Environmental Impact of Cocaine Production

2/28/2015 UNODC - Bulletin on Narcotics - 1992 Issue 2 - 005

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/bulletin/bulletin_1992-01-01_2_page006.html#s008 1/14

UNODC Everywhere

United Nations Office on Drugs andCrime

Environmental impact of coca cultivation and cocaine productionin the amazon region of Peru

SectionsABSTRACT Introduction Coca and deforestation Coca and soil erosion Crop cultivation and water contamination Basic cocaine paste and water contamination Ecosystems and genetic resources Conclusion

DetailsAuthor: M. DOUROJEANNI Pages: 37 to 53 Creation Date: 1992/01/01

Environmental impact of coca cultivation and cocaine production inthe amazon region of Peru *M. DOUROJEANNI Professor, The National Agrarian University, Lima, Peru, and Chief of theEnvironmental Protection Division, Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, D.C., United States ofAmerica ABSTRACTLittle or nothing has been written about the environmental consequences of the cultivation of coca and theproduction of basic cocaine paste. Nevertheless, there is much evidence that both activities have a severeand irreparable impact on the ecosystems in which they are carried out. This chapter describes thesituation in the Peruvian Amazon, discusses the consequences of these activities, and recommendsmeasures to improve current conditions.

IntroductionThe genus Erythroxyloncontains close to 250 species, some 200 of which are native to the tropicalamericas. However, only two South American species account for all of the cultivated coca plants: E. cocaLam and E. novogranatense (Morris). Each of these species has two varieties: E. coca var. coca, and E.coca var. iapdu; E. novogranatense var. novogranatense and E. novogranatense var. truxillense [ 47] . Thevariety coca is cultivated in the Upper Jungle of Peru; the variety ipadu (epadu) is cultivated in Brazil and,to a lesser extent, in the Lower Jungle of Peru (Loreto). The coca crop grown along the Peruvian coast is E.

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/bulletin/bulletin_1992-01-01_2_page006.html

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/index.html



novogranatense var. truxillense. In 1964, this variety covered 160 hectares along the coast and 650hectares in the sierra [ 13] . The other variety of E. novogranatense is cultivated in Colombia. BeforePlowman's clarifying remarks [ [ 45] , [ 46] and [ 47] ] there was some confusion about these varieties,and this is reflected in the works of Bues [ [ 8] and [ 9] ] and others. During the last two decades,Machado [ [ 28] , [ 29] , [ 30] and [ 31] ] and Ferreyra and Tovar [ 24] have carried out several botanicalstudies on the genus Erythroxylonin Peru. Machado [ 29] identified four cultivars of E. coca. In the sectionsthat follow, reference will be made only to the two varieties of E. coca, especially to E. coca var. coca,which will be referred to henceforth as coca.

*This paper was first published by the Centro de Informacin y Educatin para la Prevencion del Abuso de Drogas

(CEDRO) in Frederico R. Len and Ramiro Castro de la Mata, eds., "Pasta bisica de cocaina: un estudio

multidisciplinario" ('Basic cocaine paste: a multidisciplinary study") (Lima, CEDRO, 1989). UNDCP wishes to

thank CEDRO for permission to reprint the article. It is the standard policy of the Bulletin on Narcotics to

publish only original works, but an exception was made in this case, as the paper is an authoritative and

detailed account of a region facing critical problems.

In order to evaluate the ecological impact of coca, some familiarity with the extension and location of thecoca fields is required. Unfortunately, besides some evident facts, available information is scarce andconfusing. What is obvious is that coca cultivation is many times greater than official statistics show, andthat it is now concentrated in the departments of Hu;inuco and San Martin, rather than in Cuzco, whichwas previously the largest cocaproducing region.

In 1964, the crop covered 16,360 hectares, of which 9,230 were located in La Convenci6n Valley in Cuzco.Following in importance was Hunuco, with 4,000 hectares, La Libertad, with 940 hectares, and Ayacucho,with 850 hectares [ 13] . San Martin was not included in the statistics at the time. In 1960, Cuzcoproduced 59 per cent of all coca in Peru [ 18] . This distribution was similar to that described by Bues in1911 [ 8] and which he and other authors confirmed in 1935 [ 38] . However, some authors were alreadypointing out that the department of Hunuco had better ecological conditions for coca cultivation than didCuzco, and that the coca leaf produced there was of better quality because of its higher alkaloid content[38 and 57].

Until around 1965, official statistics on coca production coincided with reality. Afterwards, a divergencedeveloped that has continued to grow to almost comic proportions. Nevertheless, in 1979, these officialstatistics did reveal the decreasing role of Cuzco in coca production. At that time, only 7,877 hectares wereplanted to coca, while Hunuco had 5,320 hectares and San Martin 1,137 hectares. In 1979, ENACOreported only 17,916 hectares in the entire country [ 25] . Maletta and Makhlouf reported 19,330 hectaresof coca in 1981, based on official estimates.

The distortion in the official information became evident when other government documents [ 23] pointedto the existence of 12,000 hectares of coca just in the area of the Upper Huallaga Special Project. In theearly 1980s, Aramburu and Bedoya [ 3] reported approximately 30,000 hectares of coca in Huallaga, twothirds of which was planted in the project area. According to the FDN/USAID study [ 23] , the principalcocaproducing areas were Tingo Mara, Uchiza and Aucayacu.

Therefore, according to official data from United States sources, there might have been 150,000 hectaresof coca planted in Peru, 70,000 hectares of which were located in the departments of Hunuco and SanMartin. Rumrrill [ 52] referred to a 1980 report of the Peruvian Senate that recognized the existence of50,000 hectares of illegal coca cultivation in the country. Cortazar [ 15] indicated that there were 100,000hectares planted to coca in San Martin (Tocache and Uchiza). However, the directors of the Frente deDefensa de los Intereses del Pueblo de Tocache reported in 1986 that there were 195,000 hectares planted



to this crop in Upper Huallaga [ 52] . Marcelo [ 34] reported estimates (from unrevealed sources) of40,500 hectares in the province of Leoncio Prado (Monz6n, Tingo Mara, Aucayacu, La Morado) and of33,000 hectares in the provinces of Tocache and Mariscal Caceres. However, Marcelo stated that theseestimates were low, and offered 160,000 as a more realistic estimate of the extension of coca fields in thethree provinces. To add to the confusion in the available literature, the Ministry of the Interior declared in1987 that 380,000 hectares of coca existed [ 13] , although the Minister later rectified this information.

From the information mentioned above, which certainly does not include all the literature on this subject, itis highly probable that at least 150,000 hectares and possibly as much as 380,000 hectares of coca exist inthe country. The most probable estimate is more than 200,000 hectares. This figure coincides with theresults of a surface area evaluation of legal and illegal coca production. The lack (or concealment) ofprecise information is surprising for such an important topic, even more so because obtaining it istechnically simple, given the availability of sophisticated remote sensing equipment.

If a realistic estimate is about 200,000 hectares, this means that the illegal cultivation of coca is almost 10times greater than is the legal, and that it is by far the most widely grown crop in the Peruvian Amazonregion. According to official statistics compiled by Maletta and Makhlouf [ 32] , in the early 1980s therewere 160,000 hectares of corn, 62,700 hectares of banana, and 44,500 hectares of rice planted in thePeruvian Amazon. While the author of the present work believes these figures are too low [201, the preeminent role of coca is obvious. Maletta and others [ 42] reported the existence in the jungle of 666,668cultivated hectares, divided as follows: permanent crops (223,976 hectares); transitory crops (270,219hectares); pasture (172,243 hectares); and reforested land (230 hectares). Illegal coca productionrepresents close to 30 per cent of the cultivated land and is equivalent to 80 per cent of permanent legalcrops in the region.

Coca And Deforestation

The first and most obvious impact of such widespread coca cultivation is the deforestation of severalhundred thousands of hectares, most of which are located in areas unfit for agriculture. The deforestedareas include: land currently planted to coca (more than 200,000 hectares); land used by the cocaproducers for subsistence farming, where they plant manioc, bananas, corn and other crops; land that isabandoned after soil becomes infertile; land deforested by the peasants who leave the areas dominated bydrug traffickers and terrorists; land deforested by the coca producers who are dispersed as a result ofpolitical violence; and land on which landing strips (of which more than 100 exist at any one time),laboratories and campsites are built. Based on detailed studies of land use in Upper Huallaga, such asthose by Aramburu and Bedoya [ 3] , Aramburu [ 2] and Bedoya [ 6] and [ 7] , among others, it can besafety assumed that in the Amazon region, deforestation resulting directly and indirectly from cocacultivation has reached close to 700,000 hectares since the early 1970s, when coca production increasedsignificantly.

If this figure is accurate, then coca alone is responsible for 10 per cent of the total accumulateddeforestation in the twentieth century in the Peruvian Amazon. Total deforestation in the region is currentlyestimated at some 7 million hectares, according to Malleux [ 33] , Dance [ 16] and Dourojeanni [ 20] and [21] . Since the 1970s, coca production has played an increasingly significant role in land deforestation.

Deforestation, especially in protected lands and those appropriate for forests, has severe environmentalrepercussions, including: the loss of soil through insidious or violent erosion; extinction of geneticresources; alteration of the hydrologic system; increased flooding; reduction in hydropower potential;difficulties in water transport; reduction in hydrobiological potential; and lack of wood, timber, food etc.The almost mandatory burning of the debris left by deforestation brings with it other problems, such as air



pollution, topsoil deterioration and the loss of soil nutrients.

Early authors [ 38] and [ 57] who described the agronomic aspects of coca had already recognized that thelands preferred for cultivation were precisely those that had been recently deforested. This preference wasdue to the greater natural fertility of deforested land and its absence of undergrowth, among otherreasons.

Coca And Soil ErosionIn its first published report, the Agricultural Experiment Station of Tingo Maria [ 43] stated: "Although themethod of coca cultivation has disastrous effects on the soil, comparable to those it has on humans,cultivation is quite extensive because coca is the permanent crop that provides the most economic benefitsin the region". For at least four decades, then, the impact of coca cultivation on the soil has beenrecognized. More recently, Tosi [ 56] , Rios [ 49] and [ 50] , Penaherrera [ 41] and Sanchez [ 53] , amongothers, voiced similar concerns.

The highly erosive character of coca is due to the ecological zones in which it is planted, and currentcultivation practices. Coca is cultivated in zones that Tosi [ 56] describes as humid, subtropical forest andextremely humid subtropical forest, among others, located between 700 and 2,000 metres above sea level.These zones correspond to the area known as the Upper Jungle, although coca also is frequently grown inthe conditions of the higher elevation jungles ("ceja de selva"). The optimal altitude for cultivation isbetween 1,000 and 1,200 metres above sea level, where plants have a higher cocaine content [ 35] , andwhere rainfall levels vary between 1,000 and 4,200 millimetres annually, with averages far exceeding2,000 millimetres. Rough terrain and steep slopes dominate this region. Steep slopes are preferred bygrowers because they provide good drainage [ 35] and [ 57] . Currently, coca is found up to the PadreAbad Forest, located deep in the subtropical rain forest. This forest has an annual rainfall of 6,000millimetres. Ecologically, coca is located in some of the country's most fragile zones, several of whichcontain the least arable lands in the country because of their high levels of erosion.

Coca cultivation practices also encourage erosion. Preferred soils include: those composed of sandy clay,with good drainage; soil located on slopes of at least 45°, also to facilitate drainage; and those recentlyslashed and burned, in other words, stripped of all protective vegetation [ 8] , [ 9] , [ 19] , [ 35] , [ 37]and [ 57] . In addition, cultivation requires intensive weeding and tillage, which are done after everyharvest, or three to six times a year. Weeding is performed by climbing the slope, clearing the vegetationwith a shovel or pickaxes and then dragging the cut plants, along with part of the loose soil, down theslope [ 9] , [ 17] , [ 36] , [ 38] and [ 57] . In some cases, the top 15 centimetres of soil is removed [ 38] .It is in this way that the soil in the coca fields becomes stripped from the impact of rain. The eroded soilquickly turns into furrows and deep ditches. Although coca is cultivated in wells, the hitting up cancels outthe anti erosive effects of the wells.

Another cause of erosion, which combines with that described above, is the frequency of the harvests thatare actually nothing more than a defoliation that further exposes the soil to rain drops and to aeolianerosion during the dry season. Normally, there are four harvests annually (see previously cited authors).The number of factors that combine to make coca themost environmentally dangerous cropin Peru istrulyastounding. A summary of these factors is shown in table 1.

Table 1. Summary of the characteristics of coca cultivation that contribute toerosivity

Factor or characteristic Implication

Ecologically, the most fragile region of the



Ecosystems: highaltitude jungle ('"ceja de selva") and Upper Jungle jungle

Altitude:. 7002,000 metres. above sea level Highly erosive soils

Topography very rough Highly erosive soils

Rainfall: 1,0004,000 millimetres per year x=2,000 millimetres peryear

More rain, more erosivity

Planting on 45 slopes With greater slopes, high erosivity

Preference for sandy clay soils More erosion on slopes containing clay soils

Recently deforested soils and burned vegetation Burning favours erosion

Planting without terraces, in shallow wells and in the direction of theslope

Favours erosion

Soil scraping to eliminate undergrowth, 4 to 6 times a yearDirect impact of rain and no obstacles toerosion

Defoliation (harvest), 4 to 6 times a year Direct impact of rain

Elimination of undergrowth and defoliation simultaneously Combination of previous factors

Abandonment of practice of using shade trees Direct impact of rain

Removal of topsoil with Loose soil, easily eroded

Sources:See text.

Additional information on this subject describes differences in current and past practices. Several authors [19] , [ 38] and [ 57] have stated that coca was cultivated in deep wells, in which the plantlets (either sownor transplanted) were placed in soil that did not reach the level of the well. For example, in Hunuco, wellsmeasured 25 centimetres wide, by 30 centimetres long, by 80 centimetres deep. These were located inrows that followed the line of the steepest slope, with 60 centimetres between wells and 1.0 metrebetween rows, in order to facilitate scraping and weeding and to keep the wells from filling with soil in caseof heavy rains [ 57] . Prior to the coca planting, another crop was planted, usually manioc, but sometimescassava or corn, for the purpose of providing shade for the coca during the first months of growth [ 9] , [35] , [ 38] and [ 57] . This practice, which continues today, also reduced initial erosion. Additionally, itseems that coca was usually planted beneath the shade of the black white pacae (Inga spp.), which wereplanted in quincunx [ 35] 35 and [ 57] . This method was later used for planting coffee trees.

Traditionally, in La Convenci6n Valley and along the coast and other locations, coca was frequently plantedon flat land and even irrigated [ 9] 9 and [ 38] . There is much evidence that in preHispanic times, cocawas cultivated in wellconstructed stone terraces. This was a relatively common practice until the beginningof the twentieth century, as De la Guerra [ 18] and Pez [ 38] , among others, have pointed out. Pezreported that steps, terraces, or "tacamas" were constructed measuring 40 centimetres wide by 80centimetres high, following the slope. The same author points out that this practice also occurred inBolivia. Recent verbal and written data [ 55] confirmed that these terraces are still found in Bolivia and inSandia, in southern Peru, and that the oldest coca fields of Monzn, in Hunuco, still show signs of thispractice. The use of terraces, deep wells, crops associated with the initial phase of growth, and shadetrees, demonstrate that in times past there existed knowledge of the erosive character of the coca cropand that measures were taken to avoid erosion.

The unscrupulous modern methods of coca planting earn coca the epithet '.the Attila of tropical agriculture'[ 49] . No other crop exists that provokes such widespread erosions. To insidious erosions, estimated atleast at 300 tonnes per hectare per year [ 50] , are added violent erosive processes that culminate incatastrophes. Rock and mud slides in the Upper Jungle have caused thousands of deaths. The worst of



these catastrophes occurred in the Chontayacu River valley in January 1982, and has been described byPenaherrera [ 41] . These phenomena also destroy the most fertile land and diverse infrastructure; theyblock transport routes, causing enormous losses in perishable products, and they cause severe watercontamination.

Crop Cultivation And Water ContaminationThe coca plant competes with undergrowth for nutrients and is subject to several plagues and diseases,which may require biocides to control. In addition, like any other crop, coca may need fertilization. Theapplication of biocides (in this case herbicides, pesticides or fungicides) is always harmful to theenvironment, whether to a greater or lesser degree. The application of fertilizers also has a negativeimpact on the environment. In the case of coca, these substances are used excessively because of the highprofitability of the crops and farmer ignorance of the problems associated with their use.

While traditional cultivation practices call for the use of tools to remove undergrowth, modern farmers useherbicides to perform this task. Some of the commercially prepared herbicides contain chlorophenoxiacete, which causes effects similar to those of the agent orange herbicide used during the Viet Namconflict. The lethal effects of chlorophenoxiacete became evident recently in Brazil, when a huge number offish died in the Mato Grosso swampland [ 39] .

Coca has phytosanitary problems beginning in the initial growth stages, when it is attacked by molecrickets (Gryllotalpaspp.), crickets (Gryllusspp.), beetle larvae (Ancistrosomaand others), and fungi(Rhizoctonia, Fusarium, Pythium). In later developmental stages, the crop is affected by foliagedevouringinsects such as leafcutting ants (Atta cephalotes, A. sexdens, Acromyrmex hispidus), leaf worms (Pieris,Eloria noyesi, Eucleodora cocae) and red spiders (Tetranychus),and by diverse homopterous insects thatsuck the plant sap (Aspidiotus, Lecanium, Lepidosaphes, Coccus hesperidum, Pseudococcus, Saissetiacoffeae, Tachardiella gemmifera). Plant stalks may be attacked by larvae of cerambycides(Trachyderes).There is abundant literature on these problems, which have long been considered serious [ [1] , [ 4] , [ 5] , [ 9] , [ 18] , [ 38] , [ 44] , [ 58] and 59. Plagues of leaf caterpillars, especially Elorianoyes, are also prevalent, particularly in Hunuco. These plagues were previously controlled by applyingarsenates, which proved quite dangerous for anyone accustomed to chewing coca leaves. The coca foliageis also affected by fungus diseases such as "witch's broom" and Stibella flavida, Uredo erythroxili, andHypochnus rubrocinctus [ 9] , [ 11] , [ 18] and [ 57] .

As far as this author is informed, most of the agrotoxins and fertilizers used in Upper Huallaga are appliedin the coca fields. Farmers try to obtain larger yields by applying these substances in such large quantitiesas to reach the visible limits of phytotoxicity. The commercial agrochemicals known as Tiodan, Malation,Sevidan and Tamaron are commonly used but there are others. Also used are foliar fertilizers and syntheticradicle fertilizers available nationally. All of these substances reach the soil and end up in the rivers, wherethey affect marine life to a degree as yet unknown. The substances that are not washed away remain onthe foliage that is used in the preparation of basic paste.

Basic Cocaine Paste And Water ContaminationThe impact on the environment of the preparation of basic cocaine paste is incomparably greater than thatof agrochemicals. During the process, air, soil and water are contaminated. Smoke pollutes the air whenthe coca leaves are dried in wood burning stoves, the wood for which is obtained from the few forests thatremain. According to Ros [ 49] , the absurdity in this is that farmers throw out the ash residue from thestoves and then purchase commercial fertilizers.

Soil erosion, which washes tonnes of sediment into the rivers, is an important source of contamination with



severe repercussions for marine life. But most of the contamination of the soil and especially the water isproduced during the processing of the leaves to extract alkaloids. According to Vila [ 57] , in 1935,sulphuric acid, carbide, and kerosene were used. Siegel [ 54] reports that in Colombia, alcohol, benzene,and sulphuric acid are used in a process that is completed with the addition of sodium carbonate toprecipitate the raw or base cocaine. According to Marcelo [ 34] , the procedure followed in Upper Huallagainvolves two steps, which he refers to as maceration and cleansing/pressing. Maceration is performedusing 18 litres of kerosene, 10 litres of sulphuric acid, 5 kilograms of quick lime, I kilogram of carbide, and5 kilograms of toilet paper for every 120 kilograms of coca leaf. For the cleansing and pressing, processorsuse 11 litres of acetone and 11 litre of toluol for each kilogram of basic paste produced.

Marcelo [ 34] , using the above information and his own estimates of coca leaf production for basic cocainepaste in Upper Huallaga, came up with an interesting calculation of the volume of contaminants dumped inthe waters of the Huallaga basin. On the basis of an average production of 2,400 kilograms per hectare peryear of dried leaf and of 160,000 hectares of coca in 1986, Marcelo calculated that the production of pastethat year was approximately 6,400 tonnes. According to his calculations, this meant that in 1986, 57million litres of kerosene, 32 million litres of sulphuric acid, 16,000 tonnes of quick lime, 3,200 tonnes ofcarbide, 16,000 tonnes of toilet paper, 6,400,000 litres of acetone and an equal amount of toluene weredumped into the rivers. Even if Marcelo's calculation is disputed, the figures are so overwhelming that theirsignificance cannot be ignored. What is worse, several sources, including some television programmes,reveal that maceration is done in pools and streamlets. The 25 July 1987 edition of the newspaper ElComerciocontained a frontpage interview with the mayor of Juanju, who denounced the contamination ofthe Huallaga River with sulphuric acid, acetic acid, ammonia and other substances used in the preparationof basic paste. These substances had been confiscated by the police in anti drug trafficking operations.The order to dump these substances in the river came from a judicial authority, revealing the inhabitants'profound lack of awareness of the risks of contamination.

Kerosene, although moderately toxic, severely affects the biology of water flora and fauna, especially ofplankton. In addition, it reduces the oxygen supply. Sulphuric acid is extremely dangerous, as are all theother substances that are dumped, such as carbide, calcium carbonate, acetone and ammonia. Not eventhe toilet paper is innocuous. Entering through the upper part of the Huallaga Basin, it affects the foodchain in the lower parts of the Basin and beyond. Many unsuspected compounds and recombinations ofthese substances are concentrated in certain marine organisms, and undoubtedly now reach humans.Because of the dumping of agrochemicals, fewer fish are available, many fish are unfit for consumption,and the quality of potable and irrigation water has been lowered. From this information, it may be assumedthat many of the gorges and rivulets of the upper Basin have already been completely sterilized. Marcelo [34] made note of this, mentioning that the killing of small fish (Bryconamericus, Ancistrus, Pygidium) isalready visible, as is that of the crustaceans, amphibians and even of the plants along the river bank. Healso points to the unusual proliferation of "sorropa" algae (Cladophora).Although these algae serve as fishfood, their overabundance can lower the availability of oxygen for other species. This is probably aconsequence of the excessive application of fertilizers. For all of these reasons, the problem of watercontamination in the Huallaga Basin demands urgent study.

Ecosystems And Genetic Resources

This subject was mentioned in the section on deforestation. It should now be pointed out that the region ofPeru where coca cultivation occurs is the area of the greatest genetic diversity in the country. The higheraltitude jungle ("ceja de selva") and the Upper Jungle possess a high grade of endemisms, fruits of thespeciation provoked by the rough terrain and peculiar climatic characteristics of the region. Most of theapproximately 7 million hectares that have been deforested during this century in the Peruvian Amazoncorrespond precisely to this region [ 20] . Coca cultivation, as shown above, has played an important role



in this process of deterioration of the environment, and therefore in the extinction of an incalculablenumber of species of jungle flora and fauna which have been brutally deprived of their natural ecosystems.In some cases, the ecosystems of marine flora and fauna have been so altered that many can no longersupport life.

Unfortunately, the problem is not limited to deforestation. The cocaproducing zones are lands withoutlaws, where everyone does what he can and wants to. In these areas, the exploitation of the forests, gameand fishing is completely anarchistic. Public officials have no access to the area. The few protected areasestablished to conserve representative samples of the ecosystem and its genetic diversity are unable todevelop and are sometimes invaded by the coca producers and drug traffickers. The most pathetic case isthat of Tingo Maria National Park. By 1972, most of the Park had been invaded by coca producers. In thisPark, Dourojeanni and Tovar [ 22] discovered that the "guachara" (Steatornis caripensis), a species indanger of extinction, had begun to feed on coca fruits because little other food was available. In asimilarcase, El Comercioof 30 August 1985 reported the existence of "cocaine honey", produced by the bees ofthe Alto Chicama River that were feeding off coca flowers. There are increasingly severe problems in thelower part of the recently created Abiseo National Park, in the department of San Martn, and many otherprotected areas may be experiencing similar problems. Particular attention should be paid to Manu NationalPark (Madre de Dios and Cuzco) and YanachagaChemellen (Pasco) National Park. Table 2 lists theconservation units affected or liable to to he affected by coca cultivation.

Table 2. Conservation units and forest areas believed to be under actual or potentialpressure from coca producers and drug traffickers

Units or areassize (thousandhectares)

Location Status

Nationa parks

Tingo Maria18Leoncio Prado (Huinueo)

Completelyinvaded

Abiseo 274 Matiscal Caceres (San Martin) Partially invaded

Cutervo 2.5 Cutervo (Cajamarca) Probably invaded

Yanachaga Chemillen 122 Oxapampa (Pasco) Possible invasion

Manu 1 533 Manu (Madre de Dios) and Paucartambo (Cuzco) Possible invasion

Conservation units inprogress

Cutibireni 300 Junin and Cuzco Partially invaded

SiraSan Carlos 1 000 Ucayali and Junin Possible invasion

National forests

Von Humboldt 645 Coronel Portillo (Ucayali) and Pachitea (Huanuco) Initial invasion

BiaboCordillera Azul2 084 Mariscal Caceres (San Martin) and Coronel Portillo

(Ucayali)Possible invasion

Apurimac 2 072 Satipo (Junin) and La Convencion (Cuzco) Initial invasion

Sources:Diverse personal communications received and observations made by author.

At least two national forests have been partially invaded by coca producers: Alexander Von Humboldt Park(Ucayali and Hunuco) and Apurimac Park (Junn and Cuzco). The invasion of the former resulted from theconstruction of the Von HumboldtConstituci6n section of the Marginal Road. Other parks also haveprobably been invaded, in particular the Biavo Cordillera Azul Park (San Martn and Loreto). Policeoperations in the region and the construction by the government and the timber companies of new roads



disperse the coca producers throughout the Peruvian Amazon. Their presence along the new sections of theMarginal Road is massive and points to the need for more prudence with such works in the future. Thecoca plant is adapting to lower altitudes, where the alkaloid content of its leaves will be lower. This fact willonly serve to contribute to the increased deforestation of larger areas. Coca fields are increasingly beingplanted under untrimmed "monte real" trees, to avoid detection from the air.

ConclusionThe objective of this work has been to demonstrate that coca cultivation and cocaine production havemany other consequences in addition to those that everyone is, or is considered to be, familiar with. Inreality, these activities have such a severe impact that they deserve immediate study. Immediatemeasures should also be taken to mitigate some of the negative consequences of these activities. Somepossible measures might include: limiting the sale and controlling the transport of sulphuric acid and otherchemical products required for the preparation of basic paste; carefully planning police operations to avoidthe possibility that the State might become responsible for the dispersion of the coca producers and drugtraffickers throughout the Amazon region; declaring a moratorium on the construction of new roads in thejungle, which mainly serve to attract coca producers, thereby avoiding State financing of the expansion ofillegal cultivation; increasing the small budgets of the national parks and other protected areas, as well asthose of the national forests, so that their development will be their defence against the coca producers;better planning of the exploitation of forest lands so that roads built there do not contribute to theexpansion of illegal coca cultivation.

From the environmental point of view, crop substitution is highly desirable and concrete technical proposalsfor this purpose have been made [ 10] , [ 12] , [ 40] and [ 49] . The subject has also been addressed inBolivia [ 51] . Nevertheless, in the proposals made by these authors, as well as in those developed with amore economic emphasis [ 26] , attention to the forest, tourist, and genetic resource potential of theregion is lacking. Despite its technical and economic viability, crop substitution appears to be an impossibleoption without the support of a strong and efficient State. For reasons that will not be mentioned here, thisis also true of eradication, which in technical terms at least is a relatively simple procedure.

The absurdity of the current situation in Peru is that, as has been shown, coca can be well cultivated, withgood yields and without producing natural disasters. The technology for these production methods exists,and they have been practiced for centuries, perhaps for more than a millennium. Today, however, themythological coca has become a symbol of destruction and death.

References01Alata, J. Lista de insectos y otros animales daninos a la agriculture on el Per (List of insects and otheranimals causing damage to agriculture in Peru). Peru, La Molina Experiment Station, Ministry ofAgriculture, 1973. (Manual No. 38)

02Aramburu, C.E. La expansion de la frontera demogrfica y econmica en la Selva Alta peruana (Theexpansion of the demographic and economic frontier in the Peruvian Upper Jungle). In Colonizacin en laAmazonia. C.E. Aramburu, E. Bedoya and J. Recharte, eds.Lima, CIPA, 1982. p. 139

03Aramburu, C.E. andE. Bedoya. Poblamiento y uso de los recursos en la Amazonia Alta: El caso del AltoHuallaga (Population and use of resources in the Upper Amazon: The case of Upper Huallaga). InDesarrollo Amaznico: Una perspective latinaamericana. C. Mora andC. E. Aramburu, eds.Lima, CIPA/INANDEP, 1986. p. 115177.



04Barton, A. Peste en los cocales de Otuzco (Plagues in Otuzco coca fields). Vida agricola (Lima) 7:143145,1930.

05La plaga de los cocales del Departamento de Libertad (Plagues in the coca fields in the Department of LaLibertad). La Molina Experiment Station, Ministry of Agriculture, 1929.

06Bedoya, E. La destrucci6n del equilibrio ecolgico en las Cooperativas del Alto Huallaga (Destruction of theecological balance in the Cooperatives of Upper Huallaga). Lima, CIPA, 1982. (Document Series No. 1)

07Intensificaci6n y degradaci6n en los sistemas agricolas de la Selva Alta: El caso del Alto Huallaga(Intensification and degradation of the agricultural systemsof the Upper Jungle: The case of UpperHaulage). Lima, CIPA, 1986. (Document Series No. 9, p. 4898)

08Bues, C. La coca. Lima, Ministerio de Fomento, 1911.

09La coca en el Perd (Coca in Peru). Buletn de la direccin de agricultura y ganadera (Lima) 5:373, 1935.

10Burgos, 1. A El problema de la sustituci6n de la coca por otros cultivos en Tingo Maria (The problem of thesubstitution of coca with other crops in Tingo Maria). Tingo Mara, agriculture y ganadera tropical (Lima)1:2326, 1967.

11Cardenas, M. La estalla de la coca (The coca explosion). Revisit de agricultura de cochabamba (Bolivia) 5:8 17, 1948.

12Chvez, P. Departamento de la coca: Algunas alternatives de solucin (the Department of coca: Somealternatives). Nikko (Lima) 26:79, 1979.

13Coca, ese becerro de oro. Actualidad econmica deiPer (Lima) 88:3, 1987.

14Conestcar. Per 1964: Estadistica agraria. Statistical and Cartographic Technical Cooperation Agreement.Lima, Agrarian University/Ministry of Agriculture, 1965.

15Cortazar, P. F. Departamento de San Martin. In Documental del Per, vol. XXII. Lima, IDESA, 1986.

16Dance, J. Tendencias de la deforestacin con fines agropecuarios en la Amazonia Peruana (Tendencies in theagricultural deforestation of the Peruvian Amazon). Revista foresal del Per (Lima) 10:177184, 1981.

17Daneri, M. R. El cultivo de la coca en el Per (Coca cultivation in Peru). Lima, National Agrarian University,1974. Agronomy thesis.



18De la Guerra, A. M. El cultivo de la coca y su estudio en relacin al indgena (Coca cultivation and its study inrelation to the Indian). Lima, National Agrarian University, 1961. Agronomy thesis.

19Denemoustier, C. and H. Jacob. La coca en la montaa de Hunuco (Coca in the mountains of Hunuco).Riqueza agrcola, 1:693697, 1912; 1:782785, 1912; 2:109113, 1913; 2:500501, 1913.

20Dourojeanni, M. J. Coca, cocana y conservaci6n (Coca, cocaine and conservation). La rep4bUca, 22 August1986.

21Desarrollo rural integral en la Amazonia Peruana con especial referencia a las actividades forestales(lntegral rural development in the Peruvian Amazon with special emphasis on forestal activities). InFAO/CIDA Seminar on the Role of Wild Species Cultivation in the development of Rural Latin America.Documento forestal GCP/RLA. 50 (SWE) 1979.

22Dourojeanni, M. J. andA. Tovar. Notas sobre el ecosistema y la conservaci6n de la Cueva de las Lechuzas Parque Nacional de Tingo Mara, Per (Notes on the ecosystem and the conservation of the Las LechuzasCave Tingo Maria National Park, Peru). Revista forestal del Per (Lima) 5:2845, 1972.

23FDN/USAID. Plan de ejecucin del proyecto de desarrollo rural integral del Alto Huallaga (Action plan for theintegral rural development project of Upper Huallaga). Diagn6stico social. Lima, 1981.

24Ferreyra, R. and O. Tovar. Investigaciones botnicas sobre la coca: Nota preliminar (Botanical research oncoca: preliminary notes). Javier Prado Natural History Museum, 1966.

25Horna, R. La produccin de la coca en el Per (Coca production in Peru). In Cocaina 1980. F. R. Jeri, el Lima,Pacific Press, 1980.

26Hurtado, J. C. Por una causa agraria (For an agrarian cause). Pacific University, 1986.

27Machado, E. Determinacin de cultivates en Erythroxylon coca Lam (Determination of cultivars ofErythroxylon coca Lam). In Resumenes Segundo Congreso Nacional de Investigadores Agrarios del Per,Lima, 1216 August 1974. p. 3334.

28Determinacin de variedades y cultivates en coca peruanas (Determination of varieties and cultivars ofPeruvian coca). In Cocaina 1980. F. R. Jeri, ed. Lima, Pacific Press, 1980.

29El gnero Erythroxylonen el Per (The genus Erythroxylonin Peru). Anales cientificos de la UniversidadNational Agraria (Lima) 8:147152, 1970.

30Nomenclatura del gnero Erythroxylon L (Nomenclature of the genus ,Erythroxylon L ). Anales cientificos dela Universidad Nacional Agraria (Lima) 8:1718, 1970.



31Maletta, H. andK. Makhlouf. Per: Las provincias en cifras 19811986 (Peru: the provinces in numbers19811986). vol. III: Estructura agraria. Lima, Pacific University, 1987.

32Malleux, J. Mapa forestal del Per (Forestal map of Peru). Lima, National Agrarian University, 1975.

33Marcelo, T. Rios de la Selva: Ms victimas del narcotrfico (Rivers of the Jungle: More victims of the drugtrade). Lima, National Agrarian University, 1987.Unpublished.

34Martn, A. Breves notas sobre el cultivo de la coca (Brief notes on coca cultivation). Agronomi(Lima) 17:7780, 1952.

35Orihuela, A. Cultivo, comercio y utilizacin de la coca en los Departamentos de Cuzco, Hunuco y La Libertad(Cultivation, commerce and utilization of coca in the Departments of Cuzco, Hunuco and La Libertad).Lima, National School of Agriculture, 1953. Agronomy thesis.

36Pacheco, A. C. Coca. Agronomi(Lima) 2:120, 1937.

37Pez, J. Coca. Agronomi (Lima) 2: 344, 1937.

38Patologi dos efeitos das poluicoes produzidas por agrotoxicos (Pathology of the effects of pollutionproduced by agrotoxins). De H.S.Medina y otros. Curitiba, Paran, Surehma, 1987.

39Paucar, F. Cacao para substituir a la coca: el significado histrico del proyecto agroindustrial de la CAS"Naranjillo" en Tingo Mari. (Cocoa as a substitute for coca: the historical significance of the CAS"Naranjillo" agroindustrial project in Tingo Mari) Agronoticias,50:4649, 1983.

40Peaherrera, C. Aluvin en Uchiza (Alluvion in Uchiza). El comercio (Lima) 2, 28 January, 1982.

41Perú: El agro en cifras (Perú, agriculture in numbers). De H. Maletta y otros. Lima, Pacific University /Banco Agrario, 1984.

42Ministry of Agriculture. De colonizacin y asuntos orientales. La direccin accin oficial en el desarrolloagropecuario de Tingo Mari (State development of agriculture in Tingo Mari). Lima, 1947.

43Piedra, V. Insectos dainos a la agricultura en Tingo Mari y zonas vecinas (Insects damaging to agriculturein Tingo Mari and neighbouring zones). Lima, National School of Agriculture, 1951. Thesis.

44Plowman, T. Aspectos botanicos de la coca (Botanical aspects of coca). In Cocaina 1980. F.R. Jeri, ed.Lima, Pacific Press, 1980.

45



The identity of Amazonian and Trujillo coca. Botanical Museum leaflets. Harvard University, 28:253261,1979.

46The origin, evolution and diffusion of coca, Erythoxylum spp. in South America. In Pre Columbian PlantMigration. D. Stone, ed. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archeology and Ethnology. 76:125163, 1984.

47Producen miel con cocaina (Honey with cocaine is produced). El comercio, 30 August 1985.

48Rios, R. Coca: el Atila del agro tropical (Coca: the Atila of tropical agriculture). Agronoticias, 8:34 37,1979.

49La erosin, enemigo mortal de la Selva (Erosion, mortal enemy of the jungle). Agronoticias, 2:4044, 1978.

50Rodriguez, A. A. Posibilidad de sustituir en Bolivia el cultivo del arbusto de la coca por el de otras plantas(Possibility of substituting coca with other plants in Bolivia). Boletn de estupefacientes, Geneva 17:3:1834, 1965.

51Rumtrill, R. ed. Narcotrfico y violencia poltica en la Amazonia Peruana (Drug trafficking and politicalviolence in the Peruvian Amazon). Lima, 1986.

52Sanchez, J.A. Erosin provocada con el cultivo de coca en el Alto Huallaga (Erosion caused by cocacultivation in Upper Huallaga). Lirna, National Agrarian University, Special Soil Problems, 1986.Mimeograph.

53Siegel, R. K.Cocaine smoking. J ournal of psychoactive drugs (San Francisco) 14:286287, 1982.

54Tern, M and A. Sandagorda. La produccin de coca en Bolivia (Cocaine production in Bolivia). In Cocaina1980. F.R. Jeri, ed. Lima, Pacific Press, 1980.

55Tosi, J. Zonas de vida natural en el Per (Natural life zones in Peru). Lima, Instituto Americana de CienciasAgricolas (Turriabla, Costa Rica) Andean Zone, 1960. (Report No. 5)

56Vila, C. El cultivo de la coca en las montas de Chinchao (Coca cultivation in the mountains of Chinchao).Lima, National School of Agriculture, 1935. Agronomy thesis.

57Wille, J. E. Der CocaStrauch Perus und seine Schdlinge. Tr openpflanzen (Berlin) 35:925, 4764, 1932.

58Entomologi agricola del Per (Agricultural entomology of Peru). Lima, 1943.

Copyright©2015 UNODC, All Rights Reserved,

Environmental Impact of Cocaine Production

Documents

Transcript of Environmental Impact of Cocaine Production