INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
CASE CONCERNING
AERIAL HERBICIDE SPRAYING
ECUADOR
V.
COLOMBIA
MEMORIAL OF ECUADOR
VOLUME II
ANNEXES
28 APRIL 2009VOLUME II
ANNEXES V OLUME II
A NNEXES
T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
TREATIES, LAWS AND REGULATIONS
Annex 1 American Treaty on Pacific Settlement, “Pact of Bogotá” 30
UNTS 55 (30 Apr. 1948)
Annex 2 Pact of Bogotá, Signatories and Ratifications
Annex 3 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, U.N. Doc. E/CONF.82/15
(20 Dec. 1988), reprinted in 28 I.L.M. 493 (1989)
Annex 4 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Status of Treaty Adherence
(1998)
Annex 5 International Conference of American States, Perfecting and
Coordination of International Peace Instruments (21 Dec. 1938)
Annex 6 Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace (21
Feb. – 8 Mar. 1945)
Annex 7 South Africa, Fertilizer, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and
Stock Remedies Act 36 of 1947
Annex 8 United States, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act, 7 U.S.C. Sec. 136j(a)(2)(G) (1947)
Annex 9 Charter of the Organization of American Sta, UNTS I-1609
(1948), entered into force 13 Dec. 1951
Annex 10 Republic of Colombia, Decree No. 2811 , National Code of
Renewable Natural Resources and Environmental Protection (18
Dec. 1974)
Annex 11 Republic of Colombia, Ministry of Health, Decree No. 1843 (22
July 1991), as amended by Decree No. 695 (26 April 1995) and
Decree No. 4368 (4 Dec. 2006)
iAnnex 12 Republic of Colombia, Ministry of Environment, Law No. 99 (22
Dec. 1993)
Annex 13 United Kingdom, Control of Pesticides Regulations , S.I. 1510
(1986), Regulation 4(5), as amended by Control of Pesticides
(Amendment) Regulations, S.I. 188 (1997)
Annex 14 Republic of Colombia, Ministry of Environment, Resolution No.
341, Adopting some decisions in relation to the Program for the
Eradication of Illicit Crops by Aerial Spraying with Glyphosate
(2001)
Annex 15 Republic of Colombia, Ministry of Environment, Resolution No.
1065, Environmental Management Plan (26 Nov. 2001)
Annex 16 Canada, Pest Control Products Act , R.S.C. Chap. 28, Sec. 6(5)
(2002)
Annex 17 Andean Community, Resolution 630, Andean Technical Manual
for the Registration and Control of Chemical Pesticides for
Agricultural Use (25 June 2002)
Annex 18 Republic of Ecuador, Ministry of Agriculture, General
Regulation of Pesticides and Related Products for Agricultural
Use, Special Official Registry, Book II, Title XXVIII, (20 Mar.
2003)
Annex 19 Republic of Colombia, Ministry of Environment Resolution No.
0670, Whereby a sanction is imposed and other decisions are
made (19 June 2003)
Annex 20 Republic of Colombia, Institute of Agriculture and Livestock,
Resolution No. 3759, By which the provisions of the Registration
and Control of Chemical Pesticides for Agricultural Use are
issued (16 Dec. 2003)
Annex 21 European Parliament, Legislative Resolution of 13 January 2009
on the Council Common Position for Adopting a Directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council Establishing a
Framework for Community Action to Achieve a Sustainable Use
of Pesticides, 6124/2008 – C6-0323/2008 –2006/0132(COD) (13
Jan. 2009)
U.N. DOCUMENTS
Annex 22 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Colombia Coca
Cultivation Survey for 2004 (June 2005)
- ii -Annex 23 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Colombia Coca
Cultivation Survey for 2005 (June 2006)
Annex 24 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Colombia Coca
Cultivation Survey for 2006 (June 2007)
Annex 25 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Coca Cultivation in
the Andean Region, A Survey of Bolivia, Colombia and Peru
(June 2008)
Annex 26 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, World Drug Report
(2008)
Annex 27 United Nations, The Northern Border of Ecuador: Evaluation
and Recommendations of the Interagency Mission of the United
Nations System in Ecuador (July 2004)
Annex 28 United Nations, Report on the Preliminary Technical Mission of
the United Nations (April 2006)
Annex 29 UNHCR et al., Impact of the Spraying Along the Colombian-
Ecuadorian Border Area (February 2007)
Annex 30 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People,
Rodolfo Stavenhagen: Mission to Ecuador (25 April-4 May
2006), U.N. Doc. A/HRC/4/32/Add.2, (28 Dec. 2006)
Annex 31 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone to the
Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and
Mental Health, Paul Hunt: Preliminary Note on Mission to
Ecuador and Colombia, Addendum , A/HRC/7/11/Add.3 (4 Mar.
2007)
Annex 32 Report of the Special Rapporteur, Okechukwu Ibeanu , Adverse
Effects of the Illicit Movement and Dumping of Toxic and
Dangerous Products and Wastes on the Enjoyment of Human
Rights, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/5/5 (5 May 2007)
Annex 33 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Jean
Ziegler, Addendum: Communications Sent to Governments and
Other Actors and Replies Received , U.N. Doc.
A/HRC/4/30/Add.1 (18 May 2007)
Annex 34 United Nations Compensation Commission, Report and
Recommendations made by the Panel of Commissioners
concerning the First Instalment of "F4" Claims , U.N. Doc.
S/AC.26/2001/16 (2001)
- iii -Annex 35 United Nations Compensation Commission, Report and
Recommendations made by the Panel of Commissioners
concerning the Fifth Instalment of "F4" Claims , U.N. Doc.
S/AC.26/2005/10 (2005)
DIPLOMATIC DOCUMENTS
Annex 36 Diplomatic Note 12437-47 SP/DGA/DTANC, sent from the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador to the Embassy of
Colombia in Ecuador (24 July 2000)
Annex 37 Diplomatic Note E-1766, sent from the Embassy of Colombia in
Quito to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador (19 Dec.
2000)
Annex 38 Diplomatic Note 21085 SSN/DGST, sent from the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Ecuador to the Embassy of Colombia in Quito
(16 Feb. 2001)
Annex 39 Diplomatic Note E-297, sent from the Embassy of Colombia in
Quito to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador (12 Mar.
2001)
Annex 40 Diplomatic Note 31036/2001 SG/SSN, sent from the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Ecuador to the Embassy of Colombia in Quito
(27 Mar. 2001)
Annex 41 Diplomatic Note 55416/2001- GM/SOI/SSN, sent from the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador to the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Colombia (2 July 2001)
Annex 42 Diplomatic Note DM/AL No. 25009, sent from the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Colombia to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Ecuador (14 July 2001)
Annex 43 Diplomatic Note E-180, sent from the Embassy of Colombia in
Quito to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador (20 Feb.
2002)
Annex 44 Diplomatic Note E-340, sent from Embassy of Colombia in Quito
to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador (15 Apr. 2002)
Annex 45 Diplomatic Note 47839 DGAF, sent from the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Ecuador to the Embassy of Colombia in Quito (18 Oct.
2002)
- iv - Diplomatic Note 48975-2002/DGPB, sent from the Ministry of
Annex 46 Foreign Affairs of Ecuador to the Embassy of Colombia in Quito
(23 Oct. 2002)
Annex 47 Diplomatic Note 23205/GM, sent from the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Ecuador to the Embassy of Colombia in Quito (10 Apr.
2003)
Annex 48 Diplomatic Note VRE 32759, sent from the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Colombia to the Embassy of Ecuador in Bogotá (23
Sep. 2003)
Annex 49 Diplomatic Note No. DBR/CAL 37677, sent from the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Colombia to the Embassy of Ecuador in
Bogotá (9 Oct. 2003)
Annex 50 Diplomatic Note VRE/DBR 40153, sent from the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Colombia to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Ecuador (12 Nov. 2003)
Annex 51 Diplomatic Note 75204/2003-GM, sent from the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Ecuador to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Colombia (21 Nov. 2003)
Annex 52 Diplomatic Note 68934/2003-GM, sent from the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Ecuador to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Colombia (23 Oct. 2003)
Annex 53 Diplomatic Note DM/DBR 47356, sent from the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Colombia to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Ecuador (15 Dec. 2003)
Annex 54 Diplomatic Note DBR/CAL 1405, sent from the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Colombia to the Embassy of Ecuador in
Bogotá (14 Jan. 2004)
Annex 55 Diplomatic Note 4820/2004-GM, sent from the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Ecuador to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Colombia (10 Feb. 2004)
Annex 56 Diplomatic Note 10181/2004-GM, sent from the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Ecuador to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Colombia (16 Feb. 2004)
Annex 57 Diplomatic Note DM/DBR 8092, sent from the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Colombia to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Ecuador (23 Feb. 2004)
- v -Annex 58 Diplomatic Note 15715/2004-GM, sent from the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Ecuador to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Colombia (9 Mar. 2004)
Annex 59 Diplomatic Note 15839/2004-GM-VM, sent from the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Ecuador to the Embassy of Colombia in Quito
(10 Mar. 2004)
Annex 60 Presidential Joint Declaration between Ecuador and Colombia,
Bogotá (17 Mar. 2004)
Annex 61 Diplomatic Note 20434/2003-GM, sent from the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Ecuador to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Colombia (31 Mar. 2004)
Annex 62 Note SARE-142, sent from the National Directorate of Narcotics
of the Ministry of Interior and Justice of Colombia to the
President of the Technical-Scientific Commission of Ecuador
(Apr. 14 2004)
Annex 63 Report of the Ecuadorian Delegation to the III Meeting of the
Joint Scientific and Technical Commission (26 May 2004)
Annex 64 Minutes of the Fourth Meeting of the Joint Scientific and
Technical Commission (2 Aug. 2004)
Annex 65 Diplomatic Note DPM/CDR 65881, sent from the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Colombia to the Embassy of Ecuador in
Bogotá (4 Nov. 2004)
Annex 66 Diplomatic Note 4-2-439/2004, sent from the Embassy of
Ecuador in Bogotá to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Colombia (8 Nov. 2004)
Annex 67 Diplomatic Note DAA/CAL 23927, sent from the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Colombia to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Ecuador (6 May 2005)
Annex 68 United Nations, General Assembly Sixtieth Session, 11th Plenary
Meeting, A/60/PV.11 (18 Sep. 2005)
Annex 69 Diplomatic Note 4-2-108/2005, sent from the Permanent Mission
of Ecuador to the U.N. to the General Secretariat of the U.N. (19
Sep. 2005)
Annex 70 Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, Remarks at the Summit of
Antinarcotics Chiefs of Latin America and the Caribbean, Casa
de Nariño, Secretaría de Prensa (17 Oct. 2005)
- vi -Annex 71 Note from the Department of Political Affairs of the U.N. to the
Permanent Mission of Ecuador to the U.N. (29 Nov. 2005)
Annex 72 Joint Declaration of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador
and Colombia (7 Dec. 2005)
Annex 73 Diplomatic Note 2854/06/SSNDF/DGRFC, sent from the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador to the Embassy of
Colombia in Quito (20 Jan. 2006)
Annex 74 Diplomatic Note 17533/GM, sent from the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Ecuador to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Colombia (2 May 2006)
Annex 75 Official email C.E.No. /2006-MECUCOL, from the Embassy of
Ecuador in Bogotá to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador
(11 Dec. 2006)
Annex 76 Diplomatic Note 52025-GM/SSNDF/DGSN, sent from the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador to the Embassy of
Colombia in Quito (14 Dec. 2006)
Annex 77 Diplomatic Note 52284/06/-GM, sent from the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Ecuador to the Secretary General of the
Organization of American States (15 Dec. 2006)
Annex 78 Speech of Ecuadorian Minister of Foreign Affairs in the OAS
Permanent Council (9 Jan. 2007)
Annex 79 Speech of Colombian Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs in the
OAS Permanent Council (9 Jan. 2007)
Annex 80 Minutes of the First Meeting of the Bi-National Scientific-
Technical Commission (10 Apr. 2007)
Annex 81 Ecuadorian Scientific-Technical Commission Aide Memoire on
the First Meeting (11 Apr. 2007)
Annex 82 Minutes of Ecuador’s and Colombia’s Foreign Ministers Meeting
(28 May 2007)
Annex 83 Ecuadorian Scientific-Technical Commission, Report on the
Second Meeting (9 July 2007)
Annex 84 Ecuadorian Scientific-Technical Commission Aide Memoire on
the Second Meeting (9 July 2007)
Annex 85 Diplomatic Note DM/VRE 35868, sent from the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Colombia to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Ecuador (18 July 2007)
- vii -Annex 86 Diplomatic Note 35224/GM/2007, sent from the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Ecuador to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Colombia (27 July 2007)
Annex 87 Diplomatic Note DM/VRE/DSF 7649, sent from the Minister of
Foreign Affairs of Colombia to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of
Ecuador (25 Feb. 2008)
Annex 88 Diplomatic Note 14087/GM/GVMRE/SSNRF/2008, sent from
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador to the Embassy of
Argentina in Bogotá (24 Mar. 2008)
COLOMBIAN GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS
Annex 89 Government of Putumayo, Government of Nariño et al.,
Declaration of Puerto Asís (8-9 Sept. 2000)
Annex 90 Republic of Colombia, Administrative Department of Health
(DASALUD) Putumayo Province, Office of Planning,
Epidemiology Section, Effects of Aerial Spraying with
Glyphosate Valle del Guamuez – San Miguel – Orito, Putumayo
(Feb. 2001)
Annex 91 Republic of Colombia, Office of the Ombudsman, Ombudsman
Report No. 1, Fumigations and Alternative Development Projects
in Putumayo (9 Feb. 2001)
Annex 92 Republic of Colombia, Office of the Ombudsman, Ombudsman
Resolution No. 4 (12 Feb. 2001)
Annex 93 Comptroller General of the Republic of Colombia, Comptroller
for the Environment, Special Audit Regarding Illicit Crop
Eradication Policies (July 2001)
Annex 94 Comptroller General of the Republic of Colombia, Plan
Colombia: Second Evaluation Report (10 Dec. 2001)
Annex 95 Republic of Colombia, Environmental Management Plan for the
Illicit Crop Eradication Program Using Aerial Spraying with the
Herbicide Glyphosate (ICEPG) (2003)
Annex 96 Republic of Colombia, National Health Institute,Evaluation of
the Effects of Glyphosate on Human Health in Illicit Crop
Eradication Program Influence Zones (2003)
- viii - Annex 97 Republic of Colombia, Office of the Ombudsman, Ombudsman
Resolution No. 28 , The Coffee Crisis and the Possible
Fumigations in the Province of Caldas (21 May 2003)
Annex 98 Comptroller General of the Republic of Colombia, Plan
Colombia: Fourth Evaluation Report (July 2003)
Annex 99 Comptroller General of the Republic of Colombia, Plan
Colombia: Fifth Evaluation Report (Dec. 2004)
Annex 100 Colombian National Police, Antinarcotics Directive, Monitoring
and Evaluation of the Spraying Operation to Eradicate Ilicit
Coca Crops Inside Sierra de la Macarena National Park (Nov.
2006)
Annex 101 Republic of Colombia, Environmental Risk of the Herbicide
Glyphosate (date unknown)
Annex 102 Republic of Colombia, Office of the Ombudsman, The Execution
of the Strategy for Aerial Eradication of Illicit Crops, with
Chemicals, from a Constitutional Perspective (date unknown)
- ix - ANNEX 1
American Treaty on Pacific Settlement, “Pact of Bogotá”
30 UNTS 55 (30 Apr. 1948) ANNEX 1
[Signatories and Ratifications] [text in Spanish]
AMERICAN TREATY ON PACIFIC SETTLEMENT
"PACT OF BOGOTÁ"
Signed at Bogotá, April 30, 1948
In the name of their peoples, the Governments represented at the Ninth International Conference of American
States have resolved, in fulfillment of Article XXIII of the Charter of the Organization of American States, to
conclude the following Treaty:
CHAPTER ONE
GENERAL OBLIGATION TO SETTLE DISPUTES BY PACIFIC MEANS
ARTICLE I. The High Contracting Parties, solemnly reaffirming their commitments made in earlier international
conventions and declarations, as well as in the Charter of the United Nations, agree to refrain from the threat or
the use of force, or from any other means of coercion for the settlement of their controversies, and to have
recourse at all times to pacific procedures.
ARTICLE II. The High Contracting Parties recognize the obligation to settle international controversies by
regional procedures before referring them to the Security Council of the United Nations.
Consequently, in the event that a controversy arises between two or more signatory states which, in the opinion
of the parties, cannot be settled by direct negotiations through the usual diplomatic channels, the parties bind
themselves to use the procedures established in the present Treaty, in the manner and under the conditions
provided for in the following articles, or, alternatively, such special procedures as, in their opinion, will permit
them to arrive at a solution.
ARTICLE III. The order of the pacific procedures established in the present Treaty does not signify that the
parties may not have recourse to the procedure which they consider most appropriate in each case, or that they
should use all these procedures, or that any of them have preference over others except as expressly provided.
ARTICLE IV. Once any pacific procedure has been initiated, whether by agreement between the parties or in
fulfillment of the present Treaty or a previous pact, no other procedure may be commenced until that procedure
is concluded.
ARTICLE V. The aforesaid procedures may not be applied to matters which, by their nature, are within the
domestic jurisdiction of the state. If the parties are not in agreement as to whether the controversy concerns a
matter of domestic jurisdiction, this preliminary question shall be submitted to decision by the International
Court of Justice, at the request of any of the parties.
ARTICLE VI. The aforesaid procedures, furthermore, may not be applied to matters already settled by
arrangement between the parties, or by arbitral award or by decision of an international court, or which are
governed by agreements or treaties in force on the date of the conclusion of the present Treaty.
ARTICLE VII. The High Contracting Parties bind themselves not to make diplomatic representations in order to
protect their nationals, or to refer a controversy to a court of international jurisdiction for that purpose, when the
said nationals have had available the means to place their case before competent domestic courts of the
respective state.ANNEX 1
ARTICLE VIII. Neither recourse to pacific means for the solution of controversies, nor the recommendation of
their use, shall, in the case of an armed attack, be ground for delaying the exercise of the right of individual or
collective self-defense, as provided for in the Charter of the United Nations.
CHAPTER TWO
PROCEDURES OF GOOD OFFICES AND MEDIATION
ARTICLE IX. The procedure of good offices consists in the attempt by one or more American Governments not
parties to the controversy, or by one or more eminent citizens of any American State which is not a party to the
controversy, to bring the parties together, so as to make it possible for them to reach an adequate solution
between themselves.
ARTICLE X. Once the parties have been brought together and have resumed direct negotiations, no further
action is to be taken by the states or citizens that have offered their good offices or have accepted an invitation
to offer them; they may, however, by agreement between the parties, be present at the negotiations.
ARTICLE XI. The procedure of mediation consists in the submission of the controversy to one or more American
Governments not parties to the controversy, or to one or more eminent citizens of any American State not a
party to the controversy. In either case the mediator or mediators shall be chosen by mutual agreement
between the parties.
ARTICLE XII. The functions of the mediator or mediators shall be to assist the parties in the settlement of
controversies in the simplest and most direct manner, avoiding formalities and seeking an acceptable solution.
No report shall be made by the mediator and, so far as he is concerned, the proceedings shall be wholly
confidential.
ARTICLE XIII. In the event that the High Contracting Parties have agreed to the procedure of mediation but are
unable to reach an agreement within two months on the selection of, the mediator or mediators, or no solution
to the controversy has been reached within five months after mediation has begun, the parties shall have
recourse without delay to any one of the other procedures of peaceful settlement established in the present
Treaty.
ARTICLE XIV. The High Contracting Parties may offer their mediation, either individually or jointly, but they
agree not to do so while the controversy is in process of settlement by any of the other procedures established
in the present Treaty.
CHAPTER THREE
PROCEDURE OF INVESTIGATION AND CONCILIATION
ARTICLE XV. The procedure of investigation and conciliation consists in the submission of the controversy to a
Commission of Investigation and Conciliation, which shall be established in accordance with the provisions
established in subsequent articles of the present Treaty, and which shall function within the limitations
prescribed therein.
ARTICLE XVI. The party initiating the procedure of investigation and conciliation shall request the Council of the
Organization of American States to convoke the Commission of Investigation and Conciliation. The Council for its
part shall take immediate steps to convoke it.
Once the request to convoke the Commission has been received, the controversy between the parties shall
immediately be suspended, and the parties shall refrain from any act that might make conciliation more difficult.
To that end, at the request of one of the parties, the Council of the Organization of American States may,
pending the convocation of the Commission, make appropriate recommendations to the parties.
ARTICLE XVII. Each of the High Contracting Parties may appoint, by means of a bilateral agreement consisting
of a simple exchange of notes with each of the other signatories, two members of the Commission of
Investigation and Conciliation, only one of whom may be of its own nationality. The fifth member, who shall
perform the functions of chairman, shall be selected immediately by common agreement of the members thus
appointed. ANNEX 1
Any one of the contracting parties may remove members whom it has appointed, whether nationals or aliens; at
the same time it shall appoint the successor. If this is not done, the removal shall be considered as not having
been made. The appointments and substitutions shall be registered with the Pan American Union, which shall
endeavor to ensure that the commissions maintain their full complement of five members.
ARTICLE XVIII. Without prejudice to the provisions of the foregoing article, the Pan American Union shall draw
up a permanent panel of American conciliators, to be made up as follows:
a) Each of the High Contracting Parties shall appoint, for three year periods, two of their nationals who enjoy the
highest reputation for fairness, competence and integrity;
b) The Pan American Union shall request of the candidates notice of their formal acceptance, and it shall place
on the panel of conciliators the names of the persons who so notify it;
c) The governments may, at any time, fill vacancies occurring among their appointees; and they may reappoint
their members.
ARTICLE XIX. In the event that a controversy should arise between two or more American States that have not
appointed the Commission referred to in Article XVII, the following procedure shall be observed:
a) Each party shall designate two members from the permanent panel of American conciliators, who are not of
the same nationality as the appointing party.
b) These four members shall in turn choose a fifth member, from the permanent panel, not of the nationality of
either party.
c) If, within a period of thirty days following the notification of their selection, the four members are unable to
agree upon a fifth member, they shall each separately list the conciliators composing the permanent panel, in
order of their preference, and upon comparison of the lists so prepared, the one who first receives a majority of
votes shall be declared elected. The person so elected shall perform the duties of chairman of the Commission.
ARTICLE XX. In convening the Commission of Investigation and Conciliation, the Council of the Organization of
American States shall determine the place where the Commission shall meet. Thereafter, the Commission may
determine the place or places in which it is to function, taking into account the best facilities for the performance
of its work.
ARTICLE XXI. When more than two states are involved in the same controversy, the states that hold similar
points of view shall be considered as a single party. If they have different interests they shall be entitled to
increase the number of conciliators in order that all parties may have equal representation. The chairman shall
be elected in the manner set forth in Article XIX.
ARTICLE XXII. It shall be the duty of the Commission of Investigation and Conciliation to clarify the points in
dispute between the parties and to endeavor to bring about an agreement between them upon mutually
acceptable terms. The Commission shall institute such investigations of the facts involved in the controversy as it
may deem necessary for the purpose of proposing acceptable bases of settlement.
ARTICLE XXII. It shall be the duty of the parties to facilitate the work of the Commission and to supply it, to the
fullest extent possible, with all useful documents and information, and also to use the means at their disposal to
enable the Commission to summon and hear witnesses or experts and perform other tasks in the territories of
the parties, in conformity with their laws.
ARTICLE XXIV. During the proceedings before the Commission, the parties shall be represented by
plenipotentiary delegates or by agents, who shall serve as intermediaries between them and the Commission.
The parties and the Commission may use the services of technical advisers and experts.
ARTICLE XXV. The Commission shall conclude its work within a period of six months from the date of its
installation; but the parties may, by mutual agreement, extend the period.
ARTICLE XXVI. If, in the opinion of the parties, the controversy relates exclusively to questions of fact, the
Commission shall limit itself to investigating such questions, and shall conclude its activities with an appropriate
report.ANNEX 1
ARTICLE XXVII. If an agreement is reached by conciliation, the final report of the Commission shall be limited to
the text of the agreement and shall be published after its transmittal to the parties, unless the parties decide
otherwise. If no agreement is reached, the final report shall contain a summary of the work of the Commission;
it shall be delivered to the parties, and shall be published after the expiration of six months unless the parties
decide otherwise. In both cases, the final report shall be adopted by a majority vote.
ARTICLE XXVIII. The reports and conclusions of the Commission of Investigation and Conciliation shall not be
binding upon the parties, either with respect to the statement of facts or in regard to questions of law, and they
shall have no other character than that of recommendations submitted for the consideration of the parties in
order to facilitate a friendly settlement of the controversy.
ARTICLE XXIX. The Commission of Investigation and Conciliation shall transmit to each of the parties, as well as
to the Pan American Union, certified copies of the minutes of its proceedings. These minutes shall not be
published unless the parties so decide.
ARTICLE XXX. Each member of the Commission shall receive financial remuneration, the amount of which shall
be fixed by agreement between the parties. If the parties do not agree thereon,. the Council of the Organization
shall determine the remuneration. Each government shall pay its own expenses and an equal share of the
common expenses of the Commission, including the aforementioned remunerations.
CHAPTER FOUR
JUDICIAL PROCEDURE
ARTICLE XXXI. In conformity with Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the International Court of Justice,
the High Contracting Parties declare that they recognize, in relation to any other American State, the jurisdiction
of the Court as compulsory ipso facto, without the necessity of any special agreement so long as the present
Treaty is in force, in all disputes of a juridical nature that arise among them concerning:
a) The interpretation of a treaty;
b) Any question of international law;
c) The existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute the breach of an international obligation;
d) The nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation.
ARTICLE XXXII. When the conciliation procedure previously established in the present Treaty or by agreement of
the parties does not lead to a solution, and the said parties have not agreed upon an arbitral procedure, either
of them shall be entitled to have recourse to the International Court of Justice in the manner prescribed in
Article 40 of the Statute thereof. The Court shall have compulsory jurisdiction in accordance with Article 36,
paragraph 1, of the said Statute.
ARTICLE XXXIII. If the parties fail to agree as to whether the Court has jurisdiction over the controversy, the
Court itself shall first decide that question.
ARTICLE XXXIV. If the Court, for the reasons set forth in Articles V, VI and VII of this Treaty, declares itself to
be without jurisdiction to hear the controversy, such controversy shall be declared ended.
ARTICLE XXXV. If the Court for any other reason declares itself to be without jurisdiction to hear and adjudge
the controversy, the High Contracting Parties obligate themselves to submit it to arbitration, in accordance with
the provisions of Chapter Five of this Treaty.
ARTICLE XXXVI. In the case of controversies submitted to the judicial procedure to which this Treaty refers, the
decision shall devolve upon the full Court, or, if the parties so request, upon a special chamber in conformity
with Article 26 of the Statute of the Court. The parties may agree, moreover, to have the controversy decided ex
aequo et bono.
ARTICLE XXXVII. The procedure to be followed by the Court shall be that established in the Statute thereof.
CHAPTER FIVE
PROCEDURE OF ARBITRATION ANNEX 1
ARTICLE XXXVIII. Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter Four of this Treaty, the High Contracting Parties
may, if they so agree, submit to arbitration differences of any kind, whether juridical or not, that have arisen or
may arise in the future between them.
ARTICLE XXXIX. The Arbitral Tribunal to which a controversy is to be submitted shall, in the cases contemplated
in Articles XXXV and XXXVIII of the present Treaty, be constituted in the following manner, unless there exists
an agreement to the contrary.
ARTICLE XL. (1) Within a period of two months after notification of the decision of the Court in the case
provided for in Article XXXV, each party shall name one arbiters of recognized competence in questions of
international law and of the highest integrity, and shall transmit the designation to the Council of the
Organization. At the same time, each party shall present to the Council a list of ten jurists chosen from among
those on the general panel of members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration of The Hague who do not belong
to its national group and who are willing to be members of the Arbitral Tribunal.
(2) The Council of the Organization shall, within the month following the presentation of the lists, proceed to
establish the Arbitral Tribunal in the following manner:
a) If the lists presented by the parties contain three names in common, such persons, together with the two
directly named by the parties, shall constitute the Arbitral Tribunal;
b) In case these lists contain more than three names in common, the three arbiters needed to complete the
Tribunal shall be selected by lot;
c) In the circumstances envisaged in the two preceding clauses, the five arbiters designated shall choose one of
their number as presiding officer;
d) If the lists contain only two names in common, such candidates and the two arbiters directly selected by the
parties shall by common agreement choose the fifth arbiter, who shall preside over the Tribunal. The choice shall
devolve upon a jurist on the aforesaid general panel of the Permanent Court of Arbitration of The Hague who
has not been included in the lists drawn up by the parties;
e) If the lists contain only one name in common, that person shall be a member of the Tribunal, and another
name shall be chosen by lot from among the eighteen jurists remaining on the above-mentioned lists. The
presiding officer shall be elected in accordance with the procedure established in the preceding clause;
f) If the lists contain no names in common, one arbiter shall be chosen by lot from each of the lists; and the fifth
arbiter, who shall act as presiding officer, shall be chosen in the manner previously indicated;
g) If the four arbiters cannot agree upon a fifth arbiter within one month after the Council of the Organization
has notified them of their appointment, each of them shall separately arrange the list of jurists in the order of
their preference and, after comparison of the lists so formed, the person who first obtains a majority vote shall
be declared elected.
ARTICLE XLI. The parties may by mutual agreement establish the Tribunal in the manner they deem most
appropriate; they may even select a single arbiter, designating in such case a chief of state, an eminent jurist, or
any court of justice in which the parties have mutual confidence.
ARTICLE XLII. When more than two states are involved in the same controversy, the states defending the same
interests shall be considered as a single party. If they have opposing interests they shall have the right to
increase the number of arbiters so that all parties may have equal representation. The presiding officer shall be
selected by the method established in Article XL.
ARTICLE XLIII. The parties shall in. each case draw up a special agreement clearly defining the specific matter
that is the subject of the controversy, the seat of the Tribunal, the rules of procedure to be observed, the period
within which the award is to be handed down, and such other conditions as they may agree upon among
themselves.
If the special agreement cannot be drawn up within three months after the date of the installation of theANNEX 1
Tribunal, it shall be drawn up by the International Court of Justice through summary procedure, and shall be
binding upon the parties.
ARTICLE XLIV. The parties may be represented before the Arbitral Tribunal by such persons as they may
designate.
ARTICLE XLV. If one of the parties fails to designate its arbiter and present its list of candidates within the period
provided for in Article XL, the other party shall have the right to request the Council of the Organization to
establish the Arbitral Tribunal. The Council shall immediately urge the deliì~'quent party to fulfill its obligations
within an additional period of fifteen days, after which time the Council itself shall establish the Tribunal in the
following manner
a) It shall select a name by lot from the list presented by the petitioning party.
b) It shall choose, by absolute majority vote, two jurists from the general panel of the Permanent Court of
Arbitration of The Hague who do not belong to the national group of any of the parties.
c) The three persons so designated, together with the one directly chosen by the petitioning party, shall select
the fifth arbiter, who shall act as presiding officer, in the manner provided for in Article XL.
d) Once the Tribunal is installed, the procedure established in article XLIII shall be followed.
ARTICLE XLVI. The award shall be accompanied by a supporting opinion, shall be adopted by a majority vote,
and shall be published. after notification thereof has been given to the parties. The dissenting arbiter or arbiters
shall have the right to state the grounds for their dissent.
The award, once it is duly handed down and made known to the parties, shall settle the controversy definitively,
shall not be subject to appeal, and shall be carried out immediately.
ARTICLE XLVII. Any differences that arise in regard to the interpretation or execution of the award shall be
submitted to the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal that rendered the award.
ARTICLE XLVIII. Within a year after notification thereof, the award shall be subject to review by the same
Tribunal at the request of one of the parties, provided a previously existing fact is discovered unknown to the
Tribunal and to the party requesting the review, and provided the Tribunal is of the opinion that such fact might
have a decisive influence on the award.
ARTICLE XLIX. Every member of the Tribunal shall receive financial remuneration, the amount of which shall be
fixed by agreement between the parties. If the parties do not agree on the amount, the Council of the
Organization shall determine the remuneration. Each Government shall pay its own expenses and an equal share
of the common expenses of the Tribunal, including the aforementioned remunerations.
CHAPTER SIX
FULFILLMENT OF DECISIONS
ARTICLE L. If one of the High Contracting Parties should fail to carry out the obligations imposed upon it by a
decision of the International Court. of Justice or by an arbitral award, the other party or parties concerned shall,
before resorting to the Security Council of the United Nations, propose a Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of
Foreign Affairs to agree upon appropriate measures to ensure the fulfillment of the judicial decision or arbitral
award.
CHAPTER SEVEN
ADVISORY OPINIONS
ARTICLE LI. The parties concerned in the solution of a controversy may, by agreement, petition the General
Assembly or the Security Council of the United Nations to request an advisory opinion of the International Court
of Justice on any juridical question.
The petition shall be made through the Council of the Organization of American States.
CHAPTER EIGHT
FINAL PROVISIONS ANNEX 1
ARTICLE LII. The present Treaty shall be ratified by the High Contracting Parties in accordance with their
constitutional procedures. The original instrument shall be deposited in the Pan American Union, which shall
transmit an authentic certified copy to each Government for the purpose of ratification. The instruments of
ratification shall be deposited in the archives of the Pan American Union, which shall notify the signatory
governments of the deposit. Such notification shall be considered as an exchange of ratifications.
ARTICLE LIII. This Treaty shall come into effect between the High Contracting Parties in the order in which they
deposit their respective ratifications.
ARTICLE LIV. Any American State which is not a signatory to the present Treaty, or which has made reservations
thereto, may adhere to it, or may withdraw its reservations in whole or in part, by transmitting an official
instrument to the Pan American Union, which shall notify the other High Contracting Parties in the manner
herein established.
ARTICLE LV. Should any of the High Contracting Parties make reservations concerning the present Treaty, such
reservations shall, with respect to the state that makes them, apply to all signatory states on the basis of
reciprocity.
ARTICLE LVI. The present Treaty shall remain in force indefinitely, but may be denounced upon one year's
notice, at the end of which period it shall cease to be in force with respect to the state denouncing it, but shall
continue in force for the remaining signatories. The denunciation shall be addressed to the Pan American Union,
which shall transmit it to the other Contracting Parties.
The denunciation shall have no effect with respect to pending procedures initiated prior to the transmission of
the particular notification.
ARTICLE LVII. The present Treaty shall be registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations through the Pan
American Union.
ARTICLE VLIII. As this Treaty comes into effect through the successive ratifications of the High Contracting
Parties, the following treaties, conventions and protocols shall cease to be in force with respect to such parties:
Treaty to Avoid or Prevent Conflicts between the American States, of May 3, 1923;
General Convention of Inter-American Conciliation, of January 5, 1929;
General Treaty of Inter-American Arbitration and Additional Protocol of Progressive Arbitration, of January 5,
1929;
Additional Protocol to the General Convention of Inter-American Conciliation, of December 26, 1933;
Anti-War Treaty of Non-Aggression and Conciliation, of October 10, 1933;
Convention to Coordinate, Extend and Assure the Fulfillment of the Existing Treaties between the American
States, of December 23, 1936;
Inter-American Treaty on Good Offices and Mediation, of December 23, 1936;
Treaty on the Prevention of Controversies, of December 23, 1936.
ARTICLE LIX. The provisions of the foregoing Article shall not apply to procedures already initiated or agreed
upon in accordance with any of the above-mentioned international instruments.
ARTICLE LX. The present Treaty shall be called the "PACT OF BOGOTÁ."
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Plenipotentiaries, having deposited their full powers, found to be in
good and due form, sign the present Treaty, in the name of their respective Governments, on the dates
appearing below their signatures.
Done at the City of Bogotá, in four texts, in the English, French, Portuguese and Spanish languages respectively,
on the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred forty-eight.
[Signatories and Ratifications] ANNEX 2
Pact of Bogotá, Signatories and Ratifications ANNEX 2
[Treaty] [text in Spanish]
A-42: AMERICAN TREATY ON PACIFIC SETTLEMENT (PACT OF BOGOTA)
ADOPTED AT: BOGOTA, COLOMBIA
DATE: 04/30/48
CONF/ASSEM/MEETING: NINTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF AMERICAN STATES
ENTRY INTO FORCE: 05/06/49, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE LIII OF THE TREATY
DEPOSITORY: GENERAL SECRETARIAT, OAS (ORIGINAL INSTRUMENT AND RATIFICATIONS)
TEXT: OAS, TREATY SERIES, NOS. 17 AND 61
UN REGISTRATION: 05/13/49 No. 449 Vol. 30
OBSERVATIONS: As this Treaty enters into force through the successive ratifications of the Parties,
the treaties, conventions and protocols mentioned in Article LVIII cease to be in force with respect to
such Parties.
GENERAL INFORMATION OF THE TREATY: A-42
COUNTRY SIGNATURE RATIFICATION/ACCESSION DEPOSIT INFORMATION *
Antigua & Barbuda - - - -
Argentina 04/30/48 - - Yes
Bahamas - - - -
Barbados - - - -
Belize - - - -
Bolivia 04/30/48 - - Yes
Brazil 04/30/48 11/09/65 11/16/65 RA -
Canada - - - -
Chile 04/30/48 08/21/67 04/15/74 RA Yes
Colombia 04/30/48 10/14/68 11/06/68 RA -
Costa Rica 04/30/48 04/27/49 05/06/49 RA -
Cuba 04/30/48 - - -
Dominica - - - -
Dominican Republic 04/30/48 08/04/50 09/12/50 RA -
Ecuador 04/30/48 03/03/08 03/07/08 RA Yes
El Salvador 04/30/48 08/15/50 09/11/50 RA Denunciation
Grenada - - - -
Guatemala 04/30/48 - - -
Guyana - - - -
Haiti 04/30/48 08/21/50 03/28/51 RA -
Honduras 04/30/48 01/13/50 02/07/50 RA -
Jamaica - - - -
Mexico 04/30/48 11/23/48 11/23/48 RA -ANNEX 2
Nicaragua 04/30/48 06/21/50 07/26/50 RA Yes
Panama 04/30/48 04/17/51 04/25/51 RA -
Paraguay 04/30/48 05/23/67 07/27/67 RA Yes
Peru 04/30/48 02/28/67 05/26/67 RA Yes
St. Kitts & Nevis - - - -
St. Lucia - - - -
St. Vincent & Grenadines - - - -
Suriname - - - -
Trinidad & Tobago - - - -
United States 04/30/48 - - Yes
Uruguay 04/30/48 08/17/55 09/01/55 RA -
Venezuela 04/30/48 - - -
*DECLARATIONS/RESERVATIONS/DENUNCIATIONS/WITHDRAWS
A-42. AMERICAN TREATY ON PACIFIC SETTLEMENT
"PACT OF BOGOTA"
1. Argentina:
(Reservation made at the time of signature)
The Delegation of the Argentine Republic, on signing the American Treaty on Pacific Settlement (Pact
of Bogotá), makes reservations in regard to the following articles, to which it does not adhere:
1) Article VII, concerning the protection of aliens:
2) Chapter Four (Articles XXXI to XXXVII), Judicial
Procedure:
3) Chapter Five (Articles XXXVIII to XLIX),
Procedure of Arbitration;
4) Chapter Six (Article L), Fulfillment of Decisions.
Arbitration and judicial procedure have, as institutions, the firm adherence of the Argentine Republic,
but the Delegation cannot accept the form in which the procedures for their application have been
regulated, since, in its opinion, they should have been established only for controversies arising in the
future and not originating in or having any relation to causes, situations or facts
existing before the signing of this instrument. The compulsory execution of arbitral or judicial
decisions and the limitation which prevents the states from judging for themselves in regard to
matters that pertain to their domestic jurisdiction in accordance with Article V are contrary to
Argentine tradition. The protection of aliens, who in the Argentine Republic are protected by its
Supreme Law to the same extent as the nationals, is also contrary to that tradition.
2. Bolivia:
(Reservation made at the time of signature)
The Delegation of Bolivia makes a reservation with regard to Article VI, inasmuch as it considers that
pacific procedures may also be applied to controversies arising from matters settled by arrangement
between the Parties, when the said arrangement affects the vital interests of a state.
3. Ecuador: ANNEX 2
(Reservation made at the time of signature)
The Delegation of Ecuador, upon signing this Pact, makes an express reservation with regard to
Article VI and also every provision that contradicts or is not in harmony with the principles proclaimed
by or the stipulations contained in the Charter of the United Nations, the Charter of the Organization
of American States, or the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador.
4. United States:
(Reservations made at the time of signature)
1. The United States does not undertake as the complainant State to submit to the International
Court of Justice any controversy which is not considered to be properly within the jurisdiction of the
Court.
2. The submission on the part of the United States of any controversy to arbitration, as distinguished
from judicial settlement, shall be dependent upon the conclusion of a special agreement between the
parties to the case.
3. The acceptance by the United States of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice as
compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, as provided in this Treaty, is limited by any
jurisdictional or other limitations contained in any Declaration deposited by the United States under
Article 36, paragraph 4, of the Statute of the Court, and in force at the time of the submission of any
case.
4. The Government of the United States cannot accept Article VII relating to diplomatic protection
and the exhaustion of remedies. For its part, the Government of the United States maintains the
rules of diplomatic protection, including the rule of exhaustion of local remedies by aliens, as
provided by
international law.
5. Nicaragua:
(Reservation made at the time of signature)
The Nicaraguan Delegation, on giving its approval to the American Treaty on Pacific Settlement (Pact
of Bogotá) wishes to record expressly that no provisions contained in the said Treaty may prejudice
any position assumed by the Government of Nicaragua with respect to arbitral decisions the validity
of which it has contested on the basis of the principles of international law, which clearly permit
arbitral decisions to be attacked when they are adjudged to
be null or invalidated. Consequently, the signature of the Nicaraguan Delegation to the Treaty in
question cannot be alleged as an acceptance of any arbitral decisions that Nicaragua has contested
and the validity of which is not certain.
Hence the Nicaraguan Delegation reiterates the statement made on the 28th of the current month on
approving the text of the above mentioned Treaty in Committee III.
(Reservation made at the time of ratification)ANNEX 2
With the reservation made at the time of signature.
6. Paraguay:
(Reservation made at the time of signature)
Paraguay stipulates the prior agreement of the parties as a prerequisite to the arbitration procedure
established in this Treaty for every question of a non-juridical nature affecting national sovereignty
and not specifically agreed upon in treaties now in force.
7. Peru:
(Reservation made at the time of signature)
1. Reservation with regard to the second part of Article V, because it considers that domestic
jurisdiction should be defined by the state itself.
2. Reservation with regard to Article XXXIII and the pertinent part of Article XXXIV, inasmuch as it
considers that the exceptions of res judicata, resolved by settlement between the parties or governed
by agreements and treaties in force, determine, in virtue of their objective and peremptory nature,
the exclusion of these cases from the application of every procedure.
3. Reservation with regard to Article XXXV, in the sense that, before arbitration is resorted to, there
may be, at the request of one of the parties, a meeting of the Organ of Consultation, as established
in the Charter of the Organization of American States.
4. Reservation with regard to Article XLV, because it believes that arbitration set up without the
participation of one of the parties is in contradiction with its constitutional provisions.
Peru confirmed the reservations at the time of the ratification.
On February 27th, 2006, Peru notified the General Secretariat of the OAS of the withdrawal of the
reservations made to articles V, XXXIII, XXXIV, XXXV and XLV of the American Treaty on Pacific
Settlement, “Pact of Bogota”.
8. Chile:
(Reservation made at the time of ratification)
Chile considers that Article LV of the Pact, in the part that refers to the possibility that some of the
Contracting States would make reservations, must be interpreted in the light of paragraph No. 2 of
Resolution XXIX adopted at the Eighth International Conference of American States.
Permanent Panel of American Conciliators
(Information provided in accordance with Article XVIII)
On August 19, 1987, the Government of Chile notified the General Secretariat the appointment of
Messrs. Julio Phillipi Izquierdo and Helmut Brunner Noerr to be members of the Permanent Panel of
American Conciliators for a three year period. Such period started on October 21, 1987, the date on
which the General Secretariat received from Messrs. Phillipi and Brunner the acceptance of their
appointments. ANNEX 2
9. El Salvador
DENUNCIATION
Pursuant to article LVI the American Treaty on Pacific Settlement, “The present Treaty shall remain in
force indefinitely, but may be denounced upon one year's notice, at the end of which period it shall
cease to be in force with respect to the state denouncing it, but shall continue in force for the
remaining signatories.
The denunciation shall be addressed to the Pan American Union, which shall transmit it to the other
Contracting Parties”.
Similarly, that article states that such “denunciation shall have no effect
with respect to pending procedures initiated prior to the transmission”
¬
1. El Salvador notified denunciation November 24, 1973
Text of the denunciation:
San Salvador, November 24, 1973
His Excellency Galo Plaza
Secretary General of the
Organization of American States
Washington, D.C.
Excellency,
I hereby wish to notify the General Secretariat which you head, the successor to the Pan American
Union, that the Republic of El Salvador is denouncing the American Treaty on Pacific Settlement, or
“Pact of Bogotá,” adopted at the Ninth International Conference of American States, held in Bogotá,
Colombia, from March 30 to May 2, 1948. I would ask you to kindly transmit a copy of this note
to the other High Contracting Parties.
The reasons that have prompted the Government of El Salvador to withdraw
from this collective agreement, thus freeing it from the obligations
it thereby assumed with respect to the other contracting parties,
are essentially the following:
On numerous occasions, El Salvador has expressed its absolute willingness and its firmest intent to
work to develop an effective instrument for the peaceful settlement of disputes among the countries
that make up the inter-American regional system.ANNEX 2
It would take a long time indeed to cite the numerous proofs which would justify that assertion–
which demonstrate the undeniable desire for peace that has characterized El Salvador in the past and
distinguishes it in the present, and that it will doubtless preserve in the future, as one of the best
traits of a people with a strong yearning to achieve the goals of individual and collective progress.
El Salvador participated with great interest and enthusiasm in the deliberations of the Ninth
International Conference of American States, and the Salvadorian delegates to that important
regional meeting signed the instrument that is now being denounced, which was ratified soon
thereafter by the corresponding authorities of the Government of the Republic.
The signing and ratification by El Salvador of that multilateral agreement
entailed an obligation, based on reciprocity, with all the other countries of the Americas, through the
structure and mechanisms of an appropriate instrument consistent with the purposes for which it was
designed.
Despite the spirit of complete solidarity that reigned when the Pact of Bogotá
was signed by the delegates of the 21 participating states, only a few of them have ratified it to date,
in other words, 25 years after its adoption.
The realities that have become apparent over time as a result of the failure
of a large number of signatory states to ratify it show that the system developed in the Pact of
Bogotá has not proven effective for the purposes that inspired it, and that it is not acceptable to
many states of the Americas, since several of them signed or ratified it with reservations and not all
new members
of the Organization have acceded to it.
This has led El Salvador to reconsider its position within a multilateral treaty that, because of
circumstances, has found itself immersed in the aforementioned realities–a reconsideration that has
led it to adopt a new attitude vis-à-vis the views of the states that make up the inter-American
system.
2. On the other hand, the application of some provisions of the Pact of Bogotá
could put the Republic of El Salvador in situations that are contrary to the spirit and the letter of
constitutional principles currently in force that enshrine its sovereignty and integrity and that did not
exist when the Pact
was ratified by our Republic. The foregoing has also been a powerful reason
for the current Government of El Salvador, inspired at all times by the purpose
to solve its international disputes directly and peacefully, to watch at the same time over the
preservation and effective implementation of the constitutional principles that govern the life of the
Republic and
that reflect the feelings and the desires of the Salvadorian people.
3. Although El Salvador has decided to denounce the Pact of Bogotá, this does not mean that it is
rejecting all forms of peaceful settlement of international disputes, as it is aware of the need for
these forms and recognizes that there are other pertinent provisions within the inter-American ANNEX 2
system, in particular in the Charter of the Organization of American States and in the Inter-American
Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, as well as in the Charter of the United Nations, that prohibit the use
of force except in cases of legitimate defense, guard against aggression, and make resources
available to states to settle disputes through specific peaceful procedures.
The situation mentioned above is precisely that of the states of the Americas
that signed but did not ratify the Pact of Bogotá, that signed and ratified
it with reservations, or that did not even accede to it.
Lastly, my government wishes to place on record that if El Salvador is now denouncing the Pact of
Bogotá for the reasons expressed–a denunciation that will begin to take effect as of today, it
reaffirms at the same time its firm resolve to continue participating in the collective efforts currently
under way to restructure some aspects of the system in order to accommodate it to
the fundamental changes that have occurred in relations among the states of the Americas.
I would ask you once again to arrange to have this denunciation circulated
to the other High Contracting Parties.
Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.
Mauricio A. Borgonovo Pohl
Minister of Foreign Affairs of El Salvador
[Text of the Treaty] ANNEX 3
United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances,
U.N. Doc. E/CONF.82/15 (20 Dec. 1988), reprinted in 28 I.L.M. 493 (1989) ANNEX 3
UNITED NATIONS C ONVENTION
AGAINST LLICIT TRAFFIC IN
NARCOTIC DRUGS AND
PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ,
1988
U NITENATIONSANNEX 3
FINAL ACT OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE
FOR THE ADOPTION OF A CONVENTION AGAINST
ILLICIT TRAFFIC IN NARCOTIC DRUGS AND
PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES
1. The General Assembly of the United Nations, by its resolution 39/141 of 14 December
1984, requested the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, "taking into
consideration Article 62, paragraph 3, and Article 66, paragraph 1, of the Charter of the
United Nations and Council resolution 9 (1) of 16 February 1946, to request the Commission
on Narcotic Drugs to initiate at its thirty-first session, to be held in February 1985, as a matter
of priority, the preparation of a draft convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs which
considers the various aspects of the problem as a whole and, in particular, those not
envisaged in existing international instruments . . .".
2. In furtherance of the foregoing request, and the follow-up action by the Commission on
Narcotic Drugs and the Economic and Social Council, the Secretary-General of the United
Nations prepared the initial text of a draft Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances. On the basis of the comments made thereon by Governments
and the deliberations of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs on that draft at its thirty-second
session in 1987, the Secretary-General prepared a consolidated working document, which
was circulated to all Governments in April 1987 and was considered at two sessions of an
open-ended intergovernmental expert group. On 7 December 1987, the General Assembly
adopted resolution 42/111, which gave further instructions for advancing the preparation of
the draft Convention. As the time available to the expert group had not permitted thorough
consideration of all the articles, the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to
consider convening a further intergovernmental expert group, meeting for two weeks
immediately prior to the tenth special session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs in
February 1988, to continue revision of the working document on the draft Convention against
Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and, if possible, to reach
agreement on the Convention. At its tenth special session, held at Vienna from 8 to 19
February 1988, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs reviewed the text of the draft Convention
and decided that certain articles thereof should be referred to the Conference to be convened
to adopt a Convention. The Commission also recommended certain means to the Economic
and Social Council to further the preparation of the draft Convention.
3. The Economic and Social Council, by its resolution 1988/8 of 25 May 1988, having recalled
the preparatory work undertaken pursuant to General Assembly resolution 39/141 by the
competent United Nations organs, decided "to convene, in accordance with Article 62,
paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations and within the provisions of General
Assembly resolution 366 (IV) of 3 December 1949, a conference of plenipotentiaries for the
adoption of a convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances".
By its decision 1988/120, also adopted on 25 May 1988, the Council decided that the
Conference should be held at Vienna from 25 November to 20 December 1988 and that the
Secretary-General should send invitations to participate in the Conference to those who had
been invited to participate in the International Conference on Drug Abuse and Illicit
Trafficking, held at Vienna from 17 to 26 June 1987.
4. By its resolution 1988/8, the Economic and Social Council also decided to convene a
review group for the Conference to review the draft texts of certain articles and the draft
Convention as a whole to achieve overall consistency in the text to be submitted to the
Conference. The Review Group on the draft Convention met at the United Nations Office at
Vienna from 27 June to 8 July 1988 and adopted a report to the Conference (E/CONF.82/3).
5. The United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Convention against Illicit Traffic in
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances met at the Neue Hofburg at Vienna from 25
November to 20 December 1988.
6. Pursuant to Economic and Social Council resolution 1988/8 of 25 May 1988 and its
decision 1988/120 of the same date, the Secretary-General invited to the Conference: ANNEX 3
(a) All States;
(b) Namibia, represented by the United Nations Council for Namibia;
(c) Representatives of organizations that have received a standing invitation
from the General Assembly to participate in the sessions and the work of all
international conferences convened under its auspices in the capacity of
observers to participate in the Conference in that capacity, in accordance
with Assembly resolutions 3237 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974 and 31/152 of
20 December 1976;
(d) Representatives of the national liberation movements recognized in its
region by the Organization of African Unity to participate in the Conference in
the capacity of observers, in accordance with General Assembly resolution
3280 (XXIX) of 10 December 1974;
(e) The specialized agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency, as
well as interested organs of the United Nations, to be represented at the
Conference;
(f) Other interested intergovernmental organizations to be represented by
observers at the Conference;
(g) Interested non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the
Economic and Social Council and other interested non-governmental
organizations that may have a specific contribution to make to the work of the
Conference to be represented by observers at the Conference.
7. The delegations of the following 106 States participated in the Conference:
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh,
Barbados, Belgium, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist
Republic, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte
d'lvoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt,
Ethiopia, Finland, France, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of,
Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Holy See, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran
(Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait,
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius,
Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway,
Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland,
Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan,
Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist
Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America,
Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia and Zaire.
8. The representatives of the following national liberation movements, invited to the
Conference by the Secretary-General, attended and participated as provided for in the rules
of procedure of the Conference (E/CONF.8217): Pan Africanist Congress of Azania and
South West Africa People's Organization.
9. The representatives of the following specialized agencies, invited to the Conference by the
Secretary-General, attended and participated as provided for in the rules of procedure of the
Conference: International Civil Aviation Organization, International Labour Organisation,
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, United Nations Industrial
Development Organization and World Health Organization.
10. The representatives of the following other intergovernmental organizations, invited to the
Conference by the Secretary-General, attended and participated as provided for in the rules
of procedure of the Conference: Arab Security Studies and Training Center, Colombo Plan
Bureau, Council of Europe, Customs Co-operation Council, European Economic Community,
International Criminal Police Organization, League of Arab States and South American
Agreement on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.ANNEX 3
11. The representatives of the following interested United Nations organs and related bodies,
invited to the Conference by the Secretary-General, attended and participated as provided for
in the rules of procedure of the Conference: Centre for Social Development and Humanitarian
Affairs, International Narcotics Control Board, United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for
the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders and United Nations Fund for Drug
Abuse Control.
12. Observers from the following non-governmental organizations, invited to the Conference
by the Secretary-General, attended and participated as provided for in the rules of procedure
of the Conference: Baha'i International Community, Caritas Internationalis, Centro Italiano de
Solidarità, Colombia Therapeutic Communities, Co-ordinating Board of Jewish Organizations,
Cruz Blanca Panama, Drug Abuse Prevention Programme, European Union of Women,
Integrative Drogenhilfe a.d. Fachhochschule Ffm. e.v., International Abolitionist Federation,
International Advertising Association, International Air Transport Association, International
Association of Democratic Jurists, International Association of Lions Clubs, International
Catholic Child Bureau, International Chamber of Commerce, International Confederation of
Free Trade Unions, International Council on Women, International Council of Alcohol and
Addictions, International Federation of Business and Professional Women, International
Federation of Social Workers, International Pharmaceutical Federation, International Schools
Association, Islamic African Relief Agency, Opium De-addiction Treatment, Training and
Research Trust, Pace United Kingdom International Affairs, Pax Romana, Soroptimist
International, World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts, World Union of Catholic
Women's Organizations and Zonta International Committee.
13. The Conference elected Mr. Guillermo Bedregal Gutiérrez (Bolivia) as President.
14. The Conference elected as Vice-Presidents the representatives of the following States:
Algeria, Argentina, Bahamas, China, Côte d'lvoire, France, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Japan,
Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Senegal, Sudan, Sweden,
Turkey, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland, United States of America, Venezuela and Yugoslavia.
15. The Conference elected Mrs. Mervat Tallawy (Egypt) as Rapporteur-General.
16. The following Committees were set up by the Conference:
General Committee
Chairman: The President of the Conference
Members: The President and Vice-Presidents of the Conference, the
Rapporteur-General of the Conference, the Chairmen of the Committees of
the Whole and the Chairman of the Drafting Committee.
Committees of the Whole
Committee I
Chairman: Mr. Gioacchino Polimeni (Italy)
Vice-Chairman: Mr. M.A. Hena (Bangladesh)
Rapporteur: Mr. Oskar Hugler (German Democratic Republic)
Committee II
Chairman: Mr. István Bayer (Hungary)
Vice-Chairman: Mr. L.H.J.B. van Gorkom (Netherlands)
Rapporteur: Mrs. Yolanda Fernández Ochoa (Costa Rica)
Drafting Committee ANNEX 3
Chairman: Mr. M.V.N. Rao (India)
Vice-Chairman: Mr. Hashem M. Kuraa (Egypt)
Members: The Chairman of the Drafting Committee and the representatives
of the following States: Australia, Botswana, Canada, China, Colombia,
Czechoslovakia, Egypt, France, Ghana, Iraq, Peru, Senegal, Spain and
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
The Rapporteurs of the Committees of the Whole participated ex officio in the
work of the Drafting Committee in accordance with rule 49 of the rules of
procedure of the Conference.
Credentials Committee
Chairman: Mr. Edouard Molitor (Luxembourg)
Members: The representatives of the following States: Bolivia, Botswana,
China, Côte d'lvoire, Jamaica, Luxembourg, Thailand, Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics and United States of America.
17. The Secretary-General of the United Nations was represented by Miss Margaret J.
Anstee, Under-Secretary-General, Director-General of the United Nations Office at Vienna.
Mr. Francisco Ramos-Galino, Director of the Division of Narcotic Drugs, was appointed by the
Secretary-General as Executive Secretary.
18. The Conference had before it the report of the Review Group convened pursuant to
Economic and Social Council resolution 1988/8 of 25 May 1988 (E/CONF.82/3). In addition to
an account of the work of the Review Group, the report contained proposals submitted to the
Review Group relating to the draft Convention for consideration by the Conference, and the
text of the draft Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances (annex II). This draft Convention constituted the basic proposal for consideration
by the Conference.
19. The Conference in the course of its work divided the articles contained in the draft
Convention between the two Committees of the Whole (Committee I and Committee 11).
Articles 1 to 5 and the preamble were referred to Committee 1 and the remaining articles to
Committee Il. The Committees of the Whole, after agreeing upon the text of a particular
article, referred it to the Drafting Committee. The Committees of the Whole reported to the
Conference on the outcome of their work and the Drafting Committee submitted to the
Conference a complete text of the draft Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances (E/CONF.82/13).
20. On the basis of the deliberations set forth in the records of the Conference
(E/CONF.82/SR.1 to 8) and of the Committees of the Whole (E/CONF.82/C.1/SR.1 to 33 and
E/CONF.82/C.2/SR.1 to 34) and the reports of the Committees of the Whole (E/CONF.82/11
and E/CONF.82/12) and the Drafting Committee (E/CONF.82/13), the Conference drew up
the following Convention:
United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances.
21. The foregoing Convention, which is subject to ratification, acceptance, approval or act of
formal confirmation, and which shall remain open for accession, was adopted by the
Conference on 19 December 1988 and opened for signature on 20 December 1988, in
accordance with its provisions, until 28 February 1989 at the United Nations Office at Vienna
and, subsequently, until 20 December 1989, at the Headquarters of the United Nations at
New York, the Secretary-General of the United Nations being the depositary.
22. The Conference also adopted the following resolutions, which are annexed to this Final
Act:
1. Exchange of informationANNEX 3
2. Provisional application of the United Nations Convention against Illicit
Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
3. Provision of necessary resources to the Division of Narcotic Drugs and the
secretariat of the International Narcotics Control Board to enable them to
discharge the tasks entrusted to them under the International Drug Control
Treaties
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the representatives have signed this Final Act.
DONE AT VIENNA this twentieth day of December one thousand nine hundred and eighty-
eight, in a single copy, which will be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United
Nations, in the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish languages, each text
being equally authentic. ANNEX 3
RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE UNITED NATIONS
CONFERENCE FOR THE ADOPTION OF A CONVENTION
AGAINST ILLICIT TRAFFIC IN NARCOTIC DRUGS AND
PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES
Resolution 1
EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION
The United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Convention against Illicit Traffic in
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances,
Calling attention to resolution III adopted by the 1961 United Nations Conference for the
Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, in which attention was drawn to the
importance of the technical records on international drug traffickers of the International
Criminal Police Organization and their use by that organization for the circulation of
descriptions of such traffickers,
Considering the machinery developed by the International Criminal Police Organization for
the timely and efficient exchange of crime investigation information between police authorities
on a world-wide basis,
Recommends that the widest possible use should be made by police authorities of the
records and communications system of the International Criminal Police Organization in
achieving the goals of the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances.
Resolution 2
PROVISIONAL APPLICATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION AGAINST
ILLICIT TRAFFIC IN NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES
The United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Convention against Illicit Traffic in
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances,
1. Urges States, to the extent that they are able to do so, to accelerate steps to ratify the
United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances so that it enters into force as quickly as possible;
2. Invites States, to the extent that they are able to do so, to apply provisionally the measures
provided in the Convention pending its entry into force for each of them;
3. Requests the Secretary-General to transmit the present resolution to the Economic and
Social Council and the General Assembly.
Resolution 3
PROVISION OF NECESSARY RESOURCES TO THE DIVISION OF NARCOTIC DRUGS
AND
THE SECRETARIAT OF THE INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS CONTROL BOARD TOANNEX 3
ENABLE THEM TO DISCHARGE THE TASKS ENTRUSTED TO THEM UNDER THE
INTER-
NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL TREATIES
The United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Convention against Illicit Traffic in
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances,
Recognizing that the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, that Convention as
amended by the 1972 Protocol Amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961,
and the Convention on Psychotropic Substances 1971, remain the basis for international
efforts in the control of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, and that strict
implementation both by Governments and by the international control organs of the United
Nations of the obligations arising from the Conventions is essential to achieve their aims,
Considering that the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances will create further obligations and financial outlays for Governments,
the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, the International Narcotics Control Board and their
secretariats,
Deeply disturbedby the impact of recent staffing and budgetary reductions on the capacity of
both the Division of Narcotic Drugs and the secretariat of the International Narcotics Control
Board to carry out fully their mandated programme of work,
1. Urges all Member States to take appropriate steps in the General Assembly as well as in
the financial organs of the Assembly to assign the appropriate priority and approve the
necessary budgetary appropriations with a view to providing the Division of Narcotic Drugs
and the secretariat of the International Narcotics Control Board with the necessary resources
to discharge fully the tasks entrusted to them under the United Nations Convention against
Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, the Single Convention on
Narcotic Drugs, 1961, that Convention as amended by the 1972 Protocol Amending the
Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, and the Convention on Psychotropic
Substances, 1971;
2. Requests the Secretary-General to take the necessary steps, within his competence, to
give effect to the provisions of paragraph 1 above. ANNEX 3
C ONTENTS
Page
United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances ............................................................1
Article 1 Definitions .......................................................................................2
Article 2 Scope of the Convention ....................................................................2
Article 3 Offences and sanctions ......................................................................3
Article 4 Jurisdiction.......................................................................................5
Article 5 Confiscation .....................................................................................5
Article 6 Extradition.......................................................................................7
Article 7 Mutual legal assistance ......................................................................8
Article 8 Transfer of proceedings ................................................................... 10
Article 9 Other forms of co-operation and training............................................ 10
Article 10 International co-operation and assistance for transit States................... 11
Article 11 Controlled delivery .......................................................................... 11
Article 12 Substances frequently used in the illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs or
psychotropic substances .................................................................. 12
Article 13 Materials and equipment.................................................................. 14
Article 14 Measures to eradicate illicit cultivation of narcotic plants and to eliminate
illicit demand for narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances................ 14
Article 15 Commercial carriers ........................................................................ 14
Article 16 Commercial documents and labelling of exports .................................. 15
Article 17 Illicit traffic by sea .......................................................................... 15
Article 18 Free trade zones and free ports......................................................... 16
Article 19 The use of the mails........................................................................ 16
Article 20 Information to be furnished by Parties ............................................... 17
Article 21 Functions of the Commission ............................................................ 17
Article 22 Functions of the Board..................................................................... 17
Article 23 Reports of the Board ....................................................................... 18
Article 24 Application of stricter measures than those required by this Convention.. 18
Article 25 Non-derogation from earlier treaty rights and obligations...................... 18
Article 26 Signature....................................................................................... 19
Article 27 Ratification, acceptance, approval or act of formal confirmation ............. 19
Article 28 Accession....................................................................................... 19
Article 29 Entry into force............................................................................... 19
Article 30 Denunciation.................................................................................. 20
Article 31 Amendments.................................................................................. 20
Article 32 Settlement of disputes..................................................................... 20
Article 33 Authentic texts ............................................................................... 20
Article 34 Depository ..................................................................................... 21
Tables (Please see Red List among Controlled Substances, at:
http://www.incb.org/e/index.htm )ANNEX 3
UNITED N ATIONS CONVENTION AGAINST ILICITT RAFFIC IN
N ARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES
The Parties to this Convention,
Deeply concerned by the magnitude of and rising trend in the illicit production of, demand for and
traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, which pose a serious threat to the health and
welfare of human beings and adversely affect the economic, cultural and political foundations of society,
Deeply concerned also by the steadily increasing inroads into various social groups made by illicit
traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, and particularly by the fact that children are used in
many parts of the world as an illicit drug consumers market and for purposes of illicit production,
distribution and trade in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, which entails a danger of
incalculable gravity,
Recognizing the links between illicit traffic and other related organized criminal activities which
undermine the legitimate economies and threaten the stability, security and sovereignty of States,
Recognizailosg that illicit traffic is an international criminal activity, the suppression of which
demands urgent attention and the highest priority,
Aware that illicit traffic generates large financial profits and wealth enabling transnational criminal
organizations to penetrate, contaminate and corrupt the structures of government, legitimate commercial
and financial business, and society at all its levels,
Determined to deprive persons engaged in illicit traffic of the proceeds of their criminal activities
and thereby eliminate their main incentive for so doing,
Desiring to eliminate the root causes of the problem of abuse of narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances, including the illicit demand for such drugs and substances and the enormous profits derived
from illicit traffic,
Considering that measures are necessary to monitor certain substances, including precursors,
chemicals and solvents, which are used in the manufacture of narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances, the ready availability of which has led to an increase in the clandestine manufacture of such
drugs and substances,
Determined to improve international co-operation in the suppression of illicit traffic by sea,
Recognizing that eradication of illicit traffic is a collective responsibility of all States and that, to
that end, co-ordinated action within the framework of international co-operation is necessary,
Acknowledging the competence of the United Nations in the field of control of narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances and desirous that the international organs concerned with such control should be
within the framework of that Organization,
Reaffirming the guiding principles of existing treaties in the field of narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances and the system of control which they embody,
Recognizing the need to reinforce and supplement the measures provided in the Single Convention
on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, that Convention as amended by the 1972 Protocol Amending the Single
Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, and the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, in order to
counter the magnitude and extent of illicit traffic and its grave consequences,
Recognizaigo the importance of strengthening and enhancing effective legal means for
international co-operation in criminal matters for suppressing the international criminal activities of illicit
traffic,
Desiring to conclude a comprehensive, effective and operative international convention that is
directed specifically against illicit traffic and that considers the various aspects of the problem as a whole,
in particular those aspects not envisaged in the existing treaties in the field of narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances,
Heraegeey as follows:
1 ANNEX 3
Article 1
D EFINITIONS
Except where otherwise expressly indicated or where the context otherwise requires, the following
definitions shall apply throughout this Convention:
a) “Board” means the International Narcotics Control Board established by the Single
Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, and that Convention as amended by the 1972 Protocol
Amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961;
b) “Cannabis plant” means any plant of the genus Cannabis;
c) “Coca bush” means the plant of any species of the genus Erythroxylon;
d) “Commercial carrier” means any person or any public, private or other entity engaged
in transporting persons, goods or mails for remuneration, hire or any other benefit;
e) “Commission” means the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of the Economic and Social
Council of the United Nations;
f) “Confiscation”, which includes forfeiture where applicable, means the permanent
deprivation of property by order of a court or other competent authority;
g) “Controlled delivery” means the technique of allowing illicit or suspect consignments of
narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, substances in Table I and Table II annexed to this
Convention, or substances substituted for them, to pass out of, through or into the territory
of one or more countries, with the knowledge and under the supervision of their competent
authorities, with a view to identifying persons involved in the commission of offences
established in accordance with article 3, paragraph 1 of the Convention;
h) “1961 Convention” means the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961;
i) “1961 Convention as amended” means the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961,
as amended by the 1972 Protocol Amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961;
j) “1971 Convention” means the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971;
k) “Council” means the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations;
l) “Freezing” or “seizure” means temporarily prohibiting the transfer, conversion,
disposition or movement of property or temporarily assuming custody or control of property
on the basis of an order issued by a court or a competent authority;
m) “Illicit traffic” means the offences set forth in article 3, paragraphs 1 and 2, of this
Convention;
n) “Narcotic drug” means any of the substances, natural or synthetic, in Schedules I and
II of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, and that Convention as amended by the
1972 Protocol Amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961;
o) “Opium poppy” means the plant of the species Papaver somniferum L;
p) “Proceeds” means any property derived from or obtained, directly or indirectly,
through the commission of an offence established in accordance with article 3, paragraph 1;
q) “Property” means assets of every kind, whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or
immovable, tangible or intangible, and legal documents or instruments evidencing title to, or
interest in, such assets;
r) “Psychotropic substance” means any substance, natural or synthetic, or any natural
material in Schedules I, II, III and IV of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971;
s) “Secretary-General” means the Secretary-General of the United Nations;
t) “Table I” and “Table II” mean the correspondingly numbered lists of substances
annexed to this Convention, as amended from time to time in accordance with article 12,
u) “Transit State” means a State through the territory of which illicit narcotic drugs,
psychotropic substances and substances in Table I and Table II are being moved, which is
neither the place of origin nor the place of ultimate destination thereof.
Article 2
SCOPE OF THE CONVENTION
1. The purpose of this Convention is to promote co-operation among the Parties so that they may
address more effectively the various aspects of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances
having an international dimension. In carrying out their obligations under the Convention, the Parties
shall take necessary measures, including legislative and administrative measures, in conformity with the
fundamental provisions of their respective domestic legislative systems.
2. The Parties shall carry out their obligations under this Convention in a manner consistent with the
principles of sovereign equality and territorial integrity of States and that of non-intervention in the
domestic affairs of other States.
2ANNEX 3
3. A Party shall not undertake in the territory of another Party the exercise of jurisdiction and
performance of functions which are exclusively reserved for the authorities of that other Party by its
domestic law.
Article 3
O FFENCES AND S ANCTIONS
1. Each Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under
its domestic law, when committed intentionally:
a) i) The production, manufacture, extraction; preparation, offering, offering for sale,
distribution, sale, delivery on any terms whatsoever, brokerage, dispatch,
dispatch in transit, transport, importation or exportation of any narcotic drug or
any psychotropic substance contrary to the provisions of the 1961 Convention,
the 1961 Convention as amended or the 1971 Convention;
ii) The cultivation of opium poppy, coca bush or cannabis plant for the purpose of
the production of narcotic drugs contrary to the provisions of the 1961
Convention and the 1961 Convention as amended;
iii) The possession or purchase of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance for
the purpose of any of the activities enumerated in i) above;
iv) The manufacture, transport or distribution of equipment, materials or of
substances listed in Table I and Table II, knowing that they are to be used in or
for the illicit cultivation, production or manufacture of narcotic drugs or
psychotropic substances;
v) The organization, management or financing of any of the offences enumerated
in i), ii), iii) or iv) above;
b) i) The conversion or transfer of property, knowing that such property is derived
from any offence or offences established in accordance with subparagraph a) of
this paragraph, or from an act of participation in such offence or offences, for
the purpose of concealing or disguising the illicit origin of the property or of
assisting any person who is involved in the commission of such an offence or
offences to evade the legal consequences of his actions;
ii) The concealment or disguise of the true nature, source, location, disposition,
movement, rights with respect to, or ownership of property, knowing that such
property is derived from an offence or offences established in accordance with
subparagraph a) of this paragraph or from an act of participation in such an
offence or offences;
c) Subject to its constitutional principles and the basic concepts of its legal system:
i) The acquisition, possession or use of property, knowing, at the time of receipt,
that such property was derived from an offence or offences established in
accordance with subparagraph a) of this paragraph or from an act of
participation in such offence or offences;
ii) The possession of equipment or materials or substances listed in Table I and
Table II, knowing that they are being or are to be used in or for the illicit
cultivation, production or
iii) Publicly inciting or inducing others, by any means, to commit any of the offences
established in accordance with this article or to use narcotic drugs or
psychotropic substances illicitly;
iv) Participation in, association or conspiracy to commit, attempts to commit and
aiding, abetting, facilitating and counselling the commission of any of the
offences established in accordance with this article.
2. Subject to its constitutional principles and the basic concepts of its legal system, each Party shall
adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish as a criminal offence under its domestic law,
when committed intentionally, the possession, purchase or cultivation of narcotic drugs or psychotropic
substances for personal consumption contrary to the provisions of the 1961 Convention, the 1961
Convention as amended or the 1971 Convention.
3. Knowledge, intent or purpose required as an element of an offence set forth in paragraph 1 of this
article may be inferred from objective factual circumstances.
3 ANNEX 3
4. a) Each Party shall make the commission of the offences established in accordance with
paragraph 1 of this article liable to sanctions which take into account the grave nature of
these offences, such as imprisonment or other forms of deprivation of liberty, pecuniary
sanctions and confiscation.
b) The Parties may provide, in addition to conviction or punishment, for an offence
established in accordance with paragraph 1 of this article, that the offender shall undergo
measures such as treatment, education, aftercare, rehabilitation or social reintegration.
c) Notwithstanding the preceding subparagraphs, in appropriate cases of a minor nature,
the Parties may provide, as alternatives to conviction or punishment, measures such as
education, rehabilitation or social reintegration, as well as, when the offender is a drug
abuser, treatment and aftercare.
d) The Parties may provide, either as an alternative to conviction or punishment, or in
addition to conviction or punishment of an offence established in accordance with paragraph
2 of this article, measures for the treatment, education, aftercare, rehabilitation or social
reintegration of the offender.
5. The Parties shall ensure that their courts and other competent authorities having jurisdiction can
take into account factual circumstances which make the commission of the offences established in
accordance with paragraph l of this article particularly serious, such as:
a) The involvement in the offence of an organized criminal group to which the offender
belongs;
b) The involvement of the offender in other international organized criminal activities;
c) The involvement of the offender in other illegal activities facilitated by commission of
the offence;
d) The use of violence or arms by the offender;
e) The fact that the offender holds a public office and that the offence is connected with
the office in question;
f) The victimization or use of minors;
g) The fact that the offence is committed in a penal institution or in an educational
institution or social service facility or in their immediate vicinity or in other places to which
school children and students resort for educational, sports and social activities;
h) Prior conviction, particularly for similar offences, whether foreign or domestic, to the
extent permitted under the domestic law of a Party.
6. The Parties shall endeavour to ensure that any discretionary legal powers under their domestic law
relating to the prosecution of persons for offences established in accordance with this article are
exercised to maximize the effectiveness of law enforcement measures in respect of those offences, and
with due regard to the need to deter the commission of such offences.
7. The Parties shall, ensure that their courts or other competent authorities bear in mind the serious
nature of the offences enumerated in paragraph l of this article and the circumstances enumerated in
paragraph 5 of this article when considering the eventuality of early release or parole of persons
convicted of such offences.
8. Each Party shall, where appropriate, establish under its domestic law a long statute of limitations
period in which to commence proceedings for any offence established in accordance with paragraph 1 of
this article, and a longer period where the alleged offender has evaded the administration of justice.
9. Each Party shall take appropriate measures, consistent with its legal system, to ensure that a
person charged with or convicted of an offence established in accordance with paragraph 1 of this article,
who is found within its territory, is present at the necessary criminal proceedings.
10. For the purpose of co-operation among the Parties under this Convention, including, in particular,
co-operation under articles 5, 6, 7 and 9, offences established in accordance with this article shall not be
considered as fiscal offences or as political offences or regarded as politically motivated, without prejudice
to the constitutional limitations and the fundamental domestic law of the Parties.
11. Nothing contained in this article shall affect the principle that the description of the offences to
which it refers and of legal defences thereto is reserved to the domestic law of a Party and that such
offences shall be prosecuted and punished in conformity with that law.
4ANNEX 3
Article 4
JURISDICTION
1. EaPcarty:
a) Shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the
offences it has established in accordance with article 3, paragraph 1, when:
i) The offence is committed in its territory;
ii) The offence is committed on board a vessel flying its flag or an aircraft which is
registered under its laws at the time the offence is committed;
b) May take such measures as maybe necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the
offences it has established in accordance with article 3, paragraph 1, when:
i) The offence is committed by one of its nationals or by a person who has his
habitual residence in its territory;
ii) The offence is committed on board a vessel concerning which that Party has
been authorized to take appropriate action pursuant to article 17, provided that
such jurisdiction shall be exercised only on the basis of agreements or
arrangements referred to in paragraphs 4 and 9 of that article;
iii) The offence is one of those established in accordance with article 3, paragraph
1, subparagraph c) iv), and is committed outside its territory with a view to the
commission, within its territory, of an offence established in accordance with
article 3, paragraph 1.
2. EaPcarty:
a) Shall also take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over
the offences it has established in accordance with article 3, paragraph 1, when the alleged
offender is present in its territory and it does not extradite him to another Party on the
ground:
i) That the offence has been committed in its territory or on board a vessel flying
its flag or an aircraft which was registered under its law at the time the offence
was committed; or
ii) That the offence has been committed by one of its nationals;
b) May also take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the
offences it has established in accordance with article 3, paragraph 1, when the alleged
offender is present in its territory and it does not extradite him to another Party.
3. This Convention does not exclude the exercise of any criminal jurisdiction established by a Party in
accordance with its domestic law.
Article 5
C ONFISCATION
1. Each Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to enable confiscation of:
a) Proceeds derived from offences established in accordance with article 3, paragraph 1,
or property the value of which corresponds to that of such proceeds;
b) Narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, materials and equipment or other
instrumentalities used in or intended for use in any manner in offences established in
accordance with article 3, paragraph 1.
2. Each Party shall also adopt such measures as may be necessary to enable its competent authorities
to identify, trace, and freeze or seize proceeds, property, instrumentalities or any other things referred to
in paragraph 1 of this article, for the purpose of eventual confiscation.
3. In order to carry out the measures referred to in this article, each Party shall empower its courts or
other competent authorities to order that bank, financial or commercial records be made available or be
seized. A Party shall not decline to act under the provisions of this paragraph on the ground of bank
secrecy.
5 ANNEX 3
4. a) Following a request made pursuant to this article by another Party having jurisdiction
over an offence established in accordance with article 3, paragraph 1, the Party in whose
territory proceeds, property, instrumentalities or any other things referred to in paragraph 1
of this article are situated shall:
i) Submit the request to its competent authorities for the purpose of obtaining an
order of confiscation and, if such order is granted, give effect to it; or
ii) Submit to its competent authorities, with a view to giving effect to it to the
extent requested, an order of confiscation issued by the requesting Party in
accordance with paragraph 1 of this article, in so far as it relates to proceeds,
property, instrumentalities or any other things referred to in paragraph 1
situated in the territory of the requested Party.
b) Following a request made pursuant to this article by another Party having jurisdiction
over an offence established in accordance with article 3, paragraph 1, the requested Party
shall take measures to identify, trace, and freeze or seize proceeds, property,
instrumentalities or any other things referred to in paragraph l of this article for the purpose
of eventual confiscation to be ordered either by the requesting Party or, pursuant to a
request under subparagraph a) of this paragraph, by the requested Party.
c) The decisions or actions provided for in subparagraphs a) and b) of this paragraph
shall be taken by the requested Party, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of its
domestic law and its procedural rules or any bilateral or multilateral treaty, agreement or
arrangement to which it may be bound in relation to the requesting Party.
d) The provisions of article 7, paragraphs 6 to 19 are applicable mutatis mutandis. In
addition to the information specified in article 7, paragraph 10, requests made pursuant to
this article shall contain the following:
i) In the case of a request pertaining to subparagraph a) i) of this paragraph, a
description of the property to be confiscated and a statement of the facts relied
upon by the requesting Party sufficient to enable the requested Party to seek the
order under its domestic law;
ii) In the case of a request pertaining to subparagraph a) ii), a legally admissible
copy of an order of confiscation issued by the requesting Party upon which the
request is based, a statement of the facts and information as to the extent to
which the execution of the order is requested;
iii) In the case of a request pertaining to subparagraph b), a statement of the facts
relied upon by the requesting Party and a description of the actions requested.
e) Each Party shall furnish to the Secretary-General the text of any of its laws and
regulations which give effect to this paragraph and the text of any subsequent changes to
such laws and regulations.
f) If a Party elects to make the taking of the measures referred to in subparagraphs a)
and b) of this paragraph conditional on the existence of a relevant treaty, that Party shall
consider this Convention as the necessary and sufficient treaty basis.
g) The Parties shall seek to conclude bilateral and multilateral treaties, agreements or
arrangements to enhance the effectiveness of international co-operation pursuant to this
article.
5. a) Proceeds or property confiscated by a Party pursuant to paragraph 1 or paragraph 4 of
this article shall be disposed of by that Party according to its domestic law and administrative
procedures.
b) When acting on the request of another Party in accordance with this article, a Party
may give special consideration to concluding agreements on:
i) Contributing the value of such proceeds and property, or funds derived from the
sale of such proceeds or property, or a substantial part thereof, to
intergovernmental bodies specializing in the fight against illicit traffic in and
abuse of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances;
ii) Sharing with other Parties, on a regular or case-by-case basis, such proceeds or
property, or funds derived from the sale of such proceeds or property, in
accordance with its domestic law, administrative procedures or bilateral or
multilateral agreements entered into for this purpose.
6. a) If proceeds have been transformed or converted into other property, such property
shall be liable to the measures referred to in this article instead of the proceeds.
6ANNEX 3
b) If proceeds have been intermingled with property acquired from legitimate sources,
such property shall, without prejudice to any powers relating to seizure or freezing, be liable
to confiscation up to the assessed value of the intermingled proceeds.
c) Income or other benefits derived from:
i) Proceeds;
ii) Property into which proceeds have been transformed or converted; or
iii) Property with which proceeds have been intermingled shall also be liable to the
measures referred to in this article, in the same manner and to the same extent
as proceeds.
7. Each Party may consider ensuring that the onus of proof be reversed regarding the lawful origin of
alleged proceeds or other property liable to confiscation, to the extent that such action is consistent with
the principles of its domestic law and with the nature of the judicial and other proceedings.
8. The provisions of this article shall not be construed as prejudicing the rights of bona fide third
parties.
9. Nothing contained in this article shall affect the principle that the measures to which it refers shall
be defined and implemented in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the domestic law of a
Party.
Article 6
EXTRADITION
1. This article shall apply to the offences established by the Parties in accordance with article 3,
paragraph 1.
2. Each of the offences to which this article applies shall be deemed to be included as an extraditable
offence in any extradition treaty existing between Parties. The Parties undertake to include such offences
as extraditable offences in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them.
3. If a Party which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for
extradition from another Party with which it has no extradition treaty, it may consider this Convention as
the legal basis for extradition in respect of any offence to which this article applies. The Parties which
require detailed legislation in order to use this Convention as a legal basis for extradition shall consider
enacting such legislation as may be necessary.
4. The Parties which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize
offences to which this article applies as extraditable offences between themselves.
5. Extradition shall be subject to the conditions provided for by the law of the requested Party or by
applicable extradition treaties, including the grounds upon which the requested Party may refuse
extradition.
6. In considering requests received pursuant to this article, the requested State may refuse to comply
with such requests where there are substantial grounds leading its judicial or other competent authorities
to believe that compliance would facilitate the prosecution or punishment of any person on account of his
race, religion, nationality or political opinions, or would cause prejudice for any of those reasons to any
person affected by the request.
7. The Parties shall endeavour to expedite extradition procedures and to simplify evidentiary
requirements relating thereto in respect of any offence to which this article applies.
8. Subject to the provisions of its domestic law and its extradition treaties, the requested Party may,
upon being satisfied that the circumstances so warrant and are urgent, and at the request of the
requesting Party, take a person whose extradition is sought and who is present in its territory into
custody or take other appropriate measures to ensure his presence at extradition proceedings.
7 ANNEX 3
9. Without prejudice to the exercise of any criminal jurisdiction established in accordance with its
domestic law, a Party in whose territory an alleged offender is found shall:
a) If it does not extradite him in respect of an offence established in accordance with
article 3, paragraph l, on the grounds set forth in article 4, paragraph 2, subparagraph a),
submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution, unless otherwise
agreed with the requesting Party;
b) If it does not extradite him in respect of such an offence and has established its
jurisdiction in relation to that offence in accordance with article 4, paragraph 2,
subparagraph b), submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of
prosecution, unless otherwise requested by the requesting Party for the purposes of
preserving its legitimate jurisdiction.
10. If extradition, sought for purposes of enforcing a sentence, is refused because the person sought is
a national of the requested Party, the requested Party shall, if its law so permits and in conformity with
the requirements of such law, upon application of the requesting Party, consider, the enforcement of the
sentence which has been imposed under the law of the requesting Party, or the remainder thereof.
11. The Parties shall seek to conclude bilateral and multilateral agreements to carry out or to enhance
the effectiveness of extradition.
12. The Parties may consider entering into bilateral or multilateral agreements, whether ad hoc or
general, on the transfer to their country of persons sentenced to imprisonment and other forms of
deprivation of liberty for offences to which this article applies, in order that they may complete their
sentences there.
Article 7
M UTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE
1. The Parties shall afford one another, pursuant to this article, the widest measure of mutual legal
assistance in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to criminal offences
established in accordance with article 3, paragraph 1.
2. Mutual legal assistance to be afforded in accordance with this article may be requested for any of
the following purposes:
a) Taking evidence or statements from persons;
b) Effecting service of judicial documents;
c) Executing searches and seizures;
d) Examining objects and sites;
e) Providing information and evidentiary items;
f) Providing originals or certified copies of relevant documents and records, including
bank, financial, corporate or business records;
g) Identifying or tracing proceeds, property, instrumentalities or other things for
evidentiary purposes.
3. The Parties may afford one another any other forms of mutual legal assistance allowed by the
domestic law of the requested Party.
4. Upon request, the Parties shall facilitate or encourage, to the extent consistent with their domestic
law and practice, the presence or availability of persons, including persons in custody, who consent to
assist in investigations or participate in proceedings.
5. A Party shall not decline to render mutual legal assistance under this article on the ground of bank
secrecy.
6. The provisions of this article shall not affect the obligations under any other treaty, bilateral or
multilateral, which governs or will govern, in whole or in part, mutual legal assistance in criminal matters.
7. Paragraphs 8 to 19 of this article shall apply to requests made pursuant to this article if the Parties
in question are not bound by a treaty of mutual legal assistance. If these Parties are bound by such a
treaty, the corresponding provisions of that treaty shall apply unless the Parties agree to apply
paragraphs 8 to 19 of this article in lieu thereof.
8ANNEX 3
8. Parties shall designate an authority, or when necessary authorities, which shall have the
responsibility and power to execute requests for mutual legal assistance or to transmit them to the
competent authorities for execution. The authority or the authorities designated for this purpose shall be
notified to the Secretary-General. Transmission of requests for mutual legal assistance and any
communication related thereto shall be effected between the authorities designated by the Parties; this
requirement shall be without prejudice to the right of a Party to require that such requests and
communications be addressed to it through the diplomatic channel and, in urgent circumstances, where
the Parties agree, through channels of the International Criminal Police Organization, if possible.
9. Requests shall be made in writing in a language acceptable to the requested Party. The language
or languages acceptable to each Party shall be notified to the Secretary-General. In urgent
circumstances, and where agreed by the Parties, requests may be made orally, but shall be confirmed in
writing forthwith.
10. A request for mutual legal assistance shall contain:
a) The identity of the authority making the request;
b) The subject matter and nature of the investigation, prosecution or proceeding to which
the request relates, and the name and the functions of the authority conducting such
investigation, prosecution or proceeding;
c) A summary of the relevant facts, except in respect of requests for the purpose of
service of judicial documents;
d) A description of the assistance sought and details of any particular procedure the
requesting Party wishes to be followed;
e) Where possible, the identity, location and nationality of any person concerned;
f) The purpose for which the evidence, information or action is sought.
11. The requested Party may request additional information when it appears necessary for the
execution of the request in accordance with its domestic law or when it can facilitate such execution.
12. A request shall be executed in accordance with the domestic law of the requested Party and, to the
extent not contrary to the domestic law of the requested Party and where possible, in accordance with
the procedures specified in the request.
13. The requesting Party shall not transmit nor use information or evidence furnished by the requested
Party for investigations, prosecutions or proceedings other than those stated in the request without the
prior consent of the requested Party.
14. The requesting Party may require that the requested Party keep confidential the fact and substance
of the request, except to the extent necessary to execute the request. If the requested Party cannot
comply with the requirement of confidentiality, it shall promptly inform the requesting Party.
15. Mutual legal assistance may be refused:
a) If the request is not made in conformity with the provisions of this article;
b) If the requested Party considers that execution of the request is likely to prejudice its
sovereignty, security, ordre public or other essential interests;
c) If the authorities of the requested Party would be prohibited by its domestic law from
carrying out the action requested with regard to any similar offence, had it been subject to
investigation, prosecution or proceedings under their own jurisdiction;
d) If it would be contrary to the legal system of the requested Party relating to mutual
legal assistance for the request to be granted.
16. Reasons shall be given for any refusal of mutual legal assistance.
17. Mutual legal assistance may be postponed by the requested Party on the ground that it interferes
with an ongoing investigation, prosecution or proceeding. In such a case, the requested Party shall
consult with the requesting Party to determine if the assistance can still be given subject to such terms
and conditions as the requested Party deems necessary.
18. A witness, expert or other person who consents to give evidence in a proceeding or to assist in an
investigation, prosecution or judicial proceeding in the territory of the requesting Party, shall not be
prosecuted, detained, punished or subjected to any other restriction of his personal liberty in that
territory in respect of acts, omissions or convictions prior to his departure from the territory of the
requested Party. Such safe conduct shall cease when the witness, expert or other person having had, for
a period of fifteen consecutive days, or for any period agreed upon by the Parties, from the date on which
9 ANNEX 3
he has been officially informed that his presence is no longer required by the judicial authorities, an
opportunity of leaving, has nevertheless remained voluntarily in the territory or, having left it, has
returned of his own free will.
19. The ordinary costs of executing a request shall be borne by the requested Party, unless otherwise
agreed by the Parties concerned. If expenses of a substantial or extraordinary nature are or will be
required to fulfil the request, the Parties shall consult to determine the terms and conditions under which
the request will be executed as well as the manner in which the costs shall be borne.
20. The Parties shall consider, as may be necessary, the possibility of concluding bilateral or
multilateral agreements or arrangements that would serve the purposes of, give practical effect to, or
enhance the provisions of this article.
Article 8
TRANSFER OF PROCEEDINGS
The Parties shall give consideration to the possibility of transferring to one another proceedings for
criminal prosecution of offences established in accordance with article 3, paragraph 1, in cases where
such transfer is considered to be in the interests of a proper administration of justice.
Article 9
O THER FORMS OF CO -OPERATION AND TRAINING
1. The Parties shall co-operate closely with one another, consistent with their respective domestic
legal and administrative systems, with a view to enhancing the effectiveness of law enforcement action to
suppress the commission of offences established in accordance with article 3, paragraph 1. They shall, in
particular, on the basis of bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements:
a) Establish and maintain channels of communication between their competent agencies
and services to facilitate the secure and rapid exchange of information concerning all aspects
of offences established in accordance with article 3, paragraph 1, including, if the Parties
concerned deem it appropriate, links with other criminal activities;
b) Co-operate with one another in conducting enquiries, with respect to offences
established in accordance with article 3, paragraph 1, having an international character,
concerning:
i) The identity, whereabouts and activities of persons suspected of being involved
in offences established in accordance with article 3, paragraph 1;
ii) The movement of proceeds or property derived from the commission of such
offences;
iii) The movement of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, substances in Table I
and Table II of this Convention and instrumentalities used or intended for use in
the commission of such offences;
c) In appropriate cases and if not contrary to domestic law, establish joint teams, taking
into account the need to protect the security of persons and of operations, to carry out the
provisions of this paragraph. Officials of any Party taking part in such teams shall act as
authorized by the appropriate authorities of the Party in whose territory the operation is to
take place; in all such cases, the Parties involved shall ensure that the sovereignty of the
Party on whose territory the operation is to take place is fully respected;
d) Provide, when appropriate, necessary quantities of substances for analytical or
investigative purposes;
e) Facilitate effective co-ordination between their competent agencies and services and
promote the exchange of personnel and other experts, including the posting of liaison
officers.
10ANNEX 3
2. Each Party shall, to the extent necessary, initiate, develop or improve specific training programmes
for its law enforcement and other personnel, including customs, charged with the suppression of offences
established in accordance with article 3, paragraph 1. Such programmes shall deal, in particular, with
the following:
a) Methods used in the detection and suppression of offences established in accordance
with article 3, paragraph 1;
b) Routes and techniques used by persons suspected of being involved in offences
established in accordance with article 3, paragraph 1, particularly in transit States, and
appropriate countermeasures;
c) Monitoring of the import and export of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and
substances in Table I and Table II;
d) Detection and monitoring of the movement of proceeds and property derived from,
and narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and substances in Table I and Table II, and
instrumentalities used or intended for use in, the commission of offences established in
accordance with article 3, paragraph 1;
e) Methods used for the transfer, concealment or disguise of such proceeds, property and
instrumentalities;
f) Collectvidence;
g) Control techniques in free trade zones and free ports;
h) Modem law enforcement techniques.
3. The Parties shall assist one another to plan, and implement research and training programmes
designed to share expertise in the areas referred to in paragraph 2 of this article and, to this end, shall
also, when appropriate, use regional and international conferences and seminars to promote co-operation
and stimulate discussion on problems of mutual concern, including the special problems and needs of
transit States.
Article 10
INTERNATIONAL CO -OPERATION ANDA SSISTANCE FORTRANSIT STATES
1. The Parties shall co-operate, directly or through competent international or regional organizations,
to assist and support transit States and, in particular, developing countries in need of such assistance and
support, to the extent possible, through programmes of technical co-operation on interdiction and other
related activities.
2. The Parties may undertake, directly or through competent international or regional organizations,
to provide financial assistance to such transit States for the purpose of augmenting and strengthening the
infrastructure needed for effective control and prevention of illicit traffic.
3. The Parties may conclude bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements to enhance the
effectiveness of international co-operation pursuant to this article and may take into consideration
financial arrangements in this regard.
Article 11
C ONTROLLED D ELIVERY
1. If permitted by the basic principles of their respective domestic legal systems, the Parties shall take
the necessary measures, within their possibilities, to allow for the appropriate use of controlled delivery
at the international level, on the basis of agreements or arrangements mutually consented to, with a view
to identifying persons involved in offences established in accordance with article 3, paragraph 1, and to
taking legal action against them.
2. Decisions to use controlled delivery shall be made on a case-by-case basis and may, when
necessary, take into consideration financial arrangements and understandings with respect to the
exercise of jurisdiction by the Parties concerned.
3. Illicit consignments whose controlled delivery is agreed to may, with the consent of the Parties
concerned, be intercepted and allowed to continue with the narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances
intact or removed or replaced in whole or in part.
11 ANNEX 3
Article 12
S UBSTANCES FREQUENTLY USED IN THEILLICIT
M ANUFACTURE OF NARCOTIC DRUGS OR PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES
1. The Parties shall take the measures they deem appropriate to prevent diversion of substances in
Table I and Table II used for the purpose of illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs or psychotropic
substances, and shall co-operate with one another to this end.
2. If a Party or the Board has information which in its opinion may require the inclusion of a
substance in Table I or Table II, it shall notify the Secretary-General and furnish him with the information
in support of that notification. The procedure described in paragraphs 2 to 7 of this article shall also
apply when a Party or the Board has information justifying the deletion of a substance from Table I or
Table II, or the transfer of a substance from one Table to the other.
3. The Secretary-General shall transmit such notification, and any information which he considers
relevant, to the Parties, to the Commission, and, where notification is made by a Party, to the Board.
The Parties shall communicate their comments concerning the notification to the Secretary-General,
together with all supplementary information which may assist the Board in establishing an assessment
and the Commission in reaching a decision.
4. If the Board, taking into account the extent, importance and diversity of the licit use of the
substance, and the possibility and ease of using alternate substances both for licit purposes and for the
illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, finds:
a) That the substance is frequently used in the illicit manufacture of a narcotic drug or
psychotropic substance;
b) That the volume and extent of the illicit manufacture of a narcotic drug or psychotropic
substance creates serious public health or social problems, so as to warrant international
action,
it shall communicate to the Commission an assessment of the substance, including the likely effect of
adding the substance to either Table I or Table II on both licit use and illicit manufacture, together with
recommendations of monitoring measures, if any, that would be appropriate in the light of its
assessment.
5. The Commission, taking into account the comments submitted by the Parties and the comments
and recommendations of the Board, whose assessment shall be determinative as to scientific matters,
and also taking into due consideration any other relevant factors, may decide by a two-thirds majority of
its members to place a substance in Table I or Table II.
6. Any decision of the Commission taken pursuant to this article shall be communicated by the
Secretary-General to all States and other entities which are, or which are entitled to become, Parties to
this Convention, and to the Board. Such decision shall become fully effective with respect to each Party
one hundred and eighty days after the date of such communication.
7. a) The decisions of the Commission taken under this article shall be subject to review by
the Council upon the request of any Party filed within one hundred and eighty days after the
date of notification of the decision. The request for review shall be sent to the Secretary-
General, together with all relevant information upon which the request for review is based.
b) The Secretary-General shall transmit copies of the request for review and the relevant
information to the Commission, to the Board and to all the Parties, inviting them to submit
their comments within ninety days. All comments received shall be submitted to the Council
for consideration.
c) The Council may confirm or reverse the decision of the Commission. Notification of
the Council’s decision shall be transmitted to all States and other entities which are, or which
are entitled to become, Parties to this Convention, to the Commission and to the Board.
8. a) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in paragraph 1 of this
article and the provisions of the 1961 Convention, the 1961 Convention as amended and the
1971 Convention, the Parties shall take the measures they deem appropriate to monitor the
manufacture and distribution of substances in Table I and Table Il which are carried out
within their territory.
12ANNEX 3
b) To this end, the Parties may:
i) Control all persons and enterprises engaged in the manufacture and distribution
of such substances;
ii) Control under licence the establishment and premises in which such
manufacture or distribution may take place;
ii) Require that licensees obtain a permit for conducting the aforesaid operations;
iv) Prevent the accumulation of such substances in the possession of manufacturers
and distributors, in excess of the quantities required for the normal conduct of
business and the prevailing market conditions.
9. Each Party shall, with respect to substances in Table I and Table II, take the following measures:
a) Establish and maintain a system to monitor international trade in substances in Table I
and Table II in order to facilitate the identification of suspicious transactions. Such
monitoring systems shall be applied in close co-operation with manufacturers, importers,
exporters, wholesalers and retailers, who shall inform the competent authorities of suspicious
orders and transactions.
b) Provide for the seizure of any substance in Table I or Table II if there is sufficient
evidence that it is for use in the illicit manufacture of a narcotic drug or psychotropic
substance.
c) Notify, as soon as possible, the competent authorities and services of the Parties
concerned if there is reason to believe that the import, export or transit of a substance in
Table I or Table II is destined for the illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs or psychotropic
substances, including in particular information about the means of payment and any other
essential elements which led to that belief.
d) Require that imports and exports be properly labelled and documented. Commercial
documents such as invoices, cargo manifests, customs, transport and other shipping
documents shall include the names, as stated in Table I or Table II, of the substances being
imported or exported, the quantity being imported or exported, and the name and address of
the exporter, the importer and, when available, the consignee.
e) Ensure that documents referred to in subparagraph d) of this paragraph are
maintained for a period of not less than two years and may be made available for inspection
by the competent authorities.
10. a) In addition to the provisions of paragraph 9, and upon request to the Secretary-
General by the interested Party, each Party from whose territory a substance in Table I is to
be exported shall ensure that, prior to such export, the following information is supplied by
its competent authorities to the competent authorities of the importing country:
i) Name and address of the exporter and importer and, when available, the
consignee;
ii) Name of the substance in Table I;
iii) Quantity of the substance to be exported;
iv) Expected point of entry and expected date of dispatch;
v) Any other information which is mutually agreed upon by the Parties.
b) A Party may adopt more strict or severe measures of control than those provided by
this paragraph if, in its opinion, such measures are desirable or necessary.
11. Where a Party furnishes information to another Party in accordance with paragraphs 9 and 10 of
this article, the Party furnishing such information may require that the Party receiving it keep confidential
any trade, business, commercial or professional secret or trade process.
12. Each Party shall furnish annually to the Board, in the form and manner provided for by it and on
forms made available by it, information on:
a) The amounts seized of substances in Table I and Table II and, when known, their
origin;
b) Any substance not included in Table I or Table II which is identified as having been
used in illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, and which is deemed
by the Party to be sufficiently significant to be brought to the attention of the Board;
c) Methods of diversion and illicit manufacture.
13. The Board shall report annually to the Commission on the implementation of this article and the
Commission shall periodically review the adequacy and propriety of Table I and Table II.
13 ANNEX 3
14. The provisions of this article shall not apply to pharmaceutical preparations, nor to other
preparations containing substances in Table I or Table II that are compounded in such a way that such
substances cannot be easily used or recovered by readily applicable means.
Article 13
MATERIALS ANDEQUIPMENT
The Parties shall take such measures as they deem appropriate to prevent trade in and the
diversion of materials and equipment for illicit production or manufacture of narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances and shall co-operate to this end.
Article 14
M EASURES TOE RADICATEILLICIC ULTIVATION ON ARCOTICPLANTS AND TOE LIMINATELLICITDEMAND FOR N ARCOTIC
DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES .
1. Any measures taken pursuant to this Convention by Parties shall not be less stringent than the
provisions applicable to the eradication of illicit cultivation of plants containing narcotic and psychotropic
substances and to the elimination of illicit demand for narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances under
the provisions of the 1961 Convention, the 1961 Convention as amended and the 1971 Convention.
2. Each Party shall take appropriate measures to prevent illicit cultivation of and to eradicate plants
containing narcotic or psychotropic substances, such as opium poppy, coca bush and cannabis plants,
cultivated illicitly in its territory. The measures adopted shall respect fundamental human rights and shall
take due account of traditional licit uses, where there is historic evidence of such use, as well as the
protection of the environment.
3. a) The Parties may co-operate to increase the effectiveness of eradication efforts. Such
co-operation may, inter alia , include support, when appropriate, for integrated rural
development leading to economically viable alternatives to illicit cultivation. Factors such as
access to markets, the availability of resources and prevailing socio-economic conditions
should be taken into account before such rural development programmes are implemented.
The Parties may agree on any other appropriate measures of co-operation.
b) The Parties shall also facilitate the exchange of scientific and technical information and
the conduct of research concerning eradication.
c) Whenever they have common frontiers, the Parties shall seek to co-operate in
eradication programmes in their respective areas along those frontiers.
4. The Parties shall adopt appropriate measures aimed at eliminating or reducing illicit demand for
narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, with a view to reducing human suffering and eliminating
financial incentives for illicit traffic. These measures may be basedinter alia, on the recommendations
of the United Nations, specialized agencies of the United Nations such as the World Health Organization,
and other competent international organizations, and on the Comprehensive Multidisciplinary Outline
adopted by the International Conference on Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking, held in 1987, as it pertains
to governmental and non-governmental agencies and private efforts in the fields of prevention, treatment
and rehabilitation. The Parties may enter into bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements aimed
at eliminating or reducing illicit demand for narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
5. The Parties may also take necessary measures for early destruction or lawful disposal of the
narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and substances in Table I and Table II which have been seized or
confiscated and for the admissibility as evidence of duly certified necessary quantities of such substances.
Article 15
C OMMERCIAL CARRIERS
1. The Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure that means of transport operated by
commercial carriers are not used in the commission of offences established in accordance with article 3,
paragraph 1; such measures may include special arrangements with commercial carriers.
14ANNEX 3
2. Each Party shall require commercial carriers to take reasonable precautions to prevent the use of
their means of transport for the commission of offences established in accordance with article 3,
paragraph 1. Such precautions may include:
a) If the principal place of business of a commercial carrier is within the territory of the Party:
i) Training of personnel to identify suspicious consignments or persons;
ii) Promotion of integrity of personnel;
b) If a commercial carrier is operating within the territory of the Party:
i) Submission of cargo manifests in advance, whenever possible;
ii) Use of tamper-resistant, individually verifiable seals on containers;
iii) Reporting to the appropriate authorities at the earliest opportunity all suspicious
circumstances that may be related to the commission of offences established in
accordance with article 3, paragraph 1.
3. Each Party shall seek to ensure that commercial carriers and the appropriate authorities at points
of entry and exit and other customs control areas co-operate, with a view to preventing unauthorized
access to means of transport and cargo and to implementing appropriate security measures.
Article 16
C OMMERCIAL DOCUMENTS AND LABELLING OF EXPORTS
1. Each Party shall require that lawful exports of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances be
properly documented. In addition to the requirements for documentation under article 31 of the 1961
Convention, article 31 of the 1961 Convention as amended and article 12 of the 1971 Convention,
commercial documents such as invoices, cargo manifests, customs, transport and other shipping
documents shall include the names of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances being exported as
set out in the respective Schedules of the 1961 Convention, the 1961 Convention as amended and the
1971 Convention, the quantity being exported, and the name and address of the exporter, the importer
and, when available, the consignee.
2. Each Party shall require that consignments of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances being
exported be not mislabelled.
Article 17
LLICITTRAFFIC BY SEA
1. The Parties shall co-operate to the fullest extent possible to suppress illicit traffic by sea, in
conformity with the international law of the sea.
2. A Party which has reasonable grounds to suspect that a vessel flying its flag or not displaying a flag
or marks of registry is engaged in illicit traffic may request the assistance of other Parties in suppressing
its use for that purpose. The Parties so requested shall render such assistance within the means
available to them.
3. A Party which has reasonable grounds to suspect that a vessel exercising freedom of navigation in
accordance with international law, and flying the flag or displaying marks of registry of another Party is
engaged in illicit traffic may so notify the flag State, request confirmation of registry and, if confirmed,
request authorization from the flag State to take appropriate measures in regard to that vessel.
4. In accordance with paragraph 3 or in accordance with treaties in force between them or in
accordance with any agreement or arrangement otherwise reached between those Parties, the flag State
may authorize the requesting State to, inter aria:
a) Board the vessel;
b) Search the vessel;
c) If evidence of involvement in illicit traffic is found, take appropriate action with respect
to the vessel, persons and cargo on board.
15 ANNEX 3
5. Where action is taken pursuant to this article, the Parties concerned shall take due account of the
need not to endanger the safety of life at sea, the security of the vessel and the cargo or to prejudice the
commercial and legal interests of the flag State or any other interested State.
6. The flag State may, consistent with its obligations in paragraph 1 of this article, subject its
authorization to conditions to be mutually agreed between it and the requesting Party, including
conditions relating to responsibility.
7. For the purposes of paragraphs 3 and 4 of this article, a Party shall respond expeditiously to a
request from another Party to determine whether a vessel that is flying its flag is entitled to do so, and to
requests for authorization made pursuant to paragraph 3. At the time of becoming a Party to this
Convention, each Party shall designate an authority or, when necessary, authorities to receive and
respond to such requests. Such designation shall be notified through the Secretary-General to all other
Parties within one month of the designation.
8. A Party which has taken any action in accordance with this article shall promptly inform the flag
State concerned of the results of that action.
9. The Parties shall consider entering into bilateral or regional agreements or arrangements to carry
out, or to enhance the effectiveness of, the provisions of this article.
10. Action pursuant to paragraph 4 of this article shall be carried out only by warships or military
aircraft, or other ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and
authorized to that effect.
11. Any action taken in accordance with this article shall take due account of the need not to interfere
with or affect the rights and obligations and the exercise of jurisdiction of coastal States in accordance
with the international law of the sea.
Article 18
FREET RADE ZONES AND FREE PORTS
1. The Parties shall apply measures to suppress illicit traffic in narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances
and substances in Table I and Table II in free trade zones and in free ports that are no less stringent than
those applied in other parts of their territories.
2. The Parties shall endeavour:
a) To monitor the movement of goods and persons in free trade zones and free ports,
and, to that end, shall empower the competent authorities to search cargoes and incoming
and outgoing vessels, including pleasure craft and fishing vessels, as well as aircraft and
vehicles and, when appropriate, to search crew members, passengers and their baggage;
b) To establish and maintain a system to detect consignments suspected of containing
narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and substances in Table I and Table II passing into
or out of free trade zones and free ports;
c) To establish and maintain surveillance systems in harbour and dock areas and at
airports and border control points in free trade zones and free ports.
Article 19
THE USE OF THEM AILS
1. In conformity with their obligations under the Conventions of the Universal Postal Union, and in
accordance with the basic principles of their domestic legal systems, the Parties shall adopt measures to
suppress the use of the mails for illicit traffic and shall co-operate with one another to that end.
2. The measures referred to in paragraph 1 of this article shall include, in particular:
a) Co-ordinated action for the prevention and repression of the use of the mails for illicit
traffic;
b) Introduction and maintenance by authorized law enforcement personnel of
investigative and control techniques designed to detect illicit consignments of narcotic drugs,
psychotropic substances and substances in Table I and Table II in the mails;
16ANNEX 3
c) Legislative measures to enable the use of appropriate means to secure evidence
required for judicial proceedings.
Article 20
INFORMATION TO BEF URNISHED BY THEPARTIES
1. The Parties shall furnish, through the Secretary-General, information to the Commission on the
working of this Convention in their territories and, in particular:
a) The text of laws and regulations promulgated in order to give effect to the Convention;
b) Particulars of cases of illicit traffic within their jurisdiction which they consider
important because of new trends disclosed, the quantities involved, the sources from which
the substances are obtained, or the methods employed by persons so engaged.
2. The Parties shall furnish such information in such a manner and by such dates as the Commission
may request.
Article 21
F UNCTIONS OF THEC OMMISSION
The Commission is authorized to consider all matters pertaining to the aims of this Convention and,
in particular.
a) The Commission shall, on the basis of the information submitted by the Parties in
accordance with article 20, review the operation of this Convention;
b) The Commission may make suggestions and general recommendations based on the
examination of the information received from the Parties;
c) The Commission may call the attention of the Board to any matters which may be
relevant to the functions of the Board;
d) The Commission shall, on any matter referred to it by the Board under article 22,
paragraph 1 b), take such action as it deems appropriate;
e) The Commission may, in conformity with the procedures laid down in article 12,
amend Table I and Table II;
f) The Commission may draw the attention of non-Parties to decisions and
recommendations which it adopts under this Convention, with a view to their considering
taking action in accordance therewith.
Article 22
FUNCTIONS OF THE BOARD
1. Without prejudice to the functions of the Commission under article 21, and without prejudice to the
functions of the Board and the Commission under the 1961 Convention, the 1961 Convention as
amended and the 1971 Convention:
a) If, on the basis of its examination of information available to it, to the Secretary-
General or to the Commission, or of information communicated by United Nations organs,
the Board has reason to believe that the aims of this Convention in matters related to its
competence are not being met, the Board may invite a Party or Parties to furnish any
relevant information;
b) With respect to articles 12, 13 and 16:
i) After taking action under subparagraph a) of this article, the Board if satisfied
that it is necessary to do so, may call upon the Party concerned to adopt such
remedial measures as shall seem under the circumstances to be necessary for
the execution of the provisions of articles 12, 13 and 16;
ii) Prior to taking action under iii) below, the Board shall treat as confidential its
communications with the Party concerned under the preceding subparagraphs;
iii) If the Board finds that the Party concerned has not taken remedial measures
which it has been called upon to take under this subparagraph, it may call the
attention of the Parties, the Council and the Commission to the matter. Any
17 ANNEX 3
report published by the Board under this subparagraph shall also contain the
views of the Party concerned if the latter so requests.
2. Any Party shall be invited to be represented at a meeting of the Board at which a question of direct
interest to it is to be considered under this article.
3. If in any case a decision of the Board which is adopted under this article is not unanimous, the
views of the minority shall be stated.
4. Decisions of the Board under this article shall be taken by a two-thirds majority of the whole
number of the Board.
5. In carrying out its functions pursuant to subparagraph 1 a) of this article, the Board shall ensure
the confidentiality of all information which may come into its possession.
6. The Board’s responsibility under this article shall not apply to the implementation of treaties or
agreements entered into between Parties in accordance with the provisions of this Convention.
7. The provisions of this article shall not be applicable to disputes between Parties falling under the
provisions of article 32.
Article 23
REPORTS OF THB OARD
1. The Board shall prepare an annual report on its work containing an analysis of the information at
its disposal and, in appropriate cases, an account of the explanations, if any, given by or required of
Parties, together with any observations and recommendations which the Board desires to make. The
Board may make such additional reports as it considers necessary. The reports shall be submitted to the
Council through the Commission which may make such comments as it sees fit.
2. The reports of the Board shall be communicated to the Parties and subsequently published by the
Secretary-General. The Parties shall permit their unrestricted distribution.
Article 24
APPLICATION OSTRICTERM EASURES THAN THOSEREQUIRED BY THISCONVENTION
A Party may adopt more strict or severe measures than those provided by this Convention if, in its
opinion, such measures are desirable or necessary for the prevention or suppression of illicit traffic.
Article 25
NON-DEROGATION FROM EARLIERTREATY RIGHTS ANDO BLIGATIONS
The provisions of this Convention shall not derogate from any rights enjoyed or obligations
undertaken by Parties to this Convention under the 1961 Convention, the 1961 Convention as amended
and the 1971 Convention.
18ANNEX 3
Article 26
S IGNATURE
This Convention shall be open for signature at the United Nations Office at Vienna, from 20
December 1988 to 28 February 1989, and thereafter at the Headquarters of the United Nations at New
York, until 20 December 1989, by:
a) ASltlates;
b) Namibia, represented by the United Nations Council for Namibia;
c) Regional economic integration organizations which have competence in respect of the
negotiation, conclusion and application of international agreements in matters covered by
this Convention, references under the Convention to Parties, States or national services
being applicable to these organizations within the limits of their competence.
Article 27
R ATIFICATIO, ACCEPTANCE, APPROVAL OR ACT OFFORMAL C ONFIRMATION
1. This Convention is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by States and by Namibia,
represented by the United Nations Council for Namibia, and to acts of formal confirmation by regional
economic integration organizations referred to in article 26, subparagraph c). The instruments of
ratification, acceptance or approval and those relating to acts of formal confirmation shall be deposited
with the Secretary-General.
2. In their instruments of formal confirmation, regional economic integration organizations shall
declare the extent of their competence with respect to the matters governed by this Convention. These
organizations shall also inform the Secretary-General of any modification in the extent of their
competence with respect to the matters governed by the Convention.
Article 28
A CCESSION
1. This Convention shall remain open for accession by any State, by Namibia, represented by the
United Nations Council for Namibia, and by regional economic integration organizations referred to in
article 26, subparagraph c). Accession shall be effected by the deposit of an instrument of accession with
the Secretary-General.
2. In their instruments of accession, regional economic integration organizations shall declare the
extent of their competence with respect to the matters governed by this Convention. These
organizations shall also inform the Secretary-General of any modification in the extent of their
competence with respect to the matters governed by the Convention.
Article 29
E NTRY INTOFORCE
1. This Convention shall enter into force on the ninetieth day after the date of the deposit with the
Secretary-General of the twentieth instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession by States
or by Namibia, represented by the Council for Namibia.
2. For each State or for Namibia, represented by the Council for Namibia, ratifying, accepting,
approving or acceding to this Convention after the deposit of the twentieth instrument of ratification,
acceptance, approval or accession, the Convention shall enter into force on the ninetieth day after the
date of the deposit of its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.
3. For each regional economic integration organization referred to in article 26, subparagraph c)
depositing an instrument relating to an act of formal confirmation or an instrument of accession, this
Convention shall enter into force on the ninetieth day after such deposit, or at the date the Convention
enters into force pursuant to paragraph l of this article, whichever is later.
19 ANNEX 3
Article 30
D ENUNCIATION
1. A Party may denounce this Convention at any time by a written notification addressed to the
Secretary-General.
2. Such denunciation shall take effect for the Party concerned one year after the date of receipt of the
notification by the Secretary-General.
Article 31
AMENDMENTS
1. Any Party may propose an amendment to this Convention. The text of any such amendment and
the reasons therefor shall be communicated by that Party to the Secretary-General, who shall
communicate it to the other Parties and shall ask them whether they accept the proposed amendment. If
a proposed amendment so circulated has not been rejected by any Party within twenty-four months after
it has been circulated, it shall be deemed to have been accepted and shall enter into force in respect of a
Party ninety days after that Party has deposited with the Secretary-General an instrument expressing its
consent to be bound by that amendment.
2. If a proposed amendment has been rejected by any Party, the Secretary-General shall consult with
the Parties and, if a majority so requests, he shall bring the matter, together with any comments made
by the Parties, before the Council which may decide to call a conference in accordance with Article 62,
paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations. Any amendment resulting from such a Conference
shall be embodied in a Protocol of Amendment. Consent to be bound by such a Protocol shall be required
to be expressed specifically to the Secretary-General.
Article 32
SETTLEMENT OFD ISPUTES
1. If there should arise between two or more Parties a dispute relating to the interpretation or
application of this Convention, the Parties shall consult together with a view to the settlement of the
dispute by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, recourse to regional bodies, judicial
process or other peaceful means of their own choice.
2. Any such dispute which cannot be settled in the manner prescribed in paragraph 1 of this article
shall be referred, at the request of any one of the States Parties to the dispute, to the International Court
of Justice for decision.
3. If a regional economic integration organization referred to in article 26, subparagraph c) is a Party
to a dispute which cannot be settled in the manner prescribed in paragraph 1 of this article, it may,
through a State Member of the United Nations, request the Council to request an advisory opinion of the
International Court of Justice in accordance with Article 65 of the Statute of the Court, which opinion shall
be regarded as decisive.
4. Each State, at the time of signature or ratification, acceptance or approval of this Convention or
accession thereto, or each regional economic integration organization, at the time of signature or deposit
of an act of formal confirmation or accession, may declare that it does not consider itself bound by
paragraphs 2 and 3 of this article. The other Parties shall not be bound by paragraphs 2 and 3 with
respect to any Party having made such a declaration.
5. Any Party having made a declaration in accordance with paragraph 4 of this article may at any time
withdraw the declaration by notification to the Secretary-General.
Article 33
A UTHENTICTEXTS
The Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts of this Convention are equally
authentic.
20ANNEX 3
Article 34
DEPOSITARY
The Secretary-General shall be the depositary of this Convention.
I N WITNESS WHEREOFthe undersigned, being duly authorized thereto, have signed this Convention.
D ONE ATV IENN, in one original, this twentieth day of December one thousand nine hundred and
eighty-eight.
21 ANNEX 3
ANNEX
Revised Tables including the amendments made by the
Commission on Narcotic Drugs in force as of 23 November 1992
Table I▯ Table II ▯
N-acetylanthranilic acid ▯ Acetic anhydride ▯
Ephedrine ▯ Acetone ▯
Ergometrine ▯ Anthranilic acid ▯
Ergotamine ▯ Ethyl ether ▯
Isosafrole ▯ Hydrochloric acid ▯
Lysergic acid ▯ Methyl ethyl ketone ▯
3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl-2-propanone ▯ Phenylacetic acid ▯
1-phenyl-2-propanone ▯ Piperidine ▯
Piperonal ▯ Potassium permanganate ▯
Pseudoephedrine ▯ Sulphuric acid ▯
Safrole ▯ Toluene ▯
The salts of the substances listed in this The salts of the substances listed in this
Table whenever the existence of such salts is Table whenever the existence of such salts is
possible. ▯ possible (the salts of hydrochloric acid and
sulphuric acid are specifically excluded)
▯▯ ANNEX 4
United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances, Status of Treaty Adherence (1998) ANNEX 4
19. UNITED N ATIONS CONVENTION AGAINST ILLICIT TRAFFIC IN NARCOTIC
D RUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES
Vienna, 20 December 1988
.
ENTRY INTO FORCE: 11 November 1990, in accordance with article 29(1).
REGISTRATION: 11 November 1990, No. 27627.
STATUS: Signatories: 87. Parties: 184.
TEXT: Document of the United Nations Economic and Social Council E/CONF.82/15, Corr.1
and Corr.2 (English only); and depositary notification C.N.31.1990.TREATIES-1 of 9
April 1990 (procès-verbal of rectification of original French and Spanish texts);
C.N.229.2007.TREATIES-1 of 12March 2007 (Notification under article 12 (2) of the
Convention).
Note: The Convention was adopted by the United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Convention against Illicit
Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, held at Vienna from 25 November to 20 December 1988. The
Conference was convened pursuant to resolution 1988/8 of 25 May 1988 of the Economic and Social Council acting on the
basis of the General Assembly resolutions 39/141 of 14 December 1984 and 42/111 of 7 December 1987. The Convention
was open for signature at the United Nations Office at Vienna, from 20 December 1988 to 28 February 1989, and thereafter
at the Headquarters of the United Nations at New York, until 20 December 1989. In addition to the Convention, the
Conference adopted the Final Act and certain resolutions which are annexed to the Final Act. The text of the Final Act was
published in document E/CONF.82/14.
.
Ratification, Ratification,
Accession(a), Accession(a),
Acceptance(A), Acceptance(A),
Approval(AA), Approval(AA),
Formal Formal
confirmation(c), confirmation(c),
Participant Signature Succession(d) Participant Signature Succession(d)
Afghanistan...................20 1988 14 Feb 1992 Botswana....................... 13 Aug 1996 a
Albania.......................... 27 Jun 2001 a Brazil...........................1988 Dec 17 Jul 1991
Algeria .........................1988Dec 9 May 1995 Brunei Darussalam........26 Oct 1989 12 Nov 1993
Andorra......................... 23 Jul 1999 a Bulgaria.........................19 May 1924 Sep 1992
Angola........................... 26 Oct 2005 a Burkina Faso................. 2 Jun 1992 a
Antigua and Barbuda .... 5 Apr 1993 a Burundi......................... 18 Feb 1993 a
Argentina.......................21988c 28 Jun 1993 Cambodia...................... 7 Jul 2005 a
Armenia......................... 13 Sep 1993 a Cameroon......................27 1989 28 Oct 1991
Australia........................1989eb 16 Nov 1992 Canada ..........................1988ec 5 Jul 1990
Austria..........................1989Sep 11 Jul 1997 Cape Verde ................... 8 May 1995 a
Azerbaijan..................... 22 Sep 1993 a Central African
Bahamas........................201988 30 Jan 1989 Republic.................. 15 Oct 2001 a
Chad.............................. 9 Jun 1995 a
Bahrain..........................1989ep 7 Feb 1990
Bangladesh....................14 1989 11 Oct 1990 Chile............................1988 Dec 13 Mar 1990
2,3
Barbados ....................... 15 Oct 1992 a China .........................1988Dec 25 Oct 1989
Colombia.......................201988 10 Jun 1994
Belarus .........................1989Feb 15 Oct 1990
Belgium.........................22 May 1925 Oct 1995 Comoros........................ 1 Mar 2000 a
Belize ............................ 24 Jul 1996 a Congo............................ 3 Mar 2004 a
Cook Islands ................. 22 Feb 2005 a
Benin............................. 23 May 1997 a
Bhutan........................... 27 Aug 1990 a Costa Rica.....................251989 8 Feb 1991
Côte d'Ivoire..................201988 25 Nov 1991
Bolivia..........................1988Dec 20 Aug 1990
Bosnia and Croatia ......................... 26 Jul 1993 d
1
Herzegovina ........... 1 Sep 1993 d Cuba.............................1989Apr 12 Jun 1996
VI 19. ARCOTICD RUGS ANDPSYCHOTROPICSUBSTANCES 1ANNEX 4
Ratification, Ratification,
Accession(a), Accession(a),
Acceptance(A), Acceptance(A),
Approval(AA), Approval(AA),
Formal Formal
confirmation(c), confirmation(c),
Participant Signature Succession(d) Participant Signature Succession(d)
Cyprus...........................21988c 25 May 1990 Israel ..........................19880 Dec20 Mar 2002
Czech Republic 4............ 30 Dec 1993 d Italy.............................1988 Dec31 Dec 1990 AA
Democratic People's Jamaica ......................... 1989t 29 Dec 1995
Republic of Korea ... 19 Mar 2007 a
Japan............................1989Dec 12 Jun 1992
Democratic Republic of Jordan...........................1988Dec 16 Apr 1990
the Congo ................20 D1988 28 Oct 2005
Kazakhstan.................... 29 Apr 1997 a
Denmark........................20 1988 19 Dec 1991 Kenya............................ 19 Oct 1992 a
Djibouti......................... 22 Feb 2001 a
Kuwait........................... 1989t 3 Nov 2000
Dominica....................... 30 Jun 1993 a
Kyrgyzstan.................... 7 Oct 1994 a
Dominican Republic ..... 21 Sep 1993 a Lao People's
Ecuador.........................211989 23 Mar 1990 Democratic
Egypt.............................1988ec 15 Mar 1991 Republic.................. 1 Oct 2004 a
El Salvador.................... 21 May 1993 a Latvia............................ 24 Feb 1994 a
Eritrea............................ 30 Jan 2002 a Lebanon ........................ 11 Mar 1996 a
Estonia .......................... 12 Jul 2000 a Lesotho ......................... 28 Mar 1995 a
Ethiopia......................... 11 Oct 1994 a Liberia........................... 16 Sep 2005 a
European Community ... 8 Jun 1989 31 Dec 1990 c Libyan Arab
Fiji................................. 25 Mar 1993 a Jamahiriya............... 22 Jul 1996 a
Finland ..........................1989eb 15 Feb 1994 A Liechtenstein................. 9 Mar 2007 a
France............................1989eb 31 Dec 1990 AA Lithuania....................... 8 Jun 1998 a
Gabon............................21989c 10 Jul 2006 Luxembourg..................26 Sep1989 29 Apr 1992
Madagascar................... 12 Mar 1991 a
Gambia.......................... 23 Apr 1996 a
Georgia.......................... 8 Jan 1998 a Malawi.......................... 12 Oct 1995 a
5
Germany ......................19 J1989 30 Nov 1993 Malaysia........................201988 11 May 1993
Ghana............................21988c 10 Apr 1990 Maldives ....................... 51989 7 Sep 2000
Greece...........................21989b 28 Jan 1992 Mali............................... 31 Oct 1995 a
Malta............................. 28 Feb 1996 a
Grenada......................... 10 Dec 1990 a
Guatemala.....................20 D1988 28 Feb 1991 Mauritania.....................20 1988 1 Jul 1993
Guinea........................... 27 Dec 1990 a Mauritius.......................201988 6 Mar 2001
Guinea-Bissau............... 27 Oct 1995 a Mexico..........................161989 11 Apr 1990
Guyana.......................... 19 Mar 1993 a Micronesia (Federated
States of) ................. 6 Jul 2004 a
Haiti .............................. 18 Sep 1995 a
Holy See........................201988 Monaco .........................241989 23 Apr 1991
Mongolia....................... 25 Jun 2003 a
Honduras.......................20 1988 11 Dec 1991 6
Hungary.........................22 Aug 198915 Nov 1996 Montenegro .................. 23 Oct 2006 d
Morocco........................28 1988 28 Oct 1992
Iceland........................... 2 Sep 1997 a
Mozambique ................. 8 Jun 1998 a
India.............................. 27 Mar 1990 a
Indonesia.......................271989 23 Feb 1999 Myanmar....................... 11 Jun 1991 a
Namibia......................... 6 Mar 2009 a
Iran (Islamic Republic
of)...........................1988Dec 7 Dec 1992 Nepal............................. 24 Jul 1991 a
Netherlands ..................18 J1989 8 Sep 1993 A
Iraq................................ 22 Jul 1998 a 8
Ireland...........................1989ec 3 Sep 1996 New Zealand ................18 D1989 16 Dec 1998
VI 19. ARCOTIC DRUGS ANDP SYCHOTROPICSUBSTANCES 2 ANNEX 4
Ratification, Ratification,
Accession(a), Accession(a),
Acceptance(A), Acceptance(A),
Approval(AA), Approval(AA),
Formal Formal
confirmation(c), confirmation(c),
Participant Signature Succession(d) Participant Signature Succession(d)
Nicaragua......................201988 4 May 1990 Sudan ............................1989an 19 Nov 1993
Niger ............................. 10 Nov 1992 a Suriname.......................20 1988 28 Oct 1992
Nigeria .........................1989Mar 1 Nov 1989 Swaziland...................... 3 Oct 1995 a
Norway..........................21988c 14 Nov 1994 Sweden..........................201988 22 Jul 1991
Oman............................. 15 Mar 1991 a Switzerland ...................16 Nov 1989 14 Sep 2005
Pakistan.........................1989ec 25 Oct 1991 Syrian Arab Republic.... 3 Sep 1991 a
Panama..........................21988c 13 Jan 1994 Tajikistan ...................... 6 May 1996 a
Paraguay........................21988c 23 Aug 1990 Thailand........................ 3 May 2002 a
Peru.............................1988 Dec 16 Jan 1992 The former Yugoslav
Philippines.....................21988c 7 Jun 1996 Republic of
Macedonia............... 13 Oct 1993 a
Poland ..........................1989Mar 26 May 1994
Portugal2........................1989ec 3 Dec 1991 Togo.............................. 3 Aug 1981 Aug 1990
Tonga............................ 29 Apr 1996 a
Qatar.............................. 4 May 1990 a
Trinidad and Tobago..... 7 Dec 1989 17 Feb 1995
Republic of Korea......... 28 Dec 1998 a
Republic of Moldova .... 15 Feb 1995 a Tunisia ..........................1989ec 20 Sep 1990
Turkey...........................21988c 2 Apr 1996
Romania........................ 21 Jan 1993 a
Russian Federation........19 Jan 1989 17 Dec 1990 Turkmenistan................ 21 Feb 1996 a
Uganda.......................... 20 Aug 1990 a
Rwanda ......................... 13 May 2002 a
Ukraine .........................11989r 28 Aug 1991
Samoa............................ 19 Aug 2005 a
San Marino.................... 10 Oct 2000 a United Arab Emirates ... 12 Apr 1990 a
United Kingdom of
Sao Tome and Principe . 20 Jun 1996 a Great Britain and
Saudi Arabia.................. 9 Jan 1992 a 3,9
Northern Ireland ...20 Dec 1988 28 Jun 1991
Senegal..........................1988ec 27 Nov 1989 United Republic of
1
Serbia ........................... 12 Mar 2001 d Tanzania.................. 20 1988 17 Apr 1996
Seychelles ..................... 27 Feb 1992 a United States of
America...................20 D1988 20 Feb 1990
Sierra Leone.................. 9 1989 6 Jun 1994
Singapore ...................... 23 Oct 1997 a Uruguay ........................191989 10 Mar 1995
4
Slovakia ....................... 28 May 1993 d Uzbekistan .................... 24 Aug 1995 a
1 Vanuatu......................... 26 Jan 2006 a
Slovenia ....................... 6 Jul 1992 d
South Africa.................. 14 Dec 1998 a Venezuela (Bolivarian
Republic of).............20 De1988 16 Jul 1991
Spain ...........................1988 Dec 13 Aug 1990
Sri Lanka....................... 6 Jun 1991 a Viet Nam....................... 4 Nov 1997 a
Yemen ........................20 D1988 25 Mar 1996
St. Kitts and Nevis ........ 19 Apr 1995 a
St. Lucia........................ 21 Aug 1995 a Zambia.......................... 91989 28 May 1993
Zimbabwe ..................... 30 Jul 1993 a
St. Vincent and the
Grenadines............... 17 May 1994 a
Declarations and Reservations
(Unless otherwise indicated, the declarations and reservations were made upon ratification, accession,
acceptance, approval, formal confirmation or succession.)
VI 19. NARCOTICDRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPICSUBSTANCES 3ANNEX 4
ALGERIA 11
Reservation: B AHRAIN
The People's Democratic Republic of Algeria does not Reservation:
consider itself bound by the provisions of article 32, The State of Bahrain, by the ratification of this
paragraph 2, the compulsory referral of any dispute of the Convention, does not consider itself bound by paragraph
International Court of Justice. (2) of article 32 in connection with the obligation to refer
The People's Democratic Republic of Algeria declares the settlement of the dispute relating to the interpretation
that for a dispute to be referred to the International Court or application of this Convention to the International
of Justice the agreement of all the parties to the dispute is Court of Justice.
necessary in each case.
Declaration:
Moreover, the State of Bahrain hereby declares that its
A NDORRA ratification of this Convention shall in no way constitute
recognition of Israel or be a cause for the establishment of
Reservation: any relations of any kind therewith.
With respect to the option provided in paragraph 4 of
article32, the Andorran State does consider itself bound B ELIZE
by the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 of this article.
With respect to paragraph 2, the Andorran State Reservation:
considers that any dispute which cannot be settled in the "Article 8 of the Convention requires the Parties to
manner prescribed in paragraph 1 of the aforementioned give consideration to the possibility of transferring to one
article will be referred to the International Court of Justice another proceedings for criminal prosecution of certain
only with the agreement of all parties involved in the offences where such transfer is considered to be in the
dispute. interests of a proper administration of justice.
Declaration: “The courts of Belize have no extra-territorial
Since the Andorran legal system already embodies jurisdiction, with the result that they will have no
almost all the measures referred to in the Vienna jurisdiction to prosecute offences committed abroad
Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and unless such offences are committed partly within and
Psychotropic Substances, accession to the aforementioned partly without the jurisdiction, by a person who is within
Convention will entail only minor changes in the the jurisdiction. Moreover, under the Constitution of
Andorran State's legal system, which will be taken into Belize, the control of public prosecutions is vested in the
account in the future legislative activity. From the point Director of Public Prosecutions, who is an independent
of view of the rights and obligations arising from functionary and not under Government control.
accession to this Convention, without renouncing the “Accordingly, Belize will be able to implement article
specific characteristics of its domestic legislation, in 8 of the Convention only to a limited extent insofar as its
particular with respect to the protection of individual Constitution and the law allows."
freedoms and the rights of bona fide third parties, and to
the preservation of national sovereignty and the common
good, Andorra undertakes to assume the obligations B OLIVIA
among States arising from the Vienna Convention and to Reservation made upon signature and confirmed upon
cooperate, through its judicial authorities and on the basis
of reciprocity, with the other States which have accepted ratifica tion:
the provisions of the aforementioned Convention. The Republic of Bolivia places on record its express
reservation to article 3, paragraph 2, and declares the
inapplicability to Bolivia of those provisions of that
A USTRIA paragraph which could be interpreted as establishing as a
Declarations: criminal offence the use, consumption, possession,
"re. Art. 2: purchase or cultivation of the coca leaf for personal
The Republic of Austria interprets the reference to the consumption.
fundamental provisions of domestic legislative systems in For Bolivia such an interpretation of that paragraph is
art. 2 para 1 in the sense that the contents of these contrary to principles of its Constitution and basic
concepts of its legal system which embody respect for the
fundamental provisions may be subject to change. The culture, legitimate practices, values and attributes of the
same applies to all other references of the Convention to nationalities making up Bolivia's population.
domestic law, its fundamental principles or the national Bolivia's legal system recognizes the ancestral nature
constitutional order like they are contained in art. 3 para 1 of the licit use of the coca leaf which, for much of
lit.c; para 2, para 10 and para 11; art. 5 para 4 lit.c; para 7 Bolivia's population, dates back over centuries. In
and para 9 or art. 11 para 1. formulating this reservation, Bolivia considers that:
re. Art. 3: - The coca leaf is not, in and of itself, a
The Republic of Austria interprets art. 3 para 1 and 2 narcotic drug or psychotropic substance;
as follows: In cases of a minor nature, the obligations - The use and consumption of the coca
contained in this provision may also be implemented by leaf do not cause psychological or physical changes
the creation of administrative penal regulations providing greater than those resulting from the consumption of other
adequate sanction for the offences enumerated therein. plants and products which are in free and universal use;
re. Art. 7 para 10 to 12 : - The coca leaf is widely used for
The Republic of Austria declares that in pursuance of medicinal purposes in the practice of traditional medicine,
its domestic law, a request for the search of persons or the validity of which is upheld by WHO and confirmed by
rooms, for the seizure of objects or for the surveillance of scientific findings;
telecommunication requires the enclosure of the certified - The coca leaf can be used for industrial
copy or photocopy of the decision of the competent purposes;
authority. If the decision has not been rendered by a court, - The coca leaf is widely used and
a declaration of the authority requesting legal assistance consumed in Bolivia, with the result that, if such an
has to be furnished, stating that all necessary interpretation of the above-mentioned paragraph was
preconditions are fulfilled, according to the law of the accepted, a large part of Bolivia's population could be
requesting state."
VI 19. ARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES 4 ANNEX 4
considered criminals and punished as such, such an jurisdiction over the investigation and judgement of
interpretation is therefore inapplicable; offences.
- It must be placed on record that the Declarations:
coca leaf is transformed into cocaine paste, sulphate and 1. No provision of the Convention may be
hydrochlorate when it is subjected to chemical processes interpreted as obliging Colombia to adopt legislative,
which involve the use of precursors, equipment and judicial, administrative or other measures that might
materials which are neither manufactured in or originate impair or restrict its constitutional or legal system or that
in Bolivia. go beyond the terms of the treaties to which the
At the same time, the Republic of Bolivia will Colombian State is a contracting party.
continue to take all necessary legal measures to control 2. It is the view of Colombia that
the illicit cultivation of coca for the production of narcotic treatment under the Convention of the cultivation of the
drugs, as well as the illicit consumption, use and purchase coca leaf as a criminal offence must be harmonized with a
of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. policy of alternative development, taking into account the
rights of the indigenous communities involved and the
protection of the environment. In this connection it is the
B RAZIL view of Colombia that the discriminatory, inequitable and
Upon signature: restrictive treatment accorded its agricultural export
"a) The signature of the Convention is made subject products on international markets does nothing to
to the process of ratification established by the Brazilian contribute to the control of illicit crops, but, rather, is a
Constitution; cause of social and environmental degradation in the areas
“ b) It is the understanding of the Brazilian affected. Further, Colombia reserves the right to make an
Government that paragraph 11 of article 17 does not independent evaluation of the ecological impact of drug
prevent a coastal State from requiring prior authorization control policies, since those that have a negative impact
for any action under this article by other States in its on ecosystems contravene the Constitution.
Exclusive Economic Zone." 3. It is the understanding of Colombia that
article 3, paragraph 7, of the Convention will be applied
in accordance with its penal system, taking into account
BRUNEI D ARUSSALAM
the benefits of its policies regarding the indictment of and
19 June 2007 collaboration with alleged criminals.
“The competent authority under article 7 (8) is the 4. A request for reciprocal legal assistance
following: will not be met when the Colombian judicial and other
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Jalan Subok authorities consider that to do so would run counter to the
Bandar Seri Begawan BD, 2710, Brunei public interest or the constitutional or legal order. The
Darussalam principle of reciprocity must also be observed.
Telephone: (673) 226 1177; Fax: (673) 226 1709; 5. It is the understanding of Colombia that
Email: [email protected] article 3, paragraph 8, of the Convention does not imply
the non-applicability of the statutory limitation of penal
Reservation: action.
"In accordance with article 32 of the Convention 6. Article 24 of the Convention, on "more
Brunei Darussalam hereby declares that it does not strict or severe measures", may not be interpreted as
consider itself bound by paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said conferring on the Government powers that are broader
article 32." than those conferred by the Political Constitution of
Colombia, including in states of exception.
7. It is the understanding of Colombia that
CHINA the assistance provided for under article 17 of the
Declaration made upon signature and confirmed upon Convention will be effective only on the high seas and at
the express request and with the authorization of the
ratification: Colombian Government.
Under the Article 32, paragraph 4, China does not 8. Colombia declares that it considers
consider itself bound by paragraphs 2 and 3 of that article. contrary to the principles and norms of international law,
in particular those of sovereign equality, territorial
C OLOMBIA 12 integrity and non-intervention, any attempt to abduct or
illegally deprive of freedom any person within the
Upon signature: territory of one State for the purpose of bringing that
Colombia formulates a reservation to article 9, person before the courts of another State.
paragraph 1, of the Convention, specifically 9. It is the understanding of Colombia that
subparagraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e) thereof, since its the transfer of proceedings referred to in article 8 of the
legislation does not permit outside co-operation with the Convention will take place in such a way as not to impair
judiciary in investigating offences nor the establishment the constitutional guarantees of the right of defence.
of joint teams with other countries to that end. Likewise Further, Colombia declares with respect to article 6,
inasmuch as samples of the substances that have given paragraph 10, of the Convention that, in the execution
rise to investigations belong to the proceedings, only the offoreign sentences, the provisions of article 35,
judge, as previously, can take decisions in that regard. paragraph 2, of its Political Constitution and other legal
Upon ratification: and constitutional norms must be observed
The international obligations deriving from article 3,
Reservations: paragraphs 1 (c) and 2, as well as from article 11 are
... conditional on respect for Colombian constitutional
2. With respect to article 5, paragraph 7, of principles and the above three reservations and nine
the Convention, Colombia does not consider itself bound declarations making the Convention compatible with the
to reverse the onus of proof. Colombian constitutional order.
3. Colombia has reservations in
connection with article 9, paragraphs 1 (b), (c), (d) and C UBA
(e), inasmuch as they conflict with the autonomy and
independence of the judicial authorities in their Declaration:
VI 19. ARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES 5ANNEX 4
The Government of the Republic of Cuba declares that International Court of Justice only with the consent of the
it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Parties to the dispute.”
article 32, paragraphs 2 and 3, and that disputes which
arise between the Parties should be settled by negotiation
through the diplomatic channel. IRAN (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF )
Upon signature:
CYPRUS "The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran
wishes to express reservation to article 6, paragraph 3, of
Upon signature: the Convention, since this provision is incompatible with
"[Signature is effected] subject to ratification, at the our domestic law.
time of which reservations in respect of specific "The Government furthermore wishes to make a
provisions of the Convention may be made and deposited reservation to article 32, paragraphs 2 and 3, since it does
in the prescribed manner. [It is understood] that such not consider itself bound to compulsory jurisdiction of the
reservations, if any, cannot be incompatible with the International Court of Justice and feels that any disputes
object and purpose of this Convention." arising between the Parties concerning the interpretation
Upon ratification: or application of the Convention should be resolved
Declaration: through direct negotiations by diplomatic means."
"As a result of the occupation of 37% of the territory
of the Republic of Cyprus, which since 1974 is occupied RELAND
by Turkish troops in violation of the United Nations
Charter and of basic principles of international law, the 1 February 2006
Government of the Republic of Cyprus is prevented from "... the authority now designated by Ireland under
exercising its legitimate control and jurisdiction Article 17 (7) of the Convention is as follows:
throughout the territory of the Republic of Cyprus and Head of Unit
consequently over those activities in the illegally Liaison & Joint Operations
occupied area which are related to illicit drug trafficking." Customs Drugs Law Enforcement
Revenue Investigations & Prosecutions Division
Ashtown Gate
D ENMARK Dublin 15
Ireland
Declarations: Telephone No. (office hours):
"The Convention shall not apply to the Faroe Islands + 353 1 827 7512
and Greenland." 24 hour Telephone No. (outside office hours):
With regard to article 17: + 353 87 254 8201 Fax: + 353 1 827 7680
"Authorization granted by Danish authority pursuant E-mail address: [email protected]
to article 17 denotes only that Denmark will abstain from Office Hours : 0800 - 1800 (Monday-Friday)
pleading infringement of Danish sovereignty in Languages of incoming requests accepted: English
connection with the requesting State's boarding of a Time zone: GMT:+/-:0"
vessel. Danish authorities cannot authorize another State
to take legal action on behalf of the Kingdom of
Denmark." ISRAEL
Declaration:
FRANCE "In accordance with paragraph 4 of Article 32, the
Government of the State of Israel declares that it does not
Reservations: consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 2 of
The Government of the French Republic does not and 3 of this Article."
consider itself bound by the provisions of article 32,
paragraph 2, and declares that any dispute relating to the JAMAICA 13
interpretation or application of the Convention which
cannot be settled in the manner prescribed in paragraph 1 K UWAIT
of the said article may not be referred to the International
Court of Justice unless all the parties to the dispute agree Reservation:
thereto. With reservation as to paragraphs (2) and (3) of
Similarly, the Government of the French Republic article 32 of this Convention.
does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article
32, paragraph 3. LAO P EOPLE 'SD EMOCRATIC R EPUBLIC
G ERMANY 5 Reservation:
"In accordance with paragraph 4, Article 32 of the
Declaration: UnitedNations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in
It is the understanding of the Federal Republic of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, the Lao
Germany that the basic concepts of the legal system People's Democratic Republic does not consider itself
referred to in article3, paragraph 2 of the Convention bound by paragraph 2, Article 32 of the present
may be subject to change. Convention. The Lao People's Democratic Republic
declares that to refer a dispute relating to interpretation
and application of the present Convention to arbitration or
INDONESIA the International Court of Justice, the agreement of all
Reservation: parties concerned in the dispute is necessary."
“The Republic of Indonesia [...] does not consider 14
itself bound by the provision of article32 paragraphs(2) L EBANON
and (3), and take the position that disputes relating to the
interpretation and application [of] the Convention which Reservations:
have not been settled through the channel provided for in 1. The Government of the Lebanese
paragraph(1) of the said article, may be referred to the Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions
VI 19. ARCOTICD RUGS ANDPSYCHOTROPICSUBSTANCES 6 ANNEX 4
of article 32, paragraph 2, and declares that disputes context. In applying these articles, [it] would therefore
relating to the interpretation or application of the have to rely on the chapeau of article 1, allowing for a
Convention which are not settled by the means prescribed contextual application of the relevant definition.
in paragraph 1 of that article shall be referred to the “2. Art3icle
International Court of Justice only with the agreement of “(a). [The Government of the Netherlands] notes with
all of the Parties to the dispute. respect to article 3, paragraph 2 (subparagraph (b) (i) and
Similarly, the Government of the Lebanese Republic (ii), and subparagraph (c) (i)) that the Drafting Committee
does not consider itself bound by the provisions of article has replaced the terms `knowing that such property is
32, paragraph 3. derived from an offence or offences set forth in paragraph
2. The Government of the Lebanese 2' by: ‘knowing that such property is derived from an
Republic has reservations regarding article 5, paragraph 3, offence or offences established in accordance with
regarding article 7, paragraph 2 (f), and regarding article paragraph 1’ . [The Government of the Netherlands]
7, paragraph 5, of the Convention. accepts this change with the understanding that this does
not affect the applicability of the paragraphs referred to in
L ITHUANIA cases where the offender knows that property is derived
from an offence or offences that may have been
Declaration: established and committed under the jurisdiction of a
“In accordance with article 6 of the said Convention foreign State.
the Republic of Lithuania declares that this Convention "(b).With respect of article 3, paragraph 6, [the
shall not be the legal basis for extradition of the Government of the Nethesions cover offences established
Lithuanian citizens as it is provided in the Constitution of both under paragraph 1 and paragraph 2. In view of the
the Republic of Lithuania.” provisions of paragraph 4 (d) and paragraph 11 of the
Reservation: same article, [the Government of the Netherlands]
Ïn accordance with paragraph 4 of article 32 of the understands that the measure of discretionary legal
said Convention the Republic of Lithuania will not apply powers relating to the prosecution for offences established
provisions of paragraph 2 and 3 of article 32, referring to in accordance with paragraph 2 may in practice be wider
the disputes relating to the interpretation or application of than for offences established in accordance with
this Convention to the International Court of Justice.” paragraph 1.
"(c). With respect to article 3, paragraphs 7 and 8, it is
the understanding of [the Government of the Netherlands]
M ALAYSIA that these provisions do not require the establishment of
specific rules and regulations on the early release of
Declaration: convicted persons and the statute of limitations in respect
"The Government of Malaysia does not consider itself of offences, covered by paragraph 1 of the article, which
bound by paragraphs 2 and 3 of article 32 of the said are different from such rules and regulations in respect of
Convention, wherein if there should arise between two or other, equally serious, offences. Consequently, it is [the
more Parties a dispute and such dispute cannot be settled Government's] understanding that the relevant legislation
in the manner prescribed in paragraph 1 of article 32 of presently in force within the Kingdom sufficiently and
the Convention, Malaysia is not bound to refer the dispute appropriately meets the concerns expressed by the terms
to the International Court of Justice for decision.” of these provisions.
"Article 17
M YANMAR [The Government of the Netherlands] understands the
reference (in para.3) to ‘a vessel exercising freedom of
Reservations: navigation’ to mean a vessel navigating beyond the
"The Government of the Union of Myanmar wishes to external limits of the territorial sea.
express reservation on article 6 relating to extradition and "The safeguard-clause contained in para. 11 of the
does not consider itself bound by the same in so far as its article aims in [its] view at safeguarding the rights and
own Myanmar nationals are concerned. obligations of Coastal States within the contiguous zone.
"The Government further wishes to make a reservation "To the extent that vessels navigating in the
on article 32, paragraphs 2 and 3 and does not consider contiguous zone act in infringement of the Coastal State's
itself bound by obligations to refer the disputes relating to customs and other regulations, the Coastal State is entitled
the interpretation or application of this Convention to the to exercise, in conformity with the relevant rules of the
International Court of Justice." international law of the sea, jurisdiction to prevent and/or
punish such infringement."
N ETHERLANDS Upon acceptance:
Upon signature: Reservation:
Understanding: "The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands
accepts the provisions of article 3, paragraphs 6, 7, and 8,
"1 . Article 1 - Definition of Illicit Traffic only in so far as the obligations undeese provisions are in
During the initial stages of this Conference, [the accordance with Dutch criminal legislation and Dutch
Government of the Netherlands] proposed to amend policy on criminal matters.”
articles 15, 17, 18 and 19 (final numbering) in order to
replace the generic phrase ‘illicit traffic’ by more specific PANAMA
language (e.g., ‘illicit transport’).
"To some extent the underlying concerns have been Reservation:
met by the introduction in Article 15 of a specific The Republic of Panama does not consider itself
reference to the ‘offences established in accordance with obligated to apply the measures of confiscation or seizure
Article 3, paragraph 2’. On the other hand, articles 17, 18 provided for in article 5, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the
and 19 still contain references to ‘illicit traffic in narcotic Convention to property the value of which corresponds to
drugs, psychotropic substances and substances in table I that of the proceeds derived from offences established in
and table II’. accordance with the said Convention, in so far as such
"It is the understanding [of the Government of the measures would contravene the provisions of article 30 of
Netherlands] that, given the scope of these articles, the the Constitution of Panama, under which there is no
term ‘illicit traffic’ has to be understood in a limited penalty of confiscation of property.
sense, in each case taking into account the specific
VI 19. ARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES 7ANNEX 4
judging whether a specific offence is to be regarded as a
political offence, regard shall be paid to the circumstances
P ERU in each individual case."
Upon signature:
Peru formulates an express reservation to paragraph 1 S WITZERLAND
(a) (ii) of article 3, concerning offences and sanctions;
that paragraph includes cultivation among the activities Reservation concerning article 3, paragraph 2 :
established as criminal offences, without drawing the Switzerland does not consider itself bound by article 3,
necessary clear distinction between licit and illicit paragraph 2, concerning the maintenance or adoption of
cultivation. Accordingly, Peru also formulates an express criminal offences under legislation on narcotic drugs.
reservation to the scope of the definition of illicit traffiReservation concerning article 3 , paragraphes 6, 7 and
contained in article 1 in so far as it refers to article 3, 8:
paragraph 1 (a) (ii).
In accordance with the provisions of article 32, Switzerland considers the provisions of article 3,
paragraph 4, Peru declares, on signing the Convention paragraphs6, 7 and 8 as binding only to the extent that
against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic they are compatible with Swiss criminal legislation and
Substances, that it does not consider itself bound by Swiss policy on criminal matters.
article 32, paragraphs 2 and 3, since, in respect of this
Convention, it agrees to the referral of disputes to the SYRIAN ARAB R EPUBLIC 11
International Court of Justice only if all the parties, and
not just one, agree to such a procedure. Declaration:
The accession to this Convention shall not constitute a
15 recognition of Israel or lead to any kind of intercourse
P HILIPPINES with it.
SAN M ARINO
Declaration: T HAILAND
“[The Republic of San Marino declares] that any Reservation:
confiscation activity under article 5 is subject to the fact "The Government of the Kingdom of Thailand does
that the crime is considered as such also by San Marino not consider itself bound by the provisions of paragraph 2
legal system.
Moreover, it declares that the establishment of “joint of Article 32 of the United Nations Convention against
teams” and “liaison officers”, under article 9, item 1, Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
letter c) and d), as well as “controlled delivery” under Substances."
article 11 of the [...] Convention, are not provided for by T URKEY
San Marino legal system.”
Reservation:
S AUDI ARABIA 11 Pursuant to paragraph 4 of article 32 of [said
Convention], the Republic of Turkey is not bound by
Declarations: paragraphs 2 and 3 of article 32 of the Convention.
1. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia does not regard
itself bound by article 32, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the
Convention; UNITED K INGDOM OF G REAT B RITAIN AND N ORTHERN
2. This ratification does not constitute recognition IRELAND
of Israel and shall not give rise to entry with it into any
dealings or to the establishment with it of any relations Reservation:
under the Convention. "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland will only consider the granting of immunity under
article 7, paragraph 18, where this is specifically
SINGAPORE requested by the person to whom the immunity would
Declaration: apply or by the authority designated, under article 7,
“With respect to article 6 paragraph 3, the Republic of paragraph 8, of the Party from whom assistance is
requested. A request for immunity will not be granted
Singapore declares that it shall not consider the where the judicial authorities of the United Kingdom
Convention as the legal basis for extradition in respect of consider that to do so would be contrary to the public
any offence to which article 6 applies.” interest."
Reservation:
“The Republic of Singapore declares, in pursuance of
article 32, paragraph 4 of the Convention that it will not U NITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
be bound by the provisions of article 32, paragraphs 2 and Upon signature:
3.” "Subject to a further determination on ratification, the
United Republic of Tanzania declares that the provisions
of article 17 paragraph 11 shall not be construed as either
SOUTH AFRICA restraining in any manner the rights and privileges of a
Declaration coastal State as envisaged by the relevant provisions
In keeping with paragraph 4 of article 32, the Republic
of South Africa does not consider itself bound by the relating to the Economic Exclusive Zone of the Law of
provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 32 of the the Sea Convention, or, as according third parties rights
Convention. other than those so recognized under the Convention."
UNITED S TATES OF AMERICA
SWEDEN
Understandings:
Declaration: "(1) Nothing in this Treaty requires or
"Regarding article 3, paragraph 10, Swedish authorizes legislation or other action by the United States
constitutional legislation on extradition implies that in
VI 19.ARCOTICDRUGS ANDPSYCHOTROPICSUBSTANCES 8 ANNEX 4
of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United It is the understanding of the Government of
States. Venezuela that this Convention shall not be considered a
"(2) The United States shall not consider this legal basis for the extradition of Venezuelan citizens, as
Convention as the legal basis for extradition of citizens to provided for in the national legislation in force.
any country with which the United States has no bilateral 2. With respect to article 11: (Controlled Delivery)
extradition treaty in force. It is the understanding of the Government of
"(3) Pursuant to the rights of the United Venezuela that publicly actionable offences in the
States under article 7 of this treaty to deny requests which national territory shall be prosecuted by the competent
prejudice its essential interests, the United States shall national police authorities and that the controlled delivery
deny a request for assistance when the designated procedure shall be applied only in so far as it does not
authority, after consultation with all appropriate contravene national legislation in this matter.
intelligence, anti-narcotic, and foreign policy agencies,
has specific information that a senior government official 16
who will have access to information to be provided under V IETN AM
this treaty is engaged in or facilitates the production or
distribution of illegal drugs." Reservations:
"Reservations to article 6 on Extradition, article 32
Declaration: paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 on Dispute settlement."
"Pursuant to article 32 (4), the United States of
America shall not be bound by article 32 (2)." Y EMEN 10
V ENEZUELA (BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF ) Upon signature:
[Yemen reserves its] right to enter reservations in
Interpretative declarations: respect of such articles as it may see fit at a time
1. With respect to article 6: (Extradition) subsequent to this signature.
Objections
(Unless otherwise indicated, the objections were received upon ratification,
accession, acceptance, approval, formal confirmation or succession.)
With regard to the reservations made by Lebanon:
A USTRIA [Same objection, mutatis mutandis , as the one made
16 December 1998 by France.]
With regard to the reservation to article 6 made by Viet
Nam upon accession: FRANCE
“Austria is of the view that the reservation raises
doubts as to its ratification of the mentioned treaty. 27 December 1989
Austria is of the view that the reservation raises doubts as [ Same objection , mutatis mutandis, as the one made
to its compatibility with the object and purpose of the by Belgium .]
Convention concerned, in particular the fundamental 7 March 1997
principle that perpetrators of drug-related crime should be With regard to the reservations made by Lebanon upon
brought to justice, regardless of their whereabouts. Non-
acceptance of this principle would undermine the accession:
effectiveness of the [said] Convention. The Government of France has taken note of the
“Austria therefore objects to the reservation. This reservations [made] by the Government of Lebanon in
objection does not preclude the entry into force of the respect of articles 5 and 7 of this Convention and
[said] Convention between Austria and Vietnam.” considers these reservations to be contrary to the object
and purpose of the Convention.
The Convention indicates that bank secrecy shall not
BELGIUM be a ground for a failure to act or for a failure to render
27 December 1989 mutual assistance. The Government of France considers
Belgium, member State of the European Community, that these reservations therefore undermine the object and
attached to the principle of freedom of navigation, notably purpose of the Convention, as stated in article 2,
in the exclusive economic zone, considers that the paragraph 1, to promote cooperation in order to address
more effectively the international dimension of illicit
declaration of Brazil concerning paragraph 11 of article drugs trafficking.
17, of the United Nations Convention against Illicit 16 December 1998
Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, With regard to the reservation with regard to article 6
adopted at Vienna on 20 December 1988, goes further
than the rights accorded to coastal States by international made by Viet Nam upon accession:
law. [The Government of France] considers [the
reservation made by Viet Nam upon accession] to be
D ENMARK contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention of
1988. France therefore objects to it.
27 December 1989 The objection does not preclude the entry into force of
[ Same objection , mutatis mutandis, as the one made the 1988 Convention between France and Viet Nam.
by Belgium .]
G ERMANY 4
F INLAND 27 December 1989
25 April 1997 [Same objection, mutatis mutandis , as the one made
by Belgium.]
VI 19. ARCOTICD RUGS ANDPSYCHOTROPICSUBSTANCES 9ANNEX 4
21 March 1997 Government of the United States of America (...)
constitutes a unilateral claim to justification, not
With regard to the reservations made by Lebanon: envisaged in the Convention, for denying legal assistance
[ Same objection , mutatis mutandis, as the one made to a State that requests it, which runs counter to the
by France .] purposes of the Convention. Consequently, the
16 December 1998 Government of the United Mexican States considers that
With regard to the reservation to article 6 made by such a declaration constitutes a reservation to which it
Viet Nam upon accession: objects.
This objection should not be interpreted as impeding
“The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany the entry into force of the United Nations Convention
considers this reservation to be problematic in the light of against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
the object and purpose of the Convention. The reservation Substances of 1988 as between the Government of the
made in respect of article 6 is contrary to the principle United Mexican States and the Government of the United
‘aut dedere au iudicare’ which provides that offences are States of America.
brought before the court or that extradition is granted to
the requesting States.
“The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany N ETHERLANDS
is therefore of the opinion that the reservation jeopardizes 27 December 1989
the intention of the Convention, as stated in article 2 [ Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made
paragraph 1, to promote cooperation among the parties so by Belgium. ]
that they may address more effectively the international
dimension of illicit drug trafficking. 11 March 1997
“The reservation may also raise doubts as to the With regard to the reservations made by Lebanon upon
commitment of the Government of the Socialist Republic accession:
of Viet Nam to comply with fundamental provisions of [ Same objection , mutatis mutandis, as the one made
the Convention. It is in the common interest of states that by France. ]
international treaties which they have concluded are
respected, as to their object and purpose, and that all
parties are prepared to undertake any legislative and P ORTUGAL
administrative changes necessary to comply with their
obligations. 27 December 1989
“The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany [ Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made
therefore objects to the reservation. by Belgium. ]
“This objection does not preclude the entry into force
of the Convention between the Federal Republic of SPAIN
Germany and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam.”
27 December 1989
GREECE [ Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made
by Belgium. ]
27 December 1989
[ Same objection , mutatis mutandis, as the one made S WEDEN
by Belgium. ]
7 March 1997
With regard to the reservations made by Lebanon upon
IRELAND
27 December 1989 accession:
[ Same objection , mutatis mutandis, as the one made [ Same objection , mutatis mutandis, as the one made
by Belgium .] by France. ]
14 December 1998
With regard to the reservation made by Viet Nam upon
ITALY
accession:
27 December 1989 “... The Government of Sweden is of the view that the
[ Same objection , mutatis mutandis, as the one made reservation made by the Government of Viet Nam
by Belgium. ] regarding artic6, may raise doubts as to the
24 April 1997 commitment of Viet Nam to the object and purpose of the
With regard to the reservations made by Lebanon upon Convention.
accession: “It is in the common interest of States that treaties to
[ Same objection , mutatis mutandis, as the one made which they have chosen to become parties are respected
by France. ] as to their object and purpose by all parties, and that
States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes
necessary to comply with their obligations under the
LUXEMBOURG treaties.
“Furthermore, according to the Vienna Convention on
27 December 1989 the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969, and well-established
[Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made customary international law, a reservation contrary to the
by Belgium.] object and purpose of the treaty shall not be permitted.
“The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the
M EXICO aforesaid [reservation] by the Government of Viet Nam.
“[This objection does] not preclude the entry into
10 July 1990 force of the [Convention] between Viet Nam and Sweden.
With regard to the interpretative declarations made by the The [Convention] will thus become operative between the
two States without Viet Nam benefiting from the
United States of America: [reservation].”
The Government of the United Mexican States 25 July 2001
considers that the third declaration submitted by the
VI 19. NARCOTICDRUGS ANDPSYCHOTROPICSUBSTANCES 10 ANNEX 4
With regard to the declaration made by San Marino upon “The ratification of this Convention by Turkey shall in
no way imply the recognition of the ‘Republic of Cyprus’
accession: by Turkey and her accession to this Convention should
"The Government of Sweden has examined the not signify any obligation on the part of Turkey to enter
declaration made by San Marino at the time of its into any dealings with the ‘Republic of Cyprus’ as are
accession to the United Nations Convention against Illicit regulated by this Convention."
Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances,
regarding articles 5, 9 and 11 of the Convention.
In this context, the Government of Sweden would like U NITED KINGDOM OF G REAT BRITAIN AND N ORTHERN
to recall that under well-established treaty law, the name IRELAND
assigned to a statement whereby the legal effect of certain
provisions of a treaty is excluded or modified, does not 27 December 1989
determine itsreservation to the treaty. Thus, the [ Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made
Government of Sweden considers that the declaration by Belgium. ]
made by San Marino, in the absence of further 10 March 1997
clarification, in substance constitutes a reservation to the With regard to the reservations made by Lebanon upon
Convention.
The Government of Sweden notes that the said articles accession:
of the Convention are being made subject to a general [ Same objection, mutatis mutandis, as the one made
reservation referring to the contents of existing legislation by France. ]
in San Marino. 17 December 1998
The Government of Sweden is of the view that, in the With regard to the reservation to article 6 made by Viet
absence of further clarification, this reservation raises Nam upon accession:
doubts as to the commitment of San Marino to the object “The United Kingdom is not in a position to accept
and purpose of the Convention and would like to recall [the] reservation.
that, according to customary international law as codified “The above objection is not however, to constitute an
in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a obstacle to the entry into force of the said [Convention] as
reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a between Vietnam and the United Kingdom.”
treaty shall not be permitted.
It is in the common interest of States that treaties to
which they have chosen to become parties are respected U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA
as to their object and purpose, by all parties, and that
States are prepared to undertake any legislative changes 23 October 1995
necessary to comply with their obligations under the With regard to the reservations and declarations made by
treaties. Colombia upon ratification:
The Government of Sweden therefore objects to the "The Government of the United States of America
aforesaid reservation made by the Government of San understands the first reservation to exempt Colombia
Marino to the United Nations Convention against Illicit from the obligations imposed by article 3, paragraphs 6
Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. and 9, and article 6 of the Convention only insofar as
This objection shall not preclude the entry into force compliance with such obligations would prevent
of the Convention between San Marino and Sweden. The Colombia from abiding by article 35 of its Political
Convention enters into force in its entirety between the Constitution (regarding the extradition of Colombian
two States, without San Marino benefiting from its nationals by birth), to the extent that the reservation is
reservation." intended to apply other than to the extradition of
Colombian nationals by birth, the Government of the
T URKEY United States objects to the reservation.
“The Government of the United States of America
With regard to the declaration made by Cyprus upon objects to the first declaration, as it purports to
ratification: subordinate Colombia's obligations under the Convention
"The Republic of Cyprus, founded in 1960 as a to its Constitution and international treaties, as well as to
partnership state in accordance with the international that nation's domestic legislation generally.
Cyprus Treaties by the Turkish Cypriot and Greek “The Government of the United States of America
objects to the seventh declaration to the extent it purports
Cypriot communities, was destroyed in 1963 when the to restrict the right of other States to freedom of
Greek Cypriot side threw the Turkish Cypriots out of the navigation and other internationally lawful uses of the sea
government and administration and thereby rendered the related to that freedom seaward of the outer limits of any
Government of Cyprus unconstitutional. State's territorial sea, determined in accordance with the
“Consequently, since December 1963, there has been International Law of the Sea as reflected in the 1982
no single political authority in Cyprus representing both United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea."
communities and legitimate empowered to act on behalf
of the whole island. The Greek Cypriot side does not
possess the right or authority to become party to
international instruments on behalf of Cyprus as a whole.
Notifications under article 6, 7 and 17
(Unless otherwise indicated, the notifications were received upon ratification,
accession, acceptance, approval, formal confirmation or succession.)
the above-mentioned Convention and that English is the
B ARBADOS acceptable language for the purposes of paragraph 9 of
said article 7. "
23 June 1993
"... the Attorney-General has been designated as the
authority for the purposes of articles 7(8) and 17(7) of
VI 19. ARCOTIC DRUGS ANDPSYCHOTROPICSUBSTANCES 11ANNEX 4
BRUNEI D ARUSSALAM The Government of the Democratic People's Republic of
19 June 2007 Korea has designated the following authorities under the
“The competent authority under article 7 (8) is the provisions of article 7 (8) and 17 (7), respectively.
following: Ministry of People's Security
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Jalan Subok Wasan-dong,
Bandar Seri Begawan BD, 2710, Brunei Sosong District
Darussalam Pyongyang, DPR Korea.
Telephone: (673) 226 1177; Fax: (673) 226 1709; Fax: +850-2-381-5833 Tel.: +850-2-381-5833
Email: [email protected] Maritime Administration Tonghun-dong Central District
Pyongang, DPR Korea. Fax: +850-2-381- 4410 Tel.:
+850-2-18111 ext 8059 E-mail: [email protected] On
C OOK ISLANDS the same date, the Government of the Democratic
24 March 2005 People's Republic of Korea notified the Secretary-General
"(a) Article 6: Extradition that English has been chosen as its language for the
The Cook Islands Extradition Act 2003 provides for purpose of article 7 (9) of the Convention.
the extradition of persons to and from the Cook Islands.
The objects of the Act are to - IRELAND
(a) codify the law relating to the extradition of 1 February 2006
persons from the Cook Islands; and "... the authority now designated by Ireland under
(b) facilitate the making of requests for extradition Article 17 (7) of the Convention is as follows:
by the Cook Islands to other countries, and Head of Unit
(c) enable the Cook Islands to carry out its Liaison & Joint Operations
obligations under extradition treaties. Customs Drugs Law Enforcement
An offense under the Act is an extradition offence if - Revenue Investigations & Prosecutions Division
1.(a) it is an offence against a law of the Ashtown Gate
Dublin 15
requesting country punishable Ireland
by death or imprisonment for not less than 12 months Telephone No. (office hours):
or the imposition of a fine of more than $5,000; and + 353 1 827 7512
(b) the conduct that constitutes an offence (however 24 hour Telephone No. (outside office hours):
described) in the Cook Islands punishable by death or + 353 87 254 8201 Fax: + 353 1 827 7680
imprisonment for not less than 12 months or the E-mail address: [email protected]
imposition of a fine of more than $5,000. Office Hours : 0800 - 1800 (Monday-Friday)
2. In determining whether conduct Languages of incoming requests accepted: English
constitutes an offence, regard may be had to only some of Time zone: GMT:+/-:0"
the acts and omissions that make up the conduct.
3. In determining the maximum penalty
for an offence for which no statutory penalty is imposed, NICARAGUA
regard must be had to the level of penalty that can be
imposed by any court in the requesting country for the 31 July 2006
offence. ... the Government of the Republic of Nicaragua has
4. An offence may be an extradition designated the Attorney General of the Republic as the
offence although: Central Authority in charge of fulfilling that which is
(a) it is an offence against a law of the requesting stipulated in the United Nations Convention against Illicit
country relating to taxation, customs duties or other Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances,
revenue matters, or relating to foreign exchange controls; done at Vienna on 20 December 1988.
and
(b) the Cook Islands does not impose a duty, tax, PARAGUAY
impost or control of that kind.
(b) Article 7: Mutual Legal Assistance: <Right>3 September 2008</Right>
The authority in the Cook Islands with the Pursuant to the provisions of articles 7 (8) and 17 (7)
responsibility and power to execute requests for mutual of the aforementioned Convention, the Republic of
legal assistance is as follows: Paraguay has designated the following institution as its
Solicitor General, Crown Law Office, PO Box 494, Central authority:
Avarua, Rarotonga, Cook Islands. Tel: (682) 29 337; Government Procurator’s Department – Office of the
Fax: (682 20 839. Attorney-General – Department of International Affairs
(c) Article 17: Illicit Traffic at SeaThe and External Legal Assistance
authority in the Cook Islands with the responsibility for Address: Nuestra Señora de la Asunción 737 c/Haedo,
responding to requests for information on vessels flying Piso 8, Asunción, Paraguay
the Cook Islands flag is as follows: Telephone numbers: 595-21- 498537/ 595-21- 415-
Secretary, Ministry of Transport, PO Box 61, Avarua, 5000/ 595-21-415-5100
Rarotonga, Cook Islands. Tel: (682) 28 810; Fax: (682) Website: www.ministeriopublico.gov.py
28 816." Director: Juan Emilio Oviedo Cabañas (lawyer)
E-mail: [email protected]
D EMOCRATIC P EOPLE 'SR EPUBLIC OF K OREA Alternative contact: Magdalena Quiñonez, Assistant
Prosecutor
31 May 2007 E-mail: [email protected]
Notes:
1
The former Yugoslavia had signed and ratified the respectively. See also note1 under “Bosnia and Herzegovina”,
Convention on 20 December 1988 and 3 January 1991, “Croatia”, “former Yugoslavia”, “Slovenia” and “Yugoslavia”
VI 19. NARCOTICDRUGS ANDPSYCHOTROPICSUBSTANCES 12 ANNEX 4
in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this legislation and Netherlands Antillean and Aruban policy on
volume. criminal matters.”
2 8
On 7 July 1999, the Government of Portugal informed the See note 1 under “New Zealand” regarding Tokelau in the
Secretary-General that the Convention would apply to Macao. “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this
volume.
Subsequently, the Secretary-General received communications
regarding the status of Macao from China and Portugal (see also 9 On 2 December 1993, the Government of the United
note3 under “China” and note 1 under “Portgual” in the Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland notified the
“Historical Information” section in the front matter of this Secretary-General that the Convention would apply to the Isle of
volume). Upon resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Man with the following reservation:
Macao, China notified the Secretary-General that the
Convention will also apply to the Macao Special Administrative "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Region. will only consider the granting of immunity under article 7,
paragraph 18, in relation to the Isle of Man, where this is
3
The Secretary-General, received on 6 and 10 June 1997 specifically requested by the person to whom the immunity
communications regarding the status of Hong Kong from China would apply or by the authority designated under article 7,
and the United Kingdom of Great Brtiain and Northern Ireland paragraph 8 of the party from whom assistance is requested. A
(see also note 2 under “China” and note 2 under “United request for immunity will not be granted where the judicial
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” in the authorities of the Isle of Man consider that to do so would be
“Historical Information” section in the front matter of this contrary to the public interest.”
volume). Upon resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Hong
Kong, China notified the Secretary-General that the Convention Subsequently, in a notification received on 8 February 1995,
with declaration made by China will also apply to the the Government of the United Kingdom notified the Secretary-
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. General that the Convention should apply, as from that same
date, to the following territories: Anguilla, Bermuda, British
4 Czechoslovakia had signed and ratified the Convention on Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Monserrat and Turks and
7 December 1989 and 4 June 1991, respectively. See also note 1 Caicos Islands.
under “Czech Republic” and note 1 under “Slovakia” in the
“Historical Information” section in the front matter of this In this regard, on 6 August 1996, the Secretary-General
volume. received from the Government of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, the following communication:
5
The German Democratic Republic had signed and ratified
the Convention on 21 June 1989 and 21 February 1990, "... In relation to the aformentioned Territories the granting of
respectively. The instrument of ratification contained the immunity under article 7, paragraph 18, of the said Convention
will only be considered where this is specifically requested by
following declarations:
the person to whom the immunity would apply or by the
Requests for mutual legal assistance under article 7 shall be authority designated, under article 7, paragraph 8, of the Party
directed to the German Democratic Republic through diplomatic from whom assistance is requested. A request for immunity will
not be granted where the judicial authorities of the Territory in
channel in one of the official United Nations languages or in the
German language unless existing agreements on mutual legal question consider to do so would be contrary to the public
assistance include other provisions or direct communication interest."
between legal authorities has been determined or developed on a
mutual basis. Further, on 15 May and 7 July 1997, respectively, the
Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland notified the Secretary-General that the
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs shall be the competent
authority to receive and respond to requests of another state to Convention shall extend to Hong Kong (see also note 2 ) and
board or search a vessel suspected of being involved in illicit the Bailiwick of Jersey. The applicatn of the Convention to the
Bailiwick of Jersey is subject to the following reservation:
traffic (article 17).
See also note 2 under “Germany” in the “Historical (1) article 7, paragraph 18 (Reservation)
Information” section in the front matter of this volume.
"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
6 See note 1 under "Montenegro" in the "Historical will only consider the granting of immunity under article 7,
paragraph 18, in relation to Jersey, where this is specifically
Information" section in the front matter of this volume.
requested by the person to whom the immunity would apply or
7 by the authority designated under article 7, paragraph 8 of the
The signature was affixed for the Kingdom in Europe, the party from whom assistance is requested. A request for
Netherlands Antilles and Aruba. The instrument of acceptance
specifies that it is for the Kingdom in Europe. As from 10 mars immunity will not be granted where the judicial authorities of
1999: for the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba with the following Jersey consider that to do so would be contrary to the public
interest."
reservation: “The Government of the Kingdom of the
Netherlands accepts the provisions of article3, paragraph6, 7
and 8, only in so far as the obligations under these provisions are Further, on 3 April 2002, the Government of the United
Kingdom informed the Secretary-General that the Convention
in accordance with Netherlands Antillean and Aruban criminal
would extend to Guernsey, with the following reservation:
VI 19. NARCOTIC D RUGS AND P SYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES 13ANNEX 4
15
“(1) Article 7, Paragraph 18 (Reservation) On 24 July 1997, the Government of the Philippines
informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland its reservations made upon accession, which read as follows:
will only consider the granting of immunity under Article 7,
Paragraph 18, in relation to Guernsey, where this is specifically "[The Government of the Philippines declares] that it does not
requested by the person to whom the immunity would apply or consider itself bound by the following provisions:
by the authority designated under Article 7, Paragraph 8 of the
party from whom assistance is requested. A request for 1. “ Paragraph 1 (b) (i) and paragraph 2 (a) (ii) of article 4 on
immunity will not be granted where the judicial authorities of jurisdiction;
Guernsey consider that to do so would be contrary to the public
interest. 2. “Paragraph 1 (a) and paragraph 6 (a) and (b) of article 5 on
confiscation; and
10
The formality was effected by the Yemen Arab Republic.
See also note 1 under “Yemen” in the “Historical Information” 3. “Paragraph 9 (a) and (b) and 10 of article on extradition."
section in the front matter of this volume.
On that same date, the Government of the Philippines declared
11 The Secretary-General received from the Government of the following:
Israel objections identical in essence, mutatis mutandis , as the
"The Philippines, does not consider itself bound by the
one referenced in note 17 in chapter VI.16, on 14 May 1990 in
regard to the declaration made by Bahrain upon ratification, on mandatory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice as
15 November 1991 in regard to the declaration made by the provided for in article 32, paragraph 2 of the same Convention."
Syrian Arab Republic upon accession and on 10 April 1992 in
regard to the declaration made by Saudi Arabia upon accession. In keeping with the depositary practice followed in similar
cases, the Secretary-General proposed to receive the declaration
12 in question for deposit (in the absence of any objection on the
On 30 December 1997, the Government of Colombia
notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its part of any of the Contracting States, either to the deposit itself
reservation with regard to article 3 (6) and (9) and article 6 made or to the procedure envisaged) within a period of 90 days from
the date of the present notification (3 September 1997). No
upon ratification. The reservation reads as follows.
objection having been recieved within the said period, the above
1. Colombia is not bound by article 3, paragraphs 6 and 9, or declaration was deemed accepted for deposit upon the expiration
of the 90-day period, that is to say on 2 December 1997.
article 6 of the Convention since they contravene article 35 of
the Political Constitution of Colombia regarding the prohibition
on extraditing Colombians by birth. 16 In a communication received on 15 January 1999, the
Government of Finland notified the Secretary-General of the
13 On 10 December 1996, the Government of Jamaica following:
informed the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw
"The Government of Finland is of the view that [this
its declaration made upon accession. The declaration read as
follows: reservation] raise[s] doubts as to [its] compatibility with the
object and purpose of the [Convention] concerned, in particular
the [reservation] to article 6, paragraphs 2 and 9. According to
Declaration:
the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and well-
"The Government of Jamaica understands paragraph 11 of established customary international law, a reservation contrary
to the object and purpose of the treaty shall not be permitted.
article 17 of the said Convention to mean that the consent of the
coastal State is required as a precondition for action under
paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of article 17 of the said Convention in It is in the common interest of States that treaties to which
they have chosen to become Parties are respected as to their
relation to the Exclusive Economic Zone and all other maritime
areas under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the coastal State." object and purpose by all Parties, and that States are prepared to
undertake any legislative changes necessary to comply with their
14 obligations under the treaties.
In regard to the reservation made by Lebanon, the
Secretary-General received communications identical in
essence, mutatis mutandis , as the one made by France under The Government of Finland therefore objects to [this
reservation] made by the Government of Viet Nam to the
Objections" , from the following Governments on the dates
indicated hereinafter: [Convention].
This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the
Participants: Date of the
communication: [Convention] between Viet Nam and Finland. The [Convention]
Austria 11 Jul 1997 will thus become operative between the two States without Viet
Nam benefitting from [this reservation].
Greece 18 Jul 1997
VI 19. NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC S UBSTANCES 14 ANNEX 5
International Conference of American States, Perfecting and Coordination of
International Peace Instruments
(21 Dec. 1938) ANNEX 5
EIGHTH INTER-AMERICAN CONFERENCE
LIMA
9-27 December 1938
[…]
[PAGE 31]
[…]
XV
IMPROVEMENT AND COODINATION OF INTER-AMERICAN
3
PEACE INSTRUMENTS
WHEREAS:
The legal norms to prevent war in the Americas are dispersed throughout
numerous Treaties, Conventions, Pacts and Declarations, that there is a
need to systematize these into an organized and harmonic union,
The Mexican Peace Code project represents a notable effort to meet the
need for such systemization, by virtue of which the Montevideo
Conference4recommended it for consideration by the Governments of the
Americas, it was accepted by the American Scientific Congress of
Mexico, 5and it was referred to in the Peace Consolidation Conference of
the Expert
3See also resolution XI of the Second Consultation Meeting, infra, pg. 147.
4
For the text of this project, and the recommendation of the Montevideo Conference, see
resolution XXXV of the same, in International American Conferences, 1889-1936, op.
cit., p. 506.
5For information on this Congress, see infra, Appendix A, no. 22.
6In its resolution XXVIII; see International American Conferences, 1889-1936, op. cit.,
p. 647.ANNEX 5
[PAGE 32]
7
Committee, which lent its knowledge to the idea of Codification and
introduced into the project, before informing this Conference,
transcendental modifications,
The American Governments, despite the recommendation of the
Montevideo Conference, have not expressed their views and initiatives
regarding the material integrated into said Code; opinions and initiatives
which are indispensable for a successful and effective organization of
norms to prevent war in the Americas,
In the desire to improve the American peace structure, interesting projects
have been presented to this Conference which contain excellent
suggestions and points of view, the expressions of which have dealt with,
in turn, technical rules and the dictates of experience, and that among
these projects the “Consolidation of the American Peace Agreements,”
presented by the delegation of the United States, 8is worth mentioning,
which is a framework for a peaceful solution process for international
American differences through the compilation, in one instrument, of the
provisions contained in eight current Treaties; and,
Once the opinion of the Governments is known regarding the revised draft
of the Peace Code and regarding the other projects mentioned, it shall be
passed to a body of a technical nature, with the aim that this body will
begin the work of systematization, taking inspiration from the points of
view of each State, the principles of a pan-American law, and the
coordinating all of these with the legal systems of a universal nature,
The Eighth International American Conference,
RESOLVES:
st
1 .- That the Mexican Peace Code project, along with the preliminary
project of the Expert Committee, the North American project on the
“Consolidation of American Peace Agreements” and the other projects
and reports presented at this Conference regarding norms to prevent war,
shall pass to the Pan-American Union so that this Institution may organize
and remit them to each of the American Governments with a request for
opinions and indications to serve as a basis for the codification of said
norms.
7
Infra, Appendix B, no. 30.
8For the text of this project, see El Diario, op. cit. no. 9A, p. 623. ANNEX 5
nd
2 .- That the American Governments shall send, within a prudent term,
their responses to the Pan-American Union and that this body shall remit
them without delay, along with all the material referred to in the previous
paragraph, to the International Commission of American Legal Advisors, 9
which shall begin the definitive work of the Peace Code.
3rd.- That the International Commission of American Legal Advisors shall
apprise the next International American Conference about the state of its
work in a substantiated report which shall be presented in a timely manner.
(Approved 21 December 1938.)
9Infra, Appendix A, no. 112, and Appendix B, no. 30.ANNEX 5ANNEX 5ANNEX 5 ANNEX 6
Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace
(21 Feb. – 8 Mar. 1945) ANNEX 6
Inter-American Conference on
Problems of War and Peace
Mexico, D.F.
21 FEBRUARY – 8 MARCH 1945
[PAGE 51]
[…]
XXXIX
INTER-AMERICAN PEACE SYSTEM
The Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace,
WHEREAS:
The American Republics have repeatedly expressed their
adherence to the ideals of peace and solidarity, proscribing the use of
force in their relations and establishing that all differences that might
arise between them must be settled by peaceful procedures;
The report by the Committee of Experts for the Codification of
International Law at the Eighth International American Conference on
the Mexican Project Code of Peace, as well as Resolution XV
approved by said Conference, highlighted the need “to systematizeANNEX 6
into an organized and harmonious set” the Inter-American instruments
for the prevention and peaceful settlement of controversies;
The same Conference of Lima, in Declaration XXV,
categorically declared itself in favor of the inclusion of an Inter-
American Court of International Justice among the instruments
referred to above, leaving only for a subsequent decision the date to be
deemed appropriate for the constitution of the court;
Experience has proven, as highlighted by the Executive
Committee on Postwar Problems of the Governing Board of the Pan-
American Union in a recent report, that “simplifying the codification
mechanism is not only advisable but necessary”, because in cases such
as this, which require quick decisions on a sufficiently studied subject,
it is appropriate to use the simplest of the two codification procedures
available to the Union of the American Republics,
HEREBY RESOLVES TO:
1. Reaffirm the principle of Law that all disputes of international
character shall be settled by peaceful means;
2. Recommend that the Inter-American Legal Committee
immediately prepare a draft of the “Inter-American Peace System”,
coordinate the continental instruments for prevention and peaceful ANNEX 6
resolution of controversies, so that the gradual and progressive
implementation of these shall lead to the desired end;
3. Suggest that for the formulation of the preliminary draft in
question, the Committee use as a guide the one presented at the
Conference of Lima
[PAGE 52]
by the Committee of Experts for the Codification of International
Law, along with the second edition of the Mexican Project Code of
Peace, the “Consolidation Project of the American Peace
Agreements,” submitted by the Delegation of the United States at the
Eighth Conference, the Draft of the “Alternative Treaty on Peaceful
Procedures,” prepared by the Inter-American Legal Committee, and
relevant instruments approved by this Conference. The Committee
shall also consider the drafts for bilateral pact and multilateral pact,
presented to the Inter-American Conference of Lima, by the
Delegation of Venezuela.
4. Entrust the Committee to also present in a timely manner the
preliminary draft to be submitted to the American Governments, who
shall formulate observations deemed appropriate within a maximum
period of six months, in order for the Committee to be able to prepareANNEX 6
in the near future the final draft of the Inter-American instrument in
question;
5. Entrust the Governing Board of the Pan-American Union, once
the Committee has prepared said draft, to convene the International
Conference of American Legal Advisors, in order to adopt the “Inter-
American Peace System” as a Convention by the States of the
Continent.
(Approved in the plenary session of 7March 1945)ANNEX 6ANNEX 6ANNEX 6 ANNEX 7
South Africa, Fertilizer, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies
Act 36 of 1947 ANNEX 7
FERTILIZERS, FARM FEEDS, AGRICULTURAL REMEDIES AND STOCK
REMEDIES ACT 36 OF 1947
[ASSENTED TO 3 JUNE 1947] [DATE OF COMMENCEMENT: 1 JUNE 1948]
(Afrikaans text signed by the Governor-General)
as amended by
Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Seeds and Remedies Amendment Act 48 of 1950
Seeds Act 28 of 1961
Fertilizers, Farm Feeds and Remedies Amendment Act 60 of 1970
Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Amendment Act 17
of 1972
Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Amendment Act 24
of 1977
Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Amendment Act 4 of
1980
General Law Amendment Act 49 of 1996
Regulations under this Act
EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN FARM FEEDS FROM THE OPERATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE
ACT
FARM FEEDS, REGULATIONS RELATING TO
GRANTING OF CERTAIN POWERS TO THE SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE REGARDING THE
ACQUISITION, DISPOSAL OR USE OF FARM FEEDS
PROHIBITION OF THE SALE, ACQUISITION, DISPOSAL OR USE OF AGRICULTURAL REMEDIES AND
STOCK REMEDIES [CHLORDANE]
PROHIBITION OF THE SALE, ACQUISITION, DISPOSAL OR USE OF AGRICULTURAL REMEDIES AND
STOCK REMEDIES
PROHIBITION ON THE ACQUISITION, DISPOSAL OR USE OF CERTAIN FARM FEEDS
REGISTRATION OF FERTILIZERS, FARM FEEDS, AGRICULTURAL REMEDIES, STOCK REMEDIES,
STERILISING PLANTS AND PEST CONTROL OPERATORS, APPEALS AND IMPORTS
REGULATION RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION OF THE SALE, ACQUISITION, DISPOSAL OR USE OF
THE AGRICULTURAL REMEDY - MONOCROTOPHOS
RETURNS BY MANUFACTURERS AND IMPORTERS OF FARM FEEDS AND PROHIBITION IN
CONNECTION WITH FARM FEEDS OF ANIMAL ORIGIN
ACT
To provide for the appointment of a Registrar of Fertilizers, Farm Feeds and
Agricultural Remedies; for the registration of fertilizers, farm feeds, agricultural
remedies, stock remedies, sterilizing plants and pest control operators; to regulate
or prohibit the importation, sale, acquisition, disposal or use of fertilizers, farm
feeds, agricultural remedies and stock remedies; to provide for the designation of
technical advisers and analysts; and to provide for matters incidental thereto.
Cases
[Long title amended by s. 3 of Act 48 of 1950 and by s. 44 of Act 28 of 1961 and
substituted by s. 16 of Act 60 of 1970, by s. 22 of Act 24 of 1977 and by s. 10 of Act 4 of
1980.]
1 Definitions
Cases
Copyright Juta & Company LimitedANNEX 7
use of such equipment when administering the said remedy.
[S. 6A inserted by s. 5 of Act 4 of 1980.]
7 Sale of fertilizers, farm feeds, agricultural remedies and stock remedies
Cases
(1) No person shall sell any fertilizer, farm feed, agricultural remedy or stock
remedy unless-
(a) it is registered under this Act under the name or mark under which it is so
sold: Provided that a fertilizer, farm feed, agricultural remedy or stock
remedy in respect of which the period of validity of the registration has
expired, the certificate of registration has been cancelled in terms of
section 4 or has lapsed in terms of section 4A (2) and which, before or on
the date of such cancellation or lapse, was no longer under the control of,
or owned by the person to whom that certificate of registration was issued,
may, subject to the provisions of section 7bis, be sold;
(b) it is, subject to the provisions of paragraph (c), packed in such manner and
mass or volume as may be prescribed;
(c) the container in which it is sold, complies with the prescribed
requirements and is sealed and labelled or marked in such manner as may
be prescribed or, if it is not sold in a container, it is accompanied by the
invoice referred to in section 9; and
(d) it is of the composition and efficacy specified in the application for
registration thereof, possesses all chemical, physical and other properties
so specified, and complies with the prescribed requirements.
(2) (a) No person shall for reward or in the course of any industry, trade or
business-
(i) use, or recommend the use of, any agricultural remedy or stock remedy for
a purpose or in a manner other than that specified on the label on a
container thereof or described on such container;
(ii) use any agricultural remedy unless he is a pest control operator registered
in terms of this Act or otherwise than in the presence and under the
supervision of a pest control operator so registered.
[Para. (a) substituted by s. 6 of Act 4 of 1980.]
(b) The provisions of paragraph (a) shall, in the case of a stock remedy, not apply
to a veterinarian registered under the Veterinary Act, 1933 (Act 16 of 1933).
[S. 7 substituted by s. 60 of 1970 and by s. 8 of Act 24 of 1977.]
7bis Prohibition on acquisition, disposal, sale or use of certain fertilizers, farm
feeds, agricultural remedies and stock remedies
Cases
(1) The Minister may by notice in the Gazette-
(a) prohibit the acquisition, disposal, sale or use of fertilizers, farm feeds,
agricultural remedies or stock remedies; or
(b) prohibit such acquisition, disposal, sale or use, except in accordance with
such conditions as may be specified in the notice or except under the
authority of and in accordance with such conditions as may be specified in
a permit issued by the registrar,
and may in like manner repeal or amend any such notice.
Copyright Juta & Company Limited ANNEX 8
United States,
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act,
7 U.S.C. Sec. 136j(a)(2)(G) (1947) ANNEX 8
7 U.S.C.A. § 136j Page 1
Effective:[See Text Amendments]
United States Code Annotated Currentness
Title 7. Agriculture
Chapter 6. Insecticides and Environmental Pesticide Control (Refs & Annos)
Subchapter II. Environmental Pesticide Control (Refs & Annos)
§ 136j. Unlawful acts
(a) In general
(1) Except as provided by subsection (b) of this section, it shall be unlawful for any person in any State to dis-
tribute or sell to any person--
(A) any pesticide that is not registered under section 136a of this title or whose registration has been canceled
or suspended, except to the extent that distribution or sale otherwise has been authorized by the Administrator
under this subchapter;
(B) any registered pesticide if any claims made for it as a part of its distribution or sale substantially differ
from any claims made for it as a part of the statement required in connection with its registration under section
136a of this title;
(C) any registered pesticide the composition of which differs at the time of its distribution or sale from its
composition as described in the statement required in connection with its registration under section 136a of
this title;
(D) any pesticide which has not been colored or discolored pursuant to the provisions of section 136w(c)(5) of
this title;
(E) any pesticide which is adulterated or misbranded; or
(F) any device which is misbranded.
(2) It shall be unlawful for any person--
(A) to detach, alter, deface, or destroy, in whole or in part, any labeling required under this subchapter;
(B) to refuse to--
(i) prepare, maintain, or submit any records required by or under section 136c, 136e, 136f, 136i,or 136q of
this title;
(ii) submit any reports required by or under section 136c, 136d, 136e, 136f, 136i,or 136q of this title; or
© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.ANNEX 8
7 U.S.C.A. § 136j Page 2
(iii) allow any entry, inspection, copying of records, or sampling authorized by this subchapter;
(C) to give a guaranty or undertaking provided for in subsection (b) of this section which is false in any partic-
ular, except that a person who receives and relies upon a guaranty authorized under subsection (b) of this sec-
tion may give a guaranty to the same effect, which guaranty shall contain, in addition to the person's own
name and address, the name and address of the person residing in the United States from whom the person re-
ceived the guaranty or undertaking;
(D) to use for the person's own advantage or to reveal, other than to the Administrator, or officials or employ-
ees of the Environmental Protection Agency or other Federal executive agencies, or to the courts, or to physi-
cians, pharmacists, and other qualified persons, needing such information for the performance of their duties,
in accordance with such directions as the Administrator may prescribe, any information acquired by authority
of this subchapter which is confidential under this subchapter;
(E) who is a registrant, wholesaler, dealer, retailer, or other distributor to advertise a product registered under
this subchapter for restricted use without giving the classification of the product assigned to it under section
136a of this title;
(F) to distribute or sell, or to make available for use, or to use, any registered pesticide classified for restricted
use for some or all purposes other than in accordance with section 136a(d) of this title and any regulations
thereunder, except that it shall not be unlawful to sell, under regulations issued by the Administrator, a restric-
ted use pesticide to a person who is not a certified applicator for application by a certified applicator;
(G) to use any registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling;
(H) to use any pesticide which is under an experimental use permit contrary to the provisions of such permit;
(I) to violate any order issued under section 136k of this title;
(J) to violate any suspension order issued under section 136a(c)(2)(B) , 136a-1,or 136d of this title;
(K) to violate any cancellation order issued under this subchapter or to fail to submit a notice in accordance
with section 136d(g) of this title;
(L) who is a producer to violate any of the provisions of section 136e of this title;
(M) to knowingly falsify all or part of any application for registration, application for experimental use per-
mit, any information submitted to the Administrator pursuant to section 136e of this title, any records required
to be maintained pursuant to this subchapter, any report filed under this subchapter, or any information
marked as confidential and submitted to the Administrator under any provision of this subchapter;
(N) who is a registrant, wholesaler, dealer, retailer, or other distributor to fail to file reports required by this
subchapter;
(O) to add any substance to, or take any substance from, any pesticide in a manner that may defeat the purpose
of this subchapter;
(P) to use any pesticide in tests on human beings unless such human beings (i) are fully informed of the nature
© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. ANNEX 8
7 U.S.C.A. § 136j Page 3
and purposes of the test and of any physical and mental health consequences which are reasonably foreseeable
therefrom, and (ii) freely volunteer to participate in the test;
(Q) to falsify all or part of any information relating to the testing of any pesticide (or any ingredient, metabol-
ite, or degradation product thereof), including the nature of any protocol, procedure, substance, organism, or
equipment used, observation made, or conclusion or opinion formed, submitted to the Administrator, or that
the person knows will be furnished to the Administrator or will become a part of any records required to be
maintained by this subchapter;
(R) to submit to the Administrator data known to be false in support of a registration; or
(S) to violate any regulation issued under section 136a(a) or 136q of this title.
(b) Exemptions
The penalties provided for a violation of paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to--
(1) any person who establishes a guaranty signed by, and containing the name and address of, the registrant or
person residing in the United States from whom the person purchased or received in good faith the pesticide in
the same unbroken package, to the effect that the pesticide was lawfully registered at the time of sale and de-
livery to the person, and that it complies with the other requirements of this subchapter, and in such case the
guarantor shall be subject to the penalties which would otherwise attach to the person holding the guaranty un-
der the provisions of this subchapter;
(2) any carrier while lawfully shipping, transporting, or delivering for shipment any pesticide or device, if
such carrier upon request of any officer or employee duly designated by the Administrator shall permit such
officer or employee to copy all of its records concerning such pesticide or device;
(3) any public official while engaged in the performance of the official duties of the public official;
(4) any person using or possessing any pesticide as provided by an experimental use permit in effect with re-
spect to such pesticide and such use or possession; or
(5) any person who ships a substance or mixture of substances being put through tests in which the purpose is
only to determine its value for pesticide purposes or to determine its toxicity or other properties and from
which the user does not expect to receive any benefit in pest control from its use.
CREDIT(S)
(June 25, 1947, c. 125, § 12, as added Oct. 21, 1972, Pub.L. 92-516, § 2, 86 Stat. 989, and amended Sept. 30,
1978, Pub.L. 95-396, § 16, 92 Stat. 832 ; Oct. 25, 1988, Pub.L. 100-532, Title VI, §§ 601(b)(2) , 603, Title VIII, §
801(g), (q)(2)(B), 102 Stat. 2677, 2678, 2682, 2683; Dec. 13, 1991, Pub.L. 102-237, Title X, § 1006(a)(7),
(b)(3)(L) to (O), 105 Stat. 1895, 1896.)
Current through P.L. 111-7 (excluding P.L. 111-5) approved 3-9-09
Westlaw. (C) 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.ANNEX 8
7 U.S.C.A. § 136l Page 1
Effective:[See Text Amendments]
United States Code Annotated Currentness
Title 7. Agriculture
Chapter 6. Insecticides and Environmental Pesticide Control (Refs & Annos)
Subchapter II. Environmental Pesticide Control (Refs & Annos)
§ 136l. Penalties
(a) Civil penalties
(1) In general
Any registrant, commercial applicator, wholesaler, dealer, retailer, or other distributor who violates any provi-
sion of this subchapter may be assessed a civil penalty by the Administrator of not more than $5,000 for each
offense.
(2) Private applicator
Any private applicator or other person not included in paragraph (1) who violates any provision of this
subchapter subsequent to receiving a written warning from the Administrator or following a citation for a prior
violation, may be assessed a civil penalty by the Administrator of not more than $1,000 for each offense, ex-
cept that any applicator not included under paragraph (1) of this subsection who holds or applies registered
pesticides, or uses dilutions of registered pesticides, only to provide a service of controlling pests without de-
livering any unapplied pesticide to any person so served, and who violates any provision of this subchapter
may be assessed a civil penalty by the Administrator of not more than $500 for the first offense nor more than
$1,000 for each subsequent offense.
(3) Hearing
No civil penalty shall be assessed unless the person charged shall have been given notice and opportunity for a
hearing on such charge in the county, parish, or incorporated city of the residence of the person charged.
(4) Determination of penalty
In determining the amount of the penalty, the Administrator shall consider the appropriateness of such penalty
to the size of the business of the person charged, the effect on the person's ability to continue in business, and
the gravity of the violation. Whenever the Administrator finds that the violation occurred despite the exercise
of due care or did not cause significant harm to health or the environment, the Administrator may issue a
warning in lieu of assessing a penalty.
(5) References to Attorney General
In case of inability to collect such civil penalty or failure of any person to pay all, or such portion of such civil
© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. ANNEX 8
7 U.S.C.A. § 136l Page 2
penalty as the Administrator may determine, the Administrator shall refer the matter to the Attorney General,
who shall recover such amount by action in the appropriate United States district court.
(b) Criminal penalties
(1) In general
(A) Any registrant, applicant for a registration, or producer who knowingly violates any provision of this
subchapter shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both.
(B) Any commercial applicator of a restricted use pesticide, or any other person not described in subparagraph
(A) who distributes or sells pesticides or devices, who knowingly violates any provision of this subchapter
shall be fined not more than $25,000 or imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both.
(2) Private applicator
Any private applicator or other person not included in paragraph (1) who knowingly violates any provision of
this subchapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall on conviction be fined not more than $1,000, or im-
prisoned for not more than 30 days, or both.
(3) Disclosure of information
Any person, who, with intent to defraud, uses or reveals information relative to formulas of products acquired
under the authority of section 136a of this title, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned for not
more than three years, or both.
(4) Acts of officers, agents, etc.
When construing and enforcing the provisions of this subchapter, the act, omission, or failure of any officer,
agent, or other person acting for or employed by any person shall in every case be also deemed to be the act,
omission, or failure of such person as well as that of the person employed.
CREDIT(S)
(June 25, 1947, c. 125, § 14, as added Oct. 21, 1972, Pub.L. 92-516, § 2, 86 Stat. 992, and amended Sept. 30,
1978, Pub.L. 95-396, § 17, 92 Stat. 832 ; Oct. 25, 1988, Pub.L. 100-532, Title VI, § 604 , 102 Stat. 2678; Dec. 13,
1991, Pub.L. 102-237, Title X, § 1006(a)(8) , 105 Stat. 1895.)
Current through P.L. 111-7 (excluding P.L. 111-5) approved 3-9-09
Westlaw. (C) 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
END OF DOCUMENT
© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. ANNEX 9
Charter of the Organization of American States,
UNTS I-1609 (1948), entered into force 13 Dec. 1951ANNEX 9ANNEX 9 ANNEX 10
Republic of Colombia,
Decree No. 2811, National Code of Renewable Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection (18 Dec. 1974) ANNEX 10
DECREE 2811 of 18 DECEMBER 1974
(18 December)
Official Bulletin No. 34,243, of 27 January 1975
PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC
By which the National Code for Renewable Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection is issued
[…]
PART II.
ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES OF INTERNATIONAL SCOPE OR
INFLUENCE
ARTICLE 10. To prevent or solve environmental problems and to
regulate the use of renewable natural resources shared with bordering
countries, and without prejudice to the treaties currently in force, the
government shall seek to complement the existing stipulations or to
negotiate others which deal with:
a. The reciprocation and permanent exchange of necessary
information for the planning of development and the optimal use
of said resources and elements;
b. The reciprocation and prior communication of alterations or
environmental imbalances which can arise from works or
projected works of the governments or inhabitants of the
respective countries, far enough in advance that said governments
can take the pertinent actions when they believe their
environmental rights and interests could suffer impairment;
c. The joint administration of governments regarding natural
renewable resources, the exploitation or use of which cannot be
physically divided among the interested countries, or which from a
technical or economic point of view are not convenient to divide;
d. The adoption of measures in order to not cause considerable
damage to other countries from the purely internal use of non-
renewable natural resources or other environmental elements, in
Colombia or in neighboring nations.ANNEX 10
ARTICLE 11. Natural resources subject to the provisions referred to in
the preceding article are, among others, the following:
a. The hydrographic basins of rivers which serve as borders or which
cross the borders of Colombia, including surface and subterranean
water and other natural connecting flows;
b. The forests on both sides of a border;
c. The fauna species in which Colombia and neighboring countries
have an interest;
d. National ocean waters and the elements they contain;
e. The atmosphere, in as much as already verified acts or projected
acts in a country can produce harmful effects to the neighbor, or
harmful climate changes;
f. The geothermic deposits which extend to both sides of a border.
These are international rivers which cross the territories of two or
more States or which serve as a border between these States.
ARTICLE 12. The government shall seek to avoid or prohibit the use of
environmental elements and renewable natural resources which can cause
environmental deterioration in non-neighboring countries, on the high
seas or their shores, or in the atmosphere or air space beyond the territorial
jurisdiction. The government shall also seek to make efforts to ensure that,
in similar circumstances, other countries adopt a similar attitude. ANNEX 10
Artículo
Siguiente
DECRETO 2811 DE 1974
(diciembre 18)
Diario Oficial No 34.243, del 27 de enero de 1975
PRESIDENCIA DE LA REPUBLICA
Por el cual se dicta el Código Nacional de Recursos Naturales Renovables y de Protección al Medio
Ambiente
<Resumen de Notas de Vigencia>
EL PRESIDENTE DE LA REPUBLICA DE COLOMBIA,
en ejercicio de las facultades extraordinarias conferidas por la Ley 23 de 1973 y previa consulta con las
comisiones designadas por las Cámaras Legislativas y el consejo de Estado, respectivamente,
DECRETA:
EL SIGUIENTE SERÁ EL TEXTO DEL CÓDIGO NACIONAL DE RECURSOS NATURALES
RENOVABLES Y DE PROTECCIÓN AL MEDIO AMBIENTE
TITULO PRELIMINAR
CAPITULO UNICO
ARTICULO 1o. El ambiente es patrimonio común. El Estado y los particulares deben participar en su
preservación y manejo, que son de utilidad pública e interés social.
La preservación y manejo de los recursos naturales renovables también son de utilidad pública e interés
social.
ARTICULO 2o. Fundado en el principio de que el ambiente es patrimonio común de la humanidad y
necesario para la supervivencia y el desarrollo económico y social de lopueblos, este Código tiene por
objeto:
1o. Lograr la preservación y restauración del ambiente y la conservación, me joramiento y utilización
racional de los recursos naturales renovables, según criterios de equidad que aseguren el desarrollo
armónico del hombre y de dichos recursos, la dis ponibilidad permanente de éstos y la máxima
participación social, para beneficio de la salud y el bienestar de los presentes y futuros habitantes del
territorio nacional.
2o. Prevenir y controlar los efectos nocivos de la explotación de los recursos naturales no renovables
sobre los demás recursos.
3o. Regular la conducta humana, individual o colectiva y la actividad de la Administración Pública,
respecto del ambiente y de los recursos naturales renovables y las relaciones que sur gen del
aprovechamiento y conservación de tales recursos y de ambiente.
<Notas del Editor>
ARTICULO 3o. De acuerdo con los objetivos enunciados, el presente Código regula:
a). El manejo de los recursos naturales renovables a saber:ANNEX 10
1o. La atmósfera y el espacio aéreo nacional.
2o. Las aguas en cualquiera de sus estados.
3o. La tierra, el suelo y el subsuelo.
4o. La flora
5o. La fauna
6o. Las fuentes primarias de energía no agotables.
7o. Las pendientes topográficas con potencial energético.
8o. Los recursos geotérmicos.
9o. Los recursos biológicos de las aguas y del suelo y el subsuelo del mar territorial y de la zona
económica de dominio continental e insular de la República.
10. Los recursos del paisaje.
b). La defensa del ambiente y de los recursos naturales renovables contra la acción nociva de fenómenos
naturales;
c). Los demás elementos y factores que conforman el ambiente o influyan en el denominador de este
Código elementos ambientales, como:
1o. Los residuos, basuras, desechos y desperdicios.
2o. El ruido.
3o. Las condiciones de vida resultantes de asentamiento humano urbano o rural.
4o. Los bienes producidos por el hombre o cu ya producción sea inducida o cultivada por él, en cuanto
incidan o puedan incidir sensiblemente en el deterioro ambiental.
ARTICULO 4o. Se reconocen los derechos adquiridos por particulares con arre glo a la le y sobre los
elementos ambientales y los recursos naturales renovables. En cuanto a su ejercicio, tales derechos
estarán sujetos a las disposiciones de este Código.
<Jurisprudencia - Vigencia>
ARTICULO 5o. El presente Código rige en todo el territorio nacional, el mar territorial con su suelo,
subsuelo y espacio aéreo, la plataforma continental y la zona económica o demás es pacios marítimos en
los cuales el país ejerza jurisdicción de acuerdo con el derecho internacional.
ARTICULO 6o. La ejecución de la política ambiental de este Código será función del gobierno Nacional,
que podrá delegarla en los gobiernos seccionales o en otras entidades públicas especializadas.
LIBRO PRIMERO
DEL AMBIENTE
PARTE I.
DEFINICION Y NORMAS GENERALES DE POLITICA AMBIENTAL ANNEX 10
ARTICULO 7o. Toda persona tiene derecho a disfrutar de ambiente sano.
<Notas del editor>
ARTICULO 8o. Se consideran factores que deterioran el ambiente, entre otros:
a). La contaminación del aire, de las aguas, del suelo y de los demás recursos naturales renovables.
Se entiende por contaminación la alteración del ambiente con sustancias o formas de ener gía puestas en
él, por actividad humana o de la naturaleza, en cantidades, concentraciones o niveles ca paces de
interferir el bienestar y la salud de las personas, atentar contra la flora y la fauna, de gradar la calidad del
ambiente de los recursos de la nación o de los particulares.
Se entiende por contaminante cualquier elemento, combinación de elementos, o forma de ener gía que
actual o potencialmente pueda producir alteración ambiental de las precedentemente descritas. La
contaminación puede ser física, química o biológica;
b). La degradación, la erosión y el revenimiento de suelos y tierras.
c). Las alteraciones nocivas de la topografía.
d). Las alteraciones nocivas del flujo natural de las aguas;
e). La sedimentación en los cursos y depósitos de agua;
f). Los cambios nocivos el lecho de las aguas.
g). La extinción o disminución cuantitativa o cualitativa de especies animales o vegetales o de recursos
genéticos;
h). La introducción y propagación de enfermedades y de plagas;
i). La introducción, utilización y transporte de especies animales o ve getales dañinas o de productos de
sustancias peligrosas;
j). La alteración perjudicial o antiestética de paisajes naturales;
k). La disminución o extinción de fuentes naturales de energía primaria;
l). La acumulación o disposición inadecuada de residuos, basuras, desechos y desperdicios;
m). El ruido nocivo;
n). El uso inadecuado de sustancias peligrosas;
o). La eutrificación, es decir, el crecimiento excesivo y anormal de la flora en lagos y lagunas.
p). La concentración de población humana urbana o rural en condiciones habitacionales que atenten
contra el bienestar y la salud.
ARTICULO 9o. El uso de elementos ambientales y de recursos naturales renovables, debe hacerse de
acuerdo con los siguientes principios:
a). Los recursos naturales y demás elementos ambientales deben ser utilizados en forma eficiente, para
lograr su máximo aprovechamiento con arreglo al interés general de la comunidad y de acuerdo con losANNEX 10
principios y objetos que orientan este Código;
b). Los recursos naturales y demás elementos ambientales, son interdependientes. Su utilización se hará
de manera que, en cuanto sea posible, no interfieran entre sí.
c). La utilización de los elementos ambientales o de los recursos naturales renovables debe hacerse sin
que lesione el interés general de la comunidad o el derecho de terceros;
d). Los diversos usos que pueda tener un recurso natural estarán sujetos a las prioridades que se
determinen y deben ser realizados coordinadamente para que se puedan cum plir los principios
enunciados en los ordinales precedentes.
e). Los recursos naturales renovables no se podrán utilizar por encima de los límites permisibles que, al
alterar las calidades físicas, químicas o biológicas naturalesroduzcan el agotamiento o el deterioro grave
de esos recursos o se perturbe el derecho a ulterior utilización en cuanto ésta convenga al interés público.
f). La planeación del manejo de los recursos naturales renovables y de los elementos ambientales debe
hacerse en forma integral, de tal modo que contribuya al desarrollo e quilibrado urbano y rural. Para
bienestar de la comunidad, se establecerán y conservarán en los centros urbanos y sus alrededores
espacios cubiertos de vegetación.
PARTE II.
DE LOS ASUNTOS AMBIENTALES DE AMBITO O INFLUENCIA INTERNACIONALES
ARTICULO 10. Para prevenir o solucionar los problemas ambientales y regular la utilización de recursos
naturales renovables compartidos con países limítrofes y sin perjuicio de los tratados vi gentes, el
Gobierno procurará complementar las estipulaciones existentes o negociar otros que prevean.
a). El recíproco y permanente intercambio de informaciones necesarias para el planeamiento del
desarrollo y el uso óptimo de dichos recursos y elementos;
b). La recíproca ya previa comunicación de las alteraciones o dese quilibrios ambientales que puedan
originar obras a trabajos proyectados por los gobiernos o los habitantes de os respectivos países, con
antelación suficiente para que dichos gobiernos puedan em prender las acciones pertinentes cuando
consideren que sus derechos e intereses ambientales pueden sufrir menoscabo.
c). La administración conjunta de los gobiernos en los recursos naturales renovables cu ya explotación o
aprovechamiento no pueda ser físicamente divisible entre los países interesados o que del punto de vista
técnico o económico no resulte conveniente dividir;
d). la adopción de medidas para que no cause perjuicios sensibles a otros países del uso puramente
interno de los recursos naturales no renovables u otros elementos ambientales hechos en Colombia o en
naciones vecinas.
ARTICULO 11. Los recursos naturales materia de las previsiones a que se refiere el artículo precedente
son, entre otros, los siguientes:
a). Las cuencas hidrográficas de ríos que sirven de límite o que atraviesan las fronteras de Colombia,
incluidas las aguas superficiales y subterráneas y los demás cursos naturales conexos;
b). Los bosques de ambos lados de una frontera;
c). Las especies de la fauna en que tengan interés común Colombia y los países vecinos; ANNEX 10
d). Las aguas marítimas nacionales y los elementos que ellas contienen;
e). La atmósfera, en cuanto los actos ya verificados o los proyectados en un país puedanproducir efectos
nocivos en el vecino o alteraciones climáticas perjudiciales;
f). Los yacimientos geotérmicos que se extienden a ambos lados de una frontera.
ARTICULO 12. El Gobierno procurará evitar o prohibirá la utilización de elementos ambientales y
recursos naturales renovables que puedan producir deterioro ambiental en países no vecinos, en alta mar
o en su lecho, o en la atmósfera o espacio aéreo más allá de la jurisdicción territorial.
El Gobierno también procurará realizar gestiones para obtener que, en circunstancias similares, otros
países adopten actitud semejante.
PARTE III.
MEDIOS DE DESARROLLO DE LA POLITICA AMBIENTAL
TITULO I.
INCENTIVOS Y ESTIMULOS ECONOMICOS
ARTICULO 13. Con el objeto de fomentar la conservación, me joramiento y restauración del ambiente y
de los recursos naturales renovables, el Gobierno establecerá incentivos económicos.
TITULO II.
ACCION EDUCATIVA, USO DE MEDIOS DE COMUNICACION SOCIAL Y SERVICIO NACIONAL
AMBIENTAL
ARTICULO 14. Dentro de las facultades que constitucionalmente le com peten, el Gobierno al
reglamentar la educación primaria, secundaria y universitaria procurará:
a). Incluir cursos sobre ecología, preservación ambiental y recursos naturales renovables;
<Notas del editor>
b). Fomentar el desarrollo de estudios interdisciplinarios;
c). Promover la realización de jornadas ambientales con participación de la comunidad y de campañas de
educación popular, en los medios urbanos y rurales para lograr la comprensión de los problemas del
ambiente, dentro del ámbito en el cual se presentan.
<Notas del Editor>
ARTICULO 15. Por medios de comunicación adecuada, se motivará a la población para que formule
sugerencias y tome iniciativas a la protección ambiental y para el mejor manejo de los recursos naturales
renovables y se adelantarán programas de divulgación y adiestramiento en la identificación y manejo de
sustancias nocivas al ambiente.
ARTICULO 16. Para ayudar a formar y mantener en la comunidad conocimiento y convicción suficientes
sobre la necesidad de proteger el medio ambiente y de mantener bien los recursos naturales renovables,
el gobierno, en los contratos sobre espacios de televisión o frecuencias de radiodifusión, esti pulará
cláusulas concernientes a su colaboración con las otras partes contratantes, en programas educativos y de
divulgación apropiados para el cumplimiento de esos fines.
ARTICULO 17. Créase el Servicio Nacional Ambiental Obligatorio que no excederá de un año yq ue será
prestado gratuitamente.ANNEX 10
El Gobierno determinará la manera como se organizará la prestación de este servicio.
<Notas del Editor>
TITULO III.
TASAS RETRIBUTIVAS DE SERVICIOS AMBIENTALES
ARTICULO 18. <Artículo derogado por el artículo 118 de la Ley 99 de 1993> <Ver Notas del Editor>.
<Notas de vigencia>
<Notas del Editor>
<Legislación anterior>
ARTICULO 19. El Gobierno Nacional calculará por sectores de usuarios yp or re giones que
individualizará, los costos de prevención, corrección o eliminación de los efectos nocivos al ambiente.
<Notas del Editor>
TITULO IV.
SISTEMA DE INFORMACION AMBIENTAL
ARTICULO 20. Se organizará y mantendrá al día un sistema de informaciones ambientales, con los datos
físicos, económicos, sociales, legales y en general, concernientes a los recursos naturales renovables y al
medio ambiente.
ARTICULO 21. Mediante el sistema de informaciones ambientales se procesarán y analizarán, por lo
menos las siguientes especies de información:
a). Cartográfica;
b). Hidrometeorológica, hidrológica, hidrogeológica y climática.
c). Edafológica;
d). Sobre usos no agrícolas de la tierra;
f). El inventario forestal;
g). El inventario fáunico;
h). La información legal a que se refiere el Título VI; Capítulo I, Parte I del Libro II;
i). Los niveles de contaminación por regiones;
j). El inventario de fuentes de emisión y de contaminación.
ARTICULO 22. Las entidades oficiales suministrarán la información de que dis pongan o que se les
solicite, en relación con los datos a que se refiere el artículo anterior.
ARTICULO 23. Los propietarios, usuarios, concesionarios, arrendatarios y titulares de permiso de uso
sobre recursos naturales renovables y elementos ambientales, están obligados a recopilar y a suministrar
sin costo alguno, con destino al sistema de informaciones ambientales, la información sobre materia
ambiental, y especialmente, sobre la cantidad consumida de recursos naturales y elementos ambientales.
ARTICULO 24. Los datos del sistema serán de libre consulta y deberán difundirse periódicamente por
medios eficaces cuando fueren de interés general.
TITULO V. ANNEX 10
DE LAS INVERSIONES FINANCIERAS ESTATALES EN OBRAS Y TRABAJOS PUBLICOS
AMBIENTALES
ARTICULO 25. En el Presupuesto Nacional se incluirá anualmente una partida especial y exclusivamente
destinada a financiar los programas o proyectos de preservación ambiental.
ARTICULO 26. En el proyecto general de cualquier obra pública que utilice o deteriore un recurso
natural renovable o el ambiente se contemplará un programa que cubra totalmente, los estudios, planos,
y presupuesto con destino a la conservación y mejoramiento del área afectada.
TITULO VI.
DE LA DECLARACION DE EFECTO AMBIENTAL
ARTICULO 27. <Artículo derogado por el artículo 118 de la Ley 99 de 1993.>
<Notas de vigencia>
<Legislación anterior>
ARTICULO 28. <Artículo derogado por el artículo 118 de la Ley 99 de 1993.>
<Notas de vigencia>
<Legislación anterior>
ARTICULO 29. <Artículo derogado por el artículo 118 de la Ley 99 de 1993.>
<Notas de vigencia>
<Legislación anterior>
TITULO VII.
DE LA ZONIFICACION
ARTICULO 30. Para la adecuada protección del ambiente y de los recursos naturales, el Gobierno
Nacional establecerá políticas y normas sobre zonificación.
Los Departamentos y Municipios tendrán sus propias normas de zonificación, su jetas a las de orden
nacional a que se refiere el inciso anterior.
<Notas del Editor>
TITULO VIII.
DE LAS EMERGENCIAS AMBIENTALES
ARTICULO 31. En accidentes acaecidos o que previsiblemente puedan sobrevenir, que causen deterioro
ambiental, o de otros hechos ambientales que constituyan peligro colectivo, se tomarán las medidas de
emergencia para contrarrestar el peligro.
PARTE IV.
DE LAS NORMAS DE PRESERVACION AMBIENTAL RELATIVAS A ELEMENTOS
AJENOS A LOS RECURSOS NATURALES
TITULO I.
PRODUCTOS QUIMICOS, SUSTANCIAS TOXICAS Y RADIOACTIVAS
ARTICULO 32. Para prevenir deterioro ambiental o daño en la salud del hombre y de los demás seres
vivientes, se establecerán requisitos y condiciones para la importación, la fabricación, el transporte, el
almacenamiento, la comercialización, el manejo, el empleo o la dis posición de sustancias yp roductos
tóxicos o peligrosos.
En particular, en la ejecución de cualquier actividad en que se utilicen a gentes físicos tales comoANNEX 10
sustancias radioactivas o cuando se opere con equipos productores de radiaciones, se deberán cumplir los
requisitos y condiciones establecidos para garantizar la adecuada protección del ambiente, de la salud del
hombre y demás seres vivos.
<Notas del editor>
TITULO II.
DEL RUIDO
ARTICULO 33. Se establecerán las condiciones y requisitos necesarios para preservar y mantener la
salud y la tranquilidad de los habitantes, mediante control de ruidos ori ginados en actividades
industriales, comerciales, domésticas, deportivas, de esparcimiento de vehículos de transporte, o de otras
actividades análogas.
<Notas del Editor>
TITULO III.
DE LOS RESIDUOS, BASURAS, DESECHOS Y DESPERDICIOS
ARTICULO 34. En el manejo de residuos, basuras, desechos y des perdicios, se observarán las si guientes
reglas:
a). Se utilizarán los mejores métodos, de acuerdo con los avances de la ciencia y la tecnolo gía, para la
recolección, tratamiento, procesamiento o disposición final de residuos, basuras, des perdicios y, en
general, de desechos de cualquier clase;
b). La investigación científica y técnica se fomentará para:
1). Desarrollar los métodos más adecuados para la defensa del ambiente, del hombre y de los demás seres
vivientes.
2o. Reintegrar al proceso natural y económico los desperdicios sólidos, líquidos y gaseosos, provenientes
de industrias, actividades domésticas o de núcleos humanos en general.
3o. Sustituir la producción o importación de productos de difícil eliminación o reincorporación al proceso
productivo.
4o. Perfeccionar y desarrollar nuevos métodos para el tratamiento, recolección, depósito y dis posición
final de los residuos sólidos, líquidos o gaseosos no susceptibles de nueva utilización.
c). Se señalarán medios adecuados para eliminar y controlar los focos productores del mal olor.
<Notas del Editor>
ARTICULO 35. Se prohibe descargar, sin autorización, los residuos, basuras y desperdicios, y, en general,
de desechos que deterioren los suelos o, causen daño o molestia a individuos o núcleos humanos.
ARTICULO 36. Para la disposición o procesamiento final de las basuras se utilizarán, preferiblemente,
los medios que permitan:
a). Evitar el deterioro del ambiente y de la salud humana;
b). Reutilizar sus componentes;
c). Producir nuevos bienes;
d). Restaurar o mejorar los suelos; ANNEX 10
ARTICULO 37. Los municipios deberán organizar servicios adecuados de recolección, trans porte y
disposición final de basuras.
La prestación de este servicio por personas naturales o jurídicas de derecho privado re querirá
autorización ajustada a los requisitos y condiciones que establezca el gobierno.
<Notas del Editor>
Siguiente
Página Principal | Menú General de Leyes | Antecedentes Legislativos | Antecedentes de Proyectos
Gaceta del Congreso | Diario Oficial | Opinión - Consulta
Senado de la Rep blica de Colombia Información legislativa .secretariasenado.gov.co
Disposiciones analizadas por Avance Jurídico Casa EditorISSN 1657-6241, "Leyes desde 1992 - Vigencia Expresa y Sentcias de
Constitucionalidad", 10 de febrero de 2009.
Incluye análisis de vigencia epy análisis de fallos de constitucionalidad publicados hasta 10 de febrero de 2009.
La información contenida en este medio fue traba ada sobre transcripciones realizadas a partir del Diario Oficial los fallos de
constitucionalidad fueron suministrados por la Corte Constitucional. Cuando fue posible se tomaron los te tos del Diario Oficial
publicados por la Imprenta Nacional en Internet. ANNEX 11
Republic of Colombia, Ministry of Health,
Decree No. 1843 (22 July 1991), as amended by Decree No. 695 (26 Apr. 1995)
and Decree No. 4368 (4 Dec. 2006) ANNEX 11
Ministry of Health
DECREE NUMBER 1843 OF 1991
(22 July)
“By which Titles III, V, VI, VII, and XI of Law 09 of 1979 on the Use
and Management of Pesticides are partially regulated.”
The President of the Republic of Colombia,
Using the powers conferred upon him by number 11 of article 189 of the
Political Constitution,
DECREES:
CHAPTER 1
General Provisions and Definitions
ART. 1.- On epidemiological monitoring and control. Epidemiological
monitoring and control in the use and management of pesticides must be
carried out with the aim of avoiding effects to the health of communities,
animals or plants, or causing deterioration of the environment.
[…]
ART 86.- On the prevention of environmental risks. When applying
pesticides to populated areas, farms of fish, bees, birds or other animals, to
water flows or sources, and to areas specially managed for the protection
of natural resources, techniques must be used according to the inherent
risks of the respective activity.
[…]
ART 92.- On signage for the application of pesticides. The owners or
users of treated rural areas must post signs at access sites with the
international danger symbol and a sign which reads “danger, area treated
with pesticides, if you need to enter, wear protective equipment.” These
signs should be made of weather-resistant material, easily readable, and be
placed at a distance of no less than 20 metres from access sites, and kept
in a good state of repair. They cannot be taken down within 10 days of
the application of the pesticide.
PAR.- Marking the site with people is strictly prohibited.
[…]ANNEX 11
On aerial application
ART 95.- On compliance with norms. All natural or legal persons who
apply pesticides using aircraft must obtain an operational permit issued by
the Civil Aeronautic Aviation Agency for each one of their landing strips,
for which a health license granted by the regional health management
agency must previously be obtained. Also, all persons must comply with
the pertinent norms currently in force, as established by the ministries of
Health and Agriculture and other bodies of the State.
(Note: modified by Decree 695 of 1995, article 1, of the Ministry of
Health).
ART 96.- On runways and air bases.
a) Principal base: The place where the business has established its
operational center for its activities, and which has an approved
runway for permanent use;
b) Auxiliary base: One which, for reasons related to the
aeroagricultural activities of the business, requires the storage of
one or more aircraft outside of the principal base for a prolonged
period of time, and
c) Auxiliary runway: One which, for operational needs, is
sporadically used. Only fuel and aeroagricultural product supply
operations may be carried out at these runways. In no case may
aircraft and application equipment be washed here.
PAR.- Planes and helicopters designated for fumigation work must only
be operated from runways and helipads authorized by the Civil Aeronautic
Agency’s administrative department by way of operating permits granted
to the agricultural aviation companies.
ART 97.- On licensing requirements. To obtain a health license, the
interested party must comply with the pertinent requirements indicated in
this chapter, in articles 131 and 132 of Chapter X, and also with the
following:
a) Map indicating the locations of runways with respect to population
centers, schools, aqueducts, bodies and flows of water, markets,
hospitals and recreational centers, up to a distance of 100 meters
from the sides of the runway and 1,000 meters from the heads of
the runways;
b) Data regarding class, type and registration of aircraft designated
for the application of pesticides, in accord with the regulations of
the Administrative Department of the Civil Aeronautic Agency,
and
c) A favorable report from the respective planning office regarding
the location of the runway. ANNEX 11
PAR.-In those localities in which municipal planning offices do not exist,
the report should be issued by the regional planning department.
ART 98.- On the placement of runways and tank areas. The runways for
aerial pesticide application operations shall be placed at a minimum
distance of one-hundred (100) meters laterally from the central axis and
one-thousand (1,000) meters from the head of the same, with regard to
population centers, water bodies or flows, buildings or areas which require
special protection, based on determinations adopted by the competent
authorities.
Tank areas shall be placed at a minimum distance from population centers,
water bodies or flows, buildings, or areas requiring special protection as
determined by the competent authorities upon recommendations from the
regional pesticide councils.
ART 99.- On the time period for the adaptation or relocation of runways.
Runways which do not comply with all requirements stipulated in this
decree shall have a period of one (1) year for adaptation and two (2) years
for relocation. These terms are not extendable and shall be counted from
the day this decree takes effect.
Non-compliance with the foregoing shall result in the suspension of
operation permits issued by the Civil Aeronautic Agency for these
runways, until corrective measures are adopted, in the case of adaptation,
and the cancellation of said permits in the case of relocation.
ART 100.- On principal bases. Without prejudice to the requirements to
be established in the following, principal bases must meet with the
following requirements:
a) Operational platform (for the preparation of pesticides to be
applied) must be located outside of the boundaries of the runway,
constructed from compacted and paved with concrete, and be of a
total area that depends upon the capacity of the operation, and
must have slopes for effective drainage that run into a waste
treatment system. Said platform must be signed to prevent access
by unauthorized personnel, and
b) Provide of at least two covered, impermeable tanks built above
ground level in a secure and technical manner in order to permit
separate preparation of herbicides and other agrochemicals, and
prevent direct contact or inhalation of substances by personnel.
ART 101.- On the prohibitions on runways at public airports. No public
runways or airports can be designated for operations related to the
application of pesticides. In exceptional cases, the Administrative
Department of the Civil Aeronautic Agency can authorize such operations,
upon the joint resolution of the Ministries of Health and Agriculture.ANNEX 11
ART 102.- On the obligations of pilots. It is the obligation of pilots to
comply with the pertinent norms established by this decree and, also, with
the following:
a) Carry out the application taking into account the conditions of
wind speed, temperature and relative humidity, and velocity and
altitude of the flight, in accord with what has been established by
the respective authorities of the agricultural sector and the civil
aviation agency;
b) Carry out the application within a fixed area;
c) Do not fly over populations, aqueducts, schools and other places
which represent a risk to human, animal, and plant health;
d) Do not apply pesticides to homes within the fields to be treated,
protected water bodies, natural parks, reserves or other protected
areas;
e) Do not intervene in the manipulation of pesticides. Only trained
and authorized personnel may do so; and,
f) Maintain the aircraft application equipment in perfect conditions
of calibration and use.
[…]
ART 180.- On compliance with norms. All persons involved in the
management and use of pesticides must comply with the norms related to
the respective activity, as laid out in this decree.
ART 181.- On requirements and obligations. The personnel referred to in
the prior article must receive training and be provided with sanitary
facilities, and medical attention and control services, in accord with the
provisions of the corresponding chapters of this decree and, furthermore,
must comply with the following obligations:
a) Obtain a certificate that demonstrates competence in the material,
according to the activity for which it has been designated;
b) Obtain the applicator card, when this is their job;
c) Observe the maximum precautions for each and every activity
carried out during the work day, with the aim of avoiding risk to
human or animal health, or the deterioration of the environment;
d) Use work clothing and comply with protection measures according
to the instructions given by the company or competent authority,
and keep respiratory, eye and ear protection equipment, or
protection equipment for any other organ or physiological function,
in good condition;
e) Keep overalls closed, cuffs outside of gloves and pant legs outside
of boots at all times while at the work site; ANNEX 11
f) Use, when it is necessary to eat or drink during working hours, the
facilities provided for that reason, after changing clothes and
washing hands;
g) Wash the body completely with soap and water at the end of each
work day;
h) Use products according to the instructions on the labels or with the
technical assistance of the company;
i) Prevent substances or their fumes from entering into direct contact
with people, or to contaminate the environment in levels exceeding
the maximum permissible limits in any pesticide production,
experimentation, storage, transport, sale or application activities;
j) Prevent entry into the work area without protective equipment
which prevents contact with or inhalation of the pesticides, while
these risks persist;
k) Bring pesticide waste to treatment areas before it is disposed of;
l) Advise a doctor immediately of the least suspicion of poisoning,
regardless of the gravity of the work accident, and ensure that the
fact is recorded in the respective records;
m) Change protective clothing immediately when it becomes
impregnated with pesticide;
n) Change work clothes daily, wearing clean clothes every day, and
o) Avoid contaminating changing areas and street clothes.
Contaminated work clothes should be placed in a special site for
cleaning at the end of the day, in the same working area.
[…]
ART 254.- On authority to sanction. The authority to apply sanctions
provided for in this decree at the different levels of the health system are
as follows:
Local level. Administrative paperwork and the juridical-legal procedures
shall be carried out by the health promoter or whoever carries out that task,
and the authority to apply shall be rest with the local health director, by
way of a resolution on relevant legal grounds.
Regional Level. The administrative paperwork and juridical-legal
procedures shall be carried out by the official with responsibility for the
monitoring and control of the use of pesticides, or by the director of
environmental risk. The sanctions to be put in place shall be imposed
through resolution on relevant legal grounds, by the head of the regional
health agency.
National Level. Administrative paperwork shall be the responsibility of
the Ministry of Health or the delegated office; juridical-legal proceduresANNEX 11
shall be carried out by the legal office of the Ministry of Health, and the
sanctions to be put into place shall be imposed through resolution on
relevant legal grounds, issued from the Ministry of Health.
ART 255.- On the support of processes. In those levels of the health
system in which there exists a legal office, that office shall be put in
charge of carrying forward juridical-legal procedures to impose sanctions,
once the precedents are known and the administrative paperwork is
submitted by the health authorities indicated in the previous article.
ART 256.- On the competency of other authorities. Health authorities
which are not part of the health system, that relates to the use and
management of pesticides, may impose sanctions within their legal
competency, or may give advice regarding infractions within their area of
expertise to the authorities of the aforementioned system, with the aim of
applying prevention and control procedures.
ART 257.- On publicity. Regional health agencies and the Ministry of
Health shall publicize the results of non-compliance with health
provisions, stemming from the grave health risks to people, with the aim
of warning the population.
ART 258.- On the compatibility of sanctions with other types of
responsibilities. The sanctions imposed in compliance with the norms of
this decree do not provide exemption from civil or penal responsibility, or
from any other order which can be incurred by violation of Law 09 of
1979, and of this regulation.
ART 259.- On the transfer of diligence by incompetence. When, as a
result of an investigation carried out by a health authority, the sanction to
be imposed is the competency of another health authority, diligence shall
be remitted to this authority for the application of procedures to be put
into place.
ART 260.- On commissions for the improvement of processes. When a
sanctioning procedure must be initiated or advanced, or an investigation
must be carried out, in which the Ministry of Health is the competent
authority, this agency may commission regional health agencies to carry
out the investigation or procedure, but the sanction or exoneration shall
still be decided by the Ministry of Health.
Also, when tests must be made outside of the jurisdiction of a regional
health agency, the head of the same must solicit the commission from the
Ministry of Health so that the regional health agency may carry it out, in
which case the ministry shall indicate the appropriate terms.
ART 261.- On support of tests by other entities. When an official entity
distinct from those of the health system has a test related to the conduct,
doings, or omissions which a health authority is investigating, said test ANNEX 11
must be put into motion by the health authority, or required by the health
authority, so that it may become part of the investigation.
ART 262.- On commissions to carry out tests. Health authorities carrying
out an investigation or procedure may commission other official entities to
carry out or obtain tests.
ART. 263.- On the accumulation of time for the effects of sanctions.
When a sanction is imposed for a period of time, this shall be counted
from the date of the execution of the resolution which imposed it, and the
time which has passed under a security or preventative measure shall be
calculated in the same way, for the same effect.
ART 264.- On the policing nature of health authorities. For the purpose
of monitoring and ensuring compliance with norms and the imposition of
measures and sanctions as dealt with in this regulation, the competent
health officials shall in each case be considered as police, in conformance
with article 35 of Decree-Law 1355 of 1970, and other norms which
modify or add to it. Failure to respect this authority shall be sanctioned
according to the same norm.
PAR.- National, regional, or municipal police authorities shall lend their
complete collaboration to health authorities, for the completion of their
functions.
[…]
DECREE 695 OF 1995
(26 April)
Official Registry No. 41,828 of 28 April 1995
MINISTRY OF PUBLIC HEALTH
By which Decree 1843 of 1991 is modified
THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA,
in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by number 11 of article 189
of the Political Constitution,
DECREES:
ARTICLE 1. Modifies article 95 of Decree 1843 of 1991, which shall be
as follows:ANNEX 11
“Article 95. Any natural or legal person who applies pesticides by aircraft
must obtain for each of their runways an operations permit issued by the
Special Administrative Unit of the Civil Aviation body, for which a
Health License must previously be obtained, issued by the respective
Sectional Health Agency, and said persons must comply with and require
compliance, when applicable, with the current standards established by
the Ministries of Health and Agriculture, and by other agencies of the
State.
PARAGRAPH 1. The authorities that, in compliance with the legal
norms or provisions issued by other authorities duly empowered for this
reason, that apply the substances referred to in this Decree, must obtain a
health license issued by the Ministry of Health, for which the interested
authority must submit a request containing the following requirements:
1. Name and address of the authority making the request, as well as
the name and identity of its legal representative.
2. Methods of application to be used: spraying, fumigation; special or
residual, lures or others.
3. Rules to protect personnel participating in the fumigation activity.
4. Plan for handling pesticide waste and
5. Indication as to whether its own or other runways will be used.
The issuance of the license shall carry with it health authorization for use
at said runways, without the need to meet additional, different
requirements to obtain operating permits which, according to current legal
provisions, must be obtained from the Special Administrative Unit of the
Civil Aeronautic body.
PARAGRAPH 2. The issuance of the health license referred to in the
preceding paragraph shall be issued for a term of five (5) years and shall
be renewable at the request of the interested authority through submission
of the corresponding request, in which the changes since the last issuance
or extension must be detailed, regarding the requirements which must be
met in order to obtain the license.
ARTICLE 2. TRANSITIONAL STANDARD. The authorities
mentioned in the first paragraph of the first article of this Decree that, on ANNEX 11
the date of the entry into force of this Decree, are found applying the
aforementioned substances will have a period of three (3) months to
obtain the corresponding health license, and in the meantime may carry
out the respective activity without meeting the requirement.
ARTICLE 3. ENTRY INTO FORCE. This Decree shall be effective
from the date of its publication.
COMMUNICATED, PUBLISHED, AND CARRIED OUT.
Given in Santafe de Bogota, DC, on the 26 April 1995.
ERNESTO SAMPER PIZANO
Health Minister,
ALONSO GOMEZ DUQUE.
[…]
REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA
[seal]
MINISTRY OF SOCIAL PROTECTION
DECREE NUMBER 4368 OF 2006
04 DEC 2006
“By which Decree 1843 of 1991 is partially modified”
THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA,
In exercise of his legal and constitutional powers, especially those
conferred by number 11 of article 189 of the Constitution, article 564 of
Law 9 of 1979, and article 5 of Law 99 of 1993,
DECREES:
FIRST ARTICLE.- Modifies article 98 of Decree 1843 of 1991, which
shall be as follows:
“ARTICLE 98.- ON THE LOCATION OF RUNWAYS AND TANK
AREAS. Runways for the operation of aerial pesticide application shall
be located at a minimum distance of one hundred (100) metres laterally at
the central axis, and the head of the runways shall be located one-ANNEX 11
thousand (1,000) metres, from population centers, bodies or flows of
water, construction sites, or areas which require special protection,
according to determinations adopted by the competent authorities.
The tank areas shall be placed at a minimum distance from population
centers, bodies or flows of water, construction sites, or areas which
require special protection, as is determined by the competent authorities
according to recommendations from Sectional Pesticide Councils.
FIRST PARAGRAPH.- The Special Administrative Unit of the Civil
Aeronautic body shall authorize the functioning of runways for operations
related to the aerial application of pesticides at distances less than those
indicated in this article, only when a technical study is conducted by the
party interested in the operation of the runways, in which measures are
established for the prevention, mitigation and correction of possible
impacts to human health and the environment. This must also include the
prior approval of sectional health agencies or those that replace them, and
the approval of the regional autonomous corporation with jurisdiction in
the respective area.
The Ministry of Social Protection and the Ministry of the Environment,
Livelihood, and Territorial Development, shall issue the directives,
guidelines, and mechanisms governing the functioning and operation of
the runways indicated in the previous paragraph, and the minimum
requirements for the respective technical study.
SECOND PARAGRAPH.- Runways for operations related to the aerial
application of pesticides which at the date of publication of this Decree
have approved and established environmental licenses and/or
environmental management plans must adjust their functioning and
operations to the provisions of this decree and to the regulation issued by
the Ministry of Social Protection and the Ministry of the Environment,
Livelihood and Territorial Development for this purpose.”
SECOND ARTICLE.- This decree shall take effect from the date of
publication, and shall repeal all contrary provisions. ANNEX 11
PUBLISHED AND CARRIED OUT
Given in Bogota, D.C. on 4 Dec 2006
ALVARO URIBE VELEZ
PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC
ANDRES FELIPE ARIAS LEIVA
Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development
DIEGO PALACIO BETANCOURT
Minister of Social Protection
JUAN LOZANO RAMIREZ
Minister of the Environment, Livelihood and Territorial
Development
ANDRES URIEL GALLEGO HENAO
Minister of TransportationANNEX 11ANNEX 11ANNEX 11ANNEX 11ANNEX 11ANNEX 11ANNEX 11ANNEX 11ANNEX 11ANNEX 11
DECRETO 695 DE 1995
(abril 26)
Diario Oficial No. 41.828, de 28 de abril de 1995
MINISTERIO DE SALUD PUBLICA
Por el cual se modifica el Decreto 1843de 1991.
EL PRESIDENTE DE LA REPÚBLICA DE COLOMBIA,
en ejercicio de las atribuciones que le confiere el numeral 11 del artículo 189 de la
Constitución Política,
DECRETA:
ARTÍCULO 1o. Modifícase el artículo 95 del Decreto 1843 de 1991, el cual
quedará así:
"Artículo 95.Toda persona natural o jurídica que aplique plaguicidas utilizando
aeronaves, debe obtener para cada una de sus pistas permiso de operación
expedido por la Unidad Administrativa Especial de la Aeronáutica Civil, para lo
cual deberá obtener previamente Licencia Sanitaria expedida por la Dirección
Seccional de Salud respectiva y cumplir y hacer cumplir en lo pertinente las
normas vigentes establecidas por los Ministerios de Salud y de Agricultura y por
los demás organismos del Estado.
PARÁGRAFO 1o. Las autoridades que, en obedecimiento de normas legales o de
disposiciones emanadas de otras autoridades debidamente facultadas para ello,
deban aplicar sustancias a las que se refiere el presente Decreto, estarán sujetas
a la obtención de licencia sanitaria expedida por el Ministerio de Salud, para lo
cual se presentará por la autoridad interesada una solicitud que contenga los
siguientes requisitos:
1. Nombre y domicilio de la autoridad que eleva la solicitud, así como el nombre e
identidad de su representante legal.
2. Métodos de aplicación a utilizar: aspersión, fumigación; especial o residual,
cebos u otros.
3. Reglamento para la protección del personal que participará en la actividad de
fumigación.
4. Tratamiento que recibirán los desechos de los plaguicidas y
5. Indicación de si se emplearán pistas propias u otras pistas.
La expedición de la licencia conllevará la habilitación sanitaria para el uso de tales ANNEX 11
pistas, sin que se deban cumplir requisitos adicionales diferentes a la obtención de
los permisos de operación que, conforme a las disposiciones legales vigentes,
hayan de obtenerse de la Unidad Administrativa Especial de la Aeronáutica Civil.
PARÁGRAFO 2o. La expedición de la licencia sanitaria de que trata el parágrafo
precedente se expedirá por el término de cinco (5) años y será renovable a
solicitud de la autoridad interesada mediante la presentación de la correspondiente
petición, en la que se precisarán los cambios que, respecto de los requisitos
exigidos para la obtención de la licencia, se hayan presentado desde la expedición
o última prórroga de la misma".
ARTÍCULO 2o. NORMA TRANSITORIA. Las autoridades a las que se refiere el
parágrafo primero del artículo primero del presente Decreto que, a la fecha de su
entrada en vigencia, se encuentren aplicando sustancias a las que el mismo se
refiere, cuentan con un plazo de tres (3) meses para obtener la correspondiente
licencia sanitaria de funcionamiento y en el entretanto podrán adelantar la
respectiva actividad sin el lleno de tal requisito.
ARTÍCULO 3o. VIGENCIA. El presente Decreto rige a partir de la fecha de su
publicación.
COMUNÍQUESE, PUBLÍQUESE Y CÚMPLASE.
Dado en Santafé de Bogotá, D.C., a 26 de abril de 1995.
ERNESTO SAMPER PIZANO
El Ministro de Salud,
ALONSO GÓMEZ DUQUE.ANNEX 11 REPUBLICA DE COLOMBI
I
MINISTERIO DE LA PROTECCION SOCIAL
DECRETO NÚMERO 4368 DE 2006
04 DIC 2006
"Por el cual se modifica parcialmente el Decreto 1843 de 1991"
EL PRESIDENTE DE LA REPÚBLICA DE COLOMBIA,
En ejercicio de sus facultades constitucionales y legales, en especial las
conferidas por el numeral 11 del artículo 189 de la Constitución Política,
el artículo 564 de la Ley 9 de 1979, y el artículo 5 de la Ley 99 de 1993
DECRETA:
ARTÍCULO PRIMERO.- Modificar el artículo 98 del Decreto 1843 de 1991, el cual
quedará de la siguiente manera: '
"Artículo 98 .- DE LA UBICACION DE LAS PISTAS y ZONAS DE TANQUEO. Las
Pistas para operación de aplicación aérea de plaguicidas estarán ubicadas a una
distancia mínima de cien (100) metros lateralmente al eje central y mil (1.000) metros
de las cabeceras de éstas, respecto de centros poblados, cuerpos o cursos de agua,
edificaciones o áreas que requieran protección especial, según determinaciones que
al respecto adopten las autoridades competentes.
Las zonas de tanqueo estarán ubicadas a una distancia mínima de centros poblados,
cuerpos o cursos de agua, edificaciones o áreas que requieran protección especial,
determinadas por las autoridades competentes según recomendaciones de los
Consejos Seccionales de Plaguicidas.
PARÁGRAFO PRIMERO.- La Unidad Administrativa Especial de Aeronáutica Civil
autorizará el funcionamiento de pistas para operación de aplicación aérea de
plaguicidas a distancias menores a las señaladas en este artículo, siempre y cuando
se cuente con el estudio técnico por parte del interesado en la operación de pistas,
donde se establezcan las medidas de prevención, mitigación y corrección de los
posibles impactos que se puedan generar sobre la salud humana y el medio
ambiente, el cual debe contar con el concepto previo favorable de las direcciones
seccionales de salud o la que haga sus veces, y de la corporación autónoma regional
con jurisdicción en el área respectiva.
Los Ministerios de la Protección Social y de Ambiente, Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial
expedirán las directrices, lineamientos y mecanismos a que se sujetarán el
funcionamiento y operación de las pistas de que trata el presente parágrafo, y los
requisitos mínimos del respectivo estudio técnico.
PARÁGRAFO SEGUNDO.- Las pistas para operación de aplicación aérea de
plaguicidas que a la fecha de publicación del presente decreto, cuenten con licencias
ambientales y/o planes de manejo ambiental aprobado y establecido, deberán ajustar
su funcionamiento y operación a lo dispuesto en el presente 2
DECRETO NUMERO 4368 DE 2006 HOJA No.___ ANNEX 11
"Por el cual se modifica parcialmente el Decreto 1843 de 1991"”
'
decreto y a la regulación que para el efecto expidan los Ministerios de la Protección
Social y de Ambiente, Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial."
ARTÍCULO SEGUNDO.- El presente decreto rige a partir de la fecha de publicación
deroga las disposiciones que le sean contrarias.
PUBLIQUESE Y CUMPLASE
Dado en Bogota, D.C, a los 04 DIC 2006
ALVARO URIBE VELEZ
PRESIDENTE DE LA REPUBLICA
ANDRES FELIPE ARIAS LEIVA
Ministro de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural
DIEGO PALACIO BETANCOURT
Ministro de la Protección Social
JUAN LOZANO RAMIREZ
Ministro de Ambiente, Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial
ANDRES URIEL GALLEGO HENAO
Ministro de Transporte ANNEX 12
Republic of Colombia, Ministry of Environment, Law No. 99 (22 Dec. 1993) ANNEX 12
Law 99 of 1993
(December 22)
Official Diary No. 41.146, of 22 December 1993
By which the Ministry of the Environment restructures the Public
Sector charged with the management and conservation of the
environment and natural renewable resources, organizes the National
Environmental System – SINA, and issues other provisions
THE CONGRESS OF COLOMBIA
DECREES:
TITLE I
FOUNDATION FOR COLOMBIAN ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
ARTICLE 1.- General Environmental Principles.- Colombian
environmental policy shall follow these general principles:
1. The processes of economic and social development of the country
shall be oriented according to universal principles and the
principles of sustainable development contained in the Rio de
Janeiro Declaration of June 1992, regarding the Environment and
Development.
2. The biodiversity of the country, because it is our national heritage
and of interest to humanity, must be protected as a priority, and
used in a sustainable way.
3. Population policies shall take into account the right of human
beings to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.
4. Highland areas, sub-highland areas, water sources, and areas
where aquifers are recharged shall be objects of special protection.
5. In the use of water resources, human consumption shall take
precedence over any other use.
6. The formulation of environmental policies shall take into account
the results of the process of scientific investigation. Nevertheless,
environmental authorities and individuals shall apply the
precautionary principle, according to which, when there exists theANNEX 12
risk of grave and irreversible damage, the lack of absolute
scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason to delay the
adoption of efficacious measures to prevent the degradation of the
environment.
7. The State shall promote the integration of environmental costs and
the use of economical instruments for the prevention, correction
and restoration of environmental deterioration and for the
conservation of renewable natural resources.
8. The landscape, as it is our common heritage, must be protected.
9. The prevention of disasters shall be a matter of collective interest
and the measures taken to avoid or mitigate the effects of their
occurrence shall be obligatory.
10. Actions for environmental protection and recuperation of the
country are a joint and coordinated undertaking between the State,
the community, non-governmental organizations, and the private
sector. The State will support and incentivize the formation of
non-governmental organizations for environmental protection, and
may delegate to these organizations some of its own functions.
11. Environmental impact studies shall be the basic instrument for
decision-making with respect to construction projects and
activities which significantly affect the natural or artificial
environment.
12. The environmental management of the country, in accordance with
the National Constitution, shall be decentralized, democratic and
participatory.
13. For the environmental management of the country, a National
Environmental System –SINA– is established, the components and
interrelationships of which define the performance mechanisms of
the State and civil society.
14. The environmental institutions of the State shall be structured
based on criteria for the comprehensive management of the
environment and their interrelation with the economic, social and
physical planning processes. ANNEX 12
[…]
ARTICLE 56.- On the Environmental Assessment of Alternatives. In
projects which require an Environmental License, the interested party
must request, during the feasibility stage, from the competent
environmental authority, that this body make a determination as to
whether or not an Environmental Assessment of Alternatives must be
presented. Based on the information supplied, the environmental
authority shall make a decision on the necessity, or lack thereof, and shall
define its terms of reference within a period of no more than thirty
working days.
The environmental assessment of alternatives shall include information
regarding the location and characteristics of the geographic,
environmental and social surroundings for the project alternatives, in
addition to a comparative analysis on the effects and risks inherent in the
project or activity, and the possible solutions and control and mitigation
measures for each of the alternatives.
Based on the Environmental Assessment of Alternatives presented, the
authority shall choose, in a period of no more than sixty days, the
alternative or alternatives that require the elaboration of a corresponding
Environmental Impact Study before issuing the respective license.
ARTICLE 57.- On the Environmental Impact Study.- “Environmental
Impact Study” shall be understood as the collection of information that a
petitioner for an Environmental License must present before the
competent environmental authority..
The Environmental Impact Study shall contain information regarding the
location of the project and the abiotic, biotic and socioeconomic elements
of the environment that could suffer damage due to the project or activity,
for whose execution the license is requested, as well as the evaluation of
impacts that could result. In addition, it shall include the design of plans
for prevention, mitigation, correction, and compensation of impacts and
the environmental management plan for the project or activity.
The competent environmental authority, in order to grant an
environmental license, shall set the terms of reference for environmental
impact studies within a period of no more than sixty 60 working days,
starting from the date of the request by the interested party. ANNEX 12
Artículo
Siguiente
LEY 99 DE 1993
(Diciembre 22)
Diario Oficial No. 41.146, de 22 de diciembre de 1993
Por la cual se crea el Ministerio del Medio Ambiente, se reordena el Sector Público encargado de la
gestión y conservación del medio ambiente y los recursos naturales renovables, se organiza el Sistema
Nacional Ambiental, SINA y se dictan otras disposiciones.
<Resumen de Notas de Vigencia>
EL CONGRESO DE COLOMBIA
DECRETA:
TÍTULO I.
FUNDAMENTO DE LA POLÍTICA AMBIENTAL COLOMBIANA
ARTÍCULO 1o. PRINCIPIOS GENERALES AMBIENTALES. La Política ambiental colombiana se guirá
los siguientes principios generales:
1. El proceso de desarrollo económico y social del país se orientará según losprincipios universales y del
desarrollo sostenible contenidos en la Declaración de Río de Janeiro de junio de 1992 sobre Medio
Ambiente y Desarrollo.
<Jurisprudencia - Vigencia>
<Nota del editor>
2. La biodiversidad del país, por ser patrimonio nacional y de interés de la humanidad, deberá ser
protegida prioritariamente y aprovechada en forma sostenible.
<Notas del editor>
3. Las políticas de población tendrán en cuenta el derecho de los seres humanos a una vida saludable y
productiva en armonía con la naturaleza.
<Notas del editor>
4. Las zonas de páramos, subpáramos, los nacimientos de agua y las zonas de recarga de acuíferos serán
objeto de protección especial.
5. En la utilización de los recursos hídricos, el consumo humano tendrá prioridad sobre cualquier otro
uso.
6. La formulación de las políticas ambientales tendrá en cuenta el resultado del proceso de investigación
científica. No obstante, las autoridades ambientales y los particulares darán a plicación al principio de
precaución conforme al cual, cuando exista peligro de daño grave e irreversible, la falta de certeza
científica absoluta no deberá utilizarse como razón para postergar la adopción de medidas eficaces para
impedir la degradación del medio ambiente.
<Jurisprudencia Vigencia>
7. El Estado fomentará la incorporación de los costos ambientales y el uso de instrumentos económicos
para la prevención, corrección y restauración del deterioro ambiental y para la conservación de los
recursos naturales renovables.
<Notas del editor>
8. El paisaje por ser patrimonio común deberá ser protegido.ANNEX 12
<Notas del editor>
9. La prevención de desastres será materia de interés colectivo y las medidas tomadas para evitar o
mitigar los efectos de su ocurrencia serán de obligatorio cumplimiento.
<Notas del editor>
10. La acción para la protección y recuperación ambientales del país es una tarea con junta y coordinada
entre el Estado, la comunidad, las organizaciones no gubernamentales y el sector privado. El Estado
apoyará e incentivará la conformación de organismos no gubernamentales para la protección ambiental y
podrá delegar en ellos algunas de sus funciones.
<Notas del editor>
11. Los estudios de impacto ambiental serán el instrumento básico para la toma de decisiones res pecto a
la construcción de obras y actividades que afecten si gnificativamente el medio ambiente natural o
artificial.
<Nota del editor>
12. El manejo ambiental del país, conforme a la Constitución Nacional, será descentralizado, democrático, y
participativo.
13. Para el manejo ambiental del país, se establece un Sistema Nacional Ambiental, SINA, cuyos
componentes y su interrelación definen los mecanismos de actuación del Estado y la sociedad civil.
14. Las instituciones ambientales del Estado se estructurarán teniendo como base criterios de mane jo
integral del medio ambiente y su interrelación con los procesos de planificación económica, social y
física.
<Notas del editor>
TÍTULO II.
DEL MINISTERIO DEL MEDIO AMBIENTE Y DEL SISTEMA NACIONAL AMBIENTAL
ARTÍCULO 2o. CREACIÓN Y OBJETIVOS DEL MINISTERIO DEL MEDIO AMBIENTE. Créase el
Ministerio del Medio Ambiente como organismo rector de la gestión del medio ambiente y de los
recursos naturales renovables, encargado de impulsar una relación de res peto y armonía del hombre con
la naturaleza y de definir, en los términos de la presente ley, las políticas y regulaciones a las que se
sujetarán la recuperación, conservación, protección, ordenamiento, mane jo, uso y aprovechamiento de
los recursos naturales renovables y el medio ambiente de la Nación, a fin de ase gurar el desarrollo
sostenible.
El Ministerio del Medio Ambiente formulará, junto con el Presidente de la Re pública yg arantizando la
participación de la comunidad, la política nacional ambiental y de recursos naturales renovables, de
manera que se garantice el derecho de todas las personas a gozar de un medio ambiente sano y se proteja
el patrimonio natural y la soberanía de la Nación.
Corresponde al Ministerio del Medio Ambiente coordinar el Sistema Nacional Ambiental, SINA, que en
esta Ley se organiza, para asegurar la adopción y ejecución de las políticas y de los planes, programas y
proyectos respectivos, en orden a garantizar el cumplimiento de los deberes y derechos del Estado y de
los particulares en relación con el medio ambiente y con el patrimonio natural de la Nación.
<Notas del editor>
ARTÍCULO 3o. DEL CONCEPTO DE DESARROLLO SOSTENIBLE. Se entiende por desarrollo
sostenible el que conduzca al crecimiento económico, a la elevación de la calidad de la vida y al bienestar
social, sin agotar la base de recursos naturales renovables en que se sustenta, ni deteriorar el medio
ambiente o el derecho de las generaciones futuras a utilizarlo para la satisfacción de sus propias
necesidades.
<Nota del editor> ANNEX 12
<Legislación anterior>
ARTÍCULO 52-BIS. MECANISMOS DE PREVENCION, CONTROL Y SEGUIMIENTO AMBIENTAL.
<Artículo adicionado por el artículo 91del Decreto 1122 de 1999. El Decreto 1122 de 1999 fue declarado
INEXEQUIBLE>.
<Notas de vigencia>
<Jurisprudencia - Vigencia>
<Legislación anterior>
ARTÍCULO 53. DE LA FACULTAD DE LAS CORPORACIONES AUTONOMAS REGIONALES PARA
OTORGAR LICENCIAS AMBIENTALES. El Gobierno Nacional por medio de reglamento establecerá los
casos en que las Corporaciones Autónomas Regionales otorgarán Licencias Ambientales y aquellos en
que se requiera Estudio de Impacto Ambiental y Diagnóstico Ambiental de Alternativas.
ARTÍCULO 54. DELEGACIÓN. Las Corporaciones Autónomas Regionales podrán dele gar en las
entidades territoriales el otorgamiento de licencias, concesiones, permisos y autorizaciones que les
corresponda expedir, salvo para la realización de obras o el desarrollo de actividades por parte de la
misma entidad territorial.
ARTÍCULO 55. DE LAS COMPETENCIAS DE LAS GRANDES CIUDADES. Los munici pios, distritos y
áreas metropolitanas cuya población urbana sea superior a 1.000.000 de habitantes serán com petentes,
dentro de su perímetro urbano, para el otorgamiento de licencias ambientales, permisos, concesiones y
autorizaciones cuya expedición no esté atribuida al Ministerio del Medio Ambiente.
ARTÍCULO 56. DEL DIAGNÓSTICO AMBIENTAL DE ALTERNATIVAS. En los proyectos que requieran
Licencia Ambiental, el interesado deberá solicitar en la etapa de factibilidad a la autoridad ambiental
competente, que ésta se pronuncie sobre la necesidad de presentar o no un Diagnóstico Ambiental de
Alternativas. Con base en la información suministrada, la autoridad ambiental decidirá sobre la
necesidad o no del mismo y definirá sus términos de referencia en un plazo no mayor de 30 días hábiles.
El Diagnóstico Ambiental de Alternativas incluirá información sobre la localización y características del
entorno geográfico, ambiental y social de las alternativas del proyecto, además de un análisis
comparativo de los efectos y riesgos inherentes a la obra o actividad, y de las posibles soluciones y
medidas de control y mitigación para cada una de las alternativas.
Con base en el Diagnóstico Ambiental de Alternativas presentado, la autoridad ele girá, en un plazo no
mayor de 60 días, la alternativa o las alternativas sobre las cuales deberá elaborarse el corresndiente
Estudio de Impacto Ambiental antes de otorgarse la respectiva licencia.
PARÁGRAFO. <Parágrafo adicionado por el Decreto 2150 de 1995, declarado INEXEQUIBLE>
<Notas de vigencia>
<Jurisprudencia - Vigencia>
<Legislación anterior>
ARTÍCULO 57. DEL ESTUDIO DE IMPACTO AMBIENTAL. Se entiende por Estudio de Im pacto
Ambiental el conjunto de la información que deberá presentar ante la autoridad ambiental com petente el
peticionario de una Licencia Ambiental.
El Estudio de Impacto Ambiental contendrá información sobre la localización del proyecto, y los
elementos abióticos, bióticos y socioeconómicos del medio que puedan sufrir deterioro por la respectiva
obra o actividad, para cuya ejecución se pide la licencia, y la evaluación de los impactos que puedan
producirse. Además, incluirá el diseño de los planes de prevención, miti gación, corrección y
compensación de impactos y el plan de manejo ambiental de la obra o actividad.
La autoridad ambiental competente para otorgar la Licencia Ambiental fi jará los términos de referencia
de los estudios de impacto ambiental en un término que no podrá exceder de 60 días hábiles contados aANNEX 12
partir de la solicitud por parte del interesado.
<Notas de vigencia>
<Nota del editor>
<Jurisprudencia - Vigencia>
<Legislación anterior>
ARTÍCULO 58. DEL PROCEDIMIENTO PARA EL OTORGAMIENTO DE LICENCIAS AMBIENTALES.
El interesado en el otorgamiento de una Licencia Ambiental presentará ante la autoridad ambiental
competente la solicitud acompañada del Estudio de lmpacto Ambiental corres pondiente para su
evaluación. La autoridad competente dispondrá de 30 días hábiles para solicitar al interesado
información adicional en caso de requerirse. Allegada la información re querida, la autoridad ambiental
dispondrá de 15 días adicionales hábiles para solicitar a otras entidades o autoridades los conceptos
técnicos o informaciones pertinentes, que deberán serle remitidos en un plazo no ma yor de 60 días
hábiles. Recibida la información o vencido el término de requerimiento de informaciones adicionales, la
autoridad ambiental decidirá mediante resolución motivada sobre la viabilidad ambiental del proyecto o
actividad y otorgará o negará la respectiva licencia ambiental en un término que no podrá exceder de 60
días hábiles.
PARÁGRAFO. El Ministerio del Medio Ambiente dispondrá hasta de 120 días hábiles para otorgar la
Licencia Ambiental Global y las demás de su com petencia, contados a partir del acto administrativo de
trámite que reconozca que ha sido reunida toda la información requerida, se gún el procedimiento
previsto en este artículo.
<Nota del editor>
<Notas de vigencia>
<Jurisprudencia - Vigencia>
<Legislación anterior>
ARTÍCULO 59. DE LA LICENCIA AMBIENTAL ÚNICA. A solicitud del peticionario, la autoridad
ambiental competente incluirá en la Licencia Ambiental, los permisos, concesiones y autorizaciones
necesarias para adelantar la obra o actividad.
En los casos en que el Ministerio del Medio Ambiente sea com petente para otorgar la Licencia Ambiental,
los permisos, concesiones y autorizaciones relacionados con la obra o actividad para cuya ejecución se
pide la licencia, serán otorgados por el Ministerio del Medio Ambiente, teniendo en cuenta la
información técnica suministrada por las Corporaciones Autónomas Re gionales, las entidades
territoriales correspondientes y demás entidades del Sistema Nacional del Ambiente.
ARTÍCULO 60. En la explotación minera a cielo abierto, se exigirá, la restauración o la sustitución
morfológica y ambiental de todo el suelo intervenido con la ex plotación, por cuenta del concesionario o
beneficiario del título minero, quien la garantizará con una póliza de cumplimiento o con garantía
bancaria. El Gobierno reglamentará el procedimiento para extender la póliza de cum plimiento o la
garantía bancaria.
ARTÍCULO 61. Declárase la Sabana de Bogotá, sus páramos, aguas, valles aledaños, cerros circundantes y
sistemas montañosos como de interés ecológico nacional, cuya destinación prioritaria será la
agropecuaria y forestal.
El Ministerio del Medio Ambiente determinará las zonas en las cuales exista compatibilidad con las
explotaciones mineras, con base en esta determinación, la Cor poración Autónoma Re gional de
Cundinamarca (CAR), otorgará o negará las correspondientes licencias ambientales.
<Inciso CONDICIONALMENTE EXEQUIBLE> Los munici pios y el Distrito Ca pital, ex pedirán la
reglamentación de los usos del suelo, teniendo en cuenta las disposiciones de que trata este artículo y las
que a nivel nacional expida el Ministerio del Medio Ambiente.
<Jurisprudencia - Vigencia> ANNEX 12
Anterior |Siguiente
Página Principal | Menú General de Leyes | Antecedentes Legislativos | Antecedentes de Proyectos
Gaceta del Congreso | Diario Oficial | Opinión - Consulta
Senado de la Rep blica de Colombia Información legislativa .secretariasenado.gov.co
Disposiciones analizadas por Avance Jurídico Casa EditorialISSN 1657-6241, "Leyes desde 1992 - Vigencia Expresa y Senten cias de
Constitucionalidad", 10 de febrero de 2009.
Incluye análisis de vigencia eprey análisis de fallos de constitucionalidad publicados hasta 10 de febrero de 2009.
La información contenida en este medio fue traba ada sobre transcripciones realizadas a partir del Diario Oficial los fallos de
constitucionalidad fueron suministrados por la Corte Constitucional. Cuando fue posible se tomaron los te tos del Diario Oficial
publicados por la Imprenta Nacional en Internet. ANNEX 13
United Kingdom,
Control of Pesticides Regulations, S.I. 1510 (1986),
Regulation 4(5), as amended by Control of Pesticides (Amendment) Regulations,
S.I. 188 (1997) ANNEX 13
WIPO Database of Intellectual Property GREAT BRITAIN
Legislative Texts
1986 No. 1510
PESTICIDES
The Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986
Laid before Parliament in draft
Made 29th August 1986
Coming into Operation
Regulation 3(3) 1st July 1987
Regulation 4(1) 1st January 1987
Regulation 4 5(b)(i) 1st January 1988
Remainder 6th October 1986
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State, acting jointly, in exercise of the
powers conferred on them by sections 16(2) and 24(3) of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 1
and of all other powers enabling them in that behalf, having had regard to the interests of persons supplying
information for the purposes of section 16 of that Act, and after consultation with the Advisory Committee
on Pesticides established under section 16(7) of that Actand with the Health and Safety Commission,
hereby make the following regulations a draft whereof has been laid before and approved by resolution of
each House of Parliament:—
Title and commencement
1. These regulations may be cited as the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 and shall come into
operation as follows—
(a) regulation 3(3) shall come into operation on 1st July 1987;
(b) regulation 4(1) shall come into operation on 1st January 1987;
(c) regulation 4(5)(b)(i) shall come into operation on 1st January 1988;
(d) this regulation and the remaining provisions of these regulations shall come into operation on
6th October 1986.
Interpretation
2.—
(1) In these regulations, unless the context otherwise requires—
“active ingredient” means a component of a pesticide which fits it for use as a pesticide;
“adjuvant” means a substance other than water, without significant pesticidal properties, which
enhances or is intended to enhance the effectiveness of a pesticide, when it is added to that pesticide;
“aerial application” means the application of a pesticide from an aircraft in flight;
“approval” means an approval given jointly by the Ministers under regulation 5 in relation to a
pesticide;
“curtilage” means the land attached to a building and forming one enclosure with it;
11985 c. 48.
2
Established by S.I. 1985/1516.
GB090EN Undisclosed Information (Control of Pesticides), Regulations, 29/08/86, No. 1510 page 1/10ANNEX 13
WIPO Database of Intellectual Property
GREAT BRITAIN
Legislative Texts
“evaluation” means a written evaluation of study reports or other data examined in the course
of an appraisal by the Ministers of a pesticide in relation to which approval is sought;
“experimental permit” has the meaning given by regulation 5(2)(a);
“full approval” has the meaning given by regulation 5(2)(c);
“local beekeepers’ spray warning scheme” means any scheme for the advance notification of
the application of pesticides, organised by local beekeepers and notified to the Minister of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Secretary of State for
Wales (being the Secretaries of State respectively concerned with agriculture in Scotland and Wales);
“metal working fluid” means any fluid used to facilitate the cutting, drilling, forming or
machining of metal;
“micropropagation” means the growth of plantlets from tissue culture or small parts of a plant
in culture solution and under conditions which are sterile apart from the presence of that plant;
“mycoplasma” means a genus of organisms which have a unit membrane without a rigid cell
wall and are highly pleomorphic, having no independent form or spore stage in the life cycle;
“novel food” means any food or food ingredient produced from raw material which hitherto has
not been used for human consumption or has been so used only in small amounts, or produced by new
or extensively modified processes not previously used in the production of food;
“paint” includes surface coatings;
“provisional approval” has the meaning given by regulation 5(2)(b);
“sell” includes offer or expose for sale or have in possession for sale, and “sale” shall be
construed accordingly;
“supply” includes offer to supply;
“soil sterilant” means a substance used to control harmful organisms in soil or compost.
(2) Any reference in these regulations to a numbered regulation or schedule shall be construed as a
reference to the regulation or schedule so numbered in these regulations.
Scope
3.—
(1) Subject to the following provisions of this regulation, these regulations apply to pesticides and
to any substance, preparation or organism prepared or used for any of the following purposes—
(a) protecting plants or wood or other plant products from harmful organisms;
(b) regulating the growth of plants;
(c) giving protection against harmful creatures;
(d) rendering such creatures harmless;
(e) controlling organisms with harmful or unwanted effects on water systems, buildings or other
structures, or on manufactured products;
(f) protecting animals against ectoparasites,
as if it were a pesticide.
(2) These regulations do not apply to—
(a) organisms other than bacteria, protozoa, fungi, viruses, and mycoplasmas, used for destroying
or controlling pests;
(b) substances whose use or sale within the United Kingdom is controlled under any of the
following enactments—
Medicines Act 1968(a);
Agriculture Act 1970 Part IV(b);
Food Act 1984(c);
Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956(d);
The Cosmetics Products (Safety) Regulations 1984 (e);
GB090EN Undisclosed Information (Control of Pesticides), Regulations, 29/08/86, No. 1510 page 2/10 ANNEX 13
WIPO Database of Intellectual Property
GREAT BRITAIN
Legislative Texts
when those substances are used or sold for the purpose over which control under that enactment is
exercised;
(c) substances prepared or used for the purpose of disinfecting, bleaching or sterilising any
substance (including water), other than soils, compost or other growing medium;
(d) substances used in laboratories for the purpose of the micropropagation of plants or substances
used in the production of novel food;
(e) substances designed and used for—
(i) the stimulation of the growth of plants, excluding materials which act as plant growth
hormones, or which mimic the action of such materials;
(ii) the modification of micro-biological processes in soil, excluding soil sterilants;
(iii) assistance in the anaerobic fermentation of silage;
(f) pesticides—
(i) used in adhesive pastes, decorative paper or textiles;
(ii) intended solely for exportation from the United Kingdom;
(iii) used as part of a manufacturing process, other than for the purpose of preserving timber
or timber products or in the production of food;
(iv) used in preparations intended for topical application to human beings for the purpose of
repelling insects;
(v) used in metal working fluids;
(vi) used in paint;
(vii) used in water supply systems or in swimming pools.
(3) Notwithstanding subparagraph (2)(f)(iii) and (vi) above, “pesticides” in paragraph (1) above
shall include paints used to prevent the fouling of the hulls of vessels or structures below the waterline, or
applied to nets, floats or other apparatus used in the cultivation of fish.
Prohibitions
4.—
(1) No person shall advertise a pesticide unless—
(a) the Ministers jointly have given a provisional or full approval under regulation 5 in relation to
that pesticide and a consent under regulation 6(a);
(b) any conditions of the approval related to advertisement and the conditions of the consent have
been complied with.
(2) No person shall sell a pesticide unless—
(a) the Ministers jointly have given a provisional or full approval under regulation 5 in relation to
that pesticide and a consent under regulation 6(b);
(b) any conditions of the approval related to sale and the conditions of the consent have been
complied with.
(3) No person shall supply a pesticide unless—
(a) the Ministers jointly have given an approval under regulation 5 in relation to that pesticide and
a consent under regulation 6(b);
(b) any conditions of the approval related to supply and the conditions of the consent have been
complied with.
(4) No person shall store a pesticide unless—
(a) the Ministers jointly have given an approval under regulation 5 in relation to that pesticide and
a consent under regulation 6(b);
(b) any conditions of the approval related to storage and the conditions of the consent have been
complied with.
GB090EN Undisclosed Information (Control of Pesticides), Regulations, 29/08/86, No. 1510 page 3/10ANNEX 13
WIPO Database of Intellectual Property
GREAT BRITAIN
Legislative Texts
(5) No person shall use a pesticide unless—
(a) the Ministers jointly have given an approval under regulation 5 in relation to that pesticide and
a consent under regulation 6(c);
(b)
(i) the conditions of the approval related to use,
(ii) the conditions of the consent imposed under regulation 6(c)(i), and,
(iii) in the case of pesticides applied from an aircraft in flight, the additional conditions of the
consent imposed under regulation 6(c)(ii)
have been complied with.
Approvals
5.—
(1) Subject to the following provisions of this regulation, the Ministers may jointly give their
approval in relation to a pesticide of any description.
(2) The Ministers’ approval may be given in relation to a pesticide, in the form of—
(a) an experimental permit, to enable testing and development to be carried out with a view to
providing the Ministers with safety and other data;
(b) a provisional approval, for a stipulated period with a view to satisfying the Ministers’
outstanding data requirements; or
(c) a full approval, for an unstipulated period.
(3) Each approval may authorise the use, supply and storage of the pesticide to which it relates and
a provisional approval or a full approval may in addition authorise the sale and advertisement of that
pesticide.
(4) An approval may be given subject to conditions imposed when or after it is given.
(5) The Ministers may jointly, at any time—
(a) review, revoke or suspend an approval,
(b) amend the conditions of an approval.
Consents
6. The Ministers may by notice in the London and Edinburgh Gazettes jointly give their consent to—
(a) the advertisement of pesticides subject to such of the basic conditions set out in Schedule 1 and
any further conditions as may be specified by such a notice;
(b) the sale, supply and storage of pesticides subject to such of the basic conditions set out in
Schedule 2 and any further conditions as may be specified by such a notice;
(c) the use of pesticides subject to—
(i) such of the basic conditions set out in Schedule 3 and any further conditions that may be
specified by such a notice, and,
(ii) in the case of pesticides applied from an aircraft in flight, such of the additional basic
conditions set out in Schedule 4 and any further conditions as may be specified by such a
notice.
Seizure or disposal of pesticides
7.—
(1) If there has been a breach, in relation to any pesticide, of any of the specified prohibitions
imposed by regulation 4, or of a condition of an approval or consent, either of the Ministers shall have
power—
(a) to seize or dispose of the pesticide or to require that some other person shall dispose of it;
GB090EN Undisclosed Information (Control of Pesticides), Regulations, 29/08/86, No. 1510 page 4/10 ANNEX 14
Republic of Colombia, Ministry of Environment,
Resolution No. 341, Adopting Some Decisions in Relation to the Program for the
Eradication of Illicit Crops by Aerial Spraying with Glyphosate (2001) ANNEX 14
Resolution No. 341 of 2001
“Adopting some decisions in relation to the Program for the Eradication
of Illicit Crops by Aerial Spraying with Glyphosate.”
The Minister of the Environment
Using the powers conferred by articles 2 and 5, Number 2, and article 38
of Decree 1753 of 1994.
WHEREAS:
It falls to the Ministry of the Environment as the entity governing the
environmental management and renewable natural resources of the
country, to ensure, among other things the recovery, conservation and
protection of renewable natural resources and the environment, and to
regulate the general conditions for the clean-up of the environment, with
the aim of preventing, eliminating or mitigating the impact of activities
that pollute, deteriorate, or destroy the environment or our natural
heritage;
The actions related to the eradication of illicit crops by the spraying of
glyphosate are considered, according to the provisions of article 38 of
Decree 1753 of 1994, an activity of a transitional regime, for which reason
this Ministry directed the National Narcotics Directorate – DNE – to
present an Environmental Management Plan for said activity;
Based on Technical Report No. 0150 of 12 July 1996, by the Sub-Agency
of Planning and Evaluation within the Regional Environmental General
Management Office of this Ministry, the Legal Office of the same entity,
by way of Decree No. 558A of August 13, 1996, proceeded to set the
Terms of Reference for the National Narcotics Directorate – DNE – to lay
out an Environmental Management Plan for the application of
Glyphosate-based Herbicides as part of the Program for the Eradication of
Illicit Crops. The Management Plan was submitted to this Ministry on 31
July 1998, without chapter VII, on the “Identification and Evaluation of
Environmental Impacts.”
In consideration of the foregoing, by way of official note on 13 November
1998, this Ministry requested that the National Narcotics Directorate add
Chapter VII to the Environmental Management Plan already submitted,ANNEX 14
with the aim of proceeding with the respective evaluation. This chapter
was submitted to the Ministry in the month of December 1998;
Once the Environmental Management Plan submitted by the National
Narcotics Directorate was subjected to study and evaluation by the Sub-
Agency of Environmental Licenses, technical report No. 419-99 of 21
December 1999 was issued, through which additional information was
requested in relation to the analysis and determination of the conditions of
exposure, whether the exposure was direct or indirect, and the possible
cumulative impacts, the latter with the aim of re-establishing an
environmental risk assessment for spraying activities and reshaping the
Environmental Management Plan for the Program of Eradication with
Glyphosate;
The request for additional information envisaged in the aforementioned
technical report was made to the National Narcotics Directorate via
Decree No. 599 of 23 December 1999, which was appealed in its entirety
by the Directorate on 1 February 2000;
By way of Decree No. 143 of 29 March 2000, this Ministry resolved the
Request for Review raised against Decree 599 of 1999, in that it modified
number 2 of article 1, clarified number 3 of article 1 of the same, and
granted a term of three months for the additional information;
The National Narcotics Directorate requested a review of article five of
the decree in question, requesting an extension of the term established for
the submission of additional information to twelve months. This request
was rejected by the Ministry of the Environment in Decree No. 275 of 6
June 2000, confirming the term of three months for the submission of the
information;
In compliance with the foregoing, on 13 September 2000, the National
Narcotics Directorate –DNE- submitted to this Ministry the document
“Addition to the Environmental Management Plan for the Application of
the Herbicide Glyphosate in the Eradication of Illicit Crops,” which was
added on 17 October 2000;
Once the additional information was received complimentary to the
Environmental Management Plan under study, the Sub-Agency of
Environmental Licenses, through technical report 589 of 20 December
2000, determined that the additional information submitted by the ANNEX 14
National Narcotics Directorate was not in compliance with the
requirements stipulated in Decree No. 588A of 1996;
Considering the foregoing, on 20 December 2000, the Ministry of the
Environment called the National Narcotics Directorate –DNE to a meeting
with the aim of communicating the fact that the information submitted did
not satisfy the requirements of this Ministry. In the meeting, the National
Narcotics Directorate –DNE promised to submit a document with greater
detail in its characterization and to direct the evaluation of impacts toward
the assessment of risks, as was requested in the terms of reference for the
Environmental Management Plan laid out in Decree No. 588A/96 of this
Ministry, for the Putumayo area;
In compliance with the foregoing, on 30 January 2001, the National
Narcotics Directorate –DNE submitted to this Ministry, for its study and
evaluation, the document “Environmental Management Plan for the
Eradication of Illicit Crops beginning with the evaluation of potential risks
in the operation of the straying program in the Province of Putumayo”;
In this document, which was based on an environmental characterization
at the provincial level (1:500,000, 1:400,000), a combination of two
methodologies for risk assessment was used (environmental impacts due
to the use of pesticides and an assessment of potential technological risks).
The document presented a description of the stages of the program for the
spraying of illicit crops, and proposed both an evaluation of the
eradication program and a framework for the Management Plan
incorporating 10 program elements, on issues related to:
*Objectives of the eradication program;
*Entry into inter-institutional agreements to improve information in the
areas of operation of the eradication program;
*Training of pilots in environmental issues;
*Analysis of satellite images, systemization and geo-referencing of
information for spraying operations;
*Systemization of environmental audit reports;
*Recording of environmental data in the verification process;
*Mitigation measures and compensation for contingencies in the operation
of the program; and,
*Proposed mechanism for attending to complaints and claims.
Once the aforementioned information was evaluated by the Sub-Agency
of Environmental Licenses, it was determined that:ANNEX 14
*The document presents a characterization at a general level (scale:
1:400,000 and 1:500,000) which does not permit definition, in a real way,
of the locations of the ecosystems and natural resources of the area that
are exposed to aerial spraying, nor does it permit differentiation or
determination of environmentally critical and sensitive ecosystems, or of
the areas which should be excluded, treated or managed in a special
manner in the development of the program, according to a set of criteria
fixed by the same.
* The analysis to determine which areas are environmentally affected by
the eradication program is not supported from a technical or scientific
point of view. It contains neither qualitative nor quantitative supporting
information, nor any supporting research on programs related to the
purpose of the evaluation that could allow a determination and evaluation
of the impacts caused to natural resources by the application of
Glyphosate. Therefore, the risk assessment is in a very general form,
which does not allow for a detailing or specification of actions to
determine risks and to plan for their management in advance.
* Also, and as a consequence of the foregoing, the final result of the
analysis undertaken for the Province of Putumayo is a characterization on
an excessively broad and general scale, which does not specifically
address the ecosystems and natural resources found with the core areas of
illicit crops which are the object of the program, for which reason the
results of this exercise, which it was hoped could be replicated for other
areas of the country, did not meet their objective.
* That on the other hand, and with respect to the set of programmatic
actions laid out in that document, as well as in previous documents
reviewed above, it can be concluded that the documents that have so far
been submitted by the National Narcotics Directorate to define an
adequate Environmental Management Plan for the activities pertaining to
the eradication of illicit crops through the aerial spraying of Glyphosate
have not met the scope and objectives defined in the terms of reference,
nor the informational requirements that this Ministry has repeatedly
requested from the National Narcotics Directorate – DNE-, taking the
following into account:
*There has been no presentation of an evaluation of the supply and
vulnerability of the individual ecosystems and natural resources contained
within the core areas of illicit crops which are the object of the program, ANNEX 14
based on which, from a technical point of view, environmentally critical,
sensitive and important ecosystems could be determined and differentiated,
along with the areas that should be excluded, treated or specially managed
in the development and execution of the program.
Nevertheless, the program has resources and technological tools available,
such as updated satellite images (SPOT and LANDSAT), software for the
recording and analysis of image interpretation from remote sensors, field
recording software, IGAC- and DMA-based cartography, air and field
verification points, with which a suitable characterization can be made of
the physical-biological and social environment of the areas with illicit
crops at a semi-detailed level (appx: 1:25,000), and in this way comply
with the requirements of both the environmental plan and the stipulations
of the National Narcotics Council in article 2 of resolution 0005 of 2000.
* There has been no formulation of evaluation parameters for the
environmental impacts and effects caused by the Glyphosate eradication
program, which could be used to establish in a clear and acceptable
manner a level of certainty to support decision-making on environmental
management measures, which must be considered in the planning and
implementation processes of the spraying project.
*In the documents which reference the national Environmental
Management Plan and the Environmental Management Plan for the
Province of Putumayo, no set of programs, actions and concrete
management measures for prevention, control, mitigation, compensation
and correction have been put forward for the possible impacts and effects
caused by the program.
* No special measures have been proposed for implementation in the area
surrounding the National Nature Park System to prevent, mitigate, control
and compensate for the possible impacts and effects caused by the
program, which especially have to do with the conservation of biological
and cultural diversity, as was established in resolution 0005 of 2000.
* No concrete, systematic actions are proposed for the tracking and
monitoring of the environmental management measures and their results,
supported by a technical design of a set of environmental quality
indicators that the program must comply with.
* Currently, the operational timelines for the aerial Glyphosate spraying
and the definition and implementation of environmental managementANNEX 14
measures of a preventative type have not put into practice articles 2 and 8
of resolution 0005/2000, regarding the prior characterization of and
recommendations to the program from the inter-institutional technical
committee.
Due to the foregoing, the documentation submitted to this Ministry in July
of 1998, September of 2000 and January of 2001 by the National
Narcotics Directorate –DNE does not satisfy the scope and objectives
established by this Ministry in Decree No. 588A of 1996.
As a consequence, and taking into account that on three occasions this
Ministry has requested of the National Narcotics Directorate –DNE
additional information that would move towards the formulation of an
Environmental Management Plan based on characteristics of the
eradication program, and without the documents submitted having not met
the stated objective, according to the conclusions expressed above, the
Environmental Management Plan is not accepted. Therefore it is
necessary to immediately apply preventative measures as established in
the resolution portion of this decree, with the aim that these measures, in
their development and results, will serve as a means for this Ministry to
_____ or implement an Environmental Management Plan for the activities
of the transitional regime, according to article 38 of Decree 1753 of 1994.
By virtue of the foregoing,
RESOLVED:
FIRST ARTICLE.- The Environmental Management Plan submitted by
the National Narcotics Directorate –DNE for the eradication of illicit
crops by the aerial spraying of Glyphosate is not accepted, and given the
Plan’s defects, the actions establish in beginning of the following article
are preventative measures.
PARAGRAPH: Based on the results of the preventative measures
established in this decree, this Ministry shall impose upon the National
Narcotics Directorate –DNE the definitive Environmental Management
Plan that will guarantee adequate environmental performance of this
activity.
SECOND ARTICLE.- The National Narcotics Directorate must develop,
within a period of six (6) months, regarding the areas subjected to spaying
with glyphosate for the eradication of illicit crops, environmental impact ANNEX 14
assessments in order to establish the nature and characteristics of possible
environmental impacts generated by said activity in the four (4) months
before the notification date of this administrative decree, to investigate
potential environmental effects according to the findings and to propose
the necessary measures to mitigate and/or compensate for them.
THIRD ARTICLE.- The National Narcotics Directorate must comply
with the stipulations of the National Narcotics Council in the eleventh
article of Resolution 0005/2000.
FOURTH ARTICLE.- In the case of populated areas, areas with social
infrastructure and/or water supply areas, the National Antinarcotics
Agency - DNE, shall define and implement, in an immediate fashion,
alternative methods for the eradication of illicit crops, so as to guarantee
the protection of the social and natural environment, effective
immediately.
FIFTH ARTICLE.- To move forward with the planning of spraying
activities in accordance with the provisions of Resolution 0005/2,000 and
its developments, the National Narcotics Directorate –DNE must
undertake and immediately put into practice, for within a term of six (6)
months, the following measures:
a) Characterize, environmentally and socio-economically, the core
areas of illicit crops which are the object of the eradication
program, based on specialized cartography with resolution levels
of 1:25,000
b) Identify, characterize, and locate to a scale of 1:25,000 the areas of
exclusion that, according to their ecological, environmental, and
social characteristics, must be subject to special measures on the
part of the Program.
c) Implement the Educational Communication Program, directed at
the communities, as proposed by the DNE, upon the approval of
competent entities.
d) Propose and implement buffer zones according to the criteria for
aerial spraying and the particular conditions of the site, with the
aim of minimizing the potential risk of effects to sensitive
ecosystems surrounding the areas which are the object of the aerial
spraying. For said purpose, the National Narcotics DirectorateANNEX 14
shall submit to the Environment Ministry the respective proposals
for approval.
e) Coordinate and harmonize the planning of actions for the Program
for the Eradication of illicit crops with Glyphosate with the social
and environmental management programs and projects developed
by other entities participating in the National Plan in the War on
Drugs.
PARAGRAPH: The National Narcotics Directorate shall present to the
Ministry of the Environment, on a quarterly basis, reports on the
advancement of the obligations established in this article.
SIXTH ARTICLE.- The National Narcotics Directorate must adopt, in an
immediate and efficient manner, the following measures for
environmental mitigation, compensation, and control, without prejudice to
the competency of the Ministry of the Environment to monitor compliance
with the same:
a) A contingency plan for the attention to and control of potential
undesirable events which could occur in the different activities that
compose the execution of the program, especially in the spraying
of the herbicide, to guarantee that the actions undertaken in the
event of an emergency or events of an uncertain nature do not
cause irreparable damage to human health and the environment, as
well as to allow for the attention to and recuperation of the
affected areas.
b) An inspection, verification, and control program, the fundamental
objective of which will be oriented towards:
x On site verification of the effectiveness of environmental
management measures applied during the operation of the Program
for the Eradication of Illicit Crops.
x Evaluation of the design for that purpose, by way of efficiency and
efficacy indicators, of the application of environmental
management measures in the Program for the Eradication of Illicit
Crops.
x Evaluation of the efficiency of the adoption of corrective action
measures, in the event that the existence of damages derived from
the eradication activities is established. ANNEX 14
c) A compensation program directed towards responding to the
possible environmental damages and impacts caused by the
application of the Eradication Program for Illicit Crops by the
aerial spraying of Glyphosate.
SEVENTH ARTICLE.- The National Narcotics Directorate must initiate,
within the three (3) months following notification of this administrative
decree, the following research programs:
* A regeneration and dynamic ecological study of the areas sprayed, by
way of plots of land that are demonstrative and are representative of the
core areas of greater concentration of illicit crops, obtained from the
census of 2000.
* Determine the degree to which Glyphosate remains in soil as residue,
and its effects on the physio-chemical and biological properties of the
same, using the same sample plots of land as previously mentioned.
PARAGRAPH: The National Narcotics Directorate must submit quarterly
reports to the Ministry of the Environment regarding the advancement of
the research projects provided for in this article.
EIGHTH ARTICLE.- The National Narcotics Directorate must contract
an external, independent technical Auditor, whose objective, scope,
functional structure, functions, and activities, as well as the products to be
submitted and the expected results of the same, must conform to the terms
of reference approved in the Inter-Institutional Technical Committee in
resolution No. 005 of 2000.
NINTH ARTICLE.- The National Narcotics Directorate must design and
operate a system for public information regarding the development of the
spraying program, the activities and reports of the oversight required by
this decree, and compliance with the same.
TENTH ARTICLE.- The National Narcotics Directorate must request the
support of the Colombian Agricultural Institute –ICA and of the Ministry
of Health, or the agency that it designates for the development of an
evaluation conducive to establishing the dose of the Glyphosate
formulation which is most effective in terms of the minimization of risks
to human health and the environment.ANNEX 14
ELEVENTH ARTICLE.- This resolution shall be brought to the attention
of the National Narcotics Director, the Ombudsman, and the legal
representative of FUNDEPUBLICO
TWELFTH ARTICLE.- The National Narcotics Directorate must pay to
this Ministry, for oversight, an amount to be determined.
THIRTEENTH ARTICLE.- There is no recourse to this resolution.
NOTIFIED AND COMPLETED
JUAN MAYR MALDONADO
Ministry of the Environment
“By which are adopted decisions related to the Program for the
eradication of illicit crops through the aerial spraying of Glyphosate”
[…] ANNEX 14
nddcadores Prediccónnclmáátcaic Aerrasa Tiemppo Ríos Pronósstcosc Attasa Meeeorologíaa Notcias Temaas
Elldeam
Normatividad > Resultados de su búsqueda
ElSINA
Sisemaa de Resolución No. 341 de 2001
Inormaacónó
Ambbienall "Por medio de la cual se adoptan unas decisiones en relación con el Programa
En temppo eall
de erradicación de cultivos ilícitos mediante aspersión aérea con Glifosato"
Meeadataa
Seresse El Ministro del Medio Ambiente
hisórrcas
Normaatvidad En ejercicio de las atribuciones conferidas por los artículos 2º, 5º. Numeral 2º. y
Publlcacones
articulo 38 del Decreto 1753 de 1994,
Bibloteca
Para nños
CONSIDERANDO:
Gobberno
en lnean Que corresponde al Ministerio del Medio Ambiente como ente rector de la
Vínculos
gestión ambiental y de los recursos naturales renovables del país asegurar,
entre otras, la recuperación, conservación y protección de los recursos naturales
renovables y el medio ambiente, así como regular las condiciones generales
para el saneamiento del medio ambiente, a fin de impedir, eliminar o mitigar el
impacto de las actividades contaminantes, deteriorantes o destructivas del
entorno o del patrimonio natural.
Que las acciones de erradicación de cultivos ilícitos con aspersión de Glifosato,
se consideran, al tenor de lo dispuesto en el artículo 38 del Decreto 1753 de
1994, una actividad del régimen de transición, razón por la cual, este Ministerio
exigió a la Dirección Nacional de Estupefacientes - DNE la presentación de un
Plan de Manejo Ambiental para dicha actividad.
Que con fundamento en el Concepto Técnico No. 0150 del 12 de Julio de 1996,
de la Subdirección de Ordenación y Evaluación de la Dirección General
Ambiental Sectorial de este Ministerio, la Oficina Jurídica de la misma entidad, a
través del Auto No. 558A de agosto 13 de 1996, procedió a fijar los Términos de
Referencia para que la Dirección Nacional de Estupefacientes - DNE elaborara el
Plan de Manejo Ambiental para la aplicación del Herbicida a base de Glifosato a
través del Programa de Erradicación de Cultivos Ilícitos en el Territorio Nacional;
Plan de Manejo que fue entregado a este Ministerio el día 31 de julio de 1998,
sin el capitulo VII correspondiente a la "Identificación y Evaluación de Impactos
Ambientales".
Que en consideración de lo anterior, mediante oficio del 13 de Noviembre de
1998, este Ministerio solicitó a la Dirección Nacional de Estupefacientes allegar
el Capítulo VII del Plan de Manejo Ambiental presentado, con el fin de proseguir
con la respectiva evaluación; capítulo que fue presentado al Ministerio en el mes
de Diciembre de 1998;
Que una vez sometido a estudio y evaluación de la Subdirección de Licencias
Ambientales el Plan de Manejo Ambiental presentado por la Dirección Nacional
http://www.ideam.gov.co:8080/legal/resultado.shtml?AA_SL_Session=c6176f…... ANNEX 14
de Estupefaciente, se emitió el concepto técnico No.419-99 del 21 de Diciembre
de 1999, mediante el cual se solicito información complementaria en relación
con el análisis y determinación de las condiciones de exposición, tipo de
exposición directa o indirecta y los posibles impactos acumulativos; lo anterior
con el fin de replantear la evaluación de riesgo ambiental de las actividades de
fumigación y redimensionar el Plan de Manejo Ambiental del Programa de
Erradicación con Glifosato;
Que la solicitud de información complementaria prevista en el concepto técnico
anteriormente referenciado, fue hecha a la Dirección Nacional de
Estupefacientes, en virtud de Auto No. 599 del 23 de Diciembre de 1999, el cual
fue recurrido en su totalidad por dicha Dirección el 1° de febrero del año 2000.
Que mediante Auto No. 143 del 29 de Marzo del 2000 este Ministerio resolvió el
Recurso de Reposición interpuesto contra el Auto 599 de 1999, en el sentido de
modificar el numeral 2 del artículo 1º. , aclarar el numeral 3 del artículo 1º. del
mismo y otorgar un término de tres meses para su complementación.
Que la Dirección Nacional de Estupefacientes, interpuso recurso de reposición
contra el artículo quinto del auto en cuestión, solicitando la ampliación a doce
meses del término establecido para la entrega de la información adicional;
recurso que fue rechazado por el Ministerio del Medio Ambiente, mediante el
Auto No.275 del 6 de junio de 2000, confirmándose el plazo de tres meses para
la entrega de la dicha información.
Que en cumplimiento de lo anterior, el 13 de septiembre de 2000 la Dirección
Nacional de Estupefacientes - DNE, entregó a este Ministerio, el documento
"Complementación al Plan de Manejo Ambiental para la Aplicación del Herbicida
Glifosato en la Erradicación de Cultivos Ilícitos", el cual fue adicionado con fecha
17 de octubre de 2000.
Que una vez recibida la información adicional y complementaria al Plan de
Manejo Ambiental en estudio, la Subdirección de Licencias Ambientales,
mediante concepto técnico 589 del 20 de diciembre de 2000, conceptúo que la
información complementaria entregada por la Dirección Nacional de
Estupefacientes, no cumplía con los requerimientos exigidos en el Auto No. 588A
de 1996.
Que en consideración de lo anterior, el 20 de diciembre de 2000, el Ministro del
Medio Ambiente convocó a la Dirección Nacional de Estupefaciente - DNE a una
reunión, con el fin de comunicarle que la información entregada, no satisfacía
los requerimientos de este Ministerio; en dicha reunión la Dirección Nacional de
Estupefaciente - DNE, se comprometió a entregar un documento con mayor
detalle en su caracterización y orientando la evaluación de los impactos al
análisis de riesgos, de acuerdo a lo solicitado en los términos de referencia para
el Plan de Manejo Ambiental previsto en el Auto No. 558A/96 de este Ministerio,
para la zona de Putumayo.
Que en cumplimiento de lo anterior, el 30 de Enero de 2001, la Dirección
Nacional de Estupefacientes - DNE, entregó a este Ministerio para su estudio y
http://www.ideam.gov.co:8080/legal/resultado.shtml?AA_SL_Session=c6176f…... ANNEX 14
evaluación, el documento "Plan de Manejo Ambiental para la Erradicación de
Cultivos Ilícitos a partir de la evaluación de riesgo potencial de operación del
programa de aspersión en el departamento del Putumayo".
Que en este documento, con base en una caracterización ambiental a nivel
departamental (1:500.000, 1:400.000) se planteó la combinación de dos
metodologías de evaluación de riesgos (impactos ambientales por uso de
plaguicidas y evaluación de riesgos potenciales tecnológicos); y se presentó una
descripción de las etapas del programa de aspersión de cultivos ilícitos; una
propuesta de evaluación del programa de erradicación; y una estructura de Plan
de Manejo integrada por 10 fichas de programa en aspectos relacionados con:
* Objetivos del programa de erradicación;
* Celebración de convenios interinstitucionales para mejorar la información de las
áreas de operación del programa de erradicación;
* Capacitación de los pilotos en aspectos ambientales;
* Análisis de imágenes de satélite, sistematización y georreferenciación de
información para las operaciones de aspersión;
* Sistematización de informes de auditoría ambiental;
* Registro de datos del medio natural en el proceso de verificación;
* Medidas de mitigación y compensación por contingencias en la operación del
programa; y
* Propuesta de mecanismo de atención de quejas y reclamos.
Que una vez evaluada por la Subdirección de Licencias Ambientales, la
información anteriormente referenciada, se determinó:
* El documento presenta una caracterización a nivel general (escala: 1:400.000 y
1:500.000), que no permite definir de manera real la localización de los
ecosistemas y recursos naturales del área, expuestos a la aspersión aérea;
tampoco permite diferenciar ni determinar los ecosistemas ambientalmente
críticos y sensibles ni las áreas que deban ser excluidas, tratadas o manejadas
de manera especial en el desarrollo del programa, de acuerdo al conjunto de
criterios fijados por el mismo.
* Los análisis para determinar las áreas ambientalmente afectadas por el
programa de erradicación, no se sustentan desde el punto de vista técnico ni
científico, por cuanto no se dispone de los soportes cuantitativos ni cualitativos ni
los soportes de investigaciones en programas relacionados con el objeto de la
evaluación, que permitan determinar y valorar los impactos ocasionados sobre
los recursos naturales por la aplicación del Glifosato, y por lo tanto, la estimación
de riesgos planteada se presenta de forma muy general, lo cual no permite
detallar ni precisar acciones para determinarlos y prospectar su manejo de
manera previa.
* De otra parte, y como consecuencia de lo anterior, el resultado final del análisis
realizado para el departamento del Putumayo, parte de una caracterización en
escala excesivamente amplia y general, no efectuándose de manera especifica
sobre los ecosistemas y recursos naturales que se encuentran al interior de las
zonas nucleadas de cultivos ilícitos objeto del programa, razón por la cual, los
resultados de este ejercicio, que se esperaba pudiera ser replicado para otras
zonas del país, no cumplió con su objetivo.
http://www.ideam.gov.co:8080/legal/resultado.shtml?AA_SL_Session=c6176f… 14
Que de otro lado, y respecto al conjunto de acciones programáticas planteadas
en dicho documento, así como en los documentos previos reseñados
anteriormente, se puede concluir que los documentos hasta ahora entregados
por la Dirección Nacional de Estupefacientes para definir un adecuado Plan de
Manejo Ambiental para la actividad de erradicación de cultivos ilícitos mediante
la aspersión aérea con Glifosato, no han respondido a los alcances y objetivos
definidos en los términos de referencia ni a los requerimientos de información
que este Ministerio ha solicitado en repetidas oportunidades a la Dirección
Nacional de Estupefacientes - DNE, teniendo en cuenta lo siguiente:
* No se ha presentado una evaluación de la oferta y vulnerabilidad de los
ecosistemas y recursos naturales particulares contenidos al interior de las zonas
nucleadas de cultivos ilícitos objeto del programa, sobre la cual desde el punto
de vista técnico se puedan determinar y diferenciar los ecosistemas
ambientalmente críticos, sensibles y de importancia ambiental, así como las
áreas que deben ser excluidas, tratadas o manejadas de manera especial en
desarrollo y ejecución del programa.
No obstante, el programa dispone de los recursos y herramientas tecnológicas,
tales como: imágenes de satélite (SPOT y LANDSAT) actualizadas, software de
registro y análisis de interpretación de imágenes de sensores remotos, software
de registro de campo, cartografía base del IGAC y DMA, comprobaciones aéreas
y de campo, con las cuales se puede efectuar una caracterización adecuada del
entorno físico-biótico y social de las áreas con cultivos ilícitos a nivel de
semidetalle (aprox: 1:25.000), y de esta manera dar cumplimiento a las
exigencias tanto del plan de manejo ambiental, como con lo establecido por el
Consejo Nacional de Estupefacientes en el artículo 2º de la resolución 0005 de
2000.
* No se han generado los parámetros de valoración de los impactos y efectos
ambientales generados por el Programa de erradicación con Glifosato, con los
cuales se pueda establecer de manera clara y aceptable un nivel de certeza que
soporte la toma de decisiones relacionadas con las medidas de manejo
ambiental que se deben contemplar en el proceso de planificación e
implementación de las labores de aspersión.
* Tanto en los documentos que hacen referencia al Plan de Manejo Ambiental
para el territorio nacional, como para el Departamento del Putumayo, no se han
diseñado el conjunto de programas, acciones y medidas concretas de manejo
ambiental relacionadas con la prevención, control, mitigación, compensación y
corrección, para los posibles impactos y efectos causados por el programa.
* No se han propuesto medidas especiales a implementar en las áreas aledañas
al sistema de Parques Nacionales Naturales, con el fin de prevenir, mitigar,
controlar y compensar los posibles impactos y efectos ocasionados por el
programa y que respondan, en particular a conservar la diversidad biológica y
cultural, tal como lo establece la resolución 0005 del 2000.
* No se proponen acciones sistemáticas concretas para el seguimiento y
monitoreo de las medidas de manejo ambiental y sus resultados, soportado en el
diseño técnico de un conjunto de indicadores de calidad ambiental con los cuales
debe operar el programa.
http://www.ideam.gov.co:8080/legal/resultado.shtml?AA_SL_Session=c6176f…... ANNEX 14
* En la actualidad los cronogramas operacionales del programa de aspersión
área con Glifosato y la definición e implementación de medidas de manejo
ambiental de tipo preventivo, no han puesto en practica los artículos 2 y 8 de la
resolución 0005/2000, relacionados con la caracterización previa y
recomendaciones al programa por parte del comité técnico interinstitucional.
Que por lo anteriormente expuesto, la documentación entregada a este
Ministerio en julio de 1998, septiembre de 2000 y enero de 2001 por la Dirección
Nacional de Estupefacientes - DNE, no satisface los alcances y objetivos
establecidos por este Ministerio en el Auto No. 588A de 1996.
Que en consecuencia, y teniendo en cuenta que en tres oportunidades este
Ministerio ha requerido a la Dirección Nacional de Estupefacientes - DNE,
información complementaria que conduzcan a lograr la formulación de un Plan
Manejo Ambiental frente a las características del programa de erradicación, sin
que los documentos entregados hayan cumplido con el objetivo previsto, de
acuerdo a las conclusiones anteriormente planteadas, no se acepta el Plan de
Manejo Ambiental y en consecuencia, se hace necesario aplicar de manera
inmediata las medidas preventivas que se establecen en la parte resolutiva del
presente acto, con el fin de que las mismas en su desarrollo y resultado, sirvan
de insumo a este Ministerio para la imposición definitiva del Plan de Manejo
Ambiental previsto para las actividades del régimen de transición, según el
artículo 38 del decreto 1753 de 1994.
Queenmértiol expuesto,se
RESUELVE:
ARTICULO PRIMERO.- No aceptar el Plan de Manejo Ambiental presentado por
la Dirección Nacional de Estupefacientes - DNE para la actividad de erradicación
de cultivos ilícitos mediante la aspersión aérea con Glifosato, y en su defecto
establecer como medidas preventivas las acciones que se determinar a partir del
artículo siguiente
PARAGRAFO: Con base en los resultados de las medidas preventivas
establecidas en la presente providencia, este Ministerio impondrá a la Dirección
Nacional de Estupefacientes - DNE el Plan de Manejo Ambiental definitivo que
garantice el adecuado desempeño ambiental de esta actividad .
ARTICULO SEGUNDO.- La Dirección Nacional de Estupefacientes, deberá
desarrollar dentro de un término de hasta seis (6) meses, sobre las áreas objeto
de aspersión de Glifosato para la erradicación de cultivos ilícitos, evaluaciones
de impacto ambiental, conducentes a establecer la naturaleza y características
de los posibles impactos ambientales generados por dicha actividad en los
cuatro (4) meses anteriores a la fecha de notificación del presente acto
administrativo, prospectar los potenciales efectos ambientales en función de los
hallazgos y proponer las medidas necesarias para mitigarlos y/o compensarlos.
ARTICULO TERCERO.- La Dirección Nacional de Estupefacientes deberá
cumplir con lo establecido por el Consejo Nacional de Estupefaciente en el
artículo undécimo de la Resolución 0005/2000.
http://www.ideam.gov.co:8080/legal/resultado.shtml?AA_SL_Session=c6176f…... ANNEX 14
ARTICULO CUARTO. - Para el caso de áreas pobladas, áreas con
infraestructura social y/o áreas de abastecimiento de acueductos, la Dirección
Nacional de Estupefacientes - DNE, definirá e implementará de manera
inmediata, medidas alternativas para erradicar los cultivos ilícitos, de tal forma
que se garanticen la protección del entorno ambiental y social, las cuales tendrán
inmediata aplicación.
ARTICULO QUINTO. - Para adelantar la planificación de las actividades de
aspersión, en concordancia con lo establecido en la Resolución 0005/2.000 y sus
desarrollos, la Dirección Nacional de Estupefacientes - DNE, debe realizar y
poner en práctica de forma inmediata, y hasta por un término de seis (6) meses,
las siguientes medidas:
a) Caracterizar ambiental y socioeconómicamente las áreas nucleadas de
cultivos ilícitos objeto del programa de erradicación, basada en cartografía
especializada con niveles de resolución de 1:25.000
b) Identificar, caracterizar y espacializar a escala 1:25.000, las áreas de
exclusión, que de acuerdo a sus características ecológicas, ambientales y
sociales deben ser objeto de medidas especiales por parte del Programa.
c) Implementar el Programa de Comunicación Educativa dirigido a las
comunidades, propuesto por la DNE, previo concepto de las entidades
competentes .
d) Proponer e implementar las franjas de seguridad de acuerdo con los criterios
propios de aspersión aérea y condiciones particulares del sitio, con el fin de
minimizar riesgos potenciales de afectación a ecosistemas sensibles
circundantes a las áreas que resulten objeto de la aspersión aérea. Para tal
efecto, la Dirección Nacional de Estupefacientes presentará al MMA las
propuestas respectivas para su aprobación.
e) Coordinar y armonizar, la planificación de las acciones del Programa de
Erradicación de cultivos ilícitos con Glifosato, con los programas y proyectos de
gestión social y ambiental desarrollados por las otras entidades participantes en
el Plan Nacional de Lucha Contra la Drogas.
PARAGRAFO: La Dirección Nacional de Estupefacientes deberá presentar al
Ministerio del Medio Ambiente trimestralmente, informes de avance sobre las
obligaciones establecidas en el presente artículo.
ARTICULO SEXTO.- La Dirección Nacional de Estupefacientes debe adoptar de
manera inmediata y eficiente, las siguientes medidas de mitigación,
compensación y control ambiental, sin perjuicio de la competencia del Ministerio
del Medio Ambiente para hacer seguimiento al cumplimiento de las mismas:
a) Plan de contingencia para la atención y control de eventos potenciales
indeseados, que puedan ocurrir en las diferentes actividades que comprenden la
ejecución del Programa, en especial en la actividad de aspersión del herbicida,
conducentes a garantizar que las acciones que se acometan con ocasión de
emergencia o eventos de naturaleza incierta, no generen daños irreparables a la
salud humana y el medio ambiente, y así mismo permitan la atención y
http://www.ideam.gov.co:8080/legal/resultado.shtml?AA_SL_Session=c6176f…... ANNEX 14
recuperación de las áreas afectadas.
b) Programa de inspección, verificación y control cuyo objetivo fundamental esté
orientado a:
* Verificar en sitio, la efectividad de la aplicación de medidas de manejo
ambiental durante la operación del Programa de Erradicación de Cultivos Ilícitos.
* Evaluar previo diseño para tal fin, mediante indicadores de eficiencia y
efectividad, la aplicación de medidas de manejo ambiental del Programa de
Erradicación de Cultivos Ilícitos
* Evaluar la eficiencia en la adopción de medidas de acción correctiva, en caso
de que se establezcan la existencia de daños derivados de las actividades de
erradicación.
c) Un programa de compensación dirigido a responder a posibles daños e
impactos ambientales generados en ejercicio de la aplicación del Programa de
Erradicación de cultivos ilícitos a través de la aspersión aérea con Glifosato.
ARTICULO SEPTIMO.- La Dirección Nacional de Estupefacientes deberá iniciar
dentro los tres (3) meses siguientes a la notificación del presente acto
administrativo, los siguientes programas de investigación:
* Estudio de la regeneración y dinámica ecológica de zonas asperjadas,
mediante parcelas demostrativas y representativas de los núcleos de mayor
concentración de cultivos ilícitos, obtenidos en el censo de 2000.
* Determinar la residualidad de Glifosato en el suelo y su afectación en las
propiedades físico químico y biológicas de los mismos, utilizando las mismas
parcelas demostrativas enunciadas anteriormente.
PARAGRAFO: La Dirección Nacional de Estupefacientes deberá reportar
trimestralmente al Ministerio del Medio Ambiente sobre los avances de las
investigaciones previstas en el presente artículo
ARTICULO OCTAVO.- La Dirección Nacional de Estupefacientes deberá
contratar una Auditoría técnica externa e independiente, cuyo objeto, alcance,
estructura funcional, funciones y actividades a desarrollar, así como los
productos a entregar y los resultados esperados de la misma, deberán estar
conforme a los términos de referencia aprobados en EL Comité Técnico
Interinstitucional de que trta la resolución No. 005 de 2.000
ARTICULO NOVENO.- La Dirección Nacional de estupefacientes deberá diseñar
y operar un sistema de información al público respecto del desarrollo del
programa de aspersión, las actividades y los informes de la interventoría
ordenada en la presente providencia y el cumplimiento de la misma.
ARTICULO DECIMO.- La Dirección Nacional de Estupefacientes deberá solicitar
el apoyo del Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario - ICA y del Ministerio de Salud o
a quien este último designe, para que desarrollen la evaluación conducente a
establecer las dosis de la formulación de Glifosato más eficaz en función de la
minimización del riesgo para salud humana y el medio ambiente.
http://www.ideam.gov.co:8080/legal/resultado.shtml?AA_SL_Session=c6176f… 14
ARTICULO DECIMO PRIMERO.- La presente resolución deberá ser notificada al
Director Nacional de Estupefacientes , al Defensor del Pueblo y al representante
legal de FUNDEPUBLICO
ARTICULO DECIMO SEGUNDO.- La Dirección Nacional de estupefacientes
deberá cancelar a este Ministerio, por concepto de seguimiento, la suma que en
su oportunidad se determine.
ARTICULO DECIMO TERCERO.- Contra la presente resolución no procede
recurso alguno.
NOTIFÍQUESE Y CUMPLASE
JUAN MAYR MALDONADO
Ministro del Medio Ambiente.
"Por medio de la cual se adoptan unas decisiones en relación con el Programa
de erradicación de cultivos ilícitos mediante aspersión aérea con Glifosato"
Buscar normatividad
Buscar
© 2001 IDEAM. Adscrito al Ministerio de Ambiente, Vivienda y Desarrollo
Territorial de Colombia. Sistema Nacional Ambiental.
http://www.ideam.gov.co:8080/legal/resultado.shtml?AA_SL_Session=c6176f…... ANNEX 15
Republic of Colombia, Ministry of Environment,
Resolution No. 1065, Environmental Management Plan
(26 Nov. 2001) ANNEX 15
Environmental Management Plan
Resolution No. 1065
26 November 2001
“Whereby a management plan is established and other decisions are made”
The Minister for the Environment
Pursuant to the powers conferred by Law 99 of 1993 and especially by Article 38
of Decree 1753 of 1994
and Whereas:
The Ministry of the Environment, by way of Decree 558 A of 13 August 1996,
ordered the NATIONAL NARCOTICS DIRECTORATE – DNE – to present an
Environmental Management Plan for the eradication of illicit crops with
Glyphosate, in accordance with the Terms of Reference issued in the
aforementioned administrative decree.
By way of official note No. 11430 of 30 July 1998, the NATIONAL
NARCOTICS DIRECTORATE – DNE – submitted to this Ministry the
Environmental Management Plan for the “Eradication of illicit crops through the
aerial spraying with Glyphosate,” without Chapter VII regarding the
“Identification and Evaluation of Environmental Impacts.”
Due to the foregoing, by way of official note No. 22111-2-315 of 2 October 1998,
the Sub-Agency of Licenses of the Ministry of the Environment requested that the
NATIONAL NARCOTICS DIRECTORATE – DNE – submit Chapter VII of the
Environmental Management Plan.
On 18 November 1998, the NATIONAL NARCOTICS DIRECTORATE – DNE
– through an official based in this Ministry and under the number 3110-1-25417,
submitted copies of Chapter VII of the Environmental Management Plan entitled:
“Identification and Evaluation of Environmental Impacts.”
Once the study presented by the NATIONAL NARCOTICS DIRECTORATE –
DNE – was evaluated, Technical Report No. 419-99 of 21 December 1999 was
issued by way of Decree No. 599 of 23 December 1999, in which the
NATIONAL NARCOTICS DIRECTORATE – DNE – was required to augment
the Environmental Management Plan for the application of Glyphosate-based
herbicides in the eradication of illicit crops, as is recorded in the file.ANNEX 15
By way of an official note on 1 February 2000, the NATIONAL NARCOTICS
DIRECTORATE – DNE – filed a Request for Review against Decree No. 599 of
23 December 1999, arguing, inter alia, that there were aspects that were not in
accordance with the technical opinions expressed by the Colombian Agricultural
Institute – I.C.A. – and the technical report issued by the Ministry of the
Environment, as well as with the term established for the submittal of the
complementary information to the Environmental Management Plan.
By way of decree No. 143 of 29 March 2000, the Ministry of the Environment
put forward a Request for Review resolution in the sense of modifying numeral 2,
clarifying numeral 3, confirming the others terms of the First Article of Decree
599 of 1999 and setting a term of 3 months for the effects of delivery of the
information solicited in the first article of the decree challenged.
By way of an official note on 10 May 2000, the NATIONAL NARCOTICS
DIRECTORATE – DNE – filed a Request for Review against the foregoing
Decree, requesting consideration of the fact that, among other aspects, the
amplification, reformation, and presentation of the Environmental Management
Plan, requires the participation of different entities to define terms, times,
proposals and agreements with national and regional entities.
By way of Decree 275 of 6 June 2000, the Ministry of the Environment resolved
the request for review filed against Decree No. 143 of 29 March 2000, by not
modifying the appealed decree and ratifying every one of the challenged ruling’s
parts.
The NATIONAL NARCOTICS DIRECTORATE – DNE, by way of a
communiqué on 13 September 2000, presented to the Ministry of the
Environment the document “Addition to the Environmental Management Plan for
the application of the herbicide Glyphosate in the eradication of illicit crops,”
which was appended on 17 October 2000.
Having received and analyzed the additional information in the Environmental
Management Plan under consideration, the Sub-Agency of Licenses, according to
technical opinion No. 589 of 20 December 2000, announced that the additional
information submitted by the NATIONAL NARCOTICS DIRECTORATE –
DNE – did not comply with the requirements demanded in Decree No. 588 A of
1996.
In response to the foregoing, on 20 December 2000, the Ministry of the
Environment called for a meeting with the NATIONAL NARCOTICS
DIRECTORATE – DNE – to inform it that the information delivered did not ANNEX 15
satisfy the requirements of this Ministry. In said meeting, the NATIONAL
NARCOTICS DIRECTORATE – DNE – committed to deliver a document more
detailed in its characterization and oriented to the evaluation of the impacts to the
risk assessment, in accordance with the demands of the terms of reference for the
Environmental Management Plan set in Decree 558 A of 1996, for the Putumayo
region.
In fulfillment of the foregoing, by way of the official note numbered 3111-1-1627
of 30 January 2001, the NATIONAL NARCOTICS DIRECTORATE – DNE –
submitted the document “Environmental Management Plan beginning with the
evaluation of the potential operational risks of the eradication of illicit crops
through spraying in the Putumayo Region.”
By way of Resolution 341 of 4 May 2001, this entity decided not to accept the
Environmental Management Plan presented by the NATIONAL NARCOTICS
DIRECTORATE – DNE – for the “Eradication of illicit crops through the aerial
spraying of Glyphosate,” and given its defect, proceeded to establish measures for
immediate observance and others of a preventative sort, whose observance is the
subject of revision in this resolution.
The Ministry of the Environment, through Decree 516 of 16 July 2001, required
that the NATIONAL NARCOTICS DIRECTORATE – DNE – report on the
actions taken to advance compliance with Resolution 341 of 2001.
By way of the official note numbered 3110-1-1069 of 8 August 2001, the
NATIONAL NARCOTICS DIRECTORATE – DNE – submitted to the Ministry
of the Environment the first report on the advancement of its compliance with the
obligations established in Resolution 341 of 2001.
In response to this report, the Ministry, by way of official note 2211-2-126 of 24
August 2001, requested clarification regarding the official notes of the Ministry
of Health and the ICA [Agricultural Institute of Colombia]. Likewise, by way of
official note 3111-2-11558 of 6 September 2001, it made comments regarding the
proposals titled “Rapid ex-post environmental evaluation” and “Determination of
the effects of the sprayings with glyphosate.”
By way of official note numbered 3113-1-14331 of 7 November 2001, the
NATIONAL NARCOTICS DIRECTORATE – DNE – submitted to the Ministry
the document titled “Environmental Management Plan for the Program of
Eradication of Illicit Cops through Aerial Spraying with Glyphosate,” as well as
the document related to the State of Advancement of Resolution 341 of 2001.ANNEX 15
TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The Sub-Agency of Licenses, by way of Technical Opinion No. 992 of 23
November 2001, made an announcement regarding the information submitted by
the DNE related to the fulfillment of Resolution 341 of 2001. It is important to
note that within this opinion, aspects were included referring to the follow-up
visit undertaken by this Ministry on the 6thand 7 days of November of this year
to the air base of the National Antinarcotics Police of the City of San José del
Guaviare and some sprayed areas in the Guaviare Region.
1. Follow-up to resolution 341 of 2001
From a technical point of view, this Ministry, with respect to the information
submitted by the DNE on the fulfillment of the requirements stipulated in the
resolving articles of Resolution 341 of 2001, considers the following:
Second Article
The DNE submits an investigation proposal that combines the requirements of
Articles Two and Seven of Resolution 341, arguing that the PROGRAM OF
ERADICATION OF ILLICIT CROPS WITH GLYPHOSATE – PECIG – has
been carried out in areas that have been infiltrated by the cultivators of coca,
initially through their slashing and burning of forests and later, through their
long-term production of coca, in which they use agrochemicals and other
chemical supplies. In this sense, the DNE demonstrates that is not possible to
evaluate these areas subject to the Program without an investigation design that
allows for the separation of the effects of the application of Glyphosate herbicides
from those related to the chemical substances used in the process of planting
illicit crops and the production of narcotics.
Once the foregoing aspects are analyzed, this Ministry considers from a technical
point of view that some environmental impacts exist before the spraying, which
generates interferences for the evaluation of the impacts in the framework of the
required investigations. Nevertheless, this does not imply that the required
evaluation on the effect of the spraying will not be conducted, in the terms and
conditions established in Article Two of Resolution 341 of 2001. Therefore, the
DNE must conduct environmental monitoring as indicated in part No. 8 of its
proposed management plan, complemented with the adjustments that are later
indicated. For this, it is necessary that the indicated monitoring be started
immediately, and similarly, the submittal of quarterly reports regarding the ANNEX 15
advancement of this monitoring should be carried out as of the date of the
notification of this resolution.
Third Article
The assertions of the DNE that aerial spraying with Glyphosate will not be
carried out in park areas or other natural areas protected on regional and local
levels are accepted. In this sense, the Special Administrative Unit of the National
Natural Parks System – UAESPNN – will verify compliance with this article
through follow-up visits and/or through the reports of the Technical Auditor.
For illicit crops present in such areas, the DNE will manually eradicate, in
accordance with the related guidelines that will be established by the Special
Administrative Unit of the National Natural Parks System – UAESPNN.. It is
clear that the programs for eradication, prevention and mitigation of the
environmental impact of illicit crops in these zones are the responsibility of the
DNE.
Fourth Article
In agreement with what is expressed by the DNE, the PECIG does not operate in
environmentally sensitive areas, such as: populated areas, parks, natural reserves,
aqueducts and bodies of water. This will be subject of verification by the
Technical Auditor. The DNE will be responsible for adequate inter-institutional
coordination, in accordance with what is indicated in Part No. 12 of the proposed
Environmental Management Plan.
Fifth Article
Paragraphs a) and b):
In what refers to the framework of the inter-administrative agreement signed by
the DNE and the IGAC, the DNE suggests that the technical and economic
proposal presented in the first instance by the IGAC divides the execution of
information production activities into two phases, which do not abide by their
requirements - as established in Resolution 341 of 2001 - because only upon
finishing the second phase will the required cartography be completely obtained.
Additionally, it states that that the cost of this first phase is very high, and it does
not include an estimate for what would be the investment for the second phase, in
order to allow for the negotiation of the corresponding allocations, which is whyANNEX 15
the related request was made to the IGAC, but as of this date a response has not
been received.
Consequently, it is suggested that the description be carried out and that the
requested information be submitted, employing the “virtual scales” methodology,
and also using as support the so-called “Geo-referenced Information System for
the Areas with the Presence of Illicit Crops,” which was started in the month of
July and which, in the judgment of the DNE, allows for the characterization of the
social, cultural, epidemiological, health, economic and environmental
environment in the areas of spraying, as well as the determination of potential
risks of the program’s operation, through the integration of information provided
by different entities.
On this topic, it should be noted that in Resolution 341 of May 2001, the Ministry
requested the environmental and socioeconomic characterization of the areas of
illicit crops, as well as information on the excluded areas on the scales indicated
in the Resolution, keeping in mind that this level of detail is the most suitable for
purposes of the analysis of the environmental impacts that could occur within the
framework of the development of the process of environmental evaluation and
monitoring.
Regarding the position expressed by the DNE in the document entitled
“Comments on the scale of the characterization studies in zones with the
presence of illicit crops,” the following appraisals are made:
Resolution 0341 of 2001 does not propose in any part of its content the execution
of characterizations of areas of influence that are outside the areas that could be
directly affected by the operation of the program. Therefore, it is erroneous to
assert that it is requesting the characterization of 50% of the country, and
consequently, the figures that are provided in that analysis do not apply to the
reality of the requirements made by the Ministry.
The DNE implies that the execution of the characterization studies at the scale
requested by the Ministry is useless, because those studies “...serve as a baseline
for the evaluations more often applied regarding human activities or
different processes of degradation (environmental impacts, evaluation of
land, erosion processes, etc....),” suggesting that for the purposes that the
Ministry is pursuing, it would be necessary to revise the scope and levels of the
detail requested. On this topic, it should always be kept in mind that the purpose
of the characterization is precisely to obtain the closest approximation of the
possible impacts on the physical, biotic, economic and social components that ANNEX 15
could result from the operation of the program in order to determine the correct
measures of prevention, mitigation and compensation to implement.
This approximation would not be possible [sic, impossible], in that the
characterization of the noted components is to be conducted and presented in
work scales of 1:250,000 or 1:500,000, as suggested by the DNE.
Nevertheless, taking into account that there are limitations on the part of the
entities charged with the production of the cartographic information to provide
basic and thematic cartography in the required scale for some of the areas subject
to the Eradication Program, the Ministry accepts the technical arguments outlined
by the IGAC, allowing the presentation of the required information at a scale of
1:100,000.
In conclusion, the DNE must immediately initiate the environmental and
socioeconomic characterization of the specific areas of illicit crops subject to the
eradication program, using the available analog and digital cartographic
information and its associated alphanumeric databases, supporting the
development of the same through the managing and processing of satellite
images, radar images, and aerial photographs, as well as the use of geographic
information systems, for the final presentation of cartographic products (maps,
spatial maps, ortophoto maps) at a scale of 1:100,000.
Likewise, the DNE must immediately conduct the geo-referencing, identification
and characterization of areas of exclusion which, according to their ecological,
environmental and social characteristics, should be subject to special measures of
the eradication program, using the available analog and digital cartographic
information and its associated alphanumeric databases, supporting the
development of the same through the managing and processing of satellite
images, radar images, and aerial photographs, as well as the use of geographic
information systems for the final presentation of cartographic products (maps,
spatial maps, ortophoto maps) at a scale of 1:100,000.
Finally, the DNE must immediately conduct the geo-referencing of the
monitoring parcels that are defined in the framework of the environmental
monitoring program pertaining to Article 2 of Resolution 341 of 2001.
Paragraph c:
The elaboration and implementation of the Educational Communication program
is contained in Part 10 of the PMA.ANNEX 15
Article 5 Paragraph d:
This Ministry believes that the buffer zones proposed by the DNE in the study
submitted should be adjusted according to the Ministry’s determination, since
those suggested by DNE do not guarantee safety with respect to the need to
preserve and protect the areas described. These adjustments should be adopted
immediately by the PECIG and verified in the field by the Technical Auditor,
maintaining therefore the same buffer zones, according to the following table:
Buffer Zones for Environmental Elements
Environmental Element Buffer Zone
Standing bodies of water: lakes, Minimum 200-meter buffer. (Pursuant to
ponds, fish-farming ponds, and the criteria set forth in Decree 1843/1991 of
flowing bodies of water: streams, the Ministry of Health). This buffer may be
rivers. expanded depending on the technical
conditions of the aerial operations.
Do not spray within them. Spray outside the
Sub-highland, headwaters and area with a minimum buffer zone of 2000
aquifer recharge areas.
meters.
Do not spray within them. Spray outside the
area with a minimum buffer zone of 2000
Areas of the zones belonging to
SNPNN*. meters.
Human settlements: hamlets, Do not spray within them. Spray outside the
checkpoints, shelters, urban area with a minimum buffer zone of 2000
areas. meters.
Areas of socio-economic interest: Do not spray. Establish a minimum buffer
Productive projects, pact areas. zone of 1600 meters.
(*) The UAESPNN [Special Administrative Unit of the National Natural Parks
System] will provide the data on the topographic boundaries that define and limit
of the natural national parks, with their polygon and BMs properly identified, in
order for DNE and the operators to limit their actions in accordance with the
established buffer zones.
Paragraph e: ANNEX 15
The DNE, within the information provided to the Ministry in the second
monitoring report includes copies of the official notes sent to the different entities
requesting information on environmental and social projects. Based on the
foregoing, and facing the need to establish clear and quick mechanisms of inter-
institutional coordination, the DNE must immediately adopt the mechanisms of
coordination proposed in Part No. 12 of the PMA.
Sixth Article
a. Contingency Plan for the attention to and control of undesired events
The Contingencies Plan submitted by the DNE presents a structure developed
according to what is described in the criteria established in the National Policy for
Attention to and Prevention of Disasters, and in particular those regarding the
decrees related to the National Contingency Plan that it complements, covering
transportation and storage activities, spraying operations and complementary
activities developed in Antinarcotics Bases. It presents specific training programs
for the teams that operate in each base.
As a consequence of the foregoing, the plan presented by the DNE is accepted
and the DNE must immediately start its implementation.
To effectuate the review of the effectiveness of the Contingency Plan, the DNE
must make periodic revisions to the Plan and report the necessary adjustments to
the MMA.
b. Inspection, verification and control program (PIVC)
-Verification of the effectiveness of the environmental management
measures: Regarding the verification of the effectiveness of the environmental
management measures proposed by the DNE, this Ministry considers the actions
suggested by the DNE in the proposed PMA to be viable.
However, and as was indicated in Resolution 0341 of 2001, the development of
these activities was required to be undertaken immediately, such that the parties
should put themselves in compliance with the requirements established therein.
- Evaluation of environmental management measures through efficiency and
effectiveness indicators: The DNE proposes environmental management
measures indicators to evaluate the level of effect of the spraying operations on
human settlements and other types of matters, including: the type of vegetative
cover, evaluation of illicit crops, evaluation of the level of recuperation,ANNEX 15
regeneration or restoration of the vegetative cover, identification of the number
dwellings present and the identification of bodies of standing water.
In the progress report submitted to the Ministry in August of 2001, the DNE
proposed using indicators to be applied by the PIVC in the required evaluation,
which, nonetheless, change in their conception to presenting the PMA proposal in
November.
Based on the foregoing, the Ministry accepts for immediate application the
aforementioned indicators proposed by the DNE and those included in Part No. 8
of the PMA, with the adjustments indicated below.
As was indicated in Resolution 0341 of 2001, the development of these activities
should have been undertaken immediately, for which reason the parties should
proceedwith conforming themselves to what is indicated therein, that is,
immediately.
- Efficiency in the adoption of corrective action measures : The DNE reports
that in the measure through which the existence of damages resulting from the
eradication activities will be established, the PECIG will move forward with the
corresponding correction, mitigation or compensation measures in accordance
with what is established in Resolution 017/01 of the CNE and what is proposed in
the Social Management Program and the Contingency Plan of the proposed PMA.
Additionally, and for the purpose of guaranteeing the full development of the
corrective action measures, the DNE must immediately develop the following
measures:
- For the activation, control and recuperation of affected soil: The application
of neutralizers; the application of fertilizer on affected soil; the development of
works aimed at the control of erosion in the event that the spraying activities have
caused it.
- For affected bodies of water, previous monitoring and its results: The
application of diluted clays for bodies of standing water; the verification in the
space-time of the evolution of the quality of the water of the body affected.
- For cases of an effect on public health: In the regions where complaints are
received from the population that are related with the implementation of the
program, communicate with the personnel from Health to carry out a program of
epidemiological monitoring. ANNEX 15
c. Compensation Program
The compensation program proposed by the DNE is oriented toward claims for
environmental compensation, which complies with the requirements. This must
be implemented immediately.
Seventh Article
The proposal presented by the DNE, specifies concepts, objectives,
methodologies and an experimental design. It includes the ground, water,
microorganism and vegetation components. In this context, the Ministry
considers that the proposal presented fits the pertinent requirements. However,
given the nature and amplitude of the issue, its development must be
accompanied by an interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary team with expertise in
areas that include ecology, soil, vegetation and the environment in general.
Due to the fact that this requirement was required to be initiated within three
months after the issuance of Resolution 0341 of 2001, it should be implemented
immediately.
Eighth Article
In accordance with the information provided by the DNE, the Ministry considers
that the terms of reference for the hiring of the Technical Auditor correspond to
those that were approved by the Inter-Institutional Technical Committee of the
CNE, which fundamentally served for the hiring that is now taking place.
Ninth Article
This Ministry considers adequate the information systems proposed by the DNE,
such as: Web page, monthly informational bulletin on PECIG, press releases, the
conducting of an annual national seminar and informational campaigns through
the different means of communication. These should be verified as proposed in
Part No. 10 of the PMA, referring to the Education Communication Program.
Tenth Article
In compliance with this requirement, the ICA [Agricultural Institute of Colombia]
conducted the respective field evaluations on the product’s agronomic efficacy.
Moreover, the Ministry of Health performed a toxicological classification of the
mixture: Glyphosate + POEA + Cosmoflux (1%), classifying it as Category IIIANNEX 15
Moderately Toxic and recommending that the additive COSMO IN D not be
added to the mixture.
In accordance with the data approved by the ICA as a result of the field studies
conducted, the Ministry shall accept the dosage of 8 liters/ha of the Glyphosate-
based mixture (Roundup 480 SL + Cosmoflux 411) which the ICA defined for
coca crops, and from this date on, this shall be the same maximum dosage to be
applied.
Likewise, in accordance with the studies conducted by the ICA, the DNE shall
repeat the evaluation in two, three and six months following the spraying, in order
to observe the recovery state of coca plants sprayed with glyphosate, and it shall
report the results to the ICA for its endorsement.
In the event that the DNE wishes to use doses greater than those accepted here, it
will have to conduct the appropriate evaluations in accordance with the
procedures and protocols that the ICA endorses for this purpose and obtain prior
authorization from this Institute.
In the event that the DNE wishes to use mixtures with the active ingredient
Glyphosate that are different from those studied by the ICA and the Ministry of
Health, the DNE will have to conduct the appropriate evaluations in accordance
with the procedures and protocols that the ICA and the Ministry of Health
approve for this purpose.
The DNE shall take measures corresponding to the toxicological classification
and assessment as defined by the Ministry of Health for the mixture (active
ingredient and coadjuvant) with respect to the toxicological risks associated with
the herbicide in its approved formulation.
With regard to the implementation of the Program for the eradication of illegal
poppy crops, this Ministry accepts the glyphosate-based maximum mixture
dosage and application techniques approved by the ICA in previous studies.
2. PECIG Environmental Management Plan
The EMP by the DNE contains 11 environmental management elements, with
their respective descriptions, objectives, activities, follow-ups and monitoring,
people responsible, timelines and costs.
This plan has been structured into three types of activities: ANNEX 15
Prevention Measures
Mitigation and Corrective Measures
Compensation Measures
This Ministry considers that the proposal is adequate because the EMP contains
the prevention, mitigation, corrective and compensation measures stemming from
the development of the PECIG. Nevertheless, observations have been made
regarding some of the management elements and they must be complemented,
however this shall not be an excuse for not implementing the EMP immediately,
whenever the observations of the Ministry of the Environment can be developed
within the framework of the application of the Plan.
Part No. 1. Program for management of the fumigation operations
This part includes the technical and environmental specifications of the different
phases of the PECIG, which are: detection, fumigation and verification.
This Ministry considers that the detection measures set forth in this
environmental management element can be accepted. With respect to the
spraying, the buffer zones proposed by the DNE cannot be accepted, but those
imposed by the Ministry in this Resolution are acceptable. The parameters of
technical operations for the aerial spraying by T 65 and OV-10 airplanes, which
are required by the ICA, are accepted.
Part No. 2. Program for handling glyphosate and its adjuvants at operational
bases.
The proposed measures for handling the formula based on the active ingredient,
glyphosate, in different stages, such as: storage, preparation, loading onto aircraft,
and the calibration of equipment, are adequate.
Part No. 3. Program for the management of combustibles, vehicles,
equipment, and transportation.
For this part, the proposed handling measures for the storage and general
transportation of equipment and materials are considered to be pertinent and
should be immediately adopted. Nevertheless, the DNE must present, within 15
working days of the publication of this resolution, the environmental quality
procedures for the transport of the herbicide.ANNEX 15
Part No. 4. Solid waste management program.
For the management of solid waste, the measures for handling domestic solid
waste are accepted, and a program of separation at source and recycling is to be
implemented.
For hazardous solid wastes, such as used oils, lubricants, and batteries, the
proposal for their final handling, separation and disposal must be adopted
immediately. Likewise, alternatives must be presented for the handling of solid
waste linked to glyphosate and its adjuvants within 15 working days of the
publication of this Resolution.
Part No. 5. Residual water management program.
This part looks at the management of rainwater, residual domestic water and
water residues. The management measures proposed for implementing a system
for the collection of rainwater is considered to be the most adequate option, as
well as the construction of wastewater treatment plants, with their respective
monitoring and evaluation measures.
For the management of the special liquids for airplane tanks, the site used for
preparing the mixture should be taken into account. The treatment proposal is
accepted, but as with the wastewater treatment plant proposal, monitoring and
evaluation must be conducted every trimester on the pH, DQO and concentration
of the glyphosate herbicide.
Part No. 6. Inspection, verification and control of operations of aerial
fumigation program.
This part contains the requirements requested by the DNE in Resolution 341 of
2001, with respect to the verification of the effectiveness of the environmental
management measures, which will be revised by the Technical Auditor.
On the evaluation of the environmental management measures through indicators
of efficiency and effectiveness, that look at the level of effect that the spraying
operations have on human settlements and other types of areas, the Ministry
considers that the proposed indicators are acceptable, with the clarifications
mentioned in the previous note.
On the efficiency of the adoption of corrective measures, the Ministry accepts the
proposals in this part. Nevertheless, it considers that they must be complemented
with what is described in letter b) of the Sixth Article of Resolution 341 of 2001. ANNEX 15
Part No. 7. Program of investigation in representative and demonstrative
parcels
This element corresponds to a requirement set forth in the seventh article of
Resolution 341 of 2001, and covers the what is said about this subject in the
respective part. Likewise, in relation to the demonstrative parcels, other
representative ecosystems of Andean forests, in particular cloud forests and
subpáramo forests, should be included.
Element No. 8. Environmental Monitoring Program
This part sets out the monitoring of the different glyphosate spraying activities, to
measure the real impacts on the environment, water, soil, vegetation, soil use and
health of the population in the sprayed areas. The Ministry considers that the soil
and water components should be complemented as follows:
a- Indicators
Soil: pH, CIC, relation of exchangeable bases, Concentration of Glyphosate and
its metabolite, AMPA, Determination of Contamination, Nitrification (Nitrates,
Nitrites, ammonium), Count of Nitrogen Fixers, Phosphate Solublization,
Texture, Percentage of organic material, Total and Available Phosphorus,
Percentage of clay and Toxicity.
Water: pH, OD, DQO, Turbidity, Temperature Color, Electric Conductivity,
Nitrates, Nitrites, Ammonium, Dissolved Phosphate, Magnesium and Calcium,
Concentration of Glyphosate and AMPA.
In Sediment: Glyphosate and AMPA, Particle Size and Organic Material.
b- Sample Sites:
These will be set up in geo-referenced areas representative of the fumigation
areas.
Amazonian Region: The following areas will be determined: Caquetá, Guaviere
and Putumayo
Catatumbo Region: The mountainside and the valley north of Santander will be
selected.
Magdalena and Cauca Medio Region: South of Bolívar, Northeastern
Antioqueño and western Santander
Macizo Colombiano Region: Tolima and CaucaANNEX 15
The NATIONAL NARCOTICS DIRECTORATE –DNE- must take the soil
samples fifteen days and sixty days after fumigation. Depending on their results
and in the sample sites where the presence of glyphosate or its metabolite is
identified, monitoring must be conducted four and six months following the
spraying, with the goal of adopting the corresponding preventive and corrective
measures.
For all cases of the environmental monitoring program, the sample sites must be
geo-referenced.
Part No. 9. Social management program
In this part, the various actions that should be taken by the PECIG to approach the
populations surrounding the fumigated areas are proposed. This includes: Inter-
institutional Support, promotion of alternative development, compensation for
damage caused, environmental remediation and improvement, and healthcare
services. This Ministry considers that the program is structured according to the
expectations.
Part No. 10. Education communication program
In this part, a series of basic activities is undertaken: training information,
environmental education and signage. The Communication program proposed by
the DNE is considered to fulfill the requirements of the education plan.
Part No. 11. Program for complete personal safety at operational bases
This part is based on preventing risks for the personnel that participate in the
fumigation operations or environmental hazards that could be derived from the
operation and mixing of herbicides used in the airplanes and the inadequate use of
equipment. It includes industrial safety measures. The Ministry considers what is
proposed in this part to be adequate and pertinent, and these measures must be
implemented in all corresponding aerial bases.
Part No. 12. Environmental administration and institutional coordination
This part has as the objective of ensuring compliance with the environmental
specifications of the different activities proposed in the EMP, through
mechanisms of direct management by the entities responsible for the program and
coordination with the different entities and sectors involved in the PECIG. The ANNEX 15
Ministry considers that this program should be permanent while there aerial
spraying of glyphosate takes place.
RESOLVES:
FIRST ARTICLE.- TO IMPOSE the Environmental Management Plan,
presented by the NATIONAL NARCOTICS DIRECTORATE –DNE- for the
“Program of Eradication of Illicit Crops through Aerial Fumigation with
Glyphosate” in national territory, within the terms and conditions established in
the considerations of this resolution.
SECOND ARTICLE.- The Environmental Management Plan that is imposed
through this ruling only includes the work or activities described in the
Environmental Management Plan and in this Resolution. Any modification to the
conditions stipulated in the Environmental Management Plan, or any of the
obligations imposed by this resolution must be reported to this Ministry of the
Environment in writing for their evaluation and approval.
Likewise, a modification of the Environmental Management Plan must be
requested and obtained in order to use, exploit, or affect a renewable natural
resource in conditions other than those set forth in the Environmental
Management Plan or in this ruling.
THIRD ARTICLE.- THE NATIONAL NARCOTICS DIRECTORATE –
DNE- must previously inform the Ministry of the Environment in writing of any
modification that implies changes with regard to the activity for their evaluation
and approval.
FOURTH ARTICLE.- THE NATIONAL NARCOTICS DIRECTORATE –
DNE- will inform, in writing, the contractors and all of the personnel in general
that are involved in the activity mentioned in the first article, of the obligations,
measures of control, and prohibitions set forth in this ruling, as well as those
defined in the presented Environmental Management Plan, and shall require strict
compliance with them.
FIFTH ARTICLE.- The Ministry of the Environment, the Colombian Institute
of Agriculture –ICA- and the Ministry of Health in their competencies, will
supervise the activity, and can verify, at any time, compliance with the guidelines
and obligations stipulated in this ruling and in the Environmental Management
Plan.
SIXTH ARTICLE.- This Environmental Management Plan will be in force forANNEX 15
the duration of the Program of Eradication of Illicit Crops Through Aerial
Spraying with Glyphosate.
SEVENTH ARTICLE.- THE NATIONAL NARCOTICS DIRECTORATE –
DNE- will be responsible for any environmental deterioration and/or damage that
is imputable to it, caused through the “Program of Eradication of Illicit Crops
Through Aerial Spraying with Glyphosate.”
EIGHTH ARTICLE.- The Assistant Directorship of Licenses of this Ministry is
responsible for notifying the legal representative of the National Narcotics
Directorate, the Public Ombudsman, the Legal Representative of
FUNDEPUEBLO or its duly constituted special proxies, and Ms. Claudia
Sampedro and Mr. Hector Suarez who act as third-party interveners in this Case
of the content of this resolution.
NINTH ARTICLE - THE NATIONAL NARCOTICS DIRECTORATE –
DNE- must publish the title and the resolution of this administrative act in
newspaper that is circulated on a national level, and a copy of this publication
must be sent to this Ministry within 10 days of its notification to be archived in
file No. 793.
TENTH ARTICLE.- The Assistant Directorship of Licenses of this Ministry is
responsible for sending a copy of this ruling to the Attorney’s Office Delegated
for Environmental and Agronomical Issues, the Ministry of Health, the
Colombian Institute of Agriculture –ICA-, the National Narcotics Directorate, the
Autonomous Regional Corporations, and the Corporations of Sustainable
Development that have jurisdiction in the Departments indicated in this ruling.
ELEVENTH ARTICLE.- The Request for Review will proceed against this
Resolution, which can be filed before this Ministry within five days of its
publication, as long as it fulfills all legal requirements, as stipulated in Articles
50, 51, and 52 of the Administrative Dispute Code.
BE IT NOTIFIED, PROCLAIMED, PUBLISHED AND COMPLIED WITH
JUAN MAYR MALDONADO
Minister of the Environment ANNEX 15
Plan Mane o Ambiental,
Resolución N. 1
2 de noviembre de 2 1 Por medio de la cual se impone un plan
de mane o y se toman otras determinaciones
El ministro del medio ambiente
En uso de sus facultades legales conferidas en la Ley 99 de 1993 y en especial el Artículo 38
del Decreto 1753 de 1994
y Considerando
Que el Ministerio del Medio Ambiente mediante Auto 558 A del 13 de agosto de 1996 ordenó
a la DIRECCI N NACIONAL DE ESTUPEFACIENTES -DNE-, la presentación de un Plan de
Manejo Ambiental para la actividad de erradicación de cultivos ilícitos con Glifosato, de
conformidad con los Términos de Referencia otorgados en el citado acto administrativo.
Que mediante oficio Nº 11430 del 30 de julio de 1998, la DIRECCI N NACIONAL DE
ESTUPEFACIENTES -DNE- remitió a este Ministerio el Plan de Manejo Ambiental para la
actividad de "Erradicación de cultivos ilícitos mediante la aspersión aérea con Glifosato", sin
el Capítulo VII correspondiente a la "Identificación y Evaluación de Impactos Ambientales".
Que en razón de lo anterior, mediante oficio Nº 22111-2-315 del 2 de octubre de 1998, la
Subdirección de Licencias del Ministerio del Medio Ambiente, solicitó a la DIRECCI N
NACIONAL DE ESTUPEFACIENTES -DNE-, remitir el Capitulo VII del Plan de Manejo
Ambiental.
Que la DIRECCI N NACIONAL DE ESTUPEFACIENTES -DNE- mediante Oficio radicado en
este Ministerio el 18 de noviembre de 1998 bajo el Nº 3110-1-25417, remitió las copias del
Capitulo VII del Plan de Manejo Ambiental denominado: " Identificación y Evaluación de
Impactos Ambientales".
Que una vez evaluado el estudio presentado por la DIRECCI N NACIONAL DE
ESTUPEFACIENTES -DNE-, se emitió el Concepto Técnico Nº 419-99 del 21 de diciembre de
1999, acogido mediante Auto Nº 599 del 23 de diciembre de 1999, en el cual se dispuso
requerir a la DIRECCI N NACIONAL DE ESTUPEFACIENTES -DNE- para que complementara
el Plan de Manejo Ambiental para la aplicación de herbicidas a base de Glifosato en la
erradicación de cultivos ilícitos según consta en el expediente.
Que mediante oficio del 1º de febrero de 2000, la DIRECCI N NACIONAL DE
ESTUPEFACIENTES -DNE- interpuso Recurso de Reposición contra el Auto Nº 599 del 23 de
diciembre de 1999, argumentando entre otros aspectos no estar de acuerdo con los
conceptos técnicos emitidos por el Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario -I.C.A.- y la parte
técnica del Ministerio del Medio Ambiente, así como con el término establecido para la
presentación de la complementación del Plan de Manejo Ambiental.ANNEX 15
Que mediante Auto Nº 143 del 29 de marzo de 2000, el Ministerio del Medio Ambiente
resolvió el Recurso de Reposición interpuesto en el sentido de modificar el numeral 2º,
aclarar el numeral 3º, confirmar en los demás términos el Artículo Primero del Auto 599 de
1999 y fijar un término de 3 meses para efectos de la entrega de la información solicitada
en el artículo primero del auto impugnado.
Que mediante oficio del 10 de mayo de 2000, la DIRECCI N NACIONAL DE
ESTUPEFACIENTES -DNE- interpuso Recurso de Reposición contra el Auto indicado, por
considerar entre otros aspectos, que para ampliar, reformar y presentar el Plan de Manejo
Ambiental se requiere la participación de diferentes entidades, definir términos, tiempos,
presupuestos y convenios con entidades del orden nacional y regional.
Que mediante Auto 275 del 06 de junio de 2000, el Ministerio del Medio Ambiente resolvió
el recurso de reposición interpuesto contra el Auto Nº 143 del 29 de marzo de 2000, en el
sentido de no modificar el auto recurrido y ratificar en todas y cada una de sus partes la
providencia impugnada.
Que la DIRECCI N NACIONAL DE ESTUPEFACIENTES -DNE- mediante comunicación del 13
de septiembre de 2000, presentó ante el Ministerio del Medio Ambiente el documento
"Complementación del Plan de Manejo Ambiental para la aplicación del herbicida Glifosato
en la erradicación de cultivos ilícitos", el cual fue adicionado el 17 de octubre de 2000.
Que recibida y analizada la información adicional y complementaria al Plan de Manejo
Ambiental en estudio, la Subdirección de Licencias según concepto técnico No 589 del 20 de
diciembre de 2000, se pronunció en el sentido de que la información complementaria
entregada por la DIRECCI N NACIONAL DE ESTUPEFACIENTES -DNE-, no cumplía con los
requerimientos exigidos en el Auto Nº 588 A de 1996.
Que en atención a lo anterior, el 20 de diciembre de 2000, el Ministerio del Medio Ambiente
convocó a la DIRECCI N NACIONAL DE ESTUPEFACIENTES -DNE- a una reunión para
comunicarle que la información entregada, no satisfacía los requerimientos de este
Ministerio; en dicha reunión la DIRECCI N NACIONAL DE ESTUPEFACIENTES -DNE-, se
comprometió a entregar un documento con mayor detalle en su caracterización y orientando
la evaluación de los impactos al análisis de riesgos, de acuerdo a lo solicitado en los
términos de referencia para el Plan de Manejo Ambiental determinados en el auto 558 A de
1996, para la zona del Putumayo.
Que en cumplimiento de lo anterior, mediante oficio radicado con el Nº 3111-1-1627 del 30
de enero de 2001 la DIRECCI N NACIONAL DE ESTUPEFACIENTES -DNE- hizo entrega del
documento "Plan de Manejo Ambiental a partir de la evaluación del riesgo potencial de
operación derivado de la erradicación de cultivos ilícitos por aspersión en el Departamento
del Putumayo"
Que mediante Resolución 341 de 4 de mayo de 2001, esta entidad decidió no aceptar el
Plan de Manejo Ambiental presentado por la DIRECCI N NACIONAL DE ESTUPEFACIENTES -
DNE- para la actividad de "Erradicación de cultivos ilícitos mediante la aspersión aérea con
Glifosato", y en su defecto procedió a establecer medidas de cumplimiento inmediato y
otras de tipo preventivo, cuyo cumplimiento es objeto de revisión en la presente resolución.
Que el Ministerio del Medio Ambiente mediante Auto 516 del 16 de julio de 2001, requirió a
la DIRECCI N NACIONAL DE ESTUPEFACIENTES -DNE-, para que informara sobre las
acciones adelantadas en cumplimiento de la Resolución 341 de 2001
- 2 - ANNEX 15
Que mediante oficio radicado con el Nº 3110-1-1069 del 8 de agosto de 2001 la DIRECCI N
NACIONAL DE ESTUPEFACIENTES -DNE- remitió al Ministerio del Medio Ambiente el primer
informe de Avance a las obligaciones establecidas en la Resolución 341 de 2001.
En respuesta a este informe, el Ministerio mediante oficio 2211-2-126 del 24 de Agosto de
2001, solicitó aclaraciones en relación con los oficios del Ministerio de Salud y del ICA. Así
mismo, mediante oficio 3111-2-11558 del 6 de Septiembre de 2001, hizo comentarios
respecto de las propuestas denominadas "Evaluación ambiental rápida ex-post" y
"Determinación del efecto de las aspersiones con glifosato".
Que mediante oficio radicado con el Nº 3113-1-14331 del 7 de noviembre de 2001 la
DIRECCI N NACIONAL DE ESTUPEFACIENTES -DNE-, entregó al Ministerio el documento
denominado "Plan de Manejo Ambiental del Programa de Erradicación de Cultivos Ilícitos
mediante Aspersión Aérea con Glifosato", al igual que el documento relacionado con el
Estado de Avance de la Resolución 341 de 2001.
CONSIDERACIONES TECNICAS
Que la Subdirección de Licencias mediante Concepto Técnico Nº 992 del 23 de Noviembre
de 2001 se pronunció sobre la información allegada por la DNE en relación con el
cumplimiento de la Resolución 341 de 2001. Es importante acotar que dentro de dicho
concepto, se incluyeron los aspectos referentes a la visita de seguimiento realizada por este
Ministerio durante los días 6 y 7 de Noviembre del presente año, a la base aérea de la
Policía Nacional Antinarcóticos de la Ciudad de San José del Guaviare y a algunas zonas
asperjadas en el Departamento del Guaviare.
1. Seguimiento a la resolución 341 de 2 1
Desde el punto de vista técnico, este Ministerio con respecto a la información entregada por
la DNE acerca del cumplimiento a los requerimientos contenidos en los artículos de la parte
resolutiva de la Resolución 341 de 2001 considera lo siguiente:
Artículo Segundo
La DNE allega una propuesta de investigación que recoge los requerimientos de los Artículos
Segundo y Séptimo de la Resolución 341, argumentando que el PROGRAMA DE
ERRADICACI N DE CULTIVOS IL CITOS CON GLIFOSATO - PECIG se ha llevado a cabo en
áreas que han sido intervenidas por los cultivadores de coca, inicialmente mediante la tala y
quema del bosque y posteriormente, a lo largo de la producción de coca, por el uso de
agroquímicos y otros insumos químicos. En este sentido, la DNE manifiesta que no es
posible evaluar estas áreas objeto del Programa sin un diseño de investigación que permita
independizar los efectos de la aplicación del herbicida Glifosato de aquellas sustancias
químicas utilizadas en el proceso de plantación de cultivos ilícitos y de producción de
narcóticos.
Una vez analizados los anteriores aspectos, este Ministerio considera desde el punto de
vista técnico, que existen unos impactos ambientales previos a la aspersión, lo cual genera
interferencias para la evaluación de los impactos en el marco de las investigaciones
requeridas; sin embargo, ello no implica que no se realice la evaluación requerida por efecto
de la aspersión, en los términos y condiciones establecidos en el Artículo Segundo de la
- 3 -ANNEX 15
Resolución 341 de 2001. Por lo tanto, la DNE deberá hacer el monitoreo ambiental tal como
se indica en la ficha Nº 8 de su plan de manejo propuesto, complementada con los ajustes
que mas adelante se indican. Para esto, se hace necesario que se inicien los monitoreos
indicados de forma inmediata, y así mismo, que se efectúe a partir de la fecha de la
notificación de la presente resolución, la entrega de informes trimestrales que den cuenta
del avance del monitoreo indicado.
Artículo Tercero
Se acepta lo afirmado por la DNE en el sentido de que no operará mediante fumigación
aérea con Glifosato en áreas de parques y otras áreas naturales protegidas de los niveles
regional y local. En este sentido, la Unidad Administrativa Especial del Sistema de Parques
Nacionales Naturales -UAESPNN- verificará a través de visitas de seguimiento y/o a través
de los informes de la Auditoría Técnica, el cumplimiento de ese artículo.
En cultivos ilícitos presentes en dichas zonas, la DNE erradicará de forma manual, de
acuerdo con las orientaciones que para este efecto establezca la Unidad Administrativa
Especial del Sistema de Parques Nacionales Naturales -UAESPNN-. Es claro que los
programas de erradicación, prevención y mitigación del impacto ambiental de los cultivos
ilícitos en estas zonas, son responsabilidad de la DNE.
Artículo Cuarto
De acuerdo con lo expresado por la DNE, el PECIG no opera en áreas ambientales sensibles
a saber: áreas pobladas, parques, reservas naturales, acueductos y cuerpos de agua. Esto
será objeto de verificación por parte de la Auditoría Técnica. La DNE será responsable de la
adecuada coordinación interinstitucional, de conformidad con lo indicado en la Ficha No 12
del Plan de Manejo Ambiental propuesto.
Artículo uinto
Literales a y b :
En lo que hace referencia al marco del convenio interadministrativo suscrito entre la DNE y
el IGAC, la DNE plantea que la propuesta técnica y económica presentada en primera
instancia por el IGAC, divide la realización de las actividades de producción de la
información en dos fases, las cuales no se sujetan a sus necesidades, de conformidad con lo
exigido por la resolución 341 de 2001, porque solo al finalizar la segunda fase se contaría
con la cartografía requerida en su totalidad.
Adicionalmente manifiesta que el costo de esta primera fase es muy elevado y no se cuenta
con un estimativo de lo que sería la inversión para la segunda fase, a fin de gestionar las
asignaciones presupuestales correspondientes, por lo cual realizó el respectivo
requerimiento al IGAC, pero a la fecha no ha obtenido respuesta.
En consecuencia de ello, propone adelantar la caracterización y hacer entrega de la
información solicitada, empleando la metodología de "escalas virtuales", apoyándose
complementariamente en el denominado "Sistema de Información Georeferenciada para
Zonas con Presencia de Cultivos Ilícitos", el cual se inició el pasado mes de julio y que a
juicio de la DNE les permitirá caracterizar el entorno social, cultural, epidemiológico,
sanitario, económico y ambiental en las áreas a asperjar, así como determinar los riesgos
- 4 - ANNEX 15
potenciales derivados de la operación del programa, a través de la integración de
información procedente de diferentes entidades.
Sobre este particular debe señalarse que el Ministerio solicitó en la Resolución 341 de Mayo
del 2001, la caracterización ambiental y socioeconómica de las áreas de los cultivos ilícitos,
así como la información de las áreas de exclusión en las escalas allí señaladas, bajo la
consideración de que este nivel de detalle es el más adecuado para los propósitos de
análisis de los impactos ambientales que puedan llegarse a ocasionar en el marco del
desarrollo del proceso de evaluación y seguimiento ambiental.
Con respecto a la posición expresada por la DNE en el aparte denominado Comentario
sobre las escalas de los estudios de caracterización en zonas con presencia de
cultivos ilícitos , se hacen las siguientes apreciaciones:
La Resolución 0341 de 2001 no plantea en ninguna parte de su contenido, la realización de
caracterizaciones de áreas de influencia, que vayan más allá de aquellas zonas que puedan
resultar directamente afectadas por la operación del programa; por lo tanto, es erróneo
aseverar que se está solicitando la caracterización del 50% del país, y en consecuencia, las
cifras que se desprenden de ese análisis no aplican a la realidad de los requerimientos
hechos por el Ministerio.
Se da a entender que la realización de los estudios de caracterización a la escala solicitada
por el Ministerio son inútiles, ya que éstos ...sirven como línea base para las
evaluaciones m s aplicadas sobre actividades humanas o diferentes procesos de
degradación impactos ambientales, evaluación de tierras, procesos erosivos,
etc.... , sugiriendo que para los propósitos que persigue el Ministerio, sería necesario
revisar los alcances y niveles de detalle solicitados. Sobre este particular, debe tenerse
presente en todo momento que la finalidad que tiene la caracterización, es precisamente la
de obtener la aproximación más acertada a los posibles impactos que puedan derivarse de
la operación del programa sobre los componentes físicos, bióticos, económicos y sociales
para, de esta manera, determinar las medidas correctas de prevención, mitigación o
compensación a implementar.
Esta aproximación no sería posible, en la medida en que la caracterización de los
componentes señalados anteriormente se realizara y presentara en escalas de trabajo
1:250.000 o 1:500.000, como lo sugiere de DNE.
No obstante, teniendo en cuenta que existen limitaciones por parte de las entidades
encargadas de la producción de la información cartográfica, para proveer cartografía básica
y temática en la escala requerida para algunas zonas objeto del Programa de Erradicación,
el Ministerio acepta los argumentos técnicos esbozados por el IGAC, en el sentido de
presentar la información requerida a escala de salida 1:100.000.
En conclusión, la DNE deberá iniciar de manera inmediata, la caracterización ambiental y
socioeconómica de las áreas nucleadas de cultivos ilícitos objeto del programa de
erradicación, utilizando la información cartográfica análoga y digital disponible y sus bases
de datos alfanuméricas asociadas, apoyando el desarrollo de la misma a través del manejo
y procesamiento de imágenes satelitales, imágenes de radar y fotografías aéreas, así como
el uso de sistemas de información geográfica, para la presentación final de productos
cartográficos (mapas, espaciomapas, ortofotomapas) a una escala de salida de 1:100.000.
- 5 -ANNEX 15
Así mismo, la DNE deberá realizar de forma inmediata la georeferenciación, identificación y
caracterización de las áreas de exclusión que de acuerdo con sus características ecológicas,
ambientales y sociales, deben ser objeto de medidas especiales por parte del programa de
erradicación, utilizando la información cartográfica análoga y digital disponible y sus bases
de datos alfanuméricas asociadas, apoyando el desarrollo de la misma a través del manejo
y procesamiento de imágenes satelitales, imágenes de radar y fotografías aéreas, así como
el uso de sistemas de información geográfica, para la presentación final de productos
cartográficos (mapas, espaciomapas, ortofotomapas) a una escala de salida de 1:100.000.
Finalmente, la DNE deberá realizar de manera inmediata, la respectiva georeferenciación de
las parcelas de monitoreo que se definan en el marco del programa de seguimiento
ambiental pertinente al artículo 2 de la Resolución 341 de 2001.
Literal c:
La elaboración y puesta en marcha del programa de Comunicación Educativa está contenida
en la Ficha 10 del PMA.
Literal d:
Este Ministerio considera que las franjas de seguridad propuestas por DNE en el estudio
presentado deberán ser ajustadas según lo impuesto por el Ministerio, ya que la sugeridas
por la DNE no dan garantía de seguridad en cuanto a la necesidad de preservar y proteger
las áreas descritas. Estas deberán ser adoptadas por el PECIG de manera inmediata y
verificadas en sitio por la Auditoría Técnica, quedando por lo tanto fijadas las mismas,
según la siguiente tabla:
Franjas de Seguridad sobre Elementos Ambientales
Elemento Ambiental Franja de Seguridad
Franja mínima de 200 metros. (De acuerdo con
Cuerpos de AguaEstáticos: lagos, los criterios del Decreto 1843/1991 de
lagunas, estanques piscícolas y Minsalud). Esta franja podrá ser ampliada
humedales Corrientes: quebradas, ríos. dependiendo de las condiciones técnicas de la
operación aérea.
Sub-páramos, nacimientos de agua y No asperjar al interior de los mismos Asperjar
al exterior de los mismos con una franja de
recarga de acuíferos seguridad mínima de 2000 m.
No asperjar al interior de las mismas. Asperjar
Áreas de las zonas pertenecientes al al exterior de las mismas con una franja de
SNPNN. *
seguridad mínima de 2.000 metros.
Zonas de asentamientos humanos: No asperjar al interior de las mismas. Asperjar
Caseríos, inspecciones, resguardos, al exterior de las mismas con una franja de
cascos urbanos. seguridad mínima de 2.000 metros.
Áreas de interés socio-económica: No asperjar. Establecer una franja de seguridad
Proyectos productivos, zonas de pactos. mínima de 1.600 metros.
- 6 - ANNEX 15
( ) La UAESPNN aportará los datos referidos a los linderos topográficos que definan y
limiten los parques nacionales naturales, con las poligonales y sus BM debidamente
indicadas, con el fin de que la DNE y los operadores a cargo delimiten su accionar de
acuerdo con las franjas de seguridad señaladas.
Literal e:
La DNE dentro de la información aportada al Ministerio en el segundo informe de
seguimiento, incluye copia de los oficios enviados a diferentes entidades solicitando
información sobre proyectos ambientales y sociales. Con base en lo anterior y ante la
necesidad de establecer mecanismos de coordinación interinstitucional claros y expeditos, la
DNE deberá adoptar de manera inmediata los mecanismos de coordinación propuestos en la
ficha Nº 12 del PMA.
Artículo Se to
a. Plan de Contingencia para la atención y control de eventos indeseados
El Plan de Contingencias entregado por la DNE, presenta una estructura desarrollada según
lo descrito en los criterios dados en la Política Nacional de Atención y Prevención de
Desastres, y en particular en lo atinente a los decretos relativos al Plan Nacional de
Contingencia que la complementa, cubriendo actividades de transporte, almacenamiento,
operaciones de aspersión y actividades complementarias desarrolladas en las Bases
Antinarcóticos. Presenta programas específicos de capacitación y entrenamiento de los
equipos que operan en cada base.
En consecuencia con lo anterior, se acepta el plan presentado por la DNE, quien deberá
iniciar su implementación de manera inmediata.
Para efectos de la revisión de la efectividad del Plan de Contingencia, la DNE deberá realizar
revisiones periódicas del mismo y reportar al MMA los ajustes necesarios.
b. Programa de inspección, verificación y control PIVC
Verificación de la efectividad de las medidas de mane o ambiental: Con respecto a
la verificación de la efectividad de las medidas de manejo ambiental propuestas por la DNE,
este Ministerio considera que las acciones sugeridas por la DNE en el PMA propuesto son
viables.
Sin embargo y tal como se indicó en la Resolución 0341 de 2001, el desarrollo de estas
actividades debió hacerse de forma inmediata, por lo cual debe procederse de conformidad
con lo allí indicado.
Evaluación de medidas de mane o ambiental mediante indicadores de eficiencia y
efectividad La DNE propone unos indicadores de medidas de manejo ambiental, para
evaluar el nivel de afectación de las operaciones de aspersión sobre asentamientos
humanos y otros tipos de coberturas, que incluye: el tipo de cobertura vegetal, evaluación
de cultivos ilícitos, evaluación del grado de recuperación, regeneración o restauración de la
cobertura vegetal, identificación del número de viviendas presentes e identificación de
cuerpos de agua lénticos.
- 7 -ANNEX 15
En el informe de avance entregado al Ministerio en Agosto de 2001, la DNE propone utilizar
en la evaluación requerida indicadores a ser aplicados por el PIVC, que sin embargo
cambian en su concepción al presentar en noviembre la propuesta de PMA.
Con base en lo anterior, el Ministerio acepta para aplicación inmediata los indicadores arriba
propuestos por la DNE y los incluidos en la ficha No 8 del PMA, con los ajustes que para el
efecto se indican mas adelante.
Tal como se indicó en la Resolución 0341 de 2001, el desarrollo de estas actividades debió
hacerse de forma inmediata, por lo cual debe procederse de conformidad con lo allí
indicado, esto es, de manera inmediata.
Eficiencia en la adopción de medidas de acción correctiva: La DNE informa que en la
medida en que se establezca la existencia de daños derivados de las actividades de
erradicación, el PECIG adelantará las correspondientes medidas de corrección, mitigación o
compensación de acuerdo a lo dispuesto en la Resolución 017/01 del CNE y lo planteado en
el Programa de Gestión Social y en el Plan de Contingencias del PMA propuesto.
Adicionalmente y para efectos de garantizar el cabal desarrollo de las medidas de acción
correctiva, la DNE deberá desarrollar las siguientes medidas de forma inmediata:
Para activación, control y recuperación de suelos afectados: Aplicación de
neutralizantes; aplicación de fertilizantes en suelos afectados; desarrollo de labores
destinadas al control de erosión en el evento en que las actividades de aspersión lo hayan
promovido.
Para cuerpos de agua afectados, previo monitoreo y en función de sus
resultados: Aplicación de arcillas diluidas para cuerpos de aguas lénticos; verificación en el
espacio- tiempo sobre la evolución de la calidad del agua del cuerpo afectado.
Para casos de afectación a la salud p blica: En las regiones donde se presenten
quejas de la población que sean relacionados con la aplicación del programa, articular con el
personal de Salud, para adelantar un programa de vigilancia epidemiológica.
c. Programa de Compensación
El programa de compensación planteado por la DNE orientado hacia las acciones de
compensación ambiental, cumple con los requerimientos. Este deberá ser implementado de
manera inmediata.
Artículo S ptimo.
La propuesta presentada por la DNE, precisa conceptos, objetivos, metodologías y un diseño
experimental. Ella incluye los componentes de suelos, aguas, microorganismos y
vegetación. En este contexto, el Ministerio considera que la propuesta presentada se ajusta
a los requerimientos pertinentes. Sin embargo, dada la naturaleza y la amplitud del tema,
su desarrollo deberá ser acompañado por un equipo interdisciplinario y multidisciplinario en
áreas que incluyan la ecología, los suelos, la vegetación y el medio ambiente en general.
Debido a que este requerimiento debió ser iniciado a los tres meses de expedida la
Resolución 0341 de 2001, deberá ser implementado de manera inmediata.
- 8 - ANNEX 15
Artículo Octavo.
De acuerdo con la información aportada por la DNE, el Ministerio considera que los términos
de referencia para la contratación de la Auditoría Técnica, corresponden a los que fueron
aprobados por el Comité Técnico Interinstitucional del CNE, los cuales sirvieron de
fundamento para la contratación respectiva que está en curso.
Artículo Noveno.
Este Ministerio considera que los sistemas de información propuestos por la DNE como:
página Web, boletín mensual de información sobre el PECIG, comunicados de prensa,
realización de un seminario nacional anual y campañas de información a través de
diferentes medios de comunicación son adecuados. Estos deberán ser verificados tal como
se propone en la ficha Nº 10 referida al Programa de Comunicación Educativa del PMA.
Artículo D cimo.
En cumplimiento de este requerimiento el ICA realizó las respectivas evaluaciones en campo
sobre la eficacia agronómica del producto. Por otra parte, el Ministerio de Salud realizó la
clasificación toxicológica de la mezcla: GlifosatoPOEA Cosmoflux (1%), como Categoría
III Medianamente Tóxico y recomienda no adicionar a la mezcla el aditivo COSMO IN D.
De acuerdo con los datos aprobados por el ICA como resultado de los estudios de campo
que realizó, el Ministerio acogerá la dosis de 8 Litros/Ha de la mezcla (Roundup 480 SL
Cosmoflux 411) con base en el Ingrediente Activo Glifosato que definió el ICA para el cultivo
de coca, siendo la misma a partir de la fecha, la máxima dosis a aplicar.
Así mismo, de acuerdo a los estudios realizados por el ICA, la DNE deberá repetir la
evaluación a los dos, tres, y seis meses siguientes a la aspersión, con el fin de observar el
estado de recuperación de las plantas de coca asperjadas con glifosato y reportarán los
resultados al ICA para el respectivo aval.
En el evento de que la DNE pretenda utilizar dosis mayores a las aquí acogidas, deberá
adelantar las evaluaciones pertinentes de acuerdo con el procedimiento y protocolos que
para el efecto avale el ICA y obtener la aprobación previa por parte de este Instituto.
En el evento de que la DNE pretenda utilizar mezclas con el ingrediente activo Glifosato,
diferentes a las estudiadas por el ICA y el Ministerio de Salud, la DNE deberá adelantar las
evaluaciones pertinentes de acuerdo con el procedimiento y protocolos que para el efecto
aprueben el ICA y el Ministerio de Salud .
La DNE deberá tomar las medidas correspondientes a la clasificación y evaluación
toxicológica que definió el Ministerio de Salud para la mezcla (ingrediente activo y
coadyuvante), en lo relacionado a los riesgos toxicológicos asociados con el herbicida en su
formulación aprobada.
En lo atinente a la aplicación del Programa para la erradicación de cultivos ilícitos de
amapola, este Ministerio acoge la dosis máxima de mezcla y técnicas de aplicación a base
de glifosato aprobadas por el ICA en estudios anteriores.
- 9 -ANNEX 15
2. Plan de mane o ambiental del PECIG
El PMA por la DNE consta de 11 fichas de manejo ambiental, con su respectiva descripción,
objetivos, actividades, seguimiento y monitoreo, responsables, cronograma y costos.
Este plan se ha estructurado en tres tipos de actividades:
Medidas de Prevención
Medidas de Mitigación y corrección
Medidas de compensación
Este Ministerio considera que este planteamiento es adecuado ya que el PMA tiene en
cuenta las medidas de prevención, mitigación, corrección y compensación, originadas por el
desarrollo del PECIG. Sin embargo, se han hecho observaciones a algunas fichas de manejo,
por lo que deberán ser complementadas, sin que lo anterior sea excusa para no
implementar el PMA de manera inmediata, toda vez que las observaciones del MMA,
admiten su desarrollo en el marco de la aplicación del Plan.
Ficha No. 1. Programa de mane o de las operaciones de aspersión
En esta ficha se contemplan las especificaciones técnicas y ambientales de las diferentes
fases del PECIG, como son: detección, aspersión y verificación.
Este Ministerio considera que se puede aceptar de esta ficha de manejo ambiental, las
medidas de detección; con respecto a la aspersión no se aceptan las franjas de seguridad
propuestas por la DNE, sino las impuestas por este Ministerio en la presente Resolución. Se
aceptan los parámetros de operación técnicos para aspersión aérea de aeronaves T 65 y
OV-10, las cuales son los requeridos por el ICA.
Ficha No. 2. Programa de mane o del glifosato y sus coadyuvantes en las bases de
operación.
Se considera que las medidas propuestas para el manejo de la formulación a base del
ingrediente activo glifosato en las diferentes etapas como: almacenamiento, preparación,
cargue de aviones, calibración de equipos, son las adecuadas.
Ficha No. 3. Programa de mane o de combustibles, vehículos, equipo y transporte.
Para esta ficha se considera que las medidas de manejo propuestas para el
almacenamiento, transporte general de equipos y materiales son pertinentes y se deben
adoptar de manera inmediata. Sin embargo, la DNE deberá presentar en el término de los
15 días hábiles siguientes a la notificación de la presente resolución, los procedimientos de
calidad ambiental para el transporte del herbicida.
Ficha No. 4. Programa de mane o de residuos sólidos.
Para el manejo de los residuos sólidos, se aceptan las medidas de manejo de los residuos
sólidos domésticos, implementando el programa de separación en la fuente y el reciclaje.
- 10 - ANNEX 15
Para los residuos sólidos peligrosos tales como aceites usados, lubricantes, baterías, se
deberán adoptar de manera inmediata la propuesta de manejo, separación y disposición
final. Así mismo, deberán presentarse alternativas para el manejo de los residuos sólidos
ligados al glifosato y su coadyuvante dentro de los 15 días hábiles siguientes a la
notificación de la presente Resolución.
Ficha No. . Programa de mane o de aguas residuales.
En esta ficha se contempla el manejo de las aguas lluvias, aguas residuales domésticas y
aguas de residuos. Se considera que las medidas de manejo propuestas de realizar un
sistema de recolección de aguas lluvias es la más adecuada, al igual que la construcción de
las plantas de aguas residuales domésticas, con su respectivo seguimiento y monitoreo.
Para el manejo de los líquidos especiales de tanques de aviones, se considera que se debe
tener en cuenta el sitio de preparación de la mezcla; se acepta el tratamiento propuesto,
pero al igual que para la planta de tratamiento de aguas residuales domésticas, deberá
hacerse seguimiento y monitoreo trimestral de los parámetros; pH, DQO y concentración de
plaguicida glifosato.
Ficha No. . Programa de inspección, verificación y control de las operaciones de
aspersión a rea.
Esta ficha contempla los requerimientos solicitados a la DNE en la Resolución 341 de 2001,
respecto a la verificación de la efectividad de las medidas de manejo ambiental, las cuales
serán revisadas por la Auditoria Técnica.
Sobre la evaluación de medidas de manejo ambiental mediante indicadores de eficiencia y
efectividad, para evaluar el nivel de afectación de las operaciones de aspersión sobre
asentamientos humanos y otros tipos de coberturas, este Ministerio considera que son
aceptables los indicadores propuestos, con las aclaraciones señaladas sobre el particular
anteriormente.
Sobre la eficiencia en la adopción de medidas de acción correctiva, este Ministerio acepta las
contempladas en esta ficha. No obstante, considera que deberán complementarse con las
descritas en el literal b, del artículo Sexto de la Resolución 341 de 2001.
Ficha No. . Programa de investigación en parcelas representativas y
demostrativas
Esta ficha corresponde a un requerimiento solicitado en el artículo séptimo de la Resolución
341 de 200 y se acoge lo dicho sobre el particular en el aparte respectivo. Así mismo y en
relación con las parcelas demostrativas, se deberán incluir otras representativas de los
ecosistemas de bosque andino, en particular bosques de niebla y de subpáramo.
Ficha No. . Programa de Monitoreo Ambiental
En esta ficha se plantea el seguimiento de las diferentes actividades de aspersión con
glifosato, para medir los impactos reales sobre el medio ambiente agua, suelo, vegetación,
usos del suelo y la salud de la población de las áreas asperjadas. Este Ministerio considera
que debe ser complementada en los componentes suelo y agua así:
- 11 -ANNEX 15
a Indicadores
Suelos: pH, CIC, Relación de bases intercambiables, Concentración de Glifosato y su
metabolito, AMPA, Determinación de Contaminación, Nitrificación (Nitratos, Nitritos,
amonio), Recuento de Fijadores de Nitrógeno, Solubizadores de Fosfato, Textura, Porcentaje
de materia orgánica, Fósforo Total y Disponible, Porcentaje de arcillas y Toxicidad.
Agua: pH, OD, DQO, Turbidez, Color Temperatura, Conductividad Eléctrica, Nitratos,
Nitritos, Amonio, Fosfato Disuelto, Magnesio y Calcio, Concentración de Glifosato y AMPA.
En Sedimentos: Glifosato y AMPA, Granulometría y Materia Orgánica.
b Sitios de Muestreo:
Estos se harán en áreas previamente georeferenciadas, representativas de las zonas de
aspersión.
Región Amazónica: Se determinarán las siguientes zonas: Caquetá, Guaviare y Putumayo
Región del Catatumbo: Se escogerá la zona de vertiente y valle en norte de Santander.
Región Magdalena y Cauca Medio: Sur de Bolívar, Noreste Antioqueño y occidente
Santander
Región Macizo Colombiano: Tolima y Cauca.
La DIRECCIÓN NACIONAL DE ESTUPEFACIENTES DNE- deberá realizar el muestreo en
suelos después de la aspersión, a los quince y sesenta días. A partir de estos resultados y
en los sitios muestreados en donde se identifique la persistencia del glifosato, o su
metabolito, deberá extender el seguimiento a los cuatro y seis meses siguientes a la
aspersión, con el fin de adoptar medidas preventivas o correctivas según corresponda.
Para todos los casos del programa de monitoreo ambiental, los puntos de muestreo deberán
estar georeferenciados.
Ficha N Programa de gestión social
En esta ficha se plantean las diferentes acciones que debe realizar el PECIG para propiciar el
acercamiento con la población asentada en los alrededores de las zonas de aspersión. Este
incluye: Apoyo interinstitucional, promoción del desarrollo alternativo, compensación por
daños causados, recuperación y mejoramiento ambiental y atención a la salud. Este
Ministerio considera que el programa está estructurado según las expectativas.
Ficha N 1 Programa de comunicación educativa
En esta ficha se desarrollan una serie de actividades básicas: información capacitación,
educación ambiental y señalización. Se considera que el programa de Comunicación
propuesto por la DNE, cumple con los requerimientos de un plan de educación.
Ficha N 11 Programa de seguridad social integral en las bases de operación
Esta ficha está orientada a evitar riesgos para el personal que participa en la operación de
aspersión o peligros ambientales que se puedan derivar de la operación y mezcla del
herbicida, suministro del mismo a las aeronaves y uso inadecuado de equipos. Incluye las
- 12 - ANNEX 15
medidas de seguridad industrial. El Ministerio considera adecuado y pertinente lo planteado
en esta ficha, lo cual deberá ser asumido en todas las bases aéreas tal como corresponde.
Ficha N 12 Administración ambiental y coordinación institucional
Esta ficha tiene como objetivo asegurar el cumplimiento de las especificaciones ambientales
de las diferentes actividades planteadas en el PMA, mediante mecanismos de gestión directa
por parte de las entidades responsables del programa y de coordinación con las diferentes
entidades y sectores involucrados en el PECIG. Este Ministerio considera que este programa
debe ser una actividad permanente mientras haya aspersiones aéreas con glifosato.
3. Visita tecnica
De acuerdo a la visita realizada, cuyo reporte reposa en el concepto técnico ya referido, se
hacen las siguientes consideraciones:
En cuanto al manejo del herbicida en la base aérea visitada, se pudo observar que se
cuenta con un buen almacenamiento, se tienen los elementos necesarios para atender un
derrame o escape del plaguicida, teniendo en cuenta las recomendaciones hechas en las
fichas de manejo ambiental y en el Plan de Contingencia.
Se recomienda que las canecas vacías de glifosato se les haga un triple lavado antes de su
disposición final, de acuerdo con la ficha Nº 4. Programa de manejo de residuos sólidos.
Para el manejo de combustibles e incendios, (ficha No. 3) se cuenta con el apoyo del
programa de la Aeronáutica Civil y con el comando del ejército nacional, el cual queda a 10
minutos de la base. En caso de una descarga puntual en el momento de la aspersión, se
tiene proyectado aplicar el Plan de Contingencias (ficha no 13).
Al interior de la base visitada, se debe mejorar el manejo de aguas aceitosas de talleres,
aguas con posibles residuos de plaguicidas y el manejo integral de residuos sólidos. Este
punto ya se tiene contemplado en el PMA entregado (Ficha No.5 Manejo de aguas
residuales).
De acuerdo con la revisión ocular de los cultivos asperjados en esta zona de bosque se
puede concluir que cumpliendo las condiciones técnicas de operación de la aeronave, el
efecto de deriva es mínimo.
También se observó una gran intervención antrópica con gran deforestación del bosque allí
presente, cuyas espacios en general se utilizan para ganadería, con desarrollos parciales de
rastrojos alternos.
En las zonas en donde el herbicida ha caído directamente, se observa que ha empezado la
regeneración natural, con las dinámicas sucesionales propias de la zona, observándose
algunas plantas gramíneas, musgos y población de insectos.
De acuerdo a todo lo anterior, este Ministerio, considera viable desde el punto de vista
técnico ambiental, imponer el Plan de Manejo Ambiental a la DNE con todas y cada una de
las consideraciones antes expuestas.
- 13 -ANNEX 15
Que de acuerdo con lo expuesto anteriormente este Despacho procederá en tal parte
resolutiva de la presente providencia a imponer a la DIRECCIÓN NACIONAL DE
ESTUPEFACIENTES DNE -, el Plan de Manejo Ambiental para la actividad denominada
"Programa de erradicación de Cultivos Ilícitos mediante Aspersión Aérea con Glifosato"
Que en mérito de lo expuesto, se
RESUELVE:
ART CULO PRIMERO.- IMPONER el Plan de Manejo Ambiental, presentado por la
DIRECCIÓN NACIONAL DE ESTUPEFACIENTES DNE-, para la actividad denominada
"Programa de Erradicación de Cultivos Ilícitos mediante la Aspersión Aérea con Glifosato" en
el territorio nacional, en los términos y condiciones establecidas en la parte considerativa de
la presente resolución.
ARTICULO SEGUNDO.- El Plan de Manejo Ambiental que se impone mediante esta
providencia, ampara únicamente las obras o actividades descritas en el Plan de Manejo
Ambiental y en la presente Resolución. Cualquier modificación a las condiciones del Plan de
Manejo Ambiental, o a cualquiera de las obligaciones impuestas en la presente providencia,
deberá ser informada inmediatamente por escrito al Ministerio del Medio Ambiente para su
evaluación y aprobación.
Igualmente deberá solicitar y obtener la modificación del Plan de Manejo Ambiental cuando
se pretenda usar, aprovechar o afectar un recurso natural renovable en condiciones
distintas a las contempladas en el Plan de Manejo Ambiental y en la presente providencia
ARTICULO TERCERO.- La DIRECCIÓN NACIONAL DE ESTUPEFACIENTES DNE
deberá informar previamente y por escrito al Ministerio del Medio Ambiente cualquier
modificación que implique cambios con respecto a la actividad para su evaluación y
aprobación.
ARTICULO CUARTO.- La DIRECCIÓN NACIONAL DE ESTUPEFACIENTES DNE-, dará
a conocer por escrito a los contratistas y en general a todo el personal involucrado en la
actividad señalada en el artículo primero, las obligaciones, medidas de control y
prohibiciones establecidas en esta providencia, así como aquellas definidas en el Plan de
Manejo Ambiental presentado y deberá exigir el estricto cumplimiento de las mismas.
ARTICULO UINTO .- El Ministerio del Medio Ambiente, el Instituto Colombiano de
Agricultura -ICA- y el Ministerio de Salud dentro de sus competencias, supervisarán la
ejecución de la actividad y podrán verificar en cualquier momento el cumplimiento de los
lineamientos y obligaciones contenidas en la presente providencia y en el Plan de Manejo
Ambiental.
ARTICULO SEXTO.- El término del presente Plan de Manejo Ambiental será por la duración
del Programa de Erradicación de Cultivos Ilícitos Mediante la Aspersión Aérea con Glifosato.
ARTICULO SEPTIMO.- La DIRECCIÓN NACIONAL DE ESTUPEFACIENTES -DNE- será
responsable por cualquier deterioro y/o daño ambiental que le sea imputable, causado en
desarrollo del "Programa de Erradicación de Cultivos Ilícitos mediante Aspersión Aérea con
Glifosato".
- 16 - ANNEX 15
ART CULO OCTAVO.- Por la Subdirección de Licencias de este Ministerio, notificar el
contenido de la presente resolución al representante legal de la Dirección Nacional de
Estupefacientes, a la Defensoría del Pueblo, al Representante Legal de FUNDEPUBLlCO o a
sus apoderados debidamente constituidos y a los señores Claudia Sampedro y Héctor
Suárez quienes actúan como terceros intervinientes dentro del Expediente.
ARTICULO NOVENO.- La DIRECCIÓN NACIONAL DE ESTUPEFACIENTES DNE-
deberá publicar el encabezado, y la parte resolutiva del presente acto administrativo, en un
diario de amplia circulación nacional, copia de la cual deberá allegar a este Ministerio dentro
de los 10 días siguientes a su notificación con destino al expediente No.793.
ARTICULO D CIMO.- Por la Subdirección de Licencias de este Ministerio envíese copia de
la presente providencia a la Procuraduría Delegada para Asuntos Ambientales y Agrarios, al
Ministerio de Salud, al Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario -ICA; al Consejo Nacional de
Estupefacientes y a las Corporaciones Autónomas Regionales y de Desarrollo Sostenible, con
jurisdicción en los Departamentos señalados en la presente providencia.
ART CULO D CIMO PRIMERO.- Contra la presente Resolución procede el recurso de
reposición el cual se podrá interponer ante este Ministerio, dentro de los cinco días
siguientes a su notificación y con el lleno de requisitos legales, conforme lo estipulan los
artículos 50, 51 y 52 del Código Contencioso Administrativo.
NOTIF UESE, COMUN UESE, PUBL UESE Y C MPLASE
JUAN MAYR MALDONADO
Ministro del Medio Ambiente
- 17 - ANNEX 16
Canada, Pest Control Products Act, R.S.C. Chap. 28, Sec. 6(5) (2002) ANNEX 16
Pest Control Products Act ( 2002, c. 28 )
Disclaimer: These documents are not the official versions (more).
Act current to February 27th, 2009
Attention: See coming into force provision and notes, where applicable.
Table Of Contents
Pest Control Products Act
2002, c. 28
P-9.01
[Assented to December 12th, 2002]
An Act to protect human health and safety and the environment by regulating products used for the control of
pests
Preamble
WHEREAS the availability and use of pest control products pose potential risks, both directly and indirectly,
to the health, safety and well-being of people in Canada and to the environment;
WHEREAS pest management plays a significant role in diverse areas of the economy and other aspects of
the quality of life throughout Canada;
WHEREAS pest control products of acceptable risk and value can contribute significantly to the attainment
of the goals of sustainable pest management;
WHEREAS the goals of sustainable pest management are to meet society’s needs for human health
protection, food and fibre production and resource utilization and to conserve or enhance natural resources and
the quality of the environment for future generations, in an economically viable manner;
WHEREAS Canada and the provinces and territories have traditionally administered complementary
regulatory systems designed to protect people and the environment, including its biological diversity, from
unacceptable risks posed by pest control products, and it is important that such an approach be continued in
order to achieve mutually desired results efficiently, without regulatory conflict or duplication;
WHEREAS it is in the national interest that the primary objective of the federal regulatory system be to
prevent unacceptable risks to people and the environment from the use of pest control products,
the attainment of the objectives of the federal regulatory system continue to be pursued through a
scientifically-based national registration system that addresses risks to human health and the environment both
before and after registration and applies to the regulation of pest control products throughout Canada,
pest control products of acceptable risk be registered for use only if it is shown that their use would be
efficacious and if conditions of registration can be established to prevent adverse health impact or pollution of
the environment,
in assessing risks to humans, consideration be given to aggregate exposure to pest control products,
cumulative effects of pest control products and the different sensitivities to pest control products of major
identifiable subgroups, including pregnant women, infants, children, women and seniors,
pest control products be regulated in a manner that supports sustainable development, being development
that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs,
the federal regulatory system be designed to minimize health and environmental risks posed by pest control
products and to encourage the development and implementation of innovative, sustainable pest management
strategies, for example by facilitating access to pest control products that pose lower risks, and encouraging theANNEX 16
development and use of alternative, non-toxic, ecological pest control approaches, strategies and products,
applicable policies of the Government of Canada that are consistent with the objectives of this Act be duly
reflected in decisions respecting the regulation of pest control products,
there be cooperation among federal departments in the development of policies to pursue the attainment of
the objectives of this Act, and that those policies take into account advice from diverse sources throughout the
country,
the provinces and territories and those whose interests and concerns are affected by the federal regulatory
system be accorded a reasonable opportunity to participate in the regulatory system in ways that are consistent
with the attainment of its objectives, and
the federal regulatory system be administered efficiently and effectively in accordance with the foregoing
principles and objectives and in a manner that recognizes the various interests and concerns affected and,
where consistent with the primary objective of the system, minimizes the negative impact on economic viability
and competitiveness;
AND WHEREAS Canada must be able to fulfil its international obligations in relation to pest management;
NOW, THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of
Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
SHORT TITLE
Short title
1. This Act may be cited as the Pest Control Products Act.
INTERPRETATION
Definitions
2. (1) The definitions in this subsection apply in this Act. "active ingredient"
«principe actif »
"active ingredient" means a component of a pest control product to which the intended effects of the product are
attributed and includes a synergist but does not include a solvent, diluent, emulsifier or other component that
is not primarily responsible for those effects.
"advertise"
«publicité »
"advertise" includes making a representation by any means for the purpose of directly or indirectly promoting
the distribution of a pest control product.
"analyst"
«analyste »
"analyst" means a person who is appointed or designated as an analyst under section 45.
"biological diversity"
«diversité biologique »
"biological diversity" means the variability among living organisms from all sources, including, without limiting
the generality of the foregoing, terrestrial and marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological
complexes of which they form a part and includes the diversity within and between species and of
ecosystems.
"biotechnology"
«biotechnologie »
"biotechnology" means the application of science and engineering in the direct or indirect use of living ANNEX 16
(2) Consistent with, and in furtherance of, the primary objective, the Minister shall
(a) support sustainable development designed to enable the needs of the present to be met without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs;
(b) seek to minimize health and environmental risks posed by pest control products and encourage the
development and implementation of innovative, sustainable pest management strategies by facilitating
access to pest control products that pose lower risks and by other appropriate measures;
(c) encourage public awareness in relation to pest control products by informing the public, facilitating public
access to relevant information and public participation in the decision-making process; and
(d) ensure that only those pest control products that are determined to be of acceptable value are approved
for use in Canada.
Protection of future generations
4.1 For greater certainty, protection and consideration afforded to children in this Act shall also extend to
future generations.
ADVISORY COUNCIL
Establishment
5. (1) In carrying out duties under this Act, the Minister may establish an advisory council of persons whose
interests and concerns are affected by this Act, and may specify the functions of the council and the means by
which it is to perform those functions.
Report to Minister
(2) The advisory council shall give any report that it makes, including its recommendations and the reasons
for them, to the Minister, who shall place it in the Register.
PROHIBITIONS
Unregistered pest control products
6. (1) No person shall manufacture, possess, handle, store, transport, import, distribute or use a pest control
product that is not registered under this Act, except as otherwise authorized under subsection 21(5) or 41(1),
any of sections 53 to 59 or the regulations.
Conditions of registration
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, export or distribute a registered pest control product unless it
conforms to the conditions of registration respecting its composition and the person complies with the other
conditions of registration.
Packaging of pest control products
(3) No person shall store, import, export or distribute a pest control product that is not packaged in
accordance with the regulations and the conditions of registration.
Defence
(4) A person shall not be found to have contravened subsection (3) if it is established that the person
reasonably believed that the pest control product was packaged in accordance with the regulations and the
conditions of registration.
Misuse of pest control products
(5) No person shall handle, store, transport, use or dispose of a pest control product in a way that is
inconsistent with
(a) the regulations; or
(b) if the product is registered, the directions on the label recorded in the Register, subject to the regulations.ANNEX 16
Defence
(6) A person shall not be found to have contravened subsection (5) if it is established that the person
(a) reasonably believed that the directions on the label accompanying the pest control product complied with
the regulations or, if the product is registered, with the directions on the label recorded in the Register; and
(b) handled, stored, transported, used or disposed of the product in accordance with the directions on the
label accompanying it.
Packaging and advertisement of pest control products
(7) No person shall package or advertise a pest control product in a way that is false, misleading or likely to
create an erroneous impression regarding its character, value, quantity, composition, safety or registration.
Activities that endanger health, etc.
(8) No person shall manufacture, possess, handle, store, transport, distribute, use or dispose of a pest
control product in a way that endangers human health or safety or the environment.
Offence and punishment
(9) A person who contravenes any provision of this section is guilty of an offence and liable
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine of not more than $200,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more
than six months, or to both; or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine of not more than $500,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not
more than three years, or to both.
REGISTRATION OF PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS
APPLICATIONS FOR R EGISTRATION OR AMENDMENT
Application to Minister
7. (1) An application to register a pest control product or to amend the product’s registration must be made to
the Minister in the form and manner directed by the Minister and must include any information or other thing that
is required by the regulations to accompany the application.
Use of information provided by other registrants
(2) If the Minister is satisfied that any information referred to in subsection (1) has been provided by a
registrant of a pest control product, the active ingredient of which the Minister has determined to be equivalent
to the active ingredient in the applicant’s product, the Minister shall, subject to and in accordance with the
regulations made under paragraph 67(1)(h), permit the applicant to use or rely on that information.
Foreign review or evaluation
(2.1) For the purposes of subsection (1), the applicant may include information that is available from a review
or evaluation of a pest control product conducted by the government of another member country of the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development if the proposed use of the pest control product in
Canada would be under conditions similar to those under which the foreign review or evaluation was conducted.
Evaluation of pest control product
(3) If the Minister is satisfied that the application has been made in accordance with subsection (1), (2) or
(2.1), the Minister shall
(a) in accordance with the regulations, if any, conduct any evaluations that the Minister considers necessary
with respect to the health or environmental risks or the value of the pest control product;
(b) expedite evaluations with respect to a pest control product that may reasonably be expected to pose
lower health or environmental risks; and
(c) carry out any consultation required by section 28. ANNEX 16
Other information
(4) The Minister may, by delivering a notice in writing, request an applicant to provide the Minister with other
information in support of the application within the time and in the form specified in the notice.
Denial of application
(5) The Minister shall deny an application if the applicant does not comply with a notice under subsection (4).
Burden of persuasion and consideration of information
(6) During an evaluation,
(a) the applicant has the burden of persuading the Minister that the health and environmental risks and the
value of the pest control product are acceptable; and
(b) the Minister shall consider the information provided by the applicant in support of the application and may
consider additional information, but the Minister shall give the applicant a reasonable opportunity to make
representations in respect of the additional information before completing the evaluation.
Scientific approach
(7) In evaluating the health and environmental risks of a pest control product and in determining whether
those risks are acceptable, the Minister shall
(a) apply a scientifically based approach; and
(b) in relation to health risks, if a decision referred to in paragraph 28(1)(a) or (b) is being made or has been
made in relation to a pest control product,
(i) among other relevant factors, consider available information on aggregate exposure to the pest control
product, namely dietary exposure and exposure from other non-occupational sources, including drinking
water and use in and around homes and schools, and cumulative effects of the pest control product and
other pest control products that have a common mechanism of toxicity,
(ii) apply appropriate margins of safety to take into account, among other relevant factors, the use of
animal experimentation data and the different sensitivities to pest control products of major identifiable
subgroups, including pregnant women, infants, children, women and seniors, and
(iii) in the case of a threshold effect, if the product is proposed for use in or around homes or schools,
apply a margin of safety that is ten times greater than the margin of safety that would otherwise be
applicable under subparagraph (ii) in respect of that threshold effect, to take into account potential pre-
and post-natal toxicity and completeness of the data with respect to the exposure of, and toxicity to,
infants and children unless, on the basis of reliable scientific data, the Minister has determined that a
different margin of safety would be appropriate.
Government policy to be given effect in evaluation
(8) In evaluating the health and environmental risks and the value of a pest control product, the Minister shall
give effect to government policy.
Comparative risk and value assessment
(9) In determining whether the health and environmental risks and the value of a pest control product are
acceptable, the Minister may, in accordance with the regulations, if any, take into account information regarding
the risks and value of other pest control products that are registered for the same use.
Representations
(10) For the purposes of subsection (9), the Minister shall, before making the determination, give the
applicant a reasonable opportunity to make representations in respect of the information referred to in that
subsection.
Registration or amendment
8. (1) If the Minister considers that the health and environmental risks and the value of the pest control
product are acceptable after any required evaluations and consultations have been completed, the Minister
shall register the product or amend its registration in accordance with the regulations, if any, by ANNEX 17
Andean Community,
Resolution 630, Andean Technical Manual for the Registration and Control of
Chemical Pesticides for Agricultural Use (25 June 2002) ANNEX 17
ANDEAN R ESOLUTIONS
COMMUNITY [seal] 25 JUNE 2002
4.5.1
Secretary General
[…]
RESOLUTION 630
Andean Technical Manual for
the Registration and Control of
Chemical Pesticides for
Agricultural Use
THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE ANDEAN COMMUNITY,
IN VIEW OF: Articles 30, paragraph a), 99 and 100 of the Cartagena
Accord; Decision 436 of the Commission that approved the Andean
Standard for the Registration and Control of Chemical Pesticides for
Agricultural Use; articles 1, 8 and 11, paragraph b) of the Regulations of
the Secretary General, found in Decision 409 of the Andean Council of
Foreign Relations Ministers; and Resolutions 532, 537, 541 and 546 of the
Secretary General; and,
CONSIDERING: That, in conformance with the provisions of article 70
of Decision 436, the Secretary General of the Andean Community must
adopt, through Resolution, the Andean Technical Manual for the
Registration and Control of Chemical Pesticides for Agricultural Use,
with the aim of regulating the application of said Decision;
That, through Resolution 532 of this Secretary General of the 24 July
2001, the Andean Technical Manual for the Registration and Control of
Chemical Pesticides for Agricultural Use was adopted for application in
Member Countries, in compliance with the provisions of article 70 of
Decision 436;ANNEX 17
That, on 9 August 2001 the Government of Peru solicited from the
Secretary General the reconsideration of Resolution 532. On 13 August
2001, by way of Resolution 537, the Secretary General of the Andean
Community suspended the enforcement of the Registration and Control of
Chemical Pesticides for Agricultural Use for application in Member
Countries until the reconsideration was resolved. Through Resolution 541
of this Secretary General on 22 August 2001, the reconsideration
interposed by Peru was rejected for the reasons therein indicated.
However, in the same Resolution 541, the contents of the Andean
Technical Manual for the Registration and Control of Chemical Pesticides
for Agricultural Use were modified in some aspects;
That, on 6 September 2001, the Secretary General received fax no.
MCEI/1012/2001 from the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Investment of
Bolivia, from 4 September 2001, by means of which, in his capacity as
President of the Commission of the Andean Community, and because he
was in charge of said Commission, the Secretary General was requested to
review the contents of the Andean Technical Manual for the Registration
and Control of Chemical Pesticides for Agricultural Use, adopted through
Resolution 532 and modified through Resolution 541. To that effect, it
was requested that the Secretary General consult with the Heads of the
Member Countries regarding the substantive aspects of the
aforementioned Manual, regarding which they had noted discrepancies,
and to call, as soon as possible, a Meeting of Governmental Experts from
Member Countries to discuss those aspects, and to procure a consensus
regarding the same. In the same communication, the President of the
Commission of the Andean Community requested that, in application of
article 41 of the Administrative Procedure Regulation of the Secretary
General, and while the review of the manual was being concluded, the
enforcement of Resolution 541 be suspended, as some representatives
from Member Countries had stated before the Commission that specific
aspects of the Manual could violate provisions of the legal ordinances of
the Andean Community and cause grave damage to the community’s
industry;
That, through Resolution 546 of this Secretary General on 10 September
2001, the enforcement of the Andean Technical Manual for the
Registration and Control of Chemical Pesticides for Agricultural Use was
suspended for application in Member Countries, while the request was
resolved by the Andean Community Commission. ANNEX 17
That, after repeated conferences on the part of the Secretary General, a
Meeting of Governmental Experts in Pesticides was held on 22 and 23
April 2002, during which the Representatives of the Member Countries
reached a consensus regarding the substantive aspects of the Technical
Manual for Chemical Pesticides for Agricultural Use in the parts where
discrepancies had appeared. In this regard, the Representatives of the
Member Countries requested that the Secretary General present a proposal
to the Commission of the Andean Community for the modification of
Decision 436, in such a way as to expressly recognize the interpretations
adopted by consensus. That, during the meeting held during the Eighty-
second Ordinary Session, on 7 June 2002, the Commission of the Andean
Community, on the recommendations of its Alternate Representatives,
considered it unnecessary to modify Decision 436, and requested that the
Secretary General issue by Resolution a new text of the Technical
Pesticide Manual which reflects the agreements reached by the
Governmental Experts of the Member Countries;
That, for the reasons stated above, the Secretary General considers it
advisable to substitute the text of the Andean Technical Manual for the
Registration and Control of Chemical Pesticides for Agricultural Use for
its application in Member Countries, adopted through Resolution 532 and
modified through Resolution 541, with the aim of assembling the
interpretations adopted by consensus by the Representatives of Member
Countries during the Group Meeting of Governmental Pesticide Experts;
RESOLVED:
Sole Article.- To adopt the Andean Technical Manual for the Registration
and Control of Chemical Pesticides for Agricultural Use for application in
Member Countries. It is to be found in the Annex of this Resolution.
Issued in the city of Lima, Peru, on the twenty-fifth day of the month of
June in the year two-thousand and two.
SEBASTIAN ALEGRETT
Secretary GeneralANNEX 17
ANDEAN COMMUNITY [seal]
Secretary General
ANDEAN TECHNICAL MANUAL FOR THE REGISTRATION
AND CONTROL OF CHEMICAL PESTICIDES FOR
AGRICULTURAL USE
[PAGE 128]
1. SORAGE PICTOGRAM
Keep out of the
reach of children
2. HNDLING AND APPLICATIONS AFETYPICTOGRAM
Handling of Liquids Handling of Solids ANNEX 17
Application of Solids for direct use Special Application of Solids
Application of liquids
and dissolved solids
[PAGE 129]
3. PRSONAL S AFETY PICTOGRAMS
Use protective gloves Wash your entire
body after
using the productANNEX 17
Wear protective boots Wear a protective mask
Wear a mask or Wear a respirator
mouth cover or gas mask
Wear two-piece Wear a bib or
coveralls over work apron over work
clothes clothes ANNEX 17
[PAGE 130]
4. WARNING PICTOGRAMS
Do not allow animals Toxic to bees Do not contaminate
in the treated area water sources ANNEX 17
RESOLUCIONES
DE JUNIO DEL
RESOLUCIÓN
Manual Técnico Andino para
el Re gistro y Control de
Plaguicidas Químicos de Uso
AgrícolaANNEX 17
RESOLUCION 630
Manual Técnico Andino para el
Registro y Control de Plaguicidas
Químicos de Uso Agrícola
LA SECRETARIA GENERAL DE LA COMUNIDAD ANDINA,
VISTOS: Los Artículos 30, literal a), 99 y 100 del Acuerdo de Cartagena; la Decisión
436 de la Comisión que aprueba la Norma Andina para el Registro y Control de
Plaguicidas Químicos de Uso Agrícola; los artículos 1, 8 y 11, literal b) del Reglamento
de la Secretaría General contenido en la Decisión 409 del Consejo Andino de Ministros
de Relaciones Exteriores; el Capítulo II del Título IV del Reglamento de Procedimientos
Administrativos de la Secretaría General contenido en la Decisión 425 del Consejo
Andino de Ministros de Relaciones Exteriores; y las Resoluciones 532, 537, 541 y 546
de la Secretaría General; y,
CONSIDERANDO: Que, conforme lo establece el artículo 70 de la Decisión 436, la
Secretaría General de la Comunidad Andina debe adoptar mediante Resolución el
Manual Técnico Andino para el Registro y Control de Plaguicidas Químicos de Uso
Agrícola, a fin de reglamentar la aplicación de la referida Decisión;
Que, a través de la Resolución 532 de esta Secretaría General del 24 de julio de
2001, se adoptó el Manual Técnico Andino para el Registro y Control de Plaguicidas
Químicos de Uso Agrícola, para su aplicación en los Países Miembros, dando
cumplimiento a lo establecido en el artículo 70 de la Decisión 436;
Que, con fecha 9 de agosto de 2001, el Gobierno de Perú solicitó a la Secretaría
General la reconsideración de la Resolución 532. El día 13 de agosto de 2001,
mediante Resolución 537, la Secretaría General de la Comunidad Andina suspendió la
vigencia del Manual Técnico Andino para el Registro y Control de Plaguicidas Químicos
de Uso Agrícola para su aplicación en los Países Miembros, hasta tanto se resolviera el
recurso de reconsideración. A través de la Resolución 541 de esta Secretaría General,
del 22 de agosto de 2001, se desestimó el recurso de reconsideración interpuesto por el
Gobierno de Perú por las razones allí indicadas. Sin embargo, en la misma Resolución
541 se modificó el contenido del Manual Técnico Andino para el Registro y Control de
Plaguicidas Químicos de Uso Agrícola en algunos aspectos;
Que, con fecha 6 de septiembre de 2001, la Secretaría General recibió el fax No.
MCEI/1012/2001 del Ministro de Comercio Exterior e Inversión de Bolivia, de fecha 4 de
septiembre de 2001, por medio del cual solicitaba, en su condición de Presidente de la
Comisión de la Comunidad Andina y por encargo de la propia Comisión, que la
Secretaría General revisara el contenido del Manual Técnico de Plaguicidas Químicos
de Uso Agrícola, adoptado mediante Resolución 532 y modificado mediante Resolución
541. A tal efecto, solicitaba que la Secre taría General cons ultara la opinión de los
Gobiernos de los Países Miembros acerca de los aspectos sustantivos del referido
Manual en los cuales se habían registrado discrepancias y convocara a la brevedad
posible a una Reunión de Expertos Gubernamentales de los Países Miembros para
discutir esos aspectos y procurar llegar a un consenso en torno a los mismos. En la
misma comunicación, el Presidente de la Comisión de la Comunidad Andina solicitó que
en aplicación del artículo 41 del Reglamento de Procedimientos Administrativos de la ANNEX 17
-2-
Secretaría General, y mientras concluía la revisión del Manual, se suspendiera la
vigencia de la Resolución 541, toda vez que algunos representantes de Países
Miembros ante la Comisión habían expresado que determinados aspectos del Manual
pudieran contravenir disposiciones del ordenamiento jurídico de la Comunidad Andina y
generar perjuicios graves a la industria comunitaria;
Que, a través de la Resolución 546 de esta Secretaría General del 10 de
septiembre de 2001, se suspendieron los efectos del Manual Técnico Andino para el
Registro y Control de Plaguicidas Químicos de Uso Agrícola para su aplicación en los
Países Miembros, mientras se resolvía la solicitud formulada por encargo de la
Comisión de la Comunidad Andina;
Que, luego de repetidas convocatorias por parte de la Secretaría General, se llevó a
cabo una Reunión del Grupo de Expertos Gubernamentales en Plaguicidas los días 22
y 23 de abril de 2002, durante la cual los Representantes de los Países Miembros
llegaron a una posición de consenso sobre los aspectos sustantivos del Manual Técnico
de Plaguicidas Químicos de Uso Agrícola en los cuales se habían presentado
discrepancias. En tal sentido, los Representantes de los Países Miembros solicitaron a
la Secretaría General que presentara una propue sta a la Comisión de la Comunidad
Andina para la modificación de la Decisión 436, de manera que se recogieran
expresamente las interpretaciones adoptadas por consenso. Que, durante la reunión
correspondiente al Período Ochenta y Dos de Sesiones Ordinarias realizada el día 7 de
junio de 2002, la Comisión de la Comunidad Andina, por recomendación de sus
Representantes Alternos, consideró innecesario modificar la Decisión 436 y solicitó a la
Secretaría General emitir por Resolución un nuevo texto del Manual Técnicode
Plaguicidas, que reflejara los acuerdos alcanzados por los Expertos Gubernamentales
de los Países Miembros;
Que, por todo lo indicado, la Secretaría General considera conveniente sustituir el
texto del Manual Técnico Andino para el Registro y Control de Plaguicidas Químicos de
Uso Agrícola para su aplicación en los Países Miembros adoptado mediante Resolución
532 y modificado mediante Resolución 541, con el fin de recoger las interpretaciones
adoptadas por consenso por los Representantes de los Países Miembros durante la
Reunión del Grupo de Expertos Gubernamentales en Plaguicidas;
RESUELVE:
Artículo Unico.- Adoptar el Manual Técnico Andino para el Registro y Control de
Plaguicidas Químicos de Uso Agrícola para su aplicación en los Países Miemb ros, que
consta en Anexo de la presente Resolución.
Dada en la ciudad de Lima, Perú, a los veinticinco días del mes de junio del año dos
mil dos.
SEBASTIAN ALEGRETT
Secretario GeneralANNEX 17
MANUAL TÉCNICO ANDINO
PARA EL REGISTRO Y CONTROL DE
PLAGUICIDAS QUÍMICOS
DE USO AGRÍCOLA ANNEX 17
- 128 -
PICTOGRAMAS
1. P ICTOGRAMA DE A LMACENAMIENTO
1
Manténgase fuera del
alcance de los niños
2. P ICTOGRAMA DE SEGURIDAD PARA LA MANIPULACIÓN Y APLICACIÓN
2 3
Manejo de sólidos
Manejo de líquidos
5
4
Aplicación de sólidos para Aplicación especial de
sólidos
uso directo
6
Aplicación de líquidosy
de sólidos en diluciónANNEX 17
- 129 -
3. P ICTOGRAMAS SOBRE SEGURIDAD PERSONAL
7 8
Utilice guantes de Báñese el cuerpo después
protección
de utilizar el producto
9 10
Utilice botas de protección Utilice careta protección
11
12
Utilice tapaboca o Utilice respirador o
Mascarilla Máscara
13 14
Utilice overol de dos piezas sobre la Utilice peto o delantal sobre la
ropa de trabajo ropa de trabajo ANNEX 17
- 130 -
4. P ICTOGRAMAS DE ADVERTENCIA
15 16 17
No permita animales Tóxico para abejas No contamine
en el área tratada fuentes de agua
5. S ÍMBOLOS DE SEGURIDAD (CLASIFICACIÓN TOXICOLÓGICA )
MUYTÓXICO
Ia
TÓXICO
Ib
DAÑINO
II ANNEX 18
Republic of Ecuador, Ministry of Agriculture,
General Regulation of Pesticides and Related Products for Agricultural Use,
Special Official Registry, Book II, Title XXVIII, (20 Mar. 2003) ANNEX 18
OFFICIAL REGISTRY
ORGAN OF THE GOVERNMENT OF ECUADOR
[…]
Year 1 -- Quito, Thursday 20 March 2003 -- Special Edition No. 1
[…]
No. 3609
Gustavo Noboa Bejarano
CONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC,
[…]
Decrees:
[…]
TITLE XXVIII
OF THE REGULATION OF PESTIDICITES AND RELATED
AGRICULTURAL-USE PRODUCTS
[…]
Art. 33.- Use of pesticides.- Pesticides may only be used according to the
recommendations listed on the labels, or as developed by an authorized
professional, observing the specific time to use each pesticide for each
crop, as established by the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock.ANNEX 18ANNEX 18ANNEX 18ANNEX 18ANNEX 18 ANNEX 19
Republic of Colombia, Ministry of Environment
Resolution No. 670, Whereby a Sanction is Imposed and Other Decisions Are
Made (19 June 2003) ANNEX 19
[seal]
MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT, HOUSING
AND TERRITORIAL DEVELOPMENT
19 JUNE 2003
RESOLUTION NO. 0670
“Whereby a sanction is imposed and other decisions are made”
THE VICEMINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT
Pursuant to the powers conferred by Law 99 of 1993 in Article 197 et
seq. of Decree 1594 of 1984 in number 15 of Article 6 of Decree 216 of
2003; and in number 1 of Article 1 of Resolution 307 of 2003
[PAGE 6]
[…]
2.5 Impossibility of conducting the environmental impact assessments
during the implementation of a program, project or policy
Regarding the DNE’s [National Narcotics Directorate] argument on the
impossibility of conducting the environmental impact assessment during the
implementation of a program or project, this Ministry does not share this
opinion since it is a very common practice to conduct ex post facto
evaluations to determine the effects of an activity on the environment and,
based on the analysis of this evaluations, ascertain if the foreseen impacts
and environmental management measures give optimum results and/or
suggest measures to mitigate and/or offset said impacts.
By virtue of the foregoing, the Ministry considers that the arguments
presented by the DNE do not demonstrate compliance with the obligation
set forth in the Second Article of Resolution 341 of 2001.ANNEX 19
[…]
3.1 Information about the environmental audits conducted on PECIG
[Illicit Crop Eradication Program Using Aerial Spraying with
Glyphosate] with glyphosate: contracts 032 of 1992, 070 of 1994,
086 of 1994, 065 of 1995, 082 of 1996, 01 of 1998, 019 of 2000, 001 of
2001, and 035 of 2001.
As for the evidence presented by DNE regarding the reports on the audits, it
should be noted that none of the reports referred to by DNE were submitted
or are found in file No. 793 handled by this Ministry for PECIG, except for
the sections of the reports presented as evidence and numbered 1, 2 and 3,
relating to the first charge.
The information provided by the DNE in the document responding to the
charges relating to the object of the contract of the different Environmental
Audits indicate that the assessments carried out were designed to evaluate
the effectiveness (agronomic efficiency) of the glyphosate as an herbicide
and not to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the environmental
management measures of PECIG, as is required under letter b) of Article 6
of Resolution 341 of 2001.
With regard to the measures adopted and the implementation of efficiency
and effectiveness indicators, DNE made reference to the studies conducted
by the entity prior to the issuance of Resolution 341 of 2001, whereby, said
studies do not meet the requirements under Article 6, letter b). In addition,
according to progress reports submitted to the Ministry in response to the
requirements of Resolution 341, in-situ verification in-situ of the
effectiveness of environmental management measures and evaluation of the
efficiency and effectiveness of these indicators were not carried out. ANNEX 19
3.2 Identification of impacts prior to the eradication of illegal crops.
Regarding the existence of impacts prior to the eradication of illegal crops,
this Ministry has reiterated that the impacts from aerial spraying with
glyphosate are being assessed. Moreover, the argument presented does not
meet the requirements under letter b), Article 6 of Resolution 341 of 2001,
for verification and assessment of environmental management measures
during PECIG operations, because it identifies the impacts generated by the
establishment of illegal crops and not the impacts of aerial spraying.
[…]
[PAGE 13]
[signature]
JUAN PABLO BONILLA ARBOLEDA
Viceminister of the EnvironmentANNEX 19ANNEX 19ANNEX 19 ANNEX 20
Republic of Colombia, Institute of Agriculture,
Resolution No. 3759, Enacting Provisions for the Registration and Control of
Chemical Pesticides for Agricultural Use (16 Dec. 2003) ANNEX 20
[seal] Ministry of Agriculture and
Revellopment
AGRICULTURAL INSTITUTE OF COLOMBIA
RESOLUTION No. 03759
(16 December 2003)
By which the provisions of the Registration and Control of Chemical
Pesticides for Agricultural Use are issued
GENERAL MANAGER OF THE AGRICULTURAL INSTITUTE of
COLOMBIA “ICA”
[…]
RESOLVES:
SCOPE OF APPLICATION
ARTICLE 1. To define the procedures and establish the requirements for
the registration and control of chemical pesticides for agricultural use.
[PAGE 2]
ARTICLE 2. To establish as a requirement for the use of agricultural
pesticides in Colombia the obtaining of a national registration, in
conformance with the provisions of this resolution.
[…]
[PAGE 22]
SANCTIONS
ARTICLE 33. The violation of any of the norms established in this
resolution shall be sanctioned through a substantiated resolution issued by
the ANC-ICA, according to Decree 1843 of 1991, and article 17 of Decree
1840 of 1994, or the provision which replaces it, without prejudice to the
corresponding penal or civil action.
The sanctions shall be the following:ANNEX 20
1. Written warning in which the term for compliance with the
violated provisions is detailed for the infracting party, with a copy
for their files.
2. Fines, which may be successive and whose value shall not exceed
a sum equivalent to ten thousand (10,000) legal minimum salaries.
These fines shall be paid into the Treasury of the ICA within five
(5) business days of the date of execution of the corresponding
decision, and shall enter into the National Fund for Agricultural
Protection “FONPAGRO.” Noncompliance with the payment in
the terms and amounts indicated shall lead to cancellation of the
registration.
3. Suspension for up to six (6) months of the registrations for
manufacturers, formulators, importers, exporters, packagers,
distributors, quality control laboratories and technical departments.
4. Suspension of National Registration for up to six (6) months.
5. Definitive cancellation of National Registration.
6. Definitive cancellation of the registrations for manufacturers,
formulators, importers, exporters, packagers, distributors, quality
control laboratories and technical departments.
7. Suspension of ICA services. ANNEX 20
RESOLUCIÓN No. 03759
( 16 Diciembre de 2003)
Por la cual se dictan disposiciones sobre el Registro y Control de los Plaguicidas Químicos de
uso Agrícola
EL GERENTE GENERAL DEL INSTITUTO COLOMBIANO AGROPECUARIO “ICA”
En ejercicio de sus atribuciones legales, especialmente de las previstas en los Decretos 001 de 1984, 2141 de 1992 y
1840 de 1994, la Decisión Andina 436 de 1998 y el Decreto 502 de 2003, y
CONSIDERANDO:
Que de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo segundo (2) de la ley 822 de 2003 y el artículo primero (1) del
Decreto 502 del 5 de marzo de 2003, el Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural, a través del Instituto
Colombiano Agropecuario “ICA”, o la entidad que haga sus veces, es la Autoridad Nacional Competente, en
adelante ANC, para llevar el registro y control de los plaguicidas químicos de uso agrícola y el responsable de velar
por el cumplimiento de la Decisión 436 de la Comunidad Andina, su Manual Técnico, la Ley 822 y el citado decreto.
Que el artículo cuarto (4) del Decreto 502 del 5 de marzo de 2003, faculta plenamente a la Autoridad Nacional
Competente, es decir, al Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario “ICA”, para expedir las resoluciones mediante las
cuales se establezcan los requisitos y procedimientos para el registro y control de plaguicidas químicos de uso
agrícola, basándose en los principios de gradualidad, especificidad y aplicabilidad, de conformidad con lo dispuesto
en la Decisión. Igualmente debe establecer los requisitos de registro de fabricantes, formuladores, importadores,
exportadores, envasadores y distribuidores.
Que el día 10 de julio de 2003, el Congreso de la República expidió la ley 822, mediante la cual se dictan normas
relacionadas con los agroquímicos genéricos, estableciendo trámites y plazos para el otorgamiento del registro
nacional correspondiente por parte de la ANC, así como la función de coordinar con el Ministerio de la Protección
Social y el Ministerio de Ambiente Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial, dichos trámites en lo que corresponde al
ámbito de sus competencias, por lo cual, se hace necesario expedir una nueva resolución por parte de la ANC – ICA,
que permita la plena aplicación de la normatividad vigente en esta materia.
Que en mérito de lo expuesto, el Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario “ICA”,
RESUELVE:
AMBITO DE APLICACIÓN
ARTÍCULO 1o. Definir los procedimientos y establecer los requisitos para el registro y control de plaguicidas
químicos de uso agrícola.ANNEX 20
RESOLUCIÓN No. 03759
(16 Diciembre de 2003)
Por la cual se dictan disposiciones sobre el Registro y Control de los Plaguicidas Químicos de
uso Agrícola
______________________________________________________________________________
ARTÍCULO 2o. Establecer como requisito para el uso en Colombia de plaguicidas químicos de uso agrícola, la
obtención del registro nacional, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en la presente resolución.
DEFINICIONES
ARTÍCULO 3o. Para efectos de la aplicación de la presente resolución, se utilizarán las definiciones contenidas en
la Decisión 436 de 1998 de la Comunidad Andina, el Manual Técnico Andino adoptado mediante Resolución 630 de
2002, Decreto 502 y Ley 822 de 2003, las demás normas complementarias o adicionales que se expidan y aquellas
actualmente vigentes, que no sean contradictorias con las mismas.
REQUISITOS
ARTÍCULO 4o. Los fabricantes, formuladores, importadores, exportadores, envasadores y distribuidores de
plaguicidas químicos de uso agrícola, sean estos personas naturales o jurídicas, deben estar registrados ante ANC -
ICA, para lo cual deberán presentar una solicitud cumpliendo los requisitos establecidos en la presente resolución.
Solamente podrán fabricar, formular, importar, exportar, envasar y distribuir plaguicidas químicos de uso agrícola,
las personas naturales y jurídicas que cuenten con el registro otorgado por la ANC-ICA en cumplimiento a las
disposiciones de la presente resolución.
ARTÍCULO 5o. Los requisitos para obtener el registro de fabricantes, formuladores, importadores, exportadores,
envasadores y distribuidores de plaguicidas químicos de uso agrícola serán los siguientes:
1. Solicitud debidamente diligenciada, firmada por la persona natural o por el representante legal si es persona
jurídica.
2 Nombre, dirección y datos de identificación de la persona natural o jurídica y de su representación legal.
3 Certificado de la Cámara de Comercio sobre constitución y representación legal, si se trata de persona jurídica o
Matrícula Mercantil si es persona natural, con fecha de expedición no mayor a noventa (90) días al momento de la
presentación de la solicitud.
2 ANNEX 20
RESOLUCIÓN No. 03759
(16 Diciembre de 2003)
Por la cual se dictan disposiciones sobre el Registro y Control de los Plaguicidas Químicos de
uso Agrícola
______________________________________________________________________________
SANCIONES
ARTÍCULO 33o. La violación a cualquiera de las normas establecidas en la presente resolución, será sancionada
mediante resolución motivada que expedirá la ANC-ICA, de acuerdo con el Decreto 1843 de 1991 y con el artículo
17 del Decreto 1840 de 1.994 o la disposición que lo reemplace, sin perjuicio de las acciones penales o civiles que
correspondan.
Las sanciones serán las siguientes:
1. Amonestación escrita, en la cual se precisará el plazo que se dé al infractor para el cumplimiento de las
disposiciones violadas con copia a su expediente.
2. Multas, que podrán ser sucesivas y su valor en conjunto no excederá una suma equivalente a diez mil
(10.000) salarios mínimos legales. Estas multas deberán ser pagadas en la Tesorería del ICA, dentro de los
cinco (5) días hábiles siguientes a la fecha de la ejecutoria de la providencia correspondiente, e ingresarán
al Fondo Nacional de Protección Agropecuaria “FONPAGRO”. El incumplimiento del pago en los
términos y cuantías señaladas dará lugar a la cancelación del registro.
3. Suspensión hasta por seis (6) meses de los registros de fabricador, formulador, importador, exportador,
envasador, distribuidor, laboratorio de control de calidad y departamentos técnicos.
4. Suspensión del Registro Nacional, hasta por seis (6) meses
5. Cancelación definitiva de Registro Nacional.
6. Cancelación definitiva de los registros de fabricador, formulador, importador, exportador, envasador,
distribuidor, laboratorio de control de calidad y departamentos técnicos.
7. Suspensión de los servicios que presta el ICA.
DE LA DIVULGACION
ARTÍCULO 34o. La ANC-ICA publicará mensualmente la relación de plaguicidas químicos de uso agrícola que
haya registrado en el mes anterior. En el mismo sentido publicará en el mes de enero de cada año la relación de
productos con registro vigente, los que se encuentren restringidos, prohibidos, cancelados o suspendidos.
22 ANNEX 21
European Parliament, Legislative Resolution of 13 January 2009 on the Council
Common Position for Adopting a Directive of the European Parliament and of
the Council Establishing a Framework for Community Action to Achieve a
Sustainable Use of Pesticides,
6124/2008 – C6-0323/2008 –2006/0132(COD) (13 Jan. 2009) ANNEX 21
Index Previous Next Full text
Procedure : 2006/0132(COD) Document stages in plenary
Document selected : A6-0443/2008
Texts tabled : Debates : Votes : Texts adopted :
A6-0443/2008 PV 12/01/2009 - 14 PV 13/01/2009 - 6.10 P6_TA(2009)0010
CRE 12/01/2009 - 14 Explanations of votes
Explanations of votes
Explanations of votes
Texts adopted
Tuesday, 13 January 2009 - Strasbourg Provisional edition
Framework for Community action to achieve a sustainable use of P6_TA-PROV(2009)0010 A6-0443/2008
pesticides ***II
Resolution
Consolidated text
Annex
Annex
Annex
Annex
European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 January 2009 on the Council common position for
adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for
Community action to achieve a sustainable use of pesticides (6124/2008 – C6-0323/2008 – 2006/0132
(COD))
(Codecision procedure: second reading)
The European Parliament ,
– having regard to the Council common position (6124/2008 – C6-0323/2008) (1,
(2)
– having regard to its position at first readinon the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2006)0373),
– having regard to Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty,
– having regard to Rule 62 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food
Safety (A6-0443/2008),
1. Approves the common position as amended;
2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.
(1) OJ C 254 E, 7.10.2008, p. 1.
(2) Texts adopted, 23.10.2007, P6_TA(2007)0444.ANNEX 21
Position of the European Parliament adopted at second reading on 13 January 2009 with a view
to the adoption of Directive 2009/.../EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing
a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides
P6_TC2-COD(2006)0132
(Text with EEA relevance)
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 175(1) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),
(2)
Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions ,
Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty (3),
Whereas:
(1) In line with Articles 2 and 7 of Decision No 1600/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2002
laying down the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme (4), ▯ a common legal framework for achieving a sustainable
use of pesticides should be established, taking account of precautionary and preventive approaches.
(2) At present, this Directive should apply to pesticides which are plant protection products. However, it is anticipated that the
scope of this Directive will be extended to cover biocidal products.
(3) The measures provided for in this Directive should be complementary to, and not affect, measures laid down in other related
(5)
Community legislation, in particular Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds , Council
Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (6), Directive 2000/60/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of
water policy (7), Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum
(8) (9)
residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and Council Regulation (EC) No …/... of ... on
the placing of plant protection products on the market (10). These measures should also not prejudice voluntary measures in the
context of Regulations for Structural Funds or according to the Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on
support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (11).
(4) Economic instruments can play a crucial role in the achievement of objectives relating to the sustainable use of
pesticides. The use of such instruments at the appropriate level should therefore be encouraged while stressing that
individual Member States can decide on their use without prejudice to the applicability of the state aid rules.
(5) National Action Plans aimed at setting quantitative objectives , targets, measures, indicators and timetables to reduce
risks and impacts of pesticide use on human health and the environment and at encouraging the development and introduction of
Integrated Pest Management and of alternative approaches or techniques in order to reduce dependency on the use of pesticides
should be used by Member States in order to facilitate the implementation of this Directive. Member States should monitor the
use of plant protection products containing substances of particular concern and establish timetables and targets for
the reduction of their use in particular when it is an appropriate means to achieve risk reduction targets. National Action
Plans should be coordinated with implementation plans under other relevant Community legislation and could be used for
grouping together objectives to be achieved under other Community legislation related to pesticides.
(6) The exchange of information on the objectives and actions Member States lay down in their National Action Plans is a very
important element for achieving the objectives of this Directive. Therefore, it is appropriate to request Member States to report
regularly to the Commission and to the other Member States, in particular on the implementation and results of their National
Action Plans and on their experiences. On the basis of information transmitted by the Member States, the Commission
should submit to the European Parliament and the Council relevant reports, accompanied, if necessary, with
appropriate legislative proposals.
(7) For the preparation and modification of National Action Plans, it is appropriate to provide for the application of Directive ANNEX 21
2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the
drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment (12).
(8) It is essential that Member States set up systems of both initial and additional training for distributors, advisors and
professional users of pesticides and certification systems to record this whereby those who use or will use pesticides are fully
aware of the potential risks to human health and the environment and of the appropriate measures to reduce those risks as much
as possible. Training activities for professional users may be coordinated with those organised in the framework of Regulation
(EC) No 1698/2005.
(9) The sales of pesticides, including Internet sales, are an important element in the distribution chain, where specific advice on
safety instructions for human health and the environment should be given to the end user at the time of sale, in particular to
professional users. For non-professional users who in general do not have the same education and training, recommendations
should be given, in particular on safe handling and storage of pesticides as well as on disposal of the packaging.
(10) Considering the possible risks from the use of pesticides, the general public should be better informed on the overall impacts
of the use of pesticides through awareness-raising campaigns, information passed on through retailers and other appropriate
measures.
(11) Research programmes aiming to determine the impacts of pesticide use on human health and the environment
including studies on high-risk groups should be promoted at European and national level.
(12) To the extent that the handling and application of pesticides require the setting of minimum health and safety requirements
at the workplace, covering the risks arising from exposure of workers to such products, as well as general and specific preventive
measures to reduce those risks, those measures are covered by Council Directive 98/24/EC of 7 April 1998 on the protection of
the health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work (13)and Directive 2004/37/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the protection of workers from the risks related to their exposure to carcinogens
or mutagens at work (14).
(15)
(13) Since Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery will provide for
rules on the placing on the market of pesticide application equipment ensuring that environmental requirements are met, it is
appropriate, in order to minimise the adverse impacts of pesticides on human health and the environment caused by such
equipment, to provide for systems for regular technical inspection of pesticide application equipment already in use. Member
States should describe how they will ensure the implementation of those requirements in their National Action Plans.
(14) Aerial spraying of pesticides has the potential to cause significant adverse impacts on human health and the environment, in
particular from spray drift. Therefore, aerial spraying should generally be prohibited with derogations possible where it represents
clear advantages in terms of reduced impacts on human health and the environment in comparison with other spraying methods,
or where there are no viable alternatives, provided that the best available technology to reduce drift is used.
(15) The aquatic environment is especially sensitive to pesticides. It is therefore necessary for particular attention to be paid to
avoid pollution of surface water and groundwater by taking appropriate measures such as, the establishment of buffer and
safeguard zones or planting hedges along surface waters to reduce exposure of water bodies to spray drift, drain flow and run-off.
The dimensions of buffer zones should depend in particular on soil characteristics, pesticide properties, as well as agricultural
characteristics of the areas concerned. Use of pesticides in areas for the abstraction of drinking water, on or along transport
routes, such as railway lines, or on sealed or very permeable surfaces can lead to higher risks of pollution of the aquatic
environment. In such areas the pesticide use should, therefore, be reduced as far as possible, or eliminated, if appropriate.
(16) Use of pesticides can be particularly dangerous in very sensitive areas, such as Natura 2000 sites protected in accordance
with Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC. In other places such as public parks, sports and recreation grounds, school
grounds and children's playgrounds, and in the vicinity of healthcare facilities, the risks from exposure to pesticides ▯are
high. In these areas, the use of pesticides should be minimised or prohibited. When pesticides are used, appropriate risk
management measures should be established and low-risk pesticides as well as biological control measures should be
considered in the first place.
(17) Handling of pesticides, including storage, diluting and mixing the pesticides and cleaning of pesticide application equipment
after use, and recovery and disposal of tank mixtures, empty packaging and remnants of pesticides are particularly prone to
unwanted exposure of humans and the environment. Therefore, it is appropriate to provide for specific measures addressing
those activities as a complement to the measures provided for under Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 5 April 2006 on waste (16), and Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (17).
Measures should also encompass non-professional users, since inappropriate handling is very likely to occur in this group of
users due to their lack of knowledge.
(18) The application of general principles and crop and sector specific guidelines of Integrated Pest Management by all farmersANNEX 21
would result in a better targeted use of all available pest control measures, including pesticides. Therefore, it contributes to a
further reduction of the risks to human health and the environment and the dependency on the use of pesticides. Member States
should promote low pesticide-input pest management, in particular Integrated Pest Management, and establish the necessary
conditions and measures for its implementation.
(19) Whereas, on the basis of Regulation (EC) No …/… [on the placing on the market of plant protection products] and of this
Directive, implementation of the principles of Integrated Pest Management is obligatory and whereas the subsidiarity principle
applies to the way the principles for Integrated Pest Management are implemented, Member States should describe how they
ensure the implementation of the principles of Integrated Pest Management, with priority given wherever possible to non-
chemical methods of plant protection and pest and crop management, in their National Action Plan.
(20) It is necessary to measure the progress achieved in the reduction of risks and adverse impacts from pesticide use for
human health and the environment. Appropriate means are harmonised risk indicators that will be established at Community
level. Member States should use those indicators for risk management at national level and for reporting purposes, while the
Commission should calculate indicators to evaluate progress at Community level. Statistical data collected in accordance with
(18)
Regulation (EC) No ... of the European Parliament and of the Council of ... concerning statistics on plant protection products
(19)should be used. Member States should be entitled to use, in addition to harmonised common indicators, their national
indicators.
(21) Member States should determine penalties applicable to infringements of national provisions adopted pursuant to this
Directive and ensure that they are implemented. The penalties should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
(22) Since the objective of this Directive, namely to protect human health and the environment from the possible risks associated
with the use of pesticides, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore be better achieved at
Community level, the Community may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of
the Treaty. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is
necessary in order to achieve this objective.
(23) This Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised notably by the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In particular, this seeks to promote the integration into Community policies of a high
level of environmental protection in accordance with the principle of sustainable development as laid down in Article 37 of the
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
(24) The measures necessary for the implementation of this Directive should be adopted in accordance with Council Decision
1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the
(20)
Commission.
(25) In particular, the Commission should be empowered to establish and update the Annexes to this Directive. Since those
measures are of general scope and are designed to amend non-essential elements of this Directive, inter alia by supplementing it
with new non-essential elements, they must be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny provided for in
Article 5a of Decision 1999/468/EC.
(21)
(26) In accordance with point 34 of the Interinstitutional agreement on better law-making , Member States are encouraged to
draw up, for themselves and in the interests of the Community, their own tables illustrating, as far as possible, the correlation
between this Directive and the transposition measures, and to make them public,
HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
General Provisions
Article 1
Subject matter
This Directive establishes a framework to achieve a sustainable use of pesticides by reducing the risks and impacts of pesticide
use on human health and the environment and promoting the use of Integrated Pest Management and of alternative approaches
or techniques such as non-chemical alternatives to pesticides .
Article 2
Scope ANNEX 21
b) exempt from inspection handheld pesticide application equipment or knapsack sprayers. In this case the
Member States shall ensure that operators have been informed on the need to change regularly the
accessories, on the specific risks linked to that equipment, and that operators are trained for the proper
use of that application equipment in accordance with Article 5.
4. The inspections shall verify that pesticide application equipment satisfies the relevant requirements listed in Annex II, in order
to achieve a high level of protection for human health and the environment.
Pesticide application equipment complying with harmonised standards developed according to Article 20(1) shall be presumed to
comply with the essential health and safety and environmental requirements.
5. Professional users shall conduct regular calibrations and technical checks of the pesticide application equipment according to
the appropriate training received as provided for in Article 5.
6. Member States shall designate bodies responsible for implementing the inspection systems and inform the Commission
thereof.
Each Member State shall establish certificate systems designed to allow the verification of inspections and recognise the
certificates granted in other Member States following the requirements referred to in paragraph 4 and where the time period since
the last inspection carried out in another Member State is equal to or shorter than the time period of the inspection interval
applicable in its own territory.
Member States shall endeavour to recognise the certificates issued in other Member States provided that the inspection intervals
referred to in paragraph 1 are complied with.
7. Measures designed to amend non-essential elements of this Directive relating to amending Annex II in order to take account
of scientific and technical progress shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in
Article 21(2) .
Specific Practices and Uses
Article 9
Aerial spraying
1. Member States shall ensure that aerial spraying is prohibited.
2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1 aerial spraying may only be allowed in special cases provided the following conditions
are met:
a) there must be no viable alternatives, or there must be clear advantages in terms of reduced impacts on human health and
the environment as compared with land-based application of pesticides;
b) the pesticides used must be explicitly approved for aerial spraying by the Member State following a specific assessment
addressing risks from aerial spraying;
c) the operator carrying out the aerial spraying must hold a certificate as referred to in Article 5(2). During the transitional
period where certification systems are not yet in place, Member States may accept other proof of competence;
d) the enterprise responsible for providing aerial spray applications shall be certified by a competent authority for authorising
equipment and aircraft for aerial application of pesticides.
e) if the area to be sprayed is in close proximity to areas open to the public, specific risk management measures to
ensure that there are no adverse effects on the health of bystanders shall be included in the approval. The area
to be sprayed shall not be in close proximity to residential areas .
f) as from 2013, the aircraft shall be equipped with accessories that constitute the best available technology to
reduce spray drift.
3. Member States shall designate the authorities competent for establishing the specific conditions by which aerial spraying may
be carried out, for examining requests pursuant to paragraph 4 and for making public information on crops, areas,
circumstances and particular requirements for application including weather conditions where aerial spraying may be allowed.
In the approval the competent authorities shall specify the measures necessary for warning residents and bystanders in due
time and to protect the environment in the vicinity of the area sprayed.ANNEX 21
4. A professional user wishing to apply pesticides by aerial spraying shall submit a request for approval of an application plan
to the competent authority ▯ accompanied by evidence to show that the conditions referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 are fulfilled.
The request for application of aerial spraying in accordance with the approved application plan shall be submitted in due
time to the competent authority. It shall contain information about the provisional time of spraying and the amounts and
the type of pesticides applied.
Member States may provide that requests for applications of aerial spraying in accordance with an approved application
plan for which no answer was received on the decision taken within the time period laid down by the competent
authorities, shall be deemed to be approved.
In particular, circumstances such as emergency or specific difficult situations, single requests for application of aerial
spraying may also be submitted for approval. Where justified, competent authorities shall have a possibility to apply an
accelerated procedure in order to verify that the conditions referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 are fulfilled before the
application of aerial spraying.
5. Member States shall ensure that the conditions referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 are met by conducting appropriate
monitoring.
6. The competent authorities shall keep records of the requests and approvals as referred to in paragraph 4 and shall make
available to the public the relevant information contained therein such as the area to be sprayed, the provisional day and
time of the spraying and the type of pesticide, in accordance with the applicable national or Community law .
Article 10
Information to the public
Member States may include in their National Action Plans provisions on informing persons who could be exposed to the
spray drift.
Article 11
Specific measures to protect the aquatic environment and drinking water
1. Member States shall ensure that appropriate measures to protect the aquatic environment and drinking water supplies from
the impact of pesticides are adopted. These measures shall support and be compatible with relevant provisions of Directive
2000/60/EC and Regulation (EC) No … [on the placing on the market of plant protection products] .
2. The measures provided in paragraph 1 shall include:
a) giving preference to pesticides that are not classified as dangerous for the aquatic environment pursuant to Directive
1999/45/EC ▯ nor containing priority hazardous substances as set in Article 16(3) of Directive 2000/60/EC;
b) giving preference to the most efficient application techniques such as the use of low-drift pesticide application equipment
especially in vertical crops such as hops and those found in orchards and vineyards;
c) use of mitigation measures which minimise the risk of off-site pollution caused by spray drift, drain-flow and run-off. These
shall include ▯the establishment of appropriately-sized buffer zones for the protection of non-target aquatic organisms
and safeguard zones for surface and groundwater used for the abstraction of drinking water, where pesticides must not
be used or stored;
d) reducing as far as possible or ▯eliminating applications on or along roads, railway lines, very permeable surfaces or other
infrastructure close to surface water or groundwater or on sealed surfaces with a high risk of run-off into surface water or
sewage systems.
Article 12
Reduction of pesticide use or risks in specific areas
Member States shall, having due regard for the necessary hygiene and public health requirements and biodiversity, or the results
of relevant risk assessments, ensure that the use of pesticides is minimised or prohibited in these specific areas. Appropriate
risk management measures shall be taken and the use of low-risk plant protection products as defined by Regulation
(EC) No ... [concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market] and biological control measures shall be
considered in the first place. The specific areas in question are:
1) areas used by the general public or by vulnerable groups as defined by Article 3 of Regulation (EC) N° ... [concerning ANNEX 21
the placing of plant protection products on the market] , such as parks, public gardens, sports and recreation
grounds, school grounds and playgrounds and in the close vicinity of healthcare facilities ;
2) protected areas as defined in Directive 2000/60/EC or other areas identified for the purposes of establishing the
necessary conservation measures in accordance with the provisions of Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC;
3) recently treated areas used by or accessible to agricultural workers.
Article 13
Handling and storage of pesticides and treatment of their packaging and remnants
1. Member States shall adopt the necessary measures to ensure that the following operations by professional users and where
applicable by distributors do not endanger human health or the environment:
a) storage, handling, dilution and mixing of pesticides before application;
b) handling of packaging and remnants of pesticides;
c) disposal of tank mixtures remaining after application;
d) cleaning of the equipment used after application;
e) recovery or disposal of pesticide remnants and their packaging in accordance with Community legislation on waste.
2. Member States shall take all necessary measures regarding pesticides authorised for non-professional users to avoid
dangerous handling operations. These measures may include use of pesticides of low toxicity, ready to use formulations and
limits on sizes of containers or packaging.
3. Member States shall ensure that storage areas for pesticides for professional use are constructed in such a way as to prevent
unwanted releases. Particular attention shall be paid to location, size and construction materials.
Article 14
Integrated Pest Management
1. Member States shall take all necessary measures to promote low pesticide-input pest management, giving wherever
possible priority ▯to non-chemical methods, so that professional users of pesticides switch to practices and products with
the lowest risk to human health and the environment among those available for the same pest problem. Low pesticide-input pest
management includes Integrated Pest Management as well as organic farming according to Council Regulation (EC) No
(32)
834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products .
2. Member States shall establish or support the establishment of necessary conditions for the implementation of Integrated Pest
Management. In particular, they shall ensure that professional users have at their disposal information and tools for pest
monitoring and decision making, as well as advisory services on integrated pest management.
3. By 30 June 2013, Member States shall report to the Commission on the implementation of paragraphs 1 and 2 and, in
particular, whether the necessary conditions for implementation of integrated pest management are in place.
4. Member States shall describe in their National Action Plan referred to in Article 4 how they ensure that the general principles
of Integrated Pest Management as set out in Annex III are implemented by all professional users by 1 January 2014.
Measures designed to amend non-essential elements of this Directive relating to amending Annex III in order to take account of
scientific and technical progress shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in
Article 21(2) .
5. Member States shall establish appropriate incentives to encourage professional users to implement crop or sector specific
guidelines for integrated pest management on a voluntary basis. Public authorities and/or organisations representing particular
professional users may draw up such guidelines. Member States shall refer to those guidelines that they consider pertinent and
appropriate in their National Action Plans drawn up in accordance with Article 4.
Indicators, Reporting and Information Exchange
Article 15
Indicators ANNEX 22
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime,
Colombia Coca Cultivation Survey for 2004 (June 2005) ANNEX 22
Government of Colombia
COLOMBIA
Coca Cultivation Survey
June 2005ANNEX 22
Colombia Coca Survey for 2004
Table 33: Monthly aerial spraying of coca cultivation 2004 (ha)
Department Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Arauca 2,590 2,746 5,336
Guaviare 5,447 320 5,478 6,193 6,713 3,865 2,875 30,892
Meta 384 50 911 1,048 404 445 646 3,888
Caqueta 1,337 215 596 181 709 3,586 5,782 3,870 16,276
Putumayo 274 3,471 4,773 2,215 902 584 2,297 1,546 1,461 17,524
Santander 1,562 201 91 1,855
Bolivar 582 4,024 1,851 6,456
Antioquia 729 3,837 1,121 2,999 1,698 481 184 11,048
N. Santander 3,273 2,018 394 5,686
Nariño 10,999 9,424 5,325 5,284 114 161 31,307
Cauca 828 85 899 1,811
Caldas 15 143 31 190
Vichada 143 1,303 1,446
Magdale1n,6a32 1,632
Guajira 449 449
Vaupes 524 232 756
Total 16,446 12,590 2,849 11,177 6,068 4,468 8,364 12,959 13,491 15,833 13,062 9,244 136,551
Source: DIRAN
Table 34: Monthly aerial spraying of opium poppy cultivation 2004 (ha)
Department Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Tolima 69 58 149 427 107 810
Huila 91 146 135 238 206 87 8 913
Caqueta 39 39
Cesar 163 274 67 505
Guajira 18 18
Nariño 244 98 342
Cauca 139 12 197 62 25 435
Total 582 110 - 565 346 - 513 658 - 279 8 - 3,061
Source: DIRAN
Aerial spraying over coca fields. (Source: DIRAN)
64 ANNEX 22
Aerial spraying and coca cultivation in Colombia, 2004
75°W 70°W
Colombia
Caribbean Sea
South America La Guajira
Barranquilla
Atlántico
Magdalena
Cartagena
Cesar
10°N 10°N
í
M
a
gda
lea
P VENEZUELA
A N Sucre
A
M
A Córdoba
Bolívar
Norte de
Santander
Arauca
aAntioquia
t u Santander Arauca Puerto
t C
Ao í RíoA rucaCarreño
R R
Medellín o
Chocó noc
r
í
Boyacá Casanare a R
Caldas e
íM Vichada
R
5°N 5°N
Risaralda
Pacific Cundinamarca
Quindío chaa
Bogotá RíoV i
Ocean
Tolima
Valle avire
íG u
Cali Meta R
Huila
n
a níia
g San José íoI Guainía
M R
Cauca í
R
Guaviare
Florencia
Nariño
Pasto Mitú
Vaupés
Caquetá
Putumayo
0° 0°
R íCaqu
et á BRAZIL
R
íoP
utmu
ECUADOR ayo
Amazonas
PERU
Aerial spraying
R íoAmzsa
over opium poppy cultivation
over coca cultivation
Leticia
0 0 0 3 150
Coca cultivation 2004
International boundaries km
5°S Geographic coordinates WGS 84
Department boundaries 5°S
75°W 70°W
Sources: for coca cultivation Government of Colombia, National monitoring system supported by UNODC; for aerial spraying DIRAN
The boundaries and names shown and the designations used in this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations ANNEX 23
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime,
Colombia Coca Cultivation Survey for 2005 (June 2006) ANNEX 23
Government of Colombia
Colombia
Coca Cultivation Survey
June 2006ANNEX 23 ANNEX 24
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime,
Colombia Coca Cultivation Survey for 2006 (June 2007) ANNEX 24
Government of Colombia
Colombia
Coca Cultivation Survey
June 2007ANNEX 24
Aerial spraying and coca cultivation in Colombia, 2006
75°W 70°W
Colombia
Caribbean Sea
South America La Guajira
Barranquilla
Atlántico
Cartagena Magdalena
Cesar
10°N R 10°N
o
M
gd
alne
a
P VENEZUELA
A
N Sucre Bolívar
A
M
A Córdoba
Norte de
Santander
Cucutá
Arauca
a Antioquia Santander
t cu Arauca Puerto
at C
o í R í Meta Carreño
R R o
Medellín o
Chocó nc
r
í
Boyacá Casanare a R
Caldas e Vichada
íM
R
5°N Cundinamarca 5°N
Risaralda
Pacific
Quindío icada
Bogotá RíoV
Ocean
Tolima
Valle avire
íoGu
Cali Meta R
auila
n Neiva da
Cauca ae Iníi
Popayán ad San José Rí Guainía
M
ío
R
Guaviare
Florencia
Tumaco
Nariño
Mitú
Pasto
Vaupés
Puerto Asís Caquetá
Putumayo
0° 0°
Rí o
Ca ut á BRAZIL
R
ío
Put u
ECUADOR ma
yo Amazonas
PERU
Aerial spraying in 2006 Rí oAmns
over coca cultivation
Leticia
0 0 0 3 150
Coca cultivation 2006
km
International boundaries Geographic coordinates WGS 84
5°S Department boundaries 5°S
75°W 70°W
Sources: for coca cultivation Government of Colombia, National monitoring system supported by UNODC; for aerial spraying DIRAN
The boundaries and names shown and the designations used in this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations ANNEX 25
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Coca Cultivation in the Andean
Region, A Survey of Bolivia, Colombia and Peru
(June 2008) ANNEX 25
Government Government Government
of Bolivia of Colombia of Peru
COCA CULTIVATION IN THE ANDEAN REGION
A survey of Bolivia, Colombia and Peru
June 2008ANNEX 25
Regional Overview
1
FACT SHEET – Andean Coca Surveys for 2007
2006 Change on 2006 2007
Global coca cultivation 156,900 ha +16% 181,600 ha
Colombia 7h8a,027% 9h9a,000
Peru 51,400 ha +4% 53,700 ha
Bolivia 27,500 ha +5% 28,900 ha
Ecuador ha100 < n/a
Global cocaine production 984 mt +1% 994 mt
Colombia mt610-2% mt600
Peru 280 mt +4% 290 mt
Bolivia 94 mt +11% 104 mt
Farm-gate value of coca cultivation US$ 1,159 million +24% US$ 1,440 million
Colombia (coca products) US$ 683 million +37% US$ 934 million
Peru (coca leaf) US$ 285 million +2% US$ 292 million
Bolivia (coca leaf) US$ 180 million +19% US$ 214 million
Farm-gate value of coca cultivation
2
in % of GDP
Colombia 0.5% 0.5%
Peru 0.4% 0.4%
Bolivia 2.0% 2.4%
Average wholesale price of cocaine*
Colombia (in main cities) US$ 1,762/kg +25% US$ 2,198/kg
Peru (in producing regions) US$ 825/kg +3% US$ 851/kg
Bolivia (in main cities) US$ 1,870/kg +6% US$ 1,983/kg
Ecuador US$ 4,000/kg 0% US$ 4,000/kg
Reported eradication of coca bush*
Colombia (aerial spraying) 172,026 ha -11% 153,134 ha
(manual) 43,051 ha +55% 66,805 ha
Peru (manual) 12,688 ha -5% 12,072 ha
Bolivia (manual) 5,070 ha +24% 6,269 ha
3
Ec(uaanrual) ha 9+278% ha 36
Reported seizure of cocaine (base
and HCl)*
Colombia 177 mt -9% 161 mt
Peru 20 mt -30% 14 mt
Bolivia 14 mt +29% 18 mt
Ecuador mt 34-26% mt 25
* As reported by the respective Government.
1
For 2007, no survey was implemented in Ecuador.
2
GDP of the respective year as reported by Governments.
3
Source: INCSR 2008.
7 ANNEX 25
Regional Overview
1 COCA CULTIVATION IN THE ANDEAN REGION
In 2007, the area under coca cultivation in Bolivia, Colombia and Peru amounted to 181,600 ha,
24,700 ha more than in 2006. This increase by 16% is mainly due to a significant increase in
Colombia, and smaller increases in Peru and Bolivia. Despite these recent increases, the global
area under coca cultivation continues to be lower than in the 1990s and 18% below the level
recorded in 2000 (221,300 ha). Colombia represented 55% of the global area under coca bush,
followed by Peru (30%) and Bolivia (16%).
There is no indication of large-scale coca cultivation outside the three main coca growing
countries. Low levels of coca cultivation were identified in Ecuador in 2006. An assessment of
coca cultivation in the Venezuela-Colombia border area of the same year also indicated marginal
levels of coca cultivation in Venezuela.
Figure 1: Coca cultivation in the Andean region (ha), 1990 to 2007
225,000
200,000
175,000
150,000
res
t125,000
c
H100,000
75,000
50,000
25,000
0
2 6 7 2 6 7
000 001 00 003 004 005 00 00
19901991199 199319941995199 199 199819992 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Colombia Peru Bolivia
Table 1: Coca cultivation in the Andean region (ha), 1997 to 2007
Change
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
on 2006
Bolivia 45,800 38,000 21,800 14,600 19,900 21,600 23,600 27,700 25,400 27,500 28,900 +5%
Peru 68,800 51,000 38,700 43,400 46,200 46,700 44,200 50,300 48,200 51,400 53,700 +4%
Colombia 79,400 101,800 160,100 163,300 144,800 102,000 86,000 80,000 86,000 78,000 99,000 +27%
Total 194,000 190,800 220,600 221,300 210,900 170,300 153,800 158,000 159,600 156,900 181,600 +16%
Source: United States Department of State National Monitoring Systems supported by UNODC
In 2007, coca cultivation in Colombia amounted to 99,000 ha, an increase of 27% over 2006. This
was mainly due to an increase in the Pacific and Central regions, which were responsible for over
three quarters of the total area increase. Pacific contained the largest area under coca cultivation in
2007 with 25,960 ha, followed by Putumayo-Caquetá, Central and Meta-Guaviare. Together, these
four regions represented 89% of the total area under coca cultivation in Colombia. Putumayo-
Caquetá, once the largest coca region, had seen a considerable decrease in area under cultivation
between 2000 and 2004. However, coca cultivation has gradually increased to almost the 2002
level. Meta-Guaviare, the second largest coca region in 2001, ranked only forth in 2007, having
13ANNEX 25
Colombia
2 FINDINGS
Coca cultivation
National cultivation
In 2007, the total area under coca cultivation in Colombia was estimated at 99,000 ha. This
estimate represented a 27% increase in area under the illicit crop compared to 2006 (78,000 ha).
This is the first significant increase in coca cultivation after four years of relatively stable
cultivation.
Similar to the previous six surveys, the 2007 survey represents the situation as of the end of the
year, (31 December 2007). As was the case last year, the survey covered the whole territory and
detected coca cultivation in 23 out of 32 departments. In 2007, the area under coca cultivation
represents 2% of the agricultural land in Colombia.
Figure 23: Coca cultivation in Colombia (ha), 1997–2007
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
tes
c
He 80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 20022 003 2004 2005 20062 007
US Department of State National Monitoring System supported by UNODC
The increase in area under coca cultivation between 2006 and 2007 took place despite heavy anti-
drugs strategies implemented by the Government of Colombia. In 2007, aerial spraying of coca
cultivation amounted to 153,000 ha and the Colombian Government also reported additional
manual eradication of almost 67,000 ha.
Analysis of coca cultivation changes
Coca cultivation is very dynamic in Colombia. A range of variables can be associated with
increases and decreases of the cultivation area over time. Factors such as favorable prices, pressure
exerted by armed groups on farmers, the legal economy, and temporary crisis situations can all
lead to an increase in the cultivated area. On the other hand, factors such as forced eradication,
aerial spraying, improved security conditions, and plant diseases could reduce the cultivated area.
This cultivation survey does not endeavor to assess how or to what extent these factors bring about
change in the area under coca cultivation. Rather, it shows the situation on a given date of the year
(31st of December).
64 ANNEX 25
Colombia
Table 47: Aerial spraying of coca cultivation by department and year (ha), 1998-2007
Environmental
Sources Audit of the Anti-narcotics Police Department
National
Narcotics Bureau
Department 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Nariño - - 6,442 8,216 17,962 36,910 31,307 57,630 59,865 36,275
A6n,io5q9uia- - - 3,321 9,835 11,024705,02,2833
Putumayo 31 43,98008 32,506 71,891 8,342 17,524 121,,6316
M1e,t3a42562,0251 1,496 6,973 3,818552941,5453
Guaviare 37,081 17,376 8,241 7,477 7,207 37,493 30,892 11,865 14,714 10,950
Vichada 297 91 - 2,820 - - 1,446 - 5,485 7,193
- ol11a,-5r81- - 4,783 76,,0455062,6626,409
Córdoba - - - - 734 550 - 1,767 5,588 6,259
Caquetá 18,433 15,6569,172 17,252 18,567 1,059 16,276 5,452 4,575 5,084
Cauca - 2,7132,950 741 - 1,308 1,811 3,292 1,536 3,557
-Arauc-a - - - 11,734 25,6,1,4002,584
Norte
Santander 9-,58-4 10,308 9,186 13,822 5,686 8129,6783
San4ta7n0der- - - - 5 1,8515,5,44,6042
- Cald-s - - - - 28140,0681,090
- Choc-ó- - - - - - 425
- Va-ll-e - - - - - 5
GuaLjiraa - - - - - - 449 572 - -
Magdalena - - - - - - 1,632 383 - -
Vaupés 349 - - - - - 756 340 - -
102Boyac-á -- - - -- 831 925
Cundinamarca - -- - - - - 4431-
Aerial 66,029 43,112 58,073 94,152 130,364 132,814 136,552 138,772 172,026 153,135
Spraying
Net
Culitavation 102,000 160,000163,000 145,000 102,000 86,000 80,000 86,000 78,000 99,000
(ha)
Source: DIRAN
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 recovers quickly.
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 order to neutralize or reduce the impact of the aerial spraying, several actions are taken by the farmers
such as: to plant coca bushes interspersed with other plants, to apply protective substances on leaves, to
wash the leaves, to reduce the size of the fields, to rotate coca crops with other licit crops in the same field,
etc. The aerial spraying may cause the loss of one or more harvests, the reduction of productivity or the
total loss of crops but it has become clear that the impact varies considerably from one region to another
and that it is not the only cause for reduction or loss of coca crops.
102 ANNEX 25
Colombia
In the department of Nariño, among the regions with the largest planted areas of coca cultivation
in the country, was where the largest number of laboratories that process coca leaf derivatives
(basic paste, cocaine base and cocaine) were detected and destroyed
The highest number of cocaine laboratories (“cristalizaderos”) were detected and destroyed in
Narino, Norte de Santander, Meta and Valle.
Table 48: Illegal laboratories destroyed by department and by drug type, 2007
Coca Potassium
paste/base Cocaine Heroin permanganate
Department laboratories laboratories laboratorios laboratories Total
destroyed destroyed destroyed destroyed
549 1 2 Nariñ1o 495
Norte de Santander 237 41 278
265 3 22eta 240
180 Putumayo4 176
176 Cordoba2 174
158 Antoqui1a1 147
150 Vichad2 148
131 Ca1u2ca 119
90 3Valle 54
80 Bolivar 80
53 Guaviare 53
50 Magdale2na 29
39 Amazonas 39
32 Caquetá 32
24 Boy7aca 17
23 17 Cesar 6
21 Atlantico 21
21 Santander 10
15 C2oco 13
10Cundinamarca3 7
6 Guainia 6
5 Arauca 5
5 Caldas 5
La Guajira 1 2 3
2 Risaralda 2
2,366 4 2 Total5 2,095
Source: DNE
Data provided by the National Narcotics Bureau (DNE) show stable trend between 2006 and 2007
in terms of cocaine seizures (126,641 kg of reported seizures of cocaine in 2007 and 127,326 kg of
reported seizures of cocaine in 2006). Most of the seizures happened in the Pacific region, in the
departments of Choco, Valle, Nariño and Cuaca.
15It is important to associate this with its strategic position due to its proximity to the Pacific Ocean.
105 ANNEX 26
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, World Drug Report (2008) ANNEX 26
2008
WORLD DRUG REPORTANNEX 26
Executive Summary
1. Trends in World Markets
1.1 Overview ture and fortify the downward trend.
The containment of illicit drug use to less than 5% off
The long-term stabilization of world drug markets con-
tinued into 2007, although notable exceptions occurred the world population a ged 15 to 64 (based on annual
in some critical areas. As long term trends are obviously prevalence estimates, see Figure below) is a considerable
more meaningful and indicative than short term fluc- achievement, documented historically in the pa ges off
this report. The achievement is mani fest on t he two
tuations, these limited reversals do not appear to ne gate
the containment of the drug markets recorded since the scales of time considered here: the century since the
late 1990s. beginnings of the international drug control system (the
subject of Chapter 2); or the decade since UNGASS in
On the supply side, despite cultivation increases for both 1998.
coca and opiates in 2007, the overall level of cultivation
In general, containment of the illicit drug problem toaa
remained below the one recorded at the beginning of the
UNGASS process (1998) and well below annual peaks relatively small fraction of the world population (aged
in the last two decades (1991 for opium and 2000 for 15 to 64) begins to look like an even more important
coca). In 2007, opium cultivation increased in both achievement when considered in the light of three other
estimates. First, problem drug use has been contained to
Afghanistan and Myanmar: coupled with higher yields,
especially in southern Afghanistan, this generated much a marginal fraction of the world population (0.6%) aged
greater world output. With regard to cocaine, cultiva - 15 to 64. Secon dly, the consum ption of tobacco, an
tion increased in Bolivia, Peru and especially Colombia, addictive, psychoactive drug that is sold widely in open,
albeit regulated markets, affects as much as 25% of the
but yields declined, so production remained stable. world adult population. Thirdly, mortality statistics
On the demand side, despite an apparent increase in the show that illicit dru gs take a small fraction of the lives
absolute number of cannabis, cocaine and opiates users, claimed by tobacco (a bout 200,000 a year for illicit
annual prevalence levels have remained stable in all drug drugs versus about 5 million a year for tobacco).
markets. In other words, as the number of people who
have used a particular drug at least once in the past 12 Global trends in Drug Production
months has risen at about the same rate as population,
drug consumption has remaine d sta ble in re lative The total area under opium cultivation rose to 235,700
terms. ha in 2007. This increase of 17% from 2006 puts global
cultivation at just about the same level, thou gh still
Given these yearly changes, the containment o f world
marginally lower, than the 238,000ha recorded in 1998.
drug markets - recorded in these reports over the last few Although there was some growth in South-East Asian
years - appears confirmed but under strain. Further con- poppy cultivation, the global increase was almost entiley
solidation, in 2008 an d beyond, will mean tig htening
overall market containment an d addressing slippage in due to the 17% expansion of cultivation in Afghanistan,
which is now 193,000 ha. With Afghanistan accounting g
areas where some expansion was registered in 2007. On for 82% of world opium cultivation, the proportion off
the supply side this dictates two critical priorities: lowerSouth-East Asian expansion in overall cultivation was
ing opium poppy cultivation, especially in Afghanistan;
and returning to the path of steadily declining coca cul- small. It is not unim portant, however, as it reverses six
straight years of decline. Opium poppy cultivation in
tivation registered in the first few years of this century. Myanmar increased 29%, from 21,500 ha in 2006 to
27,700 ha, in 2007. Afghanistan’s higher yielding opium
On the demand side, more effectively containin g the
number of drug users, particularly in developin g coun- poppy led to a second year of global opium production
tries, has to become a critical priority; and more atten- increases. Opium production almost doubled between
tion should be given to prevention, treatment and 2005 and 2007, reaching 8,870 mt in 2007, a level
reducing the negative consequences of drug abuse. Rich unprecedented in recent years. In 2007, A fghanistan
countries' drugs markets fluctuate, mostly sideways and alone accounted for over 92% of global opium produc-
occassonaaly downnwaardss:: iiequally mppoorrantto nuurr- ton..
7 ANNEX 26
World Drug Report 2008
Global drug seizures (excluding cannabis): 2005 -2006
3,304
Coca leaf 3,209
705
Cocaine 743
384
Opium
58 342
Heroin 58
46
Morphine 32
Amphetamine 19
21
Methamphetamine 16
17
Ecstasy 4
5
Methaqualone 15
1
Depressants 1
0 200 400 600 800 3,01,000
Metric ton equivalents
2005 2006
Coca cultivation increase d in Co lombia, Bolivia, and seized grew 12% to 5,200 mt in 2005, w hile the quan-
Peru in 2007. In Colombia, the area under cultivation tity of resin seizures declined by rou ghly 25% - most
expanded 27% to 99,000 ha. Increases for Bolivia and likely still reflecting a decline in production in Morocco.
Peru were much smaller: 5% and 4% respectively. In Cannabis herb seizures, however, were 27% down com-
total, coca cu ltivation increased 16% in 2007. Cro ps, pared to 2004 (t heir post-1998 pea k). A si gnificant
however, were either not well tended or planted in poor decline in cannabis plants seized was recorded in 2006.
yielding areas, as potential cocaine production onlygrew
by 1% overall to 992 mt. Seizures of opium and morphine grew 10% and 31%
respectively in 2006, re flecting continue d production
Estimates of cannabis herb production show a sli ght increases in Afghanistan. Heroin seizures, however, sta-
decline for the second straight year in 2006, seeming to bilized in 2006. Fo llowing five straight years of expan-
reverse the upward trend that be gan in the early 1990s. sion, the quantity of cocaine seized fell by 5% in 2006.
Global cannabis herb production is now estimated to be This is consistentwith the stabilization of overall cocaine
41,400 mt, down from 42,000 mt in 2005 and 45,000 production in the 2004 to 2006 period. The quantities
in 2004. Cannabis yields continue to vary considerably of amphetamine, methamphetamine and ecstasy seized
and extremely high yielding hydroponically grown can- were all down between 8% and 1 5% from 200 5 to
nabis continues to be a cause for concern. Global can- 2006. Overall ATS seizures increase d by 2% re flecting
nabis resin production estimates fell around 10% from seizures of non specified ATS, includin g "capta gon"
6,600 mt in 2005 to 6,000 mt in 2006 (mi dpoint esti- tablets.
mates). Global annual prevalence remained almost
unchanged, going from 3.8% to 3.9%between 2005/06
and 2006/07. Global cocaine seizures: 1996- 2006
800
ATS production has remained in the range of 450-500
mt since in 2000. In 2007 global ATS production 700
increased slightly to 494 mt. There has been a decline in
600
ecstasy production (from 113 mt in 2005 to 103 mt in
2006), and a decrease in methamphetamine production 500
(from 278 mt to 267 mt) w hich is again compensated
400
by an increase in global amphetamine production (from
88 mt to 126 mt). T he global annual prevalence rate 300
remaine d 0.6% for am phetamines an d 0.2% for
200
ecstasy. Metric ton equivalents
100
Global trends in Drug Trafficking
0
Only seizures for cannabis herb and the opiates grew 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
year on year in 2q0y06. The quantity of cannabis herb
8ANNEX 26
Executive Summary
Global coca cultivation (hectares), by region: 1990-2007
225,000
200,000
175,000
150,000
125,000
He100,000
75,000
50,000
25,000
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Colombia Peru Bolivia
of 42.5kg/ha. In Myanmar, opium production increased cultivation in Colombia rose to 99,000 ha in 2007. This
by 46 % to 460 mt, but was still 65% lower than it was was mainly due to an increase in the Pacific and Central
in 1998. regions, which were responsible for over three quarters
of the total area increase. Paci fic was t he largest caca
Market consumption patterns appear to have remained region in 2007 with 25,960 hectares.
largely the same – wit h the majority of opiates on t he
market in Europe, the Near and Middle East and Africa In 2007, coca cu ltivation in Peru increase d by 4 % to
continuing to come from Af ghanistan, those on the 53,700 ha. Despite having experienced the second con-
market in Asia sourced from Myanmar and those on the secutive increase in two years, coca cultivation remained
market in North an d South America from Mexico an d well below the levels registered in the mid 1990s, when
Colombia. The largest seizures of heroin and morphine Peru was the world’s lar gest cultivator of coca bush.
occurred in Pakistan, Iran and Turkey with seizure levels Bolivia, the third largest producer of coca leaf, still trails
increasing in 2006. behind Colombia and Peru. For a secon d consecutive
year, coca cultivation increased in Bolivia, and amounted
Opiates remain the main problem drug in terms of treat- to 28,900 ha in 2007, an increase of 5%.
ment. This, combined with the enormous increases in
With less coca bein g grown in hi gh yielding regions,
production we are now witnessing, necessitate the rigor-
ous monitoring of demand in the opiate market. While there was a stabilisation in Colombian cocaine produc-
demand has been relatively stable at the global level, the tion despite t he large increase in cu ltivation. G lobal
potential cocaine production has remained stable over
countries surrounding Afghanistan continue to experi -
ence increasing levels of use. Increases were also recorded the last few years, reaching 994 mt in 2007, almost the
for most co untries of East an d Southern Africa. Con- same as in 2006 (984 mt). The majority of this, 600 mt
sumer markets in Western and Central Europe seem to in 2007, comes from Colombia.
be largely sta ble. Opiates use a lso remains sta ble in The cocaine market is concentrated in the Americas,
North America.
although increases in both distribution and use continue
to occur in Western Europe and West Africa. The recent
1.3 Coca/Cocaine Market increases in both seizures and use in West Africa appear
In 2007, the total area under coca cultivation in Bolivia, to reflect the development of new distribution routes
Colombia and Peru increased 16% to 181,600 ha. This through West Africa to Western Europe. This has led to
a large increase in seizures in both regions. Consump-
was driven mainly by a 27% increase in Colombia, but tion continues to increase both at destination and along
cultivation also increased, at much lower rates, in Bolivia
and Peru. Despite these recent increases, the global area the route. A contraction in the consumer markets o ff
under coca cultivation continues to be lower than in the North America has led to a strong decline in seizures in
North America. In t he USA, t he proportion o f the
1990s and 18% below the level recorded in 2000
(221,300 ha). Colombia continued to account for the workforce testing positive for cocaine declined by 19%
majority of cultivation. At 55 % of the global total, in 2007, and by 36% since 1998. Cocaine use, however,
ucontinuuesSto increase in South America.
13 ANNEX 27
United Nations,
The Northern Border of Ecuador: Evaluation and Recommendations of the
Interagency Mission of the United Nations System in Ecuador
(July 2004) ANNEX 27
United Nations System in Ecuador
THE NORTHERN BORDER OF ECUADOR: EVALUATION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE INTERAGENCY MISSION OF
THE UNITED NATIONS SYSTEM IN ECUADOR
Quito
July 2004
[PAGE 17]
A.2 Poverty and food security . The elimination of extreme poverty and
hunger is the first of the Millennium Development Goals. In this vein, the
situation of the region is worrying. In all of the provinces, with the
exception of Carchi, there are cantons and precincts with levels of poverty
above 90%, particularly in rural areas 8. An in nearly all of these, the
incidence of consumption poverty is higher than the national average
(Table 1).
It must be taken into account that the greater part of the population (56%)
of these provinces live in rural areas, as opposed to the percentage at the
national level (39%). It is there that poverty strikes hardest.
Table 1. Poverty Indicators
by Poverty Consumption
UBN (%) Poverty (%)
National 61.3 68.8
Regional 60.6 72.68
Carchi 59.6 77.5
Esmeraldas 76.0 69.1
Imbabura 58.2 77.8
Sucumbios 81.7 66.3
Source: SIISE, version 3.5
*UBN: Unsatisfied Basic Needs, from the Population and
Livelihood Census, 2001.
** Based on the Population and Livelihood Census, 1990.
8This is the case in the cantons of Eloy Alfaro (98%), Muisne (97%), Rioverde (98%)
and San Lorenzo (98%) in Esmeraldas; in Lago Agrio (96%) and in Putumayo (96%) in
Sucumbios and in Pimampiro (94%) in Imbabura. INEC, Census 2001.ANNEX 27
[PAGE 18]
The evaluation shows that, even though the northern provinces have
climatic and natural conditions to produce sufficient food and cover the
basic nut9itional needs of the population, including satis10ing internal
demand , the malnutrition indices are alarming , especially among
vulnerable groups. Malnutrition and food insecurity are affected by the
low capacity to access productive resources or an income that allows them
to have more nutritious food at their disposal.
A.3. Basic Social Services . The territorial isolation of the region is also
vividly reflected in the basic social services deficit. In various and
important indicators associated with this field, the region is under the
national average. The population located in rural areas and some sectors
of the cities on the border have great limitations in terms of their access to
health, education, welfare, drinking water, and environmental cleanliness
services. In the provinces studied, these limitations are due to one or a
combination of the following causes: the nonexistence of proper
infrastructure for service provision, the absence of a sufficient number of
professionals, and the lack of proper access roads. The principal
deficiencies are found in the provinces of Esmeraldas and Sucumbios, and
in the rural districts of Carchi and Imbabura (see Annex 5). It must be
added that the infrastructure for health and education in the northern area,
which displays a level similar to the more precarious areas of the country,
currently faces an additional demand because of the presence of
immigrants who, for example, cross the border to receive free medical
treatment because of the absence or distance of such services in their
places of origin; or have emigrated to Ecuador and reside there illegally,
or are refugees in the area.
Education. In the specific field of basic education (dealt with as a priority
in the Millennium Development Goals framework), the entire region
shows an average school attendance rate below the national average,
which is 7.3 years 11. In some districts of the area, the functional illiteracy
12
rate of women exceeds or borders on 50% . Here, as in the other social
services, it can be seen that the debilities are a product of historical
9
Ramirez, Rene. 2002. Food Distribution and Nutritional Problems in Ecuador. SIISE,
Quito.
10Chronic malnutrition at the rural level reaches 30.2% in Carchi, 23% in Esmeraldas,
52.7% in Imbabura, and 30.8% in Sucumbios. Larrea, Carlos et al. 2001. Equity from
the Beginning: The Nutritional Situation of Ecuadorian Children.OPS-MSP.
11Ibid.
12
In Eloy Alfaro it is 54.7%, in Muisne 53.1%, in Pimampiro 48.6%, in Urcuqual 49.8%
in Otavalo 49.8%, in Cotacachi 52.7%, in Putumayo 50.7%. ANNEX 27
abandonment, institutional de-coordination, and the climate of insecurity
which permeates in the area. In this respect, attention is called to the
provinces of Esmeraldas and Sucumbios, where there exist unused and
abandoned schools exist. During the field visits, some family heads stated
to the members of the mission that teachers refused to attend school due to
the widespread insecurity.
Health. In terms of health services, human and service indicators, both for
inpatient and outpatient service, show values of less than the national and
regional averages. The situation in some cases is critical: the supply of
beds (for patients) for each 1,000 inhabitants is half the national average,
and in the case of Sucumbios it is one-third, with the aggravating factor
that the majority of attention centers are private.
In some sectors of the region, the infant mortality rate (Goal No. 4 of the
Millennium Declaration) has reached values higher than the national
level: 54 for every 1,000 live births in Esmeraldas, 62 in Imbabura, and 72
13
in Carchi . Regarding Millennium development goal 5 –maternal health-
[PAGE 19]
the data show that in some provinces of the region the national maternal
mortality rate is doubled 1, despite the fact that there is under-reporting,
which prevents a complete view of the magnitude of the problem. The
lack of resources and health centers to treat women is one of the principle
causes of the aforementioned situation. On the other hand, in combating
illnesses such as HIV/AIDS and malaria (Millennium development goal
6), the advances are minor, due to serious difficulties in the access to and
quality of health services 15.
Regarding outpatient establishments, it is important to recognize the
efforts made by the Ministry of Public Health and also the presence of the
services provided by the Ecuadorian Social Security Institute. Greater
coverage and physical access to facilities by patients in more critical
situations would alleviate the suffering of those who inhabit the more
distant communities. This includes working to improve roadways and
means of land, water and air access.
13SIISE, version 3.5, from the Population Census of 2001.
14
According to the Health Boards of the Provincial Agencies of the Northern Border,
15y 2004.
Esmeraldas has a high incidence of HIV/AIDS. MSP. 2003.ANNEX 27
Some private initiatives (such as the palm heart cultivation businesses)
and social projects of the Catholic Church make up for part of the
deficiencies in health and education issues. Unfortunately, there are not
enough indicators to confirm that these efforts can be sustainable over
time, and, moreover, they are weakly articulated in national planning and
policy.
Water and Sanitation . This is also a priority area in the Millennium
Development Goal framework, linked to the sustainability of the
environment (Goal 7). In the provinces of the northern border, the
majority of populations have homes with serious deficits in their basic
services (water and sanitation). In relation to the national average, which
is 63.1% of the population with basic deficiencies, the districts closest to
the border have numbers which vary between 80% and 100% of homes
lack basic services 16. The services which are lacking in the greatest
frequency are those for the removal of sewage, water pipelines, and
drainage systems for urban areas, and for the rural areas there is a lack of
capacity to protect water sources, and in the availability of latrines.
The foregoing has caused an increase in preventable illnesses in the area,
such as those caused by the contaminated water and lack of water. This is
the case with leishmaniasis, parasitosis, and illnesses transmitted by
vectors (malaria and dengue fever).
16
SIISE, version 3.5, from the data obtained in the VI Census of the Population and V of
Homes, 2001.ANNEX 27ANNEX 27ANNEX 27ANNEX 27 ANNEX 28
United Nations,
Report on the Preliminary Technical Mission of the United Nations (April 2006) ANNEX 28
UNITED NATIONS
REPORT ON THE PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL MISSION OF THE
UNITED
NATIONS
PROPOSING THAT STUDIES BE CONDUCTED ON THE IMPACT OF
AERIAL SPRAYINGS AND COMPLEMENTARY ACTIONS ON THE
NORTHERN BORDER OF ECUADOR
Quito, Ecuador, April 2006
[PAGE 5]
[…]
Options are presented regarding five studies required to scientifically clarify
scenarios for eventual effects derived from the aerial spraying of the
herbicide glyphosate – or its mixtures – on health (epidemiological cohort
study regarding the rate of morbimortality in communities exposed and not
exposed, and experimental toxicological studies on acute and sub-acute
effects from the mixture used), the environment (study to evaluate the
possible impact on biota of the water and soil) and agricultural production
(study to evaluate the population dynamic of the pathogens in soils exposed
and not exposed and a retrospective evaluation study regarding the behavior
of agricultural production). To undertake these, it will be necessary to set
the terms of reference for each, in close collaboration with actors involved
in the problem.
[…]
[PAGE 14]
[…]
In the provinces of Esmeraldas and Sucumbíos, there are cantons and
precincts with poverty levels above 90%, particularly in the rural area.ANNEX 28
Sucumbíos has 81.7% poverty 30e to unmet basic needs, whereas
Esmeraldas reaches 76%.
Consumption poverty in Sucumbíos and Esmeraldas is above the national
average and it is 61.9% and 66.3%, respectively. According to a Red Cross
study 53% of the families in Sucumbíos have an income under $100,
31
whereas only 1% has incomes over $800 .
The population in Sucumbíos is engaged in subsistence agricultural
production with the slash and burn method of forests (29%), extensive
traditional stockbreeding (23%), trade (20%), poultry farming (8%), fishing
32
(6%), and the rest in the sale of food, transportation and timber cutting.
Both provinces, Sucumbíos and Esmeraldas, show similar characteristics of
lack of progress (development) in relation to the rest of the country, and
much of their economies are based on the extraction of natural resources,
with a high environmental impact. In Sucumbíos, oil, the country’s main
export, is extracted which produced sales of $1,710 millions in 2001 33. In
Esmeraldas, timber extraction; the agribusiness of African palm oil, with
about 10 companies that cover approximately 100,000 hectares of
plantation; and, activities of the oil pipeline terminal are predominant.
Notwithstanding the important contribution to the national income of oil
activities and palm oil and timber production, when key indicators
associated with social and economic development, such as the Human
Development Index (HDI) are reviewed, the inequalities are obviously seen.
Being that the national HDI is 0.693, the Amazonia (which groups 6
provinces of a total of 22 in the country) 34 ranks 13 on the national scale,
and Esmeraldas ranks 10. Likewise, when the Human Poverty Index (HPI)
is analyzed, the Amazonia ranks 14 in the country and Esmeraldas 13.
30INEC [National Institute of Statistics and Censuses]. Population and Housing Census,
3101.
Ecuadorian Red Cross – American Red Cross. Northern Border Humanitarian Assistance
Project. Socio-economic Study. Preliminary Results. Sucumbíos, 2006.
32Ecuadorian Red Cross – American Red Cross. Op. cit. 2006.
33UN. Ecuador. Common Country Assessment. Quito, 2003.
34Amazonia: set of provinces in Eastern Ecuador, Sucumbíos, Orellana, Napo, Pataza[sic],
Morona and Zamora-Chinchipe). ANNEX 28
[…]
[PAGE 24]
4.5-2. Food Security
Agricultural productivity is very low in the region, according to campesinos
and agricultural technicians. There is a shortage of credit and technical
assistance for farmers in the border cordon; in all of Sucumbios there are
only 6 governmental agricultural technicians.
Many farms did not yield the expected fruits, leading to hunger among some
families, especially within the indigenous population. The malnutrition
indexes are high, especially among the most vulnerable populations.
Chronic malnutrition at the rural level in Esmeraldas is 23%, and in
Sucumbios it is 30.8%. Malnutrition and food insecurity are aggravated by
the small capacity for access to productive activity, or an income which
35
allows them to provide a more nutritious food basket .
In view of the situation, the government, along with international agencies,
has established, among others, a school food program (School Food
Program, PAE, with support from the Ministry of Education, PNUD and
PMA). The PAE includes a school breakfast of a special nutritional shake
and biscuits, and a lunch of rice, lentils and tuna, or another source of
protein 3.
35
UN. Ecuador. The Northern Border. Op. cit., 2004.
36The Mission was able to review the work of the School Food Program –PAE- in the
communities of San Francisco 1 and 2, in Sucumbios, on 15 February 2006.ANNEX 28ANNEX 28ANNEX 28ANNEX 28ANNEX 28 ANNEX 29
UNHCR et al., Impact of the Spraying Along the
Colombian-Ecuadorian Border Area
(February 2007) ANNEX 29
IMPACTS OF THE SPRAYINGS ALONG THE COLOMBIAN-
ECUADORIAN BORDER AREA
[…]
[PAGE 2]
[…]
Impact on Human Health:
With regard to the effects on human health, it was found that, after the
sprayings, there were very similar reactions in both Colombian and
Ecuadorian populations, especially regarding the children who exhibited
symptoms very similar to those of the flu that resulted in general discomfort,
headache, vomiting, and diarrhea. Similarly, other symptoms in common,
in both border areas, were burning of the eyes, skin irritations and
respiratory problems. These reactions were most clearly seen on the banks
of the Putumayo River, where, in two Ecuadorian communities, Litoral and
El Progreo [ sic], children were unable to attend school because most of
them suffered from some type of flu, which took approximately a week to
cure, and which manifested itself a few days after the spraying.
In addition, 4 risks of miscarriage were registered o2 the banks of the
Putumayo River, in the Piñuña area, after the sprayings
[…]
2According to the information obtained, these complaints have already been referred to the
Puerto Leguízamo Hospital. ANNEX 29
IMPACTO DE LAS FUMIGACIONES EN LA ZONA DE FRONTERA
COLOMBIA – ECUADOR
El río nos une, no nos divide…
Misión de observación realizada por la Pastoral Social de la Iglesia de San Miguel
de Sucumbíos, ISAMIS – Ecuador y Pastoral Social de la Diócesis de Mocoa –
1
Sibundoy – Putumayo .
El objetivo de la Misión era identificar los impactos en la comunidad de las
fumigaciones aéreas, reanudadas por la Policía Nacional de Colombia en fecha 5
de diciembre de 2006 y que se prolongaron hasta la tercera semana de febrero de
2007 en zona fronteriza de Colombia y Ecuador, como parte de la estrategia
gubernamental de erradicar los cultivos de uso ilícito en la región.
En la misión de observación que se llevó a cabo entre el 29 de enero y el 2 de
febrero de 2007, las comunidades visitadas en la zona de frontera ecuatoriana
fueron: Santa Marianita, Puerto Mestanza, Puerto Nuevo, Litoral, Yana Amarum y
en la zona colombiana: Caucasia, El Jardín, Puerto Colombia, Puerto Ospina,
Piñuña Blanco y Piñuña Negro.
Impacto sobre cultivos y fuentes de agua :
En el territorio colombiano se identificaron extensiones de tierra totalmente
desérticas como consecuencia de las fumigaciones.
En la parte colombiana, si bien las aspersiones aéreas afectaron, en parte, a las
plantaciones de coca, su uso indiscriminado, afectó a ríos, esteros y fuentes de
agua, bien directamente por caída de la fumigación, bien indirectamente, ya que
cuando caen las hojas secas de los árboles sobre los caños, única fuente de agua
de la gran mayoría de las comunidades, éstas disuelven en el agua el producto
con el que han sido fumigados, convirtiéndola en no apta para el consumo de las
personas ni de animales, con el grave riesgo de envenenamiento en caso de
consumo y la muerte cierta de las especies que habitan en el agua.
De la misma manera quedaron afectados gravemente muchos sembríos y zonas
de selva, por cuanto se ha comprobado que la fumigación no ha discriminado
zonas o sembríos; los cultivos de pan coger que sufrieron daños, principalmente la
yuca, plátano, maíz, caña y frutales; los alimentos se observaban quemados en la
parte de afuera y podridos en el interior. La situación generada por las
fumigaciones en este aspecto coloca en serio riesgo la seguridad alimentaria de la
población, ya comienzan a escasear los productos de consumo y los ingresos y
1La visita se realizó del 29 de enero al 2 de febrero de 2007 con el acompañamiento del
Secretariado Nacional de Pastoral Social/Cáritas Colombia, Fundación Acción Contra el Hambre,
ACNUR Putumayo y ACNUR Sucumbíos.
1ANNEX 29
tras de ello disminuyen las reservas alimenticias propias y la capacidad de compra
de alimentos.
Con respecto a la situación de Ecuador, aunque los efectos visibles son menores,
se apreciaron cultivos cercanos a la rivera del río San Miguel afectados por la
fumigación, como campos de maíz que no se han desarrollado y plantaciones de
yuca, plátano, cacao o árboles frutales que se han ido secando; además los
cursos de agua han quedado también afectados en una manera similar a las
zonas de agua de Colombia.
Impacto sobre la salud humana:
En cuanto a los efectos en la salud de las personas se identificó que,
posteriormente a las fumigaciones, tanto en las poblaciones de Colombia como
de Ecuador se produjeron reacciones muy similares, en especial la/os niña/os
manifestaron síntomas muy similares a los de la gripe que les provocó malestar
general, dolor de cabeza, vómito, diarrea; asimismo otros síntomas comunes en
ambas zonas de frontera fueron ardor en los ojos, irritaciones en la piel y
problemas en las vías respiratorias; éstas reacciones se evidenciaron de forma
más clara en las riveras del río Putumayo, donde en dos comunidades
ecuatorianas Litoral y El Progreo, los niños no pudieron asistir a la escuela por
haber padecido casi todos ellos una especie de gripe que tardó en curar
aproximadamente una semana, y que se manifestó pocos días después de haber
pasado la fumigación.
Además, se registraron en las riveras del río Putumayo, zona del Piñuña, 4
amenazas de aborto tras las fumigaciones .
Impacto sobre el desplazamiento:
Un aspecto importante que se ha observado con mayor preocupación en la zona
colombiana son las operaciones militares con las cuales el Gobierno Nacional ha
fortalecido las aspersiones aéreas, en este marco se han producido
desplazamientos de familias hacia Ecuador en busca de refugio temporal o
definitivamente.
Se reconoce un ciclo en el desplazamiento de población, el cual inicia con las
operaciones del Ejército en territorios (realizando detenciones individuales y
3
masivas, estigmatización de la población ) en los cuales hay presencia histórica
de la guerrilla de las FARC-EP presentándose combates, hostigamientos,
asesinatos, amenazas etc.; ante estas situaciones la población, por temor, cambia
hacia un lugar seguro, en este caso Ecuador, y cuando la situación se “calma”, (el
Ejército suspende las operaciones), la población retorna y así sucesivamente:
Uno de estos casos es el desplazamiento presentado el 23 de diciembre de 2006,
en el cual 29 familias habitantes de Puerto Colombia salieron hacia la zona de
Puerto Nuevo, Palma Seca o Yana Amarun – Ecuador, donde permanecieron
2Según la información obtenida estas quejas ya fueron remitidas al hospital de Puerto Leguízamo.
3Son señalados por miembros de las fuerzas militares como guerrilleros y/o colaboradores.
2 ANNEX 30
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People, Rodolfo Stavenhagen: Mission to
Ecuador (25 April-4 May 2006), U.N. Doc. A/HRC/4/32/Add.2 (28 Dec. 2006) ANNEX 30
UNITED
NATIONS A
General Assembly Distr.
GENERAL
A/HRC/4/32/Add.2
28 December 2006
ENGLISH
Original: SPANISH
HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
Fourth session
Item 2 of the provisional agenda
IMPLEMENTATION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 60/251
OF 15 MARCH 2006 ENTITLED “HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL”
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and
fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, Rodolfo Stavenhagen
Addendum
MISSION TO ECUADOR*
* The summary of this report will be distributed in all official languages. The report itself,
which is annexed to the summary, will be distributed in the original language and in English.
GE.07-10029 (E090207 150207ANNEX 30
A/HRC/4/32/Add.2
page 2
Summary
This report is submitted in accordance with Commission on Human Rights
resolution 2001/57 and relates to the official visit paid to Ecuador from 24 April to 4 May 2006
by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of
indigenous people.
Ecuador is a multi-ethnic and multicultural country of approximately 12 million
inhabitants. There are 14 officially recognized indigenous nationalities and the indigenous
population ranges from less than 10 per cent to more than 30 per cent of the total population,
according to various estimates. While the 1998 Ecuadorian Constitution embodies specific
collective rights for indigenous peoples and nationalities in various fields, these have yet to be
incorporated into the corresponding secondary legislation, making their full implementation
difficult.
The Government has established a number of State institutions to address the situation of
indigenous peoples, creating opportunities for indigenous people to participate in the
implementation of government policies. Over the years, the State of Ecuador has recognized
indigenous territories, particularly in the Amazon region, and has allowed communities to
negotiate agreements governing the use of land and resources. Indigenous organizations have
played an important role in negotiating forms of social and political participation with the
Government that have transformed them into a national political force.
Despite recent economic growth, the various indigenous economic, social and human
development indicators remain below the national average. In addition to accumulated problems
of low income and unemployment in indigenous communities, the issue of emigration has arisen.
To compound rural poverty, the situation of indigenous people living in urban areas, especially
women, has become increasingly difficult. Indigenous communities are also concerned about
the possible harmful effects of the outcome of negotiations on a free trade agreement.
Indigenous access to basic social services such as education and health is limited.
Bilingual intercultural education and health programmes for indigenous people have not borne
the expected fruit, principally owing to the shortfall in budgetary and technical resources.
The lack of compatible legislation in the area of indigenous justice leads to instances of
conflict between indigenous jurisdiction and ordinary justice. The non-existence of an adequate
ombudsman system, the lack of translators and the low level of intercultural sensitivity among
justice practitioners worsen problems concerning indigenous people’s access to the justice
system. A/HRC/4/32/Add.2
3 page
The gradual destruction of the indigenous habitat and the impact of extractive activities
on the environment and the rights of indigenous peoples, mainly in the areas around the Amazon,
the northern border and the Pacific coast, have raised great concern. The situation of
uncontacted or voluntarily isolated populations merits special attention, as they are adversely
affected by the illegal felling of trees and other illicit activities in their territories. Oil
exploration activities on indigenous lands have likewise triggered resistance in some
communities, as in the case of the Sarayaku people in the Amazon region, who have sought
protection through the inter-American human rights system. On the northern border with
Colombia, concern has been voiced about the effects on the health of indigenous peoples of the
aerial spraying of illicit crops and other acts originating from the internal conflict in Colombia.ANNEX 30
A/HRC/4/32/Add.2
page 4
Annex
REPORT OF THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON THE SITUATION
OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS OF
INDIGENOUS PEOPLE, RODOLFO STAVENHAGEN, ON HIS
VISIT TO ECUADOR (25 APRIL-4 MAY 2006)
CONTENTS
Paragraphs Page
Introduction and context ..................................................1 - 3.........6.........
I. PROGRAMME OF THE VISIT .............................................4 - 7 6
II. LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK .................... 8 - 17 7
III. HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION OF THE INDIGENOUS
PEOPLES OF ECUADOR: PRIORITY AREAS ...................... 18 - 80 8
A. Impact of oil exploration on indigenous communities ...... 18 - 25 8
B. Situation of indigenous peoples on the northern border .... 26 - 36 10
C. Uncontacted peoples and threats to their existence ..........37 - 41 13
D. Páramos (heathlands) in the Andean region ...................42 - 43 14
E. Population movements and social and
economic conditions .........................................44 - 51.......14.
F. Social welfare indicators ...................................52 - 54.......16.
G. Indigenous political participation and
social movements ............................................55 - 60.......16...
H. Administration of justice and indigenous justice ............61 - 65 17
I. Bilingual intercultural education ...........................66 - 69..... 18
J. Internatnalperati......................................19.........70
IV. CONCLUSION ........................................................71 - 80.......19.... A/HRC/4/32/Add.2
5 page
CONTENTS (continued)
V. RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................
A. Legislation ..........................................................................
B. Northern border and environment ......................................
C. Consultation, participation and recognition .......................
D. Security, social protest and justice-related activities ..........
E. Peoples in voluntary isolation ............................................
F. International cooperation and the academic sector .............ANNEX 30
A/HRC/4/32/Add.2
page 6
Introduction and context
1. Pursuant to Commission on Human Rights resolution 2001/57 of 24 April 2001, which
established his mandate, and at the invitation of the Government, the Special Rapporteur on
the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people visited Ecuador
from 25 April to 4 May 2006.
2. The purpose of the visit was, among other things, to better gain an understanding of the
situation of the human rights of the indigenous peoples of Ecuador through discussions with
various social players on issues such as the effects of the 1998 Ecuadorian Constitution, which
recognizes the collective rights of indigenous peoples; their access to justice; their rights to land
and natural resources; the impact of the oil industry on their communities; and concerns over
negotiations on the free trade agreement with the United States of America.
3. The Special Rapporteur would like to express his gratitude to the Government of Ecuador
and, in particular, to the Council for the Development of Ecuadorian Nationalities and Peoples
(CODENPE) and its head, Dr. Lourdes Tibán, for their invitation and cooperation, in addition to
the many indigenous organizations for their hospitality and information. The Special Rapporteur
also expresses his special gratitude to Dr. Diego Iturralde, of the Inter-American Institution for
Human Rights, for his support throughout the mission.
I. PROGRAMME OF THE VISIT
4. The Special Rapporteur visited the provinces of Pichincha, Imbabura, Esmeraldas,
Chimborazo and Pastaza, in addition to the capital, Quito. In the capital, he met representatives
of the Ecuadorian Government, including the President and members of the Cabinet, in addition
to representatives from indigenous institutions such as CODENPE, the Department of Bilingual
Intercultural Education (DINEIB) and the Department of Health for Indigenous Peoples
(DNSPI).
5. The Special Rapporteur also met the President of Congress; the President of the Supreme
Court; the Constitutional Court; the Supreme Electoral Tribunal; the Office of the Ombudsman,
and the National Department for the Indigenous Peoples (DINAPIN).
6. During his visit, the Special Rapporteur interviewed local authorities and representatives
of indigenous nationalities and peoples, local indigenous community leaders and members of
civil and grass-roots organizations. In Imbabura, he met leaders of the Kayambi, Kitu-kara,
Otavalo, Natabuela and Caranqui peoples. In San Lorenzo (Esmeraldas), he met Awá, Chachi
and Épera leaders. In Riobamba (Chimborazo) he met representatives from the Quechua,
Waranka, Puruha, Kañari, Chibuleo, Saraguro, Panzaleo and Salasaka peoples and nationalities.
In Pastaza, in the Amazon region, he visited the Sarayaku community; in Puyo he interviewed
representatives from the Shuar, Achuar, Huaorani, Zápara, Shiwiar and Andoa communities
from the provinces of Zamora Chinchip, Morona Santiago, Napo and Orellana. In the capital, he
spoke with representatives from the Cofán, Quechua, Shuar, Siona and Secoya communities
from the border with Colombia. A/HRC/4/32/Add.2
7 page
7. The Special Rapporteur also met representatives from the United Nations, international
cooperation agencies, the business sector, non-governmental and civil society organizations and
academic centres.
II. LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
8. Ecuador is a multi-ethnic and multicultural country of approximately 12 million
inhabitants. Its territory is often divided into four large regions: the Pacific Coastal region,
the Sierra (highland or Andean region), Amazonia (the most extensive region, yet containing
barely 5 per cent of the population) and the Galápagos archipelago.
9. In ethnic terms, there are mestizo, Afro-Ecuadorian, white and indigenous populations,
the latter comprising 14 nationalities, of which the Quechua are the majority. No specific figures
are available for the total indigenous and Afro-Ecuadorian population. Depending on the
definition used, the census records the indigenous population at 6 per cent, whereas other
sources put it at between 35 and 45 per cent of the total. In 9 of the country’s 22 provinces,
indigenous people make up the majority or a significant minority of the population, while
approximately 12 per cent live in the highly urbanized cantons of Quito and Guayaquil.
10. The 1998 Ecuadorian Constitution defines the State as a multicultural and multi-ethnic
body (art. 1). It lays down a significant range of specific collective rights for indigenous peoples
and nationalities (arts. 83 and 84), and establishes various political and administrative bodies
pertaining to such rights. Indigenous rights cover such areas as cultural diversity, identity,
territories, indigenous jurisdiction, official use of languages, health, education, economic issues,
cultural heritage, indigenous women, and indigenous border peoples.
11. Various laws and executive decrees govern the realization and protection of some of
these rights, such as the Criminal Code (1971), the Decentralization and Social Participation
Act (1997), the Agrarian Development Act (1997), the National Human Rights Plan (1999), and
the Regulations on Consultation and Participation in Oil Activities (2002).
12. Progress has been made on lands and territories. The emergence on the social and
political scene of the indigenous movement meant that, from 2002, the State began to return
ancestral territories amounting to approximately 4 million hectares to the peoples of the coastal
and Amazon regions, and began to recognize indigenous communal lands in the highland regions
as inalienable, imprescriptible and not subject to seizure. The National Institute for Agrarian
Development (INDA) is involved in allocating these lands, which are not put on the free land
market, and form the material basis of support for indigenous peoples. Titling of collectively
owned indigenous lands has permitted negotiations on the management of their natural
resources.
13. Indigenous land ownership is not suitably covered by legislation. This therefore
frustrates efforts by communities and peoples to exercise their autonomy and to participate fully
in the management of natural resources in their territories. Various specialists believe that
territorial reorganization is needed if this pending issue is to be resolved, while respecting the
collective human rights of the indigenous peoples.ANNEX 30
A/HRC/4/32/Add.2
page 8
14. The Constitution includes some requests made during the long period of political
organization of the Ecuadorian indigenous peoples, which first had repercussions at the national
level during the 1990s. These requests were made, among others, by the Confederation of
Indigenous Nationalities (CONAIE), the Federation of Peoples of the Quechua Nationality of
Ecuador (ECUARUNARI), the National Confederation of Rural, Indigenous and Black
Organizations (FENOCIN), the Ecuadorian Federation of Evangelical Indigenous People
(FEINE), and the Ecuadorian Indigenous Federation (FEI). All these organizations, although not
always acting in unison, share the main demands of Ecuador’s indigenous peoples and
communities.
15. In 1998, an Indigenous Peoples Commission was constituted in the National Congress.
Since its creation this had been led by an indigenous woman deputy, which facilitated both
the 1998 ratification of the 1989 International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention No. 169
concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, and the debate and
subsequent approval of the Indigenous Nationalities and Peoples Act. In November 2002 after
its adoption in full this was vetoed by the then president, Gustavo Noboa Bejarano.
16. The constitutional rights of indigenous peoples have not yet been incorporated into
adequate secondary legislation, which has made the management of public policies,
administration of justice and allocation of resources to these peoples difficult. They are urging
action in this respect and have even suggested the need to convoke a new Constituent Assembly
on this issue. An oft-cited example of the failure to develop proper legal arrangements is the
lack of any regularization of indigenous land.
17. Recent advances include the establishment of CODENPE, a representative and
participative authority, whose executive secretary holds the rank of a minister. The
establishment of DNSPI, DINEIB, the Ecuadorian Nationalities and Peoples Information and
Research System (SIDENPE), the Indigenous Peoples’ Development Fund (FODEPI) and
DINAPIN, as part of the Office of the Ombudsman, were also significant. As these institutions
were established by presidential or ministerial decree, they are not subject to government
legislation, which weakens their ability to shape policies and generate resources for indigenous
peoples.
III. HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION OF THE INDIGENOUS
PEOPLES OF ECUADOR: PRIORITY AREAS
A. Impact of oil exploration on indigenous communities
18. In the 1970s, oil exploration became one of the main economic activities and sources of
foreign exchange earnings in Ecuador. It is seen as an activity of national interest, through
which the State can regularly meet its current and social expenditures. The oil areas, particularly
in the Amazon region, were divided into “blocks” and subsequently granted in concession to
various transnational companies. These activities have had considerable impact on the
environment and living conditions of local peoples, particularly indigenous peoples, and
provoked tension and conflict between some indigenous communities, oil companies and the
State. A/HRC/4/32/Add.2
9 page
19. A case in point is the indigenous Quechua community of the Sarayaku, in the Amazonian
province of Pastaza. In 1992, the ancestral lands of the Sarayaku in Pastaza were legally
recognized by Ecuador. Four years later, the State signed a participation contract with the
Argentine oil company Compañía General de Combustibles (CGC) for oil exploration and
development of over 200,000 hectares in block 23, 65 per cent of which comprises the ancestral
land of the Sarayaku and other indigenous communities. The Sarayaku community complain
that the contract was signed without consultation or their prior informed consent and allege
non-compliance with ILO Convention No. 169, ratified by Ecuador after the oil concession. The
Sarayaku also complain of non-compliance with an agreement between CGC, Pastaza police and
indigenous organizations to respect Sarayaku ancestral territories. They have protested and
demanded that the company withdraw, although some members of other indigenous
communities in Sarayaku territory wish to maintain a working relationship with the company
that provides them with income and certain services. This has further divided the community.
20. Sarayaku members complain that oil activities have polluted their rivers and affected the
health of the region’s indigenous peoples. In 2003, community leaders complained of threats,
the militarization of the area and the permanent harassment of their members by the CGC private
security services. The case was brought to the attention of the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights, which asked the Government to take protective measures in favour of the
community. As no satisfactory response was received from the State and the threats continued,
the Commission then referred the case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which
ordered provisional measures to protect the community. These measures were upheld by the
Court in its decision of June 2005, triggering a limited response from the Ecuadorian authorities.
21. Further complaints have been lodged concerning the placing of explosive charges in
Sarayaku territory for seismic exploration by CGC and the destruction of holy places and
plant life. The Government informed the Special Rapporteur that some of these complaints had
been upheld, but that removing the explosive charges would be too expensive. In March 2006,
in a new hearing before the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights, government
representatives proposed an amicable settlement with the Sarayaku, consisting of the voluntary
withdrawal of CGC from block 23, recognition of and public apologies for human rights
violations committed against the Sarayaku, the establishment of an economic fund for the
central-south Amazon region, and reforms to the prior consent rules relating to oil operations.
The proposal has been rejected pending a ruling by the Commission or Court. The Ecuadorian
Office of the Ombudsman, along with the Sarayaku community, has asked the State to comply
with the measures laid down by the Commission and the Court, but the Special Rapporteur has
been informed that this compliance is still pending.
22. Relations between the State, the oil companies (both national and transnational) and the
indigenous communities are complex, requiring the full attention of the authorities and human
rights defenders. A director of the State oil company assured the Special Rapporteur that, in
some regions, the companies are careful to comply with the law, adjust their activities to
environmental and human rights requirements, and maintain satisfactory relationships with the
indigenous communities in which they are based. Nevertheless, he recognized that there are
other regions in which this does not occur and where there is, in his own words, “chaotic chaos”.ANNEX 30
A/HRC/4/32/Add.2
page 10
23. Although the State company, PetroEcuador, offers open participation to the indigenous
population in oil exploration projects, indigenous organizations complain that this has not always
occurred in practice. The Government also states that it played an important role in establishing
tripartite dialogue between the companies, the State and the indigenous communities. In 2002,
after almost 15 months of negotiations, a consensus was achieved by which the oil companies
would carry out environmental impact studies before each contract. According to the
Government, this has worked well. For the last seven years, oil companies have contributed to a
fund for indigenous development; however, indigenous organizations complain of cronyism and
paternalistic practices.
24. The Special Rapporteur received statements from many indigenous communities
stressing the negative effects on them of failure by such oil companies as Texaco, Occidental,
Chevron, Repsol, Shell and Perenco to comply with human rights and environmental protection
rules. The Cofán complained about the degradation and pollution of their territories, the child
health and nutrition problems caused by oil operations and the fact that the company is putting
the communities affected under pressure. In Orellana, 12 Quechua communities pointed to
pressure and violations of their collective human rights by an oil company in block 7. This is
one of many cases demonstrating the incompatibility of the constitutional human rights of
indigenous peoples and the oil concessions awarded by the State with the consent of some
communities. With no State social policy, the local indigenous population must make do with
the minimal social services provided by the oil companies, and they complain that their
collective right to prior, free and informed consultation, as guaranteed in the Constitution, is not
respected. In order to comply with the constitutional principle of consultation, the Consultation
and Participation Act was adopted in 2002. Indigenous organizations have requested that it be
repealed, owing to its limitations and problems, in addition to the numerous conflicts provoked
by its application in various regions.
25. Among the complaints made to the Special Rapporteur, contracts between oil companies
and the armed forces for the provision of security services are particularly significant, as
members of the security services have been accused of committing abuse and acts of violence
against local indigenous populations. The Minister of Defence assured the Special Rapporteur
that these contracts had been suspended during his term in office. Complaints continue,
however, of violations of the human rights of indigenous peoples, including acts of persecution,
torture, degrading treatment and the illegal detention of opposition organization leaders. It is
claimed that those responsible for these violations have gone unpunished.
B. Situation of indigenous peoples on the northern border
26. The border between Ecuador and Colombia includes a number of provinces on the coast,
in the highlands and in Amazonia, inhabited by six indigenous peoples. The Awá and Quechua
live in the highlands, while the Cofán, Siona, Secoya and Quechua live in Amazonia. The main
problems for these communities arise from the implementation of Plan Colombia, drug
trafficking, the expansion of palm and oil companies and the almost total lack of State
institutions to protect and guarantee the rights of these indigenous peoples.
27. The Awá have been particularly affected. In all, 3,500 Awás live in Ecuador
and 36,000 hectares of the approximately 120,000 hectares of their ancestral territories have been
recognized. They live in extreme poverty in the border provinces of Carchi, Esmeraldas and A/HRC/4/32/Add.2
11 page
Imbabura. In addition to lacking such basic services as electricity, telephone, drinking water and
sewerage, they face pressure from logging companies on their forests; gold-mining companies,
which have had concessions since the 1980s; and oil palm companies. These activities are
placing pressure on Awá resources, forcing many members of the community to emigrate to the
cities.
28. Currently, the region’s most serious problem is the aerial spraying of illicit crops on the
Colombian side of the border, using glysophate mixed with other products, under the auspices of
Plan Colombia (see the report of the Special Rapporteur on Colombia, E/CN.4/2005/88/Add.2).
Damage caused by this practice has affected Ecuador, particularly its indigenous communities,
and has given rise to complaints by the Ecuadorian Government and to bilateral negotiations
between the two countries. International studies indicate that this practice has negative effects
on environmental resources and the health of people and animals. Skin and other diseases,
pollution of rivers and aquifers, and other damage have been reported. Furthermore, spraying
has been seen as having serious effects on banana plantations and varieties of tuber crops, the
local staple. In addition, the population often uses untreated water from the river forming the
border between the two countries.
29. In some communities in Sucumbíos, short-cycle crops are disappearing fewer
than 15 days after spraying. It is stated that, four years after the spraying began, some banana
varieties, yucca, maize, fruit trees and aromatic herbs have disappeared, or their yield has
considerably diminished. It is alleged that spraying has also had a negative effect on the health
and food security of border populations by polluting their water sources and the aquatic life.
Complaints have been made concerning large traces in many rivers, including the Mira river in
the province of Esmeraldas, of the chemical product used for spraying in Colombia. The
situation of these river communities is a matter of concern, as they use the river for domestic
purposes.
30. Some indigenous communities in the area, including the Awá, are vulnerable and this is
particularly worrying. In addition to the impact of spraying, they complain that their rights are
being violated and that they are being subject to other abuses. They protest that their rights to
food and health have been affected by spraying. Apparently, after spraying, the entire
Sumac Pamba community was displaced and did not return to their place of origin. As a
consequence, it appears that the local wildlife, which provided a source of daily consumption,
both for households and for recreational purposes, has died and various activities have been
affected, as polluted water cannot be used. Spraying appears to be destroying subsistence crops,
diminishing soil quality and reducing yields, affecting both the economic activities of
communities and the population’s access to adequate food. In addition to the involuntary
displacements caused by these activities, attention is also drawn to the lack of access to public
services and the militarization of the border zone.
31. Another study carried out in Sucumbíos province on children and education in schools
concluded that, since the implementation of Plan Colombia, there has been an upsurge in armed
conflict and violence in the area and the number of children in schools has halved. Children go
to school irregularly and teachers are working in precarious conditions as the area is one of high
risk. Conditions were unsanitary in 45 per cent of schools visited. Children became ill for
months on end owing to effects from spraying, and only half of the teachers had the necessary
teaching materials.ANNEX 30
A/HRC/4/32/Add.2
page 12
32. The Ecuadorian Government is concerned by the effects of these practices on the
indigenous border population and has begun bilateral negotiations with the Colombian
Government. As a result, Colombia announced that it would suspend spraying, but this has
not definitively ended the controversy. Ecuador has requested a complete halt to spraying in a
10-kilometre strip along the border. Although technical studies on the environmental impact of
spraying glysophate have provided various results, the Special Rapporteur has received
testimony from members of affected communities which clearly indicates that, in the long term,
the effects of such practices are considerable.
33. An international study undertaken in March 2006 concludes: “a thoroughgoing
investigation must urgently be launched into the situation affecting the Awá indigenous people,
which is linked to the consequences of spraying, and to their abandonment by the State”. The
Awá request “a study to ascertain the effects of these spraying exercises, sufficient support for
indigenous health, the creation of a health department for the Awá people, the denunciation of
the land invasion, eviction and paramilitary threats made under the auspices of Plan Colombia
and which affect Colombian and now Ecuadorian indigenous Awás, and the conduct of
continuous immunization campaigns”.
34. In 2004, a United Nations inter-agency mission was sent to study the problems affecting
indigenous and non-indigenous populations on both sides of the border, leading to the
preparation of a report for the Government of Ecuador. In 2005, on the basis of this report, the
United Nations established an inter-agency programme for peace and development on the
northern border, in order to provide a coordinated framework for action in both countries.
In 2006, at the request of the Ecuadorian Government, a United Nations technical mission
examined the issue of glysophate spraying. This report was sent to the Government of
Colombia. According to the latest information, Colombia has ceased spraying within a
10-kilometre strip along the Ecuadorian border.
35. Drug trafficking has eroded the growing of environmentally friendly crops by introducing
coca farming as an illicit survival strategy, i.e., traditional crops are giving way to the small-scale
cultivation of coca. The number of refugees from conflict zones in Colombia has increased.
According to testimony received, the presence of soldiers, guerrillas and drug traffickers in the
area bordering Colombia has had a negative impact on the living conditions of indigenous border
peoples. Acts of violence and harassment, particularly against women, are reported. The sexual
exploitation of women, young girls and teenagers, and trafficking in persons has increased
alarmingly. The number of indigenous Ecuadorian farmers, including minors, carrying out illicit
planting on the Colombian side of the border has risen.
36. According to reports, the expansion of oil palm companies has progressively
dispossessed communities of their ancestral territories. One study shows that these companies
currently own 60,000 hectares, of which 30,000 are under crops, and there are plans to acquire in
total 150,000 hectares, using loans from Brazil. The conflict in the zone specifically affects
women and girls from communities living in areas directly and indirectly influenced by the
northern border conflict. A/HRC/4/32/Add.2
13 page
C. Uncontacted peoples and threats to their existence
37. Since the 1960s, the Huaorani (or Huao Tiriro), living in the north-east of the
Ecuadorian Amazon, have been subject to growing pressure from oil and logging companies on
the one hand and, on the other, the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL), an evangelical
organization from the United States of America. In its work SIL promoted the development of
economic activities which took advantage of the region’s natural resources. Over this period, the
State has also encouraged colonization of the area by introducing oil activities and extending the
agricultural border. These activities led to an increase in the non-indigenous population, which
reached 80 per cent of the area’s population at the end of the twentieth century. The swift
transformation of this area took place against a backdrop of violent clashes with the native
peoples of Amazonia, which steadily weakened the Huaorani family groups and led to the
extermination of the Tetetes in the Aguarico-Napoas region.
38. In a few decades, these processes aggressively transformed the living conditions and
culture of the Huaorani, who have only managed to rally in defence of their collective, territorial
and economic rights in recent years. As a consequence of this pressure, some clans separated
from the central Huaorani group and retreated deeper into the jungle, rejecting all contact with
the outside world. Despite this, as a result of oil incursions in recent decades, some violent
encounters have taken place, leading to deaths on both sides, but mainly among the Huaorani. In
addition to oil incursions, the illegal felling of timber species of high commercial value has put
further pressure on the territories of these peoples living in voluntary isolation, in addition to
increasing inter-ethnic tension.
39. In the 1990s, the State recognized 700,000 hectares of Huaorani land. This was smaller
than their traditional territory and included areas taken from the Yasuní National Park. The land
allocated to the Huaorani also includes the Tagaeri-Taromenani people, who are uncontacted,
semi-nomadic hunter-gatherers, today also known as peoples in voluntary isolation. In 1999, the
Tagaeri-Taromenani area was decreed “untouchable land”, a conservation area where all types of
extractive activity are prohibited in perpetuity. The exact limits of this vast jungle region are yet
to be determined and it is not clear how many people make up the indigenous population that this
action aims to protect.
40. In this area, the State does not have a sufficient presence or a carefully designed
management plan to be able to prevent the progressive incursion of Ecuadorian and Colombian
settlers and illegal loggers, or resist the growth of what is termed international “eco-tourism”. In
recent decades, this situation has led to a series of violent clashes between the invaders (the
majority of whom are also of Huaorani lineage) and the isolated groups. In 2003, a massacre left
at least 20 dead and in April 2006, during the Special Rapporteur’s visit, another violent
encounter was reported, although the truth and scale of this has yet to be confirmed. The land
allocated to the Tagaeri-Taromenani borders similar land in neighbouring Colombia and Peru.
Only concerted international action in the long term will be able to save these peoples from
extinction. At the time of finalizing this report, it has not been possible to obtain information to
corroborate joint regional action in this field.ANNEX 30
A/HRC/4/32/Add.2
page 14
41. In 1995, the Organization of American States (OAS) suggested that the Government of
Ecuador establish special measures to protect the Tagaeri-Taromenani. According to
information received by the Special Rapporteur, by 2006, the State had not fully complied with
these recommendations or with the provisions contained in the 1999 executive decree that
established the “untouchable” area, in which all types of extractive activities were prohibited.
The Government is continuing to award oil concessions in “untouchable” land and permit the
removal of timber species prohibited under the Convention on the International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).
D. Páramos (heathlands) in the Andean region
42. Indigenous communities in the Ecuadorian highlands have a long history of harmonious
and productive integration with the environment. Their traditional forms of social and economic
organization have enabled them to maintain a rural survival economy and satisfy their basic
needs for many generations. This balance has been lost in recent decades because of growing
environmental degradation and demographic pressure on natural resources.
43. Environmental degradation in the Andean heathlands has affected the living conditions of
the Quechua highland communities, in addition to their water, soil and forests. The heathlands, a
highly fragile ecosystem, are essential for water conservation, but are threatened, along with the
communities who form part of this habitat. “Ecological corridors” have been created for
conservation, with participation from non-governmental and private international organizations.
Regional indigenous organizations are calling for the right to be full participants in conservation
and of forestation projects, demanding that the Government enact the corresponding legislation.
Depletion of water sources in the heathlands is a severe problem for communities.
Environmental degradation is impoverishing communities and encouraging emigration in search
of alternative opportunities.
E. Population movements and social and economic conditions
44. The growing population density and the decline in agricultural, forest and water resources
in the highlands, in addition to poverty and unemployment, have spurred emigration by rural
people to the cities, lowland areas, particularly in eastern Ecuador, and abroad. Many
indigenous people emigrate to North America and Europe. Migration is one of the country’s
most serious issues, with major implications for human rights, as was noted in 2001 by the
Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants. The situation of indigenous women is
particularly distressing.
45. Various studies show that, recently, an increasing number of women are involved in
international migration and more specifically, indigenous migration, as a response to, among
other things, the incorporation of women into paid and productive activities. This trend has also
been observed in Ecuador. Because of the discrimination from which they suffer, indigenous
women migrants are particularly vulnerable, becoming easy prey for trafficking and slavery
networks, in addition to numerous abuses in the workplace.
46. In 2003, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination concluded that,
despite legal and constitutional guarantees, indigenous and Afro-Ecuadorian peoples continued
to suffer from discrimination, and also drew attention to double discrimination against women. A/HRC/4/32/Add.2
15 page
In 2004, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights expressed its concern that the
Government’s efforts to improve health and safety in the workplace were insufficient,
particularly in the mining sector and on banana plantations. The Special Rapporteur was able to
note in situ that these continue to be problems requiring immediate governmental action.
47. Poor working conditions on farms growing flowers for export represent another common
problem. Indigenous people make up the majority of workers and suffer health problems due to
the lack of hygiene in the workplace. Thousands of children and young people are exploited
without State supervision and are thus particularly vulnerable. In Cotopaxi, for example, there
are farms where conditions are reminiscent of the worst periods of slavery, as workers are often
paid a mere two or three dollars per day, for 20 hours’ work.
48. The Épera, Ecuador’s smallest ethnic group, live in Esmeraldas province and their
current settlement dates back to the 1950s. They have complained of a lack of land, as their
400 members possess only 330 hectares. Their principal water source, the Cayapa river, is
polluted and drying up. As a consequence, inhabitants of the community are suffering from
various illnesses. They also report a major shortfall in basic social services. Although they
received land, there have been no development projects to improve their situation and many
community members are emigrating in search of other opportunities. Furthermore, other Épera
are arriving from neighbouring Colombia, fleeing the armed conflict and placing further strain
on the already precarious local family economy.
49. The Tsa’chila in Santo Domingo de los Colorados complain of the systematic loss of
land, pollution of rivers and soil, a housing shortage, lack of bilingual intercultural education, a
deficient health service and low health indicators, insufficient State support for development
programmes and scanty municipal budgets. They ask that the “development with identity”
concept be promoted, to provide opportunities to communities and slow the migratory flow of
their members.
50. The canton of Guamote, established in 1944, now has 35,600 inhabitants, of
which 90 per cent are indigenous. It has one of the highest illiteracy rates due to the lack of
resources at the provincial and national levels. In terms of health, the child mortality rate is high
and there are serious health problems. The people lack adequate technical assistance for
production, and all of this has led to growing emigration.
51. Confronted with such problems, the State has promoted, among other measures, a
development project for the indigenous and black peoples of Ecuador (PRODEPINE). Its first
phase lasted for four years (1998-2002), with an investment of $50 million from the
United States of America. The World Bank and the International Fund for Agricultural
Development (IFAD), indigenous and black organizations, and the national Government were all
involved in this process. This project was rejected by a CONAIE assembly because of its
harmful interference in the organizational framework of indigenous nationalities and was
discontinued.ANNEX 30
A/HRC/4/32/Add.2
page 16
F. Social welfare indicators
52. The Ministry of Housing states that Ecuador has a major deficit of some 1.1 million
houses. The supply of drinking water and the collection and disposal of solid waste are also in a
state of crisis. The Government has proposed to solve these problems by 70 per cent over the
next 15 years, but it lacks the necessary resources. A 2004 survey on indigenous health shows
that the percentage of indigenous people with access to piped water is three times less than the
rest of the population, as is the case with access to domestic sanitary facilities connected to
mains sewerage. In all, 23 per cent of indigenous homes lack sufficient food and 36 per cent
find it difficult to meet food costs (this figure is higher than among mestizos). Indigenous child
mortality (aged under five) is 50 per cent greater than the national average (51 per thousand live
births compared to 35 per thousand). Chronic malnutrition among indigenous children is more
than double that of mestizo children (46.7 per cent compared to 21.2 per cent).
53. DNSPI states that indigenous health has not received the attention it deserves under the
Government’s general policies. The problem is acknowledged, as is the need to take steps to
resolve it, but the necessary resources are not allocated. The Pan American Health
Organization (PAHO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) are together promoting
93 indigenous health initiatives designed to ensure that the Government’s health model is
properly intercultural. Only 0.25 per cent of the total State budget is allocated to this area.
54. The Andean Regional Office of the United Nations Development Fund for
Women (UNIFEM) has developed a programme focusing on indigenous women, in particular on
combating poverty, exclusion and violence; promoting gender equality in democratic processes
and citizenship-building; and fighting against HIV/AIDS, through, among other measures, a
project in Sucumbíos and another with indigenous migrant women from the highlands.
G. Indigenous political participation and social movements
55. An intercultural election observation mission undertaken in various provinces during
the 2004 local elections concluded that there was ill-treatment and ethnic discrimination within
polling stations and that these problems remain a major factor in the political exclusion of
indigenous peoples. The study concludes that the Supreme Electoral Court is promoting
discriminatory practices against the country’s indigenous citizens, given the lack of any specific
policy to promote the rights of indigenous peoples within the electoral process.
56. Since 1996, the Pachakutik movement, the political wing of the indigenous organization
CONAIE, has made gains at the local level. In the May 2000 elections, it made its greatest
electoral gain since it was founded and later briefly participated in the national Government. In
the 2006 electoral process, it again took part, putting forward its own candidate for the post of
President of Ecuador.
57. Since November 2003, the Ecuadorian Government has negotiated a free trade treaty
with the United States of America. For the Government, most members of the business sector
and part of the population, this treaty would solve the country’s numerous economic problems.
Within indigenous organizations, however, there is concern over the impact that the treaty may
have on the life of indigenous communities. The Government’s negotiator informed the Special
Rapporteur that he had endeavoured to raise some of the issues that trouble indigenous peoples A/HRC/4/32/Add.2
17 page
during the negotiations. For example, he had conveyed their concerns about biodiversity and
patents and there is reference in the draft treaty to the awareness of communities, who must be
consulted and who must give consent, the first time such a provision has been included in this
area. In addition, he said that he was aware of the impact that the treaty could have on the
countryside, particularly the land and water resources of indigenous small producers, which is
why they will remain outside the scope of the treaty. It is believed that some products for
domestic consumption, produced primarily by coastal indigenous peoples, such as rice, soya or
meat, would only be considered after 10 years, during which time the State should implement
support policies for these small-scale producers.
58. In their discussions with the Special Rapporteur, indigenous organizations expressed their
distrust of the treaty and their disagreement with the Government. They fear that the effects on
the indigenous economy, particularly small producers, will be disastrous, as has been the case in
other countries. They demand that the indigenous peoples are consulted in negotiations on the
free trade treaty and that their needs are taken into account.
59. Indigenous protests against the free trade treaty during the first months of 2006 drew the
attention of Ecuadorian society. In March 2006, indigenous organizations again held large
protests, taking to the streets and marching through cities, which included a march to Quito and a
strike by indigenous local authorities. They were demonstrating against both the Government’s
policies on free trade and on other matters and against the powerful oil companies.
60. In response, the Government declared a state of emergency in various provinces and civil
society organizations reported acts of repression and police brutality in various parts of the
country (Imbabura, Pinchincha, Chimborazo, Cotopaxi, Tunguraha, Cañar, Pastaza and Zamora).
Reports were also filed of numerous acts of ethnic discrimination against indigenous people
(particularly women) that were recorded by the media. There were also violent clashes between
demonstrators and the forces of law and order, which led to injuries and arrests. Some media
outlets incited racial hatred against the indigenous population, accusing them of being
responsible for social protest and conflict in Ecuadorian society. After some weeks, the state of
emergency was lifted, but social tensions concerning the free trade treaty, oil companies and
government policies were still in evidence during the Special Rapporteur’s visit.
H. Administration of justice and indigenous justice
61. Under the Constitution, ombudsmen shall be appointed to protect the interests of
indigenous communities and communities shall be entitled to use their mother tongue in any
action against them. The Constitution also states that indigenous authorities shall exercise
judicial function by applying their own rules and procedures to solve internal conflicts in
accordance with their customs or customary law. There are no legal provisions stipulating the
scope of the powers vested in the indigenous authorities under article 191 of the Constitution or
the manner in which these are to be exercised, nor has any law been passed to harmonize these
functions with the national system. In 2002, a draft bill to harmonize and allocate
responsibilities for the administration of justice was submitted to the National Congress, but,
following an unfavourable report by the Civil and Criminal Specialized Standing Commission,
the draft was shelved.ANNEX 30
A/HRC/4/32/Add.2
page 18
62. The absence of legislation has not prevented indigenous communities from various
regions invoking in practice their constitutionally established right to exercise their authority and
what they consider their legal uses and customs and to do so more and more frequently, to
resolve situations of a conflict of interest and to protect themselves from external aggression. In
this context, there have been numerous conflicts of jurisdiction between indigenous and legal
authorities, apparent abuses by both authorities, instances of their taking the law into their own
hands and even the formation of self-defence groups which claim that their actions are protected
by indigenous customary law.
63. The President of the Supreme Court told the Special Rapporteur of the need to harmonize
these two justice systems and cited various examples in which courts tried cases that had already
been tried and resolved in the indigenous justice system. Refusal to recognize these decisions
based on customary law is a crucial aspect of the more general issue of the failure to develop
legislation to implement innovative provisions of the Constitution. He also spoke of the need to
establish a court specifically for indigenous issues, in addition to a network of justices of the
peace and judges in indigenous law. Congress urgently needs to consider issuing regulations
giving effect to the constitutional principle recognizing indigenous justice so that it may be
harmonized with the ordinary system of justice.
64. DINAPIN has operated as part of the Office of the Ombudsman since 2000. Its mission
is to monitor and uphold the rights of indigenous nationalities, peoples and organizations in
Ecuador through the dissemination, promotion and defence of those rights. To carry out this
task, DINAPIN has created a network of indigenous human and collective rights activists at the
national level who, protected by the Ombudsman Act, defend and promote human and collective
rights throughout Ecuador. The Office of the Ombudsman is also developing other initiatives
within its mandate, such as providing court-appointed lawyers, proposing solutions to
intracommunity conflicts or securing the release of indigenous prisoners.
65. The difficulty of legislating in the area of indigenous justice and determining its scope
represents a significant gap in private contracts negotiated by community representatives in
foreign languages, such as Spanish or English, relating to specialized legal issues in the financial
or intellectual property domain that affect indigenous people and territories.
I. Bilingual intercultural education
66. DINEIB, established in 1987, is legally responsible for education programmes for
indigenous peoples and nationalities. It has the status of a national institution, although it lacks
the necessary resources to perform all the tasks assigned to it. Bilingual intercultural education
is provided in 2,802 schools in 16 provinces, to some 123,400 pupils of 14 nationalities.
67. Nevertheless, not all indigenous children have access to schooling. A 2003 study in
Cotopaxi showed that 526 rural children did not go to school, as their homes were too far away.
In State schools, the Government runs a school meals programme for indigenous children, but a
study shows that more than 1.3 million children still do not receive breakfast and lunch regularly,
the meals provided under the programme as an inducement to ensure their attendance at school. A/HRC/4/32/Add.2
19 page
68. As a general rule, the so-called “Hispanic” schools (which are neither intercultural nor
bilingual) have better resources, meaning that many parents prefer their children to attend
these schools, leaving intercultural bilingual schools for poor indigenous people. In terms of
good-quality, culturally appropriate indigenous education, the Ecuadorian bilingual intercultural
education programme is generally considered one of the most successful in Latin America,
despite its aforementioned limitations.
69. During 2005, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) undertook various activities and projects on literacy and bilingual intercultural
education, organizing two educational workshops to support native languages, in coordination
with DINEIB and promoting the Literacy and Education Programme for Life in the canton of
Cayambe. Within the framework of an agreement between the Provincial Council of
Chimborazo and the United Nations, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) undertook
to facilitate children’s access to basic education, by implementing a programme to provide
schoolbooks to 5,182 children aged 5.
J. International cooperation
70. Ecuador is carrying out a number of programmes explicitly targeting indigenous and
Afro-Ecuadorian peoples through multilateral and bilateral cooperation. These projects relate to
bilingual intercultural education and, in conjunction with the German Agency for Technical
Cooperation (GTZ), the training of indigenous university teachers. The European Union is
cooperating in the implementation of a credit scheme specifically targeting women in
Chimborazo province, and another development project in Cotopaxi province, with the local
provincial council and the Cotopaxi Indigenous and Campesino Movement (MICC). The
Spanish Agency for International Cooperation (AECI), together with the organization
CODENPE, is currently running a development project with 31 municipalities led by indigenous
people (referred to as “alternative municipalities”).
IV. CONCLUSION
71. In recent decades, the indigenous peoples of Ecuador have made important steps forward
in securing recognition of their human rights and fundamental freedoms. Constitutionally,
Ecuador is a multicultural and multi-ethnic country, which recognizes a range of collective rights
of the country’s 14 indigenous nationalities.
72. One of Ecuador’s principal challenges is to give full effect to the constitutional principles
concerning indigenous rights through secondary legislation and regulations on various
constitutional rights. There are worrying delays in this field, given that the political instability of
recent years has prevented the Government from adopting the necessary laws arising from the
Constitution in this matter.
73. The same situation obtains among the various governmental authorities created by
presidential or ministerial decree to tackle issues of particular concern to indigenous peoples,
such as CODENPE, DINEIB, DNSI and DINAPIN. These institutions, which enjoy the active
participation of indigenous representatives, lack the necessary legislative support and budgetary
resources to allow them adequately to meet the needs of these peoples.ANNEX 30
A/HRC/4/32/Add.2
page 20
74. The situation of indigenous peoples is particularly sensitive where the administration of
justice and the efforts to harmonize the ordinary system of justice with the indigenous justice
system recognized in the Constitution are concerned.
75. Available data indicate that, as a rule, more indigenous people live in poverty and
extreme poverty, and meet fewer indicators of social and human development than other sectors
of the population. In the inter-Andean corridors and the Andean heathlands, where demographic
pressure on the land’s limited resources is greater, indigenous agricultural production and living
conditions are precarious, causing growing emigration to the cities and abroad, a phenomenon
that particularly affects indigenous communities. Indigenous women and children are
particularly vulnerable in this process.
76. Ecuador has made important steps forward in bilingual intercultural education and in the
application of an intercultural approach to indigenous health, but these programmes are still
weak, as they have insufficient institutional underpinning and lack resources. International
cooperation agencies and the United Nations are running some indigenous support programmes
in these areas.
77. For some decades, the Ecuadorian economy has been highly dependent on oil exports.
Oil operations are carried out primarily in indigenous territories, with negative effects on the
environment and the communities’ living conditions. This situation has led to numerous
conflicts between the State, oil companies and indigenous communities, who oppose the
operations of these companies. Indigenous people are calling for the full application of their
right to consent, through a process of free, prior and informed consultation.
78. Similar conditions govern the situation among Amazonian communities, which are
confronted by the activities - sometimes illicit - of, among others, mining and logging companies
and oil palm plantations. Among the indigenous nationalities on the northern border, this
situation is further complicated by the aerial spraying of illicit crops, carried out in neighbouring
Colombia under the auspices of Plan Colombia, which has negative effects on the Ecuadorian
indigenous border populations. Some indigenous populations are living in voluntary isolation in
the forest in these regions, and their situation is particularly worrying. Their survival and
“untouchable” territory are threatened by such factors as pressure from illicit logging activities
and the incursion of settlers.
79. The use of elements of the armed forces to secure the interests of oil, mining and logging
companies operating in indigenous territories has triggered various abuses and complaints, and
led to numerous incidents with the indigenous population, who complain of the militarization of
their communal areas.
80. In March 2006, a large number of indigenous people suffered violations of their rights
while protesting against the free trade treaty being negotiated by Ecuador with the United States
of America. This led to the declaration of a state of emergency in some provinces and the
disproportionate use of the police against the demonstrators. A/HRC/4/32/Add.2
21 page
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Legislation
81. The Special Rapporteur recommends that the National Congress of Ecuador enact
legislation concerning the collective rights of indigenous nationalities, peoples and
communities, as established in the country’s Constitution, relating in particular to the
administration of justice; indigenous territorial areas; rules governing such economic
activities as oil operations, mining, logging, agriculture, fishing and tourism, in addition to
others that affect natural resources in indigenous territories; bilingual intercultural
education; conservation and preservation of the cultural heritage of indigenous peoples;
respect and protection of peoples in voluntary isolation; the right to prior, free and
informed consultation and consent in accordance with international law; indigenous health
services; prevention and punishment of sexual offences; exploitation in conditions of
servility, the forced and commercial exploitation of women and girls belonging to
indigenous peoples and nationalities; extension of various social services to indigenous
communities; biodiversity and environmental conservation and management; economic
development plans and projects; an office for the human rights of indigenous peoples; and
local, communal and regional forms of indigenous government.
82. The Special Rapporteur recommends strengthening the legal arrangements
underpinning indigenous institutional structures in the various established bodies.
Specifically, the Special Rapporteur recommends that DINEIB, the Department for
Intercultural Health and CODENPE be given the appropriate legal status, and that the
necessary resources be assigned to them so that they can raise the quality of their services.
83. The Special Rapporteur recommends that the Ordinary and Indigenous Justice
Compatibility Act be adopted and that the Government request the Office of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to provide technical
support for the legislative development of indigenous justice.
84. The Special Rapporteur recommends that all Ecuadorian authorities, particularly
notaries and registrars of property, be trained in the legal system pertaining to ancestral
and historical indigenous territories and the creation of rights in rem.
B. Northern border and environment
85. The Special Rapporteur recommends that the Governments of Ecuador and
Colombia appoint an independent international commission to study the effects of aerial
spraying on indigenous border populations. Corresponding binding measures are also
recommended, to provide compensation for the damages caused.
86. The Special Rapporteur recommends that Colombia definitively halt the aerial
spraying of illicit crops in the border region with Ecuador.
87. The Special Rapporteur recommends that the Ecuadorian Government draw up
and apply an emergency plan (in consultation with the region’s indigenous peoples) on the
critical situation of indigenous border communities (particularly the Awá), as a result ofANNEX 30
A/HRC/4/32/Add.2
page 22
the impact of the internal conflict in Colombia, illicit drug production and trafficking
activities, environmental degradation, the influx of indigenous refugees from Colombia and
the situation of violence and insecurity in the area. Concessions granted to oil and mining
companies must be reviewed. The State must shape public policies aimed at protecting the
various sectors, peoples and communities who live on the northern border, with their full
participation, including the right to free, prior and informed consultation.
88. The Special Rapporteur recommends that Ecuador implement measures (including
those under CITES) to ensure rigorous control of timber species in indigenous lands, in
particular those inhabited by peoples in voluntary isolation, and coordinate actions with
the various State authorities to ensure effective protection in the trade and export of all
species.
C. Consultation, participation and recognition
89. The Special Rapporteur recommends that all Ecuadorian authorities comply
with the provisions of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Sarayaku case, and more specifically, that
the State Procurator-General unconditionally uphold the unimpeded protection of the
Sarayaku community, including its rights, its land ownership and the life and physical
integrity of all of its members.
90. The State must recognize the ancestral lands of the Shuar and other Amazonian
peoples who have yet to receive this recognition.
D. Security, social protest and justice-related activities
91. The Special Rapporteur recommends that the armed forces abstain from
concluding service provision contracts with oil companies that could damage the rights of
the indigenous communities in whose territories they are operating.
92. The Special Rapporteur recommends that Ecuador carry out a thoroughgoing
investigation into accusations of abuse and violence against members of indigenous
communities committed by some elements of the armed forces, under the auspices of the
said contracts, and that those responsible are punished. It is further recommended that
any inappropriate arrangement between the aforementioned companies and the armed
forces, which has its aim to protect the private economic interests of the companies and
could damage the legitimate rights of the indigenous peoples and communities in the
regions affected by the activities of the oil companies, be prevented.
93. Following the disproportionate response of the authorities to the social protest
mounted by indigenous organizations during the state of emergency against the free trade
treaty, the Special Rapporteur recommends that the Government carry out a
thoroughgoing investigation into the events and punish, among others, those who abused
the human rights of the indigenous demonstrators. A/HRC/4/32/Add.2
23 page
E. Peoples in voluntary isolation
94. The Special Rapporteur recommends that the Human Rights Council call on the
three countries involved in protecting the peoples living in voluntary isolation (Colombia,
Ecuador and Peru) and the international community to pool forces and resources in order
to protect and safeguard endangered indigenous peoples living in the Amazonian region.
(The Special Rapporteur made a similar recommendation to the Colombian Government
following his mission there in 2005.)
95. In the “untouchable” area and the Yasuní National Park, any oil activities shall be
suspended and illegal logging shall be punished, in addition to any activity that disturbs the
peace of peoples living in voluntary isolation. Furthermore, an integrated programme for
the restructuring of the local economy in Huaorani regions shall be drawn up, and real and
effective controls shall be set in place to prevent the removal of timber from these
territories.
96. Prompt steps should be taken to enact the necessary national legislation for the
promotion, protection and safeguarding of the rights of peoples in voluntary isolation, in
strict compliance with ILO Convention No. 169 and the United Nations Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by the Human Rights Council.
97. In the Andean region, the Special Rapporteur recommends that the State take into
consideration the intercultural realities of the area, in addition to the needs and rights of
indigenous communities, in connection with any State activities relating to the
conservation, management and development of inter-Andean corridors, forests and
heathlands in the region, and ensure respect for the lands and territories of indigenous
peoples and nationalities.
F. International cooperation and the academic sector
98. The Special Rapporteur recommends that international cooperation agencies
consider and pay particular attention to indigenous needs in their various specialized areas.
99. The Special Rapporteur recommends that university and research institutions, both
in Ecuador and abroad, focus on and adapt their programmes to the constitutional
principles of multiculturalism and the promotion of the human rights of indigenous
peoples.
----- ANNEX 31
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of
the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health, Paul Hunt:
Preliminary Note on Mission to Ecuador and Colombia, Addendum,
A/HRC/7/11/Add.3 (4 Mar. 2007) ANNEX 31
UNITED
NATIONS A
General Assembly Distr.
GENERAL
A/HRC/7/11/Add.3
4 March 2007
Original: ENGLISH
ENGLISH AND SPANISH ONLY
HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
Seventh session
Agenda item 3
PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF ALL HUMAN RIGHTS,
CIVIL, POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL
RIGHTS, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to
the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical
and mental health
Preliminary note on the mission to Ecuador and Colombia
Addendum*
* The present note was submitted late in order to reflect the most recent information.
GE.08-11439 (E110308ANNEX 31
A/HRC/7/11/Add.3
page 2
Annex
MISSION TO ECUADOR AND COLOMBIA: PRELIMINARY NOTE
I. INTRODUCTION
1. At the fourth session of the Human Rights Council, in March 2007, the Government of
Ecuador extended an invitation to the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the
enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. The Special
Rapporteur undertook a mission to Ecuador from 14 to 18 May 2007.
2. At the invitation of the Government, the Special Rapporteur visited Colombia from 20
to 22 September 2007.
3. The mission was undertaken with the objective of examining, from the viewpoint of the
right to the highest attainable standard of health, the impact of the aerial spraying of glyphosate,
combined with additional components, by Colombia along the Ecuador-Colombia border. 1
4. In Ecuador, the Special Rapporteur had consultations with civil society organizations on
other issues concerning the right to the highest attainable standard of health in Ecuador. As
previously agreed, these additional issues on the right to health are the subject of public
correspondence between the Government of Ecuador and the Special Rapporteur, and are not
part of the mission report.
5. The Special Rapporteur visited New York and discussed the issue of aerial spraying with
the United Nations Department of Political Affairs. Furthermore, he visited Washington, DC and
discussed the issue with representatives of the Organization of American States (OAS) and of the
Pan American Health Organization.
6. During the mission in Ecuador, the Special Rapporteur met with the Ministers for Foreign
Affairs and Coordination for Internal and External Security, as well as with senior officers in
both ministries. He also met the Scientific Commission of Ecuador, the Ombudsperson, senior
officials in the Ministries of Finance and Health, the Governors of Sucumbios and Orellana,
senior public officials in Lago Agrio and the United Nations country team. The Special
Rapporteur also visited three communities in the northern border zone and met with many
representatives of civil society.
7. The Special Rapporteur also sought to discuss aerial spraying with the Government of
Colombia, and was extended an invitation to visit Colombia in September 2007. While in
Bogotá, the Special Rapporteur met the Vice-President, the Deputy Minister for International
Relations, the Deputy Minister for Health, the Director of the Anti-Narcotics Police, and
representatives of United Nations agencies and civil society organizations. The Special
Rapporteur also undertook a field trip to San José de Guaviare.
1
In the present note, the term “glyphosate” will be used to denote a combination of glyphosate
and additional components. ANNEX 31
A/HRC/7/11/Add.3
3 page
8. The Special Rapporteur is grateful to the Governments of Ecuador and Colombia for the
invitation to undertake a mission and for the support and information provided before, during
and after the mission.
9. In the present note, the Special Rapporteur outlines the mission and provides some
preliminary observations. When the Special Rapporteur submits his mission report to the Human
Rights Council in September 2008, however, he will go beyond the observations presented in the
present note.
II. AERIAL SPRAYING OF GLYPHOSATE
10. The focus of the Special Rapporteur’s mission to Ecuador and Colombia was the aerial
spraying of glyphosate along the Ecuador-Colombia border. The mission did not take samples or
conduct laboratory tests, because it was not a scientific mission. Rather, the Special Rapporteur
reviewed the existing scientific evidence, received personal testimonies and consulted with
experts, then examined all this material from the viewpoint of the right to the highest attainable
standard of health.
11. The right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health includes access to
both medical care and the underlying determinants of health, such as safe water, adequate
sanitation and a safe environment.
12. The aerial spraying of illicit coca crops with glyphosate is carried out as part of Plan
Colombia, adopted in 1999. Supported by the United States of America, the plan, inter alia,
addresses the financing of illegal armed groups and drug trafficking. Aerial spraying is one of
several complementary techniques aimed at the eradication of coca crops. Colombia is the only
country in the world using aerial spraying for the eradication of coca. The Special Rapporteur
recognizes that illicit coca cultivation gives rise to a range of extremely grave issues that the
Government of Colombia, in accordance with its international commitments, takes very
seriously.
13. The aerial spraying of coca in the border zone with Ecuador (the provinces of Narino and
Putumayo) began in 2000 and was conducted periodically until December 2005, when the
Government of Colombia agreed to temporarily suspend spraying within the 10-km border zone.
When Colombia then recommenced spraying (until February 2007), Ecuador brought the issue
before the Permanent Council of OAS. There were allegations that Colombian airplanes
continued spraying when turning around over Ecuadorian territory. Additionally, it was alleged
that the spray drifted from Colombian airspace into Ecuador and adversely affected the health
and crops of people living on the border in Ecuador.
14. The issue has been the subject of various multilateral and bilateral initiatives and studies,
such as the United Nations inter-agency report of 2004 and the Inter-American Drug Abuse
Control Commission study of 2005. The Governments of Ecuador and Colombia established the
Binational Scientific Commission to look into the issue and submit a report. The Commission
2 See website of the U.S. Department of State at www.state.gov.ANNEX 31
A/HRC/7/11/Add.3
page 4
met in April and July 2007 but, regrettably, was unable to reach a consensus. Thus, each
commission published its own report: the Ecuadorian commission in April 2007 and the
Colombian one in September 2007.
15. The Special Rapporteur took note of the stark differences of opinion between the
Governments of Ecuador and Colombia (and scientific commission members) and emphasized
the need to carry out independent, reliable studies that have the confidence of both parties.
16. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the fact that aerial spraying of coca crops in the 10-km
border zone ceased in February 2007, and appreciates that manual eradication, as an alternative
method of eradication, has been accelerated. The Special Rapporteur also welcomes the
Colombian Vice President’s statement confirming that manual eradication tends to be more
effective than aerial spraying, although it can be more hazardous to those carrying it out. The
Rapporteur also welcomes the increasing recognition of the vital importance of measures to
promote effective, alternative, sustainable development as part of a strategy to eradicate the illicit
cultivation of coca.
17. While in Ecuador, the Special Rapporteur’s preliminary view was that there was credible
and reliable evidence that the aerial spraying of glyphosate along the border damages the
physical and mental health of people living in Ecuador. The Special Rapporteur’s preliminary
conclusion was that the evidence provided during the mission was sufficient to call for the
application of the precautionary principle and that, accordingly, Colombia should not
recommence aerial spraying in the 10-km border zone with Ecuador, thus ensuring conformity
with its international human rights responsibilities.
18. While in Colombia, the Special Rapporteur had the opportunity to discuss some of his
preliminary views with the authorities. He notes the position of the Government of Colombia
that there is no scientific uncertainty about the impact on human health of glyphosate, which is
routinely used in both Colombia and Ecuador, and that the precautionary principle does not
apply in this situation. The Special Rapporteur notes that the use of glyphosate in Ecuador (direct
and manual) is different from the method used on the border by Colombia (aerial spraying).
Furthermore, as the composition and concentration of the spraying appear to differ between
Ecuador and Colombia, the suggested equivalence between Ecuadorian and Colombian practice
is misleading.
19. In some quarters, the glyphosate aerial spraying issue has become deeply politicized. When
an issue becomes politicized in this way, human rights are always among the first victims. The
health and lives of ordinary people, especially the most disadvantaged and poor, are often
forgotten or obscured.
20. It is imperative that, when considering this very important issue, the human right to health,
and thus the well-being of disadvantaged individuals and communities, is placed at the centre of
all decision-making. ANNEX 31
A/HRC/7/11/Add.3
5 page
III. NORTHERN ZONE AND PLAN ECUADOR
21. In order to assess the degree to which the right to the highest attainable standard of health
has been taken into account, the aerial spraying of glyphosate along the northern border has to be
seen in the context of the conditions of the people - refugees, indigenous peoples,
Afro-Ecuadorians, internally displaced persons and other disadvantaged groups - living in the
northern zone.
22. Plan Ecuador, launched in 2007, is an integrated development plan for the northern
provinces of the country in response to the historic neglect of the area and to the problems
generated by the Colombian conflict, such as the movement of refugees from Colombia into the
northern zone. Projected until 2018, and informed by the United Nations inter-agency report, the
plan includes activities regarding institution-building and cooperation, improvement of basic
infrastructure, sustainable management of natural resources and so on. It is financed through
budget reallocations and international cooperation. The Special Rapporteur urges the
Government to reinforce the integration of human rights into Plan Ecuador. This multisectoral
plan, with its emphasis on enhanced coordination, represents a huge stride in the right direction
and the Special Rapporteur highly commends the Government for recognizing the gravity of the
situation and for adopting Plan Ecuador.
23. When visiting the northern zone, the Special Rapporteur was alarmed by the seriously
inadequate health system available to individuals and communities.
24. It is very important that the Government allocate adequate funds for Plan Ecuador,
otherwise it will become merely a paper exercise. Further elaboration of the Plan and its
implementation should be as inclusive and participatory as possible. Also, the Special
Rapporteur strongly urges the development partners of Ecuador to provide matching funds and
technical assistance for Plan Ecuador, consistent with their human rights responsibilities of
international assistance and cooperation.
25. The Special Rapporteur recommends that the Government establish an accountability
mechanism for the Plan, namely, an independent unit that monitors whether the Plan is reaching
its targets and achieving its objectives. Such an independent mechanism would help to identify
where the Plan is working and where there are difficulties; it might report annually to the
Government but, to be credible, the mechanism should be independent of it.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
26. The Special Rapporteur will carefully consider all information received before taking
a final stance regarding the issue of aerial spraying and the right to the highest attainable
standard of health and before submitting his report to the Human Rights Council on the
issue.
----- ANNEX 32
Report of the Special Rapporteur, Okechukwu Ibeanu, Adverse Effects of the
Illicit Movement and Dumping of Toxic and Dangerous Products
and Wastes on the Enjoyment of Human Rights
U.N. Doc. A/HRC/5/5 (5 May 2007) ANNEX 32
UNITED
NATIONS
A
General Assembly Distr.
GENERAL
A/HRC/5/5
5 May 2007
Original: ENGLISH
HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
Fifth session
Item 2 of the provisional agenda
IMPLEMENTATION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 60/251
OF 15 MARCH 2006 ENTITLED “HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL”
Adverse effects of the illicit movement and dumping of toxic and
dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights
Report of the Special Rapporteur, Okechukwu Ibeanu
Summary
This report focuses on the impact of armed conflict on exposure to toxic and dangerous
products and wastes. Although war has always had an adverse effect on the environment, the
voluntary or incidental release of toxic and dangerous products in contemporary armed conflicts
has an important adverse effect on the enjoyment of human rights. The report not only examines
the direct impact of armed conflict, but also its consequences on control of the movement and
storage of toxic and dangerous products and wastes.
The report also analyses the human rights dimension of this issue in the particular context
of armed conflict, notably those rights which can be adversely affected. It sets out the legal
framework applicable to this issue and identifies the potential duty bearers.
The Special Rapporteur ends his report with a series of recommendations which aim to
prevent or at least to mitigate the adverse effects of exposure to toxic and dangerous products as
a result of armed conflict.
GE.07-12563 (E) 230507ANNEX 32
A/HRC/5/5
page 10
Agent Orange and other herbicides during the Viet Nam War. During this operation, over
70 million litres of defoliants and other herbicides wer26released over Viet Nam, Laos and
Cambodia in order to destroy jungle cover and crops. A very large number of people, including
military personnel from all parties to the conflict as well as between 2.1 and 4.8 million civilians
27
were exposed to these dangerous products during this operation. When these herbicides
degrade they release dioxins which are linked to numerous health problems. The United States
Department of Veteran Affairs lists prostate cancer, respiratory cancers, multiple myeloma,
type II diabetes, Hodgkin’s disease, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukaemia,
soft tissue sarcoma, chloracne, porphyria cutanea tarda, peripheral neuropathy, and spina bifida
in children, as illnesses that can be linked to exposure to Agent Orange. 28Although scientific
evidence of association remains insufficient, other adverse effects on human health have been
linked to the release of dioxin laden herbicides in South-East Asia. These include several types
of cancers, birth defects, stillbirths, infant death as well as reproductive system, cognitive,
respiratory and circulatory disorders. In addition to direct exposure to dioxins through spraying,
indirect exposure to dioxins is also dangerous as the chemical can build up in the food chain, and
people may be exposed to contaminated food and water.
20. Secondly, herbicides have also been used in the course of armed conflict to destroy crops.
The objective is to deny sustenance to the adversary or to limit revenue generating activities. The
herbicides used often contain toxic products that can, depending on their concentration, affect
human health. Moreover, although the objective of such tactics is to limit the enemy’s access to
food, it will often also affect crops which are destined for the civilian population. It is indeed rare
to find fields exclusively dedicated to growing food for combatants, therefore the destruction of
crops can have a negative effect on the survival of the civilian population. More recently
herbicides have been used to destroy drug crops in the context of armed conflicts. However,
because the herbicides used cannot distinguish between drug crops and other legitimate crops
and because of the use of aircraft to disperse the herbicide, which renders the dispersion less
precise, fumigation of coca and poppy crops can result in the destruction of nearby agricultural
crops, thus limiting access of the population to food. Furthermore, although there are no
definitive scientific studies on the potential health impacts of fumigation, continued reports of
adverse effects on human health are cause for concern. Medical services in affected regions have
reported a rise in low-level poisoning and eye, skin and breathing problems immediately
following the fumigation. There are also concerns that drinking water could be contaminated by
the chemicals contained in the herbicides used in such operations. Finally, reports suggest that
26
In re Agent Orange Products Liability Litigation, US District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, 10 March 2005.
27
Ibid.
28 United States Department of Veteran Affairs, Agent Orange General Information Brochure,
http://www1.va.gov/agentorange/. ANNEX 32
A/HRC/5/5
11 page
although the herbicides used to destroy drug crops in an area affected by armed conflict use the
same toxic ingredient as that used by commercially available herbicides, the concentration of this
active ingredient varies from 1 per cent in herbicides u29d in agriculture to 26 per cent for those
used to destroy drug crops, making it much more toxic.
21. A final issue of concern is that of war debris. War debris can be a major source of
discharge of toxic or dangerous products into the environment. Debris can present a risk because
of the numerous toxic and dangerous products which are to be found in building materials or, as
mentioned above, on industrial sites. Ash is of particular concern; fires often occur following an
attack and if the burning debris contains toxic products, for example paint, solvents or plastic
products, it is likely that the ash will be contaminated. If this ash is not disposed of in an
appropriate manner it can result in the contamination of the environment surrounding the
disposal site, and could potentially adversely affect human health. Toxic materials contained in
construction materials can also be dangerous when buildings are destroyed. Asbestos poses a
particular problem. For example, in the Middle East, an area greatly affected by armed conflict,
asbestos sheeting is often found in buildings. Undisturbed, asbestos does not pose any problems.
However, according to a UNEP study, when destroyed, asbestos sheeting can produce asbestos
fibre which can be dangerous to the health of persons living in the proximity of destroyed
buildings.30Risks to the health of the local population are increased when there has been much
damage to buildings in a limited area, for example in an urban setting. Although, not per se war
debris, military remnants of war can also be the source of a release of toxic and dangerous
products. This includes unexploded ordnance which may contain toxic and dangerous products,
which over time may be released into the environment. Abandoned military vehicles may also
pose a threat, as they may be used by the local population at the end of hostilities and may
contain toxic materials. War debris, including ash contaminated with asbestos or other toxic
products must be treated as dangerous; however, in the rush of clean-up and reconstruction
efforts, the threat posed by these materials is often not taken seriously.
B. Negative impact of armed conflicts on the control
of toxic and dangerous products and wastes
22. Armed conflicts create great difficulties for States in controlling their territory and
protecting their population. As a consequence, armed conflicts can facilitate trafficking in
dangerous products and wastes and their illicit dumping. Thus, the contamination of the
environment, through soil, water, air or the food chain can lead to the denial of enjoyment of
basic rights, such as the right to life, to health, to food, to safe and decent housing, etc. Given the
absence of the rule of law in conflict situations, the population often suffers from a lack of access
to exact information on toxic and dangerous products and wastes which may affect them. There
is also an absence of remedy. The population is thus left without protection. These human rights
29 Accion Ecologica, Green Alert 115 (September 2001),
http://www.accionecologica.org/webae/images/docs/fumigaciones/alertas/f….
30
UNEP, Desk Study on the Environment in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (2003). ANNEX 33
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Jean Ziegler, Addendum:
Communications Sent to Governments and Other Actors and Replies Received,
U.N. Doc. A/HRC/4/30/Add.1 (18 May 2007) ANNEX 33
[…]
A/HRC/4/30/Add.1
18 May 2007
[…]
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler
Addendum
Communications sent to Governments and other actions and replies
received**
[…]
[PAGE 9]
Colombia
Communication sent
15. On 10 February 2006, the Special Rapporteur, together with the Special
Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of
indigenous people, brought to the Government’s attention information on
the sprayings conducted in the border area between Ecuador and Colombia
under Plan Colombia. According to the information received, despite the
information regarding the suspension of spraying, the effects of the
fumigations in both countries are a matter of concern. Certain impacts
appear to have resulted as a consequence of the fumigations under the Plan
Colombia, among others, the destruction of subsistence crops, the
weakening of soil quality and the reduction of production capacity of the
border populations, a majority of which are inhabited by indigenous people
and peasants. These populations, mostly indigenous and peasants, have
seen great deterioration in their already difficult socio-economic situation.
Furthermore, reports confirm that the effects of the fumigations have
severely affected private incentives to produce and market food, such as the
case of the plantain flour factory in Santa Marianita or the Puerto Mestaza
agribusiness project in Ecuador. Several communities have lost their
livestock and there are reports of an increase in birth defects and
miscarriages of cattle near the border, during and after the sprayings. All of
this seems to have caused a severe state of food insecurity in border
populations, thus triggering a wave of migration to the interior of the
country. According to reports, malnutrition, a constant feature in
impoverished communities, has reached alarming levels. In other
communities, short-cycle crops are disappearing in less than 15 days after
spraying. It has been further reported that four years after the sprayingANNEX 33
began, some crops of plantains, banana, baby banana [ orito], cassava,
maize, fruit trees and certain aromatic herbs have disappeared or have
suffered a significant negative impact due to a decrease in quality and
quantity in comparison with periods prior to the spraying. It is alleged that
spraying has also had a negative effect on the health of border populations
by contaminating their water sources and aquatic life. Large traces of the
chemical products used for spraying have been observed in many rivers,
including the Mira River, which flows into Ecuadorian territory. The
Special Rapporteur believes that the alleged facts appear to indicate a
violation of the right to food of border populations between Ecuador and
Colombia. The fumigations appear to be causing the destruction of
subsistence crops, the weakening of soil quality and the reduction of crop
yields, affecting the economic activities of the communities and the
population’s access to adequate food. In addition, the most vulnerable
groups, in particular, the fundamental rights of the Awá indigenous people,
have been particularly affected by the effects of displacement that, in turn,
have had a negative impact on the livelihood of these groups of people.
Furthermore, the contamination of the water in the rivers threatens the
communities’ right to health.
[PAGE 10]
[…]
Follow-up
17. The Special Rapporteurs are grateful to the Government for providing
the details. The Special Rapporteurs reacted on 20 June 2006, saying that so
far there is no clarity about the formulation used for aerial sprayings. There
are reports that different chemicals such as Fusarium Oxisporum, Imazapir,
2-4-D, and Paraquat have been used. Furthermore, it seems that the
proportion of glyphosate being employed and the actual composition of the
final product being used are unknown. With regard to the spraying process,
it is alleged that the aerial sprayings are conducted at an altitude (from 15 to
60 m) in which they become uncontrollable and affect houses, schools, legal
crops, animals, forests, water sources, and rivers. This imprecision has led
to the contamination of the Ecuadorian border, allegedly affecting people
living in that area. As to the right to food, the concern of the Special
Rapporteurs is not just limited to food security risk but also to the right to
food free from harmful substances. A report from the police of the Valle de
Guamuez acknowledges that, after the January and February 2001 sprayings
of 29,000 hectares of coca, more than 4,430 food crops were affected, over
1,791 people were reported to be affected and more than 96,222 animals
were either dead or very ill. A report filed with the Ombudsman of
Ecuador, in December 2001, stated that after the sprayings at the beginning ANNEX 33
of the year, 2,560 hectares of legal crops were affected and more than
11,828 animals were either sick or dead as a result of the sprayings. It is
argued that the famine that this situation created has led to migration levels
of 50 to 80% of the total population in the communities, during the year
2005. Even the Ecuadorian Red Cross acknowledges that the second largest
cause for displacement of the Colombian population to Ecuador, 54%, is
due to sprayings that affect their products. The local and indigenous
communities have been particularly vulnerable, since the sprayings affect
the foundations of their farming culture. Destruction of the yucca, for
example, has kept them from preparing chicha, a basic food in their diet. In
spite of the declared suspension of these sprayings, the Special Rapporteurs
have also pointed to reports…that state that on 20 May 2006, the
communities of El Charco, Mataco and San Miguel del Río were affected by
the sprayings conducted by 4 planes and 5 helicopters, which lasted
approximately an hour. It seems that these sprayings also affected
important staple farm crops such as papachina, chivo, banana, yucca and
plantain.
[…]
[PAGE 12]
[…]
Ecuador
Communications sent
23. On 10 February 2006, the Special Rapporteur, along with the Special
Rapporteur on the situation of the human rights and fundamental liberties of
indigenous people, called to the Government’s attention the information
they had received regarding the sprayings executed in the border area
between Ecuador and Colombia under the aegis of Plan Colombia. Despite
information regarding the suspension of sprayings in the area, they were
very concerned with respect to allegations regarding their effects.
According to the information brought to their attention, the destruction of
[PAGE 13]
subsistence crops, the impoverishment of soil quality, and the reduction of
the production capacity of border populations, among other impacts, have
all been generated as a consequence of the sprayings carried out under Plan
Colombia. These populations, mostly of indigenous and campesino descent,
have seen a serious deterioration in their already difficult socioeconomic
situation. In addition, the reports have confirmed that the effects of the
sprayings have gravely affected private food production andANNEX 33
commercialization initiatives, including the production of plantain flour in
Santa Marianita or the agro-industrial project in Puerto Mestaza. In several
communities there have been losses of livestock and there have been
reports of an increase in deformities and miscarriages among livestock near
the border during and after the sprayings. All of this appears to have caused
a strong state of food insecurity among the border populations and, in
consequence, has unleashed a wave of migration into the interior of the
country. According to the reports, malnutrition, which is a constant in
impoverished communities, is reaching alarming levels. In some of the
communities of Sucumbios, such as Union Lojana, Chone II, Santa
Marianita and Monterrey, the disappearance of short-cycle crops was
evident less than 15 days after the sprayings. Several studies appear to
demonstrate that the concentration of phosphorus in the plants 3 km from
the border is far higher than the concentration in the soil. It has been
reported that four years after the commencement of the sprayings, some
crops of plantains, bananas, “oritos”, yucca, maize, fruit plants, and specific
aromatic herbs have disappeared or suffered a major negative impact,
reducing their quality and quantity in comparison with periods prior to the
sprayings. It has been alleged that the sprayings have also had a negative
effect on the health of border populations by contaminating their water
sources and aquatic life. In many rivers, among them the Mira River, which
flows into Ecuadorian territory, a high percentage of the remnants of the
chemical product used in the sprayings carried out in Colombian territory
has been detected. The situation of the communities which sit near the Mira
River, in the province of Esmeraldas, is troublesome due to the fact that the
river is used for the personal and domestic uses of these communities. In
particular, the Special Rapporteur called attention to the situation of
vulnerability of certain indigenous communities which live in the area, such
as the Awas communities, which in addition to the impacts from the
sprayings have reported being the object of a number of abuses against their
fundamental rights and liberties. The agrarian reform allegedly stripped the
indigenous peoples of their important lands for the development of
petroleum activities and extraction. As a consequence, their rights to food
and health have been affected. It was reported that after the sprayings the
entire community of Sumac Pamba was displaced, and that they did not
return to their place of origin. It has also been reported that palmiculture
businesses have caused grave contamination to drinking water through the
use of 18 kinds of chemical. As a consequence, it appears that biofauna,
which was used for daily consumption, domestic purposes and recreation,
has died. Various activities have been affected, due to the impossibility of
using the contaminated water, which, in addition to exhibiting coloration
and oil slicks visible to the naked eye, has odors that affect the population.
The Rapporteur believes that these facts, as alleged, indicate a violation of ANNEX 33
the dietary right of the border population between Ecuador and Colombia.
The sprayings appear to have produced the destruction of subsistence crops,
the impoverishment of soil quality, and the reduction of the productive
capacity of the harvest, which not only impacts in economic activities of the
[PAGE 14]
communities, but the population’s access to a proper diet. In addition, the
most vulnerable groups, and in particular the fundamental rights of the Awa
indigenous population, have been particularly affected by the effects of the
displacement which, successively, has had negative consequences on the
ways of life of these groups of the population. The lack of access to public
services and the constant militarization of the border area, which directly or
indirectly accentuates the violation of dietary rights should also be taken
into account. In addition, the contamination of the waters of the rivers
threatens the communities’ right to health. ANNEX 33
UNITED
NATIONS A
General Assembly Distr.
GENERAL
A/HRC/4/30/Add.1
18 May 2007
ENGLISH/SPANISH
HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
Fourth session*
Agenda item 2
IMPLEMENTATION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 60/251
OF 15 MARCH 2006 ENTITLED “HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL”
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler
Addendum
Communications sent to Governments and other actors and replies received**
* The present document, which carries the symbol number of the fourth session of the Human
Rights Council, is scheduled for consideration by the fifth session of the Council.
** The present document is being circulated as received, in the languages of submission only, as
it greatly exceeds the word limitations currently imposed by the relevant General Assembly
resolutions.
GE.07-12630 (E050607 ANNEX 33
A/HRC/4/30/Add.1
9 page
Colombia
Communication sent
15. El 10 de febrero de 2006 el Relator Especial, junto con el Relator Especial sobre la
situación de los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales de los indígenas, señaló al
Gobierno la información en relación con las fumigaciones llevadas a cabo en la zona fronteriza
entre el Ecuador y Colombia en el contexto del Plan Colombia. Según las informaciones
recibidas, a pesar de las informaciones sobre la suspensión de estas fumigaciones, son
preocupantes los efectos de las mismas en ambos países. Como consecuencia de las
fumigaciones efectuadas en el contexto del Plan Colombia se habría producido, entre otras, la
destrucción de los cultivos de subsistencia, el empobrecimiento de la calidad del suelo y la
reducción de la capacidad de producción de las poblaciones fronterizas mayoritariamente
habitadas por poblaciones indígenas y campesinas. Estas poblaciones, en su mayoría de origen
indígena y campesino, habrían observado un gran deterioro en su ya de por sí difícil situación
socioeconómica. Además, los informes afirman que los efectos de las fumigaciones han afectado
gravemente a los incentivos privados de producción y comercialización de alimentos como la
fábrica de harina de plátano de Santa Marianita o el proyecto agroindustrial en Puerto Mestaza
en el Ecuador. En varias comunidades se han dado pérdidas de ganado y se denuncia un
incremento en las malformaciones y abortos del ganado cerca de la frontera durante las
fumigaciones y después de ellas. Todo esto parece que haya ocasionado un fuerte estado de
inseguridad alimentaría en las poblaciones fronterizas y, en consecuencia, ha desencadenado una
ola de migración al interior del país. Según los informes, la desnutrición, siendo una constante en
comunidades empobrecidas, estaría alcanzando niveles preocupantes. En otras comunidades se
observó como desaparecían los cultivos de ciclo corto en menos de 15 días tras las fumigaciones.
Se informa también de que cuatro años después del comienzo de las fumigaciones algunos
cultivos de plátanos, guineos, oritos, yuca, maíz, frutales y determinadas hierbas aromáticas
habrían desaparecido o habrían sufrido un impacto negativo importante, al reducirse su calidad y
cantidad en comparación con los periodos previos a las fumigaciones. Se alega que las
fumigaciones han tenido además un efecto negativo en la salud de las poblaciones fronterizas al
contaminar sus fuentes de agua y la vida acuática. En muchos ríos, entre ellos el río Mira, que
fluye dentro del territorio del Ecuador, se habría observado un gran porcentaje de restos del
producto químico utilizado en estas fumigaciones. El Relator Especial cree que los hechos
alegados parecen indicar una violación del derecho a la alimentación de las poblaciones
fronterizas entre el Ecuador y Colombia. Las fumigaciones parecen producir la destrucción de
los cultivos de subsistencia, el empobrecimiento de la calidad del suelo, y la reducción de la
capacidad productiva de las cosechas, lo cual no sólo repercute en las actividades económicas de
las comunidades sino también en el acceso de la población a una alimentación adecuada.
Además, los grupos más vulnerables, y en particular, los derechos fundamentales de las
poblaciones indígenas awas, han sido particularmente afectados por los efectos del
desplazamiento que, sucesivamente, ha tenido consecuencias negativas sobre los medios de vida
de estos grupos de la población. Además la contaminación del agua de los ríos amenaza el
derecho a la salud de las comunidades. ANNEX 33
A/HRC/4/30/Add.1
page 10
Communication received
16. El 22 de marzo de 2006 el Gobierno contestó a los Relatores Especiales sobre el asunto de
las fumigaciones indicando que la erradicación de los cultivos ilícitos mediante la aspersión
aérea con glifosato no produce inseguridad alimentaria, no produce efectos nocivos sobre los
cultivos, los animales ni agua, y tampoco produce riesgos para la salud de los pobladores de las
zonas aledañas. El Gobierno en su respuesta habla de manera muy completa del funcionamiento
del Programa de Erradicación de los Cultivos Ilícitos mediante aspersión aérea con herbicida
Glifosato (PECIG) incluso el manejo de las operaciones de aspersión, la detección y la aspersión.
La carta del Gobierno también explica muy en detalle las medidas especiales tomadas en
relación con la erradicación des los cultivos ilícitos mediante la aspersión aérea con glifosato,
como las medidas legislativas, ejecutivas y reglamentarias.
Follow-up
17. Los Relatores Especiales agradecen mucho los detalles que el Gobierno proporcionó.
Los Relatores Especiales reaccionaron el 20 de junio de 2006 diciendo que hasta el momento no
hay claridad de cuál es la formulación con la que se producen las aspersiones aéreas. Existen
denuncias de que se han utilizado diferentes tipos de químicos como el Fusarium Oxisporum, el
Imazapir y el 2-4-D y el Paraquat. Además parece que no se sepa en qué proporción el glifosato
es usado y cuál es la composición real del producto finalmente utilizado. Respecto al proceso de
aspersión, se alega que las aspersiones aéreas se realizan a una altura tal (de 15 a 60 m) que se
hacen incontrolables, y afectan a casas, escuelas, cultivos lícitos, animales, selvas, fuentes de
agua y ríos. Esta imprecisión ha permitido la contaminación de la frontera del Ecuador,
afectando, como se alega, a las personas que viven en ella. En lo que respecta al derecho a la
alimentación, la preocupación de los Relatores Especiales no se limita sólo al riesgo sobre la
seguridad alimentaría sino también al derecho a que los alimentos no contengan sustancias
nocivas. Un informe de la policía del Valle de Guamuez reconoce que tras las fumigaciones
de enero y febrero de 2001 sobre 29.000 ha de coca, se produjeron afectaciones de más
de 4.430 ha de cultivos de alimentos, denuncias de más de 1.791 personas afectadas y más
de 96.222 animales muertos o muy enfermos. Una denuncia presentada ante la Defensoría del
Pueblo de Ecuador, en diciembre de 2001, recoge que tras las fumigaciones de principios de año,
fueron afectadas 2.560 ha de cultivos legales y más de 11.828 animales resultaron enfermos o
muertos por las fumigaciones. Se alega que la situación de hambruna que generó esta situación
ha provocado que en el año 2005 haya comunidades con niveles de migración del 50 al 80% del
total de la población. Incluso la Cruz Roja Ecuatoriana reconoce que la segunda causa de
desplazamiento de la población colombiana al Ecuador, en un 54%, se debe a las fumigaciones
que afectan a sus productos. Las nacionalidades y pueblos indígenas han sido particularmente
vulnerables, pues las fumigaciones afectan las bases de su cultura agrícola. La destrucción de la
yuca, por ejemplo, les ha impedido la elaboración de la chicha, alimento fundamental de su dieta.
A pesar de la declarada suspensión de estas fumigaciones, los Relatores Especiales también
señalaron informaciones sobre informaciones que el 20 de mayo de 2006 las comunidades de
El Charco, Mataco y San Miguel del Rió fueran afectadas por fumigaciones desde 4 avionetas
y 5 helicópteros que duraron aproximadamente una hora. Parece que estas fumigaciones
afectaron también importantes cultivos de pancoger como papachina, chivo, banano, yuca y
plátano. ANNEX 33
A/HRC/4/30/Add.1
11 page
Communication sent
18. El 21 de marzo 2006 el Relator Especial con el Relator Especial sobre la situación de los
derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales de los indígenas escribieron al Gobierno sobre
la información en relación con la situación de varias comunidades indígenas asentadas en la
cuenca del río Atrato que se están viendo afectadas por la lucha entre las Fuerzas Armadas
colombianas y los grupos insurgentes y paramilitares. Según la información recibida, estas
comunidades están sufriendo un bloqueo económico por parte de la fuerza pública colombiana
con el fin de evitar que los alimentos comprados por los indígenas puedan ser utilizados por la
guerrilla. Para ayudar a estas familias, se informa de que el ejército ha llevado a cabo algunas
acciones encaminadas a abastecer de alimentos a algunas comunidades urbanas de la región,
alimentos que, sin embargo, no llegan a las comunidades rurales más alejadas. La escasez de
alimentos estaría provocando el aumento de los precios de los productos de primera necesidad y
hambrunas en ciertas localidades. Asimismo, se informa de que a esta precariedad se añade el
minado de campos de cultivo por parte de la guerrilla, lo que amenaza las vidas de los indígenas
y les impide cultivar la tierra, obtener alimentos de su medio ambiente y moverse libremente por
su territorio. A esta situación general de dificultad, se añaden las informaciones de que
supuestamente el 12 de marzo se produjo un tiroteo en la comunidad indígena de Conondo entre
militares del Ejército Nacional y guerrilleros de las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de
Colombia (FARC) con el resultado de la muerte de un niño (Wallington Arce Vitucay) y heridas
a otros seis indígenas. El Relator Especial cree que los hechos alegados parecen indicar una
violación de la obligación de respectar el derecho a la alimentación de las comunidades
indígenas como los bloqueos económicos por parte de la fuerza pública tienen el efecto de
impedir el acceso de las comunidades a una alimentación adecuada. También el Relator Especial
cree que los hechos alegados parecen indicar una violación de la obligación de proteger el
derecho a la alimentación de estas comunidades en cuanto las autoridades no han tomado todas
las medidas necesarias para que la guerrilla no ponga minas en los campos utilizados para la
cultivación.
Communication received
19. El 18 de julio de 2006 el Gobierno indicó en su respuesta que se inició investigación previa
por parte de la Fiscalía 100 Especializada de Quibdo el 17 de marzo de 2006 bajo el radicado
Nº 153570 con testimonios de Aureliano Arce Mamundia y David Vitucay Manugama. Como
resultado, el 27 de marzo se ordenó por competencia remitir las diligencias a la justicia penal
militar, Batallón de Infantería Alfonso Manosalva Florez. El Gobierno continúa diciendo que
seguirá atento al resultado de estas investigaciones respecto de lo cual informará oportunamente
a los Relatores Especiales.
Follow-up
20. Los Relatores Especiales quisieran agradecer al Gobierno la información enviada sobre las
investigaciones que se estaban llevando a cabo sobre la muerte del niño Wallington Arce
Vitucay y quisieran expresar su reconocimiento de la importancia que esta medida tiene para el
esclarecimiento de las responsabilidades en la muerte del menor antes mencionado. Sin embargo,
los Relatores Especiales recordaron el 15 de agosto de 2006 que la comunicación precedente
solicitaba asimismo información sobre la situación en la que se encontraban las comunidades ANNEX 33
A/HRC/4/30/Add.1
page 12
indígenas asentadas en la cuenca del río Atrato, las que, de acuerdo con la información recibida,
estaban sufriendo un bloqueo económico. Este bloqueo tendría como fin dificultar el acceso a
alimentos a miembros de la guerrilla, aunque estaba afectando igualmente a las comunidades
indígenas de la región. Los Relatores Especiales permanecen interesados en recibir información
sobre la situación y los efectos que el presunto bloqueo económico habría tenido para los
derechos humanos de las comunidades indígenas anteriormente mencionadas.
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
Communication sent
21. On 17 May 2006 the Special Rapporteur together with the Special Rapporteur on the
situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea wrote to the
Government concerning reports of recent governmental decisions to restrict emergency food
assistance by international organizations, ban the private sale of grain and fully reinstate the
Public Distribution System (PDS), which could lead to violations of the right to food particularly
for the poor and destitute communities. The allegations received claim that in October 2005, the
Government returned to banning the private buying and selling of grain, the main source of
nutrition for most of the population. In addition, it was also reportedly announced that the PDS,
which provided coupons for food and consumer goods to the population through their places of
work or study, was to be fully reinstated. During the food crisis of the 1990s, a large number of
people who depended on their PDS rations died from starvation and many suffered severe
malnutrition and hunger as the system broke down. The Special Rapporteur believes that these
facts indicate a possible violation of the obligation to respect the right to food as relevant
authorities have not refrained from reverting to food policies which may impinge on people’s
access to adequate and sufficient food, including banning the private sale of grain, reinstating the
PDS and restricting international food assistance operations. In addition, the alleged facts would
appear to indicate a violation of the obligation to fulfil the right to food as relevant authorities
have failed to provide adequate access to food to the people who are unable to do so themselves.
Communication received
22. On 7 July 2006 the Government replied, rejecting the communication on the basis that it
was another attempt to spread fabricated information to defame, disintegrate and overthrow the
State and social system of the country on the pretext of human rights. According to the
Government, this communication has no relevance to genuine human rights.
Ecuador
Communications sent
23. El 10 de febrero de 2006 el Relator Especial, juntamente con el Relator Especial sobre la
situación de los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales de los indígenas, señaló a la
atención del Gobierno la información que habían recibido en relación con las fumigaciones
llevadas a cabo en la zona fronteriza del Ecuador con Colombia en el contexto del Plan
Colombia. A pesar de las informaciones sobre la suspensión de las fumigaciones en la zona, eran
muy preocupantes las alegaciones sobre los efectos de las mismas. Según las informaciones ANNEX 33
A/HRC/4/30/Add.1
13 page
llevadas a su atención, como consecuencia de las fumigaciones efectuadas en el contexto del
Plan Colombia, se habría producido, entre otras, la destrucción de los cultivos de subsistencia, el
empobrecimiento de la calidad del suelo y la reducción de la capacidad de producción de las
poblaciones fronterizas. Estas poblaciones, en su mayoría de origen indígena y campesino,
habrían observado un gran deterioro en su ya de por sí difícil situación socioeconómica. Además,
los informes afirmaban que los efectos de las fumigaciones habían afectado gravemente a las
iniciativas privadas de producción y comercialización de alimentos como la fábrica de harina de
plátano de Santa Marianita o el proyecto agroindustrial en Puerto Mestaza. En varias
comunidades se habían dado pérdidas de ganado y se denunciaba un incremento en las
malformaciones y abortos del ganado cerca de la frontera durante las fumigaciones y después de
ellas. Todo esto parecía que hubiera ocasionado un fuerte estado de inseguridad alimentaría en
las poblaciones fronterizas y, en consecuencia, había desencadenado una ola de migración al
interior del país. Según los informes, la desnutrición, que es una constante en comunidades
empobrecidas, estaría alcanzando niveles preocupantes. En algunas de las comunidades de
Sucumbios, como por ejemplo en Unión Lojana, Chone II, Santa Marianita y Monterrey, se
observó cómo desparecían los cultivos de ciclo corto en menos de 15 días tras las fumigaciones.
Varios estudios parecerían demostrar que la concentración de fósforo en las plantas a 3 km de la
frontera es muy superior a la concentración en el suelo. Se informaba que cuatro años después
del comienzo de las fumigaciones algunos cultivos de plátanos, guineos, oritos, yuca, maíz,
frutales y determinadas hierbas aromáticas habrían desaparecido o habrían sufrido un impacto
negativo importante reduciéndose su calidad y cantidad en comparación con los períodos previos
a las fumigaciones. Se alegaba que las fumigaciones habían tenido además un efecto negativo en
la salud de las poblaciones fronterizas al contaminar sus fuentes de agua y la vida acuática.
En muchos ríos, entre ellos el río Mira, que fluye dentro del territorio del Ecuador, se habría
observado un gran porcentaje de restos del producto químico utilizado en las fumigaciones que
se llevan a cabo en territorio de Colombia. La situación de las comunidades que se asientan en el
río Mira, en la provincia de Esmeraldas, parecía ser preocupante debido al hecho de que el río es
utilizado para el uso personal y doméstico de estas comunidades. En particular el Relator
Especial llamó la atención sobre la situación de vulnerabilidad de ciertas comunidades indígenas
que viven en la zona como las comunidades awas que además de los impactos de las
fumigaciones denunciaban ser objeto de un número de abusos contra sus derechos y libertades
fundamentales. La reforma agraria presuntamente despojó de importantes territorios a los
indígenas para el desarrollo de actividades petrolíferas y extractivas en sus territorios. Como
consecuencia sus derechos a la alimentación y a la salud se habrían visto afectados. Se había
denunciado que tras las fumigaciones se produjo el desplazamiento de toda la comunidad de
Sumac Pamba que no volvió a su lugar de origen. Se denunciaba también que las empresas
palmicultoras han causado grave contaminación del agua potable por el uso de 18 tipos de
químicos. En consecuencia, parecía que la biofauna, que servía para el consumo diario,
doméstico y de recreo, ha muerto. Diversas actividades se habían visto afectadas por la
imposibilidad de utilizar el agua contaminada que, además de presentar coloración y grasas que
son detectables a simple vista, tenía olores que afectaban a la población. El Relator cree que
estos hechos alegados parecen indicar una violación del derecho a la alimentación de las
poblaciones fronterizas del Ecuador con Colombia. Las fumigaciones parecen producir la
destrucción de los cultivos de subsistencia, el empobrecimiento de la calidad del suelo, y la
reducción de la capacidad productiva de las cosechas lo cual no sólo repercute en las actividades
económicas de las comunidades sino también en el acceso de la población a una alimentación ANNEX 33
A/HRC/4/30/Add.1
page 14
adecuada. Además, los grupos más vulnerables, y en particular, los derechos fundamentales de
las poblaciones indígenas awas, han sido particularmente afectados por los efectos del
desplazamiento que, sucesivamente, ha tenido consecuencias negativas sobre los medios de vida
de estos grupos de la población. A todo esto se debe agregar la falta de acceso a servicios
públicos y la constante militarización de la zona fronteriza que acentúan directa o indirectamente
las violaciones del derecho a la alimentación. Además la contaminación del agua de los ríos
amenaza el derecho a la salud de las comunidades.
Follow-up
24. El Gobierno todavía no ha contestado a esta comunicación. Sin embargo el Relator
Especial dio seguimiento a esta comunicación el 30 de agosto de 2006 expresando que seguía
preocupado por la situación de las comunidades afectadas por las fumigaciones. El Relator
Especial, tras ser informado de la reciente finalización de un informe realizado por las Naciones
Unidas tras una misión conjunta llevada a cabo en el mes de febrero de 2006 en seguimiento a la
solicitud del Gobierno para evaluar el impacto potencial de las fumigaciones en las comunidades
afectadas, también pidió una copia de este informe. El Relator Especial quisiera agradecer al
Gobierno por su diligencia en enviar el informe, el 18 de septiembre de 2006.
Communication sent
25. El 21 de julio de 2006 el Relator Especial junto con el Relator Especial sobre la vivienda
adecuada señalaron a la atención del Gobierno la información en relación con la situación de
cerca de 120 familias campesinas, que fueron víctimas de un desalojo en hechos ocurridos en
La Yuca, en el cantón de Palenque. De acuerdo con esta información, existía seria preocupación
por la situación general, en particular por la seguridad y la integridad física y psicológica de estas
familias que fueron desalojadas de manera violenta el 18 de junio de 2006, tras de una masiva
operación policial en el Cantón de Palenque. Ese día, la policía obligó a hombres, mujeres y
niños a abandonar sus viviendas y a que se suspendieran abruptamente las clases en la escuela
del recinto La Yuca, en Palenque y en Los Ríos, en donde la policía también obligó a decenas de
niños a desalojar las aulas. Además, según las denuncias, al menos 12 viviendas incluyendo la
escuela habrían sido destruidas. Se afirma que la orden del desalojo fue dada por el intendente
de policía, Mario del Rosario Moreno, luego de que, según el Gobernador de Los Ríos,
Néstor Orlando Coello, la orden fuera emitida por el Director del Instituto Nacional de
Desarrollo Agrario (INDA), Carlos Aguirre. Se alega también que durante el desalojo la policía
utilizó excavadoras para destruir las viviendas, así como tanquetas antidisturbios y bombas
lacrimógenas para impedir cualquier concentración de los moradores. Además, no se permitió la
entrada de personas, defensores o abogados que pudieran ser testigos de estas actuaciones
policiales. Además, se afirma que las tierras en disputa involucran a decenas de familias
asentadas en La Yuca, Artillería, Los Mosquitos, La Victoria, Aguacatal y otros recintos.
Actualmente unas 120 familias residen en la Yuca y poseen el título de propiedad de las tierras
otorgado por el antiguo Instituto de Reforma Agraria y Colonización (IERAC) -institución ahora
reemplazada por el INDA-, además de que pagan los respectivos impuestos en el municipio de
Palenque. Los terrenos en litigio son reclamados por los herederos de una persona apellidada
Pimentel Delgado, quienes han estado reclamando esas tierras, con el argumento que son una
herencia de sus ancestros. Sin embargo, las familias desalojadas parece que tienen escrituras
otorgadas por el IERAC, el cual no reconoce los documentos anteriores sobre esas tierras. Parece ANNEX 34
United Nations Compensation Commission,
Report and Recommendations made by the Panel of Commissioners concerning
the First Instalment of "F4" Claims, U.N. Doc. S/AC.26/2001/16 (2001) ANNEX 34
UNITED
S
NATIONS
Security Council Distr.
GENERAL
S/AC.26/2001/16
22 June 2001
Original: ENGLISH
UNITED NATIONS
COMPENSATION COMMISSION
GOVERNING COUNCIL
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE PANEL OF COMMISSIONERS
CONCERNING THE FIRST INSTALMENT OF “F4” CLAIMS
GE.01-62590ANNEX 34
S/AC.26/2001/16
Page 13
IV. REVIEW OF MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT CLAIMS
A. Special aspects of monitoring and assessment claims
28. The monitoring and assessment claims reviewed in this report relate to
expenses resulting from three different categories of activities, namely:
(a) Investigations to ascertain whether environmental damage or
depletion of natural resources has occurred;
(b) Studies to quantify the loss resulting from the damage or
depletion; and
(c) Assessment of methodologies to abate or mitigate the damage or
depletion.
Some of the claims relate to activities falling into more than one of the
above categories.
29. The monitoring and assessment claims present special problems in that
they are being reviewed before decisions have been taken on the
compensability of any substantive claims. Thus, the claims are being
reviewed at a point where it may not have been established that
environmental damage or depletion of natural resources occurred as a result
of Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait. Yet, the results of the
monitoring and assessment activities may be critical in enabling claimants
to establish the existence of damage and evaluate the quantum of
compensation to be claimed. Hence, although it may be correct in some cases
to say that a claimant is seeking compensation for monitoring and assessment
without prior proof that environmental damage has in fact occurred, it would
be both illogical and inequitable to reject a claim for reasonable
monitoring and assessment on the sole ground that the claimant did not
establish beforehand that environmental damage occurred. To reject a claim
for that reason would, in effect, deprive the claimant of the opportunity to
generate the very evidence that it needs to demonstrate the nature and
extent of damage that may have occurred.
30. For that reason, the Panel does not consider that conclusive proof of
environmental damage is a prerequisite for a monitoring and assessment
activity to be compensable in accordance with paragraph 35 of Governing
Council decision 7. In the view of the Panel, the purpose of monitoring and
assessment is to enable a claimant to develop evidence to establish whether
environmental damage has occurred and to quantify the extent of the
resulting loss.
31. However, the Panel is of the view that compensation should not be
awarded for monitoring and assessment activities that are purely theoretical
or speculative, or which have only a tenuous link with damage resulting from
Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait. There should be a sufficient ANNEX 34
S/AC.26/2001/16
Page 14
nexus between the activity and environmental damage or risk of damage that
may be attributed directly to Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait. In
assessing the strength of the nexus, and hence the reasonableness of the
monitoring and assessment activity, the Panel has taken into account, inter
alia, the following considerations:
(a) Whether there is a possibility that environmental damage or
depletion of natural resources could have been caused as a result of Iraq’s
invasion and occupation of Kuwait. This entails an inquiry regarding the
plausibility that pollutants released as a result of Iraq’s invasion and
occupation of Kuwait, or other effects of the invasion, could have impacted
the territories of the Claimants;
(b) Whether the particular areas or resources in respect of which
the monitoring and assessment activity is undertaken could have been
affected by pollutants released as a result of Iraq’s invasion and
occupation of Kuwait, or other effects of the invasion. This entails, in
appropriate cases, an examination of the possible pathways and media by
which pollutants resulting from Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait
could have reached the areas or resources concerned;
(c) Whether there is evidence of environmental damage or risk of
such damage as a result of Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait; and
(d) Whether, having regard to the stated purpose of the monitoring
and assessment activity and the methodologies to be used, there is a
reasonable prospect that the activity will produce results that can assist
the Panel in reviewing any related substantive claims.
32. In applying these considerations to determine the appropriateness of
monitoring and assessment activities, due account needs to be taken of the
particular circumstances of each case. Thus the possibility that a
monitoring and assessment activity might not establish conclusively that
environmental damage has been caused is not necessarily a valid reason for
rejecting a claim for expenses resulting from that activity. In the view of
the Panel, a monitoring and assessment activity could be of benefit even if
the results generated by the activity establish that no damage has been
caused. The same may be the case where the results indicate that damage has
occurred but that it is not feasible or advisable to undertake measures of
remediation or restoration. Confirmation that no damage has been caused or
that measures of remediation or restoration are not possible or advisable in
the circumstances could assist the Panel in reviewing related substantive
claims. It could also be beneficial in alleviating the concerns of
Claimants regarding potential risks of damage, and help to avoid unnecessary
and wasteful measures to deal with non-existent or negligible risks.
33. A further complication presented by claims for monitoring and
assessment of environmental damage and depletion of natural resourcesANNEX 34
S/AC.26/2001/16
Page 48
H. Public health impacts
1. Claim No. 5000390
266. Iran seeks compensation in the amount of USD 899,000 for a study to
investigate the effects that airborne pollutants from the oil fires in
Kuwait may have had on the mitochondrial respiratory condition of
inhabitants of the western provinces of Iran. Iran proposes to measure
mitochondrial respiratory chain enzyme activity in the platelets of non-
smokers in the western provinces of Iran who are known to have been affected
by pollutants from the oil fires, and compare the results with those found
in the platelets of non-smoking relatives in unaffected areas.
267. The stated rationale for the study is that airborne pollutants can cause
mitochondrial dysfunction and neuronal toxicity in exposed populations.
268. In its written response, Iraq argues that Iran lacks adequate baseline
data against which to compare the health effects allegedly caused by
exposure to pollutants from the oil fires. Iraq also questions the
feasibility of detecting any adverse health effects so long after the
alleged exposure.
269. In the Panel’s view, there is no justification for a study that purports
to detect effects of smoke inhalation on mitochondrial function by examining
platelets nine to ten years after exposure to the smoke. Even if measurable
effects on mitochondrial function could have been detected in platelets
among a few highly exposed persons during the period of the oil fires, it is
highly unlikely that such effects would still be measurable in circulating
platelets of such persons after such a long lapse of time.
270. The Panel, therefore, finds that the proposed study does not constitute
reasonable monitoring of public health for the purposes of paragraph 35(d)
of Governing Council decision 7.
271. Accordingly, the Panel recommends no compensation for this claim.
2. Claim No. 5000391
272. Iran seeks compensation in the amount of USD 1,468,819 for a project to
investigate the effects that airborne pollutants from the oil fires in
Kuwait may have had on the pulmonary health of inhabitants of Iran.
According to Iran, the project would be carried out by experts from the
University of California/Los Angeles and the City University of New York.
The purpose is to assess the impacts of the pollutants on the health of
exposed populations, based on the level and duration of exposure. It would
also attempt to identify, through the use of model exposure data, diseases
that may arise in exposed populations in the future. ANNEX 34
S/AC.26/2001/16
Page 49
273. In the opinion of the Panel, the objectives of the study would duplicate
those of claim Nos. 5000393 and 5000395 (paras. 283-287 and 291-296,
respectively).
274. The Panel finds that the study does not constitute reasonable monitoring
and assessment for the purposes of paragraph 35(c) of Governing Council
decision 7.
275. The Panel, therefore, recommends no compensation for this claim.
3. Claim No. 5000392
276. Iran seeks compensation in the amount of USD 1,926,220 for a project to
investigate the psychiatric effects on the Iranian population that may have
resulted from trauma experienced during Iraq’s invasion and occupation of
Kuwait, and to estimate the cost of treating any such psychiatric disorders.
According to Iran, the project would use the Composite International
Diagnostic Interview IV method to compare levels of psychiatric symptoms and
rates of psychiatric disorder in the following three sections of its
population:
(a) Persons who were exposed to both the war between Iran and Iraq
of 1980-1988 and the oil fires in Kuwait;
(b) Persons who were exposed only to the oil fires; and
(c) Persons who were not exposed to either of the above two
conditions.
277. Iraq argues that the proposed project has several flaws. First, it
states that “retrospective studies are meaningless unless backed with [a]
reliable database”. Second, it states that no database is available, and
that no sampling was carried out at the time. Third, Iraq states that the
number of inhabitants covered by the study is not mentioned.
278. The evidence in the scientific literature indicates that psychiatric
disorders, such as post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) and associated
co-morbid psychiatric disorders, may result from events such as those that
occurred during Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait. These disorders
can persist for long periods after the events that led to the trauma. It is
also possible that Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait triggered in
some persons a recurrence of PTSD or associated disorder that they had
previously suffered as a result of the war between Iran and Iraq.
279. In the view of the Panel, it is appropriate for Iran to attempt to
investigate psychiatric disorders that may have been suffered by its
inhabitants as a result of Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait. Thus
the project constitutes reasonable monitoring of public health, and the
expenses qualify for compensation in accordance with paragraph 35(d) of
Governing Council decision 7.ANNEX 34
S/AC.26/2001/16
Page 50
280. The Panel notes that the usefulness of the results of the project will
depend on how accurately the investigators are able to determine the regions
of the country that were affected by the war between Iran and Iraq or by the
oil fires in Kuwait or by both. Accurate determination of such regions
would also provide useful information for the analysis of the incidence of
disorders and costs of treatment. The Panel also emphasizes that it will be
necessary to translate the Composite International Diagnostic Interview IV
into Farsi in accordance with World Health Organization protocols to ensure
that inferences drawn from the results of the interviews would be valid.
281. Following a review of the cost estimates presented by Iran, the Panel
has made adjustments as follows:
(a) The costs of labour have been reduced to reflect a decrease in
the overall amount of labour required;
(b) The rates of pay for some categories of personnel have been
reduced to reflect standard rates;
(c) The costs for consumables have been reduced to take account of a
correction made by Iran; and
(d) The costs for equipment and supplies have been reduced.
These adjustments reduce the estimated cost to USD 1,226,044.
282. The Panel, therefore, recommends compensation in the amount of
USD 1,226,044 for this claim.
4. Claim No. 5000393
283. Iran seeks compensation in the amount of USD 449,000 for a project to
investigate the possible impacts of airborne pollutants from the oil fires
in Kuwait on the respiratory health of young persons in Iran. According to
Iran, the project would examine a representative sample of young persons in
Iran living within a radius of 400 kilometres from the centre of Kuwait, in
order to determine adverse health effects that may have resulted from
airborne pollutants released by the oil fires. The project would be
conducted by means of questionnaires and medical examinations. The data
collected would be compared with data collected from young persons living in
non-affected areas.
284. The Panel considers that the project is an appropriate attempt to
monitor and assess the respiratory health of young persons living in areas
that could have been affected by the oil fires. The project is based on an
epidemiological design that is clearly described and reasonable; and the
proposed age group, sample size, and health measures are all appropriate.
In the view of the Panel, the project could be further refined by including
a control sample of unexposed young persons for comparison with the high- ANNEX 34
S/AC.26/2001/16
Page 51
exposure group, using a similar investigation protocol and matching the
groups by sex and age.
285. The Panel finds that this project constitutes reasonable monitoring of
public health. Consequently, expenses of the project qualify for
compensation in accordance with paragraph 35(d) of Governing Council
decision 7.
286. Following a review of the cost estimates presented by Iran, the Panel
finds that the amount claimed is reasonable.
287. The Panel, therefore, recommends compensation in the amount of
USD 449,000 for this claim.
5. Claim No. 5000394
288. Iran seeks compensation in the amount of USD 2,112,500 for a study to
investigate possible links between petroleum-based pollutants from the oil
fires and oil spill in Kuwait and the incidence of cancers and
haematological disorders in the populations of 12 Iranian provinces. Iran
proposes to compare the incidence of various haematological disorders and
solid malignant neoplasms in the period prior to Iraq’s invasion and
occupation of Kuwait with the incidence of similar disorders after Iraq’s
invasion.
289. In the Panel’s view, this claim is premature because it is unlikely that
significant evidence of increased cancer rates will be found ten years after
the release of pollutants from the oil fires and oil spill. For cancers and
haematological disorders, especially solid tumour cancers, there is
generally a latency period of 15 to 20 years between exposure to a
carcinogen and the first clinical evidence of the cancer.
290. The Panel has, therefore, decided to transfer this claim to a later
instalment, where it may be reviewed by the Panel with the substantive
claims.
6. Claim No. 5000395
291. Iran seeks compensation in the amount of USD 459,000 for a project to
investigate the impact of airborne pollutants from the oil fires on the
health of the 3,000,000 inhabitants of the Zagros Mountains region of Iran.
According to Iran, the project would involve medical examinations, with an
emphasis on respiratory functions and cardiovascular diseases, of a randomly
selected sample of 3,000 persons of all age groups living in that region
within a radius of 200 to 500 kilometres from the oil fires in Kuwait. The
medical examinations would be supplemented by questionnaires to be completed
by the persons examined. The results would be extrapolated for the entire
population of the region and analysed to estimate the scale of damage that
may have been caused.ANNEX 34
S/AC.26/2001/16
Page 52
292. In the opinion of the Panel, the project is an appropriate attempt to
assess the public health damage that might have resulted from airborne
pollutants from the oil fires in Kuwait. The epidemiological design for the
project is clearly stated and the target populations, sample sizes, and
health measures are appropriate.
293. Thus the project constitutes reasonable monitoring of public health, and
the expenses qualify for compensation in accordance with paragraph 35(d) of
Governing Council decision 7.
294. However, the Panel stresses that the use of residents from an unaffected
area as a control group, using the same investigation protocol, is essential
for the usefulness of this project.
295. Following a review of the cost estimates presented by Iran, the Panel
finds that the amount claimed is reasonable.
296. The Panel, therefore, recommends compensation in the amount of
USD 459,000 for this claim. ANNEX 34
S/AC.26/2001/16
Page 83
5. Claim No. 5000436
489. Kuwait seeks compensation in the amount of USD 184,125 for a study to
assess the economic value of the loss of desert recreational camping
opportunities that may have resulted from Iraq’s invasion and occupation of
Kuwait. Kuwait states that during Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait,
its residents were not allowed to use desert camping sites, and that, after
liberation, the sites could not be used until mines and ordnance were
cleared. The study would use the “travel cost” methodology to determine the
economic value of the loss of this amenity.
490. In its written response, Iraq asserts that camping activities are a
“personal matter”, and that, although they may affect some people
economically, they have no relation to environmental problems. Iraq further
argues that camping itself is an activity that usually results in
deterioration of the environment.
491. In the view of the Panel, this study suffers from the same defects as
those stated in relation to the studies on loss of beach use (claim No.
5000401, paras. 444-447) and loss of recreational sport fishing
opportunities (claim No. 5000402, paras. 448-450). For the same reasons,
the Panel considers that this study is unlikely to be of much utility.
492. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the study does not constitute
reasonable monitoring and assessment for the purposes of paragraph 35(c) of
Governing Council decision 7.
493. The Panel, therefore, recommends no compensation for this claim.
E. Public health impacts
1. Common elements
494. Kuwait alleges that Iraq’s invasion and occupation of its territory
resulted in many adverse public health effects, and will continue to pose
serious risks to the health of its population. According to Kuwait, long-
term risks to public health are posed by pollutants that were released into
the environment from the oil spill and oil fires, the traumatic stress
experienced by the population, and the collapse of Kuwait’s public health
infrastructure during Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
495. According to Kuwait, although short-term and medium-term adverse health
effects of Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait have already been
identified, the long-term effects remain largely unknown. Kuwait,
therefore, considers it necessary to conduct a surveillance programme to
enable it to identify any increased long-term health risks so that
appropriate prevention and treatment measures may be undertaken.
496. According to Kuwait, a carefully designed surveillance programme would
enable it to “co-ordinate the collection of existing and future data on allANNEX 34
S/AC.26/2001/16
Page 84
health-related aspects of the Iraqi Aggression; identify and monitor exposed
individuals; provide diagnoses of diseases in their primary stages; and
study associations between environmental contamination, public health
infrastructure damage, and traumatic events resulting from the Iraqi
Aggression and adverse health effects”.
497. Kuwait contends that failure to conduct such a surveillance programme
would leave substantial gaps in knowledge concerning the long-term human
health effects of Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait which could
prevent the identification and implementation of appropriate prevention and
treatment programmes.
498. The surveillance programme proposed by Kuwait consists of five related
components:
(a) Establishment and operation of a data repository and exposure
registry for five years;
(b) A human health risk assessment;
(c) Studies to determine long-term health impacts. These studies
would also provide support and guidance for other environmental monitoring
and assessment activities relating to Iraq’s invasion and occupation of
Kuwait;
(d) A five-year clinical monitoring programme; and
(e) A public health survey.
These components are reviewed separately as claim Nos. 5000403 to 5000407 in
paragraphs 506-532 below.
499. In its written response, Iraq raises general objections to the public
health monitoring and assessment claims of Kuwait. It states that the
detection of a substance does not, in any way, imply that it will cause
damage. According to Iraq “[b]oth the concentration and duration must be of
a certain magnitude in order to cause the damage”. Iraq also argues that it
is “illogical” to ask for compensation for unspecified “health damage”, and
that such damage must be specified clearly so that the source can be
identified. It states that more details and more precise “effects” must be
identified before any monitoring and assessment programme can commence.
500. Furthermore, Iraq questions how Kuwait would be able to identify any
damage to public health ten years after the events that are alleged to have
given rise to the damage. In particular, it doubts whether Kuwait would be
able to distinguish damage or risks to public health attributable to
pollutants released by the oil fires from damage or risks from other
pollutants to which the populations of the region are continuously exposed.
In this regard, Iraq notes that Kuwait is located in one of the major sand ANNEX 34
S/AC.26/2001/16
Page 85
and dust storm regions of the world, and is also exposed to persistent
emissions from operational flares of oil wells.
501. Iraq reiterated these views and contentions during the oral proceedings.
502. In its submissions during the oral proceedings, Kuwait stressed that its
proposed monitoring activities were intended to identify the nature, quantum
and source of adverse health effects that its population may have suffered
as a result of Iraq’s invasion and occupation of its territory. The
proposed activities would assist it to determine whether any environmental
damage had been caused and, if so, whether the damage posed significant
health risks. Consequently, it argued that it is not reasonable to suggest
that it should prove that specific damage had been caused before submitting
a claim or claims for monitoring.
503. As stated in paras. 29-30, the Panel does not consider that the absence
of prior proof of damage constitutes a valid objection to the award of
compensation for reasonable monitoring for the purposes of paragraph 35(d)
of Governing Council decision 7.
504. Although the Panel also recognizes that, with the passage of time, it
may be difficult for Kuwait to identify public health damage that is solely
or primarily attributable to Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait, as
opposed to other possible causes, that difficulty does not make it
inappropriate for Kuwait to undertake reasonable studies to determine the
existence and nature of potential damage.
505. With regard to the contention that some damage to public health could be
the result of ambient pollutants in the region, such as those from sand and
dust storms or operational flares of oil wells, the evidence in the
scientific literature indicates that the adverse effects of these phenomena
are distinguishable from those originating from the oil fires and massive
oil spill that resulted from Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait. The
evidence also shows that the dispersion of large quantities of airborne
pollutants from the oil fires and oil spill could have increased the risks
of certain health problems, such as respiratory ailments. These risks have
the capacity to persist for many years after the events that gave rise to
them.
2. Claim No. 5000403
506. Kuwait seeks compensation in the amount of USD 6,906,162 for a programme
to establish and operate a data repository and an exposure registry. The
data repository would collect and manage health information, including
documents and data concerning health problems that may have resulted from
Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait, and the medical records of persons
participating in the programme. The exposure registry would be used to
identify persons who were exposed to environmental pollution and
consequential traumas or who were adversely affected by the damage toANNEX 34
S/AC.26/2001/16
Page 86
Kuwait’s medical infrastructure as a result of Iraq’s invasion and
occupation of Kuwait.
507. There are valid reasons for the inclusion of a data repository and an
exposure registry in a long-term public health surveillance programme.
These facilities provide a central resource useful to epidemiological and
clinical researchers because they help to co-ordinate medical data in a
central location. This would make it easier to identify diseases and their
potential causes.
508. The Panel finds that the programme constitutes reasonable monitoring of
public health. Consequently, the expenses qualify for compensation in
accordance with paragraph 35(d) of Governing Council decision 7.
509. Kuwait provided estimates of the costs for staffing, labour and
equipment, including computers. The Panel finds these estimates reasonable.
510. Kuwait proposes to construct a new building to house the data repository
and exposure registry. The Panel finds that such a facility is necessary
for the effectiveness of the programme. The Panel agrees with Kuwait that
it would be more cost-effective to construct a new building than to enter
into a long-term lease of premises. However, the estimated construction
costs presented by Kuwait are excessive and do not take account of the
residual value of the building after completion of the programme. The Panel
has adjusted the costs accordingly. These adjustments reduce the estimated
cost to USD 6,763,546.
511. The Panel, therefore, recommends compensation in the amount of
USD 6,763,546 for this claim.
3. Claim No. 5000404
512. Kuwait seeks compensation in the amount of USD 1,150,771 to conduct a
human health risk assessment programme. The purpose of the programme would
be to identify the potential risks of long-term adverse health effects in
Kuwait resulting from Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait. The risk
assessment consists of five components, namely:
(a) Compilation of background information and a conceptual model of
potential human exposures;
(b) Identification of pollutants considered as presenting potential
risks to human health;
(c) An assessment to identify possible pathways by which people were
exposed to pollutants, and the likely amounts of exposure;
(d) A toxicity assessment of each potential contaminant considered
to present risks to human health; and ANNEX 34
S/AC.26/2001/16
Page 87
(e) A risk assessment integrating the results of the exposure
assessment and toxicity assessment.
513. Human health risk assessments are commonly used to identify and assess
potential health risks and to provide guidance on the design of monitoring
programmes and the development of clean-up standards. In the view of the
Panel the basic methodology proposed by Kuwait is consistent with standard
practices.
514. The Panel finds that the programme constitutes reasonable monitoring of
public health. Consequently, the expenses qualify for compensation in
accordance with paragraph 35(d) of Governing Council decision 7.
515. The total amount claimed consists of estimated labour costs. The Panel
finds that these costs are reasonable.
516. The Panel, therefore, recommends compensation in the amount of
USD 1,150,771 for this claim.
4. Claim No. 5000405
517. Kuwait seeks compensation in the amount of USD 4,940,547 for a programme
to identify and assess the long-term health impacts of Iraq’s invasion and
occupation of its territory. A major part of the programme would be to
compare persons exposed to the environmental and infrastructure damage
during Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait with those who were not
exposed. The programme would also provide support and guidance for other
environmental monitoring and assessment activities being undertaken by
Kuwait.
518. The programme would involve long-term epidemiological studies, and
investigations into relationships between invasion-related environmental
damage and changes in disease patterns. The programme would also provide
necessary data for the exposure registry envisaged in claim No. 5000403
(paras. 506-511).
519. The Panel finds that the programme constitutes reasonable monitoring of
public health. Consequently, the expenses qualify for compensation in
accordance with paragraph 35(d) of Governing Council decision 7.
520. Kuwait has presented an estimate of the costs of the various components
of the programme, including staffing and labour. The Panel finds that most
of the estimates are reasonable and necessary to achieve the objectives
stated in the claim.
521. One of the components of the programme is a “feasibility studies working
seminar” to be held in Kuwait. The cost estimate includes provision for 12
medical experts to travel from the United States to attend the seminar for
five days. The Panel does not consider such a seminar to be necessary, andANNEX 34
S/AC.26/2001/16
Page 88
has therefore eliminated all expenses related to it. Elimination of these
expenses reduces the estimated cost to USD 4,846,396.
522. The Panel, therefore, recommends compensation in the amount of
USD 4,846,396 for this claim.
5. Claim No. 5000406
523. Kuwait seeks compensation in the amount of USD 14,121,103 for a clinical
monitoring programme. The purpose of the programme would be to trace
persons in Kuwait whose health may have been adversely affected as a result
of Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait, and to track the development of
their clinical symptoms and health problems. The clinical monitoring
programme would involve:
(a) A review of existing clinical studies and data;
(b) Clinical testing (pulmonary function tests, X-rays, blood tests,
etc.);
(c) Comprehensive medical screening and examinations for sections of
the population who may be identified by the exposure registry to be
established under claim No. 5000403 (paras. 506-511); and
(d) Integration of the data obtained from the tests and screenings
into Kuwait’s existing national health care database.
524. The programme is expected to last for at least 40 years. However, the
amount claimed is for costs to be incurred during the first five years of
the programme.
525. Kuwait has stated, and the Panel agrees, that many public health effects
from Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait may only be identified after
many years. It is, therefore, appropriate for Kuwait to undertake a long-
term clinical monitoring programme as proposed.
526. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the programme constitutes reasonable
monitoring of public health, and the expenses qualify as compensation in
accordance with paragraph 35(d) of Governing Council decision 7.
527. Following a review of the project as presented by Kuwait, the Panel
suggests certain modifications, details of which are set out in annex XXV to
this report. In particular, the frequency of medical and X-ray examinations
should be reduced. To take account of these modifications, the Panel has
made adjustments to the estimates provided by Kuwait. These adjustments
reduce the estimated cost of the programme to USD 7,278,268.
528. The Panel, therefore, recommends compensation in the amount of
USD 7,278,268 for this claim. ANNEX 34
S/AC.26/2001/16
Page 89
6. Claim No. 5000407
529. Kuwait seeks compensation in the amount of USD 770,190 for a public
health survey. The purpose of the survey is to assess the costs of dealing
with the increased incidence of various diseases that may have resulted from
Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait. Kuwait states that the survey
would enable it to obtain health statistics needed to identify disease
prevalence patterns among persons who received treatment in the national
health care system of Kuwait as well as those who may have received
treatment in other ways.
530. The Panel finds that the survey constitutes reasonable monitoring of
public health. Consequently, the expenses qualify for compensation in
accordance with paragraph 35(d) of Governing Council decision 7.
531. Following a review of the cost estimates presented by Kuwait, the Panel
finds that the amounts claimed are reasonable.
532. The Panel, therefore, recommends compensation in the amount of
USD 770,190 for this claim.
Table 7. Recommended amounts for Kuwait’s monitoring and assessment claims
Claim number Subject matter Amount claimed Amount recommended
(USD) (USD)
5000373 Groundwater and Surface Water 842,812 nil
5000374 Groundwater and Surface Water 981,635 441,523
5000375 Groundwater and Surface Water 830,661 638,516
5000376 Groundwater and Surface Water 10,922,933 4,873,620
5000377 Marine and Coastal 612,600 nil
5000378 Marine and Coastal 57,554,587 37,546,888
5000397 Marine and Coastal 76,620,762 18,077,770
5000398 Marine and Coastal 157,249,044 8,237,792
5000399 Marine and Coastal 543,792 nil
5000400 Marine and Coastal 1,985,633 nil
5000401 Marine and Coastal 208,455 nil
5000402 Marine and Coastal 184,125 nil
5000432 Terrestrial 84,575,306 10,484,988
5000433 Terrestrial 160,344 160,344
5000434 Terrestrial 38,684,607 7,246,880
5000435 Terrestrial 390,920 390,920
5000436 Terrestrial 184,125 nil
5000403 Public Health 6,906,162 6,763,546
5000404 Public Health 1,150,771 1,150,771
5000405 Public Health 4,940,547 4,846,396
5000406 Public Health 14,121,103 7,278,268
5000407 Public Health 770,190 770,190
Total 460,421,114 108,908,412 ANNEX 35
United Nations Compensation Commission,
Report and Recommendations made by the Panel of Commissioners concerning
the Fifth Instalment of "F4" Claims,
U.N. Doc. S/AC.26/2005/10 (2005)
Q:\International\Ecuador v Colombia\Annexes\Cover\ANNEX 35.doc ANNEX 35
UNITED
NATIONS S
Security Council Distr.
GENERAL
S/AC.26/2005/10
30 June 2005
Original: ENGLISH
UNITED NATIONS
COMPENSATION COMMISSION
GOVERNING COUNCIL
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE PANEL OF COMMISSIONERS
CONCERNING THE FIFTH INSTALMENT OF “F4” CLAIMS
GE.05-62030ANNEX 35
S/AC.26/2005/10
Page 16
43. In the fourth “F4” instalment, the Panel reaffirmed that, in determining what remediation
measures are necessary, “primary emphasis must be placed on restoring the environment to pre-
invasion conditions, in terms of its overall ecological functioning rather than on the removal of
specific contaminants or restoration of the environment to a particular physical condition”. In
particular, the Panel noted that, in some circumstances, measures to recreate pre-existing physical
conditions might not produce environmental benefits and could indeed pose unacceptable risks of
ecological harm. The Panel went on to affirm that, in its view, where proposed measures for the
complete removal of contaminants are likely to result in more negative than positive environmental
effects, such measures should not qualify as reasonable measures to clean and restore the environment,
within the meaning of article 35(b) of Governing Council decision 7.
5. Damage to natural resources without commercial value
44. Some of the claims in the fifth “F4” instalment are for compensation for losses in relation to
natural resources alleged to have been damaged as a result of Iraq’s invasion and occupation of
Kuwait. The compensation sought includes compensation for loss of use of the resources during the
period between the occurrence of the damage and the full restoration of the resources, either through
natural recovery or as a result of remediation or restoration measures undertaken by a claimant.
45. Iraq contends that there is no legal justification for compensating claimants for “interim loss” of
natural resources that have no commercial value; i.e., resources that “are not traded in the market”. It
argues that compensation for damage to non-commercial resources is limited to the costs of reasonable
measures of remediation or restoration. According to Iraq, claims for interim loss of non-cmomercial
resources have no basis in Security Council resolution 687 (1991) or Governing Council decision 7.
Specifically, Iraq argues that there is no evidence that the Security Council intended that Iraq is to be
held liable for temporary damage to a natural resource that has been or will be restored at its expense.
46. Iraq maintains that interpretation and application of Security Council resolution 687 (1991)
must be carried out by applying the relevant rules of international law. It asserts that claims for
interim loss of natural resources without commercial value have no precedent in general international
law. According to Iraq, compensation in international law can only be paid for damage that is
“financially assessable”, and it argues that, under current international law, interim loss of non-
commercial environmental resources is not financially assessable.
47. Iraq, therefore, argues that all claims for compensation for interim lossfon-commercial
environmental resources should be rejected. In the view of Iraq, awarding compensation for any such
claim, even if only for a small amount, would constitute a revolutionary change in international law.
48. For their part, the Claimants contend that temporary loss of the use of natural resources, such as
the loss of biomass in the marine environment or the presence for long periods of oil contamination on
beaches, clearly represents “environmental damage” within the language and meaning of Security
Council resolution 687 (1991) and Governing Council decision 7. According to the Claimants, the
absence of a specific reference to interim loss in Security Council resolution 687 (1991) or Governing
Council decision 7 does not in any way suggest alimitation. They point out that the criteria enumerated ANNEX 35
S/AC.26/2005/10
Page 17
in Governing Council Decision 7 were not intended to resolve every issue that might arise with respect
to claims presented pursuant to Security Council resolution 687 (1991), and they refer to the conclusion
of the Panel, in the third “F4” report, that the term “environmental damage” in paragraph 16 of Security
Council resolution 687 (1991) is not limited to losses or expenses resulting from the activities and
events listed in paragraph 35 of Governing Council decision 7. 11
49. The Claimants further argue that, under general international law, it would be an absurd and
unreasonable result to deny compensation for temporary loss of resources resulting from a deliberate
internationally wrongful act of aggression. They assert that entitlement to compensation for such
damage under international law is mandated by the fundamental principle articulated by the Permanent
Court of International Justice in the Factory at Chorzów case that “reparation must, as far as possible,
wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and re-establish the situation which would, in all
12
probability, have existed if that act had not been committed”. They point out that this principle,
which predates 1991 and Security Council resolution 687 (1991), has been accepted by the
International Law Commission of the United Nations and many other international authorities.
50. According to the Claimants, all losses that were a direct result of Iraq’s illegal acts must be
compensated in order to wipe out all the cone squences of those illegal acts. In their view,
compensation for temporary losses pending remediation or restoration is an appropriate form of
compensation because it “mirrors” the restitution in kind that is favoured as a matter of priniple by
international law authorities such as the judgement in the Factory at Chorzów case.
51. The Claimants, therefore, maintain that they are entitled to recover compensation for “ongoing
losses” of natural resources resulting from Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait, and that such
compensation should be measured from the time that the resources were damaged up to the time when
recovery to pre-invasion conditions has been or will be completed. They assert that the Security
Council intended that such loss should be compensated, and that there are international precedents for
doing so.
52. Although both the Claimants and Iraq have framed their arguments in terms of whether claims
for interim loss are compensable in principle, the Panel considers that the fundamental issue to be
resolved is whether, pursuant to Security Council resolution 687 (1991), claimants who suffer damage
to natural resources that have no commercial value are entitled to compensation beyond
reimbursement of expenses incurred or to be incurred to remediate or restore the damaged resources.
In other words, the question is whether the term “environmental damage”, as used in Security Council
resolution 687 (1991), includes what is referred to as “pure environmental damage”;i.e., damage to
environmental resources that have no commercial value. In this regard, the Panel notes that Iraq does
not deny that claimants are entitled to claim compensation for the temporary loss of resources which
have an economic value (“which are traded in the market”), such as fisheries and crops. The Panel,
therefore, concludes that Iraq’s objection to the claims for the temporary losses in the fifth “F4”
instalment is based on the fact that the resources involved are “non-commercial” in nature, rather than
on the fact that the losses are of a temporary duration.ANNEX 35
S/AC.26/2005/10
Page 18
53. The Panel recalls that, in the third “F4” instalment, Iraq argued that the Panel should have
regard to the applicable rules of international law in determining what environmental damage or loss
resulting from Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait qualifies for compensation under Security
Council resolution 687 (1991). In that context, Iraq argued that damage resulting from the invasion
and occupation of Kuwait was not compensable unless it reached the “threshold” that is generally
required in international law for compensation in cases of state responsibility for transboundary
environmental damage. 13 In the present instalment, Iraq’s contention is that the compensability of the
temporary loss of natural resources that have no commercial value must be determined by reference to
principles of general international law.
54. In the third “F4” report, the Panel noted that the primary sources of the law to be applied by the
Panel in the review of claims for compensation are listed in article 31 of the Rules. These are
“Security Council resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant Security Council resolutions, the criteria
established by the Governing Council for particular categories of claims, and any pertinent decisions
of the Governing Council”. The Panel observed that “other relevant rules of international law” were
to be applied “where necessary”. In the view of the Panel, this meant that recourse to other relevant
rules of international law was only necessary wh ere Security Council resolutions and the decisions of
14
the Governing Council did not provide sufficient guidance for the review of a particular claim. For
the review of the claims in the third “F4” instalment, the Panel found that Security Council resolution
15
687 (1991) and the relevant decisions of the Governing Council provided sufficient guidance.
55. For the claims in the fifth “F4” instalment, the Panel equally finds that Security Council
resolution 687 (1991) and the relevant decisions of the Governing Council provide sufficient guidance
for the review of the claims for compensation for loss of or damage to natural resources. Security
Council resolution 687 (1991) states that Iraq is “liable under international law for any direct loss,
damage, including environmental damage and the depletion of natural resources … as a result of Iraq's
unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait”. Paragraph 35(e) of Governing Council decision 7
provides further guidance by stating that Iraq is liable for “losses or expenses” resulting from
“depletion of or damage to natural resources.” As the Panel stated in the fourth “F4” report, part one,
Security Council resolution 687 (1991) and Governing Council decision 7 establish the general
principle that Iraq is liable for all damage and losses that result directly from its invasion and
occupation of Kuwait. In the opinion of the Panel this means that any loss of or damage to natural
resources that can be demonstrated to have resulted directly from Iraq’s invasion and occupation of
Kuwait must be deemed to be encompassed in the concept of “environmental damage and the
depletion of natural resources” within the meaning of Security Council resolution 687 (1991). The
Panel does not consider that there is anything in the language or context of Security Council resolution
687 (1991) or Governing Council decision 7 that mandates or suggests an interpretation that would
restrict the term “environmental damage” to damage to natural resources which have commercial
value.
56. Furthermore, the Panel does not consider that the fact that the effects of the loss of or damage to
natural resources might be for a temporary duration should have any relevance to the issue of the
compensability of the damage or loss, although itmight affect the natureand quantum of ANNEX 35
S/AC.26/2005/10
Page 19
compensation that may be appropriate. In the view of the Panel, it is not reasonable to suggest that a
loss that is documented to have occurred, and is shown to have resulted from the invasion and
occupation of Kuwait, should nevertheless be denied compensation solely on the grounds that the
effects of the loss were not permanent. As the Panel sees it, the critical issue to be determined in each
claim is whether the evidence provided is sufficient to show thatthere has been a lossof or damage to
natural resources as alleged and, if so, whether such loss or damage resulted directly from Iraq’s
invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
57. The Panel, therefore, finds that a loss due to depletion of or damage to natural resources,
including resources that may not have a commercial value is, in principle, compensable in accordance
withSecurity Council resolution 687 (1991) and Governing Council decision 7 if such loss was a
direct result of Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait. It follows, therefore, that temporary loss of
the use of such resources is compensable if it is proved that the loss resulted directly from Iraq’s
invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
58. The Panel does not consider that this finding is inconsistent with any principle or rule of general
international law. In the view of the Panel, there is no justification for the contention that general
international law precludes compensation for pure environmental damage. In particular, the Panel
does not consider that the exclusion of compensation for pure environmental damage in some
international conventions on civil liability and compensation16 is a valid basis for asserting that
international law, in general, prohibits compensation for such damage in all cases, even where the
damage results from an internationally wrongful act.
6. Damage to public health
59. The claims in the fifth “F4” instalment include claims by governments for losses or expenses
resulting from damage to public health, in terms of adverse health effects on specific categories of
residents of the claimant countries or on the general population. The damage or losses for which
compensation is claimed include expenses of medical treatment for specific diseases and mental
conditions as well as general claims for loss of lifeor reducedquality of life of the population.
60. With regard to claims for expenses resulting from public health expenditures, Iraq contends that
there is no legal basis for such claims. Iraq argues that there is no mention of public health damage in
Security Council resolution 687 (1991), and that the only reference to public health damage in
Governing Council decision 7 is in paragraph 35(d) where mention is made of expenses resulting from
“[r]easonable monitoring of public health and performing medical screenings for the purposes of
investigation and combating increased health risks as a result of the environmental damage”.
According to Iraq, the only public health expenses for which compensation can be claimed by
governments are expenses for reasonable monitoring and medical screening for the purpose of
investigating and combating increased health risks.
61. With regard to expenses incurred by governments in providing medical services to members of
their populations, Iraq argues that there is no basis for awarding compensation for such expenses since
this is a basic service which governments provide in general whether there is only one patient or moreANNEX 35
S/AC.26/2005/10
Page 20
patients to be treated. According to Iraq, a government may only be entitled to compensation for
medical treatments if it can demonstrate that these expenses were additional to what it would normally
have incurred, and also that the additional expenditure was the direct result of any of the events
specified in paragraph 34 of Governing Council decision 7.
62. In connection with the claims by governments for loss of life and reduced quality of life of their
nationals, Iraq asserts that the claims are inadmissible because the Claimants concerned lack legal
standing to bring such claims before the Commission. According to Iraq, the rules established by the
Governing Council provide for the compensation of claims submitted by individuals for personal
injury or mental pain and anguish. Individual claimants were given the opportunity to claim for these
injuries under the “B”, “C” and “D” claims categories; and indeed have done so, claiming for personal
injury and death, mental pain and anguish resulting from hostage taking, illegal detention and other
similarly traumatic events. Iraq contends that under the scheme established by the Governing Council,
a government is not entitled to bring a claim by way of “diplomatic protection” for the loss of life or
health of its nationals. This is because the UNCC system offers access to the individual who has
suffered injury; and it is, therefore, an exception to the normal situation in international law where the
individual does not have access to the adjudicating authority.
63. For their part, the Claimants concerned assert that they are entitled to submit claims for public
health losses. They argue that, under the settled principles of international law, loss of life and
reduced quality of life of nationals of a State represent injuries to the State, and claims for such
injuries can be asserted as State claims rather thanas the claims of individual nationals. The
Claimants assert that international law has consistently taken the view that injury to a national of one
State by another State gives rise to a claim that belongs to the State of the national and not to the
injured person. The Claimants refer to pronouncements by a number of international courts and
tribunals, as well as by noted commentators, as constituting “a long list of authority” confirming that
injuries to nationals of a State represent injuries to theState of their nationality and give rise to claims
by that State.
64. With regard to Iraq’s contention that some of the claims are for indirect losses, the Claimants
state that these claims are not for indirect losses since, by their very nature, they can only be claims of
the State. They point out that the claims are not for losses of individual nationals and have not been
brought on behalf of any specific individuals, and they argue that, according to the principle of
diplomatic protection, the injuries to nationals of a State are also deemed to be direct injuries to the
State that espouses the claims.
65. The Claimants point out that none of the individual claims that have been processed by the
Commission to date has included compensation for damage from loss of life or reduced quality of life
that is now sought in the fifth “F4” instalment. They note in this regard that compensation previously
awarded on individual claims arising from death in category “C” and category “D” claims was limited
to medical, burial and other expenses, loss of financial support that would have gone to a spouse, a
child or parent as well as compensation for mental pain and anguish to the survivors.No
compensation has been awarded for the pain and suffering of the persons who died. With regard to the ANNEX 35
S/AC.26/2005/10
Page 21
claims made for pain and suffering for nonf-atal injuries, the Claimants state that these are distinct
from the government claims for reduced quality of life. Claims for compensation for individual pain
and suffering were limited to the specific circumstancesset forth in Governing Council decision 3
(S/AC.26/1991/3) and to the narrowly limited amounts specified in Governing Council decision 8
(S/AC.26/1992/8). The compensation did not take into account the broad impairments of reduced
quality of life or the increased risks that Iraq imposed on the entire populations of the Claimants.
66. With regard to the admissibility of claims for loss of life and reduced quality of life, the
Claimants maintain that loss of life and reduced quality of life are clearly and properly compensable
by the Commission. They point out that paragraph 16 of Security Council resolution 687 (1991) states
that compensation is due for “any direct loss”. In response to Iraq’s assertion that Governing Council
decision 7 makes specific reference only to compensation for expenses of “monitoring and medical
screening”, they assert that this does not exclude compensation for other losses related to public
health, noting that compensation under Security Council resolution 687 (1991) is not limited to the
heads of loss and expenses that are specifically itemized in Governing Council decision 7.
67. The Panel has previously stated that Iraq’s liability for environmental damage under Security
Council resolution 687 (1991) and Governing Council decision 7 is comprehensive and extends to all
damage and losses related to the environment and any consequences of such damage that can
reasonably be attributed directly to Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait. In this regard, the Panel
recalls its previous statements that paragraph 35 of Governing Council decision 7 does not purport to
give an exhaustive list of the activities and events that can give rise to compensable losses or expenses.
As the Panel noted in the second “F4” report, paragraph 35 of Governing Council decision 7 should be
considered as providing guidance regarding the types of activities and events that can result in
17
compensable losses, rather than a limitative enumeration of all such activities and events.
Accordingly, the Panel considers that the fact that paragraph 35 of Governing Council decision 7
specifically refers only to expenses of “monitoring of public health” and “medical screenings” does
not imply in any way that compensation may not be appropriate for other damage or losses relating to
public health. In particular, the Panel does not consider that paragraph 35 of Governing Council
decision 7 can be interpreted to deny compensation for public health expenses incurred by a
government as a direct result of Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait. In the view of the Panel, it
is illogical to argue that a government is entitled to compensation for expenses of monitoring activities
and medical screening for the purposes of investigating and combating increased health risks which
result from Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait, but that expenses actually incurred by the
government in combating increased health risks that have been identified as a result of the monitoring
and screening are not compensable.
68. The Panel, therefore, concludes that expenses incurred by a State in combating increased public
health problems or public health risks caused by environmental damage that resulted directly from
Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait are, inprinciple, compensable in accordancewith Security
Council resolution 687 (1991). As with all claims, the test to be applied is whether the expense or loss
for which compensation is claimed has actually occurred and can reasonably be demonstrated to be a
direct result of Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait.ANNEX 35
S/AC.26/2005/10
Page 22
69. With regard to Iraq’s contention that the Claimants do not have standing to bring claims for
general damage related to public health, such as claims for loss of life or reduced quality of life, the
Panel notes that Security Council resolution 687 (1991) expressly states that Iraq is liable under
international law for direct loss, damage, or injury to foreign governments as a result of Iraq’s
unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait. Similarly, paragraph 34 of Governing Council
decision 7 provides that compensation is available with respect to any direct loss, damage or injury to
Governments as a direct result of Iraq’s unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait. It follows that a
Government is entitled to bring a claim for compensation for a loss, damage or injury suffered by it, so
long as the claim is in conformity with Security Council resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant
Security Council resolutions, the criteria established by the Governing Council for particular
categories of claims andother pertinent decisions of the Governing Council. In the view of the Panel,
there is no provision in the relevant resolutions of the Security Council or decisions of the Governing
Council which prevents a government from bringing a claim for a public health loss, damage or injury
for which it would be entitled to claim under international law.
70. In this connection, the Panel notes that general international law recognizes the right of a State
to bring claims on the international plane against another State for damage to a national of the
claimant State. Where a claim is brought by a State in such a case, the State is not acting on behalf of
the injured national but rather is asserting its own right to ensure compliance with the rules of
international law in respect of its nationals. In the view of the Panel, the fact that an injured national
can bring an individual claim for a specific injury or damage does not affect the right or standing of a
State to bring a national claim, so long as ther is no duplication in compensation awarded for the
same injury or damage. Whether, and if so to what extent, any such claim by a government will
succeed depends on the nature of the claim and the evidence produced to support it.
71. However, the Panel recognizes that governments may not be entitled to bring claims for
compensation for injury or damage where the applicable decisions of the Security Council or the
Governing Council restrict the right to bring such claims to certain categories of persons or entities.
Thus, for example, the Panel considers that Governing Council decisions 3 and 8 reflect a policy
decision of the Governing Council regarding the categories of persons who may bring claims for
mental pain and anguish, the criteria to be met for such claims to succeed, and the limits of
compensation that may be awarded for various categories of injury or damage. For that reason, the
Panel finds that claims for compensation for mental pain and anguish can only be brought by
individuals who satisfy the criteria established bythe Governing Council in its decision 3.
Accordingly, no such claims can be brought by a government.
7. Valuation methodologies
72. In support of the claims for loss or depletion of natural resources and for damage to public
health resulting from Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait, the Claimants have relied on statistical
evidence and calculations as well as certain methodologies for estimating the extent of damage and
quantifying the losses to be compensated. ANNEX 35
S/AC.26/2005/10
Page 23
73. In presenting their claims for temporary loss of natural resources, some Claimants have utilized
the methodology known as “Habitat Equivalency Analysis” (“HEA”) to determine the nature and
extent of compensatory restoration that is necessary to compensate for the loss of ecological services
that were provided by the resources before they were damaged. Based on the results of the HEA,
some Claimants propose to undertake compensatory restoration projects that are intended to offset the
ecological services that have been lost between the time of initial damage to the resources and the time
of their full recovery. The compensatory restoration projects are aimed at providing equivalent
ecological service gains either in the same area or at other locations.
74. Iraq contends that the methodologies that have been used by the Claimants are not acceptable.
Iraq states that, in international law, compensation can only be paid for financially assessable damage;
and it claims that both the proof of damage andthe assessment of damage mustbe made in accordance
with established principles of international law. According to Iraq, international law and practice do
not recognize the methodologies relied upon by the Claimants in these claims. Iraq considers that
these methodologies are “novel and untried”, and are “shot through with uncertainty”. In the view of
Iraq, they are “abstract and theoretical methodologies” of the kind that international bodies, for
example, the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund (the “IOPC Fund”), have expressly
rejected. In this regard, Iraq refers to resolution 3 of the Assembly of the IOPC Fund which stated that
“the assessment of compensation to be paid by the [IOPC] Fund is not to be made on the basis of
abstract quantification of damage calculated in accordancewith theoretical models”. 18
75. Iraq also notes that there is no international treaty or other international practice which could
support the use of these “abstract and theoretical” models in computing damage to natural resources or
damage to public health. Moreover, Iraq states that there is no general national practice to support the
use of such methodologies and, consequently, that it cannot be argued that the use of these
methodologies is reflected as a general principle of law recognized by civilized nations.
76. Iraq argues that the Panel would be taking international law into a new domain if it were to
adopt the approach proposed by the Claimants. In the view of Iraq, it is not the function of the Panel
to legislate or progressively develop the rules of international law.
77. With regard to the use of statistical evidence by the Claimants to support some of the claims,
Iraq contends that, in order to succeed with a claim for damages, it has to be proved with certainty that
damage or harm to a legally protected interest, for example, health, life or property, has actually
occurred. According to Iraq, statistical evidence that damage must have occurred is not sufficient in
any private law system. Iraq asserts that, for a claim for damage to succeed, it is not sufficient to show
that a person was exposed to a risk of becoming infected with a severe disease. Without proof of
actual damage, no claim should succeed. Accordingly, Iraq argues that the Panel can only take
exposure to risk into consideration if the risk actually results in damage or harm.
78. The Claimants maintain that the methodologies adopted by them in estimating damage suffered
by them or the compensation claimed for such damage are fully in accordance with Security Council
resolution 687 (1991) and Governing Council decision 7 and are not inconsistent with any rules or
principles of international law. They assert that compensatory restoration, as proposed by them in theANNEX 35
S/AC.26/2005/10
Page 24
fifth “F4” instalment claims, is intended to provide the equivalent of the natural resource services of
which the Claimants would be deprived until the damaged natural resources are restored to the
baseline conditions in which they would have been but for the wrongful acts of Iraq.
79. With regard to the use of HEA, the Claimantsstate that HEA is a methodology that is widely
accepted and is often used to quantify the ecological loss of services caused by oil spills and other
released contaminants. According to the Claimants, HEA provides an appropriate mechanism to
assign the costs of compensatory restoration to alternatives that can provide resources and gains
equivalent in type and quality to the losses sustained. In their view, the methodologies utilized by
them in the fifth “F4” instalment claims are internationally accepted methods for measuring the extent
of loss of natural resources so that proper compensation can be made for such losses.
80. In the view of the Panel, international law does not prescribe any specific and exclusive
methods of measurement for awards of damages for internationally wrongful acts by states. The
general rule is to restore what has been damaged to integrity or, if this is not possible, to provide an
equivalent for it. The overall criterion is always that of effective reparation for the wrongful act.
Hence, evenin the absence of precise rules or prescriptions on the methods for evaluating damage,
courts and tribunals are entitled and required to evaluate damage and determine appropriate
compensation, relying on general principles for guidance, particularly the principle that reparation
must, as far as possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act. As the Tribunal in the Trail
Smelter Arbitrationstated in its interim award: “Where the [wrongful act] itself is of such a nature as
to preclude the ascertainment of the amount of damages with certainty, it would be a perversion of
fundamental principles of justice to deny all relief to the injured person, and thereby relieve the
wrongdoer from making any amend for his acts. In such case, while the damages may not be
determined by mere speculation or guess, it will be enough if the evidence show the extent of the
damages as a matter of just and reasonable inference, although the result be only approximate.” 19
81. The Panel recognizes that there are inherent difficulties in attempting to place a monetary value
on damaged natural resources, particularly resources that are not traded in the market. With specific
regard to HEA, the Panel recognizes that it is a relatively novel methodology, and that it has had
limited application at the national and international levels. The Panel is also aware that there are
uncertainties in HEA calculations, especially for establishing a metric that appropriately accounts for
different types of service losses and for determining the nature and scale of compensatory restoration
measures that are appropriate for damage to particular resources. For these reasons, the Panel
considers that claims presented on the basis of HEA or similar methodologies of resource valuation
should be accepted only after the Panel has satisfied itself that the extent of damage and the
quantification of compensation claimed are appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances of each
claim. However, the Panel does not consider that these potential difficulties are a sufficient reason for
a wholesale rejection of these methodologies, or for concluding that their use is contrary to
international law principles.
82. With regard to the claims for compensatory restoration in the fifth “F4” instalment, the Panel
reiterates its previous statements that remediation measures for damaged resources should focus on ANNEX 35
S/AC.26/2005/10
Page 25
20
primary restoration, in terms of the restoration of ecological functioning. Consequently,
compensatory restoration measures should be considered only where there is sufficient evidence that
primary restoration will not fully compensate for any identified losses. It is only in such cases that
HEA may be considered as a helpful tool in determining how much compensatory restoration is
necessary and feasible in thecircumstances. Accordingly, in each case where a claimant seeks an
award to undertake compensatory restoration, the Panel has considered whether the claimant has
sufficiently established that primary restoration has not or will not fully compensate for the losses.
Compensation is recommended only where the evidence available shows that, even after primary
restoration measures have been undertaken, there are, or there are likely to be, uncompensated losses.
8. Set-off
83. Iraq has argued that,in order to put each claimant in the position in which it would have been
but for Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, account should be taken of any profits or other benefits that accrued
to that claimant as a result of the invasion and occupation. Iraq asserts that this approach is consistent
with the practice adopted by other panels of Commissioners.
84. The Panel considers that, in assessing compensation for damage or loss suffered by a claimant
as a result of Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait, due account should be taken of any
extraordinary profit or other benefit that accrued to the claimant as a result of the event or activity in
respect of which the claim for compensation is submitted.
85. Where the extent and value of any such profit or other benefit can be ascertained, it should be
set off against the compensation to be awarded. However, the Panel considers that such a seo t-ff is
only justified where the profit or other benefit in question results from an event or damage that is the
subject of the particular claim being reviewed.
86. In relation to the claims reviewed in the fifth “F4” instalment, the evidence presented to the
Panel does not indicate that any profit or other benefit accrued to any of the Claimants in connection
with the events or damage in respect of which the claims for compensation have been submitted.
Accordingly, the Panel does not consider it necessary to make any recommendations on set-off.
III. REVIEW OF THE FIFTH INSTALMENT OF “F4” CLAIMS
A. Article 36 of the Rules
87. Article 36 of the Rules provides that a panel of Commissioners may “(a) in unusually large or
complex cases, request further written submissions and invite individuals, corporations or other
entities, Governments or international organizations to present their views in oral proceedings” and
“(b) request additional information from any other source, including expert advice, as necessary”.
Article 38(b) of the Rules provides that a panel of Commissioners “may adopt special procedures
appropriate to the character, amount andsubject-matter of the particular types of claims under
consideration.”ANNEX 35
S/AC.26/2005/10
Page 29
for a reduction in the quality of crops; and the thirdclaim unit is fora proposed long-term monitoring
and assessment project.
1. First claim unit– Reduced crop yields
103. Iran seeks compensation in the amount of USD 217,247,112 for losses due to reduced yields of
several varieties of agricultural crops in the provinces of Bushehr, Fars, Hormozgan, Khuzestan,
Kerman and Kohgiloyeh (the “Southern Provinces”) in 1991.
104. According to Iran, the oil well fires in Kuwaitand evaporation from millions of barrels of crude
oil spilt into the Persian Gulf as a result of Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait produced large
quantities of soot and sulphur, much of which were deposited in several areas of the Southern
Provinces in the form of black rain. Iran states that this resulted in heavy agricultural production
losses, due to reductions in the yields ofseveral agricultural crops in the affected areas.
105. According to Iran, the damage resulted from (a) direct impacts of the increased amounts of
airborne pollutants such as sulphur dioxide (SO 2), nitrogenoxides (NO ,X, ozone, and polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons; (b) leaf infections due mainly to black rain; and (c) “infection” of the soil by
deposits of heavy metals and toxic hydrocarbons.
106. Iran estimates its crop losses by comparing the actual production of each crop in each of the
affected provinces during 1991 with the expected production of those crops, based on a statistical
analysis of crop yields over a period of 11 years from 1986 to 1996. For each crop, Iran calculates the
compensation sought by multiplying the decrease in production in 1991, which it considers to be the
result of Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait, by the market price of that crop.
107. Iran relies on evidence from the published literature to support its claim. In addition, Iran
submitted other information, including remote sensing data and photographic evidence of damage to
agriculturalcrops across the Southern Provinces.
108. Iraq argues that Iran has not demonstrated that any loss of crops occurred or that there is any
causal connection between the alleged reduction in crop production and pollution resulting from the
invasion and occupation of Kuwait. In particular, Iraq points out that Iran has produced no evidence
showing the quantities of specific crops in identified areas that were exposed to, or affected by,
pollution that resulted from the invasion and occupation.
109. Iraq also contends that modelling of the smoke plume shows that soot and SO 2depositions were
restricted to the extreme south of Iran in the province of Khuzestan, and were not as widespread as
alleged by Iran.
110. Iraq contendsthat reduced crop yields in 1991 may be due to causes other than pollution
resulting from the conflict. In particular, Iraq suggests that reduced rainfall and late rains during the
1991 growing season could have had an impacton crop yields in the regions alleged to have been
affected. Iraq further states that the photographic evidence submitted by Iran shows problems with ANNEX 35
S/AC.26/2005/10
Page 30
crops that could possibly have been caused by a variety of factors, including frost, disease, lack of
water, etc.
111. Iraq also argues that Iran inappropriately used international market prices for crops in
calculating the value of the alleged damage. According to Iraq, local producer prices are more
appropriate for this purpose.
112. Inthe first “F4” report, the Panel noted that there was evidence in the scientific literature that
emissions from the oil well fires reached some parts of Iran and, accordingly, that it was likely that
some airborne pollutants from the oil well fires in Kuwait reached the ground in Iran, mainly through
24
wet deposition.
113. Although Iran has not submitted evidence, suchas ground-level monitoring data on SO, ozone, 2
and soot levels, to show the nature and extent of pollution in the areas concerned that could have
resulted in crop losses, other evidence provided by Iran, including statistical analyses of data on crop
yields, remote sensing data, photographic evidence and information from published literature,
indicates thatthere were reductions in the yields of some crops in the Southern Provinces during 1991.
In the view of the Panel, these reductions were, at leasitn part, adirect result of Iraq’s invasion and
occupation of Kuwait.
114. The Panel considers that the statistical approach used by Iran to quantify the impacts of
pollutants from the oil well fires on its crops in 1991 is, in general, reasonable and appropriate.
However, the Panel finds that some of Iran’s assumptions for estimating the quantities of crop losses
are not appropriate. Specifically, the Panel notes th at Iran’s approach does not take due account of
changes in crop yields that may be due to the impacts of pests and diseases. In addition, in calculating
its losses, Iran does not make allowance for thefact that certain expenses,such as transportation costs,
were reducedor not incurred in 1991 because of the decrease in the crops produced.
115. Taking the above factors into account, the Panel has made the following modifications to Iran’s
calculations of the quantities of crops lost:
(a) Addition of a variable to Iran’s statistical model to account for changes in agricultural
productivity over time. Changes in productivity are possible during the 11-year modeling
period, and the inclusion of an independent variable in the model to track such changes will
enhance the overall accuracy of the estimates of crop losses that are directly attributable to
the impacts of pollution from the oil well fires.
(b) Use of the 1991 local producer prices from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (“FAO”) instead of the market prices from FAO and the Iranian Ministry of
Commerce. The local producer prices are the prices that are received by the farmers and do
not include market and transportation costs. They therefore more accurately reflect the
losses incurred by theagricultural producers. 25ANNEX 35
S/AC.26/2005/10
Page 31
116. Anadjustment has also been made to take account of the fact that part of the loss of production
was due to factors unrelated to Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
117. These modifications and the adjustment reduce the compensable loss to USD24,034,892.
118. Accordingly, the Panel recommends compensation in the amount of USD 24,034,892 for this
claim unit.
2. Second claim unit – Reduced crop quality
119. Iran seeks compensation in the amount of USD 174,648,879 for losses due to reduced quality of
several varieties of agricultural crops in the Southern Provinces in 1991. Iran states that the reduction
in the quality of crops produced in the Southern Provinces in 1991 was caused by exposure of crops to
pollutants from the oil well fires in Kuwait and the resulting adverse environmental conditions.
120. Iran estimates the alleged reduction in crop quality by comparing crop prices in the Southern
Provinces in 1991 with national crop prices. According to Iran, the differences in pricesweredue to
the poor quality of the crops produced in the Southern Provinces. For each crop, Iran calculates the
compensation sought for the decreased quality by multiplying the difference between the local and
national prices by the quantity produced in 1991.
121. Iraq contends that the use of price indices as the basis for the assessment of loss isnot
appropriate and argues that Iran does not explain clearly why a reduction in the market price of crops
necessarily results from a reduction in the quality of crops. Iraq states that “Iran should have
presented information on the actual quantities and value of the produce that could not be sold because
of poor quality directly resulting from smoke plume damage”.
122. The Panel notes that, although loss in quality could reduce the prices of crops, crop prices can
fluctuate for a variety of other reasons related to the economics of supply and demand. Thus the
reduction in the prices of crops in the Southern Provinces of Iran during 1991 could have been due to
factors unrelated to the oil well fires in Kuwait,such as differences in supply and demand in the
different provinces of Iran. In the view of the Panel, an appropriate assessment of loss suffered by
Iran as a result of reductions in crop quality can only be made on the basis of a statistical analysis that
is capable of controlling for all the supply and demand factors that can affect crop prices. Iran has
neither provided such a statistical analysis nor submitted information that provides a sufficient basis
for the Panel to makesuch an analysis.
123. ThePanel, therefore, concludes that the evidence presented is not sufficient to establish the
extent of loss due to a reduction in the quality of the specified crop varieties in the Southern Provinces.
Consequently, Iran has failed to meet the evidentiary requirements for compensation as specified in
article 35(3) of the Rules.
124. Accordingly, the Panel recommends no compensation for this claim unit. ANNEX 35
S/AC.26/2005/10
Page 53
particular, the information available does not provide a basis for determining what proportion of the
increase, if any, canreasonably be attributed to the invasion and occupation. Although Iran was
requested to provide the full results of its statistical analysis, it did not do so. Consequently, Iran has
failed to meet the evidentiary requirements for compensation as specified in article 35(3) of the Rules.
281. Accordingly, the Panel recommends no compensation for this claim unit.
4. Fourth claim unit –Post-traumatic stress disorder and panic disorder cases
282. Iran seeks compensation in the amount of USD 2,489,695,071 for expenses and other losses due
to an increase in the number of cases of mental disorders requiring treatment in Iran as a result of
Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait. Iran asserts that, following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and
the appearance of the smoke plume from the oil well fires over Iran, residents of the provinces of
Khuzestan and Bushehr, who had been previously traumatized by the Iran-Iraq conflict, suffered from
a new source of stress.
283. Iran claims that the “stressors” resulting from Iraqs’ invasion and occupation of Kuwait led to
an increase in cases of post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) and panic disorder requiring treatment
in Khuzestan and Bushehr. Examples of stressors identified by Iran include: fear of air strikes and
chemical contamination, especially after natural resources were contaminated and many blasts of
ordnance accompanied by smoke were observed; fear of blast sounds which were frequently heard in
Abadan and Khorramshahr; fear of direct chemical or biological attacks; fear of the possibility of
missiles of the Allied Coalition Forces accidentally hitting Abadan and Khorramshahr; and fear of
possible harm from Iraqi and American aircraft flying over the border zone and Iranian territory that
had been attacked during the Iran-Iraqconflict.
284. Iran relies on the results of a monitoring and assessment study on mental health in Iran to
demonstrate theincreased number of cases of PTSD and panic disorder requiring treatment, and also
to establish a direct causal link between this increase and Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait.9
Iran’s monitoring and assessment study consists of four parts: (a) an epidemiological study to identify
cases of mental health disorders caused by Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait; (b) a qualitative
study to identify the characteristics of exposure zones and potentially affected populations, the nature
of mental health problems, and past methods of treatment employed; (c) a clinical trial to assess the
cost and efficacy of treatment protocols; and (d) the calculation of costs associated with mental health
damages.
285. Iran asserts that the results of the monitoring and assessment study demonstrate that an
additional 102,792 people in Khuzestan and Bushehr provinces suffered from PTSD and/or panic
disorder as a result of Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait. Iran claims compensation for past
expenses incurred in treating these additional cases of PTSD and panic disorder; past indirect costs,
including lost income associated with reduced functioning at work, unemployment, days spent by
family members providing care, and transportation; and costs of future medical care. Iran also seeks
compensation for the value of past and future reduced well-being suffered by individuals with PTSD
or panic disorder.ANNEX 35
S/AC.26/2005/10
Page 54
286. Iraq states that Iran has not established that there was a direct causal link between the increase
in the number of cases of PTSD and panic disorder requiring treatment. According to Iraq, Iran has
not demonstrated that its residents were exposed to the type of traumatic events required for a
diagnosis of PTSD as a result of the invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
287. Iraq also comments on the quantification of cases of mental disorders in Iran’s monitoring and
assessment study. Iraq notes that Iran bases its estimate of the increase in the number of cases of
PTSD and panic disorder requiring treatment on a study sample of 2,764 people and then applies the
results to the entire population of Khuzestan and Bushehr over 12 years of age in 2003. Iraq asserts
that the use of 2003 population data, and the inclusion of people who were infants in 1991, results in
an artificially high estimate of the number of cases of PTSD and panic disorder. Iraq states that the
percentage of selected samples that were diagnosed with PTSD as a result of screening cannot be
extrapolated to a larger population.
288. Inthe view of the Panel, the results of Iran’s monitoring and assessment study do not establish
that the increase in the number of cases of PTSD and panic disorder requiring treatment in Iran was a
direct result of Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait. The Panel notes that the stressors to which
Iran claims the population in the affected areas were subjected are not of the type that would cause
PTSD. In this regard, the Panel notes that no combat activity took place in Iran during Iraq’s invasion
and occupation of Kuwait. The Panel further notes that the zone analysis used by Iran to link cases of
PTSD and panic disorder to Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait is not supported by the data that
Iran submitted.
289. Inthe view of the Panel, Iran has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that there was an
increase in the number of cases of PTSD and panic disorder requiring treatment in Iran as a direct
result of Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait. Consequently, Iran has failed to meet the
evidentiary requirements for compensation specified in article 35(3) of the Rules.
290. Accordingly, the Panel recommends no compensation for this claim unit.
5. Fifth claim unit – Claim preparation costs
291. Iran seeks compensation in the amount of USD 51,075 for project implementation costs. The
Panel considersthat this is a claim for claimpreparation costs.
292. As stated in paragraph 223 above, in a letter dated 6 May 1998, the Executive Secretary
informed all panels of Commissioners that the Governing Council intends to resolve the issue of the
compensability of claims preparation costs in the future.
293. The Panel, therefore, makes no recommendation in respect of this claim unit.
6. Recommended award
294. The Panel’srecommendations in respect of claimNo. 5000287 aresummarized in table 5. ANNEX 35
S/AC.26/2005/10
Page 87
treatment of five years for each case, is overstated. The Panel has, therefore, adjusted the
recommended amount to take into account variations in the times required for treatment of different
cases. The adjustment reduces the total number of treatment visits for PTSD patients to 29,615.
510. The Panel also notes that only 12,000 visits occurred at the Al-Riggae Centre, and that the Al-
Riggae Centre costs are higher than the costs for psychological treatment at other facilities in Kuwait.
As a result, the Panel has adjusted the cost-per-visit rate for treatment received in facilities other than
the Al-Riggae Centre to USD 78 per visit.
511. These adjustments reduce the compensable expenses for the treatment of PTSD cases to
USD 5,909,343.
512. Accordingly, the Panel recommends compensation in the amount of USD 5,909,343 for this part
of the claim unit.
(b) Loss of well-being
513. Kuwait also seeks compensation forloss of well-being (i.e., reduced quality of life) of persons
suffering from PTSD. Kuwait states that for each year an individual suffers from PTSD, there is a loss
measurable in health-adjusted life years. Kuwait estimates the loss of well-being by multiplying the
period during whicha person suffered from PTSD symptoms by a disability weight representing the
loss of well-being as a result of living with these symptoms. The specific disability weights used by
Kuwait were derived from a study involving a person trade-o ff survey inwhich clinicians were asked
to assume the role of a policy maker and to make judgements about the relative values of sick people
as compared tohealthy people. Kuwait claims that each individual with PTSD suffered a decrease in
well-being equivalent to theloss of one-fourth of a life year. Accordingly, based on a value of
USD 50,000 per life year, Kuwait claims USD 12,500for each case of PTSD resulting from the
invasion and occupation.
514. Iraq argues that governments can only submit claims before the Commission for losses that they
have sustained directly, and that they may not seek compensation for losses suffered by individuals.
Iraq states that Kuwait’s claim for loss of individualell-being is inadmissible because it relates to
losses suffered directly by individuals who could have submitted such claims to the Commission.
Since the Government of Kuwait has not suffered any direct loss, Iraq states that this part of the claim
unit should be dismissed. Iraq further states that the claim for loss of well-being is merely theoretical.
515. Asindicated in paragraphs 69-70 above, the Panel considers that there is nothing either in
Security Council resolution 687 (1991) and Governing Council decision 7 or in general international
law that prevents Kuwait from claiming for death or other injury to its nationals as a result of the
unlawful actions of Iraq. However, in the present case,the Panel does not consider that the evidence
provided by Kuwait is sufficient to establish the nature and extent of the damage for which it seeks
compensation. In particular, the Panel notes that, in calculating its losses, Kuwait uses disability
weights that are normally intended for making decisions on the cost-effectiveness of alternativeANNEX 35
S/AC.26/2005/10
Page 88
investments in health policies and programmes rather than for compensating individuals with mental
illness.
516. The Panel further finds that Kuwait does not provide a reasonable justification for using
USD 50,000 per life year to value its loss. Although Kuwait states that this value is at the low end of
the range of values that economists use toevaluate the cost-effectiveness of alternative medical
interventions in the United States, there is no evidence that the range used by Kuwait is appropriate for
the population of Kuwait. In the view of the Panel, there are major cultural, demographic and
economic differences between Kuwait and the United States which make it very doubtful that the
range of values used by Kuwait is suitable in this context.
517. The Panel, therefore, concludes that the information provided by Kuwait is not sufficient to
enable it to determine the nature and circumstances of the loss for which compensation is claimed.
Consequently, Kuwait has failed to meet the evidentiary requirements for compensation as specified in
article 35(3) of the Rules.
518. Accordingly, the Panel recommends no compensation for this part of the claim unit.
3. Third claim unit– Increased mortality
519. Kuwait seeks compensation in the amount of USD 192,500,000 for increased mortality in
Kuwait due to increased pollution resulting from the oil well fires in Kuwait. In particular, Kuwait
seeks compensation for loss of economic value resulting from 35 premature deaths that it estimates
occurred due to the exposure of its population toairborne particulate matterfrom the oilwell fires.
Kuwait calculates the compensation requested on thebasis of USD 5,500,000 per life lost.
520. Kuwait relies on the results of its monitoring and assessment enumeration study 83to estimate
the ground-level concenta rtions of airborne particulate matterto which its citizens were exposed
during the period when the oil well fires were burning. Based on the results of an air dispersion
model, Kuwait estimates daily concentrations of particulate matter and calculates population-weighted
exposure estimates. According to Kuwait, the results of its monitoring and assessment study
demonstrate that theemissions from the oil well fires resulted in increased concentrations of
particulate matter inpopulated regions of Kuwaitin quantities sufficient tocause premature deaths.
521. Inorder to estimate the number of these premature deaths, Kuwait relies on the results of a
84
monitoring and assessment study on human health risks. In the risk assessment study, Kuwait
generated a statistical estimate of the expected increaesin mortality in Kuwait based on estimates of
concentrations of particulate matter to which the population was exposed as derived from the
monitoring and assessment enumeration study. According to Kuwait, the results of the risk
assessment show thatthe number of deaths due to exposure to particulate matter from the oil well fires
range between 0 and116. Kuwait seeks compensation for 35 deaths, which is their “central
estimate”. 85 ANNEX 36
Diplomatic Note 12437-47 SP/DGA/DTANC, sent from the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Ecuador to the Embassy of Colombia in Ecuador (24 July 2000) ANNEX 36
Verbal Note No. 12437 -47SP/DGA-DTANC
THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS has the honor to write
to the Honorable Embassy of the Republic of Colombia to express the
concern of the Government of Ecuador regarding the upcoming fumigations
of coca crops in Colombian territory with toxic and/or biological substances
that may cause serious impacts on human health and the environment, with
possible repercussions for Ecuador, on the fragile ecosystems of the
Amazon region and on the health and livelihoods of local populations.
THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS considers it important
and would appreciate receiving information regarding the environmental
repercussions of the possible use of toxic and/or biological substancOf.
special importance is learning if environmental impact studies and/or
mitigation measures have been planned and carried out before the
realization of the aforementioned spraying activities in the areas that may be
possibly affected.
THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS expresses its gratitude
for the kind attention given to this request, and avails itself of this
opportunity to reiterate to the Honorable Embassy of the Republic of
Colombia the assurances of its high and distinguished consideration.
Quito, 24 July 2000
TO THE HONORABLE
EMBASSY OF COLOMBIA
PRESENT .-
[Seal]ANNEX 36 ANNEX 37
Diplomatic Note E-1766, sent from the Embassy of Colombia in Quito to the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador (19 Dec. 2000) ANNEX 37
[seal] EMBASSY OF COLOMBIA
E-1766
THE EMBASSY OF THE REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA presents its
compliments to the HONORABLE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
– General Directorate of Protocol , on the occasion of forwarding, as
agreed by telephone, a copy of the Aide Memoire “Proposal of Panama to
hold a meeting on the implementation of Plan Colombia” to Doctor Heinz
Möeller Freile, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador. The Government of
Colombia considers this document to be inappropriate and inconvenient.
THE EMBASSY OF THE REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA avails itself of
this opportunity to reiterate to the HONORABLE MINISTRY OF
FOREIGN AFFAIRS the assurances of its highest and distinguished
consideration.
Quito, 19 December 2000
To the Honorable
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
General Directorate of Protocol
City.ANNEX 37 ANNEX 38
Diplomatic Note 21085 SSN/DGST, sent from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Ecuador to the Embassy of Colombia in Quito
(16 Feb. 2001) ANNEX 38
N° 21085 SSN/DGST
THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS presents its
compliments to the Honorable Embassy of Colombia, on the occasion of
referring to the spraying operations to eradicate coca crops that are being
conducted on Colombian territory, in the provinces of Putumayo and
Nariño, bordering Ecuador.
In this sense, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs would
appreciate that the Honorable Embassy of Colombia provides, within the
shortest possible time, all the information available regarding the type of
substances that are being used in the fumigations, as well as on the specific
areas where these operations are being conducted and where they are
expected to be conducted in the future.
THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS avails itself of
this opportunity to renew to the Honorable Embassy of Colombia the
assurances of its highest and distinguished consideration.
Quito, 16 February 2001
[signature]
To the Honorable
EMBASSY OF COLOMBIA,
PresentANNEX 38 ANNEX 39
Diplomatic Note E-297, sent from the Embassy of Colombia in Quito to the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador (12 Mar. 2001) ANNEX 39
[seal] EMBASSY OF COLOMBIA
E-297
Quito, 12 March 2001
Doctor
HEINZ MOELLER FREILE
MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
City
Mr. Minister:
In recent weeks, the Government of Ecuador has repeatedly voiced its
concern with regards to the potential adverse effects arising from the
execution of Plan Colombia.
To that effect, we must clarify that the internal displacement of indigenous
communities or the supposed mass exodus of populations from the south of
Colombia, as well as various criminal acts that have occurred in some
border zones should not be attributed to Plan Colombia. It is a matter of
concern that this type of information is accepted at certain official levels
without the prior verification and characterization of the events. The fact
that some of these events may have some connection with the Colombian
conflict, and not, we repeat, with Plan Colombia, is something else
altogether.
It is worth reiterating that Plan Colombia constitutes the central strategy
adopted by the Colombian Government to address the serious problems that
affect our society, aiming, above all, at the progressive eradication of illicit
crops and combating related activities, as well as putting an end to the
armed conflict through political negotiation.
[PAGE 2]
[seal]
EMBASSY OF COLOMBIA
Furthermore, Plan Colombia is precisely the most effective method of
protecting the brother country of Ecuador from the perverse effects of drug
trafficking and armed conflict, as it is aimed at preventing them from
continuing to strengthen and to spread into Ecuador.ANNEX 39
For all the above reasons, we hope to continue counting on the
understanding and the solidarity of the people and the Government of
Ecuador, especially since preserving and enhancing the deep and beneficial
friendship that has accompanied and strengthened us throughout our history
is of great significance to both or our countries at this time.
Yours respectfully,
[signature]
ELISEO RESTREPO LONDOÑO
Ambassador of ColombiaANNEX 39ANNEX 39 ANNEX 40
Diplomatic Note 31036/2001 SG/SSN, sent from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
of Ecuador to the Embassy of Colombia in Quito (27 Mar. 2001) ANNEX 40
No. 31036/2001 SG/SSN
Quito, 20 March 2001
Mister
ELISEO RESTREPO
Ambassador of Colombia
City.
MAistbrassador:
In reference to communication number E-297, dated 12 March 2001,
and the comments made by you when you delivered it to me in person, I
would like to state the following:
In the first place, I reiterate what I said when I received the letter,
which I am answering hereby, that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs cannot
admit that the Head of the Diplomatic Mission of a friendly country intends
to reprimand the Foreign Minister of the Republic for declarations made by
him or by other high-ranking authorities of the State, concerning issues of
national interest.
The declarations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs concerning the
Colombian conflict and the so-called “Plan Colombia,” picked up by the
national press these past few weeks, respond to the perception and the views
of the National Government regarding these matters. Ecuador believes that
both the illicit activities carried out in the south of Colombia and the actions
that the Colombian Government has undertaken to combat them – Plan
Colombia, among others – have visible effects on Ecuadorian territory. It is
not up to the Government of Ecuador, respectful of the principle of non-
intervention and non-interference in the affairs of other States, to become
involved in the internal affairs of Colombia, but it does have the right to
adopt the measures it deems appropriate to preserve its security and that of
its citizens.
To conclude, Mister Ambassador, I also wish to reiterate the shock
and annoyance of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding your statements,
made public by the newspaper “El Comercio” in its 12 March 2001 edition,ANNEX 40
which contains comments about the internal affairs of the country that
should not be made by foreign diplomats.
Sincerels,
[signature]
Jaime Marchan
SECRETARY GENERAL OF FOREIGN AFFAIRSANNEX 40 ANNEX 41
Diplomatic Note 55416/2001- GM/SOI/SSN, sent from the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Ecuador to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia (2 July 2001) ANNEX 41
[seal]
REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
N° 55416/2001-GM/SOI/SSN
Quito, 2 July 2001
Your Excellency:
The Government of Ecuador has followed closely the actions that the
Illustrious Government of Colombia is conducting in the framework of the
application of the so-called "Plan Colombia", particularly those that are
involved in the spraying of illicit crops on Colombian territory neighboring
Ecuador.
My country’s attention is warranted, among other reasons, by the
possibility that atmospheric phenomena or other causes may eventually
cause the sprayings in the south of Colombia to produce harmful effects on
human health, on crops or on the environment of the Ecuadorian territory
bordering that country.
For this reason, my Government is worried by information regarding
the use in Colombia of the chemical formulation Roundup Ultra, whose
active ingredient is glyphosate and contains a substance called POEA,
which is much more toxic than glyphosate, combined with a product called
Cosmoflux 411F, which substantially increases the product’s power.
According to data available to Ecuador, there are no sufficient
studies regarding the safety of using inert substances as Dioxane and other
ingredients that are part of the formula currently used to spray coca crops in
southern Colombia. Furthermore, the fact that the doses applied are four
times higher than those recommended must also be taken into account, as
this increases the risk of damaging the vegetation as a result of the drift.
Renowned institutions such as the WWF (World Wildlife Fund)
have warned of the risks of using Roundup, and have recommended making
assessments on the potential short-term environmental impacts of this
product.ANNEX 41
His Excellency
GUILLERMO FERNANDEZ DE SOTO,
Minster of Foreign Affairs,
Bogotá, COLOMBIA
[PAGE 2]
[seal]
REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
In view of the foregoing, and without prejudice to the
precautions surely considered in the planning of the sprayings by
Colombian authorities, my Government deems it necessary to ask the
Illustrious Government of Colombia that applications of the chemical
formulations in its territory are made at least 10 kilometres away from the
border with Ecuador, in order to prevent the drift caused by winds from
reaching Ecuadorian territory and producing harmful effects on the people
and the vegetation.
My Government also believes that, among the alternatives
contemplated by Colombia to put an end to illicit crops in its territory, the
most adequate and effective one is concerted manual eradication, and I very
respectfully urge the Illustrious Government of Colombia to intensify it.
I avail myself of this opportunity to reiterate to Your
Excellency the assurances of my highest and distinguished consideration.
[signature]
Heinz Moeller Freile
MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRSANNEX 41ANNEX 41 ANNEX 42
Diplomatic Note DM/AL No. 25009, sent from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Colombia to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador (14 July 2001) ANNEX 42
[PAGE 1]
[seal] REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
DM/AL No. 25009
Bogotá, D.C., 14 July 2001
Mr. Minister:
I have the honor to write to Your Excellency with reference to your Note
No. 55416/2001-GM/SOI/SSN of 2 July 2001, which expresses the concern
of Ecuadorian authorities regarding the alleged use by Colombia of
formulas that contain toxic products and substances potentially harmful to
the population and the environment in Ecuadorian territory in the spraying
of illicit crops.
In light of this concern, I wish to inform Your Excellency that the
Government of Colombia has assumed, in a responsible way, the
commitment to eradicate illicit coca crops, and to do so, it is conducting a
program of spraying of illicit industrial crops in a technical, programmed
and controlled way. This eradication program is carried out in accordance
with parameters that minimize any risk that may affect the environment and
human and animal health.
To His Excellency
Mr. HEINZ MOELLER FREILE
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Quito-EcuadorANNEX 42
[PAGE 2]
[seal] REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Furthermore, Colombia uses products which have been demonstrated to
have no harmful effects and it has based its illicit crops eradication program
on reliable and consistent international scientific studies. Indeed, the
chemical substances used against illicit crops are the same used by both
countries on their plantations of bananas and flowers for export.
The Government of Colombia is aware of the effects that the inappropriate
use of herbicides can have. For that reason, I must draw your attention on
the harmful environmental consequences of the substances used by the coca
growers of our two countries, which have affected the ecosystems of the
region in a significant way.
For a better illustration of the matter, we have been guided by two studies
prepared by NAS /Plan Colombia – PECI and by the Counternarcotics
Directorate of the National Police of Colombia. I would like to stress the
following points contained in these studies:
x The herbicide used by the Program of Eradication of Illicit Crops -
PECI- is a commercial formulation made with glyphosate, which has
the registered name of Roundup Ultra, manufactured by the
company Monsanto Inc.
x Its toxicological category is No. IV, which means that it is at the
bottom of the universally accepted toxicity scale. ANNEX 42
x Scientific studies on the irritation caused by this product show that
the herbicide Roundup and Johnson & Johnson baby shampoo have
less irritating potential than cleansers and dish detergents.
[PAGE 3]
[seal] REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
x Concerning possible harm to human health, to this moment there are
no scientific reports to indicate health damages. This chemical does
not have teratogenic, carcinogenic or mutagenic characteristics, nor
does it accumulate on adipose tissue. Likewise, the EPA has
classified Glyphosate in category E, which means that there is
negative evidence of cancer.
x Its half-life in soil is between 1 and 4 weeks at the most, and in
tropical soils – such as ours – less than one week, and then it is
biodegraded. The dosages applied are inoperable in bushes, trees and
other vegetation with higher degrees of lignification than coca
bushes.
x Glyphosate, POEA and the herbicide Roundup have been tested in
numerous sub-chronic, chronic, reproductive, and developmental
studies, including tests to determine adverse effects on the nervous
system, and the conclusion is that there is no evidence of
neurotoxicity in any of these studies. Therefore, it is evident that no
neuropathies or alterations of the nervous system or alterations of the
fetal nervous system have been observed.ANNEX 42
x The surfactant Cosmoflux 411F is a coadjuvant commonly used in
commercial farming, added to many herbicides used in many cash
crops, including rice, corn, sorghum, soy, etc.
x Dioxin is 100 times below WHO and FAO standards, so there is no
reason for concern regarding human or animal health.
x The Program of Eradication of Illicit Crops – PECI – has fifteen (15)
technical parameters that must be strictly observed and that, applied
together, guarantee a negligible drift, that is, less than 5 meters.
Percentagewise, it represents less than 2% of the dose applied. In the
particular case of the border with Ecuador, the safety margin of 2.7
to 3.0 kilometres is believed to be enough.
[PAGE 4]
[seal] REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Bearing in mind the concerns expressed by Your Excellency, I propose
holding a seminar-workshop in Colombia within the next thirty (30) days.
During this event, the Government of Colombia will have the opportunity to
illustrate its program of eradication of illicit crops and provide all the
technical information required by Ecuadorian officials, in view of allaying
all existing concerns and strengthening the spirit of bilateral cooperation.
I avail myself of this opportunity to reiterate to Your Excellency the
assurances of its highest and most distinguished consideration and esteem.
[Signature]
GUILLERMO FERNANDEZ DE SOTO
Minister of Foreign AffairsANNEX 42ANNEX 42ANNEX 42ANNEX 42 ANNEX 43
Diplomatic Note E-180, sent from the Embassy of Colombia in Quito to the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador (20 Feb. 2002) ANNEX 43
[PAGE 1]
[seal] EMBASSY OF COLOMBIA
E-180
Your Excellency Mister Foreign Minister:
Until I was certain of it, I deliberately did not want to refer formally to
our phone conversation regarding the alleged violation of Ecuadorian
airspace by Colombian aircraft. Fortunately, the Ecuadorian authorities
themselves have affirmed that it was nothing but false rumors.
I avail myself of this opportunity to refer to another matter that has
caused concern in Ecuador. I am referring to the fumigations of illicit
crops. During the visit made to Colombia by an Ecuadorian delegation
last week, they were able to verify that sprayings do not have harmful
effects on Ecuadorian territory or in Colombia, for that matter; the care
with which they are carried out and the products used are a guarantee of
their innocuousness. Furthermore, it is evident that as drugs are a
scourge of humanity, one cannot renounce this tool to destroy coca and
poppy crops.
Save unlikely human error, you can rest assured, Mr. Foreign Minister, of
the respect of the military forces and of the Government of Colombia for
the sovereignty of Ecuador.
As you are aware, a coordinating meeting of the highest military
commanders of both countries was held in Cali this past weekend. This
type of meeting and those of Combifron serve to monitor the effects of the
activities of irregular Colombian groups in Ecuadorian territory, and not
of Plan Colombia,
[PAGE 2]
as often thought, which result in a risk for your country and in the
trafficking of weapons, ammunition, dynamite and chemical precursors to
Colombia, which aggravate our conflict and is, naturally, cause for
concern for Ecuador.
Finally, I would like to convey the solidarity of the Government and of the
people of Colombia with their Ecuadorian counterparts. Clear proof ofANNEX 43
this is the recent collaboration in the rescue of the victims of the
unfortunate airplane crashes; even before receiving requests for
assistance from Vice-Minister Jaime Marchan and from the Minister of
Government, Marcelo Merlo, the Colombian Air Force had already taken
effective actions in this regard. I should mention in particular the rescue
of the patrol that had gotten lost in Cerro El Tigre, which involved huge
risks for the crew that acted with skill and courage, as well as to the
costly and sophisticated equipment that was used.
Quito, 20 February 2002
[signature]
ELISEO RESTREPO LONDOÑO
Ambassador of Colombia
To His Excellency
HEINZ MOELLER FREILE
MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
CityANNEX 43ANNEX 43 ANNEX 44
Diplomatic Note E-340, sent from Embassy of Colombia in Quito to the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador (15 Apr. 2002) ANNEX 44
[seal]
EMBASSY OF COLOMBIA
E-340
THE EMBASSY OF THE REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA presents its
compliments to the HONORABLE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS –
Under-Secretariat for Bilateral Affairs –, and allows itself to again submit for
its consideration several reflections concerning the Colombian conflict and
Plan Colombia.
In order to tackle the serious threat faced by the democratic system as a result
of a gurerrilla that is relentless in its acts, that combined with drug trafficking
activities, have bled into Colombian society and undermined and corrupted its
institutional and social bodies, the government of President Andrés Pastrana,
with the support of the international community, devised Plan Colombia as an
instrument that was needed to defend more than 40 million Colombians from
these scourges and to contribute so that universal threat of such as drug
trafficking does not continue to have a base in our country.
It is worth insistently repeating that Plan Colombia is in essence a program to
eradicate coca and poppy crops, providing an alternative economic activity to
the campesinos who grow these crops; it is a strategy of strengthening the
economy, to provide greater well being to the population and to lower
unemployment rates, which reach 20%; it is an intent to strengthen justice and
protect human rights, and, above all, it is a commitment of the Government to
find a solution to the armed conflict and to achieve the reconciliation of all
Colombians.
A plan of this nature has opponents, for the most part among extreme left
organizations, drug traffickers and a few environmental groups. The distortion
and demonization of the plan have had a deep impact on uninformed and
unaware sectors, to such a point that today, vast areas of the public opinion,
and even official agencies have an erroneous, and not always objective image,
of Plan Colombia. For example, it is believed that Plan Colombia can have
adverse effects on neighboring countries, as would be the case of Ecuador.ANNEX 44
EMBASSY OF COLOMBIA
Specifically, it is said that, as a result of the measures taken in Colombia,
numerous displaced persons could reach that country, and there would be a risk
of the guerrilla and drug trafficking relocating to its territory. Similarly, it is
believed that the fumigation of illicit crops could have an adverse effect on the
Ecuadorian population and the environment.
Despite these perceptions, that initially appear to be true, they are not the
reality in practice. Beginning with the fumigations that have been carried out
at a massive scale, it has been demonstrated that they have had no adverse
effects in Colombia, and therefore could hardly have them in Ecuador. In this
huge., it is worth noting that its results on the eradication of crops have been
Likewise, regarding the other possible adverse effects of Plan Colombia, the
following clarifications are worth making:
Concerning displaced populations, in October 2000, it was noted that there was
a confrontation between members of FARC and Paramilitaries in the
Department of Putumayo; this was made worse by an armed strike that blocked
the roads leading towards the interior of Colombia. In these conditions, many
campesinos of the region, who were caught between two fires, fled towards
Ecuadorian territory, but most returned immediately to Colombia, mainly using
the road from Tulcán. This was the only case of a massive displacement, and it
is worth noting that it had a specific cause, unconnected with Plan Colombia,
which began in January 2001.
It is worth recalling that throughout the history of our countries, there has been
a flow of Colombians to Ecuador, who for the most part have settled and
contribute with their efforts and work to the progress of that country. The huge
this.tments made by Colombian companies and citizens should also be added to
The phenomenon of human displacements, originating from the Colombian
conflict and not from Plan Colombia , has taken on alarming proportions in
Colombian territory and constitutes the main social problem of the country.
Fortunately, its repercussions in Ecuador have been limited, and to handle
them, the country has the support of eminent agencies, such as the UNHCR. ANNEX 44
Concerning the possible movement of the guerrilla and drug trafficking to
Ecuador, it cannot be said that this is a consequence of the application of Plan
Colombia. Indeed, much before the beginning of the latter, there have been
sporadic incursions of both activities, and other, more permanent ones, in
border areas like Sucumbíos, where these groups go to rest and obtain supplies,
such as weapons, ammunitions, dynamite, and chemical precursors. In the
context of a porous border, the phenomenon has been so notorious that these
illicit activities have had the support and acceptance of some of the people who
live in these regions.
The presence of Ecuadorian military forces in the northern border has now
been reinforced and there is greater control, but we cannot ignore the fact that
these criminal groups continue trafficking drugs and committing crimes, such as
muggings and kidnappings, as they have done for many years. Both countries
should only contribute to prevent and control these acts.
The Colombian government believes that Plan Colombia has been successful,
that it is an irreplaceable instrument to solve the Colombian conflict and to
alleviate the danger that it may affect other countries, more particularly its
neighbors. This reality has been acknowledged by the international community,
which has given our country its decided solidarity and support, while accepting
its responsibility in finding a solution, under the principles of shared
responsibility, and to tackle activities, such as drug trafficking and terrorism,
that are a threat to the whole of humanity.
THE EMBASSY OF THE REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA avails itself of this
opportunity to renew to the HONORABLE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN
AFFAIRS the assurances of its highest and distinguished consideration.
Quito, 15 April 2002
[Signature]
To the Honorable
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Under-Secretariat for Bilateral Affairs
CityANNEX 44ANNEX 44ANNEX 44 ANNEX 45
Diplomatic Note 47839 DGAF, sent from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Ecuador to the Embassy of Colombia in Quito (18 Oct. 2002) ANNEX 45
No. 47839 DGAF
THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS – General Directorate
of Border Affairs – presents its compliments to the Honorable Embassy of
Colombia on the occasion of sending a copy of the letter addressed to this
Ministry by the prefect of Sucumbios, as well as by the Agricultural Center
of Lago Agrio Canton, in which they condemn the possible adverse effects
on the agricultural crops of this province as a result of the implementation of
the fumigation plan by the Government of Colombia.
THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS – General Directorate
of Border Affairs – would greatly appreciate the assistance of the Honorable
Embassy of Colombia in forwarding this information to the Honorable
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia and other competent entities in this
matter.
THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS – General Directorate of
Border Affairs – avails itself of this opportunity to reiterate to the Honorable
Embassy of the Republic of Colombia the assurances of its highest and most
distinguished consideration.
Quito, 18 October 2002
To the Honorable
Embassy of Colombia
Quito.-ANNEX 45 ANNEX 46
Diplomatic Note 48975-2002/DGPB, sent from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Ecuador to the Embassy of Colombia in Quito (23 Oct. 2002) ANNEX 46
N° 48975-2002/DGPB.
THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS - General
Directorate of Bilateral Policy - presents its cordial greetings to the
Honorable Embassy of the Republic of Colombia and has the honor to
transmit a summary of the report sent by the Governor of the Province of
Sucumbios related to accusations and complaints made by Ecuadorian
peasants who live on the riverbanks of the San Miguel River as a result of
the spraying operations that are being conducted as part of Plan Colombia.
The damages have been verified by this local authority, who reports that he
has been able to confirm the damages suffered by crops of orito, plantain,
bananas, maize, yucca and other vegetation. He has also found dead farm
animals and fishes in various ponds, products that are staple foods of this
population.
Concerning the residents of the area, he has also been able to
confirm the effects caused by the sprayings on the health of these people,
including irritations, skin rashes and various types of respiratory problems.
THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS - General
Directorate of Bilateral Policy - avails itself of this opportunity to renew to
the Honorable Embassy of the Republic of Colombia the assurances of its
highest and distinguished consideration.
Quito, 23 October 2002
[signature]
To the Honorable
EMBASSY OF THE REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA
City.-ANNEX 46 ANNEX 47
Diplomatic Note 23205/GM, sent from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Ecuador to the Embassy of Colombia in Quito (10 Apr. 2003) ANNEX 47
[seal]
REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Note No. 23205/GM
Quito, 10 April 2003
Mrs.
María Paulina Espinosa de López
Ambassador of Colombia
City.-
Madame Ambassador:
I have the honor to refer to the conversations held during the visit
paid to this Foreign Ministry on 26 February by Dr. Sandra Suárez, Director
of Plan Colombia, aimed at establishing the Binational Commission charged
with evaluating the effects of the chemical substances used by the
Colombian Government in aerial sprayings operations, which would consist
of representatives of the Ministries of the Environment, Health, Agriculture
and Foreign Affairs of both countries.
As the Honorable Embassy of Colombia is aware, the Government
and the Ecuadorian State agencies have received various complaints from
border populations and communities, including a lawsuit to recover
damages, which is underway.
For these reasons, and in accordance with its responsibilities, the
Ecuadorian Foreign Ministry would greatly appreciate that the illustrious
Government of Colombia provide a list of the persons who will make up the
aforementioned Binational Commission.
On the other hand, concerning the conversations held with
Ambassador Eduardo Mora, General Director of Border Affairs, I allow
myself to send a draft Memorandum of Understanding and to propose to
your Illustrious Government the endorsement thereof within the spirit of
brotherly cooperation that characterizes the relations between Ecuador and
ColombiaANNEX 47
I avail myself of this occasion to renew to you the feelings of my
highest and distinguished consideration.
Sincerely,
[signature]
Dr. Nina Pacari Vega
MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
The Republic of Ecuador, represented by ………, and the Republic
of Colombia, represented by …………., within the scope of their cordial
relations hereby agree to put into writing the following Agreement with
regard to illicit crops and spraying operations for their eradication:
FIRST.- The Parties acknowledge the need to eliminate illicit coca
crops and other plants used in the manufacturing of narcotic substances,
elimination that must be carried out by each one of the Parties within the
limits of their respective territories and based on procedures compatible with
the protection of human health and the environment.
SECOND.- In the event that one of the Parties is required to conduct
aerial spraying operations aimed at the elimination of illicit crops, these
shall be undertaken at a distance of no less than ten kilometers from the line
marking the border between the two countries. In order to prevent harm or
inconveniences to border towns of the other Party, the aircrafts shall not
spray during aerial maneuverings involving over-flights of the
aforementioned buffer safety zone.
THIRD.- To ratify their support of the Inter-Institutional Bi-
National Commission responsible for the assessment of the effects of the
chemical substances used by Colombia in the aerial spraying operations. ANNEX 47
FOURTH.- Notwithstanding the provisions contained in the
previous paragraphs, in the event that harm to human health or to the
environment of the nationals and/or territory of the one of the Parties is
confirmed and attributed to the other Party due to the use of chemical
substances in aerial spraying operations, the affected Party shall be entitled
to the corresponding reparations.
Quito, on……………..ANNEX 47ANNEX 47 ANNEX 48
Diplomatic Note VRE 32759, sent from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Colombia to the Embassy of Ecuador in Bogotá (23 Sep. 2003) ANNEX 48
[seal]
REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
VRE No. 32759
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the
Honorable Embassy of Ecuador and refers to Note No. 4-2-234/03 dated 25
August, whose content refers to a previous letter, number 23205/GM, dated
10 April 2003.
In this letter, the Illustrious Government of Ecuador proposed establishing a
Bi-national Commission to examine the effects of the aerial sprayings on the
illicit crops of the common border region, and signing a “Memorandum of
Understanding” on a 10-km spraying-free strip along the border.
The Government of Colombia, aware of the importance assigned to the
world drug problem and related crimes in the bilateral agenda of both
countries, carefully examined Note No. 23205/GM dated 10 April 2003.
From the analysis of the content it is clear that the Government of Ecuador
acknowledges the need to eliminate illicit crops used as basis to
manufacture narcotic substances, although it has a different appreciation of
the effect of the aerial sprayings with which the Government of Colombia
hopes to eradicate these crops during the present Administration, to
contribute in a decisive way to the world fight against the problem of drugs.
To the Honorable
EMBASSY OF ECUADOR
CityANNEX 48
[PAGE 2]
The establishment of an aerial spraying-free strip along the common border,
as proposed by the Government of Ecuador in the aforementioned
Memorandum, is unacceptable to the Government of Colombia, for multiple
reasons, including the following:
1. The eradication of illicit crops is conducted within the
boundaries of the Colombian territory, pursuant to the United
Nations Convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances (1998), other relevant international
agreements and the Declaration and Plan of Action to counter the
World Drug Problem adopted by the United Nations in 1998,
commitments that have been assumed by the Governments of
Colombia and Ecuador.
2. Forced eradication is accepted as a legitimate means in the fight
against illicit crops and is conducted on the basis of procedures
compatible with the preservation of human health and the
environment, pursuant to the precautionary principle enshrined in
the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.
Prior to the spraying, a satellite system is used to identify the
illicit crops, thus guaranteeing the exact perimeter of the area that
will be sprayed. In addition, the technology with which the
aircraft that execute these operations are equipped guarantees an
accurate target.
3. The very size of the crops prevents considering manual
eradication as a viable method to eliminate them. Therefore, it is ANNEX 48
necessary to resort to sprayings from the air. Declaring a crop
zone free from aerial sprayings in the common border would
open a door for the free movement of international networks of
drug trafficking, smuggling of weapons and chemical precursors,
in partnership with terrorist groups that operate in the south of
Colombia, and would create an even bigger danger for the
security of both nations, particularly for the residents of the
border zone.ANNEX 48ANNEX 48 ANNEX 49
Diplomatic Note No. DBR/CAL 37677, sent from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
of Colombia to the Embassy of Ecuador in Bogotá (9 Oct. 2003) ANNEX 49
DBR/CAL No. 37677
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs - Directorate of Bilateral and
Regional Affairs – presents its compliments to the Honorable Embassy of
Ecuador and refers to Diplomatic Note No. DM/DBR No. 35024, dated 23
September 2003, which informed the names of the members of the
Scientific Commission on aerial sprayings in the border zone, and has the
honor to confirm the list of the representatives of Colombia:
- Colonel (ret.) Luis Alfonso Plazas Vega
National Director of Narcotics
Coordinator of the Colombian Scientific Commission
- Brigadier General Jaime Augusto Vera
Director, National Antinarcotics Police
- Colonel Carlos Arturo Narváez Martínez
Head, Unit of Eradication of Illicit Crops
DIRAN National Police
- Capt. Miguel Tunjano
Agronomist, Unit of Eradication of Illicit Crops
DIRAN National Police
- Dr. Camilo Uribe Granja
Toxicologist-Researcher
External Advisor, National Narcotics Directorate
- Jorge Bochell Samper
General Director, National Institute of Health
- Marcela Eugenia Barona Uribe
Doctor specialized in Epidemiology and Toxicology
Coordinator, Epidemiology in Environmental Health
National Institute of Health
- Mario Enrique Hoyos Falla
Director, Regional Affairs and EradicationANNEX 49
National Narcotics Directorate
- Dr. Alvaro Valencia Parra
Assistant Director, Strategy and Research
[PAGE 2]
National Narcotics Directorate
- Dr. René Castro
Chemist, National Laboratory of Agricultural Inputs
Agricultural Institute of Colombia – ICA
- Dr. Herbert Matheus Gómez
Professional specialized in phytosanitary risk control
Agricultural Institute of Colombia – ICA
- Jorge Hernán Botero Tobón
Toxicologist. External Advisor
National Narcotics Directorate
- Hector Hernando Bernal Contreras
Chemist. Professional specialized in Chemistry and Environment
Sub-directorate of Strategy and Research
National Narcotics Directorate
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Directorate of Bilateral and
Regional Affairs, has the honor to inform that Minister Councilor Alvaro
Sandoval Bernal, Coordinator of Drug Affairs of the Directorate of
Multilateral Political Affairs, Dr. Gustavo Paredes, and Dr. Karin Rubio,
professionals in charge of the desk of Ecuador, and Dr. Ricardo
Montenegro, Executive Secretary of the Colombia-Ecuador Neighborhood
Commission, have been designated as observers.
Likewise, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has the honor to confirm
that the meeting will be held on Tuesday, 14 April 2003 starting at 8:30 a.m.
in the Windsor House Hotel, located on Calle 95 N° 9-97 in this city.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Directorate of Bilateral and
Regional Affairs, avails itself of this opportunity to reiterate to the
honorable Embassy of Ecuador the assurances of its highest and
distinguished consideration. ANNEX 49
Bogotá, D.C., 9 October 2003
To the Honorable
EMBASSY OF THE REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR
CityANNEX 49ANNEX 49 ANNEX 50
Diplomatic Note VRE/DBR 40153, sent from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Colombia to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador (12 Nov. 2003) ANNEX 50
[seal] REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
VRE/DBR 40153
Bogotá D.C., 12 November 2003
Mr. Minister:
I have the honor to write to Your Excellency with reference to your
kind Note No. 68964/2003-GM dated 23 October 2003, requesting that a
copy of the environmental impact and epidemiology studies, reports
subsequent to the sprayings and information concerning the sprayed areas
be forwarded to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador.
With regard to this matter, I would like to forward a copy of the
following related documents:
1. Toxicity studies in laboratory animals – Inmunopharmos Ltd.
2. Final Report – A study of reports on health damage related to
aerial eradication in Colombia – Dr. Camilo Uribe Granja.
3. Retrospective study on potential effects on human health due to
exposure to glyphosate in aerial spraying.
4. Analysis – Executive Summary “Impacts in Ecuador of
sprayings in Putumayo under Plan Colombia”.ANNEX 50
I avail myself of this occasion to renew to Your Excellency the
assurances of my highest and distinguished consideration and esteem.
[signature]
CAROLINA BARCO
Minister of Foreign Affairs
To His Excellency
PATRlCIO ZUQUILANDA DUQUE
Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Ecuador
QuitoANNEX 50 ANNEX 51
Diplomatic Note 75204/2003-GM, sent from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Ecuador to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia (21 Nov. 2003) ANNEX 51
[seal]
REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Note No. 75204/2003-GM
Quito, 21 November 2003
Your Excellency Madame Minister,
I hereby wish to thank Your Excellency for forwarding the important
scientific information that the Illustrious Government of the Republic of
Colombia had concerning the issue of sprayings with glyphosate in our
common border.
At the same time, I would like to ask Your Excellency to order that
the “Environmental impact assessment conducted prior to the applications
of glyphosate”, offered to the Scientific and Technical Commission of
Ecuador during the meeting held in Bogotá on 14 October, be forwarded to
the Foreign Ministry of Ecuador, as the Commission needs it to make the
most thorough analysis possible.
All the documentation will be analyzed by the Scientific and
Technical Commission of Ecuador, and it is expected that the next meeting
of both Commissions might be held on 17 December 2003, in the city of
Quito.
I avail myself of this opportunity to reiterate to Your Excellency the
assurances of my highest esteem and personal appreciation.
[Signed]
Patricio Zuquilanda Duque
Minister of Foreign Affairs
[Seal that reads:
REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS]ANNEX 51
To Her Excellency
Ambassador Carolina Barco
Minister of Foreign Affairs
of the Republic of Colombia
Bogotá.-ANNEX 51 ANNEX 52
Diplomatic Note 68934/2003-GM, sent from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Ecuador to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia (23 Oct. 2003) ANNEX 52
[seal]
REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Note No. 68934/2003-GM
Quito, 23 October 2003
Your Excellency Madame Minister,
Upon the successful conclusion of the first meeting of the Scientific-
Technical Commissions of Ecuador and Colombia held in Bogotá on 14
October, pursuant to the offer made by the Colombian side during the
meeting, I have the honor to request that, in order to further the proposed
process of scientific and technical research, you to instruct that the
information requested by the Ecuadorian Scientific-Technical Commission
concerning fumigation zones, existing environmental impact studies,
epidemiological studies, reports subsequent to sprayings, and all scientific
records available and deemed appropriate is sent to the Foreign Ministry of
Ecuador, to allow the CCTE to conduct an analysis as thorough as possible.
Additionally, I am pleased to inform you that, with respect to the
issues of “epidemiological surveillance,” the CCTE is also ready to begin
the pertinent joint activities with the Colombian Scientific-Technical
Commission.
As soon as the above documentation is supplied by the Foreign
Ministry of Colombia and after it is duly analyzed by the CCTE, the
Ecuadorian Foreign Ministry will propose a date for the commissions to
hold the relevant evaluation meeting, in the city of Quito, as well as a
provisional calendar of the visits to the border area that will have to be
made.
I avail myself of this opportunity to reiterate to you assurances of my
highest esteem and personal appreciation.
[signature]
Patricio Zuquilanda Duque
Minister of Foreign AffairsANNEX 52
To Her Excellency
Ambassador Carolina Barco
Minister of Foreign Affairs
of the Republic of Colombia
Bogotá.-ANNEX 52 ANNEX 53
Diplomatic Note DM/DBR 47356, sent from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Colombia to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador (15 Dec. 2003) ANNEX 53
REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA
[seal]
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
DM/DBR No. 47356
Bogotá, D. C, 15 December 2003
Your Excellency:
I have the honor to write to Your Excellency with reference to your
kind letter N° 5204/2003-GM of 21 November, requesting additional
documentation for the Ecuadorian Scientific and Technical Commission.
I wish to inform Your Excellency that after making the relevant
consultations, none of the competent entities reported having the document
entitled “Environmental Impact Assessment conducted prior to sprayings of
Glyphosate” in their possession.
On the other hand, I am enclosing a document entitled
“Determination of residues of the herbicide glyphosate and its metabolite
AMPA in waters,” which was offered to the Ecuadorian delegation by the
representative of the Colombian Agricultural Institute ICA during the
meeting held on 14 October in Bogota, and which I hope will be useful to
the Scientific and Technical Commission of Ecuador.
I would also like to inform Your Excellency that the Colombian
scientific delegation will not be able to travel to Ecuador on 17 December,
due to difficulties in its agenda. Accordingly, the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs will propose a new date for the holding of the meeting of the
Technical and Scientific Commissions of Colombia and Ecuador.ANNEX 53
I avail myself of this opportunity to reiterate to Your Excellency the
assurances of my highest and most distinguished consideration.
[signature]
CAROLINA BARCO
Minister of Foreign Affairs
To His Excellency
PATRICIO ZUQUILANDA DUQUE
Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Ecuador
QuitoANNEX 53 ANNEX 54
Diplomatic Note DBR/CAL 1405, sent from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Colombia to the Embassy of Ecuador in Bogotá (14 Jan. 2004) ANNEX 54
[seal]
REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
DBR/CAL No. 1405
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Directorate of Bilateral and
Regional Affairs, presents its compliments to the Honorable Embassy of
Ecuador on the occasion of forwarding the document “Environmental Risk
of the Herbicide Glyphosate”, sent by the Anti-Narcotics Directorate of the
National Police of Colombia, in order that it be delivered to the Scientific
Commission of Ecuador.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Directorate of Bilateral and
Regional Affairs, avails itself of this opportunity to reiterate to the
honorable Embassy of Ecuador the assurances of its highest and
distinguished consideration.
Bogotá D.C., 14 January 2004
To the Honorable
EMBASSY OF THE REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR
City.ANNEX 54 ANNEX 55
Diplomatic Note 4820/2004-GM, sent from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Ecuador to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia (10 Feb. 2004) ANNEX 55
[seal]
REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Note No. 4820/200-GM
Quito, 10 February 2004
Your Excellency Madame Minister:
I am honored to inform you that the II Meeting of the Scientific
Technical Commissions of Ecuador and Colombia was held successfully on
9 February 2004, in the city of Quito. At the closing of the II Meeting, the
following points were reviewed, and were recorded as the agreed findings of
this important binational meeting.
1.- The need to define the characteristics of a “Model” that, based on the
calculation of variables and factors present in the mechanics of sprayings,
allows the prevention of mistakes that cause damage to Ecuadorian territory.
The CCTC offered to send the record of past sprayings, and all the
information on the parameters taken into consideration for these spraying
operations in areas close to the border with Ecuador. The CCTC agreed to
send the route maps used, altitude and other information on winds and other
relevant data.
2.- The need to make a joint visit to the Province of Sucumbios. The
Commissions agreed on the importance of conducting joint field
observations and gathering the testimonies of the residents of the area
directly, to verify the research conducted by the CCTE. Both Commissions
are willing to make this trip before President Lucio Gutiérrez’ visit to
Colombia, scheduled for March 2. The delegations undertook to limit the
group to an essentially scientific representation. This trip should be made
under the strictest security measures and with a list of concrete goals. The
trip will last three days and two nights.
3.- Exchange of the information requested by both parties regarding the
further elaboration and the scientific and methodological bases (protocols)
of the studies discussed, as well as the full delivery of new data and
documents that allow the confirmation or rule out damages on Ecuadorian
territory as a result of the sprayings.ANNEX 55
ExHceren…c1/2
Ambassador Carolina Barco
Minister of Foreign Affairs
of the Republic of Colombia
Bogota.-
[PAGE 2]
…2/2
4.- Review and broaden existing cooperation agreements concerning the
issues generated by the sprayings to ensure their proper reactivation, and
draft new agreements to be signed by healthcare institutions and other
sectors. The possibility of reaching an agreement on the implementation of a
project that would include a hospital ship that would travel along border
rivers, providing medical assistance along the riverbanks of both countries,
was mentioned
5.- The CCTE again requested the CCTC’s report on environmental impact.
This report has been deemed essential since the beginning of the inquiries,
and it was presented during the II Meeting.
In view of the foregoing, and considering the significant agreements
fortunately reached by the Scientific Commissions of our countries, permit
me, Madame Minister, to request that this Ministry is informed of the date
and the requirements of the CCTC to implement the project of the joint trip
of the commissioners to the border area of the Province of Sucumbios,
which I hope may be organized before 2 March.
In addition to the points listed in this note, I would also appreciate
your assistance in sending the information concerning the international
certification of the company that carried out the toxicological studies that
were presented by the CCTC on 9 February.
Trusting that the procedures agreed during the II Meeting of the
Scientific and Technical Commissions will be carried out with your
illustrious cooperation, in order to give the required continuity to the
investigations underway and to make feasible the opportune proposition of
possible protocols for cooperation feasible, I reiterate, Madame Minister, the
assurances of my highest esteem and personal appreciation. ANNEX 55
[Signed]
Patricio Zuquilanda Duque
Minister of Foreign AffairsANNEX 55ANNEX 55 ANNEX 56
Diplomatic Note 10181/2004-GM, sent from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Ecuador to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia (16 Feb. 2004) ANNEX 56
[seal]
REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Note No. 10181/2004GM
Quito, 16 February 2004
Your Excellency Madame Minister,
Concerning my Note No. 4820/2004-GM dated 10 February, by
which I was honored to inform you of the results of the II Meeting of the
Scientific Technical Commissions of Ecuador and Colombia, held in this
city on 9 February, I am honored to request the Illustrious Government of
Colombia that, as long as the procedures agreed during the II Meeting of the
Scientific-Technical Commissions are not materialized in a definitive
solution, the suspension of sprayings continue to be maintained, according
to a press release of the Embassy of Colombia, dated 19 January, that
between the previous year (2003) and the date of the release, “Colombia has
not carried out fumigations to fight illicit crops in the border zone with
Ecuador”.
I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to Your Excellency the
assurances of my highest esteem and personal appreciation.
[Signature]
Patricio Zuquilanda Duque
Minister of Foreign Affairs
To Your Excellency
Ambassador Carolina Barco
Minister of Foreign Affairs
of the Republic of Colombia
Bogotá.-.ANNEX 56 ANNEX 57
Diplomatic Note DM/DBR 8092, sent from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Colombia to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador (23 Feb. 2004) ANNEX 57
[SEAL] REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
DM/DBR No. 8092
Bogotá, D.C., 23 February 2004
Your Excellency:
I am honored to write to Your Excellency concerning your kind Note
No. 10181/2004-GM of 16 February 2004, regarding the program of aerial
sprayings for the eradication of illicit crops in the southern region of
Colombia.
In this sense, I would like to point out that, for reasons of the
schedule of sprayings for this year, at present the Antinarcotics Police is not
carrying out aerial sprayings in areas near the border line with Ecuador.
However, in case aerial surveillance conducted over these areas provides
information on new crops, the program of sprayings will continue, in
application of the national policy of eradication of illicit crops and in
compliance with the international commitments to fight the drug problem
assumed by Colombia.
I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to Your Excellency the
assurances of my highest and distinguished consideration.
[Signed]
CAROLINA BARCO
Minister of Foreign AffairsANNEX 57
To His Excellency
Mr. PATRlCIO ZUQUILANDA DUQUE
Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Ecuador
Quito.-ANNEX 57 ANNEX 58
Diplomatic Note 15715/2004-GM, sent from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Ecuador to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia (9 Mar. 2004) ANNEX 58
[PAGE 1]
[seal]
REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Note No. 15715/2004-GM
Quito, 09 March 2004
Your Excellency Madame Minister:
Concerning your Note DM/DBR No. 8092 of 23 February 2004,
received in this office on 8 March, I am honored to inform you that:
As you are aware, the Scientific and Technical Commissions of
Ecuador of Colombia acknowledged the current issues and the great
uncertainty of the Ecuadorian population living in the border zone with
Colombia during the dialogues held in the framework of the II Meeting that
took place in Quito last 9 February 2004. This issue involves, among other
things, a serious social situation in this region, as a result of the great
psychological pressure exerted on the Ecuadorian and Colombian refugee
populations by the announcements of new aerial sprayings in nearby
Colombian territory.
The Foreign Ministry of Ecuador along with the Ecuadorian
Scientific and Technical Commission participated with members of the
Human Rights Commission of the Parliament and the national and
international press in an observation and fact-finding visit, which has
resulted in several interpretations of the phenomenon. One that has prevailed
among the press and the indicated political sectors is the version that allANNEX 58
existing effects in the zone, including the uncertainty and the fear of the
population to grow crops and to remain in the area with their families arise
from the sprayings conducted as part of the Colombian program for the
eradication of illicit crops.
To Her Excellency Madame
Ambassador Carolina Barco,
Minister of Foreign Affairs
of the Republic of Colombia
Bogotá.-
[PAGE 2]
In this context, it is worth pointing out that the inquiries that this
Foreign Ministry has entrusted to the Ecuadorian Scientific and Technical
Commission are exclusively aimed at determining the scientific truth that
the alleged damage in the Ecuadorian border area would be caused by the
spraying of glyphosate with other chemicals.
With the goal of controlling this serious situation, the Government of
Ecuador will undertake parallel scientific investigations regarding the issue
of the fumigations with glyphosate, as well as health, agricultural technical
cooperation, education and other programs to reactivate the economy of the
zone.
In this sense, the Government of Ecuador kindly requests the
Illustrious Government of Colombia to monitor and reinforce to the
maximum extent its controls over its southern border region neighboring
Ecuador, as well as to take all steps deemed appropriate in its territory to
prevent new illicit crops and the resumption of possible aerial sprayings in
the aforementioned zone. ANNEX 58
In view of the foregoing, I am honored to reiterate to you and
through you to the Illustrious Government of Colombia the request that the
suspension of sprayings that, according to the Diplomatic Note quoted in my
reference, would not be underway at present, continue to be enforced while
the procedures agreed during the II Meeting of the Scientific Commissions,
of which you were informed by Diplomatic Note No. 4820/2004-GM of
February 10, are put into effect.
I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to you, Madame Minister,
the assurances of my highest esteem and personal appreciation.
[signature]
Patricio Zuquilanda Duque
Minister of Foreign AffairsANNEX 58ANNEX 58 ANNEX 59
Diplomatic Note 15839/2004-GM-VM, sent from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
of Ecuador to the Embassy of Colombia in Quito (10 Mar. 2004) ANNEX 59
[PAGE 1]
[seal]
REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
No. 15839/2004-GM-VM
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to
Honorable Embassy of the Republic of Colombia, and has the honor to
transmit Note No. 15715/2004-GM of 9 March 2004, to that Honorable
Diplomatic Representation, with the request that it is conveyed to Her
Excellency Ambassador Carolina Barco, Minister of Foreign Affairs.
This Foreign Ministry also requests an opportune response to Note
No. 482012004-GM, dated Quito, 10 February 2004, which contains the
conclusions reached during the II Meeting of the Scientific and Technical
Commissions of both countries, including significant procedures regarding
the progress of the joint research on the harmful effects of glyphosate or on
the methodology of application near Ecuadorian territory. In its response,
the Foreign Ministry of Colombia was expected to: 1) Fix a suitable date for
the joint trip of the Scientific and Technical Commissions of both countries
to the Ecuadorian zone where the problems indicated above have occurred.
2) Provide information on the methodology for the aerial sprayings
conducted in the border region with Ecuador, for the determination of a
model. 3) Provide the scientific basis of the research made by Colombia on
this matter. 4) Report on the international certification of the companies that
have conducted toxicological studies on behalf of Colombia. 5) Send the
impact report of the aerial sprayings with glyphosate and other chemicals,ANNEX 59
which has been requested repeatedly, and 6) facilitate an exchange of views
regarding the broadening of the existing cooperation agreements aimed at
the recovery of the zones affected by the problem.
TO THE HONORABLE EMBASSY
OF THE REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA
QUITO.- .
[PAGE 2]
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to
reiterate to the Honorable Embassy of the Republic of Colombia the
assurances of its highest and most distinguished consideration.
Quito, 10 March 2004ANNEX 59ANNEX 59 ANNEX 60
Presidential Joint Declaration between Ecuador and Colombia, Bogotá
(17 Mar. 2004) ANNEX 60
JOINT STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
ECUADOR, LUCIO GUTIERREZ BORBUA AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE
REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA, ALVARO URIBE VELEZ
The President of the Republic of Ecuador, Engineer Lucio Gutiérrez Borbúa, paid a
State Visit to Colombia on 16 and 17 March 2004, in response to the invitation made by
the President of the Republic of Colombia, Doctor Alvaro Uribe Velez.
During the visit, both Presidents and their respective Ministers of State held a series of
working meetings with the purpose of strengthening the traditional bonds of friendship
and fraternity between the two countries, with a view towards broadening integration,
cooperation and the fraternal ties that have always characterized the relations between
both countries.
Both Presidents reiterated their adherence to the principles of International Law
enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and in the Charter of the Organization of
American States.
The Presidents took note of the results of the meetings held during the month of
February 2004, including the III High-Level Ministerial Meeting and the XIV Plenary
Meeting of the Neighbor Relations Commission between the two countries, as well as
the I Meeting of the Special Binational Commission on Immigration issues and of the
Scientific and Technical Commission on fumigations, held in the cities of Bogotá and
Quito.
Both Presidents held a productive work meeting, as a continuation of the dialogue
started in Quito last August, and reviewed the bilateral agenda, particularly regarding
immigration, trade, security and integration and border development issues and, to this
effect, they ratified their will to continue advancing in the constructive and proactive
treatment of these issues.
[…]
14. The Heads of State examined the work carried out by the Scientific-Technical
Commissions of the two countries regarding the sprayings, and they gave
instructions to hold a third meeting and joint inspection and scientific evaluation
visits on both sides of the border in April 2004. The Presidents reiterated the
importance of examining the conclusions of the Commission within the shortest
possible amount of time.ANNEX 60
[…]
16. The Government of Colombia will give the Government of Ecuador explanations
and scientific support that demonstrate that the fumigation of illicit crops is not
harmful to human beings or to the environment.
17. Ecuadorian complaints regarding alleged damages suffered by Ecuadorian
nationals or environment as a result of the fumigation of illicit crops will be
studied by the Scientific-Technical Commissions.
[…]
Signed in Bogotá, D.C., on the seventeenth (17) day of the month of March of the year
two thousand and four (2004)
[signature] [signature]
LUCIO GUTIERREZ BORBUA ALVARO URIBE VELEZ
President of the Republic of President of the Republic of
Ecuador ColombiaANNEX 60ANNEX 60ANNEX 60 ANNEX 61
Diplomatic Note 20434/2003-GM, sent from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Ecuador to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia (31 Mar. 2004) ANNEX 61
[seal]
REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Note No. 20434 /2003-GM
Quito, 31 March 2004
Your Excellency Madame Minister,
Presidents Lucio Gutiérrez and Alvaro Uribe gave instructions, on
the occasion of the State Visit paid by the former to Colombia on this 16-
17 March, for the Scientific Technical Commissions to hold their third
meeting and joint inspection and scientific evaluation visits on sprayings
in the border area, during the month of April 2004.
Similarly, as is also declared in the Joint Declaration of last 17
March the Presidents reiterated the importance of learning the conclusions
of the Commissions within the shortest time possible.
I would greatly appreciate your advising me of the day in the
coming month of April on which the Colombian Commission plans to
come to hold the third meeting and to visit the border area on the
Ecuadorian side, in compliance with the instructions of both Presidents.
I am enclosing a copy of the letter dated this 18 March, addressed
by Engineer Juan Carlos Palacios, President of the Ecuadorian Scientific
Technical Commission, to Colonel Jaime Piñeiros, Director of the
Antinarcotics Office of Colombia, outlining the commitments assumed by
both Commissions during their second meeting, and requesting the
establishment of a schedule of visits and the agendas to be addressed,
based on the provisions of the Joint Presidential Declaration.
…1/2ANNEX 61
To Her Excellency Madame
Ambassador Carolina Barco
Minister of Foreign Affairs
of the Republic of Colombia
Bogotá.-
The Minister of Foreign Affairs
...2/2
Furthermore, as was offered by President Alvaro Uribe during the
State Visit, and as set forth also in the Joint Declaration, I would
appreciate your arranging the sending of the information and the studies
on the sprayings made in Colombia, particularly the environmental impact
study.
Awaiting your response, I reiterate, Madame Minister, the
assurances of my highest esteem and personal appreciation.
[signature]
Patricio Zuquilanda Duque
Minister of Foreign AffairsANNEX 61ANNEX 61 ANNEX 62
Note SARE-142, sent from the National Directorate of Narcotics of the Ministry
of Interior and Justice of Colombia to the President of the Technical-Scientific
Commission of Ecuador (Apr. 14 2004). ANNEX 62
[seal] Ministry of the Interior and Justice [seal] National
s c i t o c r a N
e t a r o t c e r i D
Bogotá, D.C., 14 April 2004
SARE-142
Doctor
JUAN CARLOS PALACIOS BURNEO
President
ECUADORIAN TECHNICAL-SCIENTIFIC COMMISSION
Diego de Almagro No. 1550 y la Pradera
Edif. Posada de las Artes Kigman, Piso 4
Quito, Ecuador
Re: Official Letter No. CMFS-46-2004 Rad., DNE E-2004-19728DE 23/03/04
Dr. Palacios,
In view of to the referred communication, I allow myself to make the following
considerations:
[…]
2. INFORMATION ON PAST SPRAYINGS
2.1 Background on sprayings in the border area with Ecuador.
DATE MUNICIPALS (PYAS)YING
January 2001 to 15 San Miguel 3.900
February 2002 Puerto Asís 310
Valle del Guamuez 627
TOTAL OPERATION 4.837
28 July to 30 December San Miguel 1.295
2002 Puerto Asís 17.534
Valle del Guamuez 4.208 ANNEX 62
4Leguizamo Puerto
TOTAL OPERATION 23.081
5 May to 19 July 2003 San Miguel 2.728
Puerto Asís 1.114
Valle del Guamuez 2.206
TOTAL OPERATION 6.048
[…]
2.3 Route:
During the process of fumigations the operations are programmed by digital
means under a system of satellite positioning named DELNORTE, which has
been previously programmed by the cartography that records the area of
operations, the field of coca that are the target of spraying, alert systems for
special protection areas, as are the covers and different elements for coca crops:
additionally, during the spraying, [data] is supplied, allowing the recording of
paths and spray lines, allowing that the information can be cross-referenced with
satellite images and thematic cartography. In this way, a detailed and technical
registry of the sprayed fields is obtained.
[…]
Sincerely,
LUIS ALFONSO PLAZAS VEGA
DirectorANNEX 62ANNEX 62ANNEX 62ANNEX 62ANNEX 62 ANNEX 63
Report of the Ecuadorian Delegation to the Third Meeting of the Joint Scientific
and Technical Commission (26 May 2004) ANNEX 63
REPORT OF THE ECUADORIAN DELEGATION THAT PARTICIPATED IN
THE THIRD MEETING OF THE ECUADORIAN SCIENTIFIC COMMISSION
Lago Agrio, 26 May 2004
[…]
The Commissions held two previous meetings in which they expressed the need
to conduct joint activities to obtain information on the reported problem. The
information provided by the Colombian side during these meetings was not fully
satisfactory for the Ecuadorian group, which is why the Ecuadorian Scientific-
Technical Commission proposed an agenda for a Third Meeting, in which visits
to different border areas and a Workshop in which it was tentatively expected that
the Colombian Commission would present an objective report on the model used
for the application (a mathematical model spraying pollutants emitted by mobile-
aerial sources).
[…]
Conclusions:
1. The Commissions heard the affirmations made by the locals that planes
applying glyphosate fly over the Ecuadorian region.
2. The two commissions have a positive attitude to reach a solution to the
problem.
3. The Colombian Government will continue with the sprayings as a means
of eradicating coca plantations, in which case this problem could persist.
Sincerely,
Dr. José Núñez Dr. Luis Alberto Reinoso
Chief of Cabinet of the Vice-Minister Central University of Ecuador
of Foreign AffairsANNEX 63
Engineer Santiago Salazar Dr. Ramiro Castro
Undersecretariat for Environmental Ecuadorian Atomic Energy
Quality Commission
Ministry of the Environment of Manager of the Ecotoxicology
Ecuador Laboratory
Coordinator of the Pichincha Core
Of the Ecuadorian Scientific
Community - CONCIECANNEX 63ANNEX 63 ANNEX 64
Minutes of the Fourth Meeting of the Joint Scientific and Technical Commission
(2 Aug. 2004) ANNEX 64
MINUTES OF THE FOURTH MEETING OF
THE ECUADOR – COLOMBIA
SCIENTIFIC - TECHNICAL COMMISSION
The Scientific-Technical Commissions of Ecuador and Colombia, in the meeting
of 2 August 2004, in Najas Palace, seat of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Ecuador, reviewed the progress made at previous meetings, exchanged
information with regard to the works accomplished to this date, and agreed that:
1. In view of the information provided by the Colombian Delegation, to the
effect that the sprayings ended last May, and that they would only resume
next year, or earlier if deemed necessary, the Colombian party shall
notify, by the fastest means, at the moment that such sprayings are being
conducted along the border area, so that the Ecuadorian Commission may
take samples and conduct the respective analyses, in a timely manner.
2. The Colombian Delegation, reiterating absolute respect for Ecuadorian
sovereignty, declares that, should sprayings along the border continue, the
technical conditions necessary to prevent the spray from reaching
Ecuadorian territory shall be guaranteed.
[…]
[signature] [signature]
Engineer Santiago Salazar Col (ret.) Luis Alfonso Plazas Vega
Coordinator, Ecuadorian Commission Coordinator, Colombian CommissionANNEX 64 ANNEX 65
Diplomatic Note DPM/CDR 65881, sent from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Colombia to the Embassy of Ecuador in Bogotá (4 Nov. 2004) ANNEX 65
[seal] REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
[initials]
DPM/CDR 65881
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Colombia warmly greets
the Honorable Embassy of the Republic of Ecuador and would like to
inform you that the Anti-Narcotics Police has notified us of the renewed of
aerial spraying with glyphosate in the border area, which shall last until the
end of the month of December.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Colombia would like to
take this opportunity to reiterate to the Honorable Embassy of the Republic
of Ecuador assurances of its highest and most distinguished consideration.
[seal]
Bogota D.C., 4 November 2004
To the Honorable
Embassy of the Republic of Ecuador
Bogota
Embassy of Ecuador
Registered
Date: 08-11-04
[PAGE 2]
CONFIDENTIAL
FAX No. 12-1 16/04 MECUCOL URGENT
TO: EdwiJnohnson
MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS (E)
Fax: 00 9+(593) 2 299-3210 QuitoANNEX 65
FROM: Fernando Suárez Moreno
CHARGE D’AFFAIRES A.I. OF ECUADOR IN
COLOMBIA
Fax: 00 (571) 212-6536 Bogotá
DATE: 8 November 2004
REF: Your CE No. 128/VM-2004, 5 October 2004
N° of pages: 2 (two including this page)
RE: RESUMPTION OF AERIAL SPRAYINGS
Regarding your referenced email and pursuant to your
instructions, I am enclosing URGENT verbal note No. 4-1-439/2004, dated
today, which was sent to the Foreign Ministry at San Carlos, regarding the
notice made of the resumption by Colombia of aerial sprayings with
“glyphosate” in the border zone, placing emphasis on the need to take the
technical instructions agreed to by the members of the Scientific-Technical
Commissions of both countries to guarantee that the effects of sprayings do
not reach Ecuadorian territory into account.
I am also informing you that I have requested a meeting to
personally deliver the verbal note in reference to the Vice-Foreign Minister
of Colombia, Ambassador Camilo Reyes Rodríguez, who at the moment is
in a meeting with Foreign Minister Carolina Barco. However, I have been
told that as soon as the meeting is over I will receive a response to my
request.
I will be pleased to let you know as soon as I have a
favorable response.
Sincerely yours,
[signature] ANNEX 65
[PAGE 3]
URGENT
V.N. No. 4-2-439 /2004
THE EMBASSY OF ECUADOR presents its compliments to the
honorable Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Colombia, and
concerning verbal note DPM/CDR 65881 of 4 November 2004, related to
the resumption of aerial sprayings with “glyphosate” in the border zone,
which would last until the end of this year, has the honor to request that, for
the realization of such operations and pursuant to the agreement contained
in the Presidential Declaration of Esmeraldas and in the Minutes of the IV
Meeting of the Scientific-Technical Commissions of Ecuador and Colombia
on sprayings, the technical instructions agreed by the members of the
Commissions of both countries are taken into account in order to guarantee
that the drift generated by the sprayings does not reach Ecuadorian territory.
THE EMBASSY OF ECUADOR avails itself of this opportunity to
reiterate to the honorable Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Colombia the assurances of its highest and distinguished consideration.
[signature]
Bogotá D.C., 8 November 2004
TO THE HONORABLE
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA
Palace of San CarlosANNEX 65
[PAGE 4]
[seal]
EMBASSY OF ECUADOR IN COLOMBIA
FAX 12-1-207/2004 MECUCOL URGENT
TO: Joseuñezamayo
Chief of Cabinet of the Vice-minister of Foreign Affairs
Fax: 00 (593) 2 299-3210 Quito
FROM: WiT lonapsata
Ambassador of Ecuador in Colombia
Fax: 00 (571) 212-6536 Bogota
DATE: 22 December 2004
REF: Your CE N° 128/VM-2004 05 October 2004
N.V. DPM/CDR 65881 04 November 2004
N.V. No. 4-2-439/2004 08 November 2004
My fax No. 12-1-16/04 MECUCOL
CONFIDENTIAL URGENT 8 November 2004
N° OF PAGES: 5 (five, including this page)
RE: BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON RESUMPTION
OF SPRAYINGS IN COLOMBIA
With reference to your phone query made at noon today concerning
the news on the subject of “sprayings” published in today’s issue of the
newspaper “La Hora” of the city of Quito, I am appending hereto
background information on this subject, as contained in the notes received
and sent by this Embassy, which explain the official announcement made by
the Foreign Ministry at San Carlos concerning the resumption of aerial
operations for the spraying of illicit crops in the border zone, which would
continue until December of this year.
I would also like to inform you that the Diplomatic Mission under my
charge, in compliance with the instructions of the Vice-Minister contained
in CE No. 128/VM-2004, dated 5 October 2004, sent URGENT verbal note
No. 4-2-439/2004 to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia, ANNEX 65
requesting that the technical instructions on spraying agreed to by the
members of the Scientific-Technical Commissions of Ecuador and
Colombia are taken into account in order to guarantee that the drift
generated by the sprayings does not reach Ecuadorian territory, actions that
were communicated to that Cabinet in a timely fashion via my referenced
confidential fax No. 12-1-16/04, a photocopy of which is also appended
hereto.
Sincerely yours,
[signature]
[seal]
[PAGE 5]
[seal]
REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Note No. 43 /GV/04
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador summons the Members
of the Scientific-Technical Commission of Ecuador to an urgent meeting
today at 5 p.m. in the Rooms of the Palace of Najas, with the purpose of
coordinating the trip of Commission members to the Province of
Sucumbios, tomorrow, Thursday 22 December of the present year, to collect
samples necessary to conduct an analysis of glyphosate residues both on the
environment and on persons, and to assess the current situation in the border
zone.
Accordingly, the Ministers of Government, Public Health,
Agriculture and Livestock, and Environment, and the Director of the
Ecuadorian Atomic Energy Commission are hereby asked to authorize the
members of the Scientific-Technical Commission to make the
aforementioned trip.ANNEX 65
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to
reiterate the assurances of its highest and distinguished consideration.
Quito, 22 December 2004
[initials]
To the Members of the
Scientific-Technical Commission
of Ecuador
City.ANNEX 65ANNEX 65ANNEX 65ANNEX 65ANNEX 65 ANNEX 66
Diplomatic Note 4-2-439/2004, sent from the Embassy of Ecuador in Bogotá to
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia (8 Nov. 2004). ANNEX 66
URGENT
N.V. No. 4-2- 439/2004
THE EMBASSY OF ECUADOR presents its compliments to the
honorable Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Colombia and,
regarding verbal note DPM/CDR 65881 of 4 November 2004, related to the
resumption of aerial operations with "glyphosate" in the border area, which
would last until the end of this year, has the honor to request that the
technical instructions be taken into account, as was agreed to by the
members of the Commissions of both countries for the realization of these
operations and in conformity with what was agreed in the Presidential
Declaration of Esmeraldas and the Minutes of the IV Meeting of the
Scientific-Technical Commissions of Ecuador and Colombia regarding the
sprayings, in order to guarantee that the drift generated by the sprayings
does not reach Ecuadorian territory.
THE EMBASSY OF ECUADOR avails itself of the opportunity to
reiterate to the honorable Ministry of Foreign Affairs the assurances of its
highest and distinguished consideration.
Bogotá D.C. 8 November 2004
[signed]
TO THE HONORABLE
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA
Palace of San Carlos.ANNEX 66 ANNEX 67
Diplomatic Note DAA/CAL 23927, sent from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Colombia to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador (6 May 2005). ANNEX 67
[seal] REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
DAA/CAL No. 23927
Bogotá, D.C., 6 May 2005
Mister Ambassador:
I have the pleasure of addressing Your Excellency on the occasion
of the submission, in magnetic media, of the CICAD report on The Effects
of Eradication of Illicit Crops by Aerial Sprayin, in conformity with
what was agreed upon in Santiago de Chile.
In the spirit of promoting the traditionally friendly relations
between our countries, within a framework of mutual understanding and
benefit, please allow me to propose to Your Excellency the possibility of
holding a bilateral meeting in Bogotá, with the date to be agreed upon by
diplomatic channels.
I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to reaffirm to
Your Excellency assurances of my highest and most distinguished
consideration.
[signature]
CAROLINA BARCO
Ministry of Foreign Relations
To His Excellency
Mr. ANTONIO PARRA GIL
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Quito.ANNEX 67 ANNEX 68
Address of President Alfredo Palacio to the
General Assembly of the United Nations, Sixtieth Session, 11th Plenary Meeting,
U.N. Doc. A/60/PV.11 (18 Sep. 2005) ANNEX 68
A /60/PV.11
United Nations
General Assembly
Official Records
Sixtieth session
11 th plenary meeting
Sunday, 18 September 2005, 10 a.m.
New York
President: Mr.Eliasson ............................(Sweden)........
The meeting was called to order at 10.05 a.m. and every child. Six decades have passed since we
inaugurated this institution and its essential objectives
Address by Mr. Alfredo Palacio, President of the of human coexistence, peace and the international rule
Republic of Ecuador of law. After six decades we can rejoice with old
The President : The Assembly will now hear an Neruda, who lives on in our hearts, along with
address by the President of the Republic of Ecuador. Stravinsky, Garcia Marquez and Mother Teresa. Let us
celebrate, but let us also take stock of the dream yet to
Mr. Alfredo Palacio, President of the Republic of be fulfilled. Sleeplessly, we face threats and challenges
Ecuador, was escorted into the General Assembly that affect the survival of our species. When the second
Hall. millennium ended — quite unlike the first — our world
was not threatened by the terror-filled visions of the
The President : On behalf of the General apocalypse and the seven trumpets that would
Assembly, I have the honour to welcome to the United transform a third of the world into blood, darkness,
Nations His Excellency Mr. Alfredo Palacio, President
of the Republic of Ecuador, and to invite him to smoke and locusts. However, our new millennium
address the General Assembly. faces the reality of increasing poverty in two thirds of
the planet. Water is becoming scarce, there are holes in
President Palacio (spoke in Spanish ): The people the ozone layer and, along with biodiversity, the
of Ecuador wish to express their deepest condolences Amazon is being destroyed. Entire nations are being
and fraternal solidarity to the South-East Asian nations disinherited and condemned to roam the earth, mortal
affected by the tsunami, as well as to all our brothers illnesses hover over humanity and terrorism lurks in
and sisters living in the southern United States who every corner.
were so severely affected by Hurricane Katrina.
I have come from the middle of the world to
Faced with the danger of natural disasters, speak of faith in the renewal of the dream. Ecuador is a
Ecuador is committed to the implementation of the small nation in South America sharing an identity with
Hyogo Framework for Action and to support the almost 400 million human beings living in an area of
International El Niño Research Centre, based in 8million square kilometres. We have more than one
Guayaquil. fourth of the fresh water of the world and immense
energy, mineral and food resources; we boast the
Today, the nations of the globe have come greatest tropical rain forest in the world and colossal
together to celebrate 60 years of human hopes, 60 years
after the proclamation of the founding Charter of the mountains, deserts and prairies. Yet, our region remains
Organization that represents every man, every woman, a realm of social injustice.
This record contains the text of speeches delivered in English and of the interpretation of
speeches delivered in the other languages. Corrections should be submitted to the original
languages only. They should be incorporated in a copy of the record and sent under the signature
of a member of the delegation concerned to the Chief of the Verbatim Reporting Service, room
C-154A. Corrections will be issued after the end of the session in a consolidated corrigendum.
05-51226 (E)
*0551226*ANNEX 68
A/60/PV.11
The world order that governs us is not the one we substance suffer from technical and methodological
want. It is unjust, inefficient and inhuman. We must shortcomings. Ecuador therefore calls upon the United
therefore set in motion factors that were unimaginable Nations system to promote a comprehensive, reliable
in the middle of the twentieth century. The economy, and credible study on the actual impact of this
international law and biology constitute a fundamental spraying. Ecuador considers that it is essential to apply
triangle from which the future of the human being can the precautionary principle that has been recognized in
be projected. I set out for the Assembly the idea of many international agreements and other instruments,
building a new world order based on this trilogy. in particular the Rio Declaration on Environment and
Development. Consequently, Ecuador has asked its
First, with regard to international law, Ecuador neighbouring Government of Colombia to suspend
reaffirms its commitment to the San Francisco Charter aerial-spraying activities in a 10-kilometre strip north
and the principles of non-intervention and the self-
determination of peoples, the peaceful settlement of of our border.
disputes, and the rejection of all forms of colonialism, As I said in my statement during the High-level
discrimination or segregation. In accordance with these Plenary Meeting (see A/60/PV.5), in my country’s
principles my country believes in the need to opinion the Millennium Development Goals constitute
strengthen the Organization, transform it and a well-honed and effective tool for this century to carve
democratize it. The United Nations must develop new out a path towards a more just humankind. I am firmly
mechanisms to protect the survival of our species and convinced that ethical regulations to preserve the
of all forms of life. biological heritage of the planet constitute the
Secondly, the economy must eliminate paramount goal for this third millennium. With
marginalization and redress the unequal nature of conviction and resolve, my country has adopted a date
for its future: 2015. Copies of the reports on my
opportunities, among both nations and individuals. Government endeavours to attain the Millennium
This is the conflict. In 1945, the vital need to establish
policies to promote a just and progressive distribution Development Goals are available in the General
Assembly Hall.
of surpluses was proclaimed. Nevertheless, 60 years
later we see ever more regressive patterns of I should now like to talk about migrants.
distribution and growing gaps at all levels, basically Globalization is creating urgent demands for the new
produced by the tragedy inherent in the accumulation century. One of these arises from the pain that is giving
of foreign debt, which represents such a heavy burden rise to a new exodus. Today the United Nations must
for developing nations. The burden of the debt has take over the role of a new Moses. It must lead the
pauperized our peoples. It has put a brake on people to their homeland and provide the bread to calm
productive development and cancelled out the the hunger of the wretched of the world. More than 175
aspiration of all to have access to food, health, shelter, million human beings have been forced to leave their
safety and education. The ethical mandate of our time homeland in search of better days. Today migrants are
demands a change in the collective conscience of social treated worse than capital or commercial goods: we are
welfare. Heavily indebted middle-income countries always looking to provide freedom of transit for these.
must organize their efforts to arrive at joint agreements The mere existence of this fact forces us to recognize
with the world’s creditors. that for the hungry of the third world there is no liberty
and even less the equality and fraternity symbolized
Thirdly, the incorporation of biology into the new
international order obliges the United Nations to two centuries ago by the French revolution. The link
between the migrant issue and development is
transfer its focus from man to biology. The presence of undeniable and must be handled in a transparent
this new factor — biology — brings with it the need to manner based on a vision of shared responsibility on
raise the level of ethics and international law to the
highest degree of respect for biodiversity and the the part of all nations involved.
preservation of all forms of life. Ecuador attaches On migration routes we must overcome the police
particular importance to this topic and is therefore stigmatization of the undocumented. Regularization
concerned at the controversial spraying of glyphosate requires that the rights of migrants be viewed as a
as a herbicide to eliminate illegal crops along border fundamental human right and must be reflected in
areas between Colombia and Ecuador. Studies on this every State’s population policy. The Government of
2 05-51226 ANNEX 68
A/60/PV.11
Ecuador calls upon this forum to address the problem The President : On behalf of the General
of migrants in terms of equality for all nationals. We Assembly, I wish to thank the President of the Republic
propose that this problem be addressed at the high- of Ecuador for the statement he has just made.
level dialogue on international migration and Mr. Alfredo Palacio, President of the Republic of
development, to be held in 2006. Ecuador, was escorted from the General
We in the Government of Ecuador, aware of the Assembly Hall.
need for migration and its consequences to be treated
in an integral and responsible manner, have approved a Address by The Honourable Ludwig Scotty, M. P.,
law revising our criminal code to define crimes of the President of the Republic of Nauru
sexual exploitation of minors and the trafficking of The President : The Assembly will now hear an
persons. In addition, we have placed before our
National Congress a new proposal to punish all forms address by the President of the Republic of Nauru.
of trafficking in human beings. The Honourable Ludwig Scotty, M. P., President
of the Republic of Nauru, was escorted into the
I should like to talk about indigenous peoples and General Assembly Hall.
peoples of African descent. The International Decades
of the World’s Indigenous People, proclaimed by the The President : On behalf of the General
General Assembly, have been a valuable opportunity to Assembly, I have the honour to welcome to the United
increase awareness of the situation of our brothers and Nations His Excellency The Honourable Ludwig
to promote respect for their identity and the chance to Scotty, M. P., President of the Republic of Nauru, and
find viable solutions to their problems. The biology of to invite him to address the Assembly.
the new world order requires recognition of their rights
President Scotty : The outcome document
as protagonists of history and as leading actors in adopted at the High-level Plenary Meeting (resolution
society. In the Ecuador of the last decade, indigenous
peoples have been significant components of our social 60/1) serves as a map by which we navigate in seeking
to improve the lives of the many peoples of the world;
and political life. That is recognized in our it may be imperfect, but it is our task as leaders to
Constitution and in International Labour Organization provide a vision of a better world and to lead our
(ILO) Agreement 169.
peoples towards the achievement of that vision. The
In recent years, Ecuador has witnessed a serious outcome document spells out this vision, and we
deterioration in its democratic institutions. Faced with should use it much as one uses a map when navigating
that situation, my Government has pledged to restore the destiny of our respective nations.
the rule of law by means of profound political reform In this respect, Nauru looks to the United Nations
legitimized through a referendum of the Ecuadorian
people. We are determined to firmly fight the as the global leader in reaching this vision of a better
world: a world in which human rights are collectively
corruption that erodes democratic structures. Only recognized and defended, terrorism in any form is
three days ago, on 15 September, my Government
deposited its instrument of ratification as the thirtieth eliminated, peace and security is promoted and
State party to the United Nations Convention against maintained, and poverty is eradicated. We therefore
applaud the effort to strengthen the work of the United
Corruption, which made it possible for the Convention Nations through management reform. This should
to enter into force.
improve the delivery of the global services that this
The voice of my people, the people of Ecuador, Organization is expected to provide.
echoes the deep-throated clamour of Latin America.
We want to be part of a greater nation, South America, Equally important is the need to reform the
Security Council, to recognize that international
a human assembly that can make its voice heard and developments since the establishment of that body
follow the path to genuine, just development
accompanied by greater solidarity on behalf of the many decades ago now demand a more democratic
representation of the global family in an expanded
principles that we have recalled here. Security Council. The earlier these reforms are
implemented, the earlier the work of the United
05-51226 3 ANNEX 69
Diplomatic Note 4-2-108/2005, sent from the Permanent Mission of Ecuador to
the U.N. to the General Secretariat of the U.N. (19 Sep. 2005) ANNEX 69
PERMANENT DELEGATION OF ECUADOR
TO THE UNITED NATIONS
666 UNITED NATIONS PLAZA SUITE 518
NEW YORK, N.Y. 10017
Note No. 4-2-108/2005
The Permanent Delegation of Ecuador to the United Nations offers its
warmest greetings to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and has the
honor of communicating the concerns of the Government of Ecuador regarding
the spraying of glyphosate as an herbicide to eliminate illicit crops in the vicinity
of the Ecuadorian-Colombian border. In view of the fact that the existing studies
on the use of glyphosate are riddled with technical and methodological
deficiencies, on the express instruction of its Government, the Permanent
Delegation of Ecuador requests that the United Nations System undertake a
comprehensive and reliable analysis to determine the real impact of said
fumigations.
The Permanent Delegation of Ecuador to the United Nations is willing to
collaborate with the Secretary-General to coordinate the studies that the
Ecuadorian government requests.
The Permanent Delegation of Ecuador to the United Nations would like to take
this opportunity to offer to the Secretary-General the assurances of its highest and
most distinguished consideration.
New York, 19 September 2005
[intials][stamp]
To the Secretary-General of the United Nations
New York.-ANNEX 69 ANNEX 70
Colombian President Alvaro Uribe,
Remarks at the Summit of Antinarcotics
Chiefs of Latin American and the
Caribbean, Casa de Nariño,
Secretaría de Prensa (17 Oct. 2005) ANNEX 70
President Uribe’s Words at the XV Summit of Latin American and
Caribbean Anti-Narcotics Chiefs
[…]
“…What we need to be able to say to the world is: for Colombia to be a
country free of drugs, we have to strengthen fumigation and eradication
efforts…How important it is, that we can everyday strengthen, further and
further, the manual eradication program, and continue strengthening the
fumigation program!” ANNEX 70
PALABRAS DEL PRESIDENTE URIBE EN XV CUMBRE DE EFES ANTINARCÓTICOS DE AM RIC A
LATINA Y EL CARIBE
Santa Marta, 1 oct. SNE . Las siguientes son las palabras del presidentelvaro ribe lez en la instalaci n de la
Cumbre de efes Antinarc ticos de Am rica Latina y el Caribe
“Quiero darles la bienvenida a Colombia y agradecer que hayan escogido esta bella e histórica cuidad de Santa Marta para an
reunión tan importante como la que empieza a realizarse, en un país tan azotado por la droga, pero tan resuelto a derrotarla.
Hemos sufrido en Colombia todas sus etapas y nos hemos engañado con nuestros propios juicios, que deben servir bien a otra s
naciones para no repetir errores.
Cuando en este país se asomaba el trafico de droga a alguna dimensión, decíamos se escuchaba decir: “bueno pero es qu e
aquí no somos productores, ni somos consumidores. Aquí simplemente se esta haciendo un tráfico”. No lo combatimos con rigo r
oportunamente.
Posteriormente empezamos a ver que crecían los cultivos, eso va ser intrascendente, nunca tendrás cifras preocupantes y nos
equivocamos.
En el año 2000 cuando empezó el Plan Colombia, nuestro pías tenía más de 160 mil hectáreas de drogas ilícitas. Ya en es a
etapa y muy anterior al 2000, habíamos reunido la doble condición de tener problemas de trafico y problemas de producción.
Y siempre se ha oído decir: “bueno pero es que no somos consumidores”. Mentiras hoy tenemos un problema de consumo qu e
afecta a más de un millón de jóvenes de Colombia.
Esto para que lo tengan en cuenta países especialmente del vecindario para que no vayan a repetir este perverso periplo qe
Colombia ha vivido y que ahora queremos definitivamente desmontar.
El tema de la legalización. Es un tema que cautiva a muchas personas que teorizan sobre estos asuntos y sospecho que ha y
muchísimas personas amigas de la legalización que están en silencio, agazapadas, esperando que no triunfen nuestras política s
de erradicación, para decir: “se ha perdido la guerra contra la droga, hay que legalizarla”.
Yo veo con mucho pesimismo el tema de la legalización. Por supuesto lo miro más como padre de familia, que como Presidente
Tengo alguna inclinación más de sentimiento de padre de familia, que de raciocinio frío, pero déjenme expresar dos o tre s
argumentos para sustentar mi preocupación contra la legalización:
Primero: la circunstancia de que al dejar de criminalizar el negocio se reduzcan los precios, es una circunstancia que noav
asegurar que por esa vía se reduzca la oferta.
Hemos visto que a pesar de estar criminalizado el negocio hay una gran oferta, que ha reducido sustancialmente los precio s
internacionales y sin embargo no se ha disminuido su oferta.
Segundo: por más que llegasen a reducirse los precios, yo no creo que deje de producirse. Si la agricultura lícita se proauce
pesar de largos periodos de crisis, de pérdidas, de precios bajos, de insumos altos, en esta agricultura ilícita de un producto que
infortunadamente da con tanta exhuberancia en tantas partes del continente y especialmente en nuestro país, cualquiera sea e
precio, me parece que es una equivocación anticipar que se va disminuir el área sembrada.
Tercero: El daño ecológico. Cuando entro en discusiones para proponer mis tesis contra la legalización, en frente de lo s
muchachos de las universidades, de muchos profesores, el gran argumento para poderlos situar en una reflexión contra l a
legalización, es el ecológico.
Usted lo decía señor Calvani y acaba de referirlo el señor Fiscal General de la Nación, frente a dos áreas geográficas: la
Amazonia y Colombia es inserción amazónica, y la Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, este bellísimo macizo de 12 mil kilómetro s
cuadrados que se empina aquí no mas de espaldas a esta gran cuidad.
Colombia ha perdido millón 700 mil hectáreas de selva tropical, por cuenta de los cultivos de droga. El futuro de Colombin e
muy buena parte depende de la biodiversidad que se almacena en esa selva tropical y tememos que los cultivos de drog a
pueden constituirse en el gran enemigo de esa biodiversidad.
Hace mas de un año, hablando con un campesino del Putumayo, me decía: “Presidente yo llegue hace 35 años, a montar un a
http://oacp.presidencia.gov.co/snerss/detalleNota1.aspx?id=1728rlANNEX 70
finca en una isla del Putumayo. Allí había cualquier cantidad y variedad de pescado, pero hemos visto que escasea la cantidad y
han desaparecido ya, especies piscícolas.
Por qué Por que llego la droga”.
Empezaron a vertir los precursores químicos a las aguas afluentes del río Putumayo, empezaron a envenenar las aguas y
acabar con especies de pescado. Eso es bien importante para decirle al mundo. Muchos de los que se oponen a la fumigación,
de los que se oponen a la lucha contra el narcotráfico, se oponen con banderas ecológicas.
Es mucho mas grave el daño de producir y procesar, que el daño de combatir y erradicar. Y eso hay que hacérselo ver al
mundo porque necesitamos la solidaridad de todos para triunfar en el noble propósito de que nuestros países queden libres de
droga.
La verdad es que el daño que ha hecho el narcotráfico en los ríos, el daño que ha hecho en la destrucción de selva tropical en
Colombia, pone de presente que es el gran enemigo de la ecología.
Y temo que la legalización lo que haga, el resultado que logre sea acelerar esa destrucción geológica, para sembrar drogas
ilícitas.
Y finalmente, en este punto, la relación entre las políticas de prevención y rehabilitación con una eventual legalización. Expe rtos
en la materia, científicos de la prevención y de la rehabilitación demuestran que su tarea es más eficaz si está acompañada de
la criminalización.
La verdad es que la legalización llevaría a un aflojamiento de los resortes, que puede poner en muy serias dificultades los
efectos positivos de las políticas de prevención y los esfuerzos en materia de rehabilitación.
Que tenemos que hacer mayores esfuerzos en educación, en prevención, en rehabilitación, por supuesto. Pero esos esfuerzos,
serán esfuerzos inocuos, de no estar acompañados por políticas de criminalización.
Nuestra tarea: hemos avanzado pero no lo suficiente en la destrucción de la droga que se produce en Colombia. Este año, las
fumigaciones han crecido en un 30 por ciento, en relación con el mismo período del año pasado y sumamos ya casi 23 mil
hectáreas de erradicación manual.
El tema de las fumigaciones. A mí me parece muy preocupante la prevención que existe frente a las fumigaciones. Cuando
fumigamos con productos de uso masivo en el sector de la agroindustria, yo no entiendo cómo se protesta porque se usan esos
productos para fumigar droga y los mismos que protestan, dan licencias en sus países para que se utilicen masivamente en la
agricultura comercial. Eso hay que hacérselo saber al mundo entero, repetirlo en todas partes porque finalmente, detrás de
gente que de buena fe están en contra de la fumigación, hay aquellos que simplemente quieren que siga creciendo el imperio
diabólico de la droga para poder alimentar el terrorismo y sus protervos fines destructores.
Esa es la pregunta. Por qué si se tiene temor a los productos con los cuales estamos fumigando la droga, se permite que esos
mismos productos se usen masivamente en agricultura comercial
El tema de la erradicación manual. Hoy yo veo una necesidad y los resultados nos están convenciendo de su factibilidad. Creo
que hace un año en Colombia no había entusiasmo por la erradicación manual. Hoy, los resultados nos demuestran que es
factible. Personalmente siento un gran entusiasmo por la posibilidad de la erradicación manual. Sus costos, infinitamente
menores. Sus recursos llegan a la gente, es muy importante buscar que los recursos en lugar de quedarse en las pocas manos
de fabricantes de aviones o de fabricantes de agroquímicos, los recursos de la destrucción de la droga, en mayor cantidad se
irriguen entre la gente porque eso produce un fenómeno de adhesión popular a la tesis de erradicar.
Tanto la fumigación como la erradicación manual exigen mucho sacrificio: la Fuerza Pública de Colombia, los técnicos, los
pilotos de los programas de fumigación han pagado un gran sacrificio arriesgando su vida, muchos perdiendo su vida,
arriesgando su seguridad y arriesgando su tranquilidad.
Y en el programa de erradicación manual ya hemos tenido varios ataques de los grupos guerrilleros contra los grupos de
erradicadores colombianos. Esta semana, en El Bordo, Cauca, sufrimos el último ataque.
A todos ellos, a los que participan en la fumigación y en la erradicación, rendimos nuestro homenaje. Es muy importante que el
mundo nos ayude a sostener en incremento los programas de fumigación y a crecer los programas de erradicación.
Miren, veníamos descendiendo el área sembrada en droga más velozmente. El año pasado, el estudio que terminó en julio, nos
demostró que no hubo descenso. Y el estudio que terminó en diciembre Naciones Unidas, nos mostró un descenso de 7 po
r
ciento. Es poco. Sí, venimos de 160 o 180 mil hectáreas de droga pero el año pasado terminamos con una barbaridad, con 80
mil.
Lo que necesitamos es decirle al mundo: Colombia país libre de droga y para eso hay que fortalecer los esfuerzos en fumigación
http://oacp.presidencia.gov.co/snerss/detalleNota1.aspx?id=1728rl ANNEX 70
y los esfuerzos en erradicación. En la medida que el narcotráfico se va acomodando, que desaparecen grandes extensiones en
zonas relativamente planas, donde se facilita la fumigación, que se apela más a las laderas, que los cultivos ilícitos se
mimetizan en el bosque, en los cultivos de café, que están más esparcidos en áreas pequeñas, se hace más necesaria la
erradicación manual.
Los Estados Unidos nos han dado un gran apoyo a través del Plan Colombia. Nosotros somos aliados de los Estados Unidos en
esta tarea y somos aliados con mucho orgullo. Qué importante que podamos fortalecer todos los días, más y más, el programa
de erradicación manual y seguir fortaleciendo el programa de fumigaciones
Debemos completar este año la meta de erradicar 30 mil hectáreas manualmente y si lo logramos, nos podemos proponer para
el año entrante, más de 40 mil hectáreas. Cada atentado de los grupos violentos contra la erradicación manual, tiene que hace r
un acicate que estimule nuestra voluntad de acabar con la droga en Colombia. No podemos bajar la guardia.
El tema de los cultivos alternativos. Yo diría que hay que trabajar allí en dos grandes áreas: La protección del bosque y la
producción de alimentos y de otros productos del agro que sustituyan la droga.
Colombia todavía tiene, por fortuna, el 50 por ciento o más de su extensión en bosque. Las cifras indican que Colombia cuenta
con 578 mil kilómetros cuadrados en bosque o sea, una suma, un área superior a la total de Francia, que todavía preservamos
en bosque.
Nosotros tenemos todas las posibilidades derivadas del bosque de protección y del bosque comercial. Por eso este Gobierno
para defender el bosque, emprendió la tarea de vincular Familias Guardabosques, familias que en el pasado estaban vinculadas
a las drogas y que hoy están vinculadas al Programa de Guardabosques. Familias que han asumido la obligación de mantener el
área libre de droga y de cuidar la recuperación del bosque, que están siendo supervisadas por Naciones Unidas cuyo certificado
es necesario para que el Gobierno proceda a efectuar los pagos.
Tenemos que seguir con ese programa: es costoso. Las 33 mil familias guardabosques en promedio nos cuestan dos mil dólares
por familia al año y esto es costoso para las finanzas colombianas pero es un gran programa.
Hace poco, hablando con directivos de agencias de Naciones Unidas y contándoles en Nueva York el programa de Familias
Guardabosques, me decían que debe ser el programa que se ponga en marcha en toda la Amazonía para evitar su destrucción,
que en lugar de la tala de madera, que en el lugar de la sustitución de bosque para grandes plantaciones de soya o para
producir pastos para el ganado, los campesinos y los hombres del campo puedan derivar su sustento del cuidado del bosque.
Las Familias Guardabosques constituyen un programa necesario en los países productores de droga para que esas familias en
lugar de vivir de la droga, vivan de cuidar el bosque. Eso se constituye en un programa necesario para preservar la selva
amazónica. Que los países amazónicos adoptaran este programa, veríamos una disminución sustancial de la tala del bosque
amazónico. Lo vemos en los documentales y lo observamos desde los aviones. Cómo se tala la selva amazónica para sustituirla
por pastos y para sustituirla por cultivos que en esos suelos tienen muy poca sostenibilidad.
Los invito a reflexionar sobre nuestro programa de Familias Guardabosques. Cuando inicialmente lo presentaba a autoridades
de los Estados Unidos y de Europa, me decía es que no es sostenible. Qué más sostenible para el mundo de hoy que preserva r
la selva tropical húmeda, la selva amazónica o macizos que conservan buena parte en selva como este macizo de la Sierra
Nevada de Santa Marta.
El otro tema es el de cultivos comerciales que le sustituyan a los campesinos los ingresos. Estamos trabajando con el tema de
palma africana, con el tema de caucho, con el tema de madera, para todo ello, hemos introducido estímulos fiscales y hemos
introducido estímulos tributarios y estímulos fiscales. Los cultivos de tardío rendimiento están hoy en Colombia exentos de
impuestos y las agrupaciones campesinas, como aquellas que veíamos ayer en una reunión en la ciudad de Barrancabermeja,
tienen preferencialmente un aporte del Estado que se llama incentivo de capitalización rural que paga hasta el 40 por ciento de l
valor de la nueva plantación.
Además este país tiene un gran futuro en producción de madera, grandes países exportadores de madera como Finlandia,
producen por hectárea entre uno y tres metros cúbicos al año, de las mismas especies Colombia produce 25, Chile 12, 13
metros cúbicos, y aquí estamos muy bien situados en este Caribe. Aquí tenesmo apenas 170 mil hectáreas de bosque
comercial, tenemos todas las posibilidades para plantar madera.
Este país entre este mes de octubre y el mes de enero, empezará a producir en cinco plantas un millón de litros diarios de
alcohol carburante, eso será muy útil como alternativo energético, como medio de protección del medio ambiente y como factor
de generación de empleo y rápidamente empezaremos a producir biodiesel de palma africana, yo diría que la perspectiva del
biodiesel, a partir de palma africana se constituye en un gran horizonte de cultivos sustitutivos a las drogas ilícitas.
Este país tiene excelentes condiciones para la producción de caucho natural, y en el mundo de hoy, signado por un pánico bien
fundado a la crisis energética que puede producir dos factores, estancar el progreso de la economía mundial y obligar a los
países que no tienen energéticos a dedicar los recursos que deberían destinar a cumplir las metas sociales del milenio a desvia r
esos recursos para pagar los insumos energéticos.
http://oacp.presidencia.gov.co/snerss/detalleNota1.aspx?id=1728rlANNEX 70
Cultivos como el caucho natural, se convierten en cultivos alternativos que nos pueden ayudar muchísimo a suplir deficiencias
derivadas de la crisis energética. En todo eso estamos trabajando, pero falta muchísimo más.
Por supuesto Colombia tiene terrorismo porque tiene narcotráfico. Yo recuerdo en mis años jóvenes, en mi universidad en la
ciudad de Medellín, era imposible anticipar que la guerrilla en aquella época ideológica, hoy terrorista y mercenaria, fuera a
juntarse 30, 35 años después con el narcotráfico, parecían polos excluyentes, los unos parecían ideólogos puros, idealistas
incontaminados, dedicados a estudiar a Mao Tsetung, a Fidel Castro, a Rusia, otros experimentos socialistas en el mundo, con
la intención y la aspiración ideal de transplantar esas experiencias a Colombia.
Y los otros parecían unos criminales ordinarios a los que todavía no se les asignaba mucha importancia, pero en el polo opuesto
de las guerrillas.Quién iba a pensar que no muchos años después los hemos visto fusionados No hay guerrilla que no se esté
surtiendo del narcotráfico.
El ELN se jacta de decir que no participa en el narcotráfico, y basta visitar la serranía de San Lucas en el sur del departamen to
de Bolívar, para ver los cultivos de droga del ELN, o cómo se ha lucrado el ELN de droga en el Catatumbo Y posteriormente
qué apareció aparecieron los paramilitares, un país abandonado por el Estado en la lucha contra el terrorismo, ve aparece r
soluciones a la postre perversas como el paramilitarismo, también financiado básicamente por la droga.
Es necesario seguir combatiendo esta droga para acabar el fenómeno terrorista en Colombia.
Ayer veía en Barrancabermeja esto: Barrancabermeja estuvo 25 años en poder del ELN, no se le combatió, se le dejó crecer, y
cómo se le toleraba, cómo se le legitimaba, cómo se le aplaudía ideológicamente, y después apareció el paramilitarismo. El
Estado no enfrentó el problema y vino ese derramamiento de sangre cuando acudió el paramilitarismo a desplazar al ELN.
Apenas estamos recuperando Barrancabermeja y falta muchísimo. Ayer encontré una ciudadanía más optimista, unas cifras de
seguridad que han mejorado notablemente y me hacia esta composición de lugar. En esos 30 años de violencia de
Barrancabermeja, casi se nos acaba la industria petrolera, eso fue lo que nos dejaron los muchachitos del ELN, casi se nos
chatarriza la refinería, que es el corazón económico de este país, casi se nos acaba la pesca en el río Magdalena y se acabó toda
la agricultura. Esos señores del ELN no dejaron que prosperara la ganadería, ni la palma africana, ni el caucho, ni el cacao en
las laderas, la única agricultura que nos dejaron fue la agricultura del narcotráfico.
Eso es lo que finalmente nos han dejado guerrillas y paramilitares en Colombia, por eso hay que acabarlos y hay que acabarlos
con toda la convicción, con palabras sencillas, pero con toda la eficacia.
Ojalá, ojalá podamos decirle al mundo rápidamente que Colombia es un país libre de drogas.
A mi no me gusta excusar nuestras políticas en las circunstancia de que esto tiene que ser un fenómeno que combatan los
países consumidores, consumidores hoy somos todos, esa división entre consumidores y productores, es una división que se ha
superado por sustracción de materia, porque aquí tenemos más de un millón de consumidores y eso nos quita la razón para
decir, el problema no es nuestro sino de los industrializados que consumen, nosotros tenemos un problema de consumo muy
grande. Entonces reconociendo que el problema es de todos, que nosotros no podemos excusar responsabilidades, todos
tenemos que hacer un mayor esfuerzo.
A mi me preocupa que reinstalamos en Colombia la interdicción aérea, pero siguen saliendo grandes cantidades de droga, hay
que hacer un mayor esfuerzo con nuestros vecinos en el Pacífico y en el Caribe y hay que hacer un mayor esfuerzo no
solamente en el espacio aéreo de Colombia en donde lo estamos haciendo, en buena medida gracias a la interdicción aérea que
se ha reestablecido con los Estados Unidos, sino en el espacio aéreo de todos los países vecinos. Hay que doblar ese esfuerzo,
apreciados amigos asistentes.
La extradición. En este mundo globalizado en donde también se ha globalizado la justicia, la extradición tiene que
desmitificarse, un país como Colombia que es afiliado a la Corte Penal Internacional, no puede ponerse en la tarea de negar la
extradición. Instituciones multilaterales de justicia, necesitan para funcionar instituciones globales de procedimiento y una e
ellas es la extradición, tenemos que seguir en esa tarea.
Les deseo muchos éxitos en estas deliberaciones y eso que todos los días, podamos mostrar más eficacia contra este flagelo, la
verdad es que la mayor tristeza de un padre de familia o de una mamá en nuestra época, es ver a un hijo consumidor de droga
o involucrado en el narcotráfico, si queremos que las nuevas generaciones de nuestros pueblos vivan felices, tenemos que
derrotar este fenómeno de la droga. Muchas gracias por los esfuerzos que todos ustedes hacen”.
(Fin)
SECRETARÍA DE PRENSA
PRESIDENCIA DE LA REPÚBLICA
http://oacp.presidencia.gov.co/snerss/detalleNota1.aspx?id=1728rl ANNEX 71
Note from the Department of Political Affairs of the U.N. to the Permanent
Mission of Ecuador to the U.N. (29 Nov. 2005) ANNEX 71
UNITED NATIONS [SEAL] NATIONS UNIES
POSTAL ADDRESS –ADRESSE POSTALE: UNITED NATONS, N.Y. 10017
CABLE ADDRESS – ADRESSE TELEGRAPHIQUE: UNATIONS NEW YORK
REFERENCE:
The Department of Political Affairs of the United Nations offers its warmest
greetings to the Permanent Delegation of Ecuador to the United Nations, and has
the honor of making reference to its note No. 4-2-108/2005 of 19 September of
this year, which requested that the United Nations System undertake an analysis
of the impact of the sprayings of glyphosate as a herbicide to eliminate illicit
crops in the vicinity of the Ecuadorian-Colombian border.
Regarding this issue, and with the objective of being able to respond to the
request of the Government of Ecuador, the Department of Political Affairs would
like to inform you that it has made the pertinent contacts with some of the
specialized agencies of the United Nations and with the Office of the Resident
Coordinator of the United Nations in Ecuador.
As a result of said consultations, it has been agreed that a technical mission of a
preliminary nature will be sent from the United Nations System to Ecuador,
which shall be composed principally of officials from PAHO/WHO and the FAO,
which shall have the support of the UNODC. Said preliminary mission shall have
as its objective an exploration of the viability of the requested study (or the
possible types of studies). Said activity shall be framed within the scope of work
that the United Nations System has been developing on the northern border of
Ecuador. In the upcoming days, the Office of the Resident Coordinator in
Ecuador will propose dates for the preliminary mission to the Ministry of Foreign
Relations.
The Department of Political Affairs of the United Nations would like to take this
opportunity to offer the Permanent Mission of Ecuador assurances of its highest
and most distinguished consideration.
[initials]
New York, 29 November 2005
Permanent Delegation of Ecuador
To the United Nations
New YorkANNEX 71 ANNEX 72
Joint Declaration of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador and Colombia
(7 Dec. 2005) ANNEX 72
MEETING OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS MINISTERS
ECUADOR - COLOMBIA
Quito, 7 December 2005
The Foreign Affairs Minister of the Republic of Colombia, Carolina Barco,
accepting the invitation extended by the Foreign Affairs Minister of the
Republic of Ecuador, Francisco Carrión Mena, visited Ecuador on 7
December 2005, to review the main issues on the bilateral agenda.
The Chancellors ratified their intention to continue to work constructively
on the bilateral relationship to strengthen the traditional friendship and good
neighbor links between both countries.
The Ministers reaffirmed the highest priority objective of both Governments
to foster development and strengthen security in their respective border
areas, for which purpose they pledged to take measures to move forward in
an immediate and sustained manner in these areas.
Within this context, they agreed to sign the following
JOINT COMMUNIQUÉ
[…]
[PAGE 4]
[…]
AERIAL SPRAYING
18. The Ecuadorian Chancellor reiterated his country’s request to the
Colombian Government that aerial spraying be suspended along a 10-
kilometer band from the common border, and that manual eradication
mechanisms be used instead.
19. The Colombian Chancellor confirmed that, in response to the issues
raised by the Ecuadorian Government, and having reviewed its aerial
spraying schedule, her country has decided to temporarily suspend
spraying in the area of the border with Ecuador, starting in January
2006.
She further reported that, with a view to progressing in the eradication
of unlawful crops, her Government had increased the number of
Mobile Manual Eradication Groups (GME), each consisting of 31ANNEX 72
persons, from 4 to 14, a threefold increase in the number of units and
persons devoted to this work in the border area of the Departments of
Putumayo and Nariño. Said manual eradication is done with the
support of the Colombian police and army, which are in charge of
security. The Colombian Government has allocated new and
considerable financial and logistic resources to this eradication
program.
20. Bearing in mind that both Governments have not reached an
agreement on the innocuousness of the herbicide glyphosate and its
coadyuvant on health and the environment, the Colombian
Government has duly noted the request made by the Ecuadorian
Government to the United Nations for a prospective study on this issue
and has agreed to participate in the definition of the terms of reference
of the study. Colombia further agreed to review the results of the study
and to evaluate the adoption of the relevant measures.
[…]
[PAGE 6]
[…]
The Colombian Minister of Foreign Affairs thanked the Ecuadorian
Minister of Foreign
Affairs for the kind hospitality received during her stay in Ecuador.
Signed in Quito, on the seventh day of December, two thousand and five.
[signature] [signature]
CAROLINA BARCO FRANCISCO CARRIÓN MENA
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Minister of Foreign Affairs of the
the Republic of Colombia Republic of EcuadorANNEX 72ANNEX 72ANNEX 72 ANNEX 73
Diplomatic Note 2854/06/SSNDF/DGRFC, sent from the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Ecuador to the Embassy of Colombia in Quito (20 Jan. 2006) ANNEX 73
[seal]
REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Note No. 2854/06/SSNDF/DGRFC
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Under-Secretariat for National
Sovereignty and Border Development – presents its compliments to the
Honorable Embassy of Colombia and is honored to inform you, to the ends
established in paragraph 20 of the Joint Communiqué of the Ministers of
Foreign Affairs of Ecuador and Colombia of 7 December 2005, that the
office of the Representative of the United Nations Development Programme
in Ecuador has notified this Foreign Ministry that a UN Mission will visit
the country from 13 February to begin working on a prospective study of the
effects of aerial sprayings with glyphosate and its adjuvants on the northern
border of Ecuador.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Under-Secretariat for National
Sovereignty and Border Development – avails itself of the opportunity to
reiterate to the honorable Embassy of Colombia the assurances of its highest
and distinguished consideration.
Quito, 20 January 2006
] e r u t a n g i s [
To the Honorable
EMBASSY OF COLOMBIA
City.-ANNEX 73 ANNEX 74
Diplomatic Note 17533/GM, sent from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Ecuador to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia (2 May 2006) ANNEX 74
[Stamp: WITH ANNEXES]
No 17533/GM
Quito, 2 May 2006
Her Excellency
Carolina Barco
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Colombia
Bogotá.-
Distinguished Minister:
I have the high honor to write to you in order to fulfill what
was agreed to in point 20 of the Joint Declaration of Foreign Ministers of
Ecuador and Colombia of 7 December 2005, whereby the Illustrious
Government of Your Excellency agreed to participate in the drafting of the
terms of reference for the studies that the UN Technical Mission will carry
out on the northern border of Ecuador regarding the effects of aerial
sprayings with glyphosate and its chemical coadjuvants.
In this sense, I wish to inform you that in an official letter
dated 21 April, a copy of which is appended hereto, the Office of the Under-
Secretary General for Political Affairs transmitted to the Permanent
Representation of Ecuador to the United Nations the text of the "Report of
the United Nations Preliminary Technical Mission proposing to conduct
studies on the impact of aerial sprayings and complementary actions in the
northern border of Ecuador,” heeding the request made by the President of
the Republic of Ecuador, Doctor Alfredo Palacio, during the Sixtieth
Session of the General Assembly.
In the referred letter, the high United Nations has emphasized
the positive nature of the decision of the Government of Colombia to
temporarily suspend the aerial sprayings, as this measure has contributed to
the development of the "positive agenda" shared between our two countries,
an opinion which is shared by the Government of Ecuador, in the hope that
this measure will be enforced in a conclusive way, under the principle ofANNEX 74
precaution, in the area neighboring the border with Ecuador, as requested by
the border populations of Ecuador with the support of my Government.
[seal]
[Stamp: RECEIVED 02 MAY 2006]
[PAGE 2]
The Office of the Under-Secretary General for Political
Affairs has also expressed the deep satisfaction of the United Nations with
the agreements reached in our meeting held on 7 December 2005, whereby
Your Excellency’s Government agreed to participate in the drafting of the
terms of reference of the study on the impact of sprayings that will be
proposed by the United Nations.
The United Nations has also explained in the referred letter
that the recommendations contained in the report have been made in a
constructive spirit, with the purpose of strengthening binational
understanding and commitment between Ecuador and Colombia in the joint
search for solutions to development and health problems in the northern
border.
The Report of the UN Technical Mission presents the options
of five studies to scientifically clarify the content of the impact of aerial
sprayings with glyphosate and its mixtures on health, the environment, and
agricultural production, and it advises that it will be necessary to draw the
terms of reference for each of the studies proposed.
Finally, I wish to inform you that the content of this Report
will be submitted for analysis and consideration by technical and scientific
entities of Ecuador, in order to give to the UN Technical Mission all the
support required for the immediate drafting of the relevant terms of
reference and the execution of the studies proposed by the Preliminary
Technical Mission within the shortest time possible.
In this sense, I pray that Your Excellency’s Government will
similarly join this effort that, as I have said, was recorded in the
commitment we assumed in our meeting of 7 December 2005, with the goal
of giving all the facilities required for the beginning and completion of the
studies proposed by the UN Preliminary Mission. ANNEX 74
I avail myself of this occasion to reiterate to you the feelings
of my highest consideration and personal esteem.
[signature]
Francisco Carrion Mena,
Minister of Foreign AffairsANNEX 74ANNEX 74 ANNEX 75
Official email C.E.No. /2006-MECUCOL, from the Embassy of Ecuador in
Bogotá to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador (11 Dec. 2006) ANNEX 75
Under-Secretariat for National Sovereignty
From: Embassy of Ecuador COLOMBIA
Sent on: Monday, 11 December 2006 17:51
To: Cabinet of the Minister; Cabinet of the Vice-Minister
CC: Under-Secretariat for National Sovereignty; Under-
Secretariat for Bilateral Relations; Copy to Foreign Affairs
Ministry’s Central Files; General Directorate of Border
Relations with Colombia
Subject: C.E./2006-MecuCol. Resumption of sprayings with
glyphosate in border area
Priority: High
C.E. No. /2006-MECUCOL
To: MCenrrósco
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Diego Ribadeneira Espinosa
Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs
Susana Alvear Cruz
Undersecretary for Bilateral Relations
Diego Stacey Moreno
Undersecretary for National Sovereignty and Border
Development
From: Helena Yánez Loza
Chargé d’Affaires in Colombia
Date: 11 December 2006ANNEX 75
SUBJECT: RESUMPTION OF SPRAYINGS WITH GLYPHOSATE IN
BORDER AREA
According to information provided today by Colonel Henry
Gamboa, Head of Eradication at the National Anti-Narcotics Directorate, to
a Police Attaché of this Diplomatic Delegation, the Government of
Colombia has resumed, on this day, the sprayings with glyphosate in the
border area of the Putumayo Region, a place where Front 48 of the FARC
operates.
2. The Webpage of the Colombian Ministry of National Defense
contains the news, which has been attached hereto. The attachment will
serve to illustrate that, as the basis for this decision, the Colombian
government points to the increase of coca cultivation in the border zone and
the support for the use of glyphosate that it would have in the CICAD-OAS
study.
3. Nothing is said about the Colombian commitment of 7 December
2005, to participate in the drafting of the terms of reference for the study
requested of the UN by Ecuador. On this date, I learned, officially, that the
FAO office in Bogotá wrote to the Colombian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
to remind them of this commitment, without receiving any response.
According to what I have been told, the FAO is the organization that should
be participating directly in the drafting of the terms of reference and studies,
by direct order from the former UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan.
However, without the support of the Colombian Government, it finds itself
unable to act.
4. Tomorrow, Lt. Col. Fabián Solana de la Sala, Police Attaché of this
Diplomatic Delegation, will meet with Col. Gamboa. I have asked him to
obtain further details on the decision to spray, especially taking into account
that, less than a month ago, the press reported that Colombia was the most
successful country in the world in terms of manual eradication, using as an
example the work carried out in the Nariño Region.
5. I will keep you informed. ANNEX 75
Very sincerely,
Mecucol.Can.Ce
* * * * * * * * *
The National Police began spraying illicit coca crops in the Nariño and
Putumayo regions.
ANNP. 11 December 2006. Villa Garzón – Putumayo. The Colombian
National Police through the Anti-Narcotics Directorate begins today the
spraying of illicit coca crops in the Nariño and Putumayo regions.
The operation is part of the timeline prepared by the Anti-Narcotics
Directorate to concentrate operations on these two regions of the country,
where the crops have been the object of replanting.
According to the Illicit Crop Monitoring System of the United Nations
(SIMICI), there are 22,838 hectares of coca crops in Nariño and Putumayo,
which represents a valuable average production for narco-traffickers,
making the eradication of these crops a priority.
Likewise, the Anti-Narcotics Units will develop, in accordance with the
decision made by the National Government, activities for the eradication of
illicit coca crops along the border with Ecuador.
As it will be recalled, during the month of January 2006, the Government of
Colombia decided to temporarily suspend the tasks of aerial eradication in
the border area. This suspension of the spraying operations resulted in an
increase of cultivated hectares in this strip, from 2,500 hectares in December
2005 to 3,450 in September 2006 in the Nariño Region and, in the
Putumayo Region from 3,496 to 6,750 hectares during the same period.
“The temporary suspension of the sprayings entails leaving at the disposal
of illegal armed groups and narco-traffickers an area of approximately 5,860ANNEX 75
square kilometers, that is 586 thousand hectares of land suitable for coca
crops and an increase in crimes related to narco-trafficking,” pointed out
General Jorge Barón, Director of the Anti-Narcotics Police.
The aerial spraying conducted by the Colombian National Police is done
under the strictest environmental and safety controls. We rely on a
comprehensive Environmental Management Plan and on a contingency
plan.
General Jorge Barón also said that “the preparation of the spraying
operations is thorough and we rely on human and technological resources to
guarantee the country an effective reduction of the cultivated areas and
protection of the communities and biodiversity in the areas affected by
narco-trafficking”.
The Colombian National Police notes that the operations will take place
with the utmost respect for the sovereignty of Republic of Ecuador, and,
moreover, that the study conducted by the Inter-American Drug Abuse
Control Commission – CICAD – of the Organization of American States –
OAS – entitled “Study of the effects of the Illicit Crop Eradication Program
using aerial spraying with the herbicide Glyphosate (PECIG) and of illicit
crops on human health and the environment,” concluded that Glyphosate
and Cosmo Flux, as used in the eradication program in Colombia, do not
present a significant risk to human health and the environment.ANNEX 75ANNEX 75 ANNEX 76
Diplomatic Note 52025-GM/SSNDF/DGSN, sent from the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Ecuador to the Embassy of Colombia in Quito (14 Dec. 2006) ANNEX 76
[seal]
REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Note No. 52025-GM/SSNDF/DGSN
THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS presents its cordial
greetings to the Honorable Embassy of the Republic of Colombia and refers
to the decision of the Government of that country to resume aerial sprayings
with a reinforced formula of the herbicide “glyphosate” and its coadjuvants,
at a distance of 100 metres from the international political boundary that
divides both countries onthe border, in order to eradicate illicit crops.
As that Honorable Diplomatic Mission is aware since 2001, Ecuador
has asked Colombia to abstain from conducting sprayings in an area of 10
kilometres from the borderline between both countries inwards Colombian
territory, with the purpose of preventing damages to human health, to the
environment and to the flora and fauna of the border zone of Ecuador.
With the purpose of having a definitive study on the effects of
sprayings, at the request of Ecuador, the Secretary General of the United
Nations, Mr. Kofi Annan, has agreed to have a technical and scientific
mission of that body conduct an “in situ” investigation of the serious effects
observed in the inhabitants, the environment and the productive processes in
that zone.
The Joint Communiqué signed in Quito on 7 December 2005, in the
framework of the official visit of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of
Colombia to Ecuador, gathers the commitment of that country to suspend
temporarily aerial sprayings and to allow manual eradication operations. At
the same time, taking into account that both Governments failed to agree on
the effects of the sprayings, Colombia agreed in the same document to
participate in the definition of the terms of reference, as well as to analyze
the results of the study requested of the United Nations, and to evaluate the
relevant measures.
On 21 April 2006, the Office of the Under-secretary General for
Political Affairs of the UN delivered to Ecuador the report of the
investigation conducted in February 2006 by the technical mission of that
world organization. After visiting the area, the report “determines the needANNEX 76
to conduct five additional studies to scientifically determine the impact of
aerial sprayings with glyphosate and its mixtures on health, the environment
and on agricultural production.”
TO THE HONORABLE
EMBASSY OF COLOMBIA
CITY.
[PAGE 2]
[seal]
REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
In May 2006, Ecuador sent a copy of the above-mentioned
preliminary study of the UN to the Foreign Minister of Colombia, and
invited the Colombian Government, as agreed in the Communiqué of
December 2005, to draft jointly the terms of reference for the conduction of
the scientific studies recommended by the United Nations. However, to this
date the Ecuadorian Government has not received a response.
The report of the CICAD/OAS, on which the Government of
Colombia bases the innocuousness of the chemical elements used in the
aerial sprayings, has been seriously challenged by the Ecuadorian Technical
and Scientific Commission, by academic entities and non-governmental
environmental organizations of Ecuador, by agencies of other countries, as
well as by the National University of Colombia, because of the lack of
scientific rigor and the methodology used in that research, which failed to
include the prospective factor.
Based on the foregoing, THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN
AFFAIRS expressrd its strongest protest to the Government of Colombia
for its decision to resume aerial sprayings near the border area with
Ecuador, dismissing all the requests made by Ecuador to maintain their
suspension, at a time when it is essential to have clear and unequivocal signs
of the political will of the Colombian Government to advance along the path
of constructive dialogue in order to overcome any difficulties that both
countries may face in their common border. ANNEX 76
Likewise, it requests the immediate deferment of this decision,
which constitutes an unfriendly act and an element that alters the relations of
friendship and cooperation existing between both countries, at it holds
Colombia liable for any damages that may be caused to the population and
the environment of Ecuador.
THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS avails itself of this
opportunity to renew to the Honorable Embassy of the Republic of
Colombia the feelings of its highest and distinguished consideration.
[signature]
Quito, 14 December 2006ANNEX 76ANNEX 76 ANNEX 77
Diplomatic Note 52284/06/-GM, sent from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Ecuador to the Secretary General of the Organization of American States
(15 Dec. 2006) ANNEX 77
[seal]
REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Note No. 52284 /06 – GM
Quito, 15 December 2006
His Excellency
José Miguel Insulza
Secretary-General of the Organization of American States
Washington, DC
Mr. Secretary-General:
On behalf of the government of Ecuador, I write to you in order to bring
to your attention an issue which has escalated in recent years and has
disturbed relations between my country and Colombia, which have
traditionally enjoyed an environment of cordial friendship.
The government of Colombia, in its plan to destroy illicit crops,
authorizes the flights of aerial apparatus which disperse, over the territory
of the border area near Ecuador, chemical substances known as
glyphosate (RoundUp), along with other surfactants in strengthened
formulas, with the aim of implementing the said plan.
It is evident that the spraying of said chemical and toxic substances,
spread over large areas, which cross the border of Colombia to reach and
affect Ecuador. This is an area of the Ecuadorian territory with extremely
fragile ecosystems belonging to the Amazonian tropical rainforest.
Bodies of water, natural food products, agricultural crops and, in general,
the health and quality of life of the population which inhabits this
environment, have been severely affected.
Various administrations of Ecuador have requested that the government of
Colombia abstain from authorizing fumigation and aerial spraying in an
area at least ten kilometers within its own territory, measured from the
border line between the two countries, with the aim of preventing harm to
human health, flora, fauna, and the environment of Ecuador.
The Ecuadorian request was addressed in December of 2005, as expressed
in a Joint Communiqué signed by Ms. Carolina Barco, then in charge of
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of her country. In this document,ANNEX 77
Colombia announced the temporary suspension of fumigating in the area
bordering Ecuador, starting from January 2006.
The text of said Communiqué also said that, “Taking into account the fact
that the two Governments have not reached an agreement regarding the
innocuousness of the effects of the herbicide glyphosate and its co-
adjuvant on health and the environment, the Government of Colombia has
duly taken note of the request that the Government of Ecuador submitted
to the United Nations to execute a prospective study on the issue, and
agreed to participate in the definition of the terms of reference for the
same. Colombia also agreed to analyze the results of the study and to
evaluate the adoption of pertinent measures.”
On 21 April 2006, after a preliminary expedition conducted “in situ” in
February 2006, the United Nations, through its Undersecretary-General
for Political Affairs “determined the need to undertake five additional
studies to scientifically ascertain the impact of the aerial fumigations with
glyphosate and its mixtures, on health, the environment, and agricultural
production”. A copy of said communication was submitted to the
authorities in the Colombia government, with an invitation to work with
Ecuador on developing the terms of reference for the execution of the
recommended scientific studies, and pursuant to the agreement in the cited
Joint Communiqué signed by the two countries on 7 December 2005.
On 11 December 2006, the government of Colombia, on, despite the
insistence of Ecuadorian authorities that they agree to the terms of
reference to undertake studies which will allow the uncertainties
regarding the consequences of said spraying to be resolved, Colombia re-
initiated the aerial fumigations in the border area near Ecuador. This has
provoked distress and worry within the populations and human
settlements of the Ecuadorian border region and, consequently on the
national government, due to the aforementioned effects to the health of the
population, and the destruction of biodiversity and of crops which sustain
the diet of the inhabitants of this Ecuadorian region. The fumigations
have also resulted in an increase in the migration of undocumented
Colombians into Ecuador, as well as the displacement of Ecuadorians
from this area towards the interior of the country.
I must point out that a report by the CICAD/OAS, in which the
government of Colombia continues to assert the benign characters of the
chemical elements used in the aerial spraying, has been discredited by
academic institutions, scientific research centers, and non-governmental ANNEX 77
organizations working on human and environmental rights, among others,
from Colombia and Ecuador, for its lack of scientific rigor. In addition,
the methodology employed in said study has been severely questioned.
Based on these precedents, the government of Ecuador requests the
attention of the OAS regarding this issue which threatens to affect the
security, development, and cordial relations between two neighboring
States, through the submission of this issue to the Permanent Council, and
other actions which you deem pertinent, in accordance with the powers
conferred by the Charter of the Organization.
I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate to you, Mr. Secretary-
General, assurances of my highest and most distinguished consideration.
[signature]
Francisco Carríon Mena
Minister of Foreign AffairsANNEX 77ANNEX 77ANNEX 77 ANNEX 78
Speech of Ecuadorian Minister of Foreign Affairs
at the OAS Permanent Council Meeting (9 Jan. 2007) ANNEX 78
PERMANENT COUNCIL
OEA/Ser.G
CP/INF.5433/07
10 January 2007
Original: Spanish
STATEMENT BY THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ECUADOR
AT THE PERMANENT COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 9, 2007ANNEX 78
PERMANENT MISSION OF ECUADOR
TO THE
ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES
STATEMENT BY THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ECUADOR,
FRANCISCO CARRION MENA, TO THE OAS PERMANENT COUNCIL
Madam Chair of the Permanent Council,
Mr. Secretary General,
Mr. Assistant Secretary General,
Distinguished permanent representatives,
Ladies and gentlemen:
It is a great honor for the Foreign Minister of Ecuador once again to visit this Permanent
Council of our Organization, the highest political forum of the Hemisphere, to raise an issue of
profound concern to my country, one that has repercussions on its traditionally good relations with
Colombia.
First, I wish to reaffirm to everyone here, the distinguished representatives of the countries of
the American Hemisphere, that the Government of Ecuador is fully committed to fighting drug
trafficking, in the context of existing international conventions and international law, an area in
which my country, owing to its own convictions, not to any imposition from without, has clearly
demonstrated its unwavering readiness to fight and repudiate this scourge. Its undeniable successes,
despite the scarce economic resources it has for this purpose, are a testament to that commitment.
Ecuador has seized massive volumes of narcotics and broken up important drug trafficking networks
in recent years.
Ecuador also firmly adheres to the principle of nonintervention in the internal affairs of other
states and effectively defends its national sovereignty; consequently, it will not involve itself in
actions by the Government of its neighbor country nor engage in combined, joint, or coordinated
military actions or exercises with the Armed Forces of Colombia.
I wish to reaffirm emphatically, on the question of the Colombian internal conflict, that
Ecuador has not assumed a position of neutrality and that it considers the Government of Colombia to
be its only legitimate interlocutor. What better proof of this than Ecuador’s ongoing, effective fight
against drug traffic and, in the spirit of solidarity, its generous acceptance of over 500 thousand
citizens displaced by the internal conflict in Colombia who now live in Ecuadorian territory?
Ecuador has maintained an unwavering position, as a policy of state, of promoting
socioeconomic growth in the area bordering Colombia, through binational integration and
development projects, and of making exhaustive efforts to maintain an effective presence by ANNEX 78
- 2 -
Ecuadorian state security forces at the common border, so as to safeguard national sovereignty,
security, and territorial integrity.
Ecuador, true to the guiding principles of peaceful coexistence embraced by international
law, has made every effort, through ongoing dialogue and promotion of a positive agenda, to resolve
with Colombia matters which, in recent years, have affected its border relations. One of these relates
to aerial spraying of glyphosate in our shared border area, which for approximately the past five years
has affected the population, flora, fauna, and environment of the Ecuadorian border region.
Ecuador has been obliged to visit the OAS Permanent Council today to present to this high
regional political and diplomatic forum this problem, which, since mid-December, is again disturbing
the traditionally friendly and cooperative relations between Ecuador and Colombia.
The spraying of glyphosate and auxiliary substances, which the Government of Colombia
carries out in the area bordering Ecuador, is in disregard and noncompliance with the agreements
reached by the two countries in the joint communiqué signed by the foreign ministers of Ecuador and
Colombia on December 7, 2005.
In that instrument, Colombia essentially agreed to:
1. The temporary suspension of aerial fumigation with glyphosate;
2. Increasing its manual eradication brigades in the area as an alternative means of
eliminating unlawful crops; and
3. Working with Ecuador to develop terms of reference for UN-recommended scientific
studies to determine the effects of glyphosate and its auxiliary substances on human
health, the environment, biodiversity, and productive activities in the region.
The agreements into which we entered with Colombia on December 7, 2005, made possible
the reactivation of important aspects of our rich bilateral relations. After two years of inactivity, we
were able to hold the 15 thMeeting of the Commission on Neighbor Relations and Integration, in
April 2006, in Quito, in which distinguished delegates from public and private institutions of the two
countries participated. The meeting generated significant progress in terms of development and
integration for the border integration zone of Ecuador and Colombia.
Regrettably, this reactivated border integration process has now been stopped short by the
resumption of glyphosate spraying by the Government of Colombia.
These processes, which made it possible to implement significant binational projects to
improve living conditions for the border-area population in both countries, led to possibilities of
international cooperation in terms of funding.
In its report on the Preliminary Technical Mission of the United Nations proposing that
studies be conducted on the impact of aerial spraying and complementary actions on the northern
border, the United Nations called the Colombian Government’s decision to temporarily suspend
spraying a positive step contributing to the development of a harmonious agenda shared by the two
countries, including the Binational Plan for Development of the Border Integration Zone to be
adopted by the Governments of Ecuador and Colombia.ANNEX 78
- 3 -
The world organization also expressed its profound satisfaction at the agreements reached by
the Foreign Ministers of Ecuador and Colombia at their meeting of December 7, 2005, including the
Government of Colombia’s willingness to take part in the drafting of the terms of reference for the
study on the impact of sprayings to be proposed by the United Nations, and the Government of
Ecuador’s decision to share the Report of the Technical Mission of the United Nations with the
Government of Colombia.
I want to emphasize that the Government of Ecuador, as soon as it received that report, sent it
to the Colombian foreign ministry, on May 2, 2006, as had been agreed in the joint communiqué of
December 7, 2005. At that time, the Colombian Government was invited, as had been agreed, to join
in the effort to prepare terms of reference for the studies proposed by the UN technical mission and to
provide all the necessary facilities for the initiation and completion of those studies. In the absence
of a timely response, this position was expressed again to the Colombian foreign ministry, on
October 10, 2006.
Regrettably, only when aerial glyphosate spraying had resumed, in reaction to the protest
presented by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador to the Ambassador of Colombia in Quito,
did the foreign ministry of that country, on December 20, 2006, propose “the holding, as soon as
possible, of a meeting between the Governments of Ecuador and Colombia, with the United Nations,
to clarify these concerns of the Government of Colombia, so that the agreement in that regard in the
joint communiqué of December 7, 2005, may be implemented.”
In response to Ecuador’s constant claims as to the effects of glyphosate, Colombia has
always tried to justify its actions on the basis of the “Study of the Impact on Human Health and the
Environment of the Program for the Eradication of Illicit Crops by Aerial Spraying of Glyphosate
(PECIG) and of Illicit Crops,” conducted in 2005 at the request of the Inter-American Drug Abuse
Control Commission (CICAD), under the auspices of the Governments of the United States, the
United Kingdom, and Colombia, the sole objective of which was to prove the supposed harmlessness
of glyphosate.
That study has been widely challenged by prestigious scientists and researchers, and by
universities and academic institutions in Ecuador and other countries, for lack of sound scientific
research methods. This includes an extensive and detailed study by the Institute of Environmental
Studies of the National University of Colombia.
I’d just like to point out five aspects of the latter study that challenge the scientific validity of
CICAD’s analysis in that:
1. It reaches conclusions that are not supported by the data given.
2. It disregards studies critical of glyphosate that would have altered the conclusions.
3. It examines effects on ecosystems almost entirely unaffected but does nothing to
assess biodiversity destruction, crop elimination, and soil erosion.
4. It does not examine the impact on the population.
5. It disregards more than 8,000 complaints submitted by rural people from both
countries on damage to lawful crops, loss of animals, and harm to human health. ANNEX 78
- 4 -
Moreover, while the CICAD study “estimated” (did not decisively state) that the drift, that is,
the deviation caused by wind, did not exceed 1%, a study by United States scientists confirmed (did
not estimate) that for each two hectares of coca fumigated, one hectare of lawful crops or of forest
was destroyed. Consequently, even the American Medical Association (AMA), with over six million
U.S. health professionals, asked for an end to aerial spraying in Colombia.
In its instructions for the use of glyphosate, which it markets as Roundup, the manufacturer
Monsanto says that aerial applications should be avoided if there is a danger that the chemical could
contact desirable species. It says minimal amounts of this herbicide can cause severe damage to or
destruction of crops and plants not targeted in the treatment. It says the risk of damage by Roundup
(glyphosate) is greater when wind speed exceeds 8 km. per hour. It also says that contamination of
seeds and foods for human or animal consumption should be avoided.
Therefore, the Government of Ecuador cannot take the widely-challenged CICAD study as
sufficient evidence of the harmlessness of glyphosate and its chemical components in the aerial
spraying by the Government of Colombia along the border with Ecuador. There is no certainty as to
the chemical mixes and levels of concentration used. Moreover, there are discrepancies between
various statements by high authorities in Colombia, as the Colombian press points out, as to the true
composition and mix of the product and its auxiliary substances.
Therefore, when Colombia and CICAD invited Ecuador to participate, as an observer, in the
second phase of this study, my country indicated it was awaiting the Colombian Government’s reply
for the joint preparation of terms of reference for the five types of studies proposed by the UN
Technical Mission, as agreed in the joint communiqué of December 7, 2005.
Also very telling is the clear reference by the United Nations Rapporteur on the Rights and
Freedoms of Indigenous Peoples, Mr. Rodolfo Stavenhagen, in certain paragraphs of his report on his
visit to Ecuador, from April 25 to May 4, 2006, in which he establishes that aerial spraying with
glyphosate mixed with other products on illicit plantations in Colombia, in the area bordering
Ecuador, has had harmful effects on environmental resources and on human and animal health.
Among the major effects noted by Mr. Stavenhagen in his report are skin and other diseases,
contamination of rivers and ground water, and the disappearance of various short-cycle crops less
than 15 days after the beginning of spraying. The report also notes the existence of a high percentage
of residue of the chemical product used in the spraying on Colombian territory on the River Mira,
bordering Ecuador, in the provinces of Esmeraldas and Carchi, with grave consequences for the
Ecuadorian indigenous communities settled along the shore of that river.
Since there is a clear disparity of views between the Governments of Ecuador and Colombia
as to the validity and sufficiency of existing studies on the effects of aerial spraying with glyphosate
and its chemical compounds on human health, the environment, and productive activities in the
affected areas, it is clear that we are faced with a profound divergence between the two countries.
Ecuadormaintains that there is sufficient evidence that aerial spraying with glyphosate is indeed
harmful to human health and the environment, while Colombia affirms that there is not.
As civilized states, respectful of human rights and concerned for the environment and
biodiversity of the areas along our shared border, we are obligated to conduct a study such as the one
proposed by the United Nations, in which the Government of Colombia has recently indicated itsANNEX 78
- 5 -
wish to participate, thereby honoring the commitment it assumed in the joint communiqué of
December 7, 2005.
That study would also need to take account of the findings of many others conducted on the
efforts of glyphosate, not only, as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia maintains in its note
of December 20, 2006, of the findings of the study commissioned by CICAD.
It should also be made clear that the studies on the toxicity of glyphosate to human health
and the environment are not recent; they were conducted years ago in countries such as the United
States, France, Sweden, Canada, and Argentina, as indicated by the Ecuadorian scientist Dr. Luís
Romo Saltos in his paper “Aerial fumigation of illicit plantations.”
It is also useful to note that Denmark, on September 15, 2003, banned the spraying of
glyphosate in response to scientific proof of the herbicide’s presence in the underground water from
which that country derives most of its drinking water.
Worth citing, too, is the study by the Colombian researcher, Elsa Nivia, Executive Director
of the Colombian branch of the Pesticide Action Network, who writes in her paper entitled “Aerial
Spraying of Illicit Crops is Indeed Dangerous” that “when wide spectrum herbicides are used to spray
illicit crops, they also spray food crops near to or between the illicit crops, water sources, cattle and
domestic animals, schools, homes, workers, men, women, and children, and species of flora and
fauna in nearby jungle areas.” She adds that no pilot, no matter how experienced, can prevent
indiscriminate fumigation when applying insecticides, from an airplane, to crops, forests, and
populated areas.
As for the difference between the use of glyphosate for farming or commercial purposes and
its use in aerial spraying to destroy illicit crops in Colombia, this Colombian professional notes that
they are quite different from the agricultural use recommended in the United States, since the
effective discharge of 23.4 L/ha of Roundup Ultra is equivalent to a concentration 26 times higher
than that recommended and the mix with the surfactant Cosmoflux 411F can increase by a factor of
up to four the biological effect of the herbicide, suggesting relative levels of exposure 104 times
higher than the dose recommended for normal agricultural applications in the United States, a dose
which, according to studies, is capable of killing even ruminants, even more so if one considers the
various passes crop-duster aircraft make over the same areas.
Therefore, the Government of Colombia cannot intend to compare, much less justify, its
aerial spraying with glyphosate to destroy illicit plantations–spraying which has an indiscriminate
harmful effect–with the localized, systematic use of such herbicide in agriculture.
I ask myself whether the innumerable studies conducted in a number of countries and the
aforementioned research by Elsa Nivia, demonstrating that aerial spraying with glyphosate does
indeed pose a grave risk to human and animal health, together with the 8,000 complaints filed with
the Colombian Ombudsman’s Office and the National Narcotics Directorate regarding the harmful
effects of spraying on the local population, were taken into consideration by CICAD’s research team
in demonstrating the alleged “harmlessness” of glyphosate, which Colombia uses to justify its
actions. Not to mention the report, presented a few months ago by the Departmental Health Institute ANNEX 78
- 6 -
of Nariño, Colombia, which mentions children who have died and dozens of Colombians harmed by
glyphosate.
Through the OAS General Secretariat, I am placing this study, along with others conducted
in Ecuador and in other countries, at the disposal of the Permanent Council.
Madam Chair, delegates:
The Precautionary Principle, established in international agreements and instruments, is also
reflected in several of the 27 principles underlying Colombia’s environmental policy, as set forth in
Law 99 of 1993. More specifically, Principle 15 of that law states: “In order to protect the
environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their
capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty
shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental
degradation.”
On the basis of that principle, which is also enshrined in the laws of my country, the
Ecuadorian State has had to address complaints by Ecuadorian inhabitants of the border area who are
victims of the effects of aerial spraying of glyphosate by Colombia in its territory near the boarder.
This led to a ruling by the Constitutional Court, which requires that Ecuadorian state agencies take
steps to rehabilitate those affected and avoid further harm. Specifically, it requires the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Ecuador to enter into talks with the Government of Colombia, with a view to
putting an end to any form of aerial spraying that penetrates Ecuadorian territory.
Likewise, the Office of the Ombudsman of Ecuador has recommended reaching an
appropriate solution with Colombia and has forwarded its resolution on the subject of aerial spraying
of glyphosate to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Office of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, so that these bodies are informed and can adopted
the necessary and pertinent measures needed to safeguard the health, safety, and wellbeing of the
currently affected populations.
I should like to take this opportunity to inform the Permanent Council that the Inter-
American Commission on Human Rights has just transmitted a complaint against the State of
Ecuador for alleged liability for glyphosate spraying on the border area. It is ironical that the
Ecuadorian state, which has spared no effort to have spraying with glyphosate suspended, should
have a suit brought against it before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and may have
to pay compensation for damage caused by this substance.
At this point, I should like to point out that Ecuador is open to and interested in receiving an
on-site observation visit by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights that will enable it to
determine at first hand the consequences of these sprayings for the inhabitants and the environment in
the border area.ANNEX 78
- 7 -
Furthermore, on Ecuador’s behalf, I hereby reiterate our request that, in accordance with its
control and surveillance responsibilities on its side of the border, Colombia establish a greater
military, police, and civilian authorities presence in the area, rather than the current sporadic and
insufficient presence of these forces. This will enable it to comply with its offer to use manual
methods as an alternative way of eradicating the illicit coca crops in the border zone: a commitment
it undertook in the Joint Communiqué of December 7, 2005.
Consequently, I invite the Government of Colombia to initiate immediately, with the next 30
days, a joint action to appoint a binational scientific commission to begin working out terms of
reference for the five studies proposed by the United Nations in order to ascertain the effects of aerial
spraying with glyphosate and the chemicals used with it on human health, the environment,
biological biodiversity, and the means of production along the shared border and, subsequently, to
determine the liabilities and payment of such compensation and damages obligations as Colombia
may incur, in accordance with international laws.
Here, I feel I should comment on the Colombian Government’s assertion that following the
suspension of aerial spraying with glyphosate and its chemical components in the border zone, agreed
upon with Ecuador in 2005, illicit coca crops in that area have increased to 10,000 hectares. The
Government of Ecuador does not agree with this assertion particularly since, in fact, as already
pointed out, the reason for the aforementioned increase in coca plantations for the production and sale
of cocaine in that region is the lack of an effective presence and permanent control by Colombia’s
armed forces, police, and civilian authorities in the border region. That increase is, moreover,
palpable proof that the policy of aerial spraying with glyphosate has not produced the desired results.
Ecuador rejects any attempt to involve it in the so-called “Colombia Plan,” with actions such
as that of that country’s Director of Police, who suddenly denounced in the media that he had
observed from Colombian territory the (alleged) existence of coca plantations in Ecuadorian territory
close to the Putumayo River and even went so far as to provide the geographic coordinates needed to
locate the alleged illicit crops.
In that regard, I should like to inform you that the Minister of National Defense of Ecuador
and national anti-drug police commandos, accompanied by members of the national and international
press corps, verified on site the inaccuracy of the denunciation and, using the geographical
coordinates provided by Colombia, found a cattle farm, fruit plantations, and wild plants.
The historic ties of friendship and brotherhood that have traditionally characterized relations
between Ecuador and Colombia should not be altered by these disagreements and those of us who
hold public office must be accountable to our peoples for maintaining such ties.
I wish to underscore Ecuador’s solidarity with regard to the conflict in Colombia. As has
already been pointed out, this solidarity is evidenced by the fact that over 500,000 Colombian
citizens have been generously received by my country. They include – mostly illegal – migrants,
displaced persons, and refugees, on such a scale that Ecuador has become the Latin American country
with the highest number of refugees.
Ecuador and Colombia must not forget where our real enemy lies. Ecuador makes no mistake
about it. Our common enemy is poverty, drug trafficking, illiteracy, unhealthiness, crime, and ANNEX 78
- 8 -
environmental degradation. It is this multi-faceted enemy that we need to fight to the best of our
ability.
On this occasion, Ecuador formally reiterates its fraternal petition that Colombia first cease
aerial spraying with glyphosate and its associated chemicals within an area of 10 kilometers on the
Colombian side of our common border, a position that Ecuador has consistently put to Colombia
since 2001. I also urge Colombia to observe the Precautionary Principle, which is embodied in its
own laws and which requires that, faced with doubts regarding the effects on the environment of the
use of a chemical substance, such use must be suspended while analyses and studies are carried out to
prove that it is “harmless” for ecosystems and human beings.
Finally, I believe it is important to state that, although this presentation has addressed
problems that have arisen between Ecuador and Colombia because of Colombia’s aerial spraying in
the area of the border between the two countries, in no way should the harmful effects of those
unilateral actions be regarded as the exclusive concern of two states, because Colombia also has
borders with several other countries and, in addition, the Amazon forests are part of the “lungs” of
the world. What is more, respect for human rights must transcend national differences. Likewise,
adequate protection of the environment must be a global, as well as American, concern, because of its
impact on future generations.
Madam Chair of the Council, Mr. Secretary General, and Permanent Representatives: thank
you very much.
Washington, D.C., January 9, 2007
CP17426E10 ANNEX 79
Speech of Colombian Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs at the
OAS Permanent Council Meeting (9 Jan. 2007) ANNEX 79
PERMANECNTUNCIL
OEA/Ser.G
CP/INF.5432/07
10 January 2007
Original: Spanish
SPEECH BY THE VICE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF COLOMBIA
AT THE PERMANENT COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 9, 2007ANNEX 79
SPEECH BY THE VICE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF COLOMBIA
AT THE PERMANENT COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 9, 2007
It is my pleasure this morning to address the Secretary General, Mr. José Miguel Insulza, the
distinguished members of the Permanent Council, ambassadors, alternate representatives, and other
participants; and, in particular, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Ecuador,
Mr. Francisco Carrión.
After listening to his presentation, I should like to make the following comments in my
capacity as Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs and on behalf of my Government:
The subject brought, on this occasion, by the Government of Ecuador to the attention of the
Permanent Council, regarding the Colombian Government’s decision to resume airborne spraying in
Colombian territory, in a 10-kilometer-wide strip along the common border, has to do with the
inescapable need to eradicate illicit crops in my country as an indispensable component of the
fight against the global drug problem, a scourge that wreaks devastation in both the region and the
world as a whole.
This is a sovereign decision of the Government of Colombia , and, therefore, an internal
affair of Colombia, which this Forum is not competent to discuss.
For Colombia, this is, moreover, a national security issue , since it pertains to our struggle
against the global drug problem and the financing of terrorism.
Thus, with actions such as those brought to the Permanent Council’s attention today, which
lead to a reduction in the supply of illicit drugs, Colombia is, in addition, complying with the
commitments derived from global, regional, and subregional international instruments on the subject.
At the same time, it should be pointed out that, in December 2005, in response to a request
from the Government of Ecuador to suspend airborne spraying in a 10-kilometer-wide strip along the
common border, the Government of Colombia chose, unilaterally, to suspend spraying operations
on a temporary basis on the Colombian side of the border with Ecuador.
However, the result of the one-year suspension of spraying was a substantial increase in coca
crops, over an estimated 13,200 hectares. That being so, in order to defend the interests of the
Colombian people and honor international commitments to combat the production of and trafficking
in narcotic drugs, the Colombian Government had no option but to resume the spraying it had
traditionally carried out on the Colombian side of the border.
It is necessary to stress that Colombia has scientific and technical proof regarding the
harmless effects on human health and the environment of the mixture used by the Program to
Eradicate Illicit Crops by means of Airborne Spraying with Glyphosate (PECIG), which has been
implemented in different parts of the country, including the zone adjacent to the border with Ecuador,
and that such spraying is conducted according to strict technical standards, whereby the drops
containing the mixture fall vertically, i.e. straight down with no possibility of drifting. In other words,
the mixture cannot fall on the other side of the border. ANNEX 79
- 2 -
PECIG was designed as a program to be executed solely and exclusively within the national
territory, precluding from the outset any possibility of transborder spraying.
The Spraying Program (PECIG) established technical parameters for airborne spraying that
have to be strictly applied to each and every sprayed crop, because this procedure ensures over 90
percent effect destruction in the case of coca crops.
Despite absolute certainty that the PECIG poses no threat to human, animal, or
environmental health, the National Government has put in place institutional mechanisms for strict
monitoring, verification, and oversight of each phase of the Program, in order to guarantee adequate
and correct execution.
Eradication from the air is conducted using rigorous, modern techniques that include the use
of satellite technology and make it possible to verify where and when spraying took place. In
addition, the protocols governing spraying determine the minimum climatic conditions that must
pertain for spraying to take place. It cannot be carried out at altitudes exceeding 25 meters, nor when
winds exceed 5km/hour, the temperature is above 25º Centigrade, or relative humidity exceeds 80
percent. Moreover, although it is true that the concentration of liquid is greater than that used for
commercial crops, the percentage of the mix hitting each plant is less than that affecting legal crops,
because of the very nature of the operation.
The drift, that is to say the distance the wind can carry the mixture away from its target, is
minimal and does not exceed 12.3 meters . The physical and chemical properties of glyphosate
preclude it being driven by the wind far enough to cross the Colombian/Ecuador border.
The scientific and technical arguments are supported by numerous national and international
studies, and, in particular, in the study published by the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control
Commission (CICAD) of the OAS. That study entered its second phase in November 2006.
The CICAD/OAS study, entitled “Study of the Effects of the Program to Eradicate Illicit
Crops by means of Airborne Spraying with Glyphosate (PECIG) and of the Illicit Crops on Human
Health and the Environment,” was conducted by eminent, internationally renowned scientists from
Canada, Spain, Brazil, Mexico, and the United Kingdom, under the direction of Professor Keith R.
Solomon of the Centre for Toxicology of the Department of Environmental Biology at the University
of Guelph, in Canada.
My Government would agree to the establishment by CICAD/OAS of a Verification
Committee to ascertain, in connection with the aforementioned study, that in fact there is no drift.
It should also be pointed out that glyphosate is used in legal crops all over the world,
including Ecuador, in, for instance, banana and coffee plantations. In Colombia only 15 percent is
used to eradicate illicit crops. As is well known in farming and trade circles, today latest generation
glyphosate is used for direct sowing, that is to say, as a means of cleaning the soil, without having to
plough or scrape.ANNEX 79
- 3 -
Today our delegation is distributing to the permanent representatives a copy of the
CICAD/OAS “Study of the Effects of the Program to Eradicate Illicit Crops by means of Airborne
Spraying with Glyphosate (PECIG) and of the Illicit Crops on Human Health and the Environment,”
which has been available to the international community on the CICAD website, along with a number
of other public documents on the use of glyphosate in Ecuador.
Madam Chair, the Colombian Government wishes to assert to this body that what truly
contaminates is the illicit cultivation of coca leaf, which illegally employs chemical inputs,
herbicides, insecticides, and fertilizers that do indeed pose a threat to human health and the
environment. Let us remember that three hectares of woodland are destroyed for each hectare sown
with coca.
Colombia has made huge efforts to put a stop to such crops, including manual eradication.
Last year alone, those operations cost the lives of 41 Colombians killed by the anti-personnel
landmines and explosive devices used by terrorist groups bent on preventing eradication. We should
not forget, either, that those terrorist groups use the resources derived from drug trafficking to
strengthen their capacity for violence. Despite that, 43,000 hectares were eradicated by hand in 2006
and over the past few years more than 160,000 hectares have been sprayed.
For its part, Colombia has complied with the provisions of the joint communiqué of
December 7, 2006, namely temporary suspension of spraying and a stepped-up military presence in
the area. As for the agreement on terms of reference, Ecuador applied unilaterally to the United
Nations, curiously bypassing the United Nations agency responsible for combating the global drug
problem and omitting to point out precisely that what is wanted is a forward-looking study of the
effects of glyphosate on human health and the environment.
What Colombia expects of the international community is unstinting support for its efforts to
combat the cultivation and trafficking of illicit drugs and for implementation of the now universally
accepted principle of shared responsibility.
Finally, it should be noted that historically relations between Colombia and Ecuador have
been handled through frank and constructive dialogue, as well through mutual readiness to seek
bilateral solutions to any disagreement that might arise.
The Government of Colombia reaffirms its irrevocable willingness to pursue the quest for
consensus in this and any other matter that might arise with the sister Republic of Ecuador.
I would like to thank the Permanent Council for listening to these remarks.
CP17424E04 ANNEX 80
Minutes of the First Meeting of the Bi-National Scientific-Technical Commission
(10 Apr. 2007) ANNEX 80
MINUTES OF THE FIRST MEETING OF THE ECUADOR-
COLOMBIA BINATIONAL SCIENTIFIC-TECHNICAL
COMMISSION
In the city of Quito on the tenth day of the month of April of 2007, the
First Meeting of the Ecuador-Colombia Binational Scientific-Technical
Commission took place, with the Commission formally inaugurated by the
Ecuadorian Vice-Minister of Foreign Relations, Trade and Integration,
Ambassador Rafael Paredes Proaño.
After words of welcome and the inauguration of the binational meeting on
the part of the Ecuadorian Vice-Minister, the meeting began, presided
over by Dr. Elizabeth Bravo, President of the Ecuadorian Scientific-
Technical Commission. The list of delegates is included as Appendix 1.
Dr. Alberto Gómez Mejía, President of the Scientific-Technical
Commission of Colombia then offered his greetings.
The meeting was carried out according to the agenda proposed by the
Ecuadorian delegation, which is included as Appendix 2.
The Ecuadorian delegation made a presentation on its scientific-technical
position, emphasizing the methodological criteria of the centrality of
human beings, the multidimensionality of the problem, and the precaution
principle. This presentation was heard by the Colombian delegation,
which made the comments and observations that it deemed pertinent,
especially that it respected but did not agree with the content of the
presentation. The Commission also commented that it would not discuss
aspects apart from the drifting of spray. In its turn, the Ecuadorian
Delegation stated that the work of the Commission should not center
exclusively on the issue of aerial spraying drift.
The Commissions reached the following understandings:
x To exchange, before 27 April 2007, by diplomatic channels,
documents with the respective scientific-technical substantiations
to defend their positions.
x To hold the next meeting of the Binational Commission in Bogotá
on 9 May 2007. In that meeting, the delegations will present their
respective supporting arguments and continue with the
advancement of issues regarding the work timeline and
methodology.ANNEX 80
x The Ecuadorian delegation will send to its counterpart an
explanatory document regarding the content and the scope of the
aforementioned methodological criteria which it proposed in the
meeting.
In witness thereof, these minutes are signed by the presidents of the
delegations of Ecuador and Colombia, in agreement and with equal
validity, on the tenth day of the month of April of 2007.
FOR ECUADOR FOR COLOMBIA
[signature] [signature]
Dr. Elizabeth Bravo Dr. Alberto Gómez MejíaANNEX 80 ANNEX 81
Ecuadorian Scientific-Technical Commission,
Aide Memoire on the First Meeting (11 Apr. 2007) ANNEX 81
AIDE-MÉMOIRE
On Tuesday, 10 April 2007, the First Meeting of the Binational Scientific-
Technical Commission was held to deal with the issue of the aerial
glyphosate sprayings being carried out by Colombia in its own territory,
near the border with our country. Said meeting was inaugurated by the
Vice-Minister of Foreign Relations, Commerce and Integration,
Ambassador Rafael Paredes, who stated that the Ecuadorian government
gives special attention to the work of the Commission, as it coincides with
the well-being of the Ecuadorian border population and the environment.
He further noted the necessity of concluding the proceedings with all
possible haste, with the aim of putting an end to the harms being suffered
by an important sector of Ecuador, and to be able to start a new cycle in
the relations between the two countries.
The Ecuadorian delegation was headed by Doctor Elizabeth Bravo, and
Colombia’s by Doctor Alberto Gómez. Doctor Jaime Breilh, representing
Ecuador, made a presentation on the scientific-technical position on the
effects caused within Ecuadorian territory by the spraying being carried
out by the Colombian Government, and he proposed, as a part of the
methodology, adopting as criteria the need to consider the centrality of
human beings, the multidimensionality of the problem, and the
precautionary principle.
The Colombian delegation expressed that its presence was in compliance
with the decision of the two governments to deal with the issue, and that it
was directed to comply with the agreements made by the Foreign
Ministries regarding the criteria for establishing the authority and the
functioning of the Binational Scientific-Technical Commission, which
indicated that in the first meeting a work timeline would be established
and that issues related to methodology would be dealt with in the future.
In addition, the Colombian representatives stated that they only had the
authorization of the Colombian government to listen to the Ecuadorian
position.
Moreover, Colombia stated that the problem with Ecuador should be
addressed based on the technical-scientific discussion of the drifting of
spray, a method to which the Ecuadorian side objected, believing that theANNEX 81
discussion could not solely be focused on the issue of drift, and that it
must be studied from different points of view.
In this regard, Colombia proposed that in the next meeting, to be held in
the city of Bogotá on 9 May, they be permitted to make a presentation on
the technical-scientific aspects of the drift, and in which Ecuador could
present its position before all the members of the Colombian Delegation.
On the other side, Ecuador stated the need, as part of the methodology, to
carry out field visits to San Francisco I and II, Santa Marianita, Puerto
Meztanza and Lago Agrio, which was not accepted by Colombia, as they
believed that this would be to accept that glyphosate falls into Ecuadorian
territory, which would contradict the official position that they were
maintaining, and they included that, as Ecuador had threatened to sue
Colombia for the spraying, this could constitute a pre-trial process.
Two other important issues considered in the meeting were related to the
chemical composition used for the eradication of illicit crops and the
precautionary principle. In the first case, Colombia expressed that this
was a decision of its government that was not to be discussed at that table,
and that it considered it an intervention into the internal affairs of
Colombia; and, regarding the precautionary principle, they believed that it
must first be proved that glyphosate passes into Ecuador to be able to
enter into another type of consideration and to make a claim for the
purposes of eventual reparations.
The Colombian Delegation also stated that the Ministry of the
Environment carried out an environmental impact study and that aerial
sprayings with glyphosate and its co-adjuvants have the respective
licenses for usage, such that it could not be argued that Colombia was not
respecting, in the sprayings carried out within its own territory, the
precautionary principle.
The documents mentioned in the previous paragraph were requested by
the members of the Ecuadorian Delegation from the Colombian
representatives, who offered to make the necessary efforts to obtain them
from the pertinent institutions and to send them in a timely fashion, so
long as they were not classified. In addition, it was agreed that the
Commission would exchange supporting scientific-technical
substantiations to support their positions through diplomatic channels
before 27 April 2007. ANNEX 81
Finally, Ecuador offered to send its counterpart an explanatory document
on the content and scope of the proposed methodological criteria, which
are the centrality of human beings, the multidimensionality of the problem,
and the precautionary principle.
In the afternoon and in an official manner, the President of the Colombian
Commission expressed that he had been notified of the declarations of the
President of the Republic of Ecuador, made on national radio the same
day as the meeting, that he was tired of all of the diplomatic requests from
Colombia, and that he questioned, therefore, the value of the Binational
Scientific-Commission. Regarding this, it was explained that the
Ecuadorian Head of State was referring to the incidents which had
recently occurred on the border, to which Colombia had not responded,
but that the Foreign Ministry believed that the function of this Binational
Commission was of a clearly scientific-technical nature, and not of a
diplomatic one, such that there was no reason for its operations to be
affected.
Quito, on 11 April 2007 ANNEX 81
AYIJDA MEl
El dia martes 10 de abril de 2007
Cientifico TØcnica Binacional
Comisi n pan
con glifosato quo realiza Colombia en su territ
Dicha reunion fize inaugurada por el Vice
Rafael
Integraci n Embajador Paredes
otorga especial atenciOn los trabajos de esta
bienestar de Ia fronteriza ecuator
poblaciOn
ademÆs la necesidad de concluir sus trabajos
los daflos que padece un sector importante dcl
las relaciones entre los dos
paises
ecuatoriana estuvo
DelegaciOn presi
de Colombia por el Doctor Alberto GOmez EZ
de la Parte ecuatoriana hizo una presentaciOni
los efectos territorio ecuat
respecto que en
Gobierno colombiano planteO dentro de la .1
consideren los criterios de centralidad
so de
problema yel principio de precauciOn
La DelegaciOn colombiana expresO quq
dos Gobiernos tratar el tem4 que estab
para
las Cin▯illerias en cuanto los criteth
funcionamiento do Ia ComisiOn Cientifico
reuniOn se establecerÆ un
primera cronogral
relacionados con la metodologia AdemÆs lost
tenian autorizaciOn dcl gobiemo
que
ecuatoriana
Asimismo Colombia manifestO el
que
en Ia discusiOn tØcnica cientifica sobre la
fue objetada por la Parte cuatoriana la
qupj
discusi n solamentc en el tema de Ia deriva
yli
dc vista
puntos
En este sentido Colombia propuso qu
ciudad de Bogota el de mayo se les
tØcnicos cientificos de la derii
aspectos
presentar su posiciOn ante todos los miembros
Por otro lado Ecuador planteO Ia
realicen de
metodologia se visitas campo
Lago Agrio tema no fue
Meztapza que
eso seriaaceptar que el glifosato cae en territo
posiciOn oficial quo ellos mantienen inclusp
demandaria Colombia las
por aspersionps
procesocomo una pre pruebaANNEX 81
Otros dos temas importantes tratados
composici n quimica utilizada pan Ia erradic
En el Colombia rn
precauci n primer caso
gobiemo que no debe ser discutida en esa mes
los asuntos internos de Colombia en cuanto
se debe el at
primero probar que glifosato pasa
consideraci n reclamar pan efectos de eventt
colombiana manifest i
La Delegaci n
realiz un estudio de impacto ambiental que
coadyuvantes tienen Ia licencia respectiva
para
que en Colombia no se respeta en las fumig
principio de precauci n
Los documentos mencionados en el pal
miembros de Ia Delegaci n ecuatoriana
ofrecieron hacer los esfuerzos necesarios
conseguirlos remitirlos oportunamente si
reservados Asimismo se acord por via
que
susteniaciones cientifico tØcnicas
que respald
abril de 2007
Ecuador ofrcci enviar
Finalmente
sobrc el contenido .y los alcances de los
centralidad del ser humano
precauci n
En horas de La tarde de manera
colombiana expres que le ha Ilamado Ia at
de Ia Repiiblica del Ecuador formuladas ese
nacioiial en el sentido de consideraba
que ago
diplomÆticas se pregunt por tanto quØ valor
Cientifica Binacional lo cual se le explic
los incidentes que han ocurrido ltir
Colombia no ha respondido pero que la
esta Comisi n Binacional estÆ fuera de este
cientifico tdcnico no
diplomÆtico que
funcionamiento ANNEX 82
Minutes of Ecuador’s and Colombia’s Foreign Ministers Meeting
(28 May 2007) ANNEX 82
REPORT
COLOMBIA-ECUADOR FOREIGN MINISTERS’ MEETING
(QUITO 28.05.07).
[…]
Making it clear that the Colombia’s fumigations does not involve joint
military operations, the additional statements of Minister Araujo carried
the following complementary message: “Aerial spraying are equal to
security, but security is not equal to the other types of considerations
which could impede the practice of the eradication of illicit crops when
circumstances make its use necessary”.
On the other hand, according to the Colombian Foreign Minister, there are
no difficult issues in bilateral relations, if they are dealt with
understanding and goodwill. “The difficulty is not the problem itself, but
the methodology with which we approach it,” added Araujo.
[…]
[PAGE 2]
The [Ecuadorian] Minister refers to the fact that it could be argued that
there is an element of uncertainty related to the harmful effects of the
broad-spectrum herbicide package used by Colombia, but emphasized that
it is precisely that uncertainty which constitutes the same essence, and
sufficient cause for that country to put the “Precautionary Principle” into
immediate effect.
[…]
Colombia.- In his response, the Colombian Minister reiterated the
concepts initially laid out; however, he expressed the fact that within these
objectives of the dialogue, the need to reassume a positive agenda was
necessarily included. He noted, in this context, that Colombia was at fault
for not having met the 27 April deadline for the exchange of the
Commissions’ reports, while indicating that this report would be ready no
later than 8 June, including all of the necessary information to clear the
way for the second meeting of the two national commissions.
He later emphasized that the fact that Colombia has substantially
increased manual eradication, a practice which has been carried out
recently in more than 1,600 hectares of coca crops in the 10 km. band ofANNEX 82
the territories bordering Ecuador, should be recorded as a very positive
sign. He also added that in 2005, a total of 35,000 hectares throughout the
Colombian territory were manually eradicated, 40,000 in 2006 and 50,000
in 2007, explaining that the Colombian goal was to reach 100,000 soon.
He stated, in complement, that in this context one must not lose sight of
the fact that the method in question includes high levels of insecurity for
those who carry out the work, adding, however, that Colombia believes
the aerial spraying does not reach Ecuador, and that in any case the effects
are not grave. All of this was framed in an emphatic declaration in which
he stated that there is no room for too much caution before the “Demon of
Drug Trafficking”.
In a brief reference to the visit of the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur
on the right to health, Professor Paul Hunt (12-19.05.2007), the Foreign
Minister clarified that the indicated report was not binding for Colombia.
He stated that it was treated as input that Ecuador could make good use of,
and that said report had no more scope than that. Regarding this issue, the
America’s Director at the Colombian Foreign Ministry added that
Professor Hunt only ventured to establish criteria, in addition to which he
went so far as to make statements regarding issues on which Colombia
and Ecuador had already reached resolutions (without detailing them).
[…]
[PAGE 3]
[…]
Colombia.- In the final speech on the issue, the Colombian Foreign
Minister reiterated the conceptualization that was formulated at the
beginning of the declarations, to later note that at the current time they
were not confronted with the problem of aerial spraying since it had been
suspended, an affirmation which served to establish the continuance of the
meeting, taking on issues of a positive nature. He added, however, that
Colombia was not in the position to make a commitment regarding the
fumigation question, nor could it predict what decisions would be made in
the future regarding this issue. ANNEX 82
[…]
[PAGE 7]
[…]
II. ISSUES WHICH MUST BE FOLLOWED-UP ON
1. Aerial Spraying:
x Bear in mind that the official position of the Colombian
government remains unchanged, with no sign of an effective
desire to reconcile itself with the Ecuadorian position, nor with
the various requests formulated with respect to adopting
corrective steps, at least partially, to the harmful practices of
eradication of illicit crops being used by the neighboring
country.
x In this framework, the route of the Scientific Commissions is
the only one which remains open.
x In the eventuality that the Commission does not complete its
report, the appropriateness of continuing with the “positive
agenda” must be evaluated. As an additional element to this
possible scenario, the appropriateness of moving to the court in
The Hague must be introduced into said evaluation. I would
appreciate receiving their valuable opinions and thoughts
regarding these details.
[…]
[PAGE 8]
[…]
x Maintain attention to the compliance with the 8 June deadline,
which was self-imposed by Colombia for the submission of the
scientific report of its commission, bearing in mind that at least
8 days should pass, starting from the effective date of the
submission of the report, before the meeting can be held. It is
anticipated that the Ecuadorian commissioners, maintaining
the assumption that the report in question is submitted, will
only be able to attend the meeting between the 2 ndand 7 thof
July, due to their personal agendas. Colombia will be
informed of this situation once the simultaneous exchange, byANNEX 82
diplomatic channels, of the respective scientific reports has
occurred.
x It will be important to determine, exactly and before the II
Meeting of the commissioners, whether Colombia has
incorporated members who do not meet the strict nature of
scientists into its group. It should be noted, in this respect, that
the Ecuadorian commissioners have expressly indicated that, if
this is the case, they will not attend or will leave the meeting.
x It must also be borne in mind that the national commissioners
have expressed their decided desire to be provided with
appropriate security measures upon their arrival in Bogota and
as they move throughout the city. The accusations against
Doctor Paz y Miño, which appeared referentially in an article
in El Espectador, led them to this request.
x Attention should be paid to following the possibility of official
declarations regarding the initial statements of Special
Rapporteur Paul Hunt.
[…]ANNEX 82ANNEX 82ANNEX 82ANNEX 82ANNEX 82ANNEX 82 ANNEX 84
Ecuadorian Scientific-Technical Commission Aide Memoire on the Second
Meeting, (9 July 2007) ANNEX 84
CONFIDENTIAL
AIDE MEMOIRE
SECOND MEETING OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMISSIONS OF
ECUADOR AND COLOMBIA TO STUDY AND ANALYZE THE
ISSUE OF AERIAL SPRAYING AND THE EFFECTS IT
PRODUCES ON THE ECUADORIAN BORDER
Bogotá, Palace of San Carlos, 09.07.2007
1. Relevant Points:
1.1. Colombia literally and fully ratified the position that it has
maintained since the beginning of the aerial sprayings in October 2000. The
Scientific Commission of Colombia expressed in writing that “ for the
Government of Colombia, aerial spraying with a mixture of Glyphosate,
CosmoFlux and water for the eradication of illicit coca crops do not enter
Ecuadorian territory, and therefore, do not produce harmful effects, either
to communities or to the natural environment of Ecuador. Accordingly, they
cannot be the source or cause of the eventual harmful effects alleged by
Ecuador". On the other hand, it stated that, "although aspects related with
the complex issue of the production, trafficking and consumption of illicit
drugs have been mentioned, the technical discussion is limited to the drift of
sprayings...”
1.2. Acting accordingly, the Colombian Commission discredited the
report of its Ecuadorian counterpart, branding it as "inconsistent", "lacking
scientific rigor", “speculative” and “baseless", unjustified adjectives to
which it added that the Ecuadorian document contained “fallacious
accusations” against the Colombian Administration.
1.3. Faced with these declarations, the Ecuadorian Delegation, in turn:ANNEX 84
i.) Recalled that the Commissions were established with the purpose
of studying and analyzing the issue of aerial sprayings and their
effects on the Ecuadorian border; and,
ii.) Stated that, in the context of these ideas, it could not accept the
document delivered by Colombia, because its extra-scientific nature
shifted the debate to fields other than those agreed upon, focusing on
the justification of the eradication of illicit crops, and diverting it
from the core question of the human and environmental damages
generated by the aerial sprayings, a fundamental concern for
Ecuador.
1.4. Thus ended the first round of conversations and in view of the huge
gap existing between the positions of both countries, Ecuador proposed to
launch a conceptual dialogue, because the only possibility for reaching
agreementwas in the area of methodologies and this would continue the
viability of the negotiation. Accordingly, it laid down the following criteria:
i.) That the mutual discrediting (conducted throughout the first
part of the meeting) failed to identify in any way the "disagreement",
at a time when it was crucial to pinpoint this issue in order to
establish a dialogue. With this view, Ecuador urged the Colombian
delegation to make the required theoretical efforts essential to
overcome the impasse;
ii.) That the confrontation of radically incongruent "interactive
paradigms" annuls any possibility of an understanding, because the
core point of the dispute, the "aerial sprayings," requires a
comprehensive analysis in order to address the issue in all its vast
complexity; and,
iii.) That for the same reason, it was necessary to adopt a
"multidisciplinary" view, against which it is not possible to present a ANNEX 84
narrow view that boxes in the issue within a merely "factual
analysis", as that would mean raising an insurmountable barrier.
Ecuador recalled that "factual analysis" is a method of an analytical
model that has been completely superseded.
1.5. The Ecuadorian attempt to reopen the channels of dialogue only
earned the label from Colombia of a "banal semantic disquisition", against
which that country opposed the proposal to adopt what it called a “risk
evaluation process", which would include the following successive courses
of action: "identification of threats", "possibility of occurrence",
'quantification of damages", and "quantification of the danger".
1.6. Faced with such a position, which was nothing but a clear delay
tactic (as it represented a vain attempt at resolving the impossible question
of "the certainty of the damage"), the Ecuadorian Delegation decided to test
its counterpart, indicating that it could accept that new studies are
conducted, provided Colombia agreed, in turn to:
i.) Put into practice the precautionary principle;
ii.) Declare the indefinite suspension of aerial sprayings;
iii.) Begin investigations aimed at the assessment of damages and
the comprehensive reparation thereof; and,
iv.) Launch a dialogue aimed at bringing about the required
reparations.
1.7. In the context of all that has been recorded, efforts to achieve any
result were fruitless; accordingly, the respective Presidents of the Scientific
Commissions were only able to state verbally that they would report the
meeting to their authorities with the object of seeking, through diplomatic
channels, any possibility of agreement.ANNEX 84
1.8. Ecuador, in turn, blocked the Colombian attempt to sign a document
that contained only the aforementioned intention of the Presidents. It did so
because the document in question would have meant leaving a written
testimony that allegedly, diplomatic channels were still open.
1.9. Despite Ecuador’s insistence, the Delegation of Colombia repeatedly
refused to sign a minute. The President provided the unusual argument that
no one was authorized to sign a document that recorded disagreements. In
response to a subsequent request made by one of the national
commissioners, the President astonishingly declared that no one had the
authority to force his country to sign any document .
1.10.All that was recorded in the end, reveals that the Scientific
Commissions’ room to maneuver had disappeared; accordingly, the issue of
the aerial sprayings returned to the field of political debate and dialogue.
2. General
i. The Meeting was headed by the President of the Colombian
Scientific Commission, Doctor Alberto Gómez Mejía.
ii. The Meeting followed the Agenda proposed by the Colombian
Delegation, with the modifications introduced by Ecuador. The final
version is included as Appendix No. 1.
iii. The Delegations of both countries were comprised by the
members of the respective Scientific Commissions, who were
accompanied by officials of their respective Foreign Ministries. For
Ecuador, the Undersecretary for National Sovereignty and Border
Development, Ambassador Jaime Barberis, and the Director General
of Border Relations with Colombia, Doctor Mario Guerrero ANNEX 84
Murgueytio; and, for Colombia, Doctor Ricardo Montenegro,
Director of Territorial Sovereignty, and Mr. Diego Cadena, an
Official of that department. The full list is included as Appendix No.
DGRFC/M.G.M.
----------------------------------------ANNEX 84
Appendix No. 1
SECOND MEETING OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMISSIONS OF
ECUADOR AND COLOMBIA TO STUDY AND ANALYZE THE
ISSUE OF AERIAL SPRAYING AND THE EFFECTS IT
PRODUCES ON THE ECUADORIAN BORDER
Bogota, Palace of San Carlos, 09.07.20
AGENDA
1. Presentation by Colombia: "Comments and Review of Document of
Ecuadorian Scientific Commission", dated June 2007;
2. Comments of Ecuadorian Scientific Commission on position document
of Colombian Commission, dated June 2007;
3. Analysis of consensus and disagreements;
4. Miscellaneous.
---------------------------------------- ANNEX 84
APPENDIX No. 2
I. List of Ecuadorian Delegation - Ecuadorian Scientific
Commission:
Elizabeth Bravo, Ecologist. PhD, President of Ecuadorian Scientific
Commission
Ramiro Avila, LLM, Dr., Commissioner
Jaime Breilh, MD, MSc. PhD., Commissioner
Arturo Campaña, MD, Psychiatrist, Commissioner
César Paz y Miño, MD, PhD, Commissioner
Luis Peñaherrera, Agricultural Engineer. MSc., Commissioner
Mario Guerrero Murgueytio. Dr., Commissioner
Jaime Barberis, Under-secretary for National Sovereignty and Border
Development, Assistant to the Commission
II. List of Colombian Delegation - Colombian Scientific
Commission:
Alberto Gómez, President
Elizabeth Hodson
Carolina Sofrony E.
Gonzalo Andrade
Rocío Cortés
Ricardo Montenegro (Colombian Foreign Ministry)
Nicolás Rivas (Colombian Foreign Ministry)
Inés Herrera (Colombian Foreign Ministry)
Héctor Arenas (Colombian Foreign Ministry)ANNEX 84ANNEX 84ANNEX 84ANNEX 84ANNEX 84 ANNEX 85
Diplomatic Note DM/VRE 35868, sent from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Colombia to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador (18 July 2007) ANNEX 85
[seal]
REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Bogotá, D.C., 18 July 2007
DM/VRE No. 35858
Your Excellency:
I have the honor of addressing Your Excellency with the aim of
expressing to you the surprise with which I have received the recent
statements indicating that the Ecuadorian Government has taken the
decision to raise a claim against Colombia for the alleged effect of the
aerial sprayings being carried out by the Government in Colombian
territory.
In this regard, I would like to express to Your Excellency the
concerns of my government regarding said statements, as well as the
frustration regarding the mechanism created by the Presidents, the
Binational Scientific-Technical Commission, which has not advanced in
its work.
As Your Excellency can confirm, under the criteria agreed upon to
establish the authority and functioning of the Commission in question, it
was provided “ …to analyze this problem according to criteria that the
same Commission adopts in regard to the Methodology areas of work and
others…”, which entailed, during the first meeting, the presentation by
both countries of proposals for the work timeline, that included
undertaking field inspections. This is impossible to advance without
making the necessary visits, studies, and analyses in situ.
To Her Excellency
Mrs. MARIA FERNANDA ESPINOSA
Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Ecuador
Quito
[PAGE 2]
As I expressed in the conversation that we had today, the
Colombian delegation participating in the Binational Commission startANNEX 85
from the basis that the work cannot be concluded without the respective
visits to the border area, basically because the nature of the Commission is
scientific and technical, not political. Thus, please allow me to propose
the prompt undertaking of said field work.
Also, I would like to express my desire to hold a meeting with
Your Excellency with the purpose of addressing this matter.
I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate to Your
Excellency assurances of my highest and most distinguished consideration.
[signature]
FERNANDO ARAUJO PERDOMO
Minister of Foreign RelationsANNEX 85ANNEX 85 ANNEX 86
Diplomatic Note 35224/GM/2007, sent from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Ecuador to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia (27 July 2007) ANNEX 86
[seal] [seal]
Republic of Ecuador Ministry of Foreign
Affairs,
Trade and Integration
Note No. 35224/GM/2007
Quito, 27 July 2007
Mister Minister:
This is with reference to your letter No. DM/VM 35868, dated 18 July 2007.
After seven years of permanent and insistent attempts to reach an
understanding that would allow the halting of harmful impacts resulting
from the use of a broad-spectrum herbicide package that contains
glyphosate, unfortunately, all these actions have failed to reach the expected
results.
I have outlined below the main efforts deployed by Ecuador to reach an
understanding on this matter:
x In July 2001, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs requested that
Colombia to refrain from making aerial sprayings in a 10-km strip
from the borderline, in application of the precautionary principle.
x On 10 April 2003, several complaints that had been made by border
communities, who requested indemnities for environmental
damages, were forwarded to the Colombian Government. The inter-
institutional commissions created for this purpose failed to produce
any results.
x By Note No. VRE/32759 dated 23 September 2003, the Foreign
Ministry of Colombia offered to provide all the available
information on the aerial sprayings conducted on the border with
Ecuador, an offer that was not fulfilled.
x On 9 February 2004, in the framework of the Meeting of the Inter-
institutional Scientific and Technical Commissions, Colombia
agreed to the Ecuadorian proposal of making a trip to the border to
conduct joint operations and personally collect the testimonies and
complaints of the inhabitants of the region which did not take place
due to the Colombian lack of definition.ANNEX 86
x On 3 August 2004, Ecuador and Colombia signed the Minutes of the
IV Meeting of their Scientific and Technical Commissions, in which
Colombia agreed to notify Ecuador, through the most expeditious
channel, the moment when sprayings would be made, in order to
allow the Ecuadorian immediate response team to take samples and
make the relevant technical and scientific analysis in an appropriate
way. Colombia also failed to fulfill these commitments.
Mister
Fernando Araújo Perdomo
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Colombia
Bogotá
[PAGE 2]
x On 7 December 2005, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs in office at
that time signed a joint statement whereby Colombia committed to
suspend sprayings, a commitment that was breached soon thereafter.
Since then, an indefinite number of spraying flights have been
conducted, increasing the negative effects of this practice.
x In January 2007, the Foreign Ministers agreed to establish an
independent investigative body, free from any influence, to study the
effects of aerial sprayings. Accordingly, the Scientific Commissions
of Ecuador and Colombia were created, and in their first meeting,
they agreed to exchange documents with their respective scientific
and technical bases on 27 April 2007. On that date, the Ecuadorian
Scientific Commission had its report ready, while the Colombian
Scientific Commission only made it available on 8 June, a fact that
delayed the Second Meeting of the Commissions, which was held on
9 July 2007.
Unfortunately, the II meeting of the Scientific Commissions, held in Bogota
on 9 July 2007, failed to produce any results or understandings, and this is
overwhelming evidence that the path of dialogue has been exhausted.
In view of the above, Ecuador believes that the dialogue process it has
maintained with Colombia over seven years with the goal of finding a final
solution to the issue of sprayings has been exhausted without results.
Accordingly, the Government of Ecuador, under its constitutional obligation
of guaranteeing the exercise of human rights, environmental conservation, ANNEX 86
health protection and prevention, urges the Government of Colombia to
formalize a written commitment regarding the definitive suspension of
aerial sprayings, and thus cause the payment of indemnities to compensate
the harmful effects that the sprayings have had on the health and the
environment become viable. Otherwise, the Government of Ecuador
reserves the right to carry out any actions deemed pertinent to defend its
rights.
I avail myself of this occasion to renew to Your Excellency the feelings of
my highest and distinguished consideration.
[signature]
Maria Fernanda Espinosa Garces
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Integration
[seal]
Ave. 10 de Agosto y Carrión. Telf.: 2993 284 – 2993 200. Fax: 2993 273.
Quito-Ecuador. www.mmrree.gov.ecANNEX 86ANNEX 86 ANNEX 87
Diplomatic Note DM/VRE/DSF 7649, sent from the Minister of Foreign Affairs
of Colombia to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador (25 Feb. 2008) ANNEX 87
[seal] REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
DM/VRE/DSF No. 7649
Bogotá, D.C., 25 February 2008
Madame Minister:
I have the honor to address Your Excellency in reference to our
conversation of the past 27 of January, in Cartagena de Indias, during the
Meeting of Foreign Affairs Ministers of the Union of South American
Nations – UNASUR.
In this regard, please allow me to again express the interest of the
National Government in attending to the complaints of Ecuadorian
citizens, with the purpose of paying indemnification for real and
ascertainable damages, and through the most expedient mechanism
possible, for what the corresponding legal analyses are being done, taking
into account what was noted on said occasion.
Equally, I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to
indicate that the Colombian Government, in consideration of its promise
to combat the world drug problem, as well as the threat that this problem
represents to our national security, shall continue and strengthen actions
directed at the elimination of illicit crops present in its territory, placing
special emphasis on the manual eradication program in the area close to
our common border.ANNEX 87
I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate to Your
Excellency the assurances of my highest and most distinguished
consideration.
[signature]
FERNANDO ARUJO PERDOMO
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
To Her Excellency
Madame MARIA ISABEL SALVADOR CRESPO
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Integration
QuitoANNEX 87 ANNEX 88
Diplomatic Note 14087/GM/GVMRE/SSNRF/2008, sent from the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Ecuador to the Embassy of Argentina in Bogotá
(24 Mar. 2008) ANNEX 88
[seal] [seal]
Republic of Ecuador Ministry
of Foreign Affairs,
Trade and Integration
No. 14087 GM/GVMRE/SSNRF/2008
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Integration of Ecuador
offers its most cordial salutations to the Honorable Embassy of the
Argentine Republic in Colombia and, regarding note DM/VRE/DSF No.
7649 dated 25 February 2008, signed by Mr. Fernando Araujo Perdomo,
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Colombia, requests that you kindly express
the following to the Colombian Government:
The note in question does not satisfy the demands made by the
Government of Ecuador to the Government of Colombia on 27 January
2008, at the Foreign Affairs Ministerial Meeting of the Union of South
American Nations, UNASUR, regarding the aerial spraying of chemical
herbicides carried out by the Government of Colombia in the area of the
Ecuadorian-Colombian border.
In particular, the note does not accept the demands of the
Government of Ecuador that the Government of Colombia sign a formal
agreement and make an obligatory commitment to definitively and
permanently cease aerial spraying within 10 kilometres from the border
between Ecuador and Colombia. Nor does the note accept in satisfactory
terms the demand that the Government of Ecuador be indemnified by the
Government of Colombia.
The Government of Ecuador considers the position of the
Government of Colombia in relation to the points addressed in said note to
be unsatisfactory as regards the interests of the Government and people of
Ecuador. For more than seven years the Government of Ecuador has
insistently required of the Colombian government a definitive and
permanent halt to aerial spraying in areas near the common border, and
reparations for the damages caused by these fumigations. The
Government of Ecuador considers the position of the Government of
Colombia as reflected in the aforementioned note to be fundamentally the
same as that which the Government has always maintained, and as
unreflective of any substantial change.ANNEX 88
With this background, the Government of Ecuador reiterates what
it expressed in note No. 35224/GM/2007 dated 27 July 2007, in the sense
that it considers the diplomatic route in relation to this issue to be finished
and without any possibility of success, and shall heretofore take steps
through other peaceful resolution mechanisms established by international
law.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Integration of Ecuador
thanks the Honorable Embassy of the Argentine Republic in Colombia for
its kind management and would like to take this opportunity to reaffirm
assurances of its most distinguished consideration.
[seal]
Quito, 24 March 2008
To the Honorable
Embassy of the Argentine Republic in Colombia.
Bogotá, D.F.
Ave. 10 de Agosto y Carrión. Telf.: 2993 284 – 2993 200. Fax: 2993 273.
Quito-Ecuador. www.mmrree.gov.ecANNEX 88 ANNEX 89
Government of Putumayo, Government of Nariño, et al.,
Declaration of Puerto Asís (8-9 Sept. 2000) ANNEX 89
Declaration of Puerto Asís
8 and 9 September 2000
The 325 participants of The South Responds to Plan Colombia Forum,
representing the communities, social leaders, indigenous people, women,
children, local and provincial authorities of Valle, Cauca, Caquetá, Nariño and
Putumayo; along with a delegation from Ecuador and various social
organizations, ONG of human rights, environment, development and peace of
Colombia, meeting at the request of PAZ COLOMBIA, the municipality
(mayor’s office) and the government of Putumayo, met in Puerto Asís on 8 and 9
September 2000 to analyze and propose alternatives to Plan Colombia.
[…]
The fumigations affect the health of the people of areas with illicit economic
activities, affect the environment, destroy legal economies, promote displacement
and undermine fundamental economic, social and environmental rights.
[…]
Puerto Asís, Putumayo
8 and 9 September 2000 ANNEX 89
Paz Colombia | Documentos | Asamblea Permanente de la Sociedad Civil Por la Paz▯▯▯
Paz Colombia
Conferencia Internacional sobre Comentar
Paz y Derechos Humanos
Nombre:
Boletín No. 5 Calle 19 No. 5-72 Oficina 911
18 de Septiembre de 2000 Tel. 2840100 Extensión 911 Correo-e:
Bogotá- Colombia
Correo electrónico:
[email protected] Comentar
[email protected]
Ver
comentarios
Declaración de Puerto Asís
8 y 9 de septiembre de 2000
Las 325 participantes en el Foro El Sur Responde al Plan Colombia, en
representación de las comunidades, líderes sociales, indígenas, mujeres,
niños, niñas, autoridades locales y departamentales de Valle, Cauca,
Caquetá, Nariño y Putumayo; junto con una delegación del Ecuador y varias
organizaciones sociales, ONG de derechos humanos, medio ambiente,
desarrollo y paz de Colombia, convocadas por PAZ COLOMBIA, la alcaldía, y la
gobernación del Putumayo, nos reunimos en Puerto Asís el 8 y 9 de
Septiembre de 2000 para analizar y proponer alternativas al Plan Colombia.
Teniendo en cuenta que:
El diseño y las estrategias de erradicación de cultivos ilícitos que contiene el
Plan Colombia adelantado por el Gobierno Nacional, desconoció las realidades
locales y las iniciativas de las comunidades afectadas, las autoridades locales
y regionales.
El Plan Colombia es una estrategia encaminada a desestabilizar y revertir los
procesos de transición democrática en la región andina y aplicar medidas
represivas contra las protestas sociales, económicas y políticas, generadas por
los procesos de globalización y la aplicación del modelo neoliberal.
El Plan Colombia se constituye en un instrumento de lucha contrainsurgente
el cual contribuirá de manera negativa al escalamiento y expansión de la
guerra que se libra en Colombia desde hace 30 años.
El componente de lucha contra el narcotráfico del Plan Colombia, se inscribe
dentro de la política de los Estados Unidos de "tolerancia cero" frente a esta
problemática. Por ello, el Plan enfatiza los instrumentos de represión que
afectan el eslabón más débil de la producción de la economía cocalera que
son los pequeños cultivadores de coca y los recolectores o raspachines. La
erradicación forzada contra los cultivos ilícitos no toca sustancialmente las
http://asamblea.atarraya.org/documentos/Paz-Colombia5-PUTUMAYO.htmlrlAN… 89
diferentes etapas de la economía cocalera, aquellas que representan las
grandes ganancias del negocio, y por el contrario implica el traslado de los
cultivos con el consecuente impacto ambiental.
La aplicación del Plan Colombia y su fuerte componente militar, se constituye
en un factor adicional de agravamiento de la persistente crisis humanitaria,
de derechos humanos y de derecho internacional humanitario que se
desarrolla en el país.
El Plan Colombia tiene implicaciones negativas en el actual proceso de paz
que se desarrolla con las Farc en la zona de distensión y en los posibles
escenarios de negociación con el ELN .
Por lo anterior:
Presentamos ante la opinión pública nacional e internacional, las autoridades
y las organizaciones sociales y políticas, la Declaración de Puerto Asísque
recoge el análisis sobre el impacto del Plan Colombia y las iniciativas para
que, entre el gobierno nacional, las comunidades y la sociedad colombiana en
general formulemos un plan para la paz en Colombia.
Cultivos ilícitos, medio ambiente y desarrollo
Una de las expresiones del Plan Colombia para las zonas con cultivos ilícitos
es la intensificación de las fumigaciones, el incremento de las acciones
militares como parte de los operativos de erradicación forzosa por vía fluvial,
aérea y terrestre. Las fumigaciones son la repetición de una política
fracasada que en nada contribuye a resolver este problema y sí promueve el
desplazamiento de los cultivos hacia zonas no intervenidas agravando los
impactos ambientales.
Las fumigaciones afectan la salud de los habitantes de las zonas con
economías ilícitas, afecta el medio ambiente, acaba con economías lícitas,
promueve desplazamientos y socava derechos fundamentales, económicos,
sociales y ambientales.
Por las anteriores razones exigimos la suspensión inmediata de las
fumigaciones como condición necesaria para generar un ambiente de
confianza entre el Eestado y las comunidades y poder así desarrollar acuerdos
para la implementación de alternativas legales a los cultivos ilícitos.
Frente a las fumigaciones químicas y biológicas se debe considerar el
análisis de técnicas de erradicación manual siempre que ésta sea voluntaria,
acordada con las comunidades, de carácter gradual y condicionada a la
sostenibilidad de inversiones económicas en lo social y cultural. Se requieren
acciones que contribuyan a generar tejido social, una ética de la
tolerancia, del respeto por la vida y plenas garantías para la aplicación de
una eficaz justicia. Para el análisis de esta propuesta se deben recoger
experiencias desarrolladas en Puerto Leguízamo y en Guambía.
El problema de los cultivos ilícitos se origina en la crisis del sector rural
colombiano, en la ausencia de condiciones para garantizar la competitividad
del sector frente a los impactos de la apertura económica adelantada, sin
considerar condiciones mínimas que hiciesen sostenible actividades
desarrolladas en el campo. Esta crisis se profundizó con la contrarreforma
agraria adelantada con inversiones del capital producto del narcotráfico que
significó la concentración en pocas manos de más de cuatro millones de
http://asamblea.atarraya.org/documentos/Paz-Colombia5-PUTUMAYO.htmlrl ANNEX 89
la región y en particular contra el Plan Colombia.
3. Exigir de manera inmediata la suspensión de la aplicación del Plan
Colombia y el levantamiento de las bases militares norteamericanas de
Manta (Ecuador) y de Curazao en el Caribe, e igualmente de la base
militar de Tres Esquinas en el departamento del Caquetá, anunciado
por los mismos mandos militares como el eje de operaciones del
componente militar del Plan Colombia.
4. Llamamos a la necesidad de una mayor participación de la comunidad
internacional y al aumento de la cooperación internacional, siempre y
cuando estén enmarcadas dentro de un Plan alternativo de desarrollo y
paz.
5. Crear una instancia organizativa, cuya composición refleje todas las
regiones y sectores sociales que participaron en el Foro.
6. Diseñar un plan de acción cuyas tareas iniciales son: preparar la
jornada binacional contra el Plan Colombia el 12 de Octubre, preparar
y concertar la participación de la región sur en la conferencia de San
José de Costa Rica, e impulsar el próximo encuentro regional del sur
que se realizará el resguardo indígena de la María en el departamento
Cauca.
7. La plenaria insiste en la necesidad de una salida negociada al conflicto
armado y en la participación amplia de los sectores sociales en la
negociación con los grupos insurgentes.
8. Ante el proceso de militarización de las fronteras en la región andina y
en los países limítrofes con Colombia, proponemos que estas sean
declaradas territorios de paz, concertación, convivencia y solidaridad
entre los pueblos vecinos.
9. Se hace necesario fortalecer la capacidad de autonomía y resistencia
de las comunidades y sectores populares frente al Plan Colombia .
10. Hacer un llamamiento al gobierno Ecuatoriano para que le explique a
su pueblo y al colombiano a qué tipo de acuerdo llegó en términos de
la cooperación internacional con Estados Unidos.
Puerto Asís, Putumayo
septiembre 8 y 9 de 2000.
Participantes:
COORDINACION COLOMBIA EUROPA- CONCEJO MUNICIPAL DE APONTE
ESTADOS UNIDOS (NARIÑO)
CODHES INSPECCION DE PIÑUÑA BLANCO Y
NEGRO
CINEP
ASOCOMUNAL ORITO
MINGA
MAGISTERIO DEL PUTUMAYO
REDEPAZ NACIONAL, NARIÑO,
VALLE, CAQUETA DEFENSORÍA DEL PUEBLO PUTUMAYO
COLECTIVO DE ABOGADOS ASOCIACIÓN DE PRODUCTORES
AGRICOLAS DE ORITO PUTUMAYO
ANDAS
CONCEJALES DE PUERTO
ATI LEGIZAMO,SIBUNDOY,PUERTO
CAICEDO, PUERTO GUZMAN.
FUNDACION SOCIAL BOGOTA
SECRETARIO DE EDUCACION DEL
http://asamblea.atarraya.org/documentos/Paz-Colombia5-PUTUMAYO.htmlrlAN… 89
FUNDACION COMITÉ DE SOLIDARIDAD VALLE DE GUAMEZ
CON LOS PRESOS POLITICOS
ITP
CENTRAL UNITARIA DE
TRABAJADORES NACIONAL
CORPORACIÓN MALOCA DE MOCOA
CENTRAL UNITARIA DE COLONIA ECUATORIANA EN LA
TRABAJADORES VALLE DEL CAUCA
HORMIGA PUTUMAYO
FENSUAGRO CABILDO INDÍGENA DE ORITO
ANUC-UR CAUCA ASOCIACION DE MUJERES DEL
PUTUMAYO
ANUC-UR NACIONAL
PARROQUIA DE SAN FRANCISCO
ORIVAC VALLE PUTUMAYO
UNEB NACIONAL PARROQUIA DE PUERTO CAYCEDO
PUTUMAYO
UNION SINDICAL OBRERA U.S.O.
PARROQUIA DE PUERTO ASÍS
PUTUMAYO
CEUDES
CAMARA COMERCIO PUTUMAYO PARROQUIA HERMANAS DOMINICAS
DE LA PRESENTACION
PLANEACION MUNICIPAL PUTUMAYO
UMATA PUTUMAYO
PROPIC PUTUMAYO C.AZ.
ASTRADEP PUERTO ASIS
ALCALDIA DE TUMACO
ASOCAMP PUTUMAYO
COMUNIDADES NEGRAS DE TUMACO
DEFENSORIA DEL PUEBLO MOCOA
COMISION DE PAZ NARIÑO
PUTUMAYO
SECRETARIA AGRICULTURA PLANTE NARIÑO
PUTUMAYO
INCORA NARIÑO
ICBF PUTUMAYO
FUNDACION ARCO IRIS NARIÑO
CORPOICA PUTUMAYO
SINTRADIN NARIÑO
SENA PUTUMAYO
COMUNIDADES DEL ROSARIO NARIÑO
PROMOTOR ASUNTOS INDIGENAS
PUTUMAYO COMUNIDADES DE APONTE
CMDR PUTUMAYO COMUNIDADES DE POLICARPA
NARIÑO
GOBERNACION DEL PUTUMAYO
COMUNICADES DE SAN JOSE DE LA
PLAN DEPARTAMENTAL DE FRAGUA CAQUETA
CONVIVENCIA DEL PUTUMAYO
http://asamblea.atarraya.org/documentos/Paz-Colombia5-PUTUMAYO.htmlrl ANNEX 89
GOBERNACION DE NARIÑO COMUNIDADES DE CARMEN DE
PIÑUÑA
GOBERNADOR CABILDO SANTA CRUZ
PUTUMAYO VICARIA DEL SUR
GOBERNADOR INDIGENA DE APONTE VICARIATO DEL PUTUMAYO
SELVA SALUD ACCION ANDINA
SECCION FOMENTO Y DESARROLLO UNIAMAZONIA
MOCOA
CORPOAMAZONIA
ALCALDIA MUNICIPAL DE PUERTO
ASIS
SITTELECOM PUTUMAYO
ALCALDLIA MUNICIPAL DE PUERTO ASOCIACIONES AGROPECUARIAS DE
CAYCEDO PUTUMAYO Y CAQUETA
ALCALDIA MUNICIPAL DE PUERTO FUNDACION PICACHOS CAQUETA
GUZMAN
SINCHI CAQUETA
ALCALDIA DE COLON PUTUMAYO
FUNDECIMA CAUCA
PERSONERIA FLORENCIA CAQUETA
CIMA-CAUCA
PERSONERIA DE SIBUNDOY
PERSONERIA DE LA HORMIGA FUNDACION SOL Y TIERRA CAUCA
FUNAMBIENTE CAUCA
PERSONERIA DE PUERTO ASIS
UNIVERSIDAD DEL CAUCA
PERSONERIA DE PUERTO GUZMAN
OXFAM POPAYAN
PERSONERIA DE PUERTO CAYCEDO
RED DE DERECHOS HUMANOS DEL
CONCEJO MUNICIPAL DE PUERTO SUROCCIDENTE
ASIS
CABILDO INDIGENA GUAMBIA CAUCA
CONCEJO MUNICIPAL DE COLON
FUNDACION COMITÉ SOLIDARIDAD
CONCEJO MUNICIPAL DE VILLA
PRESOS POLITICOS VALLE
GARZON
RED DE INICIATIVAS EN DD.HH. DEL
CONCEJO MUNICIPAL DE ORITO VALLE
CONCEJO MUNICIPAL DE LA CIUDAD ABIERTA. VALLE
HORMIGA
ASOCORO
CONCEJO MUNICIPAL DE SIBUNDOY
CRIC CAUCA
CONCEJO MUNICIPAL DE PUERTO
CAICEDO
CRIU HUILA
CONCEJO MUNICIPAL DE APONTE
(NARIÑO) COMITÉ INDIGENA DE ORITO
http://asamblea.atarraya.org/documentos/Paz-Colombia5-PUTUMAYO.htmlrlAN… 89
COMUNIDAD INDIGENA DE
TIERRADENTRO
▯
Delegaciones nacionales e internacionales presentes
Mesa Foro El Sur responde al Plan Colombia 9 de
septiembre de 2000 Puerto Asís Putumayo
ABC COLOMBIA COMITÉ ANDINO DE SERVICIOS
ACNUR COLOMBIA EMBAJADA DE ESTADOS UNIDOS
UNDCP CONSEJERIA EN PROYECTOS
OACNUDH DEFENSOR PUEBLO
AMNISTIA INTERNACIONAL LONDRES COMANDANTE VIGESIMA CUARTA
BRIGADA PUTUMAYO
WOLA ESTADOS UNIDOS
IGLESIA CATOLICA PUTUMAYO.
LAWG ESTADOS UNIDOS
▯
Delegación ecuatoriana.
SUCUMBIOS
ISAMIS
RED DE HERMANDAD Y SOLIDARIDAD
ACNUR-ECUADOR COLOMBO ECUATORIANA
MINSALUD ECUADOR COMISION DE DERECHOS HUMANOS
DEL CONGRESO
MOVIMIENTO POPULAR
DEMOCRATIVO ECUADOR OFICINA DERECHOS HUMANOS ISMIS
SUCUMBIOS
CARDEN
RE DE ENLACE
SER PAZ
RED DE DERECHOS HUMANOS Y
IREDH SINDICALES
CRDEN
COMISION ECUMENICA DE DERECHOS
HUMANOS -CEDHU-
MOVIMIENTO POPULAR
CONFEDERACION DE DEMOCRATICO -MPD-
NACIONALIDADES INDIGENAS DEL
ECUADOR -CONAIE- MUNICIPIO DE QUITO
http://asamblea.atarraya.org/documentos/Paz-Colombia5-PUTUMAYO.htmlrl ANNEX 89
CRUZ ROJA ECUATORIANA PACHAKUTIK
FORO POR LA NIÑEZ Y REDHSS CEOSL
ADOLESCENCIA
CPM
GRUPO DE MONITOREO AL PLAN
COLOMBIA NUEVA ESPERANZA
RED CEOSL F.S.M.
AMNISTIA INTERNACIONAL ECUADOR
CONAI
RADIO LA LUNA DE QUITO SERVICIO PAZ Y JUSTICIA -SERPAJ-
DIARIO EL COMERCIO DE QUITO COMITÉ PERMANENTE POR LA
DEFENSA DE LOS DERECHOS
INFA QUITO HUMANOS CDH
CENTRO DE DOCUMENTACION EN COMISION DE DERECHOS HUMANOS
DERECHOS HUMANOS " SEGUNDO DE IMBABURA
MONTES"
COSDHI
COMITÉ PRO REFUGIADOS
INSTITUTO NACIONAL DEL NIÑO Y LA
ASAMBLEA PERMANENTE DE DD.HH FAMILIA INNFA
APDH
INREDH
COSDHI
COMITÉ PERMANENTE POR LA
FEDERACION DE MUJERES ECUADOR DEFENSA DE LOS DERECHOS
HUMANOS CHD GUAYAS.
MOVIMIENTO TOHALLI DE MANABI
▯
Medios
EL COMERCIO DE ECUADOR
NTC
RADIO LA LUNA ECUADOR
UNIVISION
ECUAVISA
ASOCIATED PRESS
LA NACION DE BUENOS AIRES
REVISTA UTOPIAS
EL TIEMPO
COLMUNDO
EL ESPECTADOR
ASOCIATED PRESS
DIARIO DEL SUR PUTUMAYO
WASHINGTON POST
CARACOL
http://asamblea.atarraya.org/documentos/Paz-Colombia5-PUTUMAYO.htmlrlAN… 89
▯ ▯
Desarrollado por Proyecto Atarraya
http://asamblea.atarraya.org/documentos/Paz-Colombia5-PUTUMAYO.htmlrl ANNEX 90
Republic of Colombia, Administrative Department of Health (DASALUD)
Putumayo Province, Office of Planning, Epidemiology Section,
Effects of Aerial Spraying with Glyphosate
Valle del Guamuez – San Miguel – Orito, Putumayo
(Feb. 2001) ANNEX 90
ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
PLANNING OFFICE
EPIDEMIOLOGICAL SECTION
EFFECTS OF AERIAL FUMIGATION WITH GLYPHOSATE
VALLE DEL GUAMEZ – SAN MIGUEL – ORITO
PUTUMAYO, FEBRUARY 2001
Dyva Revelo Calderón – Epidemiological Section, DASALUD
PUTUMAYO
[...]
REPORT ON HOSPITALS AND HEALTH CENTERS
The Orito Hospital reports a notable increase in consultations for
problems related to allergic reactions of the skin, such as: dermatitis,
impetigo, abscesses, abdominal pain, diarrhea, acute respiratory infection,
which appeared from the time of the fumigation carried out in the rural
areas of the municipality.
According to information from the Administrator of the La Dorada Health
Center in the municipality of San Miguel, in the town of Agua Clara the
poisoning of people exposed to the fumigations was apparent, with
symptomology related to skin and eye irritation, nausea, and acute
respiratory infection, as well as bronchitis, the flu, colds, and abdominal
pain, among others, which corresponds to the findings of epidemiological
2
studies carried out in other places.
This coincides with the similar observations of medical personnel of the
Hospitals of Orito, La Hormiga (Valle del Guamuez), and la Dorada (San
Miguel) regarding the fact that, from the start of the fumigations, a notable
increase in consultations related to problems of skin reactions, abscesses,
impetigo, gastrointestinal infections (abdominal
[PAGE 2]
pain, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting), respiratory infections (bronchitis,
asthma), and conjunctivitis was observed.
2Workshop Report – Public Forum “Manuel Eradication of Illicit Crops”, National
University of Colombia, 13 October 2000.ANNEX 90
The people who consulted their doctors attributed this symptomology to
the spraying received from the planes aimed at the fumigation of illicit
crops. However, not all of the people who were affected by the
fumigation went to health centers, due to lack of economic resources or
the erroneous perception that the method by which the health problems
were to be treated was experimental.
[…]
REPORT OF THE LOCAL OMBUDSMAN’S OFFICE OF
[PAGE 3]
VALLE DEL GUAMUEZ
Of the 100 towns in Valle del Guamuez, the municipality with the largest
number of inhabitants in the province, after Puerto Asis and Orito, with
35,288 inhabitants; residents of 67 towns were affected by the fumigation
in terms of the state of their health, crops, and environment.
[…]
[PAGE 13]
[…]
Table 6.
MORBIDITY BY 2000 2001 % VALUE
EXTERNAL CHANGE OF p.
CONSULTATION -
FEBRUARY
DIARRHEA 12 69 475.0 0.0000
ACUTE 13 26 100.0 0.00005
RESPIRATORY
INFECTION
DERMATITIS 1 242300.00.00005
INFECTION OF 1 474600.00.0000
THE SKIN AND
SUBCOETANEOUS
CELLULAR
TISSUE ANNEX 90
GENERAL 18 16 -11.1 0.08
PYREXIA
SYMPTOMS OF
UNKNOWN
ORIGIN
OTHER 0 202.000 0.0000
SYMPTOMS
RELATED TO THE
ABDOMEN AND
ABDOMINAL
PAIN
OTHER CAUSES 228 1068368.4 0.0000
TOTAL CAUSES 273 12703650.0 0.0000
SOURCE: RIA
EXTERNAL
CONSULTATION,
SAGRADO
CORAZON DE
JESUS HOSPITAL
[…]
[PAGE 15]
[…]
OTHER EFFECTS RELATED TO THE FUMIGATION IN VALLE
DEL GUAMUEZ
Regarding the other damages produced by the fumigation, according to
the Local Ombudsman’s Office, it can be observed that of the total
number of hectares affected (7,252), the pastures (grazing areas for
livestock) were the areas most affected, with 39% (2,850 hectares),
followed by plantain crops (12,6%) and in third place, coca crops with
11% (854 hectares).
[…]
The high percentage of fish affected is worrying (72.3%), as is the case of
poultry (hens, roosters, ducks) (21.5%), among the total number of
animals that died as a result of the illicit crop eradication program
(178,377), a situation which, added to theANNEX 90
[PAGE 16]
fumigation of subsistence crops, constitutes a high risk factor for the food
security of the inhabitants of this region.
[…] ANNEX 90
DEPARTAMENTO ADMINISTRATIVO DE SALUD
OFICINA DE PLANEACIÓN
SECCION EPIDEMIOLOGÍA
EFECTOS DE LA FUMIGACION AEREA CON GLIFOSATO
VALLE DEL GUAMUEZ - SAN MIGUEL – ORITO
PUTUMAYO FEBRERO 2001
Dyva Revelo CalderóSección Epidemiología DASALUD PUTUMAYO
1
En cumplimiento de la Resolución 0005 del Consejo Nacional de estupefacientes
sobre los mecanismos de control, seguimiento y monitoreo, que permitan evaluar
el impacto ambiental, sanitario y epidemiológico generado por el Programa de
Erradicación de Cultivos Ilícitos por fumigación, se realizaron entrevistas con
personas del área rural y urbana de los municipios de: Orito, Valle del Guamuez y
San Miguel, lo mismo que con el personal médico de las Instituciones Prestadoras
de Servicios de Salud (IPS), los personeros e inspectores de Policía, de los
municipios mencionados que fueron objeto de la fumigación a partir del 22 de
diciembre del 2000 hasta el 2 de febrero del 2001.
INFORME DE LOS HOSPITALES Y CENTROS DE SALUD
El hospital de Orito reporta un incremento notorio en la consulta por problemas de
reacciones alérgicas de piel como: dermatitis, impétigo, abscesos, dolor
abdominal, diarreas, infección respiratoria aguda, presentados a partir de la
fumigación realizada en la zona rural del municipio.
Por información del Administrador del Centro de Salud de La Dorada, comprensión
del municipio de San Miguel, en la vereda Agua Clara se dio cuenta de la
intoxicación de personas expuestas a la fumigación, con sintomatología manifiesta
por irritación de piel, de ojos, náuseas, infección respiratoria aguda como
bronquitis, gripe y resfriados; además de dolor abdominal, entre otros, lo cual se
correspondería con lo encontrado en estudios epidemiológicos realizados en otros
2
lugares .
Coincide en las mismas observaciones personal médico de los Hospitales de
Orito, La Hormiga (Valle del Guamuez) y la Dorada (San Miguel) cuando refiere
que, a partir del inicio de las fumigaciones, se observó un notorio incremento en
las causas de consulta por problemas de dermoreacción, abscesos, impétigo,
1Resolución #005 del 11 de agosto del 2000, del Consejo Nacional de Estupefacientes, referida a las
facultades otorgadas a los Ministerios de Salud, Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural, y Medio Ambiente, para
"establecer los mecanismos para vigilar y controlar los riesgos derivados del uso y manipulación de
2laguicidas".
Memoria Seminario - Foro Público "Erradicación Manual de cultivos ilícitos", Universidad Nacional de
Colombia, 13 de octubre del 2000.ANNEX 90
infecciones gastrointestinales (dolor abdominal, diarrea, náuseas, vómito),
infecciones respiratorias (bronquitis, asma), conjuntivitis.
Las personas que consultan atribuyen esta sintomatología a la aspersión que
recibieron de las avionetas destinadas a la fumigación de cultivos ilícitos. Sin
embargo, no todas las personas que fueron alcanzadas por la fumigación
acudieron a los organismos de salud, por falta de recursos económicos o
percepción errónea de la forma en que debía haberse tratado los problemas de
salud que experimentaron.
Ejemplo de ello fueron los niños y niñas de la Escuela Rural de la Concordia, del
corregimiento de El Tigre (Valle del Guamuez) quienes según el personal docente,
presentaron problemas respiratorios, dolor abdominal, conjuntivitis y dermatitis,
pero no acudieron a las instituciones de salud pública, único mecanismo para que
DASALUD pueda mantener un seguimiento.
La visita realizada el 9 de febrero del 2001 a la vereda El Rosal, del Valle del
Guamuez permitió entrevistar al dueño de una de las fincas afectadas por la
aspersión aérea con agroquímicos; esta persona refirió que se encontraba en el
potrero de su propiedad en momentos en que las avionetas pasaban fumigando y
al ser alcanzado por la fumigación, presentó reacción dérmica con intenso escozor
y dolor en la cara. Además, señaló la muerte de gallinas, pollos y ganado porcino
(dos cerdos recién nacidos), que fueron asperjados con el químico utilizado para
la erradicación de los cultivos ilícitos. Una observación de campo en la huerta de
la casa comprobó la muerte de matas de plátano, yuca, borojó, jardín y otras
plantas, que fueron objeto de la fumigación, y en consecuencia, la sequía de
varias hectáreas de pasto para ganado, así como de la quebrada que atravesaba
el potrero de su finca.
Existe una relación de los casos atendidos en el Hospital Sagrado Corazón de
Jesús de La Hormiga, con diagnósticos compatibles, con intoxicación por
exposición a la aspersión por químicos, atendidos entre el 22 de diciembre del
2000 y el 2 de febrero del 2001.
Muchos interrogantes surgen entonces frente a una situación que puede
agravarse dado el impacto sobre los componentes ambiental, social y de salud de
las personas.
Con esta premisa y teniendo en cuenta la Constitución Política, la ley 100, el
Articulo 43 del Decreto 1291 del 22 de junio de 1994 (funciones de epidemiología),
el Articulo 5 del Decreto 1938 de agosto 5 de 1994, además de lo contemplado en
el artículo 8 de la Resolución # 005 del 11 de agosto del 2000, lo expuesto en el
marco legal para Vigilancia en Salud Pública, como la Ley 9 de 1979, el Decreto
1562 de 1984, referentes a acciones en salud publica, es deber del Estado
colombiano, a través de sus instituciones "velar por la salud, vida e integridad de
las personas".
INFORME DE LA PERSONERÍA
2 ANNEX 90
DEL VALLE DEL GUAMUEZ
De las 100 veredas que existen en el Valle del Guamuez, municipio con el mayor
número de habitantes en el departamento, después de Puerto Asís y Orito, con
35.288 habitantes; residentes de 67 de ellas, se consideraron afectados por la
fumigación en su estado de salud, cultivos y medio ambiente.
De las 800 quejas interpuestas por los habitantes ante la Personería de La
Hormiga, municipio del Valle del Guamuez, la mayor proporción de éstas
corresponde a La Esmeralda, El Placer y los Ángeles, veredas con 535
habitantes, 1.014 habitantes y 497 habitantes respectivamente. (Tabla 1)
PORCENTAJE DE QUEJAS EN SALUD SEGÚN LOCALIDAD DE PROCEDENCIA
VALLE DEL GUAMUEZ
DICIEMBR E 2000 ENERO Y FEBRERO DEL 2001
Tabla 1.
LOCALIDADES NO. QUEJAS %
NO. ORDEN
1 ESMERALDA 44 7.4
2 EL PLACER 32 5.4
3 LOS ANGELES 32 5.4
4 LAS VEGAS 31 5.2
5 COSTA RICA 21 3.5
6 SANTA ROSA DEL GUAMUEZ 21 3.5
7 LA BETANIA 20 3.4
8 SAN ISIDRO 20 3.4
9 MIRAVALLE 19 3.2
10 LA FLORIDA 19 3.2
11 ALTO PALMIRA 18 3.0
12 LAURELES 18 3.0
13 LA PALESTINA 17 2.9
14 SANTA TERESA 15 2.5
15 JARDIN 13 2.2
16 GUADUALES 13 2.2
17 VARADERO 13 2.2
18 EL ROSAL 12 2.0
19 LA CONCORDIA 12 2.0
20 CARIBE 12 2.0
21 BRISAS DEL PALMAR 12 2.0
22 NUEVA ISLA 12 2.0
23 OASIS 12 2.0
24 LA PRADERA 11 1.8
25 LORO 1 11 1.8
26 SULTANA 11 1.8
27 RECREO 11 1.8
28 ALTO HUISIA 10 1.7
29 LORO 8 9 1.5
30 SAN ANDRES 8 1.3
31 PROVIDENCIA 8 1.3
32 ZARZAL 6 1.0
33 ALTO ROSAL 6 1.0
34 SAN MARCOS 5 0.8
35 DELICIAS 5 0.8
36 VILLA DUARTE 4 0.7
37 AGUA BLANCA 4 0.7
3ANNEX 90
Gráfico 5.
MORBILIDAD POR CONSULTA EXTERNA MES DE FEBRERO
VALLE DEL GUAMUEZ 2000 - 2001
1200
1068
1000
800
2000
600
2001
400
NO. DE CONSULTAS
228
200 69
12 13 26 18 16 20
1 124 47 0
0
VIAS OTRAS ORIGEN OTROSCON ELLOR RESTO DE
INFECCIONDAA INFECCION AGENTE NO CELULAR SIGENERALES DESINTOMASABDOMINAL
INTESTINAL MALGUDRESPIRATODERMATITISPORADLOCALES DE LAEO DESCONOCIRELACIONADOS
Fuente: RIA Consulta Externa Hospital Sagrado Corazón de Jesús La Hormiga- Valle del Guamuez
Tabla 6.
VALOR
MORBILIDAD POR CONSULTA EXTERNA – MES FEBRERO AÑO 2000 AÑO 2001 % CAMBIO DE p
DIARREA 12 69 475.0 0.0000
INFECCION RESPIRATORIA AGUDA 13 26 100.0 0.00005
DERMATITIS 1 24 2300.0 0.00005
INFECCION DE LA PIEL Y TEJIDO CELULAR SUBCUTANEO 1 47 4600.0 0.0000
SINTOMAS GENERALES PIREXIA DE ORIGEN DESCONOCIDO 18 16 -11.1 0.08
OTROS SINTOMAS RELACIONADOS CON EL ABDOMEN DOLOR
ABDOMINAL 0 20 2.000 0.0000
RESTO DE CAUSAS 228 1068 368.4 0.0000
TOTAL DE CAUSAS 273 1270 3650.0 0.0000
FUENTE: RIA CONSULTA EXTERNA HOSPITAL SAGRADO CORAZON DE
JESUS
En las historias clínicas de atención de urgencias del mes de diciembre del 2000
sé puede constatar que de 6 casos que consultaron, el 50% atribuye su
sintomatología a la fumigación, mientras que del 50 % restante 2 corresponden a
intoxicación alcohólica y un caso a intoxicación por manipulación directa de
químicos en otras circunstancias (Tabla 7)
RELACION DE PACIENTES QUE CONSULTARON AL SERVICIO DE URGENCIAS DEL
HOSPITAL SAGRADO
CORAZON DE JESUS DE LA HORMIGA- DICIEMBRE 23 DEL 2000
13 ANNEX 90
CONJUNTIVITIS GONOCOCCICA 1 1.3 0.03
ODONTALGIA 1 1.3 0.03
PALADAR HENDIDO 1 1.3 0.03
TUMOR CONJUNTIVA DERECHA 1 1.3 0.03
MALFORMACION CONGENITA 1 1.3 0.03
ROSEOLA INFANTIL 1 1.3 0.03
PIODERMITIS 1 1.3 0.03
TOTAL 75 100.0 2.13
FUENTE: REGISTRO DIARIO DE ATENCION EN CONSULTA - COMITÉ INTERNACIONAL CRUZ ROJA
NOTA: EL MAYOR CONSULTANTE FUE DE 13 AÑOS
OTROS EFECTOS RELACIONADOS CON LA FUMIGACION
EN EL VALLE DEL GUAMUEZ
Respecto a los otros daños producidos por la fumigación, según la Personería
Municipal se puede observar cómo del total de hectáreas afectadas (7.252), los
potreros (áreas de pasto para ganado) fueron las áreas más afectadas, con un 39
% (2.850 hectáreas) seguido por los cultivos de plátano (12.6%) y en un tercer
lugar los de coca en un 11% (854 hectáreas).
Gráfico 6
DISTRIBUCION PROPORCIONAL DE CULTIVOS AFECTADOS
EN VEREDAS DEL VALLE DEL GUAMUEZ
FEBRERO 2001
39.4
40.0
S 35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0 12.6 11.8
15.0 5.8 5.8 6.2 9.1 9.3
10.0
PORCENTAJE
0.0
CULTIVOS
Fuente: Personería municipal la Hormiga Municipio Valle del Guamuez
Es preocupante el alto porcentaje de peces afectados (72.3%), lo mismo que el
de las aves de corral (gallinas, pollos, patos) (21.5%) entre el total de animales
que murieron como consecuencia del programa de erradicación de cultivos ilícitos,
(178.377), situación que, sumada a la fumigación de productos de pan coger,
15ANNEX 90
constituye un factor de alto riesgo para la seguridad alimentaria de los habitantes
de esta región.
Gráfico 7.
DISTRIBUCION PROPORCIONAL DE ANIMALES AFECTADOS SEGUN FUMIGACION EN
VEREDAS
MUNICIPIO VALLE DEL GUAMUEZ
72,3
80,0
60,0
40,0
21,5
PORCENTAJE 0,4 1,6 3,7
0,5
0,0
AVES CABALLOS GANADO CURIES PECES OTROS
Fuente: Personería municipal la Hormiga Municipio Valle del Guamuez
INFORME DE LA PERSONERIA
SAN MIGUEL
La información disponible en la Personería de La Dorada permitió establecer que
83% (235/281) del total de quejas interpuestas en dicha institución durante el mes
de enero del 2001 expresaban efectos adversos en la salud de las personas. El
porcentaje por esta misma razón entre las quejas presentadas en el mes de
febrero del 2001 fue de 92%(334/362). Los síntomas referidos en esta Personería,
son muy similares a los encontrados entre los afectados del Valle del Guamuez.
PORCENTAJE DE QUEJAS EN SALUD SEGÚN LOCALIDAD DE PROCEDENCIA
SAN MIGUEL
MUNICIPIO DE SAN MIGUEL ENERO – FEBRERO 2001
Tabla 9.
16 ANNEX 91
Republic of Colombia, Office of the Ombudsman,
Ombudsman Report No. 1, Fumigations and Alternative Development Projects in
Putumayo (9 Feb. 2001) ANNEX 91
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
Ombudsman Delegated for Collective Rights and the Environment
OMBUDSMAN REPORT No. 1
FUMIGATIONS AND ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS IN PUTUMAYO
9 February 2001
[…]
[PAGE 9]
[…]
[…]
4. OMBUDSMAN’S ACTION
4.1 Formation of an Inter-Institutional Mission that visited Putumayo
Due to the complaints presented – indiscriminate fumigations, damage to
the projects of Plante and other entities, impacts to the environment,
health and socio-economic conditions – the Ombudsman’s Office
promoted the formation of an Inter-Institutional Commission, composed
of officials from this entity, Plante, Corpoamazonía, the Umatas and the
personnel of the municipalities visited. Some of the trips included the
participation of officials from the United Nations High Commission on
Refugees – UNHCR – and journalists from various international media.
th th
In the execution of this mission which, between the 15 and 25 of
January, visited different districts of the municipalities of Puerto Asís,
Valle del Guamuéz, San Miguel, and Orito, declarations were received
from different campesino and indigenous municipal authorities,
communities and leaders. Similarly, they visited indigenous reserves and
councils, as well as campesino and settler farms and districts were visited.
[PAGE 10]
In addition, documentary proof of the damages caused was received, and
information was compiled by the entities working within the commission.
Photographs and film from the places visited were taken and samples
collected.ANNEX 91
The following is a description of the activities undertaken by the
Commission:
[…]
4.1.1.1. Environmental Impacts
x An increase in deforestation in the Putumayan piedmont. Greater
effects of necrosis and death are observed, leaving a desolate
panorama over vast areas of territory.
x Indiscriminate destruction of the little remaining forest, of
subsistence crops and medicinal plants, as well as of pastures and
fish-farming ponds, among others.
x Migration of wild animals, principally birds, reptiles and
amphibians, caused by the fragmentation of the forests. Also,
complaints have been received regarding the deaths of some birds,
a fact which could not be corroborated in the field work carried out.
[…]
[PAGE 11]
[…]
4.1.1.2 Social Impacts
x Damage to dietary conditions of the inhabitants of the region. As
has previously been mentioned, aerial spraying indiscriminately
affected illicit crops, subsistence crops (yucca, cane, pida,
chontaduro, plantain, rice, maize, vota, borojó and oranges,
avocados, beans, zapote, and papaya), medicinal plants
(Principally yagé, sábila, descansel, mata ratón , paico,
yerbabuena), pastures, fish-farming ponds, chicken coops, the
health of campesinos and indigenous peoples and, in general,
disturbed the economy of the region. The Office of the
Ombudsman, in some cases, could observe damages in sites
located more than 150 metres from coca plantations.
[…] ANNEX 91
x Phenomena of displacement to other areas in the same
municipality or to other provinces, including, in a highly striking
manner, to Ecuador.
[…]
[PAGE 12]
[…]
x Harm to the health of people. Complaints regarding health effects
are related to gastrointestinal problems, skin problems, headaches
and nausea, as the more common complaints. Several cases
diagnosed under the profile of “exogenous poisoning” have been
attended to at Hormiga Hospital.
[…] ANNEX 91
DEFENSORIA DEL PUEBLO
Defensoría Delegada para los Derechos Colectivos y
el Ambiente
INFORME DEFENSORIAL No. 1
FUMIGACIONES Y PROYECTOS DE DESARROLLO ALTERNATIVO
EN EL PUTUMAYO
Febrero 9 de 2001
1. HECHOS
El 11 de enero de 2001, representantes de las comunidades indígenas
Cofanes, Awa, Paeces y Pastos provenientes del Putumayo
denunciaron ante esta Defensoría que, desde el pasado 22 de
diciembre del 2000, se han realizado fumigaciones sobre sus
territorios, las que han afectado los cabildos y parcialidades de Santa
Rosa de Guamuéz, Nueva Isla, Nuevo Horizonte, Tierra Linda, entre
otras.
Los indígenas señalaron que las aspersiones aéreas destruyeron sus
cultivos de pancoger y yagé, causaron la muerte de animales y
problemas en la salud de la población. Se fumigaron 45 hectáreas de
bosques de sitios sagrados y cuatro casas ceremoniales.
Adicionalmente, afectaron varios de los proyectos, que, previa
concertación con el Plan Nacional de Desarrollo Alternativo – Plante o
PNDA - y con recursos de éste, se llevan a cabo en la zona.
Médicos indígenas y aprendices, miembros del Resguardo de Santa
Rosa del Guamuéz, en comunicación dirigida a la Defensoría el 25 de
enero, solicitan que “ante el grave atropello de la fumigación
indiscriminada, y las graves consecuencias que se derivan de estas
acciones del Estado, el Cabildo de Santa Rosa del Guamuéz debe
recibir una indemnización inmediata , recursos para garantizar
nuestra alimentación en los próximos meses, mientras sembramos
nuevos cultivos, atención médica, hospitalaria y drogas a los
miembros de nuestra comunidad, considerando que también nuestras
plantas medicinales fueron destruidas, además del restablecimiento
de los proyectos productivos afectados, que se mencionan en el
Pacto.” (Resaltado fuera de texto).
Posteriormente, el pasado 26 de enero, representantes de las
comunidades indígenas del resguardo de Buenavista manifestaron
ante esta Defensoría que, el 2 de enero, varios helicópteros y dos
avionetas sobrevolaron sus territorios y los fumigaron de manera
indiscriminada.ANNEX 91
Este pacto cobija a la comunidad de las veredas de Ancura, Brisas del
Hong Kong, Carmen del Picuña, Cocaya, El Aguila, Jerusalén,
Canacas, Las Acacias, Mansoya, Nariño-Nariño, Peneya, Salónica,
Santa Isabel, Sinaí, Peña-Sorá, La Danta, Danubio, La Diana, Las
Minas, Marmato, Nuevo Diamante, Paraíso, San José, Sardinas, entre
otras. Tiene una cobertura de aproximadamente 900 familias y 1620
hectáreas por erradicar.
3.2.3. Procesos de concertación en curso
Los procesos de concertación se adelantan en el municipio de Puerto
Asís tendentes a la firma de pactos de erradicación voluntaria y
desarrollo alternativo con 2000 familias de Teteye, La Carmilita, La
Libertad y Puerto Vega; con 800 familias de Comandante y Bocanas
del Cuembi; 490 familias de Piñuña Blanco y 531 familias de Villa
Victoria.
También existen procesos de concertación en curso con comunidades
de otros municipios: con 700 familias de la Inspección Bloque San
Juan del municipio de Villa Garzón; 150 familias de la Inspección de
Puerto Limón del municipio de Mocoa; 1500 familias de las
Inspecciones de Mayoyoque, Galilea, Gallinazo y El Mandur en el
municipio de Puerto Guzmán; 5000 familias de todo el municipio de
Orito, un número aún por definir de familias en el Valle del Guamuéz
y 6000 familias de todas las Inspecciones del municipio de Puerto
Caicedo.
4. ACCIÓN DEFENSORIAL
4.1. Conformación de una Misión Interinstitucional que visitó
el Putumayo
A raíz de las quejas presentadas - fumigaciones indiscriminadas,
daños a proyectos Plante y de otras entidades, efectos ambientales,
en la salud y en las condiciones socioeconómicas - la Defensoría del
Pueblo promovió la conformación de una Comisión Interinstitucional,
integrada con funcionarios de esta entidad, el Plante, Corpoamazonía,
las Umatas y las Personerías de los municipios visitados. En algunos
de los recorridos se contó además con la participación de funcionarios
de la Oficina del Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los
Refugiados – ACNUR - y de periodistas de varios medios de
comunicación internacionales.
En desarrollo de esta misión que, entre el 15 y el 25 de enero, visitó
diferentes veredas de los municipios de Puerto Asís, Valle del
Guamuéz, San Miguel y Orito, se recibieron declaraciones de las
diferentes autoridades municipales, comunidades y líderes de
campesinos e indígenas. Asimismo, se visitaron resguardos y cabildos
indígenas, fincas y veredas de campesinos y colonos. Adicionalmente,
9 ANNEX 91
se recibieron pruebas documentales sobre los daños ocasionados y se
recopiló información por las entidades integrantes de la comisión. De
los lugares visitados se tomaron fotografías, se realizaron filmaciones
y se levantaron muestras.
A continuación se indican las actividades realizadas por la Comisión:
4.1.1. Evaluación General de los Efectos de las
Fumigaciones.
La Comisión Interinstitucional comprobó los impactos que están
causando las fumigaciones aéreas utilizadas para erradicar las
plantaciones de coca, en las áreas detalladas en los mapas No. 1 y 2 y
en la relación georeferenciada de los lugares en que se realizó el
seguimiento de las fumigaciones en los municipios del Valle de
Guamuéz, San Miguel y Orito.
Estos impactos, que han sido descritos en anteriores investigaciones
elaboradas por parte de la Defensoría del Pueblo y otros organismos,
pueden resumirse así:
4.1.1.1. Impactos Ambientales
- Aumento de la deforestación del piedemonte putumayense. Se
observa mayores efectos de necrosamiento y muerte, dejando
un panorama desolador en vastas zonas de terreno.
- Destrucción indiscriminada de la poca selva que aún subsiste,
de los cultivos de pancoger y de plantas medicinales, así como
de potreros y estanques piscícolas, entre otros.
- Migraciones de los animales silvestres, principalmente, aves,
reptiles y anfibios, ocasionadas por la fragmentación de los
bosques. Incluso se recibieron quejas sobre la muerte de
algunas aves, hecho que no se pudo corroborar en el trabajo de
campo realizado.
- Daños sobre los cuerpos de agua.
- Formación de diques en las quebradas a causa de la gran
cantidad de hojas caídas de los árboles y otras plantas que
obstruyen el libre flujo de las aguas y ocasionan su
descomposición y contaminación. Muchos de estos cuerpos de
agua o manantiales son la fuente para consumo humano y
vegetal. Este fenómeno se evidenció en varias partes, como en
el resguardo de Santa Rosa del Guamuéz, en donde el agua
cambia de color por los taninos liberados por las hojas.
10ANNEX 91
4.1.1.2 Impactos Sociales
- Perjuicios en las condiciones alimenticias de los habitantes de la
región. Como se ha mencionado anteriormente, las aspersiones
aéreas afectaron indistintamente los cultivos ilícitos, los cultivos
de pancoger (yuca, caña, pida, chontaduro, plátano, arroz,
maíz, vota, borojó y naranjos, aguacate, fríjol, zapote, papaya),
las plantas medicinales (Yagé principalmente, sábila, descansel,
mata de ratón, paico, yerbabuena), los potreros, estanques
piscícolas, galpones de gallinas, la salud de los campesinos e
indígenas y, en general, trastornaron la economía de la región.
La Defensoría en algunos casos, pudo observar daños en sitios
ubicados a más de 150 metros de las plantaciones de coca.
- Disminución de la actividad productiva. Algunos de los
habitantes no han vuelto a sembrar en las zonas afectadas, bien
sea por temor a nuevas fumigaciones y o por falta de recursos
para los insumos.
- Incrementos en el costo de vida y pérdida de poder adquisitivo.
Lo anterior se desprende, tanto de las consecuencias del
reciente paro armado, como por problemas en la
comercialización de los productos. Varios de éstos, a pesar de
no demostrar mayores síntomas de deterioro, corren el riesgo
de no ser vendidos porque no hay mercado para los mismos. Es
así como en la cabecera municipal de Valle del Guamuéz se
informó a la Comisión que no tienen mercado los chontaduros
provenientes de las zonas que fueron fumigadas. Es el caso de
los procedentes del resguardo de Santa Rosa del Guamuéz.
- Fenómenos de desplazamiento hacia otras zonas de los mismos
municipios o hacia otros departamentos o incluso, de forma
muy marcada, hacia el Ecuador.
Aunque el fenómeno es muy reciente y no existen estadísticas
que puedan determinar la magnitud de la situación, ya es
posible constatar la existencia de personas desplazadas de una
vereda a otra, dentro de un mismo municipio (vgr, de la
inspección Jordán Güisia hacia El Venado, las dos localizadas en
el Municipio del Valle del Guamuéz).
De acuerdo con el registro de población indígena desplazada,
coordinado por la Red de Solidaridad Social, en Bogotá se
encuentran tres familias conformadas por diez personas del
pueblo Cofan provenientes del Valle del Guaméz. Neiva y Pasto
han recibido población indígena expulsada del Putumayo. Otra
población sin registro estadístico se ha desplazado al vecino país
del Ecuador.
11 ANNEX 91
También se encuentran caseríos casi abandonados (veredas el
Maizal, Jordán Ortiz, San Carlos) cuya población ha migrado,
principalmente, a los departamentos de Nariño y Cauca.
En el Consulado de Colombia en la ciudad de Lago Agrio,
Ecuador, se ha atendido a varias familias desplazadas desde el
Putumayo a causa de las fumigaciones aéreas. Según la Cónsul,
hace dos semanas se reportaron 750 personas como refugiadas.
En la tercera semana de enero, llegaron 11 familias (50
personas). La situación obligó a construir o adecuar albergues,
los cuales iniciarán su funcionamiento en febrero. Al respecto,
las oficinas del Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para
los Refugiados – ACNUR -, están consolidando los datos.
Algunas de las autoridades municipales, señalan que entre el
70% y 80% de la población se ha desplazado a Ecuador.
La situación de refugiados colombianos en Ecuador generó un
incremento de la violencia en la ciudad de Lago Agrio. En El
Coca, otra población cercana, se impide el ingreso de
colombianos.
En las veredas visitadas por la Comisión, algunos de los
campesinos afectados manifestaron que de no ofrecerse
opciones por parte del Gobierno para volver a "sembrar
comida", ellos también tendrán que abandonar sus fincas e ir a
buscar refugio y comida a otra parte.
En la vereda San Carlos del municipio de San Miguel, se cerró el
colegio por falta de estudiantes y se corre el riesgo de que las
juntas de acción comunal pierdan la personería jurídica por falta
de socios. La profesora será reubicada en un colegio de la
cabecera municipal, en La Dorada.
- Reclutamientos. Varias personas manifiestan que la falta de
opciones de subsistencia conducirá a que muchos jóvenes sean
reclutados por los grupos armados al margen de la ley.
- Daños en la salud de las personas. Las quejas sobre la
afectación a la salud tienen que ver con problemas
gastrointestinales, dérmicos, dolores de cabeza y mareos, como
las dolencias más comunes. En el hospital de la Hormiga se han
atendido varios casos diagnosticados bajo el cuadro de
“intoxicaciones exógenas”.
4.1.2. Visitas a resguardos, cabildos indígenas, fincas y
veredas de campesinos y colonos y evaluación general de los
efectos de las fumigaciones
Atendiendo las quejas presentadas por las comunidades indígenas, se
pudo constatar que las aspersiones aéreas afectaron, de diferentes
12 ANNEX 92
Republic of Colombia, Office of the Ombudsman,
Ombudsman Resolution No. 4 (12 Feb. 2001) ANNEX 92
Ombudsman Resolution No. 4
12 February 2001
ON THE IMPACT OF FUMIGATIONS ON 11 ALTERNATIVE
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN PUTUMAYO
IN CONSIDERATION OF:
The Ombudsman Report No. 1 “Fumigations and Alternative Development
Projects in Putumayo” dated 9 February 2001, by the Ombudsman
Delegated for Collective Rights and the Environment.
[…]
[PAGE 4]
As it has been shown, the fumigations condemned by this resolution
destroyed not only the illicit crops – the target of manual eradication – but
also other species necessary for the household subsistence of the
beneficiaries of the pacts. Now, these people and communities are facing
both the ruin of their household finances as well as a severe food security
problem. Given the precarious conditions of this group of people, the action
by the State gives rise to a violation of their right to subsistence, which
translates into a serious harm to the physical integrity and dignity of the
family and its members. It was a matter of introducing a policy that would
strengthen the community and move it away from marginality and illegality.
However, the arbitrary behavior explained herein has produced an opposite
effect to the one desired.
It is declared, with immediate effect, that the authorities correct their
actions. The implementation of public policies requires diligence and
coherence from the responsible authorities. Otherwise, the desired goals
will not be attained, and even if they are, they will be met at the expense of
violating the human rights of the population. The administrative function, as
noted by the Office of the Ombudsman, was not met in a coordinated and
efficient manner by the different State agencies. Instead of State unity,
contradiction within the State itself predominated, to the extent that it
blatantly violated the pacts and promises by which it was bound.ANNEX 92
Having violated the human rights of the affected population, the State
should spare no effort to repair, in a material and comprehensive manner,
the damage caused by its actions. The situation of the affected people and
communities also requires that immediate action be taken to provide them
with the means to meet their basic needs, without which their own survival
may be seriously threatened.
12. That, finally, taking into account the facts and background stated
above, and the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman, which is
described herein below:
- It is the function of the Ombudsman to safeguard the exercise and
validity of human rights, in accordance with Article 282 of the Political
Constitution and Law 24 of 1992.
- It is the duty of the Ombudsman to make recommendations and
observations to the authorities and individuals in the event of threats to or
violation of human rights, in accordance with Article 9, paragraph 3, Law
24 of 1992.
- It is the responsibility of the Ombudsman to present regular reports on
the results of his/her investigation, publicly denouncing violations of human
rights, according to the stipulations set forth in Article 9, paragraph 22, Law
24 of 1992.
HEREBY RESOLVES:
[…]
[PAGE 5]
[…]
1. TO RECOMMEND THAT the National Narcotics Council, within 48
hours following the issuance of this Resolution, meet and order the
immediate suspension of the fumigation of illegal crops in the Department
of Putumayo and in any other area of the country until:
- The National Narcotics Directorate and the Antinarcotics Police
have the geocoded information for all projects financed by Plante [acronym
in Spanish for National Plan for Alternative Development] or by other
national and international institutions, whether or not part of Plan Colombia,
whose objective is the alternative development and improvement of ANNEX 92
socioeconomic, environmental and cultural conditions of the population
living in areas affected by the illegal crops.
- A decision is reached regarding the treatment which should be
afforded to the communities who have expressed their intention to perform
manual eradication, through the signing of a statement of intent or any other
similar statement, but whose negotiation process with the State has yet to be
finalized with the signing of the “Manual Eradication and Alternative
Development Pacts”.
- The National Narcotics Council, meeting in plenary, approves the
geocoded information and the prohibition on fumigation of the projects
mentioned therein, pursuant to the stipulations under Article 3 of Resolution
No. 005 of 2000, issued by this entity.
2. TO EXHORT the entities and agencies responsible for drafting and
executing the “National Plan for the Fight against Drugs, Colombia 1998-
2002”, to comply with the coordinating mechanisms stipulated in the Law,
in the regulations and in the documentation of the Plan. In the event that
these are insufficient, they are to create the necessary mechanisms to
prevent contradictions and additional harm to the population.
3. TO EXHORT the entities and agencies responsible for drafting and
executing the “National Plan for the Fight against Drugs, Colombia 1998-
2002”, and those in charge of implementing Plan Colombia to coordinate
their respective efforts to create conditions that will build trust in the
communities, particularly in terms of the negotiation process aimed at
manual eradication of illegal crops and setting in motion alternative
development programs.
4. TO EXHORT the National Narcotics Council to demand the effective
completion of the phase of surveillance of the areas with illegal crops as
stipulated in Article 2 of Resolution No. 005 of 2000.
[PAGE 6]
5. TO EXHORT the Inter-institutional Technical Committee, as stipulated
in Article 6 of Resolution No. 005 of 2000, to define the proceedings and
procedures for processing the complaints filed regarding the fumigations
carried out in Putumayo since December of last year.ANNEX 92
6. TO RECOMMEND that a representative of the Presidential Plante
Program be appointed as a member of the National Narcotics Council and,
to this effect, request that respective regulatory modifications be undertaken.
7. TO EXHORT the National Narcotics Council, the National Narcotics
Directorate, and the Antinarcotics Police to safeguard the rights of the
indigenous peoples to the traditional uses of coca, fundamental to their
physical and cultural integrity, and to this effect, ensure that the fumigations
do not prevent these uses.
8. TO URGE the Social Solidarity Network to immediately attend to the
food security needs of the Putumayo communities affected by the
fumigations.
9. TO URGE the Social Solidarity Network to encourage the active
participation of indigenous authorities or their representatives in Municipal
Committees or Working Groups for Displaced Population Assistance and to
work with them to develop a strategy for the distribution of supplies.
10. TO URGE the General Directorate of Indigenous Affairs of the
Ministry of the Interior to, as part of its mandate, call upon all government
institutions at the national level that have responsibilities and functions
related to the assistance of indigenous communities in Putumayo to draft
comprehensive contingency plans, designed to guarantee the right to life and
to physical, social and cultural integrity and to protect their collective rights;
similarly, to follow-up, monitor and verify compliance with the measures
adopted pursuant to such plans.
11. TO EXHORT the National Government to define the necessary
procedures for the immediate compensation of the communities affected by
the spraying operations carried out in Putumayo during the months of
December and January.
12. TO ORDER the Legal Actions and Resources Department of the
Ombudsman’s Office to file the relevant lawsuits for the effective protection
of the rights of the indigenous communities in Putumayo affected by the
spraying, and the respective compensation for damages, unless the
respective entities, within a reasonable time limit, restore the rights that
have been violated.
13. TO ENTRUST the Ombudsman Delegated for Collective Rights and
the Environment and the Ombudsman Delegated for Indigenous Peoples and
Ethnic Minorities with the follow-up of this Resolution. ANNEX 92
[PAGE 7]
14. TO SEND a copy of this Resolution to the members of the National
Narcotics Council, the Vice President of the Republic, the Advisor for Civic
Coexistence and Citizens Security, the Ministry of the Interior, the Directors
of Plan Colombia, Plante, the Social Solidarity Network, and the National
Narcotics Directorate.
15. TO INCLUDE the report and this Ombudsman Resolution, as well as
the results of the follow-up thereto, in the Annual Report to be presented by
the Ombudsman to the Congress of the Republic.
EDUARDO CIFUENTES MUÑOZ
Ombudsman ANNEX 92
Resolución Defensorial no. 4
Febrero 12 de 2001
SOBRE EL IMPACTO DE FUMIGACIONES EN 11 PROYECTOS DE
DESARROLLO ALTERNATIVO EN EL PUTUMAYO
VISTO
El Informe Defensorial No. 1 de la Defensoría Delegada para los
Derechos Colectivos y del Ambiente “Fumigaciones y Proyectos de
Desarrollo Alternativo en el Putumayo” del 9 de febrero del 2001.
CONSIDERANDO
1. Que como se detalla en el citado Informe Defensorial, que se anexa
a la presente y forma parte integrante de la misma, en diferentes
oportunidades, representantes de las comunidades indígenas
Cofanes, Awa, Paeces, Sionas y Pastos provenientes del Putumayo
denunciaron, ante la Defensoría del Pueblo, verbalmente y por
escrito, los impactos ocasionados en sus territorios, con motivo de
las fumigaciones realizadas desde diciembre del año pasado a la
fecha.
2. Que las actividades de erradicación con químicos afectaron, entre
otros, los cabildos y parcialidades de Santa Rosa de Guamuéz,
Nueva Isla, Nuevo Horizonte, Tierra Linda, resguardos Buenavista y
Cofán, la Reserva Yarinal y la comunidad Indígena de Palestina. Así
como también otros lugares como El Hacha, Santa Helena, Piñuña
Blanco, El Tablero y algunos sectores ubicados sobre el río
Putumayo.
3. Que la Defensoría del Pueblo conformó una Comisión
Interinstitucional, que se trasladó a la zona para verificar las
denuncias presentadas por los representantes de las comunidades y
evaluar los impactos de las fumigaciones, principalmente, en
territorios donde están ubicados los indígenas y en los cuales se
desarrollan proyectos concertados y financiados por entidades como
el Plante, Corporación para el Desarrollo Sostenible del Sur de la
Amazonía – Corpoamazonía, Unidades Municipales de Asistencia
Técnica Agropecuaria –UMATAS, Empresa Colombiana de Petróleos
–ECOPETROL, Red de Solidaridad Social y Naciones Unidas.
4. Que en desarrollo de lo anterior, la Comisión realizó, entre otras,
las siguientes actividades:ANNEX 92
4.1 Visitas a resguardos, cabildos indígenas, fincas y veredas de
campesinos y colonos y evaluación general de los efectos de las
fumigaciones. Durante estas visitas se recibieron declaraciones y
quejas, se acopió información, se tomaron fotografías y muestras y
se realizaron filmaciones. En el mapa N°1 se señala el área visitada
por la Misión Interinstitucional, la cual está debidamente
referenciada, en el anexo 1. En el mapa N° 2 se localizan los
proyectos que fueron objeto de las fumigaciones, citando la entidad
estatal que los financia o promueve. En las fotografías adjuntas se
pueden observar los efectos de las fumigaciones en los potreros,
cultivos de yuca, maíz y plátano, así como los daños a los
estanques piscícolas y, en general, a la vegetación natural.
4.2 Visitas a los proyectos del Plan de Desarrollo Alternativo,
otras entidades del Estado y organismos internacionales. En el
cuadro N° 1 se presenta una breve descripción de la localización e
impactos sufridos por cada uno de los proyectos, los cuales están
descritos en el Informe en comento.
4.3 Recepción de quejas y denuncias en torno a los Pactos de
Erradicación Voluntaria en el marco del Plan Colombia. Se
encuentran en el Expediente que lleva la Delegada, denominado
Fumigaciones en el Putumayo, diciembre 2000 – febrero 2001.
5. Que la Defensoría hizo una revisión de los pactos y acuerdos que,
desde 1998, viene impulsando el Plante, tanto con indígenas como
con campesinos en la región. Igualmente se revisó el documento
del Plante “Construcción de Pactos Sociales de Desarrollo
Alternativo, en nueve municipios del Departamento del Putumayo”.
Los mencionados pactos se enmarcan dentro del Plan Colombia.
6. Que en la Defensoría se realizó una reunión con el Director Nacional
de Estupefacientes y el Subdirector Ejecutivo del Plante. En esta
oportunidad, el Defensor del Pueblo presentó los temas objeto del
Informe No. 1 de la Defensora Delegada para los Derechos
Colectivos y del Medio Ambiente. Les manifestó, igualmente, la
preocupación de esta entidad, por la falta de una gestión conjunta y
coordinada entre las diferentes entidades del Estado frente a las
operaciones de aspersión en el Putumayo.
7. Que como demostración de lo anterior, se puede mencionar el
Oficio del 22 de diciembre, mediante el cual el Plante remite a la
Dirección Nacional de Estupefacientes, 17 mapas de los 41
proyectos que viene acompañando y gestionando. Igualmente, se
puede indicar el sobrevuelo realizado por funcionarios de la Policía
Antinarcóticos y del Plante, en el cual se identificaron los proyectos
de esta última entidad. Estos hechos no fueron óbice para las
actividades de aspersión posteriormente adelantadas.
8. Que en la visita a ese departamento, campesinos y colonos
expresaron su preocupación por los mensajes contradictorios que
reciben sobre las actividades de fumigación. En efecto, mientras
algunos representantes del Gobierno, vinculados a la ejecución del
Plan Colombia, han indicado que no se empleará esa técnica de
erradicación en los lugares en los que se ha avanzado en los
procesos de concertación y se han suscrito las actas de intención o ANNEX 92
actas de compromiso, otros funcionarios señalan que sólo se
detendrán las fumigaciones, cuando se firmen los pactos de
erradicación voluntaria. Esto último, lo confirman los hechos
relatados en el informe.
9. Que, en síntesis, se observa un alto nivel de descoordinación entre
las entidades que tienen a su cargo el “Plan Nacional de Lucha
contra las Drogas. Colombia 1998 – 2002”, y entre éstas y las que
están encargadas de ejecutar el Plan Colombia.
10. Que, a pesar de haberse recibido en esta entidad la comunicación
del Director de la Policía Antinarcóticos, en la que comunica la
decisión de “ levantar el dispositivo operativo en el sur del
país”, esta Defensoría considera que, con base en la normatividad
vigente, dicha determinación sólo puede ser adoptada por el
Consejo Nacional de Estupefacientes .
11. Que la investigación realizada por la Defensoría se ha circunscrito a
las acciones de fumigación del Estado, que de acuerdo con las
verificaciones efectuadas, afectaron cultivos y zonas amparadas por
pactos de sustitución de cultivos ya perfeccionados o en trámite
(actas de intención), o beneficiarias de proyectos de desarrollo
alternativo. No cabe duda que las comunidades y los campesinos
vinculados a una política dirigida a modificar ciertos patrones de
producción por otros, luego de individualizada en términos de
áreas, tipo de cultivo a erradicar, proyecto a emprender, personas y
comunidades comprometidas, financiación y demás aspectos
inherentes a esta compleja negociación público-privada, tenían un
título jurídico que los sustraía de las operaciones de fumigación
previstas por el Estado.
La abstención específica del Estado, en este caso referida a la no
fumigación de las zonas objeto de la sustitución de cultivos,
correspondía a la principal obligación o promesa asumidas por éste,
a las que se agregaba el apoyo financiero que debía proveer para
materializar otras opciones socioeconómicas diferentes de las
derivadas de la economía ilegal.
La fumigación que se llevó a cabo, pese a lo estipulado y prometido,
coloca al Estado en la situación de parte que no respeta el acuerdo
por ella misma establecido, el cual no podía dejar de honrar sin
sacrificar la fe en su propia palabra. Más allá de la transgresión
jurídica, los convenios de sustitución y las actas de intención, dieron
lugar a la configuración de una representación colectiva que
apuntaba a sostener la creencia de que la voluntaria asunción de la
erradicación del cultivo ilícito ponía a salvo a la comunidad de las
operaciones de fumigación aérea. El comportamiento público, en los
casos a que alude esta resolución, no coincide con la fundada
expectativa que bien podía mantener la comunidad campesina que
se allanó a los pactos.
1
Decreto 1206 de 1.973, Ley 30 de 1.986, D.E. 2272 de 1.991 y Decreto 2159 de
1.993, entre otras.ANNEX 92
Como se ha podido comprobar, la fumigación objeto de censura en
esta resolución, destruyó, además de los cultivos ilícitos –materia
de erradicación manual-, otras especies, necesarias para el sustento
familiar de los beneficiarios de los pactos. Ahora, estas personas y
comunidades enfrentan tanto la ruina de su economía familiar como
un severo problema de seguridad alimentaria. Dadas las precarias
condiciones de este conjunto de personas, la acción del Estado se
erige en causa de violación de su derecho a la subsistencia, que se
proyecta en un grave menoscabo a la integridad física y a la
dignidad de los núcleos familiares y de sus miembros. Se trataba de
implantar una política que fortalecería a la comunidad, alejándola
de la marginalidad e ilegalidad. Sin embargo, la conducta arbitraria
que se glosa, ha producido un efecto contrario al pretendido.
Se impone, de inmediato, que las autoridades corrijan su actuación.
La ejecución de las políticas públicas, exige diligencia y coherencia
por parte de las autoridades responsables. De lo contrario, los fines
perseguidos no se alcanzan, o si se realizan esto se hace a costo de
violar los derechos humanos de la población. La función
administrativa, según lo comprobado por la Defensoría, no se
cumplió de manera coordinada y eficiente por parte de las
diferentes agencias del Estado. En lugar de la unidad de Estado,
primó la contradicción del Estado consigo mismo, hasta el punto de
que de manera flagrante quebrantó pactos y promesas que lo
vinculaban.
Generada la violación a los derechos humanos de la población
afectada, no debe el Estado ahorrar ningún esfuerzo para reparar
material e integralmente el daño causado con su proceder. La
situación de las personas y comunidades agraviadas, demanda que,
igualmente, de inmediato, se proceda a proveer los medios para
que ellas puedan satisfacer sus requerimientos vitales, sin los
cuales su propia subsistencia se encuentra seriamente amenazada.
12. Que, finalmente, teniendo en cuenta los hechos y antecedentes
expuestos y la competencia de la Defensoría del Pueblo, que se
describe a continuación:
- Es función del Defensor del Pueblo velar por el ejercicio y vigencia
de los derechos humanos, de conformidad con el artículo 282 de la
Constitución Política y la Ley 24 de 1992.
- Le corresponde al Defensor del Pueblo hacer las recomendaciones
y observaciones a las autoridades y a los particulares en caso de
amenaza o violación a los derechos humanos, de acuerdo con el
artículo 9, numeral 3 de la Ley 24 de 1992.
- Le compete al Defensor del Pueblo rendir informes periódicos
sobre el resultado de sus investigaciones, denunciando
públicamente el desconocimiento de los derechos humanos, según
lo prescrito en el artículo 9, numeral 22 de la Ley 24 de 1992.
RESUELVE: ANNEX 92
1. RECOMENDAR al Consejo Nacional de Estupefacientes que,
dentro de las 48 horas siguientes a la expedición de la presente
Resolución, se reúna y ordene la suspensión inmediata de las
fumigaciones de cultivos ilícitos en el Departamento del Putumayo
y en cualquier otro lugar del país, hasta tanto:
- La Dirección Nacional de Estupefacientes y la Policía
Antinarcóticos cuenten con la información georeferenciada de
todos los proyectos financiados por el Plante o por otras
instituciones nacionales e internacionales, dentro o fuera del Plan
Colombia, y cuyo objeto sea el desarrollo alternativo y el
mejoramiento de las condiciones socioeconómicas, ambientales y
culturales de la población que habita las áreas afectadas por los
cultivos con fines ilícitos.
- Se defina el tratamiento que debe ser dado a las comunidades
que han manifestado su intención de erradicar manualmente, a
través de la suscripción de actas de intención o cualquier otra
declaración análoga, pero cuyo proceso de concertación con el
Estado aún no ha culminado con la firma de los llamados “Pactos
de Erradicación Manual y Desarrollo Alternativo”.
- El Consejo Nacional de Estupefacientes, reunido en pleno,
apruebe la información georeferenciada y la no fumigación de los
proyectos allí contemplados, en los términos del artículo 3º de la
Resolución No. 005 del 2000, emanada de este mismo organismo.
2. EXHORTAR a las entidades y organismos encargados de la
formulación y ejecución del “Plan Nacional de Lucha contra las
Drogas, Colombia 1998-2002”, a que cumplan con los
mecanismos de coordinación previstos en la Ley, en los
reglamentos y en el documento del Plan. En caso de ser éstos
insuficientes, crear aquellos que sean necesarios a fin de evitar
contradicciones y perjuicios adicionales a la población.
3. EXHORTAR a las entidades y organismos encargados de la
formulación y ejecución del “Plan Nacional de Lucha contra las
Drogas, Colombia 1998-2002” y a aquellos encargados de la
puesta en marcha del Plan Colombia, que coordinen sus
respectivas gestiones a fin de crear las condiciones que brinden
confianza a las comunidades, particularmente, en los procesos de
concertación tendientes a la erradicación manual de cultivos
ilícitos y a la puesta en marcha de programas de desarrollo
alternativo.
4. EXHORTAR al Consejo Nacional de Estupefacientes, a que exija el
cumplimiento efectivo de la fase de reconocimiento de áreas de
cultivos ilícitos prevista en el artículo 2 de la Resolución No. 005
del 2000.ANNEX 92
5. EXHORTAR al Comité Técnico Interinstitucional, previsto en el
artículo 6 de la Resolución No. 005 del 2000, a que defina el
procedimiento y trámite de las quejas presentadas con ocasión de
las fumigaciones realizadas en el Putumayo, desde diciembre del
año pasado.
6. RECOMENDAR la incorporación de un representante del
Programa Presidencial Plante como miembro del Consejo Nacional
de Estupefacientes y, en este sentido, solicitar el respectivo ajuste
normativo.
7. EXHORTAR al Consejo Nacional de Estupefacientes, a la Dirección
Nacional de Estupefacientes y a la Policía Antinarcóticos para que
velen por el respeto al derecho de los pueblos indígenas a los usos
tradicionales de la coca, fundamentales para su integridad física y
cultural, y en este sentido, a que las fumigaciones no obstruyan
estos usos.
8. APREMIAR a la Red de Solidaridad Social para que atienda, de
manera inmediata, las necesidades de seguridad alimentaria de
las comunidades del Putumayo afectadas por las fumigaciones.
9. APREMIAR a la Red de Solidaridad Social, para que propicie la
participación activa de las autoridades indígenas o de sus
representantes en los Comités o Mesas Municipales de Atención a
la Población Desplazada y con ellos se trace una estrategia de
distribución de víveres.
10. INSTAR a la Dirección General de Asuntos Indígenas del
Ministerio del Interior para que, en desarrollo de sus
competencias, convoque al conjunto de las instituciones estatales
del nivel nacional que tienen responsabilidades y funciones de
atención a las comunidades indígenas del Putumayo, para que
elaboren planes integrales de contingencia, encaminados a
garantizar la vida e integridad física, social y cultural y a proteger
sus derechos colectivos. Igualmente, para que adelante el
seguimiento, monitoreo y verificación del cumplimiento de las
medidas adoptadas en dichos planes.
11. EXHORTAR al Gobierno Nacional para que defina los
procedimientos necesarios dirigidos a indemnizar, de manera
inmediata, a las comunidades afectadas por las operaciones de
aspersión en el Putumayo adelantadas durante los meses de
diciembre y enero.
12. ORDENAR a la Oficina de Acciones y Recursos Judiciales de la
Defensoría del Pueblo que interponga las acciones judiciales que
procedan para la protección efectiva de los derechos de las
comunidades indígenas del Putumayo afectadas por las
fumigaciones y para el respectivo resarcimiento de perjuicios,
salvo que las respectivas entidades, dentro de un término
razonable, restablezcan los derechos conculcados.
13. ENCARGAR a la Defensoría Delegada para los Derechos
Colectivos y el Medio Ambiente y a la Defensoría Delegada para ANNEX 92
los Indígenas y las Minorías Étnicas el seguimiento de la presente
Resolución.
14. REMITIR copia de la presente Resolución a los integrantes del
Consejo Nacional de Estupefacientes, al Vicepresidente de la
República, al Consejero para la Convivencia y Seguridad
Ciudadana, al Ministerio del Interior, a los Directores del Plan
Colombia, del Plante, de la Red de Solidaridad Social y de la
Dirección Nacional de Estupefacientes.
15. INCLUIR el informe y la presente Resolución Defensorial, así
como los resultados de su seguimiento en el Informe Anual, que
habrá de presentar el Defensor del Pueblo al Congreso de la
República.
EDUARDO CIFUENTES MUÑOZ
Defensor del Pueblo ANNEX 93
Comptroller General of the Republic of Colombia, Comptroller for the
Environment, Special Audit Regarding Illicit Crop Eradication Policies
(July 2001) ANNEX 93
Special Audit Regarding Illicit Crop Eradication Policies
Comptroller General of the Republic –
Comptroller for the Environment
July 2001
[…]
[PAGE 34]
[…]
This drift effect is the result of the combination of different technical and
meteorological variables that make this strategy highly susceptible to error.
Factors like the height of spraying, the velocity and direction of the wind
and the relative humidity are difficult to control, which affects the
precision of the sprayings. ANNEX 93
1
Auditoría especial a la política de erradicación de
cultivos ilícitos
Contraloría General de la República – Contraloría
Delegada par el Medio Ambiente
Julio de 2001
Contralor General de lCarlos Ossa Escobar
República
Vicecontralor José Félix Lafaurie Rivera
Contralor Delegado Para Francisco José Ruiz
El Medio Ambiente Marmolejo
Director Estudios Néstor Ortiz Pérez
Sectoriales Cdma
Director De VigilanciaFrancisco Ramírez Rivera
Fiscal Cdma
Auditores Luis Fernando Alvarado
Cárdenas
Lucero Peña Pineda
Maria Nancy Mesa
Hernández
Martha Ivonne Pérez Parra
1ANNEX 93
34
en cuenta la interrelación de estos organismos en los ecosistemas, no se
puede argumentar que sus efectos se limiten al suelo debido a que ellos se
biomagnifican dentro de la cadena trófica a la cual están integrados.
Adicional a esto, en el proceso de fumigación aérea se presenta el efecto de la
"deriva", es decir, las desviaciones de las fumigaciones por efecto del viento y
la velocidad misma de las aeronaves. Se estima que el Glifosato puede afectar
especies vegetales ubicadas a más de 800 m[37] . del sitio específico de
aspersión,[38] lo que ha causado que, en muchos casos, se afecten cultivos
lícitos de pancoger e incluso cultivos establecidos mediante el programa
presidencial del PNDA[39] , y los diferentes ecosistemas circundantes a las
plantaciones.
Este efecto deriva es el resultado de la conjugación de diferentes variables
técnicas y meteorológicas lo que hace a esta estrategia como altamente
susceptible a error. Factores como la altura de aspersión, la velocidad y
dirección del viento y la humedad relativa, son difícilmente controlables, lo que
afecta la precisión en las fumigaciones.
Las fuentes de agua y el recurso suelo también están siendo contaminadas por
las prácticas de destrucción e incineración in situ que las instituciones de
Defensa y Control del Estado en los últimos 6 años han realizado con
11.494.972 kilogramos de sólidos y 11.137.788 galones de insumos líquidos,
además de la destrucción, hasta septiembre de 1999, de 164 laboratorios
especialmente en la selva de la cuenca amazónica por parte del Batallón No. 1.
Otra fuente de contaminación son los envases plásticos y canecas metálicas
utilizadas y dejadas a la intemperie, puesto que se constituyen en desechos
peligrosos. Esto refleja que no se están cumpliendo tampoco los protocolos
sobre disposición de insumos incautados.
Si a estas prácticas le sumamos la ausencia de un sistema técnico de
almacenamiento (se encuentran distribuidos en el territorio nacional) de estas
sustancias peligrosas y de un inventario detallado actualizado, avaluado, donde
conste fecha o tiempo de vencimiento y período de depósito los impactos
pueden ser aún mayores.
De otro lado, la relocalización de las áreas cultivadas por efectos de la
erradicación química también está contribuyendo a los procesos de
deforestación. En efecto, si al productor no se le ofrece una alternativa que le
permita el mejoramiento de su calidad de vida y la inserción al proceso de
desarrollo económico del país, le será indiferente producir en el Guaviare o en
el Putumayo lo que conlleva a nuevas colonizaciones con sus consecuentes
deforestación, quemas y alteración de las cadenas biológicas. No de otra
manera se explica que, como ya se señaló, pese a la creciente fumigación de
miles de hectáreas de cultivos ilícitos, su área neta siga creciendo.
De acuerdo con lo manifestado por los responsables de la ejecución de la
política de erradicación, no existe certeza científica sobre los efectos en la
salud humana; sin embargo, se encuentra literatura sobre los efectos en la
salud de las personas, en la que se reporta que el Glifosato por inhalación
causa irritación a la nariz y garganta; es irritante de la piel; además, por vía oral
puede producir náuseas, vómito, dolor abdominal, y epigastralgia. En este
sentido la Directora Ejecutiva de Rapalmira , ha manifestado que a la
agricultura se aplica el producto comercial llamado Roundup, que además de
su ingrediente activo Glifosato contiene 15% del surfactante polioxietilenoamina
(POEA), el cual tiene una dosis letal media oral en ratas más de tres veces
34 ANNEX 94
Comptroller General of the Republic of Colombia,
Plan Colombia: Second Evaluation Report (10 Dec. 2001) ANNEX 94
PLAN COLOMBIA
Second Evaluation Report
Bogotá D.C., 10 December 2001
[PAGE 2]
CARLOS OSSA ESCOBAR
Comptroller General of the Republic
José Felix Laufaurie
Vice Comptroller
Dagoberto Qurioga Collazo
Comptroller Delegated for Defence, Justice and Security
[…]
[PAGE 43]
Those responsible for implementing the eradication policy say that there is
no scientific certainty with regard to its effects on human health and
ecosystems; however, there are documents, university investigations, and
environmental audits, 29in our country, on the effects on human health that
report that glyphosate inhalation causes irritation to the nose and throat;
moreover, contact causes skin irritation. At the same time, oral ingestion
produces nausea, vomit, abdominal pain and epigstralgia.
On this matter, Elsa Nivia, Executive Director of Rapalmira, has indicated
that in agriculture a commercial product named Roundup is used, which, in
addition to its active ingredient glyphosate, contains 15% of the surfactant
polyethoxylated tallowamine (POEA), which has a median lethal oral dose
29The Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic has conducted several Environmental Audits:
“Studies and Analysis of the Illicit Crop Eradication Program in Colombia, herbicides: Glyphosate,
September 1997” (Estudios y análisis del Programa de Erradicación de los Cultivos Ilícitos en Colombia,
herbicidas: Glifosato, septiembre 1997); “Control and Assessment of Environmental Costs, National
Narcotics Council and Directorate” (Control y Valoración de Costos Ambientales, Consejo y Dirección
Nacional de Estupefacientes), January 1997; “Environmental Audit of the National Narcotics
Directorate” (Auditoría Ambiental a la Dirección Nacional de Estupefaciente), December 2000; and
“Special Audit of the Illicit Crop Eradication Policy” (Auditoría Especial a la Política de Erradicación de
Cultivos Ilícitos), July 2001.ANNEX 94
in rats three times greater than that of glyphosate, and causes gastrointestinal
damage, affects the central nervous system, produces respiratory problems,
and destruction of red cells in humans. She points out that, in several
countries, this herbicide is considered to be among the major pesticides that
cause intoxication in humans and most of the skin and eye irritation found in
workers, after exposure. Undesirable effects are even more pronounced if
the formu30tion for aerial spraying is mixed with an adjuvant to increase its
toxicity.
Glyphosate formulations are one of the major causes of skin problems in
agricultural workers in California (USA). In this same state, in 1986,
glyphosate ranked fou31h among 143 pesticides, as to the number of
accidents reported. A study conducted in 1993 by the Berkeley School of
Public Health, at the University of California, showed that glyphosate is the
leading cause for diseases associated with herbicides among gardeners, and
the third cause among farmers. 32
The Ministry of Health, in 1981, when the first sprayings of marijuana crops
appeared, prohibited its use, arguing that herbicides are ecological
aggressors and toxic to humans. Likewise, the Committee of Experts on
herbicides, convened by the Ministry of Health in 1986, also stated in this
regard that: “the herbicides Paraquat, 2,4-D, and glyphosate should not be
used in aerial spraying for chemical eradication of illicit crops”.
Furthermore, there are numerous complaints filed with the Office of the
Ombudsman by communities that have been affected, stating that spraying
has been done indiscriminately
[PAGE 44]
on food crops, livestock and people, and that there have been symptoms of
nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, burning of the eyes, skin and throat after the
spraying; reports that coincide with information in the literature and are
consistent with the position of the Ministry of Health.
However, despite the various concepts and evidence against the use of
glyphosate, there are no preventive measures or mitigation of potential
damages, nor studies conducted by health authorities to establish a
30For every 10.5 liters of glyphosate, a liter of Agrotin and another of Comosflux [sic] is added. Report
from the external Environmental Audit contracted by the National Narcotics Directorate and conducted
by Luis Eduardo Parra.
31“Impacts of spraying in farming areas” (Impactos de las fumigaciones en zonas de cultivos), Elsa Nivia.
32The Ecologist, Vol. 28, No. 5, page 25 ANNEX 94
correlation between the complaints made by the communities and the
application of the herbicide.
From the foregoing, the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic
made an urgent call, in its audit report on the Illicit Crop Eradication
Program, to the Ministry of Health, as member of the Technical Advisory
Committee, to take the necessary and sufficient steps to establish its effects
on health and their prevention.
The profound differences of opinion mentioned above, concerning the type
and magnitude of the effects of glyphosate on ecosystems and human
health; in addition, to doubts on the exact composition of the mixture
sprayed, make credible the existence of a real danger due to the spraying in
question. Suspicion that is reinforced when considering that no authority
exercises control over the nature and consequences of said sprayings.
Given this scenario of doubt and uncertainty, the Office of the Comptroller
General of the Republic instructed the Ministry of the Environment to order,
under the Principle of Precaution, established in Law 99 of 1993, and
International Environmental Principles approved at the Rio Summit (Brazil,
1992), the suspension of chemical eradication by aerial spraying until
environmental, social and economic consequences from the implementation
of said policy are defined and the environmental management plan, essential
for carrying out this activity in a sustainable manner, is approved.
[…] ANNEX 94
1
P LAN C OLOMBIA
Segundo Informe de Evaluación
Bogotá D.C., 10 de diciembre de 2001ANNEX 94
2
CARLOS OSSA ESCOBAR
Contralor General de la República
José Felix Lafaurie
Vicecontralor
Dagoberto Quiroga Collazos
Contralor Delegado para Defensa, Justicia y Seguridad
Grupo de Trabajo:
Germán Enrique Nova Caldas
Director de Estudios Sectoriales
Benjamín R. Collante Fernández
Director de Vigilancia Fiscal
Elver Jesús Lemus Varela
Luis Arenas Vega
Henry Rodríguez Morales
Profesionales
Luis B. Carvajal C.
Asesor
Liliana Gaona García
Coordinación editorial
Mario Villamor Duque
Editor
Este documento fue elaborado con la cooperación de las Direcciones de Estudios Sectoriales
y de Vigilancia Fiscal de las Contralorías Delegadas los sectores de Medio Ambiente,
Agropecuario, Social, Infraestructura, Gestión Pública e Instituciones Financieras, Economía y
Finanzas, y Participación Ciudadana. ANNEX 94
43
Los responsables de la ejecución de la política de erradicación afirman que no existe certeza
científica sobre los efectos en la salud humana y los ecosistemas; sin embargo, se encuentran
documentos, investigaciones de universidades y auditorías ambientales 29en nuestro país sobre
los efectos en la salud de las personas, en las que se reporta que el glifosato por inhalación
causa irritación a la nariz y garganta; además, por contacto es irritante de la piel. Al mismo
tiempo, por vía oral produce náuseas, vómito, dolor abdominal, y epigastralgia.
A este respecto, Elsa Nivia, Directora Ejecutiva de Rapalmira, ha manifestado que en la
agricultura se aplica el producto comercial llamado Roundup que, además de su ingrediente
activo glifosato, contiene 15% del surfactante polioxietilenoamina (POEA), el cual tiene una
dosis letal media oral en ratas tres veces mayor que la del glifosato, causa daño gastrointestinal,
afecta el sistema nervioso central, y ocasiona problemas respiratorios y destrucción de
glóbulos rojos en humanos. Señala que, en varios países, este herbicida está considerado entre
los principales plaguicidas que causan incidentes de intoxicamiento en humanos, la mayoría
irritaciones dérmicas y oculares en trabajadores después de la exposición. Los efectos
indeseables son aún más promunciados si en la formulación para la fumigación aérea se
mezcla un coadyuvante para aumentar su toxicidad 3.
Las formulaciones de glifosato son una de las principales causas de problemas dérmicos de
trabajadores agrícolas en California (EE.UU.). En este mismo estado, en 1986, el glifosato
31
ocupó el cuarto lugar entre 143 plaguicidas, en cuanto al número de accidentes reportados .
Un estudio realizado en 1993 por la Escuela de Salud Pública de Berkeley, en la Universidad de
California, demuestra que el glifosato es la causa principal de las enfermedades asociadas a los
32
herbicidas entre los jardineros y la tercera causa entre los agricultores .
El Ministerio de Salud, en 1981, cuando se presentaron las primeras fumigaciones en cultivos
de marihuana, prohibió su empleo, argumentando que los herbicidas son agresores ecológicos
y tóxicos para el hombre. En igual sentido, el Comité de expertos en herbicidas, reunido por
el Ministerio de Salud en 1986, también manifestó al respecto que: "no se deben utilizar los
herbicidas Paraquat, 2,4-D y glifosato en la fumigación aérea para la erradicación química de
cultivos ilícitos".
Por otra parte, existen numerosas denuncias realizadas ante la Defensoría del Pueblo, por las
comunidades afectadas, quienes señalan que las fumigaciones se han realizado
kilogramos de cal, de 60 a 80 litros de kerosén, 200 gramos de permanganato de potasio y un litro de amoníaco
concentrado.
29La Contraloría General de la República ha realizados varias Auditorías Ambientales: "Estudios y análisis del
Programa de Erradicación de los Cultivos Ilícitos en Colombia, herbicidas: Glifosato, septiembre 1997; "Control
y Valoración de Costos Ambientales, Consejo y Dirección Nacional de Estupefacientes", enero de 1997,
"Auditoría Ambiental a la Dirección Nacional de Estupefaciente", diciembre 2000; y "Auditoría Especial a la
Política de Erradicación de Cultivos Ilícitos", julio de 2001.
30Por cada 10,5 litros de glifosato se adiciona un litro de Agrotin y un litro de Comosflux. Informe de auditoría
Ambiental externa contratado por la Dirección Nacional de Estupefacientes y realizada por Luis Eduardo Parra.
31“Impactos de las fumigaciones en zonas de cultivos”, Elsa Nivia
32Revista The Ecologist, Vol. 28, No. 5, pág. 25.ANNEX 94
44
indiscriminadamente sobre cultivos de pancoger, semovientes y personas, y manifiestan que
han presentado síntomas de náuseas, vómito, diarrea y ardor en ojos, piel y garganta una vez
realizada la fumigación, afirmaciones que coinciden con lo reportado en la literatura y es
congruente con la posición del Ministerio de Salud.
Sin embargo, a pesar de los diversos conceptos y evidencias en contra del uso del glifosato, no
hay medidas de prevención o mitigación de las posibles afectaciones, ni tampoco estudios por
parte de las autoridades de salud, para establecer correlaciones entre las quejas denunciadas
por la comunidad y la aplicación del herbicida.
Por lo anterior, la CGR hizo un llamado urgente, en su informe de auditoría a la Política de
Erradicación de Cultivos Ilícitos, al Ministerio de Salud, como miembro del Comité Técnico
Asesor, para que tome las medidas necesarias y suficientes para establecer las afectaciones y su
prevención.
Las profundas divergencias, señaladas anteriormente, acerca del tipo y magnitud de los efectos
del glifosato sobre los ecosistemas y la salud humanan, además de las dudas sobre la
composición exacta de la mezcla asperjada, hacen creíble la existencia de un real peligro por
causa de las fumigaciones en cuestión. Sospecha que se refuerza al tener en cuenta que
ninguna autoridad ejerce controles sobre la naturaleza y consecuencia de dichas fumigaciones.
Ante este escenario de duda e incertidumbre, la CGR requirió al Ministerio del Medio
Ambiente para que, en aplicación del Principio de Precaución, establecido en la Ley 99 de
1993, y los Principios Ambientales Internacionales aprobados en la Cumbre de Río (Brasil en
1992), ordene la suspensión de la erradicación química por aspersión aérea, hasta tanto no se
definan las implicaciones ambientales, sociales y económicas de la ejecución de dicha política y
se apruebe el plan de manejo ambiental necesario para realizar de manera sostenible esta
actividad.
El Plan de Manejo Ambiental
Mediante la Resolución 001 del 11 de marzo de 1994, el Consejo Nacional de Estupefacientes
(CNE) creó una Comisión Técnica Interinstitucional, conformada por el ICA, Minsalud y
Minambiente, para que conceptuaran sobre el uso del herbicida en las fumigaciones, su
eficacia, riesgos e impactos, tanto ambientales como sociales. Así mismo, el MMA debía
pronunciarse si se intervenía en zonas protegidas, como parques naturales y zonas de reserva o
manejo especial. En esta resolución se procede a contratar una Auditoría Ambiental encargada
de “controlar y supervisar la técnica y correcta ejecución de la estrategia”.
Vale decir que velar por el cumplimiento de la normatividad ambiental vigente era uno de los
fundamentos de esa ejecución correcta de la estrategia de fumigación, una actividad del
régimen de transición, según el artículo 38 del Decreto 1753 de 1994, por lo que el MMA
exigió a la Dirección Nacional de Estupefacientes (DNE) la presentación de un Plan de
Manejo Ambiental (PMA) para tal actividad. ANNEX 95
Republic of Colombia,
Environmental Management Plan for the Illicit Crop Eradication Program
Using Aerial Spraying with the Herbicide Glyphosate (ICEPG) (2003) ANNEX 95
1
Environmental Management Plan for the Illicit Crop Eradication Program Using Aerial
Spraying ith the Herbicide Glyphosate ICEPG
Report on Issues Related to the Aerial Eradication of Illicit Coca in Colombia
BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AFFAIRS
December 2 3
SPRAYING OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
SPECIFICATION #1
1. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION
While executing aerial spraying operations using the mixture of this herbicide, some quite specific conditions may occur that m ay generate potential
environmental and social impacts, from the very moment the airplane takes off until it lands. During the trajectory, it may even be necessary to dump the
herbicide in flight to ensure the lives of the crew, due either to attacks by terrorists or to aircraft failure.
The elimination of illicit crops in Colombia is justified because it hinders the negative impact related to the production and trafficking of narcotics and to the
harm of deteriorating the environment. It also enables introducing new plant species aimed at extracting psychoactive substance s. There are several
available eradication methods (manual, mechanical, burning, biological, and chemical). However, taking into considerl cation of the illicit crop fields,
the characteristics of the landscape, the opposition of the farmers who cultivate plants for illegal purposes, and the presence of outlawed armed groups, the
most efficient and least dangerous strategy is aerial spraying with herbicides.
2. OBJECTIVES
z To follow the procedures and technical and environmental parameters for aerial spraying, which result in the efficient eradicat ion of illicit crops sown
throughout the national territory, pursuant to the responsibilities assigned, in order to protect and preserve the environment.
z To identify, characterize, and delimit zones with illicit crops.
z To identify and delimit exclusion zones and alert zones.
z To verify that environmental management measures are effectively applied during ICEPG operations.
3. ACTIVITIES TO BE CARRIED OUT
3.1. Prevention Measures
z Do maintenance and checks on and calibration of the spraying equipment on the aircraft.
z Comply with the technical and operational parameters used for applying the herbicide, as set forth herein.
z Comply with the environmental zoning criteria herein.
Maintenance, Checks, and Calibration
Before every mission, the technical personnel at the National Police Anti-Narcotics Division (DIRAN is the Colombian acronym) o perations base must check
the operational condition of the spraying equipment, and if need be, adjust the equipment.
DIRAN will keep a file of maintenance, check, and calibration reports.
3.2 Technical and Environmental Specifications in the Different ICEPG Phases
The spraying process is carried out in three phases: detecting the illicit crops to be sprayed, spraying, and verification.
3.2.1. Detection Measures
The purpose of the detection process is to identify, characterize, and locate the zones with illicit crops and the zones to be e xcluded from the programs, using
geographical coordinates.
Such characterization will be supported by satellite imagery, aerial photography, and cartography. The ARECI-DIRAN personnel wi ll do the field work to carry
out this activity and its main objective is to identify how the soil is used, the presence of settlements, and the delimitation of National Protected Area System
zones, ecologically fragile zones and environmentally, socially, and economically sensitive zones, in order to create the basic environmental zoning for each
operation.ANNEX 95
2
To do so, there must be strict compliance with 1991 Decree 1843 Article 87 referring to security zones and with Article 1, Para graph 2 in National Anti-
narcotics Commission Resolution 0013 dated June 27, 2003.
The environmental zoning will be delivered, in accordance with the available cartography for operations already carried out and with the frequency stipulated
by the Ministry of the Environment, Housing, and Territorial Development.
3.2.2. Spraying Measures
For reasons of security and due to the location of and access to the fields with illicit crops, the spraying must be done usingproper aircraft that comply with
the parameters in Chart # 1.
3.2.2.1. Operational Parameters
During the spraying operations, bear in mind all technical navigation and spraying requirements, in order to mitigate the potential impact of the spraying on
vegetation or on neighboring crops not covered by the ICEPG. These parameters include flying altitude, the size of the drops, d osage, wind velocity, and
other favorable weather conditions.
The effect of the drift or side movement of some of the mixture being sprayed could be an inconvenience, considering the conseq uences that it may have on
the ecological surroundings of the plants being sprayed; therefore, the ICEPG will be carried out under proper conditions (see Chart # 1).
Chart # 1
ILLICIT CROP ERADICATION PROGRAM USING AERIAL SPRAYING
OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS
PARAMETER UNIT OF MEASURE VALUE OR RANGE VALUE OR RANGE
COCA POPPY
Flying Altitude Meters The highest application altitude will be 50 meters; notwithstanding, the operation will be
conditioned to the height of the obstacles present in the target spraying zones.
Maximum Dumping of Commercial Liters / Hectare 10.4 2.5
Formula with Glyphosate
Size of the Drops Micras 300 - 1,000
Foreseen Drift Meters < 5
Maximum Outside Temperature Degrees Celsius 35 20
during Application
Maximum Wind Velocity Knots 5
For this purpose, there must be strict compliance with 1991 Decree 1843 Article 102 that refers to the pilots' obligations. Lik ewise, all other articles therein
applicable to the program must be taken into account.
3.2.2.2. Other Factors to Bear in Mind during the Spraying Operations
There are other factors that enable increasing the operational efficiency of aerial spraying using Glyphosate, without exceedin g technical and economical
thresholds; therefore, we recommend not spraying when:
z The fields are plowed or have very limited foliage (only stalks or crops harvested).
z There is imminence of rain or there is rain nearby
z There is evidence of the phenomenon of inverse currents or clouds near the ground. This phenomenon occurs especially in hilly o r mountainous areas
and in the wee hours of the morning in rainforest zones.
z The pilot has doubts about being able to identify the illicit crop to be sprayed.
z The aircraft is attacked, the equipment damaged or the operational personnel is ill.
3.2.3. Verification
The Eradication Program using aerial spraying with Glyphosate must be verified in order to evaluate the efficiency and effectiv eness of the environmental
management measures.
3.2.3.1. Measures to Verify Environmental Impact ANNEX 96
Republic of Colombia, National Health Institute,
Evaluation of the Effects of Glyphosate on Human Health in Illicit Crop
Eradication Program Influence Zones (2003) ANNEX 96
1
Evaluation of the Effects of Glyphosate on Human Health in Illicit Crop Eradication Program
Influence Zones
Other Releases
BUREAU FOR INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AFFAIRS
ashington, DC
uly 2 3
Republic of Colombia
Ministry of Social Protection
National Health Institute
Epidemiology Sub directorate and National Reference Laboratory Research Sub directorate
Bogota, uly2 3
Introduction
In compliance with its responsibility under the Environmental Management Plan set forth for the Illicit Crop Eradication Program, the
Ministry of Social Protection has promoted the creation of this project whose purpose is "To explore the possible effects of glyphosate on
human health as a result of aerial spraying" linked to the application plan to be carried out in seven (7) provincial departments in the
country.
After a process of discussion and analysis of several epidemiological evaluation proposals, we reached the consensus of doing a
descriptive case study, the main purpose of which is to determine if the spraying is innocuous or, to the contrary, if it represents some
risk to the population. In this manner, we intend to answer to one of the doubts that has been a motive for concern in the community
and organizations, both public and private, since the spray program was initiated in Colombia.
We opted to do this study as one of the most viable alternatives considering the limitations that we encountered in carrying out this type
of work; the main one being the high cost involved. That is why we chose seven (7) provincial departments in which public order
conditions were more favorable to carry out the project.
1. PRESENTATION OF THE PROBLEM
1.2. Research Problem
The problem of the indiscriminate use of pesticides in the most varied of farming and forestry activities by the rural populations in the
areas of influence of aerial spraying has led not only to these human nuclei being seriously affected by exposure to a variety of
substances while working, but also by exposure through the air and in the food and water that they use; this also occurs to the
population at large, through pesticide residues. That is to say that the whole population is exposed to a health risk that is not sufficiently
appreciated and perceived by the corresponding health authorities.
Also, these toxic substances are not only eliminating pests but are also affecting the local ecosystems, especially bodies of water, thus
endangering the very lives of many species, especially birds, and considerably reducing the life of the soil, wildlife, and benign insects,
which are needed to maintain a natural balance.
These pesticides can be found everywhere and are easy for any person to access, even children. This is a situation that is especially
serious if we take into consideration that a broad variety of chemical substances are used in illicit crops.
1
In a report prepared for the National Directorate of Dangerous Drugs (DNE) and the United States Embassy it was verified that 98.7%
of illicit crop growers use insecticides and fungicides to control pests and disease; 92.5% use chemical fertilizers, and 95.5% control
2
competition from other plants by using herbicides. Furthermore, the research done by Instituto SINCHI showed that, unlike what
producers do with subsistence crops, illicit crop growers go to great lengths to weed their illegal crops and chemically control insects and
pests 3 .
SINCHI mentions that the economic logic behind this behavior is due to the fact that for food crops growers want to take full advantage
of the natural fertility of the soil, whereas for coca crops, because of revenue expectations, producers feel obliged to incorporate chemical
technology 3 .
It has been established that there are no significant differences between producers in different coca crop regions, as far as how intensely
they use farming chemicals, no matter if they have small crops or industrial-type crops. Along these lines, URIBE (1999)1 established
the use of at least 75 different brands of farming chemicals. Regional differences regarding the type of substances used are determined
by market availability; many of them enter into the crop areas directly as contraband 3 .ANNEX 96
2
Table 1 shows the main herbicides used on coca crops, based on DNE data - Colombian Drug Information System (SIDCO).
Table 1. Herbicides Used on Coca Crops
Commercial Active
Name Ingredient Of Use To icological Category
Gramoxone Paraquat 61.3 II LD Oral: 150 mg/kg
Faena Glyphosate 10.7 IV LD Oral: 4,300 mg/kg
Anikilamine 2,4D 9.7 I LD Oral: 699 mg/kg
Round up glyphosate 8.4 IV LD Oral: 4,300 mg/kg
Atrazina Atrazine 4.8 III LD Oral: 1,780 mg/kg
Karmex Diuron 2.6 III LD Oral: 5,000 mg/kg
Others N/A 2.6
Source: DNE- SIDCO
It is interesting to note that glyphosate is one of the substances most used by illicit crop producers.
The number and variety of insecticides and fungicides is even greater than herbicides and the use of toxicological category I and II
substances is notorious; therefore, we expect that the effects on the ecosystems and, particularly on the community, to be quite
negative; this situation is compounded if we take into account the fact that many of the farmers still believe the theory that "the greater
the quantity and concentration of the farming chemical, the more effective it will be". That is why it is common that the doses used are
not the doses recommended by the manufacturer 3 .
Among the fungicides used, we mention Mancozeb (Manzate), Koper oxychloride (Oxicloruro de cobre), Carbendazin (Bavistin). Among
the insecticides, we name: Metamidophos (Tamaron), Carbaryl (Sevin), Metomyl (Metavin), Carbofuran (Furadan), Prophenophos
(Curacron), Endosulfan (Thionil), Methyl Parathion (Parathion), Lambda Cyhalothrine (Matador), Malathion (Malathion), Monochrotophos
(Nuvacron), Chlorpiriphos and Cipermerine Chlorpiriphos (Lorsband), Cipermetrine and Diacinon (Comboy), Cipermetrine (Politrin) 3 .
The chemical substances that illicit crop growers introduce into the ecosystems on a daily basis cause, among others, the following
effects:
1. Contamination of resources: pesticides are capable of contaminating the sources of potable water that humans and animals drink,
sources of bodies of water, rivers, and seas. Farming chemicals can reach water sources by following any of the means indicated below.
z Percolation or lixiviation of pesticides applied to the surface of the soil
z Discharge of liquids remaining from the application
z Discarding empty containers
z Flooding or overflow of rivers that reach storage areas 3 .
The consequences of this contamination are the loss of aquatic flora and fauna; the loss of the resource as a source of water and
3
nourishment; and the intoxication of human beings and animals .
2. Contamination of the soil: some pesticides are directly applied to the soil (herbicides such as 2,4,D and insecticides such as Metomyl).
There are others that reach the soil indirectly by dripping from the plant, dripping from the application equipment, being dragged by
3
raindrops (Clordano, Parathion), washing the application equipment, discarding containers, etc .
Discarding containers and leftover product: Normally the peasants discard the pesticide containers, the product leftover from the spray
processes, and the product remaining in the spraying equipment after washing it 3 in the surroundings (soil and sources of water,
incineration, etc ). Many recipients are recycled to use them as containers for daily chores and preparing food; usually glass recipients
are used for holding liquids (in some regions we have found that the peasants use the Gramoxone recipients for their guarapo, a
homemade brew), kerosene or water; metal recipients are used to heat or hold water and aluminum recipients are used as containers in
3
the base and refining labs .
3. Disposal in septic tank holes: in rural areas of Colombia it is customary to dig holes near the dwellings and deposit garbage in them.
Unfortunately, the garbage is not separated and all kinds of materials are put there together, no matter if they are biodegradable, toxic
3
or not .
4. Open air incineration: This may cause even greater inconveniences than mere dumping. When exposed to heat, some products emit
dioxins and furanes, whose toxic power is greater than the original product s toxic power 3 .
Each one of the above-mentioned cases represents a specific problem, but, generally speaking, they directly or indirectly contaminate the
surroundings, and more specifically the communities that live in such surroundings 3 .
Given that the population is exposed to glyphosate and to other pesticides, it is very difficult to establish a direct cause and effect
relationship between exposure to glyphosate from aerial spraying and to differentiate it from the exposure to glyphosate and other
pesticides that the population normally uses, particularly because the acute effects are similar. ANNEX 96
3
In fact, in the document "Environmental Impact Caused by Chemical Substances, Illicit Crops, and Related Activities", BERNAL C, H.
states, "Many of the complaints that the growers make regarding the aerial spraying carried out by the DIRAN Antinarcotics Police using
glyphosate are actually caused by the use of farming chemicals, such as Paraquat and Parathion, which the peasants use on their crops
without any technical standards and without protective equipment. Many of these substances are liposoluble, which means that they can
be absorbed through the tissues and accumulate in the organism, leading to intoxication, which, in many cases, depending on the
toxicological classification of the product, may be fatal" 3 .
Health problems caused by exposure to these types of substances are difficult to prevent and control in our country, for several reasons:
the lack of technical knowledge and infrastructure required for appropriate management, an insufficient system of monitoring and
control, serious deficiencies of information and training in this area for the populations at risk, deficient medical attention and decision-
making capacity of the regional agencies, and the non-existence or insufficient existence of a public health system to monitor
intoxications caused by pesticides.
Faced with this situation, Colombia must study the possible effects of aerial spraying with glyphosate on the population s health. This
study is designed to respond to this need.
1.2. Justification
1.2.1. Theorical Framework
Glyphosate is one of the most widely used herbicides in the world. It has been extensively tested in the United States, Colombia, and in
other places and its agricultural use is accepted, recorded, and authorized in 153 countries. Since 1978 Colombia has been carrying out
aerial spraying of illicit marihuana, poppy, and coca crops. To do so, a broad gamut of chemicals such as Paraquat (1978), Triclopyr
(1985), and Tebuthiuron (1986) was tested, and glyphosate has been used continuously since 1993 4.
The Illicit Crop Eradication Program through Glyphosate Spraying (PECIG) is an official Government of Colombia anti-narcotics policy
designed by competent authorities, which commits the executing agencies to conduct the program with minimum social impact and
without producing significant harm to the environment. PECIG is a total action strategy for extensive or industrially grown illegal crops
5
carried out by the Colombian National Police Anti-narcotics Division, and this agency must follow strict operational parameters .
The decision to implement the program was made by taking into account the following factors, among others: a large portion of illicit
crops are industrial by nature; there are substantial difficulties accessing the plots by land or river because of isolation and due to a
public order problem that obviates manual eradication; there is strong pressure on ecosystems that are strategic for Colombia; and the
5
detrimental environmental impact caused by activities related to the illegal drug industry .
The national government deemed it necessary to employ controlled aerial spraying with the herbicide glyphosate as an effective
mechanism for illicit crop eradication due to the national topography. Illicit plantations are located in geographical zones that are difficult
to access, which considerably hinders the legitimate control that the State must exercise over them. Due to the above, in January 1992,
the National Anti-narcotics Council authorized under law the controlled aerial spraying of illicit crops using glyphosate, provided that the
spraying be carried out under strict control procedures and technical conditions, to ensure that it guarantee that neither persons nor
natural resources in the surrounding areas would be affected 5 .
The National Anti-narcotics Council set forth the legal justification, using as a foundation, among others, 1986 Law 30 1986, 1993 Law
99, 1974 Decree 2811, 1994 Decree 1753, 1991 Decree 1843 and National Anti-narcotics Council 1994 Resolution 0001 and 2000
5
Resolution 0005 .
The two above-mentioned resolutions define that the responsibilities for environmental, health, and epidemiological follow-up on the
Illicit Crop Eradication Program through Glyphosate Spraying (PECIG) lie with the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture
5
(ICA), and in the Ministry of Health, respectively .
1.2. Physical-Chemical and Toxicological Properties
Microbial degradation is the main cause of glyphosate s decomposition in plants. Loss due to photodecomposition and/or volatilization is
minimal or almost null and it is reported that the average life expectancy of glyphosate in plants is up to 6O days 4 .
Glyphosate is rapidly and strongly adsorbed by particles in the soil, which hinders its mobility, its lixiviation, and its ability to be adsorbed
through roots. Adsorption is greater in soils with high concentrations of trivalent metals such as iron and aluminum, instead of high
concentrations of sodium and calcium. The degradation or decomposition of the product in the soil is also of a micro-biological nature.
One of the main products of degradation due to bacterial action is amino methyl phosphonic acid (AMPA) that is equally biodegradable.
The degradation of glyphosate in the soil is rapid due to microbial action and it has an average life expectancy of approximately 3O days
4.
When it reaches water, glyphosate is adsorbed by suspended particles or in sedimentation and is later degraded; this occurs more slowly
than in soils due to the lower number of microbes. Glyphosate in natural bodies of water has an average life expectancy of 7 to 10
weeks.
To icity in Mammals 3
LD 5O.Orally Acute: Rats: 5,6OO mg/kgANNEX 96
4
Mice: 11,3OO mg/kg
Through the Skin Acute: Rabbits: 5,OOO mg/kg
In food: NOEL (non-observable effect) in
Rats, 31 mg/kg, daily during two (2) years
Dogs, 5OO mg/kg, daily during one (1) year
To icity in Non Mammals 3
LD 5O. Orally Acute: Common Cornish Hen: 4,64O mg/kg
Bees: O,1 mg/bee
Contact: Bees: O.1 mg/bee
LC 5O. Cornish Hens and Ducks: 4,64O mg/kg in the food during five (5) days
Trout: 86 mg/liter (96 hours)
Bluegill (fish), 12O mg/liter (96 hours)
Daphnia (fish), 78O mg/liter (48 hours)
Glyphosate is a pesticide that is not very toxic for humans and animals, excluding the toxic degree of the solvents and other components
in commercial formulas. Analyses of other types of toxicology confirm the result obtained for rats and classify the herbicide as non-
4
carcinogenous for human beings .
1.3. Effects of Glyphosate and its Adjuvants on Health
1.3.1. Short-term Effects (Acute Intoxication)
If glyphosate is inhaled, it may cause slight irritation of the nose and throat mucosa; if there is contact with the eyes, they may become
irritated, and if there is skin contact, it causes sensitivity, slight irritation, and photosensitivity
Studies done on living creatures (cows, sheep, and hens) showed that those beings absorb limited quantities of glyphosate. The allowed
levels of glyphosate in crops and in animals for human consumption are published in the Federal Regulations Code, Heading 40 (40 CFR),
6
Section 180.364. The acceptable daily amount ingested for human beings is 0.3 mg/kg .
Out of 194 cases reviewed in Taiwan and New Zealand, 23 of them were fatal after ingestion of variable volumes, around 114 milliliters
6.
Below is a description of the signs and symptoms for acute intoxication.
Asymptomatic: No symptoms or abnormalities detected during a physical or from lab tests.
Slight: Mainly gastrointestinal symptoms and signs (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, pain or burning in mouth and throat)
that go away after a 24 hour period. Stable vital signs, no breathing, kidney or cardiovascular difficulties.
Moderate: Estimated ingestions of 20 to 500 ml produce moderate symptoms, estimated ingestions of 5 to 150 ml produce slight
symptoms and estimated ingestions of 5 to 50 ml produce no symptoms. Gastointestinal symptoms that last more than 24 hours:
gastrointestinal hemorrhaging, esophagitis or gastritis verified through endoscopy, mouth ulcers, hypo-tension that responds to
intravenous fluids, breathing dysfunction that does not require intubation, perturbations in the acid - base balance, evidence of transitory
hepatic or kidney damage or temporary oliguria.
Severe: Breathing dysfunction that requires intubation, kidney failure requiring dialysis, severe hypo-tension, cardiac failure, coma,
repeated convulsions or death.
1.3.2. Effects due to Long-term (Chronic) Exposure
Carcinogenesis: Glyphosate can alter the production of carbon and nitrogen in the soil (with organic matter). An increase in the
concentrations of CO 2 in the soil lead to an increase of nitrifying bacteria, which in turn leads to an increase in the concentration of
nitrites, making the food grown there also have greater concentrations of nitrites that combined with amines produce nitrosoamines,
defined as cancerous substances. In addition, nitrites in high concentrations can produce metahemoglobinemia in animals and human
beings. That is to say, glyphosate, through this mechanism, could indirectly lead to carcinogenesis and other pathologies. 4
In the United States, glyphosate has been classified as non-cancerous for human beings. Nonetheless, the evaluating committee clarified
that "this designation is based on the evidence available at the time of the evaluation and must not be interpreted as a definitive
conclusion that the agent is not cancerous under any circumstance. "
Mutagenicity: Positive results have been found for mutagenesis in Soil Pseudomona sp pg2982. Glyphosate did not prove mutagenic in
tests using mammal cells in in vitro and in vivo systems. There have been reports of harmful effects in human lymphosite studies that
showed that glyphosate produces changes in the ADN of sister chromatides; notwithstanding, the report repeatedly stated that at least ANNEX 96
5
4, 7
ten (1O) donors should be considered in the study and not two (2) as was done .
Effects on Reproduction: The maternal non-observable effect level(NOEL) for two (2) teratological studies using rats and rabbits was
1,OOO mg/kg/day and 165 mg/kg/day, respectively.
Teratogenesis and Embryo-toxicity: Using doses of over 3,5OO mg/kg/day of glyphosate on rats, evidence of toxicity to development
was observed in the form of de-ossification of the sternum and a drop in total body weight. These doses were also toxic for the mothers.
The non-observable effect level (NOEL) for development and maternal toxicity was 1,OOO mg/kg/day. In a study on reproduction made
on three generations of rats using different doses, the significant toxic finding was tubular dilating in the kidneys of the first generation
4
newborn the mothers who received the highest doses (3O mg/kg/day). The NOEL for this effect was 1O mg/kg/day .
The EPA has concluded that consuming crops treated with glyphosate and animals fed with forage treated with glyphosate in the US does
not present food risks when the residues are under the tolerance levels. The toxicity of glyphosate depends jointly on several factors of
the ecosystem and on the physiological conditions of each living organism, but in the case of using this herbicide in illicit crop eradication
programs, the possibilities of contamination with significant doses would be minimum because, in practice, each illicit crop is treated only
once.
In order to understand the possible effects that would be generated on organisms when sprayed from the air with glyphosate, below is an
4
analysis of the doses applied by the program and of the time during which organisms are exposed to it .
After the glyphosate is aerially sprayed using a concentration of 162 g/L (16,2% P/V), a minimum 75% of it is deposited on the foliage of
the illicit plants; therefore, more than approximately 342 mg/m 2is stored on this type of plant and an approximate quantity of 38 mg/m 2
reaches the soil. A human being in the area being sprayed may be exposed to approximately 650.8 mg (1.93 ml) of glyphosate. The level
for any risk at all is 150 ml ingested orally or 2,000 ml absorbed through the skin; given the above, we deduce that the degree of
exposure to glyphosate caused by aerial spraying is insignificant for the critical levels presented for both ingestion and exposure through
the skin.
2
Rodents have a body surface of approximately 300 cm and an average weight of approximately 200 g; therefore, the level of exposure
for them will be 11.4 mg and the average lethal dose for this type of organism is at levels higher than 5,600 mg/kg of the rodent s
weight, that is to say, for 200 g of the rodent s body weight the average dose to which it would be exposed would be 1,120 mg. Based on
that, there would be no possibility that aerial spraying would affect that type of organism.
Some of the commercial formulas of glyphosate have a surfactant known as POEA, at a proportion of near 15%. According to several
toxicological research studies, this compound may cause gastrointestinal damage, may affect the central nervous, may cause breathing
difficulties and may be able to destroy red blood cells in human blood.
Studies also state that POEA may contain an impurity identified as 1- 4 Dioxane that has proven to have a cancerous capacity on animals
and to cause liver and kidney damage to human beings.
The metabolization of glyphosateis preponderantly caused by the microflora, although the resulting metabolites are not taken advantage
of by the microorganisms that originated them. In spite of the fact that aerobic and anaerobic degradation of the parental molecule gives
origin to at least six (6) metabolites; those that produce most and have most importance are AMPA or Amjno methyl phosphonic acid
(CH6 NO3 P) and SARCOSINE or N-Methylglycine, Sarcosine or Acid 2-Methylaminoethanoic (C3 H7 NO2). AMPA can be detected in the
4
soil and in the tissues of the plants and its toxemic capacity is classified as inocuous .
During a period of time there was concern that the metabolic process of glyphosate could originate the formation of nitrosamides that are
known to induce mutagenic, carcinogenic, and teratogenic effects, or certain intoxications of an acute nature. We now know that that
concern was unfounded; no researcher has demonstrated or found evidence of the formation of such metabolites. Something similar
occurred with the reports issued after 1990, in the sense that among the decomposition products of the parental molecule of glyphosate
we must also include formaldehyde, a compound that is currently on the list of potentially carcinogenic substances; although that
possibility exists, the quantities that are produced as a result of normal use in weed control tasks may possibly be of the trace levels,
with very little risk for users. The degradation of the parental product may be a fast or a slow process, depending on many conditions; in
some cases degradation may occur in less than one week whereas, in others, the average life expectancy may be months or even years
4.
During the document review made for the Environmental Management Plan, we found an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study
on the analysis of glyphosate, which concluded that the appropriate use of glyphosate, as permitted in the USA, would not cause
irrational adverse effects on human beings or on the environment. It is not believed that the spray program exposes human beings who
may be in the sprayed fields to said risks. This is due to the fact that the potential irritation and toxicity of the independent ingredients
diminishes when the product is diluted in water to make the mixture (the final product is approximately 75% water) and the mixture is
dispersed during spraying. Therefore, human beings who may be located under the spray swath released by the airplane are not exposed
to concentrated formula levels of glyphosate and if they have symptoms of exposure, they will be reversible and short-term.
Furthermore, it is improbable that any one field would be sprayed more than once a year, which reduces the levels of repeated human
4
exposure .
For our research background, we only have information on three (3) previous descriptive studies on this topic: one done by D. Revelo et
al., "Effects of Fumigation Using Glyphosate on the municipalities of Valle de Guamuez, San Miguel, and Orito, Putumayo. Colombia
December 2001" in which an analysis was made of the information found in the complaint forms filed with the local community leaders in
the municipalities of Valle del Guamez and San Miguel and those supplied by the Orito Technical Assistance Unit. ANNEX 97
Republic of Colombia, Office of the Ombudsman,
Ombudsman Resolution No. 28, The Coffee Crisis and the Possible Fumigations
in the Province of Caldas (21 May 2003) ANNEX 97
[seal]
OFFICE OF THE O MBUDSMAN
Human rights, to live in peace
NATIONAL OMBUDSMAN RESOLUTION No. 028
THE COFFEE CRISIS AND THE POSSIBLE FUMIGATIONS IN
THE PROVINCE OF CALDAS
Manizales, Caldas, 21 May 2003
[…]
[PAGE 23]
[…]
B. Right to Health and Hygiene
102. In different documents from the Ombudsman’s Office the Entity’s
concern regarding health impacts caused by the use of chemicals in the
aerial fumigations has
[PAGE 24]
been presented in a detailed manner. The Office of the Ombudsman has
also repeatedly required competent authorities to put into place an
Epidemiological Monitoring Plan – PVE, ordered by three Health
Ministries (1984, 1992, and 1994). Without the execution of the
aforementioned plan it is impossible to affirm or negate the harmlessness
of the substances used in the PECIG in a technical and scientific manner.
[…]
104. The absence of said plan prevents the existence of measures and
procedures directed towards the prevention, control, and monitoring of the
risk factors to health, as provided for in various legal standards, among
them the Health Code and the Decree which regulates the use,
management and disposal of pesticides.
105. To this concern the following considerations are added: (1) the
growing number of complaints filed in the sprayed areas which cite
effects to the respiratory and digestive pathways, and to the organs ofANNEX 97
sight, as well as skin illnesses, among others; (2) the results of the study
54
carried out by the American Environmental Protection Agency –EPA- in
which it was recognized that Glyphosate leaves residual effects in surface
waters and affects the ocular system 55; (3) the inadequate provision of
aqueduct and irrigation services, which makes it necessary for inhabitants
of rural areas to turn to still and running bodies of water for consumption
use, a situation which does not guarantee the
[PAGE 25]
potability of the liquid, and even less in cases in which the water is
contaminated because of the use of the chemicals employed in the
fumigations; (4) the nutritional defects confronted by rural inhabitants,
either because their income for acquiring the minimum provisions of their
typical diet has been reduced or because of limitations on ensuring food
security, and (4) [ sic] the limitations suffered by the health sector, which
manifests itself in facts such as the decrease in illness prevention and
54
The American law of foreign cooperation for 2002 (Law PL 107 -115, “Foreign
Operations Appropriations for FY 2002” of 10 January of this year), by which the
resources for the Andean Regional Initiative –IRA- were approved set the conditions for
eradication operations in compliance with the following requirements: “(1) The aerial
fumigation of coca crops shall be carried out in agreement with the processes for the
use of chemicals that have been established by the Environmental Protection Agency –
EPA-, the Center for Disease Control, and the manufacturing companies of the chemical,
and, after consultation with the Colombian government, it is guaranteed that the
fumigations shall meet Colombian law; (2) The chemicals used in the aerial
fumigations, in the manner in which they are applied, do not pose serious risk or
harmful effects to human beings or the environment; (3) Effective complaint
evaluation mechanisms are established for the population with regard to health effects
and the damage to legal crops caused by aerial fumigation, as well as fair remuneration
for all of those who present valid complaints; (…)”. Translation by the Ombudsman’s
Office.
55
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Details of the
Consultation for Department of State: Use of Pesticides for Coca Eradication Program
in Colombia, August 2002. In this document it is indicated that Glyphosate causes acute
ocular poisoning, which is the reason that the use of another chemical was recommended.
In addition, it must be noted that there have not been any studies conducted- in Colombia
or in any other country in the world- which permit the knowledge of the possible effects
to human and animal health which arise from the mixture used in Colombia. To this is
added the fact that Cosmo Flux 411, which is used as an additive, is not for sale in the
United States. Despite the fact that said studies ordered in the PMA [Spanish acronym
for Environmental Management Plan] have not been carried out, the Ministry of the
Environment, Livelihood, and Territorial Development authorized an additional 2 liters
per hectare, through Resolution No. 099 of 2003. Because of this, the mixture currently
applied is 108 L/ha of a mix of Round 480 SL + Cosmoflux 411. ANNEX 97
control programs, the lack of laboratories for analysis, the precarious
situations of the infrastructure, as well as the attacks against the medical
mission.
[…] ANNEX 97
RESOLUCION DEFENSORIAL NACIONAL No. 2
LA CRISIS CAFETERA Y LAS POSIBLES FUMIGACIONES EN EL
DEPARTAMENTO DE CALDAS
Manizales, Caldas, mayo 21 de 2003
VISTOS
A. PROGRAMA DE SEGUIMIENTO Y EVALUACIÓN DE LAS POL TICAS
P BLICASProSeDHer
La Defensoría del Pueblo diseñó un modelo de seguimiento y evaluación de las
políticas públicas para la formación, promoción, defensa, protección y
realización de los derechos humanos (ProSeDHer). Dentro de este Programa se
realiza el seguimiento de la Política Nacional de Lucha contra las Drogas 1,
particularmente, en dos de sus estrategias, a saber: El Programa de
Erradicación de los Cultivos Ilícitos con Glifosato y el Programa de Desarrollo
Alternativo. Esta labor se extiende a la ejecución del Plan Colombia, en los
2
citados componentes .
En desarrollo de lo anterior, también se analizó el contenido y alcance del
derecho a la alimentación y a la seguridad alimentaria, así como su relación
con los derechos a la salud pública, al goce de un ambiente sano y a la salud
en conexidad con los derechos a la vida y a la vida digna.
B. LA INVESTIGACIÓN DEFENSORIAL
La investigación defensorial se plasma en diferentes informes elaborados por la
Regional Caldas, entre ellos, los siguientes: (1) Análisis del Conflicto Armado
en el departamento de Caldas (2001); (2) Fenómeno del Desplazamiento
1Dirección Nacional de Estupefacientes. “Plan Nacional de Lucha contra las Drogas, Colombia
1998 – 2002. Los programas estratégicos de dicho Plan son el 1º desarrollo alternativo, 2º la
interdicción, 3º el fortalecimiento jurídico e institucional, 4º la reducción de la demanda interna,
5º la gestión ambiental y 6º la política internacional. La coordinación de estas acciones, en las
que participan diferentes entidades estatales, le corresponde al Consejo Nacional de
Estupefacientes y a la Dirección Nacional de Estupefacientes.
2
Plan Colombia. Fortalecimiento Institucional y Desarrollo Social, 2000-2002. Reporte al Grupo
de Apoyo al Proceso de Paz. En la presentación de este Plan se indica que “(...) el Gobierno
Nacional formuló el Plan Colombia el cual, dentro del marco de una política de construcción de
paz, liga las estrategias de negociación con la insurgencia, la protección de los derechos
humanos, el fortalecimiento del Estado, la recuperación de la economía, el control a la
expansión de los cultivos ilícitos, y la protección del ambiente”.ANNEX 97
23
arraigados a sus fincas, en las que han visto nacer y crecer a sus hijos,
situación que les imprime un carácter de pertenencia diferente a la de los
colonos asentados en zonas de frontera agrícola.
99. El desplazamiento agudizaría la situación de marginalidad de estos
campesinos, quienes no serían beneficiarios del Sistema Nacional de Atención
Integral a la Población Desplazada. Ello como consecuencia de que, por una
parte, los éxodos por efectos de las fumigaciones no se reconocen como
desplazamiento forzado y, por la otra, la legislación vigente que criminaliza al
pequeño cultivador (Ley 30 de 1986). Como la Defensoría lo ha denunciado en
diferentes oportunidades, existe una ambigüedad en el tratamiento de estos
campesinos 5. Resultado de ello, es que en tanto algunas normas y políticas lo
tratan como un sujeto que puede ser objeto de planes de sustitución y de
desarrollo alternativo, otras lo ven como criminal.
100. Ahora bien, en lo que respecta al reconocimiento de los daños que
pueden ocasionar las fumigaciones, la Defensoría advirtió que el trámite para
la atención de las quejas establecido en la Resolución 017 de octubre de 2001
del Conse51 Nacional de Estupefacientes, “es un procedimiento inadecuado e
ineficaz” . Prueba de ello es que a la fecha solamente se han reconocido los
daños en dos de las múltiples denuncias formuladas en todo el país 5. Esta
situación, agravaría la vulneración de los caficultores, quienes estarían
expuestos a no recibir ninguna compensación por los efectos que ocasionen las
aspersiones en sus cafetales y en otros proyectos productivos que adelanten.
101. Por lo expuesto se concluye que la aplicación del programa de
fumigaciones, además de no ser a solución a la siembra de coca y amapola,
atentaría contra los valores constitucionales consagrados en el Preámbulo y en
artículo 2 de la Carta, así como contra la fórmula del artículo 1, en la cual
Colombia se define como un Estado Social de Derecho, entendido “como el
Estado que garantiza estándares mínimos de salario, alimentación, salud,
habitación, educación asegurados para todos los ciudadanos bajo la idea de
53
derecho y no simplemente de caridad” . De igual manera, se desconocerían
otras normas de la Constitución como son los artículos 13, 43, 44, 46, 47, 64,
65, 66 y 67.
b. Derechos a la salud y a la salubridad
102. En diferentes documentos defensoriales se ha expuesto, de manera
detallada, la preocupación de la Entidad frente a los impactos en la salud
50CANO, Ob. Cit. “( ) dentro del marco de la realpolitik, por donde se debería empezar
entonces es por la”descriminalización” DESPENALIZACIÓN (sic) cultivadores, así
como por la SUSPENSIÓN DE LAS FUMIGACIONES ( ). Y por poner en marcha ambiciosos
PROGRAMAS DE DESARROLLO ALTERNATIVO COMO UN PASO UE PRECEDA Y NO
SUCEDA A LAS FAENAS DE ELIMINACIÓN manual o mecánica de las plantaciones”.
51Defensoría del Pueblo. Resolución Defensorial. No. 026 de 2003. Pese al requerimiento
formulado por la Entidad al Consejo Nacional de Estupefacientes para que se reforme dicha
Resolución, ésta aún se encuentra vigente. Sobre el particular, la Viceministra de Justicia y
Derecho en respuesta a la Proposición de la Cámara de Representantes No. 059 de 2002 de
octubre de 2002, señaló que “atendiendo las inquietudes del Defensor, el Consejo Nacional de
Estupefacientes revisará la Resolución 017 de 2001 con miras a darle mayor operatividad,
efectividad y sobre todo constituirlo en instrumengarantía de los derechos humanos
(Resaltado fuera de texto).
52
Las quejas atendidas se presentaron en el municipio de La Paz, departamento del Cesar y en
Tumaco, departamento de Nariño.
53H.L Wilensky, 1975, citado en la Sentencia T – 406 de 1992 de la Corte Constitucional. ANNEX 97
24
ocasionados por el uso de químicos en las fumigaciones aéreas. Es así como en
reiteradas oportunidades, la Defensoría ha requerido a las autoridades
competentes poner en marcha el Plan de Vigilancia Epidemiológica – PVE,
ordenado por tres Ministros de Salud (1984, 1992 y 1994). Sin la ejecución del
referido Plan es imposible, de manera técnica y científica, afirmar o negar la
inocuidad de las sustancias que se emplean en el PECIG.
103. La omisión por parte de las autoridades sanitarias en formular, financiar
y ejecutar el PVE constituye una flagrante violación de los artículos 49 y 336
de la Constitución. El primero, protege el derecho a la salud al disponer que la
atención a la salud es un servicio público a cargo del Estado y que le
corresponde a éste asegurar su prestación eficiente para todos los habitantes
del territorio nacional. Por su parte, el artículo 336, al definir el bienestar
general y el mejoramiento de la calidad de vida, dispone que es un “objetivo
fundamental” del Estado solucionar “las necesidades insatisfechas de salud”.
104. La ausencia del citado Plan impide que existan medidas y procedimientos
dirigidos a la prevención, control y vigilancia de los factores de riesgo para la
salud, como lo disponen diferentes normas legales, entre ellas, el Código
Sanitario y el Decreto que reglamenta el uso, manejo y disposición de
plaguicidas.
105. A esta preocupación se suman las siguientes consideraciones: (1) el
creciente número de quejas que se presentan en las zonas asperjadas que dan
cuenta de afectaciones en las vías respiratorias, digestivas y en los órganos de
la visión, así como de enfermedades cutáneas, entre otras dolencias; (2) los
resultados del estudio realizado por la Agencia de Protección Ambiental
norteamericana –EPA- 54 en los que se reconoce que el Glifosato deja efectos
residuales en las aguas superficiales y afecta el sistema ocular 55; (3) la
inadecuada prestación de los servicios de acueducto y alcantarillado, que
obliga a los habitantes de las zonas rurales a acudir a cuerpos de agua
estáticos y corrientes para proveerse para su consumo, situación que no
garantiza la potabilidad del líquido, menos en aquellos casos en que se
54La ley Norteamérica de cooperación externa para el año 2002 (Ley PL 107 -115 “Foreign
Operations Appropriations for FY 2002” del 10 de enero de este año), mediante la cual se
aprobaron los recursos para la Iniciativa Regional Andina -IRA, condicionó las operaciones de
erradicación al cumplimiento de los siguientes requisitos: “(1) La fumigación aérea de los
cultivos de coca se lleva a cabo en concordancia con los procedimientos para el uso de los
químicos que han sido establecidos por la Agencia de Protección Ambiental - EPA, el Centro
para el Control de Epidemias y las compañías manufactureras del químico y, luego de consultar
al Gobierno Colombiano, se garantice que las fumigaciones est n conformes a las leyes
colombianas; (2) Los químicos utilizados en las fumigaciones aéreas, de la manera en que son
aplicados, no significan graves riesgos o efectos nocivos para los seres humanos y el
medio ambiente; (3) Se establezcan mecanismos efectivos que eval en las que as de la
población referentes a la afectación de su salud y a los daños de sus cultivos legales causados
por la fumigación aérea, así como que se remunere de manera justa a todos aquellos que
presenten quejas meritorias; (...)”. Traducción de la Defensoría del Pueblo.
55U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs Details of the Consultation
for Department of State Use of Pesticide for Coca Eradication Program in Colombia, August
2002. En este documento se indica que el Glifosato ocasiona toxicidad ocular aguda, razón por la
que se recomendó emplear una sustancia diferente. Adicionalmente se debe insistir en que aún
no se han realizado estudios - en Colombia ni en ningún otro país del mundo- que permitan
conocer los posibles efectos en la salud humana y animal de la mezcla que se emplea en
Colombia. A ello contribuye el hecho de que el Cosmo Flux 411 que se usa como aditivo no se
comercializa en Estados Unidos. Pese a que no se han realizado dichos estudios ordenados en el
PMA, el Ministerio de Ambiente, Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial, mediante ha Resolución No.
099 de 2003, autorizó el aumento de 2 litos por hectárea. De forma tal que la mezcla que se
aplica en la actualidad es de 10 8 lts/ha de la mezcla Round 480Cosmoflux 411.ANNEX 97
25
encuentra contaminado por el uso de los químicos empleados en las
fumigaciones; (4) las carencias nutricionales que enfrentan los habitantes
rurales bien sea por disminución de sus ingresos para adquirir los mínimos
previstos para la canasta familiar o por las limitaciones para procurarse su
seguridad alimentaria, y (4) las restricciones que adolece el sector de la salud
que se traduce en hechos como la disminución de los programas de prevención
y control de enfermedades, la falta de laboratorios de análisis, las
precariedades en su infraestructura, así como los atentados contra la misión
médica.
106. Conforme a lo anterior se puede afirmar que la aplicación del PECIG
vulneraría los derechos de los caldenses a la salud y a la salud pública (arts.
44, 49, 64, 78 y 361 C.P.) y, con ello, a la vida y a la vida digna (art. 11
ídem).
c. Protección y conservación del medio ambiente, de los recursos
naturales y del equilibrio ecológico
107. Varios años después de la orden del Consejo Nacional de Estupefacientes
de adoptar las medidas para garantizar “la no afectación de personas o
recursos del entorno natural” en la ejecución del PECIG 5, la máxima autoridad
ambiental -ante los reiterados incumplimientos de la DNE- adoptó la decisión
de imponer el Plan de Manejo Ambiental, a través de la Resolución 1065 de
2001, modificada parcialmente por la Resolución 108 del 31 de enero de 2002.
108. Pese a la existencia de dicho Plan, actualmente no se puede afirmar que
la aplicación del Programa de Erradicación Aérea se ajusta a los preceptos
constitucionales y legales que tutelan la protección y conservación del medio
ambiente, de los recursos naturales y del equilibrio ecológico, en el marco del
57
principio de desarrollo sostenible contemplado en el Estatuto Superior .
109. La anterior aseveración se sustenta, principalmente, en el permanente
incumplimiento por parte de las autoridades encargadas de su ejecución del
PECIG (DNE y Dirección Antinarcóticos de la Policía Nacional - DIRAN), de las
siguientes medidas previstas en el referido Plan:
a. Falta de contratación de la auditoría t cnica ambiental y de su
correspondiente interventoría.
b. Aplicación de la Resolución 341 de 2 2 del Ministerio del Ambiente.
Pese a que este acto administrativo fue ratificado por la resolución que impuso
el PMA, varias de las normas de esta resolución no han sido observadas por la
DNE y la DIRAN, motivo que condujo a la apertura de la respectiva
investigación por parte de la máxima autoridad ambiental, dentro del proceso
que aún se encuentra en trámite (Resolución 1066 del 26 de noviembre de
2001). Las disposiciones, presuntamente incumplidas son el artículo 2º que
impone realizar, durante seis meses, evaluaciones de impacto ambiental y
proponer las medidas para mitigarlos; el artículo 6º que dispone iniciar de
“manera inmediata” el programa de inspección, verificación y control para
comprobar la efectividad en la aplicación de medidas de manejo ambiental
56Resolución 001 de 1994 del Consejo Nacional de Estupefacientes.
57Frente a una acción popular interpuesta en el departamento de Nariño, el Consejo de Estado
dispuso en un fallo del 10 de octubre de 2002, que en la ejecución del PECIG se debía dar
estricto cumplimiento al Plan de Manejo Ambiental (Expediente 5200123310002000 1172 01). ANNEX 98
Comptroller General of the Republic of Colombia,
Plan Colombia: Fourth Evaluation Report (July 2003) ANNEX 98
REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA Contents
Office of the Comptroller General
of the Republic
Presentation 3
Comptroller General of the Republic Financing Plan Colombia 5
Antonio Hernández Gamarra
Analysis of components 13
Deputy Comptroller Conflict Negotiation 15
Elvia María Mejía Fernández
Initiative against drug 25
Comptroller responsible for Defense, trafficking
Justice and Security Assessment of the Forced 25
Víctor Alfredo Cárdenas Salazar Eradication Policy
United States Cooperation
Director for Fiscal Oversight with the Ministry of 28
Sonia Olaya de Abad Defense
Illicit Crops and 34
Director for Sectorial Studies Environmental Impact
Germán Enrique Nova Caldas
Economic and Social 39
Professionals Recovery
Elver Jesús Lemus Varela Public Works for Peace 39
Luis Arenas Vega Roads for Peace 42
Field Action 47
Advisor Execution of Agreements
Luis B. Carvajal C. with other entities 50
Community Management 52
Comprehensive Attention to
Office of the Comptroller General the Population Displaced 54
of the Republic by Violence
Calle 17 No 9-82 Citizens’ Participation 55
Bogotá, D.C., Colombia
July, 2003 Appendices 61
www.contraloriagen.gov.co
1. Security and 61
Cover Design: Nestor Patiño Forero Expenditures
CGR Design Group
2. Compendium of
Statistics: drug trafficking
Design and Layout: and fight against drugs in 71
Andrea Artunduaga Acosta Colombia
Camilo Quintana
Gustavo LeónANNEX 98
3. Estimate of the area of 97
cultivated and eradicated
coca in Colombia
CGR Design Group
This document was prepared with the
cooperation of the Directorates for
Sectorial Studies and Fiscal
Oversight; Offices of Comptrollers
responsible for the sectors of
Environment, Agriculture, Social,
Infrastructure, Public Management
and Finance Institutions, Economy
and Finance, and Citizens’
Participation
Printed by: Imprenta Nacional ANNEX 98
[PAGE 35]
[…]
DOUBTS ABOUT THE MIXTURES
According to information the available, 49planes are spraying a mixture that
includes a solution of 44% formulated glyphosate herbicide, 55% water and
1% Cosmoflux (an additional surfactant), and that 10.4 liters (2.75 gallons)
of this mixture are sprayed per hectare of coca crop. However, there are
conflicting accounts as to whether the product being used is Roundup Ultra,
Roundup SL, or another formulation, and whether or not coca and poppy
crops are being sprayed with the same mixture and concentration.
Moreover, the chemical composition of Cosmoflux is also not available,
based on the argument that it constitutes information protected under
intellectual property rights. Without this information, it is impossible to
determine with certainty whether EPA requirements are being met.
If the formulated product is Roundup SL, then this product was only
recently approved for use in the United States, but not for agricultural
purposes. There is some question about the registration of this product,
because the manufacturer, Monsanto, has stated that it has no intention of
marketing the product in the United States.
Recently, in November 2000, the U.S. EPA prosecuted and successfully
convicted Larry Johnson, of Montana, for illegally importing Roundup SL
(at that time sold abroad as Roundup Export), “the sale of which is
prohibited in the United States because it can cause severe and irreversible
eye damage”.
[PAGE 36]
If the formulated product is Roundup Ultra, then the spray mixture used in
Colombia is much more concentrated as it is applied in greater doses than
the maximum levels recommended by the manufacturer, according to
50
instructions of the label for use in the United States . The spray mixture for
49
Taken from the document sent to Members of the U.S. Congress, written 23 September 2002, by Anna
Cederstay, Earthjustice and Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense-AIDA.
50
Taken from the document written by Ted Schetter, Director of Science and Environmental Health Network, 18
September 2002, and sent to Members of the U.S. Congress.ANNEX 98
Colombia has 44% Roundup Ultra per volume, while the label for use in the
United States for Roundup Ultra allows concentrations of 1.6% to 7.7% for
most uses, and, at most, a concentration of 29%. The U.S. label states that
in most situations, aerial application should not exceed 1 litre of the
formulated product per acre. In Colombia, the rate is almost 4 ½ times that
amount.
Label requirements for Roundup Ultra specify that users “should not apply
this product in a way that it will come into contact with those using the
product or other people, whether directly or through drift. Only those
handlers who are properly protected should remain in the area during
application”. However, local inhabitants are not informed of the scheduled
sprayings and are likely to be in the area when herbicides are applied.
Both U.S. labels for Roundup SL and Roundup Ultra specify that the
product “not be applied directly to water or areas where water is present”
and that the user should take precautionary measures to avoid drift.
However, there is information indicating that water bodies, agricultural
areas, and land for other uses are being sprayed.
The legality of the sprayings under Colombian law has been repeatedly
questioned, both by the Office of the CGR and other Colombian government
entities, including the Constitutional Court, the Office of the Ombudsman,
22 Colombian Senators and Representatives, who have identified legal
prerequisites that have not been met, including, among others:
x Lack of planning and coordination for environmental management of the
areas being sprayed.
x Lack of coordination among responsible agencies, and the Ministry of
Health’s inability to exercise oversight authority established by law.
In January of last year, an environmental management plan was finally
implemented. However, there is no Environmental Audit to verify its
compliance. The bid process called for the award of the contract was
unsuccessful and no contract has been awarded; thus, at present there is no
control of the aforementioned Management Plan. ANNEX 98
Risks of aerial spraying
It is impossible to know with certainty the risks posed to human beings and
the environment by chemicals being sprayed. Neither the United States
Government nor the Colombian Government have presented an adequate
assessment of potential impacts on human health and ecosystems of the
formulated mixture, sprayed under conditions of direct exposure in
Colombia. The State Department has requested toxicity evaluations for
three different herbicide formulas, but the results have not yet been
presented.
To date, there are no procedures in place to monitor health and
environmental effects resulting from spraying, and there is no basic data in
Colombia to evaluate the impact of the fumigation on health or on the
environment. No studies have been identified that demonstrate the safety
for human health or the environment of this combination of chemicals and
the way in which they are being applied in Colombia; despite the fact that
the label for products most used indicates that Roundup Ultra causes “eye
irritation” and Roundup SL causes “irreversible eye damage, is harmful if
swallowed or inhaled, and may cause skin irritation”.
In situations in which people are not informed of when sprayings will occur,
and, therefore, are not properly protected, direct exposure to herbicides can
be expected. There have also been numerous reports of illnesses associated
with exposure to chemical spraying, such as skin lesions and rashes,
gastrointestinal infections, acute respiratory infections, and conjunctivitis.
Even though studies conducted in Colombia do indicate a potential impact
on human health from the fumigation, no further studies are underway or
planned at this time.
[PAGE 37]
The State Department has assured that aerial herbicide spraying does not
cause harm to human health, but the three studies used to support these
claims present no credible scientific evidence that spraying is safe for
human health.
The first health study is irrelevant because it does not consider the impacts
from spraying for eradication of coca plantations; but rather focuses on
impacts from the poppy eradication program, which poses less riskANNEX 98
(herbicide solutions used to control coca are nine times more concentrated
than those used to control poppy).
The second study was conducted five months after the spraying took place
and was therefore inconclusive. With regard to this study, the
Environmental Protection Agency – EPA and the Centers for Disease
Control – CDC indicated that in order to determine whether aerial spraying
is making people sick, they must test the subjects before and immediately
after the spraying.
The third scientific review is not applicable because it assesses the risks of
glyphosate and Roundup products under specific conditions, which are
extremely unlikely in Colombia, for example, that drinking water be
purified prior to ingestion; that workers wear protective clothing; that only
small quantities of contaminated surface waters be consumed, etc.
The broad-spectrum herbicides used in aerial spraying are designed to kill a
wide range of plants and could destroy plant species in danger of extinction
and disrupt or destroy different habitats. Since Colombia is one of the
countries that is richest in biodiversity, the threat from spraying is
particularly serious. Studies demonstrate that glyphosate formulations have
toxic effects on aquatic organisms such as fish, amphibians, insects,
crawfish and water fleas. Glyphosate can also affect land organisms:
earthworms, fungi and microorganisms. Spraying can also lead to
deforestation and loss of habitat when farmers clear new undisturbed areas
and forests in response to the destruction of their legal and illegal crops.
Procedures to evaluate
claims for damages caused.
So far it has been impossible to document any compensation for damages to
health or legal crops caused by fumigations carried out since December
2000. Approximately 1400 claims have been filed with the Office of the
Ombudsman in Bogotá, but it is not known whether any of them has
resulted in compensation, not including those filed with the Attorney
General’s Office.
On 4 October 2001, the CNE (National Narcotics Council) issued
Resolution 017 establishing a new procedure for filing claims for damages
caused by aerial spraying. It established that claims are to be filed with the
local Ombudsman, who in turn will ask the local offices of the Umata
(Municipal Unit for Agricultural Technical Assistance) to verify the claim
by visiting and inspecting the affected farm; prior to this, victims must ANNEX 98
certify their ownership of the affected properties. Once the damage is
verified, the claim is sent to the Anti-Narcotics Division of the Police, who
will then certify whether spraying took place at the time and place the
victim claims. If the police certify that spraying did not take place, the
procedure ends. If they certify that, in fact, there was spraying, the police
will send another verification mission to determine the value of the loss.
However, in order for compensation to occur, the final request must include
satellite reports, spraying diagrams, and local reports on detection of illegal
crops.
This procedure has serious flaws, among others, and most obvious is that the
same agencies responsible for carrying out the sprayings, the DNE [National
Narcotics Directorate] and the Anti-Narcotics Division of the Police, are
charged with evaluating the claims for damages, thus becoming judge and
party in the conflict.
Moreover, according to Resolution 017, the police can decide to not verify a
claim for security reasons. For those circumstances, no alternative
procedure has been defined.
The process requires that victims to go to the nearest town to file their
claims. But, in these regions travel from one zone to another is very
difficult and expensive, and sometimes it means putting the lives of
campesinos at risk. There is no reason to expect the police to have the
capacity to assess the value of lost crops.
Finally, and perhaps most serious is that the procedure applies only to
agricultural losses and there is no mechanism in place to process the claims
for damage to human health and ecosystems.
[…] ANNEX 98
Contenido
REPÚBLICA DE COLOMBIA
Presentación 3
Contraloría General de la República
Financiación del Plan Colombia 5
Contralor General de la República
Antonio Hernández Gamarra Análisis de los componentes 13
Vicecontralora
Elvia María Mejía Fernández Negociación del conflicto 15
Contralor Delegado para Defensa, Iniciativa contra el narcotráfico 25
Justicia y Seguridad
Víctor Alfredo Cárdenas Salazar Balance de la Política de Erradicación Forzosa 25
La Cooperación de los Estados Unidos
Director de Vigilancia Fiscal al Ministerio de Defensa 28
Sonia Olaya de Abad Los Cultivos Ilícitos y su Impacto Ambiental 34
Director de Estudios Sectoriales Recuperación económica y social 39
Germán Enrique Nova Caldas
Obras para la Paz 39
Profesionales
Elver Jesús Lemus Varela Vías para la Paz 42
Luis Arenas Vega Campo en Acción 47
Desarrollo de los convenios
con otras entidades 50
Asesor
Luis B. Carvajal C. Gestión Comunitaria 52
Atención Integral a la Población Desplazada
por la Violencia 54
Contraloría General de la República
Calle 17 No 9-82 La Participación Ciudadana 55
Bogotá, D.C., Colombia
Anexos 61
Julio de 2003
www.contraloriagen.gov.co 1. Seguridad y Gasto 61
Diseño de Portada: 2. Compendio estadístico: narcotráfico
Nestor Patiño Forero y lucha antidrogas en Colombia 71
Grupo de Diseño-CGR
Diseño y Diagramación: 3. Estimación del área cultivada y erradicada
Andrea Artunduaga Acosta de coca en colombia 97
Camilo Quintana
Gustavo León
Grupo de Diseño-CGR
Este documento fue elaborado
con la cooperación de las Direcciones
de Estudios Sectoriales y de Vigilancia Fiscal
de las Contralorías Delegadas de los sectores
de Medio Ambiente, Agropecuario, Social,
Infraestructura, Gestión Pública e Instituciones
Financieras, Economía y Finanzas,
y Participación Ciudadana.
Impresión: Imprenta NacionalANNEX 98
ciones aéreas. Finalmente, esta licitación fue decla- sentido de que su salud ha sido deteriorada o
rada desierta, y se convocó a una nueva, de donde se de que sus cultivos agrícolas lícitos fueron da-
desprende que este plan de manejo ambiental se está ñados por dichas fumigaciones aéreas de coca,
llevando a cabo sin una debida supervisión y con- y para proporcionar compensación justa a aque-
trol. llos reclamos que merecen ser atendidos.
Para este informe, se continúa con el seguimiento al • Que estos fondos podrán no ponerse a disposi-
citado plan, en particular considerando las condi- ción si luego de haber transcurrido seis meses a
ciones de fumigación que el Congreso de los Esta- partir de la fecha de aprobación de esta Acta, los
dos Unidos incluyera en la Ley Pública 107-115, es programas de desarrollo alternativo no han sido
decir, el acta de asignaciones para el extranjero del desarrollados en consulta con comunidades y au-
año fiscal 2002. Según ésta, la intención era atender toridades locales de los departamentos en los que
la creciente preocupación respecto a las consecuen- se ha planificado llevar a cabo tales fumigaciones
cias de las fumigaciones aéreas del programa de erra- aéreas, y en los que dicha fumigación aérea de
dicación sobre la salud y el medio ambiente; y tam- coca ha sido practicada y tales programas han
bién lograr un equilibrio entre la ayuda para el pro- sido ejecutados.
grama de desarrollo alternativo y la erradicación for-
zada mediante la fumigación. Dudas sobre mezclas
49
De acuerdo con la información disponible , los avio-
Condiciones de la Ley Pública 107-115 nes están utilizando en sus aspersiones una mezcla
de los EE.UU. para las fumigaciones que incluye una solución al 44% de herbicida con
del Pecig fórmula de glifosato, 55% de agua y 1% de Cosmoflux
(un surfactante adicional), y que 10.4 litros (2.75
Esta Ley, del año fiscal 2002, contempla para las fu- galones) de esta mezcla se fumigan por hectárea de
migaciones aéreas, entre otras, las siguientes condi-
ciones: cultivo de coca. Sin embargo, existen cuentas que se
contradicen respecto de si el producto formulado
que se está utilizado corresponde a Roundup Ultra,
• Que los fondos asignados mediante esta Acta y
que se utilizan para el abastecimiento de los quí- Roundup SL, o alguna otra fórmula, y si los cultivos
micos del programa de fumigación aérea de cul- de coca y amapola están siendo fumigados con la
misma mezcla y concentración. Además, la compo-
tivos de coca podían ponerse a disposición úni-
camente si el Secretario de Estado, tras consultar sición química de Cosmoflux tampoco está disponi-
con el Administrador de la Agencia de Protec- ble, basándose en el argumento de que constituye
información bajo propiedad intelectual. Sin esta in-
ción Ambiental-EPA, con el Secretario del De-
partamento de Agricultura y, si era apropiado, formación es imposible conocer con certeza si los
con el Director de los Centros para el Control y requisitos de la EPA están siendo cumplidos.
Prevención de Enfermedades, determinaba y re- Si el producto formulado corresponde a Roundup
portaba al Comité de Apropiaciones que:
SL, es muy reciente la aprobación para el uso de este
1. La fumigación aérea de coca está llevándose producto en los Estados Unidos, pero no para fines
agrícolas. Existe alguna inquietud respecto del re-
a cabo de conformidad con los controles nor-
mativos requeridos por la Agencia de Protec- gistro de este producto, debido a que el fabricante,
ción Ambiental, tal y como consta en las eti- Monsanto, ha declarado que no tiene intención de
comercializar el producto en los Estados Unidos.
quetas para uso del producto en los Estados 35
Unidos, tras haber consultado con el Gobierno Recientemente, en noviembre de 2000, la EPA en los
Colombiano a fin de percatarse de que la fumi-
Estados Unidos enjuició y exitosamente condenó a Larry 35
gación se realiza de conformidad con las leyes Johnson, de Montana, por haber importado ilegalmente
colombianas. Roundup SL (en ese entonces vendido en el exterior
2. Los químicos utilizados en la fumigación aé- como Roundup Export), "la venta del cual está prohi-
bida en los Estados Unidos, debido a que puede oca-
rea de coca, de la forma cómo se están aplicando,sionar daños oculares severos e irreversibles".
no plantean riesgos irrazonables o causen efectos
adversos a los humanos o al medio ambiente.
49 Tomado del documento enviado a los miembros del Congreso de los
Estados Unidos, escrito el 23 de septiembre de 2002, por Anna Cederstav,
3. Se dispone de procedimientos para evaluar de Earthjustice and Interamerican Association for Environmental
los reclamos de las comunidades locales en el Defense-AIDA.
Plan Colombia. Cuarto informe de evaluación ANNEX 98
La transición hacia la seguridad democrática
Si el producto formulado corresponde a Roundup para ejercer la autoridad de supervisión que le
Ultra, la mezcla de fumigación que se utiliza en Co- compete bajo la ley.
lombia es tanto más concentrada como aplicada en
dosis mayores que los niveles máximos recomenda- Sólo hasta enero del año pasado se impuso un plan
de manejo ambiental. Sin embargo, no cuenta con
dos por el fabricante, según instrucciones de la eti-
queta para uso en los Estados Unidos 50. La mezcla una Auditoría Ambiental que constate su cumplimien-
de fumigación para Colombia contiene 44% de to. La licitación convocada para su contratación fue
declarada desierta y aún no se ha contratado ésta; así
Roundup Ultra por volumen, mientras que la eti-
queta para uso en los Estados Unidos para Roundup las cosas, no hay en el momento ningún control so-
Ultra permite concentraciones de 1.6% a 7.7% para bre el mencionado Plan de Manejo.
la mayoría de los usos, y, como máximo, una con-
centración del 29%. La etiqueta de Estados Unidos Riesgos de las fumigaciones aéreas
indica que en la mayor parte de las condiciones, la
No es posible conocer con certeza los riesgos que los
aplicación aérea no deberá exceder de un litro (quart)
por acre del producto formulado. En Colombia, la químicos asperjados plantean a los seres humanos y
tasa corresponde a casi 4 ½ veces esa cantidad. al medio ambiente. Ni el Gobierno de los Estados
Unidos ni el de Colombia han presentado una eva-
Los requisitos de etiqueta para Roundup Ultra espe- luación adecuada de los posibles impactos para la
cifica que los usuarios "no deberán aplicar este pro- salud humana y los ecosistemas a causa de las mez-
ducto de manera que entre en contacto con quienes clas formuladas que están siendo fumigadas bajo las
lo apliquen u otras personas, ya sea directamente o condiciones de exposición directa que tienen lugar
acarreado por el viento. Únicamente quienes lo ma- en Colombia. El Departamento de Estado ha solici-
nejen y estén debidamente protegidos podrán per- tado que se practiquen evaluaciones de toxicidad para
manecer en la zona durante su aplicación". Sin em- tres distintas fórmulas de herbicidas, pero los resul-
bargo, los habitantes locales no son informados de tados no han sido presentados todavía.
las fumigaciones planificadas y pueden encontrarse
Hasta la fecha, no se cuenta con los procedimientos
en la zona donde se aplican los herbicidas. para hacer un seguimiento de los efectos ambienta-
Las etiquetas de los Estados Unidos, tanto para les y sobre la salud como resultado de las fumigacio-
Roundup SL como para Roundup Ultra, precisan nes, ni tampoco existen datos básicos en Colombia
que permitan evaluar el impacto que la fumigación
que el producto "no sea aplicado directamente al agua,
ni a zonas donde se encuentre presente agua" y el tiene sobre la salud o el ambiente. Tampoco se ha
usuario debe adoptar medidas específicas de precau- identificado estudio alguno que demuestre la seguri-
dad que plantee, para la salud humana y el ambien-
ción para evitar el acarreo por el viento. Sin embar-
go, existe información que indica que los cuerpos de te, esta combinación de químicos y la manera como
agua, zonas agrícolas y tierras destinadas a otros usosstán siendo aplicados en Colombia, a pesar de que
la etiqueta de los productos más usados indican que
están siendo fumigados.
Roundup Ultra causa "irritación de los ojos," y
La legalidad de las fumigaciones bajo las leyes co- Roundup SL causa "daños oculares irreversibles, es
lombianas ha sido reiteradamente cuestionada, tan- dañino si se lo traga o inhala, y podría ocasionar
to por la CGR, como por otras entidades guberna-
irritación de la piel".
mentales del Estado colombiano, incluidas la Corte
Constitucional, la Defensoría del Pueblo, 22 sena- En situaciones de no información a las personas de
dores y congresistas colombianos, quienes señalaron cuándo se van a producir las fumigaciones, y, por ende,
36 no tener la protección adecuada, es previsible la expo-
que los prerrequisitos legales no habían sido cum-
plidos, e incluían, entre otros: sición directa a los herbicidas. También, ha habido
36 numerosos informes de enfermedades asociadas con la
• Ausencia de planificación y coordinación en el exposición a fumigaciones químicas, tales como lesio-
manejo ambiental de las zonas que son fumigadas. nes a la piel y urticaria, infecciones gastrointestinales,
infecciones respiratorias agudas y conjuntivitis.
• Falta de coordinación entre las agencias respon-
sables, y la incapacidad del Ministerio de Salud Aunque los estudios llevados a cabo en Colombia sí
indican un posible impacto sobre la salud humana
a causa de la fumigación, no se están llevando a
50 Tomado del documento escrito por Ted Schetter, direcabo en la actualidad estudios, ni se han planifica-
and Environmental Health Network, del 18 de septiembre de 2002 y
enviado a los miembros del Congreso de los Estados Unido por el momento.
Contraloría General de la RepúblicaANNEX 98
El Departamento de Estado ha asegurado que la fu- Los procedimientos para evaluar
migación con herbicidas por aire no ocasiona daños reclamos por daños ocasionados
a la salud humana, pero los tres estudios utilizados Hasta el momento no ha sido posible documentar
para apoyar tales declaraciones no presentan eviden-
cia científica confiable en el sentido de que la fumi-ninguna compensación por daños a la salud o a los
cultivos legales a causa de las fumigaciones efectua-
gación es segura para la salud humana. das desde diciembre de 2000. Alrededor de 1.400
El primer estudio de salud es irrelevante, porque no quejas se encuentran archivadas en la oficina del
considera las repercusiones que ha tenido la fumiga- Defensor del Pueblo en Bogotá, pero no se sabe si
ción realizada para erradicar las plantaciones de coca;lguna de ellas ha resultado en el pago de una com-
más bien se centra en los impactos originados en el pensación, sin contar con las interpuestas ante la
programa de erradicación de la amapola, que ofre- Procuraduría General de la Nación.
cen menos riesgo (las soluciones de herbicidas utili-
El 4 de octubre de 2001, el CNE emitió la Resolu-
zadas para el control de la coca son nueve veces más ción 017 que establece un nuevo procedimiento para
concentradas que aquéllas que se utilizan para el con-
trol de amapola). la presentación de quejas sobre daños causados por
la fumigación aérea. Se estableció que deben hacerse
El segundo estudio fue llevado a cabo cinco meses ante el personero municipal, quien a su vez pedirá a
las oficinas locales de la Umata que verifiquen la queja
después de haberse realizado la fumigación y por
tanto no fue concluyente. Con relación a este estu- por inspección, visitando las fincas afectadas; pre-
dio, la Agencia de Protección Ambiental-EPA viamente se debe certificar por parte de las víctimas
la propiedad del predio afectado. Una vez verifica-
(Environmental Protectión Agency) y el Centro para
el Control de Enfermedades-CDC (Control Diseases do el daño, la queja se envía a la Dirección
Center), indicaron que para poder determinar si las Antinarcóticos de la Policía, la cual certificará si se
aspersiones aéreas están enfermando a la gente, es llevó a cabo o no una fumigación en el momento y
lugar mencionado por el afectado. Si la policía certi-
necesario hacer pruebas en personas expuestas antes
e inmediatamente después de la fumigación. fica que no hubo fumigación, el proceso llega a su
fin. Si certifican que, en efecto, se produjo una fumi-
La tercera revisión científica no es aplicable, ya que gación, la policía envía otra comisión de verifica-
evalúa el riesgo que plantean el glifosato y los pro- ción para constatar el valor de las pérdidas. Sin
ductos Roundup bajo condiciones específicas, cuyo embargo, para que la compensación se concrete, la
cumplimiento es muy poco probable en el ámbito solicitud final debe incluir informes satelitales,
colombiano; por ejemplo, que el agua potable sea diagramas de la operación de fumigación, y el re-
purificada antes de su ingestión, que los obreros porte local sobre la detección de cultivos ilegales.
porten ropa de protección, que únicamente unas
pequeñas cantidades de aguas superficiales contami- Este procedimiento tiene graves faltas; entre otras, y
la más obvia, es que las mismas agencias responsa-
nadas se consumen, etcétera. bles de llevar a cabo las aspersiones, la DNE y la
Los herbicidas de amplio espectro utilizados en las Policía Antinarcóticos son las encargadas de evaluar
fumigaciones aéreas están diseñados para matar una los reclamos por los daños causados, constituyéndo-
amplia gama de plantas y podrían destruir especies se así en juez y parte en el conflicto.
vegetales que se encuentran en peligro de extin-
ción, así como alterar o destruir distintos hábitat. También, según la Resolución 017, la Policía puede
Como Colombia es uno de los países más ricos en decidir no verificar un reclamo por razones de segu-
ridad. En estas circunstancias, no hay definido un 37
biodiversidad, la amenaza resultante de las fumiga- procedimiento alterno.
ciones es particularmente grave. Los estudios de-
muestran que las fórmulas de glifosato tienen efec-
El procedimiento indica que las víctimas se despla- 37
tos tóxicos sobre los organismos acuáticos, como cen al municipio más cercano a presentar sus quejas.
peces, anfibios, insectos, cangrejos y pulgas de agua.Pero en estas regiones, trasladarse de una zona a otra
El glifosato también puede afectar a los organismos
de tierra: lombrices, hongos y microorganismos. La es muy difícil y costoso, y a veces implica poner en
riesgo la vida de los campesinos. No existe razón
fumigación también puede conducir a la deforesta- para esperar que la policía cuente con la capacidad
ción y pérdida de hábitat cuando los agricultores de evaluar el valor de los cultivos perdidos.
desbrozan nuevas áreas vírgenes y bosques intocados,
como respuesta a la destrucción de sus cultivos le- Finalmente, y quizás lo más grave, es que el procedi-
gales e ilegales. miento únicamente aplica a las pérdidas agrícolas, y
Plan Colombia. Cuarto informe de evaluación ANNEX 98
La transición hacia la seguridad democrática
no tiene mecanismo algunopara tramitar los recla- bargo, aclaran que la información es insuficiente
mos por daños a la salud de los seres humanos y y que se requiere una metodología más compleja
ecosistemas. para llegar a determinar esta relación, por lo que
tampoco puede descartarse que exista.
Conclusiones • Esta carencia de datos básicos en Colombia que
• Partiendo de la incertidumbre sobre cuál es la permitan evaluar las repercusiones que las fumiga-
mezcla química que está siendo rociada, la infor- ciones tienen sobre la salud y el medio, ha sido
señalada previamente en varios informes de la
mación disponible indica que su uso no cumple CGR, así como el hecho de que no se han realiza-
con los controles de la Agencia de Protección
Ambiental-EPA. do ni se han planificado estudios epidemiológicos
que permitan determinar estos impacto.
• Si bien han sido presentados dos estudios de toxi-
• En Colombia las fumigaciones han sido llevadas
cidad implicados en el impacto que la mezcla
química fumigada tiene sobre los seres humanos a cabo sin tomar en cuenta los requisitos legales
y la ecología, uno referido a los casos del munici- exigidos por las autoridades, y ha despertado se-
rias objeciones constitucionales.
pio de Valle de Guamuez-Putumayo, y el Tablón
de Gómez-Nariño, ambos contratados por la • No se ha proporcionado compensación alguna a
embajada de los EE.UU. con una clínica
los pequeños productores cuyos cultivos legales
toxicológica local, en ambos casos, los informes han sido destruidos por la fumigación.
concluyen que no puede hacerse una relación
causal directa entre las fumigaciones y las afec-• No existe mecanismo alguno que permita trami-
ciones denunciadas por la comunidad. Sin em- tar los reclamos de daños a la salud humana.
38
38
Contraloría General de la República ANNEX 99
Comptroller General of the Republic of Colombia,
Plan Colombia: Fifth Evaluation Report (Dec. 2004) ANNEX 99
REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA Contents
Office of the Comptroller General
of the Republic
Comptroller General of the
Republic
Antonio Hernández Gamarra
Deputy Comptroller
Luis Bernardo Flórez Enciso
Delegate Comptroller for Defense, Presentation 5
Justice
and Security
Wilson Herrera Moreno
Director for Sectorial Studies Initiative against drug trafficking 9
Carlos Cuartas Nieto
Assessment of the institutional framework 9
Director for Fiscal Oversight
Sonia Olaya de Abad
Regulatory framework for anti- 9
Working Group narcotics fight
Coordinator Programmatic framework for anti- 11
Elver Jesús Lemus Varela narcotics fight
Professionals Coordination error and responsibilities14
Juan Alejandro Morales Sierra
Ricardo Alfonso Ramírez Buitrago Conclusions 16
Luis Arenas Vega
Luis Fernando Alvarado C. Anti-drug Policy Assessment 2000-2003 16
Luis Sigifredo Mora T.
José Enrique Contreras H. Introduction 16
Mercedes Guevara Mora
Diana Ramírez P. Combating the production and 17
Ana María Cuayal M. trafficking of coca and its derivatives
Martha Eugenia Luquez H.
Sandra Matallana Medina Seizure of products and inputs 22
Juan Manuel Ortíz Suárez
Cielo Cecilia Arrieta Vizcaíno Situation of cocaine demand 24
Advisor Conclusions 28
Luis B. Carvajal C
Environmental component of the Plan 29
Office of Communication and
Publications Introduction 29
Carlos Alberto Maestre MayaANNEX 99
Director Green Plan and environmental 29
investments
Publication Coordinator
Liliana Gaona García
Editing Illicit Crop Eradication Program Using 30
Jaime Viana Saldarriaga Aerial Spraying with Glyphosate
Laura Samper Blanco (PECIG)
Design and Layout: Conclusions 37
Yenny Liliana Pérez Guzmán
Pilar Fernández Rodríguez Contribution of the Alternative 37
Carlos González Afanador Development
CGR Design Group Program to the Agricultural Sector
Printed by: Conclusions 39
Imprenta Nacional
Financing of Plan Colombia
Office of the Comptroller General 41
of the Republic General Vision
Calle 17 No 9-82 41
Telephone: 282 17 06 - 282 15 09 External Funding
Bogotá, D.C., Colombia 42
December - 2004 Internal Funding
www.contraloriagen.gov.co 44
Resource Management of by a third
party 47
International Cooperation 49 ANNEX 99
[PAGE 33]
[…]
The Environmental Management Plan
There has been talk about the PECIG [acronym in Spanish for Program for
Illicit Crop Eradication Using Aerial Spraying with Glyphosate]
environmental management plan since 1996, but it is in November 2001 that
the MAVDT [acronym in Spanish for Ministry of the Environment, Housing
and Territorial Development] imposed said plan through a resolution, at the
same time that an investigation was opened, by presenting a list of charges
against the DNE [acronym in Spanish for National Narcotics Directorate],
which appealed these decisions. In 2003, the Ministry accepted the DNE’s
request for modification, as follows:
By means of Resolution 930 of 1 September 2003, the Ministry investigates
the DNE for failing to comply with the environmental management plan.
Subsequently, by means of technical opinion number 0010 of 15 January
2004, the Ministry informs the DNE of the need to notify the pilots of the
aircrafts to stop spraying when they are over areas of wooded vegetation
that separate adjoining lots of illicit crops as to minimize the effects of the
herbicide on natural elements not included in the program; this confirms the
mixing of licit and illicit crops and states that the effectiveness of the
spraying is 80%.
The PMA [acronym in Spanish for Environmental Management Plan]
presented by the DNE in 2001 consisted of 13 environmental management
specifications, with their respective descriptions, objectives, activities,
follow-up and control, people responsible, timetable and costs. It has been
structured in three types of activities: preventive measures, mitigation and
correction measures and, finally, compensation measures. In 2003, the
DNE requested modification of the PMA and the Ministry, by means of
Resolution 1054 of 30 September 2003, modified it, changing the 12
specifications of the PMA 34, initially approved through Resolution 1065 of
34
It is important to remember that the PMA , which only has 12 specifications, is imposed
through Resolution 1065 of November 2001.ANNEX 99
2001, by reducing the environmental management plan to eight
specifications.
With regard to the reduction of the environmental management plan
specifications, the Ministry said that this was due to their consolidation,
without this entailing any alteration of the primary objective which is
prevention, mitigation, compensation and control. However, to combine
specification number 1: Spraying Operations Management Program with
specification number 6, Spraying Operations Inspection, Verification and
Control Program, into one and to be headed by the DNE, apparently is not
very appropriate, given that in practice, the DNE is the entity that operates,
oversees, controls, and resolves the citizens’ complaints generated by the
PECIG. Moreover, the technical environmental audit of the program has
not been put into operation.
With respect to the management plan, it is also appropriate to draw special
attention to soil indicators, since it is already known that the country does
not have the necessary laboratories to conduct tests on herbicide residues,
being forced to use foreign laboratories (some laboratories in the United
States have been used), to carry out tests of the damage caused by the
herbicide.
Resolution 99 of 31 January 2003, in which the MAVDT gives the DNE
twelve months to present the results of the “Efficiency Study on the
application of glyphosate, its residues, and its AMPA metabolite on soils”,
states that the ICA [acronym in Spanish for Agricultural Institute of
Colombia] and Ministry of Health shall supervise the execution and
verification of said study.
In 2004, by means of Opinion 218 of 25 March, MAVDT granted a four-
month extension to the DNE to present the study that seeks to assess the
efficiency of the application of glyphosate and its residues. ANNEX 99
[PAGE 34]
In this regard, there is concern that this type of study was not required at the
beginning of the Illicit Crop Eradication Program Using Aerial Spraying
with Glyphosate and that, after 18 years of continuous aerial spraying and
complaints from the community, the country does not know the nature of
the herbicide residues on the soil and the damages and impacts that it may
cause to wildlife, ecosystems, and to the Amazon biodiversity. These
studies have not yet been conducted and, in the meantime, the PECIG
continues without an appropriate environmental assessment.
As to the postponement and delay in submitting the environmental
management plan by the DN35 MAVDT admits in a communication sent to
the auditing commission that, since 1994, by Decree 1753, the DNE was
required to present an environmental management plan for the PECIG, and
its formulation and drafting were continuously postponed by repeated
administrative procedures, until 2001, when the application of preventive
measures was ordered. That is, five years after the law compelled the DNE
to present an environmental management plan, the MAVDT orders, once
again, that the DNE to comply with the legislation in force. An additional
aspect that should be kept in mind is that before 1994, and before the
enactment of Decree 1753, environmental aspects of the programs and
projects were regulated by the Natural Resources Code (Decree-Law 2811
of 1974), without exempting the DNE and environmental authorities from
this responsibility.
External environmental audit
PECIG currently does not have an External-Technical Environmental Audit,
as established by Resolutions 005 and 013 of 2000 and 2003, respectively
A relevant point is the lack of inclusion or participation of regional
autonomous corporations and/or UMATAS [acronym in Spanish for
Municipal Agricultural Technology Transfer and Assistance Units] in the
35
2200.2.27815 of April 30, 2004ANNEX 99
scheme of the management plan, when these entities have been legally
defined for the implementation of policies and environmental management
of the areas in their jurisdiction. There is no coordination between the
implementation and development of the environmental plan and entities
from the SINA [acronym in Spanish for National Environmental System].
The environmental management plan (PMA), before its modifications,
contained the prerequisite of an external and independent technical audit of
the program, including regular reports from the DNE to the Ministry of the
Environment. However, the one recently modified eliminates the
requirement of an independent audit, which has been one of the main
requirements of the former Ministry of the Environment, the Office of the
Ombudsman and the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic.
Although the PMA does not require a technical audit, this requirement has
not been eliminated altogether. In fact, as a substitute for the requirement
of the PMA, the National Narcotics Council (CNE) in September 2003
enacted Resolution 0031, ordering that “the Illicit Crop Eradication Program
Using Aerial Spraying with Glyphosate (PECIG) carry out an audit,
preferably with resources from international cooperation”.
Verification and Follow-up
With regard to verification, MAVDT is responsible for conducting them and
has been making visits for this purpose. The following are some of the most
relevant aspects of the different departments.
The reports in general show that the proposed and approved management
plan is not being accompanied with those aspects related to social
components and public health. Of special concern is the lack of alternative
programs of social nature, statistics and health management programs in all
the departments in which the Illicit Crop Eradication Program is being
carried out.
The concern that the environmental management plan is not being wisely
applied in the different areas where the program is conducted emerges from ANNEX 99
the analyzed reports. Three important aspects can be highlighted: first, in
general, specification number 6 (communication and social management),
specification number 4 (wastewater management program at PECIG bases)
and specification number 5 (environmental monitoring program) are not
being met.
The implementation of the environmental management plan costs the
country 2,743 million pesos for a period of two years under a no-conflict
situation; with conflict in the scenario, the DNE estimates the cost of the
36
program implementation at 6,554.5 million pesos . Likewise, a mission
within the environmental management plan, which duration is estimated to
be an hour and a half, costs US $14,873.52; from this amount 78% of the
cost is for the aircraft, 8% for human resources, and the remaining 14% for
fuel.
[PAGE 35]
PECIG operation
With regard to the components for the development of the program, it is
known that the import of Roundup herbicides, the commercial form of
glyphosate and Cosmoflux, an oily type additive that is mixed to the
glyphosate and water solution, enabling the solution to have greater stability
and adherence to the leaves and stem of the plant, ascends approximately to
752,420 gallons of glyphosate and 17,591 gallons of Cosmoflux. (Table 12)
In table 12, attention is drawn to the high concentration in percentage of the
chemicals (glyphosate and Cosmoflux) in the amount of water used for the
departments of Guaviare, Nariño, Norte de Santander and Caquetá.
The “annual verification of the effectiveness of PECIG operations and
assessment of collateral effects” conducted by a commission made up of
officers from the ICA, DNE, the Anti-Narcotics Division of the National
Police Force, the United States Embassy’s Narcotics Affairs Office, and this
36
Folio 2677, record 18 of file number 793.ANNEX 99
Ministry, with logistical and security support from the National Police,
during t37 days of 11 and 26 November 2003, highlights the following
aspects :
“The assessment was conducted by helicopter, flying over the lots at a low
altitude, with double turns of 360 degrees in both directions, so as to obtain
a better appreciation of the aspects to be assessed”.
“Once the lots subject to assessment were defined, the criteria to be
considered and the evaluation methodology to be used by each evaluator
were established. This was based on visual appreciation and estimation of
the overall effectiveness of sprayings on the entire field, the estimation of
the effectiveness of the eradication of coca plants, the collateral effects on
elements outside of the spraying target area, and additional observations that
could be made in situ, such as the presence of laboratories, seedling
nurseries, housing, replanting, stumps, intermingled crops and proximity to
bodies of water”.
Some of the assessment results are described as follows:
“…in a couple of cases, it was possible to see that the coca fields located in
the same area, but separated by bands of vegetation greater than five metres
were continuously sprayed, unnecessarily affecting this wooded mass, even
if the impact might not be as permanent
37“Biannual activity report conducted in connection with the Environmental Management
Plan. July-December 2003 period” MAVDT º ANNEX 99
Table 12
Components for the PECIG
Period November 2002 to April 2003
(Gallons)
Roundup Cosmoflux Water % (Glyphosate +
(Glyphosate) Cosmoflux/water
Cauca 1.295,20 252,06 121.988,68 1%
Cesar 431,68 85,85 8.070,45 6%
Guaviare 50.294,521.277,12 71.217,35 72%
Nariño 268.532,69 1.603,07 88.682,62 305%
Norte de 17.092,24 50%
412,72 34.951,27
Santander
Huila 326,40 64,22 6.130,54 6%
Caquetá 38.237,45 5.100,44 43.861,79 99%
Estimated 752.420,36 103%
17.590,96 749.805,40
year
Source: DVF-CDMA. Quarterly progress report from PECIG to DNE
[PAGE 36]
as previously indicated, and that there was temporary defoliation of the
crown of the tallest trees.” It is important to take into consideration this
component of the operation to the extent that the complaints against this
program basically originate on account of this detail. In fact, it is known
that only three gallons of glyphosate over a hectare of plantain crops, for
example, are sufficient ruin that plantain crop; thus, 10.4 gallons per hectare
on this crop or any other type of vegetation definitely burns the foliage and
stem. Therefore, an urgent appeal must be made to the pilots that operate
the program aircrafts to close the spraying valves in areas that are not, nor
should be, the target of the program”.
[…] ANNEX 99
4-2 * 1+),-+# #$*1)
+JH=H%=/AAH=@A=4A’(>E?=
+JH=H/AAH=@A=4A’(>E?= +JAE@
)JE0AH @A
/==HH=
8E?A?JH=H
KEI*AH=H@.HA
-?EI
+JH=H,AAC=@’=H=,ABAI=+,KIJE?E=
2HAIAJ=?E #
O5ACKHE@=@
9EI0AHHAH=HA 1E?E=JEL=?JH=A=H?JHBE? '
,EHA?JH-IJK@EI5A?JHE=AI
+=HI+K=HJ=I EAJ -L=K=?E
@AAIGKA=E
IJEJK?E
= '
,EHA?JH8ECE=?E=.EI?= =H?
H=JEL@A=K?D==
JE
=H? JE?I '
5E= =O=@A)>=@
=H?FHCH=JE?@A=K?D==
JE
=H? JE?I
/HK’@A6H=>=1
+H@E=@H .==I@A?H@E
=?E
OHAIF
I=>EE@=@AI "
-LAH#AI$IAKI8=HA=
+
?KIE
AI $
2HBAIE=
AI
#K=)A&=@HH=AI5EAHH= *==
?A@A=2#JE?=)
JE@HC=I ’ ! $
’E?=H@)BI’=)HA
*KEJH=C
KEI)HA=I8AC=
KEI.AH=@)L=H=@++ 1
JH@K??E
$
KEI5ECEBHA@H=6+
#I--HEGKA+JHAH=I0+ +>=JA==FH@K??E
OJHBE?@A??=
AH?A@AI/KAL=H=H= O@AHEL=@I %
,E==’=)HA
2+
)==H)=+K=O=+
=HJD=-KCAE=KGKA
0+ 1
?=KJ=?E
@AFH@K?JIAE
IKI
5=@H==J===A@E=
#K==KA HJ)
5K HA
5EJK=?E
@A=@A=
@=@A??=#
= "
+EA+A?EE=)HHEAJ=8E
?=)
+
?KIE
AI &
)IAIH
KEI*++=HL=&=++ +F
A
JA=>EA
J=@A2=
'
#BE?E=@A+KE?=?EAIO2K>E?=?EAI 1
JH@K??E
'
+=HI)>AHJ=AIJHA=O=
,EHA?JH BE?E=
2=
LAH@AAE
LAHIE
AI=>EA
J=AI '
+H@E=?E@A2K>
E?=?EAI
EE==/==/=H?)= 2HCH==@AAHH=@E?=?E
@A?KJELIE#?EJI
?
CEBI=J 2-+1/ !
-@E?E
#=EA8E==5=@=HHE=C=
=KH=5=FAH*=? +
?KIE
AI !%
,EIAO,E=CH==?E )FHJA@A2HCH==,AI=HH)JAH
=JEL 2,)
;AOEE==2-HA
/K
=IA?JH=CHFA?K=HE !%
2E=H.AH @A
’@H)CKA
+=HI/
A
)B==@H
/HKF@A,EIA4’+/4 +
?KIE
AI !'
1FHAIE2 .E=?E=?E @A2=+>E= "
1FHA
J=6=?E
=
+JH=H%=/AAH=@A=4A’(>E?= 8EIE
CA
AH= "
+=A %6'’&
6A8B
I9 & % $’ & # ' .E
=
?E=EA
JANJAH
"
*CJ;,<+<;+>E=
,E?EA>HA’ " .E
=
?E=EA
JE
JAH
""
MMM+?JH=HE=CA+CL+?
)@E
EIJH=?E
@AIHA?KHIIFHJAH?AHI "%
+FAH=?E
E
JAH
=?E
= "'ANNEX 99
=CEBI=J O
==A=?=GKA?J=IAAFA= =4AIK?E
$#@A OAF=
@A=
A>
A
=IBKEC=?E
AIA
HA=I@AJAHHEJHE
=?E
=< =>EA
J=IAHA@K?A=?DBE?D=I<
6@=
JAHEHD=?AGKA
IA=
?F=H=>AIAIJI
AIJK@EI< 5>HA=@EIE
K?E
@ABE?D=I@AF=
@A=
A>
= >EA
J=;@E?AAE
EIJAHEGKAIA@A>E ==E
JA’
-
F
=@A=A=>EAJ=
CH=?E
@A=IEI=IIE
GKAAEFEGKA==JA’
H=?E
@A>>AJELFHEH@E=GKAAI=FHALA
?E
;
5>HAAF=
@A=
A>=>EA
J=@A2 -+1/IAA’ EJEC=?E
;?FA
I=?E
O?
JH?IE
A>=HC;
FEA===D=>=H@AI@A ''$;FAHAIA
LEA>HA@A E
JACH=H=IBE?D=I 92HCH==@A=
A>@A=I
GKAA )8,6 EF
A@E?DF=
A@E=
JAHA’ FAH=?E
AI@A=IFAHIE
O$;FHCH==@AE
IFA?’
IK?E
;==LA=GKAIA=>HAK
=E
LAIJEC=?E
; ?E
;LAHEBE?=?E
O?
JH@A=IFAH=?E
AI@A
AAL=
@FEAC@A?=HCI==,6- G;KA=FA=AIJ=I =IFAHIE
;A
K
=I=OA
?=>A==@A=,EHA??E
@A?EIE
AIA@E=
JAHA?KHI<-
!AE
EIJAHE 6=?E
=@A-IJKFAB=?EA
JAI;=F=HA?AH
AIKO
=?AFJ==IE?EJK@@A=,6-@A@EBE?=H;? =FHFE=@;FKAIA
=FH?JE?=AI=,6-=A
JE@=@
IAANF
A=?
JE
K=?E
9 GKAFAH=;LECE=;?
JH=OHAIKALA=IGKA> AI
?EK@=@=
IHECE
=@=IA
A2-+1/O;=@E?E
=A
JA;
A@E=
JA=4AIK?E
'! @A @AIAFJEA>HA@A ==K@EJH#=J8?
E?==>EA
J=ANJAH
=@AHCH==
!AE
EIJAHEHAGKEAHA==,6-FHAE
?K’
D=FAH=@<
FEEA
J@AF=
@A=
A>=>EA
J=<2IJAHEH’
A
JA;A@E=
JA?
?AFJJ8?
E? @A #@A 4AIFA?J=F=
@A=
A>AIFAHJE
A
JAJ=>E8
A
AH@A ";AE
EIJAHE?K
E?===,6-= D=?AHK
==@@A=JA
?E
AIFA?E=A
JAI>HA
A?AIE@=@@A
JEBE?=H=IFEJI@A=I=AH
=LAI
IE
@E?=@HAI@AIKAI;FKAIAIO=I=>E@GKAA
F=H=@AJA
AH==IFAHIE
?K=
@IAA
?KA
JHAA
F=#I
?KA
J=?
I> =H=JHEIHAGKAHE@IF=H=
HA=I@ALACAJ=?E
>I?I=GKAIAF=HA
JAI?
JE’ A=>H=HA
I=OI@AHAIE@KI@ADAH>E?E@=I;LE8
@’
CKI@A?KJELIE#?EJI?
ABE
@AE
EE==HI
IA>EC=@=KJEE==H=>H=JHEIANJH>AHI IAD=
ABA?JI@ADAH>E?E@=I>HAAAA
JI
=JKH=AI
KJEE==@=CK
I@AI-IJ=@I7
E@I ;F=H=F’
>>AJ@AFHCH==?AIJAEI?
BEH==A
JHA’ @AH?
J=H?
FHKA>=I@A=BA?J=?E
FH?=KI=@A
A=?=@A?KJELI#?EJI?
E#?EJIO=
EBEAIJ=
DAH>E?E@=<
GKA=ABA?JELE@=@@A==IFAHIE
AI@A& <
B=4AIK?E
''@A! @AA
AH@A !;A
@
’
-2)FHAIA
J=@FH=,6-A
?
IJ=@A @AA )8,6A?
?A@A@?AAIAIF=H=GKA=,E’
!BE?D=I@A=
A>=>EA
J=;?
IKHAIFA?JEL=
HA??E
6=?E
=@A-IJKFAB=?EA
JAIA
JHACKAI
@AI?HEF?E
;>>AJELI;=?JELE@=@AI;IACKEEA
JO HAIKJ=@I@A-IJK@E@A-BE?EA
?E=A
==FE?=’
EJHA;HAIF
I=>AI;?H
CH==O?IJIOIA ?E
@ACEBI=JO=HAIE@K=E@=@@AEIO@A
D=AIJHK?JKH=@A
JHAIJEFI@A=?JELE@=@AI9A@E’
@=I@AFHALA
?E
;A@E@=I@AEJEC=?E
O?HHA?’ IKAJ= >EJ)2)A
IKAI@E?AGKAA1+)OA
E
EIJAHE@A5=K@IKFAHLEI=H
=A>A?K?E
OLAHE’
?E
OBE
=A
JA;A@E@=I@A?FA
I=?E
<-
BE?=?E
@A@E?DAIJK@E<
!;=,6-IE?EJ==@EBE?=?E
@A2)OA
E
EIJAHE;A@E=
JA4AIK?E
#"@A! @AIAF’ -
"OA@E=
JA+
?AFJ &@A #@A=H=;
JEA>HA@A !;@EBE?=;?=>E=
@=I@?A A)8,6?
?A@AFH HHC=@A?K=JHAIAI==,6-
BE?D=I@A2) ;E
E?E=A
JA=FH>=@A@E=
JA F=H==A
JHAC=@AAIJK@EGKA>KI?=AL=K=H=ABE’
!!+HAIFA?J==I?=H=?JAHIJE?=IOFHFEA@=@AI@ADAH>E?E@=CBEI=J=@?JH=+EE=.KAJAIGKEAAIFHBAIH=JEJK=H@A=.=?KJ=@@A
)CH =@A=7ELAHIE@=@!=?E=A=F"CE=!@AHAFHJA+ FHJ= EAJ@A/EBI=JAA5KA@A=CIJ@A ’’")IA==*-CEBI=J
AIKDAH>E?E@=IAA?JEL@AKIFIA AHCAJAO=??E,IEIJ- E?=HA? A@=@F=H=A?JH@A= =OH=@AF=J=I=AAHLIAAIDAH>"?A=IO
IA EA)I=I=K=AIOFAHAAI-CAAH=IAEBH =GKAAIJA? FKAIJ=AC=H=IKAAIE A@E=J= AJAE=?JEL=@IE @A.=HHAIE@KIGKA
FKA@==BA?J=H?KJELIFIJAHEHAI/J= F?FAAJH=FH=IH=?AI@AI?KJELIO=AIJ=>A?E@I!AIL"JEIHEAICI@A?=KI=H@=)I=I
?KJELILA?EIIAHA@K?A?IE@AH=>A AJA?K=@=I=FE?=?EAIIAHA=E0=?AGKEFIJAHHAIJHAIOALEAJA?= = @EHECE@==I =A0=I
OKJEE0=@F=J==FHJA?JH=F=H=ALEJ=HGKA=ICJ=I@A=IFAHIE,?=EC=I>HA=IF=HJAILAH@AI@A=IF=J=I@AIA=>IA I)DHAI ''"/2EJJO
? FKAIJAA= >EAJAOAF=HJE?K=HIK@AIJEAIIKAIFH"?JE?= AJAD=IE@AIJK@E=@,A>E@=KI?JE@K=@AAIJADAH>E?E@==
=HC@A K?DI=)I ?AH?=@A!’=)I F@H=IAHGKAANEIJ=HAIE@KIEC=@I=I? FAJAIHC"E?I IKIJ=?E=ID: E?=I O EAH=AI
=H?E=I,NE@I AJ"E?I @AIKA-IJK@E=HA? FHJ= EAJ@ADAH>E?E@=CBEI=JAJHAIIKAI@A=CHA?IEIJA ==HH?AH@A@AF=HJ= AJ
@A6 E =+ >E=AI@AE FHJ=?E=F=H=AF=IFHGKAAIHAIKJ=@IGKAIA>JAC=FAH EJEH"=FHJ=H==
? FHAIE,@A=IE FE?=?EAI= >EAJ=AI@AKI@ACEAOAIACK@KC=HIAFJE E0=H"K= AJ@C=F=H=AIJK@E=H=
EJAH=??E,CEBI=J<IKAGKAF@H"IAHLEH@A>=IAF=H=A FHA@AHJHIAIJK@EI ACAIKAIFHLAEAJAI@A0=I@A?KJELIE?EJI
=?JK= AJAJH=J=@=I?ADAH>E?E@=A?KAIJE,
!"-IE FHJ=JAHA?H@=HGKA A@E=JA4AIK?E, ’$#@ALEA >HA@A ’’ IAE FAA2?)A?K=I,JEAA@?BAE?D=I
+JH=H =,AAC=@=F=H=AIA?JH,ABAI=KIJE?E=O5ACKHE@=@ ANNEX 99
2=+>E=3KEJ1BHA@A-L=K=?E
?EA
?E=A
==FE?=?E
@ACEBI=JO=HAIE@K=E@@?EA
JAA
JA@EBE?=@AEE
==ANECA
?E=@A=
@AEI< =K@EJHE=E
@AFA
@EA
JA;GKAD=IE@K
=@A=IFHE
’
?EF=AIANECA
?E=I@A=
JAHEHE
EIJAHE@AA@E
)HAIFA?J;FHA?KF=GKAAIJAJEF@AAIJK@EI
IA )>EA
JA;@A=,ABA
IH#=@A2KA>O@A=+
’
D=O=ANECE@=E
E?E@A2HCH==@A-HH=@E?=?E
JH=H#=/A
AH=@A=4AFD>E?=<
@A+KJELI1#?EJI?
CEBI=JOGKA;@AIFK8I@A
&=4I@A=IFAHIE
?
JE
K=@=O@AGKA>=I@A= 5E>EA
A2)O=
ANECAK
==K@EJHE=J8?
E?=;
?K
E@=@;AF=#I
?
=?=AJEF@AHAIE@K=E@=@ 8IJAHAGKEIEJ
D=IE@AEE
=@@AJ@<, A
@ADAH>E?E@=A
IKAIO=I=BA?J=?E
AIAEIF=?D JA?D;?IKIJEJKJ@AHAGKEIEJ@A2);A+
’
GKAFKA@=CA
AH=H==B=K
=IELAIJHA;= I IA>6=?E
=@A-IJKFAB=?EA
JAI +6- A
IAFJEA ’
A?IEIJA=I;O==>E@ELAHIE@=@===
E?=<-IJI >HA@A !FHKC =4AIK?E
! ;H@A’
AIJK@EI=D
IAD=
AL=@=?=>O;A
JHAJ=
J;
=
@GKAA2HCH==@A-HH=@E?=?E
@A+KJELI
A2-+1/?
JE
D=IE
K
=AL=K=?E
= >EA
J==FH’ 1#?EJI -+1/ ;?
J=H?
K
== @EJHE=;?
JH=J=’
FE=@=< @=FHABAHA
JAA
JA?
HA?KHII@ A?FAH=?E
E
’
JAH
=?E
=<
5>HA=@E=?E
O@AH=A
=FHAIA
J=?E
@A
F=
@A=
A>=>EA
J=FHF=HJA@A=,6-;A
)8,66=@EJAA
?K
E?=?E
A
LE=@===?E’ =LAHEBE?=?EOA
IACKEEAJ
!#
IE
@A=K@EJH#= GKA;@AI@A ''";=JH=L8I@A@A’ -
?K=
J==LAHEBE?=?E
;A)8,6JEA
A=HAI’
?HAJ %#!;IAHAGKEAHA==,6-AF=
@A=
A> F
I=>EE@=@@AAL=H=I=?=>OD=LA
E@HA=E’
=>EA
J=F=H=A2 -+1/;OGKAIKBHK=?E
OA=’ ==
@LEIEJ=IF=H=AIJABE
<)?
JE
K=?E
IAFHA’
>H=?E
BKAHAEJAH=@=A
JA@E=J=@=FHA@E@A IA
J=
=CK
I@AI=IFA?JIIHAAL=
JAI@A=I
HAFAJE@IFH?A@EEA
JI=@E
EIJH=JELI;D=IJ= EI=I=I@EIJE
JI@AF=HJ=A
JI <
?K=
@A
IAH@A
===FE?=?E
@AA@E@=I
FHALA
JEL=I<-I@A?EH;?E
?=4I@AI FK8I@AGKA= BIE
BHAIA
CA
AH=KAIJH=
GKAAF=
@ A
AO>EC=H===,6-==FHAIA
J=?E
@AK
F=
=
A>FHFKAIJO=FH>=@
IAAIJ?KFEA
’
@;FHA?KF=
@I>HAJ@I=IFA?JIHA=?E
=’
@A=
A>=>EA
J=A )8,6 HAGKEAHA;K
=LA=I
==,6-;A?KFEEA
J@A=ACEI=?E
LECA
JA< @I?
=I?F
A
JAII?E=O@AI=K@FK>E?=<
7
=IFA?JIGKAIA@A>AJA
AHFHAIA
JAAIGKA B=B=J=AFHCH==I=JAH
=JELI@ A?=H?JAHI?E=
O=IAIJ= @#IJE?=IOFHCH==I@A=
A>@AI=K@
=
JAI@A ''";O@A=FHKC=?E
@A@A?HAJ % !;
I=IFA?JI=>EA
J=AI@AIFHCH==IOFHOA?’ I
E
ANEIJA
JAIA
J@II@AF=HJ=A
JI@
@A
JIAIJ=>=
HACK=@IFHA+ @EC@AI4A?KHII IA@AI=HH=A2HCH==@A-HH=@E?=?E
@A+KJE’
6=JKH=AI ,A?HAJBAO & @A '%" ;IE
GKAIA LI1#?EJI<
FK @EAIAANEEH@A@E?D=HAIF
I=>EE@=@==,6-O ,AIE
BHAI=
=E==@IIA@AIFHA
@A=FHA?K’
==I=KJHE@=@AI=>EA
J=AI<
F=?E
@AGKAAF=
@A=
A>=>EA
J=
IA
=FE?=@A=
AH=>KE?EI=A
=I@EBAHA
JAI>=IAI=8’
==K@EJH=ANJAH==>EAJ=
HA=I@
@AFAH=AFHCH==<5AFKA@A
HA=H?=H
JHAI=IFA?JIEFHJ=
JAI9AFHEAH;A
CA
AH==
)?JK=A
JAA2 -+1/
?KA
J=?
=K@EJH#=68?’
E?=-NJAH
=)>EA
J=;?AIJ=>A?A
=I4AI’ BE?D=$ HABAHA
JA=FHCH==@A?K
E?=?E
O
K?E
AI #O !@A O !;HAIFA?JEL=A
JA< CAIJE
I?E= ;=" HABAHA
JAHCH==@A=
A’
>@A=CK=IHAIE@K=AIA
=I>=IAI@A2 -+1/ O=
7
FK
JFAHJE
A
JAAI=
E
?KIE
E=F=HJE?E’ BE?D=# FHCH==@A
EJHA=>EA
J= ;
I A
!" F=?E
@A=I?HFH=?E
AI=KJ
=IHACE
=AI AIJ
?KFEA
@<
OE=I7)6)5 A
AAIGKA=@AF=
@A=
A>;
IEA
@AIJIIHC=
EIIAC=A
JA@ABE
E@IF ==H B=EFAA
J=?E
@AF=
@A=
A>=>EA
J=A
?KAIJ==F=#I <%"!E
AI;F=H=D=?AH@KH=
JA
!" =A>A?K?E
@A=F#JE?=OA=
A>=>EA
J=@A @I=4IA
?
@E?E
AI@A
?
BE?J?A
AAI?A’
=I=
=I@AIK>KHEI@E??E
<6IA>IAHL=?H@E’
=?E
A
JHA=A>A?K?E
O@AI=HH@AF=
@A
=HE@A?
BE?J=,6-AIJE==EFAA
J=?E
=
A>=>EA
J=O=IA
JE@=@AI@A516)< @AEIA
$<##";#E
AI<5EE=HA
JA;K
=
EIE
@A
JH@AF=
@A=
A>=>EA
J=;?KO=
-F=
@A=
A>=>EA
J= 2) ;=
JAI@AIAH @KH=?E
IAAIJE=A
K
=DH=OA@E=?KAIJ=
@EBE?=@;?
JA
#==ANECA
?E=@AK
==K@EJHE=
J8?
E?=ANJAH
=AE
@AFA
@EA
JA@AFHCH==;=I#
?E
BHAIHACK=HAI@A=,6-=E
EIJAHE !# ’’ %& #@A!’@A=>HE@A ’’"
@AA@E)>EA
JA<5E
A>=HC;AGKABKAHA’ !$.E $%%@A=?=HFAJ= &@AANFA@EAJA%'!
+JH=H =/AAH=@A=4AF#>E?=ANNEX 99
75 "<&%!;# ?@AAIJA
J==AH
=LAF=HJE?EF= =L=B K=?E
IADE=A@E=
JAI>HALKA=I
?
A%&@AAIJA?IJ;IHA?KHIIDK=
IF=H’ JAIA
DAE? FJAHO=>=>==JKH=;HA=E==
@
JE?EF=
?
A&OI?IJAI@A?>KIJE>AAHAI’ CEHI@>AI@A!$ CH=@IA
=>IIA
JE@I;
J=
JA "< F=H=F@AHJA
AHK
=A>H=FHA?E=?E
@AI
=IFA?JI=?EBE?=H<
=FAH=?E@A
2 -+1/ _ 7
=LA=@ABE
E@IIJAI>>AJ@ALAHEBE?=’
5>HAIE
IKIF=H=@AI=HH=HAFHCH==;>AAI= ?E
;IAAIJ=>A?EAH
I?HEJAHEI=JA
AHA
?KA
J=
GKA=EFHJ=?E
AIDAH>E?E@=I4K
@KF;BH= O=AJ@C#=@A?=EBE?=?E
=AFA=HFH
?AH?E=@ACEBI=JO?IBKN;=@EJEL@AJEF ?=@=K
@AIAL=K=@HAI;=?K=IA>=I A
=
=?AEJIGKAIAA=?===IK?E
@ACEBI=J;K==C =FHA?E=?E
OAIJE=?E
LEIK=@A=ABA?JELE@=@
FAHEJEA
@K
== OH=@DAIE
OFAH=
A
?E=@A CA
AH=@A==IFAHIE
I>HA=JJ=E@=@@AJA;
@E?D=IK?E
==IDO=J= A=F=
J=;=I?EA
’ =AIJE=?E
@A=ABA?JELE@=@@A=AHH=@E?=?E
@A=FHNE=@=A
JA=%# <" C=
AI@ACEBI=JO I>HA=F=
J=@A??=;IABA?JI?=JAHHAAII>
= %<#' C=
AI@A+IBKN ?K=@H < AAA
JIANJAH
I===
=>>AJ@A=IFAHIE
-
A?K=@H ;====JA
?E
=AAL=@=?
’ O>IAHL=?E
AI=@E?E
=AIGKAIAFK@EAH=
=FHA’
?E=HA
AIEJE;?FHAIA
?E=@A=>H=JHEI;
?A
JH=?E
A
FH?A
J=>A AIGK#E?I CEBIJO IAEAHI;LELEA
@=I;HAIEA>H=I;IGKA;?KJE’
?IBKN I>HAA
ELA@A=CK=KJEE==@=F=H=I LIA
JHAA=?=@IO?AH?=
#==?KAHFA=CK=<
@AF=HJ=A
JI@A/K=LE=HA;6=HE4;6HJA@A5=
J=
@AH
O+=GKAJ< )CK
I@AIHAIKJ=@I@A=LAHEBE?=?E
IA@AI’
?HE>A
=I#9
B=LAHEBE?=?E
=
K=@A=ABA?JELE@=@@A=IFAH=’
?E
AI@A-+1/OAL=K=?E
@AABA?JI?=JAH=AI_ <<<IAFK@=FHA?E=HA
K
F=H@A?=IIGKAJAI
FHF=HJA@AK
=?EIE
E
JACH=@=FHBK
?E
=’ ?
??=?=E==@IA
K
=EI=HA=;FAH
HEI@A1+);@A=,EHA??E
6=?E
=@A-IJKFAB=’ IAF=H=@IFH?H@
AI@ALACAJ=?E
=OHAI
?EA
JAI;@A=,EHA??E
)
JE
=H? JE?I@A=2E?#= @A?E
?AJHIBKAH
=IFAH>=@I@A=
AH=
6=?E
=;=GBE?E
=@A)IK
JI6=H? JE?I@A= ?
JE
K=;=BA?J=
@IE
A?AIE@=@AIJ==I =
->=>=@=@A-IJ=@I7
E@I@A)8HE?=OAIJAE’ >I?I==I#AEF=?J
IA=FAH=
A
JA?
EIJAHE;?
=FOC#IJE?O@AIACKHE@=@@A=
2E?#=6=?E
=;HA=E==@=@KH=
JAI@#=I O $
@A
LEA>HA@A !;IA4==?=IFA?JI=@AI’ !%1BH AIA AIJH=@A=?JELE@=@AI=@A=J=@=I=AHA=?E,?A2
J=?=HIIECKEA
JAI 9 @A?=A.) >EAJ=2AHE@.KE<@E?)8,HA ’’!?
+K=@H
1IKI@A
2 -+1/
2AHE@LEA>HA@A
==>HE
@A
!
/=
AI
4K@KF +IB
KN )CK= /
EBI=J’
/
E BI=J + IB
KN)=CK=
+=K?= '# # $ '&&$&
+AI=H "! $& &#&# & % "# $
!#
/K=LE=HA # '"# %% % %!# %
=HE $&#! $' $ ! % &&$& $ ! # !#
HJA@A 5=
J=
@AH % ' " " % !"'# % #
0KE= ! $" $" $ ! #" $
+=GKAJ& !& !%"# # "" "!&$ %' ''
’ J= !%$ & &%'#"& !%"' % !
-IJE)=?E*
= %# " !$ %#' '$ %"'& #" !
.KAJA+ ,8..+,/)1
B H)AJHE)AIJH=@A=L=
?A@A2-+1/@A=, -
+JH=H =,AAC=@=F=H=AIA?JH,ABAI=KIJE?E=O5ACKHE@=@ ANNEX 99
2=+>E=3KEJ1BHA@A-L=K=?E
IAIA4= =
JAHEHA
JA OGKA?
IEIJAA
= ,6-;A
@
@AAIJ=>A?AGKAAFH?A@EEA
JO=
@ABE=?E
JAFH=@A=?F=@AIH>AII HAIF
I=>EE@=@@AIKJHEJAAIHAIF
I=>EE@=@@ A
=JI<-IJA?F
A
JA@AFAH=?E
AIEFHJ’=
AIJAEIHC=
EI<-FH?AI@AI=HH=?=IE
JA?
IE@AH=HA
=A@E@=A
GKA=IGKA>=I=A’ A
IKJJ=E @=@=,EHA??E
)
JE
=H? JE?I@A=
C=@=IFHAFHCH==IAHECE
=
>IE?=A
JFAH 2E?#=6=?E
=;HC=
EIJ=>E8
A
?=HC=@@A
AIJA@AJ=A<-
ABA?J;IAI=>AGKA?
I JHAI HAIF
@AHFH=A>A?K?E
FAH=JEL=@AFHCH==;
C=
AI@ACEBI=JI>HAK
=DA?JHA=@A?KJEL >IAHL
@IA;FHJ=
J;GKAAI=EI=2E?#=
@AFJ=
;FHA>AF;I
IKBE?EA
JAIF=H==’?= 6=?E
==GKAJEA
AAF@AH@A@A?E@EH>K=C=HIE
>=H?
AIJ=F=J=
AH=;=I#GKA ;"C=
AIF H =GKA>=AILE@=
;?K=
@AIJ=>A?AA
AN@A
DA?JHA=A
AIJA?KJEL?K=GKEAHJH@AJLEAF’?=KI=E@=@<
CAJ=?E
GKA=@ A=
AH=IACKH=IKB=>AOJ=<
2HJ=
J;IA A>AD=?AHK
==@KHCA
JA=I ,A=
AH=IEE=HAFH?AI@A?AHJEBE?=?E
@A
@=4??
IA?KA
?E=@ A==IFAHIE
IAD=?A?=IE
FEJIKAFAH=
=I=AH
=LA@IAFHCH==;=H= EFIE>A@A@AJAHE
=HA
=A@E@=A
GKA;?
GKA?EAHHA
=I=LAI@A=IFAHIE
A
=
=KA
I
E@A>A
IAH>>AJ@AFHCH==< IA@AI?HE>AA
A=F=HJ=@=
JAHEH;
ANEIJA
=>’
H=JHEIA
+>E=?=F=?AI@A@AJAHE
=H=
-IEFHJ=
JA==H==JA
?E
I>HA=CK
I=I’ HAIE@K=E@=@@ADAH>E?E@=A
AIKA;@A>E8
@IA
FA?JI@AI?HEJIA
=LAHEBE?=?E
OIACKEEA
J?FH AL=H==>H=JHEI@AI-IJ=@I7
E@I;GKAI
;
A>AF;=AJ@C#=@ A?=EBE?=?E
@AIAL@’= A
DJE=I;IGKA@AJAHE
=
AIJ=?=KI=E@=@;
HAI;GKAIA>=I A
==FHA?E=?E
OAIJE=?E
LE’ =BA?J=?E
GKA=
EBEAIJ=AGKA>I<
IK=?IABA?JI?=JAH=AI@A=BKEC=?E
;FKAIIA
=FHA?E=H
HAIEA>H=I@A??=;IGKA;?KJELIA
’ 5EJK=?E
FAHJE
A
JA@AJA
AHA
?KA
J=J=>E8
A
JHAA=?=@IO?AH?=
#==?KAHFI@A=CK=?AE
BH’ AFH?AIAI=?EH?K
IJ=
?E=@AH@A
FD>E?@A
=I=
=IA
=IGKAIA@AI=HH=A-+1/ ;FKAI=I
A=IACKH=GKAIABA?JIHAIE@K=AI@ADAH>E?E@=
A
AIKA
I
FAH=
A
JAIO=BH=@AAL=’ =HC=I@EIJ=
?E=I;=B=J=@AL#=I@A?K
E?=?E
O
K=HAI?
>IAHL=?E
IEFA@AJAHHA
;IE
=EI=IEJK=?E
@AH@A
FD>E?;EFE@A
@A
A@E=HKAIJH=IOA
I=OI@A=>H=JHE?=A
JHA’ K
=KJH==
AH=>EA
GKAIAHACEIJHA=GKA>=
>EA
GKA=ILEIEJ=I@ALAHEBE?=?E
IAFKA@=
HA=E==H
A=?=@A?KJELI#?EJI?FJ=
;=#=OOK?=;
ALE@A
?E=
@=IBH=I?I?KJEL=@HAIFHA’ A
IF==IAIJEFK=@IF=H=J=BE
<
JA
@A
AL=@EH==IFAHIE
;EFE?=A
J@?=I=
@AIJHK??E
@A?KJELI=CH=EA
J=HEI?IA>IAHL -
AE
EIJAHE @AIKIJE?E==@EJA=HA?AF’
=@ABE=?E
@A>IGKAI=A@=4I?HAIKJ=@ ?E
@A"<# GKA>=IHA?==?E
AI;@A=I?K=AI
I ?E
?D=
IE@=@EJE@=IFH=2E?#=6=?E’
@AABA?J@AHEL=?OBE
=A
JAHA?EA
@==?E’
= ; <B=,ABA
IH#=@A2KA>D=>#=HACEIJH=’
IE
;=@AI@A==IFAHIE
;=GKA=@AAIJIIKA’
IF=H=ALEJ=H=HAIEA>H=;@A>=
@A
JHALAH=AI’ @;=?JK >HA@A ;$<##!GKA>=I<-
!=
FEH=A
=GKAIAL=IKAHCEA
@AF=#IA
@AI=HH’ ,6-HA?E>E < "A
A@AF=HJ=A
J@A6=HE4;
@A=I?K=AI"" BKAH
HA?D===@=IOAHAIJ
@AAIJAFHCH==;IE
GKAA@EAA
J@?=I= AIJA
FH?AI GBE?E $"&@A $@AIAFJEA>H A
FHALA
?E
=>EA
J= <
@A !’,EHA??E
)
JE
=H? JE?I;?=HFAJ= $@A
.E
=A
JA;AIFAHJE
A
JA@A?EHGKA=@IEI@ADAH’ ANFA@EA
JA%'! <2=H==+/4;?
JE
K=IEA
@F HA’
>E?E@=IAD==KA
J=@@KH=
JAA@AI=HH@A ?KF=
JAA@>AF=FA@A>KA=OF=HJAGKAJEA
A
2 -+1/<-
ABA?J;AFHCH==IA@ABE
A?
";"E’ IHC=
EIIA
?=HC=@I@ACAIJE
=H=IG KA>=I@A
JHIED=;FIJAHEHA
JAIAE
?HAA
J=IK?
?A
JH’= =I?K
E@=@AI;@=@GKALE=AFHE
?EFEK
E’
!$ ?E
=&;"JHED=OBE
=A
JA;A)8,6=FHKA>= LAHI=@AIAF=H=?E
A
JHAAL=K=@HOAL=K=@;A
A@E=
JA4AIK?E
''@AA
AH@A !;AE
’ ?K=@A>AFHAIAHL=HIAIEAFHA;FAHI=D
A
=
?HAA
J@A=@IEI= ;"JHED=;IE
GKAA@EA
A>A?K?E
@AF#JE?=IOFHCH==I?A2 -+1/ ;
AL=K=?E
AIJ8?
E?=I;
EFHKA>=I@A=>H=JHE
E GKAAI@ACH=
IA
IE>EE@=@<
!$
A
?=FGKAFAHEJ=
AIJ=>A?AHACH=@@A=BA?’
J=?E
@AIHA?KHII
=JKH=AIHA
L=>AIFH?KA
’ )K
GKAIHAIKJ@=IE
@E?=
HA@K??E
FK
JK=@A
J=@ADAH>E?E@=< I?KJELI;IA>AAL=K=HA?IJI?E=O=>EA
’
J=@AEI;AABA?JHJ=?E
JH=I=@@A?KJE’
LI;FAHI>HAJ@J@
@A>=H@A=@AFHE
?E’
-
IEIJA=@AGKA=IO?FAI=?E FE@AFHA?=K?E
=L==@O=?H@=@FH=?K’
6@=I=IGKA>=I=AC=@=I=)8,6I
JH=
IBAHE’
E@=@E
JAH
=?E
=E
?KE@=+>E= GKA=?’
@=I==,EHA??E
6=?E
=@A-IJKFAB=?EA
JAI;J= CAA@E=
JA=BAO''@A ''! ;I>HAIABA?JI@A
??
JAF==4AIK?E
%@A @A= HEAICF=H==I=K@DK=
=O=>E@ELAHIE@=@@A
+JH=H =/AAH=@A=4AF#>E?= ANNEX 100
Colombian National Police, Antinarcotics Directive,
Monitoring and Evaluation of the Spraying Operation to Eradicate Illicit Coca
Crops Inside Sierra de la Macarena National Park (Nov. 2006) ANNEX 100
[seal]
NATIONAL POLICE
ANTINARCOTICS AGENCY
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF THE
SPRAYING OPERATIONS FOR THE ERADICATION OF
ILLICIT COCA CROPS WITHIN SIERRA DE LA MACARENA
NATIONAL PARK
PROGRAM FOR THE ERADICATION OF ILLICIT CROPS BY
AERIAL SPRAYING WITH GLYPHOSATE-PECIG-
Bogota, November 2006ANNEX 100
National Police – Antinarcotics Agency, Program for the Eradication
of Illicit Crops through Aerial Spraying of the Herbicide Glysophate
–PECIG-
[PAGE 14]
[…]
4.2 PHYSIO-CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
The following table displays the laboratory results for the physio-chemical
analysis carried out by the Agustin Codazzi Geographic Institute, which is
attached as an annex to this report, and which corresponds to the samples
before the spraying, immediately after the spraying, and 28 days later.
PROPERTIES RESULT INTERPRETATION
BdEFAsRT28R
Sand: Sand: Sand: Passes from clay loam to
35.1% 35.4% 41.5% loam and later to clay
TEXTURE Lime: Lime: Lime: loam. There is no
30.4% 42.4% 30.3% disturbance.
Clay: Clay: Clay:
34.5% 22.2% 28.3%
pH 5.2 4.5storolnges
acidic to extremely acidic
Exchangeable 0.67 3.1 3.4meq/10 Aluminum is considered
acidity meq/100g meq/100g 0g an important factor to take
into account, because its
content is greater than 2.
Saturation of 15.1% 73.6% 81.3% Changes from a level
Exchangeable which will not affect crops
Aluminum to a level that is toxic for
the majority of crops.
Organic Organic Organic Organic A low content is present,
material Carbon: Carbon: Carbon: which does not vary
1.2% 1.1% 1.3% between samples
Total Total Total A moderate amount is
Nitrogen: Nitrogen: Nitrogen: present, which does not
0.14% 0.12% 0.15% vary between samples. ANNEX 100
[PAGE 15]
Cationic 12.8 6.6 10.3 Varies from moderate to
Exchange meq/100g meq/100g meq/100g low and after 22 days
Capacity reestablishes itself at
moderate. There is no
significant variation.
Calcium (Ca) 3.4 0.26 0.39 A low level with a
meq/100g meq/100g meq/100g significant decrease over
22 days.
Magnesium 0.22 0.66 0.16 Presents a low level which
(Mg) meq/100g meq/100g meq/100g does not vary over 22 days.
Potassium (K) 0.16 0.14 0.15 Remains at moderate levels
meq/100g meq/100g meq/100g without significant
variation.
Sodium (Na) 0.04 0.05 0.08 Normal, as content must
meq/100g meq/100g meq/100g always be lower than 1.
Total bases 3.78 1.11 0.8 Presents a low level with a
meq/100g meq/100g meq/100g significant decrease over
22 days.
Saturation of 29.60% 16.80% 7.60% Remains at low levels,
bases showing accelerated
decrease.
N-NO3 N.D. 4.6 ppm 1.1 ppm Though there was no
(nitrates) detection before spraying,
a significant decrease was
shown over 22 days
N-NH4 12 ppm 3.6 ppm 0.56 ppm The ammonium content is
(ammonium) at a critical level due to the
fact that it is below 20 ppm
and it diminishes over
time.
Phosphorus (P) 46.1 ppm 1.8 ppm 2.6 ppm A significant decrease is
observed, changing from
moderate to low. ANNEX 100
. ANNEX 100
. ANNEX 100
. ANNEX 101
Republic of Colombia,
Environmental Risk of the Herbicide Glyphosate (date unknown) ANNEX 101
1. ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR THE HERBICIDE
GLYSOPHATE
The environmental risk evaluation for the herbicide whose active
ingredient is glyphosate, used in the eradication of illicit crops, was
carried out using the methodology developed by Ines Toro Suarez for the
Ministry of the Environment (Assessment Methodology for
Environmental Impacts of Pesticide Use). In the first level of the
evaluation the physio-chemical properties are established, which allows
for prediction of its behavior in a natural environment. Each of these
parameters are compared with known values for the same parameter in 1
order to determine behavior in each environmental compartment . Each
compartment is analyzed for the pesticide’s persistence (half-life),
potential to bioaccumulate, mobility, and formation of non-extractible
residues. From the combination of the properties of the herbicide and its
method of application, the end-points of the evaluation are established or
the environmental compartment to assess are identified. In both cases, the
2
three “trans” are analyzed: transport, transfer, and transformation.
In the second level of evaluation, the worst case scenario for the
application of the herbicide is determined, with the worst case scenario
being defined as any situation in which an extreme quantity of herbicide
reaches the environment.
To carry out the environmental impact study with respect to the use of
pesticides, the Ministry of the Environment (1995) established the use of
an environmental risk assessment, with “environmental risk” being
defined as the probability that exposure to a chemical agent in the natural
environment would produce an adverse effect.
Taking into account the environmental risk assessment methodology
developed by Ines Toro for Colombia, an assessment was carried out for
the application of glyphosate in the aerial eradication of illicit crops
program, based on the physical, chemical and toxological properties of the
compound as well as its behavior in the environment under these
conditions of use.
1
“Environmental Compartment”: a designation given by Dr. Ines Toro to each element
2f the biotic or abiotic environment.
Term employed by Dr. Toro for analysis of the destinations of molecules in a pesticide
once they have been applied. ANNEX 101
1.1 CHARACTERIZATION OF GLYPHOSATE AS A PESTICIDE
In this item, a synthesis of the physio-chemical properties of the herbicide
is presented, all of which are used for the assessment. The detailed
characterization of the product is presented in the Environmental
Management Plan for the Eradication of Illicit Crops, submitted by the
National Antinarcotics Agency in 1998, Chapter III, Project Description.
Table 1 Physio-chemical properties of active ingredient (glyphosate)
Property Pure Compound (active
ingredient)
Molecular Formula C 3 N8O P 5
Molecular Weight 1.69 g/mol
Physical State White solid
Odor Inodorous
g/mL Density 0.5
Melting point 184.5 °C
[PAGE 2]
Vapor Pressure 1.84 x 10-7mm Hg at 45°C
Boiling Point It decomposes
pH in 1% solution 2.5
Solubility in water 12,000 ppm at 25°C
Other solvents None
Stability 32 days at 25°C and pH = 5, 7 or 9
Partition coefficient octanol/water POW = -2.8
Henry’s Law constant < 7 x 10-11
coorroiiveness Not
Ignitinoint This compound is considered
combustible. Fires from this
material can be controlled with a
dry chemical, carbon dioxide,
and/or water spray.
Reactivitwitpackagingmaterials This chemical can react with
galvanized steel, but not with
containers made of stainless steel,
to produce hydrogen, which can
form a highly explosive mix. This
can react with caustic materials
(bases) to free heat. It corrodes
iron. This chemical is stable for ANNEX 101
two weeks at a temperature of up to
60°C, if protected from light.
Solutions of this chemical in water,
95% ethanol, or acetone are stable
for 24 hours under normal
conditions.
Source: Environmental Management Plan for the Eradication of Illicit
Crops, 1998.
Glyphosate or N-Phosphonomethyl glycine (I.U.P.A.C. and C.A.) [CAS
1071-83-6] is known and widely used in more than 100 countries around
the world. It is also approved by environmental authorities such as the
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) in the United States.
In Colombia the ICA approved its use and commercial sale, labeling it as
a wide-spectrum herbicide due principally to its molecular structure,
which is formed by a fraction of glycine and an aminophosphate radical
attached as a substitute for one of the hydrogens of the alpha-amine group.
The structure of Glyphosate is as follows:
OO
| | ||
HO ------------- C -----------C2 -----------NH------------ C2 ----------P-----
--- OH
|
OH
Figure 1. Glyphosate. Pure compound, active ingredient. (N-
Phosphomethyl glycine). As can be seen in the molecular structure of
Glyphosate, it possesses groups such as carbonyl (C = O) and amine (-
NH), therefore this herbicide can react as an acid, forming hydrogen
bonds with other compounds, including with itself. This characteristicANNEX 101
gives the molecule an elevated level of solubility in water. This
characteristic defines its behavior in surface waters.
[PAGE 3]
[section missing]
…a disagreeable odor for humans.
Glyphosate is sold according to the needs of the consumer, but the
common commercial presentation is in water-soluble concentrates of
isopropylamine salt of N-Phosphomethyl glycine. Other presentations can
be found, including: N-Phosphomethyl glycine of 98-99% purity,
exclusively for use in laboratories; N-Phosphomethyl glycine at a
technical grade of 80-98%, for use in trials and studies; and soluble
powders for dusting and fumigation formulas. For this reason, Glyphosate
or its active component N-Phosphomethyl glycine can be found in
different grades of purity on the Colombian market.
The majority of pesticides are characterized by possessing both an active
ingredient as well as inert ingredients and impurities. The latter generally
are present due to the need to modify a pesticide to achieve a satisfactory
adaptation to the environment. For Glyphosate for commercial use in
liquid form, the active ingredient is N-Phosphomethyl glycine at 41%
isopropylamine salt; the inert substances present represent 59% of the
total commercial formulation.
Some commercial formulations of Glyphosate are used with surfactants to
try to increase its effectiveness at killing plants. Also, these compounds
can help to more easily break up Glyphosate for the absorption of the
active compound into the plant foliage. In soil, these surfactants are
degraded by microorganisms and have a median half-life of less than a
week. Some of the commercial formulations of Glyphosate [sentence
breaks off].
1.2 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT BASED ON MOLECULAR
STRUCTURE
Once some general characteristics of Glyphosate are established, a
preliminary assessment was carried out based solely on the molecular
structure of the active ingredient, because its environmental parameters
have been experimentally determined. Therefore, and according to the ANNEX 101
methodology for the assessment of environmental impacts caused by
pesticides, the assessment criteria are as follows:
1.2.1 CRITERIA: PHOTOLYSIS
Glyphosate is an aliphatic compound, for that reason the active ingredient
of the pesticide does not absorb electromagnetic radiation. Therefore,
photolysis cannot occur in the molecule, and there is no possibility of
abiotic transformation of the pesticide in the environments where spraying
takes place.
1.2.2 CRITERIA: POLARITY OF THE MOLECULE
The active component of Glyphosate, (N-Phosphomethyl glycine), can be
considered an ionic compound because of the group (acid) present in the
molecule, and due to this reason it tends to donate protons to water, and so
may be considered anionic (pKa values and an analysis of the migration
capacity in groundwater will be provided later in the document).
The active component of Glyphosate, the molecule of which is shown in
figure 1, is polar due to the presence of electro-negative groups, such as
oxygen. This fact is confirmed because its solubility in water is greater
than 30mg/L (1. 2 g/100 mL) and its partition coefficient in Octanol-water
(K OW) is less than 3 (-2.8). These two parameters help to establish very
important characteristics regarding the impact at using this compound in
the different environmental compartments studied.
[missing section]
[PAGE 4]
Table 2 pKa for Glyphosate in water at 25°C
Pka
pka1 2.32
pka2 5.86
pka3 10.86
From these values it may be inferred that the acid group in the Glyphosate
molecule is strong, and therefore has an elevated tendency to donate
protons in an aqueous solution. For this reason in environments with
elevated pH, Glyphosate has a reduced mobility, given that the compound
has the tendency to neutralize pH.ANNEX 101
From the molecular structure of Glyphosate it can be concluded that moist
environments and elevated pH levels favor the molecule’s penetration,
and therefore its later biodegradation in the soil because of its elevated
solubility and capacity for ionization (elevated constants, pKa) which it
possesses in water. Also, because it is an aliphatic compound without
covalent bonds it does not have the capacity to break up due to the action
of light, and therefore cause some abiotic reaction with the resultant
compounds.
1..2.4 APPLICATION METHOD OF THE PRODUCT
According to the form of application, which specifically for the program
is done by aerial channels, the exposed environmental compartments are:
SOIL, SURFACE WATER, FOLIAGE AND AIR.
The regions currently being treated include: Catatumbo, the Andean
region, the Amazon region, and the Orinoquia region.
1.3 IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF NEGATIVE IMPACTS
To determine the destination of the herbicide, the analysis of the three
“trans” was performed according to the specifications of the methodology.
1.3.1 SOIL
Persistence Study
Glyphosate is not a pesticide with prolonged residual action (between 30
and 141 days for the soil component). However, due to a variety of
factors related to the degradation process of the herbicide, its degree of
persistence varies.
For soil, the half-life, or to metabolize or disappear, is approximately 60
3
days . There are other studies which report a moderate persistence with a
median typical half-life (TD 50, time required for the disappearance of half
of the initial quantity of a substance in a specific environment) of 47 days. 4
All crops can be planted or transplanted immediately after application .
For laboratory studies, the typical half-life is observed to be around 25
5
days .
[lines cut off]
3www.monsanto.com
4
5Wouchope, R.D. et al. 1992, Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 123:1th
Weed Science Society of America, Herbicide Handbook, Glyphosate, 7 Edition, 1994 ANNEX 101
[PAGE 5]
…the microorganisms. Some of these microorganisms can be affected by
the action of the herbicide, but in general this action does not cause
changes to the overall functions of the soil.
Depending on the period of persistence, which on average is 60 days, the
effects of phytotoxicity in the soil are reduced, due to the fact that every
product of a chemical nature undergoes a degradation process or a process
of total or partial change in its molecular constitution and its physio-
chemical properties, as soon as it enters into contact with the surrounding
environmental components. Although the mobility of Glyphosate in the
soil is almost null because of its high rate of absorption in colloids and
clays, the decomposition of the active ingredient by way of metabolic
action from microorganisms can vary depending on the organic material
content of the soil. Because of this, Glyphosate is considered to have a
reduced phytotoxicity in the soils of Colombia.
Given that the phytotoxicity is considered to be reduced, it is necessary to
understand the destination of the compound, through which the behavior
of Glyphosate in the soil can be described both physically and in terms of
microbiology.
The first behavior is the absorption of Glyphosate in active soil sites
(compounds of available phosphate to bond with the Glyphosate
molecule) even though there are specific cations which diminish the soil
absorption capacity of Glyphosate, including Fe +2, Fe+3and Al ; this can
cause the constant elevation of the absorption of this compound in soils of
a sandy-clay-chalky and sandy-chalky type.
The second type of behavior is biodegradation caused by the action of
microorganisms in the soil. The metabolization of Glyphosate is usually
caused by microflora in the soil, though the resulting metabolites
(approximately 6) are not used by the microorganisms which create them.
The following are the most important metabolies: AMPA
(aminomethylphosphonic acid) and Sarcosine (N-methylglycine,
hydrochloric sarcosine or 2-methylaminoethanol acid).
Bioconcentration Study
The bioconcentration study for the soil is determined with analysis of the
solubility constant (1.2 g/100 mL) and the octanol-water constant (-2.8),ANNEX 101
which, having been analyzed at critical levels, establish that there is no
possibility of bioconcentration in the soil, and therefore the product is not
toxic to soil microorganisms.
Transformation Study 6
Various strains of bacteria have the capacity to decompose and degrade
glyphosate. In the majority of laboratory experiments, the degradation
rate of glyphosate in soils seems to be rapid. In the majority of cases, the
process can be described as a linear kinetic of the first order.
In other cases, a non-linear model of the first order better describes the
observed results (PTRL East Inc., 1991)
C = C 01 + ßt) ,
[PAGE 6]
[text missing]
…laboratory, the maximum quantities in sandy-chalky and alluvial-chalky
soil were 27 and 29%, respectively, of the radioactivity applied (PTRL
East Inc. 1991). From the data in this study, TD 50values for AMPA of
approximately 50 days in sandy and alluvial-chalky soils could be
obtained.
The fact that the AMPA is more persistent than glyphosate was also
demonstrated in another laboratory experiment (Monsanto, Inc. 1972b) in
which the quantities of AMPA after 111 days were 10 to 17% of the
initially applied activity. In this study, the temperature (32°C) was higher
than in the aforementioned studies.
Some lesser, unidentified metabolites were quantified in a study of 364
days at the same laboratory (PTRL East Inc., 1991) with sandy-chalky and
alluvial-chalky soils. Such metabolites did not exceed 3.5% of the applied
quantity, while other uncharacterized metabolites did not exceed 1.5%
each. Rueppel et al. (1977) quantified some lesser metabolites which did
not exceed 1% of the activity applied. These were N-methylamino-
methylphosphonic acid, glycine, N,N-dimethylamine-methylphosphonic
acid, hydroxymethylphosphonic acid and two unknown metabolites.
6
Environmental Management Plan for the Eradication of Illicit Crops, 1998. ANNEX 101
In laboratory experiments under aerobic conditions, the quantities of
residue bound to the soil immediately after application were 9 to 35% of
the applied dose, after which an irregular course was observed during the
112 days of the experiment (Monsanto 1,972b). In general, the initial
quantities were the maximum encountered.
In other experiments, however, the maximum quantities of bonded residue
to appear were reached after 14 days, where they remained more or less
constant, or decreased (PTRL East inc. 1991). These maximum
concentrations were 7 to 9% of the initial applied quantity, and were less
compared to other studies, probably due to the use of better extraction
procedures.
The mineralization of glyphosate in soil occurs under aerobic and
anaerobic conditions in the laboratory and, though the rates differ in an
appreciable manner, the results principally depend on the respiration rate
of the soil, and on the temperature. When:
In an anaerobic study with 15 Swedish forest soils, TD 50values based on
the liberation of CO 2 varied between 6 and 200 days. The mineralization
was found to be correlated to the respiration rate of the soil, but not to the
pH or the organic material content of the soil (Torstensson & Stark, 1981).
This finding was confirmed by Torstensson & Stenstrom (1986) and
Heinonen-Tanski (1989).
Tortensson & Stenstrom (1986) also reported that glyphosate was co-
metabolized. In this case, the cometabolizing microorganisms do not
receive an energy supply from degrading glysophate.
In the soil, glyphosate seems to be degradable by microorganisms in two
ways (Jacob et al., 1988). One route is through the formation of AMPA
and a C 2 fragment, probably glyoxylate. This system of degradation was
proposed by a number of researchers (Monsanto, 1972b, PTRL East Inc.,
1991). In this route, the cleavage of the C – N bond is the first stage.
However, there is another degradation route through sarcosine (N-
methylglycine) and orthophosphate, after which the sarcosine is degraded
to glycine and a unit of carbon, which eventually forms CO 2, probably via
formaldehyde (Kishore and Jacob, 1987, Jacob et al. 1998). In this route,14
the breaking of the C – P bond is the first step. In experiments with C-
glyphosate, isolated crops of Psudomonas sp., LBr strain, were capable of
degrading glyphosate along both routes (Jacob et al., 1988).ANNEX 101
[lines missing at top of p. 7]
[PAGE 7]
1.3.2 UNDERGROUND WATER
The effects on underground water depend on the mobility of the herbicide
in the soil, which is analyzed using absorption constant, the normalized
absorption constant, and the desorption constant, as well as the solubility,
criteria described below.
The absorption effect is so accentuated, and takes place in such a short
period of time, that all tests keep demonstrating that there is no place for
lixiviation, for that reason it can also be anticipated that there is very little
probability of contamination to subterranean water due to contamination
from the soil.
Glyphosate is adsorbed and quickly fixed by the soil. The adsorption of
glyphosate is correlated with the quantity of fixation sites of available
phosphates, and seems to occur by linking to phosphonic acid 7.
In laboratory experiments in which glyphosate was added to aqueous
solutions in the soil, the adsorption coefficient (K S/L) was 18 to 377
3
dm /kg in nine soils, which varied from sandy-chalky to clay-chalky
(Glass, 1987).
In both experiments, the process of adsorption could be described by the
Freundlich equation. Glass (1987) found adsorption values for the clay-
like minerals montmorillonite, illite and kaolinite of 138, 115 and 8
3 8
dm /Kg, respectively .
KO values are 324 for sandy-clay-chalky soils and 600 for sandy chalky
soil.
The K 0values for glyphosate for the distinct types of soils vary around an
average value of 24,000 mg/L, which allows it to be classified as
practically immobile, according to the McCall classification 9.
7Weed Science Society of America, Herbicide Handbook, 7 Edition, 1994.
8WHO/IPCS. Environmental Health Criteria No. 159, Glyphosate, 1994.
9Wauchope, R.D. et al. 1992, Rev.Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 123:1. ANNEX 101
Given its high affinity for soil components, as has been established,
glyphosate is practically immobile, with a minimal probability of transport
by lixiviation or movement in runoff.
In a chromatographic study of sandy-chalky, alluvial-sandy-chalky and
sandy-chalky [sic] topsoils, it was found that glyphosate presented an Rf
value (mobility in the fixed phase) of between 0.14 and 0.2 (Sprankle et
al., 1975) and in another study with the same types of soil, the values
obtained were < 0.2 (Monsanto, Inc., 1972c).
In a study of lixiviation in columns of 30 cm of height, with a high water
flow of 51 cm in two days, 0.1 to 6.6% of the radioactivity applied
lixiviated. This experiment was conducted on eight types of soil, which
varied between sandy-chalky with an organic material content of 0.7%, to
volcanic ash with an organic material content of 9.5%. More than 90% of
the radioactivity applied was recovered in the surface layer from 0 to 14
cm.
The process of translocation of herbicides can be achieved through several
routes, including the carrying of particles by air currents, evaporation and,
in some form, by…
[PAGE 8]
[text cut off]
…of available evidence, cataloguing it as being of very low radical
absorption and null mobility in the soil.
1.3.3 SURFACE WATER
When glyphosate enters into water as runoff due to accidental excessive
spraying or a period of dew, the water adsorbs to the sediments, where it
biodegrades. The persistence period can reach up to 171 days, but its
detection can be carried out several days after environmental exposure to
the pesticide, and the concentration tends to diminish with time due to
biodegradation.
As the persistence period in water is greater than 4 days, a
bioconcentration and transference analysis should be conducted. The
parameters for the study of these items are the same (solubility and KOW ).
As the solubility of glysophate in water is above 30 mg/L and the partition
coefficient for octanol-water is less than 3, it can be concluded that thereANNEX 101
is no possibility that the pesticide in question can bioconcentrate in fish,
or transfer to the organic material suspended in the water or in sediments.
Therefore, Glyphosate can be considered non-recalcitrant (Log K OW < 5),
unlike aldrine, heptachlor, chlordane and DDT. As the persistence period
of Glyphosate is greater than 4 days, the transformation study was not
carried out regarding the presence of this compound can be present in
water.
1.3.4 AIR
Regarding the air compartment, in general when a substance is freed to
the atmosphere in the form of an aerosol, the particles can cause visible
light dispersion, and therefore interfere with light-transmission processes
(particles less than 100 microns in size). This process depends
exclusively on the size of the particle and the substance, because particles
of greater size tend to be more rapidly attracted by gravity.
In the case of the program, the effects on air are negligible, given that the
precise objective is to guarantee that the droplets fall effectively over the
target (coca crops), for which sizes of 300 to 1,500 microns are used,
which guarantees the effectiveness of the application, avoids loss of
product, and therefore economic losses. The size of the droplets used in
the Eradication Program was validated by the ICA (August of 1998).
For the air compartment, it is equally important to note that the herbicide
glyphosate has a low vapor pressure, therefore it does not vaporize. This
means that there is no possibility of it being inhaled by animals or
redistributed by air.
For the air, and in accord with the methodology followed, it should be
noted that in the literature there is no model which integrates the different
parameters (vapor pressure, K OW , vapor pressure, distribution constants,
solubility, the Henry’s Law constant, etc.) that predict the presence of
these compounds in the air. However, when Glyphosate is freed to the
atmosphere in the form of an aerosol, the particles can cause visible light
dispersion and therefore interfere in light-transmission processes.
After establishing the environmental compartments exposed and the
action of this pesticide, it can be concluded that this is a persistent
compound in the soil and in the air, because its…
[text unreadable] ANNEX 101
[missing sections]
[PAGE 9]
The toxicity of Glyphosate for aquatic organisms estimated to be low,
corresponding to moderate to low intervals in different regulations (EPA),
both for acute and chronic exposure.
In fish, and in accord with the low coefficient of octanol-water partition
(very soluble), it seems very improbable that Glyphosate can
bioaccumulate in tissue.
The toxicity of Glyphosate is low in algae, including in green algae.
Table 4 Environmental Indicators in aquatic ecosystems
Species Parameter Values (mg/L) Critical Level
(mg/l)
Fish CL (96 hours) 2.4 – 34 5-10
50
Algae EC 50 (48 hours) 2.4 5-10
Dapnia pulex EC 506 hours) 19
Dapnia magna EC 50 (96 hours) 24-37
Regarding aquatic ecosystems, it has been found that, like in terrestrial
systems, the degree of bioconcentration is minimal in fish and algae, as
mentioned in the previous table. This was concluded from observing the
physical parameters previously used. The transfer capacity to the soil in
this type of ecosystem is very low, due to the elevated solubility of the
compound in water. The transfer from water to air may be very high
because of the elevated vapor pressure of the pesticide, but once
Glyphosate enters the water, its water solubility does not let the pesticide
volatilize. There is no information regarding any type of biotic or abiotic
transformation of the pesticide in the water.
1.6 ANALYSIS OF TRANSPORT, TRANSFORMATION AND
TRANSFERENCE IN THE USE OF GLYPHOSATE
In the environmental risk assessment for the use of pesticides, the
destination of the compound once it is dispersed to the air must be taken
into account, which can be achieved with a transport, transformation and
transference analysis. Transport includes the movement of the compound
from one site to another, without the compound changing in any way, and
so a transport analysis determines the mobility of the compound, andANNEX 101
therefore the potential risk presented to groundwater. Transference occurs
when an analyzed pesticide passes from one environmental compartment
to another, for example from soil to water. Finally, transformation can be
of two types: abiotic or biotic. The first case includes the changes
produced by the adsorption of solar energy by covalently bonded
molecules, or photolysis, and certain types of chemical reactions, such as
hydrolysis, oxidation, reduction, etc., while biotic transformations include
any transformation effected by microorganisms in the environment.
1.6.1 TRANSPORT
The mobility of glysophate in soil is almost null, due to the high rate of
adsorption into colloids and clays, which is to say that once the pesticide
is spread, it fixes and decomposes through the metabolic action of
microorganisms, and it is therefore believed that for the conditions in
Colombia, there is no lixiviation into groundwater. One key parameter in
the determination of the transport capacity to groundwaters is the pH of
the soil where the pesticide is going to be dispersed. With this
parameter…
[PAGE 10]
[lines cut out]
The adsorption effect is so accentuated and takes place in such a short
time that all tests continue to demonstrate that there is no place for
lixiviation, therefore it can also be anticipated that there is very little
probability of groundwater contamination due to contamination from the
soil. In laboratory experiments in which glyphosate was added to aqueous
solutions in the soil, the adsorption constant was 324 for sandy-clay-
chalky soils, and 600 for sandy-chalky soils. The normalized adsorption
constant for glyphosate for the distinct types of soils vary around an
average value of 24,000 mg/L, which allows it to be classified as
immobile, according to the McCall classification.
To predict the transference of a compound from water to air, the water-air
partition coefficient is commonly used, or the Henry’s Law constant. In
this analysis, volatility (Henry’s Law) is used as a parameter. Though this
compound is very volatile in the air, once it reaches the water its elevated
solubility does not allow it to volatilize. ANNEX 101
1.6.3 TRANSFORMATION
Transformation of this compound can only be biotic, due to the fact that
the glyphosate molecule is metabolized by microflora, though the
resulting metabolites (approximately 6) are not used by the
microorganisms which initiated the process. The following are the most
important metabolizates: AMPA (aminomethyl phosphonic acid) and
Sarcosine (N-methylglycine, hydrochloric sarcosine or 2-
methylaminoethanolic acid).In plants, this compound affects a metabolic
function necessary for the correct functioning of the plant, and in fauna, as
mentioned before, this pesticide is not bioaccumulable. It does not
present abiotic changes (photolysis and chemical changes) due in great
part to the molecular structure of the compound.
1.7 EFFECTS ON HUMAN HEALTH
Effects to humans from contact with pesticides are based on analysis of
the compound’s capacity to be:
x Carcinogenic
x To generate effects from its ingestion and
x To generate effects from dermal exposure, determined by
sensitization to the product.
These effects can be determined through the LD50/LC50 value, which is
assigned according to the effects of a herbicide dispersed in the
environment and with animal exposure tests. The LD50/LC50 value is the
quantity of the substance which causes death in 50 percent of test animals,
with a smaller LD50/LC50 value signifying greater toxicity. The EPA
classifies herbicides of acute toxicity into four categories in descending
order (“I” is more toxic and “IV” is less toxic). Glyphosate is classified as
a category IV herbicide on the EPA scale for acute oral toxicity, based on
tests carried out on rats. The results for other types of toxicology confirm
the results obtained… ANNEX 101
[PAGE 11]
[text cut off]
[top of table unreadable]
Carcinogen A Human
B Probable human carcinogen
C Possible human carcinogen
D D is not classifiable as a carcinogen
in humans
E Evidence that it is non-carcinogenic
in humans
** Glyphosate is classified as Category E.
1.7.1 Ingestion
The symptoms that can be caused by Glyphosate poisoning by ingestion
can include the erosion of the intestinal tract, which manifests as a
difficulty in swallowing, sore throat, and gastrointestinal hemorrhaging.
Other organs affected are the lungs, liver, cardiovascular system, kidneys
and central nervous system.
In general, moderate symptoms are associated with ingestion of 20 to 500
mL, light symptoms with 5 to 150 mL, and no symptoms from 5 to 50 mL.
1.7.2 Contact
The signs and symptoms resulting from incidental dermal exposure in the
use of the compound include skin diseases such as periorbital edema,
cardiovascular effects (tachycardia and hypertension), inflammation and
paresthesia at the site of contact, and prolonged cutaneous irritation. Two
studies on cutaneous irritation were carried out on volunteers on exposed
skin of the forearms for 24 hours, with an application of 0.9 mL of a 9:1
dilution of Glyphosate in water. It was found that this exposure produced
no effects.
1.7.3 Sensitization
In one sensitization study carried out with Glyphosate on 204 human
volunteers, reports indicated that no effect presented itself. Also noted
was the absence of photosensitivity (sensitivity to light) due to Glyphosate
exposure in volunteers. ANNEX 101
According to the aforementioned aspects, such as the degree of
carcinogenic potential, incidental or deliberate oral consumption, dermal
exposure and sensitization, it was found that Glyphosate is not harmful to
humans. However, this degree of harmfulness depends exclusively on the
degree of exposure the human being encounters.
1.8 LETHAL DOSE ANALYSIS FOR ORGANISMS
To determine the possible effects which could be caused to organisms
during the aerial spraying of Glyphosate, an analysis of the doses applied
in the program was carried out, as well as analysis of the exposure time of
organisms.
Glyphosate was sprayed aerially, one time, at a concentration of 162 g/L
(16.2% P/V). This was deposited over at least 75% of the2foliage of illicit
plants, therefore approximately more than 342 mg/m was deposited on
this type of plant. The foregoing indicates that a quantity of
approximately 38 mg/m reached the soil through the foliage. A human
located in the spraying area could possibly be exposed to 650.8 mg (1.93
mL) of Glyphosate. The level of some risk…
[PAGE 12]
[lines cut off]
2
…the surface of the body is 300 cm and average weight is approximately
200g. Therefore the level of exposure would be 11.4 mg; the average
lethal dose for this type of organism is found at levels of greater than
5,600 mg/kg of the weight of the rodent. Therefore, for 200 g of body
weight in a rodent, the average dose to which it could be exposed is 1,120
mg. According to this, there is no possibility that an aerial spraying could
affect this type of organism.
For large rodents with a body surface of 2,500 cm 2and a body weight of
2.5 kg, the degree of exposure will be 95 mg of herbicide. The average
lethal dose is 12,500 mg of total weight, therefore the degree of exposure
for this type of organism is negligible in terms of a lethal dose.
In the event of accidental aerial sprayi2g over water bodies, the expected
concentrations of the herbicide for 1 m of water surface are:
x 38 mg/L at 10 cm of depth
x 0.77 mg/L at 50 cm of depth
x 3.8 mg/L at 1 m of depthANNEX 101
x 1.9 mg/L at 2.0 m of depth
Table 6 Risk levels for some aquatic microorganisms
Organism Mg/L of Glyphosate
Fish 100
Algae 8
Daphnia 780
Comparing these values with the risk levels for aquatic ecosystems, the
exposure values are lower than the risk levels for aquatic organisms.
As can be observed in the prior analysis, the exposure levels to
Glyphosate when it has been sprayed depend on the surface area occupied
by an organism and the proportional weight. These levels are generally
negligible when compared to the average lethal doses for the organisms
studied, from which it may be concluded that the degree of harmfulness
for these is also negligible. Another aspect to take into account is the
capacity of glyphosate to enter into the foliage of illicit plants, a
characteristic which makes this compound an excellent pesticide for this
type of illicit crop due to the fact that its method of entry into the plant is
through the foliage. The solubility of Glyphosate has been confirmed as a
very important property in the depth analysis, as shown in table 9. In
deeper water, the compound dissolves more quickly.
[missing text] ANNEX 102
Republic of Colombia, Office of the Ombudsman,
The Execution of the Strategy for Aerial Eradication of Illicit Crops, with
Chemicals, from a Constitutional Perspective (date unknown) ANNEX 102
The execution of the strategy for aerial eradication of illicit crops,
with chemicals, from a constitutional perspective.
Position of the Office of the Ombudsman.
Introduction
The Office of the Ombudsman has repeatedly solicited from the
Government a review of the Policies of the War on Drugs and,
particularly, the suspension of t1e Aerial Eradication of Illicit Crops
strategy throughout the country . These requests have been supported,
principally, by the argument that the execution of this procedure does not
conform with constitutional and legal standards, nor with international
standards related to environmental protection and human rights.
In effect, the form in which the strategy of aerial fumigation of illicit
crops has been carried out, in addition to having demonstrated its
ineffectiveness – with the constant expansion of these crops within the
country – has disregarded principles and norms which aimed at ensuring
public health, protection and conservation of the environment, and the
special protection which the State must provide to the most vulnerable.
The lack of respect for these norms in the execution of the program has
resulted in a high socio-economic and environmental cost, and, what is
worse, has affected the rights of thousands of Colombians.
[…]
[PAGE 2]
[…]
In such circumstances, among others later to be mentioned, in the
judgment of this Institution, the execution of the Program for the
Eradication of Illicit Crops does not comply with constitutional norms.
1
The Reports of the Ombudsman’s Office 1 and 2 from February and April 2001, from
the Representative for collective Rights and the Environment; Ombudsman’s Resolution
No. 4 of February 2001, communications to the Minister of Law and Justice of May and
June 20001, and various interventions of the Ombudsman before the Congress of the
Republic. ANNEX 102
La ejecución de la estrategia de erradicación aérea de los
cultivos ilícitos, con químicos, desde una perspectiva
constitucional.
Posición de la Defensoría del Pueblo.
Introducción
En reiteradas ocasiones, la Defensoría del Pueblo ha solicitado al Gobierno la
revisión de la Política de Lucha contra las Drogas y, particularmente, la suspensión
1
de la estrategia de Erradicación Aérea de los Cultivos Ilícitos en todo el país . Dicha
solicitud se ha sustentado, principalmente, en la constatación de que la ejecución de
tal procedimiento no se ajusta a la normatividad constitucional y legal, ni a las
normas internacionales relativas a la protección del medio ambiente y al respeto de
los derechos humanos.
En efecto, la forma como se ha desarrollado la estrategia de fumigación aérea de los
cultivos ilícitos, además de haber mostrado su inefectividad - con el constante
aumento de la extensión de los referidos cultivos en el país -, ha desconocido los
principios y normas que buscan asegurar la salud y la salubridad pública, la
protección y conservación del medio ambiente, y la protección especial que el
Estado debe brindar a los más vulnerables. El desconocimiento de dicha
normatividad ha llevado a que se tenga que pagar un alto costo socio-económico y
ambiental por la ejecución del citado Programa y, lo que es más grave aún, ha
afectado los derechos de miles de colombianos.
En este sentido, la oposición de la Defensoría a que se continúe ejecutando el
referido Programa no significa que se desconozca la gravedad del problema del
narcotráfico y los efectos nocivos que genera el cultivo, procesamiento y venta de
las referidas sustancias ilícitas. Por el contrario, esta Institución reconoce la
necesidad de combatir el narcotráfico y sus efectos, pero estima que la definición y
la ejecución de las medidas y estrategias que se adopten para enfrentar dicho
problema debe tener pleno sustento en el orden constitucional colombiano. De este
1Los Informes Defensoriales 1 y 2 de febrero y abril de 2001, de la Delegada para los Derechos Colectivo y
del Ambiente; la Resolución Defensorial N° 4 de febrero de 2001, las comunicaciones al Ministro del Justicia
y el Derecho de mayo y julio de 2001, así como las distintas intervenciones del Defensor ante el Congreso de
la República.ANNEX 102
2
modo, por ejemplo, no puede admitirse que, bajo el argumento de ‘eliminar los
cultivos ilícitos’, las autoridades colombianas omitan su deber constitucional de
proteger el medio ambiente y, por el contrario, contribuyan a destruirlo. Ello es lo
que ocurre al fumigar los cultivos de coca, amapola y marihuana, pues es bien
sabido que, luego de las fumigaciones, la extensión de los cultivos ilícitos se
mantiene talando nuevos bosques en otras zonas del país, con lo cual se incrementa
la deforestación. La misma situación se presenta cuando las autoridades
competentes, luego de decomisar miles de toneladas de precursores químicos que se
utilizan en la producción de estupefacientes, no les dan un adecuado manejo ya que,
como ellas mismas lo han reconocido, no cuentan con los medios físicos y
económicos para hacerlo. De esta forma, en muchas ocasiones se procede a la
incineración de estas sustancias en lugares alejados y de difícil acceso, como ocurre
en la selva amazónica u otras zonas selváticas, lo cual afecta indiscutiblemente el
equilibrio ambiental. Por otra parte, tampoco puede aceptarse que las medidas que se
adopten no consulten la obligación del Estado de velar por los derechos
fundamentales de las personas, como ha ocurrido en el desarrollo del programa de
fumigaciones, el cual – como se explica en este documento - ha afectado los
derechos a la salud y a la vida de los pobladores de las diversas regiones en donde se
ejecuta el referido procedimiento.
En tales circunstancias, entre otras que se mencionan más adelante, a juicio de esta
Institución, la ejecución del Programa de Erradicación de Cultivos Ilícitos no se
ajusta a las normas constitucionales.
En el presente documento se pretende mostrar cómo la ejecución del referido
programa ha desconocido distintos preceptos constitucionales y legales, y cómo ello
ha puesto en riesgo la salud y la calidad de vida de los pobladores de estas zonas del
país y ha implicado un sacrificio desproporcionado de los derechos de muchos de
ellos. De este modo, en primer lugar, se analiza la constitucionalidad de la estrategia
de erradicación por medio de un juicio de proporcionalidad, el cual arroja la
conclusión de que la ejecución del programa de fumigaciones restringe
desproporcionadamente principios constitucionales y derechos fundamentales de los
colombianos. En segundo término, luego de presentar brevemente los antecedentes
del programa actual de erradicación aérea de los cultivos ilícitos, se explica
detalladamente el permanente desconocimiento de la referida normatividad
constitucional y legal. Así, primero se expone el desconocimiento de las normas que
materializan el aseguramiento de la salud como derecho y como cometido estatal, y
se precisa cuál es la consecuencia de ello en materia de afectación de la salud de las
personas. Luego, se indica cuál ha sido el incumplimiento de la normatividad
relacionada con la protección y conservación del medio ambiente y los perjuicios
que ello implica. Posteriormente, se explica cómo la ejecución del procedimiento ha
afectado particularmente a sectores vulnerables de la población, como son los
volume II