Sunteți pe pagina 1din 20

Environmental impact of coca cultivation and

cocaine production in the amazon region of Peru


Bulletin of Narcotics, UNOCDC

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/bulletin/bulletin_1992-0101_2_page006.html

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

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

Environmental impact of coca cultivation and cocaine


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

Introduction

The genus Erythroxyloncontains close to 250 species, some 200 of which are native to the
tropical americas. However, only two South American species account for all of the cultivated
coca plants: E. coca Lam and E. novogranatense (Morris). Each of these species has two
varieties: E. coca var. coca, and E. coca var. iapdu; E. novogranatense var. novogranatense
and E. novogranatense var. truxillense [ 47] . The variety coca is cultivated in the Upper
Jungle of Peru; the variety ipadu (epadu) is cultivated in Brazil and, to a lesser extent, in the
Lower Jungle of Peru (Loreto). The coca crop grown along the Peruvian coast is E.
novogranatense var. truxillense. In 1964, this variety covered 160 hectares along the coast
and 650 hectares in the sierra [ 13] . The other variety of E. novogranatense is cultivated in
Colombia. Before Plowman's clarifying remarks [ [ 45] , [ 46] and [ 47] ] there was some
confusion about these varieties, and this is reflected in the works of Bues [ [ 8] and [ 9] ] and
others. During the last two decades, Machado [ [ 28] , [ 29] , [ 30] and [ 31] ] and Ferreyra
and Tovar [ 24] have carried out several botanical studies on the genus Erythroxylonin Peru.
Machado [ 29] identified four cultivars of E. coca. In the sections that follow, reference will be
made only to the two varieties of E. coca, especially to E. coca var. coca, which will be
referred to henceforth as coca.

*This paper was first published by the Centro de Informacin y Educatin para
la Prevencion del Abuso de Drogas (CEDRO) in Frederico R. Len and Ramiro
Castro de la Mata, eds., "Pasta bisica de cocaina: un estudio
multidisciplinario" ('Basic cocaine paste: a multidisciplinary study")
(Lima, CEDRO, 1989). UNDCP wishes to thank CEDRO for permission to reprint
the article. It is the standard policy of the Bulletin on Narcotics to
publish only original works, but an exception was made in this case, as the
paper is an authoritative and detailed account of a region facing critical
problems.
In order to evaluate the ecological impact of coca, some familiarity with the extension and
location of the coca fields is required. Unfortunately, besides some evident facts, available
information is scarce and confusing. What is obvious is that coca cultivation is many times
greater than official statistics show, and that it is now concentrated in the departments of
Hu;inuco and San Martin, rather than in Cuzco, which was previously the largest cocaproducing region.
In 1964, the crop covered 16,360 hectares, of which 9,230 were located in La Convenci6n
Valley in Cuzco. Following in importance was Hunuco, with 4,000 hectares, La Libertad, with
940 -hectares, and Ayacucho, with 850 hectares [ 13] . San Martin was not included in the
statistics at the time. In 1960, Cuzco produced 59 per cent of all coca in Peru [ 18] . This
distribution was similar to that described by Bues in 1911 [ 8] and which he and other

authors confirmed in 1935 [ 38] . However, some authors were already pointing out that the
department of Hunuco had better ecological conditions for coca cultivation than did Cuzco,
and that the coca leaf produced there was of better quality because of its higher alkaloid
content [38 and 57].
Until around 1965, official statistics on coca production coincided with reality. Afterwards, a
divergence developed that has continued to grow to almost comic proportions. Nevertheless,
in 1979, these official statistics did reveal the decreasing role of Cuzco in coca production. At
that time, only 7,877 hectares were planted to coca, while Hunuco had 5,320 hectares and
San Martin 1,137 hectares. In 1979, ENACO reported only 17,916 hectares in the entire
country [ 25] . Maletta and Makhlouf reported 19,330 hectares of coca in 1981, based on
official estimates.
The distortion in the official information became evident when other government documents [
23] pointed to the existence of 12,000 hectares of coca just in the area of the Upper Huallaga
Special Project. In the early 1980s, Aramburu and Bedoya [ 3] reported approximately
30,000 hectares of coca in Huallaga, two thirds of which was planted in the project area.
According to the FDN/USAID study [ 23] , the principal coca-producing areas were Tingo
Mara, Uchiza and Aucayacu.
Therefore, according to official data from United States sources, there might have been
150,000 hectares of coca planted in Peru, 70,000 hectares of which were located in the
departments of Hunuco and San Martin. Rumrrill [ 52] referred to a 1980 report of the
Peruvian Senate that recognized the existence of 50,000 hectares of illegal coca cultivation in
the country. Cortazar [ 15] indicated that there were 100,000 hectares planted to coca in San
Martin (Tocache and Uchiza). However, the directors of the Frente de Defensa de los
Intereses del Pueblo de Tocache reported in 1986 that there were 195,000 hectares planted
to this crop in Upper Huallaga [ 52] . Marcelo [ 34] reported estimates (from unrevealed
sources) of 40,500 hectares in the province of Leoncio Prado (Monz6n, Tingo Mara, Aucayacu,
La Morado) and of 33,000 hectares in the provinces of Tocache and Mariscal Caceres.
However, Marcelo stated that these estimates were low, and offered 160,000 as a more
realistic estimate of the extension of coca fields in the three provinces. To add to the
confusion in the available literature, the Ministry of the Interior declared in 1987 that 380,000
hectares of coca existed [ 13] , although the Minister later rectified this information.
From the information mentioned above, which certainly does not include all the literature on
this subject, it is highly probable that at least 150,000 hectares and possibly as much as
380,000 hectares of coca exist in the country. The most probable estimate is more than
200,000 hectares. This figure coincides with the results of a surface area evaluation of legal

and illegal coca production. The lack (or concealment) of precise information is surprising for
such an important topic, even more so because obtaining it is technically simple, given the
availability of sophisticated remote sensing equipment.
If a realistic estimate is about 200,000 hectares, this means that the illegal cultivation of coca
is almost 10 times greater than is the legal, and that it is by far the most widely grown crop
in the Peruvian Amazon region. According to official statistics compiled by Maletta and
Makhlouf [ 32] , in the early 1980s there were 160,000 hectares of corn, 62,700 hectares of
banana, and 44,500 hectares of rice planted in the Peruvian Amazon. While the author of the
present work believes these figures are too low [201, the pre-eminent role of coca is obvious.
Maletta and others [ 42] reported the existence in the jungle of 666,668 cultivated hectares,
divided as follows: permanent crops (223,976 hectares); transitory crops (270,219
hectares); pasture (172,243 hectares); and reforested land (230 hectares). Illegal coca
production represents close to 30 per cent of the cultivated land and is equivalent to 80 per
cent of permanent legal crops in the region.

Coca and deforestation


The first and most obvious impact of such widespread coca cultivation is the deforestation of
several hundred thousands of hectares, most of which are located in areas unfit for
agriculture. The deforested areas include: land currently planted to coca (more than 200,000
hectares); land used by the coca producers for subsistence farming, where they plant
manioc, bananas, corn and other crops; land that is abandoned after soil becomes infertile;
land deforested by the peasants who leave the areas dominated by drug traffickers and
terrorists; land deforested by the coca producers who are dispersed as a result of political
violence; and land on which landing strips (of which more than 100 exist at any one time),
laboratories and camp-sites are built. Based on detailed studies of land use in Upper
Huallaga, such as those by Aramburu and Bedoya [ 3] , Aramburu [ 2] and Bedoya [ 6] and [
7] , among others, it can be safety assumed that in the Amazon region, deforestation
resulting directly and indirectly from coca cultivation has reached close to 700,000 hectares
since the early 1970s, when coca production increased significantly.
- If this figure is accurate, then coca alone is responsible for 10 per cent of the total
accumulated deforestation in the twentieth century in the Peruvian Amazon. Total
deforestation in the region is currently estimated at some 7 million hectares, according to
Malleux [ 33] , Dance [ 16] and Dourojeanni [ 20] and [ 21] . Since the 1970s, coca
production has played an increasingly significant role in land deforestation.
Deforestation, especially in protected lands and those appropriate for forests, has severe
environmental repercussions, including: the loss of soil through insidious or violent erosion;

extinction of genetic resources; alteration of the hydrologic system; increased flooding;


reduction in hydropower potential; difficulties in water transport; reduction in hydrobiological
potential; and lack of wood, timber, food etc. The almost mandatory burning of the debris left
by deforestation brings with it other problems, such as air pollution, topsoil deterioration and
the loss of soil nutrients.
Early authors [ 38] and [ 57] who described the agronomic aspects of coca had already
recognized that the lands preferred for cultivation were precisely those that had been recently
deforested. This preference was due to the greater natural fertility of deforested land and its
absence of undergrowth, among other reasons.

Coca and soil erosion


In its first published report, the Agricultural Experiment Station of Tingo Maria [ 43] stated:
"Although the method of coca cultivation has disastrous effects on the soil, comparable to
those it has on humans, cultivation is quite extensive because coca is the permanent crop
that provides the most economic benefits in the region". For at least four decades, then, the
impact of coca cultivation on the soil has been recognized. More recently, Tosi [ 56] , Rios [
49] and [ 50] , Penaherrera [ 41] and Sanchez [ 53] , among others, voiced similar concerns.
The highly erosive character of coca is due to the ecological zones in which it is planted, and
current cultivation practices. Coca is cultivated in zones that Tosi [ 56] describes as humid,
subtropical forest and extremely humid subtropical forest, among others, located between
700 and 2,000 metres above sea level. These zones correspond to the area known as the
Upper Jungle, although coca also is frequently grown in the conditions of the higher elevation
jungles ("ceja de selva"). The optimal altitude for cultivation is between 1,000 and 1,200
metres above sea level, where plants have a higher cocaine content [ 35] , and where rainfall
levels vary between 1,000 and 4,200 millimetres annually, with averages far exceeding 2,000
millimetres. Rough terrain and steep slopes dominate this region. Steep slopes are preferred
by growers because they provide good drainage [ 35] and [ 57] . Currently, coca is found up
to the Padre Abad Forest, located deep in the subtropical rain forest. This forest has an
annual rainfall of 6,000 millimetres. Ecologically, coca is located in some of the country's
most fragile zones, several of which contain the least arable lands in the country because of
their high levels of erosion.
Coca cultivation practices also encourage erosion. Preferred soils include: those composed of
sandy clay, with good drainage; soil located on slopes of at least 45, also to facilitate
drainage; and those recently slashed and burned, in other words, stripped of all protective
vegetation [ 8] , [ 9] , [ 19] , [ 35] , [ 37] and [ 57] . In addition, cultivation requires
intensive weeding and tillage, which are done after every harvest, or three to six times a

year. Weeding is performed by climbing the slope, clearing the vegetation with a shovel or
pickaxes and then dragging the cut plants, along with part of the loose soil, down the slope [
9] , [ 17] , [ 36] , [ 38] and [ 57] . In some cases, the top 15 centimetres of soil is removed
[ 38] . It is in this way that the soil in the coca fields becomes stripped from the impact of
rain. The eroded soil quickly turns into furrows and deep ditches. Although coca is cultivated
in wells, the hitting up cancels out the anti- erosive effects of the wells.
Another cause of erosion, which combines with that described above, is the frequency of the
harvests that are actually nothing more than a defoliation that further exposes the soil to rain
drops and to aeolian erosion during the dry season. Normally, there are four harvests
annually (see previously cited authors). The number of factors that combine to make coca
themost environmentally dangerous cropin Peru istruly astounding. A summary of these
factors is shown in table 1.

Table 1. Summary of the characteristics of coca cultivation that


contribute to erosivity

Factor or characteristic

Implication

Ecosystems: high-altitude jungle ('"ceja de selva") and Upper Ecologically, the most fragile region of the
Jungle

jungle

Altitude:. 700-2,000 metres. above sea level

Highly erosive soils

Topography very rough

Highly erosive soils

Rainfall: 1,000-4,000 millimetres per year x=2,000


millimetres per year

Planting on 45 slopes

Preference for sandy clay soils

Recently deforested soils and burned vegetation

Planting without terraces, in shallow wells and in the direction


of the slope

More rain, more erosivity

With greater slopes, high erosivity

More erosion on slopes containing clay


soils

Burning favours erosion

Favours erosion

Soil scraping to eliminate undergrowth, 4 to 6 times a year

Direct impact of rain and no obstacles to


erosion

Defoliation (harvest), 4 to 6 times a year

Direct impact of rain

Elimination of undergrowth and defoliation simultaneously

Combination of previous factors

Abandonment of practice of using shade trees

Direct impact of rain

Removal of topsoil with

Loose soil, easily eroded

Sources:See text.
Additional information on this subject describes differences in current and past practices.
Several authors [ 19] , [ 38] and [ 57] have stated that coca was cultivated in deep wells, in
which the plantlets (either sown or transplanted) were placed in soil that did not reach the
level of the well. For example, in Hunuco, wells measured 25 centimetres wide, by 30
centimetres long, by 80 centimetres deep. These were located in rows that followed the line
of the steepest slope, with 60 centimetres between wells and 1.0 metre between rows, in
order to facilitate scraping and weeding and to keep the wells from filling with soil in case of
heavy rains [ 57] . Prior to the coca planting, another crop was planted, usually manioc, but
sometimes cassava or corn, for the purpose of providing shade for the coca during the first
months of growth [ 9] , [ 35] , [ 38] and [ 57] . This practice, which continues today, also
reduced initial erosion. Additionally, it seems that coca was usually planted beneath the shade
of the black white pacae (Inga spp.), which were planted in quincunx [ 35] 35 and [ 57] .
This method was later used for planting coffee trees.
Traditionally, in La Convenci6n Valley and along the coast and other locations, coca was
frequently planted on flat land and even irrigated [ 9] 9 and [ 38] . There is much evidence
that in pre-Hispanic times, coca was cultivated in well-constructed stone terraces. This was a
relatively common practice until the beginning of the twentieth century, as De la Guerra [ 18]
and Pez [ 38] , among others, have pointed out. Pez reported that steps, terraces, or
"tacamas" were constructed measuring 40 centimetres wide by 80 centimetres high, following
the slope. The same author points out that this practice also occurred in Bolivia. Recent
verbal and written data [ 55] confirmed that these terraces are still found in Bolivia and in
Sandia, in southern Peru, and that the oldest coca fields of Monzn, in Hunuco, still show signs
of this practice. The use of terraces, deep wells, crops associated with the initial phase of
growth, and shade trees, demonstrate that in times past there existed knowledge of the
erosive character of the coca crop and that measures were taken to avoid erosion.

The unscrupulous modern methods of coca planting earn coca the epithet '.the Attila of
tropical agriculture' [ 49] . No other crop exists that provokes such widespread erosions. To
insidious erosions, estimated at least at 300 tonnes per hectare per year [ 50] , are added
violent erosive processes that culminate in catastrophes. Rock and mud slides in the Upper
Jungle have caused thousands of deaths. The worst of these catastrophes occurred in the
Chontayacu River valley in January 1982, and has been described by Penaherrera [ 41] .
These phenomena also destroy the most fertile land and diverse infrastructure; they block
transport routes, causing enormous losses in perishable products, and they cause severe
water contamination.

Crop cultivation and water contamination


The coca plant competes with undergrowth for nutrients and is subject to several plagues and
diseases, which may require biocides to control. In addition, like any other crop, coca may
need fertilization. The application of biocides (in this case herbicides, pesticides or fungicides)
is always harmful to the environment, whether to a greater or lesser degree. The application
of fertilizers also has a negative impact on the environment. In the case of coca, these
substances are used excessively because of the high profitability of the crops and farmer
ignorance of the problems associated with their use.
While traditional cultivation practices call for the use of tools to remove undergrowth, modern
farmers use herbicides to perform this task. Some of the commercially prepared herbicides
contain chlorophen- oxiacete, which causes effects similar to those of the agent orange
herbicide used during the Viet Nam conflict. The lethal effects of chlorophenoxiacete became
evident recently in Brazil, when a huge number of fish died in the Mato Grosso swampland [
39] .
Coca has phytosanitary problems beginning in the initial growth stages, when it is attacked
by mole crickets (Gryllotalpaspp.), crickets (Gryllusspp.), beetle larvae (Ancistrosomaand
others), and fungi (Rhizoctonia, Fusarium, Pythium). In later developmental stages, the crop
is affected by foliage-devouring insects such as leaf-cutting ants (Atta cephalotes, A.
sexdens, Acromyrmex hispidus), leaf worms (Pieris, Eloria noyesi, Eucleodora cocae) and red
spiders (Tetranychus),and by diverse homopterous insects that suck the plant sap
(Aspidiotus, Lecanium, Lepidosaphes, Coccus hesperidum, Pseudococcus, Saissetia coffeae,
Tachardiella gemmifera). Plant stalks may be attacked by larvae of cerambycides
(Trachyderes).There is abundant literature on these problems, which have long been
considered serious [ [ 1] , [ 4] , [ 5] , [ 9] , [ 18] , [ 38] , [ 44] , [ 58] and 59. Plagues of
leaf caterpillars, especially Eloria noyes, are also prevalent, particularly in Hunuco. These
plagues were previously controlled by applying arsenates, which proved quite dangerous for

anyone accustomed to chewing coca leaves. The coca foliage is also affected by fungus
diseases such as "witch's broom" and Stibella flavida, Uredo erythroxili, and Hypochnus
rubrocinctus [ 9] , [ 11] , [ 18] and [ 57] .
As far as this author is informed, most of the agrotoxins and fertilizers used in Upper
Huallaga are applied in the coca fields. Farmers try to obtain larger yields by applying these
substances in such large quantities as to reach the visible limits of phytotoxicity. The
commercial agrochemicals known as Tiodan, Malation, Sevidan and Tamaron are commonly
used but there are others. Also used are foliar fertilizers and synthetic radicle fertilizers
available nationally. All of these substances reach the soil and end up in the rivers, where
they affect marine life to a degree as yet unknown. The substances that are not washed away
remain on the foliage that is used in the preparation of basic paste.

Basic cocaine paste and water contamination


The impact on the environment of the preparation of basic cocaine paste is incomparably
greater than that of agrochemicals. During the process, air, soil and water are contaminated.
Smoke pollutes the air when the coca leaves are dried in wood -burning stoves, the wood for
which is obtained from the few forests that remain. According to Ros [ 49] , the absurdity in
this is that farmers throw out the ash residue from the stoves and then purchase commercial
fertilizers.
Soil erosion, which washes tonnes of sediment into the rivers, is an important source of
contamination with severe repercussions for marine life. But most of the contamination of the
soil and especially the water is produced during the processing of the leaves to extract
alkaloids. According to Vila [ 57] , in 1935, sulphuric acid, carbide, and kerosene were used.
Siegel [ 54] reports that in Colombia, alcohol, benzene, and sulphuric acid are used in a
process that is completed with the addition of sodium carbonate to precipitate the raw or
base cocaine. According to Marcelo [ 34] , the procedure followed in Upper Huallaga involves
two steps, which he refers to as maceration and cleansing/pressing. Maceration is performed
using 18 litres of kerosene, 10 litres of sulphuric acid, 5 kilograms of quick lime, I kilogram of
carbide, and 5 kilograms of toilet paper for every 120 kilograms of coca leaf. For the
cleansing and pressing, processors use 11 litres of acetone and 11 litre of toluol for each
kilogram of basic paste produced.
Marcelo [ 34] , using the above information and his own estimates of coca leaf production for
basic cocaine paste in Upper Huallaga, came up with an interesting calculation of the volume
of contaminants dumped in the waters of the Huallaga basin. On the basis of an average
production of 2,400 kilograms per hectare per year of dried leaf and of 160,000 hectares of
coca in 1986, Marcelo calculated that the production of paste that year was approximately

6,400 tonnes. According to his calculations, this meant that in 1986, 57 million litres of
kerosene, 32 million litres of sulphuric acid, 16,000 tonnes of quick lime, 3,200 tonnes of
carbide, 16,000 tonnes of toilet paper, 6,400,000 litres of acetone and an equal amount of
toluene were dumped into the rivers. Even if Marcelo's calculation is disputed, the figures are
so overwhelming that their significance cannot be ignored. What is worse, several sources,
including some television programmes, reveal that maceration is done in pools and
streamlets. The 25 July 1987 edition of the newspaper El Comerciocontained a front-page
interview with the mayor of Juanju, who denounced the contamination of the Huallaga River
with sulphuric acid, acetic acid, ammonia and other substances used in the preparation of
basic paste. These substances had been confiscated by the police in anti -drug - trafficking
operations. The order to dump these substances in the river came from a judicial authority,
revealing the inhabitants' profound lack of awareness of the risks of contamination.
Kerosene, although moderately toxic, severely affects the biology of water flora and fauna,
especially of plankton. In addition, it reduces the oxygen supply. Sulphuric acid is extremely
dangerous, as are all the other substances that are dumped, such as carbide, calcium
carbonate, acetone and ammonia. Not even the toilet paper is innocuous. Entering through
the upper part of the Huallaga Basin, it affects the food chain in the lower parts of the Basin
and beyond. Many unsuspected compounds and recombinations of these substances are
concentrated in certain marine organisms, and undoubtedly now reach humans. Because of
the dumping of agrochemicals, fewer fish are available, many fish are unfit for consumption,
and the quality of potable and irrigation water has been lowered. From this information, it
may be assumed that many of the gorges and rivulets of the upper Basin have already been
completely sterilized. Marcelo [ 34] made note of this, mentioning that the killing of small fish
(Bryconamericus, Ancistrus, Pygidium) is already visible, as is that of the crustaceans,
amphibians and even of the plants along the river- bank. He also points to the unusual
proliferation of "sorropa" algae (Cladophora).Although these algae serve as fish food, their
overabundance can lower the availability of oxygen for other species. This is probably a
consequence of the excessive application of fertilizers. For all of these reasons, the problem
of water contamination in the Huallaga Basin demands urgent study.

Ecosystems and genetic resources


This subject was mentioned in the section on deforestation. It should now be pointed out that
the region of Peru where coca cultivation occurs is the area of the greatest genetic diversity
in the country. The higher altitude jungle ("ceja de selva") and the Upper Jungle possess a
high grade of endemisms, fruits of the speciation provoked by the rough terrain and peculiar
climatic characteristics of the region. Most of the approximately 7 million hectares that have
been deforested during this century in the Peruvian Amazon correspond precisely to this

region [ 20] . Coca cultivation, as shown above, has played an important role in this process
of deterioration of the environment, and therefore in the extinction of an incalculable number
of species of jungle flora and fauna which have been brutally deprived of their natural
ecosystems. In some cases, the ecosystems of marine flora and fauna have been so altered
that many can no longer support life.
Unfortunately, the problem is not limited to deforestation. The coca-producing zones are
lands without laws, where everyone does what he can and wants to. In these areas, the
exploitation of the forests, game and fishing is completely anarchistic. Public officials have no
access to the area. The few protected areas established to conserve representative samples
of the ecosystem and its genetic diversity are unable to develop and are sometimes invaded
by the coca producers and drug traffickers. The most pathetic case is that of Tingo Maria
National Park. By 1972, most of the Park had been invaded by coca producers. In this Park,
Dourojeanni and Tovar [ 22] discovered that the "guachara" (Steatornis caripensis), a species
in danger of extinction, had begun to feed on coca fruits because little other food was
available. In asimilar case, El Comercioof 30 August 1985 reported the existence of "cocaine
honey", produced by the bees of the Alto Chicama River that were feeding off coca flowers.
There are increasingly severe problems in the lower part of the recently created Abiseo
National Park, in the department of San Martn, and many other protected areas may be
experiencing similar problems. Particular attention should be paid to Manu National Park
(Madre de Dios and Cuzco) and Yanachaga-Chemellen (Pasco) National Park. Table 2 lists the
conservation units affected or liable to to he affected by coca cultivation.

Table 2. Conservation units and forest areas believed to be under actual


or potential pressure from coca producers and drug traffickers

Units or areas

size (thousand

Location

hectares)

Status

Nationa parks

Tingo Maria

Abiseo

Cutervo

18

Leoncio Prado (Huinueo)

Completely
invaded

274 Matiscal Caceres (San Martin)

Partially invaded

2.5

Probably

Cutervo (Cajamarca)

invaded

Yanachaga- Chemillen

Manu

122 Oxapampa (Pasco)

1 533 Manu (Madre de Dios) and Pau-cartambo


(Cuzco)

Possible invasion

Possible invasion

Conservation units in
progress

Cutibireni

Sira-San Carlos

300 Junin and Cuzco

Partially invaded

1 000 Ucayali and Junin

Possible invasion

National forests

Von Humboldt

Biabo-Cordillera Azul

Apurimac

645 Coronel Portillo (Ucayali) and Pachitea


(Huanuco)

2 084 Mariscal Caceres (San Martin) and Coronel


Portillo (Ucayali)

Initial invasion

Possible invasion

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

Sources:Diverse personal communications received and observations made by


author.
At least two national forests have been partially invaded by coca producers: Alexander Von
Humboldt Park (Ucayali and Hunuco) and Apurimac Park (Junn and Cuzco). The invasion of
the former resulted from the construction of the Von Humboldt-Constituci6n section of the
Marginal Road. Other parks also have probably been invaded, in particular the Biavo Cordillera Azul Park (San Martn and Loreto). Police operations in the region and the
construction by the government and the timber companies of new roads disperse the coca
producers throughout the Peruvian Amazon. Their presence along the new sections of the
Marginal Road is massive and points to the need for more prudence with such works in the
future. The coca plant is adapting to lower altitudes, where the alkaloid content of its leaves
will be lower. This fact will only serve to contribute to the increased deforestation of larger
areas. Coca fields are increasingly being planted under untrimmed "monte real" trees, to
avoid detection from the air.

Conclusion

The objective of this work has been to demonstrate that coca cultivation and cocaine
production have many other consequences in addition to those that everyone is, or is
considered to be, familiar with. In reality, these activities have such a severe impact that they
deserve immediate study. Immediate measures should also be taken to mitigate some of the
negative consequences of these activities. Some possible measures might include: limiting
the sale and controlling the transport of sulphuric acid and other chemical products required
for the preparation of basic paste; carefully planning police operations to avoid the possibility
that the State might become responsible for the dispersion of the coca producers and drug
traffickers throughout the Amazon region; declaring a moratorium on the construction of new
roads in the jungle, which mainly serve to attract coca producers, thereby avoiding State
financing of the expansion of illegal cultivation; increasing the small budgets of the national
parks and other protected areas, as well as those of the national forests, so that their
development will be their defence against the coca producers; better planning of the
exploitation of forest lands so that roads built there do not contribute to the expansion of
illegal coca cultivation.
From the environmental point of view, crop substitution is highly desirable and concrete
technical proposals for this purpose have been made [ 10] , [ 12] , [ 40] and [ 49] . The
subject has also been addressed in Bolivia [ 51] . Nevertheless, in the proposals made by
these authors, as well as in those developed with a more economic emphasis [ 26] , attention
to the forest, tourist, and genetic resource potential of the region is lacking. Despite its
technical and economic viability, crop substitution appears to be an impossible option without
the support of a strong and efficient State. For reasons that will not be mentioned here, this
is also true of eradication, which in technical terms at least is a relatively simple procedure.
The absurdity of the current situation in Peru is that, as has been shown, coca can be well
cultivated, with good yields and without producing natural disasters. The technology for these
production methods exists, and they have been practiced for centuries, perhaps for more
than a millennium. Today, however, the mythological coca has become a symbol of
destruction and death.

References
01

Alata, J. Lista de insectos y otros animales daninos a la agriculture on el Per (List of insects
and other animals causing damage to agriculture in Peru). Peru, La Molina Experiment
Station, Ministry of Agriculture, 1973. (Manual No. 38)
02

Aramburu, C.E. La expansion de la frontera demogrfica y econmica en la Selva Alta peruana


(The expansion of the demographic and economic frontier in the Peruvian Upper Jungle). In
Colonizacin en la Amazonia. C.E. Aramburu, E. Bedoya and J. Recharte, eds.Lima, CIPA,
1982. p. 1-39
03

Aramburu, C.E. andE. Bedoya. Poblamiento y uso de los recursos en la Amazonia Alta: El
caso del Alto Huallaga (Population and use of resources in the Upper Amazon: The case of
Upper Huallaga). In Desarrollo Amaznico: Una perspective latinaamericana. C. Mora andC. E.
Aramburu, eds.Lima, CIPA/ INANDEP, 1986. p. 115-177.
04

Barton, A. Peste en los cocales de Otuzco (Plagues in Otuzco coca fields). Vida agricola (Lima)
7:143-145, 1930.
05

La plaga de los cocales del Departamento de Libertad (Plagues in the coca fields in the
Department of La Libertad). La Molina Experiment Station, Ministry of Agriculture, 1929.
06

Bedoya, E. La destrucci6n del equilibrio ecolgico en las Cooperativas del Alto Huallaga
(Destruction of the ecological balance in the Cooperatives of Upper Huallaga). Lima, CIPA,
1982. (Document Series No. 1)
07

Intensificaci6n y degradaci6n en los sistemas agricolas de la Selva Alta: El caso del Alto
Huallaga (Intensification and degradation of the agricultural systemsof the Upper Jungle: The
case of Upper Haulage). Lima, CIPA, 1986. (Document Series No. 9, p. 48-98)
08

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


09

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

10

Burgos, 1. A- El problema de la sustituci6n de la coca por otros cultivos en Tingo Maria (The
problem of the substitution of coca with other crops in Tingo Maria). Tingo Mara, agriculture y
ganadera tropical (Lima) 1:23-26, 1967.
11

Cardenas, M. La estalla de la coca (The coca explosion). Revisit de agricultura de


cochabamba (Bolivia) 5:8 - 17, 1948.
12

Chvez, P. Departamento de la coca: Algunas alternatives de solucin (the Department of coca:


Some alternatives). Nikko (Lima) 26:7-9, 1979.
13

Coca, ese becerro de oro. Actualidad econmica deiPer (Lima) 88:3, 1987.
14

Conestcar. Per 1964: Estadistica agraria. Statistical and Cartographic Technical Cooperation
Agreement. Lima, Agrarian University/Ministry of Agriculture, 1965.
15

Cortazar, P. F. Departamento de San Martin. In Documental del Per, vol. XXII. Lima, IDESA,
1986.
16

Dance, J. Tendencias de la deforestacin con fines agropecuarios en la Amazonia Peruana


(Tendencies in the agricultural deforestation of the Peruvian Amazon). Revista foresal del Per
(Lima) 10:177-184, 1981.
17

Daneri, M. R. El cultivo de la coca en el Per (Coca cultivation in Peru). Lima, National Agrarian
University, 1974. Agronomy thesis.
18

De la Guerra, A. M. El cultivo de la coca y su estudio en relacin al indgena (Coca cultivation


and its study in relation to the Indian). Lima, National Agrarian University, 1961. Agronomy
thesis.
19

Denemoustier, C. and H. Jacob. La coca en la montaa de Hunuco (Coca in the mountains of


Hunuco). Riqueza agrcola, 1:693-697, 1912; 1:782-785, 1912; 2:109-113, 1913; 2:500501, 1913.
20

Dourojeanni, M. J. Coca, cocana y conservaci6n (Coca, cocaine and conservation). La


rep4bUca, 22 August 1986.
21

Desarrollo rural integral en la Amazonia Peruana con especial referencia a las actividades
forestales (lntegral rural development in the Peruvian Amazon with special emphasis on
forestal activities). In FAO/CIDA Seminar on the Role of Wild Species Cultivation in the
development of Rural Latin America. Documento forestal GCP/RLA. 50 (SWE) 1979.
22

Dourojeanni, M. J. andA. Tovar. Notas sobre el ecosistema y la conservaci6n de la Cueva de


las Lechuzas - Parque Nacional de Tingo Mara, Per (Notes on the ecosystem and the
conservation of the Las Lechuzas Cave - Tingo Maria National Park, Peru). Revista forestal del
Per (Lima) 5:28-45, 1972.
23

FDN/USAID. Plan de ejecucin del proyecto de desarrollo rural integral del Alto Huallaga
(Action plan for the integral rural development project of Upper Huallaga). Diagn6stico social.
Lima, 1981.
24

Ferreyra, R. and O. Tovar. Investigaciones botnicas sobre la coca: Nota preliminar (Botanical
research on coca: preliminary notes). Javier Prado Natural History Museum, 1966.
25

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


Jeri, el Lima, Pacific Press, 1980.
26

Hurtado, J. C. Por una causa agraria (For an agrarian cause). Pacific University, 1986.
27

Machado, E. Determinacin de cultivates en Erythroxylon coca Lam (Determination of cultivars


of Erythroxylon coca Lam). In Resumenes Segundo Congreso Nacional de Investigadores
Agrarios del Per, Lima, 12-16 August 1974. p. 33-34.
28

Determinacin de variedades y cultivates en coca peruanas (Determination of varieties and


cultivars of Peruvian coca). In Cocaina 1980. F. R. Jeri, ed. Lima, Pacific Press, 1980.
29

El gnero Erythroxylonen el Per (The genus Erythroxylonin Peru). Anales cientificos de la


Universidad National Agraria (Lima) 8:147-152, 1970.
30

Nomenclatura del gnero Erythroxylon L (Nomenclature of the genus ,Erythroxylon L ). Anales


cientificos de la Universidad Nacional Agraria (Lima) 8:17-18, 1970.
31

Maletta, H. andK. Makhlouf. Per: Las provincias en cifras 1981-1986 (Peru: the provinces in
numbers 1981-1986). vol. III: Estructura agraria. Lima, Pacific University, 1987.
32

Malleux, J. Mapa forestal del Per (Forestal map of Peru). Lima, National Agrarian University,
1975.
33

Marcelo, T. Rios de la Selva: Ms victimas del narcotrfico (Rivers of the Jungle: More victims of
the drug trade). Lima, National Agrarian University, 1987.Unpublished.
34

Martn, A. Breves notas sobre el cultivo de la coca (Brief notes on coca cultivation).
Agronomi(Lima) 17:77-80, 1952.
35

Orihuela, A. Cultivo, comercio y utilizacin de la coca en los Departamentos de Cuzco, Hunuco


y La Libertad (Cultivation, commerce and utilization of coca in the Departments of Cuzco,
Hunuco and La Libertad). Lima, National School of Agriculture, 1953. Agronomy thesis.
36

Pacheco, A. C. Coca. Agronomi(Lima) 2:1-20, 1937.


37

Pez, J. Coca. Agronomi (Lima) 2: 3-44, 1937.


38

Patologi dos efeitos das poluicoes produzidas por agrotoxicos (Pathology of the effects of
pollution produced by agrotoxins). De H.S.Medina y otros. Curitiba, Paran, Surehma, 1987.
39

Paucar, F. Cacao para substituir a la coca: el significado histrico del proyecto agro-industrial
de la CAS "Naranjillo" en Tingo Mari. (Cocoa as a substitute for coca: the historical
significance of the CAS "Naranjillo" agroindustrial project in Tingo Mari) Agronoticias,50:4649, 1983.
40

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


41

Per: El agro en cifras (Per, agriculture in numbers). De H. Maletta y otros. Lima, Pacific
University / Banco Agrario, 1984.
42

Ministry of Agriculture. De colonizacin y asuntos orientales. La direccin accin oficial en el


desarrollo agropecuario de Tingo Mari (State development of agriculture in Tingo Mari). Lima,
1947.

43

Piedra, V. Insectos dainos a la agricultura en Tingo Mari y zonas vecinas (Insects damaging to
agriculture in Tingo Mari and neighbouring zones). Lima, National School of Agriculture, 1951.
Thesis.
44

Plowman, T. Aspectos botanicos de la coca (Botanical aspects of coca). In Cocaina 1980. F.R.
Jeri, ed. Lima, Pacific Press, 1980.
45

The identity of Amazonian and Trujillo coca. Botanical Museum leaflets. Harvard University,
28:253-261, 1979.
46

The origin, evolution and diffusion of coca, Erythoxylum spp. in South America. In PreColumbian Plant Migration. D. Stone, ed. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archeology and
Ethnology. 76:125-163, 1984.
47

Producen miel con cocaina (Honey with cocaine is produced). El comercio, 30 August 1985.
48

Rios, R. Coca: el Atila del agro tropical (Coca: the Atila of tropical agriculture). Agronoticias,
8:34 - 37, 1979.
49

La erosin, enemigo mortal de la Selva (Erosion, mortal enemy of the jungle). Agronoticias,
2:40-44, 1978.
50

Rodriguez, A. A. Posibilidad de sustituir en Bolivia el cultivo del arbusto de la coca por el de


otras plantas (Possibility of substituting coca with other plants in Bolivia). Boletn de
estupefacientes, Geneva 17:3:18-34, 1965.
51

Rumtrill, R. ed. Narcotrfico y violencia poltica en la Amazonia Peruana (Drug trafficking and
political violence in the Peruvian Amazon). Lima, 1986.
52

Sanchez, J.A. Erosin provocada con el cultivo de coca en el Alto Huallaga (Erosion caused by
coca cultivation in Upper Huallaga). Lirna, National Agrarian University, Special Soil Problems,
1986. Mimeograph.
53

Siegel, R. K.Cocaine smoking. J ournal of psychoactive drugs (San Francisco) 14:286-287,


1982.
54

Tern, M and A. Sandagorda. La produccin de coca en Bolivia (Cocaine production in Bolivia).


In Cocaina 1980. F.R. Jeri, ed. Lima, Pacific Press, 1980.
55

Tosi, J. Zonas de vida natural en el Per (Natural life zones in Peru). Lima, Instituto Americana
de Ciencias Agricolas (Turriabla, Costa Rica) Andean Zone, 1960. (Report No. 5)
56

Vila, C. El cultivo de la coca en las montas de Chinchao (Coca cultivation in the mountains of
Chinchao). Lima, National School of Agriculture, 1935. Agronomy thesis.
57

Wille, J. E. Der Coca-Strauch Perus und seine Schdlinge. Tr openpflanzen (Berlin) 35:9-25,
47-64, 1932.
58

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