and Aguaytia. Despite the decrease between 2004 and 2005, coca cultivation in Peru remained the second largest after Colombia. It represents 30% of the 2005 global coca cultivation, compared to 33% in 2004. A percentage that remained much lower than ten years ago, when coca cultivation in Peru accounted for 54% of the cultivation in the world.

Regional Overview

9

Figure 3: Coca cultivation in Peru (ha), 1995-2005

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005


hect

ares

In 2005, the total area under coca cultivation in Bolivia was estimated at 25,400 ha, a decrease of 8% over to last year’s estimate of 27,700 ha. The decrease at the national level was due to a decrease in the Chapare region, where coca cultivation decreased by 31% between 2004 and 2005. The decrease in Chapare was attributed to the compliance of the farmers to the agreement of October 2004 between the Government and coca growers federation, limiting coca cultivation to 0.16 ha by family.

Coca cultivation in the Yungas increased by 5% between 2004 and 2005 to reach 18,100 ha. The Yungas remained the most important region for coca cultivation in Bolivia, accounting for 71% of the total cultivation in 2005. The total estimate of 25,400 ha also included 12,000 hectares in the Yungas (47% of total cultivation), permitted by the Bolivian Law No. 1008 (Law on the Regime Applicable to Coca and Controlled Substances, 1988) for traditional uses such as leaf chewing, medicinal preparations and coca tea. Further, the total included an additional 3,200 hectares of coca cultivation temporarily authorized in October 2004 by the Bolivian Government in the Chapare region.

Figure 4: Coca cultivation in Bolivia (ha), 1994-2005

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005


hect

ares

Regional Overview

10

Eradication

In 2005, eradication reached record levels in Colombia, while there was a slight increase in Peru and some decrease in Bolivia. Overall, the levels of eradication remained high in the three countries in 2004.

Reports from the Colombian Government show that 138,775 hectares were sprayed, representing an increase of 2% compared to last year. For the first time in 2005, spraying activities were implemented in the departments of Chocó, Cundinamarca and Valle. In addition to spraying, manual eradication of 31,287 hectares of coca cultivation was reported, a record compared to previous years. The total of both types of eradication (spraying and manual) amounted to 170,042 hectares in 2005.

The Government of Peru reported the eradication of 12,232 ha of coca fields in 2005, of which 8,966 ha were eradicated as part of a forced eradication programme and 3,266 ha as part of a programme of voluntary eradication. Total eradication increased by 19% compared to 2004. In 2005, the Bolivia reported the eradication of 6,073 ha of coca fields. No eradication was reported in the Yungas of La Paz. The level of eradication decreased by 28% compared to 2004. In Peru and Bolivia the eradication of coca cultivation is exclusively manual.

Figure 5: Eradication of coca bush in Bolivia, Colombia and Peru (ha)

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

year

hect

ares


Production of coca leaf and derivatives

Bolivia and Peru have areas where coca has been traditionally grown for local use of coca leaf. In Colombia, traditional use of the coca leaf can be considered marginal, and virtually the entire coca leaf production is destined for cocaine production. Therefore, farmers in Colombia trade leaves as fresh or process them to coca paste or cocaine base in small “kitchens” located on the farm. In Peru and Bolivia, farmers trade sun-dried leaves and, in both countries, the sun-dried coca leaf trade for traditional, commercial or industrial uses is regulated by the Government. Leaves traded outside the controlled market are destined for cocaine production.

In Colombia, the Government, jointly with UNODC, implemented a coca leaf yield survey, which indicated that the coca leaf yields were higher than previously thought, establishing at 6,300 kg/hectare/yr of fresh coca leaf (equivalent to 2,700 kg/hectare/year of sun-dried coca leaf). With the information provided by the farmers for coca paste and cocaine base production, and the conversion factors provided by Operation Breakthrough for conversion to pure cocaine, the

Regional Overview

11

average annual yield per hectare for pure cocaine hydrochloride reached 7.7 kg/hectare, compared to 4.7 kg/hectare previously used. Based on this data, the total cocaine production in Colombia for 2005 reached 640 metric tons cocaine.

In Peru, assuming an average sun-dried coca leaf yield of 2,200 kg/ha, the total sun-dried coca leaf production was estimated at 106,000 metric tons. Of this amount, a study of the National Institute of Statistics and Computer Science estimated that about 9,000 metric tons corresponded to the annual demand for coca leaves for traditional, commercial or industrial uses. The balance is used for cocaine production. Assuming a cocaine yield per hectare of 4.1 kg/ha – similar to the average yield obtained in 2004 - the total rounded cocaine production in Peru was estimated at 180 metric tons. Thus, cocaine production in Peru decreased by 5% compared to 190 metric tons produced in 2004.

In Bolivia, the overall area under coca cultivation produced an estimated 42,000 metric tons of sun-dried leaf, of which 30,900 metric tons were estimated to be available for cocaine production. The potential cocaine production in Bolivia amounted to 90 metric tons in 2005. This corresponds to a decrease of 16% compared to the 2004 estimate of 107 metric tons. The significant decrease in cocaine production reflects the large decrease in coca cultivation in the Chapare region (-31%) where coca leaf yield was more than two times higher than elsewhere in the country (2,700 kg/ha compared to 1,200 kg/ha sun-dried leaf).

Potential cocaine production in Colombia accounted for 70%, Peru for 20% and Bolivia for 10% of the global potential cocaine production of 910 metric tons.

Figure 6: Global cocaine production (metric tons), 1990-20052

Table 2: Potential cocaine production in the Andean region (metric tons), 1994-2005

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 % change 2004-2005

Bolivia 255 240 215 200 150 70 43 60 60 79 107 90 -16%Peru 435 460 435 325 240 175 141 150 165 155 190 180 -5%Colombia 201 230 300 350 435 680 695 617 580 550 640 640 0%Total 891 930 950 875 825 925 879 827 805 784 937 910 -3%Source: UNODC World Drug Report 2006

2 Colombian cocaine production data for 2004 and 2005 is based on new field research.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

met

ric

tons


Regional Overview

12

Cocaine seizures and seized coca processing laboratories

Global cocaine seizures increased by 18% to 588 metric tons in 2004, the highest figure ever recorded. This followed an increase in global cocaine seizures of 34% in 2003. The increase in cocaine seizures appears to be largely the result of better cooperation among law enforcement services and improved sharing of intelligence information.

Most of the globally intercepted cocaine in 2004 was seized in the Americas (86%). South America accounted for 45%, North America for 33% and Central America & the Caribbean for 8% of global seizures.

For the third year in a row, Colombia topped the ranking of world cocaine seizures, with almost 188 metric tons cocaine hydrochloride (HCl) and cocaine base seized in 2004, 32 per cent of the world total and the highest such figure ever reported from any country. This clearly reflects the strong enforcement efforts undertaken by the Colombian authorities over the last few years. An analysis of the trafficking patterns done by the Colombian authorities revealed that more than half of the country’s seizures took place at the ports; 60% of the cocaine left the country via the Pacific coast and 40% via the Atlantic coast in 2004 .

Figure 7: Global cocaine seizures by region, 2004

SEIZURES of COCAINE* (Kg and %) – BY REGION - 2004

264,087

195,968

78,699

29,762

15,107

611

245

187

155

110

104

9

6

1,178

1,798

- 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000

South America

North America

West & Central Europe

Central America

Caribbean

West and Central Africa

East Africa

Southern Africa

Oceania

Southeast Europe

East and South-East Asia

East Europe

Near and Middle East /South-West Asia

North Africa

South Asia

(45%)

(33%)

(13%)

(5%)

(3% )

Source: UNODC, Annual Reports Questionnaire Data / DELTA

In Peru, seizures of coca paste and cocaine hydrochloride decreased, but destruction and seizures of coca leaves increased between 2004 and 2005. Seizures of cocaine hydrochloride decreased from 7,3 mt in 2004 to 2,1 mt in 2005, while seizures and destruction of coca leaves increased from 916 mt to 1,525 mt. There were, however, regular operations of the anti-narcotics police to destroy coca maceration pits and clandestine laboratories.

In 2005, the Government of Bolivia reported the seizure of 886 metric tons of coca leaves, representing a spectacular increase of 470% compared to the reported seizures of 155 metric tons in 2004. The increase in seizure of coca leaf can be attributed to the strengthening of the special

Regional Overview

13

force for the control of coca leaves, which included the control of additional roads, and improvement in equipment and infrastructure.

In addition, it should be noted that 2.1 metric tons of coca leaves from Peru were seized mostly in La Paz department, representing 0.2% of the total seizure in Bolivia. These seizures occurred mainly during the Bolivian dry season, when there is less coca leaf available in Bolivia.

In 2004, Governments reported the destruction of 8,208 coca processing laboratories worldwide, an almost four-fold increase since 2000 when 2,104 laboratories were reported destroyed.

The destruction of laboratories and production sites reflects the fact that most processing of coca leaf into cocaine takes place close to the cultivating areas in Bolivia, Colombia and Peru. This is true for both the intermediate products coca paste/base and the final product, cocaine hydrochloride. Bolivia, Colombia and Peru reported more than 99 per cent of the global total.

However, some differences exist between the three main coca cultivating countries. Whereas in Bolivia and Peru, destroyed laboratories almost exclusively produced coca paste and cocaine base, some 13 per cent of all coca processing laboratories destroyed in Colombia were manufacturing cocaine. Ninety-four per cent of the 256 cocaine processing laboratories destroyed worldwide were located in Colombia.

Farm-gate values and farm-gate prices

Farm-gate values of coca cultivation in Bolivia and Peru are based on sun-dried coca leaf production. For Colombia, the farm gate value is based on the total production of each product sold by the farmers (fresh leaf, coca paste and cocaine base).

The total farm-gate income value resulting from coca cultivation in Colombia was estimated at about US$ 843 millions in 2005. This is equivalent to 0.7% of the 2005 GDP and 6% of the GDP of the agricultural sector. It should be noted however that this value does not take into account production costs like herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers and wages.

Figure 8: Potential farm gate value of coca cultivation as % of GDP

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

mill

ion

US$

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Farm-gate value 180 843 307

As % of GDP 2.1 0.7 0.4

Bolivia (sun-dried coca leaf)

Colombia (coca leaf and

derivatives)

Peru (sun-dried coca leaf)

Regional Overview

14

In Peru, the potential farm-gate value of the sun-dried coca leaf production amounted to about US$ 307 million, estimated from the sale of 106,000 metric tons of coca leaf at 2.9 US$/kg in 2005. This represented about 0.4% of the 2004 GDP estimated at US$ 68.6 billion .

Farm-gate value of coca leaf production in Bolivia reached US$ 180 million in 2005. This estimate took into account the total value of the controlled market, as well as the farm-gate value of coca leaf outside this market. Total value was equivalent to 2.1% of the country’s GDP for 2005 (US$ 8.4 billion) or 12% of the value of the agricultural sector in 2003 (US$ 1.5 billion).

Although the farm-gate value of coca leaf in Bolivia is the smallest among the three countries, it is equivalent to a much higher proportion of the GDP compared to Colombia and Peru. This indicates the relative importance the coca sector has for the Bolivian economy.

Farm-gate prices

Prices for illicit products are subject to several factors besides the reactions to supply and demand. One should take into consideration that coca cultivation in many areas takes place under the control of armed groups or under the influence of drug cartels that tend to monopolise the coca trade and impose their prices and conditions on the farmers. Besides this, eradication efforts, changes in the currency exchange rate between the local currency and the US dollar, price increases or decrease of agricultural inputs or precursors all play a role in determining price levels.

In Bolivia and Peru, the markets for sun-dried coca leaf are regulated by government institutions. Typically, prices on the government controlled markets are lower than those obtained outside these markets. Coca leaves not traded through the government controlled channels are destined for cocaine production.

Figure 9: Prices for sun-dried coca leaf in Bolivia and Peru (US$/kg), 1990 - 2005

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Jan-

90

Jan-

91

Jan-

92

Jan-

93

Jan-

94

Jan-

95

Jan-

96

Jan-

97

Jan-

98

Jan-

99

Jan-

00

Jan-

01

Jan-

02

Jan-

03

Jan-

04

Jan-

05

Jan-

06

US$ Bolivia

Peru

Following an increase in eradication, farm-gate prices for sun-dried coca leaf in Bolivia reached a peak of around US$ 6 in 2000. Since then, prices fell to below US$ 4 but continued to be substantially higher than in neighbouring Peru (US$ 2.9/kg in 2005). There, prices have shown a rather steady increase since 1996. This was the year, when prices fell drastically after having reached peaks of over US$ 4 in the early 1990s. There is some evidence from seizure data that sun-dried coca leaves are trafficked from Peru to Bolivia.

Regional Overview

15

Converted into dry leaf equivalents, prices for fresh coca leaf in Colombia (US$ 2.56/kg) are comparable to prices for sun-dried leaf in Peru but lower than in Bolivia. After a sharp increase in 2001, which can be seen in connection with the successful efforts of governments to stop the trafficking of cocaine base from Peru to Colombia, prices for coca paste in Colombia tend to oscillate around 2,100,000 Colombian Pesos (US$ 900) per kilogramme.

Figure 10: Colombia, average price for coca paste (COP/kg), 1999 - 2005

1,500

1,600

1,700

1,800

1,900

2,000

2,100

2,200

2,300

2,400

Dec-99 Dec-00 Dec-01 Dec-02 Dec-03 Dec-04 Dec-05

'000

Co

lom

bia

n p

eso

s/kg

Cocaine abuse in Latin America

A lesser known fact is that South America is the world's third largest market for cocaine use with an estimated 1,981,000 users (2004/5). Prevalence rate of cocaine abuse among the population age 15-64 are as high as those for Europe (0.7%), although considerably lower than in North America (2.3%). The prevalence rate in the main coca cultivation countries is close or above the regional average thus indicating a strong link between illicit crop cultivation, cocaine production and abuse. In Bolivia, which has prevalence rates well over the Latin American average, annual prevalence of cocaine use largely follows the trend of domestic cocaine production. Following strong increases in the early 1990s until 1996, cocaine prevalence rates declined and started increasing again only over the 2000 to 2005 period, reaching 1.6% for cocaine HCl and 1.9% for cocaine base in 2005.

Poverty and development

Despite the obvious geographic association of rural underdevelopment and coca cultivation, it is a much more complex task to assess how coca cultivation and poverty are linked on the household level. Due to the illicit nature of coca cultivation and the security situation in many growing areas, comprehensive data on the household level allowing a direct comparison between coca-growing and non-coca-growing households is scarce. A first assessment can be made by taking into consideration the farm-gate value of coca products and the number of families estimated to be involved in coca cultivation.

Farmers in Colombia, the largest producer of coca leaf, produced US$ 843 million worth of cocaine base. This translates into a gross per capita income of US$ 2,500 for members of coca farming households. However, production costs for fertilizer, agro-chemicals, and hired labour have to be deducted from this amount. It seems that even the gross per capita income derived from coca cultivation is well below the average GDP per capita, confirming that coca farmers belong the economically worse off part of the population. The figures for Peru and Bolivia show a similar scenario.

Regional Overview

16

Table 3: Farm-gate value and per capita income from coca

Potential farm-gate value of coca products 2005 (million US$)

No. of households involved in coca cultivationª

Per capita income from coca (US$)

GDP per capita (US$)

Bolivia 180 40,000 900 974b

Colombia 843 68,600 2,500 2,700c

Peru 307 50,000 1,200 2,490 b

a Estimates for Bolivia and Peru are derived from the average field size per household. The estimate for Colombia is based on field research. b 2004 GDP for Bolivia and Peru, World Bank c 2005 GDP for Colombia, National Department of Statistics, Colombia

A study on coca yield in conducted by the Government of Colombia and UNODC in 2005 also covered some poverty-related aspects of coca cultivation. When asked for the main reason for growing coca, 55% of the farmers mentioned economic reasons, either mentioning openly the profitability of doing so or the fact that coca leaves and derivatives are easily marketable. Another 28% claimed they had no other choice, and the remaining 17% stated that coca cultivation was part of the local culture.

In Bolivia, Human Development Index (HDI) values for 2001 are available at the municipality level. Coca cultivation was found in 17 out of the 326 municipalities in the country. The average HDI for the coca-growing municipalities was 0.54, indicating that their population is slightly worse-off compared to the non-growing municipalities, which had an HDI of 0.57. However, the difference was not statistically significant, so that this result cannot be interpreted as indicating a generally lower HDI in coca-growing municipalities.

Alternative development is an approach specifically designed to discourage farmers from growing illicit crops. Alternative development programmes contribute to prevention and reduction of coca cultivation as well as to the overall development of the local community. However, alternative development currently reach only a fraction of the population involved in illicit crop cultivation or at risk to do so. Alternative development programmes are being carried out by UNODC in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru.

In Colombia, a study by the Colombian government and UNODC revealed that only 9% of the coca farmers interviewed reported having received any kind of assistance to stop growing coca plants. In fact, only about 6,800 households are being assisted by UNODC through alternative developments projects in the country. Those that do receive assistance, cultivate around 80,000 hectares of licit crops, a figure almost as high as the total area under coca cultivation. In addition, the Colombian government reaches over 31,000 beneficiaries with its forest warden families programme, which provides incentives to communities to reduce coca cultivation and preserve the environment.

Compared to the estimated number of households involved in coca cultivation, Bolivia has the highest proportion of households assisted by UNODC's alternative development programmes. These 9,100 households cultivate about 210,000 hectares of licit crops, seven times the area under coca.

Alternative development projects started as early as 1986 in Peru. The remarkable success in reducing coca cultivation from 129,000 hectares at its peak in 1992 to below 50,000 hectares in 2005 can be attributed to a combination of eradication efforts, air control to prevent the transport of coca paste towards Colombia, and the implementation of alternative development projects. In some areas targeted by these projects such as Bajo Huallaga, coca cultivation virtually disappeared.

PART 2. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ILLICIT DRUG CULTIVATION AND PROCESSING

Environmental Effects

19

THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ILLICIT DRUG CULTIVATION AND PROCESSING

This chapter is based on a report commissioned by the Research and Analysis Section of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) to the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre. The report is a desk study intended to aid UNODC in understanding the status of knowledge on the environmental impact of illegal drug production and manufacture in the Andean region. This chapter focuses on the environmental effects of illicit drug cultivation in Colombia, Peru and Bolivia and provides a summary of knowledge on coca cultivation and its impact on forests, rivers, and groundwater. It also summarises the known impact on protected areas and biodiversity in the region, and includes some new spatial analyses. The effects of illicit drug cultivation on local people and of eradication measures are also briefly covered.

Deforestation and illicit crops

The most obvious environmental effect of coca and opium poppy cultivation is the clearance of forests. This section first gives an overview of the forest types and their extent in Colombia, Peru and Bolivia, as the context for an analysis of the relative importance of coca and opium cultivation in deforestation. This analysis includes an examination of the dynamics of coca cultivation as part of other agricultural activities and socio-economic factors, such as eradication, lawlessness and colonisation policies.

The natural environments of the Andean region have been classified into seven major biomes, or types of vegetation (Table 4). The illicit drug crops of opium poppy, coca and marijuana are all grown in the wet or humid forest biomes. Coca is principally grown in lowland and lower-montane regions, from sea level up to 2,000 m altitude. Opium poppy is usually grown at higher altitudes, from 1,000 m to 3,500 meters above sea leavel (m.a.s.l.), and so affects lower and upper montane forest areas, which include the tropical cloud forests.

Table 4: Biomes of the Andean region and illicit crops

Biomes of the Andean region Illicit crops cultivated

1.a) Tropical and subtropical wet forests. Include tropical

1.b) Wet forest in lowlands up to 600 m.a.s.l.; tropical montane forests (600 to 1200 m.a.s.l) and tropical cloud forests (1200 to 2000 m.a.s.l.)

Poppy, coca

2. Tropical and subtropical dry forests

3. Grasslands, savannas, tropical and subtropical shrubs Coca

4. Seasonally-flooded savannas and grasslands

5. Grasslands and shrubs: punas in the drier and paramos in the wetter areas Poppy

6.Deserts and xerophytic shrubs

7.Mangroves Coca

Source: UNEP & Comunidad Andina (2003). The crops cultivated in each biome have been compiled by this review.

The lowland and montane forests form a major part of the natural resources of Colombia, Peru and Bolivia, still covering 48 to 58% of these countries. Deforestation rates are calculated by the relevant national forest agencies and compiled by FAO. The latest available figures are for the period 1990 to 2000 and show significant rates of deforestation. Differences between figures from different sources are due to differences in the methodologies used for forest definition and measurement.


20

Table 5: Forest Coverage Indicators in the Andean region for 1997

Country Forest Area (ha) Forest

ha per capita

Natural forest/ total land

Annual changes in forest cover (ha)

Bolivia 49 670 000 6.5 48.6% -581 000

Peru 67 562 000 2.8 58.9% -217 000

Colombia 52 988 000 1.5 49.1% -262 000

Source: FAO (1997); UNEP & Comunidad Andina (2003).

Table 6: Forest cover & change 1990 - 2000 in the Andean region

Forest cover Forest cover change 1990-2000 Country

(ha) (ha/year) (%/year)

Bolivia 53 068 062 -161 075 -0.3

Peru 65 215 364 -268 794 -0.4

Colombia 49 601 300 -190 470 -0.4

Source: FAO (2000)

For Colombia, a more detailed analysis of the extent of clearance of forest and reduction in area of other biomes is available. This shows that whilst the tropical wet forests (‘rain forests’) are the largest biome, covering over 32 million hectares in 1998, over 11 million hectares have been lost. The Sub-Andean and Andean forests have lost 69 to 76% of their original cover. These are favoured areas for the production of coca and opium, but have also been the most densely populated parts of the country for centuries.

Forest logging and establishment of new coca fields in mountain areas, Antioquia and Bolivar department, Colombia


21

Table 7: Alteration of biomes in Colombia, 1998

Ecosystems Original area (ha) Area (1998) ha Current (%)

Illicit crop cultivation

Tropical wet forests 44 050 000 32 316 500 73 coca, opium

Tropical dry forest 5 822 000 168 500 3

Sub-Andean forests (<1000m) 9 652 050 3 035 000 31 coca

Andean forests (1000 – 2000 m) 10 359 325 2 437 500 24 coca, opium

Wet high-Andean forests (>2000 m) 8 114 500 3 382 000 42 opium

Orinoquian Savannas 13 500 000 12 714 500 94 ?

Caribbean Savannas 750 000 416 000 55

Amazonian Savannas 807 500 807 500 100 ?

Amazonian hills and shrub forests 2 555 575 2 555 575 100 ?

Semiarid forests and shrubs 375 500 350 500 93

Arid Shrubs 709 750 685 000 97

Andean dry forests and shrubs* 2 255 000 1 198 500 53

Caatingas (Amazonia) 2 805 000 2 805 000 100

Alluvial TWF* 7 327 150 5 210 000 71

Flooded forests and shrubs 2 377 950 990 000 42

Andean wetlands* 29 000 17 000 58

Mangroves 585 000 501 000 86

Paramos and Sub-paramo* 1 622 000 1 381 000 85 opium

* Ecosystems very degraded in several areas

Source: Adapted from Etter and Wyngaarden (1999).

Coca cultivation is, of course, only one factor in deforestation in Colombia, Peru and Bolivia. The clearance of forests is driven by a complex set of factors, ranging from the decisions of local people and government, commercial enterprises, national and international governmental policies to market forces.

The relative role of coca cultivation and eradication activities in deforestation varies between countries and regions. Unfortunately, UNODC is not aware of a quantitative analysis of the relative importance of the factors causing deforestation in the region. Much of the literature on the environmental effects of illicit drug cultivation and processing in the region asserts that the cultivation of illegal drugs has caused the deforestation of tens of thousands or even millions of hectares. These statements are, however, rarely supported by specific studies of the role of illegal drugs in deforestation.

Colombia

Although there are several estimates of the area deforested in Colombia as a result of coca cultivation, these estimates are usually based on extrapolations from the area of coca crops, rather than specific surveys of forest loss due to coca. Several authors refer to an estimate of 425,600 hectares of accumulated deforested areas between 1987 and 1998, produced by Bernal (2002). This is based on a calculation of the estimated annual accumulation in area of coca cultivation multiplied by four.


22

This ratio has been cited widely, but there is no explanation of how it was determined. An alternative estimate suggests that for each hectare of coca, another hectare of forest is cleared (Thoumi, 2001). Again, it is not clear how this ratio was calculated.

It is not valid to simply extrapolate the area deforested from annual figures of area of coca crops, as new coca plots may be established on existing agricultural land or secondary forest (cleared forest in the process of regeneration).

Clearly, the deforestation caused by illicit crop cultivation is not limited to the area planted with illicit crops, as forest is also cleared for subsistence crops, cattle pasture and housing, and in some cases for airstrips. In any individual case, the ratio of forest cleared will depend on local conditions, the agricultural system in use and the type of producer (small, medium or industrial). The area of forest cleared for coca will be much greater where growers have moved to a new region, compared to that seen in already settled lands.

Coca fields in the Sierra Nevada region, Colombia

Álvarez (2002b) states that:

“It would be safe to assume that at least 60% of illicit crops are grown in newly deforested land, that growers clear at least twice the surface of deforestation, and that area under illicit crops is not cumulative due to eradication”.

From the 101,800 hectares of coca and 7,466 hectares of opium poppy cultivation reported in 1998, using these assumptions, Álvarez (2002b) estimated that 131,119 hectares of forest were cleared for illicit crops and associated activities in 1998.

Diaz-Torres (2002), in his dissertation on the economic and social dynamics surrounding coca cultivation, reports that:

“Between 1974 and 1998, illicit crops have brought direct devastation to more than 850,000 ha of forest in Colombia” (Defensoria del Pueblo, 2000 in Diaz-Torres, 2002).

Juan Mayr, a former Colombian Minister of Environment (1998-2002), suggested in a workshop on environment, illicit crops and alternative development (September 2000) that a million hectares of native forests had been eliminated as consequence of the cultivation of illicit crops.


23

The only data source which gives a reliable figure for the area of primary forest loss due to coca cultivation is the annual UNODC coca cultivation surveys for the years 2001 to 2005 (UNODC Colombia, 2002; 2003; 2004; 2005). These surveys provide calculations of not only the area under coca cultivation, but also the land use converted to coca, areas abandoned and newly cultivated each year. The surveys are produced from satellite data and ground truthing. Table 8 shows the extent of new, stable and abandoned coca plots for the four years from 2000 to 2004. The total area under coca is slightly less than the national totals in the UNODC reports because of areas classified as ‘uncertain changes and corrections’.

Many coca plots are abandoned each year to evade eradication. One of the consequence is that new plots are established in other areas, although the extent to which new plots are made by new farmers or by existing farmers responding to eradication measures is unknown. Another indicator of the high mobility of coca cultivation and the short life of coca plots is the area of plots under coca cultivation in the 2003 period that were also cultivated in 2000 - only about 2,085 hectares, just 2% of the area under cultivation in 2003 (UNODC Colombia, 2004).

The area of new coca plots established each year has steadily decreased from a peak of 102,650 hectares in 2000 -2001 to 47,068 hectares in 2003 - 2004. This is a decrease from 71% to 59% of the total area in coca cultivation each year. In contrast, the area of stable coca plots from one year to the next had returned in 2003 – 2004 to virtually the same as that in 2000 - 2001, at 33 281 hectares, after dropping to 11,558 hectares in 2002 - 2003. This increase in stability, along with the reduction of the area of land abandoned from coca cultivation in that period to 53,068 hectares, compared to 121,099 hectares two years earlier, could indicate that eradication was less effective in 2003 – 2004. However, the continued reduction in the total and new area of coca plots in 2003 - 2004 indicates that the disincentive measures for coca cultivation are having an impact on behaviour.

UNODC data are also available for a more detailed classification of the areas under coca for the period 2000 to 2004. These data, based on comprehensive analysis of remote sensing imagery, enable the first calculations of the extent of deforestation for coca cultivation and analysis of the dynamics of associated land use. They estimate the areas of primary forest, secondary forest and other vegetation (grassland and crops) converted to coca in each year over this period. Land no longer cultivated for coca is classified as either abandoned to regenerate to (secondary) forest, or converted to other land uses. The large areas of land for which land use changes are uncertain and corrections have been made should be noted when drawing on this data.

Table 8: Extent of stable, new and abandoned coca plots in Colombia (ha), 2000-2004

2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Stable coca area 33 419 15 229 11 558 33 281

New coca plantings 102 650 79 239 67 325 47 068

Coca to other land use 117 681 121 099 79 152 53 068

TOTAL 253 750 215 567 158 035 133 417

Total coca cultivation 145 000 102 000 86 000 80 000

Source: (UNODC Colombia, 2002; 2003; 2004; 2005)

These data (Figure 11) estimate that over the four years from 2000 to 2004, a total of 97,622 hectares of primary forest was converted to coca cultivations in Colombia. The annual loss of primary forest was similar in 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 at about 34,000 hectares, but decreased by over 50% to 16,017 hectares converted in 2002-2003. This decrease continued in 2003-2004 to 13 202 hectares, which is only 39% of the area in 2000-2001. The high percentage of 20% of the converted land area that was classified as ‘uncertain changes and corrections’ in 2002-2003 should be noted.

Over the four year period of 2000 to 2004 the annual percentages of coca cultivation on land cleared from primary forest were 25%, 37%, 20% and 20%, with an average of 26%. The percentage of coca cultivation on land cleared from secondary forest, grassland and crops was


24

43%, 38%, 45% and 37% respectively over the same period. Thus, the ratio of new coca plots established from primary forest compared to plots established from other land uses varied from 1:1.7 to 1:1.0 to 1:2.2 to 1:1.9 over these four years. New coca plots were as least as likely to be established on areas other than primary forest in 2001-2002, and much more likely to be on land other than primary forest in the other three years.

Figure 11: Extent of stable, new and abandoned coca plots in Colombia (ha), 2000-2004

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004year

hect

ares

Stable coca area New coca plantings Coca to other land use

Source: (UNODC Colombia, 2002; 2003; 2004; 2005)

Figure 12: Land use converted to coca in Colombia (ha), 2000-2004

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004year

hect

ares

Stable coca crops Primary forest to cocaSecondary forest to coca Other vegetation (grassland or crops) to cocaUncertain changes & corrections

Source: (UNODC Colombia, 2005)

The data on total reduction of forest cover over Colombia and that on losses resulting from coca cultivation span different periods of time, so only rough comparisons of the two can be made. It is likely that several hundred thousand hectares of forest were cleared due to the direct and indirect effects of coca cultivation prior to 2000, before UNODC estimates from remote sensed data were available. Forest cover change in Colombia for the period 1990 – 2000 is estimated at –190,470 hectares per year. If this rate was assumed to have continued from 2000 to 2004, the total area deforested in those four years would have been 761,880 hectares, of which the 97,622 hectares of primary forest identified as converted to coca cultivations in this period would form 13%. As already noted, the actual of primary forest cleared due to coca cultivation is greater than the area


25

being directly cultivated for this purpose, because of the other crops and activities of the farmers including the opening of roads and airstrips for transport of coca products.

Figure 13: Land use of abandoned coca plots in Colombia (ha), 2000-2004

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004year

hect

ares

Coca to secondary forest Coca to other land use Uncertain changes & corrections

Source: (UNODC Colombia, 2005)

Two studies of particular regions of Colombia provide insights to the relative importance of coca cultivation in deforestation processes. Viña et al. (2004) used satellite data to analyse land cover change along a portion of the Colombia-Ecuador border, where coca cultivation is widespread. Ramos and Ramos (2002) analysed the environmental impacts resulting from coca crops and the coca laboratories in the municipality of Tibú, in the northeast of Colombia.

The Viña et al. (2004) study area consisted of the Putumayo Department of Colombia and the province of Sucumbios in Ecuador, where the natural vegetation is lowland tropical rain forest. During the early 1980s, coca cultivation appeared in the Department of Putumayo. By 2000, the Department hosted 41% (66,022 hectares) of the national total of coca cultivation. Eradication measures had reduced the area to 4,386 hectares by 2004 (UNODC Colombia, 2005). Viña et al.(2004) analysed three dates of Landsat imagery for the 23 year period from 1973, 1985 and 1996 and the following quotations are from their paper:

“Between 1973 and 1996, the forest landscape of the entire study area was transformed by the land-use practices of the local people who responded to multi-scale social and economic forces. The Colombian side showed a forest-cover reduction of approximately 43%, while the Ecuadorian side showed a forest-cover reduction of half that value (approximately 22%).”

“Between 1973 and 1985, the replacement of forested areas with agricultural lands was the most predominant land-cover change observed. Most of this change corresponded to a replacement of forests by pastures for cattle grazing, although cropland areas also constitute an important component. Between 1985 and 1996 the increment in barren lands is the most conspicuous type of land-cover change observed, particularly on the Colombian side, where these areas almost doubled those of agricultural lands. This pattern may reflect a settler’s tendency to abandon already established agricultural areas and to colonize new forest areas. Forest regeneration was also very conspicuous in the Colombian side of the study area, although most of the abandoned agricultural areas did not experience forest recovery, and were converted to barren lands.”

“Rates of deforestation on the Colombian side during the 1973 – 1985 period may be directly associated to colonization pressures induced mainly by the intensification of oil-industry operations. This conclusion does not seem valid for the 1985 - 1996 period, since the rate of population growth during this time showed a significant reduction, while population rates increased. We suggest that during this period, deforestation was directly related to coca cultivation. The areas under the illegal crop increased drastically in the second half of the 1980s,


26

responding to both increase in the international market for illegal drugs and in increase in lawlessness and political instability in Colombia.”

“Road construction was a dominant feature in the government-sanctioned colonization process on the Ecuadorian side of the border. Approximately 90% of the areas deforested between 1973 and 1996 on the Ecuadorian side occurred within a 5 km buffer area either side of a road. Only 30% of the deforestation on the Colombian side occurred within the 5 km buffer area [...] This difference can also be explained by the predominance of coca cultivation on the Colombian side of the border. Due to its illegal nature, areas planted with coca are usually placed in regions that are remote and inaccessible; thus they are located preferably in areas recently cleared of forests and isolated from already established cropland areas, as well as distant from roads and other penetration routes (e.g. rivers).”

Ramos and Ramos (2002) analysed satellite images for the years 1999-2001, which had been interpreted as part of the UNODC-Government of Colombia SIMCI (Sistema Integrado de Monitoreo de Cultivos Ilicitos) project, to determine land use change in the municipality of Tibú. The municipality has an area of about 236,460 hectares. Coca cultivation started in the area in the late 1980s. Table 9 shows the distribution of different land uses in Tibú for 1999, 2000 and 2001.

Table 9: Land use in the Municipality of Tibú for 1999, 2000 and 2001

Area (ha) Land use

1999 2000 2001

Coca cultivation 10 143 3 533 10 390

Primary forest 122 279 118 923 77 870

Secondary forest, scrub 55 605 81 242 90 602

Pasture, low vegetation 41 422 43 627 76 100

Water bodies 3 217 4 764 4 209

Sand banks - 177 274

Other crops 49 9 -

Clouds and shadows 1 333 9 563 5 280

Roads and urban zones 2 325 1 471 1 985

Bare soil 88 1 287 1 491

Source: Ramos & Ramos 2002

The area of coca cultivation decreased by 65% between 1999 and 2000 due to aerial eradication measures, but had recovered to the 1999 level a year later. The area of primary forest decreased by 36% of the three year period whilst the area of secondary forest increased by 62%. This is predominantly due to two causes: (1) primary forests are being cleared due to diverse reasons, including an increase in timber extraction, and an increase in the areas of both illicit and licit crops and (2) abandonment of areas with illicit crops, which indicates a high rotation of crops.

Table 10: Areas deforested in the Municipality of Tibú by land cover, 1999-2001

Type of land cover Area (ha) %

Primary forest felled for coca cultivation 3 130 4

Secondary forest felled for coca cultivation 1 371 2

Primary forest felled for non-coca use 19 636 28

Secondary forest felled for non-coca use 14 830 21

Degraded primary forest 32 081 45

Source: Ramos & Ramos 2002

The loss of primary and secondary forest between 1999 and 2001 in Tibú was principally caused by the establishment of non-coca land uses. However:


27

“Analysis of the mobility of land covers indicates that the principal agent driving the establishment of these coverages is coca cultivation. The tendency is for primary forest to be converted to coca […], to be later transformed from secondary forest to other land uses. It can be concluded that the forest cover replaced directly by coca in the period of analysis is of 0.5 ha of forest for 1 ha of coca cultivated” (Ramos & Ramos, 2002).

“It is noteworthy that 86% of the affected primary forests are converted to land covers other than coca. This indicates that rather than resulting from operations for forestry purposes, forest deterioration is related to the establishment of communities in the area. The social conditions of the area mean that this process of colonization is disorderly and generates additional social and environmental impacts. The development of coca cultivation gives some economic sustainability to the local population, which permits them to pay for the labour of expansion and ownership of the land. This colonization behaviour is different from other regions of the country, where the cultivation of coca is characterised by a high dynamic of abandonment and planting, which leads to the presence of forests in different states of succession” (Ramos & Ramos, 2002).

The study also examined the rate of forest fragmentation in the Municipality of Tibú, where the number of fragments increased from 15,308 in 1999 to 16,024 in 2001. The average size of fragments decreased from 7,988 hectares in 1999 to 4,860 hectares in 2001. Similarly, the size of the largest fragment decreased by 45% from 33,632 hectares to 15,062 hectares over these three years. It was noteworthy that 81% of the non-forested islands created in the interior of the forest fragments were covered by coca at some point during the study.

“This allows confirmation that the coca fields are the driving force in the process of the loss of forest cover” (Ramos & Ramos, 2002).

The Institute of Environmental Studies in Colombia (IDEAM) is currently developing a pilot study on the effects of coca cultivation in deforestation in the Magdalena Medio region of the Serrania of San Lucas, to assess deforestation indexes resulting from the cultivation of illicit crops in the Forest Reserve. The results from this study were not yet available.

Peru

Coca cultivation has clearly been a significant factor in deforestation processes in the Andean valleys of Peru where it is grown. Young (1996) reports that the establishment of ‘hill agriculture’ from 1975 in the Huallaga Valley (through colonization) was motivated at least in part by the increasing value of coca leaves. This study has not found any calculations of the area deforested in Peru due to coca cultivation based on the analysis of field data, or even published estimates of the current extent of the country’s vegetation types. One deforestation estimate comes from Young (2004a), who states,

“Roughly a third of Peru’s deforestation is in places where coca is grown, which would mean 700,000 to 1 million ha of tropical forest cut as a result”.

The basis for these figures is not given, but in an earlier paper, Young (1996) agrees with other authors that:

“The area in coca fields must be multiplied many times in order to approximate the total area of degraded pre-montane forest. Thus, by extrapolation, perhaps 500,000 to 1,000,000 ha have been degraded in Peru as a result of conversion to ‘hill agriculture”.

Young (1996) also reports an estimate from Dourojeanni et al. (1989) that deforestation associated with coca in Peru had affected about 700,000 hectares.

The increase of 6,100 hectares in coca cultivation between 2003 and 2004 was mainly in the regions of Alto Huallaga, Apurimac–Ene and La Convencion–Lares (UNODC Peru, 2005), with evidence from the satellite imagery and ground-truthing that this expansion includes deforestation as well as conversion of existing agricultural plots. The types of land use being converted to coca cultivation have not been quantified by UNODC for Peru as they have been for Colombia. An annual increase of 6,100 hectares of coca cultivation could represent a significant level of deforestation at the local and regional scales for the pre-montane humid forests where it occurs,


28

but is a small fraction of the national mean deforestation rate of 268,794 hectares reported by FAO for 1990 - 2000 (FAO, 2000).

Young (2004b) concludes that:

“What coca/cocaine has done as an economic and social phenomenon is to provide the financial means and motives for deforestation. It has also inverted typical spatial expectations of deforestation. [Typically] people tend to [first] clear forests near roads and choose first the flattest lands with the best soils. This logic is reversed with coca/cocaine: The best coca fields are those that are most inaccessible to narcotic control efforts, that is, on isolated sites in hilly areas. Thus, coca-related deforestation affects forests that otherwise would not have been attractive to colonists.”

The same review also reports the effect of coca fields causing forest fragmentation, as small plots within forests create patchwork landscapes with considerable forest edge that is unfavourable for the survival of many species.

Bolivia

This study has not identified any national scale estimates of the area deforested in Bolivia due to coca cultivation based on the analysis of field data, but some detailed studies have been conducted for the Chapare region. Steininger et al. (2000b) calculated the rate of tropical deforestation in the Amazonian lowland moist forest zone of Bolivia (>1000 mm/yr precipitation and below 1500 m elevation). 152,900 hectares/yr of forest was lost from 1985 – 1986 to 1992 – 1994. They reported that:

“Roadside deforestation has expanded most quickly in the Chapare municipality of Cochabamba, where clearance for traditional crops and coca have reached from the highway to the Andean foothills. Continued expansion in this area threatens to completely isolate over 4000 km2 of foothill and montane forest from all neighbouring lowland forest.”

According to Salm and Liberman (1997), between 1985 and 1990, around 260 000 hectares of primary forest were deforested in the Chapare region as part of the colonization process. Much lower figures of primary forest loss in Chapare for this period were calculated by Henkel (1995), from an analysis of Landsat satellite imagery to determine the rate and area of primary and secondary forest conversion for the Chapare region from 1978 to 1990. During this period coca cultivation increased from approximately 15,000 hectares to 61,000 hectares. This analysis found that approximately 1,000 to 2,000 hectares per year of primary forest and 3,000 to 5,000 hectares of secondary forest were converted to cultivation during this period. It was concluded that:

“Although this loss is significant, when compared with loss of primary forest during the 1960s and 1970s, when the Bolivian government built roads to and within the Chapare and promoted colonization of this region, it is relatively small. During the period 1960 – 1978, 202 000 ha of land were allocated to incoming colonists. Virtually all of this land had been cleared and cultivated by 1978. At that time, vast areas of the older settled zones has been farmed out, and colonists had begun to move inland to occupy and clear new forest lands” (Henkel, 1995).

The analysis estimated that approximately 45,000 hectares of new coca were planted between 1978 and 1990, of which 25,000 – 30,000 hectares came from secondary forest, 4,000 – 5,000 hectares from converting other cropland, and 8,000 – 10,000 hectares from converting primary forest remnants in settled areas:

“The advantage to converting existing cropland and secondary forest to coca in the older settled areas is one of accessibility. [In existing cultivated areas,] a well-developed road network already existed, whereby coca leaves and chemicals could be moved easily to processing sites. Also, the large numbers of labourers needed to produce, harvest, and process the leaves into coca paste preferred to live and work in the areas of established settlement, rather than on new coca farms in more remote areas. Moreover, the Bolivian government has attempted to restrict land occupancy in the tropical forests around the fringes of Chapare. The 8 000 to 10 000 ha of primary forest converted to coca came from clearing most of the remaining areas in primary forest on farms in the old settled areas. Virtually all the primary forest in the old settled region of Chapare had been cleared and placed in coca cultivation by 1990” (Henkel, 1995).


29

Bradley (2005) has also analysed impacts of coca cultivation on land-use and land-cover change in the Chapare region, using satellite imagery from 1975 to 2000, participatory rural appraisal and socio-economic data. Three communities were studied: Arequipa, dominated by coca production and alternative development crops; Bogotá, a cattle rearing community; and Caracas, where fruit cultivation dominated. Three major periods were determined from a land-management synopsis in each community:

(i) pre-coca dominant, driven by weak national policies and economics, with high rates of deforestation;

(ii) coca-dominant, influenced by the international coca / cocaine economy, with the lowest rates of forest clearance; and

(iii) post coca-dominant, driven by strong international anti-narcotics policies, when forest clearance accelerated again.

Bradley (2005) reported that the deforestation trajectories (rates) in his study differ from published models. The variations are attributed to the rising dominance of coca being ascended by an enforced substitute economy. Specific fragmentation patterns developed because of the spatial arrangement of plots planned in the 1960s and the subsequent variation in land-use management strategies between, as well as, within individual plots over time. Bradley concludes that:

“Overall, in the pursuit of global social gains, anti-narcotics policies caused rates of forest clearance to increase in Chapare and because of non-conservationist planning, the connectivity between montane and humid tropical forests at the margins of a biodiversity hotspot is severely compromised”.

More detailed information on deforestation rates and driving forces from this study are in progress, but were not available in time for this report.

Henkel (1995) also considered the role of the productivity of coca plantations and coca eradication policies in Chapare on deforestation. The data sources for his analysis of the changes in the farming system and its productivity are not given, but the conclusions are consistent with other studies such as Bradley (2005). Henkel (1995) stated:

“The ability of farmers to make a living from 1 ha of coca and 1 ha of food crops has greatly reduced the pressure on the land resources of Chapare. The monocultivation of coca, a crop that lasts 15 to 20 years, requires much less land than the old system of agriculture, which resulted in the clearing of extensive areas of primary forest to grow rice, maize, and bananas for cash crops. Most of the primary forests of the Chapare had been cleared during the 1960s and 1970s, so very little primary forest habitat was destroyed because of increases in coca cultivation during the 1980s.”

Henkel (1995) predicted that coca eradication and crop substitution programmes would increase deforestation, because:

“Of the farms of the Chapare, approximately 80% are less than 10 ha in size, too small to support a family under the agricultural systems and cropping combinations proposed by crop substitution programmes. To create viable systems of agriculture to replace coca, farmers would have to be able to increase farm size to at least 20 ha. Thus large numbers of farmers would have to be moved out of the Chapare or additional land now in primary forest would have to be opened to agriculture”.

This prediction of increased forest clearance appears to have been supported by the findings of Bradley (2005). UNODC recognized that although there is a reduction in coca cultivation in some regions such as Puerto Villarroel (Chapare), the increase in other areas such as Tiraque, Chimore and Totora could be a knock-on result:

“This pressure for eradication may have pushed farmers to plant coca in more remote areas” (UNODC Bolivia, 2004).

UNODC Bolivia (2005) reports new coca plots being established in areas of primary forest in the Chapare and Yungas regions.


30

Preparation of coca fields in the Yungas, Bolivia

Illicit drug cultivation and processing impacts on soils and water sources

The effects on soils of illicit drug production and eradication are not well studied. Little information could be found for Colombia or Peru, but some field research has been carried out in Bolivia. For Peru, Dourojeanni (1992) reviews the impact of coca cultivation on soil erosion. Cultivation is in areas described as humid tropical subtropical forest, located between 700 and 2,000 m.a.s.l., where the rainfall ranges between 1,000 to 4,200 mm / year. The growers prefer steep slopes with soils are of sandy clay texture because they provide good drainage. Control of weeds and frequent harvesting result in bare soil, which can increase erosion, especially on slopes:

“The highly erosive character of coca is due to the ecological regions where it is planted and the current cultivation practices” (Dourojeanni, 1992).

For Bolivia, Salm and Liberman (1997) describe traditional techniques used for soil preparation and the terrace cultivation techniques of coca, which provide protection against erosion and maximise the use of rainfall. However, Henkel (1995) reported a study of the effects of coca cultivation on soil fertility in abandoned coca fields in Chapare. The soils were very low in organic matter, nitrogen, phosphorous and other nutrients, and very high in acidity and aluminium toxicity (Table 11). This makes colonisation by other plant species difficult. Low levels of organic matter diminish retention of moisture; low levels of nutrients limit the growth of emergent species and high concentrations of aluminium and acidity favour only tolerant species.

The main difference between cultivation in the Las Yungas and Chapare regions of Bolivia is that traditional soil-protection measures such as terraces are absent in Chapare. This may be the cause for quicker degradation of soils in Chapare and the cocales’ viability limit of 10-15 years (Salm & Liberman, 1997).


31

Table 11: Effects of coca cultivation on soil fertility in the Chapare Region in Bolivia

Soil characteristic Virgin forest Abandoned coca fields

pH 4.8 4.1

Soluble cations 2.05 1.1

Calcium (mEq/100g) 2.1 0.08

Potassium (mEq/100g) 1.69 0.60

Magnesium (mEq/100g) 0.22 0.03

Sodium (mEq/100g) 6.8 1.3

Phosphorous (ppm) 4.6 7.4

Acidity (mEq/100g) 3.6 4.9

Organic material (%) 6.7 2.4

Source: Henkel, 1995.

In Colombia, coca farmers do not use traditional cultivation methods as in parts of Peru and Bolivia, as coca cultivation is mostly for cocaine production. Coca growers are frequently people displaced from other areas, with no knowledge of local and traditional agricultural activities. Their main goal is to maximise the harvest rather than to maintain long-term soil productivity.

Damage to soils resulting from cultivation and elimination of the natural vegetation is widely reported in reference to the environmental impacts of illicit drug cultivation, as are the likely effects of the discharge of the chemical wastes from coca processing to soils and waterways. However, very little field assessment on the quantity of discharges and their effects on the environment (soils, fauna, flora or water) has been carried out by government agencies or universities. The only analysis found by this study was conducted in Chapare (Bolivia) in 1992 (Southwest Research Associates, 1993, quoted by Henkel, 1995). Here, a study of three cocaine-processing laboratories found that pollution was concentrated in a small area at the processing site. Most chemicals were disposed of in holding ponds constructed for the purpose and were not dumped into nearby streams. Chemical spills at the site were quickly diluted by the high rainfall received in the region. Because coca processing sites are widely scattered in the Chapare, pollution is widely dispersed rather than concentrated at a few large sites. Some loss of soil microorganisms was noted, but no damage to wildlife, vegetation, fish species or bird life was detected near the processing laboratories. However, the study did not assess the long-term effects of pollution.

For Colombia, DNE (2002) states that the agrochemicals used in coca processing are capable of polluting freshwater sources for human consumption, but no specific cases of this are given. Ramos and Ramos (2002) provide an assessment of the toxicity and environmental risk of five agrochemicals used in the production of coca in Colombia – the herbicides Anikalmina, Glyphosate, Paraquat, and the insecticides Tamaron and Manzate. These descriptions include their recorded half-life in soils and water. No field data are included.

In the Huallaga Valley, Peru's leading cocaine production zone, 28 of the 180 rivers had reached the critical state by last year, warned Alex González, of the non-governmental organization 'Alternativa Verde' (Green Alternative).

''In all the area's rivers there was a great deal of contamination and in those where the damage was most serious, valuable species of flora and fauna had disappeared, and even the surviving species showed signs of genetic deterioration,'' González affirmed.

''The waters that used to be a crystal-clear source of life acquired a reddish, dead hue. And in the rivers, fish were found with deformed spines and other anomalies,'' added the expert. Comprehensive studies are not yet available, but it is estimated, based on global levels of coca paste outputs, that thousands of tons of chemical waste are dumped into the Peruvian Amazon region's rivers each year.


32

Contradrogas research in the areas where basic cocaine paste is produced reveals highly contaminated areas along the jungle rivers Bocaz, Cacazú, Ene, Perené and Panga.

Repressive actions against paste production must also seek to eliminate its negative effects on the environment, Batallanos stressed.

The Peruvian health directorate's office of water resources assures, for its part, that it has not yet detected any impact of the polluted water on human health, though its officials acknowledge that the contamination is a risk factor.

''Because of its illegal nature, the production of coca paste occurs in isolated and unpopulated areas. The lack of a riverside population in those regions has meant we have not been able to detect specific cases of poisoning,'' explained Fausto Roncal, head of the water resources division.

''The water currents carry everything downstream, such that the contamination is most lethal for plant and animal species living in the aquatic environment,'' Roncal explained. (quoted from http://www.tierramerica.net/2001/0225/acent.shtml)

Effects of illicit drug cultivation on protected areas

Many protected areas in the region have been affected by illicit drug cultivation. As well as the direct effects of deforestation, the presence of illegal settlers, who are often associated with armed groups, can significantly impede the management of the protected areas. These areas have been designated with the intention of conserving the region’s biodiversity and associated ecosystem services, so negative impacts on their vegetation represent a serious deviation from national policy.

National Park Puinawa, Colombia, affected by licit crops

Colombia

Through the SIMCI Project, UNODC and the Government of Colombia have monitored the presence of illicit coca crops in Colombian National Parks and provided updated data on extent and trends. UNODC Colombia (2005) reported the presence of 5,400 hectares of coca in 13 of 50 National Parks. This represents about 0.05 % of the country’s protected area and 7 % of the total


33

surface under coca cultivation. Only a few protected areas appear to have experienced severe deforestation. However, the data do not cover opium poppy cultivation in protected areas. Cavelier and Etter (1995) report that the Nevado de Huila National Park and surrounding areas of moist Andean forest has been one of the protected areas most affected by this crop.

Coca cultivation in Colombian National Parks has slightly decreased from 6,057 hectares in 2001 to 5,351 hectares in 2004. This decrease of 21% is less than the 45% decrease in the total area of coca cultivation in Colombia over this period. Within this figure, an increase of 30% in the area of cultivation between 2003 and 2004 is mainly due to better detection of existing coca plots in the Sierra de Macarena National Park in 2004, because of cloud cover on the satellite images for 2003. There are no available data on the mobility of the crops in these areas. It should be noted that aerial eradication of coca has not been allowed in protected areas.

The protected areas located in the lowland rain forest of the Colombian Amazonian region of Sierra La Macarena, Nukak and La Paya are the most affected by coca cultivation, with 2,707 hectares, 1,044 hectares and 230 hectares of coca respectively in 2004. A particularly large increase was observed in the Sierra La Macarena National Park, which is located in the Departments of Meta and Guaviare. On a regional scale, the greatest area of coca cultivation in the country was recorded in these departments, with about 28,509 hectares in 2004 (36% of the national total). This is also the region where the greatest number of new coca plots were identified in 2004, - 9,134 plots, covering 15,827 hectares. Furthermore, about 34,700 hectares of coca was subject to aerial fumigation in the Meta - Guaviare region in 2004.

Table 12: Coca crops in national protected areas in Colombia, 2001-2004 Protected area Area-Ha 2001 Area-Ha 2002 Variation (02-01) Area-Ha- 2003 Variation (03-02) Area-Ha- 2004 Variation (04-03)Alto Fragua - Indi Wasi 0 16 16 8 -8 12 4Catatumbo -Bari 72 85 13 129 44 107 -22Cordillera de los Picacho 243 34 -209 13 -21 15 2Cocuy 0 0 0 1 1 -1Tuparro 18 0 -18 0 0 0Farallones de Cali 62 55 -6 2 -54 1 -1Paya 640 600 -40 310 -290 230 -80Katios 3 0 -3 0 0 0Munchique 21 42 21 1 -41 8 7Nukak 1 342 1 464 123 1 469 5 1 044 -425Paramillo 295 48 -247 110 62 461 351Puinawai 182 108 -73 33 -75 139 106Sanquianga 6 49 43 7 -42 14 7S. Chiribiquete 5 2 -3 0 -2 0S. Macarena 1 618 1 450 -168 1 152 -297 2 707 1 555S. Nevada de Santa Marta 326 246 -79 212 -34 241 29Tama 17 0 -17 0 0 0Tayrona 8 4 -4 4 0 0 -4Tinigua 1 201 413 -787 340 -73 387 47Total coca area (ha) 6 057 4 617 -1 440 3 790 -827 5 351 1 561Source: Modified from Projecto SIMCI 2003

Parks with a significant increase in coca cropsParks with a significant decrease or where coca crops appeared for the first timeParks in which coca crops have now disappearedParks in which coca cultivation fluctuates

Paramillo National Park, located in northern Antioquia and southern Cordoba departments, contains diverse ecosystems including paramo, cloud forest, Andean forest and tropical forests, and suffered an increase from 110 to 461 hectares of coca between 2003 and 2004.

Coca cultivation has fluctuated for the past four years in several Parks. Tinigua National Park in Meta department predominately contains tropical wet forest. Coca cultivation has diminished here to only 30% of the original area, from 1 201 hectares in 2001, to about 400 hectares by 2004. The area of coca in Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta has fluctuated between 326 and 241 hectares in the past four years. Catatumbo-Bari Park, in Norte de Santander Department, is covered by tropical wet forest and Andean forests and has contained about 100 hectares of coca over the last four years.

In some other protected areas, cultivation of coca has diminished significantly or has disappeared since 2001. Examples are Tama in Norte de Santander Department, dominated by Andean forests,


34

and Tayrona National Park in Magdalena Department, dominated by coastal and marine ecosystems and some tropical dry forest. According to Andrade et al. (2004), in an essay on ‘forest without law’ in Colombia for the National Environmental Forum in 2004, the pressure from illicit drug cultivation on the agricultural frontier has also threatened the following protected areas: Nukak Reserve, Chiribiquete National Park, La Paya National Park (Putumayo) and the Nevado del Huila National Park.

Peru

For the current study, a map of the protected areas in Peru and coca cultivation density in 2004 was produced by the UNODC office in Peru, using data on the coverage of protected areas of Peru obtained by UNEP-WCMC from the Peruvian Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales (INRENA). Only two of the 47 protected areas in Peru are currently affected by coca cultivation. Impacts are relatively minor in terms of the area affected and the conservation status of the sites.

Table 13: Protected areas in Peru with coca cultivation in 2004.

Protected area Coca (ha)

Alexander von Humboldt National Forest 390

Tingo Maria National Park 15

Total 405

Source: UNODC and INRENA, 2005.

Of the two areas affected, Alexander von Humboldt National Forest is in the region of Aguaytia, where a total of 500 hectares of coca was recorded in 2004, of which 78% is located in the National Forest. 500 hectares represents only 1% of the national area of cultivation in 2004 (UNODC Peru, 2005). A similar figure of 510 hectares was recorded in Aguaytia in 2003, reduced from about 1,000 hectares in 2001 and 2002. The protected area designation of National Forest is not a strict designation for the conservation of biodiversity or natural features, rather, the goal is forest management and timber production.

Tingo Maria National Park has an area of 4,777 hectares and is located near Haunuco in the south of the Alto Huallaga region. Coca cultivation in the area is reported to lead to an unusual invasive successional vegetation, and to the establishment of a fungus (seca seca) that inhibits growth of alternative crops (Fernández-Dávila, 2004). The National Park was described by Young (1996) as:

“…established in 1965, but has never been actively protected and probably no longer serves an important conservation purpose”.

Later efforts to improve the conservation situation have been made through the BIOFOR/USAID project, which started in 2000 and whose aims include spreading the initially limited local awareness of the park (Fernández-Dávila, 2004). Local people were involved in developing a Master Plan for conservation and in defining the park’s boundaries (including a buffer zone), which had not been especially well established in law.

Bolivia

UNODC Bolivia (2005) have analysed the extent of coca cultivation in the protected areas of Bolivia for 2003 and 2004. There are 21 protected areas, including National Parks, in Bolivia, totalling 165,000 km2, or 15% of the national territory. In 2004, coca cultivation was recorded in three national parks. In Madidi National Park, in the Apolo region, only about 10 hectares of coca cultivation were found. In contrast, 4,100 hectares of coca cultivation was found in the two National Parks of Isiboro Sécure and Carrasco, in the Chapare region. Isiboro Sécure National Park has an area of 1,200,000 hectares and Carrasco National Park covers 694,320 hectares. Both sites protect complex ecosystems of mountain and lowland forests.

Between 2003 and 2004, coca cultivation increased by 71% within the National Parks, from 2,400 hectares to 4 100 hectares. A possible explanation could be that eradication measures in the existing centres of production have led to the planting of new fields in more remote areas.


35

Between 2003 and 2004, the increase of 1 700 hectares within the National Parks represented 60% of the total (2,800 hectares) increase in Chapare. While coca cultivation increased by 71% within National Parks, it increased only by 22% outside their boundaries. Coca cultivation within Isiboro Sécure and Carrasco National Parks represented 40% of the coca cultivation in Chapare.

Figu

re 1

4: A

rea

of c

oca

culti

vate

d in

pro

tect

ed a

reas

in C

olom

bia

(ha)

, 200

1-20

04

Coc

a cu

ltiva

ted

in P

rote

cted

Are

as in

Col

ombi

a be

twee

n 20

01-2

004

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Alto Fragua - Indi Wasi

Catatumbo -Bari

Cocuy

Tuparro

Farallones de Cali

Paya

Katios

Munchique

Nukak

Paramillo

Puinawai

Sanquianga

S. Chiribiquete

S. Macarena

S. Nevada de Santa Marta

Tama

Tayrona

Tinigua

Sour

ce: S

imci

Pro

ject

(200

1 to

200

4)

ha

2001

2002

2003

2004


37

Effects of illicit crops on biodiversity

The ecosystems of the northern Andes have been identified by some authors as a global biodiversity conservation priority due to their biological richness, high rates of endemism, complex biogeographical patterns and multiple anthropogenic threats (Olson & Dinerstein, 1997, quoted by Dávalos, 2001; Mittermeier et al, 1998; Stattersfield, 1998). The tropical Andean region is the most species rich and diverse region on Earth, containing, for example, about one sixth of all plant species in less than one percent of the world’s land area. Thus, the last remnants of Andean forest are targetted in both national and international conservation agendas (IVH, 1997; WWF, 1996). The abundance of endemic species associated with humid mountain regions at equatorial latitudes reflects the overwhelming effect of mountain geography and climate on the generation and maintenance of regional species richness (Rahbek & Graves, 2001).

The Tropical Andes is home to an estimated 30,000 - 35,000 species of vascular plants, accounting for about 10% of all the world's species and far surpassing the diversity of any other biodiversity hotspot. It is also the world leader in plant endemism, with an estimated 50% (and perhaps 60% or more) of plant species found nowhere else on Earth. This means that nearly seven percent of the world's vascular plants are endemic to the 0.8% of the earth’s land area represented by the Tropical Andes.

The Tropical Andes also harbour more than 1 700 bird species, nearly 600 of which are endemic, a level of endemism that is unequalled in the world. 66 bird genera are also endemic.

There are nearly 570 mammal species in the Tropical Andes; about 75 of these are endemic and nearly 70 are threatened. The region also has six endemic genera. Other large mammals found in the area include the woolly or mountain tapir (Tapirus pinchaque), which is Endangered according to the IUCN Red List, and the spectacled bear (Tremarctos ornatus), the only bear in South America, which is listed as Vulnerable to extinction (IUCN 2004). Both of these highland species are likely to be affected by deforestation for opium poppy cultivation.

More than 600 reptile species have been identified in the Tropical Andes, over 270 of which are endemic, including those belonging to the three endemic genera. This level of endemism is unequalled in the world for this class. The Andes is also the most important region in the world for amphibians in terms of species diversity, with around 980 species and more than 670 endemics. Eight amphibian genera are endemic to the Andes. The most speciose of these is the frog genus Telmatobius, with about 45 species. Many other non-endemic genera are highly speciose; the frog genus Eleutherodactylus has more than 330 species, of which more than 250 are restricted to the Tropical Andes.

There are more than 375 documented species of freshwater fishes in the Tropical Andes, and it is likely that many more will be found along the Amazonian flanks of the mountains. Of these, more than 130 are endemic.

Lowland Amazonian rain forests also contain very high levels of species richness. Lowland species often have more widespread distributions than those of the mountain regions, so are less likely to be threatened with extinction as a result of an equal area of deforestation.

The most important effect of illicit crop cultivation on biodiversity is the loss, fragmentation and degradation of forest habitat. Complex ecological impacts have been reported wherever tropical deforestation is studied (e.g. Cosson et al., 1999; Goosem, 2002; Laurance, et al., 1997). However, there are very few Andean field data on biodiversity impacts (Fjeldsa et al., 2005). Only one relevant site-specific study was found, in which:

“Thickets and forest fragments in the principal coca-growing district in the middle Huallaga valley in Peru had a very impoverished avifauna – with almost total lack of genuine forest species and potential game birds (Schellerup, cited in Fjeldsa et al., 2005).

A summary of the many effects of tropical deforestation and fragmentation on habitat degradation is given in Steininger et al. (2001a). These effects include structural changes in forests near clearing edges, such as increased tree mortality and large differences in temperature and humidity. This leads to an increased potential for fire and a change in the regeneration niche, favouring pioneer tree species over core forest species. Changes in faunal composition and reductions in diversity have been recorded in forest fragments smaller than 5 km2. The composition of fauna such as leaf-litter insects, butterflies


38

and birds is affected as much as 250 m from clearing edges. These responses to small patch size and edges are highly species-specific, with the range of edge effects varying from 50 to 250 m. Hunting extends such effects up to 10 km into a forest.

As well as the direct habitat loss, wild animals are also affected by hunting by farmers for food and perhaps for sale in local markets. Even light hunting pressures on large bird and mammal species in tropical forests can have significant effects on forest ecology and structure (Robinson & Redford, 1994). Furthermore, Henkel (1995) found that with the arrival of coca processing in the Chapare region of Bolivia, wildlife was smuggled on the narcotrafficking planes, involving mainly monkeys, reptiles and birds, as well as other species hunted by for their skins. This has been the only report of this trade, but it could well be happening in Peru and Colombia too.

The contamination of soils and water, from agrochemicals used in the production and eradication of the crops and the chemicals for processing the products, are also likely to have significant local and downstream impacts on biodiversity, but these have not been quantified.

Our knowledge of the impacts of illicit crops on biodiversity in the Andean region includes some analyses of the distribution of birds in relation to coca cultivation and a few records from some sites, but almost no site-level research. Here follows a summary of the findings of sites and species identified as being affected in Colombia, Peru and Bolivia. Most conclusions are based on two regional analyses and an analysis of priority sites for conservation in Peru.

One regional analysis was carried out by Fjeldsa et al. (2005), mapping on priority areas for biodiversity conservation, based on the distribution of bird species in relation to areas with armed conflicts and coca cultivation. They report that Andean areas with illicit crops overlap the distribution of 1,950 bird species (67.3% of all South American resident land birds). Illicit crops are produced through the entire range of variation in species richness and endemism in the Andean region, except for the most species-poor parts.

Areas with high richness and high endemism are often identified as priorities for biodiversity conservation. 39% of such grid cells in the Fjeldsa et al. (2005) analysis overlap by more than 20% with coca growing areas. This compares with 20.4% of grid cells in the areas with low richness and high endemism, 5.2% in areas where there are high richness and low endemism, and 8.2% in areas with low richness and low endemism. Very similar patterns would emerge if bird species endemism was replaced with numbers of threatened species (Fjeldsa et al. 2005).

A further regional analysis was conducted for the present study with the assistance of the UNODC office in Peru, to identify those Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in the Andean region in which coca cultivation was recorded in 2004. IBAs are sites identified according to standard criteria, which hold significant numbers of one or more globally threatened bird species and/or are one of a set of sites that hold a suite of restricted-range species or biome-restricted species (Birdlife International, 2005c). An analysis of the 455 IBAs of the tropical Andes has just been published (Birdlife International, 2005b; CI, 2005) and identifies a set of protected and unprotected sites of importance for biodiversity conservation. The IBA boundaries were overlaid with the distribution of coca cultivation in 2004 to estimate the area planted in each IBA.

Colombia

Álvarez (2002b) conducted a first assessment of illicit crops and bird conservation priorities in Colombia. This has largely been superseded by the more comprehensive analysis of Fjeldsa et al.(2005), which identified a minimum set of 89 areas in the Andean region required for a single representation of all 987 bird species. Of these areas in Colombia, the most important are the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta in the northwest, with 12 endemic species and the presence of coca cultivation, and the mountains of Tolima in central Colombia, with 8 endemic species and the presence of opium poppy cultivation. It was found that coca and armed conflict could seriously constrain the effectiveness of the Sierra de Perija (Perija Mountains) National Park for conservation of Pyrrhura caeruleiceps and Pauxi pauxi guilliardi. Conservation actions are also reported to be increasingly limited in South western Darien, (where bird species of conservation interest include Crypturellus kerriae and especially Psarocolius cassini), Paramillo (Pyrrhura


39

Table 14: Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in Colombia with coca cultivation in 2004

IBA Region

IBAarea (ha)

Coca area, 2004 (ha)

No. of important

birdspecies

Altitude(m)

Illicit crops

recorded by BirdLife

Blade of San Lorenzo Guajira 58 000 99.3 23 0- 2400 La Forzosa - Santa Gertrudis Antioquia 9 000 1.8 15 1200- 1900

Mountainous area of las Quinchas Santander and Cundinamarca 86 088 506.6 9 200 - 1700

Mountainous area of los Yariguies Santander

175 000 80.4 12 2000- 3200

Mountainous area of Los Churumbelos Cordillera Oriental

150 000 10.6 34 300- 3000

National Natural Park Los Farallones Valle del Cauca

150 000 0.6 9 200 - 4100 x

National Natural Park Munchique Cauca 44 000 2.3 43 500 - 3020

National Natural Park Paramillo Antioquia and Cordoba

460 000 120.7 6 500-3400 x

Natural National Park El Cocuy Boyacá, Casanare and Arauca

306 000 0.3 2 600 - 3000

Natural National Park El Tuparro Vichada 548 000 2.0 5 100 - 330

Natural National Park Sanquianga Nariño 89 000 0.3 2 0-20 Natural National Park Sierra de la Macarena Meta

630 000

2626.3 8 400 - 2500

Valley of San Salvador Guajira 58 000 242.2 23 0 - 2400 x Western riberas of the Duda river Meta 17 000 6.2 7 350 - 400 Cerro Pintado Guajira 15 000 14 1500 - 3200 x National Natural Park Las Orquideas Antioquia 32 000 3 300-3850 x El Oso Reserve Huila 5 500 5 1800 - 3600 x

These IBAs have been reported as threatened by illicit drug cultivation by BirdLife, but did not contain coca in 2004. Opium poppy may have been present.

Source: Birdlife International (2005b) and UNODC Colombia (2005)


40

Map 5: Important bird areas and coca cultivation density in the Andean Region, 2005

80°W

80°W

70°W

70°W

60°W

60°W

20°S

20°S

10°S

10°S

0°

0°

10°N

10°N

Sources:G overnm entsofBolivia,Colom bia yPeru, Nationalm onitoring system s supported byUNODCThe boundariesand nam esshown and the designations used on thism ap do notim ply officialendorsem entoracceptance by the United Nations

ECUADOR

COLOM BIA

BRAZIL

BOLIVIA

CHILE


0.1 -1.0

1.1 -4.0> 4.0

InternationalboundariesDepartm entboundaries

South Am erica

Pacific

Ocean

Amazon

Huallaga

Marañon U

cayaliEne

Urubamba

Purus

Apurimac

MadredeDios

LakeTiticaca

^Lim a

GeographiccoordinatesW GS 84

Putumayo

ARGENTINA

PARAGUAY

VENEZUELA

GUYANA

PERU

^Bogota

^La Paz

km0 250 500

Peru

Colom bia

Bolivia

Caribbean Sea

Beni

Mamore

Pilcomayo

Caqueta

Guaviare

Vichada

Meta

Magdalena

Atrato

Cauca

Guapare

Chapare

Yungas

La Convencionand LaresApurim ac

Ene

AltoHuallaga

Nariño

Putum ayo -Caqueta

M eta -Guaviare

Norte deAntioquia

Catatum bo

PANAM A

Im portantbird areas


41

subandina), and Choco (E. mirabilis and H. negreti). Conflict is also evident in the Serrania de San Lucas (Crax alberti), at the head of the Magdalena Valley (Tinamotis osgoodi, Atlapetes fuscoolivaceus, and Scytalopus sp.) and in the Eastern Andean Slope (Grallaria kaestneri).

The areas of frontier agriculture in the lowlands of eastern Colombia, where much new coca cultivation is found, are not particularly rich in bird species or unique compared to the Andean highlands (Fjeldsa et al., 2005).

“This is not meant to devalue such forests, but rather to emphasize that the regional species pool is likely to persist in spite of local habitat loss” (Fjeldsa et al., 2005).

However, Fjeldsa et al. (2005) suggest that even fairly widespread species may be affected if large portions of their range lie in armed-conflict zones. Bird species in this situation include the two large green macaws, Ara ambigua and Ara militaris, and possibly for Crypturellus duidae(Macarena Mountains population), Odontophorus atrifrons (Santa Marta to Santander), western Colombian populations of Chloropipo flavicapilla, Dacnis hartlaubi, Penelope perspicax, and the north Colombian endemics Chlorochrysa nitidissima, Clytoctantes alixii, Leptotila cassini, Pionopsitta pyrilia, and (especially) Habia gutturalis.

Fourteen Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in Colombia contained some areas of coca cultivation in 2004 (Table 16), although nine of these had ten hectares or less of coca. The Natural National Park Sierra de la Macarena in Meta province was the most severely affected IBA, with 2,626 hectares of coca in 2004. The second largest area, 506 hectares, was found in the Mountainous Area of Las Quinchas IBA.

Peru

Peru is an extremely diverse country with both high species richness and endemism (Rodríguez & Young, 2000). The high levels of endemism in Ecuador and Peru are broadly associated with montane and arid conditions produced by the high mountain ranges that subdivide each country. Peru’s biodiversity is also augmented by contact with floras from more temperate latitudes (Young et al., 2002).

Biodiversity is under pressure from coca cultivation in the centre of upper Huallaga Valley, within the Tingo, Maria and Taparoto areas, where very little natural habitat is left. Other highly affected areas are in the Palcazu – Pichis district and in areas with logging and colonization along the Huancayo-Satipo-La Merced – Pucallpa road and along the lower Apurimac river. The traditional coca cultivation in the submontane Zone of Cuzco has also become more intense (Fjeldsa et al.,2005).

Conservation options are limited in the Marañon River and in the middle Huallaga as coca cultivation areas expand, with biologically important sites in Cordillera of Colán, Abra Patricia and Moyobamba (bird species of concern being Xenoglaux loweryi, Grallaria blakei, Grallaricula ochraceifrons, Picumnus steindachneri, Herpsilochmus parkeri, Zimmerius vallerejoi, Hemitriccus cinnamomeipectus, Poecilotriccus luluae, Henicorhina leucoptera, and Loddigesia, mirabilis in the adjacent Utcubamba basin). Fjeldsa et al., (2005) consider that the coca districts in the Upper Huallaga and Pachitea-Aguaytia and other areas in Pasco and Junin do not seem to raise particular conservation concern.

The coca-related activities in Cuzco are just to the north of the core areas for endemic bird species in the Cordilleras Vilcanota and Velcabamba, but conservation options may still be somewhat constrained for the bird species Amazilia viridicauda, Grallaria erythroleuca, and Thryothorus eisenmanni (Fjeldsa et al., 2005).

Rodríguez and Young (2000) identified national level priority areas for biodiversity conservation in Peru, based on the distributions of mammals, birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates and vascular plants. Thirty-eight priority areas were identified (Figure 9). Comparison of these areas with coca cultivation in Peru in 2004 (UNODC Peru, 2005) indicates that several of these areas are affected. The Alto Huallaga region of coca is located in the northern section of the Huacrachuco-Huamachuco priority area and adjacent to the Cordillera Azul-El Diablo area, both of which are considered unprotected. The Oxapampa-Chanchumayo area is affected at its southern end by the Apurimac-Ene coca region. The La Convencion and Lares coca region lies within the


42

Vilcanota priority conservation area. The Inambari Tambopata coca region is within the Tambopata-Heath priority conservation area.

None of the Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in Peru have been reported by BirdLife to be threatened by illicit drug cultivation, but spatial analysis indicates that five IBAs included areas of coca cultivation in 2004. Of these, the Cordillera Vilcanota Norte - Abra Málaga-Vilcanota IBA was the most affected by a large margin, containing 4,351 hectares of coca in 2004 (12% of the IBA’s area).

Table 15: Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in Peru with coca cultivation in 2004

IBA Region IBA area (ha)

Coca area, 2004 (ha)

No. of important bird

species Altitude (m)

Bajo Madidi 7.5 Balsas Amazonas 6 200 94.4 6 850 - 2900 Cordillera Vilcanota Norte - Abra Málaga-Vilcanota Cusco 35 200 4 351.5 30 3000 - 4200

Hacienda Limón Cajamarca 10 000 12.4 6 900 - 2700 Maruncunca Puno 57 100 241.2 7 1500 - 2800 Parque Nacional Tingo María Huánuco 4 777 14.9 2 650 - 1849 Source: Birdlife International (2005b) and UNODC Peru (2005).

Bolivia

The priority area in Bolivia for conservation of endemic Andean bird species is Cocapata at the Cochabamba-La Paz boundary, with eleven restricted range species. This area includes the Isiboro Sécure National Park, where coca cultivation increased in the north of the Chapare region between 2003 and 2004. Clearing for coca cultivation could seriously limit conservation options for the bird species Pauxi unicornis and Terenura sharpei (Fjeldsa et al., 2005).

Seven Bolivian IBAs contained some coca cultivation in 2004 (Table 18). Of these, the Bajo Carrasco IBA in the Cochabamba region has been most seriously affected, with 1,286 hectares of coca in 2004. The Apolo IBA contained 250 hectares, the second largest area of coca in 2004.

Table 16: Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in Bolivia with coca cultivation in 2004

IBA RegionIBA area

(ha)Coca area, 2004 (ha)

No. of important

bird species Altitude (m)

Illicit crops recorded by

BirdLife

Apolo La Paz 200 000 250.8 3 1500 – 2500 Alto Madidi –(Yungas Superiores de Madidi) La Paz 200 000 4.7 50 1500 – 3600 Alto Apolobamba -Apolobamba La Paz 483 743 0.2 81 2000-4000 Cristal Mayu y Alrededores Cochabamba 40 000 90.5 4 1000-2000 Bajo Carrasco Cochabamba 470 000 1 286.5 6 800-2000 xBajo Isiboro-Sécure -Yungas Inferiores de Isiboro-Sécure/Altamachi

Beni,Cochabamba 250 000 160.2 10 800-2000

x

Alto Mosetenes y Cocapata -Yungas Superiores de Mosetenes y Cocapata Cochabamba 350 000 1.1 44 1800-3000

Source: Birdlife International (2005b) and UNODC Bolivia (2005).


43

Effects of illicit drug cultivation on local people

Human health

This study did not identify any field-based research on the direct effects of illicit drug cultivationon farmers’ health. Probably the most significant health risk is from direct exposure to growers and processors of the large quantities of agrochemicals used in the production of cocaine and opium, followed by potential contamination of food and water supplies by these chemicals.

Although some of these substances are highly toxic to mammals and might have serious environmental consequences, accurate information on the quantities used, frequency of application and conditions of use is not available. There is no evidence to separate the effects that could be attributed to illicit crop production from those produced as a result of legal farming, mining and infrastructure development that accompanies the settlement of new tropical forest areas.

Migration, violence and insecure conditions and land use change involving coca

The widespread violence in Colombia with the involvement of different armed groups has undoubtedly played an important role in the location and mobility of illicit crops (Dávalos, 2001), with consequent effects on deforestation and environmental degradation. The main incentives for growing illicit crops are economic, but growers in Colombia may also be forced at gunpoint (Álvarez, 2001a; Fjeldsa et al., 2005), as paramilitary and left-wing guerrilla groups are involved in trafficking to varying degrees. In Peru, the leftist guerrilla movement Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) has also been involved in coca production, in the Selva Alta (Fjeldsa et al., 2005).

Ferro et al. (1999) describe the social transformation in areas under intensive cultivation in Colombia from the perspective of young people. In the colonization process, some farmers had received incentives from the government to convert forest into grassland for ranching and household cultivation. The typical methods employed are unregulated timber exploitation followed by grass monoculture. As more farmers continue to arrive, deforestation intensifies. As coca is more profitable than any other economic activity, many farmers have chosen to change from cattle ranching to coca plantations. The coca crops do generate enough income for the settled farmers to remove their need to cut more forest, but that same income attracts new farmers, resulting in increasing deforestation.

In Colombia lowland indigenous groups such as the Korebaju (nomads until 50 years ago) and Ingas have experienced an increase conflicts over land ownership, both between themselves and with the new farmers. Indigenous people are often involved in coca production as the raspachines(leaf harvesters).

In Bolivia, road blockages and demonstrations by coca growers against eradication programs are fairly common. Although there is a tradition of coca cultivation, it has been reported that many of the coca growers in Chapare, Bolivia, consider themselves temporary inhabitants of the area, seeing their real home as their birthplaces in the Andes mountains (Mansilla, 1994 in Thoumi, 2001). On the basis of interviews, it was concluded that migration to the area would have happened anyway, but that coca accelerated the process.

Effects of illicit drug eradication on the environment and local people

Current eradication policy in Colombia aims to make illicit crop cultivation and narcotic production less attractive. The aim is to diminish the supply of cocaine and heroine, leading to an increase in prices and subsequent decrease in consumption. The methods employed include crop eradication, cargo interception, arrest and imprisonment, equipment confiscation, and confiscation of any products of drug trafficking. Central to this strategy is the aerial spraying of the herbicide glyphosate (‘Roundup’) to eradicate coca and opium poppy, as well as manual eradication. There is no use of any biological control agents, such as fungus, because of the risk of damaging surrounding ecosystems (Diaz-Torres, 2002). The Colombian government has set restrictions on the use of aerial spraying, including limits to the proximity to human communities and its application only under certain climatic conditions (Moya, 2005). Only coca crops that are considered commercial, that is areas over 3 hectares in extent, are fumigated. Cultivation areas


44

smaller than 3 hectares are eradicated manually. It has been argued that since aerial fumigation the size of coca plots has decreased (Diaz-Torres, 2002).

Peru and Bolivia do not use aerial spraying. In Peru, the only eradication of coca fields is manually conducted, without the use of chemicals. Similarly, in Bolivia, only manual eradication is carried out.

Solomon et al. (2005) conducted a study on the effects on human health and the environment of aerial spraying of glyphosate herbicide for the illicit crops eradication programme in Colombia, based on a review of literature. It was found the formulation of glyphosate used could produce temporary irritation in eyes and skin, but no effects on reproduction were observed. No ecological field data were collected from the region, but a review found that glyphosate had low toxicity to non-target organisms other than plants. The formulation used in the eradication programme in Colombia is of low toxicity for mammals and vertebrates, although some temporary impacts may occur. Amphibians are the group most sensitive to this formulation, and it has been suggested that other formulations be tested when eradication is conducted near to water bodies, in order to minimise impacts on amphibian populations (Solomon et al., 2005). Relyea (2005) tested the impacts of glyphosate on amphibians and concluded that it could cause high rates of mortality in larval stages and lead to population decline.

There appear to have been no systematic field studies on the possibility of loss of forest from unintended drift of glyphosate during aerial spraying. Cavelier and Etter (1995) reported that opium poppy fumigation was very accurate and that the effects on adjacent ecosystems would be low compared with the removal of the entire forest for opium poppy cultivation. The effects of drifting spray could be greater when fumigation occurs at night or in windy conditions (Álvarez,2001a; Dávalos, 2001; Salaman et al., 2001). The Andean relief and other factors not permitting fumigation to be conducted at the specified altitude of 10 m could also increase the area affected.

Guio (2003), in his study in Samaniego, Nariño (Colombia), reports that aerial fumigation of poppy crops also affect household crops and alternative crops promoted by UNODC. Intensification of fumigation has lead to an increase in complaints to the Defensoria del Pueblo regarding impacts on farmers’ health, domestic animals, fishes and legal crops. Ortiz et al. (2004), in an essay about agriculture, illicit crops and the environment for the National Environmental Forum (Colombia), mentions that recent studies in Putumayo have concluded that more than 2,700 hectares of licit crops, including fruits, and more than 200,000 fish, were lost because of fumigations. These figures are for people that submitted their cases to local authorities.

Velaidez (2001) visited the Municipality of Cartagena de Chaira in the Department of Caquetá between November 1998 and February 1999 to investigate the impact of aerial fumigation on farmers and their crops. This study reported unintended effects of aerial glyphosate spraying but no quantitative data, with affects on rubber and cocoa plantations and food crops such as plantain, maize, yucca, rice, vegetables and fruits. Cattle were reported to lose hair after eating pastures previously affected by the fumigation. The death of young chickens and farmed fish was reported as a result of related water contamination.

Issues for analysis of the environmental effects of illicit drug cultivation in the Andes

Drug cultivation practices and farming systems

Bolivia and Peru have areas where coca has been traditionally grown for local use of coca leaf, in the Yungas and the Huallaga valley, as well as very limited cultivation by some indigenous groups in Colombia. In these areas there is relevant traditional knowledge that includes soil conservation techniques such as terracing. Although some authors suggest that such practices are in decline, the environmental impact of coca in terms of forest clearance and land degradation, appears to be moderate. It is in the areas of coca cultivation for cocaine in Bolivia, Peru and all of Colombia that the absence of soil conservation measures and intense use of agrochemicals have a considerable negative impact on the immediate environment. The illegal nature of the crop and the eradication measures are strong disincentives for farmers to invest in soil conservation and other measures to


45

promote the sustainability of this land use. In Colombia in particular, there is a very high mobility and short life of coca plots.

Some researchers have expressed the view that coca is a suitable crop for the tropical humid forest biome, because coca plants adapt very well to the infertile soils, and are more productive than other crops studied (e.g. Salm & Liberman, 1997; Morales, 1990). This may be the case for small-scale producers, but would only be relevant if conditions favoured long-term investment in a coca plot. The crop’s illegality in most regions and subsequent eradication measures do not favour this investment.

The economic role of coca income for farmers is of more relevance to analysis of the environmental impact of coca cultivation. Notwithstanding the illegal nature of coca/cocaine and opium/heroin production, several authors express the view that the high profitability of illegal coca or opium poppy compared to other land exploitation activities could limit farmers’ impact on natural resources, requiring smaller areas for production than other land uses (Andrade et al., 2004; Henkel, 1995; Laserna, 1999; Thoumi, 2001). This may be the case for the small-scale farmers of Chapare and in situations of relatively stable communities or secure land tenure. However, for larger scale producers, like many of those found in Colombia, the expansion of coca cultivation is driven by maximising income rather than subsistence needs.

In Colombia, Peru and Bolivia, coca farming could be broadly classified into two broad categories, in terms of its impact on forest. One category is in areas that have already been populated or colonization is encouraged, and so farming of some form is already established. In this case, any new coca cultivation is likely to be from conversion of existing farmland or secondary forest, as well from clearance of remaining fragments of forest. This was reported to be the case in the Chapare, Bolivia in the 1990s (Henkel, 1995). In Colombia during 2000 to 2004 about a third of new coca cultivation was on land nearly cleared from primary forest (Table 10), with the remaining two thirds from secondary vegetation and crops or pasture. This indicates that the replanting of eradicated coca plots and the establishment of new plots is often in areas already colonized and farmed.

The other category is where new coca cultivation is being established in previously unpopulated areas, opening up a new agricultural frontier. Rather than existing settlers adding coca to the suite of activities already undertaken, whole new settlements are established. This has been the case over much of the Colombian Amazonian region, and on a smaller scale in Peru and the Chapare and Apolo regions of Bolivia. The environmental impact of coca plots in these areas of colonization is much greater than in already settled lands, because of the associated deforestation for food crops, pasture, infrastructure and transport, and the hunting of wildlife.

Illicit drug processing

The chemicals used in the processing of coca leaf to cocaine, and of opium latex to heroin, are thought to have a much greater impact on the environment than the agrochemicals used in their production. Each year millions of tons and litres of processing chemicals and materials are released into the environment, both as wastes from processing laboratories and from the destruction of confiscated chemicals. However, only one specific study on the environmental effects of these chemicals has been identified, that conducted in the Chapare region of Bolivia in 1992 (Southwest Research Associates, 1993, cited by Henkel, 1995). Here, chemical spills were quickly diluted by the high rainfall received in the region. Some loss of soil microorganisms was noted, but no damage to wildlife, vegetation, fish species or bird life was detected in areas near the processing laboratories.

The discharge of chemicals from illicit drug processing undoubtedly has some environmental impact, but it is impossible to assess the scale of this impact due to the lack of data of almost any kind on soils, water supplies or biodiversity or the health of local people.

Impacts on biodiversity

The most important effect of illicit crop cultivation on biodiversity is the loss, fragmentation and degradation of forest habitat, as well as local hunting of wildlife. However, there are almost no field data with which to assess these effects. In Colombia, the scale of deforestation and


46

fragmentation of tropical and Andean forests due to coca cultivation has certainly had major impacts on the country’s biodiversity. The impact is more localised in Peru and Bolivia due to the more restricted regions of coca cultivation. Fjeldsa et al. (2005) have identified the sites and bird species most likely to be affected in each country. An analysis carried out for the present study complements this work by identifying Important Bird Areas in which coca is cultivated.

The centres of species endemism, which make the Andes one of the most biodiverse regions of the world, are generally found at altitudes higher than the preferred conditions for growing coca. This reduces the probability of species extinction as a result to coca cultivation, because lowland species typically have wider distributions.

Aerial fumigation and forced eradication of coca crops is one factor in the dynamics of coca cultivation and deforestation. Several studies report that in response to coca eradication measures farmers have been deforesting new plots in more remote areas. These new plots can be in the local region or in other parts of the country, since migration and displacement of people is widespread, especially in Colombia. It has also been suggested that farmers create more scattered plots of smaller size in response to fumigation. This further fragments the forest and increases the impact on biodiversity. The relative importance of this phenomenon compared to the other drivers of coca cultivation and deforestation have not been determined.

Moya (2005), in a statistical modelling exercise, concluded that forced eradication policies have an ambiguous effect on the area of coca cultivated. Fumigation increases the risks and costs of growing the crops and so discourages coca cultivation, whilst at the same time increasing production costs and consequently market prices, which in turn encourage cultivation (unless complementary interdiction measures keep market prices low). The impacts of eradication are uncertain and depend on the interaction and magnitude of many aspects, including the types of farmers involved as well as those involved in the trade of coca leaf.

PART 3. BOLIVIA COCA CULTIVATION SURVEY

Bolivia Coca Survey for 2005

51

FACT SHEET – BOLIVIA COCA SURVEY FOR 2005

2004 Variationon 2004 2005

Coca cultivation 27,700 ha - 8 % 25,400 ha

Of which in the Yungas of La Paz 17,300 ha + 5 % 18,100 ha

in Chapare 10,100 ha - 31 % 7,000 ha

in Apolo 300 ha 0% 300 ha

Of which permitted by Bolivian law 1008 12,000 ha 12,000 ha

non-permitted by Bolivian law 1008 15,700 ha - 14% 13,400 ha

Of which in national parks 4,100 ha -52 % 1,950 ha

Average annual sun-dried coca leaf yield

in Chapare 2,764 kg/ha 2,764 kg/ha

in the Yungas outside traditional coca growing areas 1,798 kg/ha 1,798 kg/ha

in Apolo and the Yungas, traditional coca growing areas 936 kg/ha 936 kg/ha

Production of coca leaf 49,000 mt 42,000 mt

Maximum potential production of cocaine 107 mt - 16 % 90 mt

in percent of global cocaine production 11% 10%

National weighted average farm-gate price of coca leaf (outside state market) 5.0 US$/kg - 14 % 4.3 US$/kg

Chapare average farm-gate price of coca leaf 5.2 US$/kg - 27 % 4.1 US$/kg

Total farm-gate value of coca leaf production US$ 240 million - 25 % US$ 180 million

GDP US$ 8.11billion + 4.6% US$ 8.42billionFarm-gate value of coca leaf production in percent of GDP 3.0 % 2.1 %

Value of agricultural sector n.a. n.a. US$ 1.5 billion

Farm-gate value of coca leaf production in percent of value of 2003 agricultural sector 12 %

Reported seizure of cocaine paste 8,189 kg + 14% 9,350 kg

Reported seizure of cocaine hydrochloride 531 kg + 145% 1,300 kg

1 GDP of 2004 estimated from the 2003 GDP, and with a projected growth of 3.8% (source: INE) 2 GDP of 2005 estimated from the 2004 GDP, and with a projected growth of 4.6% (source: IINAC)


52

Abbreviations

Bs. Bolivianos CONALTID Bolivian National Council for Fighting against Drugs GIS Geographical Information Systems GPS Global Positioning System GCP Ground Control Point ICMP UNODC Illicit Crop Monitoring Programme UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime DIGECO Bolivian National Direction of Coca Leaf Control DIRECO National Direction of Agricultural Re-conversion (up to 2005) FELCN Special Force against Drug Trafficking

The following organizations and individuals contributed to the implementation of the 2005 coca cultivation survey in Bolivia and to the preparation of the present report:

Government of Bolivia: Vice-Ministry for Coca and Integral Development National Direction of DIRECO (renamed Direction of Development for the Coca Growing Areas as of 2006)

UNODC:

Ivan Alfaro - Chief Technical Advisor (Project) Robert Szucs - GIS Specialist (Project) Patricia Delgado - GIS Specialist (Project) Gonzalo Aruquipa - Remote Sensing Specialist (Project) Rafael Joffré - Remote Sensing Specialist (Project) Blanca Vega – Remote Sensing Specialist (Project) Claudia Ortega - Administrative Assistant (Project)

José Manuel Martinez - Morales - UNODC Representative (field office) José Rocabado - UNODC National Programme Officer (field office)

Coen Bussink, Remote Sensing and GIS expert (UNODC – Research and Analysis Section) Denis Destrebecq, Regional Expert (UNODC – Research and Analysis Section - ICMP) Anja Korenblik, Programme Manager (UNODC – Research and Analysis Section - ICMP) Thibault le Pichon, Chief (UNODC – Research and Analysis Section) Thomas Pietschmann, Research Officer (UNODC-Research and Analysis Section)Martin Raithelhuber, Programme Officer (UNODC-Research and Analysis Section)Javier Teran, Statistician (UNODC – Research and Analysis Section – ICMP)

As of 2006, the Bolivian Government used new denominations for some institutions. In this report, the former denomination is still used for the institutions that participated in the survey activities during year 2005.

The implementation of UNODC’s Illicit Crop Monitoring Programme in the Andean countries and the Bolivia survey in 2005 was made possible thanks to financial contributions from the Governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, France and Austria.



Pictures: UNODC BOL/F57 or otherwise indicated.


53

TABLE OF CONTENT

1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 55

2 FINDINGS................................................................................................................................................ 57

2.1 COCA CULTIVATION............................................................................................................................ 57 2.2 REGIONAL ANALYSIS........................................................................................................................... 60

2.1.1 Coca cultivation in the Yungas of La Paz ................................................................................ 622.1.2 Coca cultivation in Apolo ......................................................................................................... 73 2.1.3 Coca cultivation in Chapare..................................................................................................... 75

2.3 COCA YIELD AND PRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 81 2.4 COCA PRICES AND TRADING............................................................................................................... 83 2.5 COCA CULTIVATION AND RELATED ISSUES............................................................................................ 92

2.1.4 Coca cultivation and land use...................................................................................................... 922.1.5 Coca cultivation and alternative development projects ............................................................... 942.1.6 Coca cultivation in National Parks ............................................................................................... 96

2.6 REPORTED ERADICATION ................................................................................................................... 97 2.7 REPORTED SEIZURE........................................................................................................................... 99

Index of maps

Map 1: Coca cultivation density, Bolivia, 2005 ....................................................................................... 56Map 2: Coca cultivation change 2004-2005, Bolivia ............................................................................... 59Map 3: Coca cultivation density, for the Yungas of La Paz and Apolo, Bolivia 2005 ......................... 61Map 4: Coca cultivation density for Chapare, Bolivia 2005 ................................................................... 74Map 5: Coca leaf trading authorized by DIGECO, 2005.......................................................................... 85Map 6: Coca leaf trading authorized by DIGECO, change 2004 - 2005................................................. 86Map 7: Land use and coca cultivation, Bolivia 2005 .............................................................................. 91Map 8: Coca cultivation and alternative development projects, Bolivia 2005 ..................................... 93Map 9: Coca cultivation and National Parks, Bolivia 2005 .................................................................... 95


54

Sajta River in the Cochabamba Tropics

Coca cultivation on high slopes near the town of Coripata, Yungas of La Paz

The town of Shinahota, at the municipality of Tiraqué, Cochabamba Tropics


55

1 INTRODUCTION

The objectives of UNODC’s Illicit Crop Monitoring Programme (ICMP) are to establish methodologies for the collection and analysis of data on illicit crops and to improve Governments’ capacity to monitor illicit crops in the context of the strategy adopted by Member States at the General Assembly Special Session on Drugs in June 1998. ICMP is currently active in seven countries: Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Laos and Morocco.

The Bolivian Government and UNODC launched the project “Land use management and monitoring system in the Yungas of La Paz” in October 2001. Initially, the project focused only on the Yungas of La Paz, but since 2003 it has extended its scope to include the provision of estimates on coca cultivation at the national level. This report presents the project’s findings and methodology for 2005.

The project was implemented in 2005 in cooperation with the National Direction of Development, for the Coca Growing Regions, the Vice-Ministry of Coca and Integral Development. At the beginning of 2006, DIRECO was replaced by the new Direction of Development for the Coca Growing Regions. DIRECO provided logistical support during the implementation of ground activities, including the collection of a large number of ground control points, mainly in the Chapare area. The Bolivian National Government, through the National Council of Fight against Illicit Trafficking of Drugs (CONALTID) is also relying on the information provided by this project for planning and implementing its strategy for the fight against illicit drug trafficking.

Coca cultivation decreased significantly in Bolivia at the end of the 1990s, following a reduction of coca cultivation in the Chapare region. Bolivia is now the third largest coca producer worldwide, far behind Colombia and Peru. Coca cultivation is concentrated in the departments of La Paz (in the areas of the Yungas of La Paz and Apolo) and in the Chapare area (department of Cochabamba).

Bolivian Law 1008 (“Law on the Regime Applicable to Coca and Controlled Substances”, 1988) permits up to 12,000 ha of traditional coca cultivation for traditional consumption and other legal uses. Most of this area is located in the Yungas of La Paz. In October 2004, the Bolivia Government also temporarily authorized the cultivation of 3,200 ha of coca in the Chapare region. Law No 1008 does not provide a precise definition of the geographic limits of the traditional coca growing areas, but the Bolivian Government is preparing a study which is intended to lead to legal delineations of the areas where coca for traditional use will be cultivated.

The National Government is also planning to develop a study to determine the licit national demand for coca leaf.


56

Map 1: Coca cultivation density, Bolivia, 2005

!

!

^

!

!

!

!

!

!

RioBeni

Rio Itenez

RioMamore

Madrede D

ios

Madera

Rio Pi lcomayo

Beni

Santa Cruz

Potosi

La Paz

Pando

Oruro

Tarija

Chuquisaca

Cochabamba

B R A Z I L

A R G E N T I N A


PE

RU

Sucre

Oruro

Tarija

Potosi

La Paz

Cobija

Trinidad

Santa Cruz

Cochabamba

65°W

65°W

60°W

60°W

25°S

25°S

20°S

20°S

15°S

15°S

10°S

10°S

Chapare

YungasTiticaca lake

Apolo


Yun... :

Department boundaries

International boundaries

Coca growing areas

0.1 - 1

1.1 - 4.0

> 4

Cultivation density(ha/km² )


0 300150 km

Bolivia

SOUTH AMERICA

Poopo lake


57

2 FINDINGS

2.1 COCA CULTIVATION

In 2005, the total area under coca cultivation in Bolivia was estimated to be 25,400 ha, a decrease of 8% over last year’s estimate of 27,700 ha. The decrease at the national level was due to the decrease in the Chapare region, where coca cultivation decreased by 31% between 2004 and 2005. The decrease in Chapare was attributed to the compliance of the farmers to the agreement of October 2004 between the Government and coca growers federation, limiting coca cultivation to 0.16 ha by family. Unlike what happened before the agreement, the eradication efforts that took place in 2005 in Chapare were not followed by replanting of the coca fields, thus resulting in a net decrease in coca cultivation in the region.

Figure 1. Coca cultivation in Bolivia, 1995 – 2005 (ha)

Sources United States Department of States National Monitoring System Supported by UNODC

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

hect

ares

Table 1. Coca cultivation in Bolivia, 1995– 2005 (ha) 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Rounded total 48,600 48,100 45,800 38,000 21,800 14,600 19,900 21,600 23,600 27,700 25,400

Sources United States Department of State National Monitoring System Supported by UNODC


58

At the global level, the decreases in Bolivia and Peru were offset by the increase in Colombia, and coca cultivation remained almost unchanged between 2004 and 2005. Coca cultivation in Bolivia represented 16% of the global coca cultivation in 2005, compared to 17% in 2004. Bolivia remained the third coca cultivator, behind Colombia and Peru.

Figure 2. Coca cultivation in the Andean region, 1995 – 2005 (ha)

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

hect

ares


Table 2. Coca cultivation in the Andean region, 1995- 2005 (ha)

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

%change2004-2005

Bolivia 48,600 48,100 45,800 38,000 21,800 14,600 19,900 21,600 23,600 27,700 25,400 - 8 %

Peru 115,300 94,400 68,800 51,000 38,700 43,400 46,200 46,700 44,200 50,300 48,200 - 4 %

Colombia 50,900 67,200 79,400 101,800 160,100 163,300 144,800 102,000 86,000 80,000 86,000 + 8 %

Total 214,800 209,700 194,000 190,800 220,600 221,300 210,900 170,300 153,800 158,000 159,600 + 1%



60

2.2 REGIONAL ANALYSIS

The decrease in coca cultivation at the national level was entirely due to a decrease in coca cultivation in the Chapare region from 10,100 ha to 7,000 ha, or -31%, between 2004 and 2005. The decrease in Chapare was attributed to the compliance of the farmers to the agreement of October 2004 between the Government and coca growers federation, limiting coca cultivation to 0.16 ha by family. Unlike what happened before the agreement, the eradication efforts that took place in 2005 in Chapare were not followed by replanting of the coca fields, thus resulting in a net decrease in coca cultivation. This could been seen on the satellite image, as shown on figure 12. Coca cultivation in the Yungas increased by 5% between 2004 and 2005 to reach 18,100 ha, remaining the most important region for coca cultivation in Bolivia, accounting for 71% of the total cultivation in 2005.

Table 3. Coca cultivation estimates by region, 2002 – 2005 (ha)

Region 2002 2003 2004 2005 % change 2004-2005 % of 2005 total

Yungas of La Paz 13,800 16,200 17,300 18,100 5% 71%Chapare n.a. 7,300 10,100 7,000 -31% 28%Apolo n.a. 50 300 300 0% 1%Country total 23,550 27,700 25,400 -8% 100%

Figure 3. Coca cultivation estimates by region, 2002 – 2005 (ha)

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

Yungas of La Paz Chapare Apolo

hect

are

2002 2003 2004 2005

Figure 4. Distribution of coca cultivation in Bolivia by region, 2005

Yungas of La Paz71%

Chapare28%

Apolo1%


61

Map 3: Coca cultivation density, for the Yungas of La Paz and Apolo, Bolivia 2005

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

^

Apolo

Cohoni

Tirata

Guanay

Cajuata

Lambate

Arapata

Irupana

Coroico

Coripata

Caranavi

La Asunta

Yanacachi Chulumani

Ecia. Pata

Pto. Linares

Palos Blancos

La Paz

Beni

Cochabamba

Cochabamba

La Paz

Apolo

Guanay

San Borja

Inquisivi

Sorata

La Asunta

Caranavi

Reyes

Palos Blancos

Rurrenabaque

Viacha

IrupanaLaja

Quime

Coroico

Pucarani

Palca

Batallas

Cajuata

San Buenaventura

Morochata

Coripata

Tacacoma

Achacachi

Cairoma

Sapahaqui

Ayata

YanacachiEl Alto

MallaCaquiaviri

Mecapaca

Calamarca

Charazani (Gral.Perez)

Comanche

Independencia

Tipuani

Ayo Ayo Luribay

Santa Rosa

Colquencha

Chulumani

Achocalla

RIOBENI

RíoLaPaz

Río Coroico

Río BoopiRío Tuichi

RIO ALTO BENI

RíoCotacajes

Río Zongo

RíoKaka

Río Quiquibey

RíoConsata

Río Camata

Río Sapaqui

Río Quendeque

Rio Unduavi

Río Maniqui

Tamampaya

Río Yacuma

Río Santa Elena

68°30'W

68°30'W

68°0'W

68°0'W

67°30'W

67°30'W

67°0'W

67°0'W

17°0

'S

17°0

'S

16°3

0'S

16°3

0'S

16°0

'S

16°0

'S

15°3

0'S

15°3

0'S

15°0

'S

15°0

'S

14°3

0'S

14°3

0'S

Yungas

Apolo


PARAGUAY

ARGENTINA

B R A Z I L

PER

U

CHILE

CochabambaBol iv ia

Cul t iva t ion de nsi ty(ha/km² )

0.1 - 1.0

1.1 - 2.0

2.1 - 4.0

4.1 - 8.0

> 8.0

RiverMain Road


Department capital

Municipality boundaries

^& Village center Geographic coordinates, WGS 1984

0 5025 km

1 :1.200.000


62

2.1.1 Coca cultivation in the Yungas of La Paz

The Yungas of La Paz, situated at about 150 km from the city of La Paz, is a region of uneven relief with steep slopes, turbulent rivers and elevations ranging from 300 to 4,000 meters above sea level. Significant climatic variations are observed even over short distances. Coca bush is predominantly cultivated on narrow terraces built on high gradient hills.

Coca cultivation in the municipality of Caranavi

The survey revealed 18,100 ha of coca cultivation in the Yungas of La Paz in 2005, representing an increase of 5% compared with the 17,300 ha found in 2004. Most of the cultivation continued to take place in the provinces of South Yungas and North Yungas, accounting respectively for 52% and 35% of the regional total. The largest annual increase (11%) was observed in Caranavi province, but this province only accounted for 8% of the regional total in 2005. It has been the third consecutive annual increase observed by the monitoring project in the Yungas of La Paz. Between 2002 and 2005 coca cultivation increased by 31% in this region.

Table 4. Distribution of coca cultivation in the Yungas of La Paz, 2002-2005 (ha)

Province 2002 2003 2004 2005 % change 2004-2005

% of 2005 total

South Yungas 7,182 8,356 8,867 9,395 6% 52%North Yungas 5,187 5,914 6,166 6,257 1% 35%Caranavi 491 889 1,248 1,381 11% 8%Inquisivi 741 801 805 807 0% 4%Murillo 151 210 217 223 3% 1%Rounded total 13,800 16,200 17,300 18,100 5% 100%

Figure 5. Distribution of coca cultivation in the Yungas of La Paz, 2005 (ha)

South Yungas

52%North Yungas

35%

Caranavi8%

Inquisivi4%

Murillo1%


63

For the third year in a row, the municipality of La Asunta in South Yungas province, and the municipality of Caranavi - the only municipality of the province of Caranavi - registered the largest annual rate of increase in coca cultivation with respectively 15% and 11%. However, the municipality of Coripata in North Yungas province remained the most important centre of coca cultivation in the region of the Yungas of La Paz, with 4,708 ha in 2005 (or 26% of the regional total). Compared with 2004, coca cultivation increased in all municipalities, except in Palos Blancos, where a small decrease was observed.

Table 5. Distribution of coca cultivation by municipality in the Yungas of La Paz, 2002-2005 ha)

Province Municipality 2002 2003 2004 2005 % change 2004-2005 % of 2005 total

North Yungas Coripata 4,032 4,456 4,651 4,708 1% 26%South Yungas Chulumani 2,678 3,020 3,157 3,252 3% 18%South Yungas La Asunta 1,771 2,314 2,666 3,055 15% 17%South Yungas Irupana 2,253 2,481 2,502 2,544 2% 14%North Yungas Coroico 1,155 1,458 1,515 1,549 2% 9%Caranavi Caranavi 491 889 1248 1381 11% 8%Inquisivi Cajuata 741 801 805 807 0% 4%South Yungas Yanacachi 421 483 488 494 1% 3%Murillo La Paz 151 210 217 223 3% 1%South Yungas Palos Blancos 59 58 53 50 -6% 0%TOTAL 13,800 16,200 17,300 18,100 5% 100%

Figure 6. Distribution of coca cultivation by municipality in the Yungas of La Paz, 2002-2005 (ha)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Coripata Chulumani La Asunta Irupana Coroico Caranavi Cajuata Yanacachi La Paz PalosBlancos

hect

are

2002 2003 2004 2005

Bolivian Law 1008 (“Law on the Regime Applicable to Coca and Controlled Substances”, 1988) permits up to 12,000 ha of traditional coca cultivation for traditional consumption and other legal uses. Most of this area is located in the Yungas of La Paz, although the law does not provide for a geographic delimitation of the traditional coca cultivation area. Most of the coca cultivation in the Yungas of La Paz is traded through the coca market, controlled by DIGECO, of Villa Fatima in La Paz-city.

There was neither forced nor voluntary eradication in the Yungas of La Paz, in 2005. During field missions, it was observed that there were new settlements in the Yungas of La Paz, mainly with


64

people coming from the Altiplano (La Paz, Potossi, Oruro, etc). These new settlements were established in previously not populated areas of La Asunta and Caranavi, and their primary agricultural activity was coca cultivation.

Although the project does not yet have updated data on coca leaf yield existed, for a couple of years now, it was noted during its field missions that farmers were using more sophisticated agricultural techniques in their coca fields, employing more fertilizers, pesticide and mechanical irrigation of their coca fields. In Caranavi new coca fields established at the expenses of the Primary Forest or coffee plantations, benefited from higher yields due to the richer soils.

Figure 7. 3-D view near the town of La Asunta, the Yungas of La Paz, 2005

Coca cultivation (red rectangle), in the municipality of La Asunta

Picture corresponding to the area within the red rectangle in the image above, showing coca fields in various stages of development (2005).


65

Figure 8. Example of annual coca cultivation in the locality of Siguani, Municipality of La Asunta, 2002-2005

In 2002

coca fields in 2002

In 2003

coca fieldssince 2002

new coca fields in 2003


66

In 2004




In 2005

cocafieldssince 2002





67

Figure 9. Coca cultivation techniques in the Yungas of La Paz

1. Burning of land and soil preparation: The burning of land often takes place during the dry season (May to August), but it can also happen until the month of December if the weather conditions are suitable.

2. Terraces construction: Most of the coca fields are established on wuachus (terraces) to avoid erosion and soil nutrients loss. This practice prolongs the life of the crop. The width of the terraces varies from forty-five centimetres to one meter, depending on the slope. The lines of furrows for coca cultivation are established transversally to the slope direction. This practice is widely used in traditional areas, while in the rest of the Yungas, terraces are not built.

The width and shape of the wuachus varies according to the slope and structure of the terrain.


68

3. Seedling and transplant: The coca seeds are obtained from plants of 5 years old or older. The seeds are settled in a seedling nursery of rich soil and abundant irrigation. They are protected from the sun for about 4-6 weeks before their transplantation to the field.

The seedling requires special care before transplantation to the coca field.

4. Young crop and first harvest: The small plants are carefully planted in the field, at a distance of 20 cm between each other. During the first few days, they are continuously irrigated. A new crop produces its first harvest usually 12 months after the transplantation, but there have been reports of fields harvested as soon as 8 months after transplantation thanks to the use of fertilizer.


69

In the Yungas of La Paz, harvest of coca fields is mainly done by women and children.


70

5. Maintenance: In the Yungas of La Paz, a phytosanitary treatment is applied to coca bushes using fertilizers, and pesticides. Irrigation is also widely used. Typically, the pesticides are applied to the bushes right after the harvest, in order to protect the crop from a variety of plagues, including larvae, fungus and ants. At 4-5 years old, the plant is totally pruned, leaving only the base of the trunk. This practice known as pillu greatly increases the yield of the crop starting from the next harvest, which is produced after 6-8 months. The life of a coca field is about 30 years old.

The intensive use of chemical pesticides, and foliar fertilizers may produce coca leafs which are not suitable for traditional consumption like Akulliku(mastication) and tea preparation.

The bottom picture show organic fertilizer being applied to coca plants 3 months after pruning.


71

Mechanical irrigation is widespread in coca fields.

Example of pillu (pruning) after 3 weeks the first leaves start to re-appear.


72

6. Drying and transport of the leaves: Drying is done carefully to protect the leaves and maintain their quality. After the harvest, the fresh coca leaves are stored for at least one night in the dark and after that spread for sun drying. In the traditional area, the leaves are spread over a special floor built of dark stones called “cachi”. The “cachi” accelerates considerably the time of drying. In other areas, the leaves are spread over agricultural nets. If the coca leaves are spread right after the harvest, they become damaged and their value reduces drastically. If rain comes over the drying coca leaves, or the farmer picks them up before complete drying, the leaves are also damaged.

Dried coca leaves packed and loaded being transported to the market


73

2.1.2 Coca cultivation in Apolo

Apolo is located at the northern part of the department of La Paz, on the eastern edge of the Andean mountain range. With relatively dry weather conditions and poor soils, coca fields in Apolo often have a low yield and are cultivated for only for about three to five years.

In 2004, DIRECO conducted a cadastral survey of coca cultivation in the Apolo region, measuring in situ all the coca fields located in the region. It revealed that coca cultivation reached 289 ha in 2004. A large proportion of coca cultivation was found in the southern part of the Apolo municipality and in a small part of the neighbouring municipality of Juan José Perez (also known as Charazani municipality) in the province of Bautista Saavedra. These areas were not surveyed by the monitoring project in 2003, and only 50 ha of coca cultivation was found. In 2004, the satellite coverage was expanded to include these areas and the 2004 survey revealed 273 ha of coca cultivation. In 2005, no imagery was acquired in the Apolo region. A field verification was undertaken in August 2005 and noted that there was some increase in coca cultivation, mainly in the southern part of the Province Franz Tamayo, while in other parts, the team observed abandoned coca field. These changes were considered as off setting each other and the estimate for the whole Apolo region remained at 300 ha.

Table 6. Coca cultivation in Apolo region, 2003 and 2005 (ha)

Province Municipality 2003 2004 2005 % change 2004 – 2005

Franz Tamayo Apolo 50 300 300 0%

Coca cultivation in Apolo region is traditionally associated with cassava to take advantage of the same furrow for two different crops. The coca fields in Apolo are scattered and relatively small (about 200 m2) compared to coca fields found elsewhere in the country. Terraces are not used. The coca cultivation techniques and coca leaf sun drying are similar to techniques used in the Yungas area of La Paz.

The northern part of Apolo is part of the Madidi National Park, the largest biosphere reserve in Bolivia. Only a few dispersed and small coca fields were found on the western side of the Madidi Park. In Apolo, coca cultivation is considered traditional according to law 1008. No eradication is undertaken in this area.

A well maintained coca field on poor soil, August 2005.


74

Map 4: Coca cultivation density for Chapare, Bolivia 2005

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

Beni

Cochabamba

Santa Cruz

Potosi

ChuquisacaChuquisaca

Colomi

Isinota

Chimore

Chipiriri

Eterazama

Shinahota

Ivirgarzama

Tablas Monte

Villa Tunari

Puerto Patiño

Valle Hermoso

Puerto Grether

Pto. G. Villarroel

Villa 14 de Septiembre

San Ignacio

Villa Tunari

Yapacaní

Loreto

Pojo

Aiquile

Chimore

Tiraque

ComarapaTotora

San Andrés

Mizque

Pasorapa

El Puente

Toro Toro

Puerto Villarroel

Pocona

Mineros

Entre Rios (Bulo Bulo)Sacaba

Poroma

Omereque

San Pedro de Buena Vista

Colomi

Anzaldo

Vila Vila

San Carlos

Trigal

Alalay

Moro Moro

Pampa GrandeSaipinaAcasio

Vallegrande

Vacas

Tarata

Pocoata

Arani

Capinota Mairana

Arampampa

Tiquipaya

Buena Vista

Arbieto

Ravelo

TolataSan Benito

Río Ichilo

RíoIsiboro

Río Mizque

Río Ichoa

RíoSecure

Río Chore

RíoYapacani

RíoChapare

Río Ibare

RíoApere

RíoChimoré

Río Pajta

Río Chipiriri

Río Sajta

Río Caine

Río San Pedro

Río Useuta

Río Mamoré

Río Espuma

RíoCabito

Río Ivirizu

Arr. Uriuta

Río Grande ó

Guapay

Río Osos

Río Eterasama

Río Alizar

Río Cienaga

RíoZabala

Río San Mateo

Río Piray

RíoIsinota

Río Molle

Río Malpaso

Río San Juán

Río Moile

RíoAltamachi

RíoTembladeras

Arr. Mariposas

RíoChapare

66°0'W

66°0'W

65°30'W

65°30'W

65°0'W

65°0'W

64°30'W

64°30'W

18°3

0'S

18°3

0'S

18°0

'S

18°0

'S

17°3

0'S

17°3

0'S

17°0

'S

17°0

'S

16°3

0'S

16°3

0'S

16°0

'S

16°0

'S

15°3

0'S

15°3

0'S

0 5025km

Geographic coordinates, WGS 19841 : 1.400.000

PARAGUAY

ARGENTINA

B R A Z I L

PER

U

CHILE

CochabambaBol iv ia


Cul t iva t ion de nsi ty(ha/km² )

0.1 - 1.0

1.1 - 2.0

2.1 - 4.0

4.1 - 8.0

> 8.0

RiverMain Road


Municipality boundaries

& Village center


75

2.1.3 Coca cultivation in Chapare

The Chapare region is situated in Cochabamba department, and the region is also referred to as the Cochabamba tropics, extending over the provinces of Chapare, Carrasco and Tiraque. In contrast to the Yungas of La Paz, Chapare region has moderate slopes and large rivers. Elevations vary from 300 to 2500 meters, with coca cultivated between 300 and 1000 meters. The highest mountains are located in the south and the country’s large tropical savannas begin in the northern part of Chapare. Temperatures are tropical and the area records the highest precipitation levels in Bolivia.

In the nineties, the Chapare region held the largest amount of coca cultivation, but following sustained eradication efforts and alternative development programmes, cultivation decreased dramatically.

The 2005 survey found 7,000 ha of coca cultivation in Chapare, representing a decrease of 31% compared to the 10,100 ha found in 2004. The significant decrease is mainly due to an agreement signed between the coca farmers and the government in October 2004 establishing the temporary authorization for 3,200 ha of coca cultivation. Since the signature of this agreement, eradication took place in a more peaceful and efficient way. Mostly, coca farmers respected the agreement and eradicated fields were not replanted. This was noticeable on the satellite image as showed on figure 12. Between 2004 and 2005, coca cultivation decreased in all three provinces of Chapare, Carrasco and Tiraque of the Chapare region.

Table 7. Distribution by province of coca cultivation in Chapare region, 2003-2005 (ha)

Province 2003 2004 2005 % change 2004-2005

% of 2005 total

Chapare 4,250 5,844 4,094 -30% 58%Carrasco 2,864 3,520 2,312 -34% 33%Tiraque 214 723 605 -16% 9%Rounded Total 7,300 10,100 7,000 -31% 100%

In the Chapare region, during 2005 and up to time of writing this report (June 2006), there were less demonstrations and road blockades than in 2004. The agreement authorizing 3,200 ha of coca in Chapare will be revised once the study quantifying the national demand for coca leaf will be concluded. These 3,200 ha of authorized coca cultivation are additional to the amount of 12,000 ha of coca cultivation authorized by Law 1008 which includes about 200 ha of coca cultivation in the Yungas de Vandiola.

Table 8. Distribution by municipality of coca cultivation in Chapare region, 2003-2005 (ha)

Province Municipality 2003 2004 2005 % change 2004-2005

% of 2005 total

Chapare Villa Tunari 4,250 5,841 4,094 -30% 58%

Carrasco Entre Díos (former Pojo) 1,106 1,921 817 -57% 12%

Carrasco Puerto Villarroel 1,394 821 818 0% 12%Tiraque Tiraque 214 724 605 -16% 9%Carrasco Chimore 250 525 432 -18% 6%Carrasco Totora 114 253 245 -3% 4%Rounded Total 7,300 10,100 7,000 -31% 100%

The municipality of Villa Tunari continued to be the most important area of coca cultivation in the region, and represented 58% of the coca cultivation in Chapare in 2005, even though coca cultivation decreased by 30% in this municipality between 2004 and 2005. The municipality includes part of the Isiboro Secure National Park, which remained the national park with the highest level of coca cultivation in the country.


76

In the central area of the region of Cochabamba Tropics, around the municipality of Puerto Villaroel and Chimore, coca cultivation remained relatively low, and even decreased slightly between 2004 and 2005. This situation is mainly due to a combination of alternative development projects and eradication campaigns.

It should be noted that political boundaries are not properly defined between the departments of Cochabamba and Beni. For this reason, although some coca cultivation might actually be located in Beni Department, all the coca fields identified during the survey along the departmental border were counted as part of the municipality of Villa Tunari, in the Department of Cochabamba.

Figure 10. Distribution by municipality of coca cultivation in Chapare region, 2003 – 2005(ha)

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

Villa Tunari Entre Díos(former Pojo)

PuertoVillarroel

Tiraque Chimore Totora

hect

are

2003 2004 2005

Figure 11. Distribution by municipality of coca cultivation in Chapare region, 2005 (ha)

Entre Díos (former Pojo)12%

Villa Tunari58%

Puerto Villarroel

12%

Tiraque9%

Chimore6%

Totora3%


77

Figure 12. Coca cultivation encroaching primary forest

Satellite image taken in 2004 (Spot false color): coca fields bordered in white.

The same area as above, from a satellite image taken in 2005 (SPOT 5 , false color): eradicated coca cultivation delineated with white lines and existent

coca cultivation in 2005 is delineated with yellow lines


78

Contrary to the situation of the Yungas of La Paz where there was no eradication, eradication of coca cultivation was intense in the Chapare region in 2005. For this reason, farmers often interspersed or associated coca bushes with other crops, or hid their coca fields under tree canopy to avoid detection and eradication. However, with the agreement between the coca farmers and the government to authorize 3,200 ha of coca cultivation, it was observed during field missions that farmers tended not to hide their coca fields any longer, or intersperse them with other crops, and most coca fields were found now free of association with other crops. This was evidenced in the satellite images as seen on figure 12.

It is generally accepted that coca cultivation is done with much more care in Yungas than in Chapare, and the techniques of cultivation differ from the ones used in Yungas. For example, the seedbeds in Chapare are usually not covered.

The picture shows encircled in red a seedling prepared for further transplantation to a coca field

Since the terrain is flat, there is no need to build terraces. The coca bushes in Chapare are bigger than in Yungas. The pruning practice does not exist. This could be due to the intensive eradication, resulting in most of the coca fields being younger than four years old, and thus don’t need pruning.

Coca field free of association or coverage


79

Association with other crops or coca cultivated under canopy were less common in 2005 than in the paste. However, they were still present in some areas of Chapare.

Coca under canopy

Coca associated with yucca

The coca leaves are also sun dried on bare floor before commercialization, but not with the same care as in the Yungas. According to FELCN, part of the production is marketed outside the region;


80

other part is used for local consumption (chewing and medicines). However, FELCN believed that an important portion of the coca leaves are used locally for cocaine manufacturing.

The life of a coca field in Chapare, under normal conditions is on average 30 years. Isolated, scattered old plants of big dimensions have been observed, still yielding substantial quantity of coca leaves. Fertilizers and pesticides are also widely used in the Chapare.

The picture shows an aerial view of a coca field, burned land to implement a new crop and sun-drying of coca leaves

Sun-drying of coca leaves, Chapare, 2005


81

2.3 COCA YIELD AND PRODUCTION

In December 2005, UNODC started a new coca yield study in the Yungas of La Paz. The field work was implemented through an agreement with Carmen Pampa University. The survey relied on a sample of 74 fields randomly selected among six strata. The strata were defined based mainly on altitude and slope ranges. The sample was designed by the statistician of the UNODC Illicit Crop Monitoring Programme. The methodology relied on weighing fresh and sun-dried coca leaves from a sample of harvest. The study aims to establish an average annual yield. It is therefore necessary to weigh all the harvests that can take place during the year. For this reason, the survey results will only be available in 2006, and will be used to estimate coca leaf production for next year survey.

In the absence of detailed study on coca leaf conducted jointly the Government and UNODC, coca leaf production in Bolivia was estimated from yield estimates previously used by UNODC, notably in the World Drug Report. Sun-dried coca leaf production in Bolivia was thus estimated at 42,000 metric tons. From that total, 30,900 metric tons could be available for illicit activities, potentially producing about 90 metric tons of cocaine in 2005. This corresponded to a decrease of 16% compared to last year potential cocaine production of 107 metric tons.

It should be noted that this estimate represented the potential coca leaf production. Due to lack of data on the issue, it does not take into account the likely proportion of coca leaf from Chapare region destined for local consumption of coca leaf (chewing and medicinal preparation). A better estimate should be available when the study on the local demand of coca leaf has been concluded.

The decrease in cocaine production can be attributed to the decrease in coca cultivation in the Chapare region (-31%).

Figure 13. Cocaine production in Bolivia 1994 - 2005 (in metric ton)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

met

ric to

ns

Metric tons 240 215 200 150 70 43 60 60 79 107 90

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Source: UNODC World Drug Report 2006


82

In 2005, potential cocaine production in Bolivia accounted for 10% of the global potential cocaine production of 910 metric tons. This was a slightly lower percentage than in 2004 when potential cocaine production in Bolivia represented about 11% of the global potential cocaine production.

Table 9. Potential cocaine production in the Andean region 1995 - 2005 (in mt)

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 %

change 2004-2005

% of 2005 total

Bolivia 240 215 200 150 70 43 60 60 79 107 90 -16% 10% Peru 460 435 325 240 175 141 150 165 155 190 180 -5% 20% Colombia 230 300 350 435 680 695 617 580 550 640 640 0% 70% Total 930 950 875 825 925 879 827 805 784 937 910 -3% 100%

Source: UNODC World Drug Report 2006

Figure 14. Potential cocaine production in the Andean region 1995 - 2005 (in mt)

240 215 200150

70 43 60 60 79 107 90

230 300 350 435680 695 617 580 550

640 640

460435 325 240

175141

150165 155

190180

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

met

ric to

n


Colombian production data for 2004 and 2005 is based on new field research.


83

2.4 COCA PRICES AND TRADING

In Bolivia, sun-dried coca leaf trade is regulated by DIGECO that controls the quantity and prices of coca leaf traded in two markets: The market of Villa Fatima in La Paz-city and the market of Sacaba in Cochabamba department, close to Cochabamba city.

Of the 12,872 metric tons of coca leaves that fell under the control of DIGECO in 2005, the largest amount, 12,718 metric tons or 99%, was traded in Villa Fatima, and the remaining 154 metric tons in Sacaba. Prices of coca leaves in Villa Fatima market were also slightly higher than in Sacaba market, with respective annual averages of 32 Boliviano/kg (US$ 4.0/kg) and 31 Boliviano/kg (US$ 3.90/kg). The annual average weighted price for coca leaves on these two markets was 32 Boliviano/kg (US$ 4.0/kg) in 2005.

Table 10. Reported monthly price of coca leaf marketed through DIGECO in 2005

Chapare: Sacaba market La Paz: Villa Fatima market Weighted average

Quantity sold Quantity soldMonth Bs./kg

metric tons Bs./kg

Metric tons Bs./kg US$/kg

January 29 20 27 1,066 27 3,4February 28 7 25 1,114 25 3,1March 29 11 25 1,141 25 3,0April 26 8 25 1,132 25 3,1May 26 10 26 1,075 26 3,2June 30 6 29 1,106 29 3,6July 34 19 37 995 37 4,5August 35 11 38 999 38 4,7September 36 9 38 998 38 4,8October 36 26 46 902 46 5,7November 37 16 42 1,067 42 5,2December 31 9 33 1,123 33 4,1

31 154 32 12,718 32 4,0Source: DIGECO

Figure 15. Monthly coca leaf price in DIGECO markets and coca production

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Jan04

Feb04

Mar04

Apr04

May04

Jun04

Jul04

Aug04

Sep04

Oct04

Nov04

Dec04

Jan05

Feb05

Mar05

Apr05

May05

Jun05

Jul05

Aug05

Sep05

Oct05

Nov05

Dec05

BO

L/kg

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Met

ric to

ns

Qty Sold BOL/kg


84

Each trader is authorized by DIGECO to trade up to 500 pounds (227 kg) of dry coca leaf per month. DIGECO’s authorization specifies where the coca leave are bought (Villa Fatima or Sacaba) and the point of final destination for its retailing. Coca is retailed in packages of maximum 15 pounds (6.8 kg).

The following map shows the distribution of traded coca leaves throughout the country according to the DIGECO registry. As in 2004, in 2005, most of the coca leaves ended up in Santa Cruz department, followed by the departments of Tarija, La Paz and Potosi. In Santa Cruz, coca leaves are supplied mostly for the workers of large scale industrial farms of soy beans and sugar canes who use to chew it. Coca chewing is also widespread among miners of the departments of La Paz, Potosi and Oruro. Although not documented, it is likely that an increasing quantity of coca leaves traded in the southern of the country is smuggled to neighbouring Argentina.

The total value of the coca leaves traded through the control of DIGECO amounted to 418 millions Bolivianos or US$ 51.6 millions in 2005

Between 2004 and 2005, the volume of trade increased by 8% (from 11,907 mt to 12,872 mt), while the average annual prices decreased by 8% (from Bs. 35/kg to Bs. 32/kg). This market responded to the law of supply and demand: when quantity available for trade increase, prices tend to decrease. Farm-gate prices of dry coca leaf have been collected in Chapare on a monthly basis by DIRECO since 1990 and by the UNODC monitoring project in the Yungas of La Paz since 2004. Average annual prices for coca leaf were higher in the Yungas of La Paz with 37 Boliviano/kg (US$4.7/kg) than in the Chapare with 33 Boliviano/kg (US$ 4.1/kg).


87

Farm-gate prices of dry coca leaf have been collected in Chapare on a monthly basis by DIRECO since 1990 and by the UNODC monitoring project in the Yungas of La Paz since 2004. Average annual prices for coca leaf were higher in the Yungas of La Paz with 37 Boliviano/kg (US$4.7/kg) than in the Chapare with 33 Boliviano/kg (US$ 4.1/kg).

At the end of 2004, coca growers of Caranavi obtained their licenses to commercialize their production in the coca market of Villa Fátima, which caused a higher supply of coca was caused and consequently lower prices. The trend was maintained for the first months of 2005. Prices went up again on mid year where the dry season starts and harvests are poor reaching a peak on October and starting again the decreasing trend on December.

Table 11. Monthly coca leaf price in the Yungas of La Paz, 2005

Month Municipality of Coripata

Municipality of

Chulumani

Municipality of La Asunta

Municipality of Caranavi Average

Bs./Kg Bs./Kg Bs./Kg Bs./Kg Bs./Kg $US/KgJanuary 39 35 40 41 39 4,8February 37 38 39 40 38 4,7March 37 37 37 40 38 4,7April 35 37 36 38 37 4,5May 35 37 36 38 37 4,5Jun 36 37 37 37 37 4,5July 36 38 36 37 37 4,6August 36 37 36 37 37 4,5September 35 36 37 37 36 4,5Ocober 35 36 37 38 37 4,5November 36 35 38 37 37 4,5December 35 35 37 37 36 4,5Annual average 36 37 37 38 37 4,6

Source: UNODC monitoring project

Compared to 2004, coca leaf prices remained stable in Bolivian currency at Bs. 37/kg in Yungas.

Table 12. Reported monthly coca leaf price in the Chapare, 2005 Chapare

Bs./kg US$/kgJanuary 40 4,9 February 41 5,1 March 42 5,2 April 35 4,4 May 28 3,5 June 28 3,5 July 30 3,6 August 30 3,7 September 33 4,0 October 30 3,7 November 31 3,8 December 30 3,7

33 4,1Source: DIRECO

Compared to 2004, coca leaf prices in Chapare region, decreased from Bs. 41/kg to Bs. 33/kg (-19%). The decrease in prices, parallel to a decrease in production of coca leaf in the Chapare, could be due to the increased interdiction efforts in the region that disturbed the coca market and made it less attractive in general for coca buyers.


88

Figure 16. Monthly coca leaf price in the Yungas of La Paz and Chapare Bolivia 2005

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

$US/

Kg

Yungas Chapare Digeco

Sources: UNODC monitoring project/ /DIRECO/ DIGECO

Weighted by production, the annual average price for coca leaf outside the market controlled by DIGECO was US$ 4.5/kg. This was a higher price than the price US$ 4.0/kg on the market controlled by DIGECO. However, during the dry season when less coca leaves were available, prices from the markets controlled by DIGECO were similar and even larger than prices on other markets.

Prices of coca leaves have not been systematically recorded for Apolo. Anecdotal information reported much lower prices in Apolo than elsewhere in the country, ranging from US$2.5 to US$2.8/kg in 2005. The reason for lower prices in Apolo could be attributed to the remoteness of the region, outside the main trading centres. The low coca leaf production in Apolo (281 mt) was rather negligible compared to the national total, and therefore was not taken into account in the establishment of the national annual price estimate.

The long term trend of prices can be appreciated with prices of coca leaves from Chapare collected by DIRECO since 1990. Following a strong price rise in 1999 – in line with a strong increase in eradication – dry coca leaf prices reached a peak of US$5.7 /kg in 2000. Since then, prices fell to the lowest since 1998 4.1/kg. However, coca leaf prices in Bolivia continued to be substantially higher than in neighbouring Peru (US$ 2.9/kg).


89

Table 13. Reported monthly prices of coca leaf in Chapare (US$/kg) 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

January 0.8 1.0 0.9 1.4 0.9 1.1 1.3 2.0 5.9 5.4 5.7 6.1 5.4 5.3 4.9 February 1.2 0.8 1.4 0.9 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.5 2.4 6.0 5.5 5.6 5.8 5.3 5.1 5.1 March 0.8 0.9 1.8 0.7 1.3 0.8 1.4 1.5 2.4 6.0 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.2 5.2 5.2 April 1.0 1.2 1.5 0.8 1.4 1.1 1.9 1.4 3.7 6.0 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.2 5.3 4.4 May 1.2 0.9 1.5 1.2 1.4 1.7 2.2 1.5 4.8 5.3 5.3 5.7 5.6 5.3 5.2 3.5 June 0.9 0.9 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.4 2.2 1.4 4.9 4.8 5.6 5.4 5.6 5.4 5.1 3.5 July 1.1 0.9 1.2 1.8 1.4 1.3 2.3 1.4 4.9 5.3 5.6 5.4 5.7 5.5 5.1 3.6 August 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.7 1.4 1.2 2.1 1.4 5.0 5.3 5.7 5.4 5.7 5.5 5.1 3.7 September 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.5 0.9 1.3 2.1 1.5 6.0 5.4 6.1 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.3 4.0 October 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.7 1.4 1.2 2.0 1.5 5.1 5.3 6.1 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.0 3.7 November 0.8 1.1 0.6 1.5 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.7 5.4 5.3 5.8 5.3 5.4 5.4 5.0 3.8 December 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.3 0.9 1.0 1.4 2.0 5.7 5.5 5.7 5.2 5.5 5.5 5.1 3.7 Annual Average US$/kg

0.9 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.8 1.5 4.4 5.5 5.7 5.5 5.6 5.4 5.2 4.1

Source: DIRECO

The estimation of the total farm-gate value of coca leaf production in Bolivia included the total value of the market controlled by DIGECO, and the farm-gate value of coca leaves outside this market. In 2005, it amounted to US$180 million.

Table 14. Estimation of the total farm-gate value of coca leaf production in Bolivia, 2005 Region Production (mt) Price

(US$/kg) Value (US$)

Chapare 19,348 4.1 79,326,800 Yungas, outside the 12,000 ha permitted by law 1008 11,507 4.6 52,932,200 Yungas from 12,000 ha permitted by law 1008 10,951 4.0 43,804,000 Apolo 281 2.7 744,650 Rounded total 42,000 180,000,000

The total farm-gate value of coca leaf production in 2005 was thus equivalent to 2.1% of the projected Bolivian GDP3 of US$ 8.4 billions for 2005, or 12% compared with the projected value of the licit agricultural sector of US$ 1.5 billions in 2005. These figures suggest that, for the country as a whole, coca production still has and impact on the Bolivian economy, and continues to play an important role within the coca producing regions.

The FELCN also reported street prices of cocaine paste and cocaine of unknown purity from the major cities and coca growing regions in Bolivia. Reported prices of coca paste and cocaine did not vary from prices reported in 2004.

3 sources: IICA,2005


90

Table 15. Reported prices of cocaine base and cocaine HCL, Bolivia, 2005 (US$/kg) City Cocaine base Cocaine HCL

La Paz 1,150 2,000 Cochabamba 1,150 1,800 Santa Cruz 1,200 1,700 Average

RegionYungas of La Paz 800 n.a. Chapare 1,000 n.a.

Source: FELCN

It is interesting to note that prices for coca leaf and its derivatives were consistently higher in Bolivia than in neighbouring Peru.

Table 16. Prices for coca leaf and its derivatives in Peru and Bolivia, 2005 (US$/kg)

Products Peru Bolivia

Coca leaf 2.9 4.1 Cocaine base 640 1,200Cocaine HCL 900 1,800


92

2.5 COCA CULTIVATION AND RELATED ISSUES

2.1.4 COCA CULTIVATION AND LAND USE

The Bolivian National Authorities of Land Management (‘Ordenamiento Territorial’) released in 2002 a country wide map of major land use, based on the classification of Landsat images. This map was superimposed on the map of coca cultivation for 2003, 2004 and 2005. This analysis revealed that coca cultivation is found over four main types of land use: Extensive livestock and agriculture with permanent crop; timber forest; timber forest and cattle; non-timber forest and cattle; hunting, fishing and non-timber forest products.

In 2005, 78% of coca cultivation took place on land dedicated to extensive livestock and agriculture with permanent crop, and 18% over land where the major land use is classified as timber forest. This last category corresponded mainly to the border of the Isiboro Secure National Park that is now protected, meaning that activities like extensive agricultural or logging are no longer permitted.

Table 17. Distribution of 2003 - 2005 coca cultivation by major land use and by region (ha)

Region Major land use 2003 2004 2005%

change 2004 – 2005

% of 2005total

Yungas Extensive livestock and agriculture with permanent crop 14,908 15,878 16,381 3% 91%

timber forest 1,069 1,270 1,498 18% 8% timber forest and cattle 186 189 204 8% 1%

Chapare Extensive livestock and agriculture with permanent crop 3,265 3,659 3,366 -8% 48%

timber forest 3,442 5,433 3,069 -44% 44% non-timber forest and cattle 369 495 298 -40% 4% Hunting, fishing and non-timber

forest products 194 507 277 -45% 4%

Apolo Extensive livestock, sheep 50 178 178 0% 59% Timber forest 11 11 0% 4% Very scattered forest with cattle 51 51 0% 17% non-timber forest and cattle 61 61 0% 20%

total 23,600 27,700 25,400

The analysis of the location of the coca cultivation that appears between 2004 and 2005 in the Yungas, showed that most of the new coca cultivation (500 ha over a total of 800 ha) took place over the land dedicated to extensive livestock and permanent crop. The remaining increase of 300 ha took place at the expense of forested areas, where coca cultivation increased by 26% between 2004 and 2005. In the Chapare area, coca cultivation is spread over extensive livestock, permanent crop (48%) and forest areas (44%). The decrease in coca cultivation between 2004 and 2005 took place mainly over forested areas (-44%).

Figure 17. Coca cultivation and land uses over Chapare and the Yungas Yungas Chapare

Extensive livestock and agriculture with

permanent crop

timber forest

timber forest and cattle

timber forest

Extensive livestock and agriculture with

permanent crop

hunting, fishing and non-timber forest

products

non-timber forest and cattle


94

2.1.5 COCA CULTIVATION AND ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

The Bolivian government usually refers to six geographical zones for the implementation of Alternative Development projects: four in the Yungas of La Paz (Caranavi North and Alto Beni, Caranavi Centre South, region of La Asunta, Inquisivi, south-western region), and two in Chapare (Bosque de uso multiple, or BUM, and the colonization area of the Isiboro Secure National Park). The number of projects and their level of interventions within each of these zones was not quantified in 2005, but varied broadly from no intervention at all to high level of intervention.

Table 18. Coca cultivation and alternative development in Bolivia

Region Zone level of interven

tions

Coca cultivation

in 2003

Coca cultivation

in 2004

Coca cultivation

in 2005

% of change

2004 - 2005

% of 2005 coca

cultivation total

Caranavi North Alto Beni High 96 99 96 -3% 0.4%

Caranavi Centro South Medium 478 650 708 9% 3%South-western Yungas and La Asunta Low 14,825 15,802 16,470 4% 65%

Yungas of La Paz

Inquisivi None 801 807 809 0% 3%Bosque Uso Multiple (BUM) or Multiple Use Forest High 4,370 4,317 4107 -5% 16%

Colonization area of the Isiboro Secure National Park Low 1,640 2,587 1241 -52% 5%Chapare

Other None 1,273 3,185 1663 -48% 7%

Apolo Apolo None 50 300 300 0% 1%

Rounded total 23,500 27,700 25,400 -8% 100%

In the Yungas of La Paz, the area of major intervention of alternative development was the Northern part of the municipality of Caranavi and the Alto Beni, representing 0.4% of the national total of coca cultivation in 2005. However, the region of South-western Yungas and La Asunta representing the largest proportion of coca cultivation in 2005 (65%), received fewer support from alternative development project.

In Chapare, the main area of intervention of alternative development was the region defined by the Ministry as ‘multiple use forest’. Between 2004 and 2005, coca cultivation decreased 5% in this area, whereas coca cultivation decreased by 31% in the Chapare region as a whole.

The area of the Isiboro Secure National Park was the area where most of the eradication took place in 2005. Unlike in previous year, eradication was not followed by replanting of coca fields, principally due to the agreement between the Government and the coca farmers to limit coca cultivation to 3,200 ha in the Chapare region. This resulted in a net coca cultivation decrease in the area of 52% between 2004 and 2005.

UNODC agro-forestry project support to coffee development (picture: project BOL/I79)


95

Map 9: Coca cultivation and National Parks, Bolivia 2005

!

!

^

!

!

!

!

!

!

Rio Pi lcomayo

Madera

Madrede D

ios

RioMamore

Rio Itenez

RioBeni

Beni

Santa Cruz

Potosi

La Paz

Pando

Oruro

Tarija

Chuquisaca

Cochabamba

Sucre

Oruro

Tarija

Potosi

La Paz

Cobija

Trinidad

Santa Cruz

Cochabamba

B R A Z I L

A R G E N T I N A


PE

RU

65°W

65°W

60°W

60°W

25°S

25°S

20°S

20°S

15°S

15°S

10°S

10°S

Chapare

YungasTiticaca lake

Apolo

Manuripi Heat

Madidi

ApolobambaPilon Lajas

Est. Biológicadel Beni

Isiboro Secure

CarrascoAmboro

Cotapata

Tunari

Sajama

Noel KempffMercado

Toro Toro

El PalmarKaa Iya delGran Chaco

San Matias

Otuquis

EduardoAvaroa

Cordillera deSama

Tariquia


Cultivation density(ha/km² )

National parks

National parks affectedby coca cultivation

Yun... :Department boundariesInternational boundaries

Coca growing areas

0.1 - 1

1.1 - 4.0

> 4


0 300150 km

Bolivia

SOUTH AMERICA

Poopo lake


96

2.1.6 COCA CULTIVATION IN NATIONAL PARKS

There are 21 protected areas and national parks in Bolivia, totalling an area of 165,000 sq km, representing 15% of the national territory. In 2005 coca cultivation was found in three national parks: In the national park of Madidi, in the Apolo region, only about 10 ha of coca cultivation were found. A much larger amount of 1,950 ha of coca cultivation was found in the two national parks Isiboro Secure and Carrasco, in Chapare region. Coca cultivation within these two National Parks represented 28% of the coca cultivation of Chapare region.

Between 2004 and 2005, coca cultivation decreased by 52% in the areas of the National Parks, from 4,100 ha to 1,952 ha. The decrease is mainly due to strong eradication efforts inside the parks. The agreement between the coca farmers and the government to limit to 3,200 ha the level of authorized coca cultivation in 2005, resulted in the farmers complying with the limit, without replanting the coca fields that had been destroyed by eradication.

Ecosystems of the National Parks are particularly fragile and the deforestation for the establishment of coca cultivation makes irreversible damages to their environment. Although eradication has been efficient, it should be noted that the damage to the forest due to coca cultivation is irreversible.

Table 19. Coca cultivation estimates by national parks in Chapare 2003 – 2005 (ha)

Area 2003 2004 2005 % change 2004 - 2005

% of 2005 total

Isiboro Secure National Park 1,605 2,807 1,161 -59% 17%Carrasco National Park 778 1,257 781 -38% 11%Madidi National Park n.a. 10 10 0% 0.1%Total within National Parks 2,400 4,100 1,952 -52% 28%Outside National Parks 4,900 6,000 5,053 -16% 72%Rounded Total 7,300 10,100 7,005 -31% 100%

Figure 18. Distribution of coca cultivation in Chapare region inside and outside national parks, 2004 – 2005 (ha)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Total within National Parks Outside National Parks

hect

are

2003 2004 2005


97

2.6 REPORTED ERADICATION

In 2005, the Bolivian Government reported the eradication of 6,073 ha of coca fields. No eradication was reported in Yungas of La Paz. The level of reported eradication decreased by 28% compared to the level of eradication in 2004. In Bolivia, the eradication of coca cultivation is exclusively manual, and no chemical or spraying agents are used.

Figure 19. Reported eradication and coca cultivation in Bolivia, 1995 – 2005 (ha)

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

hectare

Coca cultivation 48,600 48,100 45,800 38,000 21,800 19,600 19,900 24,400 22,800 27,600 25,400

Eradication 5,498 7,512 7,026 11,621 16,999 7,953 9,435 11,853 10,087 8,437 6,073

95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05

Eradication in the Chapare was often opposed by the farmers. However, since the agreement signed in October 2004 and temporarily authorizing coca farmers to grow up to 3,200 ha of coca in the Chapare, eradication campaigns have been better accepted by the farmers, and there was no violence reported. Since February 2006 the Government has been implementing a policy of voluntary eradication.

Figure 20. Reported monthly eradication in Chapare in 2005 (ha)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

hect

are

Eradication 361.41 508.57 548.34 606.24 402.3 546.2 660.39 622.71 500.94 592.43 414.3 309.53

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec


98

The Bolivian government also reported the eradication of 52 ha of coca seedlings in the Chapare region, an increase of 6% compared to 2004. The increase in the eradication of coca seedlings avoided the replanting of eradicated coca fields.

Table 20. Reported monthly eradication of coca seedlings, 2003 -2005 (m2)2003 2004 2005

January 1,460 1,795 2,748February 1,415 2,830 4,516March 4,520 3,296 4,320April 4,013 2,936 4,825May 2,352 2,989 3,639June 2,972 5,411 4,737July 5,962 6,963 4,372August 10,140 4,344 5,294September 6,438 3,156 4,010October 9,978 4,470 4,812November 7,280 5,869 4,222December 3,294 5,488 4,862Total 59,823 49,547 52,357

Source: DIRECO

Manual eradication of a coca field in Chapare


99

2.7 REPORTED SEIZURE

DIGECO controls the trade of coca leaves within the country, which also includes control over the transport of coca leaves. Coca leaves are seized if transported without license or outside the authorized route specified in the license. In 2005, DIGECO reported the seizure of 886 metric tons of coca leaves, representing a spectacular increase of 470% compared to the 2004 reported seizure of 155 metric tons. The increase in seizure of coca leaf can be attributed to the strengthening of DIGECO’s special force for the control of coca leaves (Grupo Especial de Control de la hoja de Coca, GECC), which included the control of additional roads, and improvement in equipment and infrastructure.

In addition, it should be noted that 2.1 metric tons of coca leaves from Peru were seized mostly in La Paz department, representing 0.2% of the total seizure in Bolivia This seizures occurred mainly during the Bolivian dry season, when there are less coca leaf available in Bolivia. During 2004, 26 metric tons of Peruvian coca leaves had been seized by the GECC.

Table 21. Reported seizure of coca leaves, 2002 – 2005 (kg) Department 2002 2003 2004 2005

Cochabamba 214 11,105 37,748 591,803La Paz 31,291 22,375 66,396 172,331Santa Cruz 7,343 20,828 30,441 68,508Oruro 1,205 4,682 6,120 24,814Tarija 1,407 4,451 10,183 16,499Beni 728 600 904 7,525Sucre 0 1,450 1,448 3,229Potosi 357 1,321 1,942 1,509Pando 0 0 - 50Total: 42,544 66,811 155,182 886,268

Figure 21. Reported seizure of coca leaves, 2002-2005 (kg)

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

Cochabamba La Paz Santa Cruz Others

kg

2002 2003 2004 2005

The Special Force for the Fight against Drugs (FELCN) reports annually on drugs seizures. Between 2004 and 2005, there was a spectacular increase in reported seizure of cocaine hydrochloride, from 531 mt to 1,300 mt.


100

Table 22. Reported seizure of drugs, Bolivia, 1997 – 2005 (kg) 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Cocaine base 10,848 8,906 6,905 5,044 4,280 4,741 6,934 8,189 10,152Cocaine HCL 1,477 2,440 802 555 334 362 5,969 531 1,309Heroin 2.9 0.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Cannabis 3,617 320 2,160 3,745 7,055 8,754 8,510 28,200 34,557

Source: FELCN

Figure 22. Reported seizure of cocaine base and cocaine HCL, Bolivia, 1997 – 2005 (kg)

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

kg

Cocaine base Cocaine HCL

The peak in seizure of cocaine HCL in 2003 was due to an exceptional operation conducted by FELCN. The graph also showed that seizure of coca paste increased steadily since 2001. The same trend can be seen in the report of destruction of maceration pit and clandestine coca paste or cocaine laboratories.

Table 23. Reported destruction of clandestine laboratories and macerations pits Type 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Coca paste and/or cocaine laboratories 1,066 1,245 925 628 1,006 1,420 1,769 2,254 2,619

Precusors laboratories 19 15 8 3 2 6 0 3 2 Cocaine laboratories only 10 4 3 17 3 1 0 4 3 Maceration pit 1,481 1,659 1,179 790 1,292 1,950 2,544 3,293 4,064


101

Figure 23. Reported destruction of clandestine laboratories and macerations pits

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500nu

mbe

r of d

estru

ctio

n

Coca paste and/or cocainelaboratories

1066 1245 925 628 1006 1420 1769 2254 2619

Maceration pit 1481 1659 1179 790 1292 1950 2544 3293 4064

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005


102

PART 4. COLOMBIA COCA CULTIVATION SURVEY

Colombia Coca Survey for 2005

105

SUMMARY FACTS SHEET


Net coca cultivation (rounded total) 80,000 hectares + 8% 86,000 hectares Of which Meta-Guaviare region 28,500 hectares - 9% 25,970 hectares

Pacific region 15,800 hectares + 12% 17,650 hectares

Central region 15,100 hectares + 4% 15,630 hectares

Putumayo-Caqueta region 10,900 hectares +28% 13,950 hectares

Elsewhere 10,100 hectares +24% 12,570 hectares

Reported accumulated aerial spraying of coca bush 136,550 hectares + 2 % 138,775 hectares

Reported manual eradication of coca bush 2,589 hectares 31,285 hectares

Average farm-gate price of coca paste US$ 810 /kgCOP 2,119,000 /kg

+ 12 % - 0.5%

US$ 910 /kgCOP 2,109,000 /kg

Total farm-gate value of the production of coca leaf and derivatives

US$ 843 million

in percent of GDP (US$ 122 billion in 2005) 0.7%

in percent of GDP of agricultural sector (US$ 13.8 billion in 2005)

6%

Number of households involved in coca cultivation

68,600households

Annual household gross income from the production of coca leaf and its derivatives US$ 12,300

Annual use of fertilizers on coca fields ~85,000 mt

Annual use of herbicides on coca fields ~12 million litres

Potential production of cocaine 6401 mt 640mt

In percent of world cocaine production 68 % 70 %

Average cocaine price US$ 1,713 /kgCOP 4,600,000 /kg

+ 9% - 6%

US$ 1,860/kgCOP 4,315,000/kg

Reported seizure of cocaine 149,297 kg + 16% 173,265 kg

Reported seizure of heroin 773 kg - 4% 745 kg

Reported destruction of illegal laboratories2 1,865 + 5% 1,953

1 Cocaine production for 2004 has been revised following the field findings obtained in 2005. 2 Includes laboratories processing coca paste/base, cocaine hydrochloride, heroin, morphine, potassium, permanganate, and non specified.


106

Abbreviations

CICAD Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission COP Colombian Pesos DANE National Department of Statistics DEA US Drugs Enforcement Agency DIRAN Colombian Anti-Narcotics Police DNE National Narcotics Office DNP National Planning Department ICMP Illicit Crop Monitoring Programme INCB International Narcotics Control Board IDB Inter-American Development Bank IDP Internally Displaced People PDA Alternative Development Programme PCI Presidential Programme against Illicit Crops RSS Colombian Social Solidarity Net SIMCI II Integrated Illicit Crops Monitoring System UIAF Special Administrative Unit on Information and Financial Analysis UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. US$ United States Dollars

Acknowledgements The following organizations and individuals contributed to the implementation of the 2005 coca cultivation survey in Colombia, and to the preparation of the present report:

Government of Colombia:

Ministry of Interior and Justice National Narcotics Office -DNE Colombian Anti-Narcotics Police -DIRAN Ministry of Defence Colombia Agency for International Cooperation –ACCI Presidential Agency for Social Action and International Cooperation

UNODC:

Rodolfo Llinás, SIMCI Project Coordinator Orlando González, Digital Processing Expert Sandra Rodríguez, Digital Processing Expert Zully Sosa, Digital Processing ExpertMaria Isabel Velandia, Digital Processing Expert Martha Paredes, Research and Analysis Expert Leonardo Correa, Field Engineer Juan Carlos Parra, Editing Engineer Martha Luz Gutierrez, Administrative Assistant Javier Espejo, Assistant Engineer Juan Pablo Ardila, Assistant Engineer

Sandro Calvani, Representative for Colombia Guillermo Garcia, National Programme Officer

Coen Bussink, Remote Sensing and GIS expert (UNODC – Research and Analysis Section - ICMP) Denis Destrebecq, Regional Illicit Crop Monitoring Expert (UNODC – Research and Analysis Section - ICMP) Anja Korenblik, Programme Manager (UNODC – Research and Analysis Section - ICMP) Thibault le Pichon, Chief (UNODC – Research and Analysis Section) Thomas Pietschmann, Research Officer (UNODC-Research and Analysis Section) Martin Raithelhuber, Programme Officer (UNODC – Research and Analysis Section – ICMP) Javier Teran, Statistician (UNODC – Research and Analysis Section – ICMP)

The implementation of UNODC’s Illicit Crop Monitoring Programme in the Andean countries and the Colombia survey in 2005 was made possible thanks to financial contributions from the Governments of The United States of America (USAID), The Netherlands and United Kingdom.


107

TABLE OF CONTENT

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 108

2 FINDINGS.............................................................................................................................................. 110

2.1 CULTIVATION.................................................................................................................................. 110 2.1.1 Coca Cultivation....................................................................................................................... 110

2.1.1.1 Regional analysis .......................................................................................................................... 118 2.1.1.2 Meta-Guaviare region.................................................................................................................... 120 2.1.1.3 Pacific region................................................................................................................................. 122 2.1.1.4 Central region................................................................................................................................ 124 2.1.1.5 Putumayo-Caqueta region ............................................................................................................ 126 2.1.1.6 Orinoco region............................................................................................................................... 128 2.1.1.7 Amazonia region ........................................................................................................................... 130 2.1.1.8 Sierra Nevada region .................................................................................................................... 132 2.1.1.9 Possible areas of new cultivation .................................................................................................. 133 2.1.1.10 Coca plant varieties....................................................................................................................... 135 2.1.1.11 Coca cultivation and poverty ......................................................................................................... 139 2.1.1.12 Coca cultivation and displacement................................................................................................ 141 2.1.1.13 Coca cultivation and the forest warden families programme ........................................................ 143 2.1.1.14 Coca cultivation in National Parks................................................................................................. 145

2.2 NEW FINDINGS ON YIELD AND PRODUCTION..................................................................................... 149 2.2.1 Coca leaf yield and coca leaf production ................................................................................. 1492.2.2 Annual yield ............................................................................................................................. 1512.2.3 Coca leaf, coca paste and base production............................................................................. 1592.2.4 Revised potential cocaine production ...................................................................................... 164

2.3 PRICES .......................................................................................................................................... 166 2.3.1 Coca leaf, coca base and cocaine prices ................................................................................ 166

2.4 REPORTED AERIAL SPRAYING AND MANUAL ERADICATION................................................................ 172 2.5 REPORTED SEIZURE ....................................................................................................................... 176

Index of Maps

Map 1: Coca cultivation density in Colombia, 2005 ............................................................................ 109Map 2: Coca cultivation density change in Colombia, 2004-2005 ..................................................... 112Map 4: Coca cultivation density in Colombia, 2005 ............................................................................ 114Map 3: Coca cultivation density in Colombia, 2004 ............................................................................ 114Map 5: Changes in coca cultivation in Colombia, 2001- 2005............................................................ 115Map 6: Coca cultivation by region in Colombia, 2001-2005 ............................................................... 117Map 7: Coca cultivation density in the Meta-Guaviare region, Colombia 2005................................ 119Map 8: Coca cultivation density in the Pacific region, Colombia 2005............................................. 121Map 9: Coca cultivation density in the Central region, Colombia 2005 ............................................ 123Map 10: Coca cultivation density in the Putumayo-Caqueta region, Colombia 2005........................ 125Map 11: Coca cultivation density in the Orinoco region, Colombia 2005........................................... 127Map 12: Coca cultivation density in the Amazonia region, Colombia 2005 ....................................... 129Map 13: Coca cultivation density in the Sierra Nevada region, Colombia 2005 ................................ 131Map 14: Distribution of coca plants varieties in Colombia, 2005 ........................................................ 134Map 15: Index of livelihood conditions by department in 2003 and coca cultivation in Colombia,

2005 138Map 16: Internal people displaced because of violence between 2000 and 2005.............................. 140Map 17: Forest Warden Families Programme and coca cultivation in Colombia, 2005.................... 142Map 18: National Parks and coca cultivation in Colombia, 2005......................................................... 144Map 19: Aerial perspective of the National Park Sierra de La Macarena and coca cultivation in 2005.Map 20: Coca yield by region in Colombia, 2005 .................................................................................. 148Map 21: Annual coca leaf production in Colombia, 2005 ..................................................................... 158Map 22: Aerial spraying and coca cultivation in Colombia, 2005........................................................ 174Map 23: Destruction of clandestine laboratories and coca cultivation in Colombia, 2005............... 178Map 24: Drug seizures by department and by drug type, Colombia 2005.......................................... 180


108

1 INTRODUCTION

The objectives of UNODC’s Illicit Crop Monitoring Programme (ICMP) are to establish methodologies for data collection and analysis, to increase the governments’ capacity to monitor illicit crops on their territories and to assist the international community in monitoring the extent and evolution of illicit crops in the context of the elimination strategy adopted by the Member States at the U.N. General Assembly Special Session on Drugs in June 1998. ICMP presently covers seven countries: Colombia, Bolivia and Peru for coca; Afghanistan, Laos and Myanmar for opium and Morocco for cannabis.

During the 1980’s and 1990’s, Colombia became the country with the largest illicit coca growing area and cocaine production in the world. Illicit coca cultivation in the country expanded steadily throughout this period, in particular in remote areas of the Amazon basin. Although, coca cultivation started to decrease in 2001, Colombia still remains the largest coca-growing country in the world.

UNODC has supported the monitoring of illicit crops since 1999, and has produced seven annual surveys. In October 2003, UNODC signed a new agreement with the Colombian government to continue and expand monitoring and analysis work. In this context, the SIMCI II project has established to facilitate the implementation of additional tasks in the framework of an integrated approach to the analysis of the drug problem in Colombia. The project also supports the monitoring of related problems such as fragile ecosystems, natural parks, indigenous territories, the expansion of the agricultural frontier and deforestation. It provides Geographic Information System support to the government’s alternative development projects and its Forest Families Warden Programme.

The new project foresees the creation of an Inter-Institutional Committee permanently assigned to the project in order to ensuring the transfer of know how to the national beneficiary institutions. SIMCI II is a joint project between UNODC and the Colombian government, represented by Ministry of Interior and Justice and the International Cooperation Agency. The national counterpart and director of the project is the head of the Ministry of Interior and Justice.

The project is managed by a technical coordinator and composed of engineers and technicians: four digital image processing specialists, one field engineer, a cartographic technician, a research and analysis specialist, two assistant engineers and an administrative assistant. The team is integrated on permanent basis by technicians from DIRAN and National Parks Administration it supports several studies and investigations for government and private institutions, related to land use, environment, licit crops, etc. SIMCI provides to their experts, access to its Spatial Information Data Bank, transfer of technology and guidance to achieve their goals. Organizations that benefited from SIMCI support include DANE, local governments, the National Federation of Coffee Growers, NGO’s as well as other UN agencies and projects.


109

Map 1: Coca cultivation density in Colombia, 2005

PacificOcean

Caribbean Sea

R í oM

ag dalena

Rí

o M eta

Río Vichada

Río

Cauc

aRí

o Mag

da

le

na

Río Guaviare

Río Putuma yo

Río Caquetá

R ío Arauca

Río

Atra

to

PANAMA

Rí oAmazonas

Río Inírida

Río

Orino

co

Vichada

Vaupés

Valle

Tolima

Sucre

Santander

Risaralda

Quindío

Putumayo

Norte deSantander

Nariño

Meta

Magdalena

LaGuajira

HuilaGuaviare

Guainía

Cundinamarca

Córdoba

Chocó

Cesar

Cauca

Casanare

Caquetá

Caldas

Boyacá

Bolívar

Atlántico

AraucaAntioquia

Amazonas

VENEZUELA

PERU

ECUADOR

BRAZIL

Neiva

Tumaco

San JoséPopayán

PuertoAsís

Cucutá

Cartagena

Pasto

Cali

Florencia

Medellín

Barranquilla

Bogotá

Mitú

Leticia

Arauca

PuertoCarreño

75°W

75°W 70°W

70°W

5°S

5°S

0° 0°

5°N

5°N

10°N

10°N

South America


Colombia


1500 300km

Cultivation density


0.1 - 1.01.1 - 4.0> 4.0

(ha/km²)


110

2 FINDINGS

2.1 CULTIVATION

2.1.1 COCA CULTIVATION

In 2005, the total area under coca cultivation in Colombia increased by 6,000 hectares, a 8% increase compared to previous year’s estimate of 80,000 hectares. This is the first increase following four consecutive years of annual decreased in Colombia, between 2000 and 2004. During that period, coca cultivation decreased by 51% and the 2005’s area under coca cultivation is 47% lower compared to the peak annual estimate of 163,000 hectares in 2000.

Similarly to the previous four surveys, the 2005 survey represented the situation as of the end of the year, in this case as of December 2005. As was the case last year, it covered the whole country and detected coca cultivation in 23 departments out of 32. In 2005, the area under coca cultivation represents 0.08% of the total territory.

Figure 1. Coca cultivation in Colombia, 1995 – 2005 (in hectares)


-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

Hec

tare

s

Hectares 51,000 67,000 79,000 102,000 160,000 163,000 145,000 102,000 86,000 80,000 86,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

The increase in coca cultivation between 2004 and 2005 took place despite high level of aerial spraying, which in 2005 reached 138,780 hectares. In fact, aerial spraying of coca cultivation has remained above 130,000 hectares since 2002. In 2005, the Colombian Government also reported the additional manual eradication of 31,285 hectares of coca cultivation. This level of manual eradication was unprecedented, as it only reached 2,700 hectares in 2003 and 4,000 hectares in 2004.


111

Table 1: Stable and new fields of coca bush in 2005

Identified in 2004 and 2005 Not detected in 2004 Total 2005

Region Number of fields

% of totalfields

Area(hectares)

% of totalarea

Number of fields

% of totalfields

Area(hectares)

% of totalarea

TotalFields

Total Area (hectares)

Meta-Guaviare 7,958 42 7,896 30 10,801 58 18,066 70 18,759 25,963Pacific 5,609 33 3,829 22 11,551 67 13,803 78 17,160 17,633Central 4,067 30 2,662 17 9,340 70 12,970 83 13,407 15,632Putumayo-Caquetá 2,969 27 2,831 20 8,028 73 11,121 80 10,997 13,951

Orinoquia 2,386 49 3,076 32 2,488 51 6,634 68 4,874 9,709Amazonia 575 38 708 31 953 62 1,612 70 1,528 2,320Sierra Nevada 195 34 112 21 386 66 430 80 581 542

TOTAL 23,759 35 21,114 25 43,547 65 64,636 75 67,306 85,750

The comparison of the position of the coca fields in 2004 and 2005 revealed that about 65% of the fields were in a different position or at least not observed in 2004 for various reasons (aerial spraying, recently harvested, recently planted, etc) and therefore not in production and not accounted for in the 2004 census. This is to say that not all of these coca fields can be qualified as new fields planted in 2005.

For a better assessment of the dynamic of coca cultivation in Colombia, a comparison was made between the position of the coca fields identified in 2005 and the position of the fields identified between 2001 and 2004. In total, 44% of the fields identified in 2005 had never been detected before. Such observation suggests a high mobility of coca cultivation in Colombia.

Table 2: Stable and new fields of coca bush in 2001-2005

Stable 2001-2005 New in 2005 Total 2005

Region Number of fields

% of totalfields

Area(hectares)

% of totalarea

Number of fields

% of totalfields

Area(hectares)

% of totalarea

TotalFields

Total Area (hectares)

Meta-Guaviare 12,728 68 12,516 48 6,031 32 13,446 52 18,759 25,963Pacific 8,750 51 5,744 33 8,410 49 11,888 67 17,160 17,633Putumayo-Caquetá 6,160 56 6,178 40 4,837 44 9,454 60 10,997 15,632

Central 5,806 43 3,387 24 7,601 57 10,565 76 13,407 13,951Orinoquia 3,106 64 4,487 46 1,768 36 5,223 54 4,874 9,709Amazonia 786 51 997 43 742 49 1,323 57 1,528 2,320Sierra Nevada 259 45 151 28 322 55 391 72 581 542

TOTAL 37,595 56 29,840 39 29,711 44 52,290 61 67,306 85,750

The analysis of the census data also showed that the average coca field size decreased from 1.3 hectares in 2004 to 1.13 hectares in 2005 (-13%). A possible explanation could be that farmers are reducing the size of their coca fields to avoid detection and aerial spraying.


112

Map 2: Coca cultivation density change in Colombia, 2004-2005

PacificOcean

Caribbean Sea

PANAMA VENEZUELA

PERU

ECUADOR

BRAZIL

Vichada

Vaupés

ValleTolima

Sucre

Santander

Risaralda

Quindío

Putumayo

Norte deSantander

Nariño

Meta

Magdalena

LaGuajira

Huila

Guaviare

Guainía

Cundinamarca

Córdoba

Chocó

Cesar

Cauca

Casanare

Caquetá

Caldas

Boyacá

Bolívar

Atlántico

AraucaAntioquia

Amazonas

Neiva

Tumaco

San JoséPopayán

PuertoAsís

Cucutá

Cartagena

Pasto

Cali

Florencia

Medellín

Barranquilla

Bogotá

Mitú

Leticia

Arauca

PuertoCarreño

75°W

75°W 70°W

70°W

5°S

5°S

0° 0°

5°N

5°N

10°N

10°N

South America


Colombia


1500 300kmInternational boundaries


Strong decreaseDecreaseStableIncreaseStrong increase


113

In absolute numbers, the most important increases of coca crops between 2004 and 2005 were noted in the departments of Putumayo (+ 4,600 hectares) in the Southern part of the country and Vichada (+3,100 hectares) in the Orinoco region bordering Venezuela. The increase in Putumayo corresponded to doubling the area under coca cultivation between 2004 and 2005, from 4,390 hectares to 8,960 hectares. Putumayo used to be the centre of coca cultivation, with 66,000 hectares in 2000. Coca cultivation had strongly declined until 2004, but this year’s increase could indicate a return of farmers to coca cultivation.

The largest reductions of coca crops took place in the departments of Norte de Santander (- 2,200 hectares) and Caqueta (- 1,500 hectares). The strong decrease in Norte de Santander, at the border with Venezuela, meant that there was a small coca cultivation left in 2005 in this department, with less than 1,000 hectares. In 2005 Norte de Santander was among the departments with the lowest levels of coca cultivation.

Compared to 2004, Meta – despite a decrease of 1,430 hectares - and Nariño remained the first two departments in terms of coca cultivation, together accounting for 36% of the total area under coca cultivation in the country. In fact 78% of the 2005 cultivation took place in just seven departments, the same seven departments that also accounted for 78% of 2004 total cultivation: Meta, Nariño, Putumayo, Guaviare, Vichada, Antioquia and Caqueta.

Table 3: Coca cultivation by department in Colombia, 1999 – 2005 (hectares)

Department Mar-1999

Aug-2000

Nov- 2001

Dec-2002

Dec-2003

Dec-2004

Dec-2005

% Change 2004-2005

% of 2005 total

Meta 11,384 11,123 11,425 9,222 12,814 18,740 17,305 -8% 20%Nariño 3,959 9,343 7,494 15,131 17,628 14,154 13,875 -2% 16%Putumayo 58,297 66,022 47,120 13,725 7,559 4,386 8,963 104% 10%Guaviare 28,435 17,619 25,553 27,381 16,163 9,769 8,658 -11% 10%Vichada 4,935 9,166 4,910 3,818 4,692 7,826 67% 9%Antioquia 3,644 2,547 3,171 3,030 4,273 5,168 6,414 24% 7%Caquetá 23,718 26,603 14,516 8,412 7,230 6,500 4,988 -23% 6%Bolívar 5,897 5,960 4,824 2,735 4,470 3,402 3,670 8% 4%Córdoba 1,920 117 652 385 838 1,536 3,136 104% 4%Cauca 6,291 4,576 3,139 2,120 1,443 1,266 2,705 114% 3%Arauca 978 2,749 2,214 539 1,552 1,883 21% 2%Chocó 250 354 453 323 1,025 219% 1%Santander 2,826 415 463 632 1,124 981 -13% 1%Amazonas 532 784 625 783 897 15% 1%N. de Santander 15,039 6,280 9,145 8,041 4,471 3,055 844 -73% 1%Guainía 853 1,318 749 726 721 752 4% 1%Vaupés 1,014 1,493 1,918 1,485 1,157 1,084 671 -38% 1%Boyacá 322 245 118 594 359 342 -5% 0.4%Guajira 321 385 354 275 556 329 -41% 0.4%Magdalena 521 200 480 644 484 706 213 -70% 0.2%Caldas 54 358 189 -47% 0.2%Cundinamarca 66 22 57 57 71 56 -15% 0.1%Valle del Cauca 76 184 111 37 45 28 -33% 0.03%

TOTAL 160,119 162,510 144,807 102,071 86,340 80,350 85,750 +6.7% Rounded Total 160,000 163,000 145,000 102,000 86,000 80,000 86,000 + 7% Departmentaffected 12 21 22 21 23 23 23

Country coverage 12% 41% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%


114

Map

4:

Coc

a cu

ltiva

tion

dens

ity in

Col

ombi

a, 2

005

Paci

ficO

cean

Car

ibbe

anS

ea

Río M agda

lena

RíoM

eta

RíoV

ichad

a

RíoCaucaRíoMagda

lena

RíoG

uavi

are

Río P utu

may

o

Río

Caqu

e tá

Río

Ara

uca

RíoAtrato

PANAMA

Rí

oAma

zona

s

RíoIn

írida

RíoOrinoco

Vich

ada

Vaup

és

Valle

Tolim

aSucr

e

Sant

ande

r

Ris

aral

daQ

uind

ío

Putu

may

o

Nor

tede

Sant

ande

r

Nar

iño

Met

a

Mag

dale

na

LaG

uajir

a

Hui

laG

uavi

are

Gua

inía

Cun

dina

mar

ca

Cór

doba

Cho

có

Ces

ar

Cau

ca

Cas

anar

e

Caq

uetá

Cal

das

Boya

cá

Bolív

ar

Atlá

ntic

o

Arau

caAn

tioqu

ia

Amaz

onas

VEN

EZU

ELA

PER

U

ECU

AD

OR

BR

AZI

L

Nei

vaSa

nJo

séPo

payá

n

Puer

toAs

ís

Cuc

utá

Car

tage

na

Past

o

Cal

i

Flor

enci

a

Med

ellín

Barra

nqui

lla

Bogo

tá

Mitú

Letic

ia

Arau

ca

Puer

toC

arre

ño

Tum

aco

75°W

75°W

70°W 70°W

5°S

5°S

0°

0°

5°N

5°N

10°N

10°N

Cul

tivat

ion

dens

ity

Inte

rnat

iona

lbou

ndar

ies

Dep

artm

entb

ound

arie

s

0.1

-1.0

1.1

-4.0

>4.

0

(ha/

km²)

Geo

grap

hic

coor

dina

tes

WG

S84

150

030

0 km

Sout

hAm

eric

a

Col

ombi

a

Sour

ce:

Gov

ernm

ento

fCol

ombi

a-

Nat

iona

lmon

itorin

gsy

stem

supp

orte

dby

UN

OD

CTh

ebo

unda

ries

and

nam

essh

own

and

the

desi

gnat

ions

used

inth

ism

apdo

noti

mpl

yof

ficia

lend

orse

men

tora

ccep

tanc

eby

the

Uni

ted

Nat

ions

Map

3:

Coc

a cu

ltiva

tion

dens

ity in

Col

ombi

a, 2

004

Paci

ficO

cean

Car

ibbe

anS

ea

Río M agda

lena

RíoM

eta

Río

Vich

ada

RíoCaucaRíoMagd

alena

RíoG

uavi

are

Río Putu

may

o

Río C

aque

t á

Río

Ara

uca

RíoAtrato

PANAMA

Rí

oAmaz

onas

RíoIn

írida

RíoOrin

oco

Vich

ada

Vaup

és

Valle

Tolim

aSucr

e

Sant

ande

r

Ris

aral

daQ

uind

ío

Putu

may

o

Nor

tede

Sant

ande

r

Nar

iño

Met

a

Mag

dale

na

LaG

uajir

a

Hui

laG

uavi

are

Gua

inía

Cun

dina

mar

ca

Cór

doba

Cho

có

Ces

ar

Cau

ca

Cas

anar

e

Caq

uetá

Cal

das

Boya

cá

Bolív

ar

Atlá

ntic

o

Arau

caAn

tioqu

ia

Amaz

onas

VEN

EZU

ELA

PER

U

ECU

AD

OR

BR

AZI

L

Nei

vaSa

nJo

séPo

payá

n

Puer

toAs

ís

Cuc

utá

Car

tage

na

Past

o

Cal

i

Flor

enci

a

Med

ellín

Barra

nqui

lla

Bogo

tá

Mitú Le

ticia

Arau

ca

Puer

toC

arre

ño

Tum

aco

75°W

75°W

70°W 70°W

5°S

°S

0°

0°

5°N

5°N

10°N

10°N

Sout

hAm

eric

a

Col

ombi

a

Geo

grap

hic

coor

dina

tes

WG

S84

150

030

0 km

Cul

tivat

ion

dens

ity

Inte

rnat

iona

lbou

ndar

ies

Dep

artm

entb

ound

arie

s

0.1

-1.0

1.1

-4.0

>4.

0

(ha/

km²)

Sour

ce:

Gov

ernm

ento

fCol

ombi

a-

Nat

iona

lmon

itorin

gsy

stem

supp

orte

dby

UN

OD

CTh

ebo

unda

ries

and

nam

essh

own

and

the

desi

gnat

ions

used

inth

ism

apdo

noti

mpl

yof

ficia

lend

orse

men

tora

ccep

tanc

eby

the

Uni

ted

Nat

ions


115

Map 5: Changes in coca cultivation in Colombia, 2001- 2005

PacificOcean

Caribbean Sea

R í oM

ag dalena

Rí

o M eta

Río Vichada

Río

Cauc

aRí

o Mag

da

le

na

Río Guaviare

Río Putuma yo

Río Caquetá

R ío Arauca

Río

Atra

to

PANAMA

Rí oAmazonas

Río Inírida

Río

Orino

co

Vichada

Vaupés

Valle

Tolima

Sucre

Santander

Risaralda

Quindío

Putumayo

Norte deSantander

Nariño

Meta

Magdalena

LaGuajira

Huila

Guaviare

Guainía

Cundinamarca

Córdoba

Chocó

Cesar

Cauca

Casanare

Caquetá

Caldas

Boyacá

Bolívar

Atlántico

AraucaAntioquia

Amazonas

VENEZUELA

PERU

ECUADOR

BRAZIL

Neiva

Tumaco

San JoséPopayán

PuertoAsís

Cucutá

Cartagena

Pasto

Cali

Florencia

Medellín

Barranquilla

Bogotá

Mitú

Leticia

Arauca

PuertoCarreño

75°W

75°W 70°W

70°W

5°S

5°S

0° 0°

5°N

5°N

10°N

10°N

South America


Colombia


1500 300kmInternational boundaries


Abandonned coca fieldsStable coca fieldsNew coca fields


116

In 2005, coca cultivation in Colombia represented 70% of the world coca cultivation, while Peru and Bolivia represented respectively 20% and 10%. The global level of coca cultivation remained stable between 2004 and 2005, as the increase in Colombia was offset by decreases in Peru and Bolivia.

Figure 2. Coca cultivation in the Andean region 1995 - 2005 (in hectares)

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

hect

ares


Table 4: Coca cultivation in the Andean region 1995 - 2005 (in hectares) (please note Bolivia 2002 number)

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 % Change 2004-2005

Bolivia 48,600 48,100 45,800 38,000 21,800 14,600 19,900 21,600 23,600 27,700 25,400 -8%

Peru 115,300 94,400 68,800 51,000 38,700 43,400 46,200 46,700 44,200 50,300 48,200 -4%

Colombia 50,900 67,200 79,400 101,800 160,100 163,300 144,800 102,000 86,000 80,000 86,000 8%

Total 214,800 209,700 194,000 190,800 220,600 221,300 210,900 170,300 153,800 158,000 159,600 1%



117

Map 6: Coca cultivation by region in Colombia, 2001-2005

PacificOcean

Caribbean Sea

PANAMA

Central

Meta -Guaviare

Putumayo -Caquetá Amazonia

Orinoco

Pacific

Sierra Nevada

Vichada

Vaupés

Valle

Tolima

Sucre

Santander

RisaraldaQuindío

Putumayo

Norte deSantander

Nariño

Meta

Magdalena

La Guajira

Huila

Guaviare

Guainía

Cundinamarca

Córdoba

Chocó

Cesar

Cauca

Casanare

Caquetá

Caldas

Boyacá

Bolívar

Atlántico

AraucaAntioquia

Amazonas

VENEZUELA

PERU

ECUADOR

BRAZIL

Tumaco

Neiva

PuertoAsís

Popayán

Cucutá

Cartagena

Pasto

Cali

Florencia

Medellín

Barranquilla

Bogotá

Mitú

Leticia

Arauca

PuertoCarreño

75°W

75°W 70°W

70°W

5°S

5°S

0° 0°

5°N

5°N

10°N

10°N

South America


Colombia



17,6

30

25,9

60

15,6

3013

,950

9,71

0

540

2,32

0


1500 300km

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005


118

2.1.1.1 Regional analysis

In 2005, 46% of the coca cultivation in Colombia took place in the two traditional coca growing regions of Meta-Guaviare and Putumayo-Caqueta, both situated in the south-eastern part of the country. In absolute terms, the largest increases took place in Orinoco (+ 3,560 hectares), in the north-eastern part of the country bordering Venezuela, and Putumayo-Caqueta (+ 3,050 hectares), a traditional region for coca cultivation, bordering Ecuador. An important decrease of coca cultivation took place in the northern region of Sierra Nevada (- 57%), but in absolute numbers, this only represented a decrease of 540 hectares. Coca cultivation remained relatively stable (between +/- 10%) in Meta-Guaviare and the central region.

Table 5: Coca cultivation in Colombia by region 2001 - 2005 (in hectares)

Region 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005%

Change 2004 - 2005

% of 2005total

Meta-Guaviare 36,978 36,603 28,977 28,507 25,963 -9% 30% Pacific 11,171 17,362 19,561 15,789 17,633 12% 21% Central 18,474 14,829 15,389 15,081 15,632 4% 18% Putumayo-Caqueta 61,636 22,137 14,789 10,888 13,951 28% 16% Orinoco 11,915 7,124 4,357 6,250 9,709 55% 11% Amazonia 3,768 3,018 2,508 2,588 2,320 -10% 3% Sierra Nevada 865 998 759 1,262 542 -57% 1%Rounded Total 145,000 102,000 86,000 80,000 86,000 7% 100%

Figure 3. Coca cultivation in Colombia by region 2001 - 2005 (in hectares)

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Meta-Guaviare

Pacific Central Putumayo-Caqueta

Orinoco Amazonian Sierra Nevada

hect

ares

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005


119

Map 7: Coca cultivation density in the Meta-Guaviare region, Colombia 2005

RíoM

etaRío Vichada

Río Guaviare

Río Putumayo

Río Caquetá

Río Inírida

Río Caguán

Guaviare

Rí o Vau p e sVichada

Vaupés

Tolima

Santander

Putumayo

MetaHuila

Guainía

Cundinamarca

Casanare

Caquetá

Caldas

Boyacá

AraucaAntioquia

Amazonas

Miraflores

Calamar

El Retorno

LaMacarena

San Josédel Guaviare

PuertoConcordia

PuertoRico

VistaHermosa

MapiripánPuertoLleras

SanJuande Arama

Mesetas

ElCastillo

LaUribe

San Martín

San CarlosGuaroaSan Luis de

Cubarral

GuamalAcacias Villavicencio

Cumaral

Puerto López

CabuyaroPuertoGaitán

Yopal

Miraflores

Bogotá

San José

Mitú

74°W

74°W

72°W

72°W

0° 0°

2°N

2°N

4°N

4°N

6°N

6°NCOLOMBIAPANAMA

VENEZUELA

PERU

ECUADORBRAZIL

Source: Goverment of Colombia - National monitoring system supported by UNODCThe boundaries and names shown and the designations used in this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations

0 200km

100

Geographic coordinates WGS 84PERU

Cultivation density(ha/km²)

Department boundariesInternational boundaries

Meta Guaviare RegionRoadsMunicipality boundaries

Vaupés

> 8

0.1 - 1.01.1 - 2.02.1 - 4.04.1 - 8.0


120

2.1.1.2 Meta-Guaviare region

Table 6: Coca cultivation in Meta-Guaviare, 1999 – 2005

Department 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 % Change 2004-2005

Meta 11,384 11,123 11,425 9,222 12,814 18,740 17,305 -8%Guaviare 28,435 17,619 25,553 27,381 16,163 9,769 8,658 -11%Total 39,819 28,742 36,978 36,603 28,977 28,509 25,970Annual trend -28% 29% -1% -21% -2% -9%

In 2004 and 2005, the department of Meta remained the department with the largest level of coca cultivation, even though coca cultivation decreased of 8%, from 18,740 hectares in 2004 to 17,300 hectares in 2005. The department of Meta represented 20% of the national coca crops.

In 2005, a record of 14,500 hectares of coca cultivation were sprayed in 2005 over Meta department. This represented 55% of the total aerial spraying in the region, though coca cultivation in Meta represented 67% of the total coca cultivation for both departments and the highest level of cultivation using high agro-technical efficiency. In Meta department, coca cultivation is also known to be more sophisticated than in any other department.

Between 2004 and 2005, in the department of Guaviare, coca cultivation decreased from 9,769 hectares to 8,658 hectares (-11%). At the same time, aerial spraying decreased from 30,900 hectares in 2004 to 11,900 hectares in 2005.

Among the thirteen national parks surveyed, the National Park of Sierra de la Macarena, located within Meta department, experienced the largest level of coca cultivation within a protected area in 2005, with 3,354 hectares. This represented an increase of 24% between 2004 and 2005. However, the increase is mostly due to a better interpretation of the coca fields in 2005 due to the absence of clouds in the images of that year.

Guaviare was the department where coca cultivation first appeared in Colombia at the end of the seventies. Since then coca cultivation remained important in the department. However, an encouraging decrease has been noted in the past few years and the 8,650 hectares observed in 2005, only represented 32% of the 27,381 hectares observed in 2002, mainly owing to important aerial spraying campaigns. In 2005, Guaviare accounted for 10% of the national total.

Coca field in Meta department, illustrating the efficiency and sophistication of coca cultivation in this department


121

Map 8: Coca cultivation density in the Pacific region, Colombia 2005

PacificOcean

Río

Cauc

a

Río M

agda

lena

Río

Atra

to

Río Cagu

PANAMA

ECUADOR

Río San Juan

R

ío Patía

Valle

Tolima

Sucre

Putumayo

Nariño

MetaHuila

Cundinamarca

Córdoba

Chocó

Cauca

Caquetá

Caldas

Bolívar

Antioquia

Montería

Neiva

Manizales

Ibagué

Tumaco

Quibdó

Mocoa

Neiva

Popayán

Pasto

Cali

Florencia

Medellín

Bogotá

78°W

78°W

76°W

76°W

0° 0°

2°N

2°N

4°N

4°N

6°N

6°N

8°N

8°N

COLOMBIA

PANAMAVENEZUELA

PERU

ECUADOR BRAZIL


0 200km

100





Pacific RegionRoads

> 8

0.1 - 1.01.1 - 2.02.1 - 4.04.1 - 8.0


122

2.1.1.3 Pacific region

Table 7: Coca cultivation in the Pacific Region, 1999-2005 (hectares)

Department 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005%

Change 2004-2005

Nariño 3,959 9,343 7,494 15,131 17,628 14,154 13,875 -2%Cauca 6,291 4,576 3,139 2,120 1,443 1,266 2,705 114%Chocó 250 354 453 323 1,025 219%Valle del Cauca 76 184 111 37 45 28 -33%

Total 10,250 14,245 11,171 17,362 19,561 15,788 17,633Annual trend 39% -22% 55% 13% -19% 12%

Nariño is located in the south-western part of the country, at the border with Ecuador. The geographic features of the region include high altitudes, as well as coastline and contributed to the spread of cultivation of coca bush and opium poppy, as well as the maritime smuggling of illegal drugs and precursors through the department.

Coca cultivation in Nariño became significant in 2002, at a time when coca cultivation decreased in the neighbouring departments of Putumayo and Caqueta. Between 2001 and 2002, coca cultivation decreased by 40,000 hectares in Caqueta and Putumayo, while increasing by 7,600 hectares in Nariño. Aerial spraying has been intense in Nariño department since 2000, exceeding 30,000 hectares in 2003 and 2004, and reaching a record 57,630 hectares in 2005.

In 2005, coca cultivation was found in 24 municipalities out of 64. With a total of 13,875 hectares of coca cultivation, Nariño has the second highest amount of land under illicit cultivation and 16% of the total coca cultivation in the country. It is worth noting that Nariño accounted for 51% of all the fields of less than ¼ hectares found in the country, which is an indication of the coca cultivation practices in Nariño.

Like neighbouring Nariño department, Cauca has a long coastline, high mountain ranges and a mainly rural economy, but coca cultivation remained relatively low in Cauca department. However, following a period of continuous decrease between 1999 and 2004, coca cultivation increased between 2004 and 2005 by 1,420 hectares (+114%), despite aerial spraying which for the first time exceeded 3,000 hectares. Several alternative development projects have been implemented in Cauca, the first one starting in 1985.

Coca seed beds in Choco department

Although its capital, Cali, was an important centre for narco-trafficking in the nineties, the department of Valle del Cauca always recorded less than 200 hectares under coca cultivation.


123

Map 9: Coca cultivation density in the Central region, Colombia 2005

Caribbean Sea

Río M

eta

Río

Cauc

a

Río

Atra

to

RíoM

agdalena

San Juan

Catatumbo

RíoC

atat

umbo

Sur de BolívarNorte de Antioquia

Valle

Tolima

Sucre

Santander

Risaralda

Norte de Santander

Meta

La Guajira

Huila

Cundinamarca

Córdoba

Chocó

Cesar

Cauca

Casanare

Bolívar

Atlántico

Arauca

Antioquia

Cartagena

Sincelejo

Bucaramanga

Montería

Manizales

Ibagué

Quibdó

Yopal

Cucutá

Valledupar

Santa Marta

Villavicencio

Medellín

Barranquilla

Bogotá

76°W

76°W 74°W

74°W

72°W4°

N

4°N

6°N

6°N

8°N

8°N

10°N

10°N

COLOMBIA

PANAMAVENEZUELA

PERU

ECUADORBRAZIL


0 200km

100

VENEZUELA



Central RegionRoads


Caldas

Magdalena

Boyacá

> 8

0.1 - 1.01.1 - 2.02.1 - 4.04.1 - 8.0


124

2.1.1.4 Central region

Table 8: Coca cultivation in the Central Region, 1999-2005 (hectares)


Antioquia 3,644 2,547 3,171 3,030 4,273 5,168 6,414 25%Bolivar 5,897 5,960 4,824 2,735 4,470 3,402 3,670 8%Cordoba 1,920 117 652 385 838 1,536 3,136 101%Santander - 2,826 415 463 632 1,124 981 -13%Norte Santander 15,039 6,280 9,145 8,041 4,471 3,055 844 -72%Boyacá - 322 245 118 594 359 342 -5%Caldas - - - - 54 358 189 -47%Cundinamarca - 66 22 57 57 71 56 -15%Total 26,500 18,118 18,474 14,829 15,389 15,073 15,632Annual trend -32% 2% -20% 4% -2% 4%

Since 2002, coca cultivation remained stable at around 15,000 hectares in the Central region of Colombia. Between 2004 and 2005, coca cultivation increased by 4% to reach 15,632 hectares.At the end of the nineties, Norte de Santander department was one of the most important centres of coca cultivation in the country, accounting for 10% of the country total in 1999. Between 2002 and 2004, aerial spraying averaged 10,000 hectares per year over this area, but in 2005 dropped to less than 1,000 hectares. At the same time, important alternative development projects have been implemented. Consequently, between 1999 and 2005, the Government has been able to reduce drastically coca cultivation in this department. In 2005, coca cultivation accounted for only 850 hectares, or only 6% of the level of coca cultivation in 1999.

In the department of Bolivar, coca cultivation is concentrated in the south, in an area known as Sur de Bolivar. Coca cultivation in the department remained relatively stable, accounting between 4% and 8% of the country total between 1999 and 2005. This relative low level of coca cultivation in the area might be attributed to a combination of aerial spraying and implementation of alternative development projects.

Forest logging and establishment of new coca fields in mountain areas, Antioquia and Bolivar department

In Antioquia, coca cultivation averaged 3,000 hectares between 1999 and 2002. Coca cultivation has been increasing since 2002, from 3,030 hectares to 6,410 hectares in 2005. This increase over the past three years occurred despite the intensification of aerial spraying, from 3,300 hectares in 2002 to 11,000 hectares in 2004 and 16,800 hectares in 2005.

In the department of Caldas, the most important coffee growing area in Colombia, 54 hectares of coca cultivation were detected for the first time in 2003. Coca cultivation reached a peak in 2004 with 358 hectares, but decreased to 190 hectares in 2005.


125

Map 10: Coca cultivation density in the Putumayo-Caqueta region, Colombia 2005

RíoM

etaRí

o Mag

dalen

a

Río Guaviare

RíoPutumayo

Río Caquetá

Río Amazonas

Río Inírida

R ío Caguá

n

Río Va upés

Vaupés

Valle Tolima

Putumayo

Nariño

Meta

Huila

Guaviare

Cundinamarca

Chocó

Cauca

CasanareCaldasBoyacá

Amazonas

Solano

SantiagoCurillo

Colón

Valparaiso Milán

AlbaniaSanFrancisco

Cartagena del Chaira

MocoaMorelia

San José dela Fragua

Florencia

La Montañita

El Paujil

El Doncello

PuertoRico

San Vicentedel Caguán

San Miguel

Valle delGuamuéz

Puerto Asís PuertoLeguizamo

PuertoCaicedoOrito

Solita

PuertoGuzmán

Villa Garzón

Neiva

Manizales

Ibagué

Mocoa

Yopal

Miraflores

Puerto Asís

Popayán

Pasto

Cali

Florencia

Villavicencio

Bogotá

San José

76°W

76°W 74°W

74°W

72°W

72°W

2°S

2°S

0° 0°

2°N

2°N

4°N

4°N

COLOMBIA

PANAMAVENEZUELA

PERU

ECUADORBRAZIL


0 200km

100

PERU

ECUADOR


Caquetá



Putumayo Caquetá RegionRoadsMunicipality boundaries

> 8

0.1 - 1.01.1 - 2.02.1 - 4.04.1 - 8.0


126

2.1.1.5 Putumayo-Caqueta region

Table 9: Coca cultivation in the Putumayo-Caqueta Region, 1999-2005 (hectares)


Caquetá 23,718 26,603 14,516 8,412 7,230 6,500 4,988 -23% Putumayo 58,297 66,022 47,120 13,725 7,559 4,386 8,963 105%

Total 82,015 92,625 61,636 22,137 14,789 10,886 13,951Annualtrend 13% -33% -64% -33% -26% 28%

In 2000, coca cultivation peaked in Putumayo department at 66,000 hectares, representing 40% of the national total. Following four years of consecutive decreases, coca cultivation in Putumayo was estimated at 4,400 hectares or 5% of the national total in 2004, but this trend was reversed and between 2004 and 2005 coca cultivation soared by 105% in this department. At the same time, aerial spraying decreased from 17,500 hectares in 2004 to 11,800 hectares in 2005, while there were few new alternative development activities in 2005.

Most of the new coca fields were established on the foot hills close to the border with Cauca department. Spraying is particularly difficult in these mountainous areas, which could be a reason for the migration of coca cultivation to this region.

In a belt of about 10 km wide along the Ecuadorian border that cover about 550,000 hectares, in the departments of Nariño and Putumayo, almost 4,000 hectares of coca cultivation were found in 2005. This represented an increase of 1,000 hectares (or 32%) compared to the same area in 2004.

In Caqueta department, coca cultivation peaked at 26,000 hectares in 2000 or 16% of the country total. Following intense aerial spraying that started in 1996 with 537 hectares and peaked in 2002 at 18,600 hectares, coca cultivation decreased. In 2005, coca cultivation was at its lowest level at 4,990 hectares, or 6% of the country total.

Coca fields in Putumayo department


127

Map 11: Coca cultivation density in the Orinoco region, Colombia 2005 Rí

oM

eta

Río Vichada

Río Guaviare

Río Arauca

Río Inírida

Río Tomo

RíoO

rinoc

oVichada

Vaupés

Meta

Guaviare

Guainía

Casanare

Arauca

SantaRosalía

Cumaribo

La Primavera

PuertoCarreno

PuertoRondón

Tame

CravoNorte

Fortul Arauquita

Saravena

Arauca

Puerto Inírida

Cucutá

Arauca

Puerto Carreño

72°W

72°W

70°W

70°W

68°W

68°W

2°N

2°N

4°N 4°N

6°N 6°

N

8°N 8°

N

COLOMBIA

PANAMAVENEZUELA

PERU

ECUADORBRAZIL


0 200km

100

VENEZUELA




Orinoco RegionRoadsMunicipality boundaries

BRAZIL

> 8

0.1 - 1.01.1 - 2.02.1 - 4.04.1 - 8.0


128

2.1.1.6 Orinoco region

Table 10: Coca cultivation in the Orinoco Region, 1999-2005 (hectares)


Vichada - 4,935 9,166 4,910 3,818 4,692 7,826 67%Arauca - 978 2,749 2,214 539 1,552 1,883 21%Total - 5,913 11,915 7,124 4,357 6,244 9,709 -Annualtrend - - 102% -40% -39% 43% 56% -

In Vichada department, near the Venezuelan border, coca cultivation peaked at 9,200 hectares in 2001. It remained between 4,000 and 5,000 hectares from 2002 to 2004, but increased by 67% between 2004 and 2005 to reach 7,830 hectares. This increase was the second largest in the 2004-2005 period.

In Vichada, the most important concentration of coca cultivation can be found along the Uva river. However, in the past three years, coca cultivation tended to expand to the Eastern part of the department, towards the Venezuelan border. The dispersion of coca cultivation in remote parts of the department increases the time flight and cost of aerial spraying. As a result, aerial spraying has always been relatively low in this department (below 3,000 hectares), and for 2005, no aerial spraying was reported.

Coca cultivation in Arauca was detected for the first time in 2000 with about 1,000 hectares. It went over 2,000 hectares in 2001 and 2002. In 2003, aerial spraying amounted to 12,000 hectares and coca cultivation dropped to 500 hectares in December of that year. However, it increased again in 2004 and 2005 to reach 1,883 hectares.

Coca fields in Arauca department interspersed with licit crops


129

Map 12: Coca cultivation density in the Amazonia region, Colombia 2005

Río M

eta

Río Vichada

Río Guaviare

Río Putumayo

Río Caquetá

Río Arauca

Río Caguán

Río Inírida

Río Vaupés

Río Ig ara Parana

Río Apap oris

Rí o Amazonas

RíoO

rino c

o

Vichada

Vaupés

Santander

Meta

Guaviare

Guainía

Cundinamarca

Casanare

Caquetá

Boyacá

Arauca

Amazonas

PuertoNariño

Leticia

Tarapaca

ElEncanto

PuertoArica

PuertoAlegría

La Pedrera

LaChorrera

Yavarate

LaGuadalupeCarurú Mitú

Papunahua

PanaPana

San FelipeMorichal

Nuevo

PuertoColombia

BarrancoMina

CacahualInirida

PuertoSantander

Taraira

MiritíParaná

LaVictoria

Pacoa

Puerto Inírida

Yopal

Miraflores

Bogotá

San José

Mitú

Leticia

PuertoCarreño

74°W

74°W

72°W

72°W

70°W

70°W

68°W

68°W

4°S

4°S

2°S

2°S

0° 0°

2°N

2°N

4°N 4°N

6°N 6°N

COLOMBIA

PANAMAVENEZUELA

PERU

ECUADOR

BRAZIL


0 200km

100

VENEZUELA

PERU

BRAZIL



Amazon RegionRoadsMunicipality boundaries


> 8

0.1 - 1.01.1 - 2.02.1 - 4.04.1 - 8.0


130

2.1.1.7 Amazonia region

Table 11: Coca cultivation in the Amazonia Region, 1999-2005 (hectares)


Vaupés 1,014 1,493 1,918 1,485 1,157 1,084 671 -38%Amazonas - - 532 784 625 783 897 15%Guainía - 853 1,318 749 726 721 752 5%Total 1,014 2,346 3,768 3,018 2,508 2,588 2,320Annual trend - - 61% -20% -17% 3% -10%

Like Putumayo-Caqueta region, the departments of Vaupés, Amazonas and Guainía belong to the Amazon basin. Although sharing important similarity with Putumayo and Caqueta, these three departments, refer to as Amazon region, have never been important centres of coca cultivation. This is due to the remoteness of the area, lack of airport and road infrastructure linking this region to the rest of the country. Consequently, aerial spraying of coca cultivation was almost not existent, except in Vaupés.

Coca cultivation remained relatively stable in the region, at around 3,000 hectares, since coca cultivation was first observed in 2000.

Coca field surrounded by forest areas in the Amazon region


131

Map 13: Coca cultivation density in the Sierra Nevada region, Colombia 2005

n Sea

Río

Ma gdalena

Río C

atatum

bo

Sierra Nevadade Santa Marta

Sucre

Santander

Norte de Santander

Magdalena

La Guajira

Cesar

Bolívar

Antioquia

Valledupar

Riohacha

Santa Marta

Cucutá

74°W

74°W

73°W

73°W

72°W

72°W

8°N

8°N

9°N

9°N

10°N

10°N

11°N

11°N

12°N

12°N

13°N

13°N

COLOMBIA

PANAMAVENEZUELA

PERU

ECUADORBRAZIL


0 100km

Caribbean Sea

VENEZUELA

Gulf ofMaracaibo

50



Sierra Nevada RegionRoadsGeographic coordinates WGS 84

> 8

0.1 - 1.01.1 - 2.02.1 - 4.04.1 - 8.0


132

2.1.1.8 Sierra Nevada region

Table 12: Coca cultivation in the Sierra Nevada region, Colombia, 1999 – 2005


Magdalena 521 200 480 644 484 706 213 -70%Guajira - 321 385 354 275 556 329 -41%Total 521 521 865 998 759 1,262 542Annual trend - 0% 66% 15% -24% 66% -57%

The Sierra Nevada region, with the departments of Magdalena and Guajira, has never been an important centre of coca cultivation in Colombia. Coca cultivation remained between 500 and 1,300 hectares over the last seven years. Between 2004 and 2005, coca cultivation decreased by an impressive 57%, to reach one of its lowest level with only 540 hectares. Coca cultivation remained located mainly in the fringe of lowlands between the high mountains of the Sierra Nevada and the sea shore.

However, the region is an important area for narco-trafficking activities, in particular for the shipping of drugs to the Caribbean Islands and the United States.

For a few years already, the Sierra Nevada region benefited from important aid for alternative development, mainly due to the existence Sierra Nevada National Park. Government’s data indicated an important increase in alternative development budget for 2005. At the same time, aerial spraying activities dropped from around 2,000 hectares in 2004 to 1,000 hectares in 2005.

The region is also an important tourist centre and hosts the Sierra Nevada National Park. The National Park is one of the most important ecological reserves in Latin America, known for its rich bio-diversity and presence of several ancient indigenous cultures. In 2005, coca cultivation amounted to 95 hectares in the Sierra Nevada National Park, a decrease of 55% compared to 2004.

Coca fields in Sierra Nevada region Source: Organización Gonawidua Tayrona


133

2.1.1.9 Possible areas of new cultivation

The survey covered and interpreted 100% of the national territory, including areas previously not known as being coca growing regions. In doing so it serves as an early warning system to detect and prevent the spread of coca into new areas.

Potential small coca fields have been detected in remote areas outside the established agricultural areas of the departments of the Orinoco and Amazon river basins. Field verification has not been carried out in theses areas because it was considered too time consuming and too costly to verify small and isolated patches of coca cultivation. Because of the absence of field verification, the estimate for coca cultivation in these areas are presented as indicative and not included in the final estimate. The 2005 survey 15 LandSat images analysed for vegetation having similar characteristics as coca fields. A total of 276 hectares were assessed as possible coca cultivation in new area.

Table 13: Possible coca cultivation in new areas in 2005

Department hectaresAmazonas 116Vichada 79Vaupés 77Meta 4Total 276


135

2.1.1.10 Coca plant varieties

The coca leaf yield survey carried out between May 2005 and February 2006 was the opportunity to collect samples of coca plants for the determination of their taxonomic varieties. The botanical study of the samples was performed by the Forest Herbarium of the University Francisco José de Caldas in Bogotá.

A total of 439 samples were studied, from which 3 varieties of 2 species of coca plants were identified. Although only three varieties were encountered, it should be noted that farmers refer to a wide range of names, and sometimes the same vernacular names are used for two, sometimes three different botanical varieties. The reasons for this wide range of vernacular names are the difficulties to identify the botanical varieties which differ only by minute details, but also the variability the coca plants themselves within a same variety. A short description of the three varieties found in the sample is presented below. Collection of botanical samples

Species: Erythroxylum coca Lam.3

Variety: Erythroxylum coca Lam. var. coca

This variety was the most popular, constituting 59% of the sample. The most common names attributed by the farmers to this variety have been: “Peruana”, “Tingo María” and “Boliviana”. It is a bush of up to 3 meters, with elliptic leaves, sharp end, and a pedicel of 2 to 7 mm. The fruits are ellipsoids of 6 to 12 mm long.

This variety is widely distributed throughout the country and can be found between 0 and 2000 meters above sea level.

Erythroxylum coca Lam. var. coca

3 Lam. From Chevalier de Lamarck, title of Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet 1744-1829, French Naturalist


136

Variety: Erythroxylum coca Lam. Var. ipadu Plowman

This variety represented 21% of the sample. The most common names attributed by the farmers to this variety have been “Dulce” and “Amarga”. Both fall in the rank of morphologic variation described for the variety. It differs from the variety coca by the rounded end of leaf.

This variety is confined to the Amazonia region, between 100 and 500 meters above sea level.

Erythroxylum coca Lam. Var. ipadu Plowman

Species: Erythroxylum coca novogranatense (Morris) Hierron.

Variety: Erythroxylum coca novogranatense (Morris) Hierron. Var. novogranatense

This variety represented 20 % of the sample. The most common names attributed by farmers to this variety were “Pajarito” and “Caucana”. This bush of up to six meters is taller than the other species. The leaves are more oblong and elongated than for the species Erythroxylum coca. The pedicels are about 4 to 12 mm long, and the fruits of about 8 to 13 mm long.

This variety is frequently found in mountainous areas and is the most common in the Sierra Nevada region and occasionally in Arauca.

Erythroxylum coca novogranatense (Morris) Hierron. Var. novogranatense


137

Samples of the different varieties of coca leaves collected for the taxonomical identification

Erythroxylum coca Lam. var. coca Erythroxylum coca Lam. Var. ipadu

Erythroxylum coca novogranatense Var. novogranatense


138

Map 14: Index of livelihood conditions by department in 2003 and coca cultivation in Colombia, 2005

PacificOcean

Caribbean Sea

Rí o

Mag dalena

Rí

o M eta

Río Vichada

Río

Cauc

aRí

o Mag

da

le

na

Río Guaviare

Río Putuma yo

Río Caquetá

R ío Arauca

Río

Atra

to

PANAMA

Rí o Amazonas

Río Iní

rida

RíoO

rinoco

Vichada

Vaupés

ValleTolima

Sucre

Santander

Risaralda

Quindío

Putumayo

Norte deSantander

Nariño

Meta

Magdalena

La Guajira

Huila

GuaviareGuainía

Cundinamarca

Córdoba

Chocó

Cesar

Cauca

Casanare

Caquetá

Caldas

Boyacá

Bolívar

Atlántico

Arauca

Antioquia

Amazonas

VENEZUELA

PERU

ECUADOR

BRAZIL

Neiva

Puerto Asís

Tumaco

Popayán

Cucutá

Cartagena

Pasto

Cali

Florencia

Medellín

Barranquilla

Bogotá

SanJosé

Mitú

Leticia

Arauca

PuertoCarreño

75°W

75°W 70°W

70°W

5°S

5°S

0° 0°

5°N

5°N

10°N

10°N

South America

* In Colombia the ICV index is 77 points out of 100. The Regions at the bottom of the index have the worst conditions in terms of life quality. The Pacific Region doesn't meet the required index level in education, public services and housing.Sources: for coca cultivation Government of Colombia, National monitoring system supported by UNODC; for poverty indicators UNDP and DNPThe boundaries and names shown and the designations used in this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations

Colombia


Index of livelihood conditions*by department as of 2003

Coca cultivation 2005

55 - 70 %70 - 80 %80 - 100 %


1500 300km

No data


139

2.1.1.11 Coca cultivation and poverty

The illicit crops problem in Colombia is the result of a number of factors which have created a fertile ground for coca cultivation to proliferate. In cases where coca is planted as a result of choice and not coercion, poverty is one of the main causes together with a lack of respect for laws. In most cases, the emergence of illicit crops does not significantly increase peasants’ income, but can improve their basic subsistence when other income generating activities are not present. Coca farmers are far from being the main beneficiary from the huge profits generated by the illicit business.

According to the MRPD4 of the National Department of Planning, poverty rate for Colombia in 2005 were estimated at 49.2% for poverty and 14.7% for extreme poverty. Rural poverty went up from 67.5% in 2004 to 68.2% in 2005, and in terms of the population size, the number of poor people in rural areas went up from 7.89 to 8.02 million persons. As for extreme poverty, the indicators showed a stable situation between 2004 and 2005 (27.6% in 2004 and 27.5% en 2005), and in terms of population size, about 3.23 millions persons were estimated living in extreme poverty.

Table 14: Estimated poverty and extreme poverty 2001 – 2005

Year Country Urban area Rural area 2002 57,0 50,2 75,1 2003 50,7 46,3 62,9 2004 52,7 47,3 67,5

Poverty

2005 49,2 42,3 68,2 2002 20,7 15,5 34,9 2003 15,8 12,6 24,6 2004 17,4 13,7 27,6

Extremepoverty

2005 14,7 10,2 27,5 Source: MRPD of PND

Some areas where coca cultivation is present show a lower level socio-economic development. Most of the population living in poor conditions is concentrated in the rural area.

In Colombia, the GDP for the agricultural showed a decrease from 14.42% in 2000 to 13.53% in 2004 of the total GDP at constant price of 1994. The GDP of the agricultural sector showed one of the lowest increase rate compared to other sectors. This indicated a loss of the terms of exchange of the agricultural sector. The situation worsened in the 1990s following the disappearance of the protection instruments like aid or subsidies.

However if Colombian poverty indicators are compared with those of other Andean Countries, the argument of a strong linkage between poverty of livelihoods and cocaine production seems weak. In fact, if poverty were to boost coca cultivation, largest coca crops should move to poorest Andean countries, which is not the case.

4 Misión para la Reducción de la Pobreza y la Desigualdad


141

331.234374.856

424.075

220.111161.921

131.716

-

50.000

100.000

150.000

200.000

250.000

300.000

350.000

400.000

450.000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

peop

le d

ispl

aced

-

20.000

40.000

60.000

80.000

100.000

120.000

140.000

160.000

180.000

hect

are

People displaced Coca cultivation

2.1.1.12 Coca cultivation and displacement

Violence, armed conflict, drug trafficking and the search for better living conditions have generated enormous displacement of persons over the past two decades. Significant differences in the number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) are recorded by different sources. The problem is known to be important and has produced a real humanitarian crisis for the country.

In Colombia, the Social Solidarity Net, known as RSS, maintains a registry at the municipality level of people who had to leave a municipality because of violence during the year. Data is indicative, as it is very difficult to track people move and motivation for move. RSS revised its previous estimates, but the trend remains the same. However, no statistically significant correlation has so far been established at the department level between number of IDPs and coca cultivation.

Figure 4. Number of IDP and coca cultivation, 2000 – 2005

Source: RSS – 2001 to 2004 data revised in 2005


143

2.1.1.13 Coca cultivation and the forest warden families programme

UNODC is presently carrying out the monitoring the Government’s “Forest Warden Families Programme”. The main objective of the ‘Forest Warden Families Programme” is to motivate farmers to keep their land free of illicit crops. The programme also aims at the recovery of the forest in areas that are ecologically and socially vulnerable. The government and the families sign a contract with payments of a monthly salary (US$ 265) per family for a three years period. The map shows the geographic location of the 50 ongoing projects.

The Forest Warden Families Programme has three main components: environmental, by the preservation of the environment with technical support of expert entities in the training of families for the establishment of productive and sustainable projects. The second component deals with the increase of the social capital, by a permanent training of families in community savings, leadership, project managements among others. The economic component consists in a temporary financial aid to the beneficiary families.

The selection criteria for the areas of each project is based on the identification of a number of districts within one or two municipalities that constitute a geographic unit along with the commitment of the inhabitants to keep all farms of his own district free of illicit crops. A break of this commitment from just one family in a given district implies the withdrawal of all families of that district from the project. However, in practice, this criterion has been replaced by the consideration of lists of families willing to enter in the agreement.

The role of SIMCI II to provide support to UNODC in this endeavour has consisted mainly in the delivery of thematic cartography and technical support in multitemporal analysis of vegetation land covers as well as the verification of presence or absence of coca crops in the districts using remote sensing tools.

Forest warden families programme


145

2.1.1.14 Coca cultivation in National Parks

The presence of illicit crops in both Natural Parks and Indigenous Territories has been monitored by SIMCI since the 2001 survey, and the data have been delivered to the competent authorities to enable them to identify actions and projects to be applied for the preservation of its social and environmental characteristics with minimum of harm.

The limits of National Parks and Indian territories have been provided by the official entities in charge of their management. In 2005, the limits of National Parks were edited by the monitoring project in cooperation with technicians from the National Parks Administrative Unit. The editing improved the match between SIMCI cartographic material and the official boundaries of the Parks. National Parks boundaries are not always precise and therefore coca cultivation estimated in each of them depends on the accuracy of their delimitation. To enable annual comparison the same boundaries were used for each year.

Coca cultivation in 2005 was found in 12 of the 51 National Parks in Colombia, them. With 6,100 hectares in 2005, coca cultivation represented 0.05% of the total area covered by National Parks, and coca cultivation in National Parks represented 7% of the total level of coca cultivation in 2005.

Overall, coca cultivation in National Parks increased by 14% between 2004 and 2005. This increase was mainly due to an increase in the National Parks of Sierra La Macarena (+647 hectares, or +24%), La Paya (+498 hectares or 217%) and Paramillo (+225 hectares or +49%). In most other National Parks, coca cultivation decreased, and almost completely disappeared from the National Parks of Sanquianga, Farallones and Tayrona.

The detailed results by indigenous territories are presented in annexes.

Table 15: Coca cultivation in National Parks in Colombia, 2003 – 2005 (hectares)

National Parks 2003(hectares)

2004(hectares)

2005(hectares)

% Change 2004-2005

Sierra La Macarena 1,152 2,707 3,354 24% Nukak 1,469 1,043 930 -11% La Paya 310 230 728 217% Paramillo 110 461 686 49% Tinigua 340 387 155 -60% Sierra Nevada 212 241 95 -61% Puinawai 33 139 60 -57% Catatumbo-Bari 129 107 55 -49% Alto Fragua 8 14 25 79% Munchique 1 8 13 63% Los Picachos 13 15 7 -53% Yariguíes - - 2 - Sanquianga 7 - - - Farallones 2 - - - Tayrona 4 1 - - Total 3,790 5,353 6,110 Rounded total 3,800 5,400 6,100 14%

SIMCI and the National Parks Administrative Unit published at the end of 2005 a Multitemporal Analysis about the impact of coca crops in National Parks in the period 2001-2005. On this occasion, the borders of the Parks were edited which produced slight adjustments in the coca cultivation estimates within these parks.


146

Colombian National Parks affected by coca cultivation

Indigenous community in the National Park Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta

National Park Puinawai affected by licit crops


147

Map

18:

Ae

rial p

ersp

ectiv

e of

the

Nat

iona

l Par

k Si

erra

de

La M

acar

ena

and

coca

cul

tivat

ion

in 2

005


148

Map 19: Coca yield by region in Colombia, 2005

PacificOcean

Caribbean Sea

R í oM

ag dalena

Rí

o M eta

Río Vichada

Río

Cauc

aRí

o Mag

da

le

na

Río Guaviare

Río Putuma yo

Río Caquetá

R ío Arauca

Río

Atra

to

PANAMA

Rí oAmazonas

Río Inírida

Río

Orino

co

VENEZUELA

PERU

ECUADOR

BRAZIL

75°W

75°W 70°W

70°W

5°S

5°S

0° 0°

5°N

5°N

10°N

10°N

South America


Colombia


1500 300km

960

1490

1440

1960

1010

1300

4600

7100

9900

5600

2600

6600

1610 5400

Sur de Bolivar

Catatumbo

Orinoco

Pacifico

Sierra Nevada

EÔ EÔ EÔ2.5 harvest/year


EÔ


EÔ EÔ EÔ

Annual yield per hectare



kg/ha/harvest kg/ha/year

Regions for coca leaf yield surveyRegion

EÔharvest/year


EÔPutumayo - Caqueta


EÔ EÔ EÔ EÔ

Meta - Guaviare


EÔ EÔ

EÔ EÔ EÔ EÔ

3.3 harvest/year


149

2.2 NEW FINDINGS ON YIELD AND PRODUCTION

Further to a pilot yield study in 2004, DNE jointly with UNODC contracted an agricultural research company (Agricultural Assessments International Corporation - AAIC) to implement a coca leaf yield survey in Colombia between May 2005 and February 2006. Samples of fresh coca leaf were harvested from 746 coca plots selected among 463 coca fields, and 1,389 coca farmers were interviewed. The objective of the survey was to collect data on the fresh coca leaf yield, the general characteristics of coca cultivation practices, as well as information and data on the processing of fresh coca leaf into coca paste. The survey relied on actual harvest samples, face to face interviews and group discussions with farmers.

The averages and proportions used in the calculations of this chapter derived from the field survey, and corresponded to the average and proportions extrapolated to the sampling frame. The basis for the establishment of the sampling frame were about 75,000 hectares of coca fields, interpreted from the coca cultivation survey of 2003 or 2004, depending on the time of the survey by region. From this basis, a total population of about 58,000 farmers involved at the time of the survey in coca cultivation was extrapolated. The total for 2005 has been calculated by combining these averages or proportion and the coca cultivation figures of 85,750 hectares of coca cultivation in 2005. As the coca leaf yield survey did not cover the Amazon region, results obtained from the neighbouring region of Putumayo-Caqueta were used as best estimate for the Amazon region. The Central region defined for the coca cultivation census corresponded to the regions of Sur de Bolivar and Catatumbo in the coca leaf yield survey.

2.2.1 COCA LEAF YIELD AND COCA LEAF PRODUCTIONFrom the weighing of 746 samples of harvest of fresh coca leaf, the fresh coca leaf yield per harvest averaged 1,360 kg/hectares. The highest regional yield per harvest was found in the region of Sur de Bolivar with an average of 1,960 kg/hectares (the 95% confidence interval ranging from 1,740 kg/hectares to 2,180 kg/hectares), and the lowest yield was found in the Pacific region with an average of 964 kg/hectares (with 95% confidence rate ranging from 900 to 1,020 kg/hectares). The regional averages are presented below.

Table 16: Regional average coca leaf yield per harvest by region (from weighing of samples)

Sample size Avg Yield per harvest

Lowest limit of confidence

interval

Highest limit of confidence

interval Region

Fields Plotsweighted (kg/hectares) (kg/hectares) (kg/hectares)

Coefficient of variation (CV in %)

Sur de Bolivar 55 55 1,960 1,740 2,180 5.7% Sierra Nevada 45 90 1,607 1,530 1,690 2.6% Meta-Guaviare 103 206 1,489 1,430 1,550 2.1% Putumayo-Caqueta 80 80 1,444 1,330 1,550 3.8% Orinoco 50 100 1,302 1,230 1,370 2.7% Catatumbo 45 45 1,012 910 1,110 5.0% Pacific 85 170 964 900 1,020 2.9% All regions 463 746 1,360 1,340 1,380 1.4%


150

Figure 5. Regional averages of coca leaf yield per harvest, framed by their confidence interval (kg/hectares)

1,960

1,6071,489

1,012 964

1,3021,444

500

700

900

1,100

1,300

1,500

1,700

1,900

2,100

2,300

Sur deBolivar

SierraNevada

Meta-Guaviare

Putumayo-Caqueta

Orinoco Catatumbo Pacific

kg/h

a

The average coca leaf yield obtained from weighing samples of coca leaf was compared to the farmer’s estimates for the corresponding fields and harvest. In general, average yields obtained from weighing samples were higher than average yields as reported by farmers. Farmers’ tendency to underreport their yields might be a cause for such difference. However considering all data obtained at country level, the results from the two survey-types did not appear to be statistically different.

Table 17: Comparison between average yields obtained from weighing of samples and average yields as reported by farmers.

Average fresh coca leaf yield from weighing of samples

Average fresh coca leaf yield from interviews

# fields Average # fields Average Region

(kg/hectares) (kg/hectares) Sur de Bolivar 55 1,960 224 1,606Sierra Nevada 45 1,607 148 1,462Putumayo-Caqueta 80 1,444 295 1,273Catatumbo 45 1,012 141 1,100Pacific 85 964 342 815Orinoco 50 1,302 248 1,365Meta-Guaviare 103 1,489 348 1,289All regions 463 1,360 1746 1,244

Figure 6. Comparison between average yields obtained from weighing of samples and average yields as reported by farmers.

810

1.61

0

1.44

0

1.96

0

1.01

0

960

1.30

0

1.49

0

1.61

0

1.46

0

1.27

0

1.10

0

1360

1290

0

500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

Sur deBolivar

SierraNevada

Putumayo-Caqueta

Catatumbo Pacific Orinoco Meta-Guaviare

kg/h

a

from weighing of samples from farmers' interviews


151

2.2.2 ANNUAL YIELD

A coca field is harvested several times during the year. In order to estimate the annual yield, it is therefore necessary to know the average number of times the coca fields are harvested. According with farmers reports in the 463 fields from which coca leaf samples were weighted, the average number of harvest per year was 4.5, equivalent to one harvest every 81 days. But important regional differences were found between the highest in Meta-Guaviare reaching 6.6 harvests per year (or every 55 days), and the lowest in the Pacific region with 2.5 harvests per year (or every 146 days).

Table 18: Regional average number of annual harvest (from interviews)

Region Number of Interviews5

Average number of harvests in 2004

Coefficient of variation (CV in %)

Meta-Guaviare 103 6.6 2.1% Orinoco 50 5.4 4.5% Catatumbo 45 4.5 4.1% Putumayo-Caqueta 80 3.9 3.4% Sur de Bolivar 55 3.3 4.9% Sierra Nevada 45 3.4 3.8% Pacific 85 2.5 4.1% Country level (weighted) 463 4.5 2.0%

Figure 7. Regional average annual number of harvest, framed within their confidence intervals

6.6

3.9

3.3 3.4

2.5

4.5

5.4

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Meta-Guaviare Orinoco Catatumbo Putumayo-Caqueta

Sur de Bolivar Sierra Nevada Pacific

# ha

rves

t per

yea

r

The annual regional average yield of fresh coca leaf was calculated by assuming that all harvests during the year were equivalent. The average yield per harvest was multiplied by the average number of harvests. The highest and lowest annual yields estimates were calculated as the highest/lowest range of the 95% confidence interval of the average regional yield, multiplied by the highest/lowest range of the 95% confidence interval of the number of harvests per year.

The analysis of the vegetation cover revealed that 21% of the coca fields of the 2005 census were forest in 2004, and therefore less than one year old. From the coca leaf yield survey, it was found that coca field of less than one year old had a yield per harvest of 1,500 kg/ha, while older fields had on average a lower yield per harvest of 1,300 kg/ha. However, the number of harvest per year was lower for new fields than for older fields, respectively averaging 3.6 harvests and 4.5 harvests. In terms of annual coca leaf yields, the weighted average on new fields was 5,700 kg/ha/yr, whereas on old fields it was 6,300 kg/ha/yr.

5 Farmers’ interviews corresponding to the coca fields from which coca leaf samples were weighted


152

Table 19: Coca leaf yields in old and new fields

From coca leaf yield survey From satellite

survey

Fields Number of parcels

Number of harvests /

yr

Average yield per harvest (kg/ha)

Average annualharvest (kg/ha)

Planted area (ha)

Old fields 679 4.5 1,300 6,300 67,404New fields 67 3.6 1,500 5,700 18,346Total 746 4.4 1,400 6,300 85,750

It should be emphasized that the coca leaf yield survey was not designed to estimate annual yield from old and new fields, but rather a unique average per region. In the calculation of the total coca leaf production, it was thus the regional averages for all fields that were used. Would the distinction between old field and new fields have been made, the total coca leaf production would only have been lower by 5%.

The annual regional averages were calculated from the regional average yield per harvest and the regional number of harvest per year for the individual observations and taking into account the strata each observation belong too. The annual regional averages were thus the following:

Table 20: Calculations for the average regional annual yield of fresh coca leaf (kg/hectares)

Avg annual yield

Lowest annual yield

Highest annual yield Region

kg/hectares/yr kg/hectares/yr kg/hectares/yr Meta-Guaviare 9,900 9,200 10,500Orinoco 7,100 6,400 7,900Sur de Bolivar 6,600 5,600 7,800Putumayo-Caqueta 5,600 4,900 6,400

Sierra Nevada 5,400 5,000 5,900Catatumbo 4,600 4,000 5,300Pacific 2,600 2,300 2,900Country level 6,300 6,000 6,500

The mentioned calculations revealed that the highest annual fresh coca leaf yield was reached in Meta-Guaviare and averaged 9,900 kg/hectares/yr (ranging between 9,200 kg/hectares and 10,500 kg/hectares/yr). The lowest annual yield was found in the Pacific region and averaged 2,600 kg/hectares/yr (ranging between 2,300 kg/hectares/yr and 2,900 kg/hectares/yr).

Figure 8. Average annual yields of fresh coca leaf framed by their lowest and highest estimates (kg/hectares/yr)

4,6005,4005,500

6,6007,100

9,900

2,600

1,000

3,000

5,000

7,000

9,000

11,000

13,000

Meta-Guaviare

Orinoco Sur deBolivar

Putumayo-Caqueta

SierraNevada

Catatumbo Pacific

kg/h

a/yr


153

The very high annual yield obtained in Meta-Guaviare was primarily due to the high number of harvests (6.6 per year) rather than to the average yield per harvest (1,489 kg/hectares) that was not the highest of the country. It was not possible to find a single factor in the survey data responsible for such a high number of harvests per year. However, it was interesting to note that farmers from Meta-Guaviare reported that only 25% of their coca fields had been affected by aerial spraying. Aerial spraying rate in the Meta-Guaviare was one of the lowest rate among the seven regions, and much lower than the national average of 48% of coca fields reported to have been affected by aerial spraying.

Coca field in Meta department

In Colombia, coca leaves are traded as fresh, whereas in Peru and Bolivia they are traded after having been sun-dried. Therefore, for comparison the Colombian coca leaf yields have to be converted from fresh weight to dry weight. The conversion was done assuming average moisture content of 57%, as found during a survey carried out by UNODC in Peru in 2004.

Table 21: Average regional annual yield coca leaf in equivalent of sun-dried leaf (kg/hectares)

Region Sun-dried avg annual yield (kg/hectares)

Meta-Guaviare 4,200Orinoco 3,100Sur de Bolivar 2,800Putumayo-Caqueta 2,400Sierra Nevada 2,300Catatumbo 2,000Pacific 1,100All regions 2,700

Once converted in equivalent of sun-dried leaf, the coca leaf yields of Peru, Bolivia and Colombian can be more easily compared, although the methodology and the data collection process still differed. The Colombian regional average yields are shown in the graph below.


154

Figure 9. Annual coca leaf yield, in sun-dried equivalent, from various regions of Colombia, Peru and Bolivia

8609361,000

1,2901,4331,457

1,7982,000

2,3002,400

2,7642,800

2,9883,100

3,6274,200

- 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000

Peru, MarañonBolivia, Yungas, traditional areas

Colombia, PacificPeru, Inambari-Tambopata

Peru, Palcazu-Pichis-PachiteaPeru, La Convención-Lares

Bolivia, Yungas, non-traditional areasColombia, Catatumbo

Colombia, Sierra NevadaColombia, Putumayo-Caqueta

Bolivia, ChapareColombia, Sur de Bolivar

Peru, Alto HuallagaColombia, Orinoco

Peru, Apurimac-EneColombia, Meta-Guaviare

Compared to the average annual yield of 6,300 kg/hectares/yr obtained from the weighing of 746 samples, the average annual yield obtained from interviews of 1,389 farmers reporting on 1,746 fields was 9% lower and averaged 5,700 kg/hectares/yr. The lower average annual yield obtained from farmers’ interviews were attributed to farmers’ tendency to under-report their yields.

Table 22: Comparison of annual coca leaf yield from weighing of samples and from farmers’ interviews

Average fresh coca leaf yield from weighing of samples

Average fresh coca leaf yield from interviews

# fields Average # fields Average Region

(kg/hectares/yr) (kg/hectares/yr) Meta-Guaviare 103 9,900 348 8,200 Orinoco 50 7,100 248 7,800 Sur de Bolivar 55 6,600 224 5,200 Putumayo-Caqueta 80 5,600 295 4,600 Sierra Nevada 45 5,400 148 5,100 Catatumbo 45 4,600 141 5,300 Pacific 85 2,600 342 1,700 Country level 463 6,300 1,746 5,700

Figure 10. Comparison of annual coca leaf yield from weighing of samples and from farmers’ interviews

9,90

0

7,10

0

6,60

0

5,60

0

5,40

0

4,60

0

2,60

0

8,20

0

7,80

0

5,20

0

4,60

0

5,10

0

2,60

0

1,70

0

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Meta-Guaviare

Orinoco Sur deBolivar

Putumayo-Caqueta

SierraNevada

Catatumbo Pacific

kg/h

a/yr

Avg annual yield from weighing of samples Avg annual yield from farmer's interviews


155

During the interviews, the 1,389 farmers were also asked whether or not they had lost part or all of any coca harvest. Overall, 47% of fields were found to have experienced a decrease in yield or a total loss of at least one harvest. The highest percentage of fields with loss of harvest or reduced productivity was found in the Pacific region (94%), while the lowest was found in the Sur de Bolivar region (11%).

Table 23: Loss of coca harvest or reduced productivity, as reported by farmers

Region Number of coca fields

% fields with loss of harvest or

reduced productivityPacific 342 94%Orinoco 248 52%Meta-Guaviare 348 44%Sierra Nevada 148 39%Catatumbo 141 39%Putumayo-Caqueta 295 17%Sur de Bolivar 224 11%All regions 1,746 47%

For the fields that experienced a loss of harvest or reduced productivity, the most often reported cause as aerial spraying (on average 49%). At the regional level however, it is worth noting that in Meta-Guaviare, the most often reported cause was pest (53%), and in the Orinoco region, the most often reported cause was the climate (55%).

Table 24: Causes of loss of harvest, as reported by farmers Region Aerial

Spraying Pest and diseases Climate Other

Putumayo-Caqueta 62% 18% 20% -Catatumbo 96% 0.6% 3% -Sur de Bolivar 89% 9% - 2%Sierra Nevada 76% 6% 17% 2%Orinoco 18% 9% 55% 18%Meta Guaviare 25% 53% 18% 4%Pacific 58% 38% 4% 0.6%All regions 48% 37% 12% 3%

Once their fields have been sprayed, the farmers responded that in 45% of the cases they would just wait for the coca plants to recover, in 20% of the cases they would cut the damaged coca plants, in 12% of the cases they would re-plant their fields, while the remaining 23% adopted for a combination of these solutions.

Coca bush affected by a disease Coca fields affected by aerial spraying


156

Figure 11. Causes of loss of harvest in 2005

62%

96%89%

76%

18%25%

58%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Putumayo-Caqueta

Catatumbo Sur deBolivar

SierraNevada

Orinoco MetaGuaviare

Pacific

Aerial spraying Pest Climate Other

The average annual yield reported for the fields that experienced a loss of harvest was 36% lower than the average annual yield reported for the fields that experienced no loss. On average, farmers reported an annual coca leaf yield of 6,900 kg/hectares/year from fields that experienced no loss of harvest, while they reported an annual average coca leaf yield of 4,300 kg/hectares/year from fields that experienced a loss of harvest.

Table 25: Comparison of the average annual coca yield from farmers reporting losing a harvest with farmers reporting no loss of harvest

Without any loss With loss Region % kg/hectares/yr % kg/hectares/yr Putumayo-Caquetá 83% 4,600 17% 4,100 Catatumbo 61% 6,400 39% 3,700 Sur de Bolivar 89% 6,000 11% 2,000 Sierra Nevada 61% 5,800 39% 3,800 Orinoquía 48% 8,700 52% 6,900 Meta Guaviare 56% 8,700 44% 7,000 Pacific 6% 3,000 94% 1,600 All regions 53% 6,900 47% 4,300

Figure 12. Comparison of the average coca yield from farmers reporting losing a harvest with farmers reporting no loss of harvest

4,60

0 6,40

0

6,20

0

5,70

0 7,90

0

9,00

0

3,60

0

4,00

0

3,90

0

2,00

0 3,70

0

7,30

0

7,40

0

1,90

0

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

Putumayo-Caquetá

Catatumbo Sur de Bolivar Sierra Nevada Orinoquía Meta Guaviare Pacific

kg/h

a

Without any loss With loss

Farmers also reported on their use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. The most often used fertilizer is Triple 15, which 54% of the farmers used on average at the rate of 176 kg every 72 days. Overall, the farmer’s interviews reported the use of 32 different fertilizers. By combining their average quantity used by hectare with the frequency of use and the proportion of farmers reporting their uses, the total quantity of fertilizers used on the 86,000 hectares of coca cultivation in 2005 amounted to 85,258 metric tons and about 9 million litres.


157

As for herbicide, 55% of the farmers reported to use Gramaxone, spreading about 2.7 liters of the product every 76 days. For the total coca cultivation of 86,000 hectares, about 618,254 liters of Gramaxone were spread on the coca fields in 2005. It is also interesting to note that round up and Glyphosate, two products used in the aerial spraying, were also used by farmers. About 129,000 liters were spread by the farmers on their coca fields in 2005.

As for pesticides, 25% of the farmers reported to use Tamaron, spreading about 2 liters of the product every 70 days. For the total coca cultivation of 86,000 hectares, about 223,600 liters of Tamaron were spread on the coca fields in 2005. Overall, the farmer’s interviews reported the use of 30 different pesticides

When asked for the main reason for growing coca plants, 55% of the farmers mentioned economic reasons, either mentioning openly the profitability of the coca market or the fact that coca plants and its derivatives were easily marketable. Another 28% claimed they had no other choice, and the remaining 17% stated that coca cultivation was part of the local culture.

Coca plants interspersed with plantain cultivation

Table 26: Reasons for cultivating coca in the sample group

Region Profitability Easily marketable

No other choice

Part of local culture

Putumayo-Caquetá 28% 28% 25% 20%Catatumbo 44% 6% 28% 22%Sur de Bolivar 47% 6% 32% 15%Sierra Nevada 31% 32% 25% 12%Orinoquía 41% 27% 18% 13%Meta Guaviare 36% 17% 26% 21%Pacífico 32% 24% 37% 7%All region 34% 21% 28% 17%

On the other hand, only 9% of the coca farmers reported having received any kind of assistance to stop growing coca plants.

Table 27: Assistance to stop growing coca cultivation in the sample group

Region Proportion of farmers who

received aid to stop coca cultivation

Proportion of farmers who did not receive aid

to stop coca cultivation Putumayo-Caquetá 12% 88%Catatumbo 0% 100%Sur de Bolivar 5% 95%Sierra Nevada 0% 100%Orinoquía 3% 97%Meta Guaviare 15% 85%Pacífico 0% 100%All regions 9% 91%


158

Map 20: Annual coca leaf production in Colombia, 2005

PacificOcean

Caribbean Sea

Rí o

Mag dalena

Rí

o M eta

Río Vichada

Río

Cauc

aRí

o Mag

da

le

na

Río Guaviare

Río Putuma yo

Río Caquetá

R ío Arauca

Río

Atra

to

PANAMA

Rí oAmazonas

Río Inírida

Río

Orino

co

Vichada

Vaupés

Valle Tolima

Sucre

Santander

RisaraldaQuindío

Putumayo

Norte deSantander

Nariño

Meta

Magdalena

La Guajira

Huila

Guaviare Guainía

Cundinamarca

Córdoba

Chocó

Cesar

Cauca

Casanare

Caquetá

Caldas

Boyacá

Bolívar

Atlántico

Arauca

Antioquia

Amazonas

VENEZUELA

PERU

ECUADOR

BRAZIL

75°W

75°W 70°W

70°W

5°S

5°S

0° 0°

5°N

5°N

10°N

10°N

South America


Colombia


1500 300km

Annual coca leafproduction

(metric tons)


Total coca leaf producction

Regions

metricTons.

85,500

258,300

45,300

89,800

68,900

12,700

2,900

3,900

Meta - Guaviare

Amazonia

Pacifico

Sur de Bolivar

Catatumbo

Sierra Nevada

Orinoco

Putumayo - Caqueta

Region


159

2.2.3 COCA LEAF, COCA PASTE AND BASE PRODUCTION

The potential production of fresh coca leaf in Colombia for 2005 was calculated by multiplying the regional average annual yield of fresh coca leaf by the regional area under coca cultivation. The lower and upper estimates were calculated by using the lowest and highest annual regional yields. The potential production of fresh coca leaf was estimated thus estimated at 567,400 mt, within a range of 510,400 mt and 627,200 mt (or +/- 10%). Assuming that fresh leaves lose 57% of moisture content through sun drying, this was equivalent to a total production of 244,000 mt of sun-dried coca leaf.

The weighted national average for fresh coca leaf yield amounted to 6,600 kg/hectares/year (production/cultivation), or 2,800 kg/hectares/year in sun-dried equivalent.

Table 28: Calculation of the 2005 production of fresh coca leaf in Colombia

Region Coca cultivation (hectares)

Annual yield (kg/hectares/year)

Production (tons)

% of 2005 total

Meta-Guaviare 26,087 9,900 258,300 46%Sur de Bolivar 13,618 6,600 89,900 16%Putumayo-Caqueta 15,260 5,600 85,500 15%Orinoco 9,701 7,100 68,900 12%Pacific 17,434 2,600 45,300 8%Amazonia6 2,261 5,600 12,700 2%Catatumbo 846 4,600 3,900 1%Sierra Nevada 543 5,400 2,900 1%Country level (totals and weighted average)

85,750 6,600 567,400 100%

Figure 13. Production of fresh coca leaf in Colombia 2005

258,

300

89,9

00

85,5

00

68,9

00

45,3

00

12,7

00

3,90

0

2,90

0

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

Meta-Guaviare

Sur de Bolivar Putumayo-Caqueta

Orinoco Pacific Amazonian Catatumbo Sierra Nevada

mt

Due to the high annual yield observed in Meta-Guaviare, the region accounted for 45% of the total production, although it represented only 30% of the total coca cultivation.

6 The coca leaf yield survey was not implemented in the Amazonian region. The coca leaf yield for the Amazonian region was approximated with the coca leaf of the region of Putumyao-Caqueta which has the same environmental characteristics.


160

In Colombia, traditional use of the coca leaf can be considered marginal, and virtually the entire coca leaf production is destined for cocaine production. There are various ways to produce cocaine. The overall process is that leaves are processed into coca paste, then into cocaine base, then into cocaine hydrochloride. The farmers can either sell the coca leaves, or process these leaves into coca paste or base. The last step, the processing of the cocaine base into cocaine hydrochloride is not carried out by farmers but in clandestine laboratories.

Coca paste is the first product obtained in the process of alkaloid extraction from coca leaves using sulfuric acid and combustibles. It is then a cocaine sulfate with a high content of organic remnants, pigments, tannin, and other substances. Cocaine base is obtained by dissolving the cocaine sulphate in an acid and adding an oxidant agent (potassium permanganate being the oxidant most often used), then adding a base. The resulting substance is precipitated and filtered.

The coca leaf yield survey revealed that 34% of the farmers, representing only 25% of the total coca leaf production, sell directly the coca leaves, without processing them. Another 35% of the farmers, who represent 26% of the total coca leaf production, processed them into coca paste, and the remaining 31% of the farmers, who represent 49% of the total coca leaf production, process their leaves into cocaine base.

Table 29: Proportion of farmers processing and not processing coca leaves

Region % of farmers

not processing coca leaves

% of farmers processing coca leaves into

coca paste

% of farmers processing coca leaves into

cocaine base Putumayo-Caquetá 32% 65% 3%Catatumbo 71% 20% 9%Sur de Bolivar 43% 5% 52%Sierra Nevada 49% 22% 29%Orinoco 15% 0% 85%Meta Guaviare 9% 26% 65%Pacific 68% 31% 1%All regions 34% 35% 31%

Figure 14. Proportion of farmers processing and not processing coca leaves

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Putumayo-Caquetá

Catatumbo Sur de Bolivar Sierra Nevada Orinoco Meta Guaviare Pacif ic

% of farmers not producing paste or base % farmers producing paste % farmers producing base

During the survey, the farmers who processed their coca leaves were asked about the amount of coca leaves and ingredients used, and the amount of final product obtained. The distinction between paste and base is not easy to draw because the terms are often misused by the farmers themselves. In order to distinguish between these two products, it was decided to refer to cocaine base when the farmers reported the use of permanganate potassium or ammonium for processing their leaves, and coca paste when the farmers did not report the use of these products.


161

Therefore, it was possible to calculate the average conversion rate of one metric ton of coca leaves into coca paste (1.63 kg) and cocaine base (1.52 kg). In other words, coca paste yielded 93% of cocaine base.

Table 30: Average kg of coca paste or base obtained from one metric ton of coca leaf

Region Number of

PAU’s7 process coca leaf

Avg kg of coca paste per metric tons of coca leaf

Avg kg of cocaine base per metric tons of coca leaf

Putumayo-Caqueta 152 1.75 1.74Catatumbo 37 1.39 1.38Sur de Bolivar 107 1.41 1.41Sierra Nevada 69 1.45 1.45Orinoco8 118 - 1.73Meta Guaviare 285 1.53 1.52Pacific 79 1.55 1.46All regions 847 1.63 1.52

Figure 15. Regional average of quantity (kg) of coca paste and base obtained from one metric ton of fresh coca leaf.

1.75

1.39

1.41

1.4 5

0

1.53

1.551.

74

1.38

1.41 1.45 1.

73

1.52

1.46

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

Putumayo-Caquetá

Catatumbo Sur de Bolivar Sierra Nevada Orinoco Meta Guaviare Pacific

Avg kg of cocaine paste per ton of coca leaf Avg kg of cocaine base per ton of coca leaf

7 Agriculture Production Unit: an economical unit dedicated to the production or others licit crops under a unique management of a person or a family 8 The Orinoco farmers process only cocaine base.


162

About 27% of the coca leaf production was processed into cocaine paste. Thus, out of the total production of 567,400 mt of coca leaf, about 151,000 mt tons were processed into cocaine paste. Using the conversion rate of 1.63 kg of cocaine paste out of every tons of coca leaf, the total cocaine paste production from farmers was estimated at 246 mt. This was equivalent to 229 mt of cocaine base, based on a cocaine paste to base ratio of 93%.

Table 31: Calculation of coca paste production

Region Total leaf productionProportion of

farmers producing cocaine paste

Leaf production processed into cocaine paste

Mt % mtMeta-Guaviare 258,300 26% 67,200 Sur de Bolivar 89,900 5% 4,500 Putumayo-Caqueta 85,500 65% 55,600 Orinoco 68,900 - - Pacific 45,300 31% 14,000 Amazonian 12,700 65% 8,300 Catatumbo 3,900 20% 800 Sierra Nevada 2,900 22% 600 Country level 567,400 151,000

The rest of the farmers either processed directly into cocaine base, or sell their production as leaf, corresponding to a total of 416,300 mt. Assuming that the production of coca leaf sell directly by the farmers was processed outside the farm into cocaine base at the same rate as within the farm of 1.52 kg per tons of leaf, the total amount of cocaine base was estimated at 633 mt.

Table 32: Calculation of cocaine base production

Region Total leaf production

Proportion of farmers

producingcocaine base

Proportion of farmers selling leaf for base processing

Total leaf production for

base processing

mt % % MtMeta-Guaviare 258,300 65% 9% 191,100 Sur de Bolivar 89,900 52% 43% 85,400 Putumayo-Caqueta 85,500 3% 32% 29,900 Orinoco 68,900 85% 15% 68,900 Pacific 45,300 1% 68% 31,300 Amazonia 12,700 3% 32% 4,400 Catatumbo 3,900 9% 71% 3,000 Sierra Nevada 2,900 29% 49% 2,300 Country level 567,400 416,300

Overall, either produced from coca paste or directly from coca leaves, the total production of cocaine base in Colombia in 2005 was estimated at 862 metric tons.

During the interviews, the farmers also reported on their use of Potassium Permanganate, an important precursor for cocaine hydrochloride. The use of Potassium Permanganate is restricted by law. Based on the average quantity of Permanganate used per ton of coca leaf processed and the proportion of farmers reporting its use, it was possible to estimate the total use of Permanganate at the farm-gate level at about 90 tons.


163

Table 33: Calculation for estimating the quantity of Permanganate used by farmers

Region

Leafproduction

(mt)

% of farmers using

permanganate

Avg use of Permanganate per

tons of leaf(kg)

Total use of Permanganate

(mt)

Meta-Guaviare 258,300 6.2% 1.4 22.4Sur de Bolivar 89,900 39.9% 1.1 39.5Putumayo-Caqueta 85,500 2.1% 1.3 2.3Orinoco 68,900 29.0% 1.2 24Pacific 45,300 0.7% 1.1 0.3Amazonian 12,700 2.1% 1.3 0.3Catatumbo 3,900 5.0% 1.1 0.2Sierra Nevada 2,900 26.2% 1.4 1.1Country level 567,400 90.1

Processing coca leaves into coca paste

Cutting the coca leaves Preparing the coca leaves

The coca leaves mixed with gasoline The cocaine paste


164

2.2.4 REVISED POTENTIAL COCAINE PRODUCTION

The coca yield survey implemented by UNODC in 2005 focused on obtaining data on the yield of coca leaf and on the processing by farmers of coca leaf into coca paste or cocaine base. The data on annual coca leaf yield and the conversion rates of coca leaves into coca paste and cocaine base were combined with the annual census estimating coca cultivation to estimate the total productions of coca leaf, coca paste and cocaine base.

To estimate cocaine production, UNODC relied on external sources. Indeed, investigating clandestine laboratories was not possible because these laboratories are directly in the hands of narco-traffickers. So far, UNODC did not collect any data to estimate the efficiency of these clandestine laboratories nor on the quantity of cocaine hydrochloride that can be produced from coca paste/base. In addition to the technical difficulties to obtain these data, this kind of survey is also complicated by the existence of several techniques to produce cocaine hydrochloride, and various purity level of the end-product.

The UNODC calculation for cocaine production in 2005 relied on its own estimate of cocaine base and on data obtained by the US Operation Breakthrough regarding the conversion rate from cocaine base to cocaine hydrochloride and the purity level of cocaine hydrochloride for conversion into equivalent of pure cocaine production.

US Operation Breakthrough mentioned a 1:1 conversion rate from cocaine base to cocaine hydrochloride. However, this was obtained from laboratories especially set up for this kind of survey, and thus this conversion rate is likely to correspond to ideal circumstances not always obtained in reality, especially by farmers. The same source also communicated to UNODC that cocaine base contained about 75% of pure cocaine alkaloid and the cocaine hydrochloride contained about 85% of pure cocaine alkaloid. From this data, UNODC derived a 1:0.9 ratio from cocaine base to cocaine hydrochloride. This ratio of 1:0.9 was deemed to apply better to the cocaine base production which corresponded to cocaine base obtained from farmers not working in ideal conditions.

Based on this data, the 862 metric tons of cocaine base were equivalent to 776 metric tons of cocaine hydrochloride or 660 metric tons of pure cocaine. This represented an average pure cocaine yield per hectare of 7.7 kg/hectares.

Since 2002, UNODC estimated the cocaine production in Colombia based on the average of the two cultivation figures recorded as of December of the previous year and December of the current year. This average was then multiplied by the estimated yield per hectare. This method enables to take into account that coca fields are harvested more than once in a given year and eradication activities are spread over several months. Therefore, based on an average coca cultivation level of 83,000 hectares, the pure cocaine production in Colombia for 2005 amounted to 640 metric tons.

Annual cocaine production figures for previous years relied on estimates of cocaine yield per hectare from external sources (4.7 kg/hectares, Operation Breakthrough), and therefore were not comparable with the 2005 estimate of 7.7 kg/hectares which was based on the results of the first coca leaf yield survey implemented jointly by the Colombian Government and UNODC. Based on the results of the pilot yield study in 2004, which already indicated that cocaine yield could be higher, as well as the findings of the coca yield survey in 2005, which found that farmers reported similar yields for 2004 and 2005, it was concluded that potential cocaine production in 2004 should be revised using the new findings.

With the newly established cocaine yield of 7.7 kg/ha, the 2004 cocaine production was revised at 640 metric tons (previous estimate of 390 metric tons). For the 2003 cocaine estimate, the cocaine yield of 5.8 kg/ha reported by the Colombian Government to the UNODC Annual Reports Questionnaire was used to revised the cocaine production to 550 metric tons (previous estimate of 440 metric tons).


165

The coca leaf yield survey carried out in 2005 jointly by the Colombian government and UNODC helped to better assess the cocaine production in Colombia, and could help to revise previous estimates. It also enabled to understand better why the increasing rate of cocaine seizures reported to UNODC in the recent years did not lead to price rises or any significant decline in cocaine purity in the main consumer markets of the United-States and Europe.

Figure 16. Cocaine production in Colombia 1995 - 2005 (in metric ton) (note color change)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800M

etric

tons

Metric tons 230 300 350 435 680 695 827 580 550 640* 640*

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

* Production data for 2004 and 2005 is based on new field research.

In 2005, at the global level, the potential cocaine production in Colombia represented 70% of the global potential cocaine production of 910 metric tons.

Table 34: Global potential cocaine production, 1995 – 2005

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 %

change 2004-2005

% of 2005 total

Bolivia 240 215 200 150 70 43 60 60 79 107 90 -16% 10%Peru 460 435 325 240 175 141 150 165 155 190 180 -5% 20%Colombia 230 300 350 435 680 695 617 580 550 640 640 0% 70%Total 930 950 875 825 925 879 827 805 784 937 910 -3% 100%

Source: UNODC, in italic revised figures as of 2005

Figure 17. Global potential cocaine production, 1995 – 2005 (note change in graph)

240 215 200150

70 43 60 60 79 107 90

230 300 350 435680 695 617 580 550

640 640

460435 325 240

175141

150165 155

190180

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

met

ric to

n




166

2.3 PRICES

2.3.1 COCA LEAF, COCA BASE AND COCAINE PRICES

Between 2004 and 2005, coca leaf prices increased by 57% in US$ and by 35% in Colombian Pesos (COP). Average prices have usually been higher in the Pacific region (Nariño department). However, as of December 2005, prices in Nariño decreased and converged towards the national mean of about COP 2,500/kg (US$ 1.1/kg). In Nariño, the decrease in coca leaf prices is also reflected in a decrease in coca paste prices.

In Colombia, coca leaf is traded as fresh, whereas in Peru and Bolivia, coca leaf is traded as dried. Converted in equivalent dried coca leaf (assuming a moisture loss of 57% between fresh and sun-dried coca leaf, from 2004 UNODC coca leaf yield in Peru), coca leaf price in Colombia in 2005 established at US$2.56 /kg, which is comparable to prices of dry-coca leaf in Peru (US$ 2.9/kg) but lower than in Bolivia (US$ 4.4/kg).

Table 35: Coca leaf price (‘000 of COP/kg) in some regions of Colombia, 2005

Months Sample size

Weighted national average

Centre Pacífico Putumayo Caquetá

SierraNevada

January 10 1,920 2,400 2,930 1,880 480February 8 2,070 2,400 3,200 1,880 800March 6 2,510 2,400 4,000 2,020 1,600April 6 2,560 2,400 4,200 2,020 1,600May 6 2,410 2,400 3,600 2,020 1,600June 7 2,310 2,240 3,360 2,020 1,600July 6 2,330 2,400 3,280 2,020 1,600August 5 2,640 2,800 4,160 2,000 1,600September 6 3,170 2,200 5,000 2,320October 6 2,630 3,000 4,000 2,300 1,200November 7 2,670 3,000 4,200 2,120 1,360December 9 2,450 3,070 2,800 2,240 1,680AnnualAverage (COP)

82 2,470 2,560 3,730 2,070 1,370

AnnualAverage (US$)

1.1 1.1 1.6 0.9 0.6

Source: National Monitoring System Supported by UNODC-SIMCI

Most peasants sell coca paste that they themselves produce in small “kitchen” located on the farm. The necessary technical know-how was brought to the farmers during the 90’s by drug-traffickers to facilitate and increase the commercialisation of cocaine

Most coca growers sell their production as coca paste (a product the farmers called "pasta básica"). It is therefore a fair proxy indicator of the situation prevailing in the Colombia coca market. But one should take into account that the armed groups that tend to monopolise this trade often imposed their prices and conditions to the farmers. Therefore prices do not always react quickly according to the economic law of supply and demand.

Prices of coca paste increased from an average of US$ 810/kg in 2004 to US$ 910/kg in 2005 (+12%). However, during 2004 the Colombian Peso strengthened against the dollar by about 12%, and during 2005 strengthened another 4%. As a result of this appreciation, in local currency (Colombian pesos, COP), prices for coca paste remained virtually unchanged, from COP 2,119,000 in 2004 to COP 2,190,000 in 2005 (- 0.5%).


167

Looking more closely at the prices trends within the year 2005, it is worth noting the decrease (-14%) between August (US$ 980/kg) and December (US$ 861/kg). As can be noted on the graph, the decrease at the national level can be attributed to the decrease in prices in the Pacific region (Nariño department), and to a lower extent to a decrease in prices in Putumayo-Caqueta. The decrease in prices in Nariño since August 2005 might be attributed to the intense drug control and aerial spraying efforts in this region that hindered its trade. In the absence of traders, prices would have decreased.

Balancing the decrease in prices in Nariño, prices of coca paste in the northern region of Sierra Nevada established at a rather high level of about US$1,200 /kg since May 2005 (or about 30% higher than the national average of US$915 during the same period). Reportedly, these high prices in Sierra Nevada would be due to the increase in prices of the various chemicals and precursors necessary to produce the paste, in particular the increase of the prices of gasoline that sometimes comes from Venezuela.

Table 36: Monthly coca paste price in Colombia 2005 (in '000 COP/kg)

Months Samplesize


Meta – Guaviare Pacific Putumayo-

Caqueta Sur de Bolivar

SierraNevada

January 15 2,122 2,300 2,067 1,700 2,166 2,380February 13 2,093 2,300 2,500 1,700 2,166 1,800March 14 2,019 2,300 2,100 1,700 2,194 1,800April 14 2,154 2,400 2,175 1,700 2,194 2,300May 13 2,124 2,100 2,025 1,500 2,194 2,800June 14 2,103 2,000 1,900 1,600 2,214 2,800July 13 2,163 2,300 1,900 1,600 2,217 2,800August 12 2,260 2,300 2,400 1,600 2,200 2,800September 13 2,129 2,100 2,300 1,875 2,243 -October 11 2,115 2,100 2,200 1,675 2,100 2,500November 14 2,059 2,000 1,900 1,525 2,071 2,800December 12 1,963 2,000 1,400 1,475 2,140 2,800Average(COP)

158 2,119 2,183 2,072 1,638 2,175 2,507

Average(US$/kg)

810 940 892 705 937 1,080

Source: National Monitoring System Supported by UNODC-SIMCI

Figure 18. Monthly coca paste price in Colombia 2005 (in '000 COP/kg)

1,200,000

1,700,000

2,200,000

2,700,000

3,200,000

J-05 F-05 M-05 A-05 M-05 J-05 J-05 A-05 S-05 O-05 N-05 D-05

CO

L/kg

Centre Pacific Putumayo-Caqueta Sierra Nevada Meta-Guaviare


168

The collection of prices data and their analysis is complicated by the absence of standard in naming the products, and in the absence of indications on the quality of the products. This is the case for cocaine base and coca paste which can easily be confused. However, the data on cocaine base, albeit less frequently reported than the data on coca paste, confirmed that cocaine base is a more refined product than coca paste, and that both product can be traded. On average, for 2005, prices of cocaine base were 20% higher than the prices of coca paste.

Coca paste is the product most often traded by farmers, whereas cocaine base would be produced mainly in clandestine laboratories as an intermediary product to cocaine hydrochloride.

Table 37: Monthly cocaine base price in Colombia 2005 (in '000 COP/kg)

Months Samplesize


Sur de Bolivar Pacific Putumayo

Caqueta Sierra

Nevada Orinoc

oMeta-

Guaviare

January 2 2,425 - - 2,650 - 2,200 -February 2 2,425 - - 2,650 - 2,200 -March - - - - - - - -April - - - - - - - -May 2 2,650 2,650 - - - - -June 5 2,617 2,900 - - 2,750 2,200 -July - - - - - - - -August - - - - - - - -September 22 2,631 2,867 2,267 2,750 2,475 2,725 2,700October - - - - - - - -November - - - - - - - -December 9 2,443 2,588 2,275 - 2,800 2,150 2,400

Average(COP/kg)

42 2,532 2,751 2,271 2,683 2,675 2,295 2,550

Average(US$/kg)

- 1,090 1,190 990 1,150 1,160 990 1,110

Figure 19. Comparison of the prices of coca paste and cocaine base in 2005 in US$/kg

937 892705

1.080940

1.190

9901.150 1.160

9901.110

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Sur de Bolivar Pacific Putumayo-Caqueta

Sierra Nevada Orinoco Meta-Guaviare

US

$/kg

Cocaine paste Cocaine base

Because of the clandestine nature of the trade, cocaine prices are less easily collected than prices of coca paste or coca leaf. This explains the fewer data available for cocaine prices than for other products. In Colombia, prices of cocaine hydrochloride are collected by DIRAN (the Anti-Narcotics


169

Police), and refer to whole sale prices in the main cities. The purity level was not investigated in this study.

The graph below presents the annual averages of cocaine prices since 1991. The prices are presented both in Colombian Pesos (COP) and US$ as constant price of 1991 to correct for the inflation. In addition, reported annual aerial spraying of coca cultivation has been plotted on the right axis.

As can be hinted from the graph, the analysis of the data revealed a positive correlation between the annual prices of cocaine in Colombian pesos and the annual total of area sprayed ( = 0.92 for constant prices between 1994 and 2005), meaning that in general an increase in area sprayed corresponds to an increase in cocaine prices in Colombian Pesos. However, that relationship cannot be so strongly established for prices of cocaine in US$ ( = 0.19 for constant prices between 1994 and 2005).

Table 38: Cocaine HCl price in Colombia 1991 – 2005

Year '000 COP/kg US$/kg

1991 950 1,500 1992 1,020 1,500 1993 1,377 1,750 1994 1,488 1,800 1995 1,232 1,350 1996 1,762 1,700 1997 1,769 1,550 1998 2,101 1,472 1999 2,800 1,592 2000 3,100 1,485 2001 3,599 1,571 2002 4,389 1,532 2003 4,500 1,565 2004 4,600 1,713 2005 4,315 1,860

Sources: DIRAN

Figure 20. Annual average cocaine prices and annual aerial spraying levels, 1991-2005, Colombia

500

700

900

1,100

1,300

1,500

1,700

1,900

91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05

'000

CO

P an

d U

S$/k

g

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

coca

fum

igat

ed (h

a)

Aspersion '000 COP/kg US$/kg


170

The data from the monthly survey on prices of the Andean coca market combined with the data from the coca leaf yield survey, enabled to calculate theoretical income from the sale of coca leaf, coca paste and cocaine base. The differences between these incomes give an indication of the value-added given by the farmers to coca paste and cocaine base. The table below shows a definite increase in the value added at each step of the processing. The value-added of cocaine base (+51%), the final product that can be produced by the farmers, also explained why 49% of the coca leaf production was transformed into cocaine base by the farmers.

Table 39: Annual income per hectare of coca cultivation for different derivatives of coca leaf

Annual yield/hectares

Average annual price

Annual income/hectares

Value-added from coca leaf Derivates

kg/hectares US$/kg US$/hectares %Coca leaf 6,300 1.1 6,930 Coca paste 10.3 910 9,370 35%Cocaine base 9.6 1,090 10,460 51%Cocaine hydrochloride 7.7 1,860 14,320 107%

Figure 21. Theoretical annual income per hectare of coca leaf, coca paste, cocaine base and cocaine hydrochloride

6,930

9,37010,460

14,320

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

Coca leaf Cocaine paste Cocaine base Cocainehydrochloride

US$

/ha

Based on the total production of each product sold by the farmers and the respective prices in 2005, the total farm-gate income value resulting from coca cultivation was estimated at about US$ 843 millions. This value does not take into account the farmers production costs, like cost of herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers and labour wages. It should also be noted that 51% of this value (US$ 430 million) is made in the region of Meta-Guaviare, because of its very high annual yield (9,900 kg/hectares) and high proportion of farmers processing cocaine base (65%)

Table 40: Value of the production of coca leaf and its derivative at farm-gate level

Product kg sold US$/kg US$ value Leaf 138,657,000 1.1 152,522,700 Paste 246,000 910 223,860,000 Base 428,000 1090 466,520,000 Rounded total farm-gate value 843,000,000

The total farm-gate value of production of coca leaf and its derivatives, corresponded to 0.7% the 2005’s GDP of US$ 122 billion according to DANE. In 2005, the total farm-gate value of coca cultivation represented 6% of the agricultural GDP of US$13.8 billions.

The coca leaf yield survey also enabled to collect data, through interviews, on the average area of coca cultivation by family. It was found that on average, a family cultivated about 1.25 hectares of coca plants. For a total area under coca cultivation of 86,000 hectares in 2005, the number of family cultivating coca plants was thus estimated at 68,600 families.


171

Table 41: Number of families involved in coca cultivation in Colombia in 2005

Region Coca cultivation (hectares)

person per family

hectaresper family # family # person

Meta-Guaviare 25,950 5.7 1.3 20,000 114,000Sur de Bolivar 14,780 4.7 2.1 7,000 32,900Putumayo-Caqueta 13,950 4.2 0.7 19,900 83,580

Orinoco 9,710 4.4 3.7 2,600 11,440Pacific 17,640 5.1 1.2 14,700 74,970Amazonia 2,330 4.2 0.7 3,300 13,860Catatumbo 850 4.8 1.3 700 3,360Sierra Nevada 540 5.1 1.5 400 2,040All regions 85,750 - 1.25 68,600 336,150

Thus, US$ 843 million divided among 68,600 families represented an annual gross income per family of US$ 12,300. For a total of 336,150 persons in these families, this was equivalent to an annual per capita gross income of US$2,500. The gross income value, which do not take into account the production costs, like costs of herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers and labour wages.


172

2.4 REPORTED AERIAL SPRAYING AND MANUAL ERADICATION

The Colombian anti-drugs strategy includes a number of measures ranging from aerial spraying, to force or voluntary manual eradication, including alternative development and crops substitution programmes. UNODC did not participate in or supervise the spraying activities. All data were received directly from DIRAN.

By far the most important is the spraying programme carried out by the Antinarcotics Police – DIRAN. This is realized through aerial spraying with a mixture of products called Round up – composed of an herbicide called glyphosate - and a surfactant called Cosmoflux and other additives. In late 2002, the National Narcotics Council approved an herbicide concentration of 2.5 litres per hectare for opium poppy and 10.4 litres per hectare for coca, with a view to increasing the spraying effectiveness rate, which was estimated as being 90%.

However, it should be kept in mind that the chemical mixture has effect over the leaves and not over the roots or the soil, and therefore the bush can be subject of a prune operation at about one feet over the ground to obtain a renewal of the bush in about six months.

The Illicit Crop Eradication Programme foresees an Environmental Management Plan and environmental auditing, as well as periodic verifications on the ground of the effectiveness of spraying activities and their environmental impact. The Ministry of Environment certified in July 2004 to the “Eradication of Illicit Crops Programme by Aerial Spraying with Glyphosate”, the observance of the environmental obligations imposed in the Management Plan.

Reports from DIRAN showed that, for the fifth consecutive time, spraying activities reached record level in 2005. The DIRAN sprayed a total of 138,775 hectares, representing an increase of 2% compared to last year aerial spraying levels. For the first time in 2005, spraying activities were implemented in the departments of Chocó, Cundinamarca and Valle.

Regarding the estimates on spraying area, it is important to differentiate between the accumulated sprayed area reported here – which is the sum of areas during a given time period (calculated by multiplying the length of flight lines by their width), and the effective sprayed area, which make correction for the overlap between adjacent sprayed bands and areas sprayed several times in the same calendar year.

Once coca fields are sprayed, it takes approximately six to eight months to recover productive crops when the bushes are pruned or replanted. However, when heavy rain occurs or bushes are washed by the farmers immediately after the spraying, the loss in coca leaf can be reduced and the crop recovered quickly. Therefore, coca cultivation sprayed during the first semester of 2005 had time to re-establish a vegetation cover that could be detected on the satellite images.

The sustainability of the eradication efforts depends to a large extent on the real alternatives open to the farmers and to the displacement of the cultivation into new and more remote areas of the country (balloon effect).

In addition to spraying, the Army reported the manual eradication of 31,287 hectares of coca cultivation, a record compared to previous levels of 6,234 hectares in 2004 and 4,011 hectares in 2003. The total of both types of eradication (spraying and manual) amounted to 170,062 hectares in 2005.

The Government also reported the aerial spraying of 1,624 hectares and the manual eradication of 484 hectares of opium poppy cultivation. The total of both types of eradication (spraying and manual) amounted to 2,108 hectares.


173

Table 42: Reported aerial spraying and manual eradication of coca cultivation 2005 (ha) by month Aerial spraying

Department Jan Feb Mar Apr Mar Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Manual eradication

Total aerial

spraying and

manual eradication

Amazonas - - - - - - - - - - - - 216 216Antioquia - - - 768 7,003 6,490 2,411 161 - - - - 1,677 18,510Arauca - - - - - - - 1,839 745 - - - 226 2,810Atlántico - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 3Bolivar - - - - - 31 538 3,436 2,405 - - - 188 6,597Boyacá - - - 925 - - - - - - - - 5,233 6,158Caldas - - - 1,090 - - - - - - - - 575 1,665Caqueta - - - - - - 974 1,775 784 430 512 978 84 5,536Cauca - 163 198 - 268 1,597 337 504 - - 132 93 1,383 4,675Cesar - - - - - - - - - - - - 14 14Chocó 425 - - - - - - - - - - - 225 650Cordoba - - - - 1,506 - 261 - - - - - 2,498 4,265Cundinamarca - - - - 43 - - - - - - - 1,221 1,264Guajira - - - - 388 - - - - 184 - - 1,681 2,253Guaviare 3,197 2,988 2,813 501 - - - - - 1,455 910 - 1,888 13,753Huila - - - - - - - - - - - - 15 15Magdalena - - - - 324 - - - - 59 - - 1,180 1,563Meta 2,143 296 71 2,833 1,604 1,504 628 - - 4,170 1,203 - 738 15,191Nariño 9,953 14,289 21,327 9,881 169 305 - - - - 684 1,023 5,712 63,342N. Santander - - - - - - - - 899 - - - 2,209 3,108Putumayo - - - - - - - 2,193 2,420 1,337 3,236 2,577 1,543 13,306 Santander - - - 152 - - 1,117 179 594 - - - 1,145 3,187Tolima - - - - - - - - - - - - 8 8Valle 5 - - - - - - - - - - - 1,551 1,556Vaupés - 340 - - - - - - - - - - - 340Vichada - - - - - - - - - - - - 74 74

Total 15,723 18,076 24,410 16,150 11,306 9,928 6,266 10,087 7,847 7,636 6,676 4,671 31,287 170,062

Table 43: Aerial Spraying and manual eradication of coca cultivation, by department and year(ha) Sources Environmental Audit of the

National Narcotics Bureau Antinarcotics Police Department

Department 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Guaviare 21394 14425 30192 37081 17376 8241 7477 7207 37493 30892 11865 Meta 2471 2524 6725 5920 2296 1345 3251 1496 6973 3888 14453 Caqueta 0 537 4370 18433 15656 9172 17252 18567 1 16276 5452 Putumayo - - 574 3949 4980 13508 32506 71891 8342 17524 11763 Vichada 50 85 - 297 91 - 2820 - - 1446 - Antioquia - 684 - - - 6259 - 3321 9835 11048 16833 Cordoba - 264 - - - - - 734 550 - 1767 Vaupés - - - 349 - - - - - 756 340 Cauca - - - - 2713 2950 741 - 1308 1811 3292 N. Santander - - - - - 9584 10308 9186 13822 5686 899 Nariño - - - - - 6442 8216 17962 36910 31307 57630 Santander - - - - - 470 - - 5 1855 2042 Boyacá - - - - - 102 - - - - 925 Bolivar - - - - - - 11581 - 4783 6456 6409 Arauca - - - - - - - - 11734 5336 2584 Magdalena - - - - - - - - - 1632 383 Guajira - - - - - - - - - 449 572 Caldas - - - - - - - - - 190 1090 Valle - - - - - - - - - - 5Chocó - - - - - - - - - - 425Cundinamarca - - - - - - - - - - 43Sub-total 23915 18519 41861 66029 43111 58073 94153 130364 132817 136552 138775 Manual Erad. - - - - - - 1745 2752 4011 6234 31287

Totaleradication 23915 18519 41861 66029 43111 58073 95898 133116 136828 142,786 170062

Net cultivation 51000 67000 79000 102000 160000 163000 145000 102000 86000 80000 86000


175

As can be seen from the graph below, the reduction in coca cultivation noted between 2001 and 2004, corresponded mainly to an increased and sustained spraying efforts. As aerial spraying stabilized after 2002 around 130,000 hectares, coca cultivation kept decreasing, although to a lower rate between 2003 and 2004. However, coca cultivation increased between 2004 and 2005, while spraying activities rose.

Figure 22. Comparison of net coca cultivation and accumulated sprayed areas (hectares).

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

hect

ares

Coca cultivation Aerial spraying

Sources: DIRAN, UNODC/SIMCI

When analysed at the department level, the data showed that the level of aerial spraying in 2001 had a statistically significant impact on the reduction of coca cultivation between 2001 and 2002. There was a significant negative correlation (-0.83) between the amount of aerial spraying in 2001 and the change in the extent of coca cultivation between 2001 and 2002. For the following years, aerial spraying had an impact in the total reduction of coca cultivation. The impact became statistically less significant in later years due to heavy replanting.

Manual erradication in Sierra La Macarena National Park.


176


UNODC was not involved in the collection of data on seizures and destruction of laboratories. However they are reproduced here for information and because they provide interesting indications as to the existence of possible trafficking corridors and allow for a better understanding of the dynamics that surrounds the overall drug business.

According to DNE, a total of 1953 illegal laboratories were destroyed in 2005. Out of these, a total of 1,786 corresponded to laboratories processing coca paste or coca base, 151 to processing cocaine hydrochloride, 16 permanganate of potassium, and 6 of heroin. Compared to 2004, it represented an increase of 5% in the number of illegal laboratories destroyed, demonstrating the high intensity of the actions taken by the Colombian Government against illicit drug production and coca cultivation.

Figure 23. Number of illegal laboratories destroyed and coca cultivation, 1997-2005

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

Coc

a cu

ltiva

tion

in h

a

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Illeg

al la

bora

torie

s de

stro

yed

Coca Cultiation in ha Illegal laboratories destroyed

Coca Cultiation in ha 79,500 102,000 160,119 163,289 144,807 102,071 86,000 80,000 86,000 Illegal laboratories destroyed 392 323 317 647 1,574 1,448 1,489 1,865 1,953

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Source: Drug Observatory, DNE

Illegal laboratory (photo DIRAN)


177

The distribution by department of the number of illegal laboratories destroyed and which were processing derivatives of coca leaves (coca paste/base and cocaine hydrochloride), also highlighted the department of Nariño as the most important illicit drug production centre in Colombia, as was the case in 2004. In the department of Guaviare, which accounts for 10% of the total coca cultivation, the number of coca paste/base laboratories destroyed increased from 4 in 2004 to 131 in 2005.

Table 44: Illegal laboratories destroyed and coca cultivation in 2005

Department Coca paste or base laboratories destroyed

Cocaine Laboratories

destroyed

Heroinlaboratories destroyed

Permanganate of potassium

laboratories destroyed

Nariño 388 41 6 6Antioquia 303 11 0 4Magdalena 170 10 0 0Guaviare 131 4 0 0Putumayo 125 4 0 0Cauca 110 11 0 2Caqueta 90 1 0 0Meta 65 2 0 1Valle 54 14 0 0N. Santander 53 8 0 0Santander 51 11 0 2Bolivar 41 2 0 0Vichada 37 0 0 0Cordoba 36 1 0 0Choco 27 0 0 0Cundinamarca 27 6 0 0Boyaca 26 4 0 0Arauca 15 4 0 0La Guajira 15 2 0 0Amazonas 13 0 0 0Caldas 6 6 0 0Bogota 1 0 0 0Huila 1 0 0 0Tolima 1 0 0 1Cesar 0 9 0 0Total 1786 151 6 16

Source: DNE


179

The data reported by DNE also showed an increase of 16% in cocaine seizure, from 149 metric tons in 2004 to 173 metric tons in 2005.

Table 45: Reported seizures of illicit drugs

Drug unit 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Coca seeds kg 1,678 98,916 27,752 173,141 301,444 Coca leaf kg 897,911 583,165 638,000 688,691 567,638 682,010 Coca paste kg 118 53 974 2,368 1,218 2,651 Coca base kg 9,771 16,572 22,615 27,103 37,046 106,491 Basuco kg 802 1,225 1,706 2,988 2,321 19,607

Cocaine hydrochloride kg 89,856 57,140 95,278 113,142 149,297 173,265

Opium seed kg 17 43 124 87 11 Opium latex kg 17 4 110 27 57 1,632 Morphine kg 91 47 21 78 39 93 Heroin kg 564 788 775 629 763 745 Raw cannabis kg 75,465 86,610 76,998 108,942 151,163 150,795 Cannabis resin kg na 0 3,5 Cannabis seeds kg 121,350 11,310 510 24 Synthetic drugs unit na 22,750 175,382 5,042 19,494

Source: Drug Observatory, DNE

Out of the 173 metric tons of cocaine seized in 2005, 96 metric tons or 56% were seized by the Colombian Navy on sea or in seaports. This suggests that most of the shipment of cocaine seizure took place by sea. The Pacific route continued to be the most important route for trafficking (63% of the maritime seizure in 2005).

Table 46: Reported seizures of cocaine in the Pacific and Atlantic routes, 2002 – 2005

2002 2003 2004 2005 Pacific 43,435 47,137 46,128 61,042 Atlantic 16,065 23,157 30,928 35,856 Total seized by sea 59,500 70,294 77,056 96,898 Total seizures 95,278 113,142 149,297 173,265 % of seizures seized on sea 62% 62% 52% 56%

Source: Colombian Navy, Intelligence Division

Figure 24. Reported seizures of cocaine in the Pacific and Atlantic routes, 2002 - 2005

43,4

35

47,1

37

46,1

28 61,0

42

16,0

65

23,1

57

30,9

28

35,8

56

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

2002 2003 2004 2005

kg

Pacific Atlantic


181

Table 47: Drug seizures by department and by drug type in Colombia 2005

Coca leaf Cocaine paste Cocaine base Basuco Cocaine Heroin Latex Cannabis

Department Kg Galon Kg Galon Kg Galon Kg Kg Galon Kg Kg Galon Kg

Amazonas 715 37 46 1 56 11Antioquia 75,183 550 579 13,549 5,883 1,070 10,533 2,989 53 8 13,157Arauca 505 344 356 3 118 50 9Atlantico 37 17 8,767 13 1,344Bogota 11 1 81 3,701 22Bolivar 9,670 575 474 576 530 17 19,309 2,585 28 2,305Boyaca 4,292 275 1,074 665 6 771 100 0 54Caldas 206 64 165 60 570 128 1 1,235Caqueta 8,381 220 84 17,663 715 2 1,289 660 18 26Casanare 0 2 2 13Cauca 49,790 4,738 6 684 2,707 62 5,126 3,913 1 33 33,197Cesar 29 4 1,313 12 261Choco 111 42 60 258 187 4 541 7,114Cordoba 13,759 320 2,375 6,026 33 2,147 1,885 418Cundinamarca 4,866 690 55 270 475 376 8,300 56 482 0 15 11,470Guainia 20 49 5Guaviare 100,017 2,595 75 25 3,965 2,515 0 1,411 171 15Huila 3,777 3 4,382 605 133 349La Guajira 4,380 467 6 37 2,210 1 3,883Magdalena 31,056 5,161 55 11 11,161 14,242Meta 17,137 1,777 2,870 1,279 48 1,260 875 193Nariño 253,702 25,943 466 4,814 54,746 16 33,835 1,281 11 54 114 666Putumayo 37,761 1,430 72 1,065 258 2 108 275 1,565 24Quindio 33 13 8 1 2,290Risaralda 1,587 130 27 70 9 2,419San Andres 0 6,268 223Santander 16,391 1,453 710 40,880 718 13,176 2,350 200 6,811Sucre 850 9 9 1,346 362Tolima 484 3,089 5,697 2 3,895Uraba 5,022 59 0 226 20 44Valle del Cauca 1,900 603 1,063 1,332 827 37,704 165 98 4 41,901Vaupes 0 0 Vichada 26,501 6 2,864 70 0 3,727 1N. de Santander 15,156 285 6 1,226 3,512 8 3,207 1,560 15 2,836

Grand Total 682,010 42,211 2,651 25 106,491 82,200 19,607 173,265 16,893 745 1,632 180 150,795 Source: Drug Observatory, DNE

PART 5. PERU COCA CULTIVATION SURVEY

Peru Coca Survey for 2005

185

FACT SHEET – PERU COCA SURVEY FOR 2005


Coca cultivation 50,300 ha - 4% 48,200 ha

Of which in Alto Huallaga 16,900 ha -5% 16,000 ha

Apurimac-Ene 14,700 ha + 6% 15,500 ha

La Convencion y Lares 12,700 ha - 2% 12,500 ha

Elsewhere 6,000 ha - 30% 4,200 ha

Weighted average sun-dried coca leaf yield 2,200 kg/ha 2,200 kg/ha

Potential production of sun-dried coca leaf 110,000 mt - 4% 106,000 mt

Potential production of cocaine hydrochloride 190 mt - 5% 180 mt

in percent of world illicit cocaine production 20 % 20 %

Average farm-gate price of sun-dried coca leaf US$ 2.8/kg US$ 2.9 /kg

Potential farm-gate value of sun-dried coca leaf US$ 304 million US$ 307 million Farm-gate value of coca leaf production as percentage of 2004 GDP (US$ 68.5 billion) 0.4% 0.4%

Average price of cocaine paste US$ 640/kg US$ 640/kg

Average price of cocaine hydrochloride US$ 890/kg US$ 890/kg

Reported eradication of coca cultivation 10,257 ha + 19% 12,232 ha

Reported seizure of cocaine paste 6,330 kg - 49% 3,199 kg

Reported seizure of cocaine hydrochloride 7,303 kg - 70% 2,199 kg


186

Abbreviations

ENACO National Coca Enterprise GIS Geographical Information Systems GPS Global Positioning System ICMP UNODC Illicit Crop Monitoring Programme DIRANDRO Anti-Drugs Directorate, Peruvian National Police OFECOD Drug Control Office, Peruvian Ministry of Interior NAS Narcotics Affairs Section, United States Embassy UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime CONTRADROGAS Committee for the Fight Against Drug Consumption DEVIDA National Commission for Development and Life without Drugs CORAH Control and Reduction of Coca Leaf in Upper Huallaga

Acknowledgements

The following organizations and individuals contributed to the implementation of the 2005 coca cultivation survey in Peru, and to the preparation of the present report:

Government of Peru: National Commission for Development and Life without Drugs (DEVIDA)

UNODC:

Humberto Chirinos, Project Coordinator, Peru Paloma Lumbre, Digital Classification, Cartography and GIS Specialist, Peru Aldo Gutarra, Multi-spectral Analysis Specialist, Peru Germán Galvez, Surveying, Cartography and GIS Specialist, Peru Lorenzo Vallejos, Digital Classification, Cartography and GIS Specialist, Peru Victor Rojas, Photo-Interpretation and Cartography Specialist, Peru Carlos Coello, Cartographic Technician, Peru

Aldo Lale-Demoz, UNODC Representative for Peru and Ecuador

Coen Bussink, Remote Sensing and GIS expert (UNODC – Research and Analysis Section - ICMP) Denis Destrebecq, Regional Illicit Crop Monitoring Expert (UNODC – Research and Analysis Section - ICMP) Anja Korenblik, Programme Manager (UNODC – Research and Analysis Section - ICMP) Thibault le Pichon, Chief (UNODC – Research and Analysis Section) Thomas Pietschmann, Research Officer (UNODC-Research and Analysis Section)Martin Raithelhuber, Programme Officer (UNODC-Research and Analysis Section)Javier Teran, Statistician (UNODC – Research and Analysis Section – ICMP)

The implementation of UNODC’s Illicit Crop Monitoring Programme in the Andean countries and the Peru survey in 2005 was made possible thanks to financial contributions from the Governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, France and Austria.




187

TABLE OF CONTENT

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 189

2 FINDINGS.............................................................................................................................................. 190

2.1 COCA CULTIVATION.......................................................................................................................... 190 2.1.1 Regional analysis....................................................................................................................... 193

2.1.1.1 Coca cultivation in Alto Huallaga ....................................................................................... 195 2.1.1.2 Coca cultivation in Apurimac-Ene...................................................................................... 2032.1.1.3 Coca cultivation in La Convencion y Lares........................................................................ 209 2.1.1.4 Coca cultivation in Inambari-Tambopata ........................................................................... 213 2.1.1.5 Coca cultivation in San Gaban .......................................................................................... 2142.1.1.6 Coca cultivation in Marañon, Putumayo, Huallaga Central and Bajo Huallaga ................ 215 2.1.1.7 Coca cultivation in Aguaytia............................................................................................... 217 2.1.1.8 Coca cultivation in Palcazu – Pichis - Pachitea................................................................. 218

2.1.2 Production coca leaf and derivatives......................................................................................... 2222.2 PRICES OF COCA LEAF AND ITS DERIVATIVES ..................................................................................... 224 2.3 REPORTED ERADICATION ................................................................................................................. 226 2.4 REPORTED SEIZURE......................................................................................................................... 228

Index of maps

Map 1: Coca cultivation by region in Peru, 2001 – 2005 ...................................................................... 192Map 2: Coca cultivation density in Alto Huallaga, 2005....................................................................... 194Map 3: Verification overflight with GeoVideo, Alto Huallaga .............................................................. 201Map 4: Coca cultivation density in Apurimac-Ene, 2005 ..................................................................... 202Map 5: Verification overflight with GeoVideo, Apurimac..................................................................... 207Map 6: Coca cultivation density in La Convención y Lares, 2005 ...................................................... 208Map 7: Coca cultivation density in Inambari-Tembopata – San Gaban, 2005 ................................... 212Map 8: Coca cultivation density in Aguaytia and Palcazu-Pichis-Pichitea, 2005.............................. 216Map 9: Verification overflight with GeoVideo, Aguaytia, Palcazu – Pichis – Pachitea ..................... 221Map 10: Reported eradication of coca cultivation, Peru, 2005.......................................................... 227


188


189

1 INTRODUCTION

In response to the decisions of the 1998 United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Drugs, UNODC developed and implemented a global Illicit Crop Monitoring Programme (ICMP). Through this programme, UNODC supports member states in establishing a crop monitoring system to monitor illicit cultivation of coca and opium poppy. The Programme is currently operating in Afghanistan, Myanmar, Laos, Colombia, Peru, Bolivia and Morocco.

In 1998, UNODC started working with DEVIDA to develop a national coca monitoring system in Peru. Using aerial photography, the project produced a detailed mapping (at 1/20,000 scale) of all the coca cultivation areas in 2000. Every year since then, satellite images were used to update the estimates. This report presents the findings of the 2004 Survey.

In Peru, the General Law on Drugs enacted in 1978 prohibits the cultivation of coca and seedlings in new areas within the national territory. This reference to “cultivation” includes the grafting and renovation of existing coca bushes. In 1978, another law established the National Coca Enterprise (ENACO), which has a monopoly on the commercialization and industrialization of the coca leaves. Therefore, the selling of coca leaves to any party other than ENACO is considered illicit by national law.

The Government also established in 1996 a Committee for the Fight Against Drug Consumption (CONTRADROGAS), renamed National Commission for Development and Life without Drugs (DEVIDA) in 2002. DEVIDA’s objectives are to design, coordinate and implement policies and activities aimed at national drug control.

Until the mid-1990’s, Peru was the world’s main coca cultivating country. Today, it is the second major producer of coca far behind Colombia.

The reduction in coca cultivation in Peru in the mid-1990’s was linked to the sharp decline in both the coca leaf prices and the demand for Peruvian coca leaf. In 1995, trade in coca leaf on the local market ceased and, from 1996 to 1998, the prices of coca leaf remained lower than its production costs. Farmers abandoned their coca fields and coca cultivation dropped from 115,300 ha to 38,700 ha, or 66%, between 1995 and 1999.

After 1999, coca prices increased slowly while the prices of licit crops (coffee and cacao) decreased. Farmers started to re-activate their abandoned coca fields and coca cultivation rose again in Peru. To some extent, the increase has been contained by the presence of alternative development projects, as well as the introduction of eradication measures, which include both forced eradication conducted by CORAH (Ministry of Interior) and voluntary eradication schemes conducted by DEVIDA.


190

2 FINDINGS

2.1 COCA CULTIVATION

In 2005, the total area under productive coca cultivation in Peru was estimated at 48,200 ha. This represented a decrease of 4 % over the estimate for 2004 of 50,300 ha.

Figure 1. Coca cultivation in Peru, 1995 – 2005 (ha)

Sources United States Department of States National Monitoring System Supported by UNODC

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

110,000

120,000

130,000

Hec

tare

s

Hectares 115,300 94,400 68,800 51,000 38,700 43,400 46,200 46,700 44,200 50,300 48,200

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

The decrease in coca cultivation observed in 2005 was the results of the eradication campaigns implemented by CORAH during that year. Eradication efforts were particularly important in two departments: the department of Puno in San Gabán’s valley, and the department of San Martin in Alto Huallaga region. As a result, in San Gaban’s valley, coca cultivation decreased from 2,700 ha as of September 2004 to 300 ha as of July 2005, corresponding to a reduction of 91%. In the department of San Martin, coca cultivation in the valleys of Mishollo and the region of Pizana-Polvora, where most the eradication campaign took place, totalled 1,316 ha in 2004, but only 369 ha in 2005, corresponding to a decrease of 72%.

The decrease in coca cultivation in San Gaban and Mishollo/Pizano-Polvara was offset by small increases in others regions of Atlo Huallaga, and by increases in Apurimac-Ene and Aguaytia.


191

Despite the decrease between 2004 and 2005, coca cultivation in Peru remained the second largest after Colombia. It represented 30% of the 2005 global coca cultivation, compared to 33% in 2004. A percentage that remained much lower than ten years ago, when coca cultivation in Peru accounted for 54% of the cultivation in the world.

The decreases in Peru and Bolivia were offset by the increase in coca cultivation in Colombia, and the global level of coca cultivation remained unchanged between 2004 and 2005.

Figure 2. Coca cultivation in the Andean region, 1995 – 2005 (ha)

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

hect

ares


Table 1: Coca cultivation in the Andean region, 1995- 2005 (ha)

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005%

change 2004-2005

Bolivia 48,600 48,100 45,800 38,000 21,800 14,600 19,900 21,600 23,600 27,700 25,400 -8%

Peru 115,300 94,400 68,800 51,000 38,700 43,400 46,200 46,700 44,200 50,300 48,200 -4%

Colombia 50,900 67,200 79,400 101,800 160,100 163,300 144,800 102,000 86,000 80,000 86,000 8%

Total 214,800 209,700 194,000 190,800 220,600 221,300 210,900 170,300 153,800 158,000 159,600 1%



193

2.1.1 REGIONAL ANALYSIS

In Peru, most coca cultivation is concentrated in 14 large valleys and 8 smaller valleys. These valleys can be grouped in three main regions, making up 91% of the total cultivation in 2005: Alto Huallaga, Apurimac-Ene and La Convención y Lares. Each region has its own characteristics: While La Convención y Lares is the main supplier of the domestic consumption of coca leaf, coca cultivation in Apurimac-Ene and Alto-Huallaga are almost exclusively oriented for the production of cocaine for domestic and international markets.

Coca cultivation in others areas like San Gaban and Inambari-Tambopata at the border with Bolivia, Aguaytía and Palcazu- Pichis- -Pachitea in the central part of the country, Marañon in the northern area close to the border with Ecuador and Putumayo of Loreto department close to Colombia, only accounted for 9% of the 2005 total. Coca cultivation in these areas has mainly been oriented towards the production of cocaine.

Altogether, in 2005 coca cultivation could be found at various levels in 12 out of the 24 departments of Peru (Cajamarca, Amazonas, La Libertad, San Martín, Loreto, Huanuco, Ucayali, Pasco, Junin, Ayacucho, Cusco and Puno).

Figure 3. Coca cultivation estimates by region, 2001 – 2005 (ha)

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

Alto Huallaga Apurimac-Ene La Convención -Lares

Inambari -Tambopata

Aguaytía Marañon,Putumayo

San Gaban Palcazu -Pichis -

Pachitea

hect

ares

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Table 2: Coca cultivation estimates by region, 2001 – 2005 (ha)

Region 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005Change 2004 – 2005

% of 2005 total

Alto Huallaga 14,481 15,286 13,646 16,900 16,039 -861 33%Apurimac-Ene 12,600 14,170 14,300 14,700 15,530 830 32%La Convención - Lares 13,980 12,170 12,340 12,700 12,503 -197 26%Inambari - Tambopata 2,520 2,430 2,260 2,000 2,250 250 5%Aguaytía 1,051 1,070 510 500 917 417 2%Marañon, Putumayo 1,250 1,250 450 500 500 0 1%San Gaban n.a. n.a. 470 2,700 292 -2,408 1%Palcazu - Pichis -Pachitea 350 350 250 300 211 -89 0%Rounded Total 46,200 46,700 44,200 50,300 48,200 -2,100 100%

Source: National monitoring system supported by UNODC


194

Map 2: Coca cultivation density in Alto Huallaga, 2005

Alto Biavo

Cholon

Polvora

Monzon

Shunte Tocache

Jose Crespo y Castillo

Uchiza

Marias

Cochabamba

Nuevo Progreso

Jircan

Huavaybamba

Rupa-Rupa

Mariano Damaso Beraun

Singa Tantamayo

Puños

Arancay

Luyando

Miraflores

Hermilio Valdizan

Punchao

76°30'W

76°30'W

76°0'W

76°0'W

9°30

'S

9°30

'S

9°0'

S

9°0'

S

8°30

'S

8°30

'S

8°0'

S

8°0'

S

Source: Govemment of Peru - National monitoring system supported by UNODCThe boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations


1.1 - 2.02.1 - 4.0

> 8.0Department boundariesDistrict boundaries

SAN MARTIN

LORETO

UCAYALI

HUANUCO

ANCASH

PuertoPizana

Monzon

Tulumayo

Pendencia - Aucayacu

Aspuzana

Santa Martha

Camote - Frijol

Tocache - Chontayacu

Tingo Maria

Mishollo

CachicotoMonzon M

onzon

Cuchara

Penden

cia

Tulumayo

Pendencia

Aucayacu

Aucayacu

Sta. Martha

Magdale

na

Aspu

zana

Aspuzana

Yana

janca

Santa Lucia

Chonta

yacu

Uchiza

Camo

te

Frijo

l

Uchiza

Cuchara

Magdalena

Tocache

Tocac

he

Pto. Pizana

Mishollo

0.1 - 1.0

4.1 - 8.0

Major roadRiverVillage center

Tazo

Monzon

ALTOHU

ALLAGA

ALTOH

UALLAGA


Pucayacu

Bambamarca

Yanajanca

Huamuco

km0 20 40

Peru

AltoHuallaga


195

2.1.1.1 Coca cultivation in Alto Huallaga

The Alto Huallaga region is located on the Eastern side of the Andes mountain range, in the high tropical or subtropical forests of the departments of San Martin and Huamuco. In this region, coca bush is cultivated between 400 and 1,400 meters above sea level. Deforestation is important in the region and mostly due to agricultural exploitation of land that should rather be protected or devoted to forest or forestry activities.

The Alto Huallaga is one of the three main coca growing regions of Peru where coca cultivation has long been established. The 16,039 ha estimated in 2005 accounted for 33% of the national total. It represented a 5% decrease compared to 2004, but despite this decrease, Alto Huallaga remained in 2005 the main centre of coca cultivation in Peru, ahead of Apurimac and La Convención y Lares.

Between 2004 and 2005, a decrease of 5% was noted in Alto Huallaga. The decrease is mostly the result of intense eradication campaigns implemented by CORAH and that took place throughout 2005. The eradication campaigns targeted in particular the lower valley of the Mishollo river, the coca fields around the villages of Pizana, Yanjanca and Huamuco, as well as the lower valley of the Tocache river (on the left bank). The eradication implemented by CORAH eliminated seedbeds, new fields that had not yet been harvested, as well as coca fields in full production.

Eradicated coca fields, sector Mishollo, March 2006 Eradicated coca fields, sector Pizana, March 2006

Table 3: Coca cultivation in the valleys of the Alto Huallaga region, 2002 – 2005 (ha)

Coca growing areas 2002 2003 2004 2005 % change 2004-2005

% of 2005total

Monzon 10,935 10,659 11,325 11,230 -1% 70%Tulumayo 1,438 1,188 1,507 1,507 0% 9%Pendencia – Aucayacu 1,147 560 711 632 -11% 4%Aspuzana 488 373 335 469 40% 3%Cuchara - Madgalena - S. Marta - Camote – Frijol – Yanajanca – Huanuco 587 510 1,080 1,278 18% 8%

Tocache – Chontayacu 691 356 677 554 -18% 3%Mishollo 408 187 -54% 1%Puerto Pizano 908 182 -80% 1%Rounded total for Alto Huallaga 15,300 13,600 16,900 16,039 -5% 100%



196

Figure 4. Coca cultivation in the valleys of the Alto Huallaga region, 2002 – 2005 (ha)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Monzon Tulumayo Pendencia -Aucayacu

Aspuzana Cuchara -Madgalena -S. Marta -Comote -

Frijol

Tocache -Chontayacu

Mishollo PuertoPizano

hect

are

2002 2003 2004 2005

Beside the decrease in coca cultivation in the areas mentioned above, coca cultivation actually increase in other areas like in the small valleys of the Aspuzana, Cuchara, Magdalena, Santa Martha, Camote, Frijol, Huamuco and on the leaf bank of the Huallaga river. In these areas, coca cultivation increased by about 13% between 2004 and 2005. During the verification over flight, it was also noted that farmers were preparing new fields, of the size and in environment usually suitable for coca cultivation. This could be an indication that there could be more coca cultivation in these areas in 2006.

As was the case in previous years, most of Alto Huallaga’s coca cultivation took place in the Monzon valley. Monzon accounted for 70% of the coca cultivation of the Alto Huallaga, and 23% of the national total with 11,230 ha. This amount of coca cultivation was roughly similar to the 11, 325 ha registered in 2004. As there was no eradication efforts conducted in this valley in 2005, nor any alternative development activities, and that prices of coca leaf and its derivatives remained high, the difference between 2004 and 2005 was mainly attributed to the different type of satellite images used for both years. Indeed, in 2005, it was not possible to cover the whole Alto Huallaga with SPOT5 images like in 2004 because of intense cloud cover and it was therefore decided to use a combination of IKONOS (more precise but smaller than SPOT images) and Landsat7 images (less precise but larger than SPOT images).


197

Comparison of Landsat7, SPOT5, and IKONOS satellite images over coca growing areas of Peru.


198

Although coca cultivation remained relatively stable between 2004 and 2005 in Monzon area, it was noted during the verification flights that farmers were preparing new fields suitable for coca cultivation, and even new fields of less than one year old which were not counted in the 2005 census, but that will be productive in 2006.

Coca fields have long been established in Monzón valley and most of them are over 20 years old. Typically, coca fields in Monzón valley are less productive than in other parts of Alto Huallaga. However, there were recent reports over the past three years of farmers interspersing new coca plants among older coca plants to increase the density and thereby their coca leaf yield.

The economy of Monzón valley is almost exclusively dependent on coca cultivation for the cocaine market. Up-to-date data on the number of persons living in this valley does not exist. However local authorities usually mentioned about 35,000 inhabitants living in the valley, but this does not take into account the external labour recruited for harvesting of coca leaf and processing of coca paste. The coca farmers organizations of Monzón strongly opposed the efforts of the government to reduce coca cultivation, and the insecurity and violence brought by these organizations were constant in 2005. These tense conditions, that prevailed for the past three years, have prevented the local authorities and the personnel of alternative development projects from entering the valley and working with the 1,200 people registered as beneficiaries of Alternative Development projects in Monzón.

Although there was no eradication of coca fields in Monzon valley in 2005, the anti-narcotic police, DIRANDRO, conducted a number of operations aimed at the destruction of maceration pits, seizures of materials and destruction of clandestine laboratories.

High density of coca fields and deforestation, Coca fields in various development stages Cuyacu - Monzon, March 2006 Cashapampa - Monzon, March 2006

High density of coca fields in strong slope, Panoramic view of a small valley with coca fields, Caunarapa - Monzon, March 2006 Shipaco- Monzon, March 2006


199

Recently planted coca fields. Coca plants are grouped and put in small holes Caunarapa - Monzon, March 2006

The second most important areas of coca cultivation in Alto Huallaga, but far behind Monzon valley, is the valley of Tulumayo. In 2005, coca cultivation in this region represented 9% of the coca cultivation in Alto Huallaga, but only 3% of the national level. Between 2004 and 2005, the level of coca cultivation remained stable at 1,507 ha. However, it was noted during field visits and overflights that farmers were preparing new fields, suitable for coca cultivation, an indication that coca cultivation could increase.

High density of coca fields in production and recently Coca fields in production and recently planted, harvested, Maronas, March 2006 Supte, March 2006


200

Snapshots of the video taken during the verification flights.

A camera video linked to a GPS was used to verify the initial interpretation of the satellite images. The yellow dots represent the flight path, the blue arrow the position of the plane when the video was paused. The white line matches a coca field spotted on the video and the corresponding field on the satellite image. The verification flights were conducted jointly by UNODC and CADA.

Snapshot of the video taken over Monzon region

Snapshot of the video taken over Tulumayo, Alto Huallaga.

Snapshot of the video taken over Aucayacu, Alto Huallaga.


201

Map 3: Verification overflight with GeoVideo, Alto Huallaga

Alto Biavo

Cholon

Polvora

Monzon

Shunte Tocache

Jose Crespo y Castillo

Uchiza

Marias

Cochabamba

Nuevo Progreso

Jircan

Huavaybamba

Rupa-Rupa

Mariano Damaso Beraun

Singa Tantamayo

Puños

Arancay

Luyando

Miraflores

Hermilio Valdizan

Punchao

76°30'W

76°30'W

76°0'W

76°0'W

9°30

'S

9°30

'S

9°0'

S

9°0'

S

8°30

'S

8°30

'S

8°0'

S

8°0'

S


1.1 - 2.02.1 - 4.0

> 8.0

Department boundariesDistrict boundaries

SAN MARTIN

LORETO

UCAYALI

HUANUCO

ANCASH

PuertoPizana

Monzon

Tulumayo

Pendencia - Aucayacu

Aspuzana

Santa Martha

Camote - Frijol

Tocache - Chontayacu

Tingo Maria

Mishollo

CachicotoMonzon

Monzon

Cuchara

Penden

cia

Tulumayo

Pendencia

Aucayacu

Aucayacu

Sta. Martha

Magdale

na

Aspu

zana

Aspuzana

Yana

janca

Santa Lucia

Chonta

yacu

Uchiza

Camo

te

Frijo

l

Uchiza

Cuchara

Magdalena

Tocache

Tocac

he

Pto. Pizana

Mishollo

0.1 - 1.0

4.1 - 8.0

Overflight wiht geovideo

RiverVillage center

Tazo

Monzon

ALTOHU

ALLAGA

ALTOH

UALLAGA


Pucayacu

Bambamarca

Yanajanca

Huamuco

km0 20 40

Peru

AltoHuallaga

Source: Govemment of Peru - National monitoring system supported by UNODCThe boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations


202

Map 4: Coca cultivation density in Apurimac-Ene, 2005

Pien

e

Sivia

Anco

Quimbiri

Pichari

San Miguel

Ayna

Santillana

Huanta

Tambo

Santa Rosa

Chilcas

Quinua

uain

Acos Vinchosacucho

Huamanguilla

Pacaycasa

San Juan Bautista74°0'W

74°0'W

73°30'W

73°30'W

13°0

'S

13°0

'S

12°3

0'S

12°3

0'S

12°0

'S

12°0

'S

Source: Government of Peru - National monitoring system supported by UNODCThe boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or aceptance by the United Nations


0.1 - 1.0

2.1 - 4.0


Geographic coordinates WGS84

1.1 - 2.0

Yaviro

Mantaro

San Antonio

Monterrico

Sta. Rosa

Palmapampa

PichariSivia

Llochegua

CanayreVilla

Virgen

> 8.04.1 - 8.0


Villa Virgen

Chun

chubam

ba

Sta.

Rosa

Picha

ri

Acon

Chuimacota

ENE

ValleEsmeralda

Quem

piri

Anapati

Quempiri

San Francisco QuimbiriQuim

biri

APURIMAC

APURIMAC

Echarate

Rio Tambo

Masamari

Pangoa

Vilcabamba

JUNIN

CUSCO

AYACUCHOApurimac

Ene

km0 15 30

Peru

ApurimacEne


203

2.1.1.2 Coca cultivation in Apurimac-Ene

The region is situated in the central part of the country extending over 12,000 sq km in the valleys of the rivers Apurimac and Ene, among the departments of Ayacucho, Cusco and Junín. The relief is uneven, and coca cultivation takes place at altitudes ranging between 550 and 2,000 meters above sea level.

Coca cultivation has long been established in Apurimac-Ene, predominantly on the steep slopes areas where the only other crops that can be grown are coffee and a few leguminous. To a lesser extent coca is also grown in areas of lower slopes, sharing the land with annual crops like maize, yucca, beans, sesame and permanent crops like cacao and fruit trees.

Apurimac-Ene is the second largest coca growing region of Peru, and with 15,530 ha in 2005, it represented 32% of the national total. This represented an increase of 6% compared to 2004. The increase was distributed over the valley, and it was not possible to identify a particular region where an increase took place. The main centers of coca cultivation continued to be around the villages of Santa Rosa, Palmapampa, Llochegua, Monterrico, Catarata and Alto Pichari.

Recently planted coca fields with high density of Recently planted coca fields on small terraces plants/ha, Palmapampa, March 2006 Santa Rosa, March 2006

Table 4: Distribution of coca cultivation in Apurimac-Ene,2001 – 2005 (ha)

Region 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005% change

2004 - 2005

% of 2005 total

Apurimac 12,600 13,283 13,777 13,382 14,125 6% 91%Ene 0 887 923 1,319 1,405 7% 9%Rounded total 12,600 14,170 14,300 14,700 15,500 5% 100%


Figure 5. Distribution of coca cultivation in Apurimac-Ene,2001 – 2005 (ha)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

hect

are

Apurimac Ene


204

Coca cultivation in Apurimac-Ene is notoriously more sophisticated than in other valleys, characterized by a high density of the coca plants (up to 100,000 plants/ha) combined with an intense use of fertilizers and pesticides. New plants are readily available from existing seedbeds, either to be planted on new fields or to increase the plant density of old fields. There were also report of farmers being advised by experts to improve their coca yields. For these reasons, it is in Apurimac-Ene that the highest coca yields are obtained. Reports of annual yield above 4,000 kg/ha are more and more often frequent.

According to the population statistics of INEI, in 1994 there were 93,800 inhabitants (18,500 families) in Apurimac-Ene. Since then, the population has naturally increased, but it is also likely that it counts now with new migrants from the poorest areas of the Andean region who arrived in Apurimac-Ene, attracted by the demand for labour in the coca fields. A large majority of the population in Apurimac-Ene benefits directly or indirectly from coca cultivation.

In 2005, no forced eradication was implemented in the region, mainly due to the strong opposition from the farmers organizations. The social tensions surrounding the issue of coca cultivation were noticeable for the past three years and impeded the work of various organizations working in alternative development projects. Since 1995, UNODC has been implementing Alternative Development projects to improve coffee and palm trees production, benefiting about 1,100 persons. The same social tensions also prevented the implementation of voluntary eradication programme (4.4 ha voluntarily eradicated in 2005). There were however regular operations of the anti-narcotics police to destroy coca maceration pits and clandestine laboratories.

Coca fields, Santa Rosa, March 2006


205

Coca seed beds and recently planted fields, Progreso, March 2006

Coca seed beds, Sivia, October 2005


206



Snapshot of the video over Apurimac

Snapshot of the video over Apurimac


207

Map 5: Verification overflight with GeoVideo, Apurimac

Pien

e

Sivia

Anco

Quimbiri

Pichari

San Miguel

Ayna

Santillana

Huanta

Tambo

Santa Rosa

Chilcas

Quinua

uain

Acos Vinchosacucho

Huamanguilla

Pacaycasa

San Juan Bautista74°0'W

74°0'W

73°30'W

73°30'W

13°0

'S

13°0

'S

12°3

0'S

12°3

0'S

12°0

'S

12°0

'S



0.1 - 1.0

2.1 - 4.0

Department boundariesDistrict boundaries Geographic coordinates WGS84

1.1 - 2.0

Yaviro

Mantaro

San Antonio

Monterrico

Sta. Rosa

Palmapampa

PichariSivia

Llochegua

CanayreVilla

Virgen

> 8.04.1 - 8.0

Overflight with geovideo

RiverVillage center

Villa Virgen

Chun

chubam

ba

Sta.

Rosa

Picha

ri

Acon

Chuimacota

ENE

ValleEsmeralda

Quem

piri

Anapati Quempiri

San Francisco QuimbiriQuim

biri

APURIMAC

APURIMAC

Echarate

Rio Tambo

Masamari

Pangoa

Vilcabamba

JUNIN

CUSCO

AYACUCHOApurimac

Ene

km0 15 30

Peru

ApurimacEne


208

Map 6: Coca cultivation density in La Convención y Lares, 2005

Yanatile

Quellouno

SANTA TERESA

Ocobamba

Huayopata

Santa Ana

Ollantaytambo

Machupicchu

Maras

Maranura

Urubamba

Y

72°30'W

72°30'W

13°0

'S

13°0

'S

12°3

0'S

12°3

0'S

2

0.1 - 1.0

4.1 - 8.0> 8.0

Quillabamba

Maranura

Echarate

QuebradaHonda

Kquellccaybamba

QuellounoPalma Real

Huayopata

Peru

1.1 - 2.02.1 - 4.0

Vilcanota

Yanatile

Yanatile

Vilca

nota

Urubamba

Versa

lles

Ocob

amba

Yavero

Yavero

Vilcanota

LucumaVilcabam

ba

La Convención

Lares

km0 15 30

La Convencionand Lares

Source: Government of Peru - National of monitoring system supported by UNODCThe boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations


Village CenterRiverMajor roadDistrict boundaries

Cultivation density(ha/km )

CUSCO


209

2.1.1.3 Coca cultivation in La Convencion y Lares

The region is situated in the province of La Convencion in the department of Cusco. The natural vegetation is made of subtropical forests. Due to intense deforestation, the primary forest is nowadays only found in the higher parts of the region. Coca is mostly cultivated between 800 and 2,000 meter above sea, in the valleys of the rivers Urubamba and Yanatile.

In 2005, coca cultivation reached 12,503 ha, representing 26% of the national total, which ranked the region third in terms of coca cultivation, behind Alto Huallaga and Apurimac. Compared to 2004 there was a slight decrease of 2% in coca cultivation. This small difference was mainly attributed to the farmers’ practice of cutting their coca fields after three or four year of continuous production.

Coca fields on steep slopes (typical of La Convention) Sprouting coca fields (after pruning) Echarate, March 2006 Huayanay, February 2005

Table 5: Distribution of coca cultivation in La Convencion y Lares, 2001 – 2005 (ha)

Region 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005% change

2004 – 2005

% of 2005 regional

total La Convención 8,455 6,086 5,476 5,339 5,481 3% 44%Lares 5,525 6,084 6,864 7,361 7,022 -5% 56%Rounded total 13,980 12,170 12,340 12,700 12,500 -2% 100%


Figure 6. Distribution of coca cultivation in La Convencion y Lares, 2001 – 2005 (ha)

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

hect

are

La convencion Lares


210

Historically, the region has been considered as the coca cultivation centre for the traditional use of coca leaves. In 1978, the state company ENACO registered 12,685 coca farmers for the cultivation of 10,670 ha of coca bush. It was estimated at that time that the coca leaf production amounted to 7,400 metric tons per year, of which 3,764 metric tons (or 51%) were destined to ENACO, the rest being smuggled outside the control of ENACO. Since then, the diversion of coca leaf intensified due to the better price offered for coca leaf outside ENACO’s market. In particular, in the past few years, it was noted that farmers improved their coca leaf yields by increasing the coca plant density and the use of fertilizers and pesticide.

However, coca leaf production from the region is supposed to be mainly oriented towards traditional uses like chewing, and not towards narco-trafficking. There was no report of eradication nor destruction of maceration pits or clandestine laboratories.

In 2005, a regional decree authorized coca cultivation, thereby recognizing the region as a traditional center of coca cultivation. The decree gave to the coca plant the status of Regional Natural, Biological and Cultural Heritage of Cusco, as well as botanical resource integrated to the culture and cosmovision of the Andean world and to the medicinal customs and traditions. It recognized the region as traditional coca producing area and legalized coca cultivation in the valleys of La Convencion, i.e. the valleys of Yanatile in the province of Calca and Qosñipata de Iño in the province of Paucartambo, all in the department of Cusco. However, the decree was invalidated by the Constitutional Court.

Old coca fields replanted with young plants, Vilcanota, November 2005


211

Coca fields associated with papaya trees, Sambaray, February 2005

Coca seed beds under shadow, Vilcanota February 2005


212

Map 7: Coca cultivation density in Inambari-Tembopata – San Gaban, 2005

Coasa

Inambari

LimbaniSan Juan del OroAyapata

Ituata

Laberinto

Putina

I

Crucero

Muñani Ananea

Macusani

Potoni

Sina

Sandia

Ollachea

Alto Inambari

Asillo

Azangaro

San Gaban

Antauta

AjoyaniUsicayos Phara

San Anton

Quiaca

Yanahuaya

San Jose

Cuyocuyo

ORURILLO

Patambuco

QuilcapuncoTirapata70°30'W

70°30'W

70°0'W

70°0'W

69°30'W

69°30'W

69°0'W

69°0'W

14°3

0'S

14°3

0'S

14°0

'S

14°0

'S

13°3

0'S

13°3

0'S

13°0

'S

13°0

'S12

°30'

S

y

Source: Government of Peru - National monitoring system supported by UNODCThe boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations


0.1 - 1.01.1 - 2.02.1 - 4.0



4.1 - 8.0> 8.0


MADRE DE DIOS

CUSCO

PUNO

INAMBARI

San

Gaba

n

INAMBARI

Yahuarmayo

San Gaban

Chaspa

Araza LoroMayo

Masuco

INAMBARI

TAM

BOPA

TA

Lanza

Azata

TAMBOPATA

San Ignacio

Putinapunco

Pabl

obam

ba

San Juandel Oro

Masiapo

Hua

riH

uari

Sandia

Isilluma

San Gaban

Inambari

Tambopata

BoliviaInternational boundaries

km0 20 40

Peru

San Gaban andInambari - Tambotapa


213

2.1.1.4 Coca cultivation in Inambari-Tambopata

The rivers Inambari and Tambopata constitute the two main valleys for coca cultivation in the province of Macusani in Puno department. According to the National System of Land Classification, only 1% of the land would be suitable for agricultural activities while 99% of the land is on steep slopes considered protected areas because of their vulnerability to erosion. Coca cultivation mainly takes place on these steep slopes, between 800 and 1,800 meter above sea.

In 2005, coca cultivation was estimated at 2,250 ha, representing 5% of the national total. This corresponded to a slight increase compared to the level of coca cultivation in 2004 estimated at 2,000 ha. In this region, coca cultivation is concentrated in the small valley of the river Inambari.

Table 6: Distribution of coca cultivation in Inambari-Tambopata, 2001 – 2005 (ha)

Region 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005% Change

2004 – 2005

% of 2005 regional

total Inambari 1,903 1,761 1,441 1,913 1,997 17% 87%Tambopata 617 669 819 87 253 -12% 11%Rounded total 2,520 2,430 2,260 2,000 2,300 15% 100%


In the 80’s, this area was considered as a traditional coca growing region. ENACO in 1988 registered 1,778 coca farmers for a declared area of coca cultivation of 783 ha. In the 90’s, the production increased and was apparently more and more oriented towards narco-trafficking. Recently, there were reports of production and marketing of cocaine paste. There were also reports of illegal smuggling of inputs necessary for the production of cocaine paste or hydrochloride, like kerosene, sulfuric acid and chalk among others.

During the field verification process, it was noted that in this region coca cultivation was often interspersed or associated with other crops or bushes, which makes the detection of coca cultivation more difficult. It was also noticeable that farmers tended to improve the management of their coca fields to increase their yields, in particular an increase in plant density and use of fertilizers.

In general, coca farmers living in this region do not depend exclusively from coca cultivation, but also have other crops like coffees, or have developed activities in neighboring areas. It is rare to find farmers who only cultivate coca bush.

In 2005, there was no report of eradication or auto-eradication in the valley. It should be noted that access to this valley is increasingly difficult and risky because of the coca production destined for narco-trafficking.


214

2.1.1.5 Coca cultivation in San Gaban

San Gaban region is presented on the same map as Inambari-Tambopata region. The valley of the San Gaban river is part of the larger watershed of the Inambari river. It is situated in the north-western part of the department of Puno bordering Bolivia. The relief is uneven and covered by high altitude tropical forest. Coca cultivation mostly takes place between 400 and 1,200 meter above sea level, on the high slope areas situated in the middle and low parts of the San Gaban valley, up to its connection with the Inambari river. The area includes by the localities of Juliaca, Puerto Maldonado and Iñapari at the border with Brazil.

The analysis of the SPOT5 image acquired in July 2005 over that area, showed that there were 292 ha of coca cultivation in this region. This corresponded to a decrease of 90% compared to the 2,700 ha registered in 2004, and only 0.6% of the national total. This spectacular decrease followed intense eradication efforts by CORAH, that reported the eradication of 1,900 ha of coca cultivation between October and December 2005.

The decrease in coca cultivation and its replacement by grasses and shrubs, can be noted in the following snapshots of satellite images taken in 2004 and 2005.


215

2.1.1.6 Coca cultivation in Marañon, Putumayo, Huallaga Central and Bajo Huallaga

There were marginal levels of coca cultivation in the higher areas of the Marañon valley, situated in the northern part of the Andean region, as well as in the Putumayo region close to the border with Colombia in the north-eastern part of the country. Coca cultivation was estimated at only 350 ha for these two regions.

In Marañon, in 1978, ENACO registered 900 coca farmers in the areas of Huayobamba and Balzas, for a total of about 300 ha.

The Putumayo region is situated along the Putumayo river that makes the border with Colombia. Although close to the important coca cultivation of Putumayo on the Colombian side of the river, coca cultivation on the Peruvian side was considered very low in 2005. Coca cultivation was estimated at about 100 ha in 2005.

For the past three years, various eradication campaigns have been conducted in the regions of Huallaga Central and Bajo Huallaga. In 2005, only about 150 ha of coca cultivation were detected on the satellite images.


216

Map 8: Coca cultivation density in Aguaytia and Palcazu-Pichis-Pichitea, 2005

Irazola

Padre Abad

Puerto Inca

Codo del Pozuzo

Yuyapichis

Tornavista

Honoria

Daniel AlomiasRobles

75°30'W

75°30'W

75°0'W

75°0'W

10°0

'S

10°0

'S

9°30

'S

9°30

'S

9°0'

S

9°0'

S



0.1 - 1.01.1 - 2.02.1 - 4.0



Peru

UCAYALI

HUANUCO

PASCO


AGUAYT

IA

Aguaytia

San A

lejan

dro

Huipoca

San Alejandro

Von Humbolth

Boqueron

Aguaytia andPalcazu-Pichis-Pachitea

CiudadConstitucion

PACH

ITE

A

PICHIS

PALCAZU

Santa Isabel

Yuyapichis

Yanayacu

Pozuzo

Sta. Isabel

Aguaytia

Pachitea

Pichis

Palcazu

4.1 - 8.0

km0 15 30

> 8.0


217

2.1.1.7 Coca cultivation in Aguaytia

Aguaytia is a valley situated in Aguaytia province in the department of Ucayali. The region is made flat alluvial land and hills where coca cultivation takes place between 300 and 600 meters above sea level.

Coca cultivation increased from 500 ha in 2004 to 917 ha in 2005, representing a 74% increase. During the verification overflight, many new coca fields and recently prepared fields were noted. This would mean that coca cultivation might continue to increase in 2006. However, coca cultivation in Aguaytia only represented 2% of the national total.

Table 7: Coca cultivation in Aguaytia region(ha)

Region 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005Change 2004 – 2005

% of 2005 total

Aguaytía 1,051 1,070 510 500 917 417 2% Source: National monitoring system supported by UNODC

Most of the coca cultivation was concentrated around the locality of Huipoca, and small patches of coca cultivation could also be found along the Shambillo river. Coca fields were relatively less dense and productive then in other regions. It could be found mixed with other crops and under trees canopy. In these cases, the yield was probably even lower then on pure coca fields. There were little reports on the use of agrochemicals in the coca fields in this region.

Coca fields in production and others Coca fields (note the spot where coca leaves recently planted are being dried) Huipoca, March 2006 Huipoca, March 2006

Although coca cultivation from Aguaytia was destined for the cocaine market, coca cultivation did not represent any longer the basis of the agricultural economy of the region. Most of the crops were banana, pineapple, cotton, and recently palm oil plantation supported by UNODC. The palm oil plantation of 2000 ha benefited to 400 persons, most of them former coca growers.

There were a few operations of voluntary eradication conducted in the area of Campo Verde (451 ha) and in Aguaytia (1,001 ha). In 2005, DIRANDRO also reported the seizure of 393 kg of cocaine paste and 500 g of cocaine hydrochloride.


218

2.1.1.8 Coca cultivation in Palcazu – Pichis - Pachitea

The valleys of the rivers Palcazu, Pichis and Pachitea are situated in the province of Oxapampa in the department of Pasco, and the region is often referred to as ‘Selva Central’, the country central forest. The landscape is predominantly hilly, alternating with flat areas. Coca cultivation is found between 300 and 500 meters above sea level.

In 2005, coca cultivation was estimated at about 211 ha, representing only 0.4% of the national total, and a decrease of 17% compared to the 300 ha found in 2004. As there was no eradication in the region in 2005, the decrease was attributed to the limitation of the satellite images to detect coca cultivation below tree canopy.

Table 8: Distribution of coca cultivation in Palcazu-Pichis-Pachitea, 2001 – 2005 (ha)

Region 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Change 2004 – 2005

% of 2005 total

Palcazu 100 150 102 161 151 -6% 76%Pichis 100 98 73 96 43 -55% 22%Pachitea 150 102 75 43 17 -60% 9%Rounded total 350 350 250 300 200 -33% 100%

The presence of coca cultivation in this region has been attested since 1986. In the early 1990s, coca cultivation in this region reached up to 12,000 ha for a production of coca leaves oriented towards cocaine production. The prices fall of the mid-nineties caused the end of coca cultivation in the region. In 2004, coca cultivation often took place below tree canopy to avoid detection, which resulted in very low coca leaf yield.

In 2000, UNODC launched an alternative development project mainly oriented towards the genetic improvement of cattle, and the training of native communities in the extraction of latex from Hevea trees.

During the verification overflight in the north-western part of the region (between San Matias, and the rivers Santa Isabel and Yanayacu in the district of Yuyapichis), a considerable amount of new coca fields were spotted, along with coca seedbeds and newly prepared fields.

Coca fields under shadow,Santa Isable, March 2006


219

Recently planted coca fields, Santa Isabel, March 2006

Coca seed beds and recently planted coca fields, Santa Isabel, March 2006

Recently planted coca fields, Santa Isabel, March 2006


220



Snapshot of the video over Aguaytia

Snapshot of the video over Aguaytia

Snapshot of the video over Pichis-Pacazu-Pachitea


221

Map 9: Verification overflight with GeoVideo, Aguaytia, Palcazu – Pichis – Pachitea

Irazola

Padre Abad

Puerto Inca

Codo del Pozuzo

Yuyapichis

Tornavista

Honoria

Daniel AlomiasRobles

75°30'W

75°30'W

75°0'W

75°0'W

10°0

'S

10°0

'S

9°30

'S

9°30

'S

9°0'

S

9°0'

S



0.1 - 1.01.1 - 2.02.1 - 4.0



Peru

UCAYALI

HUANUCO

PASCO

Overflight with geovideo

RiverVillage center

AGUAYT

IA

Aguaytia

San A

lejan

dro

Huipoca

San Alejandro

Von Humbolth

Boqueron

Aguaytia andPalcazu-Pichis-Pachitea

CiudadConstitucion

PACH

ITE

A

PICHIS

PALCAZU

Santa Isabel

Yuyapichis

Yanayacu

Pozuzo

Sta. Isabel

Aguaytia

Pachitea

Pichis

Palcazu

4.1 - 8.0

km0 15 30

> 8.0


222

2.1.2 PRODUCTION COCA LEAF AND DERIVATIVES

UNODC continuously endeavours to refine its estimation of coca leaf and cocaine production. In 2004, a coca leaf yield survey was initiated. As coca leaves are harvested several times during the year, it is important that such yield survey spanned over a year or more. However, the field activities planned in 2005 and that should have validated the results obtained in 2004 could not be implemented because of the insecurity for staff prevailing in the main coca growing regions. The results obtained in 2004 thus continued to be used, but further work on the topic is needed to refine and complement these results in particular the conversion rate from coca leaf to cocaine.

In 2005, assuming an average sun-dried coca leaf yield of 2,200 kg/ha, the total sun-dried coca leaf production in Peru was estimated at 106,000 metric tons. Of this amount, a study1 of the National Institute of Statistics and Computer Science (INEI) estimated that about 9,000 metric tons corresponded to the annual demand for coca leaves for traditional, commercial or industrial uses. The rest being destined for narco-trafficking.

Assuming a cocaine yield per hectare of 4.1 kg/ha – similar to the average yield obtained in 20042 -, the total rounded cocaine production in Peru was estimated at 180 metric tons. Thus, cocaine production in Peru decreased by 5% compared to 190 metric tons produced in 2004.

Figure 7. Peru potential cocaine production 1995 – 2005 (in metric tons)

-

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Met

ric to

n

Metric tons 460 435 325 240 175 141 150 165 155 190 180

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

In 2005, potential cocaine production in Peru accounted for 20% of the global potential cocaine production of 910 metric tons. This was a much lower percentage than ten years ago, when potential cocaine production in Peru represented about 49% of the global potential cocaine production.

1 “Encuesta Nacional sobre consume tradicional de hoja de coca en los hogares”, INEI – DEVIDA, November 2004 2 After deduction of 4,100 ha of coca cultivation corresponding to the production of 9,000 mt of coca leaf for traditional demand


223

Table 9: Potential cocaine production in the Andean region 1995 - 2005 (in mt)

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005%

change 2004-2005

% of 2005total

Bolivia 240 215 200 150 70 43 60 60 79 107 90 -16% 10%Peru 460 435 325 240 175 141 150 165 155 190 180 -5% 20%Colombia 230 300 350 435 680 695 617 580 550 640 640 0% 70%Total 930 950 875 825 925 879 827 805 784 937 910 -3% 100%Source: UNODC World Drug Report 2006

Figure 8. Potential cocaine production in the Andean region 1995 - 2005 (in mt)

240 215 200150

70 43 60 60 79 107 90

230 300 350 435680 695 617 580 550

640 640

460435 325 240

175141

150165 155

190180

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

met

ric to

n




224

2.2 PRICES OF COCA LEAF AND ITS DERIVATIVES

In Peru, the annual average price of coca leaf in 2005 (SOL 9.4/kg or US$ 2.9/kg) was very similar to the annual average of 2004 that established at SOL 9.4 /kg (US$ 2.8/kg), illustrating the stability of the coca leaf prices. Even though a decrease could be noted for the prices of coca leaf between September and December, a decrease also noted for the cocaine paste prices between the same period, this trend might have been seasonal, corresponding in a peak of harvest of coca leaf during the rainy season. In addition, prices usually fell towards the end of the year, as farmers tend to harvest just before Christmas to cover their expenses during the festive period. At the regional level, prices of coca leaf remained the highest in Monzon region, where coca cultivation is widespread and the demand high.

Table 10: Regional prices of coca leaf in Peru, 2005 Region SOL/kg US$/kg

Alto Huallaga: Monzon 12.0 3.7 Alto Huallaga: South 10.4 3.2 Alto Huallaga: North 8.5 2.6 Apurimac 7.0 2.2 Inambari 9.8 2.9 Aguaytia 8.4 2.6 All regions 9.4 2.9

The detailed monthly prices per region for 2005 and 2004 are annexed.

Figure 9. Coca leaf, 2004-2005 monthly average prices, Peru (US$/kg)

In 2005, the potential farm-gate value of the sun-dried coca leaf production amounted to about US$ 307 million, estimated from the sale of 106,000 metric tons of coca leaf at 2.9 US$/kg. This represented about 0.4% of the 2004 GDP estimated at US$ 68.6 billion3.

The stability of the prices of coca leaf was reflected in the stability of the price of cocaine paste. Prices of cocaine paste remained unchanged between 2004 and 2005 at US$640 /kg. Like for the prices of coca leaf, prices of cocaine base have been decreasing between September and December 2005, but this decrease might have only reflected a seasonal variation.

Prices for cocaine paste are usually highest in Monzon and Apurimac regions, the two main centers of illicit cultivation which represented respectively 23% and 32% of the national coca cultivation in 2005.

3 World Bank, latest available estimate as of May 2006


225

Table 11: Regional prices of cocaine paste, 2005 Region US$/kg

Alto Huallaga: Monzon 680 Alto Huallaga: South 640 Alto Huallaga: North 580 Apurimac 690 Aguaytia 680 All regions 640

Figure 10. Cocaine paste, 2004-2005 average prices for Alto Huallaga North, Monzon and Apurimac (US$/kg)

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

Jan04

Feb04

Mar04

Apr04

May04

Jun04

Jul04

Aug04

Sep04

Oct04

Nov04

Dec04

Jan05

Feb05

Mar05

Apr05

May05

Jun05

Jul05

Aug05

Sep05

Oct05

Nov05

Dec05

US

$/kg

Alto Huallaga: North Alto Huallaga: Monzon Apurimac

Like the prices of coca leaf and cocaine paste, prices of cocaine remained virtually unchanged in Peru between 2004 and 2005, at US$890 /kg. The annual average cocaine prices recorded in Peru is much lower then the average prices in Colombia (US$ 1,860/kg) and Bolivia (US$ 1,800/kg). The difference might be due to the fact that the price in Peru refers to the price in the producing region, close to its processing, whereas prices in Colombia and Bolivia refer to whole sale prices in the main cities.

Table 12: Regional prices of cocaine in Peru, 2005 Region US$/kg

Alto Huallaga: Monzon 970 Alto Huallaga: South 890 Alto Huallaga: North 830 Aguaytia 1,080 All regions 890


226

2.3 REPORTED ERADICATION

In 2005, the Peruvian government reported the eradication of 12,232 ha of coca fields, of which 8,966 ha eradicated by CORAH as part of its programme of forced eradication and 3,266 ha eradicated by CADA as part of its programme of voluntary eradication. This corresponded to an increase of 19% compared to the 10,257 ha of eradicated coca cultivation reported in 2004.

Figure 11. Coca cultivation and eradication of coca fields in Peru, 1995 - 2005

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

hect

are

Eradication Coca cultivation

Eradication 1,259 3,462 7,834 14,733 6,206 6,436 7,134 11,312 10,257 12,232 Coca cultivation 115,30 94,400 68,800 51,000 38,700 43,400 46,200 46,700 44,200 50,300 48,200

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005


227

Map 10: Reported eradication of coca cultivation, Peru, 2005

Loreto

Ucayali

Puno

Cusco

JuninLima

Arequipa

Ica

Piura

Madre de Dios

Ancash

San Martin

Ayacucho

Huanuco

Pasco

Amazonas

Cajamarca

Tacna

Apurimac

La Libertad

Huancavelica

Moquegua

Lambayeque

Tumbes

80°W

80°W

75°W

75°W

70°W

70°W

15°S

15°S

10°S

10°S

5°S

5°S

0° 0°

ECUADORCOLOMBIA

BOLIVIA

CHILE

Amaz

onas

Huall

aga

Huallaga

Marañon

Ucayali

Ene Urubamba

Purus

Apurimac

Madre de Dios

Titicaca

Lima

0 150 300km

Putumayo

BRAZIL

51 - 650

651 - 1200

1201 - 2000

0 - 50

> 2000

AltoHuallaga

Aguaytía

Palcazú - PichisPachitea

ApurimacEne

La Convencióny Lares

San Gabán

InambariTambopata

Putumayo

Marañón

Total reported eradication2005 (ha)


Coca growing area 2005

The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United NationsSource: Government of Peru - National of monitoring system supported by UNODC

Lake

PacificOcean


South America

Peru


228


Between 2004 and 2005, according to the reported data of the Peruvian anti-narcotics police, DIRANDRO, seizures of cocaine paste and cocaine hydrochloride decreased but destruction and seizures of coca leaves increased. Seizures of cocaine hydrochloride decreased from 7,3 mt in 2004 to 2,1 mt kg in 2005, while seizures and destruction of coca leaves increased from 916 mt to 1,525 mt.

Table 13: Drug seized in Peru, 2003 – 2005 (kg or otherwise specified) Item seized 2003 2004 2005

Destruction and seizure of coca leaf 1,328,347 916,024 1,525,739Cocaine paste 4,366 6,330 3,199Cocaine hydrochloride 3,574 7,303 2,119

Source: DIRANDRO

Documents

Coca cultivation in the Andean region - June 2006