The politicisation of fumigations Glyphosate on the Colombian-Equadorian Border

After six long years of intensive fumigation within the scope of Plan Colombia, it is surprising that we are still embroiled in the old controversy over whether or not to perform aerial spraying with glyphosate. Not because it has been proven whether these fumigations are harmless or harmful to human health and to the environment but rather because, after so much experience of fumigation, it is clear to the entire world that this strategy does not achieve the purpose for which it was conceived: to reduce the surface area used for illicit crops, as well as the supply and demand for cocaine on international markets. At this point, the question we should be asking is: how is it possible we are still fumigating?

The insistence on fumigation, despite its undeniable failure in practice, is a sign that fumigation involves interests that go beyond antinarcotics and represent what are essentially political interests, to justify the US military and law enforcement presence in such a sensitive region. Within such a perspective, the debate on whether or not it is harmful or harmless is of secondary importance. Health and environmental considerations are secondary to those who defend fumigation. Colombia, aided by the United States, the main supporter of this strategy, will always be quick to point out how glyphosate is less harmful than aspirin, as they used to say in the 1990s and, contradicting all evidence, insist on the wonders of fumigation. Moreover, if the harmfulness of glyphosate, were proven beyond a doubt, the pro-fumigation camp would no doubt advocate a replacement herbicide, or some other eradicating agent, such as the fusarium fungus, which has been in preparation for some time now. On the other hand, those who oppose aerial spraying continue to set up binational and multinational commissions, writing protocols, conducting new studies, threatening actions before international courts, or simply protesting, with very little chance of any of these acts furthering their cause.

Meanwhile both the environmental destruction and humanitarian crisis continue in areas such as the Columbia-Ecuador border, first due to the indiscriminate occupation of the Amazon Basin by coca crops and its processing into cocaine hydrochloride, and secondly due to the destruction caused by aerial chemical eradication.

Recommendations

The conditions are currently ripe for Andean countries to undertake a substantial change in anti-narcotic policy in the region. Instead of wallowing in their ideological differences, these nations should join forces and funds to address the common problem of drug production and traffic. In the case of the diplomatic dispute between Colombia and Ecuador over fumigation:

• If other countries wish to become involved, they do so in a responsible and conciliatory manner. The last thing needed at the moment is to further incite the passions of the different governments. The war on drugs must not work against the common interest in integration.

• The Colombian government should realise that greater flexibility on the issue is more politically convenient. It would show that it is capable of maintaining a balnace between its relationship with Washington and its friendliness with neighbouring countries.

• Technical issues of fumigation should not be mixed with political issues, as this results in losing sight of the main point that fumigation has been useless.

• Security without development is unsustainable. As long as the presence of the State does not materialise in the form of jobs, infrastructure and enhanced living conditions, investments in security are doomed to failure.

• A UN assessment concluded that illegal crops should only be eradicated when other income alternatives exist.

• ACNUR should recognise displaced populations as a consequence of fumigation and interdiction policies as an integral part of the refugee statute, and provide for them accordingly.

• Recent studies contain warnings regarding the potential impact of glyphosate on the environment, especially for amphibian species. As Colombia has the world’s second highest biodiversity in amphibians, the government should take this warning seriously.

Pages: 4