Pubdate: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 Source: New York Times (NY) Copyright: 2001 The New York Times Company Contact: http://www.nytimes.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/298 Author: Juan Forero JUDGE IN COLOMBIA HALTS SPRAYING OF DRUG CROPS BOGOTA -- First came farmers' complaints about skin rashes and destroyed banana groves, for which they blamed American-supported aerial spraying to destroy coca and heroin poppy crops. Then the governors of four southern provinces, galvanized by constituent complaints, went to Washington and Europe to lobby for alternatives. Now, a judge here in this Andean capital has ordered a suspension of aerial spraying with the herbicide glyphosate. These actions, taken together, represent the growing grass-roots opposition among some groups to the spraying in Colombia and the resulting challenge to American drug policy, whose centerpiece here is the intensive spraying to destroy illicit fields. Farmers and their supporters contend that glyphosate, the American-manufactured chemical used in many pesticides and the one most widely used in the eradication program here, is hazardous, an assertion that American and Colombian officials reject. The ruling on Friday to stop the spraying came as the pace of American-supported spraying of illicit drugs was set to pick up dramatically. Bankrolled with a $1.3 billion American aid package approved last year, crop-dusting aircraft are to spray newly found coca and poppy fields across Colombia. On Friday, three of the first 16 UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters arrived from the United States, transports that are to move Colombian anti-drug troops on dangerous missions to regions where drug crops are protected by rebel or paramilitary fighters. In September, Colombia will also receive the first batch of 14 new aircraft to be used for spraying, to add to the 12 currently in use. Colombia has huge acreage dedicated to growing illegal crops. At the end of last year, American analysts estimated that there were 336,000 acres of coca, far higher than earlier estimates. The United Nations, using different methodology, put the amount even higher for last year's major growing season -- 402,000 acres, it said in a briefing last week. Growing heroin poppies is also increasing, experts say, though the poppies cover just several thousand acres. "It's quite possible we've underestimated the coca in Colombia," Anne Patterson, the American ambassador here, said last week. "Everywhere we look there is more coca than we expected." Crop dusters have sprayed about 125,000 acres of coca already this year, including about 75,000 acres in the coca-growing heartland of Putumayo and Caqueta provinces, along the Ecuadorean border. Ms. Patterson said she was confident that, with the new planes and escort helicopters, a "break-even point" could be reached in the next 18 months. It was unclear, however, what long-term impact Judge Gilberto Reyes's ruling on Friday, issued in response to a petition by indigenous groups, would have on those plans. A spokesman at the American Embassy said aerial spraying, which was being conducted over Narino and Cauca provinces in southwestern Colombia, had been temporarily suspended "while experts examine the legal basis of the court decision." The decision does not say whether the ban is immediate or if it applies to the entire country or just to Indian lands. The ruling asked President Andres Pastrana's government to provide documentation showing what officials know about glyphosate and its effects on people and the environment as well as the legal framework that entitled the government to carry out the spraying. Indigenous leaders contend that the government is obligated to consult them before spraying near or on their land and that it never has. A final court ruling is expected in about 10 days, following the government's response to the judge's questions. Still, for the divergent groups that oppose spraying -- regional politicians, farmers, Indian groups, environmental advocates and human rights workers -- the judge's decision was viewed as a victory. "This is one of the most important moments for us," Armando Valbuena, president of the National Indigenous Organization of Colombia, said in an interview on Saturday. "The six governors of the south and the Indians and others are saying to the president, 'Please suspend the fumigation because there are other alternatives instead.' " The farmers and their supporters, including some members of the United States Congress, believe that spraying should be replaced by a program of voluntary eradication that would provide subsidies for farmers who replace coca and poppies with legal crops. Such programs are under way in various provinces, but critics say the subsidies are too small and the programs have been poorly planned. Parmenio Cuellar, governor of Narino, where coca cultivation has increased with the heavy spraying in nearby Putumayo, said the government must offer a comprehensive assistance program that offers infrastructure, services like education and health care and markets for crops. "We are not against eradication, just the fumigation," said Mr. Cuellar, who with the governor of Cauca, Floro Tunubala, is visiting Washington this week to brief lawmakers and policy analysts on the issue. "We believe eradication should be done through accords with the community so they can eradicate with the support of the state," said Mr. Cuellar, a former senator and minister of justice. He said current programs "deal with the moment, but not with the root of the problem, the poverty." Supporters say this type of eradication program will work, given time. But Colombian and American officials say fumigation must play a central role in eradication efforts. Officials say most illegal crops are grown on industrial-sized plots, not on small farms, which opponents of spraying dispute. "Manual eradication has a role to play, but given the amount of coca and poppy cultivation in Colombia, it can be only part of the solution," said Ms. Patterson. She said this type of eradication in areas of large-scale production where rebels are active would be "too dangerous and -- frankly -- it's too expensive." Supporters of spraying are also fending off assertions that glyphosate has caused a variety of serious maladies in areas where spraying has taken place. Directions on glyphosate products like Roundup, which is marketed in the United States, warn users not to apply the product in a way that will cause contact with people "either directly or through drift." Those concerns, coupled with the mixing of glyphosate with other chemicals without knowing the possible effects, have prompted prominent officials like Eduardo Cifuentes, the Colombian human rights ombudsman, and Carlos Ossa, the nation's general comptroller, to call for a suspension of spraying. It has also prompted calls for hearings in the Colombian Senate over the issue of spraying and has galvanized opposition among some lawmakers. American officials respond that glyphosate is approved for use in the United States and that 85 percent of the glyphosate used in Colombia is used for agricultural purposes, without complaint. But with protests reaching a fever pitch, the United Nations Drug Control Program last week called for international monitoring to determine the safety of spraying and the extent of inadvertent spraying of legal crops. Ms. Patterson said the United States is devising a broad study that would compare the health of 500 people in a region that has already been sprayed with that of 500 people of an area that has not. "There are a lot of studies out there, but the problem is that they come from people who have certain interests," said Klaus Nyholm, chief of the United Nations Drug Control Program in Colombia. "We have seen some things that are sure to be exaggerated, but there are some that likely have some merit." - --- MAP posted-by: Doc-Hawk