PART 4. COLOMBIA COCA CULTIVATION SURVEY

Colombia Coca Survey for 2005

105

SUMMARY FACTS SHEET

2004 Variationon 2004 2005

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

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

Geographic coordinates WGS 84

1500 300km

Cultivation density

International boundariesDepartment boundaries

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)

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

-

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

Department 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

Bolivia Colombia Peru

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%

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


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


Coca cultivation (ha)

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




International boundaries

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

International boundaries


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

Bolivia Colombia Peru

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


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

2.5 REPORTED SEIZURE

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 4. COLOMBIA COCA CULTIVATION SURVEY · Colombia Coca Survey for 2005 105 SUMMARY FACTS SHEET...

Documents

Transcript of PART 4. COLOMBIA COCA CULTIVATION SURVEY · Colombia Coca Survey for 2005 105 SUMMARY FACTS SHEET...