Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
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
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.
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.
Factor or characteristic
Implication
Ecosystems: high-altitude jungle ('"ceja de selva") and Upper Ecologically, the most fragile region of the
Jungle
jungle
Planting on 45 slopes
Favours erosion
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.
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.
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.
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.
Units or areas
size (thousand
Location
hectares)
Status
Nationa parks
Tingo Maria
Abiseo
Cutervo
18
Completely
invaded
Partially invaded
2.5
Probably
Cutervo (Cajamarca)
invaded
Yanachaga- Chemillen
Manu
Possible invasion
Possible invasion
Conservation units in
progress
Cutibireni
Sira-San Carlos
Partially invaded
Possible invasion
National forests
Von Humboldt
Biabo-Cordillera Azul
Apurimac
Initial invasion
Possible invasion
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. 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
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
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
Daneri, M. R. El cultivo de la coca en el Per (Coca cultivation in Peru). Lima, National Agrarian
University, 1974. Agronomy thesis.
18
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
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
Hurtado, J. C. Por una causa agraria (For an agrarian cause). Pacific University, 1986.
27
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
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
Per: El agro en cifras (Per, agriculture in numbers). De H. Maletta y otros. Lima, Pacific
University / Banco Agrario, 1984.
42
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
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
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